Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:35:46 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
LOL. I'll never have your brand of wisdom, sadly. My vote doesn't count in the state where I live anyway.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:55:45 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


Romney's just following conventional political wisdom. To get the broadest appeal possible, he has to avoid being specific, because being specific excludes. To say he has no ideas is to assume you can trust the words that come from his mouth. That's a mistake with any politician. They all throw inconvenient constituent groups under the bus after they win. The echoes from Obama's oath of office were still rolling around DC when he threw gays overboard. They all reveal their ideas during a first term, but only as a means to get reelected. They all spend their second term trying to patch up their legacy with the people who matter to them. That's the pattern.


Hence my lack of faith in the system. Both parties are commited to restricting the rights of the people. So then we are left only to decide which rights we want protected.
If you want to own guns and drive an off road vehicle, vote rebulican.
Want to chose who you want to have sex with or have such disdain for religon that you want it out of all public life, vote democrat. Just dont believe any really cares, they just pander to a specific demographic.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:08:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
My vote doesn't count in the state where I live anyway.


You don't vote for Congress?

It doesn't really matter. By merely adhering to the "I'm entitled because I'm human" ideology, you make your life worse. If you rejected it, you would make your life better. You would set a better example for your kid and you would have a more positive outlook on life.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:33:26 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


You don't vote for Congress?



I do, but it's a republican-dominated state, so it's no use.

Thx for the life advice, by the way. Lwinking
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:39:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
Hence my lack of faith in the system. Both parties are commited to restricting the rights of the people. So then we are left only to decide which rights we want protected.
If you want to own guns and drive an off road vehicle, vote rebulican.
Want to chose who you want to have sex with or have such disdain for religon that you want it out of all public life, vote democrat. Just dont believe any really cares, they just pander to a specific demographic.


If you lose your economic liberties, you're sunk. One party clearly wants to deprive you of independent control of your economic destiny. They want to run a plantation of people who are economically dependent on them.

Your basic choice is to work for or against the worst party in the system. The way it's structured, The worst party will take advantage of any opportunity you offer them. Only by depriving them of power can you force them to become not the worst, because they will do anything they have to in order to regain power, even to the point of abandoning the principles that make them the worst. That's probably the best you can hope for.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_Redman
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:54:38 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


If you lose your economic liberties, you're sunk. One party clearly wants to deprive you of independent control of your economic destiny. They want to run a plantation of people who are economically dependent on them.

Your basic choice is to work for or against the worst party in the system. The way it's structured, The worst party will take advantage of any opportunity you offer them. Only by depriving them of power can you force them to become not the worst, because they will do anything they have to in order to regain power, even to the point of abandoning the principles that make them the worst. That's probably the best you can hope for.


That is an interesting point, but it assumes one is better than the other. So, who am I to support? The party who would tax me into oblivion in order to provide the basis for a welfare State? Or perhaps I should vote for the party that cares only about big buisness and gives them monopolistic control of commerce while doing nothing to protect the average worker and instead encourages companies to outsource our jobs.

The fallacy is the thought that either gives a shit for the middle class. You can vote for your lesser evil if you wish, I long ago realised that I could only count on myself for my economic safety.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
bazzahard
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:57:27 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/16/2012
Posts: 13
Location: Australia
NO WAY, he squates to pee.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
That is an interesting point, but it assumes one is better than the other. So, who am I to support?


The one with the greater respect for individual economic choice. With fifty states to choose from, those who favor blue can find a place where they get what they want and those who favor red can also.

Quote:
The party who would tax me into oblivion in order to provide the basis for a welfare State? Or perhaps I should vote for the party that cares only about big buisness and gives them monopolistic control of commerce while doing nothing to protect the average worker and instead encourages companies to outsource our jobs.

The fallacy is the thought that either gives a shit for the middle class. You can vote for your lesser evil if you wish, I long ago realised that I could only count on myself for my economic safety.


There is no fallacy in always voting against the greater evil and the concentration of authority at the highest level of government is the greater evil. Choosing the more "hands off" party vs. the more "hands on" party gets you past the specifics you mention. In a hands off economy, where the role of the central government is mostly limited to protecting individual rights, market forces and courts take out the bad actors, including the bad state governments. In a hands on economy that is heavy with controls to favor groups over individuals, the cronies of the hands on party are the only real winners.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:35:14 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


There is no fallacy in always voting against the greater evil and the concentration of authority at the highest level of government is the greater evil. Choosing the more "hands off" party vs. the more "hands on" party gets you past the specifics you mention. In a hands off economy, where the role of the central government is mostly limited to protecting individual rights, market forces and courts take out the bad actors, including the bad state governments. In a hands on economy that is heavy with controls to favor groups over individuals, the cronies of the hands on party are the only real winners.

Perhaps you misunderstood. There is no lesser or greater evil. There is only a choice between what kind of evil you choose to support. You speak of individual rights, yet I have shown that both parties restrict these. That point remains unrefuted. You speak of controls that favor groups over individuals, yet again I have shown that both do this, they simply better different groups. Again an unrefuted point.

You see, to choose a "lesser evil" would mean one would have to decide what that lesser evil is. Is it those on the right who sell power to corporate interest at the expense of the middle class or those on the Left who seek to consolade power in government at the expense of the middle class? This very simple question remains unanswered.
Now, as the choice does simply come down to the fact that one of these two will win, you have a point that we can face one of two evils. That may be true. I however, will not choose one villain over another simply because it is predetermined that one will win. That being the case, there is no real republic and we the people don't choose anything.
A basic mantra that equals all arguments in politics is this. If one believes in freedom, then one cannot try to cherry pick which freedoms to support, and which to allow to be revoked. If you take an action that supports the revocation of a freedom, you are freedoms enemy.
That is the cost of voting for your lesser evil.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:39:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood. There is no lesser or greater evil. There is only a choice between what kind of evil you choose to support. You speak of individual rights, yet I have shown that both parties restrict these. That point remains unrefuted. You speak of controls that favor groups over individuals, yet again I have shown that both do this, they simply better different groups. Again an unrefuted point.


And you don't have an opinion on which one is more hands on as far as controlling the individual? I find that hard to believe.

Quote:
If you take an action that supports the revocation of a freedom, you are freedoms enemy.
That is the cost of voting for your lesser evil.


Life is full of choices, including choosing whether to effectively or ineffectively oppose the greater of two evils. Choosing to support the lesser in order to effectively oppose the greater is simply using judgement, not being "freedom's enemy", or any such stark absolute. As long as you consistently oppose the greater, and when that becomes the party you previously supported, you then oppose them, you are not freedom's enemy. You are just someone who is making the best of a bad situation, opposing the most authoritarian as effectively as possible. Now if you really aren't decisive enough to choose which represents the greater threat to your economic liberty over the near and long term, then you probably aren't capable of voting responsibly. Informed consent is the goal for voters. An expectation that they will vote in what they perceive is their best interest is implicit in the system. Tossing up their hands and saying, "I'm in the wrong either way." is a copout.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:35:26 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
1ball, I pity your gullibility, that you truly believe a greater percentage of Americans would see prosperity under Republican rule. Hell, Republicans don't even aim to benefit all of their own support base. They're happy to dupe stupid white people and Christians into enabling their top-down plutocracy for nothing in return. By pretending Democrats = Marxists, you self-rationalize your own radicalization of an otherwise deeply-flawed but nonetheless centrist party.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:39:11 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


Life is full of choices, including choosing whether to effectively or ineffectively oppose the greater of two evils. Choosing to support the lesser in order to effectively oppose the greater is simply using judgement, not being "freedom's enemy", or any such stark absolute. As long as you consistently oppose the greater, and when that becomes the party you previously supported, you then oppose them, you are not freedom's enemy. You are just someone who is making the best of a bad situation, opposing the most authoritarian as effectively as possible. Now if you really aren't decisive enough to choose which represents the greater threat to your economic liberty over the near and long term, then you probably aren't capable of voting responsibly. Informed consent is the goal for voters. An expectation that they will vote in what they perceive is their best interest is implicit in the system. Tossing up their hands and saying, "I'm in the wrong either way." is a copout.


You keep talking about a greater and lesser evil yet you show nothing to indicate why this is so.
I have given two examples to the contrary and you have made no attempt at refuting either. Therefore I consider the points conceded. To this end, you are okay with denying freedom, as long as it isn't one that directly affects you? Interesting...
You seem to put a great deal of thought into politics, yet for all of that you lack the conviction to stand your ground and try to demand that something better from your evil twins. By participating in a system you claim to know is broken, and that's a claim I am beginning to doubt, you perpetuate the problem and do nothing to find a solution. I vote Libertarian. I do this, not because we win, but because I am making a statement.
You vote for a failing and decrepit party that you, yourself, has admitted is evil. And them you have the audacity to imply that I'm being a cop out? That is a remarkable leap of logic.

As to your not believing my stance on freedom, I invite you to read the interview I did with lush back in 2009. In it you will see that my position on freedom, and my belief that if one believes in freedom, one cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support, has remained unchanged. The link is on my profile page. I do not require your belief for it to be true.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:10:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
1ball, I pity your gullibility, that you truly believe a greater percentage of Americans would see prosperity under Republican rule. Hell, Republicans don't even aim to benefit all of their own support base. They're happy to dupe stupid white people and Christians into enabling their top-down plutocracy for nothing in return. By pretending Democrats = Marxists, you self-rationalize your own radicalization of an otherwise deeply-flawed but nonetheless centrist party.


One of the biggest, juiciest, sugar-coated horse turds that your supposedly centrist party succeeded in selling you was the belief that people prosper when they drive costs up, spend tomorrow's money today and remove the benefits of competition for governance from you. Apparently you've somehow learned to swallow whole whatever they sell you. I'm sure it tastes better that way, but that doesn't change what it is.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:53:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
You keep talking about a greater and lesser evil yet you show nothing to indicate why this is so.
I have given two examples to the contrary and you have made no attempt at refuting either.


It's up to you to make the decision of what benefits you more. Since I don't know your personal situation I can't say for sure that voting for one party or the other does more damage to your interests. I can only point out the unintended consequences of the economic policies of the one that actually promotes centralization of authority to a much greater extent than the other. Getting the greater or lesser evil for you is what your vote can mean, but your choice is basically to speed up or slow down our approach to a command economy.

Quote:
Therefore I consider the points conceded.


Since I don't know your situation, considering your points conceded is irrelevant.

Quote:
To this end, you are okay with denying freedom, as long as it isn't one that directly affects you? Interesting...


When the system is set up so that I must either express an opinion and a vote between which freedoms to lose or express that I'm not going to decide which, I will choose to keep the freedoms I value most.

Quote:
You seem to put a great deal of thought into politics, yet for all of that you lack the conviction to stand your ground and try to demand that something better from your evil twins. By participating in a system you claim to know is broken, and that's a claim I am beginning to doubt, you perpetuate the problem and do nothing to find a solution.


What I do besides voting with a ballot is vote with my economic clout. In that respect, I oppose both right and left authoritarians. Voting my ballot as effectively as possible against the most damaging authoritarians is much easier and more liberating than taking a more active role in politics. I don't perpetuate the problem by voting as effectively as possible. I don't have that kind of voting power.

Quote:
I vote Libertarian. I do this, not because we win, but because I am making a statement.


That and $3.49 will buy you a Happy Meal.

Quote:
You vote for a failing and decrepit party that you, yourself, has admitted is evil.


I vote as effectively as I can against the party that represents the bigger threat to me and those I love.

Quote:
And them you have the audacity to imply that I'm being a cop out? That is a remarkable leap of logic.


It's a copout. It's not likely to cost you much, unless you live in a swing state that's decided by one vote, but knowing that you're not opposing the party that you believe is the most damaging to your personal interests takes a toll on you.

Quote:
As to your not believing my stance on freedom, I invite you to read the interview I did with lush back in 2009. In it you will see that my position on freedom, and my belief that if one believes in freedom, one cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support, has remained unchanged. The link is on my profile page. I do not require your belief for it to be true.


I believe that you think you're voting intelligently, but I don't believe you've seriously considered the principles involved. You can have most of the freedoms you want by simply ignoring the laws whenever you can get away with it. Smoke pot, drive fast, whatever. For the most part, you can associate with whomever you want to, assuming they're willing and assuming you don't live in a union-shop state. But you can't avoid the consequences to your dollars of having them being consistently devalued by a party that refuses to stop addicting people to federal subsidy.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:19:16 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:52:18 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,681
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


One of the biggest, juiciest, sugar-coated horse turds


I love it when you get all scatological, 1ball. drunken
angieseroticpen
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:07:53 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 608
Location: United Kingdom
WellMadeMale wrote:


Why does there have to be a war, to begin with? And if there is warfare, why would America have to be involved, aside from the fact that our leaders (both Democrats & Republicans, can't seem to let a good opportunity for war profiteering pass by without stepping up to the trough).

How much military & domestic financial aid has the United States been giving to Israel since that nation tried to sink the USS Liberty? Israel has plenty of firepower they've purchased or been given over the last 30 years and if they wish to start some shit, let 'em, I say.

Israel also has nukes, they've had them since the 1960s while pretending to the world that they do not. And they are whining about Iran having the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons? Gimme a fucking break.



I sincerely hope that war can be avoided but that would take a regime change in Iran. The present regime have said over and over again that they want Israel destroyed and openly fund Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Most of Iran's neighbours do not want Iran having a nuclear capability because they know how unstable the Iranians are. Both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have granted Israel use of their airspace for any attack and both the USA and Israel have military bases inside neighbouring Geogia. Netanyahu had originally intended attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in the Spring of this year but was persuaded by Obama to hold off any attack until after the Presidental elections. So there we have it. Come November 7th Israel will be free to attack unless Iran ceases its development of nuclear weapons.

They stopped Iraq from developing them in 1981 and they will do the same with Iran. Both Europe and America will become involved because the Iranians will retaliate and the oil supplies in the Middle East will be affected. Sorry to be a harbinger of doom but all this seems inevitable in the present circumstances. Some may scoff at such an event happening but let us not forget that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 and for any biblical scolars here, a catastrophic Middle East war is prophesied, and as it has a 100% record so far in being correct with its prophesies I for one won't be treating current events lightly.

So back to my question.............. which ot the two men can be best trusted to deal with the coming events and who is Statesman enough to lead the World in bringing a peaceful solution to this.





“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:01:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.


I "snip" so that I don't have to throw in phrases like "you claim that" or "you say that you believe". Your own words speak for you and I let you know which ones I'm responding to. Your dismissive approach by pretending your vote is more "noble" and mine is all about "material" gain is typical of those who don't see the big picture. Your choice is to slow down or speed up an approach to a strong central government with progressively weaker protections for the individual rights that are most essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The dilution of my vote is not relevant. The fact that I've opposed the most coercive party is. Who wins a discussion is irrelevant, but whether anything valuable is learned by any of the participants is not.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
naughtynurse
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:05:57 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,507
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.


You are so much more eloquent at saying what I wish to say! Big Hugs


An Editor's Pick

My latest Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
Milik_Redman
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:12:35 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
naughtynurse wrote:


You are so much more eloquent at saying what I wish to say! Big Hugs


Ah, thank you. Like a game without end, this thread will meander like the Nile, washing away facts under the righteous ferocity of absolutism. Oddly, as an outsider to the major parties, I have no vested interest, and at times crossover when the need arises. Sadly, the fans in the stadium seats, with slogan banners fluttering in the breeze, continue voting for anyone with their parties letter behind their name. This is exactly the reason I do not often delve into the political arena.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
principessa
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:52:14 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,948
Location: Canada
Sometimes no words are needed.





Guest
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:58:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
I sure as hell hope not. If they do I'm moving to Canada.
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:17:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


Ah, thank you. Like a game without end, this thread will meander like the Nile, washing away facts under the righteous ferocity of absolutism. Oddly, as an outsider to the major parties, I have no vested interest, and at times crossover when the need arises. Sadly, the fans in the stadium seats, with slogan banners fluttering in the breeze, continue voting for anyone with their parties letter behind their name. This is exactly the reason I do not often delve into the political arena.


If you just aren't capable of judging between two realistically possible alternatives, believing you are nobly holding yourself above the fray is just self-aggrandizing to cover up that deficiency. Granted, a vote is all but useless, except in swing states, but if you're in one, you can actually prevent the greater of two evils. All you need is the ability to decide what's in your best interest.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
petersr
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:25:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/2/2010
Posts: 50
Location: St. Petersburgh, United States
Yes .People are sheep. And the biggest sheep dog will win.The louder the bark the bigger the lies. And it seems the more lies the more people will vote for. Plain and simple.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:12:52 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


If you just aren't capable of judging between two realistically possible alternatives, believing you are nobly holding yourself above the fray is just self-aggrandizing to cover up that deficiency. Granted, a vote is all but useless, except in swing states, but if you're in one, you can actually prevent the greater of two evils. All you need is the ability to decide what's in your best interest.


This is really good stuff. Cleverly, you begin with a base and completly unproven assumtion and procede on as if it were indisputable fact. Then, having seized what you percieve as the high ground, you disparage the wisdom and intellect of any who dare not take your assumptions as fact.

Even better, you manage to disregard the stand you do not approve of and again treat your position as being the only possible correct one simply because you say it is. Ive seen others use such obfuscation before and you do it better than most.

The coup de gras is that there has not been a shred of objective evidence offered to support your point, nothing other than condecending proclamations that, should we differ from your assumption, we must not truly understand the issue at all. Usually such a tactic is very effective in appearence. Fortunatly, this isn't my first rodeo in a discussiom blog.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
naughtynurse
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:24:26 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,507
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


This is really good stuff. Cleverly, you begin with a base and completely unproven assumption and proceed on as if it were indisputable fact. Then, having seized what you perceive as the high ground, you disparage the wisdom and intellect of any who dare not take your assumptions as fact.

Even better, you manage to disregard the stand you do not approve of and again treat your position as being the only possible correct one simply because you say it is. I've seen others use such obfuscation before and you do it better than most.

The coup de gras is that there has not been a shred of objective evidence offered to support your point, nothing other than condescending proclamations that, should we differ from your assumption, we must not truly understand the issue at all. Usually such a tactic is very effective in appearance. Fortunately, this isn't my first rodeo in a discussion blog.


Sadly, on this site he is the voice of the republican candidate. Not all Republicans respond in this manner! The demographic that frequent this site tend to be more involved with the issues that the Democrat's embrace. On some other sites that I follow, it is the Republicans that are the main voice. It all comes down to what are your most important issues?


An Editor's Pick

My latest Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:39:00 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,805
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
naughtynurse wrote:


Sadly, on this site he is the voice of the republican candidate. Not all Republicans respond in this manner! The demographic that frequent this site tend to be more involved with the issues that the Democrat's embrace. On some other sites that I follow, it is the Republicans that are the main voice. It all comes down to what are your most important issues?


What issues are most important to me? Okay, as 1ball has asked the same question, here is the short answer. I want the government to stop trying to control our lives. That's my biggest concern. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gay marriage and abortion, or gun control and freedom of religion, (as opposed to freedom FROM religion as the courts see it)

However you cut it, We the People are being treated like We the children. I don't affiliate with a party because they both violate our rights equally, and if one is willing to let someone else's one shot at life be lessened and controlled, then how can one expect others to stand up for them?

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:01:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
What issues are most important to me? Okay, as 1ball has asked the same question, here is the short answer. I want the government to stop trying to control our lives.


Then you should very much want a weak central government with strong protections for individual rights. It will protect us from overreaching state governments while they will compete with each other for us. Strong central governments with weak protections for individual rights inevitably overcontrol, especially when they are democratically elected, because people vote for controls on the other guy without realizing what the consequences will be.

Quote:
That's my biggest concern. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gay marriage and abortion, or gun control and freedom of religion, (as opposed to freedom FROM religion as the courts see it)


How about economic control? That's what really distinguishes good government from bad. When your property rights become meaningless due to government controls, when the government can decide that you are making too much and must "share and share alike", and when the government prints fiat money to solve its problems and devalues the entire society as a result, none of those other issues matter, because such a government has the power to make anything illegal.

Quote:
However you cut it, We the People are being treated like We the children.


That's because we don't consistently vote against centralization of economic control.

Quote:
I don't affiliate with a party because they both violate our rights equally, and if one is willing to let someone else's one shot at life be lessened and controlled, then how can one expect others to stand up for them?


It would be virtually impossible for both of them to violate our rights equally. One of them will always be more economically controlling and that one will be the greater threat in the long run. Limiting economic options is control.

Y'all can pretend I'm a Republican all you want, but I'm hoping to live to see the day when I can vote for Democrats because they've kicked the authoritarians out of the party. I have voted for Libertarians and other third party candidates when there was no possibility of my state swinging. Minarchists and other forms of libertarians are against much of what the Republican party does to attract votes and would gladly jump ship if the Dems offered a better alternative. But as long as a vote for Republicans is the most effective way to vote against centralization of authority, that's the safer government to have. Without economic options, you're on a plantation. 50 different states with meaningful differences between them is our best bet for avoiding a nationwide plantation.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
I agree that govt. controls too many aspects of our lives they have no business in, but one party wants to control morality more then the other and will say or do anything to regain office to achieve their agenda, even developing romnesia, shape shifting with the prevailing winds to obtain undecided votes.

1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:32:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
I agree that govt. controls too many aspects of our lives they have no business in, but one party wants to control morality more then the other and will say or do anything to regain office to achieve their agenda


It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time. But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high? How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation? How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.