[Am-info] Re: Global Resistance at home

[Erick Andrews]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:20:19 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>--- From a message sent by Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. on 11/6/01 7:15 AM ---
>
>>It was indeed Ralph Nader who began this list by organizing a public
>>debate of Microsoft's business practices. I signed on for information
>>regarding that 3 day forum and remained on what became the AM-INFO
>>(Appraising Microsoft-Information) list. We owe a great debt to his
>>organization for raising this debate to a level where the DOJ could
>>no longer ignore their duty. Unfortunately, the same Ralph Nader
>>chose to stick to his own political campaign, draining votes in an
>>election he knew he could not have a snow ball's chance in hell of
>>winning, and thus contributed to the selection of George Bush. Now he
>>denies any responsibility for George's rapid reversal of all past and 
>>present efforts to do the right thing with regard to consumers, the 
>>environment, the economy, war and peace, foreign and domestic affairs 
>>of any kind, you name it - George the Destroyer has undone peace and 
>>prosperity to maximise his handlers profits. And the DOJ/Microsoft 
>>'settlement' is just another example of the "integrity" these bastards
>>have "returned to the WhiteHouse". I still don't know why anyone not
>>directly benefitting from his Reverse-Robinhood policies (and that is
>>a MAXIMUM of 5% of the populace) would ever support George Bush, 
>>directly or indirectly.
>> 
>>I don't know if Mr. Nader has enough of his own integrity left to do
>>something positive in this case. But it sure wouldn't hurt for him to
>>try.
>
>I'm going to resist this characterization, which became very popular 
>among Democrats last year. Neither Nader nor anyone else is required to 
>make an excuse for running for public office, or ask permission from the 
>major parties, or consult with them with respect to campaign tactics. His 
>presidential run does not reflect on his "integrity." Even if he did 
>serve as a spoiler, this does not delegitimize his effort. Last I 
>checked, the two-party system was not an article of the Constitution.
>
> Mitch Stone  
> mitch@accidentalexpert.com
>

At the time, I never thought it was a "spoiler" at least here in Massachusetts.

I could not feel comfortable with either Gore or Bush.

Because I knew this, and I knew that Mass. would go for Gore anyways,
voting for Ralph was hopeful that he might at least get on the ticket
in 2004.  So, yes, Dubya wasn't my first choice.

End of story.

So now, if Dubya can't fix Microsoft, I hope he can at least get Bin Laden 
to slide down a 50 foot razor.

-- 
Erick Andrews