Soiling the nest

[Smokepole]

Excellent post Kevin B. I really liked this part: "the supreme court will get two ultra libs, we'll get socialized health care, government motors, cap & trade and massive new taxation because many failed to vote for the lesser of two evils."

Plus, for anyone who thinks that R=D, and there's no difference in the presidential candidates, couldn't you at least have looked at the WHOLE ticket so we'd see more of Palin, less of Biden?

Originally Posted by Kevin B

I wonder if we hold the same meanings for words in the English language?

Laud: to acclaim, extol or praise.

I've seen numerous posts and discussions of candidates in terms of the lesser of evils. Lots of defense of specific votes based on the consequences of voting for a candidate with zero hope. Lots of pointing of fingers for not "showing republicans a lesson" by abstaining or voting for candidates with no momentum or chance to win. But I've seen damn little laudatory commentary about republican candidates.

I'd appreciate your cutting and pasting this all too common occurrence so that we can see your point. Considering how tiresome its become to you it should be a rather simple matter. Remember, to vote for is not to laud. A vote is often a pragmatic and less than enthusiastic action.

Or you could simply say the truth. You hate republican politicians for not being what you wish they were and are pissed off with those who'll vote for them as a lesser of two evils. That, to you, accepting the least bad candidate is the same as "lauding" that candidate. I assume this is a correct measure of your thought, because I've seen nearly no praise for republicans on this forum. If I'm wrong you'll paste in lots of glowy praise for republicans posted here.

I'm weary of all of the stuffing of words and thoughts in other peoples mouths that were never said let alone thought. This forum is predominantly straw man wars between the right and the right of right politically. Some can't accept a more pure candidate that has exactly no chance to win others can't vote for an impure candidate no matter how much worse the consequence of the alternative is. That's, that. There isn't high moral ground here. One side will rightly claim the supreme court will get two ultra libs, we'll get socialized health care, government motors, cap & trade and massive new taxation because many failed to vote for the lesser of two evils. Others will say R's aren't even steadfastly to the man voting against those things so they're not the answer. Fair enough. Neither has a perfect position and neither has anything but a claim that doing it their way will actually work toward a specific end. But both have internalized as a given that their way will work and have moved on, long since, from persuading the other side to marginalizing it.

If you haven't seen lauding here you must have not been paying attention. Usually the lauding only lessens when someone points out the laud-ees voting record and then we get "perfect is the enemy of good" and other looking over misdeeds crap.

Still trying to figure out why McCain's backing of bailouts was somehow less bad than Obamas. Ditto McCain's support for Eric Holder. Ditto McCain's support for 2nd Amendment infringments. Ditto for McCain's not being Natural Born. Ditto for a whole damn lot of things.

Originally Posted by Smokepole

Plus, for anyone who thinks that R=D, and there's no difference in the presidential candidates, couldn't you at least have looked at the WHOLE ticket so we'd see more of Palin, less of Biden?

Because looking at all of McCain's failings, totally stupid doesn't seem to be one of them. He didn't think he had anything to fear from her, why do you?

And what of any VP? More often than not they have had nothing more than a piddly role anyway. Were you expecting some sort of coups attempt if McCain won?

[Kevin B]

Originally Posted by JasonB

If you haven't seen lauding here you must have not been paying attention.

Jason. To laud is to praise. You'll find damn little if any lauds for Republicans here and only find that they are preferred on a spectrum against specific alternatives. You'd have to redefine laud, to say that people who prefer McCain to the current alternative by definition praise him. Do what I asked rowdy to do, cut and paste people actually lauding republicans as nearly ideal candidates, ones they stand behind on principle instead of out of fear of the alternatives. Let's see those praises Jason. I won't hold my breath.

Of course this is the problem with you in general. You don't answer direct questions. You redefine words to mean what you want them to. You insert both ideas and words into the mouths of others that never came from them and then insist that they are the problem without evidencing anything you'd prefer they do will work.... all while never telling them what you'd prefer they do. It's truly bizarre. I can't wait for the next completely un-analogous analogy you offer, while changing what "is" is. This thread is yours. I'm done with this one.

Originally Posted by Kevin B

Jason. To laud is to praise. You'll find damn little if any lauds for Republicans here and only find that they are preferred on a spectrum against specific alternatives. You'd have to redefine laud, to say that people who prefer McCain to the current alternative by definition praise him. Do what I asked rowdy to do, cut and paste people actually lauding republicans as nearly ideal candidates, ones they stand behind on principle instead of out of fear of the alternatives. Let's see those praises Jason. I won't hold my breath.

Of course this is the problem with you in general. You don't answer direct questions. You redefine words to mean what you want them to. You insert both ideas and words into the mouths of others that never came from them and then insist that they are the problem without evidencing anything you'd prefer they do will work.... all while never telling them what you'd prefer they do. It's truly bizarre. I can't wait for the next completely un-analogous analogy you offer, while changing what "is" is. This thread is yours. I'm done with this one.

There are others, but check out any of the NRA threads and you will find plenty of lauding.

[Rowdy]

I'll respond against my better judgement. I hate to just because of your arrogant bombastic tone. I won't spend my time researching to try and find examples that will fit your superior definition of lauding. I did research as many of your political posts as I cared to, you're the "define we" guy. You would like to vote for someone like RP but you won't because he's a "complete goober". You are completely right about my feelings about republicans and I do think that those that support them even as part of a lesser of two evils doctrine are aiding in the demise of liberty. It will be slower if we vote R is asinine.

As an aside. I didn't comment on this initially but since you seem to be such a high handed fellow... I've made my living selling for the last 22 years . For the past 11 years I've built a business selling. You're comment that you've got to hook 'em in the first few minutes or you've lost 90% right there, isn't what I'd call accurate or an effective sales strategy unless you're selling ShamWows on late night tv. An author I recommend to my salespeople is Jeffery Gitomer, check him out. Sales ,unless you're in some one call close business , is based on relationships built on trust.

[Smokepole]

JasonB, you made the point that McCain "supported" Eric Holder (not Anthony I presume).

In reality, with the way that the senate and house are stacked, Holder (and now Sotomayor) would have been confirmed regardless of McCain's vote so the way he voted is really beside the point.

The real question is, if McCain had been elected president, do you seriously think he would have selected Eric Holder and Sonia Sotomayor for AG and SCOTUS?

If your answer is "no" then the lesser of two evils has something going for it, as a concept.

And you completely missed my attempt at humor in the comment I made about Palin vs. Biden, it has nothing to do with their competence or politics, it has to do with the phrase "see more of." As in, if you'd rather see more of Biden.....

Originally Posted by Smokepole

JasonB, you made the point that McCain "supported" Eric Holder (not Anthony I presume).

In reality, with the way that the senate and house are stacked, Holder (and now Sotomayor) would have been confirmed regardless of McCain's vote so the way he voted is really beside the point.

The real question is, if McCain had been elected president, do you seriously think he would have selected Eric Holder and Sonia Sotomayor for AG and SCOTUS?

If your answer is "no" then the lesser of two evils has something going for it, as a concept.

My answer is 2 parts consisting of, "beats me" and "if not them, then other equivalents." Really not sure on whether or not he would have picked whites or not since that is such a big draw these days.

Once again, the man has supported **** loads of legislation that to simple pee ons appears to violate the Constitution. Why is he suddenly going to straighten up and fly right when given more power? Do you honestly think we would have heard, "I have dethided to nominate XXXXXX becauth of their thtrong thtand on adhering to the original intent of the Conthtituthion and I firmly believe they will work dilliginently to fixth everything I have worked tho hard to dethtroy throughout my legithlative career" ????

[William Clunie]

Another, on a long list, of things that JasonB won't respond to:

There will be no "ditto McCain" from JB on this one -- McCain signed the amicus brief in favor of Heller (VS DC). Did any of the others (Hitlary, Obama, Biden, etc.) NO. Whoops, musta, kinda furgot that one on purpose, eh JB? I don't need to burn no effigies, you burn yourself daily.

And I don't really care to hear a rehash of how you don't think the Heller case means anything to you. It certainly does to plenty of thinking individuals.

Originally Posted by William Clunie

And I don't really care to hear

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/washi...un-stores.html

Josh Sugarmann 1-54-000-01-8C-00725....not that it would do them much good though.