Who Are You Voting For?

Tools    


Who Are You Voting For?
66.67%
28 votes
Barack Obama/Joe Biden
16.67%
7 votes
John McCain/Sarah Palin
16.67%
7 votes
Other
42 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Long Live The New Flesh
Nope, just a fact.
Glad to see you aren't above childish personal attacks at the ripe age of 42. It lends so much credibility to the conservative argument, and certainly doesn't justify my opinion about them being uneducated, vacuous, and facile.



Long Live The New Flesh
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE YOUR ARGUMENT?
The same place my argument stands after hearing Yoda's "common sense"?

93% eh? I'd love to see you try to corroborate that with any actual evidence.



A system of cells interlinked
Glad to see you aren't above childish personal attacks at the ripe age of 42. It lends so much credibility to the conservative argument, and certainly doesn't justify my opinion about them being uneducated, vacuous, and facile.
Ok, so...

"Nope, it's just a fact." is a personal attack?

I don't see it as one.

YOUR post, on the other hand could definitely be considered a personal attack, passive-aggressive as it may be. I see 7thson stating alleged facts (I haven't checked them myself) about Obama's voting percentile, while your post infers (and no, not in a clever, snarky way, like you think) 7thson is uneducated, vacuous, and facile. He isn't.


Oh, and, for the record, I am NO fan of the GOP.
__________________
"Theres absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Long Live The New Flesh
Ok, so...

"Nope, it's just a fact." is a personal attack?

I don't see it as one.
I view this following quote as a personal attack, yes, as it's a pejorative statement directed at me unprovoked:

Party politics aside: V.D. is a bit infected, kinda like a VD
How you fail to see that as a personal attack, I'm not sure.

Oh, and, for the record, I am NO fan of the GOP.
Oh, of course not.



YOUR post, on the other hand could definitely be considered a personal attack, passive-aggressive as it may be. I see 7thson stating alleged facts (I haven't checked them myself) about Obama's voting percentile, while your post infers (and no, not in a clever, snarky way, like you think) 7thson is uneducated, vacuous, and facile. He isn't.
Well I certainly am not uneducated, not sure what those other two words mean though.

My stats are actually about right if you look at cspan records, but I have to say that on a percentile scale that most of the time congress and the president do agree, it is just about things like vaccines, nutrition, drugs, etc... In otherwords almost everyone votes yes or no for these types of things. I do admit though that on the bigger issues the percentage is much more bipartisan. I was just wanting to show how easy it is to use stats to "spin" things.

Look VD, I am a jokester, very sarcastic sometimes, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am sorry if you felt offended.

Oh, and thanks Sedai.
__________________
The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands. Sir Richard Burton



You're a Genius all the time
Hey, quick question for all you folks who chose "Other" in the poll. Who, exactly, are you going to vote for? Cynthia McKinney? Bob Barr? Ted Weill? Richard Nixon's Head?



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Videodrome, I do think Sedai is not a fan of the GOP.

And 7thson, that VD comment -- that was a personal attack, wasn't it? While Videodrome made some strong comments, I'm sorry, I think he/she made some interesting points and created a rather interesting debate here with Yoda.

OTOH, Videodrome, there were some nasty generalizations made by you.

Here's what bothers me so much -- this country has always been partisan since I can remember, but I cannot remember such nastiness on both sides until the early 90s. I'm sure the republicans here will want to blame the Dems somehow, but I believe it really began with the republicans wanting to teach that upstart Clinton a lesson in the 90s. Payback for Nixon? And so we were treated to an impeachment over a private sexual indescretion, the rising ratings of a total douchebag in Rush Limbaugh (this is not a man) and then the elections of Bush. Now everyone hates each other, people can't even argue without personally attacking others.

And of course, the very idea that we would impeach Clinton yet Bush has gotten away with crimes against the country and the people (yes, that is what I think), well, it's just ludricrous. And it's because one party was too powerful and no longer cared about doing what was right and good for the country.

And I'm as guilty as anyone. I'm guilty in this thread (well, the other election thread) of partisanship. I hate the republican party for what they've done. Hate them. I can barely discuss this sort of thing without getting angry. I think it sad we've come to this and I wish both conservatives and liberals and moderates here could all agree that this kind of partisanship isn't good.

And how are we going to change it? I'm not sure we can ever go back unless we get a leader who is willing to bring us together somehow. Bush wasn't that man (he made it worse) and I don't think McCain is either. I'm hoping Obama is. I'm not saying he is... I'm only hoping.

*dreamer*



Very nice tramp, very nice. That is not a barb, I understand now more where you come from. Not that I agree totally of course (so please do not blast me), but I do get a more empathetic feel to your thought process, believe it or not.?

But...does Rush have to be a total douchebag, couldn't he be more like a hot water bottle or maybe a maxipad?



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Very nice tramp, very nice. That is not a barb, I understand now more where you come from. Not that I agree totally of course (so please do not blast me), but I do get a more empathetic feel to your thought process, believe it or not.?

But...does Rush have to be a total douchebag, couldn't he be more like a hot water bottle or maybe a maxipad?
Thanks for that, 7thson. It really does make me a bit happy you said that. I just wish you would agree with me sometime.

As to Rush, well, don't get me started. The words that would come out of my mouth would cause even the most jaded person to blush. A hot water bottle and a maxipad are the best things in the world compared to him.

There's this progressive radio commentator, Ed Schulz, who sound so eerily like Rush I have trouble listening to him. And I agree with him a great deal of the time!



Whoever it ends up being, maybe we can finally get some decent insurance coverage in this country. I'm apparently too American for such a thing these days.



A system of cells interlinked
I view this following quote as a personal attack, yes, as it's a pejorative statement directed at me unprovoked:



How you fail to see that as a personal attack, I'm not sure.
Because that isn't what you quoted in your response, which is what I replied to? This is blindingly obvious. Sorry if you missed it. Maybe quote the actual statement you are talking about next time, instead of some other random statement, that has no bearing on what you are saying.

Seriously, scroll on up to the top of this page and reread the comment I responded to. You are the one that posted the quote by 7thSon, then responding to the quote, complaining about a personal attack. I was simply replying to what you had said.

And, I will say it again, I AM NOT A FAN OF THE GOP. You may not have been being sarcastic about my comment, but it seems like you were.

I am a Libertarian (and left leaning at that, an oddity, to be sure), and have been for years, so, no, I am not a fan of the GOP.



Wow, apparently I've been given negative rep by Videodrome for basically every post I've made in this thread -- even ones not directed at him. Lashing out, much?

Anyway, I wrote most of this reply the same day of the post being replied to, but was busy and didn't finish it until now. If some of the responses seem to not take recent events into account (like the comments on polling), well, that's why.
Why would something like that matter to anyone, when the investigation is to see if Palin was involved in trying to fire him? This isn't an investigation about the trooper, it's to see if Palin is guilty of misconduct.
It might not matter to the person hired to oversee the investigation, but it should absolutely matter to voters. This is precisely my point: you care more about whether or not you can catch her breaking a rule, than whether or not she was right; whether or not he was unfit for his position. Your question is telling: why would you care whether or not the trooper SHOULD have been fired? Well, you wouldn't, because that's where your priorities lie: you care only about whether or not you can pin something on her.
I'm much more concerned to know if our possible next VP is corrupt than I am to know if this guy goes to church on Sunday. Aren't you?
Yeah, because threatening to "put a f**cking bullet" in someone's head, driving drunk and tasering your kids are tiny little matters. Sarcastic remarks like "goes to church on Sunday" only make sense if you're describing unimportant things. But you're not. They're serious, and reckless. The guy shouldn't have kept his job, but he did.
Sounds like you've already tried him. I can only imagine how many wrongfully prosecuted innocent people are sitting in jail because of one-sided thinking like yours.
Uh, I "tried" him for something he's already admitted doing, and for things an independent investigation has concluded he did.

And not to go all playground on you, but five minutes ago you were calling these accusations "contrived" and "unsubstantiated," when in reality they'd already been confirmed or admitted. Is that "one-sided" thinking? Do I get to make some completely over the top statement about wrongful imprisonment about you, too? And are you going to admit that you obviously didn't know any of this, but started airing your opinions forcefully, anyway? Answers, please.
You seem confused. Your digression to the question of the troopers guilt is a red herring. You keep arguing whether or not the trooper is guilty. That's completely irrelevant here. The investigation is to determine whether or not Palin is involved in the firing of her brother the trooper. Palin, who has previously stated her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, later had to explain and audio recording that reveals her aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire him. Now her staff is playing Alberto Gonzales and smell like Fisherman's Warf.
I'm not even remotely confused, and it's rich hearing that from someone who clearly went into this discussion without knowing the basic facts of the case. I can live with some ignorance -- we're all ignorant of something, after all -- but it ought to be accompanied by humility.

Who's angry? Whatever lead you to that conclusion is probably the same famous logic that lead you to believe a pattern of McCain loss could magically turn around for him when the more charismatic, and articulate Obama faces him in a debate.
Yeah, silly me. I forgot that things like charisma and articulation, rather than facts and temperament, are what win debates. Hell, why even HAVE them, right? Obama won them already! That's probably why he refused John McCain's proposal to do 10 of them: he didn't want to win by TOO much.

Back to being serious: I didn't suggest the debates would turn things around for McCain. I said it was only September, that we haven't seen whatever bump the RNC might yield, and that we haven't seen any of the debates, either. All three things combined to form a single point: that it's early yet, and whatever lead Obama has has been either within the margin of error, or still quite small.

By the way, that "magic" bump took place: McCain took a lead of about 5 points immediately following the convention and held the lead for a week. It has since bounced back to Obama, and now back to even, at least according to Gallup daily. Like I said before: a convention bounce was an inevitability. At no point was there a "pattern" of McCain loss, as I illustrated in my last reply, and will remind you of below.
Everyone that saw the stats you just pointed out for starters. Beyond that, anyone in the nation who's even marginally been following the race thus far (except for the not so popular Republicans in denial of course).
I ask again: like who? Why do you keep avoiding direct questions? When I ask them, I get answers like "everyone" or childish jabs like "everyone but Republicans in denial." These aren't answers. They're the kinds of things people say when they don't HAVE an answer.

Right. It's called seeing how it is, as you just explained to yourself, but apparently failed to grasp.
This is a pointless response. Do both of us a favor: if you don't have something substantive to say, please don't say anything. Trying to squeeze a grade-school-level barb into every line is a waste of time, and doesn't make your point for you.

As if the debates were going to help McCain against the likes of Obama somehow? Where Obama has always excelled, and McCain is notably weak?
They might, they might not. Bush isn't much of a debater, but most people believe he benefitted greatly from them in 2000. My point, if you bothered to pay attention to it, wasn't just centered around the debates, though. It made note of the debates, but also the fact that we haven't seen the response to the Republican convention yet, and it's only September 1st. All of these things make a 6-point lead anything but comfortable, if that's even the lead he holds (as of now, Gallup has it even again).

And, again: if Obama is so clearly superior as a debater, why would he duck them, and settle on a lower number?

It's not "locked", but most people will admit McCain is fighting an uphill battle.
Yes, he absolutely is fighting an uphill battle. No disagreement there; I've only disputed your exaggerations on this topic. So: it's not locked, and McCain wasn't "sinking like the Titanic," and nothing in the polls shows that McCain was "desperate," either. You seem to admit that here, but then argue with it elsewhere. Make up your mind. I don't mind pointing it out when you exaggerate, but if you're ready to admit it, save us both the time, would you?

Republicans aren't that popular right now. Bush made sure of that. And since McCain has openly professed his war-mongering desire to perpetuate a fruitless war, and voted with Bush 90% of the time, the GOP will continue to be fighting from behind.
In case you didn't know, the 90% number includes meaningless resolutions, like the ones they pass to formally congratulate championship sports teams. So, I have some questions for you, and I'd like straightforward answers to all of them, please:

1) Did you know this? If not, do you think you should really be repeating statistics you haven't looked into?

2) Do you think all votes are equally important? Should multiple votes on similar topics be counted?

3) Do you think the sorts of platitudinal resolutions are at all relevant in comparing Bush and McCain?

If the answer to the third question is "no," then I pose a fourth:

4) If many of these resolutions are not relevant in making this comparison, wouldn't that make the 90% figure highly misleading?

My own experience with conservatives, both statistically, and anecdotally is that they share two or more of the following characteristics: Intolerant, culturally inept, uneducated, stiff, dry, boring, unsophisticated, ethnocentric, facile, stubborn, reckless, war-mongering with childlike compulsions to see explosions/fire guns and wage war for the sake of war (or to prove something), emotionally unstable, gullible, vacuous, bigoted, religious nuts.

The one misconception they've all shared, that I've seen, is the primitive and ludicrous assumption that caution, intellectualism, and a diplomacy-first approach, is somehow synonymous with having "no balls".

I don't need to generalize, from my experience Republicans are caricatures of their own stereotypes.
You say you don't need to generalize, because of your experiences. Look up the word generalize: making broad judgments based only on your personal experiences is precisely what makes it generalization.

I'm sorry, but these sorts of statements are simply ignorant. I originally wrote a paragraph explaining why generalizations are logically flawed, but you haven't given me any reason to think you would thoughtfully consider it at all, so I won't bother. Suffice to say, such generalizations cannot co-exist with genuine open-mindedness.

Your profile says you live in San Francisco. A quick check of the election returns there shows that, in 2006, no Republican managed to break the 30% mark, and most received closer to 15% of the vote. This is the very definition of an "echo chamber," and I submit for consideration the possibility that this has something to do with your extreme views on conservatives. If you don't know any reasonable ones, it's because you either don't care to, or dismiss them before they can contradict the stereotypes you hold.
I find it hilarious that even conservative media admits Palin was a move for Hillary supporters in the 8% undecided base, and yet here you are trying to pretend she's a normal VP choice, selected on the basis of her experience and qualifications somewhow.
What "conservative media" are you referring to, and how can they "admit" something about a choice they didn't make? Or do you think all conservatives know each other and have giant meetings where we decide what to say? Hang on, let me warn Sean Hannity that you're onto us with my secret decoder ring.

Also, when did I say she was normal? She is decidedly not, which is one of the reasons many people like the choice.
Why would that be a non sequitur? Palin was the least qualified among all of the known options being discussed prior Aug 29. She's certainly an unconventional pick in most regards The only people left McCain has a chance of winning over are in that 8% undecided base that reportedly shares a signifcant amount of Hillary supporters. In light of that, it's comical that you could try to pretend to conclude otherwise.
Aha, now it starts to come into view. You're saying that 8% of total voters are undecided, and that lots of Hillary voters have yet to gravitate towards Barack. Okay, I get that. But this paragraph reveals the error: you're assuming that Hillary voters must therefore make up a huge portion of that 8%. I think that's false, and I don't think there's any data to support that idea. If you have some, let's see it.

Moreover, you also seem to be operating under the assumption that the only thing a politician can do is try to win over undecideds. This is quite obviously false. Aside from the possibility of changing some decided voters' minds, many elections are won not by persuading many people, but by motivating your supporters. Getting people to actually show up and vote is a huge challenge, and tremendous amounts of time and money are put into it. Elections can be won or lost based on enthusiasm alone.

On top of all this, you ALSO seem to be assuming that people can only pick running mates for a single reason. It's entirely possible that McCain picked Palin for many, many reasons, with the outside chance of picking up a few scattered Hillary voters being a small bonus. There doesn't have to be one big reason, and frankly, the idea is awfully simplistic.
We've unfortunately been exposed to your brand of "common sense" already in this thread, and have likewise seen it exposed for its ridiculousness (as was explained in your failed non sequitur
charge).
I like how you say "it wasn't a non sequitur" and then immediately make reference to my "failed non sequitur charge." Is this how you think arguments work?

Also, you use the word "we've," but I'm fairly certain you're alone in the vast majority of your claims. There are lots of people on this site who don't care for the Palin pick, but I think you'll find you're quite unique in regards to a) your idea that Obama's running away with the election, b) the idea that all Republicans fit the mold you've described, and c) that I have a warped notion of common sense. I take political discussions quite seriously, and put a lot of thought into my responses. Ask around: I think you'll find there is a lot of mutual respect between myself and the people I disagree with.

So he's shown a pattern of leading the polls, and "everyone and their dog" predicted he would come out on top, yet you're convinced McCain has a good shot? Must be that famous "common sense" you were talking about.
Nah, it's that famous empirical data. Let's try this again. Stay with me this time:

Average Obama margin: 2.2%. Margin of error: 2%.

You made a number of exaggerated statements about Obama's standing in the polls. You claimed that the polls made McCain desperate, and so he picked Palin out of that desperation. I've shown you that Obama's lead leading up to the pick was almost identical to the margin of error, which makes it statistically insignificant by definition. What part of this line of reasoning are you getting tripped up on, exactly?

Are we supposed to infer from that, that you're projecting now?

Either you're in complete denial, or that was all hyperbole to save face.
Er, no, that was me correcting some of your factual inaccuracies. This is another pointless insult with no relevance to the discussion.

With regards to Halliburton, if what you claimed were actually true, there wouldn't be an ongoing investigation by the FBI into the fairness of contract awards for both Halliburton and KBR, as well as several other profiteering investigations actively underway by the The Justice Department
This doesn't make sense. I never said Halliburton has never done anything wrong, or could not possibly do anything that might have to be investigated. I said it wasn't a private, no-bid contract. Googling a bunch of articles about Halliburton doesn't refute that.

I think, if you read what I actually write, you'll find that I don't generally overreach and make statements I can't defend. You don't get to argue with what you THINK a conservative might say, you only get to argue with what's actually said.

If you mean to suggest that Cheney being an ex CEO of Halliburton, but still receiving deferred compensation and retaining stock options with them while he is VP has nothing to do with Halliburton getting the first big contract before any bidding was done is just a coincidence, I'm not buying it. And I doubt anyone else here would either. Especially given the fact they're still under investigation for that.
Yeah, uh, repeating: they didn't get a contract without bidding. They had to bid competitively, the Clinton administration awarded them a contract, and that contract has been repeatedly extended since. If you don't like them, hey, that's fine. But get your facts straight. And stop starting side-arguments by making random comments about how you really, really, really hate Bush. If you can't control your hatred for the man long enough to talk about anything else, then you can find someone else to argue with. I'm not interested in discussing things with someone who can't stay on topic.
To pretend the nation won't transfer most of the Bush animosity to McCain tells me you're in either la-la land, or in denial.
Then why are the polls so close? Why do they show McCain receiving more support than Bush's approval ratings? Why is Obama running behind a generic Democratic ballot? Sorry, but people aren't that stupid. They've seen how many times McCain has defied his own party. He criticized them at their own convention just last night. When's the last time Obama stood up to his own party?

Free advice: spend less time talking about how apparently ridiculous I am, and more time actually providing evidence to demonstrate it. Perhaps you think an argument consists of 10% Googling and pasting and 90% talking trash, but it doesn't. Or shouldn't, at least.



Originally Posted by Yoda
It might not matter to the person hired to oversee the investigation, but it should absolutely matter to voters. This is precisely my point: you care more about whether or not you can catch her breaking a rule, than whether or not she was right; whether or not he was unfit for his position. Your question is telling: why would you care whether or not the trooper SHOULD have been fired? Well, you wouldn't, because that's where your priorities lie: you care only about whether or not you can pin something on her.
WOW. That was spooky. It was like you were channeling an argument against Ken Starr, only with a different pronoun.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra