Real Dilemma

cjhsa made a funny. Cool

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

I couldn't agree more. I'd also include Hillary in that category, too (academic point as her chances are nearly nil for nomination).

McCain seems clueless and intractable when it comes to working with his political opponents. Obama...well, I haven't seen enough proof that he's qualified and IMHO he hasn't enough time in Washington DC to show his track record of accomplishments.

I'm interested in how you reached the conclusion that McCain is intractable when it comes to working with his political opponents.

That he has, consistently, been able to come to compromise positions with members of the Democratic party has been a constant source of criticism from the right wing of his own party.

Surely you've heard of McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy?

I'm sure there are valid reasons to not vote for McCain, but an inability to work with his political opponents is certainly not one of them.

0 Replies

Bear in mind that people like Cycloptichorn eat up the bullshit propaganda faster than a fat guy can eat shrimp at a chinese buffet.

Just examine his posts.

He beilieves McCain is nothing more then Bush act 3 and it couldn't be further from the truth but the die hard libs can't get past that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bear in mind that people like Cycloptichorn eat up the bullshit propaganda faster than a fat guy can eat shrimp at a chinese buffet.

Just examine his posts.

He beilieves McCain is nothing more then Bush act 3 and it couldn't be further from the truth but the die hard libs can't get past that.

Ironic post, coming from you.

McCain is Bush three in every way that matters. Why don't you explain to us how he would be all that much different.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Your the one that believes it, why not explain every way they are the same?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What exactly are the Republicans going to hit Obama with, that Clinton didn't already do?

Cycloptichorn

nothing... just twice as vicious... twice as hard... twice as long... and the public will buy it for that reason....and no telling what will drop with the other shoe.... they will bring things up that the Hillary campaign.... regardless of what you think or say about her.... would not broach

And that is why you need to join us. Are you going to let them get away with it again or are you going to vote against that hateful, vicious attack machine. If you can't vote for Obama, then vote against a Republican machine that is willing to go to any lengths to extend their reign.

0 Replies

I think an Obama presidency will be just as disastrous.... although I don't think idealogically they are the similar....

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Your the one that believes it, why not explain every way they are the same?

I've done that in detail in other threads. Go look.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lots of threads. Why don't you post some we can click on.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What exactly are the Republicans going to hit Obama with, that Clinton didn't already do?

Cycloptichorn

nothing... just twice as vicious... twice as hard... twice as long... and the public will buy it for that reason....and no telling what will drop with the other shoe.... they will bring things up that the Hillary campaign.... regardless of what you think or say about her.... would not broach

And that is why you need to join us. Are you going to let them get away with it again or are you going to vote against that hateful, vicious attack machine. If you can't vote for Obama, then vote against a Republican machine that is willing to go to any lengths to extend their reign.

The horrible evil attack machine versus the idealistic enlightened organic system. Rolling Eyes

This reminds me of a discussion I recently heard on NPR concerning the Supreme Court's ruling on the Indiana Voter ID case.

A caller expressed outrage over a related column by Cal Thomas wherein he, apparently, suggested that the Democratic Party is "soft" on voter ID because it benefits from voter fraud.

The show's guest was equally outraged and proceeded to explain how it was obvious that the Republican party wants to address the voter fraud "canard," only because it wants to disenfranchize Democrat voters.

I understand the natural tendency to demonize one's "enemies," but isn't there a point where the hyperbole seems overdone even to those spouting it?

If the "Republican machine" was really willing to "go to any lengths to extend their reign," political campaign attacks would be the least of its ordinance.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Your the one that believes it, why not explain every way they are the same?

I've done that in detail in other threads. Go look.

Cycloptichorn

No, you have merely spouted propaganda like "McCain wants war for 100 years!" You have not explained anything because if you did you would see that the only similarities are ones shared by almost every Republican, not just Bush and McCain.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Your the one that believes it, why not explain every way they are the same?

I've done that in detail in other threads. Go look.

Cycloptichorn

No, you have merely spouted propaganda like "McCain wants war for 100 years!" You have not explained anything because if you did you would see that the only similarities are ones shared by almost every Republican, not just Bush and McCain.

Untrue. I have detailed several different ways in which they are the same. Here's three off of the cuff - economic policy, foreign policy, and lack of honesty.

You can find all those if you bother to do a simple search. I really could give a damn if you do or not, though, b/c you're not really interested in factual conversations, but instead, more interested in accusations and assertions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Nice try Cyc.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nice try Cyc.

As I said; it's really immaterial to me either way. You wouldn't admit the truth even if it was true, b/c you are not an intellectually honest person. It's a waste of time for me to attempt to discuss the issue with you; I'd rather focus on posters who are not a waste of time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Nice try Cyc.

As I said; I can't actually show any evidence beyond similar political philosophy to backup my statements so I will show what a tough guy I am by deriding my opponents; I'd rather focus on posters who are not such a challenge for me.

Cycloptichorn

Fixed that for you there big guy.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I think an Obama presidency will be just as disastrous.... although I don't think idealogically they are the similar....

Describe your worst case Obama Presidency and your worst case McCain Presidency. Not a ridiculous worst cast, but a reasonable worst case. How do they compare?

0 Replies

If we end up with a democratic president and a congress that is democratic we could wind up with the same excesses as the Bush government displayed. I don't think Obama has the statesmanship or the experience to buck a democratic congress. We could be in for a government that is just as dishonest as the Bush government but in a different political direction.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I think an Obama presidency will be just as disastrous.... although I don't think idealogically they are the similar....

Describe your worst case Obama Presidency and your worst case McCain Presidency. Not a ridiculous worst cast, but a reasonable worst case. How do they compare?

I don't have time to go policy by policy right now....but a McCain presidency WITH a democratic congress/house....will be very restricted. Not much will get done unless there is bi-partisen agreement, McCain's strong point.

An Obama presidency, with the house/congress on his side, will pass through just about anything he/they wants. Very little restriction. AND there is nothing to lead me to believe that Obama will reach across the isle....NOR will he have too with even larger majorities in the house/congress than we have now (probably).

I don't think I like the idea of a fully democratic government anymore than I like the idea of a fully republican government. Now that I think about it, I don't know if I could even support Clinton given the rest of the government's make up.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I understand the natural tendency to demonize one's "enemies," but isn't there a point where the hyperbole seems overdone even to those spouting it?

I wasnt sure, so I went through a series of your posts - and no, apparently there isnt.

0 Replies

(That was too easy.)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know