If it means victory for a candidate that is worse, it does. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
Travis Pahl wrote: > Once again that analogy does not work, because doing nothing in terms > of voting does not make things worse than voting for a candidate that > is bad. > > Travis > > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:05:12 -0800, Lowell C. Savage > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I might add the "Jim Cramer" rule. (He's a financial/market commentator > and > > is the "Cramer" half of "Kudlow and Cramer".) I name it after him, not > > because he coined in this field, but because he inspired it. He says on > his > > radio show that "I can't make you money if you lose money on a bad > stock." > > Well, applied here, that comes out as "You can't move ahead on freedom > if > > you move back." Sometimes, in the stock market, you make a sale on > > something that you lose money on. But you make the sale anyway because > if > > you hang on to the stock, you lose even more. > > > > Sometimes in politics, you vote for a guy/gal who will take away some > > freedom because the only viable alternative is going to take away even > more. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
