I cannot in good conscience VOTE for Obama

[MystikWizard]

I've never said McCain would unify the country.

I'm not a McCain supporter.

You certainly like defending him.

 

[jktoooo]

Everything leftists said about "Nazi" Bush WILL actually come true with Obama.

If he is voted in as Pres.....we are in for some scary times.

 

[Supernature]

I've never said McCain would unify the country.

I'm not a McCain supporter.

You could have fooled me. More often than not, you end up championing his talking points.

You are entitled to our opinion of course, but the very fact that you (and I'm not just picking on you - there are others) are not really supporting anyone while remaining one of Obama's most ardent detractors, means that your contributions here are primarily negative. It's this very fact that makes your rant against the "disrespect" and "dismissiveness" of Obama supporters facile and hard to swallow. Not to mention, you yourself have been dismissive and disrespectful on too many occasions to count.

 

[NickCole]

You could have fooled me.

Yes I could if I wanted to.

Obama's fooled you.

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>You are entitled to our opinion of course, but the very fact that you (and I'm not just picking on you - there are others) are not really supporting anyone while remaining one of Obama's most ardent detractors, means that your contributions here are primarily negative.

And there we find the crux of the matter. The belief that "if you're not with us, you're against us". That either you're on the Obama bandwagon, or you're a McCain supporter, a self-hating homosexual, and bunch of other "obvious" conclusions.

>>>Obama's fooled you.

And, apparently, most of the country. My theory is that once America's problems continue, the shine will wear off, and his personality won't be enough to save him. But perhaps it will be.

Lex

 

[NickCole]

Not to mention, you yourself have been dismissive and disrespectful on too many occasions to count.

Not to people who have earned respect.

 

[Supernature]

Not to people who have earned respect.

Yes I could if I wanted to.

Obama's fooled you.

I rest my case. See it is possible to be erudite and still a troll.

 

[G-Lexington]

QED.

Lex

 

[MystikWizard]

Yes I could if I wanted to.

Obama's fooled you.

And Hillary fooled you!

How you like them apples?

Quit being disrespectful. The choice has been made. We had an election, and Obama won the election. Quit being divisive.

I have never seen anyone on this forum have such a prolonged temper tantrum as yourself.

 

[Lostlover]

Dont want to get into a BS convo/thread

I will just abstain in the Presidential choice on the ballot.

Abstain.

 

[NickCole]

>>>You are entitled to our opinion of course, but the very fact that you (and I'm not just picking on you - there are others) are not really supporting anyone while remaining one of Obama's most ardent detractors, means that your contributions here are primarily negative.

And there we find the crux of the matter. The belief that "if you're not with us, you're against us". That either you're on the Obama bandwagon, or you're a McCain supporter, a self-hating homosexual, and bunch of other "obvious" conclusions.

Yes, that.

But also the false notion that opposition is inherently "negative," and that "negative" is yucky. Like Bushies before them, Obamians try to shut up opposition by bullying or shunning or dismissing the whole notion of opposition by calling it "negative."

 

[Supernature]

Dont want to get into a BS convo/thread

I will just abstain in the Presidential choice on the ballot.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you seriously weren't interested in a discussion, your statement might have worked better as a signature than as a thread.

 

[Supernature]

And there we find the crux of the matter. The belief that "if you're not with us, you're against us". That either you're on the Obama bandwagon, or you're a McCain supporter, a self-hating homosexual, and bunch of other "obvious" conclusions.

Lex

Come now, Lex....that's not what I'm saying at all (and has never been my position). I was making the point that he's tearing someone down while not supporting or building someone else one up. This means his contribution ends up being mainly the former.

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>I was making the point that he's tearing someone down while not supporting or building someone else one up.

Must he?

Nick probably doesn't rail against McCain for the same reason I don't - it's redundant. There are plenty of McCain slams here in CE&P. I tend not to chime in, not because I disagree, but because I really have no more to add.

But there seems to be a lack of critical thinking here (and most places) when it comes to Obama. I think hard questions need to be asked. Not because I'm a hater, but because he's potentially going to be in charge of this nation in about three months. And it's not enough to simply say "he's not McCain" or "he's the better of the two". That's not enough in my book. If he's all his supporters say, he can withstand the scrutiny.

Lex

 

[jktoooo]

good for you.

A vote for Obama is a vote for leftists socialists to run america.

 

[Supernature]

Must he?

Nick probably doesn't rail against McCain for the same reason I don't - it's redundant. There are plenty of McCain slams here in CE&P. I tend not to chime in, not because I disagree, but because I really have no more to add.

I can totally understand that. But in the case of Nick, that silence leaves a curious vacuum when he accuses one candidate of dirty tactics, race-baiting, or flipflopping with no acknowledgment that his candidate (as was the case during the Primaries when he supported Hillary) or McCain is making news for just that sort of thing. You at least tend to be more balanced in that sort of thing (while keeping a sense a humor).

But there seems to be a lack of critical thinking here (and most places) when it comes to Obama. I think hard questions need to be asked. Not because I'm a hater, but because he's potentially going to be in charge of this nation in about three months. And it's not enough to simply say "he's not McCain" or "he's the better of the two". That's not enough in my book. If he's all his supporters say, he can withstand the scrutiny.

Lex

Arguably, there seems to be a lack of critical thinking on both sides. I personally have no problem with someone just not liking the candidate I support - that's a subjective opinion and one they are completely entitled too. "Hard questions" and scrutiny are welcome and are what keeps things lively here in the CE&P. My issue with Nick is that his dial seems to have only two settings: righteousness and uninhibited disingenuousness. The former makes him dismissive and divisive while decrying the same thing in others and the latter makes arguements with him circular because no amount of opposing facts or substantiation makes him question his assertions. In the end it seems to be more about feelings than facts and I would respect his opinion more if he simply said so.

 

[G-Lexington]

^ and ^^, understood. But you well know that sometimes it's not just the answers but the way the answers are phrased that makes all the difference. If the accusation about Obama are easily answered (and not by a "What - you think McCain's any better?"), then they should be answered. In a simple "here's the facts" sort of way, rather than by calling the OP disingenious or a Hillary-whiner or whatever else. It takes just as much time, and it tends to make your answer a lot more appealing to a lot more people, I would think.

Lex

 

[sunoftheskye]

A forum is not meant for statements that do not start conversations. If you want that, Live Journal is that a way ------->

Remember to disable comments.

 

[broadwayboi]

I ask that you not abstain from voting in the Presidential race. This would be a very big mistake. This is a very important election to all of America, and to all of the world, no matter how you look at it. It's fine if you don't support Barack Obama and it's fine if you don't support John McCain. I don't support either one of them. I have decided to vote for Ralph Nader. After doing some investigating, Nader seems to have the best stances on gay issues. (But no that's not the ONLY issue I'm voting on in this election.) It's also a very symbolic vote. If Ralph Nader (or any of the non-major party candidates) were to receive 5% of the National Vote on November 4th, a third party candidate will have access to public financing and will be invited to the debates in 2012. While I realize that a third party candidate will not win a Presidential election in the next 30 years (AT LEAST) it would be a big step, and open American minds to the true meaning of democracy. It would no longer be viewed as a two-party feud that has lasted for centuries, and will continue to last. I'm being honest when I say this: I Don't Care WHO You Vote For In The Presidential Race AS LONG AS YOU VOTE!!!

 

[NickCole]

I can totally understand that. But in the case of Nick, that silence leaves a curious vacuum when he accuses one candidate of dirty tactics, race-baiting, or flipflopping with no acknowledgment that his candidate (as was the case during the Primaries when he supported Hillary) or McCain is making news for just that sort of thing. You at least tend to be more balanced in that sort of thing (while keeping a sense a humor).

Over time, which is the only reasonable way to assess this, I'm much more balanced than most here. I've criticized both Democrats and Republicans with equal force, whereas most here rarely if ever criticize their own party.

Although why "balanced" is so important to you in those not supporting Obama, when you're certainly not "balanced" yourself, nor do you insist upon it in Obama supporters, I can only guess.

I don't criticize McCain much because everybody else is doing that, what's the point. I criticize Obama because so few do and there's so much to criticize. Obama supporters don't acknowledge Obama's dirty tricks and lies, yet that doesn't get your nose out of joint. So your cry about balanced is plain disingenuous.

Arguably, there seems to be a lack of critical thinking on both sides. I personally have no problem with someone just not liking the candidate I support - that's a subjective opinion and one they are completely entitled too. "Hard questions" and scrutiny are welcome and are what keeps things lively here in the CE&P. My issue with Nick is that his dial seems to have only two settings: righteousness and uninhibited disingenuousness.

If you don't like my style, don't read my posts. I liked Chance as a person but I didn't like his writing style so I stopped reading his posts. If Spenced didn't run after me like a pathetic puppy, yapping at virtually every one of my posts for attention I'd ignore him because his moronic LOL style is so far beneath me, but I feel sorry for the little pup and his desperate need for attention. That's the way it goes; each of us like some styles better than others, and we read or respond to different posts for different reasons. So if you don't like mine, don't read my posts. You're right that I'm righteous, arrogant and impatient too, but "uninhibited disingenuousness"? Nonsense.

The former makes him dismissive and divisive while decrying the same thing in others

It's true I'm dismissive of fools and foolishness but I'm not divisive. Who have I divided from whom? During my time here I've criticized Democrats as much as I've criticized Republicans. I don't have a side or a group that defends me at the cost of being divided from others. And unlike some of my opponents who've tried to turn others against me or shun me, I've never tried to turn anyone against anybody.

and the latter makes arguements with him circular because no amount of opposing facts or substantiation makes him question his assertions.

Not true. I've questioned my opinions and point of view, and asked for posters to expand on reasoned assertions, learned here and changed my mind sometimes. You've never said anything that changed my mind, and neither have posters like Midnight77 or ICO7, and maybe that's all you see, but that's due to the quality of argument.

In the end it seems to be more about feelings than facts and I would respect his opinion more if he simply said so.

Sometimes it's feeling, sometimes fact. I say so when it's feeling. I've been very open about my not trusting Obama being based on facts, which I've listed many times and they've not been refuted (dismissed, sure, but not proved wrong) and feeling, and my sense that he'll be as bad a President as Bush - in different ways - as a feeling that's the same feeling I felt in 2000. But facts are my main thing, and I substantiate them.