I Posed This Question to a Conservative Message Board

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I was posting this to a moral conservative board and I am not asking people hre........
3) Once again, this was posed to another audience, not 2+2, one I had already conversed with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for wasting our time.... Perhaps you could post something relevant next time.....yes?

[peritonlogon]

Agreed, it's really all Rovian rhettoric...shout loudly that your opponents' party has been hijacked by 'radicals' 'ultra-liberals,' '(fill in what ever you wish, global warming, health-care, Darwinist etc) nuts.' If you yell it loud enough and long enough people all around the televerse will start saying it, then it will become conventional wisdom, which, in turn, becomes the opinion of 'experts' (read, everybody and their mother too).

As for Dean, he really wasn't all that socially Liberal. The whole Civil Union thing was a compromise in order not to have to change legal standing of 'marriage.' This is really significant when you consider just how liberal Vermont is. I grew up in New Hampshire and live in up state New York and the mainstream opinions in VT, make most NH citizens blush.

I mean, we all remeber this story right? http://www.boston.com/news/local/ver...ls_in_vermont/

It's not in that link, but I remember, I think it was a city councilman's remarks were to the effect of 'If, they're still nude come December, then we'll look into making them put some clothes on.'

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile your desire for conservative judges with the fact that you are ripping off your children and grandchildren by supporting this fiscally reprehensible government?


[/ QUOTE ]

and as for the kids, there's nothing like a good challenge to build some character and problem solving skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm speaking now on behalf of everyone under 30 in regards to this dispicable, glib opinion, and I mean this in the nicest possible way:

maybe you older people ought to be more concerned with building and developing your own character and problem solving skills and less concerned with convincing us younger people that we should thank you for crapping on our dinner plates.

[peritonlogon]

This was not the case during the Clinton era.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The end of his post: [ QUOTE ]


Now if only we can get republicans to do what they say, we will be in business.

[/ QUOTE ] implies that if someone would actually *do* what the "republicans say they will do" he would prefer that even if they lied about it ahead of time

[/ QUOTE ] This makes no sense. The Republicans are lying ahead of time that they'll do something ..yet they will eventually do it?

[ QUOTE ]
Your point [is] [ QUOTE ]
your choice should be based purely on the assumption (preference) number 4 above. (I.e. that you prefer Truth over Lies.)

[/ QUOTE ] But your idea of what his choice *should* be based on is subjective, and isn't necessarily what he has actually based his decision on.

[/ QUOTE ]You should check again the list of assumptions made by JimBob2232, as I see 'em :

[ QUOTE ]
1. A and B have different agendas, in theory.
2. A and B end up doing the same thing, in practice.
3. You disagree with what A and B end up doing.
4. You prefer Truth over Lies.
5. You hold out some hope (you say there's a "CHANCE") that A will start putting in practice what A promises.

[/ QUOTE ] #5 is a wish-like belief.
#1 and #2 are facts, as understood by JimBob2232, based on past history.
#3 and #4 are stated preferences of JimBob2232.

Notice that A and B behave the same (remember "event X"?) in #1, #2, and #3. They differ only in #4, according to what JimBob2232 stated in another post.

The correct approach, then, is to ignore wishful thinking (i.e. #5) and ignore the sure-fire results, i.e. those results that occur independently of his choice (i.e. #1,2,3). JimBob2232 should base his decision on #4, not because I "like it" or because of some such subjective reason of mine, but because it is his own stated criterion and it's the only one with which his choice can have an effect.

Mickey Brausch


BTW, this is the so-called sure-thing principle.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I continuously hope the republican party will return to the days of reagan when they had a backbone and did what was right.

10% chance conservatives do what I want them to do
0% chance democrats do what I want them to do

Its really about simple. I am fed up with both political parties. But when push comes to shove, I tend to vote republican because i feel there is a CHANCE they will do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I Agree 200%. Although my estimate is 20%. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You should check again the list of assumptions made by JimBob2232, as I see 'em :

[ QUOTE ]
1. A and B have different agendas, in theory.
2. A and B end up doing the same thing, in practice.
3. You disagree with what A and B end up doing.
4. You prefer Truth over Lies.
5. You hold out some hope (you say there's a "CHANCE") that A will start putting in practice what A promises.

[/ QUOTE ] #5 is a wish-like belief.
#1 and #2 are facts, as understood by JimBob2232, based on past history.
#3 and #4 are stated preferences of JimBob2232.

Notice that A and B behave the same (remember "event X"?) in #1, #2, and #3. They differ only in #4, according to what JimBob2232 stated in another post.

The correct approach, then, is to ignore wishful thinking (i.e. #5) and ignore the sure-fire results, i.e. those results that occur independently of his choice (i.e. #1,2,3). JimBob2232 should base his decision on #4, not because I "like it" or because of some such subjective reason of mine, but because it is his own stated criterion and it's the only one with which his choice can have an effect.

Mickey Brausch


BTW, this is the so-called sure-thing principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's *not* a surefire thing, according to his assumptions. He estimates 10% chance of Republicans doing what he wants. If you want to argue with his assumptions, fine (and I probably would). But you can't accept them and deny them at the same time.