I'm voting for McCain....
- Thread starter ccodiane
- Start date
machetekills
Active Member
didnt mean on the name calling sorry
Leilani Garden
Well-Known Member
Dankdude, it just gets repetitious and boring after a while, though. You really cannot construct a decent, authentic argument with such vacuous responses. I mean, think about it. An argument is a debate. You can't debate with someone who continually takes things out of context, resorts to numerous logical fallacies, and hasn't the foggiest notion of the real topic at hand. Obtuse responses, not to mention blown-up fonts quoting a quote of a quote, in an attempt to debunk a rational response are kind of dull after a while.
BTW, I love your Mao Mart "ad." Sort of sums it up succinctly. I stopped shopping there years ago. What a filthy enterprise they are.
I'd like to ask the person who says that WE invaded Iraq, not Bush, why he or she says that.
BTW, I love your Mao Mart "ad." Sort of sums it up succinctly. I stopped shopping there years ago. What a filthy enterprise they are.
I'd like to ask the person who says that WE invaded Iraq, not Bush, why he or she says that.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
And "we" elected those representatives, did we not? I didn't vote for Feinstein or Boxer, but they're still my senators...much to my chagrin of course.
Leilani Garden
Well-Known Member
I dunno about that. I'm one of the conspiracy theorists about that 2000 election, so I don't necessarily agree that "we" elected Bush.And "we" elected those representatives, did we not? I didn't vote for Feinstein or Boxer, but they're still my senators...much to my chagrin of course.
And on that note, how could anyone, anyone!, have voted for Bush/Cheney in '04? Okay, 2000, maybe, I get it. They wanted some "change"; away from Clinton's moderate ways, fine. But in '04? How did that happen? I just don't get it. I also don't get how these die-hards can keep singing the praises of such an obviously failed administration. Makes ya wonder.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
I voted for Bush in 04. How? For the same reasons that everyone here is voting for either Obama or McCain today. You know..."The Lesser of Two Evils" syndrome or the "Head in The Sand" complex. I will never again vote for a candidate that has not proven himself/herself again. McCain and Obama both have voted for legislation to perpetuate war, strip us of our constitutional rights, and increase federal spending. If anyone thinks Obama is our Savior (or McCain for that matter), think again. Obama just voted in favor of FISA that has allowed for the continued acts of warrantless federal wiretapping on US citizens and granting telecoms immunity. He has also stated (I know I'm repeating myself here but since nobody is listening it doesn't matter) in his "Blueprint for America" that he intends upon increasing troop strength by another 100,000 and has just gone on record for his desire to increase troop levels in Afghanistan...Hardly an anti-war candidate IMO.
And McCain hasn't got a clue regarding the economy and has proven that he'll vote to increase federal deficit spending.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
I actually said that "we" elected "those representatives" though. I was including the members of Congress that actually put through the legislation. Bush would not have gotten his war had it not been for Congress voting in favor of the Iraq Resolution, true?
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Did I not say that Dave?
We invaded Iraq on Bush's and the Congresses orders.
At the Time of the Vote to go to war, was not both houses controlled by the Republican Party?
Bush had a Bunch of yes men, Bush Said it, it was so.
Bush wanted rights taken away, the passed the "Patriot Act" (when RICO would have sufficed.)
Sure I admit that the Democrats have opened wire tapping even more, but the damages was already done with the previous congress.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Actually CALEA got the ball rolling Dank.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
I thought you were stating that Bush and Congress were to blame and I'm implying that we're to blame.
Correctamundo my friend.
And it was passed by the Senate 99 to 1. Now there's bipartisanship!
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
You're not mistaking me for a neo-con now, are you?I know you hate conceding a point to anyone you consider a lib...
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
We elected the officials, but in my opinion they Voted to go to Iraq with out our permission.
I don't know about you, but I was writing my congressmen at that time that vote was comeing up. I said that if he voted for it, the next election he was not getting my Vote.
Not in my name.
I don't know about you, but I was writing my congressmen at that time that vote was comeing up. I said that if he voted for it, the next election he was not getting my Vote.
Not in my name.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
No, but on some trhings I do tend you wonder
Up until 2 years into Bush's first term, I was a republican.
When things just weren't adding up, I went independant.
I have not even really stated whom I'm voting for.
I damn sure not voting for McCain, he would be more of the same old shit.
Obama, I'm not too sure about either, And I don't think Paul will pull it off.
Time will tell when election time comes up how I will Vote.... Up until not When everyone started posturing before the primaries, McCain Was a RINO (Republican In Name Only) now he scares me.
Obama is and always was a strait Liberal, Clinton Was a liberal then Middle of the road and a liberal again, then out of the race.
Paul Although he has some, but not all good ideas, he won't get enough Votes to make a difference, besides he's a year older tham McCain, Reagan went Senile younger than both of them, that leave little hope for either McCain or Paul.
ccodiane
New Member
Just don't call Barack Obama liberal, okey doke? - The Boston Globe
But his reluctance to own the term in a forthright way is somewhat surprising because Obama has said he wants to be a transformative figure like Ronald Reagan, whose crusade against liberals and big government has dominated American political discourse for almost 30 years.And the purest proof of Reagan's continuing success is the fact that Republican candidates this year have been tripping over themselves to assume the label of "conservative," while Democrats continue to duck and cover when liberalism is mentioned.
But his reluctance to own the term in a forthright way is somewhat surprising because Obama has said he wants to be a transformative figure like Ronald Reagan, whose crusade against liberals and big government has dominated American political discourse for almost 30 years.And the purest proof of Reagan's continuing success is the fact that Republican candidates this year have been tripping over themselves to assume the label of "conservative," while Democrats continue to duck and cover when liberalism is mentioned.
ccodiane
New Member
Wow, like, totally......
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
No actually if you read your way through it, it makes a lot of sense....
Let me ask, Are you even capable of constructing a debate with out personal attacks or name calling?
To me it shows you're lack of an education.
Try having a debate with out name calling sometime, you may find it intellectually stimulating and in the very least it may even garner you smidgen of respect.
Let me ask, Are you even capable of constructing a debate with out personal attacks or name calling?
To me it shows you're lack of an education.
Try having a debate with out name calling sometime, you may find it intellectually stimulating and in the very least it may even garner you smidgen of respect.
ccodiane
New Member
Some libs, (pretty much all), are so dense that I am forced to put on my "lib hat" just to enjoy the "debate". Logic falls flat every time. So fuck trying to persuade, let's eat cake....
Trying to garner respect from you would be like asking the Germans if they like Obama.....pointless.....(because I don't, in the least, respect you.)