|
ryan77
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: October 06, 2008, 10:58:50 AM » |
|
So you would hire an incompotent president because his beliefs are closer to yours? Come on Ahk, we can make the same arguments all day. First of all, this whole argument about experience - on either the Palin side or the Obama side - is a completely bogus an entirely dumb argument that only distracts voters from the real issues. I mean the whole argument is stupid. It really is. The word "experience" means nothing at all. You have to know what "kind" of experience a person has. And if the argument is Sarah Palin is more experienced than Barack Obama because she has executive experience and he does not, than you are also arguing that Sarah Palin is more experienced than John McCain who also has zero executive experience. So that's clearly a dumb argument. And you can run around all day long between the 3 of them.... -McCain & Obama both have more legislative experience than Palin. -Palin has more executive experience than both McCain & Obama. -McCain has more military experience than Palin & Obama. -Obama has more grass roots organization experience than both Palin & McCain. -Palin has more mayorial experience than both Obama & McCain. And guess what? "I" have more experience with the mortgage industry and how it relates to the current economic crisis than all 3 of them combined. Does that mean I am more qualified to be President or more qualified to turn the economy around??? Of course not, and nobody would ever suggest it does, but that's exactly what's going on with all this talk of "experience" and who has "more" of it. It's just stupid political tactics used to try and get more votes and nothing else. They can throw around these dumb arguments all day, but we the people shouldn't buy into it. They all 3 have enough of the minimum required experience to occupy the positions they are seeking. And no one person's experience is any "better" than another's, just different. End of story. When they get up and lie every day? Like Obama doesn't lie? Like any of them don't? You've tried to make this argument before, and I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't fly. First and foremost, you are clearly arguing from a "Two Wrongs Make A Right" position which even a 6-year-old can tell you is incorrect. Saying McCain's disinformation campaign to intentional misinform voters by habitually repeating long-discredited lies over and over and over again makes McCain no worse than Obama because Obama "has lied" before in the past is just flat wrong and false. Because you keep repeating this falsehood, it makes me wonder if you have been listening to McCain too much. Under your logic, anyone who lies is just as bad as anyone else who lies. Well, since every single person the country either lies regularly or has lied before in the past, then everybody in the nation is just as bad as the worst liar in the nation. In other words, someone who steals someone elses identity, or a con-artists, or someone who commits purjury is no worse than you, I, or anyone else who has ever lied. As you can see, the argument just doesn't hold up. I know it's popular, especially when it's your guy whose doing the lying, to say "Well, all politicians lie" but the truth (no pun intended) is that there are varying degrees of severity when it comes to lying. Mitt Romney said he was an avid hunter but state records showed he has never in his entire life purchased a hunting license (which you have to purchase every single year) during any year of his life to hunt anything. Well, clearly he was lying. But I could care less. It was a pretty small lie, it was something he just said that one time, and it's not something a person could honestly use to make a character judgement about the guy. Then there's people like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon who broke the federal laws of our country by lying under oath and committing perjury. Now are you really going to put those lies in the same category as Mitt Romney's hunting lie and say one is no worse than they other? Of course not. Well, the same indentical principal applies to McCain and Obama. All lying is NOT equal. I'm sorry. is no worse than Obama is simply false. that because Obama has lied, Obama clearly knows what he's talking about? Yeah right. He clearly has advisors just like the rest of them. Several advisors. Palin did what they asked her to do. They wanted her to connect with middle america and keep it simple. I'm not saying she's a rocket scientist but she did what they asked. [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
|
« Reply #76 on: October 06, 2008, 11:40:08 AM » |
|
Lie and you know it. Not arguing it. Anyone who is going to argue Abu Gharib as a set of 'isolated incidents' that have nothing to do with the admin -- well suffice to say we're going to disagree. Fair enough. What do you think is going to happen should McCain get in? Abortion will become illegal? Think again. I've never advocated abortion being illegal.....just infanticide. Obama will appoint a more liberal judge than McCain.....what do you think would have happened to the DC gun ban verdict with one or two more Ginsbergs? Yes Patton. Republican lies at the moment and over the past 8 years are much more "lie" and much worse for the country and the planet than democrats. No denial of Democrat lies....just some kind of personal litmus test.....OK. I like your animation tho. I think the party has started. (I wonder why Hillary is riding shotgun and Michelle is in the backseat tho...) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 11:48:03 AM by Patton »
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2008, 12:35:29 PM » |
|
No denial of Democrat lies....just some kind of personal litmus test.....OK. Yes well dismiss it all you like but a lie that causes 300-3000 deaths is different than a lie about something that isn't really anyone's business and isn't going to hurt anyone. Saying Obama pals around with terrorists; that he's a muslim, etc., then all their little forum minons running out to dutifully propagate the lie IS worse than insinuating McCain will only give taxes to the rich, etc....then there are all the lies about Obama's supposed "attacks". Getting up and telling a congressional jury 79 times that "I don't recall", is worse than denying you slept around on your wife. Yes it is. Not a personal litmus test, ISThe Republicans are in full lie mode and it is head and shoulders above the rest. Calling it "my personal litmus test" might fly on this forum Patton but I know you know better. Obama will appoint a more liberal judge than McCain.....what do you think would have happened to the DC gun ban verdict with one or two more Ginsbergs? Um. You'll get entrenched in a war that lasts longer than WWII and costs you who-really-knows-how-many-billion? C'mon. Get real about where the Republicans are really at and just how bloody low they've sunk your country in 8 years. (even with all that "experience"). Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 12:40:51 PM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crystal
Full Member
Karma: +9/-14
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #78 on: October 06, 2008, 02:11:52 PM » |
|
If he's so incompetent then why is it that Palin can't string 12 words together that stay on topic or even make sense She did sound stupid in the interviews, I agree, however, she got better for the debate with Biden. She isn't a stupid woman, just comes across as more simple and relateable to the "average joe". That's how they want her to do it. She still needs to learn more but Obama has had more time with advisers than she has. Argue all you want but that's the way I see it. Mr.Experience", McCain thinks the economy is basically sound or that regulatory practices are communist? Was he competent when he hired Palin? The problem wasn't the idea to pull back the regulations, the problem was greedy people who took advantage of it and then the implementation of more loans for lower income people. There were still regulators who checked all this out and either tried to say something and got slammed or stayed quiet because of the pressure to keep up the faulty loans. I would like you to take a hard look at the substance behind Palin's latest "Obama the terrorist" lie and then challenge you to find an Obama camp lie that even comes close. Remember now, she claims he "pals around with Terrorists." Like I said a while back, it's like trying to compare a president who lies about having an affair as opposed to lying about Iran/Contra. To think of those two lies as 'equal' shows a huge lack of judgment, imo. A bias one in fact. How is it a lie that he had associations with questionable people? It happened, it's out there and she is remarking on it the same way that people bring up McCain's past. They have asked her to be a bulldog now. Just like Biden is for Obama. I don't like the attacks, they only cause emotional responses from people and bring out anger but there is truth to this one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crystal
Full Member
Karma: +9/-14
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #79 on: October 06, 2008, 02:35:37 PM » |
|
They are nothing close to the same as Crystal claims. The lies perpetrated by the McCain camp are often of whole cloth and compleat invention with the sole intention of deception and misrepresentation. The comparisons of the level of lying aren't even apples and oranges they are more like peas and watermelons. Crystal uses the old tired line ..."they are all the same they all lie ...so I will vote for the pig"...This logic escapes me. They are NOT all the same ...it isn't a close call. I can't see how anyone can justify a vote for McCain unless they are making over $250,000 a year, they are greedy and self serving as hell ,they love war and they don't care what happens to the country. Clearly Crystal is hiding other motivating factors... her arguments as reveled so far here are too weak to make up anyones mind. Why not come clean Crystal and tell us the real reasons you are voting McCain.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I will vote for McCain/Palin based ONLY on his record? Look, you want to believe what Obama says and that's fine but I would rather let the facts speak for themselves. As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle, he has a track record for cutting excess spending, he has a track record of standing up to his own party. Obama does not have much of a record to look at and what he has done, I don't agree with. He has moved closer to the middle for this election but all the facts show him being on the far left. I don't make my decision based on how well a person speaks or how much they promise change. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #80 on: October 06, 2008, 02:39:55 PM » |
|
How is it a lie that he had associations with questionable people? I'm sorry - is "associations" the word Palin used? Is "questionable people" the word Palin used? Then we're not talking about the same thing. It simply proves my point when you have to tone it down and completely change what they actually said before you can argue with me as to whether or not what they said is a lie. It proves my point right there. It's a lie. That's why you have to change what they said before you can argue that it isn't a lie. Obama was asked, "Would you meet Iranian leaders without any preconditions" - this means without insisting on preconditions before the meeting. The people you claim represent your beliefs lied and said he would meet them "unconditionally", as in "under any circumstance". This is also a lie. People like to try and play dumb and pretend - "Oh what lie? No preconditions is the same as unconditionally" which it isn't, but that fact notwithstanding, if it means the same thing, then why not quote directly? Why change what Obama said? I'll tell you why: So they can lie - again. It' really all they have now. Bring me one Republican argument against Obama that doesn't contain a lie. The problem wasn't the idea to pull back the regulations, the problem was greedy people who took advantage of it and then the implementation of more loans for lower income people. There were still regulators who checked all this out and either tried to say something and got slammed or stayed quiet because of the pressure to keep up the faulty loans.
We're not arguing about the problem, we're arguing the fact that McCain hasn't the foggiest notion despite all your claims that he has more experience and your hopeful pretensions that Obama 'doesn't know what he's talking about' - which he does. She did sound stupid in the interviews, I agree, however, she got better for the debate with Biden. Then you had your TV set on mute. She babbled through the entire thing. If you think that all she has to be is "cute" then you go right ahead and vote for her, but don't tell us it's because "she's a strong woman". Clinton is a strong woman and she scares the hell outta Republican men. Palin plays like a cheerleader or an obediant wife. But I think you knew you were voting McCain long before Palin showed up. As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle No he doesn't. He's a Bushie plain and simple. I don't know what record you're talking about but the one that exists in the real world proves that. He's out there today claiming all this attacking the other candidate for personal connections is wrong but we all know that's an obvious lie as well....as if he isn't in charge of what Palin says. She isn't a stupid woman, just comes across as more simple and relateable to the "average joe". That's how they want her to do it. This is why you voted in Bush 4 years ago. Now he's the most hated president since Nixon. When are you Republicans going to stand up and first ADMIT COMPLETELY THAT YOU SCREWED UP ROYAL, THAT MAYBE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT MIGHT NOT BE SO RIGHT AND THAT THIS SILLY NOTION THAT VOTING FOR THE GUY NEXT DOOR IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS INHERENTLY FLAWED? Admit you were wrong and maybe we could take you seriously. Until then I guess I'd have to conclude that lying and stubborn pride and faith in ignorance is the "Belief" system that you share with McCain. Why not just admit you couldn't care less one way or another and that you never have and never will vote Democratic even if the heavens opened and Jesus himself begged you to. Quit with the "our Beliefs" crap. All you Republicans just dance around acting like you aren't just as responsible for the last 8 years as anyone is and that some how you're still "right" is frankly vomit inducing. Sorry but it's true....as opposed to false which is all that comes back from you people. Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 02:51:23 PM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crystal
Full Member
Karma: +9/-14
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #81 on: October 06, 2008, 02:52:23 PM » |
|
First of all, this whole argument about experience - on either the Palin side or the Obama side - is a completely bogus an entirely dumb argument that only distracts voters from the real issues. It's true that experience can be twisted to mean many things, but you can't dismiss it just because you want to. There are areas of experience that can greatly benefit a person who is seeking the highest office in the country. To say otherwise shows a lack in good judgement. When they get up and lie every day? Like Obama doesn't lie? Like any of them don't? You've tried to make this argument before, and I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't fly. First and foremost, you are clearly arguing from a "Two Wrongs Make A Right" position which even a 6-year-old can tell you is incorrect. You and I have been around this block together already. I don't like the lies, attacks or any of the negative things coming out of this campaign from either side. Again, I have to look at the facts and records and size up McCain against Obama and not get too caught up in the "he said, she said" crap. It only causes confusion and emotion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crystal
Full Member
Karma: +9/-14
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #82 on: October 06, 2008, 06:01:30 PM » |
|
I'm sorry - is "associations" the word Palin used? Is "questionable people" the word Palin used? Then we're not talking about the same thing. It simply proves my point when you have to tone it down and completely change what they actually said before you can argue with me as to whether or not what they said is a lie.
It proves my point right there. It's a lie. That's why you have to change what they said before you can argue that it isn't a lie. Well, I didn't have her words in front of me to quote her verbatim but the message is the same. He has made bad choices for his "associations" in the past. I know, I know, he denounced all of them and you believe him. No problem. Obama was asked, "Would you meet Iranian leaders without any preconditions" - this means without insisting on preconditions before the meeting. The people you claim represent your beliefs lied and said he would meet them "unconditionally", as in "under any circumstance". This is also a lie. People like to try and play dumb and pretend - "Oh what lie? No preconditions is the same as unconditionally" which it isn't, but that fact notwithstanding, if it means the same thing, then why not quote directly? Why change what Obama said? Read and learn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016.htmlWe're not arguing about the problem, we're arguing the fact that McCain hasn't the foggiest notion despite all your claims that he has more experience and your hopeful pretensions that Obama 'doesn't know what he's talking about' - which he does. Yawn, McCain was on to the problems a few years ago (long before Obama). You want to dismiss that but the facts are the facts. She did sound stupid in the interviews, I agree, however, she got better for the debate with Biden. Then you had your TV set on mute. She babbled through the entire thing. If you think that all she has to be is "cute" then you go right ahead and vote for her, but don't tell us it's because "she's a strong woman". Clinton is a strong woman and she scares the hell outta Republican men. Palin plays like a cheerleader or an obediant wife.
But I think you knew you were voting McCain long before Palin showed up. Because a woman comes across as cute or a good wife and mother DOES NOT mean she isn't strong or smart. Do you live in the stone age? Women come in all different packages. As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle No he doesn't. He's a Bushie plain and simple. I don't know what record you're talking about but the one that exists in the real world proves that. He's out there today claiming all this attacking the other candidate for personal connections is wrong but we all know that's an obvious lie as well....as if he isn't in charge of what Palin says. No he doesn't? Just because you say so? I wish I could make that work for me. I looked at voting records from a government website. You should try it sometimes. I'm sure McCain has all the time in the world to tell Palin what to say. Not. That would be the job of the advisers. Say it with me, A-d-v-i-s-e-r-s. When are you Republicans going to stand up and first ADMIT COMPLETELY THAT YOU SCREWED UP ROYAL, THAT MAYBE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT MIGHT NOT BE SO RIGHT AND THAT THIS SILLY NOTION THAT VOTING FOR THE GUY NEXT DOOR IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS INHERENTLY FLAWED?
Admit you were wrong and maybe we could take you seriously. Until then I guess I'd have to conclude that lying and stubborn pride and faith in ignorance is the "Belief" system that you share with McCain. Why not just admit you couldn't care less one way or another and that you never have and never will vote Democratic even if the heavens opened and Jesus himself begged you to. Quit with the "our Beliefs" crap. Now your just getting pathetic. I could care less if you take me seriously or not. How else do you choose a president other than going with the ticket that best fits your beliefs? You are rude and idiotic. Enough said. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ryan77
|
|
« Reply #83 on: October 06, 2008, 08:41:02 PM » |
|
The problem wasn't the idea to pull back the regulations, the problem was greedy people who took advantage of it and then the implementation of more loans for lower income people. There were still regulators who checked all this out and either tried to say something and got slammed or stayed quiet because of the pressure to keep up the faulty loans. I just wanted to comment on this one statement because it is a fairly common false assumption and I want to make sure I do everything I can to correct it because I think it's important. "Lower income" borrowers are no more likely to default on their mortgages than "high income" homeowners. The amount of income someone earns per month or per year has nothing to do with their ability to repay a mortgage and isn't even taken into consideration when underwriting a home loan. The only thing that matters is a person's Debt-To-Income Ratio (DTI). In other words, it's not how much a person "makes", it's how much they "keep". Wouldn't you rather give a home loan to a person who makes $2,000 per month but only spends $500 than to someone who makes $20,000 per month but spends $21,000??? In fact, when it comes to total income earned, if anything, it's just the opposite of what you might think. The foreclosure rate for borrowers with total gross annual household incomes of under $25,000 actually have the lowest NOD's (Notice of Default) of any borrowing group. Borrowers with gross monthly household incomes of between $200,000 and $400,000 annually have some of the highest recorded cases of NOD's. Why? People making under $25k usually have low-skill, low pay, hourly wage jobs. The kind of jobs that are quickly and easily replaced if there's ever an employment problem. Also, because they don't earn much, they can't qualify for a lot of other types of credit that could compromise their ability to make their mortgage payment. Of course this isn't always true, but as a general rule of thumb, the more simple a person's job and finances, the less likely they will end up losing their home to foreclosure. The more uncommon a person's employment & income, and the more complex a person's finances, the more risky the loan. The reason I think it's important is the false claim that "low income" borrowers present a greater risk to lenders is one that has been used many times in the past to mask the practice of "redlining" and housing discrimination against minorities. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crystal
Full Member
Karma: +9/-14
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #84 on: October 06, 2008, 09:29:16 PM » |
|
The problem wasn't the idea to pull back the regulations, the problem was greedy people who took advantage of it and then the implementation of more loans for lower income people. There were still regulators who checked all this out and either tried to say something and got slammed or stayed quiet because of the pressure to keep up the faulty loans. I just wanted to comment on this one statement because it is a fairly common false assumption and I want to make sure I do everything I can to correct it because I think it's important. "Lower income" borrowers are no more likely to default on their mortgages than "high income" homeowners. The amount of income someone earns per month or per year has nothing to do with their ability to repay a mortgage and isn't even taken into consideration when underwriting a home loan. The only thing that matters is a person's Debt-To-Income Ratio (DTI). In other words, it's not how much a person "makes", it's how much they "keep". Wouldn't you rather give a home loan to a person who makes $2,000 per month but only spends $500 than to someone who makes $20,000 per month but spends $21,000??? In fact, when it comes to total income earned, if anything, it's just the opposite of what you might think. The foreclosure rate for borrowers with total gross annual household incomes of under $25,000 actually have the lowest NOD's (Notice of Default) of any borrowing group. Borrowers with gross monthly household incomes of between $200,000 and $400,000 annually have some of the highest recorded cases of NOD's. Why? People making under $25k usually have low-skill, low pay, hourly wage jobs. The kind of jobs that are quickly and easily replaced if there's ever an employment problem. Also, because they don't earn much, they can't qualify for a lot of other types of credit that could compromise their ability to make their mortgage payment. Of course this isn't always true, but as a general rule of thumb, the more simple a person's job and finances, the less likely they will end up losing their home to foreclosure. The more uncommon a person's employment & income, and the more complex a person's finances, the more risky the loan. The reason I think it's important is the false claim that "low income" borrowers present a greater risk to lenders is one that has been used many times in the past to mask the practice of "redlining" and housing discrimination against minorities. Your right. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
easybreezy
Newbie
Karma: +0/-1
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2008, 10:19:15 PM » |
|
She performed well than I expected but then, she kept dodging questions and kept trying to tie them down to Alaska and her being a soccer mom. That's not a substantiated debater.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #86 on: October 07, 2008, 04:47:54 AM » |
|
I'm sorry - is "associations" the word Palin used? Is "questionable people" the word Palin used? Then we're not talking about the same thing. It simply proves my point when you have to tone it down and completely change what they actually said before you can argue with me as to whether or not what they said is a lie.
It proves my point right there. It's a lie. That's why you have to change what they said before you can argue that it isn't a lie. Well, I didn't have her words in front of me to quote her verbatim but the message is the same. He has made bad choices for his "associations" in the past. I know, I know, he denounced all of them and you believe him. No problem. No. The message is not the same. She did not say he made bad choices. She claims he pals around with terrorists. It's a plain lie. Besides your hero Palin has attended numerous Alaska Independence meetings, which I'm sure you would claim was treasonist if it was a democrat but since it's her I'm sure you only find it "interesting". Her husband was a member for years and years. How does that fit with her BS about "A guy who seems to think the US is so imperfect"...blah blah blah? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Obama was asked, "Would you meet Iranian leaders without any preconditions" - this means without insisting on preconditions before the meeting. The people you claim represent your beliefs lied and said he would meet them "unconditionally", as in "under any circumstance". This is also a lie. People like to try and play dumb and pretend - "Oh what lie? No preconditions is the same as unconditionally" which it isn't, but that fact notwithstanding, if it means the same thing, then why not quote directly? Why change what Obama said? Read and learn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016.htmlRead what and learn? You did not address my point. I addressed the lie in the difference between "without precondition" and "unconditionally". It's not the same. Now what is it exactly you think I need learnin' in there Crystal? You give me a (1) opinion piece that says Obama meeting with these leaders without precondition is a bad idea. So what? This doesn't address my point. It doesn't change the lie the sharers in your "belief system" need to propagate. As far as the article goes it's a big "so what"? Shall I bring forward the myriad of articles written about bush and his refusal to talk with Iran? Please try and address the subject, or at least if you don't then don't try and act like you're "teaching" me something  We're not arguing about the problem, we're arguing the fact that McCain hasn't the foggiest notion despite all your claims that he has more experience and your hopeful pretensions that Obama 'doesn't know what he's talking about' - which he does. Yawn, McCain was on to the problems a few years ago (long before Obama). You want to dismiss that but the facts are the facts. LOL! How do you do that? How do you just 'say anything' like that and hope it'll fly? No Crystal McCain was not onto the problem years ago. Years ago he was speaking against regulatory practices and it's you who needs to throw her hands over her ears and ignore what the man plainly said just last week. Those are the facts Crystal. Here are some more facts you need to ignore: The Verdict: True. McCain did push to delay regulations that would have cracked down on savings-and-loans practices and intervened on Keating's behalf, although he was cleared of wrongdoing in the "Keating Five" case. Yeah. McCain knew about it years ago ...McCain our savour....McCain the straight-talker...McCain the mavrick who's going to change Washington. . Why not just quit pretending you care about facts? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/fact-check-did-mccain-intervene-on-behalf-of-charles-keating/She did sound stupid in the interviews, I agree, however, she got better for the debate with Biden. Then you had your TV set on mute. She babbled through the entire thing. If you think that all she has to be is "cute" then you go right ahead and vote for her, but don't tell us it's because "she's a strong woman". Clinton is a strong woman and she scares the hell outta Republican men. Palin plays like a cheerleader or an obediant wife.
But I think you knew you were voting McCain long before Palin showed up. Because a woman comes across as cute or a good wife and mother DOES NOT mean she isn't strong or smart. Do you live in the stone age? Women come in all different packages. Don't fucking accuse me of sexism. It's you republicans who can't accept a woman who's actually intelligent and instead can only accept a woman who's playing "good wife". Don't even start Crystal. In a nutshell women hate her and men love her so don't start with the sexist crap. That's you. That's the party that stands for your belief system. You are the one in the stone age. As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle No he doesn't. He's a Bushie plain and simple. I don't know what record you're talking about but the one that exists in the real world proves that. He's out there today claiming all this attacking the other candidate for personal connections is wrong but we all know that's an obvious lie as well....as if he isn't in charge of what Palin says. No he doesn't? Just because you say so? I wish I could make that work for me. I looked at voting records from a government website. You should try it sometimes. I'm sure McCain has all the time in the world to tell Palin what to say. Not. That would be the job of the advisers. Say it with me, A-d-v-i-s-e-r-s. This is rich. You go on and on on another thread about how McCain isn't Bush and I AM THE ONE who had to point out to you he isn't alone and that it's the same party. Now you tell me it's all advisers. What a load of shit. You go ahead and believe them then Crystal. Obviouisly you are the second most naive person on earth if you think there's nothing weird about McCain saying he won't get on the opponents associations and then Palin does it. it's a classic double speak. If you don't think that each of them have this good-cop/bad-cop thing planned then you're too naive for words, but I guess that explains why it works on "folks" like you. Now your just getting pathetic. I could care less if you take me seriously or not. How else do you choose a president other than going with the ticket that best fits your beliefs? You are rude and idiotic. Enough said. Yeah whatever. How else? How about by track record? They feed you crap for 8 years and you're going to elect them again based on your weak and naive "they are closer to my belief system" crap. They cheated you once, twice and now you're going to vote them in again....not because you're even thinking about it but because you wouldn't vote anything other than Republican no matter what, and because you obviously hate your country. That's pathetic. Even now as it's all coming down around you you still think they are the messiah. Well go ahead. Screw up your country as much as you can....after all you're so far gone now I'm sure you are able to blame anything on the democrats when the dust settles. (sigh) Whatever Crystal. You seem probably ok. At a different time we might've gotten along. I'm not really out to fight with you. This'll be my last response to you. Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 07:21:46 AM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2008, 09:42:46 PM » |
|
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I will vote for McCain/Palin based ONLY on his record? Look, you want to believe what Obama says and that's fine but I would rather let the facts speak for themselves. As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle, he has a track record for cutting excess spending, he has a track record of standing up to his own party. Obama does not have much of a record to look at and what he has done, I don't agree with. He has moved closer to the middle for this election but all the facts show him being on the far left. I don't make my decision based on how well a person speaks or how much they promise change. Crystal...Alysa, I've known you for what?....20 years? I know we live 2000 miles away from each other now and things are quite a bit different then they were back in our hay day. But, let me say, that if there is a lesser of two evils here, that "less evil" is Obama/Biden. You know I'm an unwavering Ron Paul supporter, and the thought of either nominee becoming president is unpleasant for me. But, and this is a big butt...The thought of McCain/Palin winning the White house is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to America. I mean, were already fucked, but if McCain wins....We will be Fu-uuckked. You get my meaning, sweat meat? Who loves ya Baybee... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maxmillian
Full Member
Karma: +6/-5
Posts: 125
Voluminious words don't make one perspicacious.
|
|
« Reply #88 on: October 09, 2008, 10:09:31 PM » |
|
Now your just getting pathetic. I could care less if you take me seriously or not. How else do you choose a president other than going with the ticket that best fits your beliefs? You are rude and idiotic. Enough said. Yeah whatever. How else? How about by track record? They feed you crap for 8 years and you're going to elect them again based on your weak and naive "they are closer to my belief system" crap. They cheated you once, twice and now you're going to vote them in again....not because you're even thinking about it but because you wouldn't vote anything other than Republican no matter what, and because you obviously hate your country. That's pathetic. Even now as it's all coming down around you you still think they are the messiah. Well go ahead. Screw up your country as much as you can....after all you're so far gone now I'm sure you are able to blame anything on the democrats when the dust settles. I really couldn't agree more. I let out a good, hearty belly-laugh whenever my stereotypical American relatives (who voted for Bush twice and think Clinton is responsible for the recession - more on that later...) come up to visit and talk about how awesome McCain and Palin are. These are the kind of people that would vote for Joe down at the bowling alley because he's a great guy. What they don't realize is that Joe is a fucking imbecile and his folksiness is just another symptom of his functional retardation. Sadly, people with a single-digit IQ tend to make up the largest body of voters, so people who say cute things and look like a good guy to hang out with get elected, while competent people get the shaft. Personally, I couldn't care less whether the President's hobbies include orgies and animal sacrifice, or if he wears a top hat and a monocle and is completely unrelatable, as long as he knows what the fuck he's doing I'd be happy with him in the lead (if I lived there). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 10:12:03 PM by Maxmillian »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
neorealist
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +33/-33
Posts: 1,106
Mod of further light
|
|
« Reply #89 on: October 09, 2008, 10:17:03 PM » |
|
Now your just getting pathetic. I could care less if you take me seriously or not. How else do you choose a president other than going with the ticket that best fits your beliefs? You are rude and idiotic. Enough said. Yeah whatever. How else? How about by track record? They feed you crap for 8 years and you're going to elect them again based on your weak and naive "they are closer to my belief system" crap. They cheated you once, twice and now you're going to vote them in again....not because you're even thinking about it but because you wouldn't vote anything other than Republican no matter what, and because you obviously hate your country. That's pathetic. Even now as it's all coming down around you you still think they are the messiah. Well go ahead. Screw up your country as much as you can....after all you're so far gone now I'm sure you are able to blame anything on the democrats when the dust settles. I really couldn't agree more. I let out a good, hearty belly-laugh whenever my stereotypical American relatives (who voted for Bush twice and think Clinton is responsible for the recession - more on that later...) come up to visit and talk about how awesome McCain and Palin are. These are the kind of people that would vote for Joe down at the bowling alley because he's a great guy. What they don't realize is that Joe is a fucking imbecile and his folksiness is just another symptom of his functional retardation. Sadly, people with a single-digit IQ tend to make up the largest body of voters, so people who say cute things and look like a good guy to hang out with get elected, while competent people get the shaft. Personally, I couldn't care less whether the President's hobbies include orgies and animal sacrifice, or if he wears a top hat and a monocle and is completely unrelatable, as long as he knows what the fuck he's doing I'd be happy with him in the lead (if I lived there). You are just as bad the bowling alley joe supporters...ROTFL |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on. - Robert Bloch
|
|
|
|
