Re: ELECTION

[Guest guest]

> Of course, y'all who are actually voting in this gigantic pantomine

> will presumably be totally familiar with this and long ago found it

> old not funny, but I just found out by looking at the USA Today site

> and there may be a few on this list who dont know this. To my

> astonishment, there is actually a minor candidate in this

Presidential

> election called:

>

> ******* head *********

>

> Well it wouldnnt be the first in the Oval Office I guess!

chuckle! good one Pete, I didn't see her name on my ballot but I

wasn't looking for a pun...

judith

[Guest guest]

Looking a the list of parties and candidates, I dont see an American

Nazi Party. I thought there was one - or do they call themselves

something else?

and why are the Republicans called GOP - Good Old Party?

P.

[Guest guest]

Grand Old Party

The American Nazi Party was hounded by the FBI until it finally broke up

into a collection of skinhead, survivalist and other lunatic fringe groups.

Also, they don't have a central organization any more because it was learned

that racist groups can be sued into decentralizing in order to protect

assets. The Ku Klux Klan was broken apart by the Southern Poverty Law Center

in this way.

Check out http://www.splcenter.org

Re: Election

> Looking a the list of parties and candidates, I dont see an American

> Nazi Party. I thought there was one - or do they call themselves

> something else?

>

> and why are the Republicans called GOP - Good Old Party?

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> ******* head *********

>

Are you sure this isn't a character in a Bond flick?

[Guest guest]

> > ******* head *********

> >

> Are you sure this isn't a character in a Bond flick?

well if she got elected there'd be no change in the White house, would

there?

Apparently she's not into cigars but likes donuts and has an aide

called Bill who gives her something to stack them on while she eats

them.

P.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> >

> > ******* head *********

> >

> Are you sure this isn't a character in a Bond flick?

So solly, no. Candidate fol plesidentiar erection!

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

> Don know if my incomplete mail got posted, but I was saying I find

> this so depressing. If Bush were a decent man then I think HE

> would conceded as having lost the popular vote. Even with 6M votes I

> dont think the FL count can be out by 1600. The only hope is absentee

> votes, but thats unlikely. Another hopeful one is the Florida

> collegiate, or perhaps some of other Bush States, will vote against

> their electorate to rectify the situation. Arguably, if Bush has

> indeed got Florida, they should agree to cast their votes 13 for Bush

> and 12 for Gore. If they did this, Gore wins overall. But I dream on.

>

Pete,

So you think the members of the Electoral College should break their oaths

and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest of democracy?

>

> I constantly rail at my own country's rotten electoral system that

> regularly rips off the centre party and divides the nation, and

> sometimes gives us the wrong government according to popular vote; now

> the US is getting the wrong President - in both possible senses. Even

> more ghastly is that very likely some of the most strongly principled,

> and/or most left-wing democrats will have voted for Nader, and hence

> let Bush in. If only Nader had used his campaign funds just to fight

> in non-presidential elections where his Party might win something

>

But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a difference

between the two parties any more to matter?

My personal wish in this election was that neither party would have both the

presidencey and congress, that there would be some stalemate, although I

doubt even that would be enough.

> Another horrible thing about this is that Bush support is mostly in

> concentrated areas, geographically and demographically; mostly from

> white ppl, whereas Gore has supporters from many different groups

> acroos he country, helping bring ppl together through consensus. Add

> to this the farcical chaos and confusion and the near certainty that

> the media influenced the vote. What a Disaster.

Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either way?

In Gore's own words:

" Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it easier to

locate and understand their place in the world because they could define

themselves in relation both to their parents and to a God who was clearly

present in nature. With these two firm points of reference, children were

less likely to lose their direction in life. "

" The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came from [the]

assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and understand

the natural world without reference to any moral principles defining our

relationship and duties to both God and God's creation. "

And from me:

Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the world's

environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to " dysfunctional

families, "

" enablers, " and people " in denial " but " recovery is possible. " Codependency

theology centers around the idea that every living human being suffers from

excessive, unhealthy dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend

on their Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation in our

civilization now feels utterly dependent on the civilization itself. "

Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a president

and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war on drugs. Our

prison population has grown to the largest in the world. A greater

percentage of black Americans are directly under the thumb of the criminal

justice system than there ever was in South Africa under apartheid.

Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government financed

addiction treatment.

They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

> So you think the members of the Electoral College should break their

>oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest of

>democracy?

Hey Ken,

Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it, there

is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years.

Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate did,

Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college system

itself that produces this farcical situation.

> But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

>difference between the two parties any more to matter?

Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS something

different. He wants to take America and the world back into the 19th

century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

> My personal wish in this election was that neither party would have

>both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

>stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

> Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either way?

>

> In Gore's own words:

>

> " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it

easier to locate and understand their place in the world because they

could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a God

who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of

reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in life. "

>

> " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came from

[the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

understand the natural world without reference to any moral principles

defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's creation. "

Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont

totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise " it to

something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont

agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially imo

Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his faith,

but I dont see him as dangerous.

>

> And from me:

>

> Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the

>world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial " but

> " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around the idea

>that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy

>dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on their

>Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

>in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the civilization

>itself. "

And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some

support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step solution.

Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every living

human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen quoted is

96%!

Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite (Bush)

and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a close

call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would be

damage control.

> Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a

>president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war on

>drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the world.

>A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the thumb

>of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South Africa

>under apartheid.

But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll probably

put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans voted

for Gore, didnt they?

> Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

>financed addiction treatment.

Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be that

what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?

Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and isnt

religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that there

are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate

(MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH

supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that Gore is

himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the Codependency

stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the right

track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising

primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into

Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn spiritual

disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make it

to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be religious,

got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and so

if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least look

like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and such

is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment

over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific approach

to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical imo!

>They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

or the new one???

P.

[Guest guest]

This is 12 step free. All day I have read people slamming Bush. Some feeble attempts to correlate the actual topic here to the elections have occured, but for the most part I have only been inundated with Bush bashing. Either candidate is a nightmare, a total nightmare, to the people they represent. If you don't see that, maybe you should look a little more, read a little more, think a little more, and talk a little less. If you fear Bush, anyone can show you reasons to fear Gore. If you fear Gore, anyone can show you reasons to fear Bush. If you choose not to fear one and espouse the other, you are in as much denial as a person who fears neither.

And Ken's point was that the entire state (all 25 electoral votes) go to the candidate who wins the state, by law. So if the actual popular votes are represented by the electoral votes as 13-12, whoever has 13 wins that state, and then takes all 25 of those electoral votes. The votes of one state aren't split between the candidates, the man who wins a state gets all of that state's votes. Thats just how it works. Thats the way it is set up in Article II of the US Constitution, and we tend to be sticklers to the Constitution, in some ways, at least.

Re: ELECTION

> So you think the members of the Electoral College should break their >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest of >democracy?Hey Ken,Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it, there is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years. Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate did, Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college system itself that produces this farcical situation.> But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a >difference between the two parties any more to matter?Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS something different. He wants to take America and the world back into the 19th century while everyone else goes into the 21st.> My personal wish in this election was that neither party would have >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.> Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either way?> > In Gore's own words:> > "Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it easier to locate and understand their place in the world because they could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a God who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in life."> > "The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came from [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and understand the natural world without reference to any moral principles defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's creation."Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont totally reject it either, and that I can mostly "secularise" it to something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially imo Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his faith, but I dont see him as dangerous.> > And from me:> > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the >world's environmental problems. They are "addictions" due to >"dysfunctional families," "enablers," and people "in denial" but >"recovery is possible." Codependency theology centers around the idea >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy >dependencies. "Spiritually awake" people instead depend on their >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, ". . . each new generation >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the civilization >itself."And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step solution. Where do you get the idea "Codependency theology [says] 'every living human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen quoted is 96%!Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite (Bush) and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a close call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would be damage control.> Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war on >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the world. >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the thumb >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South Africa >under apartheid.But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll probably put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans voted for Gore, didnt they?> Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government >financed addiction treatment.Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be that what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)? Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and isnt religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that. There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that there are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that Gore is himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the Codependency stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the right track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into Alice . That's a million miles from the "inborn spiritual disease" i.e. Original Sin AA.There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make it to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be religious, got to "tough" on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and so if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least look like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and such is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific approach to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical imo!>They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue or the new one???P.

[Guest guest]

> And Ken's point was that the entire state (all 25 electoral

votes) go to the candidate who wins the state, by law. So if the

actual popular votes are represented by the electoral votes as 13-12,

whoever has 13 wins that state, and then takes all 25 of those

electoral votes. The votes of one state aren't split between the

candidates, the man who wins a state gets all of that state's votes.

Thats just how it works. Thats the way it is set up in Article II of

the US Constitution, and we tend to be sticklers to the Constitution,

in some ways, at least.

-------

" Winner take all " is *not* in the US Constitution, nor is the concept

of popular vote to choose electors.

Article II actually states: " Each State shall appoint, in such Manner

as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to

the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State

may be entitled in the Congress... "

Maine, in fact, divides its four electoral votes: Two on overall

state vote, and each of the congressional districts on the basis of

votes in the district. It is possible for the votes to be split 3-1.

A number of other states do not require the electors to vote for the

candidate they were chosen to elect.

We have great potential for a fustercluck that continues well into

December!

[Guest guest]

Well I am feeling a lot better since my last post. I saw The Legend of Bagger Vance. In the movie, Matt Damon keeps losing his golf games, even though he is really talented. He just loses at everything in all areas of his life. He was really broken by his war experiences as a veteran. Anyway, Will tells Matt just forget about all the people watching you play golf, and focus on your swing. He said everyone has their own swing, and no one can find yours for you, except you. I really find that thinking about myself in those terms helps me to enjoy living in a calm and self assured way. This crazy election is a lot of fun, too. I like the fact that we are in some ways without a leader to rally around, yet America remains a cohesive, civil and functioning society. Of course the human experience includes being an asshole sometimes, and dealing with other assholes, and we are no exception. But I am quite proud to be a part of this country and this world, and I thank people on this list for allowing me to be a part of their country/world. Ok I am going to throw up now, this is too sugary for me. But that is how I feel. :-)

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

>

> > So you think the members of the Electoral College should break their

> >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest of

> >democracy?

>

> Hey Ken,

>

> Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it, there

> is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years.

> Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate did,

> Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college system

> itself that produces this farcical situation.

Pete,

It isn't a Constitutional requirement, but an oath to the candidate and or

party, I believe. As far as I remember, those who voted against who they

were supposed to represent were mostly trying to draw attention to the

archaic electoral college rather than start a revolt.

We could change to direct popular vote and that would certainly make things

simpler. However, in modern history until now, it hasn't been anything

other than parlor talk, " What if? " But if the rules are to be changed, it

should be _before_ the game is played, not mid-game in order to change who

wins. Besides, both candidates are so " unpromising, " perhaps the best that

can be hoped for is a President who knows he has no mandate.

>

>

> > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

>

> Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS something

> different. He wants to take America and the world back into the 19th

> century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

Not quite. Gore likes the Dark Ages, when people knew their place in God's

world.

>

>

> > My personal wish in this election was that neither party would have

> >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

>

> Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

>

> > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either way?

> >

> > In Gore's own words:

> >

> > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it

> easier to locate and understand their place in the world because they

> could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a God

> who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of

> reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in life. "

> >

> > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came from

> [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> understand the natural world without reference to any moral principles

> defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's creation. "

>

> Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont

> totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise " it to

> something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont

> agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially imo

> Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his faith,

> but I dont see him as dangerous.

> >

> > And from me:

> >

> > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the

> >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial " but

> > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around the idea

> >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy

> >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on their

> >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the civilization

> >itself. "

>

> And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some

> support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step solution.

> Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every living

> human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen quoted is

> 96%!

Bradshaw. 96% suffer because of how they grew up. The other 4% from

being around the rest of us.

>

>

> Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite (Bush)

> and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a close

> call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would be

> damage control.

As I've said before, there is a natural resistance to the religious right.

There is no resistance to the groupers, or even acknowledgement that they

exist as they present themselves in the media.

The battle seems to me whether the Ten Commandments are posted on a

schoolroom wall or the Twelve Steps and whether the students are led in the

Lord's Prayer or Serenity Prayer. At one point, Clinton sent out what was

described as some sort of test balloon to get " compromise " on the prayer

issue -- a prayer that is acceptable to all religions. With his mother an

AA and brother a CA and him having been treated for his parent's alcoholism,

I can't help but think " Serenity Prayer. "

>

> > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a

> >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war on

> >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the world.

> >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the thumb

> >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South Africa

> >under apartheid.

>

> But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll probably

> put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans voted

> for Gore, didnt they?

>

I'm not so sure. It would be hard to complete with the virtual police state

this most liberal area of California has become.

>

> > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> >financed addiction treatment.

>

> Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be that

> what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?

An excellent starting point. <G>

>

> Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and isnt

> religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

Or because he had some sort of crisis when his son was injured or died, not

sure which.

>

> There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that there

> are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate

> (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH

> supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that Gore is

> himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the Codependency

> stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the right

> track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising

> primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into

> Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn spiritual

> disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

No, not a million miles, on parallel. The major switch is just a

run-of-the-mill Oxford Group language switch, from AAs to psychological

jargon. I see them doing nothing more than opening old wounds, creating the

despair I spoke of earlier in another context, and replacing it with

essentially the same grouper ideology.

While they will acknowledge it as arising from childhood pain and neglect,

they don't acknowledge _ever_ being well. Doesn't matter if you are the

wretched sinner because of neglect and abuse or because of genes. It is all

the same.

>

>

> There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make it

> to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be religious,

> got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and so

> if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least look

> like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and such

> is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment

> over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific approach

> to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical imo!

>

The more radical it looks, then maybe the better. It can be challenged.

>

> >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

>

> But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

> or the new one???

Exactly. Why pretend that it is _other than_ a nightmare? Why minimize one

nightmare?

Ken Ragge

>

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

Or, as I like to call them... the retard and the robot.

Re: Re: ELECTION

watts_pete@... wrote:> what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?An excellent starting point. <G>

[Guest guest]

Coolguy,

I just checked it - and there is NO constitutional requirement of

federal law for the college celectors to go with the popular vote.

They can vote anyway they damn well please. Now, just maybe they have

to jump all one way or all the other or something, but in any case

they could all simply abstain and vote for neither, which is perhaps

an even better way of responding to the situation. If youre so keen on

your constitution, it might be an idea to check what it says.

Apparently theybe bucked convention 7 times in the last 52 years,

which you will have seen me post before - thought ought to have been a

red flag that your popular belief was at least worth verifying.

Finally, I prefer just a flogging to being burned to death, and I

prefer Gore to Bush!

P.

>

> > So you think the members of the Electoral College should break

their

> >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest

of

> >democracy?

>

> Hey Ken,

>

> Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it,

there

> is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years.

> Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate

did,

> Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college

system

> itself that produces this farcical situation.

>

> > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

>

> Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS

something

> different. He wants to take America and the world back into the

19th

> century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

>

> > My personal wish in this election was that neither party would

have

> >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

>

> Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

>

> > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either

way?

> >

> > In Gore's own words:

> >

> > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it

> easier to locate and understand their place in the world because

they

> could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a

God

> who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of

> reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in

life. "

> >

> > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came

from

> [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> understand the natural world without reference to any moral

principles

> defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's

creation. "

>

> Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont

> totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise " it to

> something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont

> agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially

imo

> Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his

faith,

> but I dont see him as dangerous.

> >

> > And from me:

> >

> > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the

> >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial " but

> > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around the

idea

> >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy

> >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on their

> >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the

civilization

> >itself. "

>

> And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some

> support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step

solution.

> Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every

living

> human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen

quoted is

> 96%!

>

> Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite

(Bush)

> and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a

close

> call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would

be

> damage control.

>

> > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a

> >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war

on

> >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the

world.

> >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the

thumb

> >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South

Africa

> >under apartheid.

>

> But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll

probably

> put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans

voted

> for Gore, didnt they?

>

> > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> >financed addiction treatment.

>

> Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be

that

> what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?

> Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and

isnt

> religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

> There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that

there

> are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate

> (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH

> supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that

Gore is

> himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the

Codependency

> stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the

right

> track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising

> primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into

> Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn spiritual

> disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

>

> There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make

it

> to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be

religious,

> got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and

so

> if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least

look

> like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and

such

> is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment

> over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific

approach

> to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical

imo!

>

> >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

>

> But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania

Avenue

> or the new one???

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

> eGroups Sponsor

[Guest guest]

Great answer. I verified what I wrote before I wrote it. You put some words in my mouth or made some assumptions. While the process is not fully covered word by word under the Constitution, it is covered by law. The Constitution provides for the process, and I'm sure you can find a piece of paper (or many, probably), with some rich old (probably dead) guy's signature on it, that explains the process, and that paper is what we use as law. If you want to fight it, go ahead, there are courts for that. You arer even allowed to fight the Constitution if you want to, so have a ball. Til you get it changed, its still the law. And what the hell are you talking about being bucked 7 times in 52 years? Let me see those stats. You don't have them. About Gore and Bush, I am already aware of your sadistic opinion, but I'm not surprised you felt a need to reiterate it (again).

My point was, the same as Al Gore's in his speech yesterday, that we have to go by the law on this. We can't just throw it out because we don't like it. I wasn't supporting the Electoral College anymore than I support Al Gore or any other facet of being governed.

Re: ELECTION

Coolguy,I just checked it - and there is NO constitutional requirement of federal law for the college celectors to go with the popular vote. They can vote anyway they damn well please. Now, just maybe they have to jump all one way or all the other or something, but in any case they could all simply abstain and vote for neither, which is perhaps an even better way of responding to the situation. If youre so keen on your constitution, it might be an idea to check what it says. Apparently theybe bucked convention 7 times in the last 52 years, which you will have seen me post before - thought ought to have been a red flag that your popular belief was at least worth verifying.Finally, I prefer just a flogging to being burned to death, and I prefer Gore to Bush!P.> > > So you think the members of the Electoral College should break their > >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest of > >democracy?> > Hey Ken,> > Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it, there > is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the > electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years. > Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate did, > Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college system > itself that produces this farcical situation.> > > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a > >difference between the two parties any more to matter?> > Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS something > different. He wants to take America and the world back into the 19th > century while everyone else goes into the 21st.> > > My personal wish in this election was that neither party would have > >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some > >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.> > Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.> > > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either way?> > > > In Gore's own words:> > > > "Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it > easier to locate and understand their place in the world because they > could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a God > who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of > reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in life."> > > > "The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came from > [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and > understand the natural world without reference to any moral principles > defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's creation."> > Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont > totally reject it either, and that I can mostly "secularise" it to > something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont > agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially imo > Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his faith, > but I dont see him as dangerous.> > > > And from me:> > > > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the > >world's environmental problems. They are "addictions" due to > >"dysfunctional families," "enablers," and people "in denial" but > >"recovery is possible." Codependency theology centers around the idea > >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy > >dependencies. "Spiritually awake" people instead depend on their > >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, ". . . each new generation > >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the civilization > >itself."> > And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some > support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step solution. > Where do you get the idea "Codependency theology [says] 'every living > human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen quoted is > 96%!> > Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite (Bush) > and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a close > call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would be > damage control.> > > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a > >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war on > >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the world. > >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the thumb > >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South Africa > >under apartheid.> > But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll probably > put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans voted > for Gore, didnt they?> > > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government > >financed addiction treatment.> > Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be that > what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)? > Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and isnt > religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that. > There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that there > are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate > (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH > supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other > abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that Gore is > himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the Codependency > stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the right > track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising > primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into > Alice . That's a million miles from the "inborn spiritual > disease" i.e. Original Sin AA.> > There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make it > to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be religious, > got to "tough" on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and so > if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least look > like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and such > is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment > over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific approach > to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical imo!> > >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.> > But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue > or the new one???> > P.> > > > > eGroups Sponsor

[Guest guest]

>>

Another horrible thing about this is that Bush support is mostly in

concentrated areas, geographically and demographically; mostly from

white ppl, whereas Gore has supporters from many different groups

acroos he country, helping bring ppl together through consensus. Add

to this the farcical chaos and confusion and the near certainty that

the media influenced the vote. What a Disaster.>>

My opinion of the BBC goes down with each post ;-)Pete, the excact

opposite is true! I've looked at US maps by state, county and

population: It is one united sea of geography for Bush with tiny

clusters and pockets in key areas for Gore. Geographically, Bush has

the overwelming support of middle america.

The great state of Colorado is a good example. They fell for slick

willy the first time around and voted senior out. After four

years of Clinton they have been republican--voting for Dole and

W. this time. The same people who voted GW Bush also defeated

a referendem to restrict abortions and they legalized marijauana for

certain catagories of persons.

To those who think GWB is stupid, how about Gore conceding defeat

personaly to Bush then looking like the idiot he is by taking it back

in a second call. Gore would surrender to an enemy before he lost the

war! ;-) (lol)

Jim

[Guest guest]

you may want to check this out:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_college

guide.html

This is from the ABC new site and explains the electoral college

process. In light of the networks' recent bloopers in predicting the

outcome of the election, I might have more reason than usual to doubt

what I read on their sites, but they list as their sources for this

info the Federal Election Commission and the Office of the Federal

Register.

Kate

> Great answer. I verified what I wrote before I wrote it. You

put some words in my mouth or made some assumptions. While the

process is not fully covered word by word under the Constitution, it

is covered by law. The Constitution provides for the process, and

I'm sure you can find a piece of paper (or many, probably), with some

rich old (probably dead) guy's signature on it, that explains the

process, and that paper is what we use as law. If you want to fight

it, go ahead, there are courts for that. You arer even allowed to

fight the Constitution if you want to, so have a ball. Til you get

it changed, its still the law. And what the hell are you talking

about being bucked 7 times in 52 years? Let me see those stats. You

don't have them. About Gore and Bush, I am already aware of your

sadistic opinion, but I'm not surprised you felt a need to reiterate

it (again).

> My point was, the same as Al Gore's in his speech yesterday,

that we have to go by the law on this. We can't just throw it out

because we don't like it. I wasn't supporting the Electoral College

anymore than I support Al Gore or any other facet of being governed.

>

[Guest guest]

> I've looked at US maps by state, county and

> population: It is one united sea of geography for

> Bush with tiny clusters and pockets in key areas for Gore.

> Geographically, Bush has the overwelming support of middle america.

>

> The great state of Colorado is a good example. They fell for slick

> willy the first time around and voted senior out. After four

> years of Clinton they have been republican--voting for Dole and

> W. this time. The same people who voted GW Bush also

> defeated a referendem to restrict abortions and they legalized

> marijauana for certain catagories of persons.

There is more to the vote than land mass. Many California counties

have more residents than Montana and the Dakotas combined.

Colorado is traditionally a very conservative state. They also passed

Measure 2, which would have outlawed any state legislation to

prohibit discrimination against gays. The United States Supreme Court

found the law unconstitutional. The sole dissenter (to quote the

great twentieth century philosopher, Gomer Pyle, " Surprise, surprise,

surprise! " )was Antonin Scalia, Dubya's first choice for chief

justice.

[Guest guest]

> There is more to the vote than land mass.

Of course. The reply was regarding a statement about geography

>Many California counties

> have more residents than Montana and the Dakotas combined.

And some of those large California counties are very conservative. :-)

Even your airports pay homage to Wayne, statues and all (rofl).

>

> Colorado is traditionally a very conservative state. They also

passed

In some ways, yes. It is also very liberal in some ways.

It's a good political barometer in many respects. But I am biased.

Jim :-)

[Guest guest]

Attached is a MS WORD document (.doc)

Re: ELECTION

> Coolguy,

>

> I just checked it - and there is NO constitutional requirement of

> federal law for the college celectors to go with the popular vote.

> They can vote anyway they damn well please. Now, just maybe they have

> to jump all one way or all the other or something, but in any case

> they could all simply abstain and vote for neither, which is perhaps

> an even better way of responding to the situation. If youre so keen on

> your constitution, it might be an idea to check what it says.

> Apparently theybe bucked convention 7 times in the last 52 years,

> which you will have seen me post before - thought ought to have been a

> red flag that your popular belief was at least worth verifying.

>

> Finally, I prefer just a flogging to being burned to death, and I

> prefer Gore to Bush!

>

> P.

>

>

> >

> > > So you think the members of the Electoral College should break

> their

> > >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest

> of

> > >democracy?

> >

> > Hey Ken,

> >

> > Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it,

> there

> > is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> > electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52 years.

> > Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the electorate

> did,

> > Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college

> system

> > itself that produces this farcical situation.

> >

> > > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> > >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

> >

> > Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS

> something

> > different. He wants to take America and the world back into the

> 19th

> > century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

> >

> > > My personal wish in this election was that neither party would

> have

> > >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> > >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

> >

> > Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

> >

> > > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either

> way?

> > >

> > > In Gore's own words:

> > >

> > > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it

> > easier to locate and understand their place in the world because

> they

> > could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to a

> God

> > who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of

> > reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in

> life. "

> > >

> > > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came

> from

> > [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> > understand the natural world without reference to any moral

> principles

> > defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's

> creation. "

> >

> > Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I dont

> > totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise " it to

> > something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we dont

> > agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl, especially

> imo

> > Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his

> faith,

> > but I dont see him as dangerous.

> > >

> > > And from me:

> > >

> > > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to the

> > >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial " but

> > > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around the

> idea

> > >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy

> > >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on their

> > >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> > >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the

> civilization

> > >itself. "

> >

> > And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express some

> > support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step

> solution.

> > Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every

> living

> > human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen

> quoted is

> > 96%!

> >

> > Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite

> (Bush)

> > and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a

> close

> > call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore would

> be

> > damage control.

> >

> > > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under a

> > >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the war

> on

> > >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the

> world.

> > >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the

> thumb

> > >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South

> Africa

> > >under apartheid.

> >

> > But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll

> probably

> > put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans

> voted

> > for Gore, didnt they?

> >

> > > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> > >financed addiction treatment.

> >

> > Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be

> that

> > what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?

> > Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works, and

> isnt

> > religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

> > There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that

> there

> > are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate

> > (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of MATCH

> > supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> > abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that

> Gore is

> > himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the

> Codependency

> > stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the

> right

> > track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as rising

> > primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are into

> > Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn spiritual

> > disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

> >

> > There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to make

> it

> > to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be

> religious,

> > got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty, and

> so

> > if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least

> look

> > like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and

> such

> > is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug treatment

> > over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific

> approach

> > to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical

> imo!

> >

> > >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

> >

> > But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania

> Avenue

> > or the new one???

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > eGroups Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting -- though a Brit, Pete is passionately interested in who

the next American president will be, and I understand why. Perhaps in

this age of globalization, a concept that leads to the approval of

mergers like SBC, Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, we should have

international elections for national leaders.

Just a harebrained passing thought.

> >

> > > So you think the members of the Electoral College should break

> their

> > >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the interest

> of

> > >democracy?

> >

> > Hey Ken,

> >

> > Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand it,

> there

> > is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> > electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52

years.

> > Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the

electorate

> did,

> > Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college

> system

> > itself that produces this farcical situation.

> >

> > > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> > >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

> >

> > Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS

> something

> > different. He wants to take America and the world back into the

> 19th

> > century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

> >

> > > My personal wish in this election was that neither party would

> have

> > >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> > >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

> >

> > Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

> >

> > > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster either

> way?

> > >

> > > In Gore's own words:

> > >

> > > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found it

> > easier to locate and understand their place in the world because

> they

> > could define themselves in relation both to their parents and to

a

> God

> > who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points of

> > reference, children were less likely to lose their direction in

> life. "

> > >

> > > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science -- came

> from

> > [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> > understand the natural world without reference to any moral

> principles

> > defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's

> creation. "

> >

> > Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I

dont

> > totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise " it

to

> > something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we

dont

> > agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl,

especially

> imo

> > Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his

> faith,

> > but I dont see him as dangerous.

> > >

> > > And from me:

> > >

> > > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to

the

> > >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial "

but

> > > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around

the

> idea

> > >that every living human being suffers from excessive, unhealthy

> > >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on

their

> > >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> > >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the

> civilization

> > >itself. "

> >

> > And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express

some

> > support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step

> solution.

> > Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every

> living

> > human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen

> quoted is

> > 96%!

> >

> > Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite

> (Bush)

> > and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a

> close

> > call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore

would

> be

> > damage control.

> >

> > > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president under

a

> > >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the

war

> on

> > >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the

> world.

> > >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under the

> thumb

> > >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South

> Africa

> > >under apartheid.

> >

> > But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll

> probably

> > put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black Americans

> voted

> > for Gore, didnt they?

> >

> > > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> > >financed addiction treatment.

> >

> > Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it be

> that

> > what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber (Bush)?

> > Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works,

and

> isnt

> > religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

> > There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those that

> there

> > are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance electorate

> > (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of

MATCH

> > supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> > abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that

> Gore is

> > himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the

> Codependency

> > stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on the

> right

> > track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as

rising

> > primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are

into

> > Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn spiritual

> > disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

> >

> > There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to

make

> it

> > to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be

> religious,

> > got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty,

and

> so

> > if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at least

> look

> > like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush - and

> such

> > is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug

treatment

> > over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific

> approach

> > to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look radical

> imo!

> >

> > >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

> >

> > But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania

> Avenue

> > or the new one???

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > eGroups Sponsor

[Guest guest]

In all actuallity the entire, nation-wide, election was a tie. It may be

impracticle, but the whole election should be redone. When states balance on

a 300- vote pin, there can be no truly conclusive tally. A few mistakes here

or there changes the way our nation is lead for the next 4 years and that is

just not professional. Other nations have runoff elections and, in this

narrow circumstance, we should also. We need a new, nation-wide, election

between the two front-runners, Gore and Bush. It won't happen, of course,

but it is the only way to have a truly democratic election.

[Guest guest]

> It isn't a Constitutional requirement, but an oath to the candidate

and or party, I believe. As far as I remember, those who voted

against who they were supposed to represent were mostly trying to draw

attention to the archaic electoral college rather than start a revolt.

An oath of allegiance to a Party or candidate that amounts

to unquestioning support?? that does sound like fascism.

>But if the rules are to be

>changed, it should be _before_ the game is played, not mid-game in

>order to change who wins. Besides, both candidates are so

> " unpromising, " perhaps the best that can be hoped for is a President

>who knows he has no mandate.

But any oath is between them, their Party/Candidate, and their

God/whatever; it's not a question of the RULES, which dont have to

change for this to happen. In fact, its the rules that actually say

they CAN vote anyway they want to, it's just their personal oaths that

dont!

Also, the whole thing is such a fuck up with confusing ballot papers.

the media calling the result with the polling still going on and only

a tiny difference that surely the whole thing should be thought

invalid and a revote taken; and the electoral college could indicate

this by abstaining. Not that they will of course.

If indeed what I shall refer to as the Electoral Crockege was created

because of the difficulties of candidates's travelling and reaching

the electorate, then logically they SHOULD have the leeway to vote

according to their conscience rather than being bound; by having them

bound, it serves soley to remove this justification. The real evil

here is that they all go to the first place Party in each State; if

they went on a proportional basis, then the result would tend to work

out much more like a direct popular vote. I cant help wondering if the

travel justification was always essentially a smoke screen for the

real purpose of making the President reflect the wishes of Congress

rather than the people.

[Guest guest]

Coolguy,

This " discussion " is clearly futile. I will merely say that your post

clearly indicated that their was a Constitutional requirement for the

college electors to vote the expect way and only backtracked when you

found out there was not. You claim there must be a law where there is

no fedral one, possibly not even a Florida one, and showed no

intererst in finding out if your assumption is true. I said nothing

" sadistic " . I was joking abt things being done to me. Ppl can make

upiu their own minds whose opinion is more evidence-based.

Now you have the last word and then were done.

> >

> > > So you think the members of the Electoral College should

break

> their

> > >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the

interest

> of

> > >democracy?

> >

> > Hey Ken,

> >

> > Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand

it,

> there

> > is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> > electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52

years.

> > Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the

electorate

> did,

> > Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college

> system

> > itself that produces this farcical situation.

> >

> > > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> > >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

> >

> > Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS

> something

> > different. He wants to take America and the world back into

the

> 19th

> > century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

> >

> > > My personal wish in this election was that neither party

would

> have

> > >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> > >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

> >

> > Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

> >

> > > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster

either

> way?

> > >

> > > In Gore's own words:

> > >

> > > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found

it

> > easier to locate and understand their place in the world

because

> they

> > could define themselves in relation both to their parents and

to a

> God

> > who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points

of

> > reference, children were less likely to lose their direction

in

> life. "

> > >

> > > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science --

came

> from

> > [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> > understand the natural world without reference to any moral

> principles

> > defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's

> creation. "

> >

> > Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I

dont

> > totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise "

it to

> > something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we

dont

> > agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl,

especially

> imo

> > Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his

> faith,

> > but I dont see him as dangerous.

> > >

> > > And from me:

> > >

> > > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to

the

> > >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial "

but

> > > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around

the

> idea

> > >that every living human being suffers from excessive,

unhealthy

> > >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on

their

> > >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> > >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the

> civilization

> > >itself. "

> >

> > And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express

some

> > support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step

> solution.

> > Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every

> living

> > human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen

> quoted is

> > 96%!

> >

> > Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite

> (Bush)

> > and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a

> close

> > call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore

would

> be

> > damage control.

> >

> > > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president

under a

> > >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the

war

> on

> > >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the

> world.

> > >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under

the

> thumb

> > >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South

> Africa

> > >under apartheid.

> >

> > But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll

> probably

> > put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black

Americans

> voted

> > for Gore, didnt they?

> >

> > > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> > >financed addiction treatment.

> >

> > Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it

be

> that

> > what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber

(Bush)?

> > Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works,

and

> isnt

> > religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

> > There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those

that

> there

> > are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance

electorate

> > (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of

MATCH

> > supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> > abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that

> Gore is

> > himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the

> Codependency

> > stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on

the

> right

> > track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as

rising

> > primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are

into

> > Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn

spiritual

> > disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

> >

> > There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to

make

> it

> > to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be

> religious,

> > got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty,

and

> so

> > if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at

least

> look

> > like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush -

and

> such

> > is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug

treatment

> > over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific

> approach

> > to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look

radical

> imo!

> >

> > >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

> >

> > But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania

> Avenue

> > or the new one???

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > eGroups Sponsor

>

>

> eGroups Sponsor

[Guest guest]

I said nothing sadistic - I joked abt being hurt myself. That alone

indicates the size of you intellect and understanding. Ppl can make up

their own mind who said what and whose position is more rationally

argued from evidence. You have the last word.

> >

> > > So you think the members of the Electoral College should

break

> their

> > >oaths and overturn rule of law and stage a coup in the

interest

> of

> > >democracy?

> >

> > Hey Ken,

> >

> > Mebbe the Beeb (BBC) got it wrong again, but as I understand

it,

> there

> > is NO Constitutional requirement for them to vote the way the

> > electorate did, and they've done it 7 times in the last 52

years.

> > Another point is, that if they REALLY vote the way the

electorate

> did,

> > Florida would vote 13:12 like I suggested. It's the college

> system

> > itself that produces this farcical situation.

> >

> > > But what if Nader is correct, that there isn't enough of a

> > >difference between the two parties any more to matter?

> >

> > Well I've said it myself to some extent, but Bush really IS

> something

> > different. He wants to take America and the world back into

the

> 19th

> > century while everyone else goes into the 21st.

> >

> > > My personal wish in this election was that neither party

would

> have

> > >both the presidencey and congress, that there would be some

> > >stalemate, although I doubt even that would be enough.

> >

> > Well if Gore does win, thats what we get.

> >

> > > Can't agree with Disaster more but is it not a disaster

either

> way?

> > >

> > > In Gore's own words:

> > >

> > > " Before the scientific era, children almost certainly found

it

> > easier to locate and understand their place in the world

because

> they

> > could define themselves in relation both to their parents and

to a

> God

> > who was clearly present in nature. With these two firm points

of

> > reference, children were less likely to lose their direction

in

> life. "

> > >

> > > " The confusion at the heart of much of modern science --

came

> from

> > [the] assumption that human intellect could safely analyze and

> > understand the natural world without reference to any moral

> principles

> > defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's

> creation. "

> >

> > Now dare I say it, though I dont agree with what Gore says I

dont

> > totally reject it either, and that I can mostly " secularise "

it to

> > something that I can find fairly palatable. Also, even if we

dont

> > agree, does it matter that Gore is religious? Most ppl,

especially

> imo

> > Americans, are. He seems a decent man. I may not share his

> faith,

> > but I dont see him as dangerous.

> > >

> > > And from me:

> > >

> > > Gore applies Codependents Anonymous doctrine and language to

the

> > >world's environmental problems. They are " addictions " due to

> > > " dysfunctional families, " " enablers, " and people " in denial "

but

> > > " recovery is possible. " Codependency theology centers around

the

> idea

> > >that every living human being suffers from excessive,

unhealthy

> > >dependencies. " Spiritually awake " people instead depend on

their

> > >Twelve Step program. Says Gore, " . . . each new generation

> > >in our civilization now feels utterly dependent on the

> civilization

> > >itself. "

> >

> > And now we get on shaky ground, since, as you know, I express

some

> > support for the Codependency concept, if wary of the 12-step

> solution.

> > Where do you get the idea " Codependency theology [says] 'every

> living

> > human being suffers...' " etc? The worst figure I have seen

> quoted is

> > 96%!

> >

> > Well I guess we're talking choice between a proto-Buchmanite

> (Bush)

> > and a neo-ite (Gore). I still prefer the latter; it's a

> close

> > call but I think I prefer Stalin to Ivan the Terrible. Gore

would

> be

> > damage control.

> >

> > > Also, need I remind you that Gore is the vice-president

under a

> > >president and party that promised 100,000 more police for the

war

> on

> > >drugs? Our prison population has grown to the largest in the

> world.

> > >A greater percentage of black Americans are directly under

the

> thumb

> > >of the criminal justice system than there ever was in South

> Africa

> > >under apartheid.

> >

> > But Bush isnt going to call off the Dogs of War is he? He'll

> probably

> > put 200,000 more police on eventually. And most black

Americans

> voted

> > for Gore, didnt they?

> >

> > > Moreover, Clinton/Gore have been pushing hard for government

> > >financed addiction treatment.

> >

> > Too much to hope it will be science-based of course. Could it

be

> that

> > what we're talking abt here is Dumb (Gore) versus Dumber

(Bush)?

> > Gore thinks that addiction treatment is scientific and works,

and

> isnt

> > religious, because the gigantic stepper mafia tells him that.

> > There are hardly any contrary viewpoints, and many of those

that

> there

> > are would a disaster with the Prohibition/Temperance

electorate

> > (MM with the Kishline tragedy for example), and now $30M of

MATCH

> > supposedly tells us AA is at least as good as the other

> > abstinence-based approaches. Another possibility is just that

> Gore is

> > himself doing his own damage control. I know you view the

> Codependency

> > stuff with as much disdain as AA, but imo at least theyre on

the

> right

> > track, seeing addictive and other psychosocial problems as

rising

> > primarily from childhood pain and neglect. Many CoDA ppl are

into

> > Alice . That's a million miles from the " inborn

spiritual

> > disease " i.e. Original Sin AA.

> >

> > There's no way an agnostic, let alone an atheist, is going to

make

> it

> > to the White House for example. He's pretty well got to be

> religious,

> > got to " tough " on drugs, got to be ok with the death penalty,

and

> so

> > if he isnt those things already he has to make himself at

least

> look

> > like he is just so he can get in and keep out gungho Bush -

and

> such

> > is the American climate, putting money into 12-step drug

treatment

> > over prison looks like liberalism and a credible scientific

> approach

> > to the problem. If Bush gets in, then its going to look

radical

> imo!

> >

> > >They are _both_, Bush and Gore, nightmares.

> >

> > But do we prefer the Wes Craven old Nightmare on Pennsylvania

> Avenue

> > or the new one???

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > eGroups Sponsor

>

>

> eGroups Sponsor