Comments Posted By Troy Riser
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments


It isn't rah-rah bullshit to stay with the fight. McCain's waged a fiercely persistent, brave campaign, staying within four, five or six points when economic circumstances ordinarily would've dictated a blow-out margin early on, and a widening rather than the tightening of the numbers we've been seeing. In boxing, when a fighter's taken a lot of punishment and too far down to win on points, the options are either staying in the fight and going for the knockout or throwing in the towel. You advocate throwing in the towel (on the presidential race, anyway). I disagree. Your way may seem cooly pragmatic, but perceptions shape outcomes and expectations of defeat make for self-fulfilling prophecies. If McCain/Palin lose, it shouldn't be because we lost heart and they didn't.

To stay with the fight is up to you. And I admire those who are fighting, in my opinion, a losing battle. It is always the right thing to do to stand up for what you believe regardless of the consequences.

My point is that if that's what you want to read, go somewhere else.


Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 16.10.2008 @ 12:56


Staggslaw, you wrote, 'That’s okay, ditto head right wingers. You’re going to find yourselves an ever shrinking minority in the years to come...' I don't see how, frankly. Have you read the demographic statistics? Blue states in the US share a (frighteningly low) birthrate nearly identical to that of Canada and Europe, one far less than the replacement rate. Seems nanny-state loving liberals have forgotten how to make babies. Hint: unless you're wealthy celebrity, making babies involves unprotected sex with a member of the opposite gender. Alien concept to you and yours, I know, but there it is.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 15.10.2008 @ 00:19

smith, the second biggest trick the devil ever did was convincing people of color Republicans are somehow the party of bigots, against all evidence and historical example. Truth is, I would guess most Republicans believe skin color to be irrelevant, and work for and believe in the ideal of a color-blind society. This philosphy doesn't lend itself to pandering. No affirmative action, no preferences, no nothing for anyone on the basis of skin color, bone structure, or any other God-given human attribute.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 14.10.2008 @ 16:44

smith, just how recently do you want to drive through this stretch of historical highway, anyway? Republicans pushed through the Civil Rights Act in 1964--against a sizeable and formidable Democratic Party resistance. Republicans walk the walk. Democrats talk. And talk.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 14.10.2008 @ 16:11

smith at 195 up there claims those who speak out against Obama and the possibility of an Obama presidency are racists. We must be, according to him and all of his like-minded pals. News, moonbat: race has nothing to do with any of this. Obama is the most left-liberal candidate we've endured since Henry Wallace. Criticism of your savior would be coming at him from our end of the spectrum no matter the color of his skin. And just to clarify something here: historically, members of your party are the ones who have lynched, chained, beaten, raped, and owned black people. Members of my party have been those who have opposed your more barbaric impulses. The Democratic Party knows how to pander, but little of principles.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 14.10.2008 @ 15:41

While I admire your equanimity, I differ with your 'go along, get along' philosophy. Contrarianism for its own sake is always foolish, but fang-and-claw resistance to wrongdoing is the only recourse to men and women of principle. I didn't like the Clinton impeachment process, not because I support the right of libertines to oral gratification in the Oval Office by women not their wives, but because of the hypocrisy of the men driving the effort--Newt Gingrich, especially. That said, Clinton lied under oath, so bringing it up as an example of hysterical Republican malice didn't further your argument. For my part, I say conservatives have been entirely too nice for entirely too long. I say take it as low and as dirty as we can go within the bounds of the law--until, of course, hate speech laws and Internet-based variations of the Fairness Doctrine are enacted during a presumptive Obama Administration, and they almost certainly will be. So much for zest and zeal. Imagine it as a short leash.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 14.10.2008 @ 14:50


I am leery of certainty in others as you claim Obama is drawn to it--and it's your certainty of his idealogical bent, based solely upon your take on his psychological makeup, that weakens your argument of Obama as opportunist and non-socialist, at least in my view. That, and calling those who disagree with your position ignorant and alarmist. So you can look into his soul or read his mind or whatever it is you think you're doing, but I'll look at his actions. Insofar as I know, Obama has never repudiated the views he held when he associated with The New Party, nor has he addressed--much less disavowed--his close pupil-mentor relationship with Ayers. A once card-carrying member of a socialist poltical party who was tutored and groomed by a former member of the Weather Underground is a de facto socialist until he publicly claims otherwise. Think 'duck test'. Obama is a duck.

Comment Posted By Troy Riser On 9.10.2008 @ 11:39



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page