Replies

Hawking may indeed be vindictive, and I certainly don’t agree with him about the existence of God, but I admire anyone who can endure what he has endured and lead not only a productive and reasonably happy life, but one that is more productive and happy than most lives. He is a remarkable man and I truly think he will come to know God eventually. I fought God tooth and nail for decades, but thankfully, in the end it was a lost cause and I was never so happy to lose a battle and the war.

> “ I admire anyone who can endure what he has endured and lead not only a productive and reasonably happy life, but one that is more productive and happy than most lives.”

.
Where did you get the idea that Hawking is in any way happy?

He is a combative, and agressive man, that seeks to dismiss all of the basic elements of happiness and stability.

There’s absolutely, positively no way that anything I say on this forum would change any Freepers mind and cause them to vote for Coons over O’Donnell assuming they are from Deleware.

Being a bit short-sighted there, aren't you?

The fact is that when it comes to national politics, every single one of the important battles, whether for a senate seat or for a congressional seat, does matter. It doesn't matter that a battle is in Delaware or in Florida or anywhere else. Why do you think that the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey were crucial? Why was the election of Scott Brown important for "just a senate seat"? The whole country is paying attention to what happens in Delaware and in Florida and elsewhere. You can't separate the "local" elections from the larger picture in national politics. It's all tied together. But, apparently, you don't understand that.

So anything I say about O’Donnell’s unelectability won’t cause her a scintilla of harm since I don’t go around shilling for Coons.

That's the wrong way to look at things.

You're stating that because you're not shilling for Coons, you're not necessarily hurting O'Donnell. But, just presenting any kind of negative is a way to help the opposition. When the opposition sees "their enemies" fighting amongst themselves, they're being encouraged to continue with their methods and attacks. It's all about "divide and conquer".

What the hell do you take me for? I’m just expressing my opinion (yep, I’ve got one of those too) that she’s not going to be elected.

Wrong argument!

Nobody's trying to take away your right to free speech or to express your opinions. Your current defense is not winning you the argument.

I’ll see you back on one of these threads after the Republicans kick down the House door and maybe the Senate door and we’ll compare notes.

So, you're one of those that just waits for the final results before comparing notes?

Why not effect the outcomes by being principled and doing as much as you can to get the right outcomes? Speaking against O'Donnell in any way, even if not directly attacking her, is not at all helpful.

In politics, it's better to be proactive than reactive.

To you she may not be the ideal candidate and she may not be the best candidate that we could've selected, but, even saying that she's not a good or electable candidate, is not helpful at all and it encourages the opposition camp into believing that they have a better chance than then they otherwise might have had.

When it comes to politics and campaigns for office, each and every one of us should take what we have as candidates and work towards getting them elected or getting our team in place. Just knocking them at every turn is counterproductive.