Support your candidate WITHOUT mentioning any others

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
kerberos
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:24 am
Location: Hollywood

Post by kerberos » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:09 pm

MLynn wrote:ShaneK, you and I will be voting for the same candidate. :wink:
Many concerned Americans are disgusted with always having to choose between two buttock-heads.
So you'll be voting for a third one? :P

[quickly ducks Shaneks second amendment guarantied flamethrower, waits a prudent inteval, and carefully reemerges from my shelter]

Anyways:
Will you be voting for Badnarik because:
1) You think he'd make a good president.
2) Protest vote
3) He's the lesser of three evils
4) Other
"You have to go out of your way to kill a pessimist, an optimist will kill himself for you." - Nyarlathotep

User avatar
MLynn
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by MLynn » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:19 pm

kerberos wrote:
MLynn wrote:ShaneK, you and I will be voting for the same candidate. :wink:
Many concerned Americans are disgusted with always having to choose between two buttock-heads.
So you'll be voting for a third one? :P

[quickly ducks Shaneks second amendment guarantied flamethrower, waits a prudent inteval, and carefully reemerges from my shelter]

Anyways:
Will you be voting for Badnarik because:
1) You think he'd make a good president.
2) Protest vote
3) He's the lesser of three evils
4) Other
Alas, mostly numbers 2 and 3. I won't bore you with my travels through different political parties, but I like the Libertarian Party and feel good being registered as such [ducks as stones are thrown from all directions].

Number 4 also applies if it's Planet X where all candidates are fit to be the U.S. President, and it's easy to make a choice.
Obey the zombie whippet or she will eat your brain
I for one welcome our zombie Christian overlord - Philip

User avatar
kerberos
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:24 am
Location: Hollywood

Post by kerberos » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:44 pm

MLynn wrote: I like the Libertarian Party and feel good being registered as such [ducks as stones are thrown from all directions].
Don't worry, I never throw stones after whippets:
Come here, good doggie, want a bone? [carefully hiddes the arsinic behind my back]
"You have to go out of your way to kill a pessimist, an optimist will kill himself for you." - Nyarlathotep

User avatar
Quester_X
Posts: 12926
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:26 pm

Post by Quester_X » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:02 pm

I went to Rock the Vote today. In addition to the Dem's and Rep's there was a Libertarian and a Green booth out there. That was cool, that everyone was represented.
You'll all be mine, in the end.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:28 pm

MLynn wrote:ShaneK, you and I will be voting for the same candidate. :wink:
Coolness! :D I knew you were a person of intelligence... ;)
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Re: Support your candidate WITHOUT mentioning any others

Post by shanek » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:46 pm

RCC wrote:Kerry has 3 purple hearts. He's covered on the protecting rights thing.
How does that cover him? Especially when I can bring up case after case of him working against our rights in the Senate?
As much as I dislike Bush and think he is a joke, I will not question his willingness to put himself in harm's way to do what he thinks is best to protect the rights of Americans.
Well, in Bush's case, I don't know how you can say he's protecting the rights of Americans, what with the USA PATRIOT Act, the holding of US citizens without charge or access to an attorney, etc.
The only real negative is the type of vague crap you are sinking back into. You are unable to begin to discuss those points so you dismiss them with what you see as a slur.
Uh-huh. You equated your GUILT BY ASSOCIATION charge with my claim that the people HE WOULD PUT IN HIS CABINET (names he has already given, BTW) would make for the best that we've seen. Unless you have evidence that the person you're referring to would be in his cabinet, you have no leg to stand on whatsoever. And that's just ONE example of your bad logic.
Tearing down who?
Badnarik, through your baseless guilt by association. You want to paint him as someone other than he is. And anyone can see that, just by going to Badnarik's website and reading his position papers, and looking at what he's done in his life.
I also pointed out that you trumpet Badnarik's associates as a selling point
I WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS CABINET SELECTIONS AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Once again, you're showing how DISHONEST you're willing to be in order to score points.
You mean like the points I make rebutting your claims?
You didn't rebut anything! You commited the same faulty and even dishonest logic you usually resort to when you can't rebut the claim.

You got something to say against one of his proposed cabinet members? Say it. Otherwise, you've got nothing here.
Because I don't believe in wasting my time
Well, I'm glad to see you admit that you view rational discourse as a waste of your time...
in the absolute terms you seem to advocate.
What "absolute terms"? This is horse-hockey! I made claims about my candidate. People are free to rebut them. YOU DIDN'T; you made severely fallacious claims about them. People are also free (and even encouraged) to do the same with their own candidate selection. YOU HAVEN'T.
The chances of a candidate reflecting 100% of my beliefs and desires is pretty much zero.
When did I ever say that was a necessity? You're just making stuff up again, like you always do.
Whether I concentrate on the negatives or positives makes no difference.
In EVERY thread, here AND on JREF, people are either backing Kerry because he's not Bush or backing Bush because he's not Kerry. I want people to put those arguments aside for ONE SINGLE F*CKING THREAD and actually focus on why their candidate would actually be good as President. EXCUUUUUUSE ME.
Saying I will not vote for Bush or Badnarik because both are likely to appoint nutjobs to various cabinet and judical postitions is more or less the same as saying I will vote for Kerry because he is likely to appoint reasonable people to these positions.
No, it isn't; and if you're too jaded to see that, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. You see everything in terms of the negative, and so you can't, EVEN ONCE, put that behind you and discuss the POSITIVE aspects of something.
The definition of these terms (nutjob, reasonable) are meaningless without comparison.
Crapola. Things and people can stand and fall on their own merits.
Just like the first point you had for Badnarik only really helps towards a decision if it is taken to imply that others do not understand the constitution.
Again, crapola. Unless you also think that finding problems with evolution supports creationism.

It can't just be me, because others have gotten the idea of this thread and started participating in kind, too.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:49 pm

kerberos wrote:Anyways:
Will you be voting for Badnarik because:
1) You think he'd make a good president.
2) Protest vote
3) He's the lesser of three evils
4) Other
1) for me. I'd REALLY love to see this guy in office. He's far from perfect; I personally don't think he's as good a candidate as Harry Browne, for example. But he's so far above the plateau that I would consider to be the minimum for holding the job (Bush and Kerry don't even come close) that I have no problem marking the arrow beside his name and looking myself in the mirror the next morning.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Support your candidate WITHOUT mentioning any others

Post by RCC » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:00 am

shanek wrote:
(Usual missing the point, and other narrowminded nonsense)

I've never seen someone so fanatical about the glass being half full....

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Re: Support your candidate WITHOUT mentioning any others

Post by shanek » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:05 am

RCC wrote:I've never seen someone so fanatical about the glass being half full....
I've never seen someone so fanatical about someone wanting to talk about the full part of the glass when people have done nothing but go on and on about the empty part...
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Mr Manifesto
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:17 pm

Post by Mr Manifesto » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:37 am

This thread has come to the attention of the Top Secret Moderation team. It is emitting high, almost deadly, levels of shrill noise. If the user known as Shanek does not tone down the shrill, he will be permabanned to protect the integrity of the forum, not to mention the hearing of nearby whales, dolphins, and bats.

Mr "You Never Saw Me" Manifesto
"There are many, many good people who have gone to prison. Look at Nelson Mandela."
-- Martha Stewart

User avatar
MLynn
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by MLynn » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:58 am

kerberos wrote:
MLynn wrote: I like the Libertarian Party and feel good being registered as such [ducks as stones are thrown from all directions].
Don't worry, I never throw stones after whippets:
Come here, good doggie, want a bone? [carefully hiddes the arsinic behind my back]
:lol: Ah, my dear Kerberos, it's spelled, "arsenic."
Obey the zombie whippet or she will eat your brain
I for one welcome our zombie Christian overlord - Philip

User avatar
kerberos
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:24 am
Location: Hollywood

Post by kerberos » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:12 am

MLynn wrote:
kerberos wrote:
MLynn wrote: I like the Libertarian Party and feel good being registered as such [ducks as stones are thrown from all directions].
Don't worry, I never throw stones after whippets:
Come here, good doggie, want a bone? [carefully hiddes the arsinic behind my back]
:lol: Ah, my dear Kerberos, it's spelled, "arsenic."
Arsinic is a new and deadly variation of arsenic. Bet you didn't know that.
"You have to go out of your way to kill a pessimist, an optimist will kill himself for you." - Nyarlathotep

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:12 pm

shanek wrote:
gnome wrote:Fallacy of equivocation. Ockham Rules used "work with" to mean cooperation. You seem to be introducing a meaning which stands for "joining together."

Cooperation does not preclude separation. Are you arguing that one must always oppose the other, to be separate?
The dictionary definition of "cooperate" is "To work or act together toward a common end or purpose." The Legislative and Executive should NOT be doing that. The Legislative legislates; the Executive executes. The Executive should not have any effect on how the Legislative legislates, and the Legislative should not have any effect on how the Executive executes.
What if the common end is the goals set out in the preamble? They're both a part of that.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:52 pm

gnome wrote:What if the common end is the goals set out in the preamble? They're both a part of that.
They're both a PART of that, yes, but that doesn't mean they can take on roles of the other. That doesn't mean that Congress can, for example, avoid making a declaration of war and just pass that power along to the President, like Kerry did, or misuse the ability to write executive orders to legislate, like Clinton and pretty much every President in recent decades did.

The preamble sets the scope of the document. It lists the reasons why the Constitution is being ratified. It doesn't actually grant any powers.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:07 pm

shanek wrote:
gnome wrote:What if the common end is the goals set out in the preamble? They're both a part of that.
They're both a PART of that, yes, but that doesn't mean they can take on roles of the other. That doesn't mean that Congress can, for example, avoid making a declaration of war and just pass that power along to the President, like Kerry did, or misuse the ability to write executive orders to legislate, like Clinton and pretty much every President in recent decades did.

The preamble sets the scope of the document. It lists the reasons why the Constitution is being ratified. It doesn't actually grant any powers.
I completely agree with you, but they could refrain from doing all of this and still cooperate. I think your original statement was overbroad.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:20 pm

gnome wrote:I completely agree with you, but they could refrain from doing all of this and still cooperate.
I'd like to see an example of this. I don't see how they could cooperate (under the definition I posted) without at least one of them taking on some role from the other branch.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
MLynn
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by MLynn » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:40 pm

kerberos wrote:
MLynn wrote:
kerberos wrote:
MLynn wrote: I like the Libertarian Party and feel good being registered as such [ducks as stones are thrown from all directions].
Don't worry, I never throw stones after whippets:
Come here, good doggie, want a bone? [carefully hiddes the arsinic behind my back]
:lol: Ah, my dear Kerberos, it's spelled, "arsenic."
Arsinic is a new and deadly variation of arsenic. Bet you didn't know that.
I think you are trying to "hoodwink" me... :wink:
Obey the zombie whippet or she will eat your brain
I for one welcome our zombie Christian overlord - Philip

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:13 pm

shanek wrote:
gnome wrote:I completely agree with you, but they could refrain from doing all of this and still cooperate.
I'd like to see an example of this. I don't see how they could cooperate (under the definition I posted) without at least one of them taking on some role from the other branch.
Ok let's say for example that the common goal is "improving national security."

The President could help accomplish this in cooperation with Congress in these ways:

1. He could meet personally with congressional leaders to express ideas and concerns about proposals. In fact, I believe the President has the constitutional authority to propose bills formally.

2. From the proverbial "bully pulpit" he can bring Americans' attention to important aspects of national security, which they will then presumably ask their legislature to address.

3. He can foster a less adversarial relationship with Congress by actually respecting separation of powers. For example, avoiding recess appointments done to bypass an unfavorable vote.

4. When vetoing a piece of legislation, he can make it clear which aspect he objects to, so further attempts at passing important bills may be more successful.

This is what I've thought of so far...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:45 am

gnome wrote:1. He could meet personally with congressional leaders to express ideas and concerns about proposals. In fact, I believe the President has the constitutional authority to propose bills formally.
No, he doesn't. Nothing in Article II gives him the power. Article I Section 7 says that bills for raising revenues must originate with the House, and all other bills can originate with the House or the Senate.
2. From the proverbial "bully pulpit" he can bring Americans' attention to important aspects of national security, which they will then presumably ask their legislature to address.
Hardly direct, and therefore not what could be called "cooperation." He would have to convince the people to press their legislators to action.
3. He can foster a less adversarial relationship with Congress by actually respecting separation of powers.
Fine. How is that cooperation?
4. When vetoing a piece of legislation, he can make it clear which aspect he objects to, so further attempts at passing important bills may be more successful.
Again, fine. But disagreement can hardly be considered cooperation, either.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33643
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1760 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:30 pm

Well I don't really consider any candidate currently running for the office of the President as "my" candidate as none are really close to what I hope one would be. As it stands right now I'll be voting for Bush for the following reasons.

1) War on Terror - I believe he is the right person to do it as he is not willing to compromise when it comes to security of the USA.

2) Taxes - People who make money should keep as much of it as possible, 200K may seem like much in Kansas or Idaho but not if you live in a state like California.

3) Education - I am supported of a voucher program hopefully Bush will push for it again.

4) Health - I still think it's a bad idea to give more control to government for health insurance, I like the idea of discount program for small business who group together.

5) Outsourcing - So far he did not say anything about that. And that's the way it should be, any limits on how many jobs can go abroad and it will only hurt the economy not help it.


That's pretty much it, thanks to the military scandal on both sides neither have really talked about issues so much, so I'll wait until after the debate to be more in-depth about this.