No regrets

So I have been asked if I regretted voting for Barrack Obama over John McCain for president of the United States in 2008.

John  McCain does not stand for the protections of the Constitution for US Citizens.

Nope, I do not regret my choice. I regret that Republican Party failed to give me a viable alternative.

Share

11 thoughts on “No regrets”

  1. Straw man. The question wasn’t Obama vs McCain. The question was about regret over voting for Obama. You could have voted third party, or you could have chosen to withhold a vote from any presidential candidate.

    And I find you concern over the miranda rights of U.S. Citizens perplexing. Where is your concern over the Obama endorsed policy of assassination of U.S. citizens?

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/146352/obama_administration_authorizes_cia_to_kill_u.s._citizen

    1. 1) My comment is not a straw man. A Straw Man is a fallacy where you take your opponents position, distort it, then refute the distortion and consider it as proof of the original argument validity. I did nothing of the sort.
      2) In 2008 McCain/Palin was a serious enough ticket that it need to be stopped, that meant voting Democratic. (Just as yourself had said you would not vote for McCain in May, but did so in Nov. because you felt that it was that vital to stop Obama.)
      3) With Bob Barr heading the Libertarian ticket there were no third party candidates superior to the leading party contenders.
      4) I consider abstaining, particularly during such vital times, an abandonment of my duties as a citizen.

      As far as the link and question you presented. I can draw a distinction between the battlefield and law enforcement actions. Americans in the field with the enemy are certainly legitimate targets. Unlike the past administration and your man McCain I do not consider US soil and US police to be the battlefields.
      As far as I am concerned any US citizen arrested or detailed on US soil is subject to the protection of the Constitution. Full stop.

      1. “1) My comment is not a straw man. A Straw Man is a fallacy where you take your opponents position, distort it, then refute the distortion and consider it as proof of the original argument validity. I did nothing of the sort.”

        Oh really? Then what the heck is This supposed to be? “So I have been asked if I regretted voting for Barrack Obama over John McCain for president of the United States in 2008.” That is how you led your argument against McCain.

        If that lead is supposed to describe My challenge to you, then you made a Strawman argument. Your recounting is Not a fair or accurate description of what I said to you.

        What really happened is that I asked if you regretted voting for Obama. I did Not ask if you regretted voting for Obama over McCain.

        (Now if it was someone else you are talking about who made the challenge, then I will have to retract the accusation of strawman. As I have no knowledge of exactly what someone else may have said to you.)

        1. While I may guilty of misquoting you, it is still not a straw man, because you query is not an argument and a straw man is a distortion of an argument. If you wish is restated as do I regret voting for Obama over every other voting option — including not voting– the answer is still no for the reason I sited.

      2. “2) In 2008 McCain/Palin was a serious enough ticket that it need to be stopped, that meant voting Democratic. (Just as yourself had said you would not vote for McCain in May, but did so in Nov. because you felt that it was that vital to stop Obama.)
        3) With Bob Barr heading the Libertarian ticket there were no third party candidates superior to the leading party contenders.
        4) I consider abstaining, particularly during such vital times, an abandonment of my duties as a citizen.”

        I find this block astonishing. That sure sounds like a voting strategy of ‘lessor of two evils’ to me. Even though you told me that is Not what you did in 2008. You told me you voted FOR Obama instead.

        So which is it? Which was the stronger motivation? Did you vote for Obama, or did you vote to stop McCain?

        1. I think you are mis-remembering by position. During the election night party you yourself characterized my voting for Obama as a single issue vote against McCain on the issue of Torture. (Which was a massive reason to vote against McCain, but not the only one in my book.) It was a lesser of two evils vote – and it is the lesser evil I would still select today.

    2. Regarding the web site also – I could respect the continuation of former President Bush’s policy more if US citizenship was revoked first. Promoting terrorist acts against one’s own country is treason. After that, the question becomes at what point we may defend ourselves. We are being attacked with deadly force. May we not respond in kind? Is it enough to respond only to the hand (the actual bomber) or should we not also respond to the brain behind it? And yes, I do see the slippery slope here and I do see how the policy is dangerous but President Obama is only continuing the policy of the previous president.

      1. Revoke citizenshp without a trail, no that’sthe position of Senator Liberman and it’s not one I can support.
        Frankly American in teh field of combat are different than Americans on home soil.
        Tokyo Rose was a legal target for military action in my opinion, but at home she should be protected by the constitution.
        Funny how the people wanting to yank constitutional protections over Islamic terrorists never suggest doing to same for othee classes of terrorist. (Such as abortion clinic bombers and the like.)

        1. I would have no problem revoking the citizenship of Tim McVeigh (OK City Bomber) or even some of the liberal guys from the 60’s. Bombing – concealed or suicide – is cowardly and beneath contempt. One who does that demonstrates a disaffection with the country such that any guarantees of citizenship have been broken in reality, whether as a fact of law or not. I am okay with due process in these circumstances, if they are in the country. when the person is out of the country, it complicates things. It is kind of like diplomatic immunity – if it would be a crime in your country, it is still a crime in ours and you deserve the consequences of it.

Comments are closed.