Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - 17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by Michael Moore

Rhylan · 11-05-2004, 11:16 AM

#14 makes no sense.. since when is a second term a lame duck term? He IS the elected president, for the next 4 calendar years.

This just continues to emphasize the fallacious lefty idea that an office holder's effectiveness comes from his ability to get elected rather than his ability to lead. In effect, they are saying, "you are powerless if you can't pander," which if taken as a logical statement, is an implicit admission by the far left that their candidates' strength is primarily derived from pandering.

Another way of putting it.. Moore is implicitly admitting that he believes that a politician can't get anything done if he/she doesn't have an upcoming election for which people can be bribed. It's not about what you do with the office, it's about what you do to get there and while there, it's about what you do to ensure you stay there another term.

People all across this nation are gradually rejecting the political pandering with each passing election.. it's my gut feeling that votes for the Republican party in the last 3 Presidential elections have been split between right-idealogues and moderate votes against pandering.. where votes for Democrats have been split between left-idealogues and votes by panderees. With the winner of the election decided by a small (or large, in Clinton's case) margin of "here and now" voters that vote primarily on personality of the candidate. Just my completely asinine gut feeling, of course. I just don't think that the leftist pandering is working as much as it did 10 years ago.. and those who oppose the Republican party can probably argue that now, the right-ist pandering is proving more effective.

11-05-2004, 11:16 AM	#2
Rhylan Minister of Soul Join Date: May 2001 Location: on the Mothership Posts: 4,893	RE:17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by Michael Moore #14 makes no sense.. since when is a second term a lame duck term? He IS the elected president, for the next 4 calendar years. This just continues to emphasize the fallacious lefty idea that an office holder's effectiveness comes from his ability to get elected rather than his ability to lead. In effect, they are saying, "you are powerless if you can't pander," which if taken as a logical statement, is an implicit admission by the far left that their candidates' strength is primarily derived from pandering. Another way of putting it.. Moore is implicitly admitting that he believes that a politician can't get anything done if he/she doesn't have an upcoming election for which people can be bribed. It's not about what you do with the office, it's about what you do to get there and while there, it's about what you do to ensure you stay there another term. People all across this nation are gradually rejecting the political pandering with each passing election.. it's my gut feeling that votes for the Republican party in the last 3 Presidential elections have been split between right-idealogues and moderate votes against pandering.. where votes for Democrats have been split between left-idealogues and votes by panderees. With the winner of the election decided by a small (or large, in Clinton's case) margin of "here and now" voters that vote primarily on personality of the candidate. Just my completely asinine gut feeling, of course. I just don't think that the leftist pandering is working as much as it did 10 years ago.. and those who oppose the Republican party can probably argue that now, the right-ist pandering is proving more effective.