Big Willy

[StockTrader]

Anybody watching him speak [aside from hork]?

Nick

[tymy]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Anybody watching him speak [aside from hork]?

Nick

No.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by tymy

No.

What about Senator Kerry?

Nick

[rich76]

I saw parts of both

Clinton=lying cheating jackass that was only the 2nd Pres to be impeached. They cheered him like he was the 2nd coming.. . He was always a great speaker...no doubt...but he's a liar and I have no respect for him in any way shape or form.


Kerry(always felt he should be a gymnast or diver)=1/2 of what he said was pure unadulterated , but was an effective speaker also.

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

I saw parts of both

Clinton=lying cheating jackass that was only the 2nd Pres to be impeached. They cheered him like he was the 2nd coming.. . He was always a great speaker...no doubt...but he's a liar and I have no respect for him in any way shape or form.

ok cheating aside, how does that make him any different than bush?

Kerry(always felt he should be a gymnast or diver)=1/2 of what he said was pure unadulterated , but was an effective speaker also.

actually i can see him as a diver myself.


all that aside, it's important to remember that during the conventions these folks are "preaching to the choir" of course the crowd is going to respond favorably as they share pretty much the same views as each speaker. and furthermore, being an effective speaker is what being a politician is all about and the reason both of the above have been quite successful in their chosen profession.

I'm still not convinced Clinton did anything worth being crucified for and the only thing he's truly guilty of is lying (well at least as far as his tenure in the oval office, now as governor of Arkansas, that's another story). I've said it since day one, he should have said yes i did and it's none of your damn business and left it at that. the one good thing that did come out of the whole railroad job the GOP tried to play on him was that it taught politicians to be up front about their past (ala Obama and Paterson)

[rich76]

Originally Posted by hork

ok cheating aside, how does that make him any different than bush?

this isn't ABOUT bush.it's about clinton. but as usual you try to twist things back to bush. it's getting real old.




actually i can see him as a diver myself.


all that aside, it's important to remember that during the conventions these folks are "preaching to the choir" of course the crowd is going to respond favorably as they share pretty much the same views as each speaker. and furthermore, being an effective speaker is what being a politician is all about and the reason both of the above have been quite successful in their chosen profession.

are you suggesting that I've "forgotten" that? I'm all well aware of what being a polititician is all about and who they are preaching to

I'm still not convinced Clinton did anything worth being crucified for and the only thing he's truly guilty of is lying (well at least as far as his tenure in the oval office, now as governor of Arkansas, that's another story). I've said it since day one, he should have said yes i did and it's none of your damn business and left it at that. the one good thing that did come out of the whole railroad job the GOP tried to play on him was that it taught politicians to be up front about their past (ala Obama and Paterson)

so...persuing a liar in office, that lied to the entire world in office is a railroad job now?give me a break Ken....

YOU try to remember...this is about clinton and not bush.

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

so...persuing a liar in office, that lied to the entire world in office is a railroad job now?give me a break Ken....

YOU try to remember...this is about clinton and not bush.

I'm just asking why you choose to rail against one and paint him to be Satan incarnate and yet for the past 8yrs have rallied to support another proven liar. seems what's good for the goose should be just as good for the gander.

or is it only bad to lie if you sit on the wrong side of the aisle?

[rich76]

Originally Posted by hork

I'm just asking why you choose to rail against one and paint him to be Satan incarnate huh?
and yet for the past 8yrs have rallied to support another proven liar. it was about clinton...not bush. you forgotseems what's good for the goose should be just as good for the gander.normally....yes

or is it only bad to lie if you sit on the wrong side of the aisle?

my theory is that bush is a dumbass and most of all the crap they've done has been cheney...and while I'm not going to get deep in this - I also disagree with a number of things that you think are crap and I do not.

Let's get this back on track eh?

First round, IMO, will go to the Dems.

Early speakers were not very good and as previously stated Rockefeller was a joke.
Reid was a bit hypocritical.
Albright, while I conceed she is a brilliant woman, I always thought she was a snake
Then the 2 knuckleheads went and IMO were very effective.
BO Biden was extremely moving...his introduction of his Dad was terrific. The whole joint had tears....a few here too.
Then Joe takes the stage and while not as rythmic as he usually is (I like this guy) he does a great job....and Barrack shows up to put some icing on a good night for them.

Why advantage? McCain can never match night 2 equally. Imagine bush showing up on night 2..."surprise heh heh heh"

can anyone answer this one.........?

WTF is Nagin doing there with a storm heading his way? I just hope chocolate city does everything they are capable of doing before blaming anyone else if GOD FORBID they get hit hard again. Does anyone else here think it's a bit self serving to be away from his beloved people with the threat of a repeat?

[hork]

what's even more amazing about him being there is his history with the party. He endorsed conservative Republican Bobby Jindal over Democratic Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Blanco in the 2003 runoff for governor. And in 2004, was very reluctant in endorsing Kerry in the 2004 presidential election (reportedly doing so only after being threatened with the loss of support from the LA state and national democratic parties in subsequent bids for re-election).

of course you're right, given the history with that city and storms and the fact that more than half of it is still literally in ruins, i have to wonder what kind of leader would choose the convention of his constituents myself. (the answer, someone more concerned with his status in the party than those he was elected to represent).

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

my theory is that bush is a dumbass and most of all the crap they've done has been cheney...

i'd be more inclined to believe it was rove over cheney for the most part. but yeah cheney has been pulling strings as well to be sure.

for the sake of peace in the forums i'll leave it at that myself.

[tymy]

I still don't understand how Nagin's reference to New Orleans as the "chocolate city" is not considered a racist comment.

As far as Billy is concerned, I have been employed by the same firm for over the past twenty years and sex with a subordinate is grounds for immediate termination. Lying about it just strengthens the case.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

I still don't understand how Nagin's reference to New Orleans as the "chocolate city" is not considered a racist comment.

i'd say it was quite the racist comment. and the most shocking thing about it was that nagin doesn't enjoy the support of the majority of african-americans in his city (less than 50% voted for him) while does that of the white residents (to the tune of 90% voting for him in the last mayoral election).

so not only is nagin racist but obviously pretty ignorant as well. but then the two do seem to go hand in hand. ignorance, racism, like they say 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

i'd say it was quite the racist comment. and the most shocking thing about it was that nagin doesn't enjoy the support of the majority of african-americans in his city (less than 50% voted for him) while does that of the white residents (to the tune of 90% voting for him in the last mayoral election).

so not only is nagin racist but obviously pretty ignorant as well. but then the two do seem to go hand in hand. ignorance, racism, like they say 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

I would ask you to put those numbers in terms of actual votes, not percentages. We all know how misleading percentages can be. I would dare say 50% of the African American vote equates to a heck of alot more votes than 10% of the white population.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

I would ask you to put those numbers in terms of actual votes, not percentages. We all know how misleading percentages can be. I would dare say 50% of the African American vote equates to a heck of alot more votes than 10% of the white population.

based on 2000 US Census data (and assuming every person in the city voted which we know isn't the case)

total white population - 135956
thus at 90% in favor -- 122360 votes for compared to 13595 against

total african-american population -- 325947
thus at 42% in favor -- 136897 in favor and 189077 against


so assuming there was only one other candidate, no one outside of these two groups voted, and everyone who identifies as a member of these two groups did vote he only won by 56, 500 or so votes. doesn't quite equal a mandate and surely doesn't bode well for his re-election.

again he enjoys the support of the white residents far more than that of his african-american constituents.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

based on 2000 US Census data (and assuming every person in the city voted which we know isn't the case)

total white population - 135956
thus at 90% in favor -- 122360 votes for compared to 13595 against

total african-american population -- 325947
thus at 42% in favor -- 136897 in favor and 189077 against

Nice try.....considering Katrina stuck in 2005 how many of the white population from the 2000 census do you think were still living there when Nagin was re-elected?