 | | Re: Quiet in here —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) I like McCain, but I doubt he'll win, not with the entire party establishment lined up against him. :/ (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) I think his chances are much better after last night. It would be a real shame for the republican party if Bush wins. Gore would likely beat Bush in the general election. I don't think Gore would have a prayer against McCain. KL (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | (...) Come on guys, it's time to put the thinking caps on! Do you really think Democrats would cross over and vote for McCain if he had a chance of beating their man. And why would a man running for the Republican nomination abandon everything that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) What if McCain is "their man?" Just because someone wins the Democratic primary doesn't mean that all Democrats will vote for that person. You'd be surprised. (...) That's not why McCain is acting like that. He's doing it to get votes, (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | To All, and Lindsay in particular, I am getting really tired of getting labeled as an extremist, a nut, etc. just because I don't worship leftist policies. Just because I have religious convictions, and that I am conservative, I seem to be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, there are organizations. What was that web site that posted a "most wanted list". There have also been highly visible personalities whoi have come pretty close to endorsing clinic bombing. Then there's all the folks who seem to think (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | (...) All this talk about right-wing fringe groups, what about the far more radical left-wing fringe groups: feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, etc. Environmentalists have carried out numerous acts of violence against HUMAN BEINGS for the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | Bill, (...) Nicely said, Bill. There seems to be a lot of bias around here for right wing people. Not diverse enough, I guess. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Just being a homosexual or an environmentalist makes you a left wing fringe group??? Surely you didn't mean that. I'm an environmentalist, I recycle, I give scads of cash to the Nature Conservancy, and I try to buy green whenever it makes (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | Larry, (...) No, I think what Bill is saying is that there are many nuts, on both sides, through a variety of causes, and the like. But there is a significant bias towards the right wing religious groups, some justified, most not. You do not see the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | (...) radical (...) No more than you meant that anyone religious is a right wing extremist. The problem in this matter is that only the outrageous get the attention and taint the entire issue. (...) Morality tanscends the state. It's not just a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh, I almost forgot...You honestly don't think Al Gump is pandering?! IMO, he is pandering more than anyone. Now, he's playing the race card, again. That's not pandering?! How 'bout a guy, who in local politics was pro-life and fervently so; (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would say Al is pandering so much as lying. Al was one of my senators. He's not a Tennessean, though. I'm more of a Tennessean than he is, and I wasn't even born here. (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Being a third worlder, I follow this "Foofoo is better than Blahblah" kind of debates between you, USians, that consider politicians with a kind of amaze..:-) Here in our country things are very clear and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, most Americans believe that as well, but some of us have foolish optimism every now and then! : ) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | (...) In response to both of you I would say that the pessimism should not be expected and that the optimism is not foolish. Our "system" is very unique here. The "system" is great, the current bunch who occupy it may not be. Yet I still have faith (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | Bill, (...) Bill, I was just throwing a mild jest at Selçuk, I am a pessimist anyway, but I have run into so many people that have this attitude, it is hard sometimes, especially when you dabble in politics as much as I do. (...) I agree! : ) I have (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | "Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:FqF0zx.9B@lugnet.com... (...) beating (...) abandon (...) doesn't (...) intention (...) Gump (...) without (...) like (...) to a (...) goods on (...) I would say the Republican primary race at (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) If I remember correctly, the California primaries are simultaneous -- every candidate for every party is run on the same ballot. So potential sabateours (sp?) have to choose between knocking down the opposing party, and building up their own (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes and no. We can vote for any candidate for any party, but only votes from party members count towards the delegates. Anyone who wants to have their vote for McCain (or Bush) actually mean something had better register as a Republican. Bruce (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) up (...) the (...) the (...) vote (...) I've never registered under a party, btw--is that registration permanent (unless voluntarily changed), or does it have to be reinstated each election term? Or does that vary from state to state? (I know (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) In California, you remain a member of your party until you re-register. I don't know if it varies from state to state, it probably can, but I don't know if it actually does. California is a winner-take-all state: you win by one vote, you get (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Susan Hoover
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) In Texas, the system is very simple. There is no "register under a party." You just register to vote, period. The registration is good for two years and automatically renews. You can register by mail, by picking up and filling a simple form (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | There's a Mugwump party? What's their platform? :-) Yahoo came up dry when I searched on Mugwump... (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) and (...) Idunno if they actually went by that name or if that was what everyone called them. It refers to fence-sitting on issues: their "mug" was on one side of the fence, and their "wump" on the other. In any case, I was a registered (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) the (...) Found this: mugwump from Algonquin 'chief' In US political history, a colloquial name for the reform Republicans who voted in the 1884 presidential election for Grover Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, rather than for the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Matthew Wilkins
|
| | | | | | | | In Oregon you have to declare your political party when you register... Greenback is still a recognized party, even if it puts "Independant" on my Oregon Voter's card. -The Cheese (...) the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, speaking as a veteran, I'd rather have someone in office who knows firsthand what the real consequences of armchair warfare are for real soliders. I'd value the leadership that a retired general could bring to the office but I'd also (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) The latest big poll showed McCain ahead 24 points vs Gore, with Bush only ahead 5 pointes vs Gore. I think McCain could beat Gore if he got the nomination, which he won't. (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
