Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Minor parties Presidential debate

  1. #1
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132

    Minor parties Presidential debate

    Featuring:

    Gary Johnson: Libertarian party
    Jill Stein: Green party
    Virgil Goode: Constitution party
    Rocky Anderson: Justice party

    Will take place on October 23, from 8:00 pm CDT to 9:30 PM CDT at the Hilton in Chicago.

    Live online streaming of the debate WILL be available.

    For further information (and to RSVP for streaming), http://freeandequal.org/events/presidential-debate/
    Last edited by Tactical9mm; 10-20-2012 at 02:57 AM. Reason: Time zone change for the debate
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Now that is a debate I'd want to see.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I'd them to start with clips of the "other guys'" answers first, and then their answers. I assume this will not be on broadcast TV?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'd them to start with clips of the "other guys'" answers first, and then their answers. I assume this will not be on broadcast TV?
    I'm not sure if the mainstream media is going to cover it. Larry King is moderating the debate, so it is possible that CNN might air it.

    If I find out anything I will update this thread.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Minor parties Presidential debate

    yawn

    None of them will come even close to winning. Let's focus on the actual choice we have, pick the better candidate, and vote for him. Otherwise, for all the effect you will have, you might as well stay home.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    yawn

    None of them will come even close to winning. Let's focus on the actual choice we have, pick the better candidate, and vote for him. Otherwise, for all the effect you will have, you might as well stay home.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Believe it or not these others are 'actual choices' .
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Otherwise, for all the effect you will have, you might as well stay home.
    Likewise if you don't live in a swing state. What's the point in voting at all if you live in a state guaranteed to vote for a specific party?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    yawn

    None of them will come even close to winning. Let's focus on the actual choice we have, pick the better candidate, and vote for him. Otherwise, for all the effect you will have, you might as well stay home.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    You're right, I should, and will, stay home.





    Washington votes entirely by mail-in ballots.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Likewise if you don't live in a swing state. What's the point in voting at all if you live in a state guaranteed to vote for a specific party?
    I am going to vote Gary Johnson for a simple reason, in my state (not a swing state) if a libertarian candidate gets 5% of the vote for this election they are recognized by the state as a "major party".

    Technically the republicans have failed to follow the rules or qualify as a major party in our last election in 2010. (Our State). http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...hington-ballot

    but of course this is being ignored.

    .
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-20-2012 at 04:51 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Minor parties Presidential debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Likewise if you don't live in a swing state. What's the point in voting at all if you live in a state guaranteed to vote for a specific party?
    Because, if you stay home (or vote for one of the non-viable "choices"), the State could swing the other way. I hope you can see the difference.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  11. #11
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    If you do decided to leave and venture out to the polls. Do your country a favor and reject both of the major party, status-quo tyrants.
    I'd much rather vote for the righteous underdog than inflict my fellow countrymen with more of the same.....
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132

    Update on October 23rd debate broadcasting

    The mainstream media blackout is still in full operation, as no mainstream media outlet has yet to be confirmed to be giving any time to these debates.

    Additional live streaming will be available from Google's youtube, Al Jazeera (English), Russia today, ORA-TV, and possibly on C-SPAN (still being discussed).

    The relevant link for the above is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1988014.html

    Details for the second (and final) debate on October 30th from Washington, DC have not yet been disclosed. As information on the second round of debates becomes available, I will update this thread.
    Last edited by Tactical9mm; 10-20-2012 at 06:27 PM.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132

    Update for October 30th runoff Presidential debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    The mainstream media blackout is still in full operation, as no mainstream media outlet has yet to be confirmed to be giving any time to these debates.

    Additional live streaming will be available from Google's youtube, Al Jazeera (English), Russia today, ORA-TV, and possibly on C-SPAN (still being discussed).

    The relevant link for the above is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1988014.html

    Details for the second (and final) debate on October 30th from Washington, DC have not yet been disclosed. As information on the second round of debates becomes available, I will update this thread.
    October 30, 2012. 9:00 PM EST to 10:30 PM EST. Venue will be announced shortly.

    Following the conclusion of the debates on October 23rd, there will be an instant runoff vote from debate viewers to determine which two candidates will progress to the final round of debates, on October 30th.

    http://freeandequal.org/updates/seco...washington-dc/

    I'll update the thread when more details become available. As it stands right now, it looks like the only way to watch the debates will be via streaming. If anyone has heard of a live TV broadcast, please update the thread with the information.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There's a reason they are called "minor parties".....Al Jazeera (English), Russia today, and I thought Larry King was dead.

    .....too funny.

    Sorry, this "debate" will be cutting into New Girl and The X Factor.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This might be worth watching if these guys were just debating to share and explore ideas. However, by definition, this is an if-I-were-president debate, which is silly. None of these guys will ever be president. And there is a reason: These guys are so far out of the mainstream as to be unable, even if everyone fully understood these "candidates" positions, to earn more than a few percent of the vote.

    So what is the rational way to bring about the change that any one of these "candidates" advocate? You have to move the country that way. Not jump, move. We got where we are over the last century. Some might even say that the path we are on was entered by the outcome of the Civil War. In any event, the acceleration was caused by progressives collecting in a single party, taking over that party, and giving that party control enough to ratchet up the government involvement in a way that is incredibly hard to deratchet. To undo this, Liberty-lovers, including both conservatives and libertarians, need to collect in a single party, take over that party, and give that party control enough to, step-by-step, deratchet the government control.

    The ideals of smaller government and more Liberty are being embraced as never before by the Republican Party, not nearly enough, but more than ever before. We need to keep moving the Republican Party in the right direction, give it power, and make it drag the Republic back in the right direction. This is the precise strategy that was used to drag it in the wrong direction. We need to be as politically smart and effective as those who would take our Liberty.

    In this election, that means voting for Romney and, more importantly, against Obama. It means voting for Republican house members and senators. It means being just as tough on them in town halls after the election as we were on their predecessors. It means being active in the candidate selection process in order to eliminate RINOs during the primary season. However, once our slate is settled, we must support the Republican (unless, miraculously, the Dems put up a more Liberty-loving candidate).

    You can vote "principle" and let the country slide more in the wrong direction, probably over that cliff, because the more Liberty-loving candidate (who wasn't perfectly Liberty-loving) lost by a handful of votes. Or you can vote realistically and, step-by-step, move the party, then the nation, then the party, then the nation, etc. in the right direction.

    Don't be so selfish as to want to do it now for you. Start the process in motion for future generations. "I want it now" is the mantra of the pawns of the collectivists. "I want to build it for the future" is how the Founders and Framers chose to think and how we should now.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-23-2012 at 09:46 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    What is selfish is wanting future generations to endure more of these two yahoo parties.

    What people also seem to forget is the huge jumps this country took toward it's current state. It absolutely would do no harm to undo these jumps.

    FDR major leaps in a short time, changing the way the court rules.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This might be worth watching if these guys were just debating to share and explore ideas. However, by definition, this is an if-I-were-president debate, which is silly. None of these guys will ever be president. And there is a reason: These guys are so far out of the mainstream as to be unable, even if everyone fully understood these "candidates" positions, to earn more than a few percent of the vote.

    So what is the rational way to bring about the change that any one of these "candidates" advocate? You have to move the country that way. Not jump, move. We got where we are over the last century. Some might even say that the path we are on was entered by the outcome of the Civil War. In any event, the acceleration was caused by progressives collecting in a single party, taking over that party, and giving that party control enough to ratchet up the government involvement in a way that is incredibly hard to deratchet. To undo this, Liberty-lovers, including both conservatives and libertarians, need to collect in a single party, take over that party, and give that party control enough to, step-by-step, deratchet the government control.

    The ideals of smaller government and more Liberty are being embraced as never before by the Republican Party, not nearly enough, but more than ever before. We need to keep moving the Republican Party in the right direction, give it power, and make it drag the Republic back in the right direction. This is the precise strategy that was used to drag it in the wrong direction. We need to be as politically smart and effective as those who would take our Liberty.

    In this election, that means voting for Romney and, more importantly, against Obama. It means voting for Republican house members and senators. It means being just as tough on them in town halls after the election as we were on their predecessors. It means being active in the candidate selection process in order to eliminate RINOs during the primary season. However, once our slate is settled, we must support the Republican (unless, miraculously, the Dems put up a more Liberty-loving candidate).

    You can vote "principle" and let the country slide more in the wrong direction, probably over that cliff, because the more Liberty-loving candidate (who wasn't perfectly Liberty-loving) lost by a handful of votes. Or you can vote realistically and, step-by-step, move the party, then the nation, then the party, then the nation, etc. in the right direction.

    Don't be so selfish as to want to do it now for you. Start the process in motion for future generations. "I want it now" is the mantra of the pawns of the collectivists. "I want to build it for the future" is how the Founders and Framers chose to think and how we should now.

    Well said Eye95,,, I agree!!

    I thas to be done, thoroughly, slowly, and widely..
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Well said Eye95,,, I agree!!

    I thas to be done, thoroughly, slowly, and widely..
    Why?

    This method of changed has been preached for many decades what it has led to is "compromise" and more tyranny.

    Bob you ever make it up B'ham way? We'd love to have you at one of our Sunday meets and John is organizing/working on something special for veterans day.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-23-2012 at 09:59 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Courts are notoriously monolithic where precedent is concerned.....they hate reversing "themselves."

    Huge jumps in public policy happen very rarely. Though it has happened less very rarely in since 9/11. We are a representative republic.....

    The trick is to get the states "liberty loving" and the feds will follow or be dragged towards the light of liberty. The AZ immigration law is a prime example. Another is the SC voter ID law. Change the state and when the courts see the states move the courts are loath to drag the states into a federal fold.

    2010 is an example of chipping away at the "two party" system. Tea Party candidates are Republicans but are not the typical republican. 2012 will determine if the Tea Party candidates have impressed or depressed their constituencies. The Tea Party will be a force to reckon with or be relegated to the ash heap of political history.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Courts are notoriously monolithic where precedent is concerned.....they hate reversing "themselves."

    Huge jumps in public policy happen very rarely. Though it has happened less very rarely in since 9/11. We are a representative republic.....

    The trick is to get the states "liberty loving" and the feds will follow or be dragged towards the light of liberty. The AZ immigration law is a prime example. Another is the SC voter ID law. Change the state and when the courts see the states move the courts are loath to drag the states into a federal fold.

    2010 is an example of chipping away at the "two party" system. Tea Party candidates are Republicans but are not the typical republican. 2012 will determine if the Tea Party candidates have impressed or depressed their constituencies. The Tea Party will be a force to reckon with or be relegated to the ash heap of political history.
    When FDR threatened the court the U.S. went through huge policy changes in very short time. The court suddenly had no problem reversing many of the Lochner era decisions.

    Lincoln huge policy change from federalism to nationalism.

    Teddy Roosevelt huge policy change giving President a lot more power than previously opening doors for progressivism. Giving rise to the modern myth that a president has to "Lead" has to leave a legacy.

    Wilson huge policy changes toward socialism, used WWI as his crisis not to go to waste ignores constitution on many issues statist court judges agree.

    FDR promised not to get us into Europes wars then manipulated us into war and used this as an excuse to dismiss many constitutional protections, also used a recession as an excuse for huge policy changes (then turning that recession into a major depression). Instituted many changes modeled after his socialist heroes Stalin and Hitler. (Gleichschaltung for example) Musolini declared him a dictator.

    Since FDR everything a president does seems like a minor change, but it hasn't they all have been leaps toward tyranny. We have been conditioned to think its nothing to drop bombs or invade foreign countries without a declaration by congress. We accept governments and the presidents oligarchy rule and worship at the alter of nationalism, not much has been done by many presidents or politicians to reverse this continual power grab by the government and it's agents.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Courts are notoriously monolithic where precedent is concerned.....they hate reversing "themselves."

    Huge jumps in public policy happen very rarely. Though it has happened less very rarely in since 9/11. We are a representative republic.....

    The trick is to get the states "liberty loving" and the feds will follow or be dragged towards the light of liberty. The AZ immigration law is a prime example. Another is the SC voter ID law. Change the state and when the courts see the states move the courts are loath to drag the states into a federal fold.

    2010 is an example of chipping away at the "two party" system. Tea Party candidates are Republicans but are not the typical republican. 2012 will determine if the Tea Party candidates have impressed or depressed their constituencies. The Tea Party will be a force to reckon with or be relegated to the ash heap of political history.
    Do you listen to Jason Lewis? He is a Libertarian supporting Romney for pretty much the reasons I cited. He also advocates a return to Liberty through a focus on local and State elections. I think he takes his Libertarianism to an extreme that I think would be damaging should we ever get to where he wants us to be. But, unlike the sentiment of some around here, I can get behind someone pulling in the general right direction, even if I don't think it is the exact right direction.

    Fx = Fcos(theta). As long as -90o < theta < 90o, F helps Fx.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Do you listen to Jason Lewis? He is a Libertarian supporting Romney for pretty much the reasons I cited. He also advocates a return to Liberty through a focus on local and State elections. I think he takes his Libertarianism to an extreme that I think would be damaging should we ever get to where he wants us to be. But, unlike the sentiment of some around here, I can get behind someone pulling in the general right direction, even if I don't think it is the exact right direction.

    Fx = Fcos(theta). As long as -90o < theta < 90o, F helps Fx.
    Being from South Carolina. My family being in SC since the 1720's, I'm more of a states rights kind of guy. I definitely don't like revenuers and I generally don't like yankees. All politics is local-ish.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This might be worth watching if these guys were just debating to share and explore ideas. However, by definition, this is an if-I-were-president debate, which is silly. None of these guys will ever be president. And there is a reason: These guys are so far out of the mainstream as to be unable, even if everyone fully understood these "candidates" positions, to earn more than a few percent of the vote.

    So what is the rational way to bring about the change that any one of these "candidates" advocate? You have to move the country that way. Not jump, move. We got where we are over the last century. Some might even say that the path we are on was entered by the outcome of the Civil War. In any event, the acceleration was caused by progressives collecting in a single party, taking over that party, and giving that party control enough to ratchet up the government involvement in a way that is incredibly hard to deratchet. To undo this, Liberty-lovers, including both conservatives and libertarians, need to collect in a single party, take over that party, and give that party control enough to, step-by-step, deratchet the government control.

    The ideals of smaller government and more Liberty are being embraced as never before by the Republican Party, not nearly enough, but more than ever before. We need to keep moving the Republican Party in the right direction, give it power, and make it drag the Republic back in the right direction. This is the precise strategy that was used to drag it in the wrong direction. We need to be as politically smart and effective as those who would take our Liberty.

    In this election, that means voting for Romney and, more importantly, against Obama. It means voting for Republican house members and senators. It means being just as tough on them in town halls after the election as we were on their predecessors. It means being active in the candidate selection process in order to eliminate RINOs during the primary season. However, once our slate is settled, we must support the Republican (unless, miraculously, the Dems put up a more Liberty-loving candidate).

    You can vote "principle" and let the country slide more in the wrong direction, probably over that cliff, because the more Liberty-loving candidate (who wasn't perfectly Liberty-loving) lost by a handful of votes. Or you can vote realistically and, step-by-step, move the party, then the nation, then the party, then the nation, etc. in the right direction.

    Don't be so selfish as to want to do it now for you. Start the process in motion for future generations. "I want it now" is the mantra of the pawns of the collectivists. "I want to build it for the future" is how the Founders and Framers chose to think and how we should now.
    If it's not worth watching, then the two major-party candidates have all the right ideas, and there's nothing left to consider. I think that's close-minded, but ...

    Not only do I NOT want Mr. Obama to have a second term, I do NOT want Mr. Romney to have one term. Will I get what I want? Unlikely, though mathematically possible.

    But if either of the two is elected President, it will be even more important that the Congress send only good legislation forward, as neither has the courage to veto (or even to recognize) bad legislation. Neither has shown any indication of a judicially brilliant, non-partisan Supreme Court nominee.

    If those of us who REALLY want to stand up for our rights want to do so, we MUST vote for someone else.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    If it's not worth watching, then the two major-party candidates have all the right ideas, and there's nothing left to consider. I think that's close-minded, but ...
    In full context, I said it was not worth watching as a presidential debate. Please note that I said that the debate would be worth watching if it were just presenting the ideas--much like we do here. Here, however, we are all--strike that, almost all--rational enough to realize that we will not be president any time soon and that whoever wins the presidency will not think exactly as we do. We must pick someone who will move the nation in the right direction. That was the useful purpose of the Romney/Obama debates. That purpose will not be served by a debate full of wannabes.

    Context matters. It is easy to pull a few words out and attack them. It requires more effort to cogitate on what is actually being communicated and respond to that. Not paying attention to the full message and reading only what one wants to read is what is truly closed-minded.

    Moving on--unless you want to lose the epithets and have a rational and civil discussion.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    ...Fx = Fcos(theta). As long as -90o < theta < 90o, F helps Fx.
    Finally, an argument from you I can actually understand!

    Last edited by MAC702; 10-23-2012 at 02:25 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •