NanceGreggs: "Why I Cannot Vote in 2008"

[WilliamPitt]

Kick. Ass.

:)

Why I Cannot Vote in 2008
by NanceGreggs

Sat Oct 06th 2007, 11:47 PM

After looking over the candidates and weighing my options and my principles, I realize that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the current crop seeking election in 2008.

I don’t think it necessary to even comment on the GOP contenders. Given the events of the past six-plus years, I think it goes without saying that anyone with an (R) after their name is not worthy of consideration – despite the fact that Giuliani single-handedly saved NYC from the terrorists (albeit after-the-fact), the fact that Freddie Thompson has been established as the Great White Hope (sans applause), the fact that McCain will whup everybody’s asses (as soon as he scrounges up the bus fare to get to where those asses reside), the fact that Tancredo’s idea of threatening to bomb Islamic holy sites can’t help but convince the Middle East that our only hope is peace and understanding.

That being said, let me address the real contenders, the Democrats, and my reasons for not being able to vote for a single one of them.

In keeping with my personal principles, I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue, from education to the War in Iraq, from the economy to the separation of Church and State, from mint-chip being the best flavor of ice-cream Baskin Robbins has to offer to taupe travertine tile being the only reasonable option for a front-entrance foyer. (Who doesn’t know that a neutral color is the best choice in today’s volatile resale market, I ask you?)

My vote can only be cast for the candidate who lives in a home of reasonable square-footage, who spends exactly the right amount of money on a haircut, who displays exactly the right amount of religious fervor that is not too hot, not too cold, but is just right.

My perfect candidate wears an American flag lapel pin which is positioned in exactly the right place on his/her suit jacket, which is made of politically-correct fiber and was purchased at a price that I deem to be not only acceptable, but worthy of applause.

Not only must my candidate be beyond reproach in both their public and private lives (not only currently, but from the day they were born), every person employed by their campaign, every family member, every friend they have ever had, every acquaintance they have ever known, every person on earth they have ever seen or spoken to MUST be equally free of scandal, real or imagined, and MUST be ready, willing and able to prove their innocence of any wrongdoing – whether such wrongdoing ever occurred or not.

Much more: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/283

[antigop]

1. Ok, Will, I'm going to explain this again

People's lives who have been destroyed because of job loss due to outsourcing and h1-b visas, are not going to vote for a candidate who supports the very policies that put this people out of a job.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

They have nothing left but their vote. That's about it. That vote won't go towards a candidate that supports putting more people out of work -- regardless of the party of that candidate.

[sharp_stick]

16. Good luck to you then n/t

[roguevalley]

52. my cousin is in Iraq. if she dies, none of the fuckers who gave this

war any kind of a nudge gets my vote. I don't give a damn what anyone says.

[dysfunctional press]

75. but if other people's cousins die...that's ok?

cousins, spouses, parents, siblings, children, friends, fiances...

[madmunchie]

91. Wow, you really know how to hit below the belt.

[roguevalley]

95. its a priceless remark, madmunchie, isn't it. I hope he/she never

has anyone in the war. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, even them.

[madmunchie]

96. You are right. My son was in Iraq, and although I didn't value anyone else's life

life any less, the profound effect that my son's loss of life (thank God he came home safe and sound) would have had on me is immeasurable - and that is what that person missed.

[roguevalley]

94. edited for venom. your remark is so vile, I won't be responding.

obviously your biggest contribution to this war is shopping.

[dysfunctional press]

110. "obviously"???

on what do you base that conclusion?

[fudge stripe cookays]

73. Why address Will with this?

It's Nance's piece. Once again, he's bloviating. This time, he's also riding another's coattails.

[motocicleta]

81. How is he bloviating, or riding coattails?

Are we not allowed to link to someone else's work?

[fudge stripe cookays]

85. Um...

the poster I replied to addressed his post to Will, as if Will wrote the piece. What would you call that? Will didn't write it. Coattails.

Nance's original was around for a few days, it was great, and it saw action. Why was it necessary to repost it, exactly?

A simple post saying, "Hey did you catch Nance's awesome post on _____?" would have sufficed with a small explanation.

Instead, by posting it again in its entirety, he is basking in its reflected glory, as he always does.

[WilliamPitt]

86. You are a genuine work of art.

Truly.

:spray:

[fudge stripe cookays]

87. Read your sigline again.

I don't think you understood it the first time.

Truly.

[motocicleta]

92. Coattails is a term reserved for wastes of air riding on other people's accomplishments.

I do not believe that accurately describes Mr. Pitt.

"Instead, by posting it again in its entirety, he is basking in its reflected glory, as he always does." You obviously know some history that I do not, since that statement does not in any way represent my understanding of Mr. Pitt's work.

Goodbye.

[fudge stripe cookays]

97. MR. Pitt?

He's not a God, and he's not a politician. He's a hack writer.

Watch him when anyone of note dies, posting like he knew them. If he didn't, he wishes he did. He goes on and on, making the death all about him, and how he feels about it rather than the person who died. I'm surprised he hasn't yet posted a eulogy to OMC's wife, rest her soul. Coattails.

How many times has he threatened to leave, yet KEEPS on coming back. He can't help himself. He can't do without the groupies. And I won't even go into Andy Stephenson's illness where Pitt is concerned.

He's a grandstander. Wise up.

[motocicleta]

98. I don't even agree with Nance Greggs and Will Pitt on this one.

I called him Mr. because I am respectful. It means nothing. I only responded to you because I just don't like arrogant yahoos lecturing other people without good reason. Call me the asshole police. And you, madam or sir, have been caught up in the net.

Pitt is just another DUer. Some are good, some are bad. Sometimes I like what he writes, sometimes I don't bother finishing it. You, on the other hand, seem to be no one I ever run into, just one of the angry "Will Pitt sucks" crowd. Your crowd is tedious, boring, full of opinion, and void of facts. You may dislike Mr. Pitt; so don't read him. Calling him out on every thread with which he is involved is old and tired. Your crowd sucks.

For example: it is an opinion of mine that your crowd sucks. Granted, just an opinion. Here, however, is a fact: you have been a posting DUer for 54% longer than I have, yet you have 1300% more posts than I do. While this is only an isolated fact, we can draw some useful analysis from this point.

Because a) you have never posted anything that I noticed as an intelligent addition to my bank of knowledge here at DU, or that I even have noticed at all, b) you have posted at a clip approximately nine times faster than I have, and c) you are one of those "boy do I hate Will Pitt yet I have nothing to back it up further than my judgment that he is a hack writer AND I'm gonna talk about it on a thread that he starts even though it has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the topic at hand" people, I believe it is fair to say that you have much more time on your hands than I do, and hold grudges more seriously than I do.

Since I am fairly busy taking care of a family of four, and a dog, plus posting at a steady 1.1 posts per day rate, and I hold a grudge like no one else I know, I'm guessing you have much more free time due to your lack of either a serious job or a social life and have a personality type that is probably responsible for the former condition.

See? That is an argument. I have seized on a set of facts, analyzed them, and drawn inferences from them. I may be wrong, but I have a solid case for why I think you are a maladjusted doofball who either lacks rewarding employment or a rewarding social life. Your opinions about Will Pitt, while boring to me either way since I hold him in no special regard, have no such documentation.

In other words: don't fucking lecture me, dimwit. Act like an asshole, and you will get treated like one.

[Susang]

99. What an intelligent and insightful rebuttal

:eyes:

Perhaps you haven't noticed any of FSC's posts because your head is too firmly up Mr Pitt's ass to read them?

Perhaps if you would remove your head from said orifice you might find a more intelligent way toss an insult than the gunge that is literally oozing from your posts. I won't hold my breath.

[motocicleta]

100. I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again:

So you're a little short on reading comprehension (I have no special love for Will's writing, only a dislike for assholes), and you like smilies. Nice work. Anything else in your portfolio, or is idiocy and smilies all you have?

[Susang]

101. So, you like repeating yourself

How lovely. Being called an idiot and an asshole by the likes of you is a compliment I will cherish for days to come. Insults from pretentious sycophants always make me smile, even if just a little.

As for my portfolio, the search function is available to all DU donors. Even ones with such a low post count.

[motocicleta]

105. Again:

how am I a pretentious sycophant? You are clearly an idiot, since you don't seem to be able to read my words and see that I do not, how did you put it, have my head up Pitt's ass. You are also quite clearly an asshole.

Whatever, mush for brains. You're boring me.

[Susang]

106. More pearls of wisdom

If it is so clear what I am, why bother to say it? :shrug:

You know what? It's pretty clear what you are, as well. I just don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. I trust other DUers to judge for themselves accordingly. A quality you seem to eschew.

[motocicleta]

109. and ya can't seem to respond to my questions.

Again with the reading comprehension.

You go right ahead with the faith in other DUers. Just because someone else hates me for calling bullshit where it needs to be called won't hurt me any more than your name calling.

This is what I should have expected when you told me to go fuck myself, out of the blue, about eighteen months ago. That sure seemed like shouting it from the rooftops, but maybe I misunderstood. You can revise history all you like, and parse it to fit your needs. But look back through this thread: I asked a reasonable question, didn't like the answer, said goodbye, then was lectured to as if I was a child. Don't blame me for going off when treated that way. It was after this that you came in with your name-calling. Only after that treatment did I point out your obviously poor qualities.

You will now go where I should have placed you then: on Ignore. I used to avoid Ignore because maybe someday the yahoos I wanted to put there would come up with some intelligent addition to the DU news drop, which is really why I come to DU, and I didn't want to miss it. It turns out, though, that you and everyone else I have been extending extra time to have never touched my radar screen other than to come in and go ad hominem on my ass. I doubt I will miss anything much by never having to see your venom again.

Ta ta!

[Susang]

116. You claim that I told you to go fuck yourself?

I don't suppose you have a link to provide from that incident a year and a half ago? I'd be curious to see the actual context (though I have my doubts as to whether it actually happened, as "go fuck yourself" is hardly my style).

Perhaps if you don't wish to be addressed as a child, you might consider not acting like one. My initial post to you had nothing to do with any supposed questions you asked, it was your insulting treatment of FSC that provoked it. This one to be precise: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1997831&mesg_id=2009909 I would think that someone who throws around nasty comment such as yourself would have a much thicker skin, but obviously not. This suggests a less than mature person to me and I responded accordingly. You can cry about my treatment of you all you want, the fact is that you have been just as nasty in your posts to others, even more so in my opinion.

Of course, since you can't read this right,I won't have the honor of a response, correct? Having placed me on ignore and all. :eyes:

[fudge stripe cookays]

104. My CROWD?

I have posted in a Pitt thread maybe twice in my life. I could take him or leave him most of the time.

As for my post count, oooh! I guess you told me! Your life is so important and mine is so sad. I haven't posted anything of note to you because I post in the lounge a lot. I started off very politically active a few years ago, marching and canvassing and everything else. Now I can barely walk. My health issues have become a bit more important to me. So excuse me for enjoying the lounge, where things are a bit less serious.

I was unemployed for several months after a layoff. I also spent several weeks at home hooked up to IV steroids after an MS diagnosis, which gave me plenty of time to up my post count because I had plenty of leisure time. There's not much else to do at 3 AM when you can't sleep from the drugs. So kindly let me call YOU a dimwit for lecturing me about something you know nothing about.

I happen to have a lot of friends in the lounge, the state forums, and the ancestry/genealogy forum. And right now, you're right. I DON'T have much of a social life because I just moved to a different city and am living away from my spouse while he stays behind to get our house sold. So I post a lot. Being from Texas, where there is such a dearth of liberals, I made most of my friends on DU for awhile, and have traveled the country meeting many of them. So excuse me for wanting to know how they are and communicating with them.

However sad my life appears to be though, I have never actually sat down and calculated the percentages of someone else's post count.

[motocicleta]

113. I am sorry to hear of your physical problems, and very happy to hear of your many friends in

in the lounge.

If you do not lecture me in the first place, I would not have responded so harshly. In fact, as I noted to Susang, if you go back and read the thread, I started off quite reasonably, attempted to say goodbye, and then you broke out your podium, lecturing me on something you know nothing about. So I'll see your 'dimwit', and raise you an Ignore.

The post count analysis takes very little time, fyi.

[fudge stripe cookays]

115. Yeah.

Backatcha.

I was not lecturing you. You said there was something in my understanding about Pitt you were unaware of. I explained it. Yet, that annoyed you.

Whatever.

[bryant69]

2. I never looked at it that way.

I guess i can't vote for anybody either.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[King Coal]

5. Yes you can.

[bryant69]

10. Nope there's nobody - unless you have a suggestion? n/t

[Dhalgren]

3. While I agree with Nancy that there are silly reasons not to vote for

a particular candidate, there are also valid reasons for not voting for a particular candidate (I'm not talking primaries, I mean the general election). It is often the case when a person feels compelled to choose the lesser of two evils; it is also the case, sometimes, when the lesser evil, is still too evil. These are personal issues and everyone carries that load in his/her own way. Dismissing as trivial someone's principles and someone's personal stand, while sometimes humorous, most often misses the point...

[antigop]

6. Thank you, dhalgren. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Excellent response.

I can see the author has as much credibility (and "talent") as the OP. :eyes:

[tavalon]

41. In fact, she does, Snarko

That you don't like either of them in no way decreases the prodigious amount of talent and fire that both of them have.

[motocicleta]

82. So you cannot read for basic comprehension,

and you like smilies. Nice work. What else have you in your portfolio?

[bigbrother05]

14. Read Nancy's original thread

She responds several times to explain that her intent was to highlight the sillier reasons some grab onto, i.e. lapel pins or haircuts, and how those are distractions from real differences in principles and policies. If you prefer one candidate over the others, great, but don't use such superficial arguments to attack their opponents. We all have solid reasons for supporting our candidates based on principled stances and personal values, let's stick with those and our nation and party will be strengthened as a result.

[unpossibles]

15. I used to agree with you

I did. And as much as I think our system needs massive overhauling, and that we have many problems within our own house, 7 years ago I discovered just how bad the worse of two evils can be.

I did not like Gore that much. I thought he was boring and too corporate, and I kind of saw him as the lesser of two evils. I don't regret not voting for him since my vote apparently didn't matter anyway, but I also now realize that sometimes the worse of two evils is really, really, really bad for America. And to allow that to continue - to stack the SCOTUS with "conservative" bible thumpers if nothing else - is a crime, and one I am not willing to participate in. Sure, Hilary is too conservative - no arguments there, and some of her colleagues are almost as "bad" and frankly sometimes the Democratic Party pisses me off to no end, but.... I cannot stand the idea of allowing any of the Republican front runners to win because of my protest vote.

Even worse, I think Americans who choose not to vote for whatever bullshit, lame-ass reason to be the worst citizens in the world. If you don't vote, don't ever complain about politics. In an ideal world, everyone would vote intelligently based on issues, and we would have a variety of parties and politicians to choose from. For now, I cannot not vote Democrat in good conscience.

[tavalon]

42. Yeah, you just encompassed my pov perfectly

Until and unless Gore gets in the race, I will not jump into the primary crapola that gets spewed here, but I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic anointment.

[Dhalgren]

46. I fully intend to vote. I will not vote for the Republican and I may not

vote for the Democrat - it will depend on who the nominee is and where the party is at that time, but it doesn't look good...

[unpossibles]

61. I can dig that

honestly, in past elections I've told my non-voting friends to at least show up and vote for someone, even if it's the darkest dark horse whatever candidate. I feel that at least voting for someone does send a better message than abstaining, and frankly whatever intended message is lost when the abstainers are labelled as "lazy" or make the younger generation appear to not care. More often than not, abstainers to me are lazy and are rationalizing their behavior.

We The People are who should (and theoretically DO) hold power in America, and damn it we need to be more proactive and educated as a political society, or else we somewhat deserve this GOP crap.

[skipos]

70. Well said. I couldn't live with myself if I sat on my hands and let a Repub win

I surprised some people didn't learn from the "Bush=Gore 2000" lie. Would Gore have had us in Iraq, played guitar while people died in Katrina, appointed Roberts and Alito, vetoed SCHIP etc?

Hell no.

[legaltender]

24. Think of it not as voting *for* the lesser

of two evils, but doing your best to *prevent* the GREATER of two evils from winning.

[Dhalgren]

26. Debs and I disagree...

"I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want and get it." - E. V. Debs

[Totally Committed]

32. And that's why the Democratic Party feels free to push these DINO losers in our faces

every election now, like clockwork. Because they know people like you will vote for them just to vote against the Republicans.

You are entitled to your opinions, but I can't see how this is helping this Party at all.

TC

[endarkenment]

37. Arrrrggggggghhhhhhhh

I just noticed that you've added J* to the bushton line of corrupt cronies. Well of course. 2016, if we have a republic, will be Jeb's year. Fuck all of us.

[Poll_Blind]

36. Yep. Thanks! n/t

PB

[mzmolly]

65. I don't think of Democrats as "evil" I think of them as less than perfect.

Just my 02.

[NanceGreggs]

68. I wasn't dismissing anyone's principles ...

... I was dismissing people's lack of principles when they judge candidates on criteria like their hair or their lapel pins, instead of their position on issues that really matter - like Iraq, the economy, education, etc.

If a candidate is willing to get our troops out of Iraq NOW, I really don't care how much they paid for the haircut their sporting when they make that announcement.

[Dhalgren]

83. I understand that part of it and agree with you completely.

This is what made me stop and re-think: "In keeping with my personal principles, I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue."

It only takes one issue, if I have principles and that issue is important enough for me, to cause me to not vote for someone. Equating silly things like hair-cuts and flag-pins and tips at a diner with "every issue" is where I take exception. I agree with you that getting US troops out of Iraq (and stopping the war on Iran) is much more important than any of these silly, pointless distractions, but that "100%" agreement seemed to me to be dismissing real, valid concerns that could lead a conscientious citizen to not vote for any particular candidate - this spring or next fall.

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

93. I hear ya!

That was why I deliberately chose truly ridiculous things to add in to the "100% agreement category" - to point out the fact that if any voter thinks they are going to find a candidate whose views match there's even on the most trivial of issues, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

We should be choosing who to support based on their agreement with us on the REAL issues that are important to us as individuals, and not get caught up in nonsense.

In addition, (unless someone has decided already that they won't vote for ANY Democrat), we should recognize that some compromises might have to be made in choosing who we support, e.g. I like Candidate A's position on the War, but disagree with his health care solution. Which do you personally think is the more important of the two? That is, IMHO, where wise choices have to be made by the voter, and where 100% agreement may not be possible.

I have no doubt that the next POTUS will be a Democrat. That is why such decisions should be weighed carefully, because we will be living with our choice for the next four years - and those years will be critical in determining the direction of our country.

[papau]

4. I also require same sex as mine plus same ethinic roots and skin color and education -including same

university and major and career path and current age and state of baldness, eyesight, joints, and disease profile - and composition by age and sex of grandchildren.

But I'm OK with any choice of life partner or pets.

:-)

[DemoTex]

8. In that vein: Kucinich is almost perfect, but ...

He is too short for my vote.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

9. This is dumb, poorly written, and not funny.

[shaniqua6392]

11. This is smart, well written, and very funny!

Nance is one of the best here on DU.

[Le Taz Hot]

23. Oh, PULEEEZE!!!!!

No, no she's not. Not by a LONG shot. You do realize that prolific does not equal good, right? The vast majority of really good writers on DU don't have a journal or a blog or self-serving tomes. They just post. Look closer and you'll see them. (And before the accusation is made, no, I'm NOT referring to myself.)

[crikkett]

12. This doesn't say anything at *all* about Dennis Kucinich!

[Cleita]

18. Yep, the one candidate who symbolizes a shift away

from fascist totalitarianism and who is totally ignored even by the left because of this.

[redqueen]

20. No, it's cause he's awkward, and doesn't know how to campaign.

PR skillz is esenshul.

This shit is about enough to make one give the hell up already. I guess most people figured that out long ago.

[Trajan]

13. GREAT one Nancy ......

And thanks Will .... Good to see ya .....

[druidity33]

17. i don't want a saint

for president. But i'd take Kucinich in a heartbeat... he even fits most of the bill Nance proposes (except the white meat, dark meat thing).

I don't eliminate candidates from my slate because they make mistakes. It's how they deal with those mistakes that eliminates them...

[NanceGreggs]

33. Well said!

"I don't eliminate candidates from my slate because they make mistakes. It's how they deal with those mistakes that eliminates them."

In all of the current madness, THAT is the most reasonable, level-headed thing I've heard in a long time.

:patriot:

[druidity33]

60. thanks Nance

i'm a fan of your rants!

:) peace

[meg]

19. I interpret that to mean

she is going to vote, but she doesn't want anyone else to do so.

[Marrah_G]

21. Great Piece!

[Libby2]

22. Bravo!!

Well done!

[Major Hogwash]

25. Will Pitt must be a Biden man.

This is an obvious case of plagerism.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Just like that link in your sig?

:P

[Major Hogwash]

76. Heh heh heh

Yeah, that was one of the best responses to the rightwing horseshit you ever wrote, I think.
It was a great google bomb.
I didn't even know what a google bomb was until I came to DU.
So, I learned a thing or two from just joining this forum.
And, of course, I've learned a lot from reading your stuff.
You're an amazing guy.
Truthout is one of my favorite sites.
And I like Nance Greggs, so I figured I'd say something nice about her, too.

[endarkenment]

28. Maybe Nancy can repost your repost of her repost.

And we can have an endless circle jerk of flatulent posturing perpetually nominated for the greatest page.

Meanwhile, it is rather obvious that the War Party will be in control of the White House and Congress in 09. Why is that?

[WilliamPitt]

30. "flatulent posturing perpetually nominated for the greatest page"

Ah, irony.

[endarkenment]

35. if the foo shits...

[Susang]

71. Irony?

Kinda like your signature line? ;-)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

72. Ha!

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

29. Oh my, Nance, outa the park again!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. A rather shallow apologia for lousy candidates.

We must overlook their merely human foibles of lying, cheating, backstabbing, cowardice, corruption, and greed for office.

It is, after all, our duty to vote for such people despite their minor lapses that decide the fate of millions.

I think not.

[bigtree]

34. hilarious!

and true to the bone

[sniffa]

38. y'know, i have her on ignore for a reason

so i miss the driveL.

[madmunchie]

39. Oh, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy

"lives in a home of reasonable square-footage" ... "who spends exactly the right amount of money on a haircut"..." exactly the right amount of religious fervor that is not too hot, not too cold, but is just right"..."displays wears an American flag lapel pin" blah blah blah....

Dissect the "parts" all that you want. Isolate all of the "parts" all that you want. Make fun of the "parts" all that you want, But without the "parts" you cannot have a whole. The point is that many of these parts combined are telling us that our choices are not very good. That most of the candidates - the "D's" and the "R's" are playing on the same team and have the same benefactors and are beholding to the same "Money Masters". Do we really have a choice is the question? I don't think so - and not because any "one" of the "parts" but what the sum of them actually is telling us.

[NanceGreggs]

43. You have your opinion ...

But some people don't share your views. Some people think our choices are excellent. Some people are truly supportive of one or more of the candidates we have to choose from, and believe their candidate will make an excellent president.

Why is their opinion any less valid than yours?

As for the "parts" that make the whole, that's true. But some "parts" are of no consequence. I don't think the price of John Edwards' haircuts have any impact on whether he would make a good president or not - and quite frankly, I don't think what he pays for his haircuts is any of my business.

[WilliamPitt]

44. Is it me, or did like 60% of the people who replied to this thread...

...fail to catch that it's satire?

Pretty impressive, if you think about it.

:yoiks:

[endarkenment]

48. Why repost a thread that spent its two days on the GP?

Seems like an act of total lamosity. Writer's block?

[WilliamPitt]

50. Uh, no.

1. Just saw it today.

2. Liked it.

3. Posted it.

4. Didn't see it beforehand.

You need a life.

[endarkenment]

51. "3. Posted it" - nah - reposted it.

If you first saw it today and liked it, you most likely tried to K&R it and then you probably noticed that it had expired its shelf life on the GP. Reposting it simply avoids the time limit and is a rather lame act of rule circumvention. You should write your own stuff instead and post that, I've heard you at least used to be quite good at that. Recycling DU-originated posts on DU is pathetic, particularly coming from you.

[madmunchie]

54. Duh?@ The message still is worth responding to

[madmunchie]

53. You are absolutely right, your opinion is not any less valid than mine

and..."some people don't share your views." Actually "many" people don't share my view. I was in the minority when we went into Iraq to.....most people believed Bush, including JE, Clinton, Biden...

I beg to differ though; you know the "price" that a man considers his hair is worth in getting a day to day maintenance is important - when same said man is "advocating" for the poor and when said same man talks so emotionally about his humble beginnings. He tries to "identify" with the poor and struggling while not doing something really simple, like go to a hair salon where haircuts are $10.00 - $20.00, and where other "poor" "struggling" people work to make ends meet. How much would that mean????? You know, putting his money where his mouth is, by setting an example?, by actually acknowledging a hard working hair stylist and paying for their services? - contributing to the real working class?

It also makes a difference when you look at the ego and superficiality of this particular candidate. The sq. footage of his home, his expensive haircuts and his "Two Americas" sch tick. He Obviously is patronizing and living in one of the America's while trying to identify and appeal to the other America. Does this have anything to do with his possible job performance as POTUS? You, bet. We don't need another "Manipulator in Chief" who is pretty much out of touch with what is really going on in this country.

His votes while in the Senate (also considered) are another indication of the superficiality of this candidate. He perches on whatever cause seems "popular" at the time and argues passionately for it, not really doing his homework and knowing what I knew...going into Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen and that the reason given for going into Iraq was bogus.....Yes, there are many parts or pieces to what JE is all about and when you use "ALL of the parts - pieces" they help to show a pretty accurate picture of who JE is. Each piece put together really supports my observation and adds to the complete picture of JE.

So, yes, your are right, your opinion is not any less valid than mine so, by the same token, my opinion is not less any valid than yours.....

[NanceGreggs]

56. You are right - your opinion is no less valid than mine.

I have to disagree, however, on the haircut thing (or who wears a flag pin in their lapel, or whose laughter is ear-grating, etc.) And I don't think one has to be poor in order to want to do something about poverty, any more than one has to be gay in order to support gay rights.

Edwards' senate voting record, however, is a something else again, and should be weighed as part of the man's political worth.

In the end, our criteria for judging who we can or cannot support is as varied as we are as individuals. And if haircuts signify something about this man that you feel should be put into the mix, so be it. Nothing wrong with that.

But what I DO think is inappropriate is seeing people bashing other people's choices over the head based on such trivialities alone, to the exclusion of more important issues - such as past voting records, positions on health care, the war, education, etc.

[madmunchie]

67. I agree

"But what I DO think is inappropriate is seeing people bashing other people's choices over the head based on such trivialities alone, to the exclusion of more important issues -..." One nail alone does not keep a coffin shut.

I look at, lets say - the hair cut - thing as just another sign of how this man really operates. Alone it doesn't really mean much but combine it with other things and it just adds to my observations and conclusions on JE. So, while we cannot judge JE by this one thing alone and to the exclusion of other things, it does add to or further illustrate - proof, evidence of who this man really is, Especially since it falls right in line with my earlier opinions.

I am not pleased with most of the candidates. I believe that we really need an overhaul in our system. Right now I see too much complicity with our current candidates. We, the voters, are so far detached from actually having a say in the system that actually not voting in 08' is somewhat understandable.

I am a Don Quixote though and I will most likely keep racing with passion to vote my heart, but many more practical people will spend their time at home, and I won't blame them one bit.

[tavalon]

40. Help her get a book deal please, Will

If you haven't read much of her other stuff, please read it. You two are great in very different ways but you are both worthy of the binding.

Hell, sometimes she out-Molly's Molly.

[Bonobo]

45. I hate that particular passive-aggressive preachy style. Nance usually does better.

[Individualist]

47. Down with principles! Down with idealists!

:eyes:

Bull. Shit.

"Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why'? I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not'?" Robert Kennedy

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" Martin Luther King

[Generator]

49. It's simplistic, dismissive tripe

Why is it tripe? Because it's so dismissive. Also hyperbolic and lumping one concern-that may be you know like life or death or something to you personally and mocking it. Not something trivial-but apparently now having any conscience is trivial. What's more important-what's always been important-just like the Republicans is one thing only-party loyalty.

It's saying the reason why someone won't vote for president-and let's cute the bullshit-the only candidate I believe anyone really won't vote for is Hillary Rodham Clinton. So it's wrong because it's lumping all the candidates together. She's in a "class" all by herself. It's lumping all debate and criticisms together-apparently you have really already lost us-because all you have now- A YEAR before the election is mocking those that think that Hillary is not the best thing to stop wars and get jobs and give the Democrats their soul back.

It's very Republicanesque in it's dismissive and mocking tone. Instead of hearing or addressing our concerns and actually you know convincing us why it really is a good thing to vote for Clinton-we are mocked. And why can't we be convinced? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh and not every person employed by their campaign-how about ONE just fucking one-Mark Penn-the person most responsible for turning the Democratic party on the road to ruin.

[Imperialism Inc.]

55. Nothing like a good strawman argument.

Yawwwnn. Gee I've never heard the if you aren't voting for a Dem you must be waiting for a 100% perfect saint argument before. How original!

[NanceGreggs]

59. If that's what you took from this ...

... I'm afraid you've missed the point by miles.

[Feron]

57. Eh.

Nobody really cares about the square footage of the Edwards home or Obama's pin, it's just a nit to pick. This whole song and dance happens every cycle.

Some choose to highlight the cost of a haircut, for example, to illustrate the disconnect between the candidate and the ordinary American. However when the competitors are all millionaires, it's a moot point. And I don't care if a person is rich as long as that person doesn't leave ordinary Americans and the poor behind as well as not being beholden to any special interest.

If you are looking to elect your soul mate, then you've missed the point of a republic completely. I think that too many people treat elections like a congeniality/morality contest rather than something serious. Frankly if this group stayed home I wouldn't be upset. I'd vote for a miserable festering philandering asshole if we agreed on the important issues.

Minutiae aside, voting is more often than not a Hobson's choice between two equally lousy candidates. I'm tired of it and even worse being patronized by their apologists. Change isn't going to happen if we keep electing the same old same old into office. "Oh but don't worry" they assure us "things will change this time!." Right. If I had a dime....

I'm not looking for a Democratic saviour complete with halo, but I would like someone who believes in and pushes the core values of the party. The military industrial complex, constitution shredders, and corporate shills already have more than enough representation as it is. It's time we got some good guys in there to counteract them. We're supposed to be the opposition party after all. There's plenty of crap going on that needs some opposing-WTF are they waiting for?!

So in essence I don't think that purity tests are necessarily wrong when they apply to the important issues. I think it's myopic to be a single issue voter however.

I would just like to vote for a candidate one day without holding my nose.

[orleans]

58. i believe nance left out something even more important:

the favorite color qualifier!

[NanceGreggs]

62. Or favourite Beatle! n/t

[orleans]

78. you're right! and of course fav beatle trumps color any day of the week!

:D

[H2O Man]

79. Be careful!

You'll be accused of being a McCartneyite.

(edit for spelling)

[mzmolly]

63. That's so freaking excellent!

A :toast: and a RECOMMEND.

[conscious evolution]

64. Thanks for reposting.Missed it first time around.

[G_j]

66. what an unoriginal and lame attempt at sarcasm

well that was a waste of time
:thumbsdown:

[Bucky]

69. Agree with the post above. Ridiculing already ridiculous DU posters is getting old.

Let's not confuse noise with consensus.

[tomp]

74. didn't like it the first time around.

like it less that you're pushing it.

[WilliamPitt]

89. Dude.

I. Didn't. See. It.

We really are into the shit-show season again, aren't we. I must have posted this with an agenda in mind, a candidate to push, or some such underhanded motive...because you're the fourth or fifth person to comment like this.

It couldn't be possible that I'm not 100% aware of all threads everywhere on the board...

...or that I, like, left my house and stuff this weekend to hang with friends Friday night, watch college football with friends on Saturday, and watch Sox/Pats/NFL-in-general games on Sunday...

...and just liked her post when I read it for the first time in GD-P, and wanted to make sure she got read, so I posted it myself...

Nah. Crazy.

(wow)

(go outside...the idea that one is expected to be so on top of all threads everywhere is kinda sick...go outside)

[frogcycle]

90. good response

You got a shout-out in Nance's Algae Award

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3585572&mesg_id=3592603

[tomp]

102. ok, then, didn't like it the first time.

i didn't post on it then, 'cause it wasn't worth it. satirical, maybe. contrived, absolutely. not one of her best by a long shot.

for whatever reason you posted it, it's just so predictable that you liked it. you're too smug for your own good and too clever by half, and that seems to go for "nance" too, though i don't know her quite as well.

and thanks for your (ahem) concern about my life. i actually have one. it goes like this: i go to work, i go to school, i go to work, i go to school, etc. and every now and then i drop in on du. and when i do i call 'em like i see 'em.

[Kurovski]

77. K&R for another go-round with Nance!

:thumbsup:

[lonestarnot]

80. Heh

:toast:

[HughBeaumont]

84. Cackle, Schmackle . . .

. . . I'll write in Al Gore if Hillary is the nominee.

If the number of VALID issues I disagree with the nominee on dips in the 30 to 40 percent range, then the problem isn't with the voter, it's with the candidate.

I do CHANGE, not loyalty oaths.

[FourScore]

88. Nance

If I EVER get to the big city, how I would just LOVE to devour some mint-chip ice cream on that travertine entry floor of yours with you!

K&R

[BlackVelvet04]

103. What I find damn sad is

posters who dislike you or NanceGreggs feel they have to vomit their dislike all over this or any other thread.


What the hell is going on around here?

[WilliamPitt]

107. It is damn sad

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[motocicleta]

108. I'm probably all over other people's ignore list for vomiting my dislike of their vomit,

but in any case my ignore list is growing in leaps and bounds these days, and my heart lightens with every addition. I can't believe I ignored Ignore for so long.

No longer, Ignore! You are now my best online buddy!

[Major Hogwash]

111. Maybe we can keep this thread going for the next few months until people get more Christmasy spirits

Or . . maybe it will just become another kudzu thread.

LoL

[WilliamPitt]

112. Kudzu! Kudzu! Kudzu!

Olive Garden.

[opihimoimoi]

114. Divide and Conquer..its a conniving Pub Plot....its all about disrupting the Dem Party allowing

a RED SUCCESS.....

Amazing...