-Caveat Lector- Dear Jerry, What you're responding to below was my post which was kindly re-posted by Lloyd Miller, so . . . Before giving you "an honest liberal" test, I can't refran from comments about Clinton being talented, for the masses, etc. etc. etc. These sentiments are so out in fairytale land that I confine my comments to a few sentences rather than a booklet-length rebuttal: The Big Media can sink Clinton in a few days anytime they want -- and they would have in Jan 98 if he hadn't agreed to go after Iraq again and to back off of any demands on Israel. Sure, Clinton WANTS to do the right thing on occasion, maybe even on a lot of occasions, but he's so blackmail-able, and so unprincipled when it comes to devotion to ANYTHING vs. saving his own skin -- that he can always be put back in the tank and made to be obedient again --- the blackmailable part of him, that's WHY he was chosen to be president back in 1990 or so when he was attending all those Bilderberger meetings over in the Netherlands with Dan Quayle et al. He's talented at smoozing the public, but let's not get carried away. If he was a bumbler, he would have been deemed "incompetent" to be put in the presidency. Mike Kinsley on Crossfire often gives his "honest conservative" test, and often the recipient fails it because they can't say what major programs they would cut in order to achieve their stated desire to decrease taxes (Howard Phillips would never fail such as test.) But here's your honest liberal test regarding computerized elections: Do you support a return to citizen checks and balances at the polling places once again as we had in most places before 1970? or do you support the present system where (excepting 70% of New Hampshire) it is ILLEGAL for neighborhood citizens to count their own votes with all factions witnessing, before they are whisked out of the nieghborhood and run through computers by nameless faceless "experts" who are unknown to the public and usually unknown to the Party Chairman "guarenteeing the results? (Note: There's nothing to stop computers from double checking the neighborhood count -- but that's not what the Ruling Elite wants, because then it would be impossible to rig elections with the flick of a switch from a central location.) What is your answer to that question, Jerry? If you want to go back to citizen checks and balances, then we have no quarrell, and I for one have NO fear of the results, even with a biased media pumping out weighted polls. If the Clintons and Barney Franks are still elected, so be it. But all my experience, for what it's worth, SHOUTS that liberals and establishment hacks are infinitely more resistant to restoring checks and balances than libertarians and conservatives, And if you are NOT for restoring citizen checks and balances at the neighborhood precinct, then I think that settles which one of us "distrusts the people" or "thinks the American people are stupid?" I am eager to hear your reply, because I have found that Clinton-type supporters invariably LOVE the current no-checks-and-balances computerized vote tallying systems. Jim Condit Jr. > -----Original Message----- > From: Conspiracy Theory Research List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Gerald Harp > Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 9:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CTRL] Poll Conspiracy - Public Opinion Conspiracy - Voting > C... > > > -Caveat Lector- > > In a message dated 1/1/99 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, lloyd@A- > ALBIONIC.COM writes: > > > > > And, you are on a conspiracy research list, and you're putting > out the bunk > > that Clinton is the one responsible for the economy????? He's > giving the > > Alan Greenspan crowd, The Ruling Elite, what they want, and > Greenspan keeps > > the interest rates down. Also, the economy is only great for > the Vultures > > on Wall Street, the average working man is groaning under > unnecessary debt > > artificially created by even the "low" interest rates we have, and the > > ungodly tax burden. > > OK, Lloyd, you don't trust the polls and you don't trust the election. > Perhaps you would trust the polls and elections only if they came > out as you > please. > > Where i find a major disconnect in your opinions that you assume > Clinton is > the boy of the ruling elite. However, the ruling elites must > constantly check > him such as paring back the initial request for increasing the > minimum wage or > setting up an expensive and extensive propaganda barrage against national > health insurance. I fully agree that although GDP keeps climbing and the > number of millionaires in the nation grows, the average guy is > not sharing in > the prosperity of the rich. I hardly think that the answer is to > vote against > the one presidential candidate and party which consistently > proposes and works > for a more inclusive society. I don't buy the quasi-nihilistic notion of > they're all the same. > > History is clearly on our side. The march of history has been toward a > greater sharing of power and wealth. The SOBs that have recently reversed > this trend are going to be rolled over. Contrary to popular > opinion on this > list, people are not stupid. They do catch on and begin to vote > for and work > for their own interest and for the values they share. > > I do get a little tired of constantly seeming to defend Clinton when it is > merely a matter of choosing to be led by a brilliant talented > leader who has > ideas and spiritually based ideals or a wholly cynical gang of > power hungry > hypocrites who can only view society as something to manipulate. > > Cheers and have a happy new year. > > Jerry > > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. > Proselyzting propagandic > screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are > sordid matters > and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections > and outright > frauds is used politically by different groups with major and > minor effects > spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL > gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always > suggests to readers; > be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and > nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
