Nader/Abortion/Woman's Decison
Annie Birdsong
abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro choice. The
government should not force its will on women.
xo...@my-deja.com
That is Gore/Lieberman's position. It isn't Bush/Cheney's. A vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gregory Gadow
Which is more important to you: voting for a candidate who believes in his
own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as it is
profitable to do so?
--
Gregory Gadow
Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
Email: tech...@serv.net
Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
reale...@my-deja.com
> The government should not force its will on women.
Gosh, that's really nice. Will he let women choose how to save for
retirement, or will he force Social Security on them? Will he let women
choose what they do with their bodies, or will he throw them in jail if
they take illegal drugs? Will he let women choose what products they
buy, or will he prohibit them from buying things he disapproves of, or
from countries he disapproves of?
And on abortion, will he allow a woman to choose not to support
abortion, or will he force her, through taxation, to pay for someone
else's abortion?
Nader's a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to letting women make their
own choices, isn't he? (Of course, so is Gore. Bush, at least, is
consistent: he never claimed to be pro-choice.)
- Bob Alexander
Vote Libertarian
xo...@my-deja.com
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands on
> > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
choice.
> > > government should not force its will on women.
> > >
> >
for
> > Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
> > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
>
> Which is more important to you: voting for a candidate who believes in
his
> own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as it is
> profitable to do so?
Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as protecting
a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from idiot
Reaganites.
Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to Naderites.
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands on
> > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro choice.
> The
> > government should not force its will on women.
> >
>
> That is Gore/Lieberman's position. It isn't Bush/Cheney's.
> A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney.
Lies.
> Which is more important to you:
> protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
Fears.
That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and FEARS.
--------------------------
"Nothing can stop
the power of
an informed citizenry
when it is
empowered, organized, and
motivated." (Ralph Nader)
--------------------------
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A29D02...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> > > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands on
> > > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
> choice.
> > > The
> > > > government should not force its will on women.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is Gore/Lieberman's position. It isn't Bush/Cheney's. A vote
> for
> > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> >
> his
> > own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as it is
> > profitable to do so?
>
> Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as protecting
> a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from idiot
> Reaganites.
>
nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire platform,
much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
> Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to Naderites.
Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, truth is
not a top priority for Nader bashers.
Gregory Gadow
> Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as protecting
> a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from idiot
> Reaganites.
>
> Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to Naderites.
You mean to imply that a woman's right to choose is a "top priority" with
Democrats, as opposed to fund-raising, promoting the World Trade
Organization, bombing Eastern Block countries into 3rd world status, more
fund-raising, protecting big business, damage control incited by a goat of a
Chief Executive and raising even more funds?
--
Gregory Gadow
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney.
>
> Lies.
>
> > Which is more important to you:
> > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
>
> Fears.
>
> That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and FEARS.
Indeed. Rather than present reasons not to vote for Nader, can you come up
with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to know!
xo...@my-deja.com
Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <39A29D02...@serv.net>,
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> > > > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands
on
> > > > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
> > choice.
> > > > The
> > > > > government should not force its will on women.
> > > > >
> > > >
vote
> > for
> > > > Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
> > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to
the
> > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > >
believes in
> > his
> > > own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as
it is
> > > profitable to do so?
> >
> > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
idiot
> > Reaganites.
> >
> nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire
platform,
> much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
Gore is not Bush. He actually reads and thinks. I don't know for a fact
that he has read the Democratic platform, but his speech makes clear
that he endorses its fundamental principles. Have you read the
Democratic platform? I haven't read it all, but I've read enough of it
to know it reflects what Gore spoke about last Thursday.
Perhaps my doubts about Nader's sincere belief in Green principles is
misplaced. I may have been reacting to the previous voters smug
confidence that Gore has no principles. You guys are as motivated by
fear and prejudice as you think we Democrats are.
> > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
Naderites.
>
> Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, truth
is
> not a top priority for Nader bashers.
I base my statement on the fact that if Nader spoils the election for
Gore (which is beginning to seem less and less likely) Bush will be in a
position to name at least one or two justices, who, if they're anything
like his father's last one, will upset the balance that has preserved
Roe v. Wade. If choice were a top priority, you wouldn't want to be
complicit in that eventuality. And you would be.
> --------------------------
> "Nothing can stop
> the power of
> an informed citizenry
> when it is
> empowered, organized, and
> motivated." (Ralph Nader)
> --------------------------
>
xo...@my-deja.com
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
protecting
> > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
idiot
> > Reaganites.
> >
Naderites.
>
with
> Democrats, as opposed to fund-raising, promoting the World Trade
> Organization, bombing Eastern Block countries into 3rd world status,
more
> fund-raising, protecting big business, damage control incited by a
goat of a
> Chief Executive and raising even more funds?
You really are a Bushie in sheep's clothing, aren't you?
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
xo...@my-deja.com
> >
> >
> > > Which is more important to you:
> > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> >
> >
> > That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and FEARS.
>
> Indeed. Rather than present reasons not to vote for Nader, can you
come up
> with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to know!
Number One Reason: He can be elected!!!!
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A2B47E...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > Steve Krulick wrote:
> >
> > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney.
> > >
> > > Lies.
> > >
> > > > Which is more important to you:
> > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > >
> > > Fears.
> > >
> > > That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and FEARS.
> >
> > Indeed. Rather than present reasons not to vote for Nader, can you
> come up
> > with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> Number One Reason: He can be elected!!!!
Gee, that was the number one reason the Repugs drafted Shrub: he was
electable!
Maybe your sloganeering, unencumbered by the thought process, hides a
Bush covered in Gore.
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A2B101...@ulster.net>,
> Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> > > > > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands
> on
> > > > > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
> > > choice.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > government should not force its will on women.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> vote
> > > for
> > > > > Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
> > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to
> the
> > > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > > >
> believes in
> > > his
> > > > own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as
> it is
> > > > profitable to do so?
> > >
> > > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> > > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
> idiot
> > > Reaganites.
> > >
> > nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire
> > platform, much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
>
> Gore is not Bush. He actually reads and thinks.
But he does what his corporate paymasters want him to do. Either he has
no conscience, or he has hidden it away in some deep, dark cell.
> I don't know for a fact
> that he has read the Democratic platform, but his speech makes clear
> that he endorses its fundamental principles.
You opined he believes in it from top to bottom, without any proof. Gore
is barely facile with his shifting rhetoric; people have asked where he
REALLY stands on MANY issues over the years. One has to wonder if GORE,
the plastic man, even knows what HE believes.
> Have you read the
> Democratic platform? I haven't read it all, but I've read enough of it
> to know it reflects what Gore spoke about last Thursday.
Empty rhetoric backed by unkept promises and spinelessness.
> Perhaps my doubts about Nader's sincere belief in Green principles is
> misplaced. I may have been reacting to the previous voters smug
> confidence that Gore has no principles.
Gore is a bought-and-paid-for sock puppet of the corporate UNIPARTY,
with fluid principles and empty rhetoric. Gore "fighting" for us,
against the "powerful" interests that pay his way. Yeah, right. He, like
Dubya, will say anything to get a few extra votes.
> You guys are as motivated by
> fear and prejudice as you think we Democrats are.
Stop projecting. But I'll cop to this: I fear ignorance, and I hate
injustice.
> > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> Naderites.
> >
> > Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, truth
> is not a top priority for Nader bashers.
>
> I base my statement on the fact that if Nader spoils the election for
> Gore
Spoils the election for Gore? What arrogance! Since when is Gore
ENTITLED to a single vote, much less the election itself? What manifest
destiny gives Gore the presidency on a silver platter? If Gore loses,
it's his own failure to EARN enough votes to WIN, and nobody else's...
not Nader, and not we who vote for Nader.
> (which is beginning to seem less and less likely) Bush will be in a
> position to name at least one or two justices, who, if they're anything
> like his father's last one, will upset the balance that has preserved
> Roe v. Wade.
Nonsense. And fear-mongering.
Reagan/Bush had 12 years to overturn Roe v. Wade and it didn't happen.
It won't happen, as Michael Moore has so thoroughly pointed out in
detail in an editorial on the subject: "Roe v. Wade was written by a
Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican
president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around..."
(http://www.leonardsdigest.com/press_rel/press_rel18.html)
However, as Moore also points out, thanks to the lack of commitment by
the Clinton/Gore administration, one can't get an abortion in 86% of the
US counties because anti-abortion terrorists have made doctors, clinics,
etc. too afraid to perform them. They've already won!
> If choice were a top priority, you wouldn't want to be
> complicit in that eventuality. And you would be.
At the moment, I'm a little more concerned that there's only WATER at
the North Pole today, where there's been ICE for, oh, 50 MILLION YEARS.
Just a little something they buried in the back of the NY Times.
I'm not a single issue fanatic; I see a whole range of issues. And
underpinning them all is the fact that democracy is not working, because
WE the PEOPLE are not in control, but a handful of oligarchs who own the
politicians who are supposed to be working for us.
Don't pin any blame on me because I vote for the person I think is the
best person running, and the best person to fix the broken system (the
only one who REALLY wants to).
On the other hand, if either Gush or Bore wins, you are complicit in
maintaining the status quo, and in four years we'll hear the same lies
and fears about why we must vote for the ever-worsening "lessor" of two
worsts.
xo...@my-deja.com
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > Steve Krulick wrote:
> > >
> > > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Which is more important to you:
> > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to
the
> > > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and
FEARS.
> > >
> > > Indeed. Rather than present reasons not to vote for Nader, can you
> > come up
> > > with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to
know!
> >
> > Number One Reason: He can be elected!!!!
>
> Gee, that was the number one reason the Repugs drafted Shrub: he was
> electable!
>
> Maybe your sloganeering, unencumbered by the thought process, hides a
> Bush covered in Gore.
What is the use of a political party if it can't get elected?
Setting aside election year politics, I like what the Greens stand for.
I like what Nader stands for. However, though Nader may be only a little
to the left of Gore, he cannot be elected. He might be electable if he
ran as a Democrat, but he's running as a Green.
If the Greens attracted all the Democrats, like me, who like their
politics--and only those who like their politics--they would still not
be electable. They would need to join a coalition with the remainder of
the Democratic party--if they wanted to get elected. Well, that
coalition already exists. It's called the Democratic party. See, if
you're a leftist who wants to elect someone, you vote Democratic. Unless
you live in Vermont, and then you vote for Bernie Sanders.
> --------------------------
> "Nothing can stop
> the power of
> an informed citizenry
> when it is
> empowered, organized, and
> motivated." (Ralph Nader)
> --------------------------
>
xo...@my-deja.com
You believe in a caricature. Justify your statement that he has no
conscience without relying on media distortions. I defy you!
> > I don't know for a fact
> > that he has read the Democratic platform, but his speech makes clear
> > that he endorses its fundamental principles.
>
> You opined he believes in it from top to bottom, without any proof.
Gore
> is barely facile with his shifting rhetoric; people have asked where
he
> REALLY stands on MANY issues over the years. One has to wonder if
GORE,
> the plastic man, even knows what HE believes.
You might as well be Chris Matthews or Brian Williams. I repeat: you
believe in a caricature.
>
> > Have you read the
> > Democratic platform? I haven't read it all, but I've read enough of
it
> > to know it reflects what Gore spoke about last Thursday.
>
> Empty rhetoric backed by unkept promises and spinelessness.
Knee jerk. Knee jerk.
>
> > Perhaps my doubts about Nader's sincere belief in Green principles
is
> > misplaced. I may have been reacting to the previous voters smug
> > confidence that Gore has no principles.
>
> Gore is a bought-and-paid-for sock puppet of the corporate UNIPARTY,
> with fluid principles and empty rhetoric. Gore "fighting" for us,
> against the "powerful" interests that pay his way. Yeah, right. He,
like
> Dubya, will say anything to get a few extra votes.
You believe in a caricature.
> > You guys are as motivated by
> > fear and prejudice as you think we Democrats are.
>
> Stop projecting. But I'll cop to this: I fear ignorance, and I hate
> injustice.
>
> > > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> > Naderites.
> > >
> > > Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously,
truth
> > is not a top priority for Nader bashers.
> >
> > I base my statement on the fact that if Nader spoils the election
for
> > Gore
>
> Spoils the election for Gore? What arrogance! Since when is Gore
> ENTITLED to a single vote, much less the election itself? What
manifest
> destiny gives Gore the presidency on a silver platter? If Gore loses,
> it's his own failure to EARN enough votes to WIN, and nobody else's...
> not Nader, and not we who vote for Nader.
I'm beginning to stop worrying about the Naderites. I think you're going
to lose suport as the season goes on. It's probably cruel to criticize
you since not only are uyou going to lose but you're not even going to
be able to spoil the election. I hope you get enough votes in Texas and
the South, though, to qualify for matching federal funds--unless of
course that makes you sock puppets of the corporations.
xo...@my-deja.com
Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote (in response to my):
>
> >Bush will be in a
> > position to name at least one or two justices, who, if they're
anything
> > like his father's last one, will upset the balance that has
preserved
> > Roe v. Wade.
>
> Nonsense. And fear-mongering.
>
> Reagan/Bush had 12 years to overturn Roe v. Wade and it didn't happen.
> It won't happen, as Michael Moore has so thoroughly pointed out in
> detail in an editorial on the subject: "Roe v. Wade was written by a
> Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican
> president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time
around..."
Moore's editorial is not very thorough. He glosses over the fact that
Republicans, including Bush's father, have appointed the most dangerous
Justices with respect to Roe: Renquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
Just one more anti-choice Justice would tip the balance. Do you trust
Bush *not* to make that appointment?
> (http://www.leonardsdigest.com/press_rel/press_rel18.html)
>
> However, as Moore also points out, thanks to the lack of commitment by
> the Clinton/Gore administration, one can't get an abortion in 86% of
the
> US counties because anti-abortion terrorists have made doctors,
clinics,
> etc. too afraid to perform them. They've already won!
Prove that the 14% decline in clinics had to do with terror and not just
right wing policies in the states where the decline happened. Did you
know, by the way, that 66% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 live
in the 14% of counties where abortion is available? Statistics are kind
of interesting the way they can distort, aren't they?
> > If choice were a top priority, you wouldn't want to be
> > complicit in that eventuality. And you would be.
>
> At the moment, I'm a little more concerned that there's only WATER at
> the North Pole today, where there's been ICE for, oh, 50 MILLION
YEARS.
> Just a little something they buried in the back of the NY Times.
And electing Bush is going to freeze it up again?!
> I'm not a single issue fanatic; I see a whole range of issues. And
> underpinning them all is the fact that democracy is not working,
because
> WE the PEOPLE are not in control, but a handful of oligarchs who own
the
> politicians who are supposed to be working for us.
>
> Don't pin any blame on me because I vote for the person I think is the
> best person running, and the best person to fix the broken system (the
> only one who REALLY wants to).
But he won't because he won't be elected.
> On the other hand, if either Gush or Bore wins, you are complicit in
> maintaining the status quo, and in four years we'll hear the same lies
> and fears about why we must vote for the ever-worsening "lessor" of
two
> worsts.
Some people, myself included, don't believe the system is fixable by
voting for candidates who can't be elected.
> --------------------------
> "Nothing can stop
> the power of
> an informed citizenry
> when it is
> empowered, organized, and
> motivated." (Ralph Nader)
> --------------------------
>
Gregory Gadow
> In article <39A2B426...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> > > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> protecting
> > > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
> idiot
> > > Reaganites.
> > >
> > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> Naderites.
> >
> > You mean to imply that a woman's right to choose is a "top priority"
> with
> > Democrats, as opposed to fund-raising, promoting the World Trade
> > Organization, bombing Eastern Block countries into 3rd world status,
> more
> > fund-raising, protecting big business, damage control incited by a
> goat of a
> > Chief Executive and raising even more funds?
>
> You really are a Bushie in sheep's clothing, aren't you?
Touche! Lovely rebuttal to my points. You have convinced me to Go
Democrat!
As for your charge, rest assured I do NOT support Bush. I am a Gay man who
would very much like to marry my long term partner. I am an
environmentalist who would like very much to see the US government do a
better job at preserving the beauty, richness and diversity of our
national heritage. I am a reformer who would like very much to at least
reduce the money-grubbing and the suceptibility to corruption that make up
the current American election process. I am a believer in the American
dream of equality FOR ALL and justice FOR ALL. For these reasons, I could
never support Bush.
Also for these reason, I could never support Gore.
--
Ron Bargoot
>
> I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands on
> abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro choice. The
> government should not force its will on women.
So where does he stand on Gun Control? He doesn't want the government
to force its will on women, does he also want women unarmed?
--
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.50megs.com
Cameron L. Spitzer
>In article <39A2B47E...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>> Indeed. Rather than present reasons not to vote for Nader, can you come up
>> with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to know!
>
>Number One Reason: He can be elected!!!!
The anonymous "xofpi" has confused the Federal election with the
lottery. In a Federal election, you don't get a prize for
predicting the winner.
Cameron
xo...@my-deja.com
Why tie all Democrats to Bill Clinton's indiscretions? That sounds
Bushie to me.
I don't have proof, but I think that if you asked average rank-and-file
Democrats to name their top priorities for this election, protecting a
woman's right to choose would be in the top three overall.
> As for your charge, rest assured I do NOT support Bush. I am a Gay man
who
> would very much like to marry my long term partner. I am an
> environmentalist who would like very much to see the US government do
a
> better job at preserving the beauty, richness and diversity of our
> national heritage. I am a reformer who would like very much to at
least
> reduce the money-grubbing and the suceptibility to corruption that
make up
> the current American election process. I am a believer in the American
> dream of equality FOR ALL and justice FOR ALL. For these reasons, I
could
> never support Bush.
>
> Also for these reason, I could never support Gore.
No one has yet made the case for me why anyone who supports a
progressive agenda *should not* vote for Gore, whose party
explicitly addresses progressive goals. All I see from Naderites is the
tired and insupportable assertion that Bush is Gore is Bush. I didn't
hear Bush even mention gay men and women, or a woman's right to choose,
or worker's rights. He paid lip service to the environment, but we all
know about his pals the polluters in Texas. I did hear Bush talk about
ending partial birth abortions no matter what. That was about all the
substance I heard from Bush. In my view there is a clear difference.
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands on
> > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
choice.
> > The
> > > government should not force its will on women.
> > >
> >
for
> > Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
> > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to the
> > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
>
> Which is more important to you: voting for a candidate who believes
in his
> own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as it is
> profitable to do so?
I assume Bush DOES believe in his own platform, which is another reason
to vote for Gore.
> --
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
idiot
> > Reaganites.
> >
> nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire
platform,
> much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
1. I browed through the GOP platform and was scared stiff.
2. Gore is a five-alarm policy wonk, and it would be out of character
for him not to have read the platform. We are still unsure whether Bush
actually reads at all.
>
> > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
Naderites.
>
> Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, truth
is
> not a top priority for Nader bashers.
I'm not a Nader basher. On the contrary, I've been rooting for him
since he published "Unsafe at Any Speed" back in the 1960s. However, he
is not going to be elected President, nor should he be. He is a
wonderful advocate, but I can't imagine him as Chief Executive.
I share your skepticism of the integrity of the major party candidates.
However, on some levels you do have to take them at their word. For
example, if one says he is pro-choice and the other says he is anti-
choice, I assume they are telling the truth about that.
B.
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A2CD1F...@ulster.net>,
> Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> > > > > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus
> > > > > from idiot Reaganites.
You believe in a caricature, whether of Reagan or his supporters.
> > > > Nader has actually read, and stands on, the ASGP platform he was
> > > > nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire
> > > > platform, much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
> > >
> > > Gore is not Bush. He actually reads and thinks.
So Bush can't read or think? You believe in a caricature.
> > But he does what his corporate paymasters want him to do. Either he
> > has no conscience, or he has hidden it away in some deep, dark cell.
>
> You believe in a caricature. Justify your statement that he has no
> conscience without relying on media distortions. I defy you!
I said EITHER he has no conscience, or he has one but has hidden it.
One example. He promised he would shut the WTI Ohio incinerator if
elected. Seven years and counting.
Another. He can support the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi
children as the price to pay for oil company profits; he's willing to do
the same in supporting Occidental's interests in Colombia.
A small one. He can milk the death of his sister by tobacco at a
convention, yet grew tobacco and got campaign cash from the tobacco
industry.
There's a long list, more than I have time for.
> > > I don't know for a fact
> > > that he has read the Democratic platform, but his speech makes clear
> > > that he endorses its fundamental principles.
> >
> > You opined he believes in it from top to bottom, without any proof.
> Gore is barely facile with his shifting rhetoric; people have asked where
> he REALLY stands on MANY issues over the years. One has to wonder if
> GORE, the plastic man, even knows what HE believes.
>
> You might as well be Chris Matthews or Brian Williams. I repeat: you
> believe in a caricature.
What is that supposed to mean, other than an ad hominem diversion? You
still didn't prove Gore "believes in it from top to bottom." People HAVE
asked where he stands; he was for the NRA, then not, he was pro-life,
then not, he was for labor, then pushes for NAFTA. If he appears to be a
caricature, it is his own fault for not being consistent and honest.
> > > Have you read the
> > > Democratic platform? I haven't read it all, but I've read enough of
> > > it to know it reflects what Gore spoke about last Thursday.
> >
> > Empty rhetoric backed by unkept promises and spinelessness.
>
> Knee jerk. Knee jerk.
Jerk. Jerk.
> > > Perhaps my doubts about Nader's sincere belief in Green principles
> > > is misplaced. I may have been reacting to the previous voters smug
> > > confidence that Gore has no principles.
> >
> > Gore is a bought-and-paid-for sock puppet of the corporate UNIPARTY,
> > with fluid principles and empty rhetoric. Gore "fighting" for us,
> > against the "powerful" interests that pay his way. Yeah, right. He,
> > like Dubya, will say anything to get a few extra votes.
>
> You believe in a caricature.
You are avoiding the facts at hand. Show some examples of Gore
"fighting" for the little guy against the "powerful" interests.
> > > You guys are as motivated by
> > > fear and prejudice as you think we Democrats are.
> >
> > Stop projecting. But I'll cop to this: I fear ignorance, and I hate
> > injustice.
> >
> > > > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> > > Naderites.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously,
> > > > truth is not a top priority for Nader bashers.
> > >
> > > I base my statement on the fact that if Nader spoils the election
> for Gore
> >
> > Spoils the election for Gore? What arrogance! Since when is Gore
> > ENTITLED to a single vote, much less the election itself? What
> > manifest destiny gives Gore the presidency on a silver platter? If Gore loses,
> > it's his own failure to EARN enough votes to WIN, and nobody else's...
> > not Nader, and not we who vote for Nader.
> I'm beginning to stop worrying about the Naderites.
Good. Go away.
> I think you're going
> to lose suport as the season goes on. It's probably cruel to criticize
> you since not only are uyou going to lose but you're not even going to
> be able to spoil the election.
Good. Then I won't be having to listen to any more of that silly
"spoiler" sloganeering. Take "siphoning away votes" back, too, while
you're at it. And AVFNIAVFB.
> I hope you get enough votes in Texas and
> the South, though, to qualify for matching federal funds--unless of
> course that makes you sock puppets of the corporations.
Receiving PUBLIC financing of campaigns means NOT HAVING to be beholden
to the corps. But thanks for the good wishes. EVERY independent voter
living in a state where Gore can't win (or lose) should consider voting
for Nader, or another 3rd party candidate who they most support. After
all, in those states, a vote for Gore is "a wasted vote," right? Why
"throw it away," right?
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
protecting
> > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
idiot
> > Reaganites.
> >
Naderites.
>
with
> Democrats, as opposed to fund-raising, promoting the World Trade
> Organization, bombing Eastern Block countries into 3rd world status,
more
> fund-raising, protecting big business, damage control incited by a
goat of a
> Chief Executive and raising even more funds?
1. Let's all agree that we MUST have campaign finance reform.
2. Having watched the major parties and politics for nearly 50 years, I
have noticed that the campaign promises are not entirely meaningless.
If one candidate is making progressive noises and the other is making
reactionary noises, my experience is that the progressive will do less
harm to women if elected.
Stephen Preston
> No one has yet made the case for me why anyone who supports a
> progressive agenda *should not* vote for Gore, whose party
> explicitly addresses progressive goals. All I see from Naderites is the
> tired and insupportable assertion that Bush is Gore is Bush. I didn't
> hear Bush even mention gay men and women, or a woman's right to choose,
> or worker's rights. He paid lip service to the environment, but we all
> know about his pals the polluters in Texas. I did hear Bush talk about
> ending partial birth abortions no matter what. That was about all the
> substance I heard from Bush. In my view there is a clear difference.
I think you have perhaps not been reading carefully enough. You say it
is clear to you that Bush's talk about the environment is simply "lip
service," but you are careful to draw a distinction between that and his
statements on ending abortion. We Nader voters believe that everything
Bush and Gore says is lip service, and that in order to get any idea of
what they're actually going to do, one should completely ignore whatever
they say and look at what they've done as VP and Guv'ner.
So, for example, we conclude that they both support the failed War on
Drugs, corporate welfare, etc. These are important things; most Nader
voters believe they are more important than preserving partial-birth
abortion, even if many of us support partial-birth abortion. You seem
to believe that partial-birth abortion is so profound an issue that it
is worth deciding the election over. I can't convince you that it's
not.
On the other hand, I don't see what you hope to accomplish by getting
Bush to "even mention gay men and women." Er, what about gay men and
women? If Gore mentions that it's OK with him that people are gay, is
that a great achievement? Hey, I think it's OK for people to have
threesomes. Will you vote for me? It's astonishing that people are
willing to accept so little from Gore, as long as he makes the right
noises (even though he opposes gay marriage and openly gay military
service... like Bush).
Progressives who are concerned about ending sanctions on Iraq, stopping
the war in Colombia, decriminalizing victimless crimes that keep a lot
of minorities in jail, making trade deals that don't penalize workers at
the expense of corporations and investors, etc., see a real advantage to
supporting Nader, and from that (arguably more global) point of view,
there really isn't much difference between Bush and Gore.
--Steve
Alex Sramek
-Alex
<xo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nudr5$ue9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39A2B101...@ulster.net>,
> Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39A29D02...@serv.net>,
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <8nu3fs$28o$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
> > > > > Annie Birdsong <so...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > I called Nader's office yesterday to find out Nader's stands
> on
> > > > > > abortion. The person answering the phones said Nader is pro
> > > choice.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > government should not force its will on women.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is Gore/Lieberman's position. It isn't Bush/Cheney's. A
> vote
> > > for
> > > > > Nader is a vote for Bush/Cheney. Which is more important to you:
> > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to
> the
> > > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > > >
> > > > Which is more important to you: voting for a candidate who
> believes in
> > > his
> > > > own platform, or one who will sell out the electorate as soon as
> it is
> > > > profitable to do so?
> > >
> > > Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> > > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> protecting
> > > a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus from
> idiot
> > > Reaganites.
> > >
> > Nader has actually read, and stands on, the ASGP platform he was
> > nominated on. I'll wager you Gore has not even read the entire
> platform,
> > much less endorses it. Have YOU read either?
>
>
> Gore is not Bush. He actually reads and thinks. I don't know for a fact
> that he has read the Democratic platform, but his speech makes clear
> that he endorses its fundamental principles. Have you read the
> Democratic platform? I haven't read it all, but I've read enough of it
> to know it reflects what Gore spoke about last Thursday.
>
> Perhaps my doubts about Nader's sincere belief in Green principles is
> misplaced. I may have been reacting to the previous voters smug
> confidence that Gore has no principles. You guys are as motivated by
> fear and prejudice as you think we Democrats are.
>
>
>
> > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> Naderites.
> >
> > Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, truth
> is
> > not a top priority for Nader bashers.
>
>
> I base my statement on the fact that if Nader spoils the election for
> Gore (which is beginning to seem less and less likely) Bush will be in a
> position to name at least one or two justices, who, if they're anything
> like his father's last one, will upset the balance that has preserved
> Roe v. Wade. If choice were a top priority, you wouldn't want to be
> complicit in that eventuality. And you would be.
>
>
> > --------------------------
> > "Nothing can stop
> > the power of
> > an informed citizenry
> > when it is
> > empowered, organized, and
> > motivated." (Ralph Nader)
> > --------------------------
> >
>
>
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A2C703...@ulster.net>,> > > In article <39A2B47E...@serv.net>,
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > > Steve Krulick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which is more important to you:
> > > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose, or sending a message to
> the
> > > > > > Democrats that could cost women their right to choose?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the bulk of your argument to vote for Gore: LIES and
> FEARS.
> > > >
> > > come up
> > > > with any good reasons to vote FOR Gore? Inquiring minds want to
> know!
> > >
> > > Number One Reason: He can be elected!!!!
> >
> > electable!
> >
> > Maybe your sloganeering, unencumbered by the thought process, hides a
> > Bush covered in Gore.
>
> What is the use of a political party if it can't get elected?
Michael Faraday was asked in 1831 what use was there in his discovery of
electromagnetic induction. "What use," he replied, "is a newborn baby?"
In 1856 the Republican party was born; do you remember who they ran for
President that year on their anti-slavery, pro-women's rights platform?
Four years later, Abe Lincoln was elected president.
So what's your point?
And the Greens HAVE elected candidates to local offices around the
country; they've only been running them for a short time, and this is
the first serious national run.
> Setting aside election year politics, I like what the Greens stand for.
I wonder whether you only know a caricature of what the Greens stand
for.
> I like what Nader stands for.
Then where's your outrage! Where's your support?
> However, though Nader may be only a little
> to the left of Gore,
See, I told you you don't know what the Greens stand for: "Greens are
neither left nor right... they're straight ahead!"
> he cannot be elected. He might be electable if he
> ran as a Democrat, but he's running as a Green.
Are you so brainwashed by the media, the phony polls, the dem apologists
and pundits that you accept every lock-step mantra? "He can't be
elected... He can't be elected... sqwarrrk! Polly wanna cracker!"
Will people vote for a smirky, squinty-eyed doofus backed by $100+
million JUST because he's on the Repug ticket, or vote for a plodding,
unlikable hack who's campaign, so far is "I'm not Bush," only because
he's on the Damnocrat ticket, and ignore the honest man of integrity who
can't be bought, which everyone claims they never have as a choice to
vote for, because he runs on the line of a party that isn't owned by the
corporations?
With people thinking like you, we'd still have slavery and non-voting
women. Hell, we'd still be singing praises to Queen Elizabeth.
> If the Greens attracted all the Democrats, like me, who like their
> politics--and only those who like their politics--they would still not
> be electable. They would need to join a coalition with the remainder of
> the Democratic party--if they wanted to get elected. Well, that
> coalition already exists. It's called the Democratic party. See, if
> you're a leftist who wants to elect someone, you vote Democratic. Unless
> you live in Vermont, and then you vote for Bernie Sanders.
Well if it worked for Sanders, why not elsewhere? You've just undercut
your own argument.
The Damn wing of the Republicrat Uniparty has no vision or vibrancy
left; it pulls old rhetoric out of the mothballs, and tips a hat to
Kennedy (a centrist hawk) and Roosevelt (a pragmatic patrician). The
best they could do on Tuesday was trot out old, graying librills from
the 70s and 80s, and then hide them so that the Republican-lites could
take charge again. Well, they look like the 1856 Whigs to me, getting
ready to fade.
As Nader says, for 8 years now the Dems have been great at electing bad
Republicans, with no help from Nader or the Greens.
The Dem support is broad -- by habit -- but as shallow as the polar ice
cap is now. There's no passion FOR Gore, just as there's no passion for
Bush. NOBODY likes them, but everybody plays along; pay no attention to
those men behind the curtain!
The Republicrat party is a patronage-doling, re-election protection
machine, period.
Punchline: "I say it's spinach, and to hell with it!"
Cameron L. Spitzer
>
>Moore's editorial is not very thorough. He glosses over the fact that
>Republicans, including Bush's father, have appointed the most dangerous
>Justices with respect to Roe: Renquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
>Just one more anti-choice Justice would tip the balance. Do you trust
>Bush *not* to make that appointment?
Yes. Bush has bigger fish to fry than abortion. If he screws up
on a little thing like abortion, and loses the big fish,
he's not playing the game. He was born into the game, and
jumping out of it isn't in his nature.
Abortion rights are the real "third rail" of American politics.
They have to do with whether people feel free to have sex
under many circumstances. More Americans feel strongly about whether
they are gonna get laid in the near future than about slave labor
products from China at Walmart, or the ice caps melting,
or killing a million Iraqui children over terms of access to oil.
That is the reason the abortion genie can never be rebottled.
And Bush and Hatch know it. That is why, under the Democrats,
the strategy of the "religious" right shifted from outlawing abortion
to terrorizing abortion providers.
Trying to outlaw abortion would place at risk legalized slavery
(the code word is "free trade" if you're looking in the corporate press),
expanding fossil fuel consumption, the war machine, everything important
to the power elite today. Bush is just not gonna do that. He may be
stupid, but his handlers are smart.
The only reason it keeps coming up is the Dems *know* it's the
third rail, the best chance they've got to scare people into
voting for their unattractive candidate.
How long are you going to put up with corporate America telling
you you have to settle for oilco-sponsored war mongering sellouts
who try to scare you with bogeymen? I've had enough, I'm voting for
a man of integrity, who doesn't work for Occidental Petroleum
and Microsoft.
Cameron
Bill
> Reagan/Bush had 12 years to overturn Roe v. Wade and it didn't happen.
> It won't happen, as Michael Moore has so thoroughly pointed out in
> detail in an editorial on the subject: "Roe v. Wade was written by a
> Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican
> president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around..."
If Michael Moore doesn't think that Roe v Wade has been eroded, or that
obstacles to abortion access haven't increased, then he hasn't been paying
very close attention.
> However, as Moore also points out, thanks to the lack of commitment by
> the Clinton/Gore administration, one can't get an abortion in 86% of the
> US counties because anti-abortion terrorists have made doctors, clinics,
> etc. too afraid to perform them. They've already won!
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. This would be a good time to point out
Nader's plan to protect the doctors and clinics and expand access to abortion
services. Extra points for explaining how he plans to get it through
Congress.
Steve Krulick
>
> You are, of course, aware that these guys don't write their own speeches.
>
> -Alex
You are, of course, aware that Ralph Nader writes his own speeches.
Al Gore writes much of his own speeches.
Dubya can't even READ the speeches he's given:
A Bushism Bonanza
Bush "may have set a personal record for bloopers in one speech" Monday,
the Washington Post reports. "In 15 minutes, he mistook 'terrors' (or
was it 'terriers'?) for 'tariffs' and 'hostile' for 'hostage' (twice),
and asserted that President Clinton has been in office for four--not
eight--years." The actual lines were: "We cannot let terrorists and
rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile";
"When we carry Iowa in November, it'll mean the end of four years of
Clinton-Gore"; and "I will work to end terrors and tariffs and barriers
everywhere across the world so that Iowa farmers can sell their product
in countries heretofore where the doors have been closed."
(http://politics.slate.msn.com/politics/default.asp)
Click here
(http://politics.slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp) to read
"The Complete Bushisms" from Slate.
xo...@my-deja.com
How can I take you seriously when you chide me for saying about Bush
exactly what you say about him here?
Gregory Gadow
> Why tie all Democrats to Bill Clinton's indiscretions? That sounds
> Bushie to me.
Ok, an ad hominem. Keep this up, xofpi, and you will have given me the
entire set of logical fallacies!
And for the record, I do *not* tie all Democrats with Bill Clinton's
indiscretions... just those who did not speak out against them. With their
implied support and approval, they tied themselves. Around the neck, in my
opinion, but whether with a noose or just an albatross has yet to be seen.
> I don't have proof, but I think that if you asked average rank-and-file
> Democrats to name their top priorities for this election, protecting a
> woman's right to choose would be in the top three overall.
Really? Polls show otherwise. And since you fail to support your assertion,
I feel no obligation to support mine.
> > As for your charge, rest assured I do NOT support Bush. I am a Gay man
> > who would very much like to marry my long term partner. I am an
> > environmentalist who would like very much to see the US government do
> > a better job at preserving the beauty, richness and diversity of our
> > national heritage. I am a reformer who would like very much to at least
> > reduce the money-grubbing and the suceptibility to corruption that
> > make up the current American election process. I am a believer in the
> American
> > dream of equality FOR ALL and justice FOR ALL. For these reasons, I
> > could never support Bush.
> >
> > Also for these reason, I could never support Gore.
>
> No one has yet made the case for me why anyone who supports a
> progressive agenda *should not* vote for Gore, whose party
> explicitly addresses progressive goals.
"Explicitly addresses" and yet, in eight years of a Democrat administration,
has done precious little to further those progressive goals. Yes, Clinton
(and by extention, the Democrats) have placed openly gay people in cabinet
level positions; but under his explicit directive, more people have been
kicked out of the military for being gay than the previous 20 years, 16 of
which were under Republican administrations. And there is the fact that
Clinton made history on September 29, 1996 when he became the first
President in American history to explicitly sign bigotry in to law when he
finalized passage of the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act.
And what have the Democrats done in the last eight years to further our
social safety net? They have abolished many social service programs, allowed
states to move money away from state social service programs and eliminated
welfare with no allowances for actually training people and providing
childcare so they can go to work and become productive citizens. They have
furthered the cause of unrestricted world trade, thereby gutting decades of
hard work to protect animal diversity, establish standards of consumer
safety and preserve American jobs. They have established national parks and
wilderness areas only in places with very little natural resources and
continued to allow vast tracts of public land to be stripped bare of trees
and strip mined, then left for dead.
Have I made my point, or do I need to continue?
> All I see from Naderites is the
> tired and insupportable assertion that Bush is Gore is Bush.
No one has said that they are the same; many have asserted -- an assertion
which I agree with -- that a vote for either Bush or Gore is a vote to
continue the "politics as usual" policies which have hurt so many regular
citizens.
> I didn't
> hear Bush even mention gay men and women, or a woman's right to choose,
> or worker's rights. He paid lip service to the environment, but we all
> know about his pals the polluters in Texas. I did hear Bush talk about
> ending partial birth abortions no matter what. That was about all the
> substance I heard from Bush. In my view there is a clear difference.
And I have never disputed with you that Bush would be bad for this country.
I could never support a Republican candidate, because their platform would
explicitly deny my right to be. And I simply can not, in good conscience,
support a Democrat candidate if there is an alternative, because their own
actions have show the party as a whole to be hypocritical when it comes to
their platform: yes, they *promise* a progressive agenda, but every single
time they have had the opportunity to advance it, they have backed down and
even backpeddled.
I figure that leaves me with two choices: I can either vote for a third
party candidate (such as Nader) or abstain from voting. Tell me: which would
hurt Gore less?
Gregory Gadow
> I assume Bush DOES believe in his own platform, which is another reason
> to vote for Gore.
And history has shown that Gore -- and many Democrats -- do NOT believe in
their own platform, which is another reason to NOT vote for Gore.
Steve Krulick
Are you a total idiot or only an apprentice idiot?
I am and have been an equal opportunity basher of mediocre,
hypocritical, bought-and-paid-for sock puppets masquerading as serious
contenders for president. I have mercilessly skewered both Bush AND Gore
for being unworthy of my vote.
You, on the other hand, have tried to justify voting for Gore on the
grounds that Bush is worse. I reject that as the "evil of two lessers"
rationale, along with rejecting AVFNIAVFB, "wasted" votes for Nader, and
Nader "siphoning" votes from Gore.
I can't take you seriously at all, because you burble nonsense without
logic or proof. I don't need to be validated by whether you take me
seriously or not.
xo...@my-deja.com
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Why tie all Democrats to Bill Clinton's indiscretions? That sounds
> > Bushie to me.
>
> Ok, an ad hominem. Keep this up, xofpi, and you will have given me the
> entire set of logical fallacies!
It was not an ad hominem. It's a Bushie position that Clinton's stains,
so to speak, are on all Democrats. Most Democrats don't think Clinton's
sexual performance has any relevance to his job performance. Speaking
for myself, I think most of the Clinton scandals were manufactured by
Republicans who wanted to undo the election or make life as hard as
possible for a president who defeated one of their own. I think they
should be soundly punished by the electorate for what they almost did to
the country. It's beginning to look more and more as though they will
be.
> And for the record, I do *not* tie all Democrats with Bill Clinton's
> indiscretions... just those who did not speak out against them. With
their
> implied support and approval, they tied themselves. Around the neck,
in my
> opinion, but whether with a noose or just an albatross has yet to be
seen.
Who really gives a shit about the soap opera of the Clintons' private
lives? Just Republicans, prudes and you. (That may be an ad hominem.)
> > I don't have proof, but I think that if you asked average
rank-and-file
> > Democrats to name their top priorities for this election, protecting
a
> > woman's right to choose would be in the top three overall.
>
> Really? Polls show otherwise. And since you fail to support your
assertion,
> I feel no obligation to support mine.
Touche.
Don't you think gays and lesbians in military are more endangered now
because they're less willing to be in the closet than they were under
Republican administrations, when people tried to pretend that there were
no gay men and women in the military?
> And there is the fact
that
> Clinton made history on September 29, 1996 when he became the first
> President in American history to explicitly sign bigotry in to law
when he
> finalized passage of the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act.
Admittedly a disgrace. As is his support of the death penalty, his
treatment of Lani Grenier, his hiring of Dick Morris, a lot of his
triangulation strategy, his welfare reform. But he killed Reaganomics.
He set up the government for a progressive agenda that he himself had
neither the courage nor the political capital (let alone federal
capital) to undertake. If the Democrats retake at least the House and
the presidency, they will be calling the shots, not the Lotts and the
Barrs and Burtons and DeLays. It will be (partly) the Franks and the
Wellstones and the Boxers and the Feingolds.
>
> And what have the Democrats done in the last eight years to further
our
> social safety net? They have abolished many social service programs,
allowed
> states to move money away from state social service programs and
eliminated
> welfare with no allowances for actually training people and providing
> childcare so they can go to work and become productive citizens. They
have
> furthered the cause of unrestricted world trade, thereby gutting
decades of
> hard work to protect animal diversity, establish standards of consumer
> safety and preserve American jobs. They have established national
parks and
> wilderness areas only in places with very little natural resources and
> continued to allow vast tracts of public land to be stripped bare of
trees
> and strip mined, then left for dead.
Disgraces, no doubt. But as I say, with a Democratic House, a Democratic
president would be encouraged, I believe, to be more progressive.
At this point, it's looking as though they'd amount to the same, at
least from Gore's point of view. I will probably back away from my
attention to Nader because I don't think he's as much of a threat as he
was seeming to be. I think Bush is doomed. I wish you well.
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
xo...@my-deja.com
Stephen Preston <pre...@math.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > No one has yet made the case for me why anyone who supports a
> > progressive agenda *should not* vote for Gore, whose party
the
> > tired and insupportable assertion that Bush is Gore is Bush. I
didn't
> > hear Bush even mention gay men and women, or a woman's right to
choose,
> > or worker's rights. He paid lip service to the environment, but we
all
> > know about his pals the polluters in Texas. I did hear Bush talk
about
> > ending partial birth abortions no matter what. That was about all
the
> > substance I heard from Bush. In my view there is a clear difference.
>
it
> is clear to you that Bush's talk about the environment is simply "lip
> service," but you are careful to draw a distinction between that and
his
> statements on ending abortion.
There's a difference between just saying the word "environment" and
hoping it Greens you in voters' minds and saying "I will outlaw partial
birth abortion." One is lip service, one is a promise.
> We Nader voters believe that
everything
> Bush and Gore says is lip service, and that in order to get any idea
of
> what they're actually going to do, one should completely ignore
whatever
> they say and look at what they've done as VP and Guv'ner.
>
> So, for example, we conclude that they both support the failed War on
> Drugs, corporate welfare, etc. These are important things; most Nader
> voters believe they are more important than preserving partial-birth
> abortion, even if many of us support partial-birth abortion. You seem
> to believe that partial-birth abortion is so profound an issue that it
> is worth deciding the election over. I can't convince you that it's
> not.
Abortion is an important issue because it is about more than a woman's
right to choose. It's about how much interest the government has a legal
right to in directing people's private lives.
> On the other hand, I don't see what you hope to accomplish by getting
> Bush to "even mention gay men and women." Er, what about gay men and
> women? If Gore mentions that it's OK with him that people are gay, is
> that a great achievement?
Gore talked about gays and lesbians in the context of civil rights. Bush
didn't even acknowledge that there were such creatures as gays and
lesbians. That's a big difference.
> Hey, I think it's OK for people to have
> threesomes. Will you vote for me? It's astonishing that people are
> willing to accept so little from Gore, as long as he makes the right
> noises (even though he opposes gay marriage and openly gay military
> service... like Bush).
He's not perfect. But he's closer to perfect, from a progressive
viewpoint, by far than Bush is.
> Progressives who are concerned about ending sanctions on Iraq,
stopping
> the war in Colombia, decriminalizing victimless crimes that keep a lot
> of minorities in jail, making trade deals that don't penalize workers
at
> the expense of corporations and investors, etc., see a real advantage
to
> supporting Nader, and from that (arguably more global) point of view,
> there really isn't much difference between Bush and Gore.
Fine. We disagree. I think the differences between Gore and Bush are
significant. I'd rather have a president who is answerable to a
progressive constituency than one who isn't. And I think with a
Democratic House, Gore will be more answerable to the progressives than
his predecessor was.
> --Steve
Gerald Lichtcsien
dilema of many in one paragraph.
Maybe the Buchanan nut-express can divert as many votes from the
Republican ticket as Mr. Nader will from the Dems.
xo...@my-deja.com
I am an apprentice total idiot.
> I am and have been an equal opportunity basher of mediocre,
> hypocritical, bought-and-paid-for sock puppets masquerading as serious
> contenders for president. I have mercilessly skewered both Bush AND
Gore
> for being unworthy of my vote.
And don't think the Republic hasn't been taking notice of your tireless
mercilessness! Thanks, non-sock-puppet!
> You, on the other hand, have tried to justify voting for Gore on the
> grounds that Bush is worse. I reject that as the "evil of two lessers"
> rationale, along with rejecting AVFNIAVFB, "wasted" votes for Nader,
and
> Nader "siphoning" votes from Gore.
Ok, I'll stop.
> I can't take you seriously at all, because you burble nonsense without
> logic or proof. I don't need to be validated by whether you take me
> seriously or not.
>
> --------------------------
> "Nothing can stop
> the power of
> an informed citizenry
> when it is
> empowered, organized, and
> motivated." (Ralph Nader)
> --------------------------
>
xo...@my-deja.com
Some think he'll take more as election season progresses, especially if
Bush putters out, which he seems to be doing.
mahab...@my-deja.com
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I assume Bush DOES believe in his own platform, which is another
reason
> > to vote for Gore.
>
> And history has shown that Gore -- and many Democrats -- do NOT
believe in
> their own platform, which is another reason to NOT vote for Gore.
All promises made by politicians need to be taken with several grains
of salt. This is true across the political spectrum. I can remember
when Ronald Reagan stood on the stage of the 1980 Republican Convention
and promised to balance the budget in four years. Instead we got The
Biggest Deficit the World Has Ever Known.
However, it is extremely unusual for a politician to campaign on a pro-
choice platform and not be pro-choice once in office. Same with anti-
choice. Some things you can believe.
Best commentary I've seen on Nader so far:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/448708.asp
B.
> --
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
Gregory Gadow
Gregory Gadow
> In article <39A3DD4E...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > I assume Bush DOES believe in his own platform, which is another
> reason
> > > to vote for Gore.
> >
> > And history has shown that Gore -- and many Democrats -- do NOT
> > believe in their own platform, which is another reason to NOT vote for
> Gore.
>
> All promises made by politicians need to be taken with several grains
> of salt. This is true across the political spectrum. I can remember
> when Ronald Reagan stood on the stage of the 1980 Republican Convention
> and promised to balance the budget in four years. Instead we got The
> Biggest Deficit the World Has Ever Known.
I agree that, in general, political promises are not even worth the air
used to utter them. However, I also believe that some people actually will,
as far as they are able, promote their agenda as promised. Gore (and Bush)
has shown himself utterly unable to do so.
To contrast, Nader has made it his lifes work keeping his promises, and has
several decades to prove it.
> However, it is extremely unusual for a politician to campaign on a pro-
> choice platform and not be pro-choice once in office. Same with anti-
> choice. Some things you can believe.
Ok, we have one issue. ONE. By your argument, Nader, too, will be
pro-choice. You still have said nothing to convince me that Gore would make
a better president than Nader.
> Best commentary I've seen on Nader so far:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/448708.asp
Interesting, but hardly impartial. I quote: "Nader has built a campaign on
a big lie of this election year: that there is little appreciable
difference between the two major parties, or their presidential
candidates." The wings of the Two Party share different ideologies, sure;
but I continue to assert that in their fundamental premise -- continuation
of power at all costs -- they *are* the same and are equally as bad to the
citizenry.
xo...@my-deja.com
spam...@petra.dyndns.org (Cameron L. Spitzer) wrote:
> In article <8nuktm$7jr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >Moore's editorial is not very thorough. He glosses over the fact that
> >Republicans, including Bush's father, have appointed the most
dangerous
> >Justices with respect to Roe: Renquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
> >Just one more anti-choice Justice would tip the balance. Do you trust
> >Bush *not* to make that appointment?
>
> Yes. Bush has bigger fish to fry than abortion. If he screws up
> on a little thing like abortion, and loses the big fish,
> he's not playing the game. He was born into the game, and
> jumping out of it isn't in his nature.
Funny how you go easy on Bush. It seems to me that you're speculating
and trying to convince yourself that a Bush presidency wouldn't be all
that bad if Nader spoils it for Gore. There's something really
hypocritical about such a position, from my perspective. You'll only
vote for the "real" progressive--because Bush won't be *so* bad.
> Abortion rights are the real "third rail" of American politics.
> They have to do with whether people feel free to have sex
> under many circumstances.
You don't seriously believe that abortion rights is about the right to
have sex, do you? It's about the right to make decisions that effect
one's personal life and one's personal life only. You know, like the
drug war issue?
> More Americans feel strongly about whether
> they are gonna get laid in the near future than about slave labor
> products from China at Walmart, or the ice caps melting,
> or killing a million Iraqui children over terms of access to oil.
> That is the reason the abortion genie can never be rebottled.
I would be more impressed with your supposed compassion and global
outlook if you showed some smarts about the abortion issue instead of
dissing it as being just about "getting laid." Jesus Christ!
> And Bush and Hatch know it. That is why, under the Democrats,
> the strategy of the "religious" right shifted from outlawing abortion
> to terrorizing abortion providers.
>
> Trying to outlaw abortion would place at risk legalized slavery
> (the code word is "free trade" if you're looking in the corporate
press),
> expanding fossil fuel consumption, the war machine, everything
important
> to the power elite today. Bush is just not gonna do that. He may be
> stupid, but his handlers are smart.
Again with the making excuses for Bush! Why no excuses for Gore,
goddamnit! Because you're running against Gore!
> The only reason it keeps coming up is the Dems *know* it's the
> third rail, the best chance they've got to scare people into
> voting for their unattractive candidate.
>
> How long are you going to put up with corporate America telling
> you you have to settle for oilco-sponsored war mongering sellouts
> who try to scare you with bogeymen? I've had enough, I'm voting for
> a man of integrity, who doesn't work for Occidental Petroleum
> and Microsoft.
Fine. I'm voting for someone who'll win.
> Cameron
Gregory Gadow
> In article <39A3DD09...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Why tie all Democrats to Bill Clinton's indiscretions? That sounds
> > > Bushie to me.
> >
> > Ok, an ad hominem. Keep this up, xofpi, and you will have given me the
> > entire set of logical fallacies!
>
> It was not an ad hominem. It's a Bushie position that Clinton's stains,
> so to speak, are on all Democrats.
You are not listening to what I said. I assert that those who refused to
speak up against his actions and the way he embarassed this nation with his
affairs have stained themselves. And most of the Democrats in leadership
positions -- almost all of those serving in Congress, White House staffers,
and National Democratic Party officials -- had either remainded silent or
actively supported him. And as I said, their support, either passive or
active, is what has stained them.
> Most Democrats don't think Clinton's
> sexual performance has any relevance to his job performance.
Correction: Most Democrats *in leadership positions, with jobs and
reputations to protect*, don't think Clinton's infidelities have any
relevance. However, most of the Democrats I know believe that the
embarassments have damaged the United States as a whole, and that by their
support of these infidelities, the Democrat leadership has lost considerable
credibility. Further, the President's proven lying while under oath has had
a profound impact on how he performs in his job... here you have the Chief
Executive and (in name, at least) the most important and visible
representative of the Democratic Party comitting perjury. Had he been honest
and said, "I refuse to answer the question under the protections of the
Fifth Amendment", no one could have touched him.
> Speaking
> for myself, I think most of the Clinton scandals were manufactured by
> Republicans who wanted to undo the election or make life as hard as
> possible for a president who defeated one of their own.
So you assert that Monica Lewinsky was on the GOP payroll? Interesting
theory and, sadly, one that I have heard many Democrats put forth. I will
agree with you that the investigation was pursued far beyond any reasonable
length... I have no love of the Republican Party for seeing, what, 50
MILLION dollars spent?
> I think they
> should be soundly punished by the electorate for what they almost did to
> the country. It's beginning to look more and more as though they will
> be.
So.... we have the world's most prominent member of the Democratic Party
involved in a marital scandal. We have the Republican Party who spent
millions and millions of public dollars to turn that marital scandal into a
world-wide embarassment. We have a Democratic President who committed
perjury when he held himself above the law that, under the Constitution, he
is responsible for executing and we have a very large majority of the
Democratic Party Leadership who claimed he did nothing wrong.
Wow. I want more than ever to vote for a third party.
> > And for the record, I do *not* tie all Democrats with Bill Clinton's
> > indiscretions... just those who did not speak out against them. With
> their
> > implied support and approval, they tied themselves. Around the neck, in
> my
> > opinion, but whether with a noose or just an albatross has yet to be
> > seen.
>
> Who really gives a shit about the soap opera of the Clintons' private
> lives? Just Republicans, prudes and you. (That may be an ad hominem.)
No "may" about it. And actually, quite a few people are angry at both
Republicans and Democrats for the way these events unfolded. That is one of
the reasons why, for the first time in a century, third parties are actually
being discussed seriously.
(snip)
And yet, the Commander in Chief has only accelerated the process.
> > And there is the fact that
> > Clinton made history on September 29, 1996 when he became the first
> > President in American history to explicitly sign bigotry in to law when
> he
> > finalized passage of the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act.
>
> Admittedly a disgrace. As is his support of the death penalty, his
> treatment of Lani Grenier, his hiring of Dick Morris, a lot of his
> triangulation strategy, his welfare reform. But he killed Reaganomics.
He killed a single policy approach that Bush Sr. had all but gutted during
*his* presidency.
> He set up the government for a progressive agenda that he himself had
> neither the courage nor the political capital (let alone federal
> capital) to undertake.
In other words, he spoke the talk but then decided to take the bus
elsewhere. If Clinton's agenda was never undertaken, how can you say it was
set up?
> If the Democrats retake at least the House and
> the presidency, they will be calling the shots, not the Lotts and the
> Barrs and Burtons and DeLays. It will be (partly) the Franks and the
> Wellstones and the Boxers and the Feingolds.
All of whom, despite their liberal faces, have a long history of maintaining
the status quo of politics as usual.
> > And what have the Democrats done in the last eight years to further our
> > social safety net? They have abolished many social service programs,
> allowed
> > states to move money away from state social service programs and
> eliminated
> > welfare with no allowances for actually training people and providing
> > childcare so they can go to work and become productive citizens. They
> have
> > furthered the cause of unrestricted world trade, thereby gutting decades
> of
> > hard work to protect animal diversity, establish standards of consumer
> > safety and preserve American jobs. They have established national parks
> and
> > wilderness areas only in places with very little natural resources and
> > continued to allow vast tracts of public land to be stripped bare of
> trees
> > and strip mined, then left for dead.
>
> Disgraces, no doubt. But as I say, with a Democratic House, a Democratic
> president would be encouraged, I believe, to be more progressive.
As it was during the first two years of Clinton's administration? Again,
history has shown what I have asserted: when presented with an opportunity
to advance their progressive agenda, the Dems have consistently backed away.
(snip)
> > I figure that leaves me with two choices: I can either vote for a third
> > party candidate (such as Nader) or abstain from voting. Tell me: which
> > would hurt Gore less?
>
> At this point, it's looking as though they'd amount to the same, at
> least from Gore's point of view. I will probably back away from my
> attention to Nader because I don't think he's as much of a threat as he
> was seeming to be. I think Bush is doomed. I wish you well.
Likewise. May the better man win... not the lesser of evils.
--
mahab...@my-deja.com
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I assume Bush DOES believe in his own platform, which is another
> > reason
> > > > to vote for Gore.
> > >
> > > And history has shown that Gore -- and many Democrats -- do NOT
> > > believe in their own platform, which is another reason to NOT
vote for
> > Gore.
> >
> > All promises made by politicians need to be taken with several
grains
> > of salt. This is true across the political spectrum. I can remember
> > when Ronald Reagan stood on the stage of the 1980 Republican
Convention
> > and promised to balance the budget in four years. Instead we got The
> > Biggest Deficit the World Has Ever Known.
>
> I agree that, in general, political promises are not even worth the
air
> used to utter them. However, I also believe that some people actually
will,
> as far as they are able, promote their agenda as promised. Gore (and
Bush)
> has shown himself utterly unable to do so.
Well, no, you are wrong. For example, Bush became governor of Texas by
promising to promote the agenda of the NRA, and he kept his word.
As VP Gore has had no power to do anything, but as a Senator he was
reasonably consistent as a moderate-to-progressive Democrat. He has
changed his views on some things over the years, but that's normal. I
can't respect a person who can't ever change his mind.
> To contrast, Nader has made it his lifes work keeping his promises,
and has
> several decades to prove it.
Nader has never been in politics before, son. The only promises he ever
kept were promises to continue to agitate for several causes. He's had
a lot of good results, but so far his record as in politics is tabula
rasa. A blank slate. As president he could not longer function the way
he has in the past; he'd have to adopt a completely different skill set
and work up new strategies to get results, and whether he can do that
is unknown. So as far as promises kept, Nader is at zero at this time.
>
> > However, it is extremely unusual for a politician to campaign on a
pro-
> > choice platform and not be pro-choice once in office. Same with
anti-
> > choice. Some things you can believe.
>
> Ok, we have one issue. ONE. By your argument, Nader, too, will be
> pro-choice. You still have said nothing to convince me that Gore
would make
> a better president than Nader.
Nader has had no experience as a statesman. How would he work with
Congress? How would he relate to other heads of state as President? One
can only imagine. This kind of thing is utterly outside the role as
consumer advocate he has played (very well) for lo these many years.
It's a completely different skill set, and Nader is totally untested.
I believe Gore will be a far, far, far better executive in regard to
the environment than Bush. Bush basically allows the polluters of Texas
to regulate themselves, which is one reason Texas is about the most
polluted state in the Union. However, Gore's record as an environmental
advocate is admirable.
Gore has no reason to pander to the National Rifle Association, who
doesn't support him, anyway. Bush has lots of reason to pander to the
NRA, and there's no reason to doubt he would allow the NRA to work out
of the Oval Office and write whatever legislation he proposes to
Congress.
Bush's tax cut scheme is based on two false premises: One, that giving
trillions of dollars in tax cuts back to the wealthiest Americans won't
overheat and already-hot economy and spark inflation; and two, that the
tax cuts are affordable because discretionary spending will remain as
is for the next several years. These are fantasies. IMO Bush's tax cuts
would be a disaster for our economy, long term. Gore is promising to
more or less hold the course on the economy, sticking to the Clinton
policy that has worked very, very well. There is a possibility that
Gore will run up spending and run up the deficit, but the Bush plan is
almost certain to be ruinous. One goes with the odds.
Bush has to pander to the Right Wing when he chooses the next Supreme
Court justices, and is likely to choose people who would interpret the
Constitution in a reactionary, right-wing way. Gore doesn't have to
pander to the Right Wing when he chooses the next Supreme Court
justices, and is more likely to choose people who will uphold Roe v.
Wade and separation of church and state and free speech and a lot of
other stuff important to us progressive-liberal types.
So, IMO there are a lot of reasons why it is important to get Gore and
not Bush into the White House. If Nader screws things up for us, well,
I may have to have some words with him.
>
> > Best commentary I've seen on Nader so far:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/448708.asp
>
> Interesting, but hardly impartial. I quote: "Nader has built a
campaign on
> a big lie of this election year: that there is little appreciable
> difference between the two major parties, or their presidential
> candidates." The wings of the Two Party share different ideologies,
sure;
> but I continue to assert that in their fundamental premise --
continuation
> of power at all costs -- they *are* the same and are equally as bad
to the
> citizenry.
I agree with the "big lie" statement. It seems to me that a lot of
people are using a technique known to sociologists as "saving cognitive
resources" by grabbing onto Nader's super-simplistic model of the
political parties. In other words, instead of actually understanding
the political parties and how they function, you adopt a cognitive
paradigm in which political parties are irrelevant so you don't have to
tax your brain too much to understand them.
However, in the real world, the parties do matter, like it or not.
B.
xo...@my-deja.com
Joe Lieberman and Al Gore, as it happens, were among the first and most
visible of all leaders to criticize Clinton for what he did--or at least
for what *I* think he did, which was to mess around with an intern and
lie about it.
> > Most Democrats don't think Clinton's
> > sexual performance has any relevance to his job performance.
>
> Correction: Most Democrats *in leadership positions, with jobs and
> reputations to protect*, don't think Clinton's infidelities have any
> relevance. However, most of the Democrats I know believe that the
> embarassments have damaged the United States as a whole, and that by
their
> support of these infidelities, the Democrat leadership has lost
considerable
> credibility.
How many Democrats do you know?! Most *people* I know found the whole
thing just plain stupid from every angle and wanted to get over it
already. Only Republicans, prudes and (I forgot to mention) the media
couldn't get over the fact that the president screwed around.
> Further, the President's proven lying while under oath
has had
> a profound impact on how he performs in his job... here you have the
Chief
> Executive and (in name, at least) the most important and visible
> representative of the Democratic Party comitting perjury. Had he been
honest
> and said, "I refuse to answer the question under the protections of
the
> Fifth Amendment", no one could have touched him.
Which he should have said. It was dumb not to. But who gives a rat's ass
about this shit?
> > Speaking
> > for myself, I think most of the Clinton scandals were manufactured
by
> > Republicans who wanted to undo the election or make life as hard as
> > possible for a president who defeated one of their own.
>
> So you assert that Monica Lewinsky was on the GOP payroll? Interesting
> theory and, sadly, one that I have heard many Democrats put forth. I
will
> agree with you that the investigation was pursued far beyond any
reasonable
> length... I have no love of the Republican Party for seeing, what, 50
> MILLION dollars spent?
A censure from Congress in September would have cut the crap then and
there. Maybe the midterms would have had a different outcome, too. And
maybe the Republicans would have found a real candidate to run against
Gore.
> > I think they
> > should be soundly punished by the electorate for what they almost
did to
> > the country. It's beginning to look more and more as though they
will
> > be.
>
> So.... we have the world's most prominent member of the Democratic
Party
> involved in a marital scandal. We have the Republican Party who spent
> millions and millions of public dollars to turn that marital scandal
into a
> world-wide embarassment. We have a Democratic President who committed
> perjury when he held himself above the law that, under the
Constitution, he
> is responsible for executing and we have a very large majority of the
> Democratic Party Leadership who claimed he did nothing wrong.
>
> Wow. I want more than ever to vote for a third party.
As you say above, it was the Republicans who turned a private matter of
the president's into an international embarrassment. It's the
Republicans who are an embarrassment.
> > > And for the record, I do *not* tie all Democrats with Bill
Clinton's
> > > indiscretions... just those who did not speak out against them.
With
> > their
> > > implied support and approval, they tied themselves. Around the
neck, in
> > my
> > > opinion, but whether with a noose or just an albatross has yet to
be
> > > seen.
> >
> > Who really gives a shit about the soap opera of the Clintons'
private
> > lives? Just Republicans, prudes and you. (That may be an ad
hominem.)
>
> No "may" about it. And actually, quite a few people are angry at both
> Republicans and Democrats for the way these events unfolded. That is
one of
> the reasons why, for the first time in a century, third parties are
actually
> being discussed seriously.
The first time in a century!?! What about Wallace in 1968? Anderson in
1980? Perot in 1992?
<snip>
This demonstrates the blindspot of Naderism: If you can't tell the
difference between the Burtons and Barrs and the Wellstones and
Feingolds, you're seeing in two dimensions only.
I think this view of history is shortsighted. You forget what the Reagan
era did to the federal budget. You forget how much of a fight Dems had
to spend a dime on any social program. This decade was about getting
control of the budget back in the hands of Democrats--in other words,
in the hands of the progressives. If you can't see that, I can't help
you.
> (snip)
>
> > > I figure that leaves me with two choices: I can either vote for a
third
> > > party candidate (such as Nader) or abstain from voting. Tell me:
which
> > > would hurt Gore less?
> >
> > At this point, it's looking as though they'd amount to the same, at
> > least from Gore's point of view. I will probably back away from my
> > attention to Nader because I don't think he's as much of a threat as
he
> > was seeming to be. I think Bush is doomed. I wish you well.
>
> Likewise. May the better man win... not the lesser of evils.
> --
> Gregory Gadow
> Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
> Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
> Email: tech...@serv.net
> Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
>
xo...@my-deja.com
>
> > I hope you get enough votes in Texas and
> > the South, though, to qualify for matching federal funds--unless of
> > course that makes you sock puppets of the corporations.
>
> Receiving PUBLIC financing of campaigns means NOT HAVING to be
beholden
> to the corps. But thanks for the good wishes. EVERY independent voter
> living in a state where Gore can't win (or lose) should consider
voting
> for Nader, or another 3rd party candidate who they most support. After
> all, in those states, a vote for Gore is "a wasted vote," right? Why
> "throw it away," right?
I couldn't agree with you more! Why are we arguing?
Thomas Andrews
>> a profound impact on how he performs in his job... here you have the
>> Chief Executive and (in name, at least) the most important and visible
>> representative of the Democratic Party comitting perjury. Had he been
>> honest and said, "I refuse to answer the question under the protections of
>> the Fifth Amendment", no one could have touched him.
>
Republicans made dire warnings saying that if he refused to answer
Starr's questions, they'd impeach him. Whether they would have followed
through or not is unclear.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"What's a man like me supposed to do,
With all this extra savoir-faire?" - TMBG
Gregory Gadow
> >> Further, the President's proven lying while under oath has had
> >> a profound impact on how he performs in his job... here you have the
> >> Chief Executive and (in name, at least) the most important and visible
> >> representative of the Democratic Party comitting perjury. Had he been
> >> honest and said, "I refuse to answer the question under the protections of
> >> the Fifth Amendment", no one could have touched him.
> >
>
> Republicans made dire warnings saying that if he refused to answer
> Starr's questions, they'd impeach him. Whether they would have followed
> through or not is unclear.
He answered and they impeached him anyway because his answers were lies. If he
had taken the Fifth -- a right that Congress could NOT take away from any
citizen, even the President -- they would have had no grounds for the
impeachment. Heck, even if he had answered truthfully he could not have been
impeached: I doubt very much that an extramarital affair counts as a High Crime.
Bill
> In article <39A4069F...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > Further, the President's proven lying while under oath has had
> > a profound impact on how he performs in his job... here you have the
> Chief
> > Executive and (in name, at least) the most important and visible
> > representative of the Democratic Party comitting perjury. Had he been
> honest
> > and said, "I refuse to answer the question under the protections of the
> > Fifth Amendment", no one could have touched him.
>
> Which he should have said. It was dumb not to. But who gives a rat's ass
> about this shit?
Actually, in a civil proceeding, you don't have a 5th Amendment right to
avoid self-incrimination. When faced with a question you don't want to
answer, your options include asking the judge to rule the line of
questioning out of order, providing as evasive an answer as you think you
can get away with, and biting the bullet and taking a comtempt citation for
refusing to answer. Clinton basically wound up with all three.
black_...@my-deja.com
> Fine. We disagree. I think the differences between Gore and Bush are
> significant. I'd rather have a president who is answerable to a
> progressive constituency than one who isn't. And I think with a
> Democratic House, Gore will be more answerable to the progressives
than his predecessor was.
Can you repeat after me? Here :
WTO, NAFTA, GATT, PMRC, Occidental Petroleum, War on Drugs, Mills
Corporation + Carlstadt NJ + Meadowlands, East Livepool Ohio, corporate
welfare, Law of the Sea + Landmine Ban + Rights of Children Treaty,
Environmental Policy Act + Endanger Species Act + Option 9, Headwaters
Forest, Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, sanctions against Iraq,
extreme militarization, prison-industrial complex...
Has Gore pushed to reform the 1872 Mining Act? The 1947 Taft-Hartley
Act? What has he said about the free-trade zones in Jamaica?
Why did he push the EPA to approve dioxin incinerators (an inner-review
board of the EPA has STILL not accepted the more recent findings that
dioxin is 10 times more carcinogenic than first though. The companies,
just like Big Oil and Big Auto, pour money into the Gore campaign war
chest, and he'll stay silent regarding their crimes, and even work on
behalf of them to do their bidding.
Why hasn't Gore reformed his PNGV? It's amounted to nothing more than a
massive corporate giveaway. Why did he support censorship?
Gore has supported ALL the wrong causes, and fought against ALL the
right ones.
Only 93 of the Fortune 500 companies offer benefits for same sex
marriages. Greens and other progressive see this as wrong, and
discriminatory. Gore, being the born-against Christian that he is,
feels gays do NOT have the right to marriage. Nader has explicitly
stated that he feels gays should have the right to marriage.
As far as abortion goes, remember it was GORE who was an anti-abortion
advocate, and suddenly NOW, he isn't. Supposedly.
"It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong....Let me
assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be
protected.."
---Al Gore, Sept 15, 1983 (Boston Globe, April 5, 1999)
Keep in mind that the Roe V. Wade decision was written by Judge
Blackmun, a Justice appointed by REPUBLICAN RICHARD NIXON.
The differences between Bush and Gore are cosmetic at best; both
support the death penalty, eh? Both support nuclear technology. Neither
has criticized the CIA...etc.
So, Bush has a terrible record. Gore has an EVEN worse record. (The WTO
is one of the most insidious organizations ever assembled, and Gore
fully supported it and pushed the Uraguay GATT through Congress.)
Bush's positions are terrible. Gore's positions are terrible (although
PERHAPS not as horrific as Bush's). Both are liars, and say anything to
get elected.
No progressive should consider voting for either; the progressive
choice is CLEARLY Nader.
ap
xo...@my-deja.com
black_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The differences between Bush and Gore are cosmetic at best; both
> support the death penalty, eh? Both support nuclear technology.
Neither
> has criticized the CIA...etc.
>
> So, Bush has a terrible record. Gore has an EVEN worse record. (The
WTO
> is one of the most insidious organizations ever assembled, and Gore
> fully supported it and pushed the Uraguay GATT through Congress.)
> Bush's positions are terrible. Gore's positions are terrible (although
> PERHAPS not as horrific as Bush's). Both are liars, and say anything
to
> get elected.
>
> No progressive should consider voting for either; the progressive
> choice is CLEARLY Nader.
>
In other words, progressives have no choice but to be marginalized and
disempowered? No thanks!
black_...@my-deja.com
xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8o3kfv$42$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> black_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > The differences between Bush and Gore are cosmetic at best; both
> > support the death penalty, eh? Both support nuclear technology.
> Neither
> > has criticized the CIA...etc.
> >
> > So, Bush has a terrible record. Gore has an EVEN worse record. (The
> WTO
> > is one of the most insidious organizations ever assembled, and Gore
> > fully supported it and pushed the Uraguay GATT through Congress.)
> > Bush's positions are terrible. Gore's positions are terrible
(although
> > PERHAPS not as horrific as Bush's). Both are liars, and say anything
> to
> > get elected.
> >
> > No progressive should consider voting for either; the progressive
> > choice is CLEARLY Nader.
> >
>
> In other words, progressives have no choice but to be marginalized and
> disempowered? No thanks!
Voting for Gore is just as disheartening and disempowering.
I'm glad you conveniently deleted most of my post that proves Gore is
no progressive, by any stretch of definition of the word 'progressive.'
xo...@my-deja.com
You can vote your heart and be content to remain outside or above the
fray. Or you can vote your head.
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <39A2D507...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39A2B426...@serv.net>,
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > > > xo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Voting for Gore, who unlike Nader, seems to believe in his party's
> > > > > platform from top to bottom, especially in such components as
> > > > > protecting a woman's right to choose and protecting the hard-won surplus
> > > > > from idiot Reaganites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously a woman's right to choose is not top priority to
> > > > > Naderites.
> > > >
> > > > You mean to imply that a woman's right to choose is a "top
> > > > priority" with
> > > > Democrats, as opposed to fund-raising, promoting the World Trade
> > > > Organization, bombing Eastern Block countries into 3rd world
> > > > status, more fund-raising, protecting big business, damage control
> > > > incited by a goat of a Chief Executive and raising even more funds?
> > >
> > > You really are a Bushie in sheep's clothing, aren't you?
> >
> > Touche! Lovely rebuttal to my points. You have convinced me to Go
> > Democrat!
>
> Why tie all Democrats to Bill Clinton's indiscretions? That sounds
> Bushie to me.
>
> woman's right to choose would be in the top three overall.
Well, you're not even close. According to a Gallup poll on important
election issues,
(http://www.gallup.com/Election2000/issues.asp)
out of 13 issues listed, abortion came in 11th overall for importance,
and of the 6 issues where Gore beats Bush, abortion came in last.
Not that polls are holy writ, but I think you're seeing the world from
an idiosyncratic place and assuming others see it as you do.
black_...@my-deja.com
> > Voting for Gore is just as disheartening and disempowering.
> >
> > I'm glad you conveniently deleted most of my post that proves Gore
is no progressive, by any stretch of definition of the word
> 'progressive.'
>
> You can vote your heart and be content to remain outside or above the
> fray. Or you can vote your head.
How would voting for Gore be 'using my head.'? I despise the man, and
his past record, and his current stances.
I DON'T like WTO, PMRC, Mills Corp, Dioxin Incinerators, Occidental
Petroleum, GATT/NAFTA, the Banana Trade Wars, nuclear technology, the
missile defense system, the War on Drugs (Columbia, too..), corporate
welfare/deregulation, dirty money, ETC ETC ETC.
I HATE GORE. I HATE BUSH. I LIKE NADER.
The choice is rather clear.