From: one-if-by-land@concord.com
"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
news:dYOdnT_KWt1e2pPVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> "Don" wrote in
> news:fukutm0c0n@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>>
>> "Kris Krieger" wrote in message
>> news:cqWdnTCS_fg5DJDVnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> [snip]
>>>
>>> Calling them stupid and so on is as senseles - and as useless - as
>>> blaming farmers, or for that matter fast-food places, because one
>>> overeats and gets fat.
>>>
>>> As for Texaco et al, hey, voters allowed
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm glad you said *voters* and not *people*.
>>
>> Remember, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results.
>
> Well, not necessarily, if one voted against the politics of waste and
> shortsightedness. The problem is that 50.01% is still technically a
> majority. And if the majority chooses shortsightedness, they get what
> they deserve, but a lot of other people are also affected by the fallout.
>
>
>>
>> How about that for a truthful rendition of an old canard invented and
>> perpetrated by the retarded?
>> (If you don't vote then you have no right to complain.)
>> ^^^^
>> Admit, thats retarded isn't it?
>
> Not necessarily. If there is a *clearly superior* choice available,
Right there is where we part ways.
I'll never choose someone, even a *clearly superior* choice, to rule over
you.
Or represent you, or whatever.
I believe that if you want those things, to be ruled or represented, thats
up to you to figure how to get it done.
and
> people stay home, then they have no right to complain. OTOH, there is
> not always a clearly superior choice available, an done could argue that
> there is *seldom* a clearly superior choice available. By the same
> token, however, there are also many types of representatives, and people
> *can* make their wishes known, but a great many (at least, whome I've
> both heard/read of, and asked directly) can't be bothered taking a few
> minutes to even write a letter.
I reject the notion that I must aquiesce in any form at all to accomodate
the whims of others.
I don't ask people to freely give of their time, through letter writing,
phonecalls, emails, etc., for my wishes and won't tolerate when people
expect that of me.
Or pay less than the price of a pack of
> cigarettes, a fancy coffee, or a beer at the bar, to have recycleables
> picked up as part of trash collection.
>
> OTOH, given that I once directly witnesses a "mother" who refused to pay
> for her child's medicine because it meant she wouldn't have been able to
> afford her friggin' cigarettes, the above comes as no surprise. A great
> many poeple are loathe to make even minor lifestyle changes, and if those
> are the people who are getting off their duffs and going out to vote,
> well, neither they, nor the poeple who don't vote, should kvetch when
> they get exactly what they either asked for, or allowed others to select
> for them.
>
> Personally, tho', I think that individual action is what matters in the
> end. Too many people say "what can one person do",
For starters, they can start minding their own business and run their own
life and let other people the hell alone.
when the point is
> what one person times X-million can do. The point is that one cannot
> turn over any and all problem-solving to the governemnt.
The gov't is a problem in and of itself so it is an act of futility to
expect it to solve a problem.
History shows it has never done such a thing.
Individual
> action *does* count, when it is additive, as opposed to merely an excuse
> to go with a negative, or even destructive, status-quo.
>
> At the same time, for the governemnt to improve, a big part of what needs
> to change is the quality of people for whom the citizenrty votes, and
> that will remain the same as long as voters continue to support the same
> sorts of people who either exacerbated, or created, so many of the
> current messes.
I don't see anyway out of it til it hits rock bottom.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
