Is putting dirt on one candidate makes another one better?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Son of a Gann, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. Instead of pouring dirt on each of the candidate (there is equally enough for both parties) why not just say what is important to you.

    I'll vote for Democrats ( just happens to be Obama but I could careless) because:

    Democrats have nothing to gain from military actions or wars so more likely to stop military spending, killing people and own kids, and more likely to heal relationships with other countries.

    In 4 years economy will be better than it is today regardless of candidate.

    Palin is a beautiful lady who doesn't believe in abortion so what? Should Republicans ban abortions (which I do not see happening) some doctors will move to Canada and Mexico, use of contraceptives will go up.

    Are there any good reasons to vote for Republicans? If you have good reasons I will vote for Republicans.

    Saying that Obama is black with unusual name not a good reason for me.

    Is putting dirt on one candidate makes another one better?
  2. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
  3. I agree with that. Republicans do not have a good reputation internationally. Tom Davis (R) said it best "the Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

    Not if the debt was doubled again under the next Republican. Further dollar devaluation would probably occur.

    Well she's entitled to her beliefs about abortion. People should be aware that she not only opposes abortion, though, but that she also opposes it even if a woman is raped thereby forcing the victim to carry the rapists baby to term.

    Seriously, I can't come up with one. You've got one candidate who can't use the Internet (his words), who doesn't know about economics (his words) and who graduated at the bottom of his class.

    The other candidate is an ivory tower intellectual who graduated at the top of his class, has both public and private experience and is not over the retirement age. I think both are decent people, though. One is just clearly better and more competent.
  5. What does this mean? That because Republicans have trademarked the term "morality" that we should ignore their candidate's divorce, marriage to a model who became a drug addict, and left children behind?

    In my opinion, all the Republicans have left is words.
  6. What I mean is that between Memorial Day and Labor Day there were twice as many murders on Chicago's South and West sides as American combat deaths in Iraq. Glad to see Chicago minorities are so stoked at the prospect of a Chicago black running for Presifdent.
  7. So this is some sort of "comparative morality." Something is moral because something else is immoral.

    This is the pathology of modern Republicanism. It wasn't always like this.
  8. John McCains divorce three decades ago has little effect on my day to day routine. No more than Reagan's divorce did or Clinton's blow jobs. The lawlessness in Daley's Chicago-you may know him, his campaign manager is also Obama's-DOES effect me. I've yet to hear Obama speak a single word about the murder and mayhem in Chicago.

    And Dave get off your high horse.

    If Edwards was running against McCain you'd be voting Edwards.

    If Gore with his drug addled kid was opposing McCain you'd vote Gore.

    If Bill Clintion were able to run again you'd be voting Clinton.

    You alibi Obama's relationship with Rezko-a relationship that was morally and ethically flawed but then go on a tangent about troopergate-an action that was probably morally righteous.

    You may notice that unlike your Obama alibiing I spend zero time apologizing for McCain. Mac's a douche. But at least he's a patriotic douche and the day I'd vote for an incompetent Chicago Democrat to anything weightier than Chicago alderman is the day I'll take my toys to GC or Bermuda and never look back.
  9. There seems to be a lot of things you don't seem to know about. Tell me, have you even been to his website?

    He's not high, just drunk.

    As I've written before, after the debt and the failed war and the general failure of the Republicans to lead, if a ham sandwich were able to run against the Republicans I would vote for the ham sandwich.

    Okay, what was his "relationship" with Rezko in your words?

    So McCain is patriotic and Obama isn't. huh. The reality is that both candidates are patriotic, and both are generally decent people.

    The Republican party keeps trying to sell us that the Democrats hate the country, are unpatriotic, etc. etc. and then have the gall to complain about a divided country.
    #10     Sep 10, 2008