Bi-Polar Bear wrote:woiyo wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I heard you the first time. Petty attempts at insult don't make you look any smarter. Nor do they make the moronic **** you've been posting lately seem any more coherent.
It wasn't a petty attempt at an insult it's a fact. the very fact you feel qualified to judge me as moronic because my points of view and opinions are radically different from yours proves it.
After furthere consideration I've decided i can't vote for Barack Obama at all and I certainly can't vote for ANY republican that's being offered so I will write in if that's how it shakes out.
You got a problem with that stick it whefe the sun don't shine... which could be top or bottom.
Instead of the reservation, maybe you need therepy. :wink:
for what chief?
Anger management, spelling...just to name 2. :wink:
It seems to me it's this tenuous and basically impractical character judging (i.e. who seems like an experienced leader?) that got Bush elected in the first place. America (present company excluded of course) judged Gore and Bush the same way they did Survivor or American Idol contestants. By a gut feeling. On a whim from their sofas.
I'm not telling anybody how to vote, but everyone running for President is, by that fact alone, an idealogue. To me, the main measure is, what are those ideas? Not who seems "down to earth" and other intuitive assertions. Here's something dumb I heard a Republican voter say on NPR this morning (and, yes, I heard dumb Democrat **** yesterday morning, so pipe down, dickheads): "It's like that old Cheerios commercial. I hear candidates on both sides speak, and it's all Honey Nut Cheerios."
What the **** is that supposed to mean?
Through all the political rhetoric there is something to be gleaned. There are ideas under there. The candidates have websites where those ideas are spelled out rather clearly. And even though they won't all be carried out, they reflect the mind of the candidate. That's my main criteria. That's how I arrived at my choice, Obama.
woiyo wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:woiyo wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I heard you the first time. Petty attempts at insult don't make you look any smarter. Nor do they make the moronic **** you've been posting lately seem any more coherent.
It wasn't a petty attempt at an insult it's a fact. the very fact you feel qualified to judge me as moronic because my points of view and opinions are radically different from yours proves it.
After furthere consideration I've decided i can't vote for Barack Obama at all and I certainly can't vote for ANY republican that's being offered so I will write in if that's how it shakes out.
You got a problem with that stick it whefe the sun don't shine... which could be top or bottom.
Instead of the reservation, maybe you need therepy. :wink:
for what chief?
Anger management, spelling...just to name 2. :wink:
Spelling? What about your improper use of ellipsis points?
Oh! See what I did there? It's annoying when people post grammar critiques instead of real thoughts, isn't it?
my spelling is fine thank you... my typos are many.... and I don't care. :wink:
I try to use ellipses improperly ... in nearly every post.
one of you two misspelled that word.... I'm obviously too stupid to know who.... :wink:
In choosing my candidate, it was important that I prioritized. Bottom line, the only thing that is truly important is national security, and the economy.
There are other issues (abortion, gun control and all that other stuff) that ARE important, but pales in comparison with my top two. If the economy tanks, and we are made vulnerable to foreign aggression, we will all be in deep ****.
I would have preferred Giuliani, but he is history, as far as this election is concerned. I will have to go with McCain, although I am not in total agreement with him. I am also concerned that he is a bit "long in the tooth" for the job.
I have a fantasy where McCain runs, with Giuliani as his running mate.
I'll be voting for John McCain. I've supported him from the beginning, and the measure of my support has grown ever since. His integrity and strength of character are unmatched by any of the other candidates, of either Party. He has demonstrated his dedication to the Nation's welfare above personal and party interests repeatedly. John McCain has spent gained more experience dealing with domestic and foreign policy than all of the other candidates combined. People may not like everything that McCain says, or stands for, but he can be trusted not to waffle because of a popular poll, or a bit of political pressure. John McCain is a moderate, and that describes the political posture of most Americans of both parties. He has behaved responsibly when attacked, and his counter-attacks aren't likely to alienate the opposition.
I expect we're going to see increased emphasis on his age, but the man is healthy and in these times we can expect that he will remain a dynamic leader for at least one, and perhaps two terms. His age may actually be an asset because the largest and voting block most likely to turnout and cast ballots are folks over the age of 50.
Who will the Democrats choose to run against the GOP candidate? At the moment it appears that the Democratic candidate will be either Sen. Clinton, or Sen. Obama. The relationship between the two, and their supporters has become increasingly bitter, and reconciliation between the two camps will probably be even less likely between now and the Convention. Both like to portray themselves as moderate, yet both are pretty far left relative to where I believe the sentiments of most Americans lie. Clinton has the backing of traditional Democrats, big labor, and those who have strong women's issues as candidate qualifiers. Obama's strength is generally among the idealistic young, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who demand "change"; no matter what the changes might be, nor how much they might cost in terms of treasure of national security. Both are long on promises, but short on concrete plans that the electorate can use as comparisons. Both are savvy politicians who know how to effectively campaign by maintaining the image as "outsiders" to the political establishment, and neutral enough to adapt to any change in the popularity polls.
I don't think either one of the Democratic candidates can win a national Presidential election against any GOP contenders, except perhaps Huckabee or Ron Paul. Over the next months the differences between GOP congressional behavior and discipline, I believe, will also work against the Democrats and their candidates.
President John McCain. Get used to it.
sure, why not? peace is for pussies anyway.
Interesting that the Republican party has spent the last several years savaging McCain - and yet, there's little posted about this hurting his electoral chances this year. But the Dem divisions, never mind the fact that the candidates have almost exactly the same platforms, man, those are huge.
Please
Cycloptichorn
that's because the GOP has only one interest in mind.... staying in power.
Asherman wrote:Obama's strength is generally among the idealistic young, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who demand "change"; no matter what the changes might be, nor how much they might cost in terms of treasure of national security. Both are long on promises, but short on concrete plans that the electorate can use as comparisons.
You're voting for McCain and yet feel qualified to speak for young people? Interesting. I think it's pretty clear what kind of change we demand and anticipate, out of any candidate, really. Deciphering "what the changes might be" merely requires reading. I don't see McCain laying out any more-specific plans than any other candidate on either side. Though I'll exclude the nebulous, whatever-you-guys-want Romney from that point.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:that's because the GOP has only one interest in mind.... staying in power.
And the Dems also have only one interest in mind...gaining power.
What makes them any different then the GOP in that respect?
they're decent people and republicans are poopity heads... we established that a long time ago...
Nice post by Asherman - though I am somewhat less confident of a Republican victory in the Presidential election than he.
Frankly I don't see a much greater difference between the stated positions of the Democrat candidates than those of their leading Republican counterparts. The fact is that the 'outliers' of both parties have already been either eliminated from the race (Edwards most prominently) or have been marginalized and are no longer an important factor (Huckabee).
I thing we will soon see in both parties an increasing emphasis on which of their candidates is most likely to win in the final election -- in short we will increasingly see the real issue here in terms of which party holds the Presidency.
georgeob1 wrote:Nice post by Asherman - though I am somewhat less confident of a Republican victory in the Presidential election than he.
Frankly I don't see a much greater difference between the stated positions of the Democrat candidates than those of their leading Republican counterparts. The fact is that the 'outliers' of both parties have already been either eliminated from the race (Edwards most prominently) or have been marginalized and are no longer an important factor (Huckabee).
I thing we will soon see in both parties an increasing emphasis on which of their candidates is most likely to win in the final election -- in short we will increasingly see the real issue here in terms of which party holds the Presidency.
And this is why I waited till after the Florida primary to start paying serious atention to the campaigns on either side.
I wanted to wait till the minor players were gone.
Before then, there were to many candidates, sying to many different things, to pay serious attention to what was going on.
yes it's difficult, concentrating on more than one thing....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:yes it's difficult, concentrating on more than one thing....
Not for me it isnt, but if you have that problem thats ok.
I just didnt feel like listening to the cacophony of voices saying essentially nothing and everything at the same time.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:one of you two misspelled that word.... I'm obviously too stupid to know who.... :wink:
Neither of us misspelled the word, because the Koolaid Kid used the singular and I used the plural.
