Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[5mn_Major]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I am of the (probably unpopular) opinion that the conventions showed the true face of the parties and outlines arguably the best relationship between the two.

The DNC was full of positions and solutions to the challenges the country faces. Many of those are govt solutions...but those are not necessarily expensive nor often even costs...often just improvements. These are often updates that just bring us into the 21st century...I wouldn't underestimate countries like Singapore and how in tune they are with the modern global economy. And others such as the use of international diplomacy vs. rhetoric escalation of the right. The RNC was more vague and full of criticism. The media on the right has been largely negative for decades. I am of the opinion that 'right' media has shaped 'conservative' thought towards hyper critical while being less adept at identifying and implementing true solutions to our problems. Now this can be good as it represents a way of policing the actions of the dems who are putting together the solutions and innovating the country.

So the positions of dems is the derivation of solutions and taking action as a party in power. The position of the GOP on the outside is specializing in critical governance to moderate dem activity and help to reduce govt spending. The hope in this dems in power/GOP in police mode is that the GOP successfully reigns Dem spending, that Dems get us to the right govt revenue and that the GOP doesn't stop every solution that the Dems put into place.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I am of the (probably unpopular) opinion that the conventions showed the true face of the parties and outlines arguably the best relationship between the two.

The DNC was full of positions and solutions to the challenges the country faces. Many of those are govt solutions...but those are not necessarily expensive nor often even costs...often just improvements. These are often updates that just bring us into the 21st century...I wouldn't underestimate countries like Singapore and how in tune they are with the modern global economy. And others such as the use of international diplomacy vs. rhetoric escalation of the right. The RNC was more vague and full of criticism. The media on the right has been largely negative for decades. I am of the opinion that 'right' media has shaped 'conservative' thought towards hyper critical while being less adept at identifying and implementing true solutions to our problems. Now this can be good as it represents a way of policing the actions of the dems who are putting together the solutions and innovating the country.

So the positions of dems is the derivation of solutions and taking action as a party in power. The position of the GOP on the outside is specializing in critical governance to moderate dem activity and help to reduce govt spending. The hope in this dems in power/GOP in police mode is that the GOP successfully reigns Dem spending, that Dems get us to the right govt revenue and that the GOP doesn't stop every solution that the Dems put into place.

I don't get the Singapore reference, but otherwise I agree. It's a strong Structural Functionalist argument, if anybody out there remembers 20th century Sociology (or for that matter, the 20th century ).

The difference between the Obama '08 and '12 speeches was similarly functional. In '08 it was an inspiring, lofty stem-winder to move people to the challenger. In '12 it was a completely safe reassertion of basic American values to hold people with the incumbent.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

You cannot seriously be arguing that birth control isn't cheaper than pregnancy.

Where did you come up with that??? Nowhere near close to the subject of the conversation.



The cost to manufacture and distribute birth control pills is the same whether you pay for them out of pocket or whether your insurance company pays for them.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Is promiscuity cheaper?

[unofan]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Where did you come up with that??? Nowhere near close to the subject of the conversation.



The cost to manufacture and distribute birth control pills is the same whether you pay for them out of pocket or whether your insurance company pays for them.

But the point is that if you cover birth control under insurance, you save money by having fewer pregnancies.

Is promiscuity cheaper?

Wanting to have sex with my wife without having kids makes me promiscuous?

Nice try, but no.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

But the point is that if you cover birth control under insurance, you save money by having fewer pregnancies.

That's fine, though it seems weird that you consider pregnancy an "illness" that people need to be vaccinated against!

The issue is not one of choice, it is oneof compulsion against religious beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to dispense abortifacient drugs to their employees has nothing to do with fewer pregnancies; by definition abortifacients are only used after pregnancy has already occurred.

There are several religious organizations that are perfectly fine with preventive birth control that also are against abortion that have joined the lawsuit against HHS.

[Jon]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

None of you are addressing the important question: did the DNC beat "Honey Boo Boo"?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

None of you are addressing the important question: did the DNC beat "Honey Boo Boo"?

Not in my house.


Now don't that just crack yer yaller?

[bronconick]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

That's fine, though it seems weird that you consider pregnancy an "illness" that people need to be vaccinated against!

The issue is not one of choice, it is oneof compulsion against religious beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to dispense abortifacient drugs to their employees has nothing to do with fewer pregnancies; by definition abortifacients are only used after pregnancy has already occurred.

There are several religious organizations that are perfectly fine with preventive birth control that also are against abortion that have joined the lawsuit against HHS.

*****http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7fyG2TcUNUg/TiVuGtyggsI/AAAAAAAAGNQ/uDbKNivUPGU/s1600/goalposts.jpg******

[unofan]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

That's fine, though it seems weird that you consider pregnancy an "illness" that people need to be vaccinated against!

The issue is not one of choice, it is oneof compulsion against religious beliefs.

Which has what to do with the fact that you were wrong and scooby was right that covering birth control can be a cost savings measure?

If you want to shift the argument, or move the goalposts, fine. But admit you were wrong first.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

None of you are addressing the important question: did the DNC beat "Honey Boo Boo"?

I wouldn't think it would cut into its ratings. Isn't HBB just a Tea Party reality TV show?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Which has what to do with the fact that you were wrong and scooby was right that covering birth control can be a cost savings measure?

If you want to shift the argument, or move the goalposts, fine. But admit you were wrong first.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

That's fine, though it seems weird that you consider pregnancy an "illness" that people need to be vaccinated against!

The issue is not one of choice, it is oneof compulsion against religious beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to dispense abortifacient drugs to their employees has nothing to do with fewer pregnancies; by definition abortifacients are only used after pregnancy has already occurred.

There are several religious organizations that are perfectly fine with preventive birth control that also are against abortion that have joined the lawsuit against HHS.

There's no need to provoke him. He's already shown that he can't hold a good debate.

[SJHovey]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I am of the (probably unpopular) opinion that the conventions showed the true face of the parties and outlines arguably the best relationship between the two.

The DNC was full of positions and solutions to the challenges the country faces. Many of those are govt solutions...but those are not necessarily expensive nor often even costs...often just improvements. These are often updates that just bring us into the 21st century...I wouldn't underestimate countries like Singapore and how in tune they are with the modern global economy. And others such as the use of international diplomacy vs. rhetoric escalation of the right. The RNC was more vague and full of criticism. The media on the right has been largely negative for decades. I am of the opinion that 'right' media has shaped 'conservative' thought towards hyper critical while being less adept at identifying and implementing true solutions to our problems. Now this can be good as it represents a way of policing the actions of the dems who are putting together the solutions and innovating the country.

So the positions of dems is the derivation of solutions and taking action as a party in power. The position of the GOP on the outside is specializing in critical governance to moderate dem activity and help to reduce govt spending. The hope in this dems in power/GOP in police mode is that the GOP successfully reigns Dem spending, that Dems get us to the right govt revenue and that the GOP doesn't stop every solution that the Dems put into place.

What you saw was one convention of a party presently in power, and one convention of a party not in power.

A minority party has a couple of choices. You can go along with being a minority party, achieving small victories here and there, trying to force a compromise from the majority by offering "bipartisan" support in exchange for shaving the sharper edges off of the more unpopular legislation. This is how the general public would probably prefer that the party out of power act, and at various times in our history we've actually seen that occur. The problem, from the minority party standpoint is it can lead to a sense that the legislative branch is actually accomplishing something, and lead to perpetual minority status.

A second option for a minority party is to obstruct. You say the sun comes up in the east, I say it comes up in the west. Whatever you want, I don't want. Thwart the agenda of the executive branch at every turn. As a result, not a lot gets done (not necessarily a terrible outcome), or legislation gets rammed through and then the other party just does everything they can to badmouth it, obstruct it, overturn it, or at a minimum, run against it in the next election.

The Republicans have chosen option 2. Anyone who thinks they're the first and only party to have adopted this tactic is being a bit naive.

When a party takes that approach, politics takes on what looks like a particularily vicious tone, and it appears that one party is offering "solutions" and the other party is offering "attacks." But it's just politics, and that's why politics is a bunch of bs.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The Republicans have chosen option 2. Anyone who thinks they're the first and only party to have adopted this tactic didn't watch the 2004 process.

I'm going to have to do a quick FYP on that one.