........maybe I'll shoot myself......how about that........??

That seems like a very inappropriate reaction.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I am most definitely not in a state of confusion over the word, "good" in this context. In terms of elections, the greatest good comes from an honest and fair election. Who is elected is secondary.

This is precisely in conformity with my previously stated assertion that I do not give my vote for a person, I vote for the candidate who's agenda more nearly comes to my own. I am interested in my agenda being advanced, not some person.

Would an honest and fair election include the candidate using funds provided to him from large corporations to advertise himself in the media and simultaneously run largely false personal attacks on his opponents?

Would an honest and fair election include one candidate with 5X the available funds for media advertisements than another candidate?

Would an honest and fair election include media ads that have absolutely no basis in fact and yet are repeated every hour to reinforce the point?

Is this the honest and fair election that to which you are referring??

And, if it is, would you agree that the electorate, being basically a bunch of morons, will be swayed by the candidate with the most money and, who, by definition can run the most media ads?

Who is elected is primary. And how he got elected is even more important.

I reject the fundamental premise of your questions: That money necessarily corrupts. It does not. Money is not an entity with volition, it is inanimate and cannot influence anybody to do anything. it is people who make decisions about corruption, not money.

I think anybody and any corporation or any NGO should be unconstrained in their financial support of any candidate. the key is to make both donor and recipient publish the donation instantly on the WWW. that puts the burden of evaluation of financial entanglement exactly where it belongs, on the voter.

You believe money is key so you probably cherche le sou before voting. I think that programmatic criteria are paramount so I look for those. Are you right? Am I? Are both of us? Neither of us? I don't know and frankly I don't give a damn. What matters to me is important. What matters to you is of lesser importance, to me. Therefore I am going to pay attention to my interests and trust that you will look after your own and further, that you will not seek to impose your perspective on me. I like being informed of it, I don't wish to feel as though I am compelled to adopt anybody's particular beliefs.

Finally, I have no contempt for the way other people vote. If I believe they voted contrary to their best interest then I think they are short-sighted, but I am not so vain as to believe that my perspective is the best in all circumstances. Therefore it appears to me that to be dismissive of the views and votes of others simply because we didn't agree is base arrogance.

B

PS Because you believe who is elected is of greatest importance is a conclusion that is a good fit for you. I think it is arrogant to suppose that folks should agree with your assessment methodology just because you assert it with some passion. it assumes that we all have the same motivations. We do not.

I'm quite convinced that you're trolling now.

If you honestly believe that money doesn't run the election process and unduly influence the voters in contrast to their best interests, then we're done here.

The electorate is clearly influenced by the man with the greater number of dollars to spend. This has been proven time and again.

You're utopian view of the process surely confirms that you're living in a cave.

The degree to which you are convinced of anything is entirely up to you. I have absolutely nothing to gain by lying about what I believe. For you to assume that I am being anything other that honest and factual as to my beliefs is presumptuous on your part, not mine.

The degree to which you or anybody else is persuaded by money or drugs or violence of inclement weather or diseases of raccoons is your choice, nobody else's. To assume otherwise is to imbue these external factors with a sort of mind control.

Finally, your last assertion above is typical of your style of argumentation when you are frustrated. It serves no purpose other than to insult that which you cannot control.

Bot

You enjoy these interactions and you toss out ideas that are complete nonsense to see how different people respond. You test them. I'm certainly presumptuous, however, your behavior clearly indicates that your being disingenuous.

The degree that the electorate, which was the basis for the discussion until you derailed it, is controlled by money is well documented. To conclude otherwise would indicate that you're not of a clear mind to understand the process........something that is certainly not possible for a man of your intellect.

You misread my emotions. I'm not at all frustrated with your behavior. I'm convinced, however, that it's dishonest and that you've engaged me for reasons that you refuse to admit.

I'm also curious as to why Bot continues to "debate" you - its hard enough to debate somebody that is 100% convinced his view of every issue is the truth. It's another matter entirely to debate someone who is apparently able to see into other peoples minds and know when they are acting disingenuously.

Your powers of perception and intellect are formidable indeed.

It's called reading between the lines there.

Tim, I'm still waiting for you to say something. It's usually just dumping on someone who's powers of understanding are clearly beneath yours. And BC doesn't even live in Berkeley.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Since you never even bothered to read the thread and have made another offhand comment after the final post, your opinion is worthless, as usual.

By that comment, proving his point.

Bot

Read the next sentence.
-----------------------

What I have written is as I believe.

-----------------------

Your "reading between the lines" is nothing more than imposing your beliefs. Read what i said, not what you think I said.

Bot

The only thing that he proved was that he failed to read the thread.

Amazing!

Bot