Re: POLITICS: Ron (was: Homosexuality (was Ron ))

January 9, 2008

> On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

> > I think it would help if you were a little more forthcoming about what

> > you actually do believe. You spend a lot of time trying to explain

> > Ron 's beliefs, propertarians' beliefs, libertarians' beliefs, and

> > so on, and this tends to create a vacuum into which other people's

> > conclusions flow.

Hey ,

Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

Me - Ron . I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat and just switched parties so

I can caucus for him. In case you were interested. :-)

Suze

January 9, 2008

Suze-

> Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

I hardly think I can be accused of being coy about what I believe and

stand for! But to answer your question, I'm not sure.

As far as general agreement goes, obviously Kucinich is the least-bad

of the available candidates, but there's the matter of his veganism

and the question of what his election would do for the pasture-

farming / raw milk / reality-based nutrition movements. And then of

course there's the fact that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in

hell of actually winning even one state, let alone the nomination.

He's a short, weird-looking and charisma-impaired fellow, so it could

be argued that a vote for him is a wasted vote, but there's also some

weight to the counter-argument that a vote for him expands (however

minutely) the visibility and momentum and therefore perceived

legitimacy of his platform.

Among the three candidates who have a realistic shot at the

nomination, I find the least unpalatable by a significant

margin, so if I don't vote for Kucinich (and I have a number of

reservations about doing so) I'd most likely vote for him... except

that his anti-corporate message is hamstringing him in the media just

as Ron 's is, and so it looks pretty unlikely that he'll win.

Since I like Clinton the least of the top three candidates, I might

therefore decide to vote for Obama if it seems like is out of

it and Obama is the only plausible anti-Clinton.

Obviously I'm not going to vote for Ron . While I find a few of

his positions laudable and worthwhile, I find many more of them

grossly objectionable. And of course I'd never even consider any of

the other Republican candidates for a split second.

> Me - Ron . I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat and just switched

> parties so

> I can caucus for him. In case you were interested. :-)

I'd figured as much; I think you're making a big mistake, but hey,

it's a free country. Sort of. <g>

-

January 9, 2008

Well, history is rife with liberal/progressives becoming right wingers. join the

club.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Suze Fisher " <suzefisher@...>

> > On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >

> > > I think it would help if you were a little more forthcoming about what

> > > you actually do believe. You spend a lot of time trying to explain

> > > Ron 's beliefs, propertarians' beliefs, libertarians' beliefs, and

> > > so on, and this tends to create a vacuum into which other people's

> > > conclusions flow.

>

> Hey ,

>

> Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

>

> Me - Ron . I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat and just switched parties so

> I can caucus for him. In case you were interested. :-)

>

> Suze

>

January 9, 2008

Couldn't resist:

" Alas, one particular quote that is often mistakenly attributed to

the great Brit is,

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any

man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. "

While the sentiment is certainly astute and wise, the saying did not

originate with Churchill. In fact, that wording is a variation

of, " The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he

is still a socialist at forty he has no head " , which belongs to the

former French Prime Minister Aristide d, who was himself a

recovered socialist.

d, however, appears to have cribbed the saying from another

French statesman, Francois Guizot (1787-1874), who originally

said, " Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to

be one at thirty is proof of want of head. "

Naturally, the term Republican had a different meaning in Guizot's

day ... "

> > >

> > > > I think it would help if you were a little more forthcoming

about what

> > > > you actually do believe. You spend a lot of time trying to

explain

> > > > Ron 's beliefs, propertarians' beliefs, libertarians'

beliefs, and

> > > > so on, and this tends to create a vacuum into which other

people's

> > > > conclusions flow.

> >

> > Hey ,

> >

> > Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

> >

> > Me - Ron . I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat and just switched

parties so

> > I can caucus for him. In case you were interested. :-)

> >

> > Suze

> >

>

January 9, 2008

On 1/9/08, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any

> man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. "

Ack! I missed having a heart AND a brain by only five years!

Chris

January 9, 2008

And rife with people mislabeling others. Join the club.

Suze

" Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. "

~Albert Schweitzer

>

> Well, history is rife with liberal/progressives becoming right wingers.

join the club.

January 9, 2008

> > Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

>

> I hardly think I can be accused of being coy about what I believe and

> stand for! But to answer your question, I'm not sure.

Right, I wasn't accusing you of that. I just noticed that you and Gene are

debating a lot about Chris' presidential choice and I hadn't seen either of

you mention your own choices.

> Among the three candidates who have a realistic shot at the

> nomination, I find the least unpalatable by a significant

> margin, so if I don't vote for Kucinich (and I have a number of

> reservations about doing so) I'd most likely vote for him... except

> that his anti-corporate message is hamstringing him in the media just

> as Ron 's is, and so it looks pretty unlikely that he'll win.

> Since I like Clinton the least of the top three candidates, I might

> therefore decide to vote for Obama if it seems like is out of

> it and Obama is the only plausible anti-Clinton.

<snip>

> I'd figured as much; I think you're making a big mistake, but hey,

> it's a free country. Sort of. <g>

Haha. Becoming less so by the minute, it seems. Well, I may be the one

making a big mistake in your opinion, but if you vote for Obama you might as

well kiss your beloved grassfed bison liver, grassfed meat and grassfed

dairy goodbye because Obama supports NAIS, which could very well wipe out

grass farming as we know it. This is certainly not the only reason I'm in

favor of Ron , but I think people who are aware of the significance of

grass farming, biodynamic farming, and small family farms in general, to our

health and freedom to chose what we eat, should be aware that voting for

Obama would have a significant impact on reducing our access to these

healthy, traditional, sustainably raised foods. The impact on biodiverse

farming models that are MORE efficient than factory farms (and perhaps the

only hope we have of feeding the world's population when we exhaust the

inputs wasted in factory farming) and on global warming itself could be

catastrophic.

Further, NAIS means that most or all livestock would be raised in

confinement, which is, in and of itself, a cruel practice. We don't know if

mid-sized factory farms would cut off chicken's beaks and piglets tails, or

would stack poultry cages one atop the other so that those below live in an

excrement bath of those above, or if they'd feed an abundance of grain to

cattle causing severe gastric upset so that they must then feed bicarbonate

of soda to reduce the acidity, or if they'd put antibiotics in the feed

since confinement mono-livestocking makes them much weaker and prone to

disease than pasture-based biodiverse livestocking does, or any of the other

cruel practices that large factory farms do, but we Do know that by

definition, confinement operations are cruel, unhealthy for the animal,

destructive to the environment, and unhealthy for the people who eat these

animals. And many small farmers will simply be forced out of business by the

cost and requirements of NAIS. And so will their suppliers and so on and so

forth down the line. So maybe we'll just be stuck with the mega factory

farms in the end after all.

Obviously then the consequences of a presidential candidate supporting NAIS

spread far beyond whether or not we have access to grassfed meat.

Obama has given lip service to supporting small farmers, but yet he supports

NAIS. Voting for him is voting against grass farming and small family farms

as a whole.

My candidate opposes NAIS. Voting for my candidate would be a vote for

grassfarming and small family farms.

If my candidate won, you'd be drowning in grassfed liver. <g>

Food <gag> for thought.

Suze

January 9, 2008

>> >

>>>> >>> Speaking of vacuum's...who do you plan on voting for?

>>> >>

>>> >> I hardly think I can be accused of being coy about what I believe and

>>> >> stand for! But to answer your question, I'm not sure.

>> >

>> > Right, I wasn't accusing you of that. I just noticed that you and Gene are

>> > debating a lot about Chris' presidential choice and I hadn't seen either of

>> > you mention your own choices.

>

> Well, the question is somewhat lacking context...do you mean, of the major

> candidates? Do you mean in the primaries? Do you mean, lesser of two or ten

> evils choice?

>

> Personally, of the current crop, I¹d probably choose Kucinich. However, I am

> not registered as a democrat or republican, so, we¹re talking the election,

> and so we¹re probably talking either Clinton or Obama, with a slight chance of

> OR possibly a third party candidate.

>

> I would only vote for Clinton or Obama if the Republican candidate were vile

> on the order of Bush....in 2000, I voted for Nader. In 2004, based on

> the wanna be Nazi war criminal Bush¹s record, I voted for Kerry and held my

> nose. It was truly a vote against and not a vote for.

>

> I truly detest both clinton and obama. Obama seems to have garnered the

> support of lots of young people based on (seemingly) charisma alone. He¹s not

> an anti-war candidate despite his spin, he¹s not pro labor, he¹s not

> anti-corporation he¹s a run of the mill, centrist democrat with empty words

> and speeches and I don¹t trust him at all. wants to be a war criminal

> so she can prove that women can commit atrocities as well as men can. I would

> vote for either only under duress.

>

> , as a major candidate is actually better than anyone in years with a

> chance to win...but the media won¹t allow that to happen. He¹s not good for

> business.

>> >

>>> >> Among the three candidates who have a realistic shot at the

>>> >> nomination, I find the least unpalatable by a significant

>>> >> margin, so if I don't vote for Kucinich (and I have a number of

>>> >> reservations about doing so) I'd most likely vote for him... except

>>> >> that his anti-corporate message is hamstringing him in the media just

>>> >> as Ron 's is, and so it looks pretty unlikely that he'll win.

>>> >> Since I like Clinton the least of the top three candidates, I might

>>> >> therefore decide to vote for Obama if it seems like is out of

>>> >> it and Obama is the only plausible anti-Clinton.

>> >

>> > <snip>

>> >

>>> >> I'd figured as much; I think you're making a big mistake, but hey,

>>> >> it's a free country. Sort of. <g>

>> >

>> > Haha. Becoming less so by the minute, it seems. Well, I may be the one

>> > making a big mistake in your opinion, but if you vote for Obama you might

>> as

>> > well kiss your beloved grassfed bison liver, grassfed meat and grassfed

>> > dairy goodbye because Obama supports NAIS, which could very well wipe out

>> > grass farming as we know it. This is certainly not the only reason I'm in

>> > favor of Ron , but I think people who are aware of the significance of

>> > grass farming, biodynamic farming, and small family farms in general, to >>

our

>> > health and freedom to chose what we eat, should be aware that voting for

>> > Obama would have a significant impact on reducing our access to these

>> > healthy, traditional, sustainably raised foods. The impact on biodiverse

>> > farming models that are MORE efficient than factory farms (and perhaps the

>> > only hope we have of feeding the world's population when we exhaust the

>> > inputs wasted in factory farming) and on global warming itself could be

>> > catastrophic.

>> >

>> > Further, NAIS means that most or all livestock would be raised in

>> > confinement, which is, in and of itself, a cruel practice. We don't know if

>> > mid-sized factory farms would cut off chicken's beaks and piglets tails, or

>> > would stack poultry cages one atop the other so that those below live in an

>> > excrement bath of those above, or if they'd feed an abundance of grain to

>> > cattle causing severe gastric upset so that they must then feed bicarbonate

>> > of soda to reduce the acidity, or if they'd put antibiotics in the feed

>> > since confinement mono-livestocking makes them much weaker and prone to

>> > disease than pasture-based biodiverse livestocking does, or any of the

>> other

>> > cruel practices that large factory farms do, but we Do know that by

>> > definition, confinement operations are cruel, unhealthy for the animal,

>> > destructive to the environment, and unhealthy for the people who eat these

>> > animals. And many small farmers will simply be forced out of business by >>

the

>> > cost and requirements of NAIS. And so will their suppliers and so on and so

>> > forth down the line. So maybe we'll just be stuck with the mega factory

>> > farms in the end after all.

>> >

>> > Obviously then the consequences of a presidential candidate supporting NAIS

>> > spread far beyond whether or not we have access to grassfed meat.

>> >

>> > Obama has given lip service to supporting small farmers, but yet he

>> supports

>> > NAIS. Voting for him is voting against grass farming and small family farms

>> > as a whole.

>> >

>> > My candidate opposes NAIS. Voting for my candidate would be a vote for

>> > grassfarming and small family farms.

>> >

>> > If my candidate won, you'd be drowning in grassfed liver. <g>

>> >

>> > Food <gag> for thought.

>> >

>> > Suze

>> >

>

January 10, 2008

LOL you're such a good sport. Maybe you should count your age in wise

owl years or something.

Connie

> Ack! I missed having a heart AND a brain by only five years!

>

> Chris

>

January 10, 2008

My position and thoughts exactly! It's , especially after seeing who is

advising top candidates here.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

Wanita

" Idol " Idol@... wrote: