FYI Romney on guns.

fozzy71 said:

It only took 16 posts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Click to expand...

Wow, that is actually very interesting. I've never heard of it, but it's pretty funny. What was it, from any wikipedia page you're 5 or 6 clicks away from hitler? < Go try that out, mind boggling.

since9 said:

Oh, for Heaven's sake, SVG - no it did not. Your claims are highly sensationalist at best. Yours too, ixtow.

Vote for who you want. As for me, I'll not waste my vote on a loosing candidate, nor will I support a party candidate who will loose to the Dems. I really like Paul, but I'd much rather have someone like Cain in office than ANY one from the Dem camp. It's not a matter of settling for less. It's a matter of preventing something very wrong, and of getting the best possible candidate in office.

Statistically speaking, the two-party system is as broken as are most archaic voting systems, and the system we use is very archaic. Your straight-forward approach achieves the best candidate only if the majority of others agree with you. If not, the slot often winds up being filled with a lesser-quality candidate than it could have been people had thought things through.

If you're unaware of the Nash Equilibrium or simply can't understand the concept, don't sweat it, but calling me a fool or insinuating I'm un/anti-American because I do understand it and you don't is so very wrong on too many fronts to count.

Click to expand...

Yes it did. Read Omnipotent government. Sensational maybe but insinuating that people don't have a brain because you want them to vote for whom you perceive as the lesser of two evils is insulting. If there was no Ron Paul I wouldn't vote period I won't vote for traitors of the constitution. Which both the "approved" Democrat and Republican candidates are.

Rationalizing that we only have two choices and we have to vote for those two is how evil is put into power it is how our government has continued for over a hundred years incrementally toward tyranny.

If you think voting for the lesser of two evils makes your vote important I would disagree with you. I would rather you didn't vote. Our votes really don't matter if that is the way we vote? All it does it gives the government the illusion of consent. When in reality the 1/4 of the population or less typically choose your politicians and then we are told we have to abide by the "new" direction that guy wants to "lead" us?

http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e102.html

First time I hear of Nash Equilibrium but impossible to apply because we don't know the equilibrium strategy of every other player in the game. It's an interesting theory though.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo59.html

fozzy71 said:

It only took 16 posts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Click to expand...

I am well aware of Godwin's humor. I do not think Since has any attributes like Hitler or Nazism, I do think that the rational that you are dumb if you don't vote for this candidate over an independent or one you believe in is exactly what the German people were convinced of between the rise of Nazism and WWI. If we don't learn from history we are condemned to repeat it. It is one reason why people use Hitler or Nazism, first it is very recent in our history, and second it simply fits how easy history keeps repeating itself.

Read Omnipotent Government, Nazism wasnt just something Hitler and his crew came up with during the '20's it was something that had been brewing and in design in one form or another in Germany for a long long time. Especially since the writings of Karl Marx (the man who wrote Lincoln congratulating him on his election).

Oh Ehm Jeee! Teh Nazis!!!

It also gives us the many bad things that lead up to Nazis... Why wait until it gets that bad?

Hitler wasn't near as bad as all the fools who followed him.... He did no more than they helped him do.

He was the electable alternative of contemporary America...........

Waste your vote? No, not you... Get on the train, dammit!

Schlitz said:

Eh, I'm on the other side of the fence here. I'm not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" ever again. I'm voting freedom first.


FWIW looking at the numbers of donors everyone had from the last campaign fund raising quarter Ron Paul had 5 times the amount of donors Rick perry had. That's over 100,000 donors... He may not have raised nearly as much but all those rich people only get one vote. I still think he is electable.

Click to expand...

This.

Why would you vote for the lesser of two evils? Thats like saying that since too many people are pissed off at you, you will choose a beating over a hanging simply because you don't think "I'd like to go free" won't go over so well. The problem is, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are, in effect, saying that you are utilyzing your right to vote, your right to have your voice heard, in order to agree with everything the guy who is the lesser of two evil says. Because last I checked, there is not a way to only vote for some of someone's policies... a vote for them equals a vote for EVERYTHING they stand for. You are better off not voting that voting for someone whom you agree with partially.

since9 said:

Oh, for Heaven's sake, SVG - no it did not. Your claims are highly sensationalist at best. Yours too, ixtow.

Vote for who you want. As for me, I'll not waste my vote on a loosing candidate, nor will I support a party candidate who will loose to the Dems. I really like Paul, but I'd much rather have someone like Cain in office than ANY one from the Dem camp. It's not a matter of settling for less. It's a matter of preventing something very wrong, and of getting the best possible candidate in office.

Statistically speaking, the two-party system is as broken as are most archaic voting systems, and the system we use is very archaic. Your straight-forward approach achieves the best candidate only if the majority of others agree with you. If not, the slot often winds up being filled with a lesser-quality candidate than it could have been people had thought things through.

If you're unaware of the Nash Equilibrium or simply can't understand the concept, don't sweat it, but calling me a fool or insinuating I'm un/anti-American because I do understand it and you don't is so very wrong on too many fronts to count.

Click to expand...

And if enough people were to vote for who they wanted instead of who they thought would win then I'm sure we would have a bunch of "upset" elections. Right now the media practically feeds us who will win.

since9 said:

Some silly crap about voting for for bad candidates

Click to expand...

I will do my best to siphon off votes from the party/media favorite. Anything to hinder the process of voting for the lesser evil. If I can make your candidate just an unelectable as mine... Where is your argument now?

It's been so long since I could remember having a plausible excuse to talk to you, I blame only myself for doing it again...

since9 said:

All votes spent on candidates who never would have been elected with or without your vote, ixtow, are wasted votes.

Grow a brain and cast your vote towards a candidate that stands a chance to win.

Or, throw yours down the sewer. Your right to do so.

Click to expand...

A mediocre solution is not what the country needs. Personally, I am horrified that "most likely to win" is an acceptable justification for so many.

I am reminded of a quote from Atlas Shrugged:

“Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are right... but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own.”

aknazer said:

and if enough people were to vote for who they wanted instead of who they thought would win then i'm sure we would have a bunch of "upset" elections. Right now the media practically feeds us who will win.

Click to expand...

qft

since9 said:

All votes spent on candidates who never would have been elected with or without your vote, ixtow, are wasted votes.

Grow a brain and cast your vote towards a candidate that stands a chance to win.

Or, throw yours down the sewer. Your right to do so.

Click to expand...

William Buckley's philosophy was vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance to win. I don't know. During primary season it's a piece of cake for me to vote based on my principles. In 2000 it was Alan Keyes. This year, if he is still around, probably Ron Paul. In the general, I don't like it but it is may be a vote cast for the lesser of two evils - McCain vs. Obama - a vote for some third party candidate would have amounted to a vote for Obama.... I think with time we will have someone with similar principles to Paul being the candidate. We've seen more of them elected in the House. I only hope we have the time to see it happen and for the tide to turn before it really hits the fan for this country.

Then again, in light of the fact that I could eat pizza everyday, maybe I share more with Herman Cain that I thought:

http://youtu.be/-DrSEyjBj1w

fozzy71 said:

It only took 16 posts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Click to expand...

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It's also a well-known logical fallacy: Informal Fallacy -- Red Herring -- Guilt by Association -- The Hitler Card.

The only people who use the Hitler Card are those whose arguments cannot stand on their own merit.

lagmonkey said:

A mediocre solution is not what the country needs. Personally, I am horrified that "most likely to win" is an acceptable justification for so many.

Click to expand...

What you wrongly refer to "mediocrity" I correctly refer to as reality. Would you waste a vote on a candidate in the Republican primary who, if he became the Republican candidate, would never stand a chance of defeating the Democratic candidate? I wouldn't. I would much rather vote for a Republican candidate that had the best chance of beating the Democratic candidate.

"Best" is not "mediocre." It's best.

I am reminded of a quote from Atlas Shrugged:

“Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are right... but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own.”

Click to expand...

Good quote!

since9 said:

What you wrongly refer to "mediocrity" I correctly refer to as reality. Would you waste a vote on a candidate in the Republican primary who, if he became the Republican candidate, would never stand a chance of defeating the Democratic candidate? I wouldn't. I would much rather vote for a Republican candidate that had the best chance of beating the Democratic candidate.

"Best" is not "mediocre." It's best.

Click to expand...

We define "best" differently it seems. Simply replacing a Democrat with a Republican whose only claim to fame is that he has the best chance to win is not enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are unrealistic, we just have different priorities. For your purposes - putting a Republican in office no matter what the cost - the formula of betting on the best horse is the safe course of action.

Debate Questions

Couldn't a moderator simply ask:
#1 - Do you believe in an individual right to bear arms? Do you support open and concealed carry?
#2 - If your answer appears to be different from answers in your past, have you seriously changed your opinion, and what caused this change?

Remember, a person can change over the years. We have to be able to separate those who have honestly changed, and those doing it for political reasons. Reagan was a Democrat, Perry was a Democrat, and I (not that important) was a Democrat. Because we were persuaded to change, shouldn't that be celebrated? People do change their positions on the role of religion, abortion, charter or home schooling, etc. They should be rejected, however, if it can be shown that they change their positions frequently.

MilProGuy said:

Michelle Bachmann is looking better as each week passes.

Click to expand...

was that sarcastic? cuz if it wasn't, then i don't think you've been watching any of the debates...

hammer6 said:

was that sarcastic? cuz if it wasn't, then i don't think you've been watching any of the debates...

Click to expand...

In addition, her entire New Hampshire staff just quit. Not a good sign.

http://usat.ly/nDgwJ2

Morbidph8 said:

It will be Ron Paul all the way for me.

Click to expand...

+1.

While I don't agree with everything, I believe he's what's right for the country.

I fear, however, that he's too far out from mainstream for most people to understand/vote for him.

TechnoWeenie said:

+1.

While I don't agree with everything, I believe he's what's right for the country.

I fear, however, that he's too far out from mainstream for most people to understand/vote for him.

Click to expand...

i think he's not as far out as he has been in the past...

lagmonkey said:

We define "best" differently it seems. Simply replacing a Democrat with a Republican whose only claim to fame is that he has the best chance to win is not enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are unrealistic, we just have different priorities. For your purposes - putting a Republican in office no matter what the cost - the formula of betting on the best horse is the safe course of action.

Click to expand...

I'd say we have different approaches. My overall goal is not to "put a Republican in the office no matter what the cost." If there were a good Democratic candidate, and none in the Republican lineup were worth two cents, I'd vote for the Democrat.

In this case, the reverse is true: None in the Democrat lineup is worth two cents, so in order to avoid a disaster, I'd much rather see a Republican in office than a Democrat.

Of the Republican candidates, I'd be willing to vote for four of them, and will choose the one I think stands the best chance of defeating any of the Dems, after which I will vote for them in the presidential election as well. Of the four, I really like Cain, as the others have some glaring faults. The fact he seems to be in or very close to the lead makes my decision easy.

By the way, I get my information from here, as well as the candidate's Wikipedia pages (hotly maintained by their staffers), and not from the media. The media has for decades managed to spin a solid candidate's positions into mush by misconstruing what or why a candidate did or said. They're not to be trusted, so I don't trust them. The only exception are dispassionate, objective reviews of the candidates and their stances on the issues. The Wall Street Journal publishes a good read.

Romney is just a Democrat in drag.

Cthulhu for President - Why settle for the lesser evil?

Schlitz said:

Wow, that is actually very interesting. I've never heard of it, but it's pretty funny. What was it, from any wikipedia page you're 5 or 6 clicks away from hitler? < Go try that out, mind boggling.

Click to expand...

You may also want to be aware of Sharpton's Law.

Named after famed civil-rights advocate and professional agitator Al Sharpton, Sharpton's Law specifies that who ever brings up race or ethnicity in a non-related debate automatically loses the argument.

"I think illegal immigration represents a severe problem for both the security and economic stabilty of the United States" "What, are you scared of brown people?" "Dude, Sharpton's Law".

Click to expand...