Why McCain will Win

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Dyne

Jason1, please don't make unwarranted attacks on people. Thank you.

-Phil

I would hardly call them unwarranted, but fine. I didnt target anyone specifically.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Okay, anyone who votes Republican in this election, is a 100% certified jackass. The Republicans have put the country in shambles, yet you people want to elect another one. Bunch of racists.

That might be the most unintentionally funny post in the history of this forum. Don't worry, I take no offence. To be offended I would have to take any of your political comments seriously.

But seriously, is that how you really feel? Have you been so jaded as to view anyone with differeing political views as "jackasses" and "racists"? If so, I feel more sympathy for you than any type of animosity. You might want to see a professional...

[Jason1]

I guess I just get upset when people for some reason dont have enough common sense to see that electing another Republican would be terrible for this country.

[Typhoid]

I don't think it has as much to do with what someone is catagorized as, but rather who they actually are.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I don't think it has as much to do with what someone is catagorized as, but rather who they actually are.

I agree. If you think you know who someone is by their political affiliation (or only through an anonymous internet forum), then you're just a fool.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I guess I just get upset when people for some reason dont have enough common sense to see that electing another Republican would be terrible for this country.

You would help out your cause by basing your arguments on ideas and not purely on feelings. You constantly make blanket statements backed by littlke more than "Republicans have ruined the country!!", which is an easy argument to dismiss as most Americans are still far more affluent and enjoy more freedoms than pretty much any other nation on the planet. I have yet to see a political opinion from you based on reason. Thats not to say there isn;t reason behind it, you just haven't shared it with us.

Your political affiliation should be based on more than your personal distaste for another party. You are not a white knight, and no single party has the monopoly on corruption or "evil". Vote FOR something, not against something else.

[Dyne]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I would hardly call them unwarranted, but fine. I didnt target anyone specifically.

Please, don't boil it down to attacks of any kind. I would expect the same restraint on those wishing to call Clinton supporters feminists and lesbians. It's no different - it makes no sense.

[Dylflon]

Man, aren't people tired of republicans yet?

[Dylflon]

Okay, just finished reading the thread.

It may be unfair to disregard Obama's opinion just because he never joined the military. Gearing up and going to war should really not be the prerequisite for having opinions on anything military.

Passionate people go to war.

Logical people are more prone to not fight for someone else's cause; no offense to anyone serving in or near the military.




Anyhow, I think some good old Tender Leftist Care will be pretty necessary to let the healing process to begin. It's all well and good to bally-hoo and rabblerouse when someone says Leftism, Socialist, or Marx, but you have to admire the left-wing's tendency towards focusing more on social programs than on shooting people.

America needs to make serious amendments to education, health care, and many other social issues. I know Democrats aren't innocent, but I find many Republicans to jump so willingly in bed with corporations than into bed with the interests of the public.

It's mind blowing that a president could spend 8 years, ruining social programs, and steering their country into the biggest deficit in American history from the biggest surplus in American history. All for a war that has had to change its justification once every few months just to keep people somewhat on board.
But there's too much to argue about the war so let's not get too far into that.

America needs a president that can restore the name of America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and I don't think John McCain is the man to do it, nor do I feel he is the man to repair the damage that has been done over the last eight years.

[Jonbo298]

Originally Posted by Dyne

Please, don't boil it down to attacks of any kind. I would expect the same restraint on those wishing to call Clinton supporters feminists and lesbians. It's no different - it makes no sense.

But...Lesbian's are good, at least in the 'movies'. Right?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

It may be unfair to disregard Obama's opinion just because he never joined the military. Gearing up and going to war should really not be the prerequisite for having opinions on anything military.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I do agree that one should not disregard Obama's opinion on military matters simply because he has not served in the military, but it is certainly legitimate to not hold his opinion in as high esteem as that of someone like Colin Powell. Military expertise is especially important for running for President in the United States, as the President serves several distinct and important roles. In many other countries the Executive branch is divided between the Head of State and Head of Government (often the Commander in Chief is even a separate position). In the US, the President serves all three roles at the same time. Executive, lawmaking, and military experience are all important.

Passionate people go to war.

Logical people are more prone to not fight for someone else's cause; no offense to anyone serving in or near the military.

This strikes me as an extremely dangerous generalization to make. I'd prefer not to go into depth with your assertion, as I find it inappropriate to do so, but I would encourage you to give more thought to such a broad, sweeping statement.

Anyhow, I think some good old Tender Leftist Care will be pretty necessary to let the healing process to begin. It's all well and good to bally-hoo and rabblerouse when someone says Leftism, Socialist, or Marx, but you have to admire the left-wing's tendency towards focusing more on social programs than on shooting people.

This kind of polarization (i.e. caring for people vs. shooting people) is exactly what is wrong with American politics today. Everyone (or at least most everyone) has very legitimate political opinions that need to be respected and understood, not polarized.


I pulled out an article from my newspaper clippings for this specific discussion, but unfortunately it was too large to scan. I have kindly linked to the article and it can be found here.



Indeed, two of my most beloved presidents in US history (John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman), were both Democrats. I believe it is time that we begin to judge candidates on their own personal merit, and not their party.

[Jason1]

Look, its not that I dont have real opinions, I just think most republicans heads are too clouded by Republican lies to really justify wasting my time.

But I will say Dylflon summed it up pretty good.

[Renwood]

I can't vote for a man who can't high-five me.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Look, its not that I dont have real opinions, I just think most republicans heads are too clouded by Republican lies to really justify wasting my time.

You have to try very hard to contradict yourself in one sentence, and you managed to succeed. Excellent work.

And Dyflon, your opinions of Republicans are that we care more for shooting people than social programs, and in reality they have nothing to do with each other. It is a conflict of ideals when it comes to what is best for people.

Democrats believe in a bigger government that provides services for its people because thats how they feel people can best succeed, and republicans believe in a smaller government than allows people to better provide for themselves, and that the main role of government to protect its people to enable that freedom (hence your "shooting" comment).

It's government responsiblity vs. personal responsibility, and that is where the conflict lies at its heart.

And my main issue with Obama is that he has no issues, and avoids speaking on them at any cost. I trust no politician who is not eager to expound on his beliefs, and that is why I chose to post the quotes that I did. Obama's views on the bill lasted 2 sentences and were an attack on McCain. McCain's explanation of his stance was nuanced and contained alternative, sensible arguments.

THAT is why Obama will lose and in the end it has NOTHING to do with Democrat or Republican, but the quality of the candidate that is running.

[Renwood]

That's not why Obama will lose. Campaigning and marketing money builds and then pushes an image. Image pushes votes. If McCain wins, it is the credit of the Republican campaign machine, which is an amazing thing to see in action.

Were it only possible that the same tightly oiled mechanism could be employed once either party entered office. Neither side manages to achieve a fraction of what it promises. Democrats promise more, and deliver nothing. Republicans act, but in ways I sometimes get a headache over.

Lucky am I to live in an area where local government still has the highest impact. Or unlucky, depending.

Do you identify with a party? I usually agree with more moderate Republican ideas, but I do not self-label myself as one. It would feel unnecessarily restrictive.