by RAnthony » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:00 am
by Dan » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:37 am
by Harry K » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:20 am
by RAnthony » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:39 pm
by boethius » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:44 pm
Dan wrote:What is the consistent and principled stand to take when values and stances collide?
by DBTrek » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:21 pm
by Dan » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:44 pm
by DBTrek » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:01 pm
by Rojik of the Arctic » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:46 pm
by Waleis » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:47 pm
by Dan » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:58 pm
Waleis wrote:If Ron Paul is nominated (which he won't be) I will vote for him as well and for the same reasons as Dan.
by DBTrek » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:26 pm
Dan wrote:And while DB's jabs are understandable (certainly) one wonders about the original question. DB, if I would vote for Paul if he ran as an independent, would that make me hypocritical (or an idiot) to not try to do what I could to vote for him in the primaries? I didn't think so when I first told Harry K that answer to that question he posed. But, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered.
What do YOU think?
by sventoby » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:51 pm
by RAnthony » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:21 pm
His floppy shoes and clown nose are better than yours, if only that most people don't notice he's wearing them; but then I do appreciate the ironical in life.DBTrek wrote:But I'm just the jester around here . . . if you want the philosopher you're looking for the other Archon.
...and yet you provide cover for the religionist and the stupid (but then I repeat myself) who see your abbreviated reference as some sort of statement of support that all things stem from their Bronze-Age Hebrew deity. In the same way you give cover to Republicans by stating that a candidate of theirs holds the answers to questions facing us today (an assertion that I've yet to see substantiated) albeit a candidate they like to pretend doesn't exist. Like Buddy Roemer doesn't exist. Like Gary Johnson doesn't exist. They squander the best answers to the problems with the status quo, because they are in bed with the status quo themselves. He'll not win because they'll not let him really speak; or any of the others speak, and he's already stated he won't run third party. He already knows the fruitlessness of that effort.Dan wrote:I have no dog in that fight [where rights come from]
I know better than to fall for this. If you're the one trick pony this argument shapes you up to be, you aren't nearly the person I've come to know over the years. There's so much more at stake here than the (truly horrendous) record of undermining our rights that can be laid at the feet of the leadership in Washington. I'm just not willing to get on the "hate the president" bandwagon this time. Maybe I'm just too tired or too old to care anymore, or maybe I've finally found that I no longer buy into the popular "President is Goldstien" attitude amongst the yah-hoos on the political fringe. I'm saving my energy for the real fight, and I pointed out what that is in the first post.Dan wrote:What has he done to slow the bus? He's pushed stuff like the War on Terror farther...he hasn't reigned it in. How has he been any better on the issues relating to Civil Liberties or rolling back Bush Administration constitutional abuses (which was a HUGE part of his campaign)?
You answered your own question, you should be honest about what your thoughts are. But again, it puts a nail in the coffin of non-partisanship if you honestly believe that voting Republican will change anything. I've voted for all of them at various times in the past; I can't honestly say I ever thought it would make a difference, but I felt it was my obligation to at least participate in the process. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore. If your asking me what my response would be, I'd have told him "closed primaries will invariably nominate the candidate that most appeals to the base of the party; that person, if the election were held today, is Newt Gingrich. I don't see the value in participating in that effort." That's my answer. Open primaries, like in Texas, are far more malleable, and prone to outside influence. Those it's worth it to cast a vote, if the vote looks like it will be close. Doesn't sound like that's the case where you are. Wouldn't waste my time.Dan wrote:So...When Harry K challenged me to support what I was saying in the show (which had been: "If Ron Paul runs as an Independent, I will vote for him") by voting for him in the Republican primaries (because, after all, that might be the only chance TO vote for him), what should I have said?
I am honest. Not fake. What you may deem "inconsistency" may in fact be uncertainty on my part. I feel that those in Media who act as though they are always certain and convinced in the righteousness of their chosen courses of action are usually ideologues more than thinkers. I do my best to belong to the latter category, rather than the former (although, none of us is perfect...)
Adam's record speaks for itself, the good and the bad. I was speaking more to the point that a would-be dictator would of course misjudge the drives of the more average man, and his willingness to allow others to take responsibility for actions that might get him into trouble. That sort of cowardliness is prevalent throughout society today, it's hardly restricted to members of Congress. It was probably less prevalent then than now; blame population pressure if you have to blame something. Still, he would have missed it, being willing to take on all the responsibility that anyone else might trust him with. The more responsibility, in his mind, the more power he can wield. Ah, the mind of the megalomaniac.Dan wrote:Of course I know this about Hamilton. I also know that he spent a lot of time talking about constitutional mechanisms. Why are you suggesting that this means he cannot be trusted when discussing how human nature is built into the constitutional design? John Adams enacted the sedition acts...but he still had a ton to say about the Constitutional ideas and he's relevant and vital in such a discussion. Hamilton is as well. If you say he isn't...that's a lot of foundational stuff you just write off that he's responsible for.
by Harry K » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm