Is it just me or do the Obama supportors completely avoid decisions based on history, facts, and logic?   Can someone point me to sources that quote history and fairly respond to critiques of those quotations?

 

After having listened to countless callers on various Talk Radio shows, reading far too many "news" articles, being subjected to endless hours of outright political drivel during the Evening News and even more attempts at slight of hand themes on TV, I have honestly yet to hear a logical Obama fan.  I pledge no exageration.  I have not.

 

Now I admit, in many of these situations the parties are not allowed time to completely lay out their viewpoint, but I have yet to hear anyone even attempt it with merit.  

 

Perhaps I expect too much?  I'd expect any Republican I meet could rattle off a list of core values and how one candidate or the other supports those values.  And personal experiences so far mostly proves this right to various, but decent degrees of success, but never not at all.  The left seems to avoid that.  Instead you will be presented with tales of Bush or deliberately undetailed reports of votes that only deflect, or at least do not answer those questions.  True?  Why?   I suspect this may be because they believe values are worthless or too subjective to be trusted?  It's o'kay to expect our values, on even the most basic of issues, will disagree?   Are we not allowed to compare values perhaps?  Too uncomfortable?  Do they always fear being presented with moral indignation?  Republican's generally don't share these concerns.

 

If we can't or won't discuss our values, how then can we begin our attempts to learn from one another?

 

It's a bit like being at a party or local civic event where you don't realize that the majority of the others in attendence have previously met or are even old friends.  You are amazed at how easy some of the guests gather and drift off laughing together.  You are left in isolation trying and failing at making introductions.  No one is very much interested in mentoring a new friend.  New friends either assimulate seemlessly or drop off and nobody much cares which you do.

 

I think when Republicans open up a conversation based on values, they immediately present themselves as outsiders.  As potential antoganists even.  Democrats all too commonly begin giggling, hand-waving, and pretty soon emotive presumptions emerge in defense or as attack.  Replies of "Well he did the same" or "you know all of them want too" tales begin.  Never an examination of the question at hand.  That's odd.  Is it that they don't dig deep enough?  Surely not.  I readily respect the intelligence of some of those that I disagree with.  They must dig.  They don't understand what they read?  They mistrust it?  They figure the other side must be just as dirty?

 

Often, I am not looking to convince anyone of my opinon, rather I am looking to understand their's.  However, I want a fair discourse where both parties are allowed to be criticized and analyzed and judge against our internal values.  I could appreciate a difference of opinion based upon a declared difference of values.  That is justified to the extent that a difference in values can be justified. 

 

I'd change my mind in a second if someone shows me a reason NOT to believe Obama has attempted to hide his involvement with Ayers/Wright/"New Party", is at least a monetary socialist, wants to raise taxes that will impact my 401K, increase taxes on inheritences, supports a very liberal social agenda, supports affirmative action, welfare, and much more, and that he will not attempt to bias the supreme court further away from a strict interpretation view of the consitution then I will change my vote.

Tall Order, but I'm listening.

I have yet to hear (or I missed it) what the Obama fans want to learn is not true about McCain.  Why?

 

Currently, what we have is a very lame, emotion-filled vs. logic filled debate that I am honestly mystified how we've come to this point. And how to move past it. I won't resort to emotion, that leaves the other side with the responsibility to argue fairly if we are ever to have a discourse where change may be possible.