--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > > > She should be allowed to make her points, > > > > *then* challenged. > > > > > > My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points > > > that was meant to be long enough that there would have been > > > no time to ask questions at the end. > > > > Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview. > > Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt > > if needed. > > Shrug. Her interview.
Point is, it showed her bias. <snip> > > > I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. > > > > Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a > > measure of elitism. > > > > And in any case, she isn't running for president. > > So why didn't you say that before rather than pontificate > about elitism if its all irrelevant because she isn't > running for president. Because the point I wanted to get across was that people misinterpret the term "elitism" (as it's used against Obama) to mean wealth. The other was an afterthought, not the main event. <snip> > > > So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers > > > should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to > > > assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. > > > > I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption > > in this case. > > So you don't think that the Republican platform, which is entirely > in-tune with Sarah Palin's beliefs, isn't reason to assume that > REpublicans will work very hard to overturn Roe v Wade via > SCOTUS nominations? Did I say that? Or did you make it up? > > I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade > > will be overturned. And on the other hand, I > > don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices > > that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive > > measures, for that matter. > > Because he's made statements concerning this? Why do you doubt > him on this specific matter? Because he's been a crushing disappointment with regard to his support for progressive causes generally; and because he was going to vote for Roberts's confirmation before he was talked out of it by somebody who told him he'd have a hard time explaining such a vote if he ever wanted to run for higher office. <snip> > What aspect of Obama's voting record makes you feel that > he isn't a better choice than McCain? It's not just voting record; it's a whole long list of things I don't have time to go into (although I've mentioned many of them here before). <snip> > If the choice is voting third party and thereby helping someone > you are uncomfortable with become president, I gotta asK why > vote 3rd party? DO you believe that the difference between > McCain and Obama on issues important to you is insufficient to > support him? Again, it's not just issues. He pays better lip service than McCain to issues that are important to me, but I'm not convinced it goes beyond lip service. He's backed down on too many things already (FISA, e.g.). I don't trust him generally; and I don't think he's going to be competent in office. > WHich issues do you believe are the most important here? > > Why did CLinton have your vote during the primary while Obama > does NOT have your vote during the November election? Uh, because they're very different. She's a real partisan, a real fighter for progressive causes, a real wonk on policy. He's none of the above. Plus which, I'm not at all sure he won the primary honestly. And it's not all just Obama, either (see other posts about rebuilding the Democratic Party).
