Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama

[corianderstem]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I completely agree. But I used weak-willed for two reasons, one the original post of Snowlocks equating dabbling to weak-willed. And two many AA programs will teach that addiction is a disease, but giving into that addiction is a matter of weakness.

Gotcha - thanks for clarifying.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
But yeah, surely I'll bring up some threads of yours to illustrate my opinion of you. I don't really care if you've never said anything to me. You've been rude to plenty of people around here, and I remember.

http://forum.interference.com/showth...hreadid=182370

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


That sentence up there cracked me up: "you're uninformed garbage." I like that.

But yeah, surely I'll bring up some threads of yours to illustrate my opinion of you. I don't really care if you've never said anything to me. You've been rude to plenty of people around here, and I remember.

I'm going to ask you the same thing: "Base that on something." Give me one indication why his race has anything to do with his motivation to run. Give me something that says he doesn't want to improve the country. Some quote, some action. Give it to me.

Why was he arrested for cocaine posession in the early '70s if he never smoked it?

Crack is different from cocaine just like cocaine is different from chocolate albiet to a much greater degree.

I already gave you the indications. I typed them right out for you.

And yes I've been rude, just as you have been in this very thread to a perfectly polite reponse to your request, and just like in my rude response to you, it's always a counter punch. Looking forward to those posts Philly. Keep them in context.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


http://forum.interference.com/showth...hreadid=182370

Wow a whole ten page thread? can you get more specific? You could have just done this:

www.interference.com and saved yourself a little time.

[phillyfan26]

What indications? His momentum? How does that have to do with his race?

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
What indications? His momentum? How does that have to do with his race?

Everything. The day after he won his senate race, people were talking about him running for president in '08 and that was before we knew anything about him.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Wow a whole ten page thread? can you get more specific? You could have just done this:

www.interference.com and saved yourself a little time.

http://forum.interference.com/showth...54#post4829554
http://forum.interference.com/showth...84#post4829584
http://forum.interference.com/showth...02#post4829802
http://forum.interference.com/showth...02#post4829802
http://forum.interference.com/showth...09#post4829909

Funnily enough, this was entirely your first punch, and not "counter-punching" as you've always preached.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Everything. The day after he won his senate race, people were talking about him running for president in '08 and that was before we knew anything about him.

How does that have to do with his race?

[BVS]

Originally posted by Snowlock


Everything. The day after he won his senate race, people were talking about him running for president in '08 and that was before we knew anything about him.

So because "people" were saying this, that makes it for selfish reasons?

Come on, try, we need some stronger arguments than this...

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So because "people" were saying this, that makes it for selfish reasons?

Come on, try, we need some stronger arguments than this...

Why? That's the extent of the argument. I'm giving my perceptions on a discussion board based on historical evidence. I'm not saying it's fact and even if I was, it'd still be my opinion that it's fact.

I specifically said that Obama shouldn't be precluded from running based on drug use, and I specifically said that him being elected wouldn't ruin the country. Nor did I say anyone else was any better. So why is this an issue?

[anitram]

Originally posted by Snowlock

Running because of momentum

All I keep hearing in my head right now is my old Torts Prof's voice screaming "People, CAUSATION!!"

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Can't trust Obama either. He was just elected to the Senate. His candidacy strikes me as just doing it to see if he can, to see how far he can ride the wave he's on and to see if a black man can be president. I don't have a problem with anyone being president if they are doing it to serve the best interests of their country. I'm just can't shake the feeling Obama is running to serve himself. It's a bit too oportunistic. I don't like the drug thing from his past either. It tells me he's not the strongest willed person.

Give me a reason. You haven't.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


How does that have to do with his race?

There I can do them too. What is that supposed to convey?

What is your goal here anyway? Your initial post seemed to be to ask about both candidates equally. You are only taking issue with the suppositions about Obama, and not Hillary or McCaine. Were you looking for opinions or justifications for your own opinions anyway?

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by anitram


All I keep hearing in my head right now is my old Torts Prof's voice screaming "People, CAUSATION!!"

A discussion board is not a court of law. We're not writing history books, we're giving opinions.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


Give me a reason. You haven't.

I never said I could! You quoted me yourself and you missed it the second time through as well. I'm not going to teach you history or how to read but I'll give you a third shot:

His candidacy strikes me

[BVS]

Originally posted by Snowlock


Why? That's the extent of the argument. I'm giving my perceptions on a discussion board based on historical evidence. I'm not saying it's fact and even if I was, it'd still be my opinion that it's fact.

I specifically said that Obama shouldn't be precluded from running based on drug use, and I specifically said that him being elected wouldn't ruin the country. Nor did I say anyone else was any better. So why is this an issue?

Um. OK...

[anitram]

Originally posted by Snowlock


A discussion board is not a court of law. We're not writing history books, we're giving opinions.

Fair enough.

In that case your opinion that the momentum is the reason Obama is running is specious.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by anitram


Fair enough.

In that case your opinion that the momentum is the reason Obama is running is specious.

It'd be specious if it wasn't for the fact I knew he'd be running in 2008 the minute I saw him on TV in 2004.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Snowlock


There I can do them too. What is that supposed to convey?

What is your goal here anyway? Your initial post seemed to be to ask about both candidates equally. You are only taking issue with the suppositions about Obama, and not Hillary or McCaine. Were you looking for opinions or justifications for your own opinions anyway?

It's supposed to convey my increasing frustration with your utter refusal to give a legitimate reason for thinking Obama was running just to become a black president or to see if he could do it.

My goal here was to hear and debate arguments that weren't about Obama's lack of experience and lack of "substance besides 'Change! Hope!'" I even thanked abomb-baby for contributing on page one.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Snowlock


It'd be specious if it wasn't for the fact I knew he'd be running in 2008 the minute I saw him on TV in 2004.

And all of last year, where he trailed Hillary by double digits nationally and essentially in every state, he was running on this powerful momentum that was going to propel him to what? An obvious defeat?