In a message dated 10/28/00 10:51:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> >I would love for that to be the truth, but after what happened with
> > >Clinton in office, I am not going to believe what Al Gore claims he
> > >will do for the environment. I wish I could believe him. If I did
> > >believe him, I would vote for him, but I don't, and won't.
>
> Well, neither he, nor Clinton can do everything they want. Anything
> proposed has to get through Congress. But, he supports the Kyoto treaty,
> and
> has probably lost a couple of states for it. I'll repeat what I said
> before, his environmental stand puts him on the edge of being electable.
> His stand is not popular with many Americans.
Thank God for that... Clinton has passed so much anti-environmental
legislation I almost thought he was Republican. Now that election year rolls
around, Clinton passes "token" legislation for the environment. A man who
called himself the environmental candidate, signing a bill to save a few
acres of National Forest when, durring his time in office he signed bills
allowing the cutting of National Forests. What do I call that? A two-faced
liar. And all the while, Al Gore was his apprentice. If Al Gore does get
elected, I hope I am wrong. I hope he is as environmentally concerned as he
claims he is, and if his record in the office of president reflects his
stands on environment, individual rights, etc, I will vote to reelect him.
With the two-faced Clinton as his predecesor in the party, I am not going to
trust Gore until I have reason to trust him, though.
> >See what happens when you cut someones words mid sentence... I give >up. I
> > NEVER SAID THAT A VOTE FOR NADER WOULD NOT AFFECT THE >OUTCOME. I SAID
> >"As for Voting for Nader, again, *****UNLESS***** >you live in one of the
> >battle ground states ... a vote for Nader is >a vote for Nader, it won't
> >affect the outcome."
> >
> >Will people please STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH (OR TAKING THEM >OUT AS
> >THE CASE MAY BE).
>
> I have followed the elections for a month now, and I never ever saw that
> low
> of an estimate for battleground states. Could you please provide the
> source
> for your numbers, as I have provided mine? And no malice is intened in my
> cutting of your words...its considered bad manners to keep everything in a
> previous post. Could you please refrain from shouting?
>
Sorry for the shouting, but you are not the first person to say I said that
(in fact I think you were the third). And I have tried to clarify and
reclarify what I've said multiple times. As for the Number, I read it in an
MSN article about a week ago (I read it at work, so I don't have the url
handy).
Politics isn't a topic I enjoy, but if American concern for the environment
is as low as you estimate it, then I forsee a very grim future for humans and
all species on the planet, but I do think you and political analysts are
underestimating the issue of the environment, and I think that if Democrats
keep neglecting that issue, they will feel that pinch (as they are now).
Also Notable is the fact that there was no significant green party to speek
of until after Clinton started his two-faced environmental policies, and
since then the green party has been gaining support each election. That
support is growing, and some support isn't reflected in the polls, because
numerous Nader supporters are voting for Gore simply because they don't want
Bush in office or because they think it would be "wasting their vote". The
stronger the Green party gets, the less people will believe it's throwing
away their vote. I guess its an easier choice for me, because I live in
Texas, a Republican owned state, and I know my vote for Gore or Nader will
not affect the final outcome *at all*.
I really don't want to discuss this further, because it isn't changing
anyone's mind, and it is just ending up aggitating all of us, I am sure.
Additionally, I really don't have much time for this discussion.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
