Questions for Obama – or His Cheerleaders
Although, I would never even consider voting for the intolerable and untenable McCain/Palin ticket, I’m finding it extremely difficult to work up any enthusiasm for – or trust in – Obama/Biden. I’m trying to do so, though, because I live in Florida, where my vote will matter much more than it would if I still lived in New York.
Yes, the Democrats’ platitudes are articulated better than the Republicans’, and, superficially, sound far more appealing. But even a cursory reading of the transcript of last night’s tea party (only an idiot would refer to it as a “debate”) demonstrates that Obama’s words are just as meaningless and empty as McCain’s.
So the following, organized by category, are some questions that I’d like to hear Barack Obama answer. I even invite any reader who's a member of the "We Love Obama" fan club to stand in as his proxy, as long as you can provide some cogent evidence that you're speaking for him. Please don't waste your time telling me how bad McCain would be; I already know that.
Economic Policy
- You’ve spoken a lot about wanting to “fix” our energy system. Can you tell us about five specific actions toward such an end that you would either take directly as president or push Congress to adopt? Can you give us an estimate of the cost of these actions, and give us particulars about where the money and manpower would come from? If any of these actions would require a degree of government administration and/or oversight, can you explain in detail how that would work?
- Same questions about fixing our health care system. Again, please be specific rather than speaking in generalities.
- Same questions about our educational system, with the same requirement for details.
- How, exactly, do you plan to prevent lobbyists from influencing government actions? What do you mean when you refer to “special interests,” and can you name any interests that aren’t special?
- You’ve said over and over again that you would cut taxes for the middle class, and raise taxes for those making more than $250,000. Are you talking about gross or net income, and how would you specially ensure that there isn’t a huge loophole disparity between those amounts? What kind of dollar figures are you talking about for those cuts and those raises, and what will be the end result in total revenues collected each year through federal taxes?
- How will you go about deciding whom to appoint as a Supreme Court justice, should a vacancy occur. Without speaking in vagaries, what criteria will you use?
- Assuming that a pregnant woman is healthy both mentally and physically, at what point does her fetus’s potential future trump her right to choose? How would you justify, constitutionally, ever denying a woman the right to make decisions about processes occurring within her own body?
- Can you explain, exactly, how the faith-based initiatives you’d propose would work? Can you also explain how such initiatives would not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- You voted to give telecoms immunity from prosecution after they had colluded in spying on American citizens. Can you explain how you justify that vote? If your answer is related in any way to realpolitik, can you clarify why that should take precedence over the Fourth Amendment?
- What specific advantages in “the war on terror” do you think will be gained today by killing bin Laden? What specific advantages will be gained by capturing him and not killing him? Are there any other persons whom you would like to kill or capture? Why or why not?
- Which countries do you currently consider America’s friends? Explain. Which countries would you like to bring into America’s circle of friends, and how would you do that? Explain. Which countries are most dangerous today to America, and how would you make them less dangerous? Using specific details, please explain that answer as well.
- How do you envision an Iraqi democracy working? Can you support your ideas with examples drawn from Iraqi history, culture, or religious beliefs.
- The Palestinians democratically empowered Hamas. Is that OK with you? Why or why not? Should the United States be more committed to worldwide democracy or worldwide freedom? Can you elaborate on the distinction between democracy and freedom?
- Do you believe that all Jews worldwide are represented by Israel? If so, how? If not, then given that Israel is a quasi-theocratic state and not representative of an entire ethnic or religious group, how can you justify using the loaded phrases “never again” and “Holocaust” in statements supporting that country?
- Do you agree that many of the problems in the 21st century world are caused by religious extremists? Why or why not? In what way are the beliefs of religious extremists different from the beliefs of other theists? What steps would you take to curb religious extremism around the world and in our own country?
- Using as an example at least 25 votes during your years in the Senate, in what ways have you personally stood up to the Bush Administration? What was your own reasoning for casting those votes? Again, using as an example at least 10 votes during your years in the Senate, in what ways have you personally stood up to the majority of your own party? What was your own reasoning for casting those votes?
- Under what circumstances would it be all right for a president to lie to, or mislead, the American public? If you answer “never,” then under what circumstances would it be all right for a presidential candidate to lie to, or mislead, the American public? If again you answer “never,” then can you explain your pro-FISA vote and your decision to bow out of the public campaign financing system, both of which you'd promised not to do.
- As president, will you represent atheists as well as theists? If you agree to get advice from, and/or speak privately to, religious leaders, will you also seek advice from, and/or speak privately to, avowed atheists? Have you consulted on public policy with any representatives of atheist groups, or appeared at any atheist functions? If so, with whom, where, and when? What was your rationale for agreeing to appear at a public circus sponsored by Saddleback Church and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren?
- Whom are you thinking about for various cabinet and advisory positions, and whom are you considering for your presidential staff? Again, without speaking in vagaries, what criteria will you use to select these men and women?
- Under what circumstances should a president seek evidence from experts rather than consulting opinion polls? Do you think the majority of the American people have ever held "wrong" opinions? What opinions are those, and why, in your view, were they wrong?
Hey, Exterminator, I enjoyed reading this.
33 comments:
Exterminator:
All good questions, but many of which Obama has answered in detailed issue papers. Here are some examples:
1. Energy Policy: He has far more than five detailed proposals for reforming our energy system, and they are divided into near to mid-term policy changes. The paper can be found here
2. Health Policy. Again, Obama has a detailed health care plan. A summary can be found here
3. Faith. He even has a statement on faith. Some of which you may not like, but it does include a strong endorsement of a separation of church and state. It can be found here. I must admit that it is not as detailed as his other issue papers, but I do know that he has been criticised for asserting that if faith based organizations get federal money for offering social programs, they cannot discriminate either in hiring or in who they provide services to on the basis of religion.
Heck, there is a LOT more detail that would easily meet your 20% threshold. check it out at www.barackobama.com/issues
Excellent questions. Thanks to Chuck for the links too.
Chuck:
It's very good to see you here, Chuck, and thanks for the links.
The paper on Health Care does, in fact, answer parts of my question, although I'm leery about statements like "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest" x amount of dollars, when it isn't clear exactly where those dollars are coming from. I'm also extremely dubious about statements like: "The Obama-Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums." What does "need it" mean? What kinds of premiums are we talking about? Health insurance in the real world is not that simplistic.
I'm also not clear on how they plan to, for instance, "coordinate and integrate care" or "require full transparency." What do those things actually mean in terms of laws, and how will those laws be enforced?
So I'd say, in general, that some of my questions in that item -- "Can you give us an estimate of the cost of these actions, and give us particulars about where the money and manpower would come from?" and "If any of these actions would require a degree of government administration and/or oversight, can you explain in detail how that would work?" -- have not been answered with specifics.
The paper on Energy is even dicier. I agree with most of its philosophy, but a lot of the text sounds impractical to me, pie-in-the-sky stuff without any details spelling out exactly how the policies would be effectuated in the real world. For example: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record‐breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities."
First of all, are we really prepared for a "class war" in this country? Do we gain anything by demonizing the wealthy and big corporations? And, again, throughout the paper, Barack Obama and Joe Biden seem to be promising to invest "funny," perhaps nonexistent, money.
In a way, both the Health and Energy papers point up some of the difficulties that Democrats have convincing independents to support them. There are promises galore to play fast-and-loose with funds that may or may not exist, and no explanations about how they will enact and enforce most of their ideas. On top of which, there's a mean-spiritedness towards the rich, a punitive urge which cuts against the grain for many Americans, who dream (perhaps naively) of one day being rich themselves. But, honestly, a lot of that Liberal rhetoric sounds like it comes right out of the French Revolution.
As far as the Faith paper goes: I don't see how the separation of church and state can be reconciled with statements like:
(1) "God is constantly present in our lives, and this presence is a source of hope." (That's about as divisive a statement as one could make. I say that there is no god, present or otherwise. If Obama is president, I want some guarantees that he's not going to act on his belief.)
(2) "The religious practices of all must be respected." (No, no, no. I've argued strongly that the right to practice religion must be respected. But there's no reason why I should respect the practices themselves, just as I wouldn't expect you to respect my laughing at the bible. But I would expect you to respect my right to do so.)
(3)"Faith is a source of action for justice." (I'd argue that it's far more often a source of action for injustice.)
So, I'll grant you that the papers seem to go into far more detail than the stump speeches, the ads, and the debate appearances. But I don't think my questions have been answered adequately.
Perhaps it's impossible to answer them. An admission of that would raise Obama in my esteem -- although it wouldn't do him any good with most other voters.
I guess what I'm really saying here is that I'm tired of being sucker-punched by both parties. I wish more Americans felt that way.
I guess what I'm really saying here is that I'm tired of being sucker-punched by both parties. I wish more Americans felt that way.
I think a lot of people feel this way, which is why so many of them don't vote at all. They figure their votes don't matter one way or the other, they're still going to be the ones that get screwed.
chappy:
I guess you're a cynic like me. A cynic is an idealist with life experience.
Yes, if I vote for either a Republican or Democrat, no matter which way I cast my ballot, I'm going to get screwed. But I'm too idealistic to sit still and accept that. I would never dream of not voting; the right to vote is too important to me not to exercise it. In fact, I wish that every voter was as serious about his or her responsibility as I am. If they were, we'd have better candidates from both major parties -- plus a smattering of viable third-party candidates, too.
That being said, I'm still seriously considering a vote for the frivolous Exterminator/Chappy ticket. Not voting is a cop-out because it tacitly supports bullshit. On the other hand, voting for either the Democrat or the Republican, actively supports bullshit. I've never been willing to support bullshit at all, whether it comes from religion or from politics or from any other sphere in which liars are trying to sell me crap-laden ideas.
So, although I would love to be given a good reason to fill in the circle for Obama, I may just have to cast my vote in service of the worthiest of causes: saying "no bullshit" to both major parties.
Re: Not voting is a cop-out because it tacitly supports bullshit. On the other hand, voting for either the Democrat or the Republican, actively supports bullshit.
True, and I've voted against the two big parties in the past for just this reason. I support this in principle, but I don't think this is the election to sit out.
Feel free to chew me out for skipping your actual questions, but I have a completely different reason:
From an international perspective it is critical for the American people to actively select a leader who recognizes that the invasion of Iraq and current U.S. use of torture are illegal. It's hard to exaggerate how international views of the U.S. have changed in the past eight years, from friendship and trust to fear of what the U.S. might do.
At the same time, since WWII, there has been a common wisdom among the American people that war is the antidote to economic downturn.
The possibility of war (and not just the kind that breaks stuff "over there" that Americans don't care about) is very real under McCain/Palin.
C.L.:
I support this in principle, but I don't think this is the election to sit out.
I never argued for sitting out this election. May I suggest that you read the entire post and comment thread, and then -- if you have anything intelligent to say, which I suspect you might -- come back and say it.
By the way, there has never been a "common wisdom among the American people that war is the antidote to economic downturn." I don't know anyone who believes this. Of course, my experience is merely anecdotal, but can you supply evidence to show that such a view is held by the majority of Americans?
As far as the possibility of war being very real under McCain/Palin: You do realize that the U.S. is already fighting in two countries, and that neither candidate recommends suspending both military actions. McCain seems ready to go after Iran; Obama is obviously prepared to invade Pakistan. So could you explain your statement?
There seems to be a code that's understood by certain people.
I play "wallpaper" for different organisations of varying political stripes and they use certain words. "Pragmatic" is used to discribe someone who has no intention of keeping promises he's made.
The bin Laden question is an intersting item.
I am the son of a counter intelligence office whose former colleagues have told me stories about his successes. Very unorthodox, but I knew his mind and learned to think his way.
If a 6'5' Arab who needs dyalasis fairly frequently can't be tracked down, it's probably because they don't want him caught at all.
Also, it appears that the status is required to memain pretty well quo in the interests of the real powers that be.
Do you have a link for JFK's detailed outline for how we'd get men on the moon by any chance? Just curious.
I reject the claim that Obama is advocating class warfare. The top tax rate has been as high as 90% and has been in the 70-90% range for most of the history of our income tax system. Reagan cut it to as low as 25%, Bush I raised it to 35% and Clinton balanced the budget with it at 39%. It's currently 35% and conservatives are crying because they assume he'll raise it to as high as (gasp) 39%. Yeah, that sounds like class warfare. You know what sounds like class warfare to me? Reagan reducing the rich's tax burden by 2/3, forcing ends to government programs such as state mental hospitals which dumped thousands of mentally ill people onto the streets. Where'd all those homeless people come from in the 80s? This was where most of them came from, and some jackasses want this guy on Mt. Rushmore.
Sarge:
...the real powers that be.
I assume you're referring to the secret government that controls both major parties. I'm agnostic about that, although some evidence does seem to indicate that there's something bigger than the President and Congress out there. Looking at our current White House resident, we can infer that someone, somewhere, somehow must be pulling his strings. And the huge rush to pass the bloated bailout bill argues convincingly that our Senators and Congresspeople don't take the time to think for themselves.
Philly:
Do you have a link for JFK's detailed outline for how we'd get men on the moon by any chance?
The JFK "man on the moon" reference always pisses me off when it's used as a bogus comparison to overhauling U.S. energy policy. It's insulting to our intelligence. Getting to the moon was (1) essentially carried out by a single, well-funded, quasi-military, scientific agency with (2) a very specific mission that (3) did not affect the day-to-day lives of most American citizens nor (4) require their cooperation, and that (5) was not intended to result in an enormous overhaul of any "system" necessary to keep the country and its people functioning. "Man on the moon" is deceptive Democrat-speak for "man in the moon" promises.
I reject the claim that Obama is advocating class warfare.
Well, my question was rhetorical; I don't think that Obama is actually advocating class warfare. But he's sure milking the anger and resentment for all it's worth. Take a look at some of the language in those position papers. Or just listen to the way he blames the credit crisis only on Wall Street, the lobbyists, and the wealthy. A few months ago, a blogger named PhillyChief wrote this post about subprime lending and the greed of all Americans.
By the way, the Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan are irrelevant. Unlike Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, and Tom Brokaw, I'm going to insist that commenters stick to the questions.
Has there been a comparable effort, or promise of an effort to overhaul the US energy policy before? I can't think of one. Has there been a comparable effort, or promise of an effort to make such a change or achievement before in any other sector? I'm at a loss, but you being so old and wise might be able to enlighten me, for surely there are prior examples, right? I mean, the level of detail and specifics you demand must surely be based upon prior comparables, or perhaps your objections stem from a desire for Obama to reach a very personal, imaginary, Exterminator standard?
Philly:
I don't think there ever has been a comparable effort to overhaul U.S. energy policy, but even if there had been, it's irrelevant. Here's what I'd like to ask Obama -- or anyone else -- about an energy plan. I like this version of the "item" better than the one in my post, because I think the questions are less snarky -- and more precise. Wouldn't you also like to hear answers to the following?
(1) What's the goal of your energy plan?
(2) What specific steps are you suggesting that the government take?
(3) What evidence can you present to show that those steps might work?
(4) Who will enact the necessary legislation, and when do you foresee that happening?
(5) How will that legislation be enforced?
(6) Are you planning to create any governmental agencies in the executive branch? If so, who will head up those agencies? How will those agencies be monitored?
(7) How much will you need to pay for all that, and where will the money come from?
I don't think those questions are asking too much. Members of both parties have been shooting off their mouths about energy independence ever since Nixon's presidency. So far, we've heard lots of empty rah-rah phrases, but nothing has been done. I think it's reasonable to check Obama's claims and promises, and see if they have any substance.
Ok, so we're talking Exterminator standard. Just making sure.
Now as long as we're riding that tram into the town of make-believe, yeah, I'd like those answers too.
I believe his goals are to reduce oil consumption and create new jobs in the process. I don't know specifics other than the $150billion over 10 years and the tax credit for buying hybrid cars. Personally, I think he should include a tax credit for homeowners who add or fully convert their homes to geothermal and solar. Some states already have programs like this, but the federal government could make that more robust. In fact, the feds could enact a New Deal program where they put people to work doing those conversions.
If you admit there's never been a comparable effort in the past, how exactly could he provide evidence that his steps might work?
I would assume legislation would come from Congress, no? I would further assume that no new agency would be needed since this should fall under the DOE.
I think he's claiming the money will come from increasing the higher tax bracket to 39%, the repeal of the tax cut for oil, and that windfall tax on oil companies (that latter sounds like nonsense to me). It would appear that it's inevitable that he'll further increase the deficit. I don't see how he couldn't, but if we're going to go further in debt, I think he has the greater potential of yielding some kind of return. I see no return from McCain. In fact, I see things getting worse. His new mortgage plan just screams "shenanigans".
Philly:
If you admit there's never been a comparable effort in the past, how exactly could he provide evidence that his steps might work?
Well, the operative word there is "might." Obviously, it would be unfair to ask for evidence that his steps would work. But I think he should have to describe some likely cause-and-effect relationships between any government programs that he advocates and their potential results. Neither you nor I put any credence in the power of prayer.
It would appear that it's inevitable that he'll further increase the deficit. I don't see how he couldn't...
Yep, my sentiments exactly. And I agree with you that the hoped-for return is worth an increase in our national debt. But it's flimflam not to talk about costs, to imply that the desired result will magically be free for "the middle class."
Well I think it's not just flimflam, but rather how you have to talk to those "low info voters".
Philly:
Ack! Are you saying that it's necessary for a candidate to mislead certain Americans into voting for him or her? Isn't that a classic example of the end justifying the means?
He's either sincere in his belief that he can fund these things, or he's full of shit. We don't know. I think that even if he is sincere, he's either mistaken or the further drop in the economy will prevent him from doing what he wants to do without increasing debt.
Good questions, Ex. In response to those who would say, "No one else has ever had to do/done that," I would ask, "Isn't he supposed to be the Bringer of Change?" What better way to illustrate it than to be perfectly transparent on each and every detail of at least ONE of his promises.
Obama IS the status quo. Darker wrapper, but the same old shit.
You know what else invalidates him as a Change candidate? He's not wearing a cape. No one has worn a cape before, and if he REALLY was the "Bringer of Change", he'd wear a cape.
Hmmm, this sounds like where I was going
Philly:
For Obama, there's far too much emphasis on campaign strategy and far too little on acknowledging what's really going on: The economy is totally fucked up. Apparently, judging from what the market is doing, people have no trust in the bailout or in either of the candidates.
He doesn't even have the courage to admit that our economy is totally in the crapper. The voters know it, though. Why can't he just say something like FDR did while campaigning in 1932: The "mirage" of American economic invulnerability has vanished, along with much of the savings of thrifty and prudent men and women.... We have not been brought to our present state by any natural calamity -- by drought or floods or earthquakes or by the destruction of our productive machine or our man power. This is the awful paradox with which we are confronted, a stinging rebuke that challenges our power to operate the economic machine which we have created."
I guess he doesn't want to sound too "liberal."
Ex, I perform as "wall paper" several times a year for groups which would be discribed as politically "liberal" or "conservative". When I do, I see several people who are present at events by both of these entities, and very well recieved by the movers and shakers of both groups.
If you go any of our state and national reps local offices you usually see a group of people waiting to get a moment of The Great Person's time, and one sees these people, when they enter, ushered right into the inner sanctum, not compelled to kick their heels in the ante room with the hoi poloi.
When they express their wishes in hearing, if one is observant, one notices that these things come to pass. And if the hoi poloi don't like it, they have the option of sucking a hatchee for a GI watchee.
I doubt if these people represent the Lollipop Guild. I suppose the same thing happens in DC.
Our current "representative" got his position without being elected at all. His father was elected (long time incumbent) but was looking at an investigation for misconduct and resigned two weeks after he was sworn in. His son was appointed in his place.
Why his son? Who actually picked him? No one really knows.
Is there a secret cabal? No. Just the voice of what has the real power. And it ain't the folks on my street no matter what the civics books told us.
if he REALLY was the "Bringer of Change", he'd wear a cape
But then everybody would want one and Big Cape would have years of record profits, causing a giant cape bubble. We've seen how that plays out.
Whatever, Philly. You can't promise me change I can believe in and then deliver the same old half-truths and sidesteps for which the Democratic Party is famous. He's just a regular old politician.
Give me some examples of what you'd call half truths for Obama.
Show me how half truths and sidesteps are indicative of the Democratic party.
Show me how they're not of the Republican party.
Take your time. I'll wait.
In the mean time, you might want to explain why:
1) Voting for McCain would be better than voting for Obama
or
2) Why not voting at all would be best
Of course if you'd rather just yammer like an idiot as usual instead, knock yourself out.
"Of course if you'd rather just yammer like an idiot as usual instead, knock yourself out."
Fuck you.
"I didn't know Jeremiah Wright was a racist fuck."
"I didn't really talk to Franklin Raines."
"The Democratic Party has always been a party of faith."
"The economic crisis is all the Republicans fault."
That good enough?
I didn't say the Republicans don't do the same thing. Just don't tell me Obama isn't the same old crap we've seen for years and years.
Voting for anybody but Obama is better for one reason and it's the same reason: taxes
Obama's income tax plan is bullshit (unless you want the 30% of Americans who don't even pay taxes to get a "rebate" made of your money). His Windfall Profits Tax and "emergency energy" rebate will be disastrous (Let's see, the price of every fucking thing I buy that has to be packaged or transported will go way the fuck up because our President is under the illusion that he can keep big companies from making money...Yeah, that's worth 1000 bucks). When he raises payroll taxes and I can't make payroll, you can decide which one of my employees gets laid off.
Before you ask, yes that is worth another four years of war to me. That is worth another four years of Constitutional assault. People who can take care of their families can fight against injustice. To those that can't, the war is too far away to care about and injustice is an abstract concept that doesn't seem to have any impact on their daily lives. There is not a single thing or even a combination, short of nuclear war, that McCain (or Palin) can do in four years that will equal the potential damage Obama can do in just one with just one policy.
Besides, if the Democrats in Congress could be counted on to keep their word, none of this would be an issue. Why assume they're going to be anything other than the cowards they've shown themselves to be just because they have a President?
Furthermore, why are any of the Obamatons even deigning to argue with the yammering idiots? It's going to be a landslide, right? That's what I keep hearing. Right before I hear how important this election is and I can't "waste" my vote.
I'm supposed to believe that these people can keep me safe and in business?
Give me a fucking break.
Obama might be genuine. After he loses, he's got four years to prove it. In the meantime, the country will survive.
bullet:
I agree with much of what you've said. I definitely think Obama is the same old crap we've always seen from the spineless Machiavellian lying Democrats.
However, here's something I care more about than taxes: preventing ignorance on an international scale. I think a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket essentially endorses stupidity; Sarah Palin is a fucking moron. Granted, that has nothing necessarily to do with John McCain, but I think you have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand not to be aware of how doddering McCain really is. Watch him at live events; he's not well. I'm not talking about his age in a general way, or assumptions based on his having been tortured, or actuarial tables. I'm talking about him and his behavior. Compare the current John McCain to the John McCain of eight, even four years ago. He's not well.
That's why, based on the evidence of my own eyes and ears, I think there's a better than usual chance that he won't live out his four years, or, alternatively, will find himself in a position in which he's not competent physically to serve. In most elections, the vice presidential choice is dismissible; focusing on it is a smokescreen either for or against the presidential candidate. But not in this election.
So I don't care how much you agree with Republican policy. Having read your blog regularly for many, many months, I can't imagine that you'd like to see Sarah Palin in the White House. We've had an uncultured, quasi-illiterate, know-nothing president for eight years. Let's not extend that period.
Having read your blog regularly for many, many months, I can't imagine that you'd like to see Sarah Palin in the White House.
This is late, so I don't know if you'll see it, Ex, but you're right. I won't like to see Palin in the White House. I simply don't think she can do nearly as much damage in the four years (tops) that she'll be there as Obama can do in one.
I don't know how much we can fight stupidity from the White House. I know that I am doing what I really enjoy less and less because I have to spend more and more time at work to make the same amount of money. My blogging may not make much of a difference, but it's a start. And I have bigger plans. If Obama's taxes go through, I can't see that I'll have the time or money to move forward with those. And that really pisses me off.
So what do you do that makes you more than $250,000? I have to know, since the only jobs I can think of where you can make that much and be as clueless as you seem to be are pro athlete, entertainer, or President. Don't tell me you play for Oakland or Denver.
bullet:
I think you're underestimating the damage that a Palin presidency could do. It would create a very dangerous atmosphere in this country, and add to the general international sneering at America. As an atheist, you should be particularly freaked out by the possibility of having her hate-filled fundamentalist thugs feel that their voice is even further empowered in our government.
Read my latest post, please.
On 2 seperate blogs, philly, you've decided it's easier to insult me directly and through insinuation than to calmly argue a point. For what? Because I disagree with your choice of a presidential candidate? You have been worse than than any Xian troll I've encountered. More ridiculous and close-minded than any rightwing thug.
I'm done with you.
Bullet's arguments aren't even arguments, and they aren't even his own. They're talking points he has never fact checked and he's dropped them on us like a fundie drops scripture.
You ask for what am I annoyed at you for Mr. Bullet? It's because you're a mindless puppet. I would LOVE an intelligent argument about the candidate's plans, but you can't or won't engage in such a thing. Instead, you spout nonsense, unsubstantiated claims that are easily dismissable, or you give us gems like this:
" Obama IS the status quo. Darker wrapper, but the same old shit."
Good work. If anyone would like to see Mr. Bullet REALLY shine as he "calmly argues a point", try here. I especially love this:
"Fuck them all and fuck me, too, I guess. If we wanted to be treated well, we shouldn't have reached for the American dream."
This is how he responds to having paragraphs of facts burst his GOP mantras. Rant and rave and throw a tantrum like a child because someone else won't blindly accept what you blindly accept. Hey, if all that crap he says is true, it should be easy to pull up supporting facts right? You'd think so. Instead, he just reaches for more talking points or just flies off the reservation and now he's calling me the irrational bad guy. Well here's my turn to repeat a mantra, back it up jackass. The facts, as they seem to frequently do, contradict your claims.
Better think, bro:
Prayer changes everythn.
GBY
Post a Comment