I’m going to vote for McCain, as I explained already, because I believe McCain will appoint textualist judges to the federal bench, support the Second Amendment, and not raise the tax rates I pay.
I was considering voting for Obama IN SPITE of the fact that I didn’t agree with Obama on any of those issues, out of mistaken belief that Obama’s candidacy would mean an end to personal attacks in discussing politics. As that belief was mistaken, there remains no reason to vote for Obama.
The words “sexual predator” in the thread tritle are not a reference to what’s in the ad but toi what’s not in the ad. The ad falsely claims that the bill sought to teach “comprehensive sex education in kindergarten.” In reality, the only thing the bill sought do vis-a-vis kindergarteners was to give them information on how to avoid and report unwanted sexual attention. In other words, the bill was intended to help protect kindergarteners from sexual predators, and the McCain ad twisted it to say that Obama wanted to teach 5-year-olds detailed sexual information.
So instead, you’re voting for the party that started, and always starts, the slimy bullshit? Odd. That nonsense will never stop if people keep voting for the people who do it.
Why do you particularly care if you’re taxed higher when you’re making over $250k anyway? Does it really affect your quality of life? Seems the vast amounts of money thrown down the drain paying interest on US debt is kind of more important than whether rich people are rich or really rich, but maybe I’d feel differently if I was rich (and American…).
The Second Amendment seems like the Democrats version of abortion anyway, if they actually do anything about it, they won’t see the White House again for decades. Plus Obama hasn’t said anything about it at all AFAIK.
It’s all about the coin:rolleyes:
This issue is a net winner for Obama, I think, if he keeps hammering it home as an arch-example of the McCain slime machine, challenges him to defend to apologize for it. Either way. I think O. picks up votes rather losing votes for it.
If it turns out I’m wrong about this, though, then there was never any chance Obama could win, since that will mean McCain can scare Americans with outright lies and get rewarded for doing that.
I’m sending Obama some more money today.
Not meaning to speak for Bricker, and not meaning to hijack this thread, but listen:
[ul]
[li]Bricker’s OP you’re referencing was full up to here with dumb[/li][li]He’s recognized and admitted that[/li][li]It makes 100% sense for someone to vote for the issue(s) that are most important to him/her, for whatever reason[/li][li]**Bricker has said that ‘clean politics’ was an issue to him, but not as big of an issue as other things. So, he’d rather take ‘slimy bullshit’ and lower taxes than higher taxes and less bullshit. That’s fine. It’s his choice to make.[/li][/ul]
That thread was a total trainwreck, and I disagree pretty strongly with Bricker on politics much more than I agree with him, but what’s the point of calling him out for agreeing that this campaign ad was a low blow? Seriously, there’s no hypocrisy here, and there was no baiting. Let a man agree!
Didn’t mean to dig up that thread, was mostly just wondering about his reasoning. He wanted to vote for Obama because he was running a clean campaign, then McCain starts slinging the slime and he decides a clean campaign isn’t possible so he…votes for McCain?
If the supreme court issue is really important to him I’d understand I guess, I’m just curious what’s worth basically endorsing Rove style politics over, since the tax and 2nd amendment things seem sorta flimsy (slightly more taxes and Obama isn’t going to want to or be able to do shit about guns).
Not trying to call him out or anything, genuinely curious since Bricker seems one of the more sane Conservatives that participate in political threads on here…
Probably hijacking the thread, but with Bricker, Scylla and Dio all agreeing, it seems it isn’t going anywhere anyway.
I too would like to hear more as to why Sam Stone thinks that this was an unfair slam for Obama.
ETA: And credit where credit is due to Bricker and Scylla, along with other tighty righties who can still see badness when it’s clear enough.
I think he means against Obama…two unfair slams that Obama endured.
No problem. I hope more people keep that image in their heads for election day. The fucking bastard.
He may, or not. I’d like to hear him clarify, if that’s okay.
Bad form, McCain. Good form would be to actually retract it.
The Obama “lipstick on a pig” comment- McCain’s people should have fun with this, but not get all dour & serious in denouncing it.
Explain, please, why it’s “fun” in charging someone falsely with sexism?
I’d actually just like to point out that his taxes won’t really raise unless he makes over 600k/year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
So unless your REALLY rich, Obama’s not going to be hurting your bottom line. So, judges is all that’s left for Bricker’s argument.
It’s definitely a gaffe made in bad timing. I think instead of getting all outraged & asking for an apology, McCain’s folks could say “While we’re sure the good Senator had no intention of comparing our fair lady VP-nominee to a pig, has he no concept of how this comes across? blah blah blah” in a light & jovial manner. It does put egg on Obama’s face but it doesn’t inflame emotions. More like a political equivalent of Nelson Muntz’s “haw hah!”
C3’s right. I thought Obama was the victim of two unfair shots yesterday. Some of us are capable of putting partisanship aside on occasion.
Speaking of that… I’ve noticed with some satisfaction that there’s a lot of criticism of McCain’s reaction in the right-wing blogosphere this morning. Not all of them are piling on. There’s a lot of other people saying what Bricker, Scylla and I said last night.
Anyway, McCain’s camp is busy overreacting and giving Obama the opportunity to turn the tables on them over this, so don’t worry.
Fair enough, I first read it as a kind of snide remark (credit to built in cynicism the internet breeds in me), but I wasn’t sure so I asked for the clarification and appreciate the response.
Oh bullshit. Save it for someone who buys your crap, and piss off.
Of course it does. Because to religious conservatives, teenagers would never ever ever have the intelligence or resourcefulness to go out and have sex if it weren’t for the Evil Liberal Sex-Ed establishment planting those insidious little Sex seed thoughts in their fertile-yet-virginal minds.
That boat has sailed for me now. I have long believed that McCain was a sellout to the religious & neo-con strains of his party, and that he was not above acting the hypocrite, liar, and zealot in order to win this election. But I still believed that he was capable of being honorable and had just simply been swept up, perhaps against his better judgement, by controlling influences and the intoxicating closeness of the presidency.
But this? This makes him a scumbag, pure and simple. If he still isn’t “aware” of what’s going on in his campaign, then he is beyond incompetent. But I think he knows and I think he doesn’t care. It’s sickening, and if there’s even a tiny fraction of justice in this election, an enormous wave of outraged parents will see this for the despicable nastiness that it is and turn the tide away from someone who–“honor” notwithstanding–would sink so low.
Fuck him. :mad:
Gonna change your vote? Or is supporting pedophiles worse then a few anons on a message baord saying mean things?
Taxes will be raised, no matter what. They’re both lying through their teeth, and they both know it. We are $3.4 Godzillabucks in debt, what with George’s Excellent Adventure going on the credit card, infrastructure turning to cheese, and major financial going batshit pizza.
Post hock ergo propter hock. And we are very, very much in hock.
“Textualist judges” means, of course, “people who interpret the Constitution precisely as I do, hence, right”.
And the gun thingy? Just keep the stinkin’ things, to hell with it! Muzzle tov, much good may they do you!
This thread started because Senator McCain, and his campaign, mischaracterized and attacked Senator Obama over a piece of legislation. And I agree with that assessment.
That said, calling McCain a pedophile, or saying he supports them (I’m not quite sure which you meant, Tao) is out of line.