ATTN JMS: Crusade Questions
Jms at B5
a new header hasn't reached the group yet, and Saturday is nearly upon us.
To encapsulate that long (and totally off topic) message in about a sentence or
two:
I don't normally get involved in politics or recommending people; that's just
not something I generally do. But for those looking on from South Carolina...
I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore and McCain,
we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be elected.
If we end up with a national election between Gore and Bush, we have a 50%
chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
elected.
I apologize for the digression into politics, but this seems kinda important to
me.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
scarabz
Granted, I'm taking a rather off-topic post and taking it further off
topic,
and I've never posted here before (though I've lurked for years), but:
I've followed politics closely for a number of years (as well as being a
die-hard B5 fan). I believe I have a rather informed opinion, and it
differs rather greatly on the opinions expressed here of both Gore and
Bush.
If any B5 fans seriously interested in politics would like to discuss this
sort of thing, let's try to find an appropriate forum. I enjoy rational
political debate. I have lots of facts which are often under-reported.
I'd love to learn more. Reasonable people can disagree about just about
every political issue, but all too often votes are inspired by impressions
and ignorance rather than by truth.
Here's hoping this post leads to a more informed electorate.
--SCarab
Marvin Gersho
I respect your opinion a great deal. I can also see that you might
like Gore's politics. About have of the electorate does. But that you
consider him decent surprises me. Gore has repeatedly lied during this
campaign both about himself and especially about Bradley. He lied about
his previous positions on abortion, tobacco, and campaign finance
reform. He even claimed to have invented the internet. He also
refused to condemn supporters at a rally who spit at and taunted Senator
Kerrey, a Bradley supporter. These are not the actions of a decent guy.
I am not a registered democrat. But I think that Bradley is the decent
one, while Gore is the one who will do anything to win. Clinton taught
him well.
Why do you think that Gore is decent?
Marvin
Jms at B5
>one, while Gore is the one who will do anything to win. Clinton taught
>him well.
>
>Why do you think that Gore is decent?
I said decent, I didn't say great. I don't think that he represents the best
we can do; I have a great deal of respect for Bradley and I would vote for him
in a national campaign but I don't think he's going to last the next few
primaries.
Dustin trygger
Dusty
Jms at B5 wrote:
> I'm putting this here only because my message specifically on this issue under
> a new header hasn't reached the group yet, and Saturday is nearly upon us.
>
> To encapsulate that long (and totally off topic) message in about a sentence or
> two:
>
> I don't normally get involved in politics or recommending people; that's just
> not something I generally do. But for those looking on from South Carolina...
>
> I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore and McCain,
> we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be elected.
>
> If we end up with a national election between Gore and Bush, we have a 50%
> chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
> corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
> elected.
>
> I apologize for the digression into politics, but this seems kinda important to
> me.
>
Ken Mitchell
news:20000217195206...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
>
> I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore and
McCain,
> we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be
elected.
I sure hope you're joking! Gore is a self-glorifying liar, a thief, Bill
Clinton's most ardent supporter, the pampered brat of a big government
liberal. Except for a minimal tour in the military, the man has never held a
private-sector job in his life. He changes policy positions more often than
most people change their socks, and hasn't been above using his and other
peoples' personal tragedies for political gain. A vote for Gore is a vote
for even MORE corruption, MORE government intervention, HIGHER taxes, and
LESS liberty.
Bush fils is no great catch, either, but at least he's not TOTALLY corrupt.
McCain of Keating Five fame, on the other hand, has a track record of using
his influence to help campaign contributors, which isn't illegal but IS
somewhat hypocritical given his campaign finance "reform" proposals which
would have the effect of causing even WORSE corruption in the future. Yeah,
McCain is a decent guy; a decent guy with bad ideas, like Jimmy Carter. And
who wants that?
Here in California, I'll be voting for SF writer L. Neil Smith on the
Libertarian ballot.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmit...@gvn.net
916-995-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax)
--------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm----------------
"lighght"
This is not a typo. This is a poem funded by the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) that cost taxpayers $1,500. "lighght" is not the
title; it's the entire poem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Founding Member: "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
carl Dershem
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> : I said decent, I didn't say great. I don't think that he represents the best
> : we can do; I have a great deal of respect for Bradley and I would vote for him
> : in a national campaign but I don't think he's going to last the next few
> : primaries.
>
> My problem with the current choices is this: I'm both pro-choice and pro-
> military. During the Clinton administration, the armed forces have been
> slashed to the point where training, maintenance, stores of spare parts,
> readiness and retention have dropped below the point required to perform their
> mandated duties, shown by problems that popped up during Kosovo with stocks of
> cruise missiles running out, aircraft stocks stretched extremely thin and
> deployment issues cropping up. If Hussein or another opponent wanted to
> try something, we'd have been hard-pressed to handle a sizable conflict in
> addition to Kosovo. The military is pretty well gutted and quickly falling
> from technological superiority to technological parity to inferiority. When
> you advocate technology to get the job done and fight those who advocate
> mass attacks, you generally need technological superiority to justify your
> position, eh?
>
> Bush (ignoring the other obvious issues) and McCain are pro-life but pro-
> military, while Gore and Bradley are pro-choice but definitely don't seem to
> be pro-military. Airgh.
Gore is a veteran, and probably has a clearer idea on how it works than Clinton, and
will almost certainly change the military's priority. Much as I respect some of the
things McCain's said and done, I still can't vote for him because of the other
things he's said and done - his voting record is too far from my own philosophies.
Chris Schumacher
>I said decent, I didn't say great. I don't think that he represents the best
>we can do; I have a great deal of respect for Bradley and I would vote for him
>in a national campaign but I don't think he's going to last the next few
>primaries.
>
I wouldn't be so sure. Bradley's got a lot more of chance than McCain
does. It would be great, though, if it ended up as a race between
those two. That's what I'd call a "win-win" situation.
With Bush and Gore, it's lose-lose, I STILL can't decide which one I'd
pick in that event.
-==Kensu==-
"Would you:
a) Have you sister gain-raped by your consent, or
b) Rip off your left testicle without anastethic?" -The Book of Hard
Questions.
Thomas Bagwell
>
> I'm putting this here only because my message specifically on this issue under
> a new header hasn't reached the group yet, and Saturday is nearly upon us.
>
> To encapsulate that long (and totally off topic) message in about a sentence or
> two:
>
> I don't normally get involved in politics or recommending people; that's just
> not something I generally do. But for those looking on from South Carolina...
>
> we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be elected.
>
> chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
> corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
> elected.
>
> I apologize for the digression into politics, but this seems kinda important to
> me.
Sorry....that took me by surprise. Gore seems to be the archetypical
politician...say anything to get elected, the truth doesn't matter.
Lie, because enough will not go to the effort of doubting you, and those
who notice probably wouldn't have voted for you anyway. He seems to be
looking to Clinton as a role model. I do not see him as a "nice guy".
I prefer McCain, personally, to Bush, but far prefer Bush to Gore.
Speaking as a resident of Austin, TX, Bush has been an effective
governor. No scandals, no dirty politics, and able to accomplish what
he aims for, or at least to do his best.
There are a few issues that I tend to agree with McCain on, though, and
he seems a much more forceful leader than any of the others.
Tom Bagwell
Mac Breck
news:mUor4.6923$bz2.1...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000217195206...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> He changes policy positions more often than
> most people change their socks, and hasn't been above using his and other
> peoples' personal tragedies for political gain.
That just reminded me of Hillary!
> A vote for Gore is a vote
> for even MORE corruption, MORE government intervention, HIGHER taxes, and
> LESS liberty.
True.
What do you think of Keyes (and I don't mean as related to his chances of
winning)?
Mac
Mac Breck
news:38AFB52A...@earthlink.net...
> There are a few issues that I tend to agree with McCain on, though, and
> he seems a much more forceful leader than any of the others.
Except Keyes.
Mac
Frederic L. Riebs
> From: Marvin Gersho <mge...@home.com>
> Date: 18 Feb 2000 18:33:33 -0700
> Lines: 50
>
>
> I respect your opinion a great deal. I can also see that you might
> like Gore's politics. About have of the electorate does. But that you
> consider him decent surprises me. Gore has repeatedly lied during this
> campaign both about himself and especially about Bradley. He lied about
> his previous positions on abortion, tobacco, and campaign finance
> reform. He even claimed to have invented the internet. He also
> refused to condemn supporters at a rally who spit at and taunted Senator
> Kerrey, a Bradley supporter. These are not the actions of a decent guy.
>
> one, while Gore is the one who will do anything to win. Clinton taught
> him well.
I'm not a registered anything (though the further left the Democrats go
the further right I go) and I'm by no means a Bradley supporter, but all
of the above points are WELL taken.
Furthermore:
> > Jms at B5 wrote:
> > I don't normally get involved in politics or recommending people;
> that's just not something I generally do.
And though it's your right to do so, of course, I wish you hadn't, at
least not in this forum. Not that either politics in general or this
coming Presidential election in particular aren't vitally important to
everyone in this country (and to a great extent outside of the USA), but
as much as possible, I like to keep entertainment and politics separate.
But now that you bring it up! >B-)
> > If we end up with a national election between Gore and Bush, we have a 50%
> > chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
> > corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
> > elected.
Now how is it in this proposed (and likely) two man race G. W. Bush is the
only one who's bought and paid for? The fact is that EVERYONE who has
officially run for the Presidency this time around has taken special
interest money, even the loudly anti-special-interest money campaigner
McCain. His excuse? He's as corrupted by the money as anyone else,
which, he argues, is why he should be elected to "clean up" the system.
He conveniently ignores the fact that his anti-special-interest money
proposals DON'T ban money from labor unions, which contribute money from
union dues to political campaigns without consulting union members.
And while Bush has no doubt taken his share of the corporate and special
interest money out there, the average per-person contribution is $300.
Thus while there surely are some huge contributors to Bush's campaign,
there's a whole gang of folks out there who are bringing that average
down. So unless you can point out a specific instance where Bush reversed
a policy or position due to or shortly after a large special-interest
contribution, or even received illegal campaign contributions (something
in which there seems to be ample evidence of Gore being involved), I
reject your charge that Bush is any more money-driven than any other
currently running Presidential candidate.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yours Truly, | "And so what if the wages of sin is death? After taxes,
Rick Riebs | it's probably just a real tired feeling!"
fa...@eskimo.com | -- Paula Poundstone
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chibi-Light
writes:
>I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore and McCain,
>we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be elected.
Uh, JMS, you do realise you're talking about Mr. Al "I invented the
Internet" Gore there... Seems Gore never heard of Arponet.
CL
norv...@sirius.com
hee hee... what a laughingstock. I also got a laugh out of him when, for
some reason, I watched the last State of the Union Address. He was sitting
behind Clinton, constantly tilted over in his chair to make sure the
camera got sight of him, physically "saying" something like "Hey, don't
forget me! I'm HERE! Pay attention!" :-)
As for McCain... I start thinking along the lines of "Well, if I were ever
to vote for a Republican for President, I could handle voting for McCain."
Then I figure out that I'm probably just having an emotional response to
his experience as a soldier in Vietnam. Ah well.
As for Bush... I could not stand another 4-8 years of that Royal American
Family in office. Not another Shrub for me, okay?
...But hey, this could be a good chance for me to move to New Zealand. :-)
(Long-distance relationship problem -- does he come to the US, or do I go
to NZ? Ah, life.)
WWS
"Frederic L. Riebs" wrote:
>
>
> > > If we end up with a national election between Gore and Bush, we have a 50%
> > > chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
> > > corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
> > > elected.
>
> Now how is it in this proposed (and likely) two man race G. W. Bush is the
> only one who's bought and paid for? The fact is that EVERYONE who has
> officially run for the Presidency this time around has taken special
> interest money, even the loudly anti-special-interest money campaigner
> McCain. His excuse? He's as corrupted by the money as anyone else,
> which, he argues, is why he should be elected to "clean up" the system.
> He conveniently ignores the fact that his anti-special-interest money
> proposals DON'T ban money from labor unions, which contribute money from
> union dues to political campaigns without consulting union members.
>
> And while Bush has no doubt taken his share of the corporate and special
> interest money out there, the average per-person contribution is $300.
> Thus while there surely are some huge contributors to Bush's campaign,
> there's a whole gang of folks out there who are bringing that average
> down. So unless you can point out a specific instance where Bush reversed
> a policy or position due to or shortly after a large special-interest
> contribution, or even received illegal campaign contributions (something
> in which there seems to be ample evidence of Gore being involved), I
> reject your charge that Bush is any more money-driven than any other
> currently running Presidential candidate.
Bravo! And it's amazing that in the media stampede to gush all over
McCain, no one seems to think it's newsworthy to point out that he's
the only one of the Keating 5 that's still in office. He tries to
claim that he "just went along with the gang" or somesuch, but fact
is (I was in Arizona when all this went down) he was Keating's point
man - he was the one he roped the others into it, including poor John
Glenn, and McCain was the money man.
Not to say he's any worse than anyone else - but he's certainly no
better, and anyone who thinks differently is just fooling themselves.
Oh, but Al "Shake down the Buddhist Temple" Gore is the honest one in
the bunch. Sure he is.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
And Bradley's got the same chance of winning as Alan Keyes does.
Steve Brinich
> I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore
> and McCain, we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a
> decent guy will be elected.
I have to disagree -- IMO, the only question about Gore is "was he
always corrupt, or was he turned to the Dark Side by Emperor
Billbatine?"
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
WWS
Mac Breck wrote:
>
> "Ken Mitchell" <kmit...@gvn.net> wrote in message
>
> > A vote for Gore is a vote
> > for even MORE corruption, MORE government intervention, HIGHER taxes, and
> > LESS liberty.
>
> True.
>
> What do you think of Keyes (and I don't mean as related to his chances of
> winning)?
He's a good debater, and if he hadn't spent so much time tweaking
GeeDubyah he'd probably be in line to get a good job after the
election. As it is, he's probably going to have to settle for
being the token black guy at Bob Jones U.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
And that's a fate worse than ambassadorship.
The Nuclear Marine
carl Dershem wrote:
> Gore is a veteran, and probably has a clearer idea on how it works than Clinton, and
> will almost certainly change the military's priority. Much as I respect some of the
> things McCain's said and done, I still can't vote for him because of the other
> things he's said and done - his voting record is too far from my own philosophies.
Even after joining the military I can't agree with the opinion that
serving should be a prerequiset for the Presidency (Let's face it, Gore
had an office job in Vietnam and McCain was an Academy grad but 5 years
POW which gives him an appreciation of Humanity and Freedom some won't
learn). Even Reagan was just a journalist who's major achievement was
Fort Roach and discovering Marilyn Monroe.
Or maybe I'm being cynical in saying in most cases it's a 9-5 job, even
in wartime.
---------------------------------
Easy, just don't lead em as much!
Mark Maher
<38B1A6EC...@home.com>...
>
>
>carl Dershem wrote:
>
>Even after joining the military I can't agree with the opinion
that
>serving should be a prerequiset for the Presidency (Let's face
it, Gore
>had an office job in Vietnam and McCain was an Academy grad but
5 years
>POW which gives him an appreciation of Humanity and Freedom
some won't
>learn). Even Reagan was just a journalist who's major
achievement was
>Fort Roach and discovering Marilyn Monroe.
>
>Or maybe I'm being cynical in saying in most cases it's a 9-5
job, even
>in wartime.
>
Speak for yourself :-)
When I was on cruise getting fired off the pointy end of an
aircraft carrier at O-Dark-Thirty, it sure didn't feel like a
"9-to-5" job to me. Shore duty, on the other hand...
I have to agree with your assessment of Senator McCain as a real
warfighter as opposed to Our Beloved VP. Driving a Scooter
around in Bad Guy Country was not for the faint of heart, as he
found out.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mac Breck
news:41ls4.7181$tk7.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> When I was on cruise getting fired off the pointy end of an
> aircraft carrier at O-Dark-Thirty, it sure didn't feel like a
> "9-to-5" job to me. Shore duty, on the other hand...
>
> I have to agree with your assessment of Senator McCain as a real
> warfighter as opposed to Our Beloved VP. Driving a Scooter
> around in Bad Guy Country was not for the faint of heart, as he
> found out.
Scooter's the nickname for the A-4 Skyhawk? Hmm. What'd they call the
other ones (e.g. Phantom, Skyraider, Crusader, etc.)? Anything interesting?
Just curious.
Mac
No need to go into the Thud. I know that one.
Mark Maher
But I'll give you one for an appetizer:
F-4 Phantom II - one of many nicknames - Flying Brick :-)
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mac Breck wrote in message <88t168$3...@library2.airnews.net>...
Bob Joesting
>I respect your opinion a great deal. I can also see that you might
>like Gore's politics. About have of the electorate does. But that you
>consider him decent surprises me. Gore has repeatedly lied during this
>campaign both about himself and especially about Bradley.
Have you any examples or are you just repeating
the same kind of false accusations Gore and Clinton
have had to put up with since they were elected?
>He lied about
>his previous positions on abortion, tobacco, and campaign finance
>reform.
Which of these did he lie about? As far as I know,
he has always supported choice, though (as he says) he
used to be against federal funding of abortion. I
think he has changed his position on tobacco but I
don't know how you think he lied about it. I think he
has always been in favor of most any form of campaign
finance reform he thought had a chance of getting passed.
>He even claimed to have invented the internet.
I have heard many people say this, but none who could
ever find any quote where he said this. What he did was
introduce the bill that first used the term "information
super highway" and made the internet available to schools,
businesses, and individuals. Before then it was only
used by the military, Federal government, and universities
and businesses with government contracts. I wouldn't be
surprised if it was his office that first called it the
internet. I have certainly never heard him claim he
invented it.
>He also
>refused to condemn supporters at a rally who spit at and taunted Senator
>Kerrey, a Bradley supporter.
I have no idea what this is about.
>These are not the actions of a decent guy.
I agree that if he did what the right wing says he
did, he wouldn't be a decent person. But the only
accusations that seem to have any facts behind them
are that he acted like a politician and has changed
some positions with the times.
Get paid to browse the web:
http://www.refmaker.com/members/valen/shtml
Bob Joesting <valen (at) psicorps (dot) com>
Dustin trygger
political thread, sure fine. Just please answer the questions I asked.
dusty
Jms at B5 wrote:
> I'm putting this here only because my message specifically on this issue under
> a new header hasn't reached the group yet, and Saturday is nearly upon us.
>
> To encapsulate that long (and totally off topic) message in about a sentence or
> two:
>
> I don't normally get involved in politics or recommending people; that's just
> not something I generally do. But for those looking on from South Carolina...
>
> I believe that if we end up with a national election between Gore and McCain,
> we have a 100% chance that, whichever man wins, a decent guy will be elected.
>
> If we end up with a national election between Gore and Bush, we have a 50%
> chance that a venal man owned lock, stock and barrel by the handful of
> corporate folks who gave him $70 million to buy the White House could be
> elected.
>
> I apologize for the digression into politics, but this seems kinda important to
> me.
>
The Nuclear Marine
Mark Maher wrote:
>
> A topic covered at infinity on rec.aviation.military.naval NG.
> But I'll give you one for an appetizer:
>
> F-4 Phantom II - one of many nicknames - Flying Brick :-)
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
>
And which helicopter is the flying coffin?
=====================
Maybe, maybe not-isn't it redundant?
scarabz
Bob Joesting wrote:
>
> Marvin Gersho <mge...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I respect your opinion a great deal. I can also see that you might
> >like Gore's politics. About have of the electorate does. But that you
> >consider him decent surprises me. Gore has repeatedly lied during this
> >campaign both about himself and especially about Bradley.
>
> Have you any examples or are you just repeating
> the same kind of false accusations Gore and Clinton
> have had to put up with since they were elected?
>
(Much other stuff deleted...)
The things mentioned in the previous post are rather well-known to those
who follow politics. There are plentiful resources on the net from which
you can get the various AP, Reuters, Newsweek, Time, etc. stories which
show that Gore has lied repeatedly, vehemently, about things which are
easily verified. Educate yourself by looking around some political web
sites -- that would be far more useful than any single thing I could
quote.
Note that it is not just Republicans who find his lying shocking. I watch
Hardball (msnbc and cnbc, 1 hour all politics, every weekday) very often,
and almost every Democratic guest agrees that they're surprising lies,
and some blast him for it, others claim they're irrelevant.
The comments you made in your post show that you don't pay much attention
to politics. Please educate yourself, so that we can actually have an
informed debate.
BTW, what false accusations vs. Gore and Clinton? Clinton has been found
guilty of obstruction of justice, and is in the process of being
disbarred in Arkansas. There have been quite a few convictions relating
to Whitewater. The head of the FBI has complained of improper use of
their files by the White House. The head of the Janet Reno-appointed
Justice Dept. investigation into campaign contributions, as well as
many in the FBI and Republicans and Democrats in Congress all stated
on the record that the 1996 fund raising by Clinton/Gore required the
appointment of an independant council. Reno refused to appoint one.
The Clinton/Gore campaign had to return more money in illegal campaign
contributions than any other campaign in history. And that's just
those that we know about. The White House Council at the time had
sent a memo stating that no fund raising should be done from within
the White House -- yet after Gore's caught doing it, he maintains
(something like 8 times in a very short press conference) that it was
OK because there was "No Controlling Legal Authority" -- i.e. it's not
really illegal because no one was put in charge of enforcing the laws.
I could easily continue. I can provide references, if necessary. Please
learn what is really going on, and what has gone on.
The truth is out there. (And easy to find)
--SCarab
"Not The One"
Jeff Teunissen
> >He even claimed to have invented the internet.
>
> I have heard many people say this, but none who could
> ever find any quote where he said this. What he did was
> introduce the bill that first used the term "information
> super highway" and made the internet available to schools,
> businesses, and individuals. Before then it was only
> used by the military, Federal government, and universities
> and businesses with government contracts. I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was his office that first called it the
> internet. I have certainly never heard him claim he
> invented it.
Boy, have you been looking at the wrong history. :) The Internet was
alive and well in the mid-80s, and there were even commercial Internet
providers Way Back Then(tm). Before Gore even mentioned the "information
superhighway", the Internet economy was already thriving, thanks to the
overdevelopment during the early 80s when the companies hired by the NSF
to build the Internet infrastructure overbuilt by a factor of 10, yet
only charged what they bid.
You see, today's Internet is a direct result of corporate vision, of
deliberately overbuilding with the idea that you'll be able to make money
when demand finally catches up. We've now far outstripped what was built
of course, but it worked.
To say that Gore or anyone else in his office had anything to do with the
success of the 'net is a vast overstatement. The Internet has been
commercialized for fifteen years now, at _least_. It's only since Tim
Berners-Lee's invention of the Web and Andreessen-and-crew's writing of
NCSA's Mosaic (the first "graphical" Web browser) that it's been
_profitable_ to exploit the Internet.
Oh, by the way, here's your quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."
It's true, from a certain (narrowly defined, and not-altogether-correct)
point of view. Gore _was_ on the committee that was sort-of-responsible
for approving the creation of the NSF backbone, which took from the
ARPAnet the title of main Internet backbone sometime in 1986 or so. But
that's pretty-much all he did, and the Internet was happening already
without any help.
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -- d2deek at pmail.net
| Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :)
| dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email. Use my Reply-To address.
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/
Justin Bacon
writes:
>I respect your opinion a great deal. I can also see that you might
>like Gore's politics. About have of the electorate does. But that you
>consider him decent surprises me. Gore has repeatedly lied during this
>campaign both about himself and especially about Bradley. He lied about
>his previous positions on abortion, tobacco, and campaign finance
>reform. He even claimed to have invented the internet. He also
>refused to condemn supporters at a rally who spit at and taunted Senator
>Kerrey, a Bradley supporter. These are not the actions of a decent guy.
Well, there's nothing like a supported, well-cited accusation... and this is
nothing like a supported, well-cited accusation.
Everything you say could be true, but when you use vague descriptions such as
"repeatedly lied" and cite out the obvious Internet faux pas, you just come
across looking rabid.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Mac Breck
Mac
"The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38B322A8...@home.com...
John W. Kennedy
> Everything you say could be true, but when you use vague descriptions such as
> "repeatedly lied" and cite out the obvious Internet faux pas, you just come
> across looking rabid.
Not to mention that Gore's taken much more heat for the Internet thing
than he deserves. Back in his early days as V.P., I remember well
enough him being the point man for the effort to develop a new
"Information Superhighway", which at the time was expected by most
people to be a de-novo network using something other than IPv4. Neither
he nor any else had any way of knowing that Mosaic would rocket the
existing Internet to its current level. (And, you know, it would very
likely have been a lot easier on all of us if the IPv6 turnover could
have superseded IPv4 before the explosion.... Oh well!)
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Mark Maher
A. Piasecki PD 22 Shawnee / Workhorse (H-21)
B. CH-47 Chinook
It's a SWAG, for sure.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mac Breck wrote in message <893t13$a...@library1.airnews.net>...
Bob Joesting
>(Much other stuff deleted...)
>
>The things mentioned in the previous post are rather well-known to those
>who follow politics.
I agree that that string of vague accusations are
well known. Most of the people who follow facts rather
than the partisan lies and creative spin know better
than to believe those who say things like "He even
claimed to have invented the internet." It was my
mistake to to even respond to such crap. This is so
far off topic and well covered in other places that it
would be pointless to repeat it here.
James Bell
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Bob Joesting wrote:
> scarabz <sca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >(Much other stuff deleted...)
> >
> >The things mentioned in the previous post are rather well-known to those
> >who follow politics.
>
> I agree that that string of vague accusations are
> well known. Most of the people who follow facts rather
> than the partisan lies and creative spin know better
> than to believe those who say things like "He even
> claimed to have invented the internet." It was my
> mistake to to even respond to such crap. This is so
> far off topic and well covered in other places that it
> would be pointless to repeat it here.
Those who follow facts don't throw vague accusations like "partisan lies and
creative spin" around. They simply state facts. Here's a fact:
^ÓDuring my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the
Internet.^Ô (Al Gore, CNN^Òs ^ÓLate Edition with Wolf Blitzer,^Ô
3/9/99)
Take it for whatever you wish. If you believe he was taken out of context,
fine. But don't call those who quote him liars. The quote is accurate. It
is factual. Defend it if you feel you must, but don't just claim it isn't
true and characterize it as "crap."
Jim
John W. Kennedy
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
It _is_ true. He did precisely what he claimed, as anyone knows who can
_remember_ what was going on more than a couple of years ago. No, he
didn't create ARPANet. But ARPANet was never intended to be the
Internet, and only a few years ago, the Internet (aka "Information
Superhighway) was not intended to be son-of-ARPANet. That the two
projects merged into one is an accident of history and technology
(mainly the unforeseen explosion of the WWW), and in some ways (mainly,
the undesired prolongation of IPv4), to be regretted.
scarabz
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Hang on... OK, so the physical structure which makes up the internet had
nothing to do with Gore, you grant that. Things such as gopher, ftp, etc
were developed at universities. Mosaic and the whole concept of HTML
came out of CERN... not even in the USA.
Gore may have helped pass bills which helped fund what became what we
now understand as "the internet," but he didn't talk it up until it was
well established.
Personally, I'm thankful that the greatest involvement by the government
in the internet has only been to fund university projects. Much more,
and the net would be a pale shadow of what it is now. (Even so, there's
more and more talk of regulation and restrictions of the net... which
could eventually destroy the big thing that's fueled our booming economy)
Later.
--SCarab
John W. Kennedy
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
That depends on what you mean by "well-established". I clearly remember
him being a chief government backer of "The Information Superhighway"
back when the only use most people outside of the academic and the
defense establishments made of the Internet was using it (indirectly) to
pass e-mail between Prodigy and CompuServe. Heck, I've been doing
computer communications -- professionally -- since 1969. I've coded
multi-threaded commercial query/response systems in assembler language
on 128KB, 1/002.5 400KHz (note K, not M) systems. But (with the
exception for e-mail relay between proprietary networks I noted above)
Gore was using the Internet before I was.
And Gore isn't claiming to be a technician. He's claiming to be an
effective politician. And in this matter (though I don't think very
much of him), he's justified.