Republican National Convention '08

sleepyjeff · 09-02-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

That may have been the original point, but I believe Scaeagles was responding to my point, and I to his. (Seeings how the thread has gone all over the place, I don't think anyone could accuse me of straying off-topic). If you'd like to get back on the topic of media bias, by all means do so, but you started it by asserting that "most" Americans voted for Bush and that anyone who didn't wasn't a moderate.

When do we ever stay not stray off topic

Actually, I did not assert that anyone who didn't vote for Bush was not a moderate but that anyone who found the mere thought of voting for him repugnant wasn't a moderate. A true moderate would have been torn between voting for Bush or Kerry or in the very least would have considered for a moment a vote for Bush....that's all I am saying.

JWBear · 09-02-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

When do we ever stay not stray off topic

Actually, I did not assert that anyone who didn't vote for Bush was not a moderate but that anyone who found the mere thought of voting for him repugnant wasn't a moderate. A true moderate would have been torn between voting for Bush or Kerry or in the very least would have considered for a moment a vote for Bush....that's all I am saying.

Not at all. There are candidates in both parties that I would never vote for. I guess you could call me an independent moderate, as I find the idea of blindly voting on straight party lines to be repugnant.

BDBopper · 09-02-2008, 05:57 PM

In watcing the Democratic convention last week and watching the Republican Convention right now I can't help but notice a subtle difference.

Both of these events have a lot of speakers. and since the rest of the media doesn't care to show gavel-to-gavel coverage so I watch on C-SPAN. Last week when lower-billed speakers were addressing the convention it seemed that not many people were paying attention, except for the delegation they were representing. I could tell cause I could hear the talking through the hall and the lack of applause at times when I expected to hear it.

I am noticing the complete opposite during the RNC. Even the least important speakers are getting the full attention of the delegates and full applause.

I noticed this same subtle difference in 2004 as well and it still strikes me odd. I wonder what the reason is?

Another shock was the RNC had a tribute video to their members who had passed in the past four years. I expected Jesse Helms to get the biggest applaise. However there was bigger applause for Charles Norwood (GA-10) and the biggest applause by far was for Tony Snow. I was pleasantly surprised.

09-02-2008, 05:57 PM	#3
BDBopper Not Taking Any Crap! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Cleaning Up America, One Step At A Time! Posts: 1,694	In watcing the Democratic convention last week and watching the Republican Convention right now I can't help but notice a subtle difference. Both of these events have a lot of speakers. and since the rest of the media doesn't care to show gavel-to-gavel coverage so I watch on C-SPAN. Last week when lower-billed speakers were addressing the convention it seemed that not many people were paying attention, except for the delegation they were representing. I could tell cause I could hear the talking through the hall and the lack of applause at times when I expected to hear it. I am noticing the complete opposite during the RNC. Even the least important speakers are getting the full attention of the delegates and full applause. I noticed this same subtle difference in 2004 as well and it still strikes me odd. I wonder what the reason is? Another shock was the RNC had a tribute video to their members who had passed in the past four years. I expected Jesse Helms to get the biggest applaise. However there was bigger applause for Charles Norwood (GA-10) and the biggest applause by far was for Tony Snow. I was pleasantly surprised.
	Submit to Quotes