[Am-info] Re: Nader Vote

[Gene Gaines]

A warning, I hope constructive, and a comment on political
misinformation.

This email list was created by and operates on the facilities
of Essential Information.

Taken from www.essential.org:  "Founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader, 
essential Information is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization."

Engaging in political activity, SUCH AS DISCUSSIONS OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ON THIS EMAIL LIST is against the law for
a non-profit, tax-exempt organization.

==> Ralph Nader's good people already have crossed the line 
==> several times in recent days, and if continued could be 
==> cause for the organizations losing their tax-exempt status.

This is not good.

In addition, the argument put forth by Matthew Elvey (below) are
wrong on several fronts.  In fact, I view his email as political
disinformation at is most dishonest and worst.

His is wrong in the "facts" he quotes, and the way he twists
them into an argument that Gore does not need your vote, so why
not vote for Nader.  Wrong!

There is a good chance that (a) Nader WILL cause Gore to lose the
election -- just look at the electoral college polls TODAY which
report Gore and Bush neck and neck, and (b) despite Naders dreams,
as he is not on the ballot in the great majority of states, there
is little likelihood he will poll the 5 percent needed for federal
financing.

There is a good chance, unfortunately, that a vote for Nader, in
most cases is a vote for Microsoft -- because it is clear that
Bush will free Microsoft, and other big businesses to do what
they will.  

This election could mark the turning of our beautiful Internet from
a force for freedom to being hijacked by big business.

What a cruel joke if it is Ralph Nader which tips the balance 
from a world moving toward freedom to a world moving toward an
Orwellian 1984!

I will not take that chance.  Too much is in the balance.

I will not vote for Nader.  I WILL work for a multiparty system,
but this is the totally wrong way to do it.  I am very angry with 
Nader for permitting his bitterness to cloud his judgment.

Mr. Nader, working to make the country worse in order for you to 
have the opportunity to make it better is not an acceptable course
of action.  

And you know it.

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia


Matthew Elvey wrote:
> 
> As long as we're wandering off topic, I feel compelled to respond - and
> bring in MS where possible.  A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Gore, and
> here's why.  The Green Party getting 5% of the popular vote and thus federal
> funding for the next election, and thus be able to provide a real
> alternative to the DUOPOLY, is quite likely; Nader is currently polling at
> around 5%.  I'm in CA, and Gore is sure to win all the CA electoral college
> votes, with polls consistently giving him a safe 5-10% lead over B**h.  In
> most (38) states, the election is not close; even the pragmatic, realistic
> Nader supporters there should not be voting for Gore.  Details @ :
> http://www.nandotimes.com/opinions/story/0,1098,500275827-500431375-50272822
> 9-0,00.html
> 
> Gush or Bore? No. They have a tighter lock on their market than MS does in
> its market.  Heck, maybe an antitrust lawsuit would keep the duopoly from
> colluding to restrain competition in the presidential debates.
> 
> Why vote Nader in the first place?  (Heck, I don't even agree with him on
> some issues.)  Well, for me it's about voting against the Duopoly.  I'm
> tired of being lied to, unfulfilled (and knowingly unfulfillable) campaign
> promises, and poll and focus-group-driven official policy.  I'm tired of
> that parroted policy being ignored when politicians buckle to the people who
> bought them through campaign contributions.  I want to overthrow that system
> with my vote.  I want someone who leads, not follows polls and focus groups,
> as Bore do <sic>.
> 
> Nader:
> Feels big business should pay larger share of taxes (like Microsoft and
> Cisco, who pay none, as we recently found out...)
> Supports Campaign Finance Reform, without trampling on the 1st amendment.
> Feels taxation and spending need more citizen involvement. (LESS PORK, like
> last week's trough feeding frenzy!)
> Supports Brady Act and common sense gun laws (Trigger locks).
> 
> Democrats on Civil Liberties: Privacy: Support self regulation (think about
> so called privacy policies, which almost always mislead you into thinking
> they're promising to respect your privacy, but have so many carefully hidden
> loopholes that they haven't.) Dems supported all kinds of gov't surveillance
> (encryption export controls, clipper, forcing telcos to make it very easy to
> tap phone lines (CALEA), imprisoning Phil Zimmerman (PGP author),
> censorship).
> Republicans on antitrust: We never saw a monopoly we didn't like.
> 
> From: Matthew Elvey,  To: Sproat,Eliza  Sent: Thursday, November 02
> Subject: let's keep it on topic folks.
> Eliza, I support him too (I'm even pamphleting!) but unless we're talking
> about him as relates to Microsoft (e.g. he's a Consumer Advocate; what does
> that imply), let's keep it on topic.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: am-info-admin@lists.essential.org
> > [mailto:am-info-admin@lists.essential.org]On Behalf Of Glenn Livezey
> > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:37 PM
> > To: am-info@venice.essential.org; am-info@essential.org
> > Subject: [Am-info] Re: Nader Vote
> >
> >
> > I acknowledge and respect Nader for instigating this list
> > and many other worthy projects.
> >
> > However, in the current presidential race,  those who would vote for
> > either Bush or Nader (or anyone but Gore)  are either greedy or
> > ignorant or both. If Bush wins, 95% of us lose. 5% of us may be said
> > to wisely vote for their own self interests. Any margin over that is one
> > of ignorance. Anyone who might vote for Nader would never vote
> > for Bush, yet a vote for Nader may help Bush by depriving Gore.
> > If Bush wins, Microsoft and their ilk win. What happens to future
> > attempts to right the wrongs, either by law or legislation?
> > How effective can anyone like Nader be if the pendulum swings
> > backwards to the Reagan/Bush days? The only advantage a Bush
> > win has for Nader is to make everything worse so his policies look
> > better by comparison. Then the country becomes desperate for change.
> > If Nader were truly interested in the greater good, he too would not
> > wish to become a party to a Bush win. If Nader is not interested in
> > the greater good, why vote for him?
> > Nader is an intelligent man. He knows all of this. Yet he persists.
> > Think about it before you cast your 'protest' vote.
> >
> >
> > Glenn T. Livezey
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Am-info mailing list
> > Am-info@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info