 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 1
|
|
|
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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 02:49 PM Probably just bored I guess Alex. Spaw |
|
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: 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 - 02:20 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: 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: Peg Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:05 PM Ralph's a badger. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Wavestar Date: 06 Oct 00 - 12:21 PM *ROFL* Spaw- but which is which? -J |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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... |