Independents' Warning for Obama

Onceler said:
Wow...how much do you have to twist words and convolute things to be "right"? I feel like I'm watching someone on a unicycle, trying to juggle while riding through flaming hoops.

Many lefties opposed the war. For that, we were called traitors, terrrorist sympathizers & troop haters.

A prominent conservative comes out & says he wants the country to fail under Obama's policies, and many conservatives defend him, and for that, Dems say...they want the country to fail.

And that's a straight-up comparison in Yurt-world?

Weird....
Click to expand...

yeah onceler....rush really said he wants the country to fail...:rolleyes:

take your post and apply it to yourself :pke:
 
Yurt said:
yeah onceler....rush really said he wants the country to fail...:rolleyes:

take your post and apply it to yourself :pke:
Click to expand...

Oh...so he was saying that he wants Obama's policies to fail, but the country to succeed?

How does that work in Yurt-world?
 
Onceler said:
Oh...so he was saying that he wants Obama's policies to fail, but the country to succeed?

How does that work in Yurt-world?
Click to expand...

the same way it works when dems did not want to support funding for iraq and kept calling iraq a "loss" etc... you defended that as not wanting iraq to fail, rather not wanting bush's policies to succeed, dems fought other bush policies and hoped they failed, the same as rush and others want of obama's stupid and dangerous policies....are you really this stupid or are you being obtuse? maybe you weren't here when the rush thing was argued ad nauseum. fact remains, you claimed rush said he wants the country to fail, that is outright false, you have to interpret and twist his words to come up with that.

as i said, apply your post to yourself and stop being hypocritical
 
Yurt said:
the same way it works when dems did not want to support funding for iraq and kept calling iraq a "loss" etc... you defended that as not wanting iraq to fail, rather not wanting bush's policies to succeed, dems fought other bush policies and hoped they failed, the same as rush and others want of obama's stupid and dangerous policies....are you really this stupid or are you being obtuse? maybe you weren't here when the rush thing was argued ad nauseum. fact remains, you claimed rush said he wants the country to fail, that is outright false, you have to interpret and twist his words to come up with that.

as i said, apply your post to yourself and stop being hypocritical
Click to expand...

Strawman.

If a prominent Dem came out & said, "I hope Bush's policies in Iraq fail," and then other Dems defended that, I would call it for what it is: they want Iraq to fail, and the troops to fail. I would laugh at someone who said something like "I want Bush to fail in Iraq, but I want the troops to succeed!" That would be ludicrous.

But that's exactly what you are implying that Rush meant, with regard to the country. It's sad; beyond hack-ish, really....
 
Onceler said:
Strawman.

If a prominent Dem came out & said, "I hope Bush's policies in Iraq fail," and then other Dems defended that, I would call it for what it is: they want Iraq to fail, and the troops to fail. I would laugh at someone who said something like "I want Bush to fail in Iraq, but I want the troops to succeed!" That would be ludicrous.

But that's exactly what you are implying that Rush meant, with regard to the country. It's sad; beyond hack-ish, really....
Click to expand...

There were numerous people that said I don't support the mission but I support the troops when it came to Iraq.
 
cawacko said:
There were numerous people that said I don't support the mission but I support the troops when it came to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Another strawman.

MANY people said that they didn't support invading Iraq, but that they wanted the troops to succeed & still supported them. There is a huge difference between that, and saying "I want us to lose in Iraq."
 
Onceler said:
Another strawman.

MANY people said that they didn't support invading Iraq, but that they wanted the troops to succeed & still supported them. There is a huge difference between that, and saying "I want us to lose in Iraq."
Click to expand...

Strawman? You're just using semantics.
 
Bingo BAC.
We get down to it.
Who are these "independents" ? Are they really independent?
And what gives this guy in the article the right to speak for all of them?
If they are truely independent then no one speaks for them collectively?
 
uscitizen said:
Bingo BAC.
We get down to it.
Who are these "independents" ? Are they really independent?
And what gives this guy in the article the right to speak for all of them?
If they are truely independent then no one speaks for them collectively?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. "Independent" has emerged as a nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything on it's own. You'd have to do a lot more drilling before you get to the bottom of what it means to different people.

But you're right. If they're truly independent, who speaks for them? Even among independents there is the left, right, and center.

Independent = I'm not happy with my party but I still vote for them.

I suggest that there are very few real independents in this country .. certainly not as many as claimed.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and at the same time, most are too afraid to go third party.
Click to expand...

Too many idiots beholden to their party who cry "you're throwing away your vote", "you're wasting your vote" or "would you rather see McCain win (if you are on the left and don't vote for the Democrat) or Obama win (if you are on the right and don't vote for the Republican)."
 
cawacko said:
Too many idiots beholden to their party who cry "you're throwing away your vote", "you're wasting your vote" or "would you rather see McCain win (if you are on the left and don't vote for the Democrat) or Obama win (if you are on the right and don't vote for the Republican)."
Click to expand...

Most excellent thought.

I've been hearing that bullshit since I was old enough to vote.
 
blackascoal said:
I agree with you. "Independent" has emerged as a nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything on it's own. You'd have to do a lot more drilling before you get to the bottom of what it means to different people.

But you're right. If they're truly independent, who speaks for them? Even among independents there is the left, right, and center.

Independent = I'm not happy with my party but I still vote for them.

I suggest that there are very few real independents in this country .. certainly not as many as claimed.
Click to expand...

I'm a registered Republican. I can go change my registration status to Independent but its not going to change anything about me.

Now in my family my mom and sister are both registered Independent (in my mom's case she was registered Democrat in her youth, later changed to Republican and then got fed up with both and is now Independent). They each at one time voted for Clinton, Bush and Obama. They are both smart but not political junkies and neither are ideologues. They would (to me at least) be as close to Independent as they come.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and at the same time, most are too afraid to go third party.
Click to expand...

I don't think fear has much to do with it. It's viability.

Right now, voting 3rd party - at least in the Presidential - is nothing more than a protest vote. That's fine, but it affects the quality of candidate we see at that level. It's great that there is a Green Candidate, and I know lefties who voted that way, but if Cynthia McKinney really had a chance to become President, would they still vote that way?

3rd parties need to find a way to catch up to the 2 nationals in dollars, exposure and competitiveness. I don't think it's fear that keeps them from doing that, so much as how entrenched the current system is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top