Replies

Not a dodge, I am just not naming names for reasons other than you suggest. First, at this point there are way to many variables with candidates, and second you are making an argument based on your terms with relatively easy answers (i.e. I name names and all you have to do is say the “R” will stick up for your values more then the “D”).

I will state the obvious and concede Republicans are better then Democrats, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that Republicans are doing what’s best for the country. It is the lesser of two evils argument. The problem is both choices are “evil”.

The only thing you do when electing a RINO is either empowering the RINO’s or diluting expectations. You slow down the run to socialism or the demise of the country to a walk, but you have only postponed the inevitable.

Also you have proven nothing except that you follow your believe blindly. So go live your life, believe what you want to, and settle for the mediocrity you so fiercely fought for.

First, at this point there are way to many variables with candidates, and second you are making an argument based on your terms with relatively easy answers (i.e. I name names and all you have to do is say the “R” will stick up for your values more then the “D”).

Nope. I explicitly said name the names and then draw your OWN conclusions. YOU tell me if you think John Murtha as SECDEF, for example, is better or worse for the nation than, say, John McCain, Duncan Hunter or whoever.

The question is not whether one party or the other is doing what is "best" for the country---because, unlike most situations in life, there is no third alternative. One of the major party candidates, and their party, is going to win the presidency and lead the government. That's a given. So the question is which of the two parties is doing what's "better" for the country---and you've answered that. Republicans. Thank you.

Of course you are correct that it is the lesser of two evils argument. Is there something wrong with or illegitimate about that argument? If one of the alternatives WILL most certainly be visited upon the nation, how is it a moral act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil? Moreover, how is it simply a practical act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil?

You concede we may face a situation that requires us to choose between the lesser of two evils. Therefore, on what basis do you argue that it is okay to walk away and allow the greater of those two evils to prevail?

Even if you are correct, is this chopped liver?

Moreover, we are not talking about you and me rushing to elect a RINO, jumping for joy at the chance to elect a liberal Republican. We are, as you admit with me, possibly facing a question of one of two "evils" gaining power in our government. Since one WILL win, is it wrong, stupid or worthless to, e.g., "slow down" the damage to our country?

If your child were being damaged by disease and you could choose between two treatments, one of which would "slow down" the disease and one which would make it worse, would you consider it worthless---or, worse, morally wrong---to choose the one that "slowed down" the disease?

Also you have proven nothing except that you follow your believe blindly.

Too bad you had to end a thoughtful post with this piece of absurd pompousity.

Do you not see any of the irony in the fact that I have been pleading with you to make your case, and you steadfastly refuse, yet you claim that I follow my beliefs blindly?

Who is it that is refusing to analyze the evidence for his own conclusions?

Who is it that won't name names because he thinks that would make it too easy to demonstrate am irrefutable and valid difference between the worldviews generally held by the major political parties?

Clue: it's not me, friend, who is "blindly following his beliefs."