From: Neal Blaikie (nrb@porterville.k12.ca.us)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 14:14:08 MST
Michael Lorrey wrote:
> I am libertarian and feel the same way, except that in my experience,
> democrats are far more dishonest and corrupt than republicans.
In my experience dishonesty is not a partisan character flaw. I prefer to look
at individual actions and situations and try to examine them without a
pre-determined bias. This is more work than a knee-jerk response, but is, alas,
not as fun.
> Do you mean he screwed up his ballot right away because he thought he
> was too intelligent to have to read the directions?
>
> Now, if he did not pursue charges against the poll worker, thats his
> problem.
I suppose it's easier to just insult someone than try to discuss something
reasonably. What are you afraid of? I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion
here, and it seems like you would rather attack someone you don't even know (or
anyone else you deem less intelligent or differently opinioned than youself)
than court the possibility that your opinion may not be the only one that
matters. As a matter of clarification, my brother is one of thousands of voters
who has filed an official complaint (I really don't know the details) over being
denied his right to vote. As for the ballots, unless you were there and have
used them yourself, you really have no rational basis for sniping at peoples'
intelligence or ability to use them. Since he has been voting at the same
polling place for the last 20 years without any problems, I guess he just
assumed his voting rights hadn't been undermined. He only noticed something was
awry when it looked like things weren't lining up properly on the ballot. This
is when he pointed it out to the poll worker and was basically blown off. I'm
unclear why you have a problem with this.
> You are just being a pouty little spoil
> sport, like leftists usually are.
Again, you resort to name-calling. This is not only insulting and immature, it
is useless and a waste of everyone's time. If you are actually interested in
presenting your point of view rather than just lashing out at imagined enemies,
this tactic not only weakens your credibility, it totally defuses your own
argument.
Since I have never once identified myself as a Democrat or a leftist, I'm not
sure what reasonable basis you have for making this statement. I have said at
least one other time that I don't like Gore either, and certainly didn't vote
for him, so why would I be pouting over him losing the election? My complaint,
which I stated explicitly, is that the election was not honest because of
various shenanigans that took place. Just because these under-handed activities
led to Bush being installed as president is irrelevant to me. Had it been the
other way around I would feel exactly the same way. My problem is with the
blatant disregard shown for the American people, and for our democratic rights
(what little is left of them). It has nothing to do with who won. This is why I
feel Bush is not legitimately the president, not because I don't like the
outcome. It seems to me that anyone who actually believes in liberty should have
a problem with this.
> Gore has been cheated of the Presidency, but not by Bush. Clinton should
> have been out of office over a year ago. Its Clinton who cheated Gore of
> the job. If Clinton was not such a pathetic president, Gore would likely
> have won. If Clinton hadn't approved Reno's Elian stormtrooper raid,
> Gore would have won Florida by a statistically significant margin.
I absolutely agree with you on this, and it is one of the reasons I see no
significant difference between the two major parties. They both serve special
interests that have little or no regard for the people, are both corrupt and
dishonest, and all the empty rhetoric spewed by boths sides won't make a bit of
difference in the quality of our lives. This is why I am confused why you would
react in such a way that appears you are favoring the one side over the other.
Why not toss them both out? I say let's have a politics that is free of such
narrow and functionally empty dichotomies, one that actually reflects the will
of the people. Maybe this is naive, and maybe it's impossible to achieve, but it
seems like something worth working toward.
just my 2 cents,
Neal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:49 MST