Frank > I never wrote that a Representative that I did not vote for, or > even strongly opposed, was not a Representative. He or she is a > Representative of the State of Idaho in the case of our national > State delegation. In your above example, The Shrub<tm> > unfortunately IS the President of the United States, sadly, even > though his actions and performance in that office doesn't > Represent me.
George Bush is the President and in international affairs does indeed represent you (in a specific technical sense). > If you believe that Bill's argument here is the correct one, then > this certainly implies that individuals are the victims of > coersion and force, and have no right to choose for themselves who > represents them, their issues, convictions and position on > various matters. Under the current system, you lack that right. The President is determined by a voting system involving an electoral college. There is no choice about this apart from the one you vote as an individual. Even as a defendant, you may be assigned a lawyer which you do not want. He would then be your representative and would represent you whether you welcomed that state of affairs or not. Now, you many want change but that in no way establishes that Bush does not represent you. It only establishes that Bush does not represent you as you wish. Regards Tim Horatio in Adrian Barnett's guestbook: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
