Just for Hawk - A thread on which to quibble politics.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Hawk stated in another thread that he'd like to see the wars change to topics more currently in the news. He said he was voting for Harry Browne for President and was interested in discussing politics.

Here's a thread wherein folks can war over politics.

I'll start.

I can't vote for Harry Browne due to his platform. There's just too much missing in it. It all sounds good to the ears, though, doesn't it? See the thread Ken started for details. I'll elaborate further if one doesn't "GET IT" after reading the sublinks in the site Ken provided.

I can't vote for Bush because he's already my governor. [grin] After a long, grueling, debate with myself, I've decided that his harm SHOULD be limited to Texas. I'm no big fan of Gore, but he's running against a man I could destroy in a debate, and anybody who can't out-argue me shouldn't be president. I'm pro-Gore by default. If there's someone that doesn't agree that the year 2000 election is the year to end all years in what my parents called "voting for the least of all evil", I'd like to hear why. It doesn't matter to me which candidate you consider the least of the evil. What matters to me is whether someone [ANYONE] can honestly come out and say, "THIS GUY HERE is the guy I've waited for all MY adult life to set this country on the right path. I support him with NO holds barred."

I forgot to include Ralph Nader and the other candidates. Feel free to express your thoughts on the candidate of your choice. Like Hawk, I'm interested in feedback. I simply don't see choices this year that represent ME.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000



I have never voted for a guy who I really like. Ever. I've been waiting and waiting, but it seems the process is too grueling for anyone who doesn't have "major" testicular fortitude!

I thought McCain would have been good. I liked a few of the things he said, but most of all, I liked that he didn't know who Maria Shriver was .

I liked Ross Perot (I know, I know...) until he totally flaked!

There was no way in hell, even with a gun pointed to my head, that I would have voted for Clinton and I feel the same way about Gore.

Everyone loved Regan...I still can't figure that one out?!?

Colin (sp?) Powell won't run because of his wife or something. I'd like to hear his platform, but it's a moot point.

Ralph Nader, yeah he's okay, I guess, but not for president.

What I'd really like for the next 4 years is someone like Coolidge. A president who acts responsible and doesn't do much of anything. I'm a fan of gridlock and after the last 8 years I would love to see "nothing much happen."



-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), July 12, 2000.


Why do you assume you couldn't also destroy Al in a debate? And does that mean if you couldn't destroy Pat in a debate you would feel you have to vote for him?

Your logic seems to be somewhat faulty.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), July 12, 2000.


I've kept up with Bush's bloopers more than any other candidate simply because he's my governor. Al's not the sharpest knife in the drawer [by any standard], but he'd have me hands down in foreign policy simply because he's been privy to information that I haven't for eight years. Pat.....is that a reference to the religious guy? Is he even still in this race?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.

The only one worth a vote, would be one that expresses support for our constitution.

That eliminates Gore, Bush, Powell, Nader..... ; I haven't heard Browne....

That site that Decker linked was a hatchet job by an ultra leftist. Once again, no mention of our constituiton.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 12, 2000.

Anita, FWIW, I don't ever remember a time when there WAS a candidate that represented *me*. (And since I've once again decided not to run, and I'm guessing it's the same for you, that remains unchanged [G].) (Oh, and thanks for the consideration with regards to Bush; some of us are eternally grateful.)

I can remember being a kid and asking my Mom about Congress; specifically, if they were supposed to represent *me*, why weren't there more women? (I drove her nuts with some of the things I'd ask when I was like 8, 9, 10 years old.)

They are all saying exactly what their campaign managers and advisors and market researchers, etc. think certain segments of society want to hear (as usual). However, this is the first time in my memory that the candidates seem to "blend" (and I think you pointed this out somewhere recently). I see party lines constantly being crossed. I see Dems preaching Republican platforms. I see Conservatives voting along Liberal lines and vice versa.

It's kind of confusing, but what I think it's going to come down to for me anyway is to make my usual checklist and see who has the most "pros" versus "cons". I also happen to think, and this is probably just my cynicism, that it's ALWAYS the "least of the evils". So far, it's Gore by default. (Besides, you almost have to admire the fact that just a short year ago, it was more fun watching wood warp than listening to an Al Gore speech; he's become considerably more animated as the campaign wears on. Yes, I realize that isn't saying much, but an "improvement" is an "improvement".) You're absolutely right about Browne (and I did read the links Ken provided). It *does* sound good, but there doesn't seem to be any "meat". Then again, I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him because there doesn't seem to be any "meat" in any of the "issues" the candidates spout on about anyway (again, as usual). I mean, think about it...one rarely (if ever) hears "specifics" in campaigns.

Guess I had the foresight in the 1970s when I first registered to vote to NOT register in a party. I thought then, and still do, that none of them even remotely represented *me*.

Maybe I'll start my own party -- The PWCS -- People With Common Sense. Hey, you never know ;-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 12, 2000.

Pat = Pat Buchanan (sp?) lately of the Reform Party.

I can't vote for him because he's a closet bigot, arrogant, and the Reform Party has too many flakes involved.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 12, 2000.

How about John Rocker???The only Guy besides Nader,I trust.

-- We are getting (Screwed@again.$$$), July 12, 2000.

Oh, where is Pat Paulsen when the country cries out for his leadership?


-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 12, 2000.

Having to choose between Gore or Bush is like Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee.There is no difference.The only reason Bush was elected Governer of Texas is because he happened to be President Bush's son.Same thing for the Governer of Florida Jeb Bush.If it wasn't for name recognition they would have to get a regular job like everyone else...I will vote for Nader.The rest of you mindless people can go with the herd.

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), July 12, 2000.


By that logic Al could destroy anyone in a debate who didn't have access to the same info he had. Therefore any VP would win any debate with anyone below the level of a Senator. GWB probably doesn't have access to (now) the info that Al does. And also by that logic Bush the Elder should have been able to beat Bill the Willie becasue he would as President have access to info that Bill didn't.

Unfortunately Pat Paulson is dead. In this race he'd be Mr. Personality.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), July 12, 2000.

OK, help me out here.....Anita and The Engineer, you have both mentioned this "information" that only certain people would be privy to. If that is, in fact, the case (that only certain people are privy to certain information; and we know that is the case), how would they "use" that information in any debate or any campaign? Doesn't one assume said information is classified; hence only certain people "know" it?

I don't see that that gives anyone the upper hand; you either have debating skills or you don't. You either have good advisors/campaign people, or you don't. You either have a "presence" or you don't. I can see how an "inside track" would give one somewhat of an advantage, but when one is privy to classified information, isn't there some kind of "non-disclosure" that goes along with it?

Then again, I could be missing a very obvious point here (wouldn't be the first time).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 12, 2000.

Unfortunately Pat Paulson is dead... -- The Engineer

Details, details. Does that disqualify him from being a candidate?

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 12, 2000.

Al Bore is also dead (politically that is), he just doesnt know it yet.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 12, 2000.

Thanks Anita, I like Ralph Nader too, and Alan Keyes. I'm just so sick that it always comes down to these guys not even having a chance unless they come up with hundreds of millions of campaign dollars. The American people should learn to forget about commercials and media coverage and demand to give each of them a shot in the debates. The primarly elections are won with money, and after that it's too late to go back and consider any better candidates. It SUCKS!

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 12, 2000.

Women are Democrats, men are Republicans so I will try to offset Patricia and Anita by voting for Bush by default. I find Libertarianism too utopian (although to his credit, Browne was right on y2k--but if that were the main criterion, I'd have to vote for cpr).

My ideal candidate would be a conservative black Republican male. I reject Alan Keyes because he talks too much and has no elected political experience. (Of course tbat doesn't matter, does it Hillary?) My longer range hope is Rep J. D. Watts of OK.

Hey Dems, Gore is an embarassment---tall Mike Dukakis (remember him?). Your best bet is to let Bush win and then run Sen Evan Bayh in 2004.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 12, 2000.

The Democreeps and the Republicons have lied,stolen,cheated and manipulated this country for far too long,enough is enough.When will the People wake up and see what is plainly in front of them.The two major parties are one in the same,it is all a big ruse,there are no differences and the dog and pony could probably be called one of the biggest con jobs of ALL TIME.

Some people say that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote but I don't agree,a wasted vote is voting for the lesser of the two evils and that is exactly what they can count on.Why else exclude third parties from the debates? And whatever happened to voting your conscience?

I'll go with the Libertarians,anyday.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 12, 2000.


Yes you are correct. Which was my point.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), July 12, 2000.

I will vote for Nader. Here is why:

I believe that the wealthy and the corporations have gained far too much power over government at all levels, through the corrupting influence of huge campaign contributions. For me, campaign finance reform is the lynchpin for correcting this problem. The major parties have proved for decades that they are satisfied with thing as they are. Neither party will move an inch further than the people force them to move. Campaign finance reform is the centerpiece of Nader's campaign.

I do not believe that Nader has to win in order to carry this issue. The history of third party candidates is that any of them who gain more than 12% of the vote are successful in making the major parties address their main positions. Over 16% and their issue will almost certainly be swallowed by the major parties, like a poison pill.

Just look at Ross Perot. He got ~18% of the vote on a platform of balancing the budget. Clinton got ~43% on a platform of middle-class tax cuts. Yet, when Clinton was elected, the middle class tax cut was jettisoned and Perot's ideas drove the budget process.

That is because the Democrats and the Republicans both needed to neutralize Perot. He was seriously cutting into their voter base. The only way to do it was to co-opt his issue. So they did. In effect, they handed Perot a big win on what he wanted, so long as they got to stay in the driver's seat in Washington, DC.

Also, if you happen to live in a small state (smaller than the biggest 12 states) the chances are good that your vote for President will not make a dime's worth of difference to who is elected President. This is because of the electoral college system. Consequently, your vote for a third-party candidate for President is far more likely to have an effect on the agenda of the major parties than a party line vote, if you live in a small state. That's politics in the USA.

If Nader gets over 15% of the popular vote, watch what happens in 2001.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 12, 2000.

Lars, that is such a sexist statement ;-) (And personally, I've always thought that "black conservative" or, more specifically, "black republican" was a contradiction in terms; or at least *should* be. Same as "female conservative" or "female republican" [g].) I also sometimes (many times?) lean towards "no elected political experience" as being a PLUS, not a MINUS. Such candidates (usually) haven't yet been tainted. I'm sure it doesn't take long to learn how to play the game, but I'm also sure there are some that don't play the game, much to their credit.

Now if I could only find out their names and the states they represent.....

capn, they've ALL "lied, stolen, cheated and manipulated...for far too long". I don't know when "the People [will] wake up"; sadly, I think one of the major problems is complacency (and my very own "cynicism"). I know I'm part of the problem in even considering "the least of all the evils", but in this case, my conscience happens to lean in the same direction as what I consider to be "the least of all the evils". Hey, if someone better comes along, I'm there. But I don't see that happening right now.

I agree that alternative parties are at least part of an answer (which is why, even at 18, I refused to join a party). But is the Reform Party the answer? Sorry, don't think so....too much of a mix of what I consider loonies. Are the Libertarians the answer? Not in and of themselves; besides, they can't really decide on a "platform" either -- not that that's necessarily a bad thing, you understand. You see, I also happen to think part of "the problem" is "The Party Platform" (for any party).....there's usually no room for deviation from what the particular party's PTB set out, else you are ostracized. Doesn't sound very inviting to someone who genuinely wants to "reform" his/her party. Face it, "politics" is still kind of a "good ol' boy" network, even if women are involved.

One thing I have to question you on is this: You stated that "...the dog and pony could probably be called one of the biggest con jobs of ALL TIME...". Can it really be considered a "con job" when (I think it's safe to say) the majority of the people are "on to them"? It's only a con job if you don't realize you're being taken. And as hard as I am on "the American public", I think they realize it's all a con job by not only the two major parties, but many of the "minor" parties as well. It's not called "the game of politics" for nothing.

It's not a perfect system (not by a long shot) but it's the only one we have right now. And we're not going to come up with anything better through outside rebellion (i.e., additional parties). The only way to change anything is from the INSIDE. Anything else probably amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic change.

Hey, I'm open to suggestions :-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 12, 2000.


I wasn't talking about classified information. I don't tend to follow foreign issues like I follow what's happening in Texas. George doesn't either. His dad even stated that he'd fall on his face in that area of the debates, and it was HE who suggested that it would be due to Jr. not having had the experience.

Interesting points made by all. Voting is a very personal thing. We all think differently, and that's great.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.


I hope you are right about Nader getting 15% of the vote. Most of that will come from folks who would otherwise vote for Gore just as most of Perot's votes came from people who probably would have voted for Bush. Clinton should have thanked Perot and W should thank Nader if he does tip the election. Personally, I would be amazed if Nader gets anywhere near 15%


Your POV on black conservatives and female conservatives is so typical of the Liberal mindset that I offer no response except to say that I respectfully disagree.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 12, 2000.

Here's a site I like because it searches for skeletons in the closets of the candidates. It seems as though they're impartial, although I can't give them much credit for timely updates.

Skeletons in the Closets

KoFE: *I* didn't author the site to which Ken linked, but had I wanted to spend the time, I would have said many of the same things....not ALL the same things, mind you...just MANY.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.

(Check out that site.)Geez, Anita, there's nobody left! LOL

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 12, 2000.


That was my point all along. On Stephen Poole's forum, someone suggested a lottery for picking the presidential candidates. I could buy that idea, except I found it too close to the system being used now.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.

Anita-what is the url to Pooles Forum, again?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 12, 2000.

>> I would be amazed if Nader gets anywhere near 15% <<

It depends. At least 15% of the electorate is philosophically much closer to R. Nader than to A. Gore or G. Bush Jr. If they vote their beliefs, Nader gets 15%. I wouldn't expect much beyond 15%, but I would be richly satisfied with that outcome.

I am currently committed to building a progressive party to pull the Democrats back closer to the concerns of their FDR coalition, or, if the Dems foresake those voters, building a third party to overtake the Democrats in hundreds of local, state and Congressional races.

I am taking a longer term view of this election. If G. W. Bush wins, I can live with that. I survived R. Reagan, didn't I?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.


Poole's Roost

Brian: I survived a few more than that. If nothing else, it makes life interesting.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 13, 2000.


"my conscience happens to lean in the same direction as what I consider to be "the least of all the evils". Hey, if someone better comes along, I'm there. But I don't see that happening right now."

Maybe the someone better has come along and it's not the ""the least of all the evils",maybe it's the Libertarians who have had no hand in the malaise we have all witnessed to date,only honest ridicule and observations about the state of modern American politics.It sponds as if you want to wait until they are successful and then jump on the bandwagon,I don't think this to be true but that could be gleaned from a 1st impression.

"there's usually no room for deviation from what the particular party's PTB set out, else you are ostracized. Doesn't sound very inviting to someone who genuinely wants to "reform" his/her party. Face it , "politics" is still kind of a "good ol' boy" network, even if women are involved."

This could not be further from the truth,the Libertarians are notorious for being more than somewhat splintered,with the party leaders wanting for the major candidates to form a solid platform and with it a cohesive mindset.They feel that major divergances hurt the cause,as if they can't come together as a political unit.I'm with you on this as I feel it works to the betterment(?)of the party and the people,in that what the people want tends to come to the forefront and not as easily discarded or washed over for the "sake" of the party.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 13, 2000.

(Damnit,why did I hit submit? sorry)

And so what if there are women involved,they put their pants on the same way the men folk do,sota speak,and are as inclined to political debauchery or honaroble public service as any man on the planet.

Yes,I call it a dog and pony show because I believe it is a well orchestrated show,like the WWF etc...that is meant to run the public around in a dizzying circle,a deception,at the very least tantamount to a shell game on a city street corner.

At this point I have to ask you a question;If you realize that it is all a con job why in the world are you so reluctant to call the spade a spade and start being as hard on yourself as you are on the American public?

I am also curious as to how you think the third parties are as responsible as the "two major" parties,concerning the con job.They are the ones raging against the machine,not the ones greasing the wheels.

Your right it's not a perfect system,but it is what we have to work with and it has been proven to be rather successful,as no system can be perfect as long as people pervert the integrity of the Constitution and disregard the well being and wishes of their countrymen.

Outside of open rebellion we have only so many options open to us and they MUST be explored until such attempts are obviously futile and our voices are stiffled by a monolithic beauracracy.

TRUE change MUST come from the outside as the inside is rotten and only serves to deteriorate the rest of the body of America.

One reason I think our political system is in such an abysmal state is that we have lawyers primarily runnin' the show,people who have been educated in the art of BULLSHIT and legal thievery.I would prefer to have a housewife,plumber,businessperson etc... representing us,then returning to their trade after public service.This is my suggestion.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 13, 2000.

Mornin', capn. Lots to respond to.

"Maybe the someone better has come along and ... maybe it's the Libertarians..."

Maybe you're right and maybe I should research it a little further. Will take your advice. (BTW, I'm not one for jumping on "bandwagons". To prove this, I've been a NY Rangers' fan all my life. Groan.)

"...Libertarians are notorious for being more than somewhat splintered..."

And oddly enough, that kind of bothers me in a way, though I can't say for sure *why*. Again, it could be that I've only looked at Libertarians on the surface and not as in-depth as I'd like prior to forming a judgment. But all parties are like that and again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. At least it shows movement. Can you see the mental conflict I'm having here?? [g]

"And so what if there are women involved..."

Actually, that was just a clarification of "good ol' boy network". Didn't mean anything specific to women. Sorry, not clear on my part.

"...why in the world are you so reluctant to call the spade a spade and start being as hard on yourself..."

Oh, but I am, capn; I am infinitely harder on myself than on anyone else (and if you *knew* me, you'd realize that). I agree with the "con job", but I just questioned whether it could reasonably be referred to as a con job if most people were aware of it. In retrospect, I guess yeah, it still IS a con job (a rose is a rose and all that).

"...how you think the third parties are as responsible as the "two major" parties..."

Politics Is Politics. Doesn't really matter who's playing the game, it's still the same game. But you're right in that the "alternative parties" are not as entrenched in "the game" as the two big ones are and have been.

"TRUE change MUST come from the outside as the inside is rotten..."

Here's where I completely disagree. Change can start from the outside, but in order to effect a permanent and lasting change, it must come from within. I liken it to either computer systems or the human body. If your hard drive crashes, does it help to put a new cover on it? If you are ill with pneumonia, does putting on a sweater help? The only remedies for these "ills" are to change/fix the inside. Anything else is simply cosmetic. And I realize that I (again!) wasn't clear...I was referring to the Dems and Repubs, not the alternative parties. If the Big Two want true change, they have to allow it from their members (from within). "Outsiders" are going to have about zero effect. But that's where The Party Line comes into play; when "insiders" attempt to buck the established system, they are (many times) ostracized for their efforts. The occasional result of that is a new party. Again, not necessarily a bad thing.

No arguments whatsoever on the "lawyers" comment. So if you have any Libertarian links (aside from the one Ken provided the other day), I'd be happy to read them. I'm always interested in something new. Thanks much.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 13, 2000.

Mornin' Patricia,

I liked the analogies in your last paragraph and can better understand what you are relaying to me.

" If the Big Two want true change, they have to allow it from their members (from within)." (The word "allow" here is a BIG word)

This I think is a major sticking point,in that the status quo refuses to give up their power base and rigs the system in their favor,so thats where I find change from within so hard to find realistic.

Have you by chance read Harry Brownes book,Why Government Doesn't Work? It's a good read,it doesn't answer all of my questions but is certainly moreso on the right track than what Iv'e heard from the D's & R's.

Let me dig around and see where I stashed that info,get it to ya asap.Good exchange Patricia,I enjoyed it muchly.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 13, 2000.

>> Brian: I survived a few more than that. If nothing else, it makes life interesting. <<

Yeah, Anita. It surely does.

I missed being able to vote against Nixon in 1972 by a single day. I turned 18 one day after that election. I've been "throwing the bastards out" ever since! This year I am putting both money and 6 hours a month of volunteer time behind some candidates I (gasp!) believe in.

For any of you out there who love (as I do) to kvetch and moan about the state of politics. Let me remind you that kvetching and moaning is purely impotent. Voting is only a minor improvement. But it is amazing how much one person can accomplish by working the streets and the phones in a campaign! The only trick is finding a candidate or an issue worth standing behind.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.

I don't agree that Republicans and Democrats are identical. Similar, part of the ongoing establishment, but definitely different in degree; in emphasis. And both parties have extremist fringes that would have a major impact if they ever acquired essential clout.

A question: how many people truly want an abrupt change, a revolutionary change? Tweedledee and tweedledum has its appeal. Change of any kind is stressful. Capn, what if the country would all of a sudden go sharply Libertarian? There would be huge social dislocations. Brian, I would say the same about an abrupt shift to a "Progessive" government. (I have to put that word in quotes since I don't accept that Progressive politics are progressive).

But I digress. My only point is that radical, abrupt change in any direction is disruptive to many and, all too often, bloody to many. Yes, I lived thru the 60s. I know all the arguments against gradualism. I just don't buy them.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 13, 2000.

After all this,remember,Your Vote is just Eyewash,and means absolutely nothing,it's the Electoral College(whatever that Bunch of Hoodlums represent)that decides who the next Top Crook will be,not You, the Voter!!!

-- We Will Get (Hosed@gain.no?), July 13, 2000.

>> My only point is that radical, abrupt change in any direction is disruptive <<

Not to worry. Radical, abrupt change is not in the cards for this election, or anytime foreseeable in the USA. The last really radical change in goverment direction was in 1932, for obvious reasons. Even then, FDR was more of a fix-it man than a revolutionary.

If a progressive party emerges in the USA to counterbalance (or replace) the two major parties, it will only emerge slowly, over a couple of decades. Unless the times change abruptly for the worse. Then the odds are you won't want the status quo. You'll want change as fast as it can come.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.

>> Your Vote is just Eyewash,and means absolutely nothing <<

Not true. Your vote, in isolation, is a speck. But, in the context of political organization and combination, your vote becomes meaningful. That is why parties and movements are important.

When all the power represented by our millions of votes is fragmented and isolated from the main organizations (as today they are - how many voters are active party members?) then voting becomes an empty ratification of the power of others.

However, in the presence of a real organization of voters, a grassroots organization, votes become very powerful. Read about the Populist movement.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.


I am only in town for a short while and this hasn't been a valid email address since I closed the account in late June. I use it only to continue to identify myself.

I have read the information from the Lib. party on their site and the site that Decker supplied. Browne was on NPR today. I called in and got through. They weren't excited by my question and it wasn't offered.

So, I will give it to you. The information that I have read indicates that the parties' policies are not correct on the issues of the constitution, income taxes, property taxes, states rights, etc. This is a large matter, but not the largest. I have spent time on the bb's on the web. The large majority of the folks that claim to members of the libertarian party, also believe in UFO's, chemtrails, alien abductions, NWO, etc. My wife and I vote in every election. If you want our attention, you will need to convince us that you are not part of the lunatic fringe.

My next will deal with Ralph and his terrorist wing.

Best wis

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 13, 2000.

>> My next will deal with Ralph and his terrorist wing. <<

Better not try it, Z. One of the hostages will die every hour until you change your mind!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.


"Capn, what if the country would all of a sudden go sharply Libertarian? There would be huge social dislocations." I would suspect you are absolutely right but I think mostly from the gov sector to the private,with many/all falling from the welfare rolls.


Good to see ya round.

"The large majority of the folks that claim to members of the libertarian party, also believe in UFO's, chemtrails, alien abductions, NWO, etc. My wife and I vote in every election. If you want our attention, you will need to convince us that you are not part of the lunatic fringe."

Now just how can you assume the premise in your 1st sentence,that is quite the blanket statement,I guess I'm just in the minority,huh.I vote in every election too but I do not feel the need for you to convince me that you are not part of elitist political organizations such as the D& R parties.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 13, 2000.


I agree with Lars on this one. Unless folks do the "BRIAN", and begin the process locally, and demonstrate that localities can function normally without federal government intervention, there's no hope for the grass roots philosophies in the federal arena without chaos. The extent of chaos goes WAY beyond welfare recipients being denied the dole.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ