ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

This looks to be a cake walk for you DD

MorgMcA | 04/25/08

Yeah, I feel kinda bad for taking it. But maybe if I get enough wins, my % will round up to 100 and I'll be back on the leader board!

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

lol it's crap how the leaderboard works. You should be neaer the top if not the top DD

Tyler Cole | 04/25/08

Yeah, but it's funny.. I feel like I have been set free in a sense. No longer concerned about my win record, I'm looking to take debates that aren't quite as 'safe.' Er, not that the one I lost (#7402)was safe. lol. But thanks!

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

this is your example of taking a debate less safe? I'd say you won before you said anything. Not saying that you're not a great debator, it's just funny to see that comment following this argument.

Skipper04 | 04/25/08

Everyone needs to admit the hopefully HISTORICAL "jargon" of sleeze-corrupt politics will NOT TOLERATE "safe state" jargon this year. The media tries to force Republicans into the "front" when they are very UNWANTED and Bush is VERY upopular, and his agenda and foreign policy is entirely ILLEGAL, against all proper international laws. Peace is the law, and the actual laws protect AGAINST current BUSH violations. But, the night before last, I happened to be introduced to a GREEN PARTY activist who is an "uncommitted delegate." He used that term SAFE as if certain topics were applicable DUE to SAFE STATES. OUR STATE? Massachusetts. Reputation? Liberal. But, of course, I say, NOT SAFE to assume DEMOCRAT. PROPER CHALLENGE in view would net much more truth. 13% are registered Republicans, to stay on track for this debate. The balance is NOT Democrats. 35% are Democrats by voter registration. 52% are outside the two parties. The proper WAY to net honest national TREATMENT of the Republicans' "chance" (I believe McCain should not even be ALLOWED to run, and certainly does not deserve ANY votes. To me, he is horrific, understatement and clearly NOT in line with any popular issue oriented polls. Forcing two parties and scaring people into believing they HAVE to VOTE SAFE instead of truth is illegal and offensive to MAJORity Rule. Allow the GREENs their visibility and NADER his visibility and you will see the 13% in MA may be the entire country. Statistically it is higher than that, but the McCain popularity is forced into the Republicans DUE to the media mythology and railroading that is and was unconscionable. How many will believe McCain has any chance if you put out the GREENS PLATFORMS and NADER as an accomplished INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE plus the supposed challenge of the DEMOCRATS. McCain has nothing to stand on. War is NOT wanted in this country. He is worse than Bush. At least "Bush has no Clue" sounds innocent.

Elizabeth | 04/25/08

Skipper, you misunderstand. I didn't say that every debate I take on will be 'unsafe.' I said I feel more comfortable taking controversial ones on (i.e., debates where people might just vote according to demographics). This one is clearly a freebie. The reason I took this on is because I'm kind of tired of seeing people spew baseless propaganda on here. If a weaker liberal debater took this on, it would turn into "uh huh!" "Noooo!" "Uh huhh!!"

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

Elizabeth, I mean this in an entirely constructive way: If you did not use CAPS in that last comment, it would be much more readable. CAPS should be used sparingly. You also seem to do it on seemingly random words. I have no choice but to stop reading 1/3 of the way through it. Something to consider. Again.

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

Seconded, only use caps where you would usually use ITALICS, because you can't use HTML here, and sometimes you really do need to emphasize things.

Pablo the Great | 04/25/08

Still i think i read most of it and it gave me an eye sore. Not to mention didn't make any sense, from what i gathered, it looks like a crazy plan for Nader to win all of the conservative votes and take the country from the dems, or something.

MorgMcA | 04/25/08

No offense, but trying to read Elizabeth's posts is akin to trying to find hidden objects in a Highlights Magazine picture puzzle, or a Where's Waldo book. Find the real argument and lower-case words! (I think I just found the upside-down shoe....)

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/26/08

Ok, CAPS haters. You'll get what you asked for. No caps. And, succinct. Only one reason the Republicans have any reason to expect any votes. The national penchant for two parties without any possible challenge on the merits to net a chance for democracy. No caps. Just for you Trees, Just for the Trees of You. Newsweek offered Just the Trees of Us and that's all for Greenest of them all. No mention of Nader, no mention of the Green Party. Of course not. They love status quo and no change possible in November. They admitted no clear choice, and not just that, their information in fine print, was strictly from the candidate's websites. Just the Trees of Us may not be the nation. But, the Trees of Us want to rule against the Majority and with that, oh yes, the Republicans can win. With that attitude insisted upon, nets a powermongering refusal of honest political challenges in a Presidential Election Year while a current President is being told impeachment is due, by Nader and progressive Democrats. Nader is anti-corruption across the board. Crazy conservative? Hardly. Laws for public interest and safety at a lifetime track record, certainly. Encylopedias are the only place you will find that shown. And, the bookstores. Not the right-wing establishment media who knows if they insist on two parties they can push McCain as if he is popular when Nader fans abhor him, I am certain. To me, he is off the map, and Bush is the limit of intolerable but within the structure of impeachment status. The system as designed is still in view, but the abuses by Bush and the anti-democracy powermongering of sleezy politicians is very very very willfully in view. Just the Trees of Us, as offered by Newsweek, is the public view. It needs change, radically. That does not make me a radical. Conservatives holding egregious status quo are not conservatives they are villains against Democracy, obviously. A chance to win, yes, if the public doesn't do anything and accepts Just the Trees of Us and cannot even begin to see the obvious obligation to at a minimum acknowledge Nader as Real and the Green Party as a party that Nader brought to the public but refused by the media.

Elizabeth | 04/26/08

Elizabeth i think you'll find a large percentage of Americans support McCain and even among those who don't support him he has the respect of many. Saying that this is an election that should be between the Green Party and the Democrats, because the Republicans are rehensible and don't really have any shot at all compared to the Green party, makes no sense to me.

MorgMcA | 04/26/08

Wow, Elizabeth. That was honestly a lot better. Thanks. That's the first time I ever read your whole statement, as inordinately long as it was. You kinda threw me for a loop with that Just the Trees of Us thing, but I figured it out. For what it's worth, I actually agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I don't think Nader is the man to lead this nation, but I agree that the two-party system is bullshit, and there is a bothersome barrier to entry in presidential politics. However, your argument would still seem more credible if you didn't assume that the reason the media shuns Nader is simply that he is not in a major party. People have other reasons not to like Nader, and if you don't understand and respect that, people will see your points as fanatical and not worth listening to.

DonkeyDude | 04/26/08

But oyu know Elizabeth, I would respect you a lot more if you were a man. I talk down to you because I do not have any respect for women. I apologize because I realize how sexist and egotisticle I am.

Donkey Dude | 04/26/08

I quit this debate. Please vote for Vidian06. Thank you.

Donkey Dude | 04/26/08

That last two comments were not from me. If you mouse over my donkey icon, you will see that I am user number 10662. Any other user number is an impostor. Also, my spelling is much better than that.

DonkeyDude | 04/26/08

So pathetic!

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/26/08

lol i thought it said ego-testicle for a second.

MorgMcA | 04/26/08

Vidian06, you start an interesting debate, at least by looking at the topic, and then don't raise a single point to support your ambitious claim. It's like these terror group that shout "we will destroy America" and then run back to their caves at the slightest hint of an American response. lol. No offence but I can't even make sense of your first statement. I hope you'll do better next time.

POST | 04/27/08