The 2012 Democommie National Convention is the gift that keeps on giving.
First, they remove the references to God and Jerusalem from their party platform, a move that won’t surprise many Christians, since they don’t like us much anyway, but one that shows just how much they obviously take their liberal jewish voters for granted.
Then one of the “voices of the party”, the treacherous “Dick the Turban” Durban, has a meltdown when FOX host Bret Baer asks about the omission. And then, when it becomes obvious that the omission isn’t really “in touch with” some of their own voters and delegates, and a vote is held to restore both to the platform in which delegates actually boo God and Jerusalem (LOVE those empty seats!)
This is not my father’s Democratic Party. While they were jerks, they didn’t hate success or justify their own greed by fomenting envy. They didn’t celebrate perversion and call it “diversity”. They didn’t tell us that salvation was achieved only through government rooting around in our neighbors’ pockets, and they didn’t believe that America was great because of government, and with the exception of Ted Kennedy, the only politician with a confirmed “kill” in “The War On Women”, they didn’t think pissing off our allies and cozying up with people who really, really don’t like us, and while they weren’t fond of protecting the rights of an unborn baby to life, they didn’t openly celebrate their murders funded with taxpayer dollars as an expression of “freedom”.
First they walk back on the “Jumah” prayer, now, with extraordinary protest, they walk back their platform. But its the Republicans who are out of touch.
Democommie Shill, and blogger Rutherford suggested in the comments to the last post that I write advice for Obama for his next term. I already pointed out that such advice would be an exercise in futility since he incorrectly believes he knows better than everyone else. However, if the advice I would give to the Democommie Party is “Continue being honest and showing Americans what you really think of them and their beliefs. The landslide sweeping the neophyte out of the White House in November will be entertaining.”
Oh, and Dick? If it doesn’t matter to Americans, why the walk back?
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
You know what BIC? The “big tent” reputation of the Dimocratic Party is a joke and always has been.
This platform is pure Obama and his cabinet. So was the change.
Miscreants like Rutherford look around the room of the Dim Convention and see a multitude of ethnicity and some supposed thin veneer of religion of many and say, “Ah ha. See. We’re for the little guy.” Might make for good TV and a soundbite, but it’s house built on sand. And it is based on a false premise and this circus over the Dimocratic Party platform proves it. There is no moral standing or cornerstone of the Dimocratic Party – the entire party is exploitation.
It is becoming evident that the new makeup is not even the lying Clinton Dimocratic Party anymore. They facilitate through indoctrination, unfulfillable promises, preying on the stupid, the uneducated, the unteachable, the weak, and the marginalized. Some of that is the same as how Clinton operated, but Clinton is malleable – Obama is not. Obama the radicalized ideologue, will be be all things to all people when necessary – but at his core, he’s Marxist and fascist. Clinton had a few places he wasn’t willing to go. Obama knows know bounds.
I’d like your opinion, but I think that is what you see here. Specifically…
In trying to appease the Muslims, they’ve offended the Jews. In removing God from the platform, they’ve offended the thin veneer crowd, who use God as a campaign tool and a club under the banner of ‘social justice.’ Cannot twist the Bible or invoke the Hadith for personal gain and power without at least giving the impression you believe in something divine.
When you stand for nothing, eventually to retain power you’ve got to stand for everything.
Here’s what the Dimocratic Party really is: It’s a series of tribes, each seeking to exploit the gain at someone else expense for their tribe. And eventually what happens in the self absorption and self-servitude, is the tribes begin stepping on each another tribe’s toes for an ever smaller piece of the pie.
I really think if Dims are able to retain power in this country, and anyone with sense prays not, what you are eventually looking at perhaps brought on by a financial collapse which is imminent without a swift change in course, is the former Yugoslavia.
This could go beyond ugly. Because if America falls, the financial world will collapse, radical Islam will take root and their Mahdi will reappear in some form. Either WWIII is on, or someone fills the void to “make the peace.”
Armageddon, my friend. We could be much closer than we ever dreamed.
know/no – man, I wish WordPress would create a preview key.
Tex comes very close to my sentiment in one way. BiW your criticism is misdirected. Leaving God out of the platform was not their sin … putting it back in was. It was an obvious pander to the religious. This morning Jon Meacham observed that God is an inconsequential hat tip that most politicians know they must engage. Leaving it out is political death. But all you have to do is say it once — God — and the masses are appeased.
That’s why I don’t get my undies in any particular knot when it comes to the Pledge and our currency and the closer of almost every political speech having a God shoutout … because it’s meaningless. It’s necessary to hedge your bets. But it is evidence of no true sincere belief. And that applies to both Democrats and Republicans.
As for the rest of your post, the envy thing is bullsh*t and you know it. And I also don’t know why you wish to paint yourself the homophobe. I strongly suspect you are privately much more tolerant than your “pervert” accusations would suggest.
Don’t get too cocky about November my friend. This is a 45/45 nation and our fate rests in the hands of that remaining 10%. I still say all bets are off.
It was an obvious pander to the religious.
From the Party of Pandering? Surely you jest!
Seriously, it was a cynical move from a party establishment that was pissed about the average American noticing what they did. Leaving it out pandered to their anti-semitic block. Putting it back in pandered to their self-loathing jews who were badly taken for granted by the platform committee to begin with, and the remnant of black Christian pastors who were holding their nose and still intending to deliver the votes like they always do, even after the President took a giant dump on their beliefs with his “evolution” on gay marriage.
Of course, since much of the media will still carry the Democommie’s water and turn a blind eye to the Party’s own “War on Women” (Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton), ongoing taxpayer genocide of baby Americans, and the vitriolic hatered and intolerance on display among the delegate population, this flip-flop, like the Jumah prayer will be wghitewashed, if covered at all, so the only real casualty here is your own fundamental misunderstanding of the subject to begin with.
This morning Jon Meacham observed that God is an inconsequential hat tip that most politicians know they must engage. Leaving it out is political death. But all you have to do is say it once — God — and the masses are appeased.
He’s mostly correct, but that doesn’t make him right. All it shows is the success in touting and enshrining the error that was Justice Black’s deliberate misuse of the phrase, and the hubris of Progressives like yourself in believing that what you choose to fill the void you’ve created in Americans’ basic understanding of the subject is somehow better, or even logically consistant.
And yes, ENVY. This idea that your life can and should be made better with a “never enough” & “undefined” “Fair Share” of what someone else has earned and not what YOU earn with your own labor is ENVY. There isn’t another word for it.
As for the “homophobe”, charge, I obviously understand something that you do not. The decision to change its classification from a psychological problem to a “healthy expression of human sexuality” wasn’t the result of any great breakthrough in our understanding or new understanding of the psychology underlying it. The change came because the militant gay community did what it always does. It had a temper tantrum, and actively protested until it was given the seal of approval from the psychological community. Read Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s “The Politics of Homosexuality”. He recounted the events pretty thouroughly. Calling it “homophobia” implies a fear. I don’t fear them. I pity them. There is a difference, but it doesn’t help your argument to recognize that.
I’m not too worried about the 10%, R. I see the empty seats at the DNC. I see the long unemployment lines, and like me, they can see John Stewart letting your own delegate show their tolerance and inclusiveness on the convention floor. Absent a miracle or turnout of dead and nonexistent voters like never before it will be a landslide turning Obama out in November.
Thing I find most discouraging about the DNC convention – and the rhetoric coming out of the Democrats/liberals in general – is the complete lack of accuracy. They speak in bromides. Soundbites/bumpersticker lines. Everyone does it to an extent, but there is no “there” there behind their applause lines.
On my Facebook page, people were passing around a few quotes from Clinton’s speech last night. They acted as if they were profound. As if they had any meaning. As if rhetoric were argument.
“In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple. We left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”
Ok, that’s a fine line on stage in front of a friendly audience- but are they aware that it doesn’t really have any deeper meaning? It doesn’t have any argument? It’s merely a completely unsubstantiated (and unsupportable) claim?
It is depressing. And the speeches by Elizabeth Warren and others was even worse. Is this the best they’ve got? I’ve seen all the big guns on Foxnews, etc, and they merely repeat the same lines over and over again.
Pathetic.
And, can some lefty reader HERE please explain to me how an economy “From the middle out, from the bottom up” works? I mean, in detail.
Good to see you dodged the hypocrisy bullet with that comment.
Where’s your beef with that statement? Isn’t that essentially what the GOP is saying? They have acknowledged Obama inherited a mess. And they say Obama, well meaning enough, hasn’t gotten the job done of cleaning it up. So they say, “it’s our turn again”.
I find that an incredibly charitable and accurate assessment of the GOP position. Please point out what is wrong about it.
Now I just heard on the TV a few minutes ago that some Dem’s this week are making Nazi references to the GOP. THAT is something you should rightfully be offended by.
No, that isn’t what the Republicans are saying. Paul Ryan has a completely different message of fiscal restraint. It’s the SPENDING. And the DNC is planning on spending even more. The DNC platform puts for $674.8 BILLION more in spending over the next decade, New programs, etc. On top of Obamacare – which is going to break our country, financially, like a Greek salad.
Obama has spent more and more every year. He did his little commission, and then ignored it’s recommendations. Under his tenure, the Senate couldn’t even put together a budget.
Car in, none of that matters. The Democommies CARE more than you, and there is no amount of your money that is too much for them to spend in proving it.
LOL you might as well have asked Rutherford to explain it since I am BiW’s only “lefty” reader. 🙂
I hate to counter a question with a question but could you explain “trickle down”? You see, while I can’t specifically articulate how growing an economy from the bottom works, I can tell you it is a contrasting statement to concentrating wealth at the top and expecting the country to prosper on the largess and success of the upper class whose wallets are overflowing. The problem is the money doesn’t trickle down. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
But let me not totally wimp out on you. I’d say growing from the middle and bottom means maximizing the cash in the pockets of the middle class, who tend not to horde it but rather channel the money back into the economy. We maximize the cash in pockets of the middle class by maximizing employment and demanding fair wages that keep up with the cost of living. None of that involves keeping cash in the hands of the 1%.
If you hate to counter a question with a question, then why did you do it? “Trickle down” wasn’t even something the Republicans ever said. It wasn’t a policy and actually was a mischaracterization of what Reagan advocated. Simplified, political, bumper-sticker pap.
But, this “new” thing is actually what is being advocated by the president, and is mentioned in just about EVERY speech I’ve heard from the democrats – they al have included the “middle out, buttom up” line. Every. one. So – I just want to know how it actually happens. Does the government hire a bunch of middle class workers? Because, I’m a small business owner. How is Obama’s policy going to make ME grow the enconomy “out”. no tax break is going to enable me to hire anyone. The best thing to happen would be for a bunch of rich folks to move into the neighborhood and buy stuff from me.
See, the 1% don’t keep that cash in their hands. People who have extra money, spend it. Perhaps they pay folks to do their yard, or buy some extra tvs, and more cars. Perhaps they invest some of that money so I can open a new store.
If you demand that I pay my people more money, a few folks are going to lose their job. And I may not have enough money to feed my family. How does this work?
Car in, its like trying to explain the Laffer Curve to them.
The facts get in the way of their narrative.
OK, so help me with this. Let’s toss out the “trickle down” label. Wealth is already concentrated at the top in this country. So why exactly are we in recession? Why aren’t the wealthy buying enough to keep business thriving which in turn pay their employees who then cycle their money back into the economy? Clearly the wealthy can’t drive this economy … or they would have done it already.
I’m self employed and desperately need to hire a full time marketing person. I cannot afford to. So I am not immune to your concerns as a small business owner. But I submit part of our economy’s problem are huge enterprises who prioritize profit over the welfare of their employees. How ’bout a little less profit and a bit more money in the pockets of the worker?
This coming from the follower of a party which denigrates fact checkers. BiW you’re too much.
There simply aren’t enough wealthy folks to keep all businesses thriving. Just as their aren’t enough wealthy folks to tax us out of this mess. So , yes, the wealthy can’t drive the economy. But neither is there enough of them to tax “the Rich” our way to economic prosperity. Especially with all the new spending Obama and friends have lined up.
I’ll you, though, the poor never hire anyone (or rarely do) and they aren’t going to be the ones to spend us into prosperity. A healthy middle and upper class.
Like who?You’ve got a name?
I submit that companies prioritizing profit over welfare of their employees isn’t a tiny portion of our economy’s problem. Government interference. Government picking favorites.
How would you like to be a battery firm, w/o connections to the government, trying to compete with a battery maker who got some hot cash from the Obama stash? Or a small business that didn’t get breaks given to corporations with lobbyists?
Or a small businesses trying to absorb the costs of regulations and compliance facing the exact same rules that a HUGE company has, who can hire a lawyer to be on staff w/o barely affect their cost?
Government. Interference.
This coming from the follower of a party which denigrates fact checkers. BiW you’re too much.
Fact-checkers are supposed to “check” those facts. Not repeat talking points. Merely calling yourself a fact-checker, while gargling the balls of the DNC, doesn’t make you one.
Probably because those “fact-checkers” aren’t so factual when they themselves are fact-checked. But again, the narrative must be protected at all costs.
I’ve got an idea. Tell me what you think:
Car in – Fact checker
woo hoo. I’m a fact-checker now!
But I submit part of our economy’s problem are huge enterprises who prioritize profit over the welfare of their employees. How ’bout a little less profit and a bit more money in the pockets of the worker?
Once again, you demonstrate that you really have no clue how corporations (at least for profit) corporations are run.
THEY EXIST TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR THEIR OWNERS, WHO ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS.
Now I do have a beef with the way that some corporations have chosen to accomplish these aims, as many of them offer perverse incentives for boards and top executives to concentrate on this goal as a short-term one, rather than taking the long view, but that isn’t a proper matter for the government to get involved with.
If the shareholders are willing to have their companies run stupidly in order to get larger dividends in this quarter, then they should be free to do so. And if employees chose to work for companies with a proven history of boneheaded decisions that will have them looking for work sometime in the near future, that is also their right.
It isn’t the place of a buch of people who never owned a business to micromanage those of others anymore than it is their right to bail out those businesses when the result of of their poor decision making becomes too obvious to ignore. AT BEST, government should referee by making sure that all businesses play by the same rules, do not blatantly screw the public, meet their obligations, and that’s about it.
Business does not exist for the benefit of politicians who wish to be genereous with the business’ earnings. It doesn’t exist to make sure that its employees have all their dreams fullfilled. (Although, there is something to be said for having a happy workforce, it isn’t for government to MANDATE).
Can somebody explain to me why Dims like Rutherford use “trickle down” as pejorative, when this is exactly the economic philosophy used by Bill Clinton to “balance our budget FOR FOUR YEARS!!! (a lie, by the way)?”
Men like Rutherford, obvious not adept at math, keep saying that supply-side economics doesn’t work. But 1981-2007 is the longest streak of economic growth in the nation’s history. No other period even comes close, and in fact Rutherford’s greatest salaried years were all under the auspices of “trickle down.” 😈 That may be the most ironic inanity of them all, and Rutherford is chock full of inanities.
It’s almost sad to think there are this many illiterate people in this country, especially one who claims he graduated with a math degree from Harvard University.