It is a loaded question, you know all votes are private so there is nothing that can be said as hard facts, all that we have to use for discussion is things like the exit polls and you already excluded from consideration any kind of opinions or polls so your question was not a question, it was a closed comment designed to create a false impression of fabrication on my part because you do not want to admit that the splintered groups were what made the difference in getting Obama elected.
Very slick actually, but I am not interested in lawyer like word twisting RO, all I concern myself with is reality, and reality tells us that the independents elected Obama, not the two main party members who are going to vote for the guy in their party anyway. The only question in each of these elections is what way will the independents lean this time.
So you admit, that libertarians (whether you lump them in with the Republicans or the Independents) voted Obama is an outright opinion. That's all I wanted to hear.
The way you have asserted yourself with this opinion is that it is infallibly true and can not be refuted.
What the heck are you talking about?
The optimistic voter what???????
Yeah... I kind of did a hack job with my comparisons there. I started a thought, got distracted, forgot all about where I was in the reply and then submitted the post sans proofreading. I had a point, but it's gone the way of the DoDo and searching my thoughts... I can not recall it. I will reiterate my point when it comes back to me.
Strike that from the record.
This is why I offered a sports example earlier, if the USA hockey team had your attitude in 1980 they would not have even bothered to play USSR and just gave up, nobody in the world gave the American team a chance to beat USSR. But they did beat the USSR team and set the world on it's ear. The contest is not over until it is over.
Ohhhh.... I get it now! It's like hockey. Ok... ok... thanks.
Being offended is not what makes a flame a flame, I am all for spirited debate where some feathers fly but when someone steps outside of the discussion at hand and tosses pure insults that have nothing to do with the discussion that to me is a flame, no matter if the flame caused hurt feelings or not. It is all about being decent. I have made the decision to try and be less hostile and more decent to my fellow forum members and try not to get into a back and forth insult fest, that kind of thing is not very mature anyway.
Well... then... don't worry about being flamed or not. You know this all boils down to you being less hostile and wanting to make changes within yourself. I never made such an agreement nor do I have a desire to. Just because you have decided to try and change doesn't mean that I have to, I'm obligated to be nicer, I have to be decent, etc... this is your little self-project. Not mine.
If you don't like it, then leave or take the high road. If something that I say to you or another member doesn't sit right, then RO will make it all better. Yet, you can't expect me to take this trip with you. As I have no desire to compromise for this site or any other. If that gets me demoted... fine... if it ultimately gets me banned... fine!
RO will carry on the way RO has always carried on (which is probably the reason I am still here and another reason why I was promoted.)
And about the past, I said that I would leave the past in the past and not bring up our previous grievances. As long as you did the same. I haven't reopened old wounds from the past to throw in your face, nor do I have any intention of doing such as that. So far we have both held up our end of the contract.
Want to do a poll on the subjectivity of flames?
Well clearly you do not understand it based on what you just said.
Huh? I'm not some knucklehead that smiles and nods pretending to understand. What don't you understand about "I understand" and "I don't agree.".
The basic concept is that people generally fall into two basic groups, those who want the Government to help provide for the people (play Robin Hood), and those who believe the Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. That is it, we can argue all day and all night on tiny specks of definitions on the finer points but at the end of the day this is where it boils down to when we get rid of all the childish bickering. Sure, we each may want to look at different ways of reaching those goals but still the basic root directions are the same. So the question is why is it some people who agree on less or more Government, will at the same time bicker among people with the same general beliefs instead of joining together?
You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, TJ. Somewhere, somehow, some way... you have to tell yourself that neither party is worth wasting my vote. Yet, I can't tell you how to vote. I can only tell you that there doesn't have to be a two party system, but it is continuous acceptance of centrist beliefs that give us mediocre politicians.
You know, most successful politicians are sociopaths. That means that anyone with any integrity at all has small chance of winning and no chance for re-election.
It says a lot about someone who ran and did not get elected. All good.
Why I Am Not A Conservative by FA Hayek
To answer your question... people bicker among people with same general beliefs because they disagree on how they should be instituted. There are centrist Republicans who share a great many values with the Libertarians within the party, but ultimately the centrist wants to get re-elected. Not to say that the Libertarian wants to lose his seat, but he is less likely to compromise... his constituency respects that about him and doesn't want him to roll over.
In America the liberals seem to be able to stick together most of the time but in Canada these same progressive types cannot stick together and are crippled with splintering. At the same time in America, the Conservatives are crippled with splintering but in Canada the conservative minded people stick together. So it is possible to stick together by both types of people but some figure out how to do so while others do not.
The so called liberals of America stick together on one mantra, "Obama is not Bush.".
Whatever... I wipe my hands of this argument. It's tiring and circular.
This thread is way out, far and beyond the intent of the original poster (I'm hugo doesn't mind, but I am trying to stick with the rules of this particular forum). Though the topics discussed are still that... topics, I have to weigh my heavy hand on this thread and discontinue it if we can't get back on track.
So...
Sarah Palin, huh?
