DNC

[Masbee]

Republican's are up in arms about an Obama birth certificate, yet they want a Mormon in the White House....

Mormon's think Native American's are of Jewish descendants, they wear holy underwear and didn't let black people in their cult until 1978. I'll pass on Romney. No kool-aid drinking, cult worshipper's as my President. No thanks.

It doesn't make me a bigot. I have Mormon friends, I just think their logic is jaded.

No but it does make SlyPokerDog a bigot.

[maxiep]

Bill Clinton's speech will be more anticipated than President Obama's.

[maxiep]

What I find a little creepy is the convention logo. It's a riff off of the Obama logo. He may be the nominee, but it's not about him. It's about the Democratic Party and the country. It's what the President can do for the people. It's not about President Obama.

Here's the logo (I think the middle silhouette is the President)

[MickZagger]

No but it does make SlyPokerDog a bigot.

Lets not resort to name calling.

I'm not a bigot because I don't want a Mormon in the White House. Does that make all the Tea Party people bigots because they don't want a Mormon in the White House, either?

[MickZagger]

Bill Clinton's speech will be more anticipated than President Obama's.

Clinton was a great President. His speech praising Obama will just be the cherry on top of another term for Obama.

[MickZagger]

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Weird-...ced-by-Mormons

What a trip!

[RoyToy]

Bill Clinton's speech will be more anticipated than President Obama's.

The Democrats have no problem putting their last president before Obama out there(Clinton).

The Republicans would have put George W Bush out there but......oh yeah

George W Bush served two freaking terms and....nothing! He doesn't exist anymore!

[julius]

The Democrats have no problem putting their last president before Obama out there(Clinton).

The Republicans would have put George W Bush out there but......oh yeah

George W Bush served two freaking terms and....nothing! He doesn't exist anymore!

It's interesting to think that Republicans say "quit blaming Bush" (which the amount of they are exaggerating), but they themselves didn't even bother to invite him to the convention.

They totally could've spun things to make him out to be a valuable asset.

Even they know that he was a horrible president whose policies (and wars) put us in the situation we're in. As much as they want to try to blame Obama for it (either by saying his "policies" have ruined America...which they haven't, especially since he hasn't done much, or by saying that things that were not his own doing was his doing), they know what the results would be if they invited or highlighted Bush.

[MARIS61]

Since PapaG wants to talk sand castles and their relationship to Presidential candidates, let's keep this on topic:

http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/201...as-production/


Is Romney Building Sand Castles Based on Fantasy Oil and Gas Production?
August 24, 2012
tags: 2012, oil and gas development, Romney energy plan
by Dan Farber

I posted yesterday about Romney’s energy plan, which makes some remarkable claims about future energy production and its economic benefits. If you look at the sources cited by the campaign to support this plan, the campaign seems to rely heavily on Citigroup report called Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?. A number of their other sources are basically just touting the Citigroup report.

I’m planning to dig into Citigroup’s economic projections more, but there also seem to be real questions about their energy projections. At least, some very credible questions have been raised about their optimistic projections for future energy production. In fact, the report raised some questions even in business circles:

“Whether the report proves prescient or just another starry-eyed fantasy remains to be seen.”

Wall Street Journal

The Oil Drum carefully reviews Citigroup’s projections about future production. The conclusion is that they’re wildly optimistic. Here’s an example:

Source: North Dakota Oil and Gas Agency

Citigroup uses the light blue “possible” line. Basing your planning what you think may be possible is a bit risky, and I have to wonder if they make their own investment decisions and advise their clients on a similarly optimistic basis.

Another key point to see about this graph is that each line shows a decline after the initial surge. This is really a key point. As the Oil Drum p0ints out, the “declining production from existing and future wells that appears to be neglected in the Citigroup study.”

The reason is fairly simple:

Those plays which will yield rapidly in generating high initial well production will, in turn, be the first that decline significantly and need replacement. Yet replacement will, over time, have to be in poorer parts of the formation, requiring that multiple wells replace the initial producer, and so bounds on production will be reached, likely before the end of the decade. Citigroup anticipates that the risks in development of the shale plays, whether in Texas or California, come as much from an inability to transport the oil generated and from environmental policy; they see few geological risks – which is a pity, since it is the geology that will control production and its decline, and the ultimate profitability of these ventures.

[MARIS61]

I couldn't get pics of the enormous Romney look-a-like sand statue that dwarfs this one.

That's because it was built in China by child slave-laborers.

[Denny Crane]

It's interesting to think that Republicans say "quit blaming Bush" (which the amount of they are exaggerating), but they themselves didn't even bother to invite him to the convention.

They totally could've spun things to make him out to be a valuable asset.

Even they know that he was a horrible president whose policies (and wars) put us in the situation we're in. As much as they want to try to blame Obama for it (either by saying his "policies" have ruined America...which they haven't, especially since he hasn't done much, or by saying that things that were not his own doing was his doing), they know what the results would be if they invited or highlighted Bush.

Jeb Bush was one of the speakers at the convention.

Republican presidents seem to honor the long standing tradition that a former president doesn't criticize the current one.

[RoyToy]

Republican presidents seem to honor the long standing tradition that a former president doesn't criticize the current one.

So that means he doesn't even make an appearance? Maybe even make a little speech endorsing Romney? Hmmm.

We both know why he wasn't there. He practically lost McCain the election.

[Denny Crane]

So that means he doesn't even make an appearance? Maybe even make a little speech endorsing Romney? Hmmm.

We both know why he wasn't there. He practically lost McCain the election.

I don't think so.

GHW Bush didn't speak at W's 2000 convention either.

Reagan spoke at the 1988 convention, but there was no sitting opposing party president at that time.

[RoyToy]

And I wonder why Reagam spoke. Hmmm.

HW didn't serve two terms like his son did. Two freaking terms! And now he no longer exists!

[julius]

I don't think so.

GHW Bush didn't speak at W's 2000 convention either.

Reagan spoke at the 1988 convention, but there was no sitting opposing party president at that time.

Papa Bush didn't speak at the 2000 convention because he hadn't been president for 8 years. Bush was just president 4 years ago.

[Denny Crane]

GHW is a former president, period.

[3RA1N1AC]

[julius]

GHW is a former president, period.

yeah, but we're tlaking about the last president that not only THEY had (in their party) but the last guy PERIOD who was President.

[RoyToy]

G.W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Colin Powell

John McCain
Sarah Palin

All absent!

Why?!?!?!?!

2000-Jan 20, 2009 doesn't exist!

[julius]

McCain was there.

[Denny Crane]

yeah, but we're tlaking about the last president that not only THEY had (in their party) but the last guy PERIOD who was President.

And republican presidents respect the office, so they don't make political appearances or publicly criticize Obama (or Clinton when he was in office).

[Denny Crane]

G.W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Colin Powell

John McCain
Sarah Palin

All absent!

Why?!?!?!?!

2000-Jan 20, 2009 doesn't exist!

Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice both made speeches.

[julius]

And republican presidents respect the office, so they don't make political appearances or publicly criticize Obama (or Clinton when he was in office).

So you're saying that GW Bush was incapable of showing respect to the office?

[Denny Crane]

So you're saying that GW Bush was incapable of showing respect to the office?

No. Parse English much?

[RoyToy]

Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice both made speeches.

Jeb Bush isn't the former president that served two terms and the most recent past president. I don't know why you keep going to this.

Condoleeza Rice is a great person for the Republicans and Romney to throw out there being an African-American woman. Appeals to two demographics that they're desperately trying to tap into.

People are carefully chosen to be at these things. Like you mentioned, the Republicans went to Reagan in 1988 because Republicans go apeshit over Reagan. It's pretty much the same reason why Bill Clinton is always at these things.

And it's why people like George W Bush and Dick Chaney aren't there. It's probably not smart to invite a guy that had that kind of approval rating he did.

Obama was able to paint McCain as another Bush and it's a big reason why he won big in 2008. Romney wants no part of that.