TO: ERIN, DAVOR, RASHEED, SQUONK AND NATE
ERIN:
Questioning Bush's intelligence is not a
conservative/liberal issue to me. I just listen to
stupid comments over and over and come to a conclusion.
PACO:
The issue is to try to separate each candidate's
ability to lead from absurd caricatures painted of
them. The "stupid" caricature is a too-common theme
for Conservative candidates. I fear it grossly
oversimplifies political discussion. Certainly
intelligence is an important characteristic of the
leader of the free world. As is having
qualifications ...such as inventer of the internet or
being the inspiration (or as GWB would say, the
INSIPERATION) for LOVE STORY.
NATE:
I feel I should also mention that there is, similarly,
a constant conservative "smear campaign" which maligns
the liberal end of the spectrum and reduces them into
charicatures, just as the left does to the right. I
don't think either side can claim a moral high ground.
PACO:
Of course. For example, the caricature that every
Liberal is a Socialist.
DAVOR:
Shouldn't the discussion be focused at why an
intellectual pattern(democracy) has degenerated into
Bush?(ok a bit rigid, I'll admit) or how well Bush
upholds the fundamental values of the free democratic
world?
PACO:
Yes.
SQUONK:
The US is not democratic in any pure sense of the term.
In my view, the Bush is something of a dick.
PACO:
If you have a better model (or better Dick), please
build it and see if people come to it.
SQUONK:
Take this garbage over Iraq and its Nuclear
capabilities? Call that kind of media manipulation
democracy? Its all done with mirrors my friend...
PACO:
Must be cool to be immune to it all.
RASHEED:
If you're like me, you were rolling on the floor
laughing when Bush gave his speech about his "Axis of
Evil" . . .it still confuses me as to how such a jejune
remark could so alter the mindset of a dictator. It's
something only Bush can do, I suppose.
PACO:
So even his successes are signs of his stupidity now?
It is odd that you have trouble with the concept of
Evil in a web site based upon MORALITY. What part of
these regimes do you find good?
RASHEED:
Also, only about 65% of all registered voters actually
vote (this is not an exact number, I only remember
roughly where the statistic lies). That's somewhere
around 50% of all persons of voting age. Not only are
most American voters voting against who scares them the
most, a large portion of the remaining population is
simply apathetic (or spiteful even).
PACO:
I would argue that this is an inherent STRENGTH of
democracy. It allows minorities with CONVICTION to
overcome apathetic majorities.
RASHEED:
I wouldn't want to have to choose between two
candidates who were both hard-line supporters of Israel
PACO:
Most of America is apparently way too moral to support
terrorist thugs with or without Nobel Peace Prizes.
DAVOR:
True democracy does not exist, the closer you come to
democracy the more bureaucratic it becomes, striving
for democracy is the murdering of democracy and time is
the executer. But I really like to know how it is
possible to get more votes and still not be elected,
there can be only one answer; some people have more
influence than others, if that is the fundament of US
democracy, it might get hard to sustain it. But as
Benjamin Barber said(whome I think is a very
intelligent man); democracy is easy to damage but hard
to kill. But I could be wrong what is your opinion?
PACO:
Odd comment considering that the US is a republic and
intentionally (very, very intentionally) NOT a pure
democracy. If you don't know why, I suggest you read
the thoughts of the founders of the constitution. All
will be made clear -- especially in regards to
influential people or groups. The bureaucracy comment
is probably right on though.
Even odder though is your comment that "it might get
hard to sustain" the longest surviving (and most
influential) constitution on earth.
DAVOR:
To reside more to the MOQ it seems to be that what was
supposed to be an intellectual pattern, democracy, is
now under great influence of social patterns, making an
ideal turn into an instrument for the gaining of
(electoral)power and personal benefit. It is not the
the social patterns are equal to society but people who
think they know what is good for them, with the help of
a strong social instrument, God, and an even stronger
instrument which is called an ''intellectual pattern'',
freedom they say, but means no more than consumerism, a
basal drift.
PS: I heavily doubt the intellectual content of
democracy, isn't it a social pattern?
PACO:
I would say it was an intellectually-inspired social
system that fully embraced man's material and selfish
natures. Certainly the measure of the system is the
results which it has delivered. In this case, the
record of America and of those it inspired (almost
every modern nation) is kinda impressive.
And yes, it is me!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST