Soxbadger

I never said voting for a 3rd party is sitting on the sidelines, people were saying they wouldnt vote at all. And not voting at all is sitting on the sidelines. Not sure how that comment could be read any other way. (Edit) Voting is working in the system, so if you are voting you are by definition trying to work within the system.

Thats fine, but its the equivalent of sitting on the sidelines while the game is being played, hoping that by yelling enough youll change the game, instead of suiting up and actually having an impact. The only way the system is going to change is by some one in the system. The US model was not created with the idea that there must be 2 parties, it just happens that there are only 2 parties. Why it went this way, who knows, but it has. And Im not even sure that I like other systems more, Im not necessarily fond of lots of small parties that the bigger party sells out to, to get the few necessary seats it needs for a majority.

Not really, its more the impact of the TEA party. The TEA party forces Republican candidates to the middle between TEA party and regular Republican, which is farther conservative than where Republican's really want to be on the national stage. This could result in what NSS said, the TEA party candidate costing the Republican. But then again, Im not going to convince TEA party candidates to wise up and play the game. Its not buying into the RNC or DNC, its just accepting the facts and trying to work within the system we have.

They tried to pass health care during that time period, or no?

They are trying to win, and most political theory would suggest that you pander to the middle. Some would actually argue that our entire system was built on the fringe being marginalized by the majority. The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more. If they lose votes, they dont think "We arent progressive enough" they think "We were too progressive." In my opinion, not voting for Demcorats will drive them even further from the "progressive" agenda, but its your vote.

The one you lose least with? Unless you actually believe that neither party will be any worse or better for you, and in that instance not voting doesnt make a difference.

No third party is going to rise to power without significant sources of money. Its not about votes, its about the price to get yourself there. The only way a third party will spring from the ground without the necessity of significant sources of capital would be someone who in and of themselves, is already well known., Some one who has a cult of personality that could break through the wall that the 2 party system has created. And even then, it has failed. Teddy ran as a third party and lost, Perot lost. What should not be forgotten is that in either of those years, if you added Roosevelt to Taft or Perot to Bush, the mainstream party candidate would have won. Ballots arent for being pragmatic, they are for winning and losing.

3rd party candidate does not meet the criteria of being the Republican or Democratic nominee anyways. You can complain about the system, but the system is what we have. And in the system we have, the only way for your opinion to matter is to play by the rules that the system has created. Those rules (for the time being) are 2 legitimate contenders, only 1 can win. Maybe one day a third party will rise to power (its happened before), but for right now, there are Democrats and Republicans. If you generally lean Democrat, all your not voting does is equate to a vote for Republicans. Ill never find a candidate I agree with, its just picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Who would you vote for over Obama that meets the following criteria: A) Will be either the Democratic or Republican nominee for President, B) Would approach the GITMO situation differently than Bush or Obama.

Hell yes! Lou just couldnt get a puck cleanly all night.

I feel the Hawks need to put a ton of shots on net and hope for the best. Not wait for the perfect shot that never comes.

Eh Bosh can hit a jumper which is really what the Bulls need out of the PF (on offense). Some one who can space the floor so that the defense cant just collapse the paint.

The Bulls need to make shots and just win this game, no excuses.

Kap, Im pretty sure that Bush or any other world leader worth his salt would feel the same way as me. The only reason they pretend to care is that they have to get reelected. Im on a message board, I dont have to care about whether or not I pander to the people in my statements. All that matters is the opinions of the people in this thread, not the opinions of people that I have no clue about. Balta, The sooner you stop comparing the effectiveness of weaponry on completely different battle fields, the better. That is not to say drone attacks will work, but its pretty pointless to assume they will automatically fail.

I joined, Ill be waiting for my $5 off Madden 2025. (Joking about the "settlement" that will come from this lawsuit)

I have no idea what your discussion was about, I merely stated that Nash doesnt score as many points (fact). The argument then was that Wade and Lebron score more and are more efficient (irrelevant). So im not sure how youve proven anything, except for rely on a statistic to argue something that is subjective.

Its just the nature of the efficiency stat. Which is why of the top 10, 9 of them are guys who are 6'7 and taller and therefore can get all of the positive stats (blocks) while reducing the amount of negative (turn over and shots blocked). I guess I dont believe the stat is the end all be all, and would rather rely on what I see.

I dont think Nash is as good of a player as Lebron or Wade, what else is there to say? I think Lebron may be one of the top 3 players in the history of basketball when its all said and done, Rose isnt 1 or 2, so why would I argue that Rose is better than Lebron? That would be stupid, last I checked Im not stupid. Wade (imo) was better than Rose, but Im not sure if Id take Wade today over Rose, so once again Im not sure what other year stats have to do with today. Once again, Im talking about Rose being MVP this year. I have no idea what you are arguing about.

Didnt Lebron win the MVP last year? Correct me if Im wrong but MVP is a year by year award, not career award??

If Lebron and Wade werent on the same team, Id definitely say that those 2 should be in the equation for MVP. But how can I argue they are better than Rose, when they are on the same team and their team lost more games than Roses, which doesnt have 2 amazingly "efficient" players. What is the point of the stat if it doesnt equate to wins?

And its always good practice to give a conservative estimate, because no one ever complains if they get healthy earlier.

Steve Nash has never averaged more than 20 points per game, how can you even argue how efficient he would be if he had to score 25 like Rose? They play different games, the only way you can really judge is by watching the games. I just have a feeling that Rose would be a lot more efficient if he had some one named Dirk who can shoot, than say Noah who is worthless on offense.

Who cares what people think, people have been on the wrong side of many things. All that matters is what YOU think. If you dont think the US should try and stop Gaddafi from killing people in Libya, you wont support the US involvement. If you do think the US should try and stop Gaddafi, youll support it. I dont care if Im the only American in the world who supports it, its not about what other people think.

Its really not that confusing at all. There is reason to be optimistic, its early in the season, the Sox on paper seemingly have a good team, there is plenty of time for the team to click and win a bunch of games. At the same time, if they play the same way they did over the last week or they are going to lose a bunch more, and eventually time wont be on their side. You want to fix the problems as soon as possible. Hence the statement, they need to wake up, because if they keep screwing around, eventually it wont be April itll be July and time wont be on their side.

Because there is a difference between being reasonably optimistic and being blind to the truth. When the Sox blew a few saves due to unusual circumstances, you can write that off as s*** happens. When the Sox lose a bunch of games because their offense is sleepwalking, you have to address the issue. The fact that its early in the season means that there is time to right the ship, but part of righting the ship is admitting that there is something wrong.