hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

For Joe H.


>>Within a few years Regean had inflation down to a resonable level 
>>and by the time he left office it was even lower. 

>And the national debt tripled in a non-warfare period 

I never said Reagan was perfect, or even a great president.  However, 
presidents don't initiate spending bills - that has to come from the 
House.  If I remember correctly, the Democrats asked Reagan for a tax 
hike in his later years and in return they would cut spending.  Guess 
what the Democrats failed to do!  You guessed it, they failed to live 
up to their half of the bargin. 

>>while conservatives believe in individual responsibility. 

>Is that why the "conservatives" want to tell us what we can and 
>cannot see in the movies, do in our bedrooms, etc. all in the name of 
>"family values" and "protecting" our children. 

First, you have to realize that conservatives, like liberals come in 
many different flavors.  Most true conservatives don't really care 
what movies you watch or what you do in your bedroom, but if you do 
watch some movie and then do something stupid, then conservatives 
expect you to take responsibility for your actions.  Liberals, 
however, say it's not your fault that you did what ever you did, but 
rather the movie, or society or what ever excuss they want to come up 
with.  It's like Clinton's lying under oath in a court proceeding - no 
one forced him to lie and he knew he was lying.  Personally, I 
couldn't care less what you do, as long as it isn't illegal and the 
end results don't force me to pay more taxes then necessary.


>As long as this counting effort has overseers that are from 
>both parties, I can't understand the objection.  This new twist, 
>however, sure shows signs of desparately trying to keep those that 
>voted from having their votes counted...

The vote counting has two overseers, one Republican and one Democrat, 
but that isn't the problem.  The problem is that the three people who 
make the final decision are all Democrtas and the rules for 
"interpreting" the "voters intentions" keep changing.  What is 
interesting is all of these ballots that have dimpled chads for the 
presidental choice have fully punched chads for the other choices.  
It's obvious these people knew how to correctly punch out a ballot.  
Some people choose to not vote for certain races.

>I say count the whole blasted state again and get it done quickly 

But, there in lies the problem - Gore doesn't want to count all the 
counties.  He just wants to count the largest areas that went heavily 
for him - that gives him a higher statistical chance of picking up the 
extra votes he needs to steal the election.  If this actually was all 
about "all the votes counting," then Gore would have asked for a 
manual recount of all the counties.  


>I think your idea that the Gore campaign will do anything possible to 
>win this election is probably correct.


>Just as I think that the Bush campaign will do the same.

In case you didn't notice, Bush has won the election!  It's Gore who 
won't accept the results and wants to steal the election!  If it were 
the other way around and Gore had won by a few hundred votes, Bush 
would have expected a recount and he would have accepted that recount 
and that would have been the end of it all!  Quite a bit different 
then from Gore.

>The Justices did not ignore the law, they ruled that the laws were in 
>conflict with each other...

The Justices not only ignored the law, but they made new laws - this 
is what we call an activist judiciary where judges go beyond 
interperting law and instead make law.  The problem here is that we 
are starting to see the total break down of the respect for the law.  
This country is based on the rule of law and the break down of that 
rule of law means that the laws don't mean anything.

>...and that the need to count all the votes was just as important as 
>the need to elect George Bush.

The votes were counted TWO times and Gore still lost.  Then he asked 
for a manual recount in selected counties that were 60% Gore in the 

>And you rant about nothing falling in Bush's favor.  Well, how about 
>the fact that Gore is not getting near as many votes so far as 

Yes, and every time it becomes obvious that he isn't getting enough 
votes he goes to court to change the rules so that he can get more 

>...all we want is for every legally cast ballot to be counted. 

Counted or "interpreted" as to what the voter really wanted?


>I know that this forum is not an "official debate forum"--there are 
>no "rules" and no one has authority in requesting that a
>particular canon of discussion etiquette be observed.

All of that may be true, but I think over all the discussion has been 
quite reasonable and courteous.  Many years ago I gave up on the News 
Groups because of the language and flaming.  Personally, I find most 
liberals to be decent people just like their conservative conterparts. 
It's not so much the individual people at the bottom of the pile that 
we are talking about, but rather those higher up in the political 
field who have influence.  As debated and contested as this election 
has been, there has yet to be a shot fired!  Now, that isn't bad.

>...who ultimately wins the race for the Presidency is probably not as 
>important as ensuring that the process is fair to all parties.

That might be true at another time, but for this election that is 
clearly not true.  The reason is simple - 3 to 4, maybe 5 Supreme 
Court appointments!  If Gore is president we are going to get a 
Supreme Court full of activist liberal judges.  If Bush is president 
we are more likely to get judges that believe in the Constitution.  
Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but Judges can be around 
for a long time.  If as a country we don't respect the seperation of 
powers and the rule of law, then we have no country.  


>>Liberals want government to take care of them while conservatives 
>>want to take care of themsleves.   

>Then lets get rid of the following

Neither I nor any other conservative will say to get rid of 
government.  What conservatives respect is that government has 
specific and LIMITED powers.  There are certain things government is 
mandated to do and government should do those things.  Liberals, 
however, want government to be the sole power of everything, they want 
government to take responsibility for everything.  

>If government is really not needed....

I do believe in government, but I also believe that government should 
only do those things that governnment is suppose to do and everythiong 
else should be done with as little government interferance as 

>why do the conservatives always block legislation giving us 
>the right to strike.

If you want the right to strike, then get a job in the civilian work 
force!  Take responsibilty for yourself!  

Joe Halinar

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index