Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
Well, that is true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you mean apathy?
No, I don't.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
josda1000 wrote:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
-
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You really want a dead man as Pres.? I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
josda1000 wrote:
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
And the fact that the man you like is quite likely to die in office in no way influences your vote?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
josda1000 wrote:
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes.
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office. (I was surprised, though, that the site did not block votes coming from outside of the USA.)
josda1000 wrote:
What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?
Obama was young enough, the others were too old. Other than that, what's to choose? They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You really want a dead man as Pres.? I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
josda1000 wrote:
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
And the fact that the man you like is quite likely to die in office in no way influences your vote?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
josda1000 wrote:
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes.
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office. (I was surprised, though, that the site did not block votes coming from outside of the USA.)
josda1000 wrote:
What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?
Obama was young enough, the others were too old. Other than that, what's to choose? They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office.
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office? That is very poor judgement in my view, and you really need to reexamine your philosophy. Think about what you're saying: you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power than to have someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all, and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc. Again, if that's the only reason you have going for you, you have no real reason not to vote for him.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for. Otherwise, I think my argument is more than sound.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office.
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office? That is very poor judgement in my view, and you really need to reexamine your philosophy. Think about what you're saying: you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power than to have someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all, and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc. Again, if that's the only reason you have going for you, you have no real reason not to vote for him.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for. Otherwise, I think my argument is more than sound.
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now.
Definitely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
This is a problem for me... I mean, I definitely understand why you would say this, but a libertarian has a problem with the FDA existing in the first place. IMO, the market would solve the problems of terrible chemicals in drugs, with good doctors and hospitals and such. As for the extra taxes, that falls under Congress directly anyway, from what I understand, so it has nothing to do with the FDA when it comes to the tax issue.
Hmm, I didn't get an e-mail for this reply... Bad CP! As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry. Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk. Anyway, you're right about the taxes being a Congressional issue, but I wonder if the influx of these things would add a financial burden to the government, in terms of extra enforcement and such... Actually, that would probably be offset by no longer having to hunt down the drug lords... Ok, I'll revise my position. I do still think the FDA (Or similar) would need to keep an eye on it, but an extra tax (beyond normal sales tax) might not be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
-
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Horde vs Alliance
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
Wow Ian, what a thorough response. Very good sir, this is how I know you're definitely a statist, and I hate you lol jk OK! Let's get to it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot?
No, not at all. The policy of a libertarian in this respect is to "be friends with all, but have entangling alliances with none." What's going on here is we're overseas spending money on militaristic issues that, you and I may agree, may be futile. I 100% believe that we should pull the troops home, permanently, from all bases far and wide, no matter what the original intentions were. This will save a ton of money, and may even be much safer than having foreign wars that were never declared in the first place. As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately. Case in point, when hurricane Katrina happened in Louisiana, people from all over the United States contributed money to the cause, and I believe it still goes on today. When the earthquake happened in Haiti a month or two ago, people piled on money to be sent there to help out the people that live there as well. There are so many different funds for different things, but that can definitely be handled so much better in the private sector. When trying to set up funds for foreign aid through the government, the CIA usually gets a handle on it, and gets to prop up dictators instead of having it sent to the people who actually need it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that.
I side with Paul on this, though yes, it could be a very bad decision for the short term. I see one main problem being that the United Nations is actually on New York soil... and we just created INTERPOL... etc. But I still think it would be in the long term best interest of the people of the states. The Constitution is supposed to be our main law, not some other bureaucracy of nations. We are supposed to be a sovereign nation, not governed by a consensus of nations. It's just the principle of the thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of shrinking government. Some of this, I can agree with..
-
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)You know, I don't know why, but certain folks make me want to reach through the TV and choke them. ALL are conservatives. It may have to do with their incredible attitude and the sheer joy they get in being complete effing morons and hypocrits... "I can see Russia from my porch, so I know about diplomacy!" "Using retard offends me, they should be fired, unless of course it is a Conservative radio or tv personality." "Drug users are all criminals and need to be put away for life, excuse me, I need some Oxycotin." "If you question the President in the time of war, you are a traitor. Unless he's a Democrat..." "I never said that, that's what you call lying. (oh, did we say that in a press conference? no one will remember.)" "Waterboarding isn't torture, I volunteer to undergo it for charity to prove it. But I won't actually have it done, cause that crap is scary and I don't care about charities, no one will remember in 2 months, right?"
-
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Hmm, I didn't get an e-mail for this reply... Bad CP! As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry. Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk. Anyway, you're right about the taxes being a Congressional issue, but I wonder if the influx of these things would add a financial burden to the government, in terms of extra enforcement and such... Actually, that would probably be offset by no longer having to hunt down the drug lords... Ok, I'll revise my position. I do still think the FDA (Or similar) would need to keep an eye on it, but an extra tax (beyond normal sales tax) might not be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry.
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed? This is another argument in my favor: it's just too much government with no output. It's a sucker of wealth all in all.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk.
I can appreciate your position. But the point is, they do it quicker, more accurately and with less capital. I really do see your point, believe me. But security (which is what this all is, government is created on the basis of security) is such a relative term. Accidents will always happen, no matter the situation or problem. You might as well let people be free to make mistakes, and the lessons will be learned, and the rights will be made from the wrongs. All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
-
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)