Why So Many Say They Will Go From Clinton to McCain?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
No doubt that some of them are, but the vast majority are not.

www.hillaryclintonforum.net...

Take a look through those forums, a really long look. Are those all Republican plants? Go there and accuse them of such and see how far you get.


Just a quick note: I did a Whois search on the above domain, and see that it is registered to "Domains By Proxy":

www.whois.org...

Someone has gone out of there way to obscure the ownership of this domain. This works with the idea the site may be run by some Republican shills. (Maybe...)

I also took a look at the forums contents. It doesn't seem like a real discussion group. Not entirely. Not to me.

#

Here is a comment about "DomainsByProxy" company, from another website:



Domainsbyproxy is a company that hides the identities of those registering their domains...so when they SCAM people, they are much much harder to be found out unless the person scammed is forced to involve law enforcement or the courts to subpoena the information...a lengthy and irritating process. only THIEVES use domainsbyproxy


www.answerbag.com...

Domains By Proxy is located in Scottsdale AZ, home state of Senator McCain. That might be a coincidence, or maybe something more.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Buck Division]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


Wow that was awesome! I especially liked the part where you "omitted" me!

In are seriousness though. Yes there are a LOT of problems in almost everything in the world today. I can only agree, I can see. But to use the standard 'conservative' fatalist metric for evaluation is to be willfully blind. (I know you do not consider yourself as a 'conservative' and so let em say I am labeling your argument and not you
).



American Christians get suspended from school for praying before lunch, but American airports are praised for installing Muslim foot basins.


I believe issues such as these are argued based on Separation of Church and State. Personally as a progressive 'democrat' I could care less, that would change if I have a child in public school who decided he/she was not monotheistic or comfortable with saying 'god' and got in trouble for it....but I am sure you can see the logic in having an issue with people forcing their ideals on my child....



All things progressive? To use a democrats standard line of thinking that "the war in iraq is wrong" ... Democrats have had 5 years to do something about the War that they despise so badly. What have they done? Nothing.


Your quite right, they have done exceedingly little, much to my dismay. Still, although they are a majority it is a slim enough majority that they can not get past being stonewalled by the Republicans. They simply do not have the votes.



they keep funding the war, thats what. Progressive?


No, it is a tragic duty as has been repeated over and over by the Republicans, and despite their desire to simply cut off all funding to farce this war to end they did their tragic duty and dent money to CARE for our troops over seas. It is defiantly not progressive, but you can not use that fatalist metric where you critique one issue and claim the 'progressive' in the Democratic party dead. Please, though we disagree on the issues we are both more intelligent than that.



Where's the new energy[?]


As in Alternative Energy? If so what exactly do you expect Democratic politicians to do about this? And there is also the issue of their slim majority preventing them from taking any steps the Republicans are against. But really to talk about this we would have to be more specific on what exactly we are talking about.

While the democrats leave much to be desired in terms of 'progressive' they still are the progressive party. I am sorry it bothers you so very much.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

First off -- you said

(I know you do not consider yourself as a 'conservative' and so let em say I am labeling your argument and not you ).


My respect for you has gone up exponentially.....now onto my reply


But in what way are they progressive? Im really looking for a real answer here. And what do you have to say about the democratic meddling in a privately ran organization that has nothing to do with anything federal (MLB)

And yes, i mean Alternate fuels. They keep pressuring the republicans. They keep saying "find new fuel!!!"

what have the democrats done?

Its like saying "honey, im hungry, but i hate your cooking, go cook me something really yummy thats completely opposite of what you normally cook, and you are not allowed to have someone else cook it for you"

Thats what the democrats are doing.

But thats okay. Obama will win this election because he'll play the race card. We'll have 4 years to see what Democrats can do, and it will officially be the END of the democratic party as we know it.

Republicans arent perfect (nobody is) but a lot of what i see from liberal america is just plain ignorant and what i'll loosely describe as "evil" (for lack of a better word)

[edit on 6-6-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


you also say


Your quite right, they have done exceedingly little, much to my dismay. Still, although they are a majority it is a slim enough majority that they can not get past being stonewalled by the Republicans. They simply do not have the votes.


A majority vote is a majority vote. 51/50 is as slim as it can get and still have a victor, but a victory is a victory.

The majority is comprised of democrats. So if the democrats are all about change, then why has no changed been voted into place?

Unless of coruse one would consider change finding out rather or not roger clemons cheated in a baseball game.

True - steroid use is banned. There are courts for this, to waste time and taxpayer money to investigate something as stupid as this, just absolteuly blows my mind.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by Animal
 

A majority vote is a majority vote. 51/50 is as slim as it can get and still have a victor, but a victory is a victory.


Democrats do not vote in lock-step with their party, there are always a few who tend to disagree (Lieberman). This is not highly desirable when the majority is so narrow, but demanding that a representative, representative, vote the party line rather than the conscious of those s/he represents is unacceptable as well.

Also, I have not dismissed your first reply, but before I do you the honor I will find examples to support my claims.

Can I also assume that I am no longer "dismissed"?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


LOL, you were never dismissed, i like you


I just ommitted your statement

in case you havent noticed...i tend to do that to a lot of people


But hey - i can see this will turn into a healthy debate, and i love that.

I eagerly await your response about Congressional intrusion into the MLB steriods

but for the record, allow me to say

Steroids use is legal, but dealing it is illegal (...i think...)
but even if im wrong

There are courtrooms and internal investigations that can resolve this

to use the resources of the congress of the U.S.A. to squabble over rather or not someone cheated in a GAME is where i find problems.

I mean, whats next? Is congress going to investigate me for cheating on these boards? Because honestly...you'd think one would have to cheat to be so right all the time



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by Animal
 

But in what way are they progressive? Im really looking for a real answer here...And yes, i mean Alternate fuels. They keep pressuring the republicans. They keep saying "find new fuel!!!"

what have the democrats done?

Its like saying "honey, im hungry, but i hate your cooking, go cook me something really yummy thats completely opposite of what you normally cook, and you are not allowed to have someone else cook it for you"

Thats what the democrats are doing.


Okay, let us begin with this:

#1

Democrats Getting It Done: Energy Independence

A few Quotes:



This week, the Senate begins debating legislation to "increase the fuel economy of cars and trucks and boosting the use of non-petroleum fuels like ethanol." According to ABC News, the legislation currently being considered would:

* Require that vehicles get 35 miles on the gallon by 2020. This would increase by 4 percent every year.
* Authorize the Energy Department "to make loan guarantees for fuel-efficient vehicle manufacturers and related parts suppliers."
* Increase the use of renewable fuels to 8.5 billion gallons in 2008, and to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
* Give the federal government "more authority to go after oil companies that manipulate gasoline supplies and overcharge consumers at the pump."

It would also:

* Authorize projects "to capture greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other polluters."
* "Promote energy efficiency in consumer products ranging from light bulbs to big-screen TVs."


Aside from the use of bio-fuels looks pretty good to me, and all around progressive no? Well if you say no I would say yes so lets forget that question!



Will Republicans try to block this one? Or is their big talk about energy independence just cheap rhetoric? We'll soon find out.


Well, do you think the Republicans voted with the Deomocrats? Do you think they offered to debate the contentious points? Do you think even a FEW Republicans decided to vote for this? Regardless, want to know what really happened?



UPDATE: Surprise, surprise... the Republicans offer nothing and block much-needed reform with a filibuster.


#2

Democrats Push for More Alternative Fuels in the Military

A Few Quotes from this one:



In an effort to move the nation towards greater energy independence, House Democratic Whip Hoyer, House Science Committee Ranking Democrat Rep. Bart Gordon and House Armed Services Committee Member Rep. Mark Udall submitted an amendment today to the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Defense Authorization Bill that would increase the use of alternative fuels in the military. The Department of Defense is the largest single buyer of fuel in America and must be a part of any energy independence effort.


Another example of Democrats attempting to make PROGRESS in terms of Alternative Energy.

These examples are on ONE issue and were dug up on Google in 5 minutes. I would say that the Democrats are indeed taking Progressive action, you just have to be willing to see it.

As to the steroids issue you brought up, it is a JOKE, what a waste of time and energy. Like bringing in Baseball players to testify before congress, it makes me want to puke...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


i think i figured out our problem

we, both, have credible (but different) definitions of progress

you seem to define progress in its literal sense as in: incrimental steps forward (no matter how small or unintentional) are considered progress.


My definition of progress is moving foward within your confines

what i mean is

you mention that they pushed for by 2020 having 35mpg requirement....my car gets that NOW. So in 12 years, it'll be required that all cars have the same, low cost, technology that mine does today?
Thats not progress, thats stagnation.

by 2020, if cars dont get hundreds of miles to the "gallon" or whatever measurement we'll be using by then, then there has been zero progress.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I would have to say that, yet again, you are applying a fatalist metric to evaluating and then condemning.

Yes, they could have asked for more than 35mpg, but the Republicans Filibustered THAT! Besides it was only ONE piece of a bill that was comprised of many.

Also, go look at cars today. 35mpg in the USA is HIGH. Yes that is going to change, thanks to PROGRESS.

So now I provide the evidence you say does not exist and you begin splitting hairs. I think this conversation is over, unless you decide to be real and play fair.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


how am i splitting hairs?
Im saying that my car gets 35 MPG today, and a lot of cars do the same thing, you say that in 2020 cars will have 35 mpg....

thats not progress

how the hell am i splitting hairs?
If you want me to use your definition of progress, fine, yes democrats are makign progress. but its not satisfactory

and its not a "democrat v.s. republican" because i hate both.
Democrats say they'll "change things" and they have a majority in the congress, but yet they never change things

thats called hypocrisy - no matter how you define it

if you want this "healthy debate" to continue, maybe you should tone down your "tone" a little bit. Saying im splitting hairs because i disagree with you is hardly a fair asssessment of my debating abillity.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


also - all they talk about is "alternative fuel consumption"

What alternative fuel? E85???

E85 is a trend and it will die off very soon.

i think the idea of corn based fuel is fantastic because we can grow it ourselves, but democrats wont let it happen because the rest of the world complains about what we do with OUR CORN

so what alternative fuels are they using in their military vehicles? Water? hydrogen? Im curious

they call for a bill to use alternative fuel...which ones??? I see no other choices for todays' world


also - how is it the republicans fault that teh bill didnt pass...if...the democratic party has a majority???

if all democrats vote THIS way
and all republicans vote in opposition

guess who wins?
DEMOCRATS

[edit on 6-6-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I say your splitting hairs and more importantly applying a fatalist metric to evaluate what I bring to the discussion because you are doing both.

You said Democrats did nothing Progressive. In about 7 minutes I provided two links to two stories showing you that they did in fact make such attempts. I even limited myself to Alternative Energy to answer you directly.

Then you chose to latch onto ONE of dozens of issues raised in the articles I posted to dismiss the Progressive actions taken by Democrats at large.

That is splitting hairs. It is reducing the argument to a scale at which you feel you can discredit my points. I need to tone down nothing, if you can't take the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


LOL
you say that im splitting hairs becaus ei chose to reply to your firs topic, first?

You did the same thing earlier. You didnt reply to my frist thread, and even admitted it. Im not trying to say "YER WRONG AND IM RIGHT HA HA HA" but what i am saying is they have a majority vote
they claim they are going to chagne things

and they've change dnothing



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


you say democrats cant get "change" because republicans wont allow it. You say its because republicans wont vote with democrats to make change.

If the democrats have a majority (meaing ...there are more democrats than republicans)

and the democrats cant even get their whole party on board (like the republicans did) to vote for a democratic bill
how is that the republicans fault?

All democrats didnt vote fro the bill, so.....thats the republicans fault?
I failt to see any logic in that accusation



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
i placed no blame on the re[publicans EXCEPT when i pointed out their filibuster of a democratic bill.

i explained WHY the democrats can not force things through with their slim majority, and it is a reality i find hard to hold against them.

i said you are splitting hairs because you are. in the articles i posted 35mpg was one of MANY issues the democrats were working with. because the 35mpg reduced the topic to scale that you felt you could easily dismiss you are splitting hairs (ie: reduction).

you will see a lot more progress come 2008 when they do not have to deal with such a slim majority or a president who will veto their bills.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


LOL you call it a slim majority

if all democrats agreed with the bills that other democrats are trying to pass, then the "slim majority" would win

but since the bill is full of crap, and the intelligent democrats see through it - they say "not voting for it"

35 mpg by 2020 is progress??!?

How, even in blissful ignorance, can one atest that this is progress?
Millions of cars get that already today. You sir make no sense. Just because a demcorat says "HEY ITS PROGRESS!!!"
doesnt make it so

So i ask you - is your definition of progress...does it apply to the war too? Because tehcnically, by your standards, we are making progress

so if we're making progress, why pull out?
Making progress = winning right?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
You mean the Ann Coulter vote?

This I do not know. Maybe Rush can convince whom he despises to vote for McCain.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


saying its the republicans fault that democrats can't unify their own party is like the patriots coach blaming his cheating on someone else.

it's like loosing a basketball game and blaming it on the referee's final call

if you had played better ball before the final call, the finall call wouldnt have mattered at all



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
#1
Require that vehicles get 35 miles on the gallon by 2020. This would increase by 4 percent every year

#2
Authorize the Energy Department "to make loan guarantees for fuel-efficient vehicle manufacturers and related parts suppliers.

#3
Increase the use of renewable fuels to 8.5 billion gallons in 2008, and to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

#4
Give the federal government "more authority to go after oil companies that manipulate gasoline supplies and overcharge consumers at the pump.

#5
Authorize projects "to capture greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other polluters."

#6
"Promote energy efficiency in consumer products ranging from light bulbs to big-screen TVs."

from link #1

#7
increase the use of alternative fuels in the military

from link #2

These are the points made in the articles I posted, why is it you can ONLY talk about #1? What about the others?

Like I have said you are splitting hairs, you are trying to reduce the point to the ONE issue that you feel you can easily discredit and then apply your fatalist logic to discredit the entire point. Are you beginning to understand what I am saying? Concentrate, I KNOW you can do this....

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 


for the record - i dont support republicans like rush limbaugh does

i support rush limbaugh because he's an intelligent entertaining man


if you fail to draw that distinction, then maybe you should re-educate yourself in many aspects of every day living

if you do draw that conclusion - then i commend you





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join