Re: The International Forum on Globalization - Moresuitablefor Halloween th...

From: Neal Blaikie (
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 17:11:50 MST

Michael Lorrey wrote:

> a) you voted Green = you are a leftist. Plain and simple. If you are not
> a leftist you wouldn't vote Green.

This is the type of narrow-minded pigeonholing I have a problem with. Nothing is this
plain and simple. I voted for a candidate, not a party. I am not a registered Green
and don't intend to be. I think that party affiliations are limiting. By your
reasoning, I must also be a libertarian, since I have voted for libertarian
candidates on numerous occasions and am likely to do so in the future. Try to broaden
your horizons a little. Think outside the box.

> b) saying whiny little playground things like 'Bush isn't the legitimate
> President' is, plain and simple, WHINING. Act immature, get treated
> immaturely.
> c) we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. get over it. We
> don't elect the president, we elect the electors. The dems approved
> every measure before the election that they later objected to. They
> tried to change the rules after the election. (IMHO they should have
> been disqualified completely for doing it) They still lost. Too bad, get
> over it, grow up.

Oh, and this response is somehow mature? Uh huh.

> Considering that most shenanigans were beneficial to Gore and he STILL
> lost, I don't feel the same way. I am breathing one big fat sigh of
> 'WHEW' that Bush won. I am so glad I campaigned for Nader and voted for
> Bush. All those sneaky little dems that crossed party lines during the
> primary to vote for McCain then re-registered as democrats got
> themselves a little turnaround.

So, by your own reasoning, this makes you a republican, not a libertarian. I'm
confused here. And speaking of honesty, to campaign for one candidate and then vote
for another makes you as sneaky as the "sneaky little dems" you obviously so despise.
Maybe you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

> I'm frankly rather tired and exasperated with anyone who claims that 'Bush stole
> the election'.

And I'm absolutely tired and exaxperated with anyone who claims the election was
somehow honest. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

> Anyone who says that either paid absolutely
> no attention to the election and post-election, or else they just
> accepted the DNC party line about what happened.

Since I have as much disregard for the DNC as I do for the GOP, this is hardly
likely. You are the one who is admitting to a partisan bias here, not me. Just
because I criticize one side for something they did doesn't mean I support the other
side. This is (again) the type of black and white thinking I am rejecting here.

> In either case, saying
> that is nothing more or less than whining. Get over it. Thats not name
> calling, thats calling it like it is. Get over it, grow up, and pay
> attention.

You call it whining, I call it simply expressing my opinion. And I'm sure I pay much
more attention to these things than you do, as evidenced by your cliched and obvious
party-line responses.

> Read the news paper. Watch news in depth and don't listen to
> the big three networks. Between CNN and FOX you can generally get the
> picture about what goes on. CNN is leftist, FOX is a bit to the right.
> C-SPAN is probably the only source of unjudgemental political news
> around.

Since I've never once told you where I get my information from, it's odd you would
make this assumption. I never pay attention to the so-called major news networks,
particularly CNN, but am a big fan of C-SPAN. The fact that you would call any of the
"big boys" (particularly CNN) leftist suggests to me that it is you who is not paying
attention. And Fox is "a bit to the right"? Please. Follow the power. Look at who
owns it.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT