Re: ELECTION

[Guest guest]

> Attached is a MS WORD document (.doc)

Which shows? I dont see a Constitutional requirement abt how the

College electors should vote once elected themselves. Think abt it -

what would be the point of electring real ppl if they're actions were

totally determined beforehand? That's totally nuts. Even our

constutional practixes arent that stupid. The college system only

makes any kind of sense if they *do* have choice over the way they

vote. If they voluntarily swear an oath to be loyal to anyone, that's

up to them of course.

P.

[Guest guest]

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

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

Well, I am concerned for Amercians (they are human after all <g>) but

I'm concerned for the world - for its safety, stability, freedom and

culture. We are very imfluenced by america here, and increasingly so

is the whole world.

P.

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for giving me the last word. Looking at what I wrote I find it to be like a lot of what I write - missing some things. Some times I miss some pretty vital points. Article 2 of the US Constitution, which I mentioned in the disputed post because I had just read it, does give some preliminary info regarding how the voting process (that we call the Electoral College) operates. The purpose of the representative voters from each state is to vote for the person who best meets the wishes of the state's electorate. One representative elector voting against another representative elector from the same state would be rather futile, nullifying that state's votes and its ability to be heard and have an impact on the election. This isn't something states wanted to do at the time this process was conceived, and I don't think they want to do that any more now.

Maybe I didn't do a great job of finding evidence to support the fact that the Electoral College runs accoridng to rules, according to laws. Knowing how laws are written I would have to read a lot to find whatever it is you want to see. I read couple days ago how the representative electors can be fined $1,000 in some states for voting against the wishes of the people, so there must be a law somewhere that supports that fine, though I don't know where and do not want to look for it. I am not going to read through lawbooks or whatever to meet your expectations that I have to prove myself to you here on this subject - it's just not within the realm of something I would undertake.

Finally, according to m-w.com sadistic has this meaning... delight in cruelty - that fits one who enjoys flogging or any Brit, I suppose.

Re: ELECTION

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]

it's my understanding that about half of the states require their electors to vote according to won that state. the other half of the states do not have these laws. therefore, even if in florida electors are bound by law to go a certain way, in some states (new hampshire is one), electors are free to be mavericks. it's not likely to happen because the electors are known party yahoo's who would eat glass in the name of party loyalty. i agree that the legal process should play itself out. all of the recounting is being done under supervision of observers and tv cameras. i think that this is very healthy for the country. we have seen an epidemic of apathy, but this is a virutal real life soap opera in which more people are bound to participate next time.

watts_pete@... wrote:

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 volunteer to serve as a Republican elector.

Re: Re: ELECTION

it's my understanding that about half of the states require their electors to vote according to won that state. the other half of the states do not have these laws. therefore, even if in florida electors are bound by law to go a certain way, in some states (new hampshire is one), electors are free to be mavericks. it's not likely to happen because the electors are known party yahoo's who would eat glass in the name of party loyalty. i agree that the legal process should play itself out. all of the recounting is being done under supervision of observers and tv cameras. i think that this is very healthy for the country. we have seen an epidemic of apathy, but this is a virutal real life soap opera in which more people are bound to participate next time.

watts_pete@... wrote:

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]

bob are you going to the electoral college? i wish your party had nominated john mccain...i would have voted for him. i bet some of the party people here massachusetts really would eat glass. i imagine you guys have a good amount of loyalty as well. i have always been registered independent, and i am rooting for gore .. but i gotta say, if your guy wins, i look forward to an exciting new cabinet. Bob Warner wrote:

I volunteer to serve as a Republican elector.

Re: Re: ELECTION

it's my understanding that about half of the states require their electors to vote according to won that state. the other half of the states do not have these laws. therefore, even if in florida electors are bound by law to go a certain way, in some states (new hampshire is one), electors are free to be mavericks. it's not likely to happen because the electors are known party yahoo's who would eat glass in the name of party loyalty. i agree that the legal process should play itself out. all of the recounting is being done under supervision of observers and tv cameras. i think that this is very healthy for the country. we have seen an epidemic of apathy, but this is a virutal real life soap opera in which more people are bound to participate next time.

watts_pete@... wrote:

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]

Coolguy,

A republican elector from one of the New England states recently voted

for Lloyd Bentsen for president, even though he wasn't a candidate.

Pete has a point.

How can you claim that you are right if you haven't done your

homework? You " know " you're right -- how did you find out? Osmosis?

The same kind of brainwork that convinces the general public that any

" alcoholic " who takes a drink is out of control, and will go on to be

Mr. Hyde?

> > >

> > > > 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

>

>

> eGroups Sponsor