Game over man, game over

[Comish]

From Junior's LINK

Just moments ago, Neil Cavuto of Fox News ranted about how the media had failed to properly fact-check the 48-minute-very-long speech of former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

 

48 minutes? Are you freaking kidding me?

 

There is zero chance I would ever sit through that. Who watched that?

My sarcasm meter is broken today so I hope your not being serious. It really didn't seem like a long speech. His talk to the people approach really keeps your attention, and the fact that he used numbers and figures (even if they were cherry picked and misrepresented) is pretty refreshing compared to the RNC's approach last week.

So lies (well presented) trumps facts (if articulated boringly) or by a less experienced liar?. Or I am misinterpreting what you are saying?

[ZRod]

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

How is diversity of opinion within a political party ugly?

Anybody else notice the difference in crowds at the two conventions? I thought that was really interesting, not sure if they can actually control who shows up but interesting none the less. The DNC seemed to be more diverse in terms of ethnicity and visible backgrounds than the RNC.

[Comish]

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

How is diversity of opinion within a political party ugly?

Typically done Carl. Take an embarrassing episode on national tv, and try and make it palatable by wrapping it in the all-encompassing salve of "diversity".

[knapplc]

From Junior's LINK

Just moments ago, Neil Cavuto of Fox News ranted about how the media had failed to properly fact-check the 48-minute-very-long speech of former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

 

48 minutes? Are you freaking kidding me?

 

There is zero chance I would ever sit through that. Who watched that?

My sarcasm meter is broken today so I hope your not being serious. It really didn't seem like a long speech. His talk to the people approach really keeps your attention, and the fact that he used numbers and figures (even if they were cherry picked and misrepresented) is pretty refreshing compared to the RNC's approach last week.

I am being serious. 48 minute is too much of my life to devote to Bill Clinton, no matter how great the speech is.

 

I covered Speech & Debate for my high school newspaper. I've seen enough speeches in my life.

[sd'sker]

When I want to be taken seriously with my statements, I often respond to requests for supporting evidence with nonsense. It's the best policy.

 

What party are you watching? Where is the nonsense of which you speak?

 

So the DNC (which resembled occupy wall street) except for more expensive outer-wear, didn’t give you pause with the hate-filled rhetoric; unrestrained anger and multiple references to Nazi’s by attendees, along with a Ronmey death threat?

 

If you think that is not far, far left of the democratic party of Harry Truman then it’s pointless to argue the point. I’ll take you at your word that the Dems are not moving left, but this fringe IS the center point of what they have become.

what?

 

also, that still really is not evidence you are just describing, very subjectively, things that may or may not have happened. i think carlfense is more interested in how the democratic elected leaders' policy has gone too far left.

 

I watch almost all of both conventions (hours and hours of life I will never get back).

What I saw at the DNC from the delegates (obviously the most passionate of backers since they invested time and money and therefore I believe are representative of the current party faithful) showed me a far, far, leftist view of the dems than I recall from the friendly ideological debates I used to regularly have with friends who genuinely disagree over the role of government.

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

Is that subjective or gut-feeling? I guess you could say that if you want, but what exact empirical evidence do you require, if not actually watching what people do, what people say, and how they act?

what empirical evidence? and yes, it mostly still is subjective. so you find some of the members of the party objectionable? what about the policy? is that not what matters?

[carlfense]

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

How is diversity of opinion within a political party ugly?

Typically done Carl. Take an embarrassing episode on national tv, and try and make it palatable by wrapping it in the all-encompassing salve of "diversity".

Why do you say that it was embarrassing and ugly?

[BigRedBuster]

 

what empirical evidence? and yes, it mostly still is subjective. so you find some of the members of the party objectionable? what about the policy? is that not what matters?

 

This is why I refuse to watch the conventions. How can anyone wade through the total BS spewed out by both parties at these elections. All it results in is the base getting all emotionally tied up in knots and wanting to go kick the other side's ass at all costs. 99% based on falsehoods, innuendos and total BS.

[carlfense]

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

How is diversity of opinion within a political party ugly?

Anybody else notice the difference in crowds at the two conventions? I thought that was really interesting, not sure if they can actually control who shows up but interesting none the less. The DNC seemed to be more diverse in terms of ethnicity and visible backgrounds than the RNC.

What I saw was one party had a diverse line-up of speakers . . . and a crowd almost entirely composed of aging white people.

 

The other party had a diverse line-up of speakers . . . and a diverse crowd with many people wearing ridiculous hats.

[ZRod]

So lies (well presented) trumps facts (if articulated boringly) or by a less experienced liar?. Or I am misinterpreting what you are saying?

I didn't say that lies trump facts because of the style of presentation. It was a comment on the delivery and nothing more. The man can talk, not many will argue with that. And yes anything presented well is more palatable, but that doesn't make it right.

 

I read through the fact checker thread and it would appear that Clinton was more par for the course than Ryan. I am pretty familiar with the arguments of both sides and I know that Clinton hand picked some of his numbers, but if you look at things contextually they make more sense than the absurd cherry picking that Ryan did, like when the GM plant "closed" or how Obama wanted to cut medicare (Ryan's idea). And I know I will get hammered for this because it's supporting the evil liberals, but contextually the Dems cherry picking makes more sense, even if it was done only to support their position. Figures chosen for 2010 and after make more sense to judge Obama by since he had more control of his situation at that time than he did when he first took office.

[knapplc]

 

what empirical evidence? and yes, it mostly still is subjective. so you find some of the members of the party objectionable? what about the policy? is that not what matters?

 

This is why I refuse to watch the conventions. How can anyone wade through the total BS spewed out by both parties at these elections. All it results in is the base getting all emotionally tied up in knots and wanting to go kick the other side's ass at all costs. 99% based on falsehoods, innuendos and total BS.

 

EXACTLY. I refuse to watch even one second of these things. They're farces.

[ZRod]

I am being serious. 48 minute is too much of my life to devote to Bill Clinton, no matter how great the speech is.

 

I covered Speech & Debate for my high school newspaper. I've seen enough speeches in my life.

Ha that's fine. I enjoy listening to people talk, always have I guess. I know you don't care much for him, I've just always had some respect for him and enjoy listening to him because the man was born to talk. Not to mention being younger and out of school it's the first time I've really payed attention to the conventions.

[strigori]

When I want to be taken seriously with my statements, I often respond to requests for supporting evidence with nonsense. It's the best policy.

 

What party are you watching? Where is the nonsense of which you speak?

 

So the DNC (which resembled occupy wall street) except for more expensive outer-wear, didn’t give you pause with the hate-filled rhetoric; unrestrained anger and multiple references to Nazi’s by attendees, along with a Ronmey death threat?

 

If you think that is not far, far left of the democratic party of Harry Truman then it’s pointless to argue the point. I’ll take you at your word that the Dems are not moving left, but this fringe IS the center point of what they have become.

what?

 

also, that still really is not evidence you are just describing, very subjectively, things that may or may not have happened. i think carlfense is more interested in how the democratic elected leaders' policy has gone too far left.

 

I watch almost all of both conventions (hours and hours of life I will never get back).

What I saw at the DNC from the delegates (obviously the most passionate of backers since they invested time and money and therefore I believe are representative of the current party faithful) showed me a far, far, leftist view of the dems than I recall from the friendly ideological debates I used to regularly have with friends who genuinely disagree over the role of government.

The platform itself was changed, changed back, and resulted in an ugly boo-fest among the attendees.

Is that subjective or gut-feeling? I guess you could say that if you want, but what exact empirical evidence do you require, if not actually watching what people do, what people say, and how they act?

What exactly are you referring to as a "far, far leftist view"?