From: Bruce on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:20:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
>human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
>no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
>present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
>safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
>and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
>able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
>as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
>aspect of citizen activity. I'm not so afraid of socialism as some are,
>since it has been proven to work well in some countries.


Which countries, and what do you mean by "socialism"?

From: Bill Graham on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>A case in point is the rise
>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>within reach of the presidency
>
>
> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>
No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency. He is
currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to the visiting team,
and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into terrible debt. We have only
one more chance to get rid of him, and that chance may be too late.

From: Neil Harrington on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq4mmo$rrt$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>within reach of the presidency
>
>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>
> 8^), 8^), 8^)!

Now there at least you are right. Joe Biden is "only a heartbeat away," as
the saying goes.

Biden, remember, is the guy who a year or so ago claimed President Roosevelt
went on TV in 1929 to reassure the American people after the Crash. . . .
And a few hundred other Bidenisms.


From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-14 14:09:38 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
---------------------------------
> The language, or at least I'm trying to. Sometimes it can be successfully
> defended, and at other times the Morlocks win, as in the sad case of "prime
> lens." C'est la vie.

"The Morlocks" How Wellesian.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq4mmo$rrt$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>within reach of the presidency
>
>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>
> 8^), 8^), 8^)!
> --DR
>
Do I think Sara Palin is smarter than Barak Obama? - No, of course not. But
she has a philosophy that believes in individual responsibility, and Obama
believes in expansion of the welfare state. When I couple this with the
generally weak powers of the presidency anyway, my choice is simple. I'll
take her in a New York minute.....Bear in mind that G. Bush only voted down
one bill presented to him by the congress in his entire 8 years. (that was
the one about stem cell research) So, he did essentially nothing either.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes