Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Left to chance is into the Right

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    An existentialist, let alone an atheist, will never be nominated for U.S. President. The inauthenticity required to campaign for political office seems
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      An existentialist, let alone an atheist, will never be nominated for U.S. President. The inauthenticity required to campaign for political office seems irreversible. Romney, never considered conservative enough for his party, is having to invalidate his moderate credentials; Obama, not liberal enough for those who elected him fails to inspire. They're both trying to appeal to unity among their imaginary base and independents by disavowing the integrity of their unique visions. As much as I disagree with the Pauls, it tickles me that Rand criticizes wasteful defense spending, and Ron withholds his endorsement of Romney. They both despise the Koch machine. I think their kookiness is what politics need. We need more parties whose representation would be authentic, obnoxiously transparent, and who would align their votes on specific issues with other parties, voting strictly on the issue at hand. Ultimately, that's what is pragmatic, not some boring centrist ideology whose snail pace is nothing more than a globalization of greed. I honestly feel that Romney and Obama are decent men who were once idealist, but I will vote for the party which pays the best lip service to the issues I care about. The sad thing is my vote ensures the centrist agenda; nothing much will change. The young apathetic and cynical citizenry, will at some point have to take their future into their own hands. As Sartre said, not choosing is nevertheless a choice; it has consequences.

      Mary
    • William
      ... Mary, I must agree with what you say. It is getting harder for me to give a damn. I have decided not to watch the conventions but will probably see the
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > An existentialist, let alone an atheist, will never be nominated for U.S. President. The inauthenticity required to campaign for political office seems irreversible. Romney, never considered conservative enough for his party, is having to invalidate his moderate credentials; Obama, not liberal enough for those who elected him fails to inspire. They're both trying to appeal to unity among their imaginary base and independents by disavowing the integrity of their unique visions. As much as I disagree with the Pauls, it tickles me that Rand criticizes wasteful defense spending, and Ron withholds his endorsement of Romney. They both despise the Koch machine. I think their kookiness is what politics need. We need more parties whose representation would be authentic, obnoxiously transparent, and who would align their votes on specific issues with other parties, voting strictly on the issue at hand. Ultimately, that's what is pragmatic, not some boring centrist ideology whose snail pace is nothing more than a globalization of greed. I honestly feel that Romney and Obama are decent men who were once idealist, but I will vote for the party which pays the best lip service to the issues I care about. The sad thing is my vote ensures the centrist agenda; nothing much will change. The young apathetic and cynical citizenry, will at some point have to take their future into their own hands. As Sartre said, not choosing is nevertheless a choice; it has consequences.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        Mary, I must agree with what you say. It is getting harder for me to give a damn. I have decided not to watch the conventions but will probably see the debates. We were canvassed yesterday and shooed them away.
        I do not find things to be as bad as they have been. The damn wars are winding down and the doom and gloom that is the right wing hope is just not that bad. I have given up on pie in the sky prosperity but have enough to live. This is not the depression, WW2 or even Viet Nam. The politicians and news people are having a hard time creating interest and interest equils money for them. I begin to think we spend too much money and time on the political game. The hype is expensive and meant to be stressful and I am going into a mode that ignores more of it. The issues are already talked to death and so I will vote and forget it. I have known too many politicians to see them as special people. Most of them are ordinary slobs with big egos.Looking good is still the most important thing for public people and we seem to have plenty of pretty faces to fill the slots of the famous.When someone jumps up and screams look at me look at me I begin to look another way. Sorry , I`m just worn quite thin by these face people. Bill
      • Mary
        Bill, I will be paying attention to the conventions peripheral events, which will probably only be available in depth on the internet, and will definitely
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill,

          I will be paying attention to the conventions' peripheral events, which will probably only be available in depth on the internet, and will definitely watch the debates. I see they've scheduled two women moderators, one for the Veeps, and can't wait to see them have a go at Ryan.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
          > >
          > > An existentialist, let alone an atheist, will never be nominated for U.S. President. The inauthenticity required to campaign for political office seems irreversible. Romney, never considered conservative enough for his party, is having to invalidate his moderate credentials; Obama, not liberal enough for those who elected him fails to inspire. They're both trying to appeal to unity among their imaginary base and independents by disavowing the integrity of their unique visions. As much as I disagree with the Pauls, it tickles me that Rand criticizes wasteful defense spending, and Ron withholds his endorsement of Romney. They both despise the Koch machine. I think their kookiness is what politics need. We need more parties whose representation would be authentic, obnoxiously transparent, and who would align their votes on specific issues with other parties, voting strictly on the issue at hand. Ultimately, that's what is pragmatic, not some boring centrist ideology whose snail pace is nothing more than a globalization of greed. I honestly feel that Romney and Obama are decent men who were once idealist, but I will vote for the party which pays the best lip service to the issues I care about. The sad thing is my vote ensures the centrist agenda; nothing much will change. The young apathetic and cynical citizenry, will at some point have to take their future into their own hands. As Sartre said, not choosing is nevertheless a choice; it has consequences.
          > >
          > > Mary
          > >
          > Mary, I must agree with what you say. It is getting harder for me to give a damn. I have decided not to watch the conventions but will probably see the debates. We were canvassed yesterday and shooed them away.
          > I do not find things to be as bad as they have been. The damn wars are winding down and the doom and gloom that is the right wing hope is just not that bad. I have given up on pie in the sky prosperity but have enough to live. This is not the depression, WW2 or even Viet Nam. The politicians and news people are having a hard time creating interest and interest equils money for them. I begin to think we spend too much money and time on the political game. The hype is expensive and meant to be stressful and I am going into a mode that ignores more of it. The issues are already talked to death and so I will vote and forget it. I have known too many politicians to see them as special people. Most of them are ordinary slobs with big egos.Looking good is still the most important thing for public people and we seem to have plenty of pretty faces to fill the slots of the famous.When someone jumps up and screams look at me look at me I begin to look another way. Sorry , I`m just worn quite thin by these face people. Bill
          >
        • William
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 27, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > I will be paying attention to the conventions' peripheral events, which will probably only be available in depth on the internet, and will definitely watch the debates. I see they've scheduled two women moderators, one for the Veeps, and can't wait to see them have a go at Ryan.
            >
            > Mary
            > Ryan is a policy wonk but his social conservative stances are really backward. He will try to stay on the numbers but some angry women could knock him off message. Catholic social teaching can be seen as cruel and dictatorial but the celebate priests do not care and Ryan could be seen as a papist bastard if put in a corner. His positions on taxes ,medicare and his refusal to even consider defense cuts leave him vulnerable if he were not so well versed.There are just trending polls that show Ryan is a libility in Florida for seniors. My problem is I can`t stand watching them I get too angry and my BP spikes. I think Obama will beat Romney in debate, Obama is a cool customer and Romney is just not that smart. Obama`s christma is huge, I have met him and debating him would be no fun. Romney is a true puke and I think he will slip out of his good guy facade and make telling errors. His cutsey ,cutsey little winks and pauses make him look like a cheap hooker .I hope Obama filets him . Bill
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > An existentialist, let alone an atheist, will never be nominated for U.S. President. The inauthenticity required to campaign for political office seems irreversible. Romney, never considered conservative enough for his party, is having to invalidate his moderate credentials; Obama, not liberal enough for those who elected him fails to inspire. They're both trying to appeal to unity among their imaginary base and independents by disavowing the integrity of their unique visions. As much as I disagree with the Pauls, it tickles me that Rand criticizes wasteful defense spending, and Ron withholds his endorsement of Romney. They both despise the Koch machine. I think their kookiness is what politics need. We need more parties whose representation would be authentic, obnoxiously transparent, and who would align their votes on specific issues with other parties, voting strictly on the issue at hand. Ultimately, that's what is pragmatic, not some boring centrist ideology whose snail pace is nothing more than a globalization of greed. I honestly feel that Romney and Obama are decent men who were once idealist, but I will vote for the party which pays the best lip service to the issues I care about. The sad thing is my vote ensures the centrist agenda; nothing much will change. The young apathetic and cynical citizenry, will at some point have to take their future into their own hands. As Sartre said, not choosing is nevertheless a choice; it has consequences.
            > > >
            > > > Mary
            > > >
            > > Mary, I must agree with what you say. It is getting harder for me to give a damn. I have decided not to watch the conventions but will probably see the debates. We were canvassed yesterday and shooed them away.
            > > I do not find things to be as bad as they have been. The damn wars are winding down and the doom and gloom that is the right wing hope is just not that bad. I have given up on pie in the sky prosperity but have enough to live. This is not the depression, WW2 or even Viet Nam. The politicians and news people are having a hard time creating interest and interest equils money for them. I begin to think we spend too much money and time on the political game. The hype is expensive and meant to be stressful and I am going into a mode that ignores more of it. The issues are already talked to death and so I will vote and forget it. I have known too many politicians to see them as special people. Most of them are ordinary slobs with big egos.Looking good is still the most important thing for public people and we seem to have plenty of pretty faces to fill the slots of the famous.When someone jumps up and screams look at me look at me I begin to look another way. Sorry , I`m just worn quite thin by these face people. Bill
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.