Lets be constructive, not destructive

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by umalak_

then vote for Barr then

the fact that you choose the McCain end of the shit sandwich over the Obama end just means that you want to be part of the problem instead of the solution

your excuse for not wanting to vote for Barr, as you stated above, is lame and as long as people feel that way things will never change

what are you gonna do? keep sitting around until the democrats or republicans put up a good candidate? you'll be dead long before they ever will

I don't support Barr at all. I think McCain is a bad choice... just not as bad as Obama. The hell Jonny was asking to avoid is my argument that a vote for an unelectable candidate is in effect a vote for the electable candidate you support the least. EG... I don't want Obama for sure but I'll settle for McCain. A vote for Barr means one less vote for McCain and though statistically insignificant in the single voter case can matter when some big nosed Texan hands an election to Bill Clinton. Jonny disagrees with my argument. He believes that if enough people disregarded my argument the unelectable candidate becomes electable and therefore is a wiser vote. I think there is merit to each argument but it depends on how close (or far apart) the candidates are in voter support... And that's that. No new fresh hell here... these are not the droids you're looking for.

Your last comments aren't arguments or really even comments... they're snotty attacks. I disagree with you and your comments.

[umalak_]

When was the last time you looked at a Republican or Democratic candidate and said to yourself that it was a good choice, good vote? ...the thing that you aren't saying right now.

and I'm aware of what Jonny was saying. I was the one saying that your reason to not vote for Barr is lame.

[umalak_]

just let me know when you're done editing and then re-editing your comments and then I'll respond.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

There is nothing new added here. You think my rational is lame. I think you're rude and naive. So, that about wraps it up.

[TragicallyUnhip]

Originally Posted by DropstylePro

im not saying that i like either of them, but when the options are there, good or bad, you still only have 1 to choose. i dont want higher taxes so im voting for the lesser of 2 evils

Unless you make over $250k a year, your taxes will be lowered more under Obama's plan than McCain's. Up to $600k a year and your taxes would be just about even under Obama's plan, but less with McCain's. McCain plans significant tax breaks for the very wealthy and minor tax breaks for everyone else. Obama's plan gives major tax breaks to everyone through the upper middle class and raises taxes for the $600k+ a year crowd. Just an FYI.

[umalak_]

Originally Posted by xian

There is nothing new added here. You think my rational is lame. I think you're rude and naive. So, that about wraps it up.

thanks for not answering my questions, it just proves my point

[tricky]

[twat_clots]

if you think you're going to be paying less in taxes with mccain, you are sadly mistaken. that luxury only applies to the wealthy and not us dirty commoners. you'll be paying more taxes to keep birth control away from low income families and more taxes to keep food in those escaped abortions mouths.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by xian

I don't support Barr at all. I think McCain is a bad choice... just not as bad as Obama. The hell Jonny was asking to avoid is my argument that a vote for an unelectable candidate is in effect a vote for the electable candidate you support the least. EG... I don't want Obama for sure but I'll settle for McCain. A vote for Barr means one less vote for McCain and though statistically insignificant in the single voter case can matter when some big nosed Texan hands an election to Bill Clinton. Jonny disagrees with my argument. He believes that if enough people disregarded my argument the unelectable candidate becomes electable and therefore is a wiser vote. I think there is merit to each argument but it depends on how close (or far apart) the candidates are in voter support... And that's that. No new fresh hell here... these are not the droids you're looking for.

Maybe you should vote for Nader then. Essentially that is one less vote for Obama, right? I'd like him to be the reason that the Dems lose again.

[djetaine]

Originally Posted by DropstylePro

People desuade other from voting for their candidate by digging up dirt. Is this the right thing to do? It works but what does that say? Its low. Very low.
Im voting McCain. I like McCain. notice i didnt said " I dont like Obama ", I do.
I like McCain better.

new mccain ad.......
***************

SCRIPT: Announcer: "Gas prices — $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"


Crowd chanting: "Obama, Obama, Obama!"


KEY IMAGES: A lonely gas pump with heat waves rising around it. A pump's price readout rolls over to $5. At first indiscernible, background chanting grows louder. A smiling Obama appears on the screen with a pump rising over his right shoulder. It is now clear that the chants are a pro-Obama crowd: "Obama, Obama, Obama!" The screen goes dark. A clip appears of McCain speaking to a crowd, replaced by a still shot of McCain against a blue backdrop.


ANALYSIS: This ad is the latest tit-for-tat commercial over energy in the presidential campaign. Earlier this month, an Obama ad accused McCain of being "part of the problem" of high gas prices. This one flat out blames Obama.
The main premise of McCain's ad — that opposition to drilling is responsible for high gas prices — is an assertion that has been disputed even by McCain allies. There is a strong case that proponents make for additional drilling, but few will argue that it would alleviate this summer's prices at the pump.


*************
okay buddy