Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
Nononono...(shuddering) Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No...You really don't want to see Keith with that hatchet again, do you?? Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pal, maybe I should've gone with the extra onions? Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup...this discussion is much older than you realize...We've been badgering Keith to do his thing for a while now with me and Martin breathing down his neck! LOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
No...You really don't want to see Keith with that hatchet again, do you?? Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pal, maybe I should've gone with the extra onions? Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup...this discussion is much older than you realize...We've been badgering Keith to do his thing for a while now with me and Martin breathing down his neck! LOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
Pal, maybe I should've gone with the extra onions? Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup...this discussion is much older than you realize...We've been badgering Keith to do his thing for a while now with me and Martin breathing down his neck! LOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet I may be stepping
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
This is a good season for you to get going, Keith. There are a bunch of blogs and websites launching and your POV would be refreshing to read and see responses on. On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:05:38 -0500, Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup...this discussion is much older than you realize...We've been badgering Keith to do his thing for a while now with me and Martin breathing down his neck! LOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet I may be
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
thanks. I mean that. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PressureAlert. so when you going to call me so I can set up a fast blog for you. a simple one with a few add ons can be done in less than two hours. Pressure over. I know you got a lot going on. Take care of the important stuff first. I will be here when you are ready [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
Keith: When you are ready and do start to blog, I'll be happy to reprint some of your entries in my own blog with links back to your blog. My feed is syndicated into LexisNexis and EBSCO and the extra exposure can help you build your readership a little quicker than with conventional weapons. __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ Keith Johnson said: thanks. I mean that. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PressureAlert. so when you going to call me so I can set up a fast blog for you. a simple one with a few add ons can be done in less than two hours. Pressure over. I know you got a lot going on. Take care of the important stuff first. I will be here when you are ready
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
James: That is wonderful! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith: When you are ready and do start to blog, I'll be happy to reprint some of your entries in my own blog with links back to your blog. My feed is syndicated into LexisNexis and EBSCO and the extra exposure can help you build your readership a little quicker than with conventional weapons. __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ Keith Johnson said: thanks. I mean that. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PressureAlert. so when you going to call me so I can set up a fast blog for you. a simple one with a few add ons can be done in less than two hours. Pressure over. I know you got a lot going on. Take care of the important stuff first. I will be here when you are ready Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
okay, y'all are really guilting me into this. I will take everyone up on this, promise. I have a couple of things to take care of, hopefully in the next week or two, then i'll be free to concentrate on this. Thanks, James -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keith: When you are ready and do start to blog, I'll be happy to reprint some of your entries in my own blog with links back to your blog. My feed is syndicated into LexisNexis and EBSCO and the extra exposure can help you build your readership a little quicker than with conventional weapons. __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ Keith Johnson said: thanks. I mean that. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PressureAlert. so when you going to call me so I can set up a fast blog for you. a simple one with a few add ons can be done in less than two hours. Pressure over. I know you got a lot going on. Take care of the important stuff first. I will be here when you are ready [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
PressureAlert. so when you going to call me so I can set up a fast blog for you. a simple one with a few add ons can be done in less than two hours. Pressure over. I know you got a lot going on. Take care of the important stuff first. I will be here when you are ready [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
Yup...this discussion is much older than you realize...We've been badgering Keith to do his thing for a while now with me and Martin breathing down his neck! LOL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i was saying yes, dad to Astro. No, no offense at all! I appreciate your compliment and comments, same for everyone else. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
oops that was supposed to go directly to Keith. Please ignore B --- Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign Off List
Hey Keith I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not caused offense. thanks B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
thanks, i have no real excuse--none at all -- Original message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Queueing in third. Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
Queueing in third. Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
(standing ovation) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was pro-choice, pro immigration (in terms of working something out instead of sounding like a
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) --- In
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
That is why i am pressuring him to set up a blog. Keith? I will help you Bosco Bosco wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
I agree that they all do it to some extent. I do not think the republicans do it any more than the dems. Most dems and republicans alike are more subtle about it. But I think Romney perfected it. Since he has been liberal and conservative, depending on which way his prospects were blowing, I do not think any group should have to claim his unique brand of of mood campaigning. , I'm not coming at him as a liberal, but seeing it as a political junkie. Also, I've got a problem with any one who runs attack ads that are not at least true. If Mc Cain were not a moderate and a hothead who alienated would be allies. I do not think right wing talk radio and top Republican politicos would be rallying behind Romney. Many conservatives perceive Romney as buying voters and delegates. I think if say Thompson had feared better or some, they would not even be giving him the time of day. That being said, since i am a liberal, I admit that I could be seeing this all wrong maidmarian_thepoet wrote: Point taken. If he is going to change his position to fit a conservative base, it shouldn't need to be adjusted every day. And he certainly needs to be honest enough to admit that is what he is doing. However, I can't say that the same problem doesn't exist on the Democratic site. Hillary has adjusted her stance to be more middle-america since her announcement to run for president. I don't know if anyone has caught Obama in an adjustment, but I can't say that I like his need to say that he would love to hunt down terrorists in-country without local permission (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/obama_vows_to_hunt_down_terror.ph\ p). It sounds like he is trying to prove how tough he is despite being against the Iraq war.Entering Pakistan without local permission would be an act of war. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are not off, but he changes his positions every days depending on who he talks to and if he is shown video footage as proof of what he said, he will still deny he said that. Even if it was only 24 hours ago. One might argue that since he changes so much so fast that he does not belief what he says and might not do what he promised. Some republicans feel that bush misrepresented himself, so they might be a little leary of someone who changes because it is advantageous to do so. maidmarian_thepoet wrote: I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, KeithBJohnson@ wrote: Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was pro-choice, pro immigration (in terms of working something out instead of sounding like a Klansman), not averse to taxes as needed (which he calls fees, but same difference). I heard a speech he gave just a few years back where he explicitly said he didn't want to try and recreate the Reagan days. Now he's a rabid ultr-conservative nut who evokes Reagan more than some of us call on God! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was pro-choice, pro immigration (in terms of working something out instead of sounding like a Klansman), not averse to taxes as needed (which he calls fees, but same difference). I heard a speech he gave just a
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
i hear you. What did you think of him when he was gubnor? -- Original message -- From: g123curious [EMAIL PROTECTED] I live and work in Massachusetts. Romney will not be missed. On the way out, don't let the door hit him where the sun don't shine. George --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll be darned! this is the most interesting election year I can remember since, well, the last couple of election years! Good riddance, I say: spend some time looking at how he *used* to feel on issues, and how he feels now, and you talk bout an opportunistic flip- flopper! I'm also amazed at how Limbaugh and the others of his ilk have so embraced this Mormon ( who in other times they'd be attacking as not a real Christian, no doubt), just because they hate the liberal McCain! More interesting is the reaction of many of my co-workers, who are perfect barometers for the ultra-conservative, braindead segment of society. They're all but in morning. Oh, it might be a riot up in here if Obama or Hillary wins come Election Day! ** CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, GOP sources tell CNN. Romney had won 270 delegates in through the Super Tuesday contests, compared with front-runner John McCain's 680. snip [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
