Reverend_Hellh0und

Something I heard in the military a lot. Kinda stuck....


"origins" of go pound sand - Google Search

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Indy

It looks like nobody knows where the hell it came from. I found four different "origins" in under a minute on google. I think I'll stick with my original idea of what it meant. It makes more sense than what it might actually mean.

__________________
Affiant further sayeth not.

WI Crippler

Because he lacks vision(insert old age joke here).

Part of the problem with McCain,IMO(although I am not a republican), is that he seems to lack a strong conviction or vision that is in accordance with conservative principles. He's willing to sell those principles down the river, in the name of compromise. Sometimes he might compromise a value you aren't really that concerned about, but over time I think he has been able to compromise on enough things, that he has effectively done it on something one might feel is important. If you look at Obama, why is he supported by a strong base? Because he succeeds where McCain fails. He is able to produce a vision of the future for his party, that agrees with their principles. He might be moving center for the election, but most of his supporters understand that. McCain was already firmly in the center, and only now seems to pander a bit to try and gather votes from the right wing. If people view Obama's move to center as disinngenuous to merely do what needs to be done to gain moderates and independents, then I think we can assume that McCains move to the right is equivalent in nature and many on the right simply see it as disingenuous.

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

galenrox

Not really, considering the real death blow to Romney was California on Super Tuesday, which isn't a winner take all state, but McCain beat Romney in almost every single district and so took almost all of the delegates. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida weren't about delegates, they were about momentum.

__________________

galenrox

Well you know Duncan Hunter could argue that if he didn't have Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul splitting up his base he would've won the nomination. John McCain won because more people who voted in Republican caucuses and primaries wanted him to be the nominee than anyone else. Whether or not Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were more often the 2nd or 3rd favorite than John McCain, who was more love him or hate him, is immaterial.

Some Republicans don't like John McCain and we're still talking about this because it's a story the liberal media enjoys.

Zyphlin

ITs arguing something different though. He was insinuating that since he was the Republican nominee, that must automatically mean a majority of republics LIKE him, not dislike him.

I said that's not necessarily true.

Lets look at the 5 big vote getters for the Republicans:

McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, Paul

My belief is, in general, you had Thompson, Huck, Romney, and Paul all splitting the core base of the Republican party and the staunch conservatives while McCain had himself a nice little niche of the liberal/moderate republicans (with Huckabee making inroads for it as time went on).

Or, put another way.

Lets say that 40% of the party is moderate/liberal and 60% is conservative.

McCain getting 35% of the moderate total could still beat out the other four guys if they all split that 60% in such a way that no single person gets more than McCain from his little niche.

All I'm saying is that McCain getting the nominee in no way proves or shows that "the majority of republicans like McCain".

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

MC.no.spin

Once Romney lost Florida, it was pretty much over. I was part of "Team Mitt" in California, and there was virtually no effort by the Romney campaign to win California after Florida was lost. It was a joke.

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill

galenrox

Have you ever heard the saying "In democracy you get the government you deserve"? This is why things are as they are, because we value strongly held "principle" over the principle of statesmanship. The reason we're in the ****ty situation we're in now is because neither party has been practicing statesmanship because they're too busy showing "vision".

When the rules of the Senate were formed they were largely built in a way so as to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Minority parties were given powers so as to ensure their representation as well, in the form of ways to shape political realities (i.e. the filibuster) and make it so compromise is required between the representatives in order to move anything forward.

There are two concepts in game theory which are significant to this, one is called "pareto inferiority" and the other is "Nash equilibrium".
So you have the basic Prisoner's dilemma framework, two crooks get busted and in the police department they're taken off into separate rooms, if neither says anything they both get off on probation. If A rats out B and B says nothing B goes to jail, A gets off scot free, and the inverse is also true. If they both rat each other out they each go to jail, albeit for not as long. The incentive structure looks like this:

So considering they can only control their own actions, if they're rational they'll go for the 4 over the 3 or 2

and the result is that they both rat each other out

this is the Nash equilibrium, where everyone acts in their self interest without regard for common efforts.
Now obviously there's a way things could've gone better for the criminals, had they just not said anything they would've both stayed out of jail. This is what pareto inferiority is, when there is an alternative which is better for everyone involved




When a legislator values "vision" over compromise, the only option in the face of opposition is attempted domination. The result of this is you will always in the end wind up with the Nash equilibrium, regardless of if it's pareto inferior. That's what's been happening to us over the last several years, why regardless of who controls congress the results are pure unadulterated ****, it's because people are motivated by "vision" instead of incorporating the realities of the political environment into that vision (thereby making their vision actually realistic).

Hatuey

Didn't he say it was a states issue?

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

galenrox

Well that was a bad strategy because had Romney won 2/5th of the California delegates he might've been able to really stay in it following Super Tuesday. Florida was only about momentum, and as we saw with Giuliani, it doesn't take long for momentum to completely vanish.