+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Vote Barr (/showthread.php?tid=7766)
- CaptainHenreh - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:So the Republican Party took off in "under six years". The Independent Party has been around much longer and has produced nothing since TR.
Pssh, I wish Ron Paul would have pulled a Teddy. Oh well.
I don't think anyone is going to deny that the Republican and Democrat parties are well entrenched...they've spent ALOT of money to be that way.
- WRXtranceformed - 10-30-2008
Fag is being used as a generic insult in this sense. I dont know if they actually love the dong or not. The last guy maybe did, he had this fantastic lisp.
- Dave - 10-30-2008
I, for one, appreciate this thread. People have told me previously that I sound like a Libertarian when I tell them where I stand although I prefer to not really prescribe to a particular party.
I visited the libertarian site today and feel that, while I'm still going to do a little more research before next week, I'll be voting for Barr.
Thank you Chan.
- Evan - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:The Independent Party has been around much longer and has produced nothing since TR.they didnt produce TR, the Republicans just wouldnt nominate him after he came back from Africa so he went to the independents!
<-- celebrated TR's birthday at the white house on monday!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081027-3.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 027-3.html</a><!-- m -->
- NTIman - 10-30-2008
Does anyone else think that the electoral college tends to favor a two party system?
- DavidM - 10-30-2008
The EC is deffinately set up for the two party system. If there were three competitive candidates no one would get to 270, making the popular election more meaningless than it already is and letting congress elect the President and VP
- Apoc - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:Barr has no chance of winning, neither does Paul. Therefore, I will vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning.
Let someone else do the work and once they're popular enough, I'll vote for 'em!
Do you only support your sports team when they have a chance at a winning record?
- Ole - 10-30-2008
Apoc Wrote:Ole Wrote:Barr has no chance of winning, neither does Paul. Therefore, I will vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning.
Let someone else do the work and once they're popular enough, I'll vote for 'em!
Do you only support your sports team when they have a chance at a winning record?
If you want to quote me and make a negative point, please quote the entire message.
If there are two teams in the Superbowl, I root for the team that I like the most. What is your point?
- Apoc - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:If there are two teams in the Superbowl, I root for the team that I like the most. What is your point?
That you aren't rooting for anyone until they get to the Superbowl because you know they have a 50/50 chance of being Superbowl Champions.
- Ole - 10-30-2008
You have a very negative way of looking at things and assuming the worst based on a small fraction of what I posted.
Please go back and the entire message I posted, if that is possible.
- Apoc - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:You have a very negative way of looking at things and assuming the worst based on a small fraction of what I posted.
Please go back and the entire message I posted, if that is possible.
No... I'm pointing out what I believe to be the fallacy of your philosophy by transferring the paradigm to another context. It's a common debate tactic. The rest of your message has little bearing on my objection to your philosophy so I'm not sure why rereading it makes any difference.
- DavidM - 10-30-2008
Apoc Wrote:Ole Wrote:You have a very negative way of looking at things and assuming the worst based on a small fraction of what I posted.
Please go back and the entire message I posted, if that is possible.
No... I'm pointing out what I believe to be the fallacy of your philosophy by transferring the paradigm to another context. It's a common debate tactic. The rest of your message has little bearing on my objection to your philosophy so I'm not sure why rereading it makes any difference.
Well lets shift the paradigm further. I'm a redskins fan, even when there 5-11, I root for the Redskins while there playing but when the Super Bowl rolls around and they are once again not playing I pick one of the teams that are playing and root for them.
- Apoc - 10-30-2008
DavidM Wrote:Well lets shift the paradigm further. I'm a redskins fan, even when there 5-11, I root for the Redskins while there playing but when the Super Bowl rolls around and they are once again not playing I pick one of the teams that are playing and root for them.
I appreciate your willingness to participate in this context but I don't think the general election is the Super Bowl. While it's true the chance of a third party candidate is infinitesimal, there is zero chance of the Redskins winning the Super Bowl if they're not in it. I'd suggest it's more like rooting for a 16th ranked team in the NCAA Basketball Tourney. There's pretty much no chance for them to win, in fact I don't think one has ever made it out of the first round... but you can still root for them because they're there. Third parties pretty much can't win, but they're there playing the game.
- BLINGMW - 10-30-2008
Dave Wrote:I visited the libertarian site today and feel that, while I'm still going to do a little more research before next week, I'll be voting for Barr.For Kaan's sake, could you say that you WERE going to vote Obama until just now? :wink:
No more football analogies! Football sucks.
![[Image: toothpaste.gif]](http://www.thermocaster.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/toothpaste.gif)
- Ole - 10-30-2008
My statement: Barr has no chance of winning, neither does Paul. Therefore, I will vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning. Neither of these two were my choice in the primary. Neither were they the person I would like to see as President.
You have your way of voting and I have mine. My vote will be for the individual (of the two major candidates) that best meets my desires. I think that is how voting should work. If not please feel free to correct me and enlighten me as to how I (in your mind) should vote.
If you want to vote for Michael Jackson, you can do that (although I doubt you will, but you can). I choose to make my vote count towards one of the two that now have a chance of winning.
To put in simpler terms so maybe you can understand.....If my favorite football team does not make it through the playoffs into the Superbowl, I will root for my favorite of the two that do make it.
- Ole - 10-30-2008
Damnit, I should have taken typing in HS so I could get these posts up here quicker......
- Apoc - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:enlighten me as to how I (in your mind) should vote.
I thought that's what I was doing...
Sorry for trying to lead you down the path of why via analogy instead of just saying "I think you are wrong."
- Ole - 10-30-2008
Thank you.
- NTIman - 10-30-2008
Ole Wrote:My statement: Barr has no chance of winning, neither does Paul. Therefore, I will vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning. Neither of these two were my choice in the primary. Neither were they the person I would like to see as President.
You have your way of voting and I have mine. My vote will be for the individual (of the two major candidates) that best meets my desires. I think that is how voting should work. If not please feel free to correct me and enlighten me as to how I (in your mind) should vote.
If you want to vote for Michael Jackson, you can do that (although I doubt you will, but you can). I choose to make my vote count towards one of the two that now have a chance of winning.
To put in simpler terms so maybe you can understand.....If my favorite football team does not make it through the playoffs into the Superbowl, I will root for my favorite of the two that do make it.
As much as I'd like their to be 5 candidates that could possibly win, its not a reality. I tend to agree with you, although I understand the arguments from both sides.
One question though, what if the person you really would like to see as president was running as an independent or under the banner of a third party? Would you vote for them knowing that they would represent you're values/views the best, even though their wasn't a chance in hell of them winning the election? I'm assuming no, but I think we've already established that this is a catch-22, so I figured I'd throw it out there.
- Evan - 10-30-2008
since when does rooting for a team in a meaningless sports game equate to choosing the leader of the free world who has the ability to improve or drastically reduce the quality of your life in the present and or future?
besides, Alan is a Dolphins fan so he is always rooting for a team that has no chance of winning! :lol: