4attempt

From: leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz

Subject: It's starting to look like I was right about you

You did invite me to reply....

This is my 4th attempt to get this printed.

On 11 Mar 2001, at 13:37, BartCop wrote:

>
> --- leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz wrote:
>
> Any chance you could send that in regular text?
> The only way I can open it is with html tags.
>
>
> Good letter, will print.
>
> Feel free to rebutt my rebuttal,
>
> bc
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

From: leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz

Subject: Are you as cowardly as Limbaugh?

>> Why won't you put this on your site?
>> Are you afraid to print a thoughtful defence of the Nader campaign?

> You must be one of those bad first-impression people.

Nope, it was my FORTH (4th) attempt to get my article posted on your site.
The first attempt was on 25 January (see your email acknowledgement appended at the bottom).
I didn't bother to save the body of the first article I sent. But when it became clear that you were
reluctant to print it, I started to save copies of the subsequent articles that I sent to you
(see appended copies of previous emails)

> In three short sentences, without even specifying the topic, you call me a coward,

Your demonstrated reluctance to print this material certainly did
not speak well for your courage.

> you berate me for not putting "this" on the site when you haven't established what "this" is,

It's referring to itself (the article), what else could it possible be referring to?

> then you go for a second personal slur - all while never having mentioned the subject.

When I sent it the first time, the subject was: "Nader and the Republicrats"
There weren't any references to your personal character in that one.

After a week had past and the first article did not appear on your website, I submitted a second similar
article with the subject line: "Nader was Right" (see text at bottom). This second article also did not
contain any references to your personal character.
However, it did include the phrase "Let's see if THIS one gets posted...."

After four days passed, it became clear that you were not going to post the second article, either.
So, I submitted a THIRD one. It had essentially the same content as the second one, with additional information
referring to the Ashcroft confirmation. This third article issued a more direct challenge to your courage with the
subject line: "Why are you afraid to print this?" (see text at bottom).

Again, after four days, it became clear that you were not going to post the third article. So, I submitted the
FOURTH one. After three unsuccessful attempts to get a dissenting opinion supporting Nader published on
your site, I began to see you as the New Democrat analogue to Rush Limbaugh. I had serious doubts
about your integrity and courage: I stated as much. I still have those doubts.

Why do I still have those doubts? Because when you FINALLY printed my article, you crafted a rebuttal
that made it appear as though I IMMEDIATELY resorted to an attack your personal character.
You made it seem as though my attack on your courage and integrity were completely unprovoked.

If you, or any of your readers, had attempted to post a CIVIL dissenting opinion on a Bush or Limbaugh site
and had been rebuffed THREE times, you would also begin to doubt the courage and integrity of the site admin.

>> I've seen a great deal of of Nader bashing based on W's cabinet appointments. The Nader bashers tell us
>> that If Gore had won, these clowns would not have been nominated. True enough...but so what?

> ha ha
> So what?
> So, I shot and killed your mother - so what?

Try not resorting to strawman types of arguments. Stick to the facts and topic under discussion. We weren't
talking about anybody killing my mother. We were talking about a political system that has been so corrupted
by money that there is now little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. If there WAS such a
big difference, then the issue of W's cabinet appointments would have been rendered moot by Democratic
opposition to their confirmation. My characterization of the "New Democrats" was supported by a recapitulation
of the Democratic votes IN FAVOR of confirming these odious appointees.

>> If there was such a huge difference between the Dems and the
>> Repugs, why did HALF the Dems vote FOR Norton's
>> confirmation? Why didn't the Dems filibuster Ashcroft?
>> (And why did Gore vote FOR Clarence Thomas's confirmation)?

> Because they are scared weenies.

Which paradigm is a better explanation of the behaviour of the New Democrats?

A: That the people who have spent decades fighting through the trenches of politics to reach
their positions of power have suddenly become craven cowards.

-OR-

B. That the people who have spent decades fighting through the trenches of politics to reach
their positions of power have become corrupted by a corrupt process.

> Is that the part I don't have the balls to publish?

I'm not sure...why did I have to send it in FOUR (4) times AND call you out before you finally printed it?

>> Remember when the Congressional Black caucus challenged
>> the certification of the vote from Florida?
>> Not a SINGLE Senate DEMOCRAT supported the challenge.

> Yeah, I know...

What is your explanation for this? Cowardice?

My explanation is that the New Democrats have more in common with their Republican brethren
than they have with the people that they are SUPPOSED to represent.

>> Clinton/Gore supported a host of buy-partisan policies: "Free"
>> Trade, the War on (some) Drugs, increased defence spending,
>> Star Wars research, the federal death penalty and Welfare
>> "reform". Clinton/Gore also fought against medical marijuana
>> and did little to pursue alternative energy and energy
>> conservation strategies.

> You must've been very happy with President Dukakis and President Mondale.

I remember those campaigns.

I remember Reagan chattering mindlessly during a debate in the '84 campaign; I thought for sure
a drooling simpleton could not possibly win a Presidential election. I was wrong.

I remember that the most important issues (to the mainstream
media) in the '88 campaign were Dukakis's refusal to force children
to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" and his "release" of Willy
Horton. I remember in the run-up to the '88 election, General
Motors running very "patriotic" (LITERALLY flag waving)
commercials about Chevrolet plants re-opening and "Americans
going back to work" (essentially supporting the Bush campaign).

I remember learning from those elections that there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with the American
electoral system. It appears that the Dems learnt those lessons as well....but instead of trying to fix the system,
they decided to adopt the methods of the Republicans.

> Yes, Clinton got a little more centrist than I'd like,

Centrist? CENTRIST?

"Free" Trade
The War on (some) Drugs
Increased defence spending
Star Wars research
The federal death penalty
Welfare "reform".
Opposition to medical marijuana
No alternative energy policy
No energy conservation policy
The Collapse of the Kyoto Conference

What distinguishes these "centrist" policies from conservative policies?

> because that's where the votes are.

That is where the CONSERVATIVE votes are. There are nearly 100,000,000 Americans who no longer
even bother to vote in the elections. Do you REALLY think that they are ALL stupid, lazy and apathetic?
If they had mobilized a small percentage of these disenfranchised voters, the Democrats would not have
had to adopt Republican policies to get elected.

> What did your spoiler boy get, 3 percent?

Yep and he sure had an impact, didn't he? Hopefully, the Dems learnt that they can't become
"Republican Lites" and win the election.

Come on BartCop! Admit it. Gore didn't lose to Nader. And W should not have been able to beat ANYBODY.
Gore blew it and the Dems have been blowing it for years. This election stinks to high heaven, not because of
anything that Nader did, but because the American Electoral system is corrupt and dysfunctional. It's a broken system
and the only fixes that have been implemented are the ones engineered behind the closed doors of the US Supreme Court.

The Nader candidacy has exposed this system for what it really is.

>> The evidence shows that the "New Democrats" are really "Republican Lites".
>> I wanted to vote for a REAL Democrat, so I voted for Nader.

> No, you voted for Bush.

This is an excellent example of how a twisted and corrupt electoral system can distort political debate.
A vote for Nader is counted as a vote for Nader, it's not counted as a vote for Bush.
Only in America can a vote for Nader be considered a vote for Bush.

> Why did you do that?

I didn't want to waste my vote by voting for the lessor of evils. I wanted to vote for someone who was
actually addressing the issues that I cared about. I knew that as long as I voted for
business as usual, I would get exactly that and nothing would change.

> We told you before you fucked up that you were fucking up, but
> you did it anyway. Now you're whining about your bad decision?

Please quote the text where I "whine about my bad decision". All the whining has been coming from
New Dems such as yourself, blaming Nader for all your woes. The only time that we "Naderites"
whined was when Bush-Gore shut him out of the debates.

> If Nader wants to run for something, he should run for Congress so he has a record.

Nader already has an excellent public service record:
http://www.publiccitizen.org/

> All I'm sure he stands for is getting Smirk elected.

Again, another fine example of how your twisted electoral system distorts political debate.
Nader has never supported W's candidacy. Nader is opposed to just about everything that W and Gore stand for.

BartCop if you really care about democracy, you have to step back from the crooked game that is American Politics
and demand a change. It doesn't matter how well your favorite team (or player) fares in a crooked game: even when
they win, the game remains crooked. And in a crooked game, the crooks usually win.

In American politics, whether it be Republican or "New" Democrat "leadership", money talks and bullshit spins.
I'm fed up with it and I won't put up with it anymore.

Cheers,
XYNZ

BARTCOP'S ACKNOWLEDGEMNT OF FIRST EMAIL
##################################################

Date sent:       Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:26:53 -0800 (PST)
From:            BSmasher <bc_publish@yahoo.com>
Subject:         Re: Nader and the Republicrats
To:              leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz

Thanks for the note.

##################################################

TEXT OF SECOND ARTICLE SENT TO BARTCOP
##################################################
From:            Self <leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
To:              bc_pubshort@yahoo.com
Subject:         Nader was right
Date sent:       Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:41:29 +1300

Let's see if THIS one gets posted....

I've seen a great deal of of Nader bashing based on W's cabinet
appointments. The Nader bashers tell us that If Gore had won,
these clowns would not have been nominated. True enough...
but so what? If there was such a huge difference between the
Dems and the Repugs, why did HALF the Dems vote FOR Norton's

confirmation? (And why did Gore vote FOR Clarence Thomas's confirmation)?

Remember when the Congressional Black caucus challenged the
certification of the vote from Florida? Not a SINGLE Senate
DEMOCRAT supported the challenge.

Clinton/Gore supported a host of buy-partisan policies: "Free"
Trade, the War on (some) Drugs, increased defence spending, Star
Wars research, the federal death penalty and Welfare "reform".
Clinton/Gore also fought against medical marijuana and did little to
pursue alternative energy and energy conservation strategies.

The evidence shows that the "New Democrats" are really "Republican Lites".
I wanted to vote for a REAL Democrat, so I voted for Nader.

Cheers,
XYNZ

TEXT OF THIRD ARTICLE SENT TO BARTCOP
##################################################
From:            Self <leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
To:              bc_pubshort@yahoo.com
Subject:         Why are you afraid to print this?
Date sent:       Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:39:20 +1300

Remember when the Congressional Black caucus challenged the
certification of the vote from Florida? Not a SINGLE Senate
DEMOCRAT supported the challenge.

The evidence shows that the "New Democrats" are really "Republican Lites".
I wanted to vote for a REAL Democrat, so I voted for Nader.

Cheers,
XYNZ

#######################################
Carl Leichter
Department of Information Science
University of Otago
P.O. Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand

leica666@infoscience.otago.ac.nz