After the last eight years, what could possibly posses you to vote Republican?

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

You mean the GOP re-nominated a popular incumbent in 2004? Say it ain' so!

What's different between Kerry and Obama, other than skin color and vocals?

I'll ask again. How many Republicans voting for McCain for checks and balances voted for Kerry in 2004?

Or are you going to finally agree that people like Genx87 are full of shit?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

You mean the GOP re-nominated a popular incumbent in 2004? Say it ain' so!

What's different between Kerry and Obama, other than skin color and vocals?

I'll ask again. How many Republicans voting for McCain for checks and balances voted for Kerry in 2004?

Or are you going to finally agree that people like Genx87 are full of shit?

I don't think the rationale works for anything other than spending issues.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Fern

See bolded

Fern

My point is that the Republican party in no way represents conservative principles. You've been lied to. The Republicans inflated the government by 60% and have been two-faced regarding every issue that conservatives find important. About the only thing they still agree on is gay marriage - way to go on being the party that doesn't want to intrude on personal lives.

The truth of the matter is that no matter how badly you don't want this to be true, the Democrats are more conservative-minded than the Republicans of the last 8 years. Less spending, less government, and less interference in personal lives have been pretty common amongst the leading Democrats. The Republicans, on the other hand, want more spending, more government, and more interference. Why is it so hard for people to see this? Just a few hours spent reading up on the candidates should be enough to demonstrate that I'm telling you the truth.

Or perhaps you don't even realize what conservative means anymore?

How could a true conservative ever support the war in Iraq? It's an indicator of the US Government attempting to extend its reach where it doesn't belong, costing billions of dollars along the way. How is that conservative in any way?

But you do agree that the Dems have decreased spending somewhat. In addition to that, spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 1990-1994, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, House, and for two of those years the White House. On the other hand, spending has increased faster than ever while the Republicans controlled all three. Are you noticing the trend? The Democrats have demonstrated that they can keep spending down even while controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House, whereas the Republicans have clearly shown that they don't give a damn.

Some Dems are 'morality police' but at least they're open about it, and the rest of the Dems can (and do) keep them in line. Two words crush your argument: gay marriage.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: danzig

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Stupidity and/or poor self-esteem (specifically, inability to admit fault and learn from errors).

Locally , I have seen many people who are finally admitting to this.

I screwed up and voted for GWB the first time. Shortly after , it was like GWB & Palpatine were merging into the same person.

Many of us didn't see him for the refuse he is. That's ok just as long as we have learned from our mistakes. That's all anybody can ask of us.

You nominated McCain. Obviously you didn't learn from your mistakes.

The Dems nominated Obama. Obviously they didn't learn from their mistakes when they lost the last election darn near handed to them. This shouldn't even be a contest right now.

Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

Its pointless to try to debate this with a partisan but I'll make a few points. How the hell could a white senator with his experience get the parties nod for the big shot? He hasn't really done anything. Then we have, what little we have of, his political history. The country is not majority liberal and its not majority conservative. Most people are somewhere in the middle and "middle of the road" Americans are who decide elections (which is why we see Obama moving way to the center). If Obama stuttered would he even be considered for VP? Even a higher voice?


Not to mention, the Repubs HATE their candidate. As far as the polls, a week ago they showed McCain up and I believe they are still in a pretty much statistical tie. The Dems should be 10 points ahead even if they had a purple martian running.

Thank you for reminding me that it is impossible to debate with a partisan. As a nonpartisan debater, I will cease talking to you now

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What could posses me to vote republican? Obama

Actually, I might not vote this year. Obama claims to be a Christian but he has Muslim roots and extremists in his heritage. Scary shit to me. What if he turns coat? :shocked:

What if McTraitor was turned in a N.V.N prison and is now a Russian agent?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

You mean the GOP re-nominated a popular incumbent in 2004? Say it ain' so!

What's different between Kerry and Obama, other than skin color and vocals?

I'll ask again. How many Republicans voting for McCain for checks and balances voted for Kerry in 2004?

Or are you going to finally agree that people like Genx87 are full of shit?

I don't think the rationale works for anything other than spending issues.

Why not? If they're really voting for McCain because they don't want one party controlling all parts of government, then surely they voted for Kerry in 2004 for the same reason.

So, which is it? Did they really vote for Kerry or are they full of shit? You can't vote for a partisan government one day and claim to support a bipartisan government the next; that's flip-flopping!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Why not? If they're really voting for McCain because they don't want one party controlling all parts of government, then surely they voted for Kerry in 2004 for the same reason.

So, which is it? Did they really vote for Kerry or are they full of shit? You can't vote for a partisan government one day and claim to support a bipartisan government the next; that's flip-flopping!

I don't really buy that explanation, but you'll have to ask them and not me.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have witnessed what a one party govt can do. Lets not give the other party at least 4 years to prove the previous 8 werent a fluke. If the republicans owned congress Obama would get my vote.

That is all.

hahahahaaaaaa.....what a car load a carp!!

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: danzig

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Stupidity and/or poor self-esteem (specifically, inability to admit fault and learn from errors).

Locally , I have seen many people who are finally admitting to this.

I screwed up and voted for GWB the first time. Shortly after , it was like GWB & Palpatine were merging into the same person.

Many of us didn't see him for the refuse he is. That's ok just as long as we have learned from our mistakes. That's all anybody can ask of us.

You nominated McCain. Obviously you didn't learn from your mistakes.

The Dems nominated Obama. Obviously they didn't learn from their mistakes when they lost the last election darn near handed to them. This shouldn't even be a contest right now.

Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

Its pointless to try to debate this with a partisan but I'll make a few points. How the hell could a white senator with his experience get the parties nod for the big shot? He hasn't really done anything. Then we have, what little we have of, his political history. The country is not majority liberal and its not majority conservative. Most people are somewhere in the middle and "middle of the road" Americans are who decide elections (which is why we see Obama moving way to the center). If Obama stuttered would he even be considered for VP? Even a higher voice?


Not to mention, the Repubs HATE their candidate. As far as the polls, a week ago they showed McCain up and I believe they are still in a pretty much statistical tie. The Dems should be 10 points ahead even if they had a purple martian running.

Thank you for reminding me that it is impossible to debate with a partisan. As a nonpartisan debater, I will cease talking to you now

I won't be voting for either one of the assholes and I am fairly sure we know who you will be voting for, so I fail to see your point.

Just as well though, no minds will be changed so I appreciate your cessation of talking to me. Saves us both some time.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just did a thread on this proving that people who voted for Bush and will vote for McCain are incapable of critical thinking.

A fool is a person who continues to do something proven to fail over and over again with the certain expectation they are going, next time, to get a different result. There is no accounting for fools, as they say.

Actually, that is the definition of insanity.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Irrelevant - this topic is about the Republicans choosing the same leader every 4 years (Bush twice and then McCain). Gore was different from Kerry, who was different from Obama.

Obama is a great candidate, but he'd be a lot better as a white candidate. Taking that into account, I'd say that his current standing makes him an outstanding pick for the Democrats. His being black is easily a 5 point hit (guess) amongst states where racism is still prevalent (Georgia, Alabama, etc.).

Either way, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so obviously we did learn from our mistakes

You mean the GOP re-nominated a popular incumbent in 2004? Say it ain' so!

What's different between Kerry and Obama, other than skin color and vocals?

I'll ask again. How many Republicans voting for McCain for checks and balances voted for Kerry in 2004?

Or are you going to finally agree that people like Genx87 are full of shit?

I don't think the rationale works for anything other than spending issues.

Why not? If they're really voting for McCain because they don't want one party controlling all parts of government, then surely they voted for Kerry in 2004 for the same reason.

So, which is it? Did they really vote for Kerry or are they full of shit? You can't vote for a partisan government one day and claim to support a bipartisan government the next; that's flip-flopping!

People just look for reasons to justify a decision they already made. Of course they didn't vote for Kerry in 2004. (at least not most of them, considering how often I hear it if they had Kerry would have won)

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just did a thread on this proving that people who voted for Bush and will vote for McCain are incapable of critical thinking.

A fool is a person who continues to do something proven to fail over and over again with the certain expectation they are going, next time, to get a different result. There is no accounting for fools, as they say.

I take that one step further in regards to the perpetuation of the 2 party plutocracy. It isnt working nor are the people truley represented.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just did a thread on this proving that people who voted for Bush and will vote for McCain are incapable of critical thinking.

A fool is a person who continues to do something proven to fail over and over again with the certain expectation they are going, next time, to get a different result. There is no accounting for fools, as they say.

I take that one step further in regards to the perpetuation of the 2 party plutocracy. It isnt working nor are the people truley represented.

The perpetuation of the '2 party plutocracy' is a systemic problem, not a problem with individual voters. It is literally next to impossible to solve, as the only solution is to turn our country into a proportional representation system. This would require a constitutional amendment in which the 2 major parties would pass (by 2/3rds majorities) legislation that would remove themselves from power. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Honestly, I'd like to know.

Seeing the state of the country the way it stands now, why would you do it?

I'd particularly like to hear reasoning from the more vocal members on the right.

Why? One word- Denial.

It's a symptom of a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. Only when the sufferer's life is totally destroyed do they even have a chance of recovery, of questioning their most basic beliefs, of seeing through their own mental gymnastics.

Like alkys, some would rather die than do so. I'm sure there were guys living on the street in 1932 who voted for Hoover, who still believed.

Right or wrong, Faith is often stronger than the human intellect who possesses it.