Nader for President

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:05 PM

As I intended it to. As far as I know, there is almost NO gun violence. I will try to check on this and get back to you.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:45 PM

Thank you, Troll, for correcting my mistatement of fact. Now I wonder, of the violent crime rate, how much of that is gun related? And how much of it is male on female? And with so many guns around, how come their murder rate is not sky high? It's not the gun, it is the environment. Your correction of my mistatement actually bolsters my point.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:39 PM

Mick, Switzerland has one of the lowest MURDER rates. Their violent crime rate is, with Hollands, one of the highest in the industrialized world. In Holland there are virtually NO guns in private hands.
Go figure.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:28 PM

Happy to respond to that decent question. There are many reasons from hunting on public lands or the lands of someone from whom I have permission, when I am going sport shooting, or when I am going to the range or an open area to practice my ability to fire only at what I intend to hit with lethal precision. It is a skill I learned a long time ago which at the time was necessary to keep me alive and adding to the gene pool, much to the chagrine of others. I hope never to use a weapon for anything other than enjoying the shooting sports, but should that become necessary in the defense of my family, my safety, or whatever I have the ability to do what must be done because I leave my property to keep my competency where it should be if I am going to possess deadly weapons.

But this is not the real question. I certainly respect the fact that you hate guns. I would never bring one out around someone who was not comfortable around them. Nor do I see folks that don't like them, in fact hate them, as anything other than decent folks with an opinion. One thing I know for sure is that you will never treat a weapon in an irresponsible manner. Those are the people that I detest. Those that own guns, but are not qualified, and don't have appropriate respect for what the weapon can do. I would carry a weapon off my property for any number of legal reasons. If my work takes me to places where my safety is a question comes to mind. But the real answer is because, if it is legal, I can. It is a right, or a privilege in some jurisdictions granted by law. Before that is taken away, there should be a good reason. You're uncomfortable? Not good enough. Because children are being killed in driveby shootings? Not with the guns of law abiding gun owners. These people are criminals and if my guns are gone, theirs will not be. You would simply create a black market and make gun running a profession in the states again. Because if all the guns were gone, then we wouldn't have to worry about it? See above. Because Columbine was a tragedy as was the shooting of the little girl by the little boy? Horrid tragedies caused by irresponsible people, in one case with an illegally obtained weapon. The Uncle needs to go to jail and never come out. The Columbine shooting demonstrates the need to close certain loopholes and have 7 day waiting periods. Because some societies have no guns and their crime rates are low? There are two states where one can openly carry and they are among the lowest in violent crime. Switzerland requires every man to own a submachine gun in his home and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates. The real issue? I have seen it many times. It isn't my ability to own a weapon for WHATEVER legal reason I decide to own it. And it isn't about me taking it off my property for whatever legal activity I choose. It is about hopelessness. Gang activity, and violent crime are directly related to the lack of hope. When youth see no way out, they turn to other ways of feeling secure. When you resolve the issue of WHY people take a weapon and blow pieces off each other, the guns I own will bgecome irrelevant. Blaming the weapon for what happens when used improperly, is like blaming the car for the car accident. Or blaming the pen for the hate produced in the hands of a sick person. Or giving it credit for the love produced by another.

I carry a gun off my own property only when there is a reason to do so, and only when it is legal to do so. I have no problem with forcing people who choose to do so with demonstrating their competence and waiting a reasonable time to be properly checked out. Once I have done so, leave me alone. I am a law abiding citizen, pay my taxes, have the right, and am within my rights.

That'll teach you for asking......................LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:50 AM

I have every reason to think this was directed at me, so, Here is my answer (not that it will do any good)
I own a .38 special snub nose revolver. Its exactly like the one I carried while working under cover years ago. It is mine, and, as long as it is on my person, I know where it is. It is not in my house while I am gone, for some burglar to get his shit hooks on and hurt someone. I am licensed to carry it concealed, and it is doing no harm to anyone. Of course muggings are rare, of course mass shooting at McDonalds are rare, but, if I'm there when it happens, the bastard wont get all of us!
You Pollyannas can live in la la land if you wish, I choose the real world, and it aint a nice place. If I could wave a magic wand, and cause all weapons to disappear, I would do it. But, as long as the scum of the earth prey on innocent people, I will defend myself.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:24 AM

Mick. I hate guns! But it is a serious question. Why would anyone take a gun off their own property? Give me a reasoned argument!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:02 AM

Harp, you are the one who made sure we all knew your sterling qualifications. So when you throw out a gratuitous assertion aimed at me and others who happen to own guns, intended to show us to be idiots and heathens, why do you recoil so when we fire back. It just shows the same spoiled nature that you showed back on the Hearme thread. You can dish, but can't take. Apparently in your mind it is OK for you to cast aspersions but not to have them cast back. And lest you start on me, remember that it was me who attempted to patch it up publicly and privately, both rejected by you. So when you throw out these little rants, I will be there to expose you. Have you noticed through the fog that when you are using your fine knowledge of facts on music, instruments, and things in general that I never say a negative word? But when you just flip off and act like the spoiled kid, the one who attacked me first some time ago, I will be there. And your gun nut comment was one of those. Put up or shut up.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:31 AM

There was a request awhile back that when a thread gets to 100 posting, we start a new one, as some people's browsers take a long time to load any over that length. Please see my previous posting, just up two from here, and use the link to post to the new thread. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:17 AM

McGrath - I agree with you, that there should be stringent requirements for owning a gun. In Canada (in Ontario, anyway), one has to take a lengthy firearms handling and safety course, quite thorough and responsible, before one can go out and buy a gun. I took the course, cos I thought it would be interesting, and it was. I got the certificate, but never bothered to actually buy a gun with it, cos I don't feel I have any particular need for one. If I was living in the mountains out west, and there were grizzlies around, then I would buy a gun, and take it with me when in the woods. Ditto for the far north and polar bears. I've got no plans to shoot at other people, none whatsoever, nor would I shoot at a bear either, unless the bear gave me no choice about the matter. That sometimes happens. Guns in a city environment? Nope. Not my solution. I try not to live in fear, and mostly I succeed at that.

- LH

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:01 AM

I have started a Part Two thread as this one is now at 100 postings. You may access it by clicking here.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:02 AM

I happen to know that the guest "MKilmer" is a very fine musician. Nice to see you here!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:26 PM

...Mick why don't you stop maligning me professionally? No law says I have to act or speak a certain way because of my profession. I happen to think people who own guns are foolish. If you don't like it you can take a flying leap!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:12 PM

Question: What is the man thinking when he says these things? Reminds me of the 8-ball that floats a message to the top seemingly at random.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:07 PM

hahahahahahaha..............how ya doin' buddy? Tell your kid I loved watching his game and that he was fine. They put too much on him, but he measured up and I was proud of him. And I do not sound like you.........bite me...........LOL.

To the person who called us gun nuts, doesn't sound like a professional opinion to me, glad I'm not under your care. I gave reasoned arguments, and can give more as to why I own guns. I can also give reasoned arguments as to why the position of "ban 'em all" isn't logical and won't do much, if anything to to stem the flow of gun violence. I am for reasonable rules, and absolute enforcement. Care to get into it?

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,MKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:14 PM

I'm holding out for the candidate who wishes to make retro-active abortion legal. Simply wait until the baby is born, see if it's everything it was cracked up to be, and if not......................No time limit, of course, so the candidate herself would be fair game.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,ex-951
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM

Mick you are beginning to sound more like me all the time

B

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: thosp
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:30 PM

yes Kendall --- i saw him say that also --- confused the hell out of me --- i thought it was a federal program --- just shows to go ya what i know

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:26 PM

Jesus, Kendall, we've got to put a stop to THAT right away! Thin edge of the wedge of creeping socialism, and all!Best, Greg

(Course, with Dumbya's command of the language, you can't ever be sure what he's on about)

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:16 PM

I suppose if a militia, such as the KKK, well regulated or not, is after you because you're "a savage", you might feel you need another militia to protect you from them. I can't remember anywhere reading about the NRA supporting the Black Panthers though.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:40 PM

I just heard Bush claim that the democrats want to make social security a FEDERAL program!!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Frankham
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:04 PM

All that I can say is that I am disappointed in Ralph Nader. I admire his stance but now I see he is willing to sell it out to a Bush presidency.

Frank

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 05:22 PM

Gun nuts? define gun nut, and I'll answer your question from my own point of view, as I cant speak for anyone else.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM

How very true. :]

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Matt_R
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:48 PM

Ha ha, saw a great flyer here today, only something an ECU art student could have made! It had an image of an elephant copulating with a mule on one side, and an mule copulating with an elephant on the other side. In the middle it said "NO F***ING DIFFERENCE". And the asterisks were 3 little five-pointed stars. I voted for Father Tom! Whee!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:46 PM

PROTECT THE EASILY OFFENDED
BAN EVERYTHING!

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:43 PM

Do you mean using guns to criminalize it the possession of unborn children, or criminalizing the possession of unborn children who possess guns?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:39 PM

What about criminalizing the possession of unborn children with guns?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:24 PM

Using guns on unborn children or going after unborn children who posses guns? Please be more specific. Some of us might favor one or the other.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:01 PM

"The prospect of putting a man who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me."

Oops. I got my tongue wrapped around my eye-teeth and I couldn't see what I was writing.

"The prospect of having a president who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me."

A true compromise candidate would be in favor of going after unborn children with guns.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:57 PM

I'm in Virginia, where Gore has no chance. I voted for Gore (via Clinton) in the last two elections because of his record on Ecology, but now I'm upset with him for all the lying and pettiness.

The prospect of putting a man who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me.

If there's a Nader supporter in a toss-up state out there who wants to trade votes, I'd be happy to vote for Nader here in exchange for your vote for Gore. I'd have to know you, though. Write to me if you're interested and you know me: [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:50 PM

All I'm saying is, I want to be able to defend myself in the event of a crisis. I do not believe in any wise that the Pentagon is going to send the Army crashing around my house, not now, not ever, and I don't believe in black helicopters or Trilateral Commissions or any of that. I'm a survivor and I want to be able to fight and I want to be able to survive and the ugly truth is sometimes that takes a weapon.

That really is all I'm going to say about it.

Now..... I am not a Green Party supporter, however, it is quite refreshing to me that another party is getting a little attention this time around.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:31 PM

Basically true, Kim. But militias in colonial America weren't primarily intended to defend the townspeople against the British regulars; they were mainly intended to protect them from the "savages," and maybe some marauding French trappers.

Even accepting your premise, though, are you really keeping your guns in the hopes that they'll enable you to win in a shootout with the U.S. Army? Have you seen the kind of hardware those guys have these days? If you expect to match firepower with the feds, you and your neighbors may want to consider picking up something more than a few personal sidearms. Suddenly my sarcastic mention of landmines and nerve gas seems like a more plausible scenario -- which is not at all what I intended.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:52 PM

I guess it depends on what the definition of "militia" is. Traditionally a "militia" was a group of local folks who were not employed by the regular Army or the government, who could band together to defend their town should the occasion arise. Nowadays they try to tell us that the National Guard is the "militia," but Guardsmen get a paycheck from the Fed, don't they? If so then they are not a "militia" in the traditional sense, because they are an extension of the regular Army, which is part of the government. The militia is supposed to be in place to defend us from the regular Army if the government sics them on us. (Not likely, I know.)

But I'm just an unfrozen caveman. And I'm pretty good with a club, too.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:45 PM

How many of you gun nuts carry guns off your own property? Why?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:28 PM

True, but if the two existing sides didn't insist on polarization, other options might be considered. I hate to think that we nominate two candidates in the expectation that they will adopt and articulate rigid positions on every question -- and then feel that the only way we can move beyond this rigidity is by adding more candidates.

I think it's interesting that one of the qualities we seem to value most in Presidential candidates is obstinacy. So we get campaigns based on phony but tough-sounding slogans like "read my lips -- no new taxes" (Bush the elder) or "I will fight for ___" (Gore) and the like, because the candidate perceives that he'll make more headway by sticking his jaw out and looking fierce, rather than examining a question on its merits and trying to come up with a more nuanced approach. Some of the candidates are truly capable of a more thoughtful approach, but they recognize that the electorate, and the election process, tends to reward the more obstinate candidate -- mistaking stubbornness for commitment. Then someone like Clinton comes along, and he is disparaged for being a "compromiser" -- as if that's a negative attribute in a politician.

Nader is not the man for me; I don't believe he has the breadth of expertise necessary to be President. And I will not vote for what I do not want, as much as I might like to open the process up to other parties representing other points of view. But I would really appreciate it if someone would come along who did NOT feel it was necessary to impress me with how inflexible and dogmatic he is. We deserve better than that.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:40 PM

A lot of time with debates it's not that both sides are right, and some kind of compromise is what yiou want, but rather that there are other options which are being excluded by concentrating on the back and forth between the two sides. Which gets us back to Nader.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:56 PM

Mick, if we ever hope to resolve this issue, we need the kind of clear-headedness that your posting demonstrates. Reasonable people may differ on exactly where we should draw the line on this question. That's okay with me -- I don't pretend to have all the answers either. But on the issue of gun control, we need people of good faith to work with each other, rather than against each other, to come up with workable solutions.

Some of these issues are difficult because a lot of us can see logic on both sides. In fact, I think this is true with respect to most of the big societal issues facing us -- gun control, abortion, drugs, the size of government, the environment, the Israelis vs. Palestinians, traditional folk music vs. singer/songwriters, etc. Unfortunately, ambivalence makes for lousy bumper stickers; and when you admit that there are good points on both sides of the debate, sometimes that makes you everyone's enemy. But I think that's the direction we all need to go in.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM

Bart, I will check that article out.

Well said, Big Mick. I was raised with guns, as evidently you were, and through your excellent prose, re-lived some wonderful memories of going on hunts with my Dad. I only own two guns now. One is a .22 rifle I purchased for $5 when I was about 12 years old (Remington Model 24) and my grandfather's (and father's) 12 guage double barrel shotgun (which I would not be comfortable shooting anymore with moder ammo).

Also well said, Kendall. No one wants to live next to a prison, do they?

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:40 AM

You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, and if you drive it badly enough you lose the licence.

As a car driver, for my own protection, I'd go to the barricades to resist andone who tried to abolish those kinds of requirements. I'd sooner it was harder to get the licence, and easier to lose it, and that the speed limits weren't so high. And if I was a gun-owner I'd want the rules to be at least as strict on guns as they are on cars.

I don't think that makes me a fascist. Just frightened of "guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children."

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:37 AM

Kim C I am a gun owner, and, I would not hesitate to use it if my life was in immediate peril. BUT the 2nd amendment still says ".a well regulated militia.." Now the issue of enforcement, the gun laws ARE being enforced, but there is a congressman in Michigan who is being targeted by the NRA because he supports a 7 day waiting period to buy a hand gun at a gun show. Personally, I favor a long prison sentence for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, but, dont forget that most gun crimes are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal government, but, rather under state authority. What happens every time a state tries to expand its prison system? it is voted down because the taxpayers dont want to fund it, and, no one wants it in their neighborhood. The constitution expressly forbids cruel and unusual punishment, such as, cramming 180 criminals into a space built for 90. Remember Attica? that was the problem.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:22 AM

Kim - I don't own a gun, but I don't object, per se, to people owning guns. Why would I? I would be nervous about people owning operable military assault rifles, automatic weapons, machine guns, bazookas or stuff like that...that's going too far, I think. But regular guns?...no, no objection, as long as they employ basic safety procedures and act responsibly around those guns, and keep them in a safe place, away from their kids, for example.

I don't object to people owning cars either, as long as they drive them safely. Same principle.

And the same with guard dogs. They can be dangerous too, if they are allowed to run around loose, but that's no reason for people to be banned from owning them.

Fascism is a system that tries to FORCE everyone to be the same, according to some arbitrary official view from on high, and I hate fascism with a passion.

Sorry. Thread creep, I guess. Back to Nader.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:12 AM

The gun issue is a red herring, and the Right uses it to try and scare folks. The facts are that we have had a Democratic President for eight years and the first two years he had a Democratic Congress. Anyone lost any guns? Al Gore is a sportsman, and a hunter. He has never advocated taking guns away from anyone but criminals. In the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration, the only things in this area that have been taken away are cop killer bullets (which I support, and I have a total of eight guns), and closed the assault weapons loophole created during dubya's father's administration. It was during the Bush years, I believe, that US made assault weapons were banned. Clinton-Gore then closed the door on foreign made weapons.

The right to keep and bear arms is an important issue in the states. But no progress will be made until the idiots on the extremes of this issue quit spouting rhetoric and start talking to one another. I believe strongly in my right to own weapons. Let me tell what they represent to me. In my minds eye I can still see the day that I first was allowed to fire a shotgun. I can remember campfires with my uncles and cousins, the huge meals with all the family around, the rite of passage in being allowed to hunt with the grownups. I can remember the lectures on gun safety, the NRA sponsored safety class, the stern admonitions from my Da. I can remember the delight on my Grandmothers face when I brought her 3 rabbits and a pheasant and the wonderful rabbit stew she made. That's the childhood memories. The guns, also came to mean something else to me, in another time in my life. I saw the awful carnage they reap on another human being. I became determined that I would become very competent in their use, and in the skill of surgical shooting. And I did, so that if I ever did take it out in a self defense situation it would be used for that purpose in very precise and with deadly intent. And I have always prayed that it would never be used in such a fashion again. And thanks be to God, it never has.

Now let me tell you what guns mean to others. They are the sound in the streets that means that their children are being exposed to danger. They are the genesis of the holes in their walls and windows while they are sitting in the one place that they should feel safe. They are the source of misery and fear and in the minds of those that live with this terror, they represent not one good thing. They are the thing that caused a little 7 yr. old boy in Flint, Michigan to kill a little girl in his class.

The facts are that until these two sides can begin to talk to one another, and reconcile these entirely different views of these things, politicians will continue to pander to the one side or the other for political gain. And the polarity will continue. I am not a member of the NRA, but I tell my friends who are that as long as they continue to spout that tired old 2nd Amendment rhetoric, they will continue to lose. A change is definitely coming, and if they don't get off that horse and get to the table the change will come without them. And I tell my anti-gun friends that I am a gun owner, and as long as they continue to pursue taking away a right of mine that logical thinking shows there is no reason to take away, then they are against me. The guns killing the kids in the streets are not my guns. I, and people like me, have done nothing to cause society to take away a heritage that has been passed down over the centuries.

And most importantly, those that vote a single issue, such as guns or abortion, and continue to ignore the other 8 or 10 issues that impact them in a far greater and longer term way, contribute to their own demise. And the boys at the top just laugh at us for the fools we are.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:04 AM

McGrath, I would much prefer that we recognize the TRUE meaning of the Second amendment, and remove all restrictions on the ownership of "arms" -- which is not limited to small arms. Then we can plant land mines around our doors and windows, and strategically place nuclear devices inside our homes in case some nut with a stolen Glock gets past our first-line defenses. In fact, why not identify likely intruders ahead of time, and have an automatic system that will target them with overwhelming force (nuclear missiles, anthrax virus, nerve gas) if they make the first move? What we really to do is bring "mutual assured destruction" down to earth and into our daily lives. Think globally, act locally -- that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:50 AM

"If some goober breaks into my house with a nice Glock he stole from someone, or bought off the street" - well it's a bit thread drifty, but how about this for a technical fix:

if all guns you could but legally had some kind of tracer built into them that couldn't be removed without making the thing blow up in your face, that would solve the problem of stolen guns.

Tie that up with rigorous checks on who can legally buy a gun, and an exchange system for all the guns that don't have the tracer gismo, with a reasonable time to allow for the exchange, like three months. After which possession of any gun which didn't have the tracer would be a felony.

Now those are the kind of controls that you'd expect the NRA to be in favour of, if they really wanted to protect the nicer legal gun-owners they go on about.

Of course you'd still have to worry about your next-door neighbour with a legal gun deciding he'd like to blow you apart...

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Greg F.(remote location)
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:43 AM

You're as bad as McGrath, Peter- there's no such thing as Global Warming! Its all an anti-industry, anti-free market plot. ;-)
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:36 AM

Canadians and the rest of the world have a big stake in the two issues no one is talking about. If Bush gets elected, he will press ahead with the anti-missile defence shield. If he does that, then we are into a new arms race, and countries like Canada will have to join in or be punished. This monumentally stupid idea will go ahead if Bush is elected, and possibly may not if Gore is. This is one of the two critical issues for the rest of the 21st century. We will enter into a new nuclear era.
The other is global warming, about which Al Gore has said nothing, because he is scared to be passionate about things he says he is concerned about. It is totally mysterious to me, but I assume it is because his consultants told him he would be laughed at. But the idea that George W. Bush will do anything about it is even more laughable.
That is what is at stake for the rest of us on planet Earth. Have a good election, guys!!!!
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:35 AM

Let me save Douger the trouble.
Bart, the Utne Reader" it's just an article[or a collection of articles] written by a reporter." Don't mean squat; don't pay it any mind.
Cheers

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:32 AM

People have to get involved with their own lives, Bart. As long as the general populance is content to allow others to make their decisions while they watch "Baywatch", or allow talk show hosts to be their major source of information, or follow the lead of movie stars simply BECAUSE they are movie stars, meaningful change is impossible.
We, as a society, are too detached, too walled off from reality in our apartments and gated communities and housing projects. We need to get out and get involved locally first because thats where you leard activism; it's real, it's immediate, and you can see the effects first-hand.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:15 AM

DougR - I did catch Nader on Hardball and was fairly impressed with his answer to one question raised by a student "What's next for the Green party". There was no posturing about the election not being lost yet, or anything like that. Instead, he answered the question (what a change from the other guys). He said, in essence that the Greens become a watchdog party, build strength in states and local politics and make sure that whoever is elected is held accountable to someone between now and the next election.

I missed Donohue, but felt that Ralph N.was quite passionate. There is no way he can drop out without betraying his beliefs, and he was clear about that. Personally, regardless of who wins on Tuesday (and I still think Gore is the best man running this year), I am going to look into the Green movement.

On a related note, check out the latest issue of the Utne Reader. There is a pretty interesting series of articles about the grass roots movements in this country. Something is indeed happening that could change this country. But it's never going to start with an election. Real change has to take place in the populace. Then we will elect leaders who are able to institutionalize it. Change has to have ROOTS, or it can get washed away in the inevitable reactionary wave.

When will we get passed the "cult of personality" mentality?

Pax vobiscum
Bart

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:13 AM

He'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers, as they say.

Those of you who don't want to own weapons, fine. Don't own them. That's your choice. But don't you DARE to presume to tell me that I can't own one, or that I don't have the right to defend myself or my family in the way that I see fit. If some goober breaks into my house with a nice Glock he stole from someone, or bought off the street, a pair of scissors or an iron skillet ain't gonna make it a fair fight. And unless you keep your hunting or target rifle loaded, that ain't gonna get it either.

We don't need MORE laws. We need to ENFORCE the laws we already have. Wow, what a concept. NO amount of laws will ever be effective if they are not enforced.

That's all I'm going to say about that, and no more. The end.