If the republicans only want someone who can beat obama, Isn't that a poor excuse for winning an election? I want someone who can Run the country. That includes: Protecting my physical safely, giving me the freedom to pursue my ideals and dreams, and protecting me against the misdoings of others. So, basically, no one can fulfill that. But Of the available people to vote for, Obama is closest in his actions.
Nope. BTW I agree with you that the Republicans are currently running a freak show of ignorance, arrogance, and utter stupidity. Teh Reagan would not be pleased.
Nope. Often its the louder one. Is school, did the correct argument win or did the more popular person win, irrelevant of the position? In the presidential race, the more charismatic one frequently gets the votes. Hell, more money can buy airtime and that can win an argument. None of these has to be correct.
Protecting your physical safety is for you to do. The government can't give you freedoms, you already have them -- the government can only restrict your freedoms by coercion. Protecting you from the misdeeds of others is something that government can do, but only in part and, counterintuitive though this may seem, the more specifically narrowed and more strictly limited the government's ability to do that is, the safer you are. Why? Because the most evil individual, the most well funded corporation, is less dangerous than too powerful a government. You think corporations are evil? Some are. Think churches breed crime and corruption? Some do. Who do you turn to when those wrongs have to be addressed? The government, by way of courts and votes. Now ask yourself this: What happens when it's the government you need protection from? Who will you turn to then?
In some Vulcan/Socratic life-should-be-just-like-junior-high-debate-club paradise, yeah. But how often does it win in reality? And what is "correct"? Your opinion, mine, Baba's?
That also, then depends on your personal definition of "winning". Often its getting the other person to shut up.
You're starting with a couple of very broad, unproven (and, IMO, incorrect) assumptions. If you set the groundwork that loosely for your argument then, of course, you're right. But I can make the statement that the surface of the sun is very cool and I'd be right if I were granted certain assumptions up front.
Well, if I wouldn't hear such broad statements in the news or political talk shows, I wouldn't use them. But I keep hearing crap like, "I think Romley can beat Obama." Sure that's all nice if you are a republican and just want a republican in the White House. But would it do the country any good? Would he bring us to a better place (and i mean All of us, not just the 1%) with him in there over Obama JUST because he's Republican? Is Obama doing a bad job JUST because he's Democrat?
Obama's doing a bad job because he was inexperienced and ignorant. He's gotten excused for doing a bad job because he's a leftist and because he's not white, which two factors the Demmunists will excuse him for blindly, utterly without regard for the damage he's done.
I agree with you, Speck. I don't want the idiot who can best beat other idiot. I don't vote for idiots, period. Which is why I have written in names the last two elections, both presidential and midterm. I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat, I am someone with philosophical foundations and will not vote for some moron just because can defeat the sitting moron because to me, a moron is a moron is a moron.
