Open Letter to Undecided Voters

Damocles said:
Yup. I think it would have been better if people didn't keep falling for the "Gay peoplez are gonna marry and destroy the Universes!" line and more had stayed home or voted Libertarian in protest in the last election.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be nice but now you have lost Dixie because he is one of those that keeps falling for the "Gay peoplez are gonna marry and destroy the Universes!"
 
I don't care what gay people do, never have. I don't think our government should be involved with what gay people do, or liberals attempts to undermine religious sanctity. I have been extremely vocal about my support of civil unions legislation, and it is insulting to me for you (and/or Damo) to continue to painting me as some intolerant homophobe.

And usidiot... Bush did not lie.
 
Dixie said:
I don't care what gay people do, never have. I don't think our government should be involved with what gay people do, or liberals attempts to undermine religious sanctity. I have been extremely vocal about my support of civil unions legislation, and it is insulting to me for you (and/or Damo) to continue to painting me as some intolerant homophobe.

And usidiot... Bush did not lie.
Click to expand...

he said he was against nation building, for balanced budged, smaller government.

Many more take your pick.

and btw he had majority in both houses for quite a while there.
 
Before 9/11 he said he was opposed to nation building, and had 9/11 never happened, I doubt he would have ever contributed to building any nation. Iraq has built their nation with our assistance, which is not really what Bush was talking about. That comment was made in reference to the former US practice of installing pro-western dictators abroad, that's not really what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, if you are going to be honest about it... but you won't be, because YOU lie.

Balanced budget? Smaller government? I don't recall Bush promising to do either of those things, it was one of the things I had against him all along. Nevertheless, the president can present a budget to Congress, he can't force them to accept it. He can either sign the budget they approve, or reject it, causing government to shut down. The last time that happened, Republicans took it in the shorts.

Being "against" something or being "for" something, is not a 'lie' if you were simply unable to implement policy related to that. A 'lie' is like wagging your finger in the face of America, and claiming you didn't have sex with a woman who's been giving you blowjobs in the oval office.
 
A lie is also saying in a State of the Union message that there are "multiple sources" who have "confirmed" mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq, 2 days after getting a personal daily briefing stating that the ONE source who had talked about mobile bio-weapons labs was completely unreliable & that his claims were debunked.

That's a lie.
 
So many bush lies so little time.

Anyone who actaully believes that bush has not lied is a hopless mental hack.
 
Dixie said:
Dear Undecided Voter,

Let me begin by saying, I respect your devotion to independent thought, to the principles you hold dear, and to the determination to not be swayed through this tough and grueling campaign season. I find myself in much agreement with your arguments against both political parties, and and I am not here to chastise you or lecture you on how you are wrong, because for the most part, I think you are absolutely right. Neither political party deserves our vote, and neither political party should be getting our vote, but the sad fact remains, on November 4, 2008, both candidates will receive over 100 million of them, and one will ascend to the Presidency of the United States.

This will be my 9th election, and I have never failed to cast my vote for President. For the record, I have voted for the Republican 8 times and the Democrat once. I have considered voting for the 3rd party candidate twice, but eventually settled for one of the two major parties. This election presented a dilemma for me, I knew I wasn't going to support the Democrat because I don't anticipate being a ward of government anytime soon, but the Republican candidate has proven to be not much more than a moderate Democrat. Until a few months ago, I really felt as if neither party represented my views adequately enough to deserve my vote. So, I can relate to the undecided voter in that respect.

As we've come closer to election time, some things have been revealed that have made me reconsider my position. The past associations of Barack Obama are troubling to me, not just the associations themselves, those can easily be explained away as Obama has done, but the fact that he had to be relentlessly pressured into explaining them truthfully, instead of passing off the lies he originally told. Time and time again, we see a pattern of deception on the part of Obama, in explaining his connections, whether it is with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright or others, he seems to want to take the easy way out, not tell the whole story, pass it off as something insignificant and trivial. I think it is fair to judge a person's character by observing the people they surround themselves with.

I think it is also fair to judge how an Obama presidency might be, by the tenor of the campaign he has run. Race should not be a factor to vote for or against the man, yet we continue to be called racist for any number of things. If you call Obama 'skinny' you are racist, if you mention he was a 'community organizer' it is racist, any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae, is racist... because Raines is black. All references to Rev. Jeremiah Wright are racist, because Wright is black. Saying Obama is 'eloquent' is racist, because it infers other blacks are not eloquent. For heaven's sake, don't say Obama is 'clean.' According to the Kansas City Star, calling Obama "socialist" is racist, because "socialist" is just another word for "black."

Some pundits have even gone so far as to say, if you vote for McCain, it can only be because you are racist. Simple as that! Now, let's look ahead to what we have to look forward to in an Obama administration. He will certainly introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming "racist!" By the end of Obama's first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another.

One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then ... this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London ... all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

The Republicans don't deserve power in Washington just as you don't deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

When we examine Obama's plans for taxes, it is clear what he is proposing, and he has even said it amounts to a 'redistribution of wealth' in America. His sycophants will argue in favor of the "less fortunate" and pit their situation against "the fortunate" ...Think about that for a moment... "fortunate" means you have received some luck of fortune, while 'less fortunate' people have simply not been as lucky. It completely denies the fact that most people earn their fortunes. It assumes the 'less fortunate' are only that way because they haven't had the 'luck' of others. But Obama is going to use his power as President to make that all "fair" again, by taking the money from people who 'don't need it' and giving it to those who do.

This all sounds vaguely familiar to me, it seems I have heard something like this before.... Oh yeah, I remember now ..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.

Finally, there is the issue of the Supreme Court. Now, my understanding of the SCOTUS has always been, they are supposed to rule on whether things meet the standards set forth in the Constitution. Apparently, others feel differently these days. Over 80% of Obama supporters feel the SCOTUS should base decisions, not on the Constitution, but on what is "fair." If Barack Obama gets just two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of "fairness" with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama's greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It's one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of "fairness." It's quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

So I say to the undecided voter out there, cast your vote wisely, much is at stake this election. It is your choice, but we will all have to live with it.
Click to expand...

McCain gonna lose.
 
uscitizen said:
I did Vote for Ross. he was right.
Click to expand...

I voted for Ross twice. I retrospect, that was a mistake but in 1992, given the Democrats recent past, how was I to know we would be so moderate and such a capable and competent administrator. I was wrong. Third parties are a waste of time in our present system. My experience of being a Republican, as the party was being co-opted by reactionary extremist, has been a bitter one.

My experience of regaining my political voice as a blue dog democrat has been enjoyable not to mention that it's given me a lot of pleasure in being able to tell people like Dixie. "I told you so!" LOL
 
Dixie said:
I don't care what gay people do, never have. I don't think our government should be involved with what gay people do, or liberals attempts to undermine religious sanctity. I have been extremely vocal about my support of civil unions legislation, and it is insulting to me for you (and/or Damo) to continue to painting me as some intolerant homophobe.

And usidiot... Bush did not lie.
Click to expand...

OK...then prove to us your not a homophobe. Have sex with Damo and send us the pictures!
 
Dixie said:
Nope... Bush didn't lie. Sorry.

You guys care to comment on the thread, or anything to do with THIS election?

Ya... didn't think so.
Click to expand...

The problem with your letter Dixie is, as with Bush, you've been wrong on practically every issue. You have virtually no credibility in political discourse. George W. Bush is now almost universally acclaimed as one of our worst President in our history based, objectively, on his miserable track record and none of us have any doubt that if the inept Boob could run a 3rd time you'd vote for him in a New York minute.

We know that the prospect of an energetic, intelligent and intellectually curious individual who is not one of the "Good Ole Boy's" having political power scares the shit out of you but your just going to have to deal with it.

Try to look at the bright side Dixie. Things could be much worse. We could be stuck with 4 more years of W.
 
Dixie said:
I don't care what gay people do, never have. I don't think our government should be involved with what gay people do, or liberals attempts to undermine religious sanctity. I have been extremely vocal about my support of civil unions legislation, and it is insulting to me for you (and/or Damo) to continue to painting me as some intolerant homophobe.

And usidiot... Bush did not lie.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about you, Dix. I simply stated that I think that the R party would be better off if we pushed out the idiots that kept voting for Bush because there were measures against gays on the ballot at the same time. The only way to do that is to show that the candidates who care only about "religious conservatives" and spend like drunken idiots will never get the votes of the majority of the party.

It was somebody else who tried to associate that with you.
 
Mottleydude said:
I voted for Ross twice. I retrospect, that was a mistake but in 1992, given the Democrats recent past, how was I to know we would be so moderate and such a capable and competent administrator. I was wrong. Third parties are a waste of time in our present system. My experience of being a Republican, as the party was being co-opted by reactionary extremist, has been a bitter one.

My experience of regaining my political voice as a blue dog democrat has been enjoyable not to mention that it's given me a lot of pleasure in being able to tell people like Dixie. "I told you so!" LOL
Click to expand...

O_o

You're not a blue dog. You're not a conservative or a moderate mottley. Well, if what I've known of you means anything, you've been one of the biggest liberals at the site.

I do think that sometimes it is reasonable to run on a third party ticket, but it's very difficult to actually found a new one (the Progressive Party in Vermont being an exception). You simply need a very large percentage of the statewide vote to get any seats at all in the legislature, and if you win the governership the Democrats and the Republicans will work against you.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I said nothing about you, Dix. I simply stated that I think that the R party would be better off if we pushed out the idiots that kept voting for Bush because there were measures against gays on the ballot at the same time. The only way to do that is to show that the candidates who care only about "religious conservatives" and spend like drunken idiots will never get the votes of the majority of the party.

It was somebody else who tried to associate that with you.
Click to expand...

The so-called "religious idiots" are some of the most devout conservatives in the country. One of the foundational principles of Conservatism is the belief in the Constitution, and the premise on which this great Republic was founded, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Left-wing Atheist attacks on religion are nothing new, but in recent years, it seems they have gained some kind of foothold on the Democrats, and certain moderate Republicans. They have spewed their venomous anti-religious rhetoric to the point of swaying opinions of people like yourself, who are not all that 'religiously bound' by faith. You can actually see where they are coming from! You will join in on the bashing, because you view the 'religious nuts' as extremist people who wish to invoke their will on others. Truth is, these 'extremists' only believe in our founding principle, the one that makes our country different, the one that makes our nation the greatest entity ever known to man, the foundational principle that we are endowed by Our Creator, certain inalienable rights! If it weren't for that single solitary principle of foundation, this nation would have crumbled long ago.

Now, the communist-koolaid-sucking pinheads will contend this amounts to a 'theocracy' of our government, but it doesn't. The founding principle is indeed rooted in the belief of a God, a universal God, who endowed us with the inalienable right to self-governance. It makes no demand that citizens worship a God of any kind, but it IS the founding principle which enables us to allow ALL men to worship freely. You don't have to believe in this God, but disbelieving is the impetus for destroying the very foundation of principle in which we were established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top