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

[Vladimir303]

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 she has many supporters 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 spening too much time with fairy's and elves in another land. Whether she makes significant difference (especially to the women population) is still unknown, and anything you say is based on opinion. But as a heartfelt liberal that you are, atleast giver her the decency to bring over a few voters, instead of saying she won't help him at all.

A longwinded rant without saying much. Good job. Anyway I'm not up for a pissing contest so I'll just end it with this, related to the topic:


I think they made a bad choice. Noone knows who she is. She'll be viewed as an inexperienced person from a far away state who is a heart beat away from the presidency...and McCain could go (die) at anytime. She'll be spun as a gross attempt to pander to the women's vote...which will be viewed sexist. I think it will blow up in McCain's face.

Time will tell.

[Dirt E Gomez]

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 ****.

I find it funny who you were conversing with in this thread then.

[!! Shawn]

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.

Reagan forced the Russians to spend themselves into an economic crisis, resulting in Gorbachev, reformation, and subsequently collapse. Reagan was the root cause of many of Russia's ills.

Obviously the fact that communism is a faulty system of government played a part, but Reagan put them over the edge. Give credit where credit is due. Regan ended the cold war.

[!! Shawn]

I find it funny who you were conversing with in this thread then.

Many of them are borderline, but as long as they are not pumping out page long posts of bull****, I'll put up with them.

[Vladimir303]

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?

http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=274863

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.

Bye Bye......

[Don Corleone]

A longwinded rant without saying much. Good job. Anyway I'm not up for a pissing contest so I'll just end it with this, related to the topic:


I think they made a bad choice. Noone knows who she is. She'll be viewed as an inexperienced person from a far away state who is a heart beat away from the presidency...and McCain could go (die) at anytime. She'll be spun as a gross attempt to pander to the women's vote...which will be viewed sexist. I think it will blow up in McCain's face.

Time will tell.

Is "rant" the only word in your vocabulary you like you use so often. Or is it an excuse not to respond to my posts? I will guarantee you, that you wouldn't win this debate with me (as I can see where your sources are from), so I contend that you're making a fine decision to just concede. You are entitled to your opinion but not to false and mis-informed facts. It's just too obious you get your facts from CNN noting much of the vocabulary you have used has been recognized as the type from CNN contributors and correspondants, and that's allright, only if you get the facts straight and stop spewing senseless crap.

http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=274863

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.

Bye Bye......

In which way does that help out your case. Were there 130 problems with those many bills which Obama felt needed correction. Not really. It's just the votes were too difficult for Obama too choose, and the facts stand, a present vote leaves a senator without a definitive answer. It's a safe move is what it is. By voting "present", he cannot be favoured nor critisized for the votes he casts which were controversial or difficult at times.

[Dirt E Gomez]

Obviously the fact that communism is a faulty system of government played a part, but Reagan put them over the edge. Give credit where credit is due. Regan ended the cold war.

Aleksandr Yakovlev was Gorbachev's adviser and had this to say about the theory of Reagan's policies:

It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it.

Gorbachev when asked about it even said, "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion..."

Gorbachev wasn't Stalin. He knew his country was dying before he or Reagan took office. He increased freedoms and was attempting both social and political reforms across the board were in the works before true fear of collapse began.

[Vladimir303]

Is "rant" the only word in your vocabulary you like you use so often. Or is it an excuse not to respond to my posts? I will guarantee you, that you wouldn't win this debate with me (as I can see where your sources are from), so I contend that you're making a fine decision to just concede. You are entitled to your opinion but not to false and mis-informed facts. It's just too obious you get your facts from CNN noting much of the vocabulary you have used has been recognized as the type from CNN contributors and correspondants, and that's allright, only if you get the facts straight and stop spewing senseless crap.

Name one thing that I said that wasn't factual. We argued back and forth based on opinion about how much McCain's Vp Pick will help him.

In which way does that help out your case. Were there 130 problems with those many bills which Obama felt needed correction. Not really. It's just the votes were too difficult for Obama too choose, and the facts stand, a present vote leaves a senator without a definitive answer. It's a safe move is what it is. By voting "present", he cannot be favoured nor critisized for the votes he casts which were controversial or difficult at times

.

It helps my case because it's a present with an explanation. We don't know what his explanations were for each one. As someone who is against Obama, you can either use it against him or as a supporter you can take it for what it is.

A present vote = a No with an explanation.

To quote what A Republican State Rep. Bill black said:

But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader.

[Dirt E Gomez]

On the subject of voting "present":

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...present_votes/

Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position.

Clinton highlights several of Obama's "present" votes that she considers questionable.

Several involve abortion -- a ban on certain late-pregnancy abortions, a requirement that a minor's parents be notified and restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods.

"A woman's right to choose ... demands a leader who will stand up and protect it," said one Clinton campaign mailer.

But the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama's "present" votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.

President Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote "yes" on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote "present" so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a "present" was as good as an outright "no" because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.

Clinton also points out that Obama was the lone "present" vote on legislation allowing the victims of rape and other sex crimes to have their court records sealed. Obama explains now that he had questions about its constitutionality, although the law has never been struck down by the courts.

Neither the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault nor the House sponsor of the legislation faults Obama for his vote. Former state representative Lauren Beth Gash, who supports Obama for president, said she ultimately disagreed with his constitutional concerns but that Obama raised legitimate questions and was acting on principle.

Obama also voted "present" on legislation making it easier to send juveniles to adult court. He said in debate that he felt the measure violated an agreement, reached after an overhaul of the juvenile justice system a year earlier, to wait on further changes until the new system had been reviewed.

[Vladimir303]

Is "rant" the only word in your vocabulary you like you use so often. Or is it an excuse not to respond to my posts? I will guarantee you, that you wouldn't win this debate with me .

Sure I would. there was nothing to respond to. No substance, just longwinded paragraphs to try and make yourself look smarter then you really are.


Lets write a long novel next time shall we, so when I don't dissect your post word for word, you can accuse me of not responding to it.

Sheeesh.