Subject:
|
Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:18:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adrian Egli wrote:
> > I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me
> > that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy
> > actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just
> > wanted to try someone else. Does that seem like a sensible course of
> > action?
>
> I'll just take that as another sacarasm.
You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it:
I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an
informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another.
Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for choosing an absolute unknown in
preference to one of the other candidates?
> > Obviously something about Arnold appealed to on a level different
> > from what the other candidates had to offer. I'm asking what you think was
> > the source of that appeal.
>
> Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one
> else up there showed- charasima!
So "charisma" is the primary qualifying characteristic, in your opinion? Based
on that criterion, I suppose that you would glowingly endorse Bill Clinton over
any other president from the past few decades, because Clinton was clearly more
charismatic than any other contender.
But perhaps "charisma" is what caught Arnold's eye about a certain public
speaker from the 30's?
> If there is one thing I have seen all so often in this life (I was one of
> those teens who read his dad's US News & World Report magazine) and that is
> if a politician shows the public that he has a very strong charasima then
> people are likely to vote for him. Look at Reagan. If he's not an example
> of this then you'd better tell us all why.
The only thing keeping me from identifying Reagan as the worst of our past 10
presidents is George W. Bush, so you'll gain no ground in trying to compare one
unqualified politican/actor with another.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) "Absolute unknown" can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to the public in general then Arnold not an "absolute unknown". I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to see which names I (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) I'll just take that as another sacarasm. (...) Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one else up there showed- charasima! If there is one thing I have seen all so often in this life (I was one of those teens who (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 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
|
|
|
|
