From: woodacre@mips.com (Michael Woodacre)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 20:27:57 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: woodacre@mips.com (Michael Woodacre)
NNTP-Posting-Host: krell.mips.com

In article <pzjnljl.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <8238.20792@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>     >In article <vydnjdl.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
>     >Ronzone) writes:
>     >>Eh? Did you read what I posted? "If the system continually
>     >>presents you with a choice of two evils, the only morally
>     >>legitimate option is to not make choice."= coward and cop out
>     >>artist.
>     >>
>     >Yes Ronzone...I read it! Here's a question for you IF you can
>     >handle it....who else is on as a presidential candidate???
>     >Can you answer Ronzone??? If you can't...then you should give
>     >up your status as an adult and go back home to mommy!
> 
> You seem to have a great deal of trouble with rational discussion.
Obviously if you have to respond like this you can't provide a straight
response to the questions

> 
> If I refuse to choose between Stalin or Hitler then I am a "coward and
cop out
> artist"? I think that is a trite, juvenile, no thought phrase.
> 
> And just what exactly does "who else is on as a presidential candidate"
> mean?

It means there are more than 2 people to choose between - seemed like
straight forward use of English to me

> 
> Does is mean that there are only two choice and I should vote for them?
> 
> Maybe three or four or infinite (write-in's)?
> 
> Or what?
> 
> It is troubling to see your emotional vehemence, coupled with so little
> rational discussion.
Troubled with a straight answer again?

> 
> Once again, it is immoral to coercively vote, whether it is just you
> and your buddy, or you and 20,000,000 of your countrymen.
> 
> You have ignored this question repeatedly (why is it not ok for
> 2 people to cerocively vote to steal, but ok for 20,000,000 to do so).
> 
> I understand that it is of course, because you can not answer it.
> 
>     >>The system continually presents us with the choice between
>     >>two evils.
>     >Wrong again Ronzone...Populists, Libertarians, Green Party,
>     >Independent...etc ......gooly gee Phil...I just answered the
>     >above question...I guess we'll never know now if you still
>     >qualify to be a rational and responsible adult in today's
>     >society!
> 
> Voting is immoral. Even if it is for a good end. The right thing
> must be done in the right manner. Even guilty horse thieves caught
> red handed have the right to a trial.
> 
> And all of us have the right to our lioves and property.

Seems like you are happy with the current status quo that you happily
accent the gifts that have been provided to you by the current system.
Perhaps this is why you don't want to vote to change the system as you
like the benefits it provides you

> 
> You may feel OK about conspiring with millions of your fellow thieves
> to steal, but I don't.
> 

So to vote is to steal? Is this what you mean?

So Phil - please tell us what your plans are to change the current system
to something that you see as an improved system? And how you plan to
implement this plan? Seems pretty hard to implement a system where you
don't give people a right to vote on the new system - or do you want
a system where a few people get to set the ground rules and the rest
of us have to live with them forever?

And if you dislike the current system so much, why do you keep supporting
gun ownership by quoting the very basis of the current system - the
constitution? 

> 
> -- 
> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
> 
> "I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
> "Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone
> 
> These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em
cheap ...)

I know you often get flammed but please try and respond with facts else
you only bring your own input to a very low level and waste valuable
bandwidth on the net

Cheers,
Mike

   Michael S. Woodacre | Phone: (408) 524-8120
UUCP: {ames,pyramid,decwrl}!mips!woodacre OR woodacre@mips.com
USPS: MIPS Technologies Inc, 928 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43759 talk.politics.mideast:19613 misc.headlines:6196