Below is the message.
> 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
>
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