stupid Convention parties

**clio** · 07-30-2004, 08:52 PM

Conventions are kind of lame. We already know who's going to the party's nominee and the running mate as well.

Anyway, I guess I'm complaining because of the stupid DNC that just wrapped up last night.

First off, they have to close a major interstate highway just because it goes by the Fleet Center? Ugh! So there wasn't a major travel headache until last night trying to get into Chinatown. 45 minutes to go 4 miles. SIGH.

For the most part, the traffic wasn't bad because EVERYONE LEFT TOWN. Where are the millions that Mayor Menino et. al. promised the city in revenue? Talk about millions spent on security and millions lost in revenue for local businesses. Some restaurants were emtpy since everyone left town.

I work at a restaurant and we've had a phenomenal summer considering we're slower summers on the North Shore. But this week was just depressing and BORING.

And my relatives on the Cape say that business down there was booming this week.

All a waste of time in my book...

**Spathiphyllum** · 07-30-2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by clio
Conventions are kind of lame. We already know who's going to the party's nominee and the running mate as well.

All a waste of time in my book...

Well, we seem to be living in curious times. The conventions used to serve a purpose but now, I'm with you... they're a huge waste of time. It would appear that the parties require a top candidate so early in the election process that the conventions are just an exercise in gross partisanship. Our methods of communication are so superior than what was available so long ago that these meetings are now silly. What message is a candidate really going to present? What true debate goes on? What non-rhetorical platform will end up being exercised? I'm afraid my cynicism clouds any sentiment of usefulness of a convention.

**Ron** · 07-30-2004, 10:42 PM

Blame the people who picked the STUPID location for the problems.

In this day and age, who the he!! picks a spot that sits at the intersection of multiple major roads and transportation systems?

It'll be bad enough in NY as I believe the site is above a rail station, but the selection of Boston, and most specificalyl the Fleet Center was a huge mistake.

Don't blame the security folks for having to shut down the roads to keep the Convention safe. They did what they felt they had to do. A tractor trailer could have hauled an 80,000 pound bomb up to the edge of the fleet on the highway.

(I've posted about this around here before)

We spent 15 BILLION dollars to build that roadway, with the reasoning that without it traffic would come to a halt in Boston, and that the economics of the region were dependent upon the flow of traffic through the "Central Artery". One third of the 15 Billion was spent on, get this, noise abatement and traffic remediation -- keeping the traffic flowing during construction!!! $5 Billion wasted! Why not just shut down the city for a few hours every day?

Then OUR mayor has the guts to bring a convention to town that shuts that very road down completely for most of 4 days, saying it will be a benefit to the economy? And the sheep believed him? Why on earth would a convention midweek in Boston in July-- when tourists and normal business normally fill the hotels-- be good for the economy?

It was a platform for Mayor Menino to get national exposure and network with the pahhhhty bigwigs. Even Governor Romney went into the tank for the Mayor (who now owes Romney BIG TIME) and moved the contract stuff into mediation, and the mediator immediately invoked his right to send it to binding arbitration in 3 days. 3 Days! What a bag job!

There are not two parties, there are just two wings of the same party. It's time for a change.... and I have the beginnings of a plan! All I need now is a Billionaire to carry it off!

**Spathiphyllum** · 07-30-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Ron
All I need now is a Billionaire to carry it off!

I'd suggest Soros but that freak is already taken. The Socialists/Communists got to him first. Oh, you meant the other way? Well, Perot might still be available.

**clio** · 07-31-2004, 09:31 AM

Yeah but they could have put it in the new South Boston Convention center, AWAY from the highway and away from businesses. It's mostly offices there and no one lives there unlike the North End. Besides the new place would have been much bigger.

It was originally intended for Southie but they figured they couldn't setup in time after MacWorld. Rubbish. Macworld wa soooo tiny (sniff).

I doubt it's going to be as bad in New York Ron. They not even closing Penn Station, which is right there too! And they only closing several city blocks as opposed to averting an entire highway.

THe only reason the highway needed to be closed was because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Republican controlled, ehem) said so. Conspiracy theories anyone? Some say they feds did it to piss Bostonians & Dems off. Yeah, well it worked! I'm mad!

**Spathiphyllum** · 07-31-2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by clio
THe only reason the highway needed to be closed was because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Republican controlled, ehem) said so. Conspiracy theories anyone? Some say they feds did it to piss Bostonians & Dems off...

Yes, there were no Democrats in Boston. The convention wasn't really there but was in San Francisco. The Republicans shut down the highway for the wrong reasons. They misled us, no they lied to us. It was all a diversion so that we wouldn't think about the real convention.

PS -

**Ron** · 07-31-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by clio
THe only reason the highway needed to be closed was because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Republican controlled, ehem) said so.

You really need to go and look at what all of our local public safety people had to say about the security-- not one said it was overkill -NOT ONE- and I think there are a few Dems among them.

Don't you think the mayor would be raising Cain if he thought there was overkill and the GOP was closing Boston for political reasons?

Gimme a break, Julie....I hope you were typing tounge-in-cheek

Hey I just realized we need a new coloquialism for tounge-in-cheek to refer to typing.....

How about nail-on-finger? or Bone-in-finger? Finger-under-nail? Yeah, that's it!

I hope you were typing finger-under-nail(tm) on that one.

**Spathiphyllum** · 07-31-2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Ron
...new coloquialism for tounge-in-cheek to refer to typing...
How about nail-on-finger? or Bone-in-finger? Finger-under-nail? Yeah, that's it!

Not fingertip-in-hand?

**Ron** · 07-31-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Spathiphyllum
Not fingertip-in-hand?

Elbow-in-ear?

**Spathiphyllum** · 07-31-2004, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Ron
Elbow-in-ear?

Head-up-nevermind...

Spathiphyllum inserted emoticon

**Df_Gamer** · 07-31-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Ron
You really need to go and look at what all of our local public safety people had to say about the security-- not one said it was overkill -NOT ONE- and I think there are a few Dems among them.

Does anyone really think there was security at the DNC?

**Ron** · 07-31-2004, 09:59 PM

Hmmm, if you mean anything other than the face value of your statement, I don't know what it is.

Was there "security"? Well, the anarchists couldn't get near, and nobody was murdered and the place didn't blow up, and there were no WMD found and/or used. Festivities weren't interrupted or hampered. Planes didn't fly into the Fleet Center...

Nobody put a little boat filled with explosives next to it, no truck bombs blew up, nobody launched any RPGs into the Green Line/Zone.

Seems like it was a pretty safe place to be. Unless you were the guy responsible for dropping the balloons.

*Cheap shot coming*
The Dems can't even get a balloon drop going -- and they think they can prosecute a war? Without Halliburton?

**Df_Gamer** · 07-31-2004, 11:33 PM

LOL good one.

Also, glad to see you acknowledge Halliburton's interest as the driving force behind this war...(is that what you meant?)

The reality must be that no terrorist threat existed in regards to the DNC. If a threat existed, certainly the massive security efforts would have uncovered it.

If a threat was uncovered, people should have been informed so each one could have made an informed decision about attending the convention.

Simple logic indicates there was no threat. Honestly, I think the average person has become complacent regarding terrorism within the U.S.

The massive effort needed to restore New York awakened the patriotic spirit in many people for a short period of time.

If terrorists really wanted to strike fear into the American people, I believe it would best be achieved by striking small targets in random locations -- the D.C. sniper is a fair example but there are many better ways.

I won't get more specific because one of the things I consider too stupid for words is the discussion of targets by the media.

**lokki** · 08-01-2004, 12:01 AM

See, that's the thing about security, Df...

If it's good, you don't really know it.

You have a military background. You should be painfully aware that good security means nothing happens, not that a plot is discovered, or a subversive captured. Good security is proactive, and a reasonably smart enemy knows this.

Look at how our losses were incurred - somebody got too close, and somebody else had to let them.

You've made some decent arguments in the past, but this isn't one of them.