In a message dated 10/28/00 7:31:13 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> At 11:05 PM 10/27/00 -0700, Kristin wrote:
> >Yes, it's a sucky choice. That's what is wrong with the winner take all
> >scheme we have. It's just as sucky for Libertarians or any other third ofr
> >fourth party whatever. Maybe if Nader gets a big vote it will focus
> >attention on the *issue* of third parties in general.That might turn out
> >to be good not just for the Greens but for others.
>
> I, for one, am a big fan of the two party system. This system broadly
> ensures that we get a mainstream government, with mainstream policies.
> The last thing I want is a proportional vote system where tiny minorities
> at the extremes, like the Greens hold the balance of power. This would
> probably require a coalition that gave the Greens control of the Dept. of
> Interior or something. Instead, our system gives the balance of power to
> people in the center, and ensures a government that is broadly based on the
> mainstream consensus of the people.
To blindly accept only 2 options is foolish. As was the case with the
Liberitarian quiz that was posted, there are more than just 2 ways to look at
policy, and the thing I remember most is the number of people looking for 4th
options in that quiz. Your "mainstreamed politics" advances only the
position of 2 groups, not the consensus of the american people.
> I'm sorry, but Ralph Nader is an extremist nut, and the major poitns of his
> campaign platform, according to his own website, nationalized healthcare,
> publicly financed elections, and an end to free trade have all been soundly
> rejected by the American people.
Again, resorting to insults rather than discussing the issues.
Those issues are *some* of the issues that Nader stands for, but that is not
the whole of his campaign... As for NAFTA, living on a border town, which is
directly affected, by the change, I was squarely against it since day 1.
NAFTA also gives large coperations a "work around" US environmental
regulations, something I am also squarely against. I'm sure you would
probably have no problem letting businesses poison the air, water, land, etc.
until they destroy the ecosystem that supports us, and kill us and hundreds
if not thousands of other species in the process. I'm sure that that doesn't
bother you at all, even though the thought of two people of the same sex
having relations does bother you.
Now, I admit that I don't really know your stance on those issues, but that
description up above is standard policy for Republicans and Democtrats alike
(it may not be what they say, but it is what they do). Democrats aren't
typically as bad as republicans on those issues, but still, it is significant
enough to demand real change. Are you aware that the hole in the ozone
extended above the southern part of South America? If it weren't for
environmental "extremists" demanding change it would probably still be
growing today. It takes 20 years for the damage done to the ozone to start
reversing, and if policy hadn't changed when it had, it would have put whole
nations, and complete ecosystems in extreme danger. Global warming is now
accepted as a fact, not a far-fetched hypothesis. If something is not done,
and soon (especially since that too will take decades if not longer before it
starts reversing), The global temperature will rise significantly, effecting
weather systems, both flooding and droughts will become more likely, and
promoting the deterioration of the polar ice caps, which could cause coastal
flooding. Not "extremist" delusions, fact.
Even worse, many of his supporters come
> from The Greens/Green Party USA, and those people are flat out lunatics,
> with almost no understanding of economics, or good governance. The last
> thing I want is a system that would enfranchise all of these people on the
> fringes, from Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan to Harry Browne.
>
> JDG
Who is the lunatic: the man yelling "We don't have a life raft and the ship
is sinking, if we act now, we still can save the ship!" or the man who says
"Money is more important, we'll take care of that later."?
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
