Storyteller, that was great. But you can see where it leads, can’t you?
Guy One: Choose me, or get punched in the groin!
Guy Two: Choose me, or get nothing but false promises!
Guy Three: Screw you both. Why should I play this game? I’m going to choose Guy Seventeen, or nobody at all.
Two news stories today on the two individuals in the thread title that show just how dysfunctional our political system is and how wimpy our leaders are.
1 Obama caves to GOP pressure, scales back smog regulations.
No further comment is necessary or useful.
ONLOOKERS: Guy Three! You suck! We hate you!
“Nobody at all” isn’t one of the available choices. If you decide to choose Nader instead of Gore, you end up with Bush.
I don’t think I’ve insulted him (well, not a lot, ;), and ack, I just realized this thread started yesterday so I’m pretty late with my response to his post…)
Though, I admit, I don’t know if things are as you portray. I kind of tend to think people who say “This person is not doing my values enough! I’m going to vote for guy doing not my values! That’ll show 'em!” are not actually my values at all, but pretending to be to try to convince others to vote for not my values in a super sneak attack!
No, that’s true. That doesn’t make it a wise position. I don’t think anyone should vote against their own opinions. If Jill holds conservative opinions across the board but votes for a Democrat because her Republican representative hasn’t fulfilled his promises, she’s also behaving in a way that is, in my opinion, irrational.
I realize you’re not responding directly to me, but “calling him names” and “pointing out that he is working against his own interest” are not the same.
:rolleyes:
You came back to post that, instead of explaining yourself? Nice. And really mature.
Clue - even knowing that your post is sarcasm, if you wanted to try to show that you wanted to be more tolerant (HAHAHAHAHAHA), you would have said something like “Let me break it down for you” or “here it is in smaller words”. But since you know you screwed up from the very beginning, you can’t do that can you?
And wandering off to find other posts of mine you don’t agree with? Sad.
Quit wasting your employers time, go back to work, save face.
A vote for Nader isn’t a vote for Bush. It’s a vote for Nader. Nader voters didn’t elect Bush. They didn’t elect ANYBODY. Bush voters elected Bush. Their relative numbers were strengthened by the millions of Americans who did not vote (who might have voted for Gore, but didn’t), and by the relatively insignificant number of Americans who voted for Nader (who probably would have voted for Gore, but didn’t).
“Nobody at all” is an option. It is a short-term prinicpled stand. You think it’s terribly important to vote for the lesser evil; other people say that evil is still evil, and it’s better to make a futile stand against it than to support evil in any form.
Nader voters knew he could not win. They voted for him anyway. What’s smarter, writing them off as traitors, or winning them over to the side that’s most likely to suit their interests? If you choose winning them back, you can’t do it by saying “it’s your only option, stupid!” You have to do better, or you will keep losing.
I voted for Nader out of idealism. Fortunately for your side, my idealism broke soon after and I voted for Obama. Now my apathy is swollen so bad I can’t make it to the ballot box. I know that will help bring President Perry; show me why I should care. At least a Republican president will destroy the country in a quick and dramatic fashion that makes for satisfying television. Seeing the country slowly grind to a halt through mismanagement just hurts.
It’s OK curlcoat. You are special and a winner just for participating. We are all very proud of you and think that you are very special and swell. You contribute in your own way and should be praised for that. Good poster! Good.
“Good Poster” ?
:rolleyes:
I am trying to be supportive and positive here. 
Agreed.
But what if Jill simply stays home?
Here she might make a more rational case. “The so-called conservative candidate won’t stand up for true conservative principles. Obviously the so-called liberal candidate won’t either. It takes time and effort for me to go vote – and to what end?”
John, I was kinda interested in the Rush Limbaugh thing, but both of your links point to the same article (the one about smog regulations).
Wtf.
**
Binarydrone**,
Nice. 
Now, get back to work, you slacker. Watch as I look down my nose at you while spending my days in sloth, sucking on the teat of the American tax payer!
Well, Jill would still be contributing to the rhetoric becoming more conservative and she would also be contributing to how the debate is framed, so I would think that this would be valuable in and of itself.
It seems like no one is willing to take the long view on these things anymore.
Not a question of results. Its a question of duty. Voting is a duty. This is my vote, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
@storyteller and others who are pointing out my flawed logic
I appreciate your stories and analogies, they make me laugh, and they certainly aren’t bad analogies. I also bear no ill will, or am any less (or more) likely to vote for Obama because of them.
However, I want to vote. I like voting. Voting for Obama (if the election were today) is not entirely out of the question, but I certainly wouldn’t feel great about it. Voting for a republican wouldn’t feel great either, but at least there’s a chance that they would be an effective leader, when obviously Obama has no chance (in my opinion). Remember, I am a left-leaning independent, and so I am not vociferously opposed to republicans as you may be. In my frame of reference, voting for a republican is not inherently against my own interests, as I tend to agree with republicans on several issues. In my opinion, voting for a 3rd party candidate is tantamount to not voting at all, so I don’t really even consider that one. I KNOW that this is not the case, and I do not disagree with those who choose to vote for 3rd party candidates. In my frame of reference, the analogy would be more like this.
Guy 1: Come hang out with me and I will make you a cake that’s pretty good but you might not like the colors or icing.
Guy 2: Come hang out with me and I will make you a cake that probably isn’t as great as HIS cake, but that you can probably stomach if you are hungry enough.
Me: Ok, guy 1, you’ve sold me.
4 years pass…
Guy 1: Ok ok, just give me a few more years and I’ll have that cake done for you. It’s really all guy 2’s friends in the bakery that is making it IMPOSSIBLE for me to make my cake for you. I know that during the past 4 years I have talked a LOT about making that cake, and don’t you remember when I gave you that sample cookie? That was alright wasn’t it? Come on, just give me another chance.
Guy 2: Guy 1 is an ineffective baker who is NEVER going to deliver the cake he is promising you. I, on the other hand, at least have a chance with my baker friends to deliver a product that at the very least won’t make you throw up, and will probably not be that bad. So come on give me a chance.
Me: uh… let me think about that.
See where I’m coming from now a little more clearly?
Sure. But you’re ignoring the fact that Guy 2 is selling a cake using the same recipe that sent three hundred million people to the hospital with food poisoning.
(2001-2008 is my cite.)
As to the wrangling over the Joint Session versus Republican Debate–all it does is contribute to a narrative that Obama is weak and right, and the Republicans are strong and wrong. While I hate to use buzzphrases in general, as they are used too often not as shorthand for nuanced positions, but as substitutes for them.
This one I find perfectly appropriate.
Of course, it could be argued that strength can be expressed as maturity and moral rectitude in the face of loud blather. But Washington ain’t the only place in the country lacking in adults in the room (d’oh! Another buzzphrase! puts a nickel in the penalty jar)
FWIH in the liberal radio world – yes, there is one, wisenheimers-- the speech that the President is going to give may actually put something on the table akin to a new WPA. Granted, it will never pass the Tea House, but my impression is that this is what many Progressives have been calling for–put a really expansive civil program on the table and make the Republicans vote against it on record. Perhaps that will help with the base, if not with the general public, who tend to see any failure of a vote as a Failure of the President (the only member of the government that has a say in anything at all whatsoever, including the price of gas and whether Wal-Mart is going to be hiring).
There is always the chance that Obama may BE a fine Republican by the time of the next presidential election.
Today he asked the EPA to drop plans to regulate reduced smog levels.
Sorry, I missed where **John DiFool **had already linked to the smog issue.