BS: Bush/Gore Round 1

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
O..O
=o=

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,
Alex
O..O
=o=

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
O..O
=o=

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
O..O
=o=

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
O..O
=o=

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.

clicky

Alex
O..O
=o=

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