On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 20:50 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote: > Good evening again, Bill! > > Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert... > > > No, it's just your typical knee-jerk, reactionary, biased > > interpretation. So he supports democracy around the world. Big friggin > > deal. He never said he is in favor of forcing it on everyone. But you > > always (except in your own arguments, of course) assume the opposite. > > After our last conversation, I believed we might be coming into > agreement on such things. apperently not. > > I don't support 'democracy' around the world, and I don't support > democracy at home either. I believe 'Democracy' is fatally > flawed by its own definition. So, logically, The Shrub<tm> does > not represent my interests as an American either. Our country > was never founded on the basis of 'Democracy'! So, at least, you > and I ought to at least agree to disagree on the basis of why > 'Democracy' from America, is something I can, or you can, support > or not. If you support such a concept, then that's fine, I'll > live with that. But I do not.
I'm an opponent of democracy, favoring republican style governments, and you know it You are deliberately raising a strawman here. Your reaction was one of "forcing" a style of government on someone. Whether that government style is democracy, fascist, republican, or representative democracy is irrelevant to the argument. > > And, to go a little further here, the present Regime in power > does not represent me, my interests, and certainly is just as > much aggressive as a John Kerry/John Edwards regime could have > become. Your buddy, Lowell Savage went online yesterday > suggesting that "I" was 'represented by the outcome of this > election! That was ludicrious! Let me put this as straight as I > can: > > I am NOT, and never will be, represented by the current regime in > office in the United States of America unless I signed on to that > in the voting booth! PERIOD! Tossing into the wind will get you nowhere. The fact is that those elected to represent us are our representatives in government. Period. Our beliefs are irrelevant as to whether our representatives in congress are our representatives. TO demonstrate this do the following exercise. Substitute "democracy" for *any* other governmental type. If your opinion doesn't turn favorable, the issue you originally put forth (forcing of the style on others) is as I said, not what you wrote above. And as far as you being represented in the election; you were. You voted. Not all representation is a "win". You are saying that because your guy went to the Olympics but didn't win, you weren't represented. Sounds more and more like sour grapes to me, as opposed to realism. > > Your cognitive dissonance is resonating into higher levels of > > reverberation, setting up a positive feedback loop. > > Sorry Bill. Don't honest understand the above paragraph. Please > reword it somehow so that I can reply accordingly. You are stubbornly clinging to an invalid definition set because to do otherwise is apparently causing you pain as you'd have to realize you are indeed incorrect. This stubborn holding of an untenable position is preventing you from moving forward - further entrenching your incorrectness. Indeed, the post you just made bears this out. I gave you clear, unambiguous definitions of what everyone is saying when they what they've been saying. Yet again, you REFUSE to acknowledge that and cling your pet definitions. T0 do otherwise, to have to agree that the others were right in what they said, is probably to painful for you; or would cause you to re-evaluate your childish behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be a good thing. In your case, it is clearly not. -- Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
