Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did. Plus, he was by far the better choice.

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did.

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President who
would have trouble, it's him.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did.

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Jeff Harper wrote in message

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

.... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the Oval
Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken mostly by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of intelligence.

I'm making the following assumptions:
a) a 1200 back when Bush took the SAT falls in the same percentile as it
does now. I'd say it's a decent assumption. Don't confuse this with being
able to equate an SAT score from then to now, because you really can't.
b) the SAT is some indication of intelligence. Probably not a 1:1
correlation, but probably enough to draw some kind of conclusion.

Isn't there another page in the liberal playbook that you could turn to? I
mean, every Republican president since Nixon has been a stupid moron
according to the left. How about turning to page 214 "Republicans Want To
Kill All Old People".

todd

How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

Not all of us. I don't think dub is necesarily an idiot. I think
he's smarter than that; smart enough to woo people into thinking he's
dumb. I think the reality is that he's just in the game to gain and
abuse power. Much worse than being an honest idiot in my book. If he
weren't planning on doing things for which he *knows* history will
never forgive why sign Presidential Order 13233? Was he worried that
things he did on record in his father's white house will come out?
The excuse of protecting information sources (read business leaders)
in order to gain their honest opinions is feeble.

hex
-30-

"hex" wrote in message
om...


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out
of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a
genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

Not all of us. I don't think dub is necesarily an idiot. I think
he's smarter than that; smart enough to woo people into thinking he's
dumb. I think the reality is that he's just in the game to gain and
abuse power. Much worse than being an honest idiot in my book. If he
weren't planning on doing things for which he *knows* history will
never forgive why sign Presidential Order 13233? Was he worried that
things he did on record in his father's white house will come out?
The excuse of protecting information sources (read business leaders)
in order to gain their honest opinions is feeble.


Looks like you've done your brethren one better then! Now he might be
smarter than an idiot, but it's OK if he is because now he's evil.

dwhite

Look folks, much as I hate to destroy your faith in the innate wisdom of
politicians the hard fact is that they ALL stumble when hit with a question
they weren't expecting.

I say this with some confidence since I spent about two decades observing
the breed close up and personal at every level from President of the US to
city council and school board members.

When it comes to stumbling, politicians fall into two categories. First the
ones like Bush who simply, obviously, stumble. The second kind stumble more
glibly, usually by giving a non-responsive and irrelevant answer. Neither
kind is inherently intellectually superior to the other, although for my
money the Bush variety comes across as more honest. I learned long before
Bill Clinton came on the scene that "Slick Willy" style answers often
indicate someone who is by nature untrustworthy.

--RC

Leon wrote:

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did. Plus, he was by far the better choice.

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

I don't know the context of this meeting, but you have to admit while Bush
butchered the answer, it is a strange question. What the heck is the host
talking about? 21st century tribes and tribal sovereignty in the state and
federal government? Is he just asking about the role of the state vs.
federal? Maybe there was something about "tribes" in this meeting, but
maybe Bush should have asked him what the hell he was talking about first.

I'm not sure what this has to do with effectiveness as a president, btw.
Clinton proved there is no link between smooth talking and effective
leadership. Also, while Bush fumbles more than the average president, I'm
sure you could find equal moments for any president, Clinton included. If
you stand in front of a camera long enough, you are going to say or do
something stupid.

dwhite

To quote an infamous liar and philanderer, "...depends on what the
definition of 'is' is...."

"Dan White" wrote in message
. net...
"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent
and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your
breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

I don't know the context of this meeting, but you have to admit while
Bush
butchered the answer, it is a strange question. What the heck is the
host
talking about? 21st century tribes and tribal sovereignty in the
state and
federal government? Is he just asking about the role of the state vs.
federal? Maybe there was something about "tribes" in this meeting,
but
maybe Bush should have asked him what the hell he was talking about
first.

I'm not sure what this has to do with effectiveness as a president,
btw.
Clinton proved there is no link between smooth talking and effective
leadership. Also, while Bush fumbles more than the average president,
I'm
sure you could find equal moments for any president, Clinton included.
If
you stand in front of a camera long enough, you are going to say or do
something stupid.

dwhite

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ...

He was mocking Bush.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "Tribal
sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've
been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." Jesse
Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with
Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush
transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ...

He was mocking Bush.

No ****, shinola?

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
snippage

Duh ... where did you suppose my quote of old JJ came from?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ...

He was mocking Bush.

No ****, shinola?

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here. By the
way, the right-wing groups all over the Internet are bad mouthing Jackson,
as if he wasn't mocking Bush at the time, and they're giving Bush a pass.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
snippage

Duh ... where did you suppose my quote of old JJ came from?

One of the sites attacking Jackson.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.

If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ...

He was mocking Bush.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "Tribal
sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've
been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." Jesse
Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with
Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush
transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25


I'm glad you posted that. Agree with Bush's position or not, the whole
story, as usual, is more than what we are led to believe. Bush fumbled
around, but then went on to address the question more fully. The whole
exchange, from your link, is as follows:

MARK TRAHANT: Most school kids learn about government in the context of
city, county, state and federal, and of course, tribal governments are not
part of that at all. Mr. President, you have been a governor and a
president, so you have unique experience looking at it from two directions.
What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century and how do we
resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?

GEORGE BUSH: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a --
you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign
entity.

MARK TRAHANT: Okay.

GEORGE BUSH: And therefore, the relationship between the federal government
and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Now, the federal government
has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help. And
health care. And it's a solemn duty. From this perspective, we must continue
to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all is
to help with economic development, and that means helping people understand
what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business
Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging capital
flows, but none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish
and are strong. That's why I told you, we spent $1.1 billion in
reconstruction of Native American schools.



Not such a bad response really.

dwhite

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Look, Larry. Everybody knows (and knew before the election) that President
Bush is not a wordsmith. He sometime fumbles his words. Would you like a
sweet talker like the last occupant who could talk a person's pants off (a
skill used quite frequently) while he's lying right to your face? I'd love
to have someone shove a microphone and camera in your face and ask you about
the nuances of tribal sovereignty.

todd

Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

So what if he does or not? The fact remains that GWB went on
so say something sensible in response to the question.

--

FF

Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

So what if he does or not? The fact remains that GWB went on
so say something sensible in response to the question.

--

FF

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Let me rephrase: Forget you saw the video, read what he said, and then tell
me it isn't reasonable. It is certainly a pretty pat political answer, but
it is still the facts.

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in message news:hpK5d.500 I'm
glad you posted that. Agree with Bush's position or not, the whole
story, as usual, is more than what we are led to believe. Bush fumbled
around, but then went on to address the question more fully. The whole
exchange, from your link, is as follows:

MARK TRAHANT: Most school kids learn about government in the context of
city, county, state and federal, and of course, tribal governments are not
part of that at all. Mr. President, you have been a governor and a
president, so you have unique experience looking at it from two
directions.
What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century and how do
we
resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?

GEORGE BUSH: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a --
you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a
sovereign
entity.

MARK TRAHANT: Okay.

GEORGE BUSH: And therefore, the relationship between the federal
government
and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Now, the federal government
has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help.
And
health care. And it's a solemn duty. From this perspective, we must
continue
to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all
is
to help with economic development, and that means helping people
understand
what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business
Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging
capital
flows, but none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish
and are strong. That's why I told you, we spent $1.1 billion in
reconstruction of Native American schools.



Not such a bad response really.

dwhite

What's the matter, Jeff...no quick comeback to this one?

todd

Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

"WoodMangler" wrote in message Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

The fact remains that you'd have to be a lawyer practicing in the narrow
field of Indian affairs to be even remotely conversant in the nuances of
"tribal sovereignity".

Not to mention that what GWB said in the video corresponds almost precisely
with what the Supreme Court said in 1997. In Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
No. 94-1474, the Supreme Court held that "Indian tribes ... should be
accorded the same status as foreign sovereigns, against whom States enjoy
Eleventh Amendment immunity."

It takes an agenda to equate ignorance of the complicated doctrine of
"tribal sovereignity" with "intelligence.

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

Yep ... vote for Kinky Freidman for President!

;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"WoodMangler" wrote in message
news
Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Jeff Harper did say:
"WoodMangler" wrote in message
news
Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

If good people always chose the lesser of two evils, rather than
supporting and acting on what they truly believed, the world would be a
truly different place today. I daresay the US wouldn't exist had our
founders chosen to take the easy way out.
I don't believe that following your conscience is ever a waste of effort.
Even if nothing comes of it this election cycle, it will eventually make a
difference. Most people don't fit exactly on the narrow path between right
and left. The two party system has become so polarized that there is
little room for moderates in either camp. Not that they aren't there, it's
just not good for the career to buck the party line.
I'm all for ejecting the incumbents that aren't worthy to lead our
federal, state, and local governments. Problem is, if we keep reaching
into the same two barrels for replacements, we'll keep getting the same
results.

I hope you're weathering the storm OK down there. I'm putting the plywood
back on the windows here in N. Florida. This is sure getting old...

Russ

If good people always chose the lesser of two evils, rather than
supporting and acting on what they truly believed, the world would be a
truly different place today. I daresay the US wouldn't exist had our
founders chosen to take the easy way out.
I don't believe that following your conscience is ever a waste of effort.
Even if nothing comes of it this election cycle, it will eventually make a
difference.

Agreed.

Most people don't fit exactly on the narrow path between right
and left. The two party system has become so polarized that there is
little room for moderates in either camp. Not that they aren't there, it's
just not good for the career to buck the party line.

Polarized? They're the same thing with different spin. There's no
real choice between Dem. and Rep. They both harp on the same issues,
and choose their stands based on polls of the great unwashed. And-
neither of them does what they say they are going to do.

I'm all for ejecting the incumbents that aren't worthy to lead our
federal, state, and local governments. Problem is, if we keep reaching
into the same two barrels for replacements, we'll keep getting the same
results.

Agreed there as well.

I hope you're weathering the storm OK down there. I'm putting the plywood
back on the windows here in N. Florida. This is sure getting old...

Russ

Prometheus did say:



If good people always chose the lesser of two evils, rather than
supporting and acting on what they truly believed, the world would be a
truly different place today. I daresay the US wouldn't exist had our
founders chosen to take the easy way out.
I don't believe that following your conscience is ever a waste of effort.
Even if nothing comes of it this election cycle, it will eventually make a
difference.

Agreed.

Most people don't fit exactly on the narrow path between right
and left. The two party system has become so polarized that there is
little room for moderates in either camp. Not that they aren't there, it's
just not good for the career to buck the party line.

Polarized? They're the same thing with different spin. There's no
real choice between Dem. and Rep. They both harp on the same issues,
and choose their stands based on polls of the great unwashed. And-
neither of them does what they say they are going to do.


By polarized I did not mean that their policies or outcomes are different,
only that the members and platforms are so anti-the-other that there
is no room for dissent. There's no tolerance for those who would view the
issues through any other than the party's official glasses. One may not
challenge the party's interpretation of the world.
In the USSR, it was unacceptable - criminal - for a member of the state
media to criticize the political machine, it's laws or philosophies. It
was only OK to criticize an individual who might not be upholding the
party's views or policies. It is much the same in the dem/rep camps today.

I'm all for ejecting
the incumbents that aren't worthy to lead our
federal, state, and local governments. Problem is, if we keep reaching
into the same two barrels for replacements, we'll keep getting the same
results.

Agreed there as well.

I hope you're weathering the storm OK down there. I'm putting the
plywood back on the windows here in N. Florida. This is sure getting
old...

Russ

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:20:06 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
calmly ranted:

"WoodMangler" wrote in message

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same
old corrupt reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full
impunity. Michael Badnarik is my candidate for President.
Please join me. Those of us who were dissatisfied with the
corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when 25%
of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together
and put someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a
government that we can once again be proud of. Just DO IT!


I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote
for the third party candidate of your choice, they don't get
any credit for you wanting -them- over the corrupt sumbishes
who are now in office. Until you start voting differently, we
will all keep getting what we've been getting: Corruption,
plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the
same old ****, or are you brave enough to vote the way you
want to vote in November? Even if our candidate doesn't win,
if all of us vote with our consciences, there will be big
changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:20:43 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:


Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same old corrupt
reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full impunity. Michael Badnarik
is my candidate for President. Please join me. Those of us who were
dissatisfied with the corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when
25% of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together and put
someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a government that we can
once again be proud of. Just DO IT!

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote for the third
party candidate of your choice, they don't get any credit for you wanting
-them- over the corrupt sumbishes who are now in office. Until you start
voting differently, we will all keep getting what we've been getting:
Corruption, plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the same old ****,
or are you brave enough to vote the way you want to vote in November? Even
if our candidate doesn't win, if all of us vote with our consciences,
there will be big changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.

I and many others voted for Perot and look what it got us - Clinton.
After the fact and taking a closer look at Perot, I wonder what the hell I
was thinking. I've already taken a close look at the vanquisher of the
dreaded Corvair, and it ain't really there for me. So, I'm left with the
choice of fight 'em here or fight 'em there rather than sue 'em if their
gas mileage isn't good enough on the suicide bomber planes.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:20:43 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:


Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same old corrupt
reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full impunity. Michael Badnarik
is my candidate for President. Please join me. Those of us who were
dissatisfied with the corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when
25% of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together and put
someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a government that we can
once again be proud of. Just DO IT!

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote for the third
party candidate of your choice, they don't get any credit for you wanting
-them- over the corrupt sumbishes who are now in office. Until you start
voting differently, we will all keep getting what we've been getting:
Corruption, plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the same old ****,
or are you brave enough to vote the way you want to vote in November? Even
if our candidate doesn't win, if all of us vote with our consciences,
there will be big changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.

I and many others voted for Perot and look what it got us - Clinton.

Spare me. We didn't get the person we voted for but we did exercise
our right to vote. Besides, I'm beginning to think that Clintoon
was better than the misspeller up there right now, and I strongly
disdained Clinton. People don't realize how powerful their votes
are and too easily are swayed by the fear-mongers in both rep and
dem parties who say the world will fall apart if their guy doesn't
make it into office. sigh


After the fact and taking a closer look at Perot, I wonder what the hell I
was thinking. I've already taken a close look at the vanquisher of the
dreaded Corvair, and it ain't really there for me. So, I'm left with the
choice of fight 'em here or fight 'em there rather than sue 'em if their
gas mileage isn't good enough on the suicide bomber planes.

www.badnarik.org Please give Michael a look before you vote for one
of the 2 known corrupt guys.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Harper wrote:

"WoodMangler" wrote in message
news (snip)
There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

(snip)

Actually Jeff, that's not true, not in most states in a presidential election.
You CAN vote for a third party candidate in most places and have the vote mean
something. What's more, it's about the ONLY election where you can do that.

The reason is our 'peculiar institution' of the electoral college. In effect we
elect our president by states and the vote totals matter only within the states.
While there are 'swing' states where the vote is extremely close, in most cases
one or the other candidate has a clear margin by election day.

To take my example, Bush has a lock on Arizona. If he's alive and breathing in
November, he will carry the state and even the DNC and the Kerry campaign have
recognized this.

What that means is that it doesn't matter in the presidential race how I vote.
Bush carries Arizona. So I'm free to vote my conscience by going with a third
party candidate.

Nor is this a wasted vote by any means. It strengthens whichever party I chose
to vote for. Given the way our election laws work in regard to third parties, a
vote for a third party candidate at the top of the ticket will help that party
keep a place on the ballot. Even better as third parties build 'substantial'
totals, mainstream politicians start paying more attention to them.

--RC (Who hasn't decided whether to vote Libertarian out of conviction or Peace
and Freedom out of nostalgia.)

"Rick Cook" wrote in message


Jeff Harper wrote:
(snip)

Actually Jeff,

DFTT

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Jeff Harper wrote:

"WoodMangler" wrote in message
news (snip)
There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils
if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as
no
vote.

(snip)

Actually Jeff, that's not true, not in most states in a presidential
election.
You CAN vote for a third party candidate in most places and have the vote
mean
something. What's more, it's about the ONLY election where you can do
that.

The reason is our 'peculiar institution' of the electoral college. In
effect we
elect our president by states and the vote totals matter only within the
states.
While there are 'swing' states where the vote is extremely close, in most
cases
one or the other candidate has a clear margin by election day.

To take my example, Bush has a lock on Arizona. If he's alive and
breathing in
November, he will carry the state and even the DNC and the Kerry campaign
have
recognized this.

What that means is that it doesn't matter in the presidential race how I
vote.
Bush carries Arizona. So I'm free to vote my conscience by going with a
third
party candidate.

Nor is this a wasted vote by any means. It strengthens whichever party I
chose
to vote for. Given the way our election laws work in regard to third
parties, a
vote for a third party candidate at the top of the ticket will help that
party
keep a place on the ballot. Even better as third parties build
'substantial'
totals, mainstream politicians start paying more attention to them.

--RC (Who hasn't decided whether to vote Libertarian out of conviction or
Peace
and Freedom out of nostalgia.)


Rick, I suppose you are correct. For those in situations similar to yours.
In Florida it's a different story.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL