Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 351
view profile
History
AgainPage 26 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
One thing contained in the article you linked is:
"What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)"
That's a pretty decisive indicator that he is not a true conservative, but rather one who has no issue crossing party lines when legislation would have a negative impact on his constituents. The ACU ratings of Hillary and Obama, ranked 9th and 8th respectfully, are indicative that they are LESS likely to go against the party line when the issue of what is "more" right or "more" wrong applies to their constituents.

Is that an indication that he would be a better President, absolutely not, it does however indicate he is not just less polarizing, but more likely to encourage bi-partisanship than either of the former…

Just an opinion, I’m not voting for him, but feel it’s only fair when comparing records to be accurate and thorough….
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 352
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:05:03 AM
^ ^ ^ ^ Then you don't know what a Hillraiser is. Hillraisers bundled large contributions (100K or more) to Hillary via fundraisers, calling influential friends, etc.

As I said, I did that while I was still up in NY. Believe me, don't believe me. Makes no difference.

I think the OP really meant Hillary supporters (now being referred to as Hillsters by the media), who refuse to support Obama in the election.

And I guess you don't have to believe that there are any Hillary supporters in this group either, but then we don't have to believe that you are a male from Canada.

So if you're not going to believe us, and therefore we wouldn't believe you, how's that going to help your chances in the dating world?
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 354
view profile
History
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:41:57 AM
"Old scallywag Bill called on 18 million to go with him and Hillary to become Obamatrons, but I'm sure there'll be a number of them that don't. It's an individuals choice to vote for whoever they want to and then sit back and wait for those illustrious voting machines to spit out a winner.."

Had it gone the other way there were those who were supporting Obama in order to have the first African American president and not the principals that he and Hillary share. That isn't to say that they would have switched to McCain. That isn't to say that in the first month or two of dissappointment in losing they wouldn't have said they were going to switch to McCain and gotten over the disappointment and either not voted or voted for a third party candidate or even voted for McCain.

It is hard to imagine that anyone who shares Obama or Hillary's values would actually vote for McCain who clearly does not share their values. Regardless of party, if anyone is voting based upon the person one at least hopes it is the person's values they are aligning with.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 356
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:00:25 AM
Slysterling -- Bill Clinton would have spoken til the cows came home if he'd been given the slot. Obama gave him 10 minutes to talk, and he took 30. Of course 10 minutes of that was the standing ovation.

I think both Hillary and Bill went beyond the call of duty. They said everything they could to encourage voters to cast their ballot for Obama. Bill Clinton even stretched the bounds of credibility by comparing his 12 years as governor to Obamas years at the local level.

cncgandolf --

You are forgetting about the entire moderate and conservative wing of the Democratic party. Not everyone is left wing like Obama and Biden. Hillary rates more to the center of the party, and she gets some of the same jibbing as McCain does for being bi-partisan.

For my part with the centrist from the Democratic party gone, I'll go with the centrist from the Republican party. I was always to the right of Hillary Clinton anyway.

But more importantly, trusting our future to someone with NO experience for the job is pure folly, and something that I won't do. Given the polls, it appears that the majority of the American people are slowly waking up to reality as well.

Normally you see a big bump during the convention, and so far there's been almost none. These are serious times and my opinion is that a lot of Democrats are waking up from the Obama induced coma and realizing we need a leader in that position, not some baby politician.

Even Biden's snorefest last night isn't enough to get voters to close their eyes again. But PLEASE, no more speeches from that man. It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment!
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 357
view profile
History
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:24:56 AM
If you can't say something nice. . . So I won't.

But suffice it to say, If someone doesn't like my politics, they wouldn't want to date me anyway and if someone isn't compassionate, I wouldn't want to date them either. . . I would rather be alone than with someone I don't respect. . . Again. . .
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 10:19:45 AM
Charles Charles Charles....
Forever attacking the poster and not the post….

Well for one it isn't an analogy. Don't use words you don't understand. LOL
Let's review.... you said:

100% agreement in the last year, 95% agreement in the year before, he is the Republican party. You can protest all you want, but thats the statistics. 90% if you count all his votes from jan 2001. He is McSame, he is the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't give a shit about illegal immigration, it cares about stiring up the racist elements in its base by talking about doing something about it.
You cite voting patterns, then concluded that he is "McSame" I'm not sure what other word would accurately describe your analysis other than "analogy" but according to Webster’s, it’s pretty much the textbook definition of the word.


Anyway, what does this have to do with hillraisers? I still haven't seen one yet.
Then you’re not looking very hard, we actually have one participating in the thread….
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >