Publius Maximus wrote: > I'm far more discriminating in what I share than you give me credit. > Talk about knee-jerks, this one has nothing whatever to do with Obama, > and still I get accused of "senseless bashing" of el Presidente. > You, being a scholar and a linguist, should understand this : "Hazte fama y echate a dormir"
> For the record, my bashing of el Presidente makes perfect sense, if > you value republican constitutional government, federalism, the > importance of avoiding dangerous demagogues for presidents, the > delegation style of governance, and the science of economics. > Otherwise, you're not likely to grasp my objections, far less my > humor. > Let's try to grasp this looong sentence. You speak about valuing "republican constitutional government", that's plain stupid. Which constitution? Which government? Or do you think (like most yanks do) that your constitution and your govt are the only ones? There are many republican govts under different constitutions, and in your country you've had many republican govts under the same constitution. Next you ask if I value govenment. That makes not sense at all! WHICH government? Or do you mean to ask if I value to be governed by other people? Then you ask if I value "federalism". Another stupid question. WHICH federalism? The US federalism, Argentine federalism (yes, we are a constitutional, republican, and federalist country)? They are very different and yet they are both federalisms. Then you ask if I value the "importance of avoiding dangerous demagogues for presidents". Importance to whom and in what sense? What is your definition of "demagogue" and who gets to judge? What is your definition of "dangerous" (and dangerous to whom) and who gets to judge this? And you finally imply demagogic president is inherently dangerous, you have to prove this affirmation is ALWAYS true. You speak of valuing "the delegation style of governance ". Another pointless question. WHOSE delegation style? Switzerland's, Argentina's, Sweden's? Any country that has authorities "delegates governance" to them. You finally talk about valuing the "science of economics". How dumb can you be? First prove me economics is a science. Can you check theories? Can you repeat your results? Is there a way to absolutely prove that an economic theory is wrong? And what the hell does valuing the "science of economics" has to do with your traitorous bashing of your own president? Yes, traitorous, you are at war and you are going against your govt like the 5th columnist you are. And that, according to the Republican Party's point of view, is being a traitor. > Not YOU, per se, Ricardo, of course, being, such as you are, of such > refined wit and inquisitive character; nevertheless, you know what I'm > saying. > Yep, political stupidity. Campaign talk that won't resist analysis. > Most of my objections, spelled out here for over a and blah blah blah bashing his poor country's govt. And then he asks why is he accused of senselessly bashing his own president. Please grow up "Minimus Dickus" _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
