RCC wrote:Kerry has 3 purple hearts. He's covered on the protecting rights thing.
How does that cover him? Especially when I can bring up case after case of him working against
our rights in the Senate?
As much as I dislike Bush and think he is a joke, I will not question his willingness to put himself in harm's way to do what he thinks is best to protect the rights of Americans.
Well, in Bush's case, I don't know how you can say he's protecting the rights
of Americans, what with the USA PATRIOT Act, the holding of US citizens without charge or access to an attorney, etc.
The only real negative is the type of vague crap you are sinking back into. You are unable to begin to discuss those points so you dismiss them with what you see as a slur.
Uh-huh. You equated your GUILT BY ASSOCIATION charge with my claim that the people HE WOULD PUT IN HIS CABINET (names he has already given, BTW) would make for the best that we've seen. Unless you have evidence that the person you're referring to would be in his cabinet, you have no leg to stand on whatsoever. And that's just ONE example of your bad logic.
Tearing down who?
Badnarik, through your baseless guilt by association. You want to paint him as someone other than he is. And anyone can see that, just by going to Badnarik's website and reading his position papers, and looking at what he's done in his life.
I also pointed out that you trumpet Badnarik's associates as a selling point
I WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS CABINET SELECTIONS AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Once again, you're showing how DISHONEST you're willing to be in order to score points.
You mean like the points I make rebutting your claims?
You didn't rebut anything! You commited the same faulty and even dishonest logic you usually resort to when you can't
rebut the claim.
You got something to say against one of his proposed cabinet members? Say it. Otherwise, you've got nothing here.
Because I don't believe in wasting my time
Well, I'm glad to see you admit that you view rational discourse as a waste of your time...
in the absolute terms you seem to advocate.
What "absolute terms"? This is horse-hockey! I made claims about my candidate. People are free to rebut them. YOU DIDN'T; you made severely fallacious claims about them. People are also free (and even encouraged) to do the same with their own candidate selection. YOU HAVEN'T.
The chances of a candidate reflecting 100% of my beliefs and desires is pretty much zero.
When did I ever say that was a necessity? You're just making stuff up again, like you always do.
Whether I concentrate on the negatives or positives makes no difference.
In EVERY thread, here AND on JREF, people are either backing Kerry because he's not Bush or backing Bush because he's not Kerry. I want people to put those arguments aside for ONE SINGLE F*CKING THREAD and actually focus on why their candidate would actually be good as President. EXCUUUUUUSE ME.
Saying I will not vote for Bush or Badnarik because both are likely to appoint nutjobs to various cabinet and judical postitions is more or less the same as saying I will vote for Kerry because he is likely to appoint reasonable people to these positions.
No, it isn't; and if you're too jaded to see that, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. You see everything in terms of the negative, and so you can't, EVEN ONCE, put that behind you and discuss the POSITIVE aspects of something.
The definition of these terms (nutjob, reasonable) are meaningless without comparison.
Crapola. Things and people can stand and fall on their own merits.
Just like the first point you had for Badnarik only really helps towards a decision if it is taken to imply that others do not understand the constitution.
Again, crapola. Unless you also think that finding problems with evolution supports creationism.
It can't just be me, because others have gotten the idea of this thread and started participating in kind, too.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?