. . .
Actually, I think the people who will get
screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those
in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have
their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young
will get their private accounts and avoid paying
high s-s taxes.
I agree current and near retirees are
:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3963] Re: voting for Nader
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
In fact, the big one on that probably was
abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
as progressive
64] voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many jus
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4027] RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
. . .
Actually, I think the people who will get
screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those
in their 40s
Here's the start of the Meyerson article (L.A. WEEKLY) I referred to:
Let's start with two propositions; first, Ralph Nader is a genuine
American hero who is running on what is the progressive community's dream
program for America. Second, his third-party Presidential candidacy
I agree current and near retirees are not in much
danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate
of young workers is completely up in the air. If
the long-term projections are right (which I
dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme
financial distress around 2050 or so. If they
At 05:33 AM 11/5/00 +, you wrote:
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand.
This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
be an "undue burden."
kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A
poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring
under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion.
that's not what it would mean, as you know.
When "someone" suggested that disposing of a functional tool would be
At 08:48 AM 11/5/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A
poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring
under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion.
that's not what it would mean, as you know.
When "someone"
In what way is abortion a "proven issue"?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3976] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4
kelley said on 11/5/00 10:10 A
i honestly thought you were laboring under that impression since you
seemed to think that it would be so damaging to the GOP. disposing of the
abortion issue is no big deal. it is something that GOP would *like* to
get rid of. it isn't that much of a tool
Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A
In what way is abortion a "proven issue"?
The GOP have historically used the issue to draw the christian alliances
into their camp by suggesting that they are the party of pro-life. If the
issue becomes a states rights issue the christian alliances would
Max Sawicky wrote:
If I was king of the labor movement, I would devote
all electoral resources to Congress. At least for the
time being, the WH is a lost cause.
And, as every schoolchild knows, the executive branch is the
executive committee of the bourgeoisie. The legislative branch is a
premise in mind: that state's rights
undermines national priorities.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said
Message-
From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3931] Re: voting for Nader
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
Eric
yes... Michael
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
In fact, the big one on that probably was
abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens.
But, put
Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many justices have disappointed
to people who
At 02:33 PM 11/04/2000 -0800, you wrote:
Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
Clarence Thomas.
also, the Congressional
Jim Devine wrote:
also, the Congressional Democrats are much more alert to the problem
of people like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. I'm not sure Gore is,
though, since he voted for Scalia.
Everyone did. It was 98-0.
Doug
At 02:24 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
In fact, the big one on that probably was
abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
as
kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand. we don't have that anyway.
The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the
long
At 03:48 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand. we don't have that anyway.
The question was "how do you
work
to the advantage of the right wing in the same way the drug war has worked
to their advantage.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: voting for Nader
kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P
i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor
of unrestrained access to abortion.
At 04:34 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P
i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4/00 4:31 P
Besides increasing the overall level of repression, criminalizing abortion
could have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had - permitting the
elaboration of a rhetoric justifying the further expansion of repressive
controls targeting disadvantaged
At the risk of consoling the Goreoids, Souter was
an anomaly. He was chosen because Warren
Rudman lied about him to Sununu; told him he
was pro-life, when he knew he wasn't.
The Supreme Court concern is legitimate.
I think there are two overriding considerations.
One is the extent of
Max Sawicky wrote,
I've been working 'inside' for a decade now.
Any support I have rendered to Clinton et al. has not
helped me in anything I have done in the slightest bit.
Max,
According to Leonard, you've only served have your sentence.
I was sentenced to twenty years of boredom
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand.
This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
be an "undue burden." --jks
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/nader1.htm
Some signatories:
Michael Perelman, Economics, Calif St U, Chico
Doug Henwood, Journalist, NYC
Paul Buhle, American Civilization, Brown U
Stanley Aronowitz, Dist Prof, Sociology, Grad Ctr, CUNY
Alan Sokal, Physics, NYU
Dean Baker, Co-Dir, Ctr for Economic
I'm on that list, too, though they miscapitalize my name as "DeVine." To
err is human, to forgive...
At 11:00 AM 11/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/nader1.htm
Some signatories:
Michael Perelman, Economics, Calif St U, Chico
Doug Henwood, Journalist, NYC
Paul Buhle,
Louis Proyect wrote:
Stanley Aronowitz, Dist Prof, Sociology, Grad Ctr, CUNY
Alan Sokal, Physics, NYU
Wow. Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Doug
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
Eric
yes... Michael Hoover
Tipped by a student column in the OSU student paper (Martha Knox,
"Voting for Nader won't hurt Gore's chances," _The Lantern_ 3
November 2000 at
http://www.thelantern.com/archives/gendisp.asp?id=973258722515), I
just visited "Yellow Dog Greens for Nader" at
http://www.pe
inauguration in memory of his former
membership in the KKK.
Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
should be discussed. But, hey, since we have a dead
man running for the Senate in Missouri (Mel Carnahan),
who is leading in the polls
At 10:48 AM 11/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
should be discussed.
hey, it's Hagelin! let's give the meditators their due...
BTW, I've noticed a lot of more stuff on US National Public Radio about
at least somebody is using comedy in the campaign
NADER CAMPAIGN UNVEILS NEW TELEVISION AND RADIO AD CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 31 - Ralph Nader's surging campaign today introduced
his latest radio and television spots. [ads below]
In the new 30-second television message and 60
At 11:20 AM 11/1/00 -0800, you wrote:
at least somebody is using comedy in the campaign
How naive! what these Nader folks don't understand it that it's _fear_ that
motivates people to vote for Gore! and people seem to be preferring Bush
because when you've got the choice between
and the Goristas have themselves to blame if they lose. This
business of scape-goating Nader is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug
his own grave.
Oh, Gore and the Goristas will blame themselves if they lose. There
will be more than enough blame to go around. But people who pull the
lever
I wonder if people who were organizing big anti-war [in Vietnam]
demonstrations... worried _ahead of time_ that their movements would
"crash and burn."
They should have. Chicago in 1968 elected Richard Nixon president...
Brad DeLong
Doug, [to pen-l folks, yes, I am back for awhile]
Actually I can vote for Nader without any Gore
loss guilt. Virginia is solid for Bush. Also, there will
be no Nader Paradox effect in my congressional
district as the incumbent Repug is unopposed. There
might be one in the local Senate
(From Mitchel Cohen, a Green Party activist)
A supporter of Leonard Peltier has asked Ralph Nader to step down and
endorse Gore. This is a response from Day Starr Chou, of the Flushing
Greens and the No Spray Coalition* (forwarded by Mitchel Cohen).
* Does not imply that the No Spray Coalition
mbs wrote
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
of progressive movements?
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
That answer begs the question of 'how.'
mbs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
You glance at Chuck Grimes's argument (the only respectable
ars we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time) very
popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where does it
stand
yes indeed
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:09:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael wrote
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
point). Might not the same fate
I initially wrote,
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations
Board?
Some responses have ranged from
1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol,
Gar),
2. progressive politics might have been better off
if Dole had become
On the other hand, the Big Boys, with their millions and millions in
their campaign bucks, can wield their power to achieve all sorts of
stuff. Gore tried being a populist intermittently during the
campaign and saw his polls rise. But he didn't want to go too far,
for that would offend his
. . . Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is
president . . .
Eric
Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than
that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive
movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so.
You answered not with *how*, but with the
My Dear Max,
RE
Now now, Eric. My question was much
more focused than that. You said Gore would
provide more
space for progressive
movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of
Clinton has done so.
Gore would provide a better atmosphere than Bush.
Nader would provide a better atmosphere than Gore
and the Goristas
have themselves to blame if they lose. This business of scape-goating Nader
is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug his own grave.
Did the Gore forces try to appeal to the growing ranks of non-voters? did
they try to get people to register to vote in any significant way
Eric wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clinton and Gore, who
At 11:05 PM 10/30/00 +, you wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
evidence? it seems to me that Bush or Dole would have been much less
successful at co-opting (and defanging) of various dissident movements of
the
. . .This is the sort of thing that the Reagan NLRB
(and an elder Bush and Dole administration NLRB)
might not have decided although the activities
cited above are clear violations of the NLRA.
Eric
O.K. That's something. You are implying that a
Dem appointed NLRB will be significantly *more*
Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:53:41 -0800
I initially wrote,
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations
Board?
Some responses have ranged from
1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol,
Gar),
2. p
Max Sawicky wrote:
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since
Jim:
Eric wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clinton and Gore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
You may remember that in 1992 the big bourgeoisie seemed seriously
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
course he is in no way responsible).
The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
the Republicans are guaranteed to always run
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O.K. That's something. You are implying that a
Dem appointed NLRB will be significantly *more*
conducive to trade union growth than a Bush one.
Of course, this is one data point. I wonder if
those with
"Forstater, Mathew" wrote:
Not really. The Enslavement...whoops, sorry. Seriously, I don't think Perot
was so important here. It was the Reagan deficits that the Dems saw as an
opportunity for calling the Repubs fiscally irresponsible. It was a terrible
strategy for the Dems.
Mat,
Doug Henwood wrote:
The historical moment is really different now from the 1980s. Then,
Reaganism was a new phenomenon on the world stage, and the right was
ideologically clear and energized. Now it's as fuzzy as Al Gore's
math. I doubt a serious right-wing agenda would be anywhere near
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nothing. The question was whether the Admin was
helping movements. It isn't, far as I can see.
How do you define "helping movements"? Holding their hands and helping them
throw the rocks at the police?
A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is a
vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's my
reply, amplified a bit:
If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's). He's really
nothing but Michael Dukakis plus fo
A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's
fault." Here's my reply, amplified a bit:
If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's).
Take responsibility for the actions of your fac
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
for is gridlock.
I do have one question. Why do you think that the media has been so much
harder on Gore?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
for is gridlock.
I do have one question. Why do you think that the media has been so much
harder on Gore?
Who pays their bills?
Brad DeLong
I wrote:
A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is
a vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's
my reply, amplified a bit:
If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's).
Brad writes:
Take responsibility for t
Clinton/Dole have been very kind to them. The disgusting telecommunications bill
Recall that Dole was the one who denounced it.
Brad DeLong wrote:
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
for is gridlock.
I do have one question. Why do you
Michael wrote,
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win.
It pains me too.
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
Eric
on their
"democratic" election charade. The Demo-publicans are wallowing in
corporate cash . They usually don't use all of it either. Some candidate s
will have a big stash already banked for the next election (and to just
invest -wax fat , etc).
But Nader and Buchanan (Greens and Re
A great post.
Gene Coyle
Carrol Cox wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
will be do you want someone
production they can get.
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will he
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:42:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the
Eric N. wrote:
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
do you think that the Clinton/Gore policy of encouraging the mobility of
capital has strengthened the power and influence of the NLRB? or weakened
its
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
course he is in no way responsible).
The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
the Republicans are guaranteed to always
mbs wrote
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
of progressive movements?
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if
Michael wrote
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party?
Eric
it's hard to tell if this is an opinion piece or a news story. It reads
like the former, but looking at TIME on-line, it appears to be a news
story. That's pretty bad.
At 06:35 PM 10/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
To Gore, He's Darth Nader and Dangerous The crusading gadfly looks poised
to tip
This morning Nader referred to the Washington Post article favorably. He
regarded it as an acknowledgment that his campaign was achieving some success.
Jim Devine wrote:
it's hard to tell if this is an opinion piece or a news story. It reads
like the former, but looking at TIME on-line
To Gore, He's Darth Nader and Dangerous The crusading gadfly looks poised
to tip a half-dozen swing states to Bush. Can Gore appeal to Nader voters'
sensible side?
BY FRANK PELLEGRINI
Ralph Nader meets the litmus test for a true gadfly candidate: He doesn't
give a crap if he spoils
The MC at the Nader rally of 7,000 in Oakland, California (Oct.
21) claimed poll results showing Nader at 6% in the state, 8% in
Minnesota, and 9% in Connecticut.
Charles Andrews
An analysis of Nader's economic program is at
http://www.LaborRepublic.org/Essay40.htm
At 09:57 AM 10/22/2000 -0700, you wrote:
The MC at the Nader rally ... claimed poll results showing Nader at ... 9%
in Connecticut.
where people know Joe Lieberman well?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
From AlterNet.org
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9926
Maximizing Ralph: The Free Nader Vote
Don Hazen, AlterNet
October 10, 2000
Viewed on October 16, 2000
---
For liberals and progressives (and any radicals
G'day Gar,
why we should spend a little time on speculating on the nature of a
socialist society,
on as old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
...
Why -- because the myth of TINA (There Is No Alternative) is far more
widespread than it ever was in Marxes day. In
Lisa Ian Murray wrote:
This seems to be a gaping hole in left prescriptions for organizational
change at the micro and macro economic level. What would socializing IBM or
UPS, or McDonalds for that matter, look like?
As opposed to small, locally owned enterprises? What would
socializing
Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY ends with two very
interesting chapters on how a "Labor Republic" would be organized. His
utopia is very interesting because he is quite conscious of pro-capitalist
criticisms of his scheme. So far, it makes a lot of sense. BTW, following
his
This misses the point. Transcendental meditators and witches run campaigns
to recruit members. Personally, I'm a devotee of Adorno's Theses Against
Occultism.
I hope that we're in the majority on this one, but I remember when the
Yippies tried to levitate the Pentagon. (Max, was that in your
At this point I was just going to let the argument drop -- but have
decided to pursue the mega-argument instead -- why we should spend a
little time on speculating on the nature of a socialist society, on as
old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
To start with,
E opposes the belief
that no alternative exists. What about the anti-globalization movement?
Well you will note that the mass as opposed to the anarchist vanguard
(however they deny it that is what many of the anarchists are) tends to
be Nader anti-corporate rather than Anarchist anti-captitalist. Also,
you w
If you want supernatural help, perhaps you could try wishing on a star...g
a star like Ronald Reagan?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
rears its ugly
head whenever "our boys" get involved -- even the courageous Henry Wallace
recanted at the onset of the Korean war (although he seems to have been far
more critical of the Vietnam war).
While we have been hearing a lot about the Nader campaign (and to the extent
that it puts
While we have been hearing a lot about the Nader campaign (and to the extent
that it puts progressive politics in the foreground of public discussion,
all to the good), how has David McReynolds been getting on?
Michael K.
For news on the McReynolds campaign, go to: http://www.votesocialist.org
Keaney Michael wrote:
While we have been hearing a lot about the Nader campaign (and to the extent
that it puts progressive politics in the foreground of public discussion,
all to the good), how has David McReynolds been getting on?
David McR is a splendid guy with excellent politics
a wicked
Yogic flying demonstration as part of their campaign act.
Doug
1996 popular vote for US president
Bill Clinton Dem45,628,667 49.17%
Bob Dole GOP37,869,435 40.81%
Ross Perot RP 7,874,2838.49%
Ralph Nader [Grn] Grn
branch of the Natural Law Party does a wicked
Yogic flying demonstration as part of their campaign act.
Doug
This misses the point. Groups like the WWP, SWP, SP, etc. only run election
campaigns to raise issues and recruit members. The Nader campaign is a
serious bid to win 5 percent of the vote
At 11:57 AM 10/16/00 -0400, you wrote:
I hear the Canadian branch of the Natural Law Party does a wicked Yogic
flying demonstration as part of their campaign act.
Recently, US National Public Radio has had several stories that involved
transcendental meditation (which allegedly allows Yogic
Jim Devine wrote:
Frankly, I think the Left would do better if we could mobilize
super- and supra-natural forces. Wicca anyone?
This misses the point. Transcendental meditators and witches run
campaigns to recruit members. Personally, I'm a devotee of Adorno's
Theses Against Occultism.
Doug
201 - 300 of 446 matches
Mail list logo
