Support NeoGAF

[Tyrone Slothrop]

You know what I found incredibly callous and disgraceful? (correct me if Im wrong, as I didnt watch every single speaker) Everytime a speaker brought up the 'historical nomination' of Obama, they did it solely to mock it and denigrate it. Not ONCE did anyone have the decency and self-respect to invite ANY applause or aknowledgement of the very real historical accomplishment of Obama's nomination in a serious manner. Compare that to the democratic convention, where there was SEVERAL instances where speakers had the decency to invite the audience to applause and appreciate McCains POW days and service.

How absolutely disgusting. And they talk of bullshit on bipartisanship and coming together, and its not about the party? These are some of the shittiest Americans Ive ever seen.

mavericks don't care about historic accomplishments. you need to stop worrying about that and put country first

 

[ronito]

every time I see one of these RNC highlights I am overwhelmed by the sea of white. It gives me flash backs to Utah, where I, a latino, felt like a raisin in a mayonnaise jar.

 

[Rapping Granny]

LLTP: Is there a video of the guy yelling "YEAHHH" during the speeches?

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

hell, i'm white and even I was freaked out by that lack of color

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Why does greed always refer to people who want to keep their money rather than those that want to take it from them for the "common good"?

I remember seeing a documentary series about the human mind. It showed an experiment they did with chimps that had been taught to recognise numbers, both as amounts and as symbolic digits (0, 1, 2 etc.)

Anyhoo, they did an experiment where they'd have two chimps in separate cages and two bowls with a numbered card in them. They then got one of the chimps to point to a bowl of their choosing. As soon as the selecting chimp gestured towards a bowl, that corresponding number of candies was given to the other chimp and the selecting chimp would be given the number of candies in the bowl that wasn't chosen.

What would happen at first is that the chimp would naturally go for the bowl containing the higher numbered card, assuming, naturally that more is better. After a while though, they figured out the game and would consistently choose the smaller number to give to the other chimp and end up with more candy as a result.

After the selecting chimp had memorised the game, they changed it slightly and instead of numbered cards, they simply put different amounts of candy into each bowl.

This time though, the chimp, in spite of the fact that they knew the game already, consistently gestured towards the larger bowl, getting aggravated when said bowl was given to the other chimp. The selecting chimp knew how the game worked when presented with abstract numbers but could never "win" the game when actual candy was put in front of them.

Of course this is a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I'm sure. I just found it interesting.

 

[joetachi]

hell, i'm white and even I was freaked out by that lack of color

Not really the white but i was freaked out at the sea of blond and white hair.

 

[speculawyer]

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" Henry Fawcett.

In other words, wanting what you haven't earned, I'd say that fits... pretty much the reverse of your definition.

Uh . . . no . . . as you said, it is for 'the public good' . . . it doesn't go to that other person.

And BTW, it isn't all for the 'the public good' . . . read my edited message above.

 

[v1cious]

hell, i'm white and even I was freaked out by that lack of color

NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! i'll have you know i spotted one negro.

 

[Gaborn]

Of course this is a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I'm sure. I just found it interesting.

It's certainly partially relevant. You could've just as easily used the analogy that if everyone had a million dollars we'd all be rich! (Please note that's obviously sarcasm). Unfortunately the difference is that we're talking about why people are trying to demonize people that don't want to give up their money by calling them greedy. Who is greedier, the person whose money people want to take, or the people that want to take it?

Speculawyer - The public good often becomes the pet projects of individual senators and representatives who use that graft to retain power.

Oh, and in regards to your edit, people are protected when they have more assets because... they have more to protect. That's not exactly a special status or anything.

 

[MThanded]

hell, i'm white and even I was freaked out by that lack of color

I'm black and that was just ridiculous. Couldnt they have flown in some fake minority republicans to fill the void. They showed their true colors today. I wonder how there delegate demographic outlook compares to the demographic breakdown in the US.

 

[ronito]

NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! i'll have you know i spotted one negro.

I'm sorry I'm not in the mood for Where's Waldo. Can you draw a circle around him?

 

[Rapping Granny]

NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! i'll have you know i spotted one negro.

I found him.

Spoiler

bottom left corner waiving a cowboy hat :lol

 

[speculawyer]

I'm black and that was just ridiculous. Couldnt they have flown in some fake minority republicans to fill the void. They showed their true colors today. I wonder how there delegate demographic outlook compares to the demographic breakdown in the US.

Why won't they let Alan Keyes give a speech?!?!?

 

[devilhawk]

Well, this is in actuality a complex debate. Now, some might go so far as to argue for more so-called socialist policies, but I think the argument most of us who are high on hopium are wanting to have is to kind of argue against the merits of the fiscal conservatism being pushed today.

Now, I don't want to get carried away and pretend like the gravy train with biscuit wheels we were on in the 90s was all Clinton, and the near-recession we have right now is all Bush, but there's a case to be made that "borrow and spend" is hardly better than "tax and spend." Again, I'm not necessarily arguing that high taxes and high government spending are the one and only answer, but it is kind of grating to see neo-conservatives still claiming, and getting away with doing so, great business acumen and having everyone's best interest at heart when their only claim to fame is "we won't tax you." This, again, only works when you don't look at the implications of how they're going to responsibly get the money they need without doing so.

You have some of this right. The real answer is to tax and spend less. That is fiscal conservation. This can be done and has been done before.

Another very interesting fact is the economy itself might be more independent of the president than people would like to think. The economy has been on a cycle for decades. People were predicting this downturn for years. A quick google search comes up with a 2005 article. It shows a fairly repitive trend. I am no economist.

 

[LuCkymoON]

I hate these people with every ounce of my body for what they have done to America.
It's so hard to watch this crap, seeing these republican Reps and Sens lie on the issues that Obama supports.
A BABY KILLING FACIST????
really?
damn this country, it gets what it deserves.

NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! i'll have you know i spotted one negro.

ahhh yes the Texas delegation, we have them to thank them for their help in making GWB Governor of Texas.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

It's certainly partially relevant. You could've just as easily used the analogy that if everyone had a million dollars we'd all be rich! (Please note that's obviously sarcasm). Unfortunately the difference is that we're talking about why people are trying to demonize people that don't want to give up their money by calling them greedy. Who is greedier, the person whose money people want to take, or the people that want to take it?

Speculawyer - The public good often becomes the pet projects of individual senators and representatives who use that graft to retain power.

What I was trying to imply was that the chimps were naturally greedy and when they'd see something dangled in front of them could not resist their urge to reach out to grab in spite of the fact that if they sat back and thought through it, they'd know they wouldn't benefit. This is because the chimp's greed blinds them to the fact that the system does not work that way.

A lot of poorer "low taxes" voters are the same way. It doesn't matter that history and a close inspection of what they're voting for would show that if they vote this way they would be voting against their own self-interest, the candy is being dangled in front of them and they reach out.

Whether the system is fair or not is another debate entirely, but it's hard to deny that an underlying motivation behind a large section of Republican voters has historically been greed.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A BABY KILLING SOCIALIST????

fixed

 

[capslock]

Sorry if already posted.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2/163035/8405/137/583631

 

[JaY P.]

You have some of this right. The real answer is to tax and spend less. That is fiscal conservation. This can be done and has been done before.

Another very interesting fact is the economy itself might be more independent of the president than people would like to think. The economy has been on a cycle for decades. People were predicting this downturn for years. A quick google search comes up with a 2005 article. It shows a fairly repitive trend. I am no economist.

The problem with having two major political ideologies is that the majority of the people defending one side or the other only think in absolutes. Take my state of California for instance, we are $15 billion in the shitter and Sacramento can't decide if it wants to cut spending or raise taxes. Why not do both and let everyone cry and move on.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Unfortunately the difference is that we're talking about why people are trying to demonize people that don't want to give up their money by calling them greedy.

Well, I think most of the demonization towards those opposed to taxes extend from the typical straw-man types where John Q. Republican is arguing for his party based solely on the argument that Democrats are going to take his hard-earned cash without even a cursory glance as to how much more he would actually be taxed, or even considering that there may be good reason for the proposed tax increases. Do these individuals represent all who oppose tax increases? Of course not. However, they do exist, and they are very vocal. Likewise, I'm sure there are plenty of stereotypical liberals out there who exemplify the worst twists of the ideology, but such is life.

 

[adamsappel]

NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! i'll have you know i spotted one negro.

I found him.

Spoiler

bottom left corner waiving a cowboy hat :lol

Spoiler

There's another one in the bottom right corner. Damnit, we said one could come in!

 

[Rlan]

I found him.

Spoiler

bottom left corner waiving a cowboy hat :lol

There's two! There's one in the bottom right now too.

What, not good enough for the middle now? Blacks segregated to corners only?

 

[adamsappel]

That's a Black Power salute. Get him!

 

[Rapping Granny]

Spoiler

There's another one in the bottom right corner. Damnit, we said one could come in!

look closely, I don't think he's black.

He looks like a fat white farmer caught in bad lighting.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

You have some of this right. The real answer is to tax and spend less. That is fiscal conservation. This can be done and has been done before.

Of course. However, that's not what's happening right now. And I think that's why Democrats are so fired up to fight the current claims that Republicans are still pushing. You can argue that there are merits to true fiscal conservatism and a smaller government, but the Bush administration exemplifies none of that. Yeah, Bush cut taxes. But is anyone going to argue that he was a fiscally responsible president? How many people even think the tax cuts were a good move in the grand scheme of what's happening right now?

 

[devilhawk]

Uh . . . no . . . as you said, it is for 'the public good' . . . it doesn't go to that other person.

And BTW, it isn't all for the 'the public good' . . . read my edited message above.

I think the point is that both can be greedy. The United States is not socialistic or laissez faire caitalistic. It is in the middle. The Republicans and Democrats just slant slightly off the middle. Some people think one way or the other. When people who haven't made money are telling others that make too much and demand some of it, even to others, it is a form of greed. There are obvious versions of those who are too greedy ( A highly paid CEO or someone who refuses to work living off the government). I think it is unfair to tax people higher just because they make yea amount of money. Someone who works 16 hours a day, everyday, isn't as rich as the guy making the same while sitting on his ass. What is good for the public is very hard to discern.

 

[RBH]

I'm sorry I'm not in the mood for Where's Waldo. Can you draw a circle around him?

:lol :lol

 

[Ether_Snake]

Beat that McCain:

 

[MassiveAttack]

Beat that McCain:

Wow. Amazing photo.

 

[speculawyer]

but there's a case to be made that "borrow and spend" is hardly better than "tax and spend."

"Hardly better"?!?!? It is FAR WORSE! You still owe all that money but now with taxes. And you've devalued your currency because other countries/governments are losing faith in you.

"Borrow & spend" is killing this country. They cut taxes and instead of cutting spending . . . they increase it with crony deals and pointless wars. Cutting taxes has been proven NOT to reduce government . . . it INCREASES government. CATO did a study on this and proved it. People need to be taxed until they scream for less spending.

 

[BobLoblaw]

Spoiler

There's another one in the bottom right corner. Damnit, we said one could come in!

If you're referring to the guy at the absolute bottom right, he looks white to me. I think it's due to the shadows. Either way, there's probably no more than 10 total in the entire building.

 

[devilhawk]

Of course. However, that's not what's happening right now. And I think that's why Democrats are so fired up to fight the current claims that Republicans are still pushing. You can argue that there are merits to true fiscal conservatism and a smaller government, but the Bush administration exemplifies none of that. Yeah, Bush cut taxes. But is anyone going to argue that he was a fiscally responsible president? How many people even think the tax cuts were a good move in the grand scheme of what's happening right now?

Well, I don't think anyone would state that Bush is a fiscal conservative. He isn't. It just gets old because extreme liberals use Bush as an example of fiscal conservative to attack it and drive the nation left of center. Unfortunately, neocons control the party and may for the next time being. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that McCain has a chance to be better about this, but the only way to even get elected in this day of age is to run as a neocon and with the social conservative issues.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I remember seeing a documentary series about the human mind. It showed an experiment they did with chimps that had been taught to recognise numbers, both as amounts and as symbolic digits (0, 1, 2 etc.)

Anyhoo, they did an experiment where they'd have two chimps in separate cages and two bowls with a numbered card in them. They then got one of the chimps to point to a bowl of their choosing. As soon as the selecting chimp gestured towards a bowl, that corresponding number of candies was given to the other chimp and the selecting chimp would be given the number of candies in the bowl that wasn't chosen.

What would happen at first is that the chimp would naturally go for the bowl containing the higher numbered card, assuming, naturally that more is better. After a while though, they figured out the game and would consistently choose the smaller number to give to the other chimp and end up with more candy as a result.

After the selecting chimp had memorised the game, they changed it slightly and instead of numbered cards, they simply put different amounts of candy into each bowl.

This time though, the chimp, in spite of the fact that they knew the game already, consistently gestured towards the larger bowl, getting aggravated when said bowl was given to the other chimp. The selecting chimp knew how the game worked when presented with abstract numbers but could never "win" the game when actual candy was put in front of them.

Of course this is a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I'm sure. I just found it interesting.

i hate you.

 

[reilo]

I missed the entire day, anything good happen?

 

[Slurpy]

Worth a watch, talks about Book with smears Obama:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/26209079#26209079

 

[Steve Youngblood]

"Hardly better"?!?!? It is FAR WORSE! You still owe all that money but now with taxes. And you've devalued your currency because other countries/governments are losing faith in you.

"Borrow & spend" is killing this country. They cut taxes and instead of cutting spending . . . they increase it with crony deals and pointless wars. Cutting taxes has been proven NOT to reduce government . . . it INCREASES government. CATO did a study on this and proved it. People need to be taxed until they scream for less spending.

"Hardly better" just seemed like a politic thing to say. I wasn't in any way trying to state that it might be better.

But, I guess I could try to make an argument in favor of Bush's spending. That $600 rebate sure was sweet, wasn't it? Recession my ass. If it wasn't for Bush, I might have actually had to have saved for a few months before getting my big screen TV. Is Obama promising me a new Plasma? Didn't think so.

 

[speculawyer]

Bush adopting Obama's policies . . . again.

US-led forces alleged involved in Pakistan attack

By ISHTIAQ MAHSUD, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - At least 15 people, including women and children, were killed in an attack involving U.S.-led forces in a remote Pakistani village near the border with Afghanistan, intelligence officials and a witness said Wednesday.

The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said it had no report of such an incursion, said to have happened in the militant-infested South Waziristan tribal region. Pakistan's army confirmed an attack but did not specify if it believed foreign troops were involved.

The U.S. and Pakistan, allies in the war on terror, have had tensions over cross-border attacks, including suspected American missile strikes in Pakistani territory. In one high-profile incident earlier this year, Pakistan said 11 of its soldiers died when U.S. aircraft bombed their border post.

Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said the latest incident happened before dawn, shortly after an American helicopter landed in the village of Musa Nikow in South Waziristan.

He said as the owner of a home nearby came outside with his wife, the "American and Afghan soldiers starting firing."

Khan said later the troops entered the house and killed seven other people, including women and children. He said the troops also killed six other residents.

Two local intelligence officials confirmed the account on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. One official said 19 people died.

The U.S. embassy in Islamabad declined to comment.

Maj. Murad Khan, a spokesman for Pakistan's army, said it could confirm an attack on a house near the Pakistan-Afghan border.

"We are collecting details," Khan said, without specifying if Americans were involved.

American officials say Pakistan's tribal regions along the Afghan border have turned into havens for al-Qaida and Taliban-linked militants involved in attacks on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. South Waziristan is the base for Pakistan's top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

The U.S. has pushed Pakistan to crack down on the militancy inside its territory, and there have been debates in Washington over how far the U.S. can go in carrying out its own strikes.

U.S. rules of engagement allow ground forces to go a few miles into Pakistan when in "hot pursuit" and when forces were targeted or fired on by the enemy. U.S. rules also allow aircraft to go several miles into Pakistan air space.

We all heard how Obama wanted to start world war 3 because he thought we should strike in Pakistan if there are high-value targets there and the Pakistan government won't act. Oh Obama . . . you are so wreckless . . . crazy.

Bush did it? Oh . . . well that is different.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

i hate you.

Perhaps I was being too subtle...

 

[speculawyer]

But, I guess I could try to make an argument in favor of Bush's spending. That $600 rebate sure was sweet, wasn't it? Recession my ass. If it wasn't for Bush, I might have actually had to have saved for a few months before getting my big screen TV. Is Obama promising me a new Plasma? Didn't think so.

1) I make to much to get any that.
2) I think that was terrible policy that both the GOPers and Dems deserve to be slapped around for.

Giving out free money is what passes for economic policy these days? Are we that pathetic? As your example shows, most of that money probably did nothing for the economy. Buying Japanese electronics does not exactly stimulate the US economy. Seriously . . . WTF were they thinking?

 

[ronito]

I missed the entire day, anything good happen?

Blah blah blah Republicans say if you love your country you'll vote for John Mccain blah blah blah Sarah Palin is much more experienced than God himself blah blah blah Lieberman sells soul to devil blah blah blah We're now the "angry left" blah blah blah Obama will raise taxes blah blah blah God blah blah 9/11 blah blah POW POW POW POWERFUL Maverick blah blah blah.

Same ol from the GOP.

In exciting news we're playing Where's Waldo. Can you find the black guy in this pic?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

1) I make to much to get any that.
2) I think that was terrible policy that both the GOPers and Dems deserve to be slapped around for.

Giving out free money is what passes for economic policy these days? Are we that pathetic? As your example shows, most of that money probably did nothing for the economy. Buying Japanese electronics does not exactly stimulate the US economy. Seriously . . . WTF were they thinking?

It was a brilliant stratagem. Bush saw what was happening with the credit crunch, and when so many Americans are suffering as they see their houses losing as much as 50 percent of their value while simultaneously being unable to pay their existing mortgage, what else was their to do? $600 seemed like an excellent start.

Or, if you're me, it allowed me to buy a second plasma TV to place in front of my other plasma TV.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Bush adopting Obama's policies . . . again.



We all heard how Obama wanted to start world war 3 because he thought we should strike in Pakistan if there are high-value targets there and the Pakistan government won't act. Oh Obama . . . you are so wreckless . . . crazy.

Bush did it? Oh . . . well that is different.

Obama = Bush confirmed. Bye Bye Bambi.

 

[Dan]

Looks like it's Sarah Pawlenty now... McCain starting the transition to his next VP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJuiRnP1Fuk

Oh man, that's awesome :lol

 

[adamsappel]

But, I guess I could try to make an argument in favor of Bush's spending. That $600 rebate sure was sweet, wasn't it? Recession my ass. If it wasn't for Bush, I might have actually had to have saved for a few months before getting my big screen TV. Is Obama promising me a new Plasma? Didn't think so.

Actually, doesn't Obama want to do this again, with even more money? Or is that some "use it to buy gasoline" thing?

 

[Learn2read]

Palin’s Start in Alaska: Not Politics as Usual

Article Tools Sponsored By
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: September 2, 2008

WASILLA, Alaska — The traditional turning points that had decided municipal elections in this town of less than 7,000 people — Should we pave the dirt roads? Put in sewers? Which candidate is your hunting buddy? — seemed all but obsolete the year Ms. Palin, then 32, challenged the three-term incumbent, John C. Stein.

Anti-abortion fliers circulated. Ms. Palin played up her church work and her membership in the National Rifle Association. The state Republican Party, never involved before because city elections are nonpartisan, ran advertisements on Ms. Palin’s behalf.

....“Sarah comes in with all this ideological stuff, and I was like, ‘Whoa,’ ” said Mr. Stein, who lost the election. “But that got her elected: abortion, gun rights, term limits and the religious born-again thing. I’m not a churchgoing guy, and that was another issue: ‘We will have our first Christian mayor.’ ”

<snip>

This is going to be a fantastic election.

 

[maynerd]

Actually, doesn't Obama want to do this again, with even more money? Or is that some "use it to buy gasoline" thing?

$1k!

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-01-voa50.cfm

 

[RobotChant]

Spoiler

They want to keep their money.

Didn't they get the memo:

 

[maynerd]

Didn't they get the memo:

:lol Great point!

 

[perfectchaos007]

Fred Thompson's speech was the best. I could listen to his monotone all day.

 

[Chrono]

This convention just makes it clear that this party's base is based on hate. Its pretty sickening.

It's a tiny minority, Slurpy.

To say otherwise would be racist and bigoted.