These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Edited by the Author.
Edited by the Author.
How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?
Wake up dude, the republicans aren't the justice league.
It's true, a couple of years ago, the conservatives in congress foresaw what was going to happen to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanded tighter regulation. The liberals refused to let them do any thing.
Oh so now the world crisis is the democrats fault ? Should I remember you that it was the republicans who were at the power ?
Originally Posted by Yami I'm sorry but this remark is on the same level as saying Obama is black. It is completely irrelevant and I would hope as a society we could move on from this type of thinking.
Guess who was over Congress while Clinton was President? Republicans!
These last two years the Democrats have not done a damn thing to solve the problems we're facing. Why do you think that is? Because they wanted matters to get worse. They know that most people are not intelligent enough to recognize them as the source of the situation, which gives them a better standing of winning the next election. So then it's no longer about you and me, but rather them gaining more power.
Actually no, it's on the same level as saying that Obama is a former drug addict. It's kind of obvious what I was referring to. You disregarded the fact that Wiiman made the exact same kind of remark. Bringing McCain's age into anything is wrong (although his temper is sometimes relevant), but blankly connecting Obama to Hitler?
What if I said that the crisis is manipulated by the Bush administration to bail out his cronies before leaving office? Yes, it's a baseless conspiracy. So is yours. They're profitting because they knew by soiling their own policies, nobody would realize a thing?... There is NO advantage to be gained from the crisis from any political body. You basically said, "I'm smarter than you because I buy into anything the Republican party propagates to smear the democrats." People unaligned with the democrats are no more likely to vote Obama; if anything, they hold the same accusations that you do.
One last thing I'd like to point out: If you are discussing politics, don't throw controversial references into a persuasive argument. In that line of presidents... Ronald Reagan? You may see him as a hero; anybody you were trying to convince probably sees him as one of the worst presidents of all time, whose policies led to the rise of poverty in the US.
I think trying to convince anyone to change their political views on the internet is the greatest of all exercises in futility. If you're really intent on spreading Mccain's word, you should buy into his stuff about obama being a gayloving inexperienced elitist muslim arab celebrity terrorist with a black baby and a wife who hates america. I mean, after all, this is how Bush managed to get into office twice in a row, in case the rest of the world was wondering.
"How do you know that ? if it worked like that why would the republicans help Clinton ? For the sake of the country?"
Yep.
"Actually no, it's on the same level as saying that Obama is a former drug addict. It's kind of obvious what I was referring to. You disregarded the fact that Wiiman made the exact same kind of remark. Bringing McCain's age into anything is wrong (although his temper is sometimes relevant), but blankly connecting Obama to Hitler?"
We can have our own opinion on what's on the same level, but I agree that some of Wiiman's remarks were over the top.
"You basically said, "I'm smarter than you because I buy into anything the Republican party propagates to smear the democrats."
No, I was stating situations where Republicans were not always wrong. I just so happened to also include some of my own assumptions within that.
"One last thing I'd like to point out: If you are discussing politics, don't throw controversial references into a persuasive argument. In that line of presidents... Ronald Reagan?"
Yeah, the reason I said it was for controversy. haha The same could be said to Johnny Look's comment on JFK.
"I think trying to convince anyone to change their political views on the internet is the greatest of all exercises in futility. If you're really intent on spreading Mccain's word, you should buy into his stuff about obama being a gayloving inexperienced elitist muslim arab celebrity terrorist with a black baby and a wife who hates america. I mean, after all, this is how Bush managed to get into office twice in a row, in case the rest of the world was wondering."
haha I find the contradictions within this post to be funny. First you say it's pointless to try to convert ideas while at the same time blasting those who oppose your views. What happened to it all being futile?
I am not trying to convert no one! Someone said they did not know either of the candidates plans so I merely stated both of their tax plans while including some of my personal opinions on the matter. (Nothing no one else has not already done in this thread.)
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, but go back to my comments on their tax plans if you have not already done so and think about it. I personally believe Obama leans more towards socialism, but then again that's just me. I do not know about you nor try to imply that I do.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I feel like too many people vote for the party, not the person. I am a democrat, but I still support McCain!
That's the point. You vote for the party because it's the collective that bring change. Voting for 1 person is stupid and best left to Pop Factor and all them kind of shows. The "frontmans" style, appearance, charisma and personal beliefs do not come into it. If anything they do less than the individual administrators and secretaries - the party leader is just their boss.
Nope, the person stands for the parties policies. They don't just appear from nowhere. They (at least in the UK) start off as MP's for a specific party (whichever is closest to their own ideology) and then get 'promoted' until they're in a position that they could become PM. The party doesn't adopt someone and then take on their ideas. That's utter nonsense. Policies are decided upon as a party.
I see what you mean James, but Obama is known for being the most liberal out his party. So Wiiman may not fully agree on everything the man does. We have parties so people with similar ideas can work together, but in some ways it divides the country. The system is obviously not perfect, yet it is the best known type of government.
Advertisement
Post Reply
)
Edited by the Author.
Ill vote McCain too 
