Subject:
|
Re: THIS is why this whole war is a waste of time. - NO ITS NOT - GO BUILD SOME LEGO!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:12:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> I agree with some parts of your argument, but I find much of your argument
> to be egotistic and bordering on offensive. Humanity is born into freedom,
> if you are a religious person it is a gift from God, if not it is a natural
> endowment. Governments cannot grant rights, or freedom, all they can do is
> take them away. If you look closely at the US constitution it does say we
> give people the right to free speech, it says that the government shall make
> no law regarding these matters.
We are perfectly free to kill each other, government took away that right
(okay, hoarded it for itself, if you wanna be picky). We are perfectly free
to take that other person's stuff, and government took away that right (same
caveat).
In a sense, I suppose you are right: governments are inherently about
restrictions. Benignly, they are rules that society agrees to conduct
itself by, but whether benign or malignant, they are about rules.
>
> As for Bush’s intellect, he is very highly educated, not that schooling is
> the sole indicator of intellect. Achieving the position of President
> requires a great deal of effort and sophistication, and it is pure naiveté
> to imagine that an ignorant person can achieve that position. It is a common
> practice by opponents of Republican leaders to paint them as idiots, recent
> examples are Dan Quayle, Ronald Regan, and Gerald Ford. In his time the
> sophistication of Abraham Lincoln was commonly questioned. It is a very easy
> stance to take as one does not have to address the issues, they can simply
> call names.
He made it through college. He met (at the absolute minimum, but met them
nevertheless even if he wouldn't haven't got in without his father's
influence) the conditions to get into a very restricted flight school. He
was able to build an effective bridge between the democrats and republicans
in Texas. No, he isn't really an idiot, like Quayle. Or simply diligent
but unimaginative like Ford. Or blandly ignorant like Reagan. But, like
all of them, he is unsophisticated. Bush is not a deep thinker. He is not
an intellectual (yes, there are conservative intellectuals). Really, none
of them were. On the other hand, the actual most villified republican
president of recent times, Nixon, may be painted as ruthless and caught up
in his own machinations, but he wasn't an idiot (at least in the same sense
as the others). Clearly Bush can work hard towards a goal, but at the same
time, we shouldn't mistake that as intelligence. Note who also isn't on
your list? Bush's father. So the list isn't all-inclusive, which indicates
at least some level of selectivity.
>
> Now where I agree with you, I am not a fan of the two party system, I have
> been an independent since I first registered to vote. I resent that a person
> truly has to be a millionaire to win national office.
Didn't I just mention Nixon? :-)
> I too would like to
> see a wider variety of gender and race within the ranks of the candidates
> presented, but I tend to be more “color blind”; I would never vote for a
> candidate based on their race, what ever that race is.
But would you vote *against* him/her for the same reasons? I'm not so much
really seeking your answer on that since I would believe your answer to be
no, so much as trying to illustrate that many *will* hide behind that excuse
but never vote *for* a black/woman/etc.
> Your demand for a
> black president is in league with a racist demanding no black president, it
> places the race of an individual far above any thing else, including
> ideology, ability, etc. As for your assertion about republicans, let me
> remind you that here in the US the most powerful blacks currently in this
> country are all Republican (Clarance Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condaleza
> Rice). My only requirement for a president is that they be at least 35 and a
> natural born citizen.
You may wish to note my other message where I point out why the most likely
party to have a black or woman as president is the Republican party, and why
that is *not* a complement. Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas especially
illustrates the point (though he is appointed, and not elected).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
