Notes

Ever Wonder What A Prop Bet Is For Sports Betting Events?
A man who barely captures one percent in the polls is in 6th place? Most have not heard of the former New Mexico governor, but some of those who have see him as the next Ron Paul. After finally getting the opportunity to participate in a debate, he may be able to set himself up as a libertarian leader. The presidential campaign was no waste for him; he made a (small) name for himself, and is somehow beating Jon Huntsman in a few polls. He is not the ultra-fringe candidate many make him out to be (he was a well-liked governor), and has potential in certain markets.

malaysia election What to do with Herman Cain? Like Gingrich, he has an image to maintain. visit here may be setting himself up for a position in the GOP Party apparatus - just not as a candidate. Did we really expect him to be President after the elections next November? He has run a good race, picked up some worthwhile supporters (fair-weather fans?), and would fit in well as a fund-raiser and executive within the Party.

There is no serious opposition from either party and with Hillary we get two for the price of one, with the first woman President getting top billing. What Hillary lacks in charm and charisma, Bill makes up for in spades. All he has to do is campaign for Hillary and then he can disappear from public view, if he or Hillary chooses. We know Bill will be on call to apply his experience and personal connections should trouble arise.

Considering only our own personal interests and voting accordingly makes us "egocentric." Here is a hint: that means "selfish!" (for readers of my blog, that corresponds with the "Lawless" level.) It also means we don't have much compassion for anyone outside of ourselves. I contend that the critical mass of this nation has grown beyond this stage of existence. I contend that more people than not have matured to a point where they can consider the needs of others - in life in general as in voting. So let's not just vote according to our own personal interests.

Why is that? Canadian law doesn't limit how long politicians can campaign, but it does strictly limit how much money they can spend on a campaign. That's no matter if it's the candidate's own money, or money contributed by supporters or special interests. And Canada seems to have been a pretty well run country over the years.

Folks, I think this time (the November, 2008 election) the stakes are high enough that we need to rise above our "egocentric" and "ethnocentric" considerations. We need to look at what is best for the nation - and more broadly - what is best for the world. This would make us "worldcentric." It is a more evolved stance.

Of course it is our civic duty to use our intellect to DECIDE which candidate we think is best and vote accordingly. But here we really should consider what "best"means. Do we really want only to vote for the candidate that is "best" for our own personal interests? Could it be possible that what WE want for our own personal interests could be in conflict with what would be "best" overall for everyone in the whole country? How about considering what would be "best" for the whole world?

It didn't matter if they were shredding his signs or invading his rallies, Dan Webster didn't attack. The ruthless Grayson campaign tried to provoke the midnight blue and cotton-white (the colors of the Webster campaign) with everything they could and the only reply they got was polite silence.
Here's my website: https://mcmanusduelund02.werite.net/post/2022/10/10/Virginia-Governor-Race-Pathetic-Politics