Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> J.A. Terranson schrieb:
>
> > This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60
> > million people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly
> > awaiting their Trip Up The Chimneys.
>
> Wow! A Tim May copycat!
> (Both the 'useless eaters' and the 'chimney'!)

You idiot: that wasn't a "copycat", it was a *tribute*.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

 Civilization is in a tailspin - everything is backwards, everything is
upside down- doctors destroy health, psychiatrists destroy minds, lawyers
destroy justice, the major media destroy information, governments destroy
freedom and religions destroy spirituality - yet it is claimed to be
healthy, just, informed, free and spiritual. We live in a social system
whose community, wealth, love and life is derived from alienation,
poverty, self-hate and medical murder - yet we tell ourselves that it is
biologically and ecologically sustainable.

The Bush plan to screen whole US population for mental illness clearly
indicates that mental illness starts at the top.

Rev Dr Michael Ellner

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Justin]

On 2004-11-08T10:09:41-0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> Kerry spent essentially no time talking about the creepy implications
> of the Jose Padilla case (isn't he still being held incommunicado,
> pending filing in the right district?), or the US government's use of
> torture in the war on terror despite treaties and the basic
> obligations of civilized people not to do that crap.

Padilla is still in the naval brig in SC, I suppose.  The media seems to
think he's still there, or at least thought so as of mid-September.

They might be trying to do to him what they did to Hamdi, who's in Saudi
Arabia as of a month ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi#Release
http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu/thrd2.html
(search for Hamdi, there are 8-10 messages about it)

I don't know if Padilla has dual citizenship, so there may not be
another country that would take him.  Apparent citizen-less individuals
(mostly citizens of other countries who won't re-accept them when the
U.S. tries to deport them) end up being incarcerated indefinitely by the
INS.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[John Kelsey]

>From: Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 6, 2004 5:57 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: The Values-Vote Myth

..
>Also, voting is in some sense political manipulation to blame the population 
>for the 
>actions of their government.  Everyone who votes is a co-conspirator, and the 
>argument is made that those who don't vote have no right to dissent.

Yep, I always get a kick out of this line.  Alice says "if you don't vote, you 
have no right to complain about the outcome."  Bob says "if you don't volunteer 
for a campaign, man the phone banks, go door to door, and give till it hurts, 
you have no right to complain about the outcome."  Carol says "If you don't 
stockpile weapons, organize into cells, and run a campaign of terror bombing 
and assassination, you have no right to complain about the outcome."  Why is 
one of these people more obviously right than the others?  [I know you weren't 
agreeing with the quoted statement either.]

In practice, Alice's strategy has almost no impact on the result--nothing I did 
as a Maryland voter could have given Bush fewer electoral votes than he already 
got, and that's true almost everywhere for an individual voter.  This is 
especially true if you're an individual voter whose major issues are just not 
very important to most other voters.  Kerry spent essentially no time talking 
about the creepy implications of the Jose Padilla case (isn't he still being 
held incommunicado, pending filing in the right district?), or the US 
government's use of torture in the war on terror despite treaties and the basic 
obligations of civilized people not to do that crap.  I see little indication 
that Kerry would have disclaimed the power to do those things, had the vote 
swung a couple percentage points the other way.

Bob's strategy has more going for it, but it comes down to a tradeoff between 
alternate uses of your time.  You could devote your time to the Bush or Kerry 
or Badnarik campaigns, or you could improve your ability to survive whatever 
ugliness may come in other ways--maybe by making more money and banking it 
against future problems, or improving your standing in your field, so you're 
likely to be employable even in a massive post-terror-attack recession.  Maybe 
just spending quality time with your wife and kids, on the theory that the bad 
guys may manage to vaporize you tomorrow whichever clown gets elected 
Bozo-in-Chief.  

Carol's strategy seems doomed to fail to me--look how much damage has been done 
to the pro-life movement by the very small number of wackos willing to shoot 
abortion doctors and bomb clinics.  I'm always amazed at the revolutionary talk 
from people on this list, as though libertarian/anarchocapitalist ideas weren't 
an almost invisibly small minority in the US, as though some kind of unrest 
leading to a civil war would lead anywhere any of us would like.  (Is it the 
secular police state that comes out on top, or the religious police state?)  

>Eric Michael Cordian 0+

--John

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, James A. Donald wrote:

> J.A. Terranson wrote:
>  > The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.
>  > You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
>  > Inaction is not good enough.
>
> Voting is not a solution.
>
> Voting only encourages them.  If you vote for a candidate, and he
> wins, he will then proceed to commit various crimes, and you, by
> voting, have given him a "mandate" for those crimes.

This is the position I maintained, word for word, since Carter.  However,
where as you may have "mandated" the crimes you voted for, you have also
"mandated" the crimes you failed to prevent, since you KNEW those crimes
would be committed.

> Further, suppose you think, as I think, that candidate A is a lesser
> evil than candidate B, but the difference is not much. If you vote for
> the lesser evil, you will start to rationalize and excuse all the
> crimes he commits, identifying with him, and his actions.

Bullshit.  That may be *you*, but that does not cover all of us.

> Nor is Kerry a solution.

Agreed.

> I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this
> election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to
> continue all Bush's policies only more effectually.

This was the reason the vote was (a) so close amongst voters, and (b)
likely decided for Shrub.

> You vote for Kerry because you think he is a liar?

No.  I voted for Kerry because unlike George, he has at least two brain
cells - so there's a *chance* (remote, I grant you), that he can be made
to see reason.  Bush however, (a) has no brain whatsoever, (b) *enjoys*
fucking things up and praying that his good buddy Jesus will fix his
fuckups, and (c) seeing people needlessly suffer.  This is why people are
so upset that he was finally elected: nobody wants a sadist in a position
where he can deliberately and with impunity hurt whoever he turns his sick
little gaze to.

>  --digsig
>   James A. Donald

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Tyler Durden]

Holy Crap! Am I on crack? I think I agree with everything here!
However...
(James Donald wrote...)
I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this
election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to
continue all Bush's policies only more effectually.
That's basically why Kerry lost. He didn't seem to challenge anything Bush 
did, only the way he carried things out. That means the republicans 
successfully caused any debate to happen on their terms. Kerry's willingness 
to kowtow to the idea of a benevolent invasion of Iraq just made him seem 
like a scumbag to me, no matter what he actually believed.

However, there are some things that Bush did that, symbolically at least, he 
should have been drummed out for. The fact that he won and with large voter 
turnout is more or less a vindication of his crimes. It means that Bush 
won't be afraid of doing even more, and then the countless mountains of 
hillbillies out there will watch his back and take the inevitable bullet or 
two for him.

Well, every people deserve the government they get, and these hillbillies 
are no exception. Bush will dominate them, take away their rights, make them 
poor and scared, and they'll deserve every bit of it. (Where's a Tim May 
rant when you need one?)

-TD
_
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Tyler Durden]

JAT wrote...
This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60 million
people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly awaiting their Trip
Up The Chimneys.
A...I need a cigarette.
But I suspect it's far more likely that some large batch of USA-ians will 
end up having a surprise meeting with Allah as the result of a big ole 
stinky dirty bomb. And with Iraq II we'll have an endless supply of suicide 
bombers ready to deliver. The only drawback is that there's a solid chance 
it'll be set off a few hundred feet from where I work.

Ah well. Dems da breaks. We had a good run.
-TD
_
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[James A. Donald]

--
J.A. Terranson wrote:
> The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.
> You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
> Inaction is not good enough.
Voting is not a solution.
Voting only encourages them.  If you vote for a candidate, and he
wins, he will then proceed to commit various crimes, and you, by
voting, have given him a "mandate" for those crimes.
Further, suppose you think, as I think, that candidate A is a lesser
evil than candidate B, but the difference is not much. If you vote for
the lesser evil, you will start to rationalize and excuse all the
crimes he commits, identifying with him, and his actions.
Nor is Kerry a solution.
I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this
election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to
continue all Bush's policies only more effectually.
You vote for Kerry because you think he is a liar?
--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 EDbRclDc5acD10EGJi0ScHZfE2IslIbsawTQvj54
 4jjneZ53XniQe2NYlNlFO5PGLTN5vTyDLI5okTjKv

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Nomen Nescio]

J.A. Terranson schrieb:

> This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60
> million people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly
> awaiting their Trip Up The Chimneys.

Wow! A Tim May copycat!
(Both the 'useless eaters' and the 'chimney'!)

RE: The Values-Vote Myth

[John Kelsey]

>From: "J.A. Terranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 6, 2004 5:07 PM
>To: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: The Values-Vote Myth

>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

..
>> So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the
>> American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
>> Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)

>Complicit?  Thats *technically* correct, but not nearly strong enough.

Similarly, if I hold some stock in Exxon, am I complicit in every crime done by 
the management of Exxon?  How does this change if I'm a child whose trust fund 
contains the stock?  Or if I hold a mutual fund I inherited with a little Exxon 
stock, which can be sold off only if I'm willing to move thousands of miles 
from my home, learn a new language, uproot my family, etc.?  Is there any 
outcome of the election that would have made it immoral to attack Americans?  
(Certainly not electing Kerry, who planned to continue holding down Iraq for 
the forseeable future, though he correctly stated that invading it was a 
mistake in the first place.)  

And if we accept this kind of collective guilt logic, why is, say, flattening 
Fallujah to make an example for the rest of Iraq, wrong?  

> -TD

>J.A. Terranson

--John

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Well, every people deserve the government they get, and these hillbillies
> are no exception. Bush will dominate them, take away their rights, make them
> poor and scared, and they'll deserve every bit of it. (Where's a Tim May
> rant when you need one?)

This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60 million
people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly awaiting their Trip
Up The Chimneys.

> -TD

;-)

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Received: from 24.90.217.26 by by24fd.bay24.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;



> JAT wrote...
>
> >This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60 million
> >people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly awaiting their Trip
> >Up The Chimneys.
>
> A...I need a cigarette.

Was it as good for you as it was for me? :-)


> But I suspect it's far more likely that some large batch of USA-ians will
> end up having a surprise meeting with Allah as the result of a big ole
> stinky dirty bomb. And with Iraq II we'll have an endless supply of suicide
> bombers ready to deliver. The only drawback is that there's a solid chance
> it'll be set off a few hundred feet from where I work.

Manhattan, eh?

  > Received: from 24.90.217.26 by by24fd.bay24.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;

Yeah, you'll probably be one of the first.  Bummer.


> Ah well. Dems da breaks. We had a good run.

200 years is about average actually, at least as far as imperialist
empires go.


> -TD

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Eric Cordian]

J.A. Terranson wrote:

> The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.  You
> are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.  Inaction
> is not good enough.

This would only be true if the President were elected by popular vote.

In states where one candidate had a huge majority, the results would not have 
been 
changed.

Also, voting is in some sense political manipulation to blame the population 
for the 
actions of their government.  Everyone who votes is a co-conspirator, and the 
argument is made that those who don't vote have no right to dissent.

Any government that requires that I vote, or the torture and war crimes are "my 
fault", is broken to start with.

The fundamental definition of Democracy is still "Your neighbors tell you what 
to 
do."  I don't tolerate my neighbors telling me what to do, particularly my 
neighbors 
in the Confederacy, which we should have let keep their Negro guest-workers and 
drop 
out of the union when the opportunity presented itself.

Now they outnumber us, and we are paying for it.

The only government I need is "Leave me alone, or face serious consequences."  
Similarly, I leave others alone.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Sarad AV]

--- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> When asked about
> the issue that most
> influenced their vote, voters were given the option
> of saying "moral
> values." But that phrase can mean anything - or
> nothing. Who doesn't vote
> on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you
> get a misleading result.

An american lady during the iraq war told me-"How do
you think we will continue to get government benifits
without the war?"

What it means is open for interpretation.
Sarath.



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 
 

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[R.A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 6:25 PM + 11/6/04, Justin wrote:
>65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush

Of course, you can invert the math and say the same about Kerry, plus
Bush's 3-something million margin, I'm afraid. Hell, Rush said
exactly the same thing on Friday. :-). Numerology doesn't win
elections, I'm afraid.


Remember, boys and girls, government itself is the not-so-polite
fiction that the highwayman is acting in our best interest at all
times if we pay him enough to leave us, individually, alone.

So, as Brooks indirectly proves, rather than blathering here, or
elsewhere, about "values", or "equality", or "fairness", or
"justice", or other lofty nonsense, electoral or otherwise, look at
how well a given *culture* and its implicit force-control mechanism,
does *economically* for its citizenry (a parasite doesn't kill its
own host, and all that...), besides just being able to kill more and
better soldiers on the other side of the battlefield is actually
putting the cart before the horse.

The fact that increasing personal liberty results in such higher
per-capita income, and thus the ability to project force than
reducing liberty does isn't necessarily the same level of
metaphysical mystery as the fact that some kinds of mathematics
predict reality, but it's close enough for, heh, government work.

Someday, hopefully, financial cryptography will reduce transaction
costs by actually *increasing* privacy (see math and reality, liberty
and income, above), the *economic* rationale for force-monopoly will
go away, and *then* we can all exhume Lysander Spooner, prop him up,
and talk about constitutions of no authority, or whatever.

Cheers,
RAH

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQY1vN8PxH8jf3ohaEQKyGACbB6XlMBht53x48ugBvJQqOUJ/4P8AnRlX
4M/JvqrHdU9LvnTlrEilGzoK
=D4M9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:25:19PM +, Justin wrote:

> Not true.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/
> 
> "[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people.
> That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."

You didn't vote against a candidate, you tacitly accept whatever other voters
decide. For you. There isn't "none of the above" option, unfortunately.
 
> 120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters  (The U.S. population
> according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
> "Bush Vote: 59,459,765"
> Let's generously round that up to 65 million.
> 
> 65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush
> 65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush
> 
> I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article
> suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote.  That means there are
> probably around 141m registered voters.  Bush didn't even win majority
> support from /those/.
> 
> 65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush

Don't mince numbers. About half of those who could and could be bothered to
vote voted for more of the same.

At least that's how the rest of the world is going to see it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net


pgpssFR0nkjou.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin wrote:

> On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >
> > > So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict
> > > the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
> >
> > Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about
> > half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.
>
> Not true.


The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.  You
are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.  Inaction
is not good enough.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Pete Capelli]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:25:19 +, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true.



Saddam had 100% turnout, and won 100% of the vote.  Does that make his
election more legitimate to you?


-- 

Pete Capelli  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

RE: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

> In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the
> local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm.

Precisely.

> So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the
> American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
> Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)

Complicit?  Thats *technically* correct, but not nearly strong enough.

> -TD

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Justin]

On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict 
> > the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation 
> 
> Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about
> half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.

Not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/

"[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people.
That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."

120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters  (The U.S. population
according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
"Bush Vote: 59,459,765"
Let's generously round that up to 65 million.

65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush
65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush

I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article
suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote.  That means there are
probably around 141m registered voters.  Bush didn't even win majority
support from /those/.

65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush


-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Pete Capelli]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:46:17 -0500, Tyler Durden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the
> local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close
> enough to "Ground Zero" to smell it back in those days are apprarently less
> than convinced.

As the article notes, GWB *improved* his showing in NY over the 2000
election.  Are you implying that the US won't be attacked again?

I could follow your ad-hominem attack with one about mincing
homosexuals, but we both know that singlularity of voters on either
side is incorrect, and does nothing to forward the discussion.
 
> So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the
> American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation
> Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)

Of course it does.  That's what a republic is.  But who's going to
'indict' us?  The UN?  Maybe after we finish the trials for their
self-dealing on the 'Oil for Food' program (as Orwellian a title as
the Patriot Act had).

-- 

Pete Capelli  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:

> So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict 
> the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation 

Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about
half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.

> Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)

Huh? What was the question, again?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net


pgplDt75HxeY3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: The Values-Vote Myth

[Tyler Durden]

"He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as
president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They
had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most
approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the
war on terror."
In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the 
local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close 
enough to "Ground Zero" to smell it back in those days are apprarently less 
than convinced.

So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the 
American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation 
Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.)

-TD
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/