Why on earth would you want to listen to anything Ja Rule or Brittany Spears
has to say? It's a slow life out there in Cowpie, OK?
From: cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Booth Martin
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:44 AM
To: Open discussion among iSeries Users
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] Democrat hopefuls trending leftward
I understand what you are saying with this remark. My rejoinder is that I tend to listen to the words of people that have been there, done that. I may not agree with them, but I do want to hear them. Why? Because in my experience, those that are successful usually think more clearly and focused than others. For someone to reach National stature on their own, at *anything* leads me to believe they have something on the ball. I want to hear it if they want to say it.
I happen to include GW Bush and Paris Hilton, in that group, for instance.
rick baird wrote:
My point was, what makes their voice more worthy to listen to than,
say, your's or mine?
the ONLY reason their voice is being heard at all has nothing to do
with anything except their celebrity, and that celebrity had nothing
to do with their political acumen.
On 7/26/07, qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
fine. I'll make my decisions based on the utterings of n'sync, theYou will, of course, make your decisions in your personal way; but
beasty boys and barbra streisand. Simply because People magazine
tells me what they think.
that completely evades the question.
Why is any willing member of the People inappropriate to speak at a
And this isn't (yet) a Party event. At least for now, this event
remains an event of the People. Though I think it's a wrong move to
exclude simple People from speaking at more formal Party events, I
can understand the motivations. At a full Party event, experienced
movers in political actions seem more appropriate. There is a Party
agenda that shapes all of it there.
But why are the views of a particular individual beneath you? I
realize that's a harsh characterization, but your choice of words in
your response above makes it seem relevant. Ted Nugent seems
acceptable, but John Amato or similar is not. It seems that only if
someone speaks to match your views -- regardless of occupation --
are their views acceptable in terms of value to the public. I don't
recall much negative criticism from you over giving Nugent space in
The Wall Street Journal. You've seen his views to be important
enough to post links for us here.
So, it apparently really isn't anything to do with occupation. Yet,
you brought 'sing a pop song' into the formula for validity as a
Why? It doesn't seem that you actually believe it.
For the most part, I have no idea who many of the speakers are nor
do I particularly care. So, given the event, I don't have a clue
what your statement is supposed to mean. It _seems_ like it means
that regular People should be shunned from speaking to groups when
there are influential individuals present.
On 7/26/07, qsrvbas wrote:--
being able to sing a pop song gives them 'chops' to be a speaker ofPlease note that the Preamble of the Constitution makes it clear
note at a political convention?
from where the entire authority arises: "We the People...".
If a willing member of the People isn't appropriate, who is?
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact