Obama's stuttering in debate...Why

[luckytxn 2,265]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Maybe could have generated an actual discussion without the retarded thingie in there.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Quite true, you do have several choices, but only two of them have a chance.

[IAMX 3,055]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Maybe could have generated an actual discussion without the retarded thingie in there.

True, but no way else to put it when someone thinks they're smarter than everyone else by limiting their own options.

I thought the value of "freedom" was having more options, not less.

Anyways, I kinda feel like starting some new topics about interesting things, but not sure if it's worth it yet. Might wait until the Presidential thing dies down in November, post-election.

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Quite true, you do have several choices, but only two of them have a chance.

That's because there are a lot of other people limiting their options as well.

Do you really have to be yet another?

Edited September 28, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,265]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Quite true, you do have several choices, but only two of them have a chance.

That is the thinking that gives us the same old #######. Makes no difference which of the two majors get the grail when they know they have no one to answer to.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That's because there are a lot of other people limiting their options as well.

Do you really have to be yet another?

Correct, 99.9% of the country. What do you have in mind to change it?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Well Steven. Please enlighten us retards who you like. Is it Bob Barr? Nah. Has to Nader. I sense former green partier and now true independant.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That is the thinking that gives us the same old #######. Makes no difference which of the two majors get the grail when they know they have no one to answer to.

Maybe so, but it is the reality of it. You can vote for Ron Paul and I can vote for Colin Powell. Neither of them will be elected. But we are free to do so.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Ok, well, let me drag my retarded self out to vote for Colin Powell instead. And, since I'm bring "realistic", why wait until Nov 4th to vote? Why not do it any time I want to while wearing my tin foil hat? It's not going to count anyway.

Why are people so retarded to believe I'm the one who starts the name-calling?

Edited September 28, 2008 by Virtual wife

[DeadPoolX 9]

What I find interesting is that when Obama stutters or stammers during a debate or while publicly speaking, it's considered "okay" or that "everyone has problems from time to time, but it's no indication of intelligence or lack thereof." Meanwhile, the anti-Bush crowd has been viciously attacking him (calling him "stupid," "moron," "idiot," and so forth) every single time he stutters or stammers for the last eight years or so.

So why does Obama get a free pass when Bush didn't receive one and never has?

[IAMX 3,055]

That's because there are a lot of other people limiting their options as well.

Do you really have to be yet another?

Correct, 99.9% of the country. What do you have in mind to change it?

Not really sure or even terribly optimistic I can change it.

Since I'm only in control of my own vote all I can do is vote for who I see as best overall, not against whoever I like least of the two parties with the best statistical probability of winning. Why should I base my vote upon everyone else's? That pretty much eliminates the "realism" factor, which is your vote is an individual one. Or at least, so I was told.

I do on occasion tell people how stupid it is (I'm a tough love person, if I don't say something, chances are it might be because I don't care) to limit one's options, and it has worked before. One of my uncles who moved from Texas to California (to be with the sane part of the family).. all it took was showing him Fahrenheit 9/11 and the guy turned from liking Bush to hating his guts. However, he voted Democrat (as did I at the time, but that changed), and maybe still does, so unless he really thinks they are the best choice, and decides this without regard for how others are voting, he's got a ways to go.

The hopeful in me thinks maybe some day people will get it, but the cynic in me says people are doomed to repeat history when they fail to learn from it, and the realistic part says indeed they are repeating it.

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Ok, well, let me drag my retarded self out to vote for Colin Powell instead. And, since I'm bring "realistic", why wait until Nov 4th to vote? Why not do it any time I want to while wearing my tin foil hat? It's not going to count anyway.

Why are people so retarded to believe I'm the one who starts the name-calling?

If you really think Colin Powell is the best choice (or whoever it is), why not vote for them, even if it's write-in?

Edited September 28, 2008 by SRVT

[IAMX 3,055]

What I find interesting is that when Obama stutters or stammers during a debate or while publicly speaking, it's considered "okay" or that "everyone has problems from time to time, but it's no indication of intelligence or lack thereof." Meanwhile, the anti-Bush crowd has been viciously attacking him (calling him "stupid," "moron," "idiot," and so forth) every single time he stutters or stammers for the last eight years or so.

So why does Obama get a free pass when Bush didn't receive one and never has?

That's likely because stammering and stuttering isn't original. Everyone does it. Being George W. Bush is original, and it has little to do with stammering and stuttering.

Don't worry, if Obama becomes President, people will certainly find ways to make fun of him. It's like, a tradition nowadays. One I'm all for. Republicans seem to forget everyone (especially by shows or people that Republicans cite as "liberally biased") was railing on Clinton, and making fun of / parodying the Lewinsky thing.

Just try to expand your memory from beyond Bush's years. Or being a bit less defensive over Bush.

Edited September 28, 2008 by SRVT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why vote for someone who isn't courting my vote? What is the point?

Thanks for loving me enough to say I'm retarded, btw. I want everyone to love Obama like that.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Virtual wife

[luckytxn 2,265]

That is the thinking that gives us the same old #######. Makes no difference which of the two majors get the grail when they know they have no one to answer to.

Maybe so, but it is the reality of it. You can vote for Ron Paul and I can vote for Colin Powell. Neither of them will be elected. But we are free to do so.

Exactly. We are free to do so. If no one leaves a party and always votes even if one has to bring a barf bag or tin foil hat then why change?

Already voted for Ron Paul. He is my congressman. He has no one running against him in the general election. He did have again another well funded (The national republicans always well funds his opponent) republican challenger in the primaries. Again he won by about 80% of the vote. The national Reps always try and lose miserably. The Dems usually never even try except a couple times and found out it was such a waste of money as the lose by about 95%. This time he is unopposed again. Shows what one man can do by having an impeccable voting record.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Not really sure or even terribly optimistic I can change it.

Since I'm only in control of my own vote all I can do is vote for who I see as best overall, not against whoever I like least of the two parties with the best statistical probability of winning. Why should I base my vote upon everyone else's? That pretty much eliminates the "realism" factor, which is your vote is an individual one. Or at least, so I was told.

I do on occasion tell people how stupid it is (I'm a tough love person, if I don't say something, chances are it might be because I don't care) to limit one's options, and it has worked before. One of my uncles who moved from Texas to California (to be with the sane part of the family).. all it took was showing him Fahrenheit 9/11 and the guy turned from liking Bush to hating his guts. However, he voted Democrat (as did I at the time, but that changed), and maybe still does, so unless he really thinks they are the best choice, and decides this without regard for how others are voting, he's got a ways to go.

The hopeful in me thinks maybe some day people will get it, but the cynic in me says people are doomed to repeat history when they fail to learn from it, and the realistic part says indeed they are repeating it.

You are in control of your own vote. Obama or McCain will be our next President regardless of who you vote for. You don't have to base your vote on anyone else's. If you don't vote for McCain or Obama so be it. It is your decision.

[luckytxn 2,265]

What I find interesting is that when Obama stutters or stammers during a debate or while publicly speaking, it's considered "okay" or that "everyone has problems from time to time, but it's no indication of intelligence or lack thereof." Meanwhile, the anti-Bush crowd has been viciously attacking him (calling him "stupid," "moron," "idiot," and so forth) every single time he stutters or stammers for the last eight years or so.

So why does Obama get a free pass when Bush didn't receive one and never has?

Bush has never had a free pass by ever. He has been castigated relentlessly as he should have been.

Edited September 28, 2008 by luckytxn