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

[Robert Lindauer]

What was so great about Churchill?

Agesilaus was the lame king of Sparta who was revered in Sparta for 
being nice and turned the balance of power from the senate to the king. 
Among his many victories as a warrior (for he was trained as a warrior, 
not as a king, he was the king's brother who took power when the senate 
decided they didn't like the king's real heir) was that over the 
Persians. He defeated them by signaling to their king Tisaphernes that 
he was going to attack Lydia and instead he attacked Phrygia, he used 
this tactic many times to his advantage and thus became well liked and 
honored among the Spartans who decided to coin the proverb in his 
honor:

To lie to one's countrymen is cowardly but to deceive an enemy in open 
war is honorable.

By all accounts, he was a good man, honorable, well-liked, wise and 
even kind for a Spartan.

However, the net effect of his rule was the downfall of Sparta because 
the Senate so trusted him as king that they gave the kingship too much 
power and subsequent generations of Spartan kings abused this power and 
ruined their fair city, allowing it to be overrun by the weaker greeks 
because their kings desired power too much.

Robbie


On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Al Brooks 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 real! 
>> ize 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