Voting Third Party?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328590101' post='2382903']
If it makes you feel better, there's a very, very old thread in which I argued the bombing were completely unacceptable.
[/quote]

Good. That means we can be friends. ^_^

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1328590460' post='2382905']
And when we go to war against a foe armed with nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are necessary in case the other guy has them. Don't get me wrong, their use should be avoided, but I can see a justified need to potentially use them. Hope to God that day never comes.
[/quote]
I wasn't really making a prescriptive statement with that. Referring back to my question about whether one would want to join the SS or the French Resistance to oppose the Nazi regime.

[Ice_nine]

nukes are kewl

they blow mad stuff up

[Aloysius]

pragmatically speaking, when another country has nuclear weapons then threatening them with mutually assured destruction is necessary.

morally speaking, that threat ought to be mostly hollow (but never let the other side know it!) because morally, the use of a nuclear weapon, even as a retaliation, is directed at the civilian population too much. it is perhaps morally permissible that if another country had launched a nuclear weapon against someone and it was likely that they would do so again, the collateral damage of nuking them could be morally acceptable if it was reasonable to suspect that this was the only way to destroy their capability of launching another nuke.

of course, this type of Catholic morality is nowhere near having any influence over real political realities. if any nation did fire off a nuke, it is likely that the country would be flattened by our nuclear arsenal as fast as possible. the morality of such retaliation to destroy their capability of launching more nukes is potentially debatable given the details of any particular situation, but generally speaking we must consider that the use of a nuclear weapon generally does not fit Catholic moral principals of acceptable warfare even in a justified war.

the truly moral response to a nuclear attack is, if at all possible (and with our military and intelligence capabilities, it would likely be possible, again, depending on what country it was) to go in and take out their nuclear capability and their military completely and totally without using our nuclear capability. in such a doomsday scenario, some less consideration for collateral damage of civilians might be acceptable, as it could be a race against the clock to stop more nukes from devastating even more civilians than what might be caught sadly in our cross-hairs, but all out flattening of a country with nukes is likely never acceptable.

..... what was the topic again? third party? lol, who knows, I plan to be at the Republican National Convention in August (assuming I get elected, I have almost enough signatures to get on the ballot (PA does direct delegate voting)) so I'll do my best to make sure third party doesn't have to be an option for folks like us

Edited February 9, 2012 by Aloysius

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328546101' post='2382384']
Would you have joined the SS in order to try to bring down Nazi Germany, or would you have preferred to join, for instance, the French Resistance?

</godwin>
[/quote]

Nihil, come on man, you can do better than this. This analogy is not only completely off base, its laughable. There is nothing remotely like the SS party active in America, liberals are socialists, however they are not murderers perpetrating genocide of jewish and even greater numbers of nomadic gypsies.

All this talk of lesser evils, and taking the high moral road by withholding ones vote. That is just what the liberals love to hear, an apathetic immature youth that while probably well meaning will allow the status quo through their inaction. Last Presidential cycle the young and foolish fell for the fancy slogans and the chance to say they are not rascists by voting for an inept politician, now this time if they do not vote at all, this will allow the roughly 47% of the country that compose the left/socialist/progressive agenda to walk away with the election and four more years of this President will end religious and personal freddoms that we take for granted as Americans.

Do not mistake it, this is the most important election anyone alive has ever been part of, sticking your head into the sand in a moral protest may work for you as well as it does for the ostrich, just hope the predator does not attack your body while you hide your head under the sands of your self righteousness...

ed

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1328843247' post='2384634']
Nihil, come on man, you can do better than this. This analogy is not only completely off base, its laughable. There is nothing remotely like the SS party active in America, liberals are socialists, however they are not murderers perpetrating genocide of jewish and even greater numbers of nomadic gypsies.

All this talk of lesser evils, and taking the high moral road by withholding ones vote. That is just what the liberals love to hear, an apathetic immature youth that while probably well meaning will allow the status quo through their inaction. Last Presidential cycle the young and foolish fell for the fancy slogans and the chance to say they are not rascists by voting for an inept politician, now this time if they do not vote at all, this will allow the roughly 47% of the country that compose the left/socialist/progressive agenda to walk away with the election and four more years of this President will end religious and personal freddoms that we take for granted as Americans.

Do not mistake it, this is the most important election anyone alive has ever been part of, sticking your head into the sand in a moral protest may work for you as well as it does for the ostrich, just hope the predator does not attack your body while you hide your head under the sands of your self righteousness...

ed

ed
[/quote]

The analogue isn't supposed to be *exactly the same* as the subject to which it's being compared. Defeats the purpose of the analogy.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328843431' post='2384635']
The analogue isn't supposed to be *exactly the same* as the subject to which it's being compared. Defeats the purpose of the analogy.
[/quote]


"Liberals" and "Conservatives" alike spend huge amounts of money trying to convince people to come out and vote. That's one thing that both sides of the artificial spectrum agree on. If that's not enough to make you suspicious, I don't know what is.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328780033' post='2384156']
pragmatically speaking, when another country has nuclear weapons then threatening them with mutually assured destruction is necessary.

morally speaking, that threat ought to be mostly hollow (but never let the other side know it!) because morally, the use of a nuclear weapon, even as a retaliation, is directed at the civilian population too much. it is perhaps morally permissible that if another country had launched a nuclear weapon against someone and it was likely that they would do so again, the collateral damage of nuking them could be morally acceptable if it was reasonable to suspect that this was the only way to destroy their capability of launching another nuke.

of course, this type of Catholic morality is nowhere near having any influence over real political realities. if any nation did fire off a nuke, it is likely that the country would be flattened by our nuclear arsenal as fast as possible. the morality of such retaliation to destroy their capability of launching more nukes is potentially debatable given the details of any particular situation, but generally speaking we must consider that the use of a nuclear weapon generally does not fit Catholic moral principals of acceptable warfare even in a justified war.

the truly moral response to a nuclear attack is, if at all possible (and with our military and intelligence capabilities, it would likely be possible, again, depending on what country it was) to go in and take out their nuclear capability and their military completely and totally without using our nuclear capability. in such a doomsday scenario, some less consideration for collateral damage of civilians might be acceptable, as it could be a race against the clock to stop more nukes from devastating even more civilians than what might be caught sadly in our cross-hairs, but all out flattening of a country with nukes is likely never acceptable.

..... what was the topic again? third party? lol, who knows, I plan to be at the Republican National Convention in August (assuming I get elected, I have almost enough signatures to get on the ballot (PA does direct delegate voting)) so I'll do my best to make sure third party doesn't have to be an option for folks like us
[/quote]

I agree with every point you made dealing with nuclear aggression. I always was saddened and never understood why Clinton cancelled the Star wars program, we had the system that Reagen envisioned technically figured out and the capacity to implement was present at the time, all we needed to do was continue the funds and we could have dismantled our nukes and just shot down any threat before it ever came close to harming us, but for some reason another liberal who cut monies from defense spending decided to shut it down.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328843504' post='2384638']
"Liberals" and "Conservatives" alike spend huge amounts of money trying to convince people to come out and vote. That's one thing that both sides of the artificial spectrum agree on. If that's not enough to make you suspicious, I don't know what is.
[/quote]

Taking this at face value my friend, you should be bright enough to know they would not spend "huge amounts of money" if the individual vote is useless. Politicians well know the importance of the vote, what do you think they live by the polls for, why else would 100,000 constituents calling their offices cause them to change a stance or rework a policy, these things happen as the individual voter and vote is very important and the politicians live by this fact.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1328843929' post='2384644']
Taking this at face value my friend, you should be bright enough to know they would not spend "huge amounts of money" if the individual vote is useless. Politicians well know the importance of the vote, what do you think they live by the polls for, why else would 100,000 constituents calling their offices cause them to change a stance or rework a policy, these things happen as the individual voter and vote is very important and the politicians live by this fact.

ed
[/quote]

Maybe they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of consent.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328843997' post='2384647']
Maybe they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of consent.
[/quote]

Yeah, you must be right, we are being controlled by space aliens....


ed