Actually I can and I will call it taking the high road. The reason I say that is, in your mind you believe you were trying to "drag something out of me" that I have covered before. In reality, as previously mentioned, I was quite aware it was just one of your usual distractions to take the focus off how corrupt Obama is. In taking the "high road," despite knowing your ill intention, I went ahead with it, because it was really quite simple to put them down in writing. No worries, I received your PM about how it was taking you a bit longer to come up with your reasons. Perhaps it was "I" that didn't know why they were voting for their candidate? Food for thought I know. Bless your little heart! Liberals just can't stand learning the truth about the Messiah and how corrupt he is. They would rather sit around and make up things to attack Palin over, then cry victim when the "chosen one" is discussed! Oh, the moral outrage! I'm at a loss for why you would assume that I had just sat down to think about this. It didn't take long at all to write, most had been covered before. It's not like I sent you a PM saying I would have my list shortly. I didn't have to go anywhere to look up other people's reason. Just things that were on the top of my head. I wonder what's taking you so long? OK, onward to the butchering you did on my points. 1) Dishonest, or uninformed. Since I can't read your mind, I'll go with uninformed. McCain has a long history of being "mavericky" whether you like it or not. One of the very things I was absolutely pissed at him for, was his insistence on agreeing with democrats that a surge was in order. You know, I'd expect better from you on this point. 2) Completely wrong on this point as well. Americans do not share democrats desire for defeat. They want success. I'll cede the point that many liberal democrats hate their country so much, they would prefer a defeat. The surge has worked and is coming to an end. I know the success upsets liberals. Get over it. We won, it worked, and our country is better for it and Iraq is better for it. Perhaps that's we recently saw a story about how Iraqis wanted McCain for POTUS? Meanwhile, Obama wanted nothing but defeat. He has no concept of honor. McCain does. He sacrificed his political career for the better of our country and stuck to his principles. Obama, as usual, sold out, like a democrat is supposed to. 3) People get married and divorced in this country every day. While I can see your point is to distract from the fact that his family does respect him and they are very close knit, I can also see why you would raise this as an issue. They are mutually exclusive though. I would also call it phony outrage. We need only look at Bill Clinton's infidelity (and how often liberals say getting a blow job is a lot better than {insert some made up phony outrage here}. Not to mention, most recently, Tim Mahoney. 4) Nothing based in reality to respond to. Weak...very weak. It's not that you don't need to make an argument, it's that there simply is none. I suppose you could have offered a distractor, like some of the other points, but too much overuse of them makes it overwhelmingly obvious. 5) Heh, nah, no idea what the hell goes through a liberal's mind to come up with their "thinking" points, but...LMAO! No! It's simply liberal rhetoric that's popular to repeat on the web. McCain has run a clean campaign. Nothing wrong with pointing out your candidate's marxism, socialism, Biden's repeated gaffes and the dishonest lies of Obama. People should be informed when they go to the polls. If you want to talk about a "clean" campaign, you ought to feel fortunate they didn't blast him on his 20 year association with someone who was like family...Jeremiah Wright. A lot of "us" are pissed as hell he didn't make an issue of it. It's fair game and just one more example of yet another close tie Obama has to people that are unquestionably anti-America. Truth be told, Obama couldn't even qualify for a basic background check for the FBI with his past associations. Yet here he is about to lose, running for POTUS. 6) This is more liberal rhetoric and rumors, cloaked in the traditional sexism of the left. Liberals have hounded Palin and her family relentlessly, attacking her as a woman and as usual, ignoring her credentials and accomplishments. Yet they want to whine and cry about how "but, but, but they are attacking Obama's character." Pfft, please! Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining! Palin was a good choice. She leads by example. She has her strong areas. If you are really concerned about VP's, one would have to ask why in the hell anyone would pick Biden. This guy open's his mouth to brush his teeth and he fricks up! 7) I would expect an answer like this from a liberal. Bush did a magnificent job with the economy. I've covered this before. Three years, record tax hauls and that's with multiple tax cuts to the middle class. Liberals want to sweep these things under the carpet and pretend the current state of economy is because of Bush. Wrong. I will not allow such dishonest notions. The state of the economy is directly releated to the mortgage crisis and has been under way for two years now, since dems took over Congress. Add to that, the fact that democrats in the house testified that "nothing was wrong" while leaders like Bush AND McCain both pointed out and recommended immediate action. So let's not play that game. Bush took over a stale economy from Clinton. Was it Clinton's fault? Probably not. These things are cyclic. Economic performance goes up and down over the years and it always will. Then factor in 9/11. I know, liberals hate any mention of 9/11, but it turned the economy even far worse. I recall reading estimates that 1 trillion was lost in the following week. Remember how everything shut down? I do. It affected me. I lost a very profitable software company, three business partners and fifteen employees. What did Bush do? He went to work. He extended unemployment benefits. He set out to give tax cuts, that worked. Tax cuts to the middle class. And what happened? Things turned around. By 2005, the economy was thriving, unemployment was at record lows, jobs were growning and things were doing damn well. Oh, I know, liberals and their hated, doom and gloom would always talk about how bad things were, despite Bush actually performing better than Clinton did in several areas. So you can blame Bush for a "bad economy" if you want, but it's "intellectually dishonest" as far as I'm concerned. If you want someone to blame, blame your party. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and all those liberals that continued to swear up and down there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then lets see when things started turning around? Yeah, it all coincides. Worse yet, Obama was directly a part of that problem with his work and representation for ACORN, who were the ones that were responsible for lobbying to get lenders to make loans to people who would otherwise be unqualified. And look what we have now. Fannie and Freddie are having to be bailed out because of the actions of YOUR party, YOUR candidate, and liberals want to blame Bush for a bad economy? Please. Not with any level of integrity, that's for sure. 8) No, he's behind (2% according to TIPP who was the most accurate in 2004, and showing McCain gaining daily) because your candidate is dishonestly promising things he simply cannot deliver. Thus, why we've gone from 250k, to 200k, to 150k, to 120k. But what did your own candidate say in 2003? 70k is where the middle class ends? Yeah, right. Obama lied about his association with Ayers. I know it, you know it, and others know it. He claimed he was "just a guy in the neighborhood." That was a lie. He didn't want others to know how deep his "friendship" with Ayers ran. Why would he? Ayers is a terrorist. Wright, his beloved Pastor is as anti-American as they come. Rezko? Convicted felon. Khalidi? Nothing to worry about there, he only lobbied for terrorists and bashed Jews at a party where Obama toasted Khalidi. Yeah, real nice role models there. Obama seems to be attracted to these sorts. And his message seems to derive from what Ayers wrote some thirty years ago. 9) I was pretty confident you couldn't do any better on this one. I know, liberals like to "attack, attack, attack" with no credibility, but when their candidate's history is exposed for what it is, suddently it's time to be the victim and shout "smear, smear, smear over here!" This whole conversation wreaks of it! Double standards. I know, liberals have lower standards than Republicans. Some day you guys will place a higher value on integrity. 10) Your response doesn't even come close (as with most of what you've attempted so poorly to counter with) my comments. Bait and switch, bait and switch. If only you could have come up with a real response that matched my comments. Nope. Just make something up that has no basis in reality! Yep, Biden did say Obama wasn't qualified. Rather than admit it, you'd rather attempt to respond as if I somehow said I was voting for McCain as a protest vote. Really? You'd do that George? And hope that I wouldn't see it? Pfft! Weak, George. Very weak. Now, I could be wrong, but I don't see any liberals rushing to stand up like real men and put their backbone on the table for why they are voting for Obama. Nope, liberals like to see what other's "opinions" are and then attack them, avoiding putting their own on the table for fear of scrutiny. Granted, you did send me a PM that you were working on your reasons and would post them soon. But don't you find it a bit disingenuous, to suggest I didn't know why I was voting for McCain, yet I almost immediately responded to your deflection because it was so simple? Yet, in the end, it is you that are taking all the time trying to come up with reasons to support Obama? With no offense intended, isn't that just a bit hypocritical? Are the standards for liberals so low anymore, that they can no accuse others of doing something that simply isn't true (something like accusing others of calling them loons or traitors, when it never happened), then go about doing the very same thing they are accusing others of doing? Something to think about George. Maybe it's just that Obama has been caught lying so many times, has really not discussed anything foreign policy related, and well...no one really wants a socialist/marxist platform, do they? Really, do they?
Zibblu, I know. Cherry picking and polls are only accurate if they show a liberal in the lead. You've convinced me that's how the liberal mind works. I see you've found some new polls since our last discussion. You go! Have you seen this one? I know, it's not reliable, not enough "data points," not enough...oh, whatever! Just that it shows those independents leaning toward's McCain and a 2% margin. Oh, did I mention they were the most accurate polling in 2004? Nah, just "cherry picking!" Keep dreaming
There's been a full-blown effort lately to make her look stupid - through media, comedians, you name it. Looks like they succeeded. Good job. Doesn't help on your issues much, though. Keep in mind Biden hasn't said too many brilliant things either so far. Why isn't he being portrayed this way more? It's best for the Obama campaign not to speak to anyone at this point - afraid they might reveal themselves a little more each time. That's never good. If you're the Obama campaign.
Nate - c'mon. I won't respond to Gtech's obfuscations because it's mired in such party-line propaganda, nothing said will ever make a difference. You, surely, cannot fail to see that it's Palin's idiocy that presents Palin's idiocy, and not some "media campaign" and so forth to make it so. The woman is a moron, except for a certain ingratiating instinct, a high-school sweetheart's ability to tap a certain corner of the far, "evangelical-right" electorate. "Foreign policy because I can (not really) see Russia," said with a straight face - first mouthed on Fox News, parroted by Cindy McCain, and then a talking point for Sarah Palin, over and over again. Believing that her governorship was literally won by the intervention of a witch-hunting preacher, whose special mojo with God is such that God manifests that which the Chirch asks for - lo, his will, in service of her and her church's will, is manifested. This is lunacy, an extremely dangerous mindset that truly marries religious zeal to state policy (hell, war with Russia, ya betcha!), and idiocy, and worse, complete abdication of improvement, because she isn't intellectually curious about a damned thing. It is funny, if it weren't tragic, as there is something like a 1 in 5 chance she'd take over for McCain should the ticket be elected. She is a secessionist, and I know that from your point of view, that is something you respect. Her feelings this way have been given a complete pass by the media, and the extreme right-wing of the GOP who see in her their politically religious darling. In all sincerity, however, and I don't mean to insult you, but I sincerely can't see how you can think anyone but Sarah Palin is making Sarah Palin "look stupid" - is it possible her views on secessionism might be clouding your impressions, overall? Meanwhile, what you have left from the McCain camp is a literally last minute hail-Mary with an ad on Obama and Wright, despite McCain's saying it shouldn't be an issue in this campaign - for good reason, given his solicitation of the hate-mongering whack jobs John Hagee and Rod Parsley: That, and ridiculous statements like: And this is it. No other playbook available.
I was watching on TV this morning about people queuing up for three or four hours to cast their vote. Is this only in certain areas or is it all over the country? These people queuing must be Democrats. I seems unlikely that even the most die hard Republicans would have that much enthusiasm when voting for McCain.
The media certainly has the power to make people look the way they want. If media wants to make someone a saint or a sinner, they could take a certain aspect of that person and blow it out of proportion. I am sure that the media has added fuel to the fire somewhere along the line.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Lightless - the media doesn't give a damn about anything other than an ongoing circus, because that's what sells tickets. At the same time, the media cannot be said to have made Palin stupid. She did that on her own. This is my point. Particularly when McCain grabbed Palin at the 11th hour, and by the campaign blackout on any contact whatsoever with an unscripted Palin, the American public was given precious little opportunity to know anything about this candidate, I find it disingenuous to cry foul when the few times Palin spoke, she betrayed her idiocy and it was simply made evident. I saw a report somewhere (bleary eyed, was up early today, can't find where I saw this) that there is another discouraging development for McCain, that some are staying home because they think it's a lost cause. Add to this what you say - the "enthusiasm" factor for McCain pales generally compared to the Democratic ticket, and it seems another bad omen for McCain, though I'm not sure how significant it is We voted early, and it took 40 minutes. I think we were lucky.
Indeed. I feel that the media has grown a bit too powerful and wayward. Everyone could use a media detox once in a while. Some people have let the media take over their brain and have done away with faculties of reasoning and logic.
Yeah, I agree. Interestingly enough, I was talking to an Irish pal over the weekend, I was at his pub, we were watching some idiocy about Joe the Plumber's bid to become a recording star (that's on top of his stumping his foreign policy expertise for the McCain ticket, or considering his bid to run for congress), and asked his opinion of the election. He agreed it's a circus, but not for the reason I thought he might say: he blames the media, for the reasons discussed here. He finds it astounding that daily, men and women are dying in two wars, and so little coverage is devoted to this, while we have soundbites on Joe the Plumber, or Ayres, or Biden's/Palin's/Obama's/McCain's gaffes. I'd agree - it's why I make it a point to watch (and read - I read Le Figaro and Le Monde) international sources, as well.
Big turn out heavily favors the Democrats. The Republican core have no one to vote for. They only have someone they want to vote against (Obama) --- The people who have someone to vote for will always turn out in bigger numbers. Do you think Republicans are going to stand in line for hours to vote for someone they don't even care about? Go to VoteForChange.com to find your polling location. Take a friend, take your whole family, take any Obama supporter you can find. Tomorrow is the day we make history. Obama/Biden '08. Nah. Sarah Palin has been doing most of the work in making herself sound stupid. Listening to her talk to who she thinks is the President of France is just... It's just mind boggling that anyone could listen to that conversation and think "yes, this person would be a good leader for our country." She is entirely out of her element. It is like a bad Disney movie. She is astoundingly unqualified. And don't come at me with the "executive experience" - I find that as compelling as someone telling me a manager at McDonalds has "executive experience." The issue is not her experience it's her lack of basic knowledge of the world, her lack of a basic curiosity. Her lack of intelligence. No experience she has will make up for that. She is not Presidential material at a very basic level. And remember our current President (remember that buffoon?) also had "executive experience." How did that work out for us? Thank you for once again proving my point. I linked to sites which look at ALL of the polls as a whole. You link to the ONLY poll that has any good news for McCain. Go to Pollster.com if you want to get a real idea of where the race is at. The IBD poll is way off from the consensus. Even Rasmussen (which has a GOP lean) has the race at +6 for Obama.
Roughly half the country supports McCain. The fact that they havent developed this religious fervor which has developed around Obama doesnt mean McCain supporters are less likely to vote... just means they're less likely to be disappointed to find out he can't walk on water. I voted early enough to avoid the lines.
robjones - enthusiasm is important when it comes to voter turnout. All indications are that Obama supporters are far more enthusiastic about Obama/Biden then McCain supporters are about McCain/Palin. Many McCain/Palin supporters think that Sarah Palin is dangerously unqualified to be President. And on the other hand many of the fringe bible thumper wing of the party don't care for McCain and only turn out for Palin. That sounds like a recipe for disaster - particularly with voter turnout likely to be up which means longer lines. There are many people who don't normally bother to vote who are coming out to vote for Obama/Biden. Do you really think the same can be said about McCain/Palin?
No shit junior. I'm a former precinct chairman, but thanks, I needed a first time volunteer to explain the process to me. You're projecting a lot of your own opinions onto McCain voters. I'm one of them, and I can tell you that you're buying too much of the bs that comes in the DNC emails. I get 'em too. Always fun to see the oppositions notes.
robjones - Look at the early voting. Obama has a huge advantage in early voting. The Republicans usually lead in early voting. That's a clear sign of a huge enthusiasm gap in Obama's favor. Take a look at the black turnout in the early voting in Georgia and North Carolina. It is far out performing what the pollsters expected. For example black people have been 26% of the early voters in NC while the polls have been using 20% in their weighting. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that if that holds up Obama will GREATLY out perform the polling there. Now there is a chance that things will equal out on election day but it seems highly likely that the polls have been under weighting black turnout and if that's the case Obama will pull off some big upsets in states like Georgia & North Carolina (and perhaps even a state like Mississippi although that may be pushing it.)
) LOL. On the one hand we have Dems saying race shouldnt be a consideration... while at the same time you automatically assume that an increased black turnout favors Obama. Would y'all kindly make up your mind?
The closer the hours pass to election day the more it looks like not just a win for the Democrats but a landslide And there's going to be an awful lot of disappointed voters come next year. What can they achieve when the economy is disintegrating? It's going to be like the Clinton years what after walking through the doors they checked the books and went, Oh shit, it's much worse than we thought. They then spent the next eight years not doing anything. There seems to be so much excitement at the rallies and on the streets... and any over expectation is not helped by Obama announcing at rallies that they are going to "change to the world" and there will be "fundamental change". That won't happen.
Black turnout always favors the Democrats. Black folks tend to be smart enough to not vote against their own self interest (unlike so many white folks who keep voting for the GOP despite seeing the Republicans only work for the rich.)
Maybe not. Does that mean we should lie down and die and lose all hope for a better future? [Not that I am starving in Africa or something] Rather meet doom hopeful and smiling than sh*t in the pants while screaming and whining.
So in your worldview black = poor? LOL. If black turnout always favors democrats that might change when they realize they're just getting used by people that have a low opinion of them as a whole.
Saying that someone is poor doesn't mean I have a low opinion of them. I think that reveals more about your opinion of poor people. The real shift will come when poor white folks realize that the Republicans are not on their side just because of silly religious issues like abortion.