Real World

I won't vote for him, but if McCain wins the nomination, I think he wins the White House. He'd be far more appealing to moderates and independents than either Obama, or Hillary. Of course, we're incredibly far from November, so it's merely an opinion.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Stokes

Even if its McCain vs. Hillary you won't vote McCain? I can understand disagreeing with him on a bunch of issues, but I see her positions as even worse, and I'd rather vote for him than abstain from voting or writing in someone. I guess it all depends on how comfortable you are voting for the "less-bad" candidate, I can see how that is not an exciting option.

Real World

I won't say never, but it's highly unlikely at this point. I just can't vote for someone who I have such disagreements with. Amnesty is a strict no-no for me. What's worse about his position on immigration, is that he wanted to let all the invaders who were here prior to January 1, 2007, stay. That's utterly ridiculous. The border is still swiss cheese, and this guy wants to let EVERYONE stay. Beyond that, how many more millions are going to make it through before it's sealed, if it's ever sealed at all. It was the most irresponsible, moronic piece of legislation I've seen in some time. These clowns knew it too, which is why they wanted to rush it through without any hearings. I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who not only thought it was a good idea, but who was the torch holder. To hear him say it isn't Amnesty bothers me too. I think it insults my intelligence, and the intelligence of so many who see it for what it is. Paying a fine and being able to stay is fukcing Amnesty John. The more I think about it the more I won't vote for him. I just got back from Florida with some friends, and one of my buddies who doesn't really follow politics, but votes, was asking me who I liked (he knows I follow this stuff). I told him I was undecided, and he went on about how he really likes McCain, and asked if I did. When I told him I respected him for his honesty, but that I couldn't vote for him because he pushed Amnesty, my buddy got pissed and crossed him off his list ASAP. How could someone be so out of touch, and so dillusional about immigration? This country is so fukced it's not funny. We're really doomed.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

what does this even mean?

you ignore a lot of my posts because you A) agree with them fully, and can't stand to admit it openly, or B) have absolutely nothing to say, because you know there's no real excuse for the criminals in office ... the only time you comment is when you find some minor, perceived non sequitur that has little/nothing to do with the topic being discussed and try to pretend your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about... all while fronting that we're merely "discussing" and not adversary...

any questions i've asked about 9/11 Truth, Plame-gate, the stolen 2000 election, etc., have yet to be answered with anything but delusion or Clinton deflection... i can assure you, i ignore no one... they've yet to be debunked, each one of them...

you've just summed up the battle tactics of you and your constituents here... how ironic... anyhow, clue me in to a statement i've made that has been false... i mean, i'm sure i may have, inadvertantly, a time or two, but you're being very Foggish right now... i.e., overdramatic...

clearly? i don't? based on what, exactly? or are you just making things up again based on what you feel?

who said i didn't understand it? you're the one changing the argument... the fact remains, he's staunchly anti-abortion, and would work to overturn Roe-v.-Wade... that affected his poor performance.... what part of THAT don't you understand?

anyone who supports, apologizes and lies for the Bush League and their own lies is my opponent regarding those topics... fortunately, they're a dying breed.... anyone who announces they were "against going into Iraq, but now that we're there, oh well" is my opponent... this is a debate forum, not a place to hold hands.... or would you like to "discuss" Iraq and "share ideas" about the fraudulent WoT?.... you have just as much of an agenda... and you often act like a boy.... the irony is thick...

PressCoverage

no where near the instant the sperm hits the egg, as some people would have everyone believe...

Stokes

Weren't we going to see a kinder, gentler PC for the new year? Deep breaths PC, deep breaths, serenity now, serenity now...

PressCoverage

yes... unfortunately, it passed when people made unsolicited comments about my family, my income and the perceptions of my lifestyle rather than staying on topic as i had asked for... at that point, i began to speak back to them in a similar language they can easily understand...

Wildo7

Ahhh the "states rights" argument that the right employs whenever it suits them and dismisses when it doesn't. What's that you say? Gay marriage in Massachusetts? They have no right to do this, we must pass a consitutional amendment banning this one.....

What about the idea of abortion has anything to do with local v. federal government? What tangible reason is there that the states should decide this? Why would one state have a different set of human rights than another?

Farm subsidies for different agrarian populations? leave it up to the states. A woman's right to choose? umm not so much, this one should be universal.

Wildo7

But don't you get it? They teach Ad Hominem at the Conservative debating society. Can't argue with what Al Gore says? just attack his character. Disagree with Michael Moore but don't have any evidence? just call him fat and rich. Bill Clinton fires back? well then he's "Billy Blue Dress." Apparently you were unaware that it's logically sound to defeat others arguments by insulting them.

Stokes

There's nothing inconsistant with being against gay marriage in MA and against Roe v. Wade, that's the whole reason a constitutional ammendment would be needed to block gay marriage, because that's the only way to override the state's power! If the state has power to grant marriages to whomever they wish, should they also have the power to make laws restricting abortion? (My answer? I really don't know.) I think the big problem with Roe is that the definition of privacy intimated in the majority decision that prevents states from establishing antiabortion laws is questionable. There is still fierce debate over whether the constitution actually guarantees the ability to have an abortion as a right under the umbrella of privacy. That would be the reason to leave it to the individual states, that the decision was based on questionable definitions and rights laid out in the constitution. We already allow different states to have different human rights laws, don't we? What about the death penalty? The decision to allow that is made on a state by state basis, right? Or decisions to take children away from incompetent parents (DSS), those are state-run agencies, I think.