serious question to the obama idolizers

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:09 pm

First of all, I said weapons of mass distraction - bullshit cultural issues that don't affect the lives and livelihood of most people. Like Flag burning and gay marriage for example.
Your correction of my word usage is noted, and I apologize. However, I understood what you meant anyway. Doesn't change what I wrote.

Second, your implication is that liberal are stupid and ill informed. I take issue with that. How do you know that the less voters there are they wouldn't vote in liberals?
I was not implying that all liberals are stupid and ill informed. Just that the majority of the voters that are stupid and ill informed lean liberal.

The numbers, historically, tend to show that the greater the turnout the more liberal the vote. You can read my previous post, that it is MY BELIEF, the informed will turn out anyway. Thus, when you have a larger turnout you have people who wouldn't otherwise be turning out (thus the more ill informed). Larger turnout = greater liberal vote = MY BELIEF that ill informed lean liberal (NOTE: not that liberals lean ill informed. Don't flip it around just to start an argument).

Regarding stupid an ill informed voters voting liberal - you mean like the ones who are voting for McCain because they think Obama is a Muslim for example?

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:16 pm

First of all, I said weapons of mass distraction - bullshit cultural issues that don't affect the lives and livelihood of most people. Like Flag burning and gay marriage for example.
Your correction of my word usage is noted, and I apologize. However, I understood what you meant anyway. Doesn't change what I wrote.

Second, your implication is that liberal are stupid and ill informed. I take issue with that. How do you know that the less voters there are they wouldn't vote in liberals?
I was not implying that all liberals are stupid and ill informed. Just that the majority of the voters that are stupid and ill informed lean liberal.

The numbers, historically, tend to show that the greater the turnout the more liberal the vote. You can read my previous post, that it is MY BELIEF, the informed will turn out anyway. Thus, when you have a larger turnout you have people who wouldn't otherwise be turning out (thus the more ill informed). Larger turnout = greater liberal vote = MY BELIEF that ill informed lean liberal (NOTE: not that liberals lean ill informed. Don't flip it around just to start an argument).
Regarding stupid an ill informed voters voting liberal - you mean like the ones who are voting for McCain because they think Obama is a Muslim for example?

Nah. I was more referring to the ones who are going to vote for Obama because Palin is going to make sure creationism and only creationism is taught in science classes across the country.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:18 pm

We could play that stupid game all day long, slider.

I gave you my belief and why. I believe it to be a logical explanation (one with which you are free to debate). It's not an absolute and I admitted as such. Go ahead, point out individual exceptions, and I'll go with you step for step.

Or, you can come up with some form of explanation as to why I'm wrong. Or, better yet, we can just agree to disagree and you can still go on and support Obama, and I'll continue on hoping he only gets four years.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:58 pm

You are right. We can continue to play this game. I would just like to point out your opinion on the views of voters, not expressing fact.

We can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that.

As far as Palin goes, I have seen many candidates who I can't stand, but she scares the shit out of me. Given the fact that she claims she will see Jesus in her lifetime, she would be stupid enough to start a war in the Mid East to hasten Armageddon. Fortunately the phrase President Palin will never enter our political lexicon. And if she somehow becomes the nominee in 2012, she will lose in a Mondale style landslide.

I look forward to eight years of President Obama. He will be a refreshing departure from the current Idiot in Chief.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:54 am

You are right. We can continue to play this game. I would just like to point out your opinion on the views of voters, not expressing fact.

I stated it was my opinion, not fact. In fact, I think I even stated it in all caps a few times.

We can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that.

As far as Palin goes, I have seen many candidates who I can't stand, but she scares the shit out of me. Given the fact that she claims she will see Jesus in her lifetime, she would be stupid enough to start a war in the Mid East to hasten Armageddon. Fortunately the phrase President Palin will never enter our political lexicon. And if she somehow becomes the nominee in 2012, she will lose in a Mondale style landslide.

That claim by you is as ridiculous as her comment. I suppose, however, it's just Republicans who need the...what was it...weapons of mass distraction?

For the record, I am not happy with the Palin pick. I was never happy with the pick. Doc and m7 can attest to as much based on PMs I had with each. In other words, don't think you're going to get to me by attacking her. I think she's every bit as useless as Biden.

I look forward to eight years of President Obama. He will be a refreshing departure from the current Idiot in Chief.

8 years would be a complete debacle. I have tried very hard (mostly successfully) to refrain from petty name calling of anyone on this board, or there candidate. I ask for the same in return.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:40 am

why the name calling? seriously....why the consistent name calling?

urapnes · Post by **urapnes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:26 pm

i don't like the name calling, it cheapens the argument in my opinion.

for the life of me, i can't figure out why people who say they are conservative vote republican. either they are not republicans or not conservative.

there has been close to 100 filibusters the past 2 years by the republicans, if the dems don't get to the magic number 60, we're in trouble. as trent lott said back in 2006, the republicans must block every significant piece of legislation and then run on the mantra of a 'do nothing congress'. and without the media to spout the dem talking points as they did in 2004 and 2005 (up or down vote, nuclear option, etc.) we will not be able to get anything done.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:29 pm

Yeah, I don't like the name calling either, but notice, Rad, with "Obama idolizers," you kind of started it.

I share your sense (if it is your sense) that there are plenty of people out there making him a cult figure without a drop of understanding of what he stands for. Idolizers -- fine. The name fits.

But you're asking the serious question in this forum, which suggests that the Obama supporters here are the ones you're labeling thus.

I will vote Obama. I do not think he's even remotely the best man for the job. I would like, though, my support for him to be recognized as based on something more principled than idolatry.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:30 pm

I think it is highly likely that the democrats will secure 60 seats. Especially with the conviction of Stevens from Alaska.

Edit. Props to Toothy. Fantastic post.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:48 pm

meh - respect your view tooths but it wasn't my intention.

i was addressing the uber-supporter...not just the supporter who voted or will vote obama just because mccain is not the answer for him/her or because they're voting obama even though they'd prefer biden...i was more interested in the answer of those who support obama to the point that they tend to get overly emotional when an intelligent discussion breaks out.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:18 pm

for the life of me, i can't figure out why people who say they are conservative vote republican. either they are not republicans or not conservative.

Dude, aren't you the same one who called out AnnArbor for voting his conscience and writing in Ron Paul?

urapnes · Post by **urapnes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:24 pm

^^^yes. he had a chance to vote for ron paul in the primary, paul lost in the semifinals. now it's the finals.

conservatives can vote for republicans, republicans can vote for conservatives. but republicans are not conservative. there's no link to my feeling that not voting or voting for a write in is a copout and saying republicans and conservatives are not the same.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:27 pm

I'm a conservative who you would force to vote republican since I have to now vote for one of the major candidates. Why would I vote republican? Because I know that supporting that party gives me the best chance of someday in the future having my ideals represented.

Oh and Ron Paul is a conservative Republican.

urapnes · Post by **urapnes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:31 pm

^^^ron paul is one of the only candidates of the old guard. he's what the republican party SAYS they are, which is why so many people identify themselves as republicans. but the party has moved very far to the right.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:37 pm

I would have voted Republican in two seconds if Ron Paul would have been on the ballot. I am a big fan.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:41 pm

^^^ron paul is one of the only candidates of the old guard. he's what the republican party SAYS they are, which is why so many people identify themselves as republicans. but the party has moved very far to the right.

I'm aware. Why do you think I'm a member of the Campaign for Liberty? :afro: Out with the new, in with the old.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:21 pm

meh - respect your view tooths but it wasn't my intention.

i was addressing the uber-supporter...not just the supporter who voted or will vote obama just because mccain is not the answer for him/her or because they're voting obama even though they'd prefer biden...i was more interested in the answer of those who support obama to the point that they tend to get overly emotional when an intelligent discussion breaks out.

Fine and peace. No blood or foul.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:34 pm

there has been close to 100 filibusters the past 2 years by the republicans, if the dems don't get to the magic number 60, we're in trouble.

I was going to call bullshit on this claim.

Upon looking for information about recent filibusters, however, I learned that "filibuster" no longer actually means that someone is actually going to filibuster. It means that the minority party is signaling that they intend to filibuster, prompting a cloture vote by the majority party.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Procedural_filibuster

Neither party's leadership is brave enough to (1) actually filibuster; or (2) call the other side's bluff and force them to filibuster (which the majority party can do instead of moving for a cloture vote).

Fuck that. If I'm in the majority party, I WANT the minority party to throw a hissy-fit filibuster and tie things up over and over again. On the other hand, if I'm in the minority, I have to be willing to back up my tough talk by going through with my threats - and not to make such threats idly if I think the majority is going to force me into it.

I, for one, want to see a Strom-Thurmond style filibuster every once in a while. It would liven things up. Wikipedia has this to say:

Preparations for a filibuster can be very elaborate. Sometimes cots are brought into the hallways or cloakrooms for senators to sleep on. According to Newsweek, "They used to call it 'taking to the diaper,' a phrase that referred to the preparation undertaken by a prudent senator before an extended filibuster. Strom Thurmond visited a steam room before his filibuster in order to dehydrate himself so he could drink without urinating. An aide stood by in the cloakroom with a pail in case of emergency."

Come on, it doesn't get more awesome than that. That's some hardcore legislatin' right there.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm

^^That and he was bangin' black girls. Thurmond was a party animal.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:53 pm

meh - respect your view tooths but it wasn't my intention.

i was addressing the uber-supporter...not just the supporter who voted or will vote obama just because mccain is not the answer for him/her or because they're voting obama even though they'd prefer biden...i was more interested in the answer of those who support obama to the point that they tend to get overly emotional when an intelligent discussion breaks out.

Fine and peace. No blood or foul.

i love you like a sister.

urapnes · Post by **urapnes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:02 pm

Doc - i agree about calling the bluff. i want just once, on any issue to see the majority party say...ok, filibuster away and lets see how long you can last. would be great! the current democratic leaders don't have the balls to call anyone's bluff or call someone out. i was hoping biden would become the senate majority leader in 2006 instead of harry reid, i think he'd be a stronger leader.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:38 pm

meh - respect your view tooths but it wasn't my intention.

i was addressing the uber-supporter...not just the supporter who voted or will vote obama just because mccain is not the answer for him/her or because they're voting obama even though they'd prefer biden...i was more interested in the answer of those who support obama to the point that they tend to get overly emotional when an intelligent discussion breaks out.

Fine and peace. No blood or foul.
i love you like a sister.

And the sisters do love me, baby.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:40 pm

Doc - i agree about calling the bluff. i want just once, on any issue to see the majority party say...ok, filibuster away and lets see how long you can last. would be great! the current democratic leaders don't have the balls to call anyone's bluff or call someone out. i was hoping biden would become the senate majority leader in 2006 instead of harry reid, i think he'd be a stronger leader.

Agree. Democratic leadership in Congress is beyond weak.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:45 pm

i'd still hit it despite her inadequacies.

G8RKyle · Post by **G8RKyle** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:48 pm

It looks like her eyes are pointing in different directions.