 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 1
|
|
|
Subject: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:32 PM Tonight,October 3,is the first debate between the principal American Presidential Candidates.I,for one,put a lot of stock in debate performance.I want to know how the candidates react under pressure.Will many Mudcatters be watching?Maybe tomorrow,this thread can be used to assess performance. LEJ(leaning toward Gore...but we'll see) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 03 Oct 00 - 01:57 PM Gore will tear that "empty hat" to pieces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:05 PM I went to the Nader/LaDuke rally Sunday in Boston...rumor had it he may be sticking around for the debate...not that they'll let him participate, of course... In the spirit of American democracy, I plan to vote with my conscience, not out of fear, and thus will cast my vote for those people I deem the best man and woman for the job. Ralph Nader gave us laws mandating the use of seat belts, air bags, fuel emission standards, meat and poultry inspection, radiation shields on televisions, and many other consumer-positive issues...he is directly responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Act, OSHA, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety Administration...as well as the Freedom of Information Act. The list goes on. what have those other guys done for anyone lately? peg
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Rick Fielding Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:08 PM What's wrong with me? Everything Gov. Jesse Ventura says is starting to make sense! Guess I'm being swayed by honesty over policy. Still gonna be glued to the debate though. Gore, by default I guess. Good thing Canucks don't get a vote. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Midchuck Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:18 PM If these two are, respectively, the two best that the American two-party system can come up with to lead the country, then the American two-party system has had it, and needs to be done away with. Nader isn't the answer. Everything I've read about Nader that wasn't written by his worshippers indicates to me that he's a demagogue and a hypocrite, whereas the two major party candidates are merely dull beyond human conception. Did anyone ever become an anarchist at age 59 when they were a Republican when they were 30? Makes no sense. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:21 PM Maybe you should get to vote. After all, everything we do has an effect on you. As the late Mr. Trudeau said "Living next to the USA is like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how benevolent it is, we feel every twitch." Probably not totally accurate, but, close....eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: SINSULL Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:25 PM Rick, Go on ebay. You can buy several at reasonable prices. Even pick your state of choice. I'll be watching and listening tonight. I even watched Hillary and that other guy go at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:27 PM Yeah Leej....I'll be there too. Glued to the boob tube with Mudcat on the puter. I don't think we'll get anything new, but it will still be an entertaining evening. I think the VP debate will have more entertainment value though. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:31 PM Rick, I heard Gov. Jesse on the radio the other day and was very surprised to find him very well-informed, well-spoken, and intelligent. After all that was said about him in the press, I expected some sort of raving idiot, and instead heard a very articulate man. But Minnesota's a long way from here, and I'd never heard the man himself before. He does unfortunately sound exactly like the guy they have spoofing him on the PHC duct tape commercials. But that's not his fault. Back to the topic, I am NOT planning on listening to or watching the debate. I get enough hot air from my car's heater system on these cold mornings to last me all day.
cynical in Seattle, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jed at Work Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:31 PM I like the "honesty over policy" perspective as well ... maybe I'd take it a bit further and say "principles and guidelines over policies" But I will be watching the debate tonight, with keen interest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: khandu Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:33 PM I will watch. I will vote. I will hope. I will remain undaunted as the hopes fade. There is a higher power than the President of the United States. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:33 PM We had "honesty over policy." Even "Principles and Guidelines Over Policy." His name was Jimmy Carter. Great man, honest as the day is long, just full of hard-to-argue-with principles and guidelines... but a lousy president. Policy matters.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Rick Fielding Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM Kendall, Heather's been watching Pierre Elliot Trudeau's funeral today, and being younger and Scottish, wasn't that aware of his affect on Canada. The outpouring of affection has been amazing (considering how controversial he was in his day). Funny, I think the thing that I appreciate most was his honesty in the face of convention. He showed up in Parliament often dressed like Quentin Crisp with sandals, and the sombre gray politicos almost passed out. He said the Press were Vampires and often told them to "fuddle-duddle". Those that thought he was a Communist ('cause of his life-long friendship with Fidel C...who was at the funeral today) were shocked when he clamped down on the violent separatist movement. He dated Barbra Streisand and Liona Boyd (not a bad duo) but loved the company of intelectuals AND outdoor sportsmen alike. After looking at clips from the 70s, I remembered just how GORGEOUS Margaret T. was (she was 21, he 53!) All in all, a remarkable guy. The problem these days (in my country and yours) is that he'd be considered too weird to even get financing to run for office. Like Nader and Buchannan he'd be left out in the cold. Rick
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM Just wanted to respond to Midchuck, who wrote: If these two are, respectively, the two best that the American two-party system can come up with to lead the country, then the American two-party system has had it, and needs to be done away with. --no argument there! Nader isn't the answer. --but is he maybe a better choice than the other two? No candidate is gonna be perfect. Everything I've read about Nader that wasn't written by his worshippers indicates to me that he's a demagogue and a hypocrite, --and Al Gore isn't a hypocrite??? I would be interested in hearing examples of this demagoguery and hypocrisy you attribute to Nader... At least Nader is not a death-monger in the pocket of big money... whereas the two major party candidates are merely dull beyond human conception. --true enough. Did anyone ever become an anarchist at age 59 when they were a Republican when they were 30? Makes no sense. --not sure who you refer to here, but as you yourself would probably willingly agree, the major parties have changed quite a bit in the last few decades...I would imagine MANY people have changed their political affiliations and stances in that length of time...anyone who remains stuck in the same worldview after 30 years just might be someone too stubborn or obtuse to realize the world is changing and it is sometimes important to change with it...even if it only means defining one's terms differently. A "Republican" today is surely not the same as a "Republican" of 1970...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM Or as they are supposed to say in Mexico, "Poor Mexico - so far from God, so near to the United States."
Two four letter words debating...They should have Jerry Springer in the chair. Or maybe as a third party candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Ebbie Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:36 PM I'll be watching too. As for the candidates being "dull", I much prefer that to the movie-star-john wayne- kind of thing. At this point, I just can't see much difficulty in choosing between the two. I may not care for movie star images but I do like hats filled...It will be interesting to see if dubya is eloquent and informed and insightful. Nah. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 03 Oct 00 - 02:48 PM Let's see how this works. I supported Gene McCarthy and got Nixon. I worked for McGovern and I got more Nixon. I made the "leap of faith" with Jimmy Carter. I got Jimmy Carter! I got gridlock, "double-digit inflation", malaise (he was right, you know), the Ayatollah and eight years of Ronald Reagan. I am going to watch the debates. One of those two men will be my president. I will pay attention to them and decide which one of them I believe can effectively govern for the next four years. I think I know who that will be. I will check in on this thread tomorrow to see what you all think. As much admiration as I have heard expressed about Mr. (and Mrs.) Trudeau, was he an effective leader? Or was he just another good looking, easy listening political figurehead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: John Hardly Date: 03 Oct 00 - 03:32 PM I just wish I could get over the creepy feeling that they both think they are running for KING, and that nobody disagrees. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,Luther Date: 03 Oct 00 - 03:46 PM aw, Peg, don't even ask ;). I could point you to a few sources for the demagogue/hypocrite bullshit, if you want I'll dig it up. We've already had the low comedy of one self-described "socialist/anarchist" quoting material that (apparently unbenownst to our "socialist") was lifted straight off a "Rush Limbaugh Featured Ditto Site". If you don't follow Limbaugh and his ilk, you may not have heard this stuff before, but there's plenty of it out there. It's not worth the effort to argue with anyone who swallows that stuff. Laugh at it for what it is, and let it go. As for "anarchists", I can't really see these guys studying Kropotkin, can you? It's just noise.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Robby Date: 03 Oct 00 - 03:59 PM I will be watching and hoping that Shrub gets clipped. However, while the optimist in me hopes that most voters will watch and make an intelligent choice this November, the pessimistic side of me wonders if the debate will have a greater share of the TV audience than the first game of Major League Baseball playoffs. We'll know that answer tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 03 Oct 00 - 04:03 PM Luther; I seriously want to know. What in yours or Midchuck's estimation makes Nader a demagogue or a hypocrite? It is not enough for me for someone to just SAY such things, I like to have them backed up in some manner, call me crazy ;) Most people don't know precisely where their political stances or beliefs come from and most of us can trace them to various media sources, for the most part...just as most people know what they know about any given candidate from what the media tells us. That would include me too, I guess (except I actually met and spoke with Ralph Nader a few years ago and so my impression of him is actually based on firsthand experience). I am not sure why someone who is a socialist (much less an anarchist) would also be a follower of Rush Limbaugh; this makes absolutely no sense to me.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Fortunato Date: 03 Oct 00 - 04:05 PM I like Al. I am ok with hard-working, intelligent, well-informed, dedicated people. I don't happen to be one. But I'd just as soon my president was one. I'll be watching. regards, chance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,Luther Date: 03 Oct 00 - 04:44 PM Peg, I'm a Nader supporter, sorry if my post wasn't clear -- what I was saying is the criticism of Nader as a demagogue/hypocrite comes largely from hard-right sources. Specifically there was a recent thread where the same criticism of Nader was leveled, with links provided to material lifted from a Limbaugh-associated site. No, it makes no sense at all for someone who claims to be a "socialist" to cite Limbaugh or associates in support of an argument, that was my point -- although, if you didn't see the earlier thread, that point would have been lost entirely -- sorry!. By "following" Limbaugh, I meant "paying attention to what he's doing", not "following" in the sense of being a fan. Hope that makes my position a little clearer ;)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: tradsteve Date: 03 Oct 00 - 06:42 PM I'll be watching the debates, for sure. I have classes tonight, but I'll tape it. I'm sure Gore will fight as dirty as possible, and both will try to score a winning soundbite, but I'm assuming Bush will be found out for what he is; twenty gallons of dumb in a ten gallon hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 03 Oct 00 - 06:47 PM Oh boy, Mr.Cowpie vs. The Animated Wooded Statue. I couldn't care less. As my priest Father Tom says: "I hope they BOTH lose." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Ebbie Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:11 PM Mbo, try not to act your age. :-) Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:15 PM "Is it any wonder that princes and kings Are clowns that caper in their sawdust rings And ordinary people that are like you and me Are the keepers of our destiny?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:34 PM Time for a reality check folks. The next president gets to appoint the next batch of justices to the supreme court. Right? Ok, If dubbya is elected we will have a whole batch of Clarence Thomas' Right? There is no way Nader can win, and even if he did, he would have NO support in Congress. Talk about gridlock! I shall hold my nose and vote against Bush. As a wise person once said "You must deal with things as they are..not as you wish they were." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Micca Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:44 PM I have a foolproof way of voting in elections, I weigh up the candidates and quite often there isn't one I want to vote FOR, but there is always one I want to vote AGAINST |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Troll Date: 03 Oct 00 - 07:48 PM If people voted intelligently, theyed vote Libertarian. Peg, Naders first claim to fame was "Unsafe At Any Speed" which was aimed primarily at the Corvair. He claimed that poor engineering was the cause of roll-over accidents. GM-like fools- tried a smear campaign that backfired which added creadence to his allegations about the Corvair. But he was wrong. Later tests showed that improper tire inflation was the culprit. But Nader was off and running and after that, anything he said took on mystical status. If he said it, it must be so and anyone who argued was a tool of the dispoilers etc. You get the idea. I read a profile on Nader on the net (ABC NEWS) a few weeks back and it was less than flattering. Having never met the man, I am in no position to judge him from first-hand experience but from what I've read, i'd say demogogue fits. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Áine Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:00 PM I'd really appreciate it if y'all wouldn't use the stereotypical 'cow pie', 'ten gallon hat', type of remarks when you refer to the Wee Bush . . . If he was a true, native-born Texan, I'd figure he'd be fair game for that sort of thing. However, the eejit was born in CONNECTICUT, dang it! All that 'good ole boy' crap is affectation, pure and simple. So, don't go slagging on the real thang (like yours truly) -- Blame him on the Yankees (sorry, kendall - but, you know I love you)!! -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:20 PM Right On, Aine! Nader is great! In his speech to Portland he pointed out that "W's" dad used a hemp parachute... to become 'heroic'. I just don't understand why we have to be soooo boring in our political showcase... Don't rock the boat anybody, just 'cause. There comes a time when the fringe is more concerned about the welfare of the nation than the mainstream... GO Jessie, Go Nader, WAKE UP CALL!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: bflat Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:33 PM As Kendall pointed out the next President will have great bearing on the laws of this land. Are we for the people or the antithesis? WE must vote responsibly for people. I want a president who can speak beyond sounds bytes. bflat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:34 PM I'll be watching, but unlike many others, I'm not prejudging the results. I doubt the minds of mudcatters will be changed one way or the other, regardless of who "wins" the debate. The winner of the debate will likely be in the eye of the beholder. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:49 PM My Rog says, with a good dose of sarcasm, we should re-elect Clinton and Congress should pass a special law allowing him to keep a harem in the White House!**BG** We are planning to watch some, but I don't think I'll be able to stomach much. My prediction is that Bush will not be able to debate well, without sounding like an idiot because of the way he messes up rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: bflat Date: 03 Oct 00 - 08:59 PM go to your TV.It is on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 03 Oct 00 - 09:03 PM Go to sleep...it's more fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Oct 00 - 09:53 PM I notice that the History Channel has a "History of Sex" on at 10......... Anybody change their mind yet? Uh,huh.............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 03 Oct 00 - 09:57 PM Spaw, sounds more interesting! Is Bill Clinton the narrator? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Oct 00 - 10:03 PM No Meebo, I think its hosted by the ghosts of dead presidents.......Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR.......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 03 Oct 00 - 10:40 PM Clearly, Dubbya scored some points. He did not fall down as expected. However, he did try to bait Gore into attacking him, and Gore refused. Dubbya knew that the voters dont like attack dogs, and he wanted to provoke Gore to gain sympathy. W. held up well, but, he's still a loser in my book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:17 PM I can already see Gore's head on the coins... He is wearing the profile with distinction. Bush came off as laughably misinformed, and tried to trade on his 'Character' while referring to little in the way of facts and situations. Gore is a fine presidential candidate. Nader makes him seem corporate though... ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:20 PM LEJ's scorecard... Medicare.....Gore bested Bush in this area,I think.Bush's comment "this guy's got all the numbers" was pretty weak. Energy......Even.Bush's nastiness at wanting to drill in Alaska's pristine wilderness was offset by his national security allusion.Gore could have scored more points,but I think he's tentative about his tree-hugger image. RU486 and Abortion....Gore won here.His frankness about appointing pro-RoevWade justices to the Supreme Court made Bush look devious about his answer. Milosevitch and Military Intervention....Slight edge to Gore as he identified genocide-prevention as a vital interest for US.Bush scored some points on military morale. Education....I think Bush won this one,primarily because of his comment that the answer to the problem is not to throw more money at a floundering system.I don't like vouchers,but Gore was hesitant to attack because his kids attended private schools. Crisis-handling...slight edge to Bush.His Texas fire response sounded more like true crisis management than Gore's dinner with the Russian President about Bosnia. Financial Crisis and the Economy...Gore won here,seemimg to have more of a handle on the subject. Social Security...Gore wins again.Bush seems to be shying away from his Stock-investing option for Social Security.Gore's statement that monies currently paid into SS were immediately paid out,meaning money diverted for long-term investment out of the fund would eventually bankrupt it made sense to me. Character...Gore wins.This should have been a big issue for Bush,but he seemed to be reluctant to start sparring with Gore.Gore turned the table on Bush by committing to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Bill,and daring Bush to come out for it. Closing Statements...both yawners. Overall,I give Gore the edge,but felt that Bush had some good moments.He may become a pretty fair debater before its over.The next debate allows more direct confrontation,and I think Bush will need to really maintain his composure,while Gore will have to be careful not to be seen as a bully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Cap't Bob Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:29 PM Actually I'm a channel switcher ~ The "History of Sex" wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Whenever I see or hear Bush, Alfred E. Neuman comes to mind. Anyone else get that feeling? Cap't Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Oct 00 - 11:38 PM I didn't see anything earth shattering. Bush played the format better than expected. Gore looks and sounds the part. Leej has some pretty good observations. Bush seemed to be a bit frantic/unraveled at the end. I'm looking forward to the roundtable, but I think we'll see more in the "Town Hall" debate. Lieberman-Cheney should still be interesting though. One has a personality and the other has been out west. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: BlueJay Date: 04 Oct 00 - 02:01 AM Gore by a nose, but not much more. I think Bush was handicapped going to the gate by his reluctance to accept the major network format of the debates, as well as the general expectation that Gore is the better debater. I think Dubya did better than expected, and I was a little turned off by Gore's frequent interruptions of both the moderator and Bush. While entertaining, I myself thought it to be inconsiderate in a first debate. I suppose it could either show great enthusiasm, or great desperation. I will vote for Gore, as I agree with him more on the issues. But I hope the next debate has fewer one-liners, such as "lock-box", and "fuzzy math", both so obviously written by campaign managers. Basically, the debate was a regurgitation of all the same campaign stuff we've already heard. Not much exciting, maybe the remaining debates will be better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 00 - 06:55 AM Was that Bush fella performing badly, or do people in America really find that whiny style appealing? I've never seen more than a sound bite of him before, but all these TV pundits seem to keep on about what a good guy he comes across as, and how likeable he is, and that. Good grief!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 04 Oct 00 - 09:45 AM Since when is "Likeable" an important part of being president? Carter was likeable, Ford, Reagan..all disasters in my book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,emily b Date: 04 Oct 00 - 10:07 AM Leej, I think you summed this up marvelously. What I can't believe is how much discussion there is about the surplus. Admittedly, I'm very ignorant about such matters, but given that we're in the longest period of prosperity ever, why does anyone think there will even be a surplus next year, or 4 years from now? Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. I'd like to know what these guys plan to do when everyone figures out the stock market as it is today is just a big pyramid scheme. OK, not all of it, but a lot of it. I'd also like to know who these debates are aimed at. Anyone who is undecided at this point, probably isn't interested in sitting through 90 minutes of debate. What I'd rather see is 3 evenings of serious discussion each of a different topic. Let these candidates really get into the details. Let them show that there is substance behind the sound bytes. Would America tune in? I doubt it. I can't believe I missed the "History of Sex..." Emily |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 04 Oct 00 - 10:19 AM Geez, I can't imagine four years of that smarmy little wiseguy George Jr. "Mediscare"?? "Fuzzy Math"?? Just answer the questions and wipe that smirk off your face. Your daddy didn't really have the authority to flip you the keys to the White House, you know. . . And Gore? He needs to fire all of his handlers, (especially his make up guy) and hire someone to remove the lumber from his - well, you know. He looks like the wax museum image of himself. Put on a goofy looking tie or something. It makes me crazy when we have a candidate who is good on the issues, has some character and yet comes off like a complete stiff. This election is too close. He will not change the average American's mind by being right on the numbers. It's funny to hear the "faint praise" being thrown at Gov. Bush this morning. Basically, it seems his supporters are thrilled because he didn't fall on his ass. All I kept thinking as I watched Gore was that a guy with a little charisma (like Reagan) and a mastery of the facts (like Nixon) would have slaughtered him. And that, children, is where demagogues come from. IMHO, if you vote with your eyes and ears, Bush won last night. If you vote with the stuff behind your eyes and ears, it was Gore. Nader, Bradley, and McCain were not in the building. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: rabbitrunning Date: 04 Oct 00 - 10:31 AM Actually, Nader was in the building. A UMass kid gave him his ticket. Bush's campaign did such a good job of lowering everyone's expectations for Bush's performance that people are saying he did well. Pfooey. He waited all night to use his cheap shots. Mediscare? Fer cryin' out loud. Although he was right about the "fuzzy numbers" bit... since at that point, Gore was talking about Bush's numbers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:34 PM rabbit; I saw on th enews that, although he got a ticket, Nader was NOT allowed into the building... troll, you wrote: If people voted intelligently, theyed vote Libertarian. --can't say I agree with everything Libertarians want and so far NONE of these candidates have impressed me, which is why I now reguister as independent... Peg, Naders first claim to fame was "Unsafe At Any Speed" which was aimed primarily at the Corvair. He claimed that poor engineering was the cause of roll-over accidents. GM-like fools- tried a smear campaign that backfired which added creadence to his allegations about the Corvair. But he was wrong. Later tests showed that improper tire inflation was the culprit. But Nader was off and running and after that, anything he said took on mystical status. If he said it, it must be so and anyone who argued was a tool of the dispoilers etc. You get the idea. --I don't think you are aware of the fact that if it were not for Ralph Nader, cars would not be required to have seat belts or air bags. If it were not for Ralph Nader, there would be no government inspection of meat or poultry. There would be no radiation guards on TV sets. There would be no Environmental Protection Agency. There would be no Freedom of Information Act. Yes, maybe someone would have called for such things eventually. Nader did it first. You get the idea. I said all that earlier but I don't think you were listening :)
I read a profile on Nader on the net (ABC NEWS) a few weeks back and it was less than flattering. --why? I just love all these vague criticisms about the man. Can you back this up with examples? I mean, what the hell is "less than flattering" supposed to mean? I read, too, and I have read things about Gore and Bush that made my head swim... Having never met the man, I am in no position to judge him from first-hand experience but from what I've read, i'd say demogogue fits. --yeah, well, you gotta vote with your conscience, and I will vote with mine. Bush is a monster, Gore is liar, and I want someone who will talk some truth for a change. Someone who doesn't kowtow to corporate interests. You surely cannot say that about Bore and Gush... peg
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,Luther Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:47 PM No, actually Nader was not in the building. He got to the front door, with the ticket the kid gave him, where he was stopped by the cops and debate commission honcho John Bezeris, who said "It's already been decided that whether or not you have a ticket you are not welcome in the debate" But turning to the serious issues ... I thought Bush had _much_ better hair and makeup. Gore was funnier, though -- it wasn't just a "lock-box", wasn't it "an iron-clad lock-box"? Or whatever, the material was specified, accompanied by a special hand gesture. What a great bit, I laughed til I thought my sides would ache! The "fuzzy math" thing was just tired, those guys really miss Lee Atwater. ah, the splendor that is our American Democracy!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 00 - 12:59 PM "Since when is "Likeable" an important part of being president" - no kendall, I wasn't suggesting that it is.
I was just gasping in astonishment at the evident fact that there appear to be lots of people who do see this bloke as "likeable". I can imagine how someone might agree with his politics, and want to see him become president - but seeing him as likeable, on the evidence of that performance, no I don't get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 04 Oct 00 - 01:04 PM You know Peg,I just don't see Bush as some evil guy,or Gore as some great liar.I think they're both pretty decent individuals,and would like to judge them on their beliefs and abilities.In my opinion,it's way too late for Nader to have any impact on the election,so he's out of the picture. I think,for me, it boils down to these decisions- I like the concept of Campaign Reform,if it can be reasonably applied without being gouged with loop holes.I think Gore is genuine on this,and I think the need for candidates to raise more and more money is going to be catastrophic for government.We should have more public forum and debates,less media manipulation and 60 second spots.I also think Gore has a much better grasp of the crisis confronting the environment than Bush.And I think he owes less of a debt to the multinational drug,energy and chemical corporations. I think George's pledge to cut taxes and refund them rather than haave the Government decide how they should be used is appealing.When a bill was introduced in Congress to lower the tax burden on small businesses,Clinton denounced it as "favoring the wealthy".I work 50 hours a week,and make less than I did working for a Corporation, and our household income is under 50,000 per year.When the Democrats sneer at reducing my tax penalties and call me rich,they come close to losing the vote of a life-long Democrat. I also like the personal responsibility emphasis of the Republican Party. But it really comes down to this: which individual has the management skills,the broad view and vision,the common sense,the persuasive power,and the decisiveness to make the best President? Right now,it looks like Gore.That could change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 04 Oct 00 - 01:21 PM EJ; If Gore were elected I could live with it. I want to do better, though, if at all possible. I am sick and tired of political complacency. I can't not see the big picture, it is the Libra in me, forgive me!!! :) My own wallet, my own backyard, they are the most important thing to me. If Bush gets elected, I will seriously consider emigrating to the UK or Canada. He is a death-mongering Southern Bapist big-oil millionaire who has publically stated he does not think Wicca, a religion with at least a million participants in the US at least count, is even a religion; Cheney is a death-mongering, war-mongering big-oil millionaire who voted against the Head Start program... Have you seen recent stats on the current state of social programs in Texas??? Neither of them supports a woman's right to choose what she may do with her own body. Both of them are in the hip pocket of big money. Gore lies are nothing to Bush's evil, I will say that much. Cheney is an even bigger monster than that; I am in denial about him at the moment... peg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 04 Oct 00 - 01:47 PM Peg - Gore is pro-choice. Great job summing it all up LEJ. What bothers me about the "personal responsibility" stance of the republicans is that they don't apply their rhetoric to corporate responsibility. There is very little talk about the millions of dollars our government spends cleaning up after big business. I believe it is the personal responsibility of the people who have built their fortunes while fouling the air, water and soil to clean up after themselves. And now there are people who want another pipeline through public land. And while you're right to be angry at being lumped in withe the rich by Clinton, there is no reason to believe that the Republicans will get around to helping a business of your size. After all, eight years of "the great communicator" and another four of George Dubya's daddy didn't give much relief to the family farmer. But it sure did a lot to advance the large corporate farms, ddn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Wavestar Date: 04 Oct 00 - 03:16 PM In many ways, I'm so glad I'm not in the country right now, and that I'm missing most of this idiocy and demonstration of American bullshit. However, unlike Mbo, I do care, very much. (And Mbo, I think you should, too. It's your country - if you and I don't care, in thirty years, who is going to?) I didn't get to see the debate, but I've been paying attention to some of the other wrangling, etc, and have several thoughts. Peg, I certainly agree that the two party system needs to be broken up, I doubt I'll vote for Nader. I don't know nearly as much about him as you seem to, but for one thing, I don't honestly believe that none of those things would have happened without him. There's a huge group of people and several organisations behind that movement, of which he is an excellent and very effective figurehead. But beyond that, as LEJ said, it may be too late for him to have an effect on this election. The more salient point regarding Nader, however, is that it's been rightly pointed out that those who vote for Nader are not those who would vote for Bush otherwise. Now, I, like you, could live with Gore as President. Wooden or not, he seems qualified and capable. Remember, some of our most famous and effective Presidents weren't exactly the soul of society and talkativeness, Calvin Coolidge, for example. This is not to say that I don't have serious problems with Gore. I object to his intentions to strengthen FBI and law-enforcement powers to invade my privacy, and the bills he's supported which I feel are in conflict with my right to private communication. I am slightly afraid to think that those he appoints to the Supreme Court will tend to follow his thinking on these matters. On the other hand, it could be Bush. In which case, I think I'll just extend my studies in the UK another few years, and weep for the ignominious fate of my country. I don't want to see that - I really don't, for many reasons, including the ones Peg mentioned. While Gore's appointee's might support wire-tapping, Bush's would support illegalising abortion, and the death penalty, (which is being handled OH so well in Texas, sorry Aine...) I honestly don't think Nader's going to have enough effect that it's worth making the sacrifice of possibly having Bush as President. I see the big picture, and I'll work towards it, but I think that price is too high to pay. Still, I haven't voted yet, you might convince me. I'll vote because it's my duty, I'll vote because there's no other way to change anything. But I don't have to like my choices, and I don't. -Jessica |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Ebbie Date: 04 Oct 00 - 03:35 PM Let me emphasize Bartholomew's statement: Gore is strongly pro-choice. He made it very clear last night. And see, I don't get it- if Gore is as set on not losing votes as some imply, why did he make his position on it so clear last night? You know that he lost some votes in saying it. Bush, on the other hand, tried to have it both ways. IMO. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 04 Oct 00 - 04:03 PM Jess, I just don't care. Now, if John McCain had been the Republican candidate, I would be the first one in line on electrion day. But since he's not, I stopped caring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Wavestar Date: 04 Oct 00 - 04:13 PM I don't understand, Mbo. I know it's frustrating and disheartening, but this isn't the sort of thing we can just give up on. As Kendall quoted earlier in this thread, "You must deal with things as they are..not as you wish they were." John McCain would have been better, but since he's not there, there are other choices to make, and you can bet that he would want you making them. -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 04 Oct 00 - 04:22 PM Ebbie - I don't think there's anybody left who doesn't know that Gore is pro-choice and Bush is pro-life. Don'tcha think?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 04 Oct 00 - 04:23 PM Can I make up someone's name on the ballot thingy? Also since I'll be here, 85 miles away from where I'm supposed to vote, I'd have to do absentee. A lot of trouble. BTW did you know Jim Lehrer hasn't voted since 1964? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 04 Oct 00 - 06:08 PM I contributed to McCains campaign. He lost. I got over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 04 Oct 00 - 06:45 PM Peg, I hear your words with care Such minds as yours are double dare Keep it up, girl, make 'em think I think you're splendid, here's a wink ;>) They may pretend to sluff you off 'cause comfort zones bequeath their scoff This 'hand me down' we call the world Is ours to care for, their's; unfurled Bush a nightmare, bad words fed Gore a puppet, corporate led The media insists on dead heat running While Nader's press prefers him bumming Could the public all at once Turn their backs to Gore'n Dunce? Maybe is my answer; often We certainly would our hardships soften ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,annabelle Date: 04 Oct 00 - 06:47 PM thats great Mbo-stop caring, because you didnt get your way--really gonna do alot of good. it is slear that you are all a bunch of left wing pinko-commie-freaks (one of my dad's favorite expressions)but face it, gw is definitly the BEST out of the 2. dont waste your time on nader, or you'll be taking precious votes away from your second and definite choice. if your prefer gore's snake-ish rhetoric to bush's good ole boy accent, then go for him, just dont bitch a bout the idiot you put in the white house. do you think if nader did win, they would re name it the GREEN HOUSE? anna |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Bill D Date: 04 Oct 00 - 06:55 PM I have been watching Gore for 10-12 years....I have actually seen much to like. I 'think' he will be a better president than he is a politician and campaigner. He DID write that book on the environment himself... and he says many of the right things...and he would appoint more tolerable Supreme court justices than Bush...... What we NEED is a totally new selection process, shorter campaigns and finance reform....and a REAL way for 3rd parties to work |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:09 PM Bush is "pro-life"? What a strange use of the term. If you're "pro-life" that should mean you're against the death penalty, you're against killing people in wars, and you're against a system that denies people medical help they need to stay alive. And you're against economic and social policies that put pressure on women to have abortions, within or without the law. And a few other things as well.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Ebbie Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:11 PM Dear anna- if you're grown up, you can make up your own mind. My pa was fairly right-wing republican- it didn't mean that I have to be. Mbo, until I retired I worked at the Division of Elections. Trust me, it isn't difficult to vote absentee. Up until 5 o'clock the day before the election you can request an absentee ballot by fax, up until 8 o'clock of Election Day you can walk into any elections office and vote an absentee 'questioned' ballot (Which simply means that your votes will not count for the candidates of the district you are in, but your presidential preference will be valid)- no excuses. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Wavestar Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:21 PM Mbo, you can vote for whoever you like including Mickey Mouse, as long as you vote. And I'm *three thousand* miles away from where I'm supposed to vote, but as long as they send me that ballot, you know my vote will be in. Whether of not Annabelle likes it :) -Jessica the 'pinko' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: rube1 Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:23 PM Maybe I'm the only one who felt insulted by Gore's patronizing, condescending, spoonfeeding misinformation to kindegarteners attitude, with his bag of ready made statistics and his pandering little stories about Kayla who needs a desk, and that poor woman who drove to Washington in her Winnebago with her poodle and the couple who could afford to go to Canada to fill their prescriptions but couldn't afford them in the U.S. They used to ask about Nixon, "Would you buy a used car from this man?" From Gore, it's a statistical browbeating, not a car, but you're still expected to buy it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:30 PM No, rubel, you are NOT alone. Some people seem to thrive on this type of "talking down to though." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:48 PM Yeah, but they all do that these days, produce some named individual out of the blue to put flesh on some statistic or whatever. Someone must have told them it works. It probably does work for a bit too, till people start recognising what's happening and getting sick of it.
It's a bit like turning up at people's bedside after a disaster, or the incident Bush quoted of him hugging some unoffending bloke who'd alrady got quite enough to worry about with being flooded out.
When Maggie Thatcher was still hanging over us here, like some evil miasma, a lot of people genuinely people used to carry cards like kidney donor cards saying that in the event of an accident they did not want to have her visit them in hospital. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 04 Oct 00 - 07:49 PM I say it's revolution time! The barricades go up in a little over a month! Who is with me? There are ways that a people can fight--we will overcome their power! Come my friends, back to your positions. Night is falling fast... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 04 Oct 00 - 08:19 PM I'm with you 100 per cent Bill D. And Ebbie reminds me of the sound advice I used to get from my wife's aunt in Belfast: vote early, vote often... As for tax "penalities" Lonesome - in what sense are you penalised? I believe the tax burden is lower in the US than anywhere (only Spain in the civilised world comes close). As a result of which, Americans screw up this planet with no constraint and like there's no tomorrow. But then we've had this debate before *BG* Just got to say that I thought Blair was dim enough. But Dubya? Wow! Come back Reagan, wherever your brain is - all is forgiven.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 04 Oct 00 - 08:37 PM If you like the idea of revolution (and the joys of idealists who are sudeenly thrust into positions of power), get your hands on a copy of the play Marat/Sade (The persecution and assassination of John/Paul Marat as performed by the inmates of the asylum at Charenton under the direction of the Marquis de Sade). I'm sure it must be on video. I was lucky enough to play a small part in it when I went to college in 1968. The ironies were exquisite. Here my friends and I were out on "the barricades", while I also participated in a play about re-enacting the excesses of the French Revolution as performed by lunatics. "And the revolution came and went and unrest was replaced by discontent". Mbo- I know you were half-kidding, but revolution is nothing to kid about. Innocent people get hurt and unless you do it right, the strong only get stronger. Peg - It's a lot less romantic and, in a lot of ways less viscerally satisfying, but you have to DO WHAT YOU CAN, WHERE YOU ARE, WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. If, in your mind, it means supporting a figure like Nader, do so. But don't get carried away with the romance of the crusade or the mystique of the crusader. Nader is nowhere near what you would like to believe he is. How do I know? Because he's just a man. And the system would chew him up and spit him out, even if he could get in the door - which he can't. It is far better to support a "child of the bureaucracy" like Al Gore, who has been raised on the concept of PUBLIC SERVICE since he was a mere tad. Check out his record. It's hard to do, because his handlers have done everything to prevent it, but try to look at him as a man, not as a packaged candidate. His virtues far outweigh his vices. He will govern without embarassing us like Mr. Clinton. Look at your real choice here. And then decide if your idealism is worth turning the keys of the country over to a pirate like Bush and his ilk. I don't mean to offend. But this is important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 04 Oct 00 - 09:04 PM McGrath, I thought Bush generally looked like a scruffy deer cuaght in the headlights and sounded worse. He had no substance and not enough material to speak of. One radio commentator on NPR this morning said he has been traveling with Bush, been with him everyday of the campaign. He said all he heard last night was the 10 minutes worth of stump speech he's already heard many times before. IMO, he seemed like a little boy/puppet unable to hold his own, at a loss for anything of substance to debate with. Oh, and as for "fuzzy numbers?" I would guess ole Dumbya knows all about those from his big brother and Silverado, which we, the taxpayers, wound up paying for; remember the savings and loan scandel and subsequent bailout? Why in the hell would we continue to nominate, let alone elect, people who've pulled that kind of crap in the past? I did get irritated with Gore when he sighed heavily. I think he has some brilliance which is not showing through because of the handlers he should fire, as Bart said. I have a friend, a politician, whose brother is the CEO of one of the big phone companies. He is a staunch Republican and always taunted her about being a Dem. She got an email from him this summer. He'd had to go to some big shindig and was seated next to Gore. The upshot of that evening was, he was emailing all of his family to tell them what a brilliant and personable man he found Gore to be AND that he, my friend's brother, had agreed to raise $20,000 for Gore's campaign. He was also saying that he wished everyone could get to know Gore in a one on one exchange because it could so totally change their minds about him. Peg, you just said about all that I would about the issues and the people running, except I don't know why you call Gore a liar. It doesn't matter. I am glad you brought up the point about Wicca and Bush. Also, the matter of a woman's right to her own body; that right there is one of THE most important issues as far as I am concerned. Overall, I was pissed that 3rd party candidates, esp. Nadar, were not a part of the debate and I thought they both came off sounding pretty much like canned sound bites. People are getting fed up with the "iron-clad lockbox" on the country's elections and it is time for a revolution, I hope it can be peaceful. BTW, my friend, another one, says the debates should be put back into the hands of the League of Women Voters, as they are here. Letting the two big parties set them up and dictate their format invites abuse and is a sure way to keep their hold on us, shutting out the others. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: rabbitrunning Date: 04 Oct 00 - 09:22 PM Well, the eleven o'clock news show I was watching in Boston missed the "Nader not let in the building" news, but they sure got a lot of burbling idiots from the bars to comment on either the game or the debate. George W. lost any chance of getting my vote when the news broke through about that entire year of missed National Guard drills years ago. I was in the Air National Guard for seventeen years, and if Bush could produce one pay stub from that year, then I might believe that he actually reported for duty. Talk about a character flaw! I'll take a politician who's caught breaking a technical rule to raise money (in a system where money is vitally necessary to any campaign) over a guy who just couldn't be bothered to show up for duty just because he couldn't play with the fun toys. And somehow I just can't see the country benefiting from having a president who can't handle detailed numbers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Troll Date: 04 Oct 00 - 09:58 PM We had Government inspection of meat long before Nader.I'd suggest "The Jungle", a book about the meat-packing industry which was written around the turn of the century (1900). If the man spends every dime on good causes, why did the article place his personal worth at two million dollars and the value of the apartment where he lives at a hundred thousand in 1970 dollars. according to the article, former staffers claim that he has been known to fire anyone who disagrees with one of his positions. Theres plenty more but don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. If he's your man, you should know as much as possible about him from as many sources as possible. Personally, I don't think he's up to the job. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: JamesJim Date: 04 Oct 00 - 11:00 PM Where did Gore get his reputation as a good debater? Surely it wasn't from the debate with the other Texan, little Ross. To me he appeared like a little kid who huffed and puffed and insisted on the last word - he's the kind of guy who would remind the teacher that she hadn't assigned any homework to the class (not mine - actually came from someone on CNN). And I know it will make no difference to those who are for him, but --- do you really think you can believe this guy? Mr. Fabrication himself? He'll say anything to get elected. What I'm most sorry about is that this was the smallest audience to ever watch a debate. And the prediction is that it will decrease over the next 3 debates. I for one would love to see Nader and Buchanan added to the mix. At least there would be a substantive discussion. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 04 Oct 00 - 11:31 PM Oh, and kat, you had not heard Gore's message before? Where you been, baby? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 04 Oct 00 - 11:53 PM Hey DougeRdarlin', I DID say, "they both came off sounding pretty much like canned sound bites!"**BG** stillluvyaanywaykat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 05 Oct 00 - 04:03 AM I'll say it nice, and only here They fooled us twice, from ear to ear... *BG* The media is, our shining light For coverage's not quite too bright Like a sports game, announcers lean They love their fame, so it will glean They love parades, and keep us marching We play charades, with no researching Spooning feeders fabricate Facts and figures, DON'T RELATE! The score, the action; eve'ning news For our reaction...? 'SAME OLD' blues.... )>; *BF* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 05 Oct 00 - 08:28 AM Left wing pinkos eh? Is this Archie Bunker calling himself annabelle? One question about Bush. He claims to be pro-life (anti-choice) so, how the hell can he sign over 100 death warrants? By the way, Archie, I used to be a yellow dog republican before I wised up to what they are doing to us. I hear a lot about what Nader gave us, but, here is some of what the democrats have given us over the years. 1 the 40 hour work week 2 social security 3 medicare 4 womens right to vote. 4 judges that honor Roe v Wade When Dan Quale was asked what he thought of Roe v Wade, he thought that was the decision George Washington had to make at the crossing of the Delaware river! (a little humor) !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 05 Oct 00 - 08:30 AM George w Bush is another Dan Quayle. He will be good for the comedians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 05 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM Thomas: thanks for the rhymes! Keep 'em coming. kat: I call Gore a liar because he admitted smoking pot a few times in Vietnam, while a Harvard chum of his claims they smoked together literally HUNDREDS of times. I could care if he is still a pothead, but to have the views he has on the death penalty and the so-called war on drugs, I think this is rather hypocritical of him. And as far as I can tell he is not pro-hemp (because this is such a politically sensitive issue, supposedly because of the non-existent marijuana connection, but actually because the big textile corporations like DuPont and Monsanto wan't let it happen and Gore is a slave to the corporate machine) and that does not make him a very environmentally-proactive candidate in my opinion... Bartholomew, thank you for your comments and I do agree this is important. I know it may seem romantic of me to want Nader no matter what the consequences. I know he is far from perfect and a human being like all of us. I just think the country needs change. Last time people felt this way and wanted to shake up the system, their only third-party choice was a megalomaniacal millionaire moron from Texas...this time around, we have a selfless crusader who knows a whole lot about how to get corporate interests to do the right thing, no matter how long it takes...Gee, I sure would love to see Americans freed from the yoke of commercialism and greed and military taxation long enough to realize their creative, intellectual and social potential. When's the last time any of you overheard a scintillating political conversation outside the MudCat or your own musician friends? People are too busy chasing stocks and dropping kids off in daycare so they can rush to their jobs and yak about the latest episode of "Survivor" by the water cooler... troll: you wrote: "We had Government inspection of meat long before Nader.I'd suggest "The Jungle", a book about the meat-packing industry which was written around the turn of the century (1900)." --That was a hundred years ago. This industry is MUCH larger now and the agribusinesses of today are a whole different world from the family-farm based meat operations of Victorian times...what you seem to be ignoring is that the USDA standards system WAS in fact a result of Nader's work, and those inspection and hygiene standards are a direct result of research by his watchdog organization. "If the man spends every dime on good causes, why did the article place his personal worth at two million dollars and the value of the apartment where he lives at a hundred thousand in 1970 dollars." --first, I am still waiting for you to cite "the article"; where did it appear and when and who wrote it? Mr. Nader does not own a car and has lived in the same Washington DC boarding house since the 1970s. His "personal worth" is still money he chooses to spend on charitable causes...he makes a fair amount from lawsuits and he funnels it all back into his consumer advocacy groups. Two million? Gore and Bush have both spent over ten times that much on their campaigns to date... "according to the article, former staffers claim that he has been known to fire anyone who disagrees with one of his positions." --I think most politicians tend to do this sort of thing, don't they? And I would wish them to do so, if it were important to me to have people who shared my vision working with me. "Theres plenty more but don't take my word for it." --okay, I won't. I'd like to know what article you are citing, though... "Look it up for yourself. If he's your man, you should know as much as possible about him from as many sources as possible." --I have looked into it thoroughly. I think he is a decent human being who has done an amazing amount for the citizens of this nation... "Personally, I don't think he's up to the job." --thanks so much for sharing. May the best man win. You don't say who you will vote for, or even if you will vote. Mbo: You can't have a revolution if you aren't even willing to utilize the one tool of democracy guaranteed to us. Your apathy is understandable, but if you don't vote, you won't really have any right to complain later on. It is precisely this sort of apathy that has brought our country to its knees, politically-speaking. 55% of the American people do not vote on a habitual basis. That is a majority! People in places like Afghanistan and Indonesia and Yugoslavia are dying in the streets for the right to have a voice or some semblance of democracy... oh, and I wanted to correct a goof from an earlier post of mine: "My own wallet, my own backyard, they are the most important thing to me." What I meant to say was...they are NOT the most important thing to me!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 05 Oct 00 - 01:44 PM Thanks, Peg, I didn't know that about Gore. I agree with you about the hemp thing. It's the same type of situation which made sure the big oil companies stayed in business instead of cleaner, renewable technologies being made availble a long time ago. I also greatly appreciate your comments and information about Nadar. I have become convinced to vote for him, even though, at the very last minute someone stole the sheets of signatures which would have allowed him to be on the ballot here in Wyoming. I plan to write him in. Something has to wake up the politicians and make them realise people are serious about wanting real change. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Oct 00 - 03:54 PM FFTKAT: If Columbus' sails had not been made of hemp he would never have made it to the new world. It isn't lying to say you smoked pot a few times in vietman even if you did smoke it hundreds of times in the US. Partial truths aren't lies. And it is a good trait to be able to use truths to lead people, inescapably, to incorrect conclusions, and that is exactly what I'd like in a president. It is also a useful trait to be a hypocrite - it's called Manners, half the time. Not speaking the truth can be a good thing. I'm REALLY looking forward to the debates in different styles. So far, the person who looked best was the moderator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 05 Oct 00 - 04:18 PM My checkbook cover is made of hemp, but I swear I never inhaled!**BG** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Oct 00 - 04:27 PM "If Columbus' sails had not been made of hemp he would never have made it to the new world." That's the first time I've ever heard anyone come up with a half-way valid argument against hemp...
Are there any politicians who tell the whole truth? Are there any people who do?
I was reading somewhere a piece about how the ability to tell a lie was one of the defining characteristics of being a human being.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 05 Oct 00 - 05:27 PM I am not so disingenuous to think politicians never lie, or that humans are not occasionally better off for the ability to lie... But for Gore to fervently declare to be on the right side of things like the environment, etc. and then not own his own behavior (when he is simultaneously supporting structures that keep non-violent drug offenders in prison, including those caught with marijuana) is hypocrisy of the highest order. And to not be in favor of hemp production and still claim to be environmentally savvy??? This makes no sense...and is also hypocritical. This is why the Clinton sex scandal got so out of hand. He couldn't just say "screw youse all, it's none of your business." He chose to try and take the high road, and it made him look bad. I have no problem with a president who has a sex drive (or who smokes pot). It's lying and then punishing others for the same behavior that gets to me...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: GUEST,Nancy King Date: 05 Oct 00 - 06:53 PM It amazes me that Dubya seems to have gotten so much credit simply for not taking a major pratfall. The thing is, he's made so many gaffes in other venues that we can count on many more--and if he gets elected, some of them are bound to embarrass the country. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but this guy seems really prone to them. I just don't think he's got the knowledge or the brain power to do The Job. I think we need a president who is able to think and speak on his feet. It will be interesting to see how the "town meeting" style debate goes. I don't love Gore, but when I look at the issues--gun control, abortion rights, the environment, fiscal policy, etc.--there's no doubt in my mind who I have to vote for. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote FOR somebody terrific instead of voting AGAINST somebody awful? Cheers --Nancy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 05 Oct 00 - 07:20 PM And what about dubbyas booze and drug use? anyone? He wont talk about it. Maybe he learned that from Willy. Look, I dont care if Nader can walk on water, the fact is HE CAN NOT WIN!! most of the votes he gets will be ones that would have gone to Gore. When you vote for Nader, and Dubbya is elected just remember, you helped put him there. And, if you are a woman, when you lose your right to choose, there will be small comfort in saying "Dont blame me, I voted for Nader." I am an idealist too, but, I am also a realist. I am not voting for Gore, I'm voting AGAINST Dubbya. Given a real choice, I too would like to see Nader upset the corporate apple cart, but, IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN !! Get real folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 05 Oct 00 - 08:21 PM Aw, I don't know, Kendall. I kind of feel there is a groundswell for Nader. A lot of people might be fooled come election day. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 05 Oct 00 - 08:28 PM Oh, and Kendall ...what president signed the bill giving women the vote? Which political party was in power when women won the vote? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Lonesome EJ Date: 05 Oct 00 - 11:10 PM Nice Doug."Groundswell for Nader".Very sly...:>} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 05 Oct 00 - 11:57 PM Just what I've heard, Lonesome EJ. Felt I should report it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:35 AM Kendall, at least in Wyoming it will not make a bit of difference one way or the other if I write Nader's name in; all of the measly electoral votes will go to the Grand Oil Party anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 00 - 01:40 AM Well, kat my love, just encourage others that share your opinion to vote for Nader! The game ain't over 'till it's over! DougR |
|
Subject: Vote for Lieberman/Cheney From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Oct 00 - 03:27 AM The consensus at Bible study this evening was that we liked both Lieberman and Cheney. They both seem like decent, reasonable people who want to serve the needs of our country. Maybe we should give up on Gore and Bush, and vote for Lieberman and Cheney. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Wavestar Date: 06 Oct 00 - 08:23 AM Umm, Joe? This is Cheney who had a hard time deciding between the vice - presidency and oil stocks, and tooks several days to realise that these were in fact completely conflicting interests? -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 09:18 AM Woodrow Wilson signed the bill in 1919. The Democrats were in control of Congress that year. The fight was lead by people like William J. Bryan (democrat) Wilson suffered a stroke in the fall of 1919, and left office in January of 1920. I dont know if the dems could have passed that bill without the reps, but, it is questionable. That battle goes way back, I remember reading something by Abigail Adams on it. She was pressuring John to work on giving women the right to vote way back then.He was a Federalist, as I recall (Democrat turned inside out). By the way Doug, I'm still waiting for your report on what the Republicans have ever done for the working man??? Need more time?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Midchuck Date: 06 Oct 00 - 09:47 AM Kendall sayeth: "...By the way Doug, I'm still waiting for your report on what the Republicans have ever done for the working man??? Need more time??" Well, one might argue that the Republicans have tried to keep private business healthy, thus providing more actual jobs for the working man, while Democrats have speechified about helping the working man, while doing their best to drive private business out of existence, thus putting the working man out of work...I'm not making that argument, mind you...I don't think it's that simple...but one might make it. Now let the flames begin. It's supposed to get real cold here the next couple of days, and I need the heat. Oh, and Kendall, if you're a good liberal, you should respect the rules of political correctness, so there is no such thing as a "working man." Only a "working person." Manhood is a chauvinistic archaism. Oh, and to whoever told Mbo to act his age...I'm almost as old as three Mbos, and I kind of go along with him, though I think we're lucky enough to have alternatives to violent revolution that we haven't tried yet. Everyone! Vote! But vote for some third party candidate. Even Nader if you have to. To save this country as a country in which private citizens are sovereign, the two major parties have to go. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:49 AM This may be thread creep but can anyone explain this?
I understand that no American politicians are in favour of replacing the republic with any other form of government, and that all of them would at least claim to be in favour of democracy.
So since they are all republicans and democrats, how come they get away with using these words as names of political parties? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:57 AM I'll send in a suggestion for "Screwheads" and "Doomed" on your behalf Mac. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Wavestar Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:21 PM *ROFL* Spaw- but which is which? -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:23 PM Where was all the political talk and concern during the primaries? That is the best time to try to effect change. Americans like to complain about the candidates of the major parties, but the fact of the matter is that those candidates were chosen by Americans through the primary system (which is a horror). I supported Bill Bradley back then, and voted for him even though Al Gore had enough votes to win the nomination by the time the Illinois primary came around. I think Bradley's candidacy helped to make Al Gore a better candidate. I think that he's better than anyone the Republicans put forth; I also think an election between him and McCain, or Gore and McCain would have been a lot more interesting. The really sick thing about this is that we got Gore and Bush as candidates for one reason alone - there was a perception in each party that this was the man WHO COULD WIN the election. Not the best man, not the most qualified man, not the man that anyone wanted, just the one who had the best chance of beating whoever the other party put up there. What a sick system! What a perverse process! We're going to be facing this same mess in four years, folks (actually it starts two years from now, when the potential candidates start jockeying for position). If you don't like Gore, at least help elect the man who will do the least harm over the next four years and work to get it right next time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:34 PM Doug: I believe you are right about that groundswell!!! Since Ralph is not being allowed into the sandbox he and his campaigners are getting the word out on the Internet and I myself have seen a number of people say "I wasn't sure before but now I am going to vote for Nader" so it is happening... as you said, it ain't over til it's over... as for Dick Cheney; he is a big oil millionaire and a war monger besides. He wants a huge military buildup, despite the fact that we already have the hugest military coffers in the free world (yes, that is where half your taxes go) and we have no enemy...He is rabidly anti-choice as well. And does anyone besides me have a problem with the fact that he was in charge of the committee to find a vice presidential candidate for Dubya...and he chose himself??? kendall; I do not agree that I will have "helped put him there" if Bush wins, just because I vote for Nader. I am with Nancy, I want to vote FOR someone good, not AGAINST someone evil! If you call yourslef an idealist and yet cynically declare you are "being a realist" what are you really saying? That you are only an idealist when it is expedient? This country was founded more or less by visionaries and those who decided to take the chance that by believing in their ideals, thay might win. These days, Americans are so enslaved by the corporate mindset they don't even care enough to vote. Keep in mind, everyone: there ARE states in which a vote for Nader is a very safe one, because in some states Bush's chances of winning are slim to none. Massachusetts is a good example. If women's reproductive rights are in the balance, well remember, RU 486 has finally been approved and that battle has been fought for twenty years now...it is hard for me to believe the timing of this announcement is mere coincidence... If there has ever been a time for people to stand up and be counted, this is it. In four more years, there will be someone else to "vote against" and we will descend even further into mediocrity. It has been speculated that one reason Clinton won was because Bush Sr. was a dullard and a liar (Iran-Contra) and, four years later, because Buchanan was just too damn scary for most Republicans to accept. We are in a similar situation now. Fence-sitting moderates are bound to prefer staright-talking, middle of the road career politician Al Gore over stupid, smug, failed-oil-baron Bush. But frustrated liberals (whose last prominent spokesperson was, gasp, Michael Dukakis!) have had enough. Enough hungry children in overcrowded schools who can't read or write, who don't even have regular physical education classes, much less music or art. Enough non-violent drug offenders rotting in prison because they have an addiction problem or bought an ounce of pot for recreational or medicinal use. Enough environmental degradation resulting from corporate greed and slick lawyers allowing big money to get out from under contracts to clean up toxic waste. Enough obscene military spending in a country where twenty percent of our children live in abject poverty. Enough irradiated produce and e. coli-infected agribusiness-produced meat products. Enough bigger, uglier unregulated, dangerous, gas-guzzling SUVs being poured into the marketplace while our oil prices loom so high the average family will not be able to afford their heating bills this winter. Enough corporate control of the news and entertainment media. Enough sanctioning of questionable business practices and monopolies by high-techonology companies entrusted with providing us with basic commuications services. Enough destruction of ancient forests to make telephone books. Enough starvation and domestic abuse and drug addiction and rampant unemployment on indigenous American reservations, many of whom have desperately turned to government "offers" of toxic or nuclear waste storage facilities in order to break their cycle of poverty. Enough kowtowing to corporate special interest groups out of fear of losing campaign financing. Enough promises to initiate campaign reform. Show us the money!!! Enough, already.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Mbo Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:38 PM Can we wipe out the human race and start over now, please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:42 PM Already tried that once, Mbo. Didn't seem to work that time; we're the result. Didn't it rain, children?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 01:06 PM Midchuck, when I asked what the republican party ever did for the working man, I was referring to things like social security, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage and a womans right to vote. These were all democrat programs. With the exception of womens suffrage, which enough republicans joined in on to pass, they were all fought tooth and nail by the republicans. I'm talking about DIRECT benefits to the workers. There was also, equal rights, medicare, the list goes on. The difference between the Democrats and republicans is simply this: The republicans think that the best way to feed the birds is to feed the horses. HORSESHIT! (get it).Democrats believe in the bubble up theory, as Henry Ford did in 1915. He paid his workers more than any other company, knowing that they would use that money to buy a Ford. He was right, and they did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 01:16 PM Kendall, I'd go pretty slow on suggesting that Henry Ford was a pinnacle of some sort for the working class. Just my opinion, but I think you're going to get some serious flak on that. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Jim the Bart Date: 06 Oct 00 - 01:24 PM Rant on I wanted to get a few things off my chest about Republicans and the working-person. Republicanism centers around one belief - free market capitalism. Almost all Republican economic policy is built around the idea that the private sector will make better choices for the common good than the government. The problem with that point of view is one of historical perspective. Free markets have prove themselves to be terrific at building up the means or production and generating wealth; but they are lousy at distributing that wealth proportionately. As individuals accumulate capital, the odds stack higher and higher in their favor. A truly free market capitalist system works like a game of Monolpoy; all the marbles eventually end up in one or two pockets. You get one winner and a bunch of losers. Our system has been socialistic since FDR. It got that way as a response to the failures of the free market capitalists. Apparently, the "benevolence" of the "Baron's of Industry" wasn't enough to keep the system running. The depression was not an accident, or anomaly. It was inevitable. Our system works now because restraints are placed on the greed of those who are lucky enough, or smart enough, or crooked enough, or industrious enough, to build their business to the point where they can control markets and industries. You can strip away the government bureaucracy. You can de-regulate and de-control industries and markets. But you don't get the results that you expected. I believe that you'd evebtually get that revolution that people think might be a fun change. If you want a preview of what that might look like, take a look at the new Russian economy, or at Eastern Europe. Or at the Mad Max movies. Industries don't fail because of government regulation. They fail because businessmen aren't smart enough to play by rules that work for everyone. They fail because stock holders aren't willing to accept lower profit margins. They fail because management lacks the imagination to find a way of doing business that doesn't pollute, or threaten the health of it's employees, or treat human beings like interchangeable parts in a big machine. Government doesn't have anything to gain by killing private industry. And good businessmen recognize this. That perception arises from the arrogance of those in private industry, who believe that what is best for them is automatically best for the country. Yes, the Republicans graciously provide us poor working folks with jobs. And then they take them away when a better "capital allocation" opportunities comes around. And they expect us - thousands of us - to adjust to their needs. They say, "Take responsibility for yourselves! After all, this is the land of opportunity. . ." You've been a tool and die maker for 30 years? Well, we can get that done in Korea for less! Go join the service industry! All you have to learn to say is "Do you want fries with that?" This is my last rant of the week. I'm going to enjoy my weekend. I hope you all enjoy yours. Peace to you all. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM Strikes me it's be simpler to just use the names of the parties' totem animals, and say it's a fight between the Elephants and the Donkeys.
Has Nader got a totem animal? Buffalo? Turkey? Porcupine?
I think having totem animals for parties is a great idea. If they had them for the parties in England right now, I'd say a dead parrot for the Tories. And a live parrot for Labour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: Peg Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:05 PM Ralph's a badger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:12 PM Gee...and here I thought ol' Ralph's was a Corvair with a flat tire being driven maniacally by a mad cow. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:20 PM Wouldn't Ralph say that using an animal as a totem is exploitational and speciesist?
Founder, Mouse Party, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:30 PM Nope, Kendall. I replied to that in a very lengthy thread shorty after you posed the question. I'll have to research my contributions to the threads and see if I can find it. My reasearch showed that the women won the right to vote via a bill signed by a Republican President with a majority of Republicans in the Congress. I wondered why you never replied to the thread. I guess you didn't see it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:32 PM DougR: I thought it was a constitutional amendment. If all they needed was a bill, why was the 19th Amendment written?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:49 PM Probably just bored I guess Alex. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:52 PM "Nothing to do today. Let's make an unnecessary constitutional amendment just for kicks!" That sort of thing, eh, Spaw?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:56 PM Yeah....pretty much. I'm hoping for a few more but it seems they're all on a "busywork" kick at the moment. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 03:00 PM I hereby declare this thread to be TOO FULL. See continuation thread, by clicking HERE.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:18 PM Sorry Doug, the original bill was signed by President Wilson (democrat) in 1919. It became law the next year. Is that all you could come up with? Spaw, I did not imply that Ford was any great paragon of virtue..he was a capitalist for sure, but, what he did made more sense than the "Trickle down theory". Bart, you are right on the money. Well said. The republican motto should be "Pull up the ladder, I'M aboard." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:39 PM Hmmm. Kendall: "A History of the American Suffragist Movement," written by Doris Weatherford (with forward by Geraldine Ferraro) states the following: The Democratic AND Republican Party platforms in 1916 contained language giving unequivical support to Woman's Suffrage. Jeannette Rankin, Republican from Montana, and the first woman elected to the U. S. Congress, led the battle in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment on 21 May, 1919 and there was a Republican majority in the House. The U.S. Senate, with a Republican majority, passed the 19th Amendment on the 4th of June, 1919. So to credit the Democrats alone for passage of the 19th Amendment is simply not correct. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:42 PM Guys, move this to the new thread. This one is too long to load for some people's browsers. Thanks.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:48 PM Well, they didn't read the last post mouse......I suppose there is always hope for this one............ Spaw |