ravi wrote:
i do think online voting WILL encourage "democracy" AND third-party
candidates. i think it might also have negative effects: wasn't there a
recent finding that more right-wing conservative types are wired than
poor or left-leaning folks? online voting would thus make
assertion is wrong, except in a very trivial
>>sense (such as saying "all voting is fundamentally insecure due to the
>>architecture of reality"). BTW "online" does not necessarily have to
>>mean "the Internet" (upper-case 'I').
>
i don&#
So, do you think they're rejecting it out of fear it may encourage
"democracy" and third-party candidates?
Joanna
ravi wrote:
Grant Lee wrote:
Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the
Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts.
with
Grant Lee wrote:
>
> Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the
> Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts.
>
without even having to read the entire article, i feel i am justified in
responding that the above assertion is wrong, except in a
The Register
All Internet voting is insecure: report
By electricnews.net
Posted: 23/01/2004 at 11:37 GMT
Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the
Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts.
Using a voting system based upon the Internet poses a "se
But only available to subscribers. How do they respond to this question?
Ralph
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines
there's
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Electronic voting machines
>
>
> This has already happened in some instances where one party
> thinks they have
> been wronged. But one would think that both parties would reject the
> machines. Perhaps they think this will be
tampering
and some means of going over results.
Couldnt party computer experts check on program to see if it was OK somehow?
I suppose that would probably infringe on trade secrets.
Widespread problems with new touch-screen voting machines delayed election
results in Fairfax County Tuesday night and led
This exchange is another on several lists that I've seen regarding the
allegedly unaccountable voting machines which doesn't deal with the fact
that this is, at least in terms of patronage if not of program, a two-party
system. If one party seeks to squirrel votes in a machine not open
..
Cheers, Ken Hanly sorry about blank post..
- Original Message -
From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines
> There's a lot on the blogs o
- Original Message -
From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines
> There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on
> www.cal
There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on
www.calpundit.com, www.dailykos.com, and www.talkingpointsmemo.com
mbs
Bill Lear wrote:
Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting
machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-l
Try:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
http://gregpalast.com/
http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/
"Michael Pollak" PEN-L post, Sunday, September 14, 2003 7:16 PM Insecure
code for electronic voting, Financial Times, Sep 12, 2003
Macdonald Stainsby (rad-green list) also has info
Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting
machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law
is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some
critical commentary.
Thanks.
Bill
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
bev harris has a web site with much more information.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[To add to the other downsides]
Financial Times; Sep 12, 2003
THE AMERICAS: Security fears grow over electronic voting systems
By Henry Hamman
Bev Harris, a freelance writer and public relations consultant in
Washington state, made a startling discovery while conducting research for
a book
Results of the voting so far:
This week's question is
Do you believe there is a case for war against Iraq?
Yes
14%
No
Chris Burford reports:
Today significantly the TImes report as their main headline Hague Turns
Left to avoid a Labour Landslide. This is important because it shows a
shift in how politics are perceived in the battle between the main parties.
It is a sign that after the election the centre of g
can and will move leftwards.
It is possible to vote against a party without risking tailing after
another one.
Tactical voting is on the rise despite the continuation of Britain's
first-past-the-post system for our main elections, since 1992. There is a
strong desire to vote agains
In a society in which individuals and groups compete for relative advantage
of access to the total social product, how is it possible to win a strong
majority for the interests of working people as a whole, particularly when
half of them think they are middle class?
Britain's Third Way governm
people accused of crimes and stripped of their citizenship
rights in the run-up to the presidential race. And not just
any 7,000 people. Hillsborough (Tampa) county statisticians
found that 54 per cent of the names on the scrub list
belonged to African-Americans, who voted 93 per cent
for Gore.
Now
: [PEN-L:5829] Re:
RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
No, it is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue
of a broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect
Bush from the incompetence of his own lawyers.
Joel Blau
David Shemano wr
cember 07, 2000 5:23
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5829] Re:
RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)No, it
is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a
broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from
th
es.
But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about
the issue. I hope this explains why.
David Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
]]On
Behalf Of kelleySent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem
Behavior (e.g., voting)correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory
serves, there wasn't an option for astatewide manual recount, at
first. there was an option for
#x27;s) already knew their
strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya
probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat
borehead found himself in.
the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting
problems. (TNR cove
David Shemano wrote:
>I am not sure what your question is, so I will answer as follows. First, I
>am conservative, so I don't believe in perfection and am willing to defend
>and conserve imperfection -- I am not going to throw the baby out with the
>bathwater.
In this sense I am also a conserva
>Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing
>the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important
>conservatives:
>
>1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991.
>2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from 1945 to 1989.
>3. Rulers of Nor
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 04:45PM >>>
Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing
the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important
conservatives:
1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991.
2. Rulers of Eastern European countries
Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5725] Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
>If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can.
>
>David Shemano
How would you rank the following conserv
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 04:43PM >>>
Nathan Newman wrote:
>One of the areas where
>the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive
>position in the last fifteen years is on immigration.
Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ
are
>If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can.
>
>David Shemano
How would you rank the following conservatives in terms of importance?
1. J. Edgar Hoover
2. Al Capp
3. Spiro Agnew
4. Oliver North
5. Frank Rizzo
6. Roy Innis
7. Rush Limbaugh
8. Joseph McCarthy
9. Roy C
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
>Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not.
Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the stat
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:13PM >>>
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps th
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:11PM >>>
MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for
granted.
They are shameless in their shamefulness.
Michael K.
Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them.
Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing
to Bush what was
orm, it's important to note that Rob apologized for losing his name.
>-Original Message-
>From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
&g
ROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
>Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
>Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not.
Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status
quo to which you a
I have no problem at all w/your being here,
but I have to say I am curious as to why.
mbs
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
> From: "Michael Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to
> >hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting
> >their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and
> >helping "moderate" southern cand
<>
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, so I can give
you my opinion. I actually was sympathetic to Gore for the first day or
two. The fact that he won the national popular vote, and was only behind by
several hundred votes in a state in which Nader received 92,000 vo
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to
>hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting
>their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and
>helping "mod
The DLC started after the Mondale defeat. The guiding
principle was not any special conservative ideological
position, but a determination not to get smoked again
in a national election. What did Mondale win? Two
states or something? A pretty strong reaction was
understandable.
Mondale was pe
> The Democratic Party essentially believes in nothing except winning office,
> so why would it be capable of galvanizing a nonexistent base?
> This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The
> DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic
> publ
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>If and when objective conditions foment a Buchanan candidacy, I
>would expect the Democrats to run somebody who has an abysmal position on
>immigration and all the rest of it.
New immigrants bec
Nathan Newman wrote:
>One of the areas where
>the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive
>position in the last fifteen years is on immigration.
Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ
are all in favor of pretty open borders. Can you
d, "yuk, but
he's better than the alternative." I don't know how anyone -- even a
stone-cold Democrat -- can get _excited_ by the lesser of two evils.
At 02:19 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote:
>In many ways, it's a regression to the days before the civils/voting
&g
>So where is your evidence of any even incipient rightward shift among Dems
>on immigration issues. In the last four years, especially, as the results
>of the latino electoral mobilization of 1996 was fully appreciated, the Dems
>have been moving in a MORE pro-immigrant stance.
>
>-- Nathan Newma
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I expect that as the social and economic crisis of late capitalism deepens,
>the Republican Party will continue to shift to the right. Despite Bush's
>minstrel show at the convention, the Republican Party ruled Texas with a
>r
>A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
>single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
>dispute?
>
>Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
>Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
>
>Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
>
>
>Barry
For those who don't think that the dispute in Florida
is a big deal, consider this:
Aside from Bush getting the presidency, we are now (if
things go as I predict) going to see:
Widespread voting abuse conducted by a party, sufficient
to alter a national election. The campaign co-chair
ru
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
Barry
MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for
granted.
They are shameless in their shamefulness.
Michael K.
Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them.
Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing
to Bush what was done to Clinton? For example,
a la Whitewat
This electoral circus is still more than a few thousand DQ-ed ballots
counting either for tweedledee and tweedledum-mer , and the win/loss in
the electoral college. Each side shows their megalomanic
nature by having arbitrarily and capriciously DQ-ing ballots that will
most probably go t
I just heard Albert Gore, Jr. give a speech. In it, he stated that voting
is a way of stating individual principles. This is really different from
what his folks were saying before the election, i.e., that voting is a way
of choosing between the lesser of two evils, the Fool and the Knave
>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:57:17 -0500
>From: Art McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Lift the Ban Against Felons Voting
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/co
Nathan Newman wrote,
>. . . the deeper problem
> beyond Gore v. Bush in these elite media and politician calls to bypass
> recounts or the courts through a concession. There were and are serious
> violations of law in the election and the right to go to cour
Please forward everthing below the header. Thanks.
For all the mocking of this election by US and foreign critics, the danger
is that what is being mocked is the right of individual voters to challenge
local election officials in the courts - a direct ideological assault on the
Voting Rights Act
Please circulate widely.
>Background
>
>According to several news accounts, many voters in Palm Beach, Florida,
have claimed that they were confused by the ballot
>structure and may have inadvertently voted for Buchanan when in fact they
intended to vote for Gore. The event prompted a
>discussio
und asking black men to see their
identification and telling some that they were not eligible to vote
because of convictions.
Julian Bond from the NAACP made this charge on MSNBC tonight. To say that
there were voting irregularities in Florida is now a serious
understatement.
All the networks call
governments actions ,
federal, state city in the USA. This , is this modern monopoly
capitalist epoch, is the most nausiating deception and deadly lie.
Even as far as social reforms are concerned, who can name any in our
adult lifetimes that were won (and many were/are to be later strip
Voting is like giving blood: it's painful, sort of disgusting, but they
give you a little sticker to show that you did it!
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
> >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.
-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 wi
. . .
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 no
sed to pay for the new
scheme.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
>Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A
>
nal income
tax rate will stop the (very) recent (and slight) trend
towards greater equality of income in the US.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:32 PM
Subjec
ber 04, 2000 5:26 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
>>Ginsbu
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
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
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
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
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
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 "some
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 b
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 burde
>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
>
__
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
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 ideologica
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 disadvantag
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
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.
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
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 "h
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 t
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
>
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 02:33 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 Democ
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 origin
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 anti
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 B
> Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
> 8 years of Bush/Dole?
> Eric
yes... Michael Hoover
>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
>Brad writes:
>>So let's elect George W. Bush rather than Al Gore? That does not follow...
>
>In general, I'm saying that both of them are corporate toadies, so
>there's no reason to vote for either. But that was not what I was
>saying in this specific thread. This specific thread is saying that
i'm voting at the Fire Station on Wilson Blvd in Rosslyn (Arlington) around
6:30 a.m., so if you have an anarchist friend there, give me his/her name
and i'll introduce myself. however, i will appreciate it if he/she does not
burn down the Fire Station until after my Nader vote is tall
- 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 pol
Nothing. The question was whether the Admin was
helping movements. It isn't, far as I can see.
mbs
>For instance, the Clintonoids have had no discernable
>effect on the Living Wage movement, except to try and
>preempt it with the EITC
So what's wrong with the EITC?
Brad DeLong
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
"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,
the ludditism of the Greens and Ralph bother me, but i just tell myself that
when progressive caveman/woman experimented with microbes to invent baked
bread and brewed beer and was challenged by his/her peers for "upsetting the
balance of nature", he/she just told them, "Get used to it!". same a
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
