Expand Quote
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Put in bold to point out the way you reframed the experience question as well as the wording of the rest of your questions Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
I clearly wrote that it appears that you support McCain- you have defended him consistently, You are defending his choice of Palin right now and your name calling shows that what I say bothers you.* Also, you question people who support Obama as to why they do. You don't have to say in exact words "I support John McCain," to clearly be siding with him. Maybe its a devil's advocate position-- but I don't know you so I can't know that, and you are defending him. You even use Republican talking points.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on. The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explaination to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Topic: McSame picked a women VP (Read 34689 times)