![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's this meme going around that calls for you to write about a Supreme Court decision you disagree with. But it didn't start out that way. It started out just as, "Write about a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade." Because, after all, "that's the only Supreme Court decision Sarah Palin's ever heard of."
Except that's not true. The actual question put to Palin (wording not guaranteed to be exact) wasn't "Do you know any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade?" It was, "Do you know any Supreme Court decisions that you disagree with, other than Roe v. Wade?"
I think we can all agree that's a very, very different question to answer "No" to.
Fer crissake, people, NONE of these candidates are paragons. Doesn't any one of them have enough flaws worthy of criticism without people just making up extra ones to bash them about?
no subject
no subject
IIRC, McCain hadn't managed to pull more than 4000 in any gathering around Central Florida - McCain/Palin pulled 60k. (Bush only got 20k in his best gathering in that area.)
She's insulting to the voting public by boosting McCain by (tens?) of millions of votes? That's like the Chewbacca defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUP5GzHIojU). It doesn't make sense!
Opinions aren't divorced from facts. Claiming that Palin "insults" the voting public (after watching them embrace her!) is just disingenuous. No one who was going to vote for McCain has realistically changed their vote because of the choice of Palin. As I asked you, who else could he have picked?
But her pick has brought in a lot of support and (one would presume) votes. If you'd said that before the reaction to Palin's pick was known, that would be a fine opinion, but to claim that a month later is completely counterfactual.
no subject
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you over a topic we clearly are never going to see eye to eye on regardless of how many facts we throw at each other.
no subject
I've never - despite a prior attempt at you to start that strawman - said otherwise.
I'm stating my opinion based on the facts as I see them.
As I asked you initially - what facts? I wasn't trying to start a "flame war" - what you're saying makes absolutely no sense from an factual basis. I can conceive of no way it does, and I'm a voter who specifically rebuts your postulation. Thus my request for more information to understand what you mean and where you're coming from.
So I asked you to explain. You replied with, basically, "I have no facts, shut up."
may be wrong to vote for Obama, and you clearly think I am.
While I might think that, where have I ever said that here? You said [Palin's] selection as VP is insulting to the voting public because it assumes that they care more about how folksy she is than about her ability to govern.
Where has Obama come up in this discussion at all?
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you over a topic we clearly are never going to see eye to eye on regardless of how many facts we throw at each other.
The first fact you "throw" will be the first. I resent the implication that I'm trying to disenfranchise you, and the implication that I've somehow ignored your "facts" when you have yet to present any! And now you've changed the subject to Obama...?
Perhaps I should say, I think that your thought process, such as it is, is very well spelled out by this, and I wish you well in Nov.
no subject
Er, last I checked, he and McCain were the candidates for the election, not their running mates. You said earlier you were voting for McCain meaning you don't think Obama is the right person to be president. I do.