We are a little touchy. I asked a few simple questions and made a fairly obvious statement.
1. I am told to grow up.
I will be affected by a tax increase unlike many of the people on this site.
You simply state that is what blogs do. Does that make it an effect medium? NO. I will thank you for posting that our candidate is weak though. I am sure the final election spread will be within 5 points, but the electoral spread will be in excess of 60 points. That is why a reasonable and intelligent arguement has to be expanded on.
3, The Press issue.
This is simple. The man is simply more engaging, younger, newer ideas (some wrong).
Nobody is trying to stifle debate. We would be better served to engage in a debate on issues and relevant matters.
I will say that attacks on a man's wife are unwarranted and disturbing.Comment Posted By Jack D On 28.07.2008 @ 12:02
As a fairly conservitive person I am in a constant state of disbelief by the bloggers on our side. I would like to see people promoting the best candidate, and the prominent aspects of the candidates. This constan middle school sniping, as if we were 12 year old girls is truly discouraging. I am still looking for a reason to vote for McCain. Can anyone give me a reason, and do not vote for Obama is not good enough. I may be in disagreement with some of Obama's policy issues, but I will not submit to the constant negativity of my party. I am sure he is a good person.
1. Grow up.
2. "Sniping" as you call it is what blogs do sometimes. I can be just as rational and analytical as anyone and have proved it numerous times. But on occassion, I like to break the boredom up with posts like this one - half tongue in cheek, half serious examination of something that you obviously know nothing about - that is, the American people's demonstrated lack of confidence in Obama to serve as president. Why is that? Why is Obama only slightly ahead of a weak republican candidate who is too old to be president? He should be 20 points ahead and instead is well within striking distance for McCain.
One answer to that question is that Obama creeps a lot of people out. His radical associations, the press grovelling at his feet, the swooning supporters - all of this is legitimate fare to examine and criticize - and to be wary of. Whether he is a "good" person is open to debate. And since all of you 12 year olds out there want to stifle debate because you can't stand the back and forth - just like a 12 year old wishes their parents would stop arguing all the time - perhaps you and people like you (see above) should just sit on the sidelines and let the adults debate the issues. You don't want a debate. You want a love fest. For that, I suggest North Korea. Or perhaps Cuba where debate is not allowed.
ed.Comment Posted By Jack D On 28.07.2008 @ 11:17
There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?
The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.
How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?
In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?
The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?
Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):Comment Posted By Jack D On 21.08.2007 @ 13:37
Pages (1) :