Legit reasons why you shouldn't vote Republican (McSame) this year

[Scott9945]

Yes, feel free to ignore me. I provided facts against your partys presidents and how it related directly to John McCain......all you did was type a buncha nonsense.

Truth hurts.

The ignore list usually means submission.

[Dirt E Gomez]

I'm not going to dive deeply into this thread because I don't feel like typing out responses of 2 1/2 pages of a Republican suckfest, but I will say this...

Reagan did not end the Cold War. He was in the right place at the right time. Russia was going to collapse on itself and it was only a matter of time. Yes, Reagan handled it fairly well and didn't make things worse; but that's like saying I'm a doctor because I told somebody not to pick at a scab and just let it heal.

I've nothing against Reagan as a president and think he did a fine job, despite obvious flaws that can be found in every presidency; but I hate hearing the remark that he ended the cold war.

I'll even let the standard, "Made us proud to be Americans again" or restoration of said beliefs slide despite how absurd the notion is on a whole.

[sisforshaq]

I don't even pay attention to the responses of Jefferies and the republicans on here. Obama is going to win this election and once he does, they will bash him non stop.. who cares, they love McCain and his views.. let them. We all know this is a democratic year period.

[Don Corleone]

I don't even pay attention to the responses of Jefferies and the republicans on here. Obama is going to win this election and once he does, they will bash him non stop.. who cares, they love McCain and his views.. let them. We all know this is a democratic year period.

That's not the point. It's just many people are so into Obama and his proposals but freeze when being questioned a few of his issues. It's all about "change" and "hope" but many don't really know how he goes about doing that, as he has voted "present" on a number of difficult occasions concerning top issues so it is unknown sometimes what his true stance on particular issues were. As Jefferies stated the country is closer to the middle, and McCain is more centered then Obama. But many Obama supporters don't want to admit the faults that Obama has proposed, yet blindly follow them as if they don't exist. Some blame Republicans for twisting the truth yet some would be surprised how twisted the truth has become by Democrats recently.

[Vladimir303]

Your original statement was "she will do nothing for McCain". Don't change the argument by stating she will not make "huge" difference. You say that because the media's bias towards Obama says that. You haven't seen what she can do so you aren't in the position to question her capabalities. By stating "she will do nothing for McCain" you admit that you fail to understand the fact that she is helpful to grab women from the democratic side how many that may be. Hillary supporters alone (about 25%) suggested they would vote for McCain come general election. Having a great speaking female running mate like Palin only encourages the switching from Hillary support to Palin support.

And the other part of my paragraph should definitely warrant a response. I was questioning your decision of blindly following the media and the fact that you don't know much about her other then what you hear. Why wouldn't it warrant a response? Are you suggesting your basing decision's of a running mate no matter who it is "strictly" based on what you hear from media outlets rather then what you actually see and hear from the governor yourself?

Hey tool, I'm the one who bothered with researching and reading articles about President Reagan and posting it on here.

I get my info from independent sources, I don't listent to Fox News bashing Obama and I don't listen to MSNBC for my info.

THIS VOTER KNOWS HIS **** AND I'm TELLING YOU, SHE ISN'T GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The ***e voters who planned on voting for McCain were gonna do it anyway and the ones who plan on voting for Obama because he represents the issues that they care about....aren't gonna switch to McCain all of a sudden because he picked a female VP. She is a polar opposite of Clinton on the issues. PERIOD.

[Vladimir303]

That's not the point. It's just many people are so into Obama and his proposals but freeze when being questioned a few of his issues. It's all about "change" and "hope" but many don't really know how he goes about doing that, as he has voted "present" on a number of difficult occasions concerning top issues so it is unknown sometimes what his true stance on particular issues were. As Jefferies stated the country is closer to the middle, and McCain is more centered then Obama. But many Obama supporters don't want to admit the faults that Obama has proposed, yet blindly follow them as if they don't exist. Some blame Republicans for twisting the truth yet some would be surprised how twisted the truth has become by Democrats recently.

If you're gonna spew **** that Hillar Clinton used during the debates, at least be a lil more informed. In Illinois, voting present means a NO vote with an explanation. So him voting present means that he voted no.

[Vladimir303]

Also, Palin's moderate stances and tendency to reach across the aisle will win the support of Moderates. I don't think Hillary supporters will break her way in the numbers people think. Her being pro-life is a
HUGE obstacle for that.

[Don Corleone]

Hey tool, I'm the one who bothered with researching and reading articles about President Reagan and posting it on here.

I get my info from independent sources, I don't listent to Fox News bashing Obama and I don't listen to MSNBC for my info.

THIS VOTER KNOWS HIS **** AND I'm TELLING YOU, SHE ISN'T GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The ***e voters who planned on voting for McCain were gonna do it anyway and the ones who plan on voting for Obama because he represents the issues that they care about....aren't gonna switch to McCain all of a sudden because he picked a female VP.

First of all you should re-asses who the tool is in this conversation. Terms like that will only beg for my to expose you and all your wikipedia stolen trash more. It's obvious you don't have a clue about what you're speaking about. Your suggesting I watch Fox News which isn't true. Nor do I watch MSNBC. But if you wish, I will only further embarass you on these topics. You're just angry that I realized a contradiction in your statement which was easy to see.

You distorted your own statement by first suggesting Palin would do no help at all then later insisted she wouldn't make a "huge" difference, and by adding "huge" you acknowledge atleast a little difference. But your CNN and wiki stolen material is very much laughable. Not because I don't watch CNN because I admit I do like most here (but my information isn't grabbed from there), but because everything you post comes from there or wikipedia. I allready stated you cannot strictly judge Palin based on what you read on websites and media television. You probably haven't heard a word she said, but because some democrats disagreed with his pick, your on the other end of their tale agreeing everything they say.

If statistics showed that at one point 25% of Hillary voters said they would vote for McCain, add in the fact that Hilliary also had many supporters behind her and many were women. Adding Palin to the ticket doesn't shorten his chance of seizing Hillary voters but by your means, your suggesting it hurts or does little effect. You my friend, have been spending too much time with fairys and elves in another land.

Whether she makes significant difference (especially to the women population) is still relatively unknown, and anything you say is based on opinion. But as a heartfelt liberal that you are, atleast giver her the decency to admit she will bring over a few voters, instead of saying she won't help him at all. Even Democrats who didn't agree with his pick insist it was just to grab Hillary's voters. If for all she was picked for was meant to be the bridge for Hillary's voters to support McCain after a frustrating decision not to pick Hillary(like democrats insist), then how do you not see how she will indeed grab a "few" Hillary voters ( if not more) in her campaign as McCain's running mate?

[Don Corleone]

If you're gonna spew **** that Hillar Clinton used during the debates, at least be a lil more informed. In Illinois, voting present means a NO vote with an explanation. So him voting present means that he voted no.

Again, by covering up your CNN related info, you suggest I steal my content from Hillary. Atleast your suggesting I have a good memory to remember exactly which debate she said that in. But for you, your less then intelligent when it comes to these topics and it's apparant.

But it's time to get rid of you. You haven't got your facts straight because as an Illinois Senator, Obama votted "present" about 130 times... Incase your sources (*ahm CNN) didn't inform you, when registering a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, each lawmaker voting has a choice between yes (green button), no (red button) and present (yellow button). Obama did not vote yes nor no but rather, "maybe" which translates to "present". Meaning he basically didn't choose a definitive answer in each of the 130 votes he casted on key issues. How's that for you?

[!! Shawn]

The ignore list usually means submission.

No, it means lack of reasoning abilities. Fortunately, I can see how you are trying to use logic in your posts, so I read them. When people post stupid things, that they know are wrong, and then try and pass them off as facts, its strait to ignore.

I don't have time to read that ****.