|
06 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM (#335486) Subject: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Ha! Now, I know she's a feminist, but I don't mean it that way!**BG**Another Mudcatter sent me this, today, and I thought it was worth sharing with all of you. I do not agree with all of her points, but I do find them interesting. Thanks, kat...
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH) by Gloria Steinem: 10. He's not running for President. He's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party! 9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy. 8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position--for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee--actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us. 7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles the movements against a deeper form of control--control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "Your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Bush and Gore is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career...)" 6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops, not by voting for one man who will never become President. 5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being evenhandedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy, and what did that mean to history? 4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his possible contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy, and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty. 3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I hope my friends and colleagues would have the good sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world. 2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has made clear by his record as governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun-registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water--and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard-won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one. 1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush out of respect for the vote and self-respect. I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President--thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid--the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here. Perhaps there's a reason why Nader's rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House. Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong. END
|
|
06 Nov 00 - 06:16 PM (#335516) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lonesome EJ You go girl! |
|
06 Nov 00 - 06:37 PM (#335527) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Jim the Bart Thank you Gloria S. and thank you Kat. |
|
06 Nov 00 - 07:17 PM (#335549) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: catspaw49 yep Spaw |
|
06 Nov 00 - 07:31 PM (#335562) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Bill D durn tootin'!... |
|
06 Nov 00 - 07:38 PM (#335565) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Midchuck ...his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun-registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water--and much more. But those are all Good Things, which it is a Bad Thing to oppose, except mandatory gun registration, which is a Bad Thing, which it is a Good Thing to oppose. Which just proves that both candidates are a mixture of the good and the bad, as we all are. If it were Mother Theresa versus Hitler, it'd be easier to decide. It isn't. Peter. |
|
06 Nov 00 - 07:50 PM (#335578) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Now I REALLY want to vote for Nader, heh. I really hate those kind of arguments. It's sad to see someone like the formerly great but now withered and useless Mrs.Steinem sink to such depths. She's become nothing more than a compromising prostitute for the rich, white overlords of this nation, and that's a pity. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:02 PM (#335589) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Bill D hmmm...Lepus...I wonder how you would have responded if Steinem's name had not been attached to the list. Truth can still be truth....even from the mouth of a " than a compromising prostitute for the rich, white overlords" |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:06 PM (#335592) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex It's not 'truth,' Bill, it's her opinion. And why would Mrs.Steinem's name change my response? I would have responded the same if it had been Ralph Nader himself saying these things. He'd be a whore, too. A bigger one, actually. See? :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:12 PM (#335597) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Isn't it true in life that everybody is fucking someone else; thus everyone is getting fucked in some way, figuratively or not? Lepus, I find your words about Steinem to be a bit harsh. Condemning her as a "compromising prostitute for the rich, white overlords?" She deserves more consideration than that, based on her long record of pioneering women's rights. As I said, I don't agree with her on all points, but I respect her enough to consider them at least, without calling her names. Thanks, kat |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:14 PM (#335600) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Ebbie 'withered and useless,' eh? There are times I really don't like knee-jerk men. Ebbie |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:35 PM (#335613) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Aww, folks, nothing to dislike me over. I AGREE with you about Steinem's great contributions to society. She's a person I admire(d). This is why I'm so disappointed in her for becoming so... average. Instead of being a strident voice for progress, she's become just another has-been wallowing in mediocrity. I've heard her speak on radio programs recently, and she can't even keep up with current issues raised by contemporary 'feminists.' She talks like some lame parent trying to talk 'cool' with their kids. ("Hey, Mikey, this music is really the bomb! Give me five, my man!") She's a wonderful historical figure, but her page has been turned. Maybe 'slave' would fit better than 'prostitute,' as I don't like to think she's actually accepting money for her services. But it's still sad, at least to me. I just think she should step aside and shut up, while she's still someone who can be admired. Bleh. I shoulda just kept my mouth (fingers?) shut... ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 08:37 PM (#335614) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Greg F. What have we got here? Lepus as Doug Jr., beating the "opinion" gong?? One of 'em was redundant enough. Really stupid and uncalled for remark about Steinem, Rabbit. |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:07 PM (#335632) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex *sigh* ... OK, Greg, insult me, get it out of your system, whatever. Doug's not the only person with an opinion. And the thing is, I'm nothing like Doug, politically. I'm a friggin' socialist, if you need to know. And it's not uncalled for. I'd say Mrs.Steinem 'called' for my comments with her actions. She's supporting a right-wing Democrat for president. I'm still allowed to disagree with that, aren't I? >:) ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:18 PM (#335638) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: thosp to mz.steinem 10)well - what's wrong with that? 9)that's what he's trying to do now 8)it's up to you to convince them otherwise- Nader has only presented a fact to illustrate a point 7)Nader is firmly pro-choice and is the only candidate to state he supports gay/lesbian marriage --your statement makes him seem the opposite 6)and how many years have the Rep. & Dems had to do this? -- 5)Naders' point and i agree is that the difference is (for the most part)rhetorical -- 4)are you infering that Winona LeDuke is stupid? and that you know what's better for her and her people? 3) i hope so too! 2) your best point - it worries me too! 1) i don't want either one of them "i'm not telling you how to vote" yeah right honestly you seem to have one issue tunnel vision (an admittedly an important issue --the supreme court nomimations) and when we pollute ourselves out of existance -- and those who die in cancer clusters while were doing that etc. etc. what then? |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:21 PM (#335640) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Ah, Lepus, you know I am in Nader's court, but just because you may think someone is a has-been, passe, over-the-hill, dried up old bean, it's best to give them their due, eh, rather than beat them up? And, ya know Ebbie gotcha on the other; lots of us WiseWimmin/Baby Crones got shrivelies and dry skin sometimes, but we ain't done with nothing, yet, kid, so look out, okay?!!!she shuffles off, shaking her head and muttering "It's a baby-face generation, them youngsters filling in all the blanks, moving on and fergittin' us older phoaks, think we don't know nothin', humph! Oh, wayda minute, who'm I callin' OLD? I'm still under 50 by damn an' I can still kick some butt and so can my sis under 70 and my dad under 90, so, the whole famdamily is on a roll!! Yee-Haw!!!" She picks up her pace a little, holds her head higher and the smile wrinkles around her eyes show deeper with a big grin on her face. |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:26 PM (#335645) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Hehe, uh-oh... I really didn't mean for that to sound 'age-ist,' kat. I actually added a disclaimer about that to my first draft of my second message, but deleted it for some reason. I'm really sorry if I made it sound like I had a problem with Mrs.Steinem because of her age---I don't. I just think she's changed too much, the way she thinks and the way she works. So... hope that clears THAT part up... ;) ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:31 PM (#335648) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Greg F. 'Smatter, Lepus? Don'tlike being insulted? Expect Ms. Steinem doesn't like it either. Thats all I'm getting at... And the "there are no facts only opinions" litany IS getting a bit stale, dontcha think? Best, Greg |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:41 PM (#335655) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing That'll larn ya, youngun'!**BG** I am sure you didn't mean it to sound that way, but "withered and useless" usually does connote some age, eh? Thread Drift: anyone notice how women's bodies show the "withered" look letting it all "hang out" so to speak with droopy boobs, saggy butt, etc. BUT men, well, men may show it in a beer gut and a little bit of a saggy butt, but the really possibly withered bits are always tucked away? So, how's a womyn to know?!! **BG** katlaughing |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:53 PM (#335664) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: InOBU Hey Katlaughing! Thanks for posting this, I sent it to a bunch of folks and the People's Music Network, where there are a lot of Nader folks... Well, hold your breath till tommorrow - especially Bush voters, start holding now! Cheers Larry |
|
06 Nov 00 - 09:54 PM (#335668) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Let me ask you, Greg: Are you Gloria Steinem? Or are you Gloria Steinem's husband? And did I attack YOU, personally? I'm guessing that you would answer 'no' to all three of these questions. So I guess I don't see why you're taking it so personally. All I did is state my opinion about Mrs.Steinem. You, on the other hand, DID attack ME personally, for whatever reason. And if that's what flips your switch, knock yourself out. I'm not interested in attacking you, and your attacks against me are meaningless. Who am I? I'm not a famous feminist, or a politician. I have no power. So why waste your 'breath?' You can't discredit me, and you can't change me. I'm not 'real.' But at least you're not deleting your cookie and flaming me with some lame pseudonym, I guess. So, carry on, or whatever. Kat, I was thinking more like withered with some wasting disease, but I DO see what you mean, and was afraid it would be taken that way. Shoot. I'll just gather my bits and go now, before you wither them any more... :o ---Lepus Rex ;) |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:06 PM (#335680) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Greg F. Overreacting a little, Lepus? Maybe you're just a little tetchy tonite. Bad day? Best, Greg |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:09 PM (#335685) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Whatever, Stackley. Er, Greg. I'm done with you. Play by yourself, if you like. ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:35 PM (#335701) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: catspaw49 Geez, you're having a tough night here Lepus. Say, why not grab some quarters and go down the photo booth and shoot more pictures of your ass? Send some to Greg and Ebbie and kat........You know, a kinda' fun thing on a bad night. Go ahead and go for it........... Spaw |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:43 PM (#335707) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Art Thieme Politics is the art of the possible. I spent years being for the idealistic positions. I was for Eugene McCarty instead of Hubert Humphrey in '68 because McCarthy challenged Lyndon Johnson on the Viet Nam War in the primary elections and forced L.B.J. to drop out.-----It wound up that, me and those like me staying with the third party candidacy of McCarthy, were why Hubert lost the presidency--and why we had to endure Richard Nixon. Nixon led to his own downfall even though Republicans have blamed us Democrats for being vindictive then. And that, in turn, led to the debacle that was the revenge impeachment of Bill Clinton in recent times. Art Thieme |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:56 PM (#335713) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Shoot, Spaw, I'm having a pretty good night. And unless I get hit by one of the cocky-bastard-seeking-death-rays emanating from Kat and Ebbie's eyes, I'll continue to have a good night. But... would YOU like another picture of my ass, Spaw? :D ---Lepus Rex |
|
06 Nov 00 - 10:56 PM (#335714) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Troll Lepus. You said unkind things about an icon. You do not disparage icons. You lavish praise upon their every word and never, never question their motives. Otherwise their worshipers will become upset and say nasty things to you. And it escalates. Lepus has a right to his opinion and the right to express it. Anyone else has the right to rebutal and he can defend. But keep it civil. Descending to personal jibes is third grade stuff and we are, supposedly, adults. troll |
|
06 Nov 00 - 11:00 PM (#335716) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: catspaw49 No Leeps, I'll pass, but if you want, check in at the "No Mudcat Radio" thread and see what you can do for Max!!! Spaw |
|
06 Nov 00 - 11:58 PM (#335751) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: JamesJim Can I take a breath now, Larry? Huh? Can I Larry? Can I? Can I? JJ |
|
07 Nov 00 - 12:21 AM (#335759) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Lepus, all with tongue firmly in cheek, but I love the powerful death rays you attributed to us gals! We all just need to give it the "light touch" (like Spaw does, ya know, being a lightweight in the brain dept. Now, ya wanna talk about his championship in the saggy butt contest, then we be talking heavyweight!)now that we've got the saggy butts and dangly bits sorted out, okay? JamesJim, breath, darlin'! But make it a long, deep one, then hold it like Larry said.:-) Thanks Ms. Steinem for so much fun, today. And, thanks to you, Art, for sending me this! luvya'll....kat |
|
07 Nov 00 - 02:56 AM (#335796) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Ebbie LOL! Eb |
|
07 Nov 00 - 11:04 AM (#335970) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Frankham Lepus, Glad to hear your side of the discussion. I too am socialistically inclined but true to the idea of socialism, all socialists don't agree. Gloria Steinham has made one point that is indisputable regardless of the ideologies that each candidate represents. In the real world of American politics as it stands today, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I think that's a bad situation. But I disagree wholeheartedly with Nader that there is no difference with Gore and Bush. That is Nader's Achille's heel, that he can't see that. He is too much of an ideologue. Socialists have had a bad rep as using cliche invectives to substantiate their position based on psuedo-Marxian, Schatmanite or other socialist writers. There is no qualifying arguement for the use of invective. Steinham's position is not one of compromise. It doesn't fit her pattern. We need to be careful because Nader's ideas may be buried when he is considered to be "withered and useless" as is the fate of most political gadflies who never attain popular appeal. The socialist arguments prevail but only in the light of reasonable information and not invective. Socialism could work under certain circumstances and has in the US in such socialistic ideas as Social Security or government protection of trade unionism. The Civil Rights Movement was a form os socialistic appeal which caused governmental legislation to take place. The problem Nader has is being identified with a "spoiler" which is too bad because many of his ideas are valid. But Steinham is facing reality. If Bush and a Rep8ublican congress gets in, you can kiss pro-choice goodbye. You can expect Bush to turn his back on trade-unionism, the environment, and civil rights. He will be a puppet for the affluent and corporative lobbies. Gore, on the other hand, may not be as far left as some of us would like but he will not destroy the little progress that has been made in these areas of reproductive rights, civil rights, and even in the environment. Nader's best function is as a social commentator and gadfly to remind us that there are important things to be done in this country. But he may be remembered as being a "spoiler" and this would be unfortunate. Frank |
|
07 Nov 00 - 11:36 AM (#336002) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Peter T. I suppose (as an outsider) one big question is how America would be served by having a strong third party, or (perhaps even more striking) the breakup of the Republican/Democratic duopoly. In Canada and Britain, third parties originally brought Conservatives in to power, because they broke up the left to centre coalition. This is what Nader threatens to do: break up the Democratic coalition and let in Republicans for a period of time. The question Steinem and others ask (especially concerning the very powerful Supreme Court) is whether what could be carried out in that period of time is more supremely damaging than the possibility of breaking up the old politics, and threatening the future of left/centre left politics for awhile. Right wingers couldn't care less about this. In other countries the regeneration of the social democratic movement required some time in the wilderness. It is not clear (again as an outsider) that the Clinton "movement to the centre" was a regeneration of Democratic politics: rather (as the Nader phenomenon indicates), a degeneration towards the right. So maybe it would be a good thing to break up the centre left: but is the interim price worth paying? That seems to me to be what is going on. Just my two cents (as a sometime degenerate 3rd Party maven). yours, Peter T. |
|
07 Nov 00 - 11:42 AM (#336008) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: catspaw49 No it isn't and in this case I'm hoping that the checks/balances do the job if need be. I can't take too many more Clarences on the Supreme Court. Spaw - Who just voted for Gore |
|
07 Nov 00 - 01:03 PM (#336080) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing There are many who feel if Bush does get in, it will reinvigorate the movements of the 60's and 70's and get the left off dead-centre to finish the job of those great times. Also, if he does get in, we will have to be more involved in making sure Congress becomes a majority of the liberal to thwart his actions by passing new laws strengthening right to choose, etc. which the Supreme Court is bound to uphold no matter how conservative it becomes. In the end, fear of Dumbya getting in directed my voting for Gore, even though I had pledged to write in Nader's name. I apologies to any of you who may be disappointed in me for that. kat |
|
07 Nov 00 - 03:32 PM (#336154) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Amergin Kat, you're under fifty? Boy, but you seem so much older..... Amerginrunningtotheballotboxtoavoidherwrath.... |
|
07 Nov 00 - 05:19 PM (#336192) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Greg F. Hey, kat, I think ya did the right thing. As the Molly Ivins article some time back suggested- it's OK to vote your heart as long as it isn't going to benefit Dubya; if it is, then all ya can do is vote your head. Found myself in the same boat, so you're not alone. Best, Greg |
|
07 Nov 00 - 05:33 PM (#336195) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Troll Kat. Count your blessings child. I'd have to use a telescope to see 50 again. troll...over the hill? where? what hill! wheres my specs? dagnab it! |
|
07 Nov 00 - 05:40 PM (#336200) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Ah...ya'll make me feel like a kid, again, well all 'cept that Amergin. You get back here right now! I am gonna getchew fer thet!!!**BG** Thanks for not jumping all over me about my vote. You all are great! kat |
|
07 Nov 00 - 05:41 PM (#336201) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Well, I just voted for Nader/LaDuke. :) One thing I was thinking about last night... And this is directed towards people who say things like 'Don't waste that vote!' and 'A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!' ...Do you realise that you're only pushing potential Nader voters into voting for Nader? I mean, the people you know that you think you've changed with these statements weren't REALLY going to vote Green ANYWAY. They were toying with it, perhaps trying to look REALLY progressive for a week or so, but you must know that they were actually for Gore, right? People like me, and many people I know, only got angrier when people would squeal about wasted votes. Do you think people LIKE to be told they are incompetent, that they don't know what they're doing? And do you think that talking down to them will influence their vote in a way you would like? Believe me, it only pissed off the TRUE Nader supporters and pushed other 'incompetent' voters his way. But, hey, it works for me. Be counterproductive all you like, muaha. :) And I guess I'll have to disagree with you, Frankham, though you're right, such compromise doesn't fit. That's my point. ;) But back to the Pres. Race... If you hate nectarines, you're probably going to hate peaches as well. That's how little difference there is between Gore and Bush, at least from where I stand (Which, like I mentioned, is somewhere left of the Greens). I guess I'm one of those people Kat and Peter mentioned, who half-hopes Bush wins just for the future liberal backlash. Sometimes we need to suffer to change things. Believe me, the only thing that would progress under Al Gore is time. Four more years of nothing. Short-sighted Americans need to see that things can go wrong, that their rights can fade, that their prosperity can vanish, and that the world is a cruel place, before they'll put down their bowls of pre-chewed mush and do something. They need a kick in the teeth that, unfortunately, I don't think Bush has the balls to give them. But if I'm wrong, and Bush really is the scary right-wing zealot so many fear he is (but isn't), Hell, it's going to be a great time to be a Commie, eh? >:) ---Lepus Rex |
|
07 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM (#336222) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Amergin Well, I dropped off my mail in ballot today.....folks keep telling me that I voted for the shrub, but I am damn sure I colored in the box next to Nader's name....Kat, why would anyone give you flack for voting for Gore? It's not your fault you checked the wrong box.... Amergincringingfromthecomingbeating |
|
07 Nov 00 - 06:49 PM (#336265) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Jim the Bart I realize this is a little late, and I really don't mean to pile on Lepus, but. . . Part of the problem that I continually see (and will continue to point out until it ends) in these discussions is an attack upon the person rather than an addressing of the argument. Lepus, you did not give any counter-argument to the points made in Gloria Steinem's letter; all you did is call her names and imply that being old and out of the mainstream (even if it were true) means that what she says is wrong. I don't mind anyone having a different view of things, I'm just tired of people changing the subject when valid (or otherwise) points are presented. In short - no, make that "in long" - it doesn't matter if one person who posts is noticeably right-wing or if another is old/young or if another is short or if another (as was said about my own dear self in another thread) is better at reading than analyzing. If someone makes a point don't insult her or him; that does not invalidate the point. All it does is push the discussion off track. And that is what this whole campaign has been about. I'm sorry. Thank God this election is over. I don't think I can take any more of the blather that passes for politics in this country. I am glad that I've been able to vent here. All in all, in spite of the occasional sad detour, this has been a good discussion. |
|
07 Nov 00 - 07:10 PM (#336276) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Bart, I guess I can see your point. But just to clarify, I didn't say she was old (bit-shrivelling death-rays, eek!) and out of the mainstream, but that she was now IN the mainstream, and therefore less important to me. Perhaps I shouldn't have used so many insults (death-rays again), but it's how I feel. And I don't think I said anything off-topic, other than the things I've written in my own defense. And I think I DID address some of Mrs.Steinem's points in my last post, didn't I? Ah, well. I do thank you for the constructive criticism:) ---Lepus Rex |
|
07 Nov 00 - 07:21 PM (#336279) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Lepus, I hope you didn't mean me when you wrote "They were toying with it, perhaps trying to look REALLY progressive for a week or so, but you must know that they were actually for Gore, right?" I don't "toy" with being progressive. I've been slogging away at it all of my life; I was raised in it. People who know me know that; in fact, I was just asked to join a core group which is starting up the Green Party in Wyoming. which could use a whole LOT of greening, IMO!! As far as most people in Wyoming are concerned, I am far left of Green, even as you name yourself. I fully intended to vote for Nader. When I got in there, I changed my mind; it's as simple as that. Thanks, kat |
|
07 Nov 00 - 07:23 PM (#336282) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: DougR I don't suppose Gloria should expect to receive a holiday greeting card from Ralph this year. DougR |
|
07 Nov 00 - 08:20 PM (#336304) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Aaaaaghhh... I can't win. OK... Kat, I didn't mean you specifically, and I certainly don't question your commitment or 'progressivness.' But the thing is, you backed down when you entered the booth. And I do think that you were probably going to vote for Gore all along, though you may not have planned it that way. Whatever changed your mind about voting for Nader was waiting for you behind that curtain, whether you expected it or not. That's what I was getting at in that post. You were 'doomed' to vote for Gore, I think, like many former Nader supporters that I knew were going to back down at the last minute. And I don't think it's bad, or traitorous, or whatever, just a different, valid, though predictable, decision. I did make the 'trying to sound really progressive for a week' sound rather insulting, though, and for that I do apologise. I know that many in your position were not TRYING to look like anything, though I do believe that many others WERE. But I shouldn't have lumped you all together. Bleh... Jesus H, I'm shutting the Hell up... Grovelling is hard! ---Lepus Rex |
|
07 Nov 00 - 08:30 PM (#336309) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing That's okay, Lepus, you can get up now, puir rabbie...with those long ears you must hear so much better which of course must help you to know what the hell people are really planning, eh?**BG** At least we can keep it civil, saggy bits and all. Thanks for that and I hope that the Momentum of Nader will continue regardless. kat |
|
07 Nov 00 - 08:44 PM (#336320) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex You THINK it's the ears (You do think this. I know.), but it's actually the experimental artificial cerebrum they put in my head at Medtronic that gives me these amazing powers.......*twitch*....... ---Lepus Rex |
|
07 Nov 00 - 10:05 PM (#336380) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Troll Amazing powers...I assume you mean the amazing ability you have for putting both of your feet into your mouth simultaneously. ...*BG*... troll |
|
08 Nov 00 - 12:41 AM (#336495) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: katlaughing Medtronic? Uh-oh! Mutant bunny!!! Those drug companies do Baaaddddd things to bunnies. Watch out phoaks!!! I wonder, do those ears glow, like the pickle that glows at night? Have you been working at the plant with Homer Simpson? Do you remember any special experiments?**BG** lolkat |
|
08 Nov 00 - 01:41 PM (#336757) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Heh-heh. :) But what is it with the pickle?! Must be from before my time (not calling anyone old or anything)... ---Lepus Rex |
|
08 Nov 00 - 01:50 PM (#336762) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Troll HE doesn't know about the PICKLE!!! BHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA troll |
|
08 Nov 00 - 02:12 PM (#336774) Subject: RE: BS: Steinem on Nader - not what you think! From: Lepus Rex Alright, I looked, and I get it now... Medtronic MUST be involved. I saw similar things at their Fridley, Minnesota, headquarters... ***ZZZZZAPHH*** Aaaaiiiiigghhhh!!! Um, no, I mean... I'm told that I know NOTHING! NOTHNING!!! ---Lepus Rex |