my son rebuke me when I told him...

that will be my last resort. :D

Ask him what his point is. If you guys are arguing the singular issue, admit he's correct, because he is, and move on. If you're aruguing something deeper, which it doesn't sound like you are, why the hell are you focusing on that?

Either way the discussion is completely pointless. If you need to come on these boards to get advice for handling a simple logic discussion with your son, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Sounds like you've raised an analytical son. Foster that growth and don't get hung up on the "who is right" aspect.
 
NOTE THE BOLD:
my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

he just learned set theory in school. And he claims that I am in that subset of people that contributes to Al Gore lost. Is there a loop hole in set theory that we can exploit? :confused:

The Electoral College elects the president usually. In 2000 it was the Supreme Court. If Gore had carried his own home state of Tennessee ( the folks who knew him best ) he would have won.
 
The Electoral College elects the president usually. In 2000 it was the Supreme Court. If Gore had carried his own home state of Tennessee ( the folks who knew him best ) he would have won.

I think that is a brilliant answer.

Given modern spin, I am sure it is hard for the younger generation to understand why such a wonderful, Nobel Prize winner did not win the election . . . .
 
FYI .....

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Good article. This emphasizes my point. Regardless of the philosophical reason, justification, or morality for the Government's power, the fact is that they have it, and it can't be taken away by people who don't get involved. It is a good argument to debate whether Government should have power to govern at all, but it may be a somewhat irrelevant one.

By allowing yourself to be ruled or to allow your liberties to be taken from you unchallenged, you implicitly endorse and accept their ability to do so.

To win back the country and our freedom (which ironically is counter-intuitive to those who traditionally seek power), this authority must be TAKEN from them. And anyone who refuses to get involved or believes that they can't make a difference, or simply thinks that it is enough NOT to vote for one person without supporting an alternative solution is CONTRIBUTING to the maintaining of such control.

Power does not seek those who do not reach for it, and without power in today's society, you can't possibly limit its authority and protect liberties.

Furthermore, once obtained, power must be used to protect itself from others who wish to take it.

Even if in the next 10-20 years, we managed to infiltrate the American political system and regain control of our country to return it to its founding principals, if we do not use this power to protect against those whose sole purpose is to control, then we will be back where we are now in another generation.
 
Good article. This emphasizes my point. Regardless of the philosophical reason, justification, or morality for the Government's power, the fact is that they have it, and it can't be taken away by people who don't get involved. It is a good argument to debate whether Government should have power to govern at all, but it may be a somewhat irrelevant one.

By allowing yourself to be ruled or to allow your liberties to be taken from you unchallenged, you implicitly endorse and accept their ability to do so.

To win back the country and our freedom (which ironically is counter-intuitive to those who traditionally seek power), this authority must be TAKEN from them. And anyone who refuses to get involved or believes that they can't make a difference, or simply thinks that it is enough NOT to vote for one person without supporting an alternative solution is CONTRIBUTING to the maintaining of such control.

Power does not seek those who do not reach for it, and without power in today's society, you can't possibly limit its authority and protect liberties.

Furthermore, once obtained, power must be used to protect itself from others who wish to take it.

Even if in the next 10-20 years, we managed to infiltrate the American political system and regain control of our country to return it to its founding principals, if we do not use this power to protect against those whose sole purpose is to control, then we will be back where we are now in another generation.

I'll let you fight the "good fight".

I took the "red pill" on politics many years ago.

I'm pretty much done.

Good luck! :)
 
How old is he? If he is at an age where he pays taxes, tell him that Gore is seeking a global carbon tax. He wants people to believe that CO2 is poison. That thing we EXHALE. Gore wants a government as big and tyrannical as possible. Let him know that he's the SAME DAMN THING as Bush.

QFT.

Re: set theory, you don't need a loophole. It's a badge of honor to be a member of the subset that contributed to Al Gore losing. If I were you, I'd simply ask your son if he likes the idea of being in the (large) subset of Americans voting away their rights to life, liberty, and property. Because anyone who voted for Al Gore or George Bush (Or McCain, Obama, or Clinton v.2) is a member of that subset.

Edit: If your son needs a primer in life, liberty, and property rights, I would hand him a copy of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law." The language is a bit cumbersome sometimes (at other times it's classic), but it's short and to the point.
 
Last edited:
It would only matter if you voted Gore in Florida. If you aren't in Florida it doesn't matter at all.
 
Tell him GWB ran on Paul's platform in 2000!

Then tell him there's no way you would ever vote for a socialist.
 
No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.
 
"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

Global carbon tax.. the end result of his inconvenient truth.
 
No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.

Why yes, I wholeheartedly agree that unconditional respect for authority figures is a good thing!
 
"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

Go to your room, and dont come out till I say. :)
 
Sounds like a red herring to me. It's like saying that was the only other option. I heard one guy pose that kind of argumentation like this:

Answer the following quesiton - Do you still beat your wife?
A. #1 - Yes - you're an evil man
A. #2 - No - you're still an evil man because by saying 'no' you are admitting that you did in the past!

Correct answer (which isn't an option) - I never did beat my wife!

Was Bush the right man to vote for? Probably not.

Was Gore the right man to vote for? Probably not. You see, there are other options. :cool:
 
well Bush is an idiotic puppet
the carbon tax is a tempest in a glass of water.
 
No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.

There is a difference between being respected by force and being someone deserving of that respect. You are a dictator and no better than this Government which does the same exact thing. You have essentially declared Martial law against your kids and they have no say or any rights because they are too weak to stand up against you. Sound familiar?

I feel sorry for our country if this type of "i'm right because I say so" and "there is no discussion" is being taught to the next generation.
 
Answer the following quesiton - Do you still beat your wife?
A. #1 - Yes - you're an evil man
A. #2 - No - you're still an evil man because by saying 'no' you are admitting that you did in the past!

it should be like this...

How often you want your wife to beat you?
A. #1 - 7 days a week
B. #2 - 5 days a week, let you off during weekend

the president is like your wife, and it is beating your wallet. Everyone would choose none of the above, if that option exists.
 
Back
Top