Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Its friendly remarks like this that keep people like Josh firmly in the GOP camp.>> BINGO!! That is one thing I have totally noticed here since saying that I was thinking of voting for McCain/Palin. The complete arrogance and superiority expressed by liberals. It is not good enough to say that you disagree with our views. You have to say that we are total and complete idiots for thinking the way that we do. That is one of the main things that has me stubbornly clinging to McCain/Palin. I can't stand the arrogance of liberals today. Being a democrat didn't used to be like that.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << stubbornly clinging to McCain/Palin. >> So, in other words, you see the lack of logic in your choice but are hanging on just for spite?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If Palin can just look good and not actually try to do anything, she will be an improvement over the four I've listed above.<< Wait, so that's the standard we've set now? So I guess the new McCan/Palin slogans are: McCain/Palin: It Could Be Worse McCain/Palin: Better Than Nixon/Agnew McCain/Palin: A Little Mediocrity Never Hurt Anyone McCain/Palin: Just Like You!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<That is one of the main things that has me stubbornly clinging to McCain/Palin. I can't stand the arrogance of liberals today.>> So because of your dislike for this perceived arrogance you're going to vote for the party that gives us a VP choice who wants to force rape victims to have to carry a pregnancy to term, teach creationism in our schools as if it was science, and thinks that she's a foreign policy expert because Russia is right next door? Really??
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So because of your dislike for this perceived arrogance you're going to vote for the party that gives us a VP choice who wants to force rape victims to have to carry a pregnancy to term, teach creationism in our schools as if it was science, and thinks that she's a foreign policy expert because Russia is right next door? Really??>> Does the VP (or President for that matter) have the power or authority to do any of that? NOPE.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Does the VP (or President for that matter) have the power or authority to do any of that?>> But he or she does have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices that CAN make those things happen.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That is one of the main things that has me stubbornly clinging to McCain/Palin. I can't stand the arrogance of liberals today. Being a democrat didn't used to be like that.<< I'll take the smarter than thou attitude of liberals over the holier than thou attitude of conservatives any day of the week. Or the more American than thou attitude. Yes, it might seem arrogant. Hell, maybe it is. But frankly, it's hard not to get frustrated and grab someone by the e-collar and shake them when they do the equivalent of "I think 2+2=5 and that's my opinion and you won't change it!" People can be as bloody stubborn as they like. But the rest of us have a stake in this too. Facts are facts, and it is irritating to watch people squaring the circle, turning black into white, or otherwise engaging in mental gymnastics just to stick with their guy, no matter how silly it gets. My respect has to be earned. If people want me to respect their views, they have to give me a reason to. A handful of people have been able to do that when it comes to voting McCain. Most however, fall far short of the mark. I don't want my job off-shored just because Josh doesn't want boys kissing. I don't want my kids going to a subpar school just because someone thinks Sarah Palin's stance on abortion is spot on. I don't want my pension to disappear because my company's de-regulated because some nut thinks invading Iran isn't such a bad idea. These things are inter-linked. People vote on these social issues and then end up screwing the rest of us on real issues.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan People cast their votes for all kinds of reasons. RoadTrip is sharing his here, but people make their choice for all sorts of off-the-radar reasons. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, let the cat out of the bag when he said it's not about issues. For millions of people, it usually has nothing at all to do with actual issues. I think the GOP is better at getting that, and it's always couched in "family values" or "character." But it comes down to plain old "Who do you LIKE better?" for much of the country. While Democrats tend to drone on about problems, the GOP usually sings the praises of America. The GOP is all "Up With People!" and the Democrats tend to be forever yelling fire in a crowded theater. The fact that the theater is filling with smoke doesn't matter. People came to the theater for a good show, and the GOP chorus line usually delivers.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Does the VP (or President for that matter) have the power or authority to do any of that? NOPE.<< So once more, RT's sticking with the "Well, Palin won't have any power, so it's a-ok." How many more times are we going to hear, "C'mon guys, she's just the VP candidate for crying out loud. It's not like she does anything important." Can we please stop this nonsense that suggests the VP spot ranks somewhere in importance between fluffer and video game tester?
Originally Posted By dshyates <<Its friendly remarks like this that keep people like Josh firmly in the GOP camp.>> Hey, he asked. And I am not going to apologize for believeing that someone who believes that someone walked on water, turned water into wine, or rose from the dead isn't looking at the universe logically. He or anyone else can beluieve what they want, but I will make judgements on it. Just like you would if a coworker argued 'til he was blue in the face that he saw the Easter Bunny last night, considering its not even Easter.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You have to say that we are total and complete idiots for thinking the way that we do.> Who has said that to you, RT?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 X I can believe - he sometimes throws politeness out the window, and proudly so in his book. Who were the others?
Originally Posted By utahjosh < don't want my job off-shored just because Josh doesn't want boys kissing> Wow, what an absurd leap.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Wow, what an absurd leap." Makes sense to me considering thats what happened in 2004. W. won on the gay marriage initiative, which I'm sure Josh voted for, and W. has collapsed our entire econmy. Where is the leap?
Originally Posted By utahjosh The leap is that "I don't want boys kissing." They can kiss if they want to. I'm not going to stop them.
Originally Posted By utahjosh But it is true that I don't want them hijacking the word and meaning of Marriage. To me it's a step in slowly breaking down the traditional family as the base of our society.
Originally Posted By ecdc To you. The rest of us disagree. And it's not a leap at all. You vote for people based on social issues and those same people then don't do the things that help you and your family. They don't even do real Christian things like universal healthcare or avoiding wars.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh, and Josh, when I said that it is my belief that "believers" are nuts. I fully expect you to feel that I am nuts for not worshiping your water walker or the flying nun or whatever it is that you believe in. I'm OK with that.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Hey, he asked. And I am not going to apologize for believeing that someone who believes that someone walked on water, turned water into wine, or rose from the dead isn't looking at the universe logically. He or anyone else can beluieve what they want, but I will make judgements on it>> That's fine. Just keep your whining to yourself then if McCain wins. Sometimes the Dems do too good a job of scaring away people who really ought to be voting Democrat. Its one thing for us to disagree. For instance, I do not find the LDS claim to be the "one true church" to be compelling. But I certainly won't call Josh "nuts" or "deluded" for being LDS. I might argue with him, point by point, on why I disagree with him. But call him names? And if I really did feel he was "nuts", I would hope to be polite enough to keep this opinion to myself, even if he asks. <<Just like you would if a coworker argued 'til he was blue in the face that he saw the Easter Bunny last night, considering its not even Easter.>> This is what I mean. In this statement, you are equating Jesus Christ, a historical figure, with the Easter Bunny, a fictional character. So rather than simply say that you do not find Jesus's claims to be the Messiah, Son of God, 2nd Person of Holy Trinity, etc. to be compelling, you equate him with children's fictional characters, the purpose of which I believe is to be an insult.
