Poll: Obama drops 12 points, McCain now leads but within MoE

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven, dude.... let it go

No offense but you're not my parent.

No #######, cuz if I was I'd whup your punk a s s!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, dude.... let it go

No offense but you're not my parent.

No #######, cuz if I was I'd whup your punk a s s!

Seriously, can we not have a discussion about why some Hillary supporters such as metta and Dev refuse, REFUSE to show any good tidings towards Obama as the Democratic nominee without them getting defensive and simply saying they can vote for whomever they choose? I mean, come on....this isn't grade school.

I have to hear either one of them articulate why they can't even say anything positive about Obama as the Party's nominee. If that's not bitterness, than I don't know what you call it. I'd respect their opinion if they'd at least be honest about it.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Peikko 1,575]

Er, no you wouldn't. Steve, on this point you have a bit of a blind spot because like it or not, in a democracy no one has to tow the party line. You may suspect that there is a sour grapes componant but it is perfectly possible for someone to hold views that are at odds with the party line without necessarily lining up with the opposition.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Er, no you wouldn't. Steve, on this point you have a bit of a blind spot because like it or not, in a democracy no one has to tow the party line. You may suspect that there is a sour grapes componant but it is perfectly possible for someone to hold views that are at odds with the party line without necessarily lining up with the opposition.

I can understand that...but lets be honest here - metta and Dev were openly supporting Hillary during the Primaries...which was a bitter battle and now that their candidate has lost, they, like a small portion of Hillary supporters refuse to acknowledge Obama as the nominee. Fine....all I'm asking them to do is stop disguising their bitterness as some kind of rational decision to not support Obama under any circumstances...even if Hillary were to be his VP. And that's quite ironic coming from Dev, whom I know at one point thought the idea of Obama as Hillary's VP would have been a great ticket. This is pure bitterness and nothing more. If this were a difference of ideas about which direction each candidate wants to take this country in, we've be talking about that. But instead, it's more of the...lolz...tee hee...more kool-aid drinking, childish rubbish. Quite sad, actually.

[Peikko 1,575]

Have they refused to acknowledge or are they simply saying, yes, he's the Dem nominee but under those circumstances I prefer an independant candidate for president? I would have thought that that is closer to their position. That being said, it's also a guess on your part that they will not vote for Barack. They haven't declared one way or another which is perfectly acceptable too. You really have no right to badger people in this way, and it is rather unpleasant to watch to be honest.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Steve - metta's post on campaigning for Barack in Berlin was comedy gold

Though I don't think I can get you to admit that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whoever wins in November I can't imagine it will be a world-changing event.

Be better when this is over and all the negativity stops (I hope).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have they refused to acknowledge or are they simply saying, yes, he's the Dem nominee but under those circumstances I prefer an independant candidate for president? I would have thought that that is closer to their position. That being said, it's also a guess on your part that they will not vote for Barack. They haven't declared one way or another which is perfectly acceptable too. You really have no right to badger people in this way, and it is rather unpleasant to watch to be honest.

They're hoping to bring the DNC down on it's knees...there are hardcore Hillary groups that plan to do just that at the Convention. They have refuse to accept Obama as the legitimate nominee.

[no name 1]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

You voted for Nader, how on earth can you f*&%ing lecture me or metta?

You are a disgrace to the Dem party for not accepting Gore, whom, ironically you now praise to the high heavens. How dare you not vote on party lines? I only wish I knew you then to call you on your obvious BS. Were you bitter back then Steven? Or does that only apply to others?

Your hypocrisy is blinding me.

Have they refused to acknowledge or are they simply saying, yes, he's the Dem nominee but under those circumstances I prefer an independant candidate for president? I would have thought that that is closer to their position. That being said, it's also a guess on your part that they will not vote for Barack. They haven't declared one way or another which is perfectly acceptable too. You really have no right to badger people in this way, and it is rather unpleasant to watch to be honest.

Edited August 20, 2008 by illumine

[Peikko 1,575]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

You had your reasons then, they have their reasons now, but why should anyone acknowledge to you personally what these reasons are? That you want to broadcast how you feel and why you feel that way is fine, but to insist that others do as you do or you will label them as disingenuous is quite insane. I don't really care about siggies so I have them switched off, but I am less than curious about Devs.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

I can't speak for her, but the signature is probably there because it winds you up. Which may be the same reason she and won't tell you who she is voting for....it appears to work.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

You voted for Nader, how on earth can you f*&%ing lecture me or metta?

You are disgrace to the Dem party for not accepting Gore, whom, ironically you now praise to the high heavens. How dare you not vote on the party line? I only wish I knew you then to call you on your obvious BS.

Your hypocrisy is blinding me.

Um..I was a registered Green Party member and had been a member since 1997. I think I explained my reasoning pretty well. In any case, I wasn't going around pretending Gore would be worse than Bush in the White House....which is essentially what you two are doing with this election.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

kaydee is reading. And to think, I have to log out now!