At 06:56 AM 11/13/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Be it resolved:
>That since everyone (US and non-US) is told incessantly that US prez is
>"most powerful elected official in world"
>
>and
>
>That since above is unfortunately true *and* really fuckin' dangerous
>
>Everyone, everywhere on earth has right to
I like Ellerman's work on worker self-management, where he is a considerable
expert. --jks
> who is he. Where did this appear?
> Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
>
>David Ellerman is tucked away working on firm governance issues in Eastern
>Europe for the WB. He also worked closely wi
>BDL>You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
>**
>
>I don't know;
So in other words, you don't.
**
Thank you God for collapsing the unpredictability of the future with your
unsurpassable foreknowledge of 21st century political-economic history. I
realize
> >>Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto
>>>the welfare bill. Only Gore & Dick Morris urged him to sign it.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>
>>I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source?
>>
>>
> >Brad DeLong
Thanks...
Brad DeLong
>BDL>You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
>**
>
>I don't know;
So in other words, you don't.
MP>>
who is he. Where did this appear?
Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
David Ellerman is tucked away working on firm governance issues in Eastern
Europe for the WB. He also worked closely with Stiglitz when he was there.
The quote comes from "Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life"
Michael,
Would be better than a lot. So might
Russ Feingold.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4211] Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the
s
and Liberals the rest.
Our choices are if anything even more depressing on the whole than in
the US.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4192] Re: Re: Stop
At 07:53 AM 11/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
>You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
Maybe it was impressive once you think of the fact that Nader voters were
showered by a sh*t-storm of abuse and fear-mongering. The more that Nader
seemed to be getting, the more the fear level was ratcheted
Wellstone?
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> Michael,
>I agree. But, who would have done better aside
> from Clinton himself?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who is he. Where did this appear?
Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> BDL>You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
> **
>
> I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a
> one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so
> ultimately e
Brad DeLong wrote:
>I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source?
The person I first heard it from got it from Dick Morris' book, I
think, but someone told me last night that Peter Edelman has been
saying the same thing.
Doug
>>Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto
>>the welfare bill. Only Gore & Dick Morris urged him to sign it.
>>
>>Doug
>
>I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source?
>
>
>Brad DeLong
The New York Times, August 1, 1996, Thursday, Late Edition - Fin
BDL>You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
**
I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a
one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so
ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked
tireles
Michael,
I agree. But, who would have done better aside
from Clinton himself?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:08 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4195] Re:
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive
>>welfare reform.
>
>Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto
>the welfare bill. Only Gore & Dick Morris urged him to sign it.
>
>Doug
I've heard this a bunch of times. B
>I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means
>I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's
>welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership
>capacity.
>
>mbs
>
>
>I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies
>on the right" does not a large movement make when
>Subject: [PEN-L:4190] Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:53:57 -0800
>
>>Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We
>>don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether
>>happy or not, but yo
Michael Perelman wrote:
>The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive
>welfare reform.
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto
the welfare bill. Only Gore & Dick Morris urged him to sign it.
Doug
The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive
welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the
stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible.
His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him
even if he had attacked Cli
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means
I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's
welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership
capacity.
mbs
I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies
on the right" does not a large movement make when you start
Doug asks:
> Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us
> something about that.
>
> Doug
>
Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also
put their takes on it, but here is mine.
The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to
win a p
>Since politics is about what people think, to
>a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s)
>coalescing behind Nader have improved definition --
>as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The
>low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it
>does not detract from the g
>Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We
>don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether
>happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us.
So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression,
rather than an attempt t
>BDL>The political naivete of people who think that the White House is
>some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me.
>
>
>BDL>And in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing
>candidate, with important differences over the next four years for
>the Supreme Court
>>The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the
>>past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me
>>calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names
>>are applied?
>>
>>As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is
>>strong
> >. . . What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for
the
> >American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat?
> >Brad DeLong
Since politics is about what people think, to
a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s)
coalescing behind Nader have improve
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't
accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but
you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. We don't register our
suceess by our influence on the DLC. What matters is a popular movement
Brad, I have no objection to calling someone off the list, whether it be
Nader or Gore. I do object to you or anybody else is being antagonistic to
people on the list.
Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Brad,
> >
> >There's no place here for calling people
[I should have added "on the list" here]
> incom
>
>The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week
>has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him
>"incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied?
>
>As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger
>tod
Gene Debs ran as a felon.
Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Manson is a convicted felon, so he can't vote. But the constitutional
> qualifications for the Presidency are quite clear: you have to be 35 and
> born in this country. I am pretty sure Manson meets these qualifications.
> His ineligibility for
31 matches
Mail list logo
