To: RebelBanker
If another candidate ("C") comes along and takes 5 votes from BThis assumes those five voters would otherwise have held their noses and voted for B rather than simply staying home. And while it may be an argument for third-party candidates to not enter the race, it does not address how voters in a three-candidate race should vote.
507 posted on
10/29/2003 1:14:50 PM PST by
MrLeRoy
(The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
To: All
Canada. Canada. Canada. Canada. Hello. Canada! Ever heard of the place? Their conservative party split a bit over 10 years ago because their "strong" conservatives didn't think the main part was conservative -enough-. Sound familiar?! Have you seen what happened to Canada as a result? Neither of the two new parties could even come -close- to winning an election. Most of the country is now a liberal, socialist nightmare. There's not a shred of conservative policy being enacted.
Yeah, the more conservative third party there got their "message" across to both parties. The message was "We're such a surly, obnoxious bunch that we'd rather see our country degenerate into communist hell than unite with those we imagine our moral inferiors". The message to the liberal party was "Free Lunch! Take every penny we have, we're powerless to stop you now!".
The conservative parties in Canada have finally remerged after a decade of doing nothing but perpetually lose. Let's hope they can now drag the country back from the brink. But honestly? I doubt it. Even if they win, they'll have to do nothing else for the next 10 years but repeal the violently socialist laws of the last 10, with the now indoctrinated and bribed-for masses whining all the way.
Again - if you are considering voting for a 3rd party - read what happened to CANADA! You could not ask for a better, purer living example of what would happen here if you carry out your threats and stab Dubya in the back.
BTW, why do I have to ask him to make the 87 billion in loans to Iraq into loans? I think that 87 billion is a small investment that will pay off magnificently in time. Not to mention that 67 billion of it goes directly to our troops, not the Iraqis - pretty brutal to make them pay for it. I guess World War II wasn't enough evidence as to what happens when you overburden a country with too much debt.
Qwinn
509 posted on
10/29/2003 1:36:52 PM PST by
Qwinn
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson