[FoRK] Right Wing Conspiracy Theory Talking Points, Volume 2010, Number 6

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Thu Jun 17 06:08:17 PDT 2010





On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:23, "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net> wrote:

> On 6/17/10 4:57 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:32, "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/16/10 11:52 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The crazies are always in the Other party, aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For me, the "other party" is anyone who *has* a party.
>>>
>>> Good.  I generally am independent, but I've added one party to the  
>>> kill-list (uh oh, that technical term won't do here will it?  How  
>>> about Bozo List? [1]) due to a long series of fiascos, so there is  
>>> a lot of defaulting going on.
>>
>> Tsk, tsk.  Not both?  I see your cry of independence and call  
>> shenanigans.  O'Reilly makes that claim too, you know.  Most do.   
>> Most aren't.
>>
>> Then there's the problem with defaults... Aka "bias."
>
> One's over 50% bias, the other is somewhat under.  It's a bias, i.e.  
> agreement/disagreement probability, not a rule.

Why is it difficult to see that the problem is neither the nuts in one  
party nor the other, but rather - under the present system and  
constraints - giving fiat power solely to either collection of nuts?

Can 'o Mixed Nuts.  That's what I advocate.  Vote defensively.

jb


More information about the FoRK mailing list