Why I Support John McCain

Slkshock, don't bother trying to intellectually duel with the troll Cycloptichorn. He is of an extreme leftest bent. He was undoubtedly fed the socialist meanderings of many of longwinded liberal intellectual. Hence he cannot help but spew true bafflement that anyone who doesn't agree with him may be smart (possibly smarter that he, in fact).

Welcome to A2K Parker Cross.

With that said, Cycle has earned his wings. You no doubt disagree with this worldview, but you're need to offer more than you are if you wish to be so critical of another member. You're not exactly presenting yourslef as being very bipartisan in your rhetoric here. Relatively speaking, if you're so far right, everything becomes "leftist," even the moderates and independants.

You eagerness to use terms like "leftist" seem extemely dismissive and disregaurd that we as people can come to conclusions on our own. I'm sure you would not appriciate being told that your worldview was not your own and therefore irrelevant. Glasshouses...

Certainly many people are voting with Obama to vote against the Republicans. You act as if people are trying to hide that. However, many including myself are voting for Obama because we feel like he is the best fit.

As I have witnessed here on the forums (and elsewhere) democrats seem to be very pleased with Obama and republicans seem to be justifying there vote as the lesser of two evils. If any group can't come to terms with why they are voting in a particular way it's not the democrats.

Besides, many more "republicans" will vote for McCain because he has a greater chance of winning than a 3rd party person who more fits their desire for president.

Basically "I don't like McCain, but my desire for Obama to lose is greater than my desire to vote for a 3rd party cadidate that best represents me" becomes the par for the course.

It's my observation that despite the intense primary, the dems seem more at peace with their candidate. the DNC went very well for them, and they came together very well. The republicans on the other hand seem very insecure about their candidate. Even your OP starts out with you not supporting McCain, but instead trashing Obama.

As it's been said, a candidate should be good independant of who they are up against. The "why" should have zero to do with who they are up against.

Obama supporters have been given quite an advantage in this regaurd. The more Obama talks about the issues, the more they get to know him and the better understanding that they have for his plans. An Obama supporter is better positioned to be able to say "why" without having to ever mention McCain or George W Bush.

T
K
O

Hola, gato.

Gasp!

Are you English Parkie?

Tasty I must admit.

It doesn't matter who wins. Events are in charge. Events are generally nasty and the President takes the blame for them because blaming the events themselves is religious superstition and thus it has to be somebody's fault. Like you build a house on land that's cheap because it's in hurricane alley and when the hurricane comes and blows it over it has to be somebody's else's fault.

Imagine yourselves in hibernation for two years. Do you think you could guess who won from looking around?

Where in the sticks do I come from? I come from Chicago. Do you know where those "sticks"are?

Racists have always downplayed the brilliance of black people. Black people have to twice as good to prove themselves and then, they will still be downgraded.

Senator Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review and graduated Cum Laude from the best law school in the country. He was a community organizer, state legislator and Senator.

That is not enough for some people.

He has energized millions of people who will vote him in as 44th President of the United states-PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

We have only had a few presidents during this century who were brilliant, highly intelligent people-----Woodrow Wilson, FDR, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Senator Obama would follow quite well in those footsteps.

And we can guarantee everybody that Obama will not have a tete-a-tete or anything else with another female - even a consenting one.

Wow!! c.i. does think he's under the cosh. Guarantee eh?

I wouldn't like anybody to have said that about me when I was Mr Obama's age. No sir!!

And c.i. is a fully paid up Darwinian evolutionist. In which scheme a consenting female causes a reflex action.

Extensive tittering is in order.

Ahh, that explains it...its the homeboy thing. I understand, I have a preference for folks from my neck of the woods as well.



You are a bitter, bitter man...racism is out there, no doubt (I've seen it and experienced it), but all too often, minorities accuse others of racism simply to excuse thei own shortcomings.

By the way, you do realize that Obama graduated magna cum laude (top 20%) which means he was not even in the top 4-5% of his class (else he would have graduated summa cum laude).

Harvard Honors Program



I'm sure you also know that selection for the President of the Harvard Law Review is not based on grades but based on a "popularity contest" amongst the 80 editors of the Review. Obama campaigned and won the position from among a mere 18 other hopefuls. Prior to the 1970's the position was based strictly on grades but no more...this was changed in order to "help insure that minority students become editors".

New York Times


Sorry, but selection for the President of the Harvard Law Review reveals only slightly more about Obama's intelligence then becoming Homecoming Queen or High School Class President.

Wait... you're argument is that Obama was merely in the top 20% of his class at Harvard?

You do realize how assinine you sound, right?

You guys are really enamored with Harvard aren't you?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that just because you graduated in the top 20% from Harvard (or any other Ivy League) you should be classified as some kind of genius. Sure the competition is tougher to get into Harvard, so I have to give some credit to Obama, but not that much.

I "merely" graduated from the top 10% of my class at West Point which is, like Harvard, one of the top 20 most competetive schools in the nation to get into. Nevertheless, I don't consider myself a genius (as I'm sure many folks on A2K will attest), nor do I use nebulous math to arrogantly place myself to be in the top 0.1% of intelligent folks in the nation, as Barackman has done with Obama.

Obama is a smart and adept politician, but don't make him out to be some kind of political savant, simply because of decent grades in college and the fact that he won a two-bit election in law school.

I doubt even Cyc would disagree that he is a leftist. His right wing is extremely stunted.

You do realize that you didn't go to graduate school at West Point, don't you slk?

But lets just compare the selectivity of undergraduate programs at the 2 schools based on SATs for the heck of it....
For undergraduate Harvard's average SAT is 1494
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_SAT_score_of_Ivy_League_students
For West Point it is 1200
http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AcademyNominations.IndividualAcademyRequirements
Based on those numbers, Harvard's average student is in the top 1% scorer on the SATs while West Point is in the top 22%.

But......

Obama want to Harvard Law which selects 12% of applicants that have already graduated from places like Harvard and West Point. You have to have an undergraduate GPA of over 3.72 to even be considered. So that means Harvard law takes about 12% of the top 20% of undergraduates. It is a select group that gets in and an even more select group that graduates in the top 20%.

It's been said already but the most ridiculous meme out of the republican play book these days is to attack our intellectuals and demonize our brightest individuals.

Obama is so elite, he even paid off is student loans...

T
K
O

touche.

However, to say that cyclo can be ignored because leftists can be ignored is formal fallacy. To each argument their merits please.

Cyclo isn't ignoring the "rightists" here. He not too insecure to address counter points.

T
K
O

Thanks for the defenses TKO.

What Gato (welcome back, moron) and Silk and McG don't seem to realize is that I was a staunch Republican for most of my life. Voted for Bush in 2k. Explained to my friends that he wasn't a ****-up, like they all said he was. It wasn't until the day I heard Bush say,



6 months after 9/11, that I knew that whatever the Republican party had turned into, it had left me behind.

I re-examined my life and found that many of the right-wing positions that I and others I knew had held, were based in greed and a lack of empathy towards the situation of others. I have always been blessed with intelligence and the ability to analyze situations quickly. This has given me certain advantages in life that others don't necessarily enjoy. I had used those advantages to elevate my status, in my own mind. That was wrong. I think this is the foundation of Republican philosophy: that people aren't equal, not really, and that the cream will rise to the top and hell with the rest, for at the end of the day, it's the 'special' people, the rich/smart/white ones that matter.

I have consistently maintained that the Dem party garners my support by being only somewhat less corrupt than the Republican party. And the events of the last decade or so have born this out, completely. It's not that Dems are saints, or that Liberal positions are inherently superior to Conservative ones; it's the real-world actions, the types of people who run the parties, and the decisions they make, which solidified my world-view.

There are a lot of Republicans like my family members: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I can understand that and even applaud it. Too bad the Republican party is ran by the other bunch nowdays: socially conservative, fiscally liberal. Also known as, the worst type of person found on the face of the earth, ideologues who are more then willing to tell others how to live their lives - on topics which affect NOBODY but the people in question - and willing to run up gigantic and ruinous deficits and debts while doing it. I despise the modern Republican party, for corruption has leached it's way into the bones of the beast. Bush is not the cause of this, he is a symptom of this. Many modern Republicans think corruption and abuse of power is appropriate, that loyalty tests are 'good policy,' that intellectualism - intelligence and the drive to study on issues - are a 'bad thing.'

I will never countenance a party who believes that there are simply answers to the complex questions of life. We've had eight years of 'simple answers' from a simple guy, and it's been a complete failure. No more.

Everyone knows that the strongest voices in a party comes from those who have converted from the other side. I know the face of Republicanism, I know the things that are said behind closed doors, because I lived it. It isn't a pretty picture.

Cycloptichorn

Interesting story Cyclo.

For me, I didn't find myself moving towards being a democrat, I found that what was a democrat was moving towards me.

We don't have a left and right system, we have a centrist and extremist system.

T
K
O

You do know something then? It's a start.