What I'd like to hear from Republicans on this day.

[Mr. President]

You said you wanted "A GOOD ARGUEMENT" you didn't ask for a "couple good things about McCain.

 

[Ravi]

Gem's post was full of valid points, and flawlessly presented. It was also a thoughtful response to the question you posted. Your response in turn (having no other avenue I assume) was asinine and thin. If this is how you react to such an eloquent and thoughtful response... maybe that's why you hear crickets when you pose your questions.
I just stumbled on this forum today in search of real time thoughts on the Obama victory, and there are a few "gems" on this site, but for the most part I am once again disappointed and moving on. It shouldn't be that someone of average intelligence, such as myself, should feel superior to the majority. Me thinks the Internets is the wrong place for real political discussion. That or religion. no matter who wins the gold ... it's still the special Olympics.
Oh and when I say "win" I use it loosely... because it's usually fucktards like you who "win" the argument. Not because you are better or smarter, but because people finally give up trying to reason with you and your persistent ignorance.

So kind of you to stop by.

 

[Modbert]

You said you wanted "A GOOD ARGUEMENT" you didn't ask for a "couple good things about McCain.

A couple good things without bringing up Obama for McCain would be a good argument.

What don't you get about that?

By the way, I love the fact you completely ignored my question and just decided to attack me.

 

[Modbert]

So kind of you to stop by.

Me has a feeling that might be an alt account.

Either way, that was pretty funny.

 

[N4mddissent]

Not a worthy question at all. Asking to give only pro McCain reasons as to why someone voted for him may not be entirely possible given the fact that the comparison is truly what made them vote for McCain. If McCain had an excellent economic plan but Mr. Donut had a better one I would vote for the better one. So the arguement that McCain had the best economic plan could only be made in "comparison too". Not soley based in and of itself.

I brought up the frequency of posts as an insinuation as too a need to just talk instead of think through the validity of statements. Which is not off the subject of this question given that my opinion is that a complete answer can not be given without the allowance of comparisons.

If RS didn't want "Obama Bashing" then all he need say is compare plans and use educated and solid interpretations of the candidates views when comparing and try to sway from generic opinions rendered without any validity or substance.

It does not have to be a complete answer. One may give good reasons for voting for a candidate in the absence of comparison. A complete argument may include comparisons or even disagreements with the opponent's position, but that does not mean that positive arguments for your candidate outside the context of opposition to the other candidate is impossible. If you cannot discuss any arguments outside of that context, that is your subjective view and in no way invalidates the question, as I demonstrated by presenting positive arguments for McCain even though I supported Obama.

As far as the frequency of posts comment, the argument based on averages was fallacious because the context of different posts can result in varying amounts of time required to thoughtfully consider a response. For example, a simple question for clarification on a post one just read would be perfectly reasonable and can be submitted immediately after reading the post. This would take very little time. Additionally, because there is no standard on thought process time, making the assumption that it would require more time than stated to submit a thoughtful post is just an unsubstantiated assertion. Furthermore, if the posts are not thoughtful, then call them out specifically as evidence rather working off assumption.