posted on September 14, 2000 08:52:33 PM new
Still a lie. The Internet originated in 1969 and was know as the ARPANET, years before Gore served his first term in congress.
The Internet, as it is known today, was being used in my city and by my organization long before I ever knew of an Al Gore Jr.
"I'm so far to the right, I am almost at the left."
posted on September 14, 2000 09:21:21 PM new
Well, it could be worse.
Sort of a spectator sport anyway isn't it, with the viewers having little effect on the outcome. Sure, everyone has a carefully groomed and manipulated vote tailor made by the imposition of provided thought processes.
You get to believe what you chose to believe of the available choices. Choices dictated long ago by the political industry that operates the political machine.
Is party registration an indicator anymore of a person's belief system? Or are the choices of party made for other reasons more to do with popularity, a herd mentality, and attractive and fun entertainment?
You hear I'm not going to vote for him, even though he's cute" as if cuteness is a valid deciding element in a candidate. High probability that a large percentage of votes are cast for just that reason, or for the last fun thing a voter hears from a chosen candidate before going off to do their civic duty, as is their right.
Me? I voted for George McGovern in 1972 because I believed that he could stop the war. When he was ground to bits by the republican machine, simply for having become a truly viable candidate, I knew I was watching a setup. At least they didn't shoot him. That was my first and last vote.
I don't like to be setup, so I guess that for me there's nothing to vote about.
I'll get into it if John Kerry ever gets the nod from the machine at hand, but he won't.
posted on September 14, 2000 10:33:25 PM new
Not so fast, Krs.
I think the "machine," you mentioned is not as cloaked as it once was. I think, more than I have ever seen in an election year, many people are completely dissatisfied and unhappy with the choices given to us, and the process as it is. Both mainstream candidates suck, and there is no getting around it. As entertaining as he is, Dubya is frighteningly stupid, and Gore is totally untrustworthy.
Ralph Nader doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the presidency. Nor does Harry Browne or Pat Buchanan. BUT, because of them, more people, who wouldn't have voted at all, will go to the polls. And if anything, that will affect local elections. A third party candidate won't see the inside of the White House in my lifetime, and probably not in my kid's lifetimes, but I have no doubt that third party candidates will win more local and state elections (look at Jesse Ventura). I think small, regional wins like that will begin to make more of a difference as far as dismantling the "machine."
posted on September 14, 2000 10:42:22 PM newkiheicat
You have a tough time staying the fray with your (own) contributions, allow james to personally handle his/her questions and replies. You're liable to hook on something you cannot handle and be drug over a precipice.
James has missed the true purpose of my comments, as have many others. I have been providing factual and documented information that supports that Gore (must) not be elected and nothing more. I have not debated the issue of one candidate vs. the other.
However, I have solicited the same type of input regarding Bush. So far, nothing has been said and shown to be factual that compares -other than some "jeeeez and pleeeeze" utterances having no value whatsoever.
Who said,
"...The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take into account the whole man. While the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand, -in the name of a concern for 'human beings' -regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel 'progress'. In this approach, I believe they fight against nature."
"I'm so far to the right, I am almost at the left."
posted on September 14, 2000 11:04:28 PM new
Julia,
I thought that when Ron Dellums went to the house. He surprised many there during his long career. Incredibly able, brighter than almost all others, with a charisma that might have taken him to the white house if he wasn't black. But along the way he stepped on toes occasionally, being a man of committment and vision first, a politician second. One set of toes lived in Arkansas. It wasn't Bill, it was an ally in the house of Bill's.
Oh, he nonplussed a number of people over the years, but after the national election of Bill, Ron's goose was cooked. His district suffered the loss of almost all military contracts and bases, jobs were lost, hospitals closed, federal funding just somehow didn't come Ron's way anymore.
Ron didn't run for reelection last time up. There wasn't anything he could do for his constituency, and he cared enough to step aside so that those toes he stepped on years before would stop kicking his people now.
So there can be effective local people who can work to turn a tide a little, so long as they don't get a new boss who don't like their style.
I love political hacks at the local level. In 1981 the canyon where one of my houses is fell down one night in a series of massive mudslides. We were stuck up there with no power, no phone, no water supply other than the runoff from up the mountain. Finally there was a clear day, and Joe Curriachi, or something, a county councilman representing our area helicoptered in, with a cameraman to let us know what he was doing for us. Everyone was kinda' amazed when he climbed out of the machine with brand new rubber boots and brand new green rain gear on. Like I said, it was clear after having rained so much that 25 inches was recorded in the 24 hrs before the slides. We were basking in the first sun we;d seen in two weeks. He came and landed at this little "community center" because it had a flat piece of concrete big enough to land on. There was steam rising and the sun had dried almost all of the big puddle that had been there. I'll be damned if Joe didn't walk right over to stand in the little three foot wide puddle that was left to address everyone. He had to go about 25 feet amongst us to reach it when staying put would have done just as well.
There's your local politicians. Little pups trying with all their might to pee with the big dogs.
posted on September 14, 2000 11:39:05 PM new
If anyone believes an occasional misstatement or a mispronunciation is truly indicative of competence, try these "Gore-isms" on for size.
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
The guy is not alive. He is akin to Pinocchio
I love the (true story) regarding the Texas elderly couple who wrote Gore pleading for his assistance in the matter of several Amtrak routes being eliminated and how the Amtrak was their only means of visiting their children and grand-children in Chicago. The couple reminded Gore that Clinton had used the very train.
They said, "……… yet your administration is killing our Texas Eagle. This makes us sick."
Gore wrote back to them,
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo,
Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. I share your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our environment ...
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I look forward to working with you for the future of our planet.
I'm telling you, the guy is a malfunctioning robot.
krs
If you are a certified forum lifeguard, best throw your rope to someone else. I swim very well in rough water.
"I'm so far to the right, I am almost at the left."
posted on September 14, 2000 11:54:16 PM new
Well then, Mikey, get you references correct.
These statements;
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
were only borrowed by Big Al from your own good friend and neighbor, Dan Quayle. Given your own buffoonisms, I'm a little surprised that you didn't recognize them as such, since they were both pirated in turn from your very own Mayor of Chicago John Daly, who was, it would seem, your political mother's milk in your formative years. I'm not sure where he got them, but it may well have been from the very same elementary school teacher who stood you in a corner facing it so many times that your nose looks like the cone of the propeller of an airplane.
posted on September 14, 2000 11:54:43 PM new
Wow, I've been busy all day and didn't know there was so much action in this thread. Had to catch up.
Yes krs my statement makes sence to me. If I voted for Nader it would be a wasted vote because he is not going to be elected and it would take a vote away from Gore. Any vote not going to Gore would be a vote for Bush. Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?
James is right about appointments to the Supreme Court. People should really think about that, especially women. If Bush is elected we'll have more of Clarence Thomas sitting up there.
Not only do I think Bush is stupid I think he's evil. He really scares me.
Well off to watch David Lettermen to see how Gore does.
posted on September 15, 2000 12:03:14 AM new
Has life in the Round Table really become so boring and unimaginative that an Al Gore thread has gone 4 pages? This is a sad state of affairs.
posted on September 15, 2000 12:42:53 AM new
I have to leave to ride the range. I'll leave this interesting poem as I fade into the sunset.
Election Day is a Holiday
People on whom I do not bother to dote,
Are people who do not bother to vote.
Heaven forbid that they should ever be exempt
From contumely, obloquy and various kinds of contempt.
Some of them like Toscanini,
And some like Rudy Vallee,
But all of them take about as much interest in their right to ballot,
As their right to ballet.
They haven’t voted since the heyday of Miss Russell (Lillian),
And excuse themselves by saying "What’s the difference of one vote in fifty million?"
They have such refined and delicate palates,
That they can discover no one worthy of their ballots.
And then when someone terrible gets elected,
They say, "There, that’s just what I expected!"
And they go around for four years spouting discontented criticisms,
And contented witticisms.
And then when somebody to oppose the man they oppose gets nominated,
They say Oh golly he’s the kind of man I’ve always abominated.
And they have discovered that if you don’t take time out to go to the polls,
You can manage very nicely to get through thirty-six holes.
O let us cover these clever people very conspicuously with loathing,
For they are un-citizens in citizens’ clothing.
They attempt to justify their negligence,
On the grounds that no candidate appeals to people of their intelligence.
But I am quite sure that if Abraham Lincoln, a Rep, ran against Thomas Jefferson, a Dem,
Neither man would be appealing enough to squeeze a vote out of them.
By Ogden Nash
"I'm so far to the right, I am almost at the left."
posted on September 15, 2000 08:30:47 AM new
Gee Mikey,
When you think I'm in agreement with you I'm:
sgtmike posted on September 14, 2000 11:17:00 PM
krs
You're pure oxygen.
But when I call your references (which by the way are not original thought but are cut and paste material from a number of radical right wing rabble rousing and fact distorting newsletters) you cop a poem in my honor making some cutesy comment about those who don't vote.
But you see, Mikey, to me a vote cast for a perceived lesser of two evils is worse than no vote at all. Why do that? Why say, I am in support, with MY vote, of this or that, merely because I dislike this or that less than I dislike that or this? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Maybe I will vote; for Ralph, or another lost cause. If I do it woould be only an expression of my disdain for party politics and the electoral system as it's become.
You go vote for the designed choice of your preference, but know that it is backroom dirty trading that brought your shiny savior to you.
No matter how you vote, you're not going to like the result. And if you chose not to vote you're not going to like the result. What's the difference?
Now, all of this is out the window if you truly believe in George Bush being the person who can provide what you want in a solution to problems in the country that you perceive.
So why don't you answer James's question to you? You'll gain credence if you truly believe in something and prove that you are not here just to #*!@.
posted on September 15, 2000 09:28:22 AM new
krs
I understand how you feel about voting. Your words were my words for many years. This will show my age but, my first vote was going to be for Kennedy. So many of us were turned off to voting during the years of turmol. The assasinations, vietnam, civil rights. So at that time and for a long time afterwards I instead worked for change in the community. I worked in different organizations and I think we had positive results.
Today I am just as passionate about voting. Such a big turn around for me. I felt such satisfaction when I voted Daddy Bush out. That's what I meant when I said "my vote will elect Gore".
Even when we make choices in our personal life they are not cut and dry, sometimes you have to give up something to get something. No, I don't agree with everything Gore stands for but I don't agree with anything Bush stands for.
posted on September 15, 2000 09:50:37 AM new
chocolate,
I do understand your point. I simply do not want to contribute to the election of either choice.
By the way, are you still feeling the same after Al's sorry display last night?
"I believe that I did my job as a gopher in making my boss look good with honor"
The poor guy made handshaking look like hard work.
posted on September 15, 2000 10:01:22 AM new
I take MY duty of voting as a commitment. What is important is that I vote. By not voting, I would give the winner the voice, to make the minority, the voice of the nation. I would then just be involved.
The difference between "Involvement" and "commitment" is like an eggs and ham breakfast: the chickin was "Involved" the pig was " committed.
posted on September 15, 2000 10:03:29 AM new
Sgtmike, I fully understood your comments. I surmised correctly that you are against Gore being president at all costs -- even if that cost includes G.W. Bush being president. You can't seem to bring yourself to get those words out. Why, I can't figure out.
Do you really thing G.W. Bush is fit to be president? On what basis? It's not the point for you to show that Gore is unfit. That says nothing about Bush. Show us that Bush is fit.
Tell me, is Bush in any measure a man of accomplishment? A thinker? A doer? A dynamic speaker? A man of vision? A leader? Aren't those some of the qualities we'd like and even expect in a president? Or is he a slacker born with a silver spoon in his mouth/ up his nose? Even if you don't like his old man, it's hard to argue that he had no business being in the White House -- he had a paper resume worthy of a president. His daddy signed up to fight for our country at age 16, for starters. But this guy? Please.
Concrete stuff: he adamantly asserts that he hasn't used cocaine since he was 27. Oh, boy. He hasn't used cocaine since he was in his upper twenties! For half his life he hasn't taken drugs! Do you have any idea (I bet you do) what cocaine use can do to a person's brain? My views on recreational drug use aside, we surely do not want our president to have been a hard drug user. Can we agree on that? Why is that he can't speak in coherent sentences? I don't need to cite any here; I posted a link earlier in the thread of 'Bushisms' that is updated weekly, as he makes more and more of them. That doesn't concern you at all? I speak more articulately than him, and I'm just some punk kid. What's wrong with this guy? He should be our president?
His candidacy was a creation of skillful polling, nothing more. His entire, short record of public service is a dismal performance as Governor of Texas. I believe Julesy posted some of that. What's your position regarding that?
Foreign policy experience? What does he know? Cheney, at least, politics aside, has experience. How is this man qualified to play with the big boys in the real world, to meet with foreign heads of state, to deal with real non-amateurs like Saddam Hussein, North Korea, China, etc? I can't imagine.
His 'message' that essentially tells us "things have been great so it's time for a change" is a joke.
So, now that I've assured you that I do understand that your position is that a President Gore is intolerable to you, and I've told you why I think Bush is unfit to be president, will you tell me if you think Bush is fit?
Regarding not voting in protest, or "throwing your vote away" at a third party candidate, there's no dishonor in having principles.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 15, 2000 10:05 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 10:12:57 AM new
Fred,
Your view of your commitment to vote strikes me as akin to a person buying a ticket at a carnival freak show in order to do your part to insure the right of the bearded lady to be displayed and mocked in derision.
Doesn't matter what it is, you'll support it by voting.
posted on September 15, 2000 10:13:34 AM new
krs is right about the quotes sgtmike tacked onto Al Gore being Dan Quayle quotes in reality. I remember getting those and more in an email forward looooooong ago, about the time Quayle had his spelling incident. I believe though that sgtmike would vote for Dan Quayle if he were running against ANY Democrat.
sgtmike, you don't need to chastise me for asking why you refuse to answer jamesoblivion's question. The truth of the matter is that I would like to know the answer myself. I would truly like to know. Not for badgering purpose, but strictly out of curiosity.
So it is asked once again: Are you voting for Bush because in your view he is the lesser of the 2 evils between Bush and Gore OR are you voting for Bush because you are enthused about the man... in which case, please tell us why you're enthused about him, without mentioning the name Al Gore. If you're enthused about him there is no need for comparing him to Al Gore and telling us what an awful jerk he is compared to Bush. If you are enthused about Bush, you should be able to give us reasons why based soley on Bush's history. The Bush merits that have you so high on him should be at the tip of your tongue.
I expect I will get no answer, but rather get one of those huffy 'You don't understand' replies. Fine and dandy, but I really would like to know the answer to this question. Is it possible for you to actually answer it? Once you've answered it you can go back to your usual catbashing, lol
