[extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?

[Al Brooks]

This is almost self-evidently true. So then one might
be best off not voting in a presidential election and
after the inauguration one would support that
president to the fullest, save for going along with
the policies the president advocates that one
thoroughly disagrees with. How otherwise would there
be enough consensus to fight a very long war? If
Warren G. Harding were C & C today we would have to
smooth over our distaste for him in merely the
prosecution, putting aside the favorable outcome, of
the war on terror.

>Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No. This requires a man of conviction (who isn't
> automatically
> condemned by the screechers for anything he ever
> said or anyone he did
> business with) who is not beholden to any special
> interests. You are
> asking for someone qualified for the Supreme Court
> who is willing to
> dredge their life through the media cesspool. Anyone
> fit for the first
> is too smart or self respecting to submit to the
> second. The concept is
> not passe, our society just doesn't deserve such a
> person, even though
> it needs one badly.
> 
> --- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Questions for both of you: do you think we can
> elect a heavyweight, a
> > man or woman of Churchillian caliber for president
> in 2008? The
> > founders wanted us to select a president every
> four years, so since
> > we're saddled with that system for the forseeable
> future do you think
> > we can make better choices in electing our chief
> executives? 
> > Or is the concept of great statesmen & women
> passe'?
> > 
> > :
> > kevinfreels.com wrote:
> > 
> > >It's such a shame that you have such a limited
> view of people. You
> > have this
> > >nasty problem with grouping people rather than
> looking at them as
> > >individuals. I voted for Bush twice and I am
> hardly the idiot that
> > you are
> > >speaking of.
> > >
> > Fooled twice, huh? Sad.
> > 
> > > I am a thinking individual.
> > >
> > 
> > Everyone is. See, my opinion of people generally
> isn't so bad.
> > 
> > > I am not a neo-con
> > >
> > 
> > Maybe you are, have you checked their official
> views?
> > 
> > > and I certainly
> > >don't support his religious views.
> > >
> > 
> > They're unrelated.
> > 
> > > I am an atheist and I disagree with many
> > >parts of the Bush agenda.
> > > 
> > >
> > Just the part about killing arabs for grins and
> giggles, huh?
> > 
> > >If you are the thinking person that you claim to
> be, you will
> > realize soon
> > >that the left is just as guilty as the right when
> it comes to
> > polarizing
> > >voters in an attempt to win elections.
> > >
> > 
> > Of course, the so-called "left" is really just a
> shill for the
> > so-called 
> > "right". I think I've said that here before.
> > 
> > >So why does an atheist transhumanist vote in
> support of an
> > administration
> > >with a religious ideology? 
> > >
> > 
> > And a penchant for war profiteering?
> > 
> > >Kerry though, probably
> > >couldn;t even predict what Kerry was going to do
> > >
> > Funny, I recall him spelling out exactly what he
> was going to do. He 
> > was going to go to the UN, appologize for having
> invaded Iraq and ask
> > 
> > for their assistance in establishing a legitmate
> and peaceful
> > government 
> > in Iraq. A reasonable proposition that I think
> would have been
> > welcomed 
> > at the UN.
> > 
> > >I knew exactly where Bush stands 
> > >
> > Kerry was a flip-flopper wildcard. Bush is a
> sturdy known quantity. I
> > 
> > get it. Better the devil you know than the devil
> you don't.
> > 
> > Me, on the other hand, I regarded the pineapple up
> my @ss as
> > unbearable 
> > and anything was worth the switch.
> > 
> > >And I am not a Bush supporter by the way.
> > >
> > We all make only practical choices. I'm not a
> kerry supporter, so in 
> > the end, I voted for my father. I learned long ago
> that they never 
> > listen to me anyway.
> > 
> > > I could care less who the
> > >president is or what party he is affiliated with.
> > >
> > 
> > Me neither.
> > 
> > > The issues are much
> > >greater than any one person. I will be glad to
> debate you on any
> > issue, but
> > >a debate on who is a better president is lunacy.
> > >
> > Well, lets start with - is George Bush a criminal
> and should he be
> > tried 
> > for his crimes?
> > 
> > I, personally, think that was the most decisive
> reason -not- to vote
> > for 
> > georgy last time around.
> > 
> > > A reasonable debate can
> > >only be obtained if we could first agree on each
> objective, every
> > issue and
> > >it's importance. Then we could argue about how
> effectively this
> > president
> > >carried out those objectives and handled each
> issue. Otherwise you
> > are
> > >wasting your time comparing apples to oranges.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > I don't think this the proper, but I'm willing to
> have a civil 
> > conversation about it.
> > 
> > Robbie
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> > 		
> > ---------------------------------
> >  Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> page >
> _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > 
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com