I've talked to some who think that they should legalize drugs. They say you should have that freedom to decide for yourself, since mankind has had that right for millenia. But I say that if it is known to be dangerous, or a menace to society, it should be banned!

By Rigel (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Where groups of people have little discipline in social responsibility, the governenment should ban drugs. If left to the public it will be out of control.

By Tony (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Uncle Bill says that drugs are legalized in England, and that you have to register as an addict to get any - but it is regulated by the government, and the drugs are as safe as possible, whatever that means. Also, pushers can't make any money, 'cause grand ol' England sells 'em dirt cheap!

I don't know if it works though!

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Same is true in the Netherlands.

By - (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

The big question is, does Legalizing Drugs work? And even if it does, is that condoning their use? Should it just be left to the individual, or should the restriction on drugs be considered a way of safeguarding society's good?

By - (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I had a friend who thought that this kind of government intrusion into any kind of "consentual crime" was ridiculous, and wasted time. She also thought that even if it destroyed the person in a slow and agonizing way, the choice should belong to that person alone, and no one else. If anything, it would seem to simplify things.

By Bryan (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Warren Beatty,Cybil Shepard, Donald Trump

What do these folks have in common?

All of them are celebrities who are toying with the idea of running for President of the United States in the 2000 election year.

Werid.

What's next.. Bill Gates? Now there is a guy who could BUY the presidency.

By Solenoid (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

No one would elect Bill Gates. Besides, who needs to be president when you already control the world?

Some people think Microsoft will fall and Linux will rise (Darren) but I don't see that. Nobody USES linux, including my contact (Darren) and if no one uses it, if no one's making games for it, it will only ever enjoy a cult following, Superior tho I admit it is! Go Linux! Go X-Windows!

By Bryan (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Pretty Fish, Dying Reefs

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dyehard.html


Why don't these "developing" nations strictly enforce environmental laws? Why is it OK to mistreet animals and polute the environment if
a country and its citzens are poor? Who made up that rule. I was poor growing up, that didn't excuse me from picking up my toys when I was done playing with them. What gives them the right to show such wastefullness?

Sorry, just venting, the article made me a little angry. Read it and see if you agree with me.

By Solenoid (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

The native Americans tried to scold the Pioneers as North America was torn apart and wrecked... but we didn't want to listen. Now Developing Nations don't want to listen to us. It's a bad case of the Pot calling the Kettle Cocaine.

By Bryan (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Are you saying that even if one learns from his/her mistakes (or if a government learns from its mistakes) that it isn't in a position to "correct" others who make those same errors in jugement?

Example:

I stole a piece of candy when I was six years old from a drugstore. Does that automatically make me unfit to tell my cousin Andrew (about 6) that stealing is bad? By the logic you presented. I would be executing a "pot kettle black" scenario if I told my cousin to not steal. Even though I learned very quickly after my mom made me appoligise to the store owner why stealing was bad, by your logic, I would be hypocritical to say
to my cousin, "Andy, stealing is bad."

The "well you did it too" defense holds no water.

By Solenoid (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

You're right, you're right - but all they have to say is "hey! Exxon!"

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

So there was a relaxing of condemnation between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches... at last, two great powers take steps to resolve a 482-year old blighting. Anyone know more? And wasn't this merger of churches supposed to be a sign of the Appocolypse?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

A relaxing of condemnation is far, far different than a merger of the 2 churches... And, consequently, the Apocalypse won't actually happen until the 7 seals are opened--each one having I think, 3 signs... But, that's another story. The anti-christ still needs to emerge as a major world power...

By the way, Damien--did you mention that you needed a campaign manager for your upcoming presidential run? Because I'm available... ;>

By Bryan (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Ok, has anyone read the papers or seen the news broadcasts about this?

It boggles the mind really. In a generation where most of us could give a
damm less about protesting anything, thousands are gathered in Seattle to
protest the WTO, going so far as to try and stop the WTO from having its
conference.

Can you say "going a bit overboard"?

The key thing is this... I belive people have a right to free speech and
assemble. However, exercising that right should never, ever, ever infringe on
another person or groups right to speak freely or assemble. I don't care
how just they feel the cause is, two wrongs, have never made a right.

It is ok to feel passionate about a cause, but to intentionally infringe upon
other people's rights (in this case the right of the delagates of the WTO to
assemble) is clearly wrong. It amazes how easily people use civil
disobediance as some as some sort all purpose free speech weapon.

There are dozzens of peacefull alternatives that are just as effective at
getting the message across. Write to your congressman. Write a letter to the
editor. Buy TV/Radio ad time. Run for political office/form a political party.
Start a grassroots web site. Do a flyer campaign. Do a peacefull
rally/protest away from the "hot zone". Write/record a song. Buy ad space
on a billboard. Etc.

An idea or belief in many ways has to be sold. Give us solid reasons why
we should agree with you. Market your views, if your views actually do
make sense, we will be more impressed then any attempts to prove how
right you are by making a public arse of yourself and being arrested. Yep,
you can't sell me on something by getting aressted, go figure. :)

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Hey, does anyone know about the Solar Storms that are going to knock out Earth's communications over the next 30 years?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

So, who really thinks everything's gonna stop on New Year's? Anybody? There are a bunch of doomsday-types out in the midwest who have been stocking up their old bomb-shelters with non-perishables, and one town in like, Idaho or sumthing even created its own currency. There are self-efficient 'ranches' dotting the country-side, which have their own sources of water, power, food, everything. They're currently paying no bills on any of these conveniences. They're only paying their taxes--and they're waiting for this to stop in the new millenium... What's up with that, anyway?

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Hahahaha - if any gov't office goes down, the IRS will be LAST. IRS has always made you do your forms on paper, so they are well equipped to collect your money, I'm sure.

A real possibility, though, is if people panic, grocery stores could be bought-out. Then there'd be no food, and people die of starvation while Melvin up the street has half of Wegmans under his bed. Real possibility... but I haven't heard any panic talk, and so this probably won't happen.

In addition, you have to remember that the oldest computers are in foreign countries... some countries will be too poor (monetarilly or technologically) to create a "Y2K readiness." Their computers will assuredly fail, and since all computers in the world are interconnected (pretty much) ours will also fail no matter how compliant they are. Now, the question remains, how serious a failure? Nobody knows. If all the computers are chugging on JAN 2, that's still no guarantee. Not all errors jump up and announce themselves to the world just because it is the year 2000. Unfortunately, thousands will lie dormant for months, even years. The only sure-cure is worldwide upgrade of machines and software, and this will take half a century to do. (I think Bill Gates knew this, and thus held off on building Y2K compliance into his software until like, what, WIN98? Ha, a scam I tell you!)

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Win95 has Y2K compliance. Patches. ;> Seriously, though... The world's computers (not the US) are indeed old and most likely will crash. Yes, we're all connected. Beauty is, we, as a continent, can 'unplug' from the global network (which would be inconvenient, yes, but at least we'd still have internal communication). There are places around the US where a telecomm guy sits in a little bank of controls, on a major communications trunk, with the power to 'turn off' other parts of the world. There are well documented cases of entire foreign nations threatening the bandwidth of the lines, so we just flipped their switch. It only took a matter of hours for them to say "SORRY! WE WERE WRONG TO OPPOSE YOU!" do I sound crazy? I didn't make this up... My head hurts--where did I read it? I can't remember! Anyway, in a nugget, we can turn off the rest of the world and only worry about us, if we hafta. Kinda scary to think that we're the last global super-power, huh?

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

No, we can't do that!!!! Can we? How could you just turn off all connection to other contries just like that? I'd like that guy's job.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

The US only has so many land-lines, truncated together and spanning the ocean floor. Where these lines enter the US, a control center sits, and there are actually switches that shut down the connections. How else do you think we can keep repairing the lines to compensate for the ever-shifting continental plates, hmmm? Now, remember that I said 'land-lines'. We cannot shut off satellite communications--however, only the most sophisticated (and therefore Y2K compliant) computers can do this, anyway. As I said, it would be an inconvenience, especially if you try to e-mail your long lost cousin Jim-Bob in Australia, but it could be done. Besides, all the web-pages I visit are right here, in the good old USA!

Japan is so concerned about there Y2K situation that they're declaring a national holiday and shutting all their ATM's down (which happen to be on the GLOBAL network). Since they're like, 17 hours behind us, they're gonna watch how it affects the rest of the world. They hope 17 hours will be enough time to patch up whatever may be failing, and then they can re-open their ATM's again. Scary, huh?

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Woah! Yeah, I think everyone should bring Y2K rations to the Big LEV Reunion. You never know how long we're really staying!

Japan is cool.

Wow, limited number of land-lines... that makes sense. Thanks for the lesson in computers, Fred!

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Although... if the Y2K bug hit hard in other countries, it could wreck their economies... and that would cause major trouble for us. I read in yeaterday's paper that China and Russia are considered by the CIA to be the 2 least prepared nations for the oncoming Y2K onslaught.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

They're also the least likely to have much of an economy to be disrupted.

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Dude, China? Please extrapolate. I would think any major problem in China would be pretty major for the world.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Only since Clinton sold all our military secrets to them so the high-ranking executives who backed his political campaign could spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom. Yeah, if China went down, all our cheaply-produced clothing, sneakers, and electronics would probably be hiked up in price. Also, Kathy-Lee would prolly hafta find a couple new sweat shops to have her clothing produced in. China is a big country, with lots of people--many (rather most) of which live beneath the poverty level. There are a few MAJOR urban centers, and the schism between the poor and the wealthy is great. The majority of China's economy is based on trade with other countries--even though China does produce for itself, it needs more imported due to its population. China would be hit hard if Y2K struck, but the majority of the people out there are already living in the squalor level. The middle- and upper- classes would start to feel the hardships, and then look at the lower classes and see how they've been living for the past century--on small farms and whatnot. China is not that far away from reverting to an agrarian culture. If Y2K hits in China, I also feel fairly confident that communism will fail--like it did in Russia. China's got problems--but they are also problems which can be isolated from the rest of the world. I know it sounds harsh, but if a nation starts to crumble--the other nations would do best to turn inward and cut losses. The economy works in peaks and valleys. Sometimes, the crash of one nation could trigger a global turn-around, which would eventually result in the crashed nation's rebuilding from the profits of the nations that benefitted.

Also, wars (small ones) help the economy of the nation at war--but only if the war is popular enough to gain the support of the middle class, which is the true power in any nation today. Thank You. ;>

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

clap clap clap!

China has some of the world's best seafood! A great place to get crabs! I agree that not a lot of countries would come to China's rescue if the Y2K problem was somehow big enough to cause a country-wide failure. But I still say that if a country as big as China falls, the world will definitely feel the shockwave. Plus I'm sure they have nukes.

I think that the effect of Y2K will be profound... I don't think the effect will be fully felt right away, but as we have more and more calendar days over the 2000 mark, the chance of a problem increases. Also, I'm surprised bugs haven't surfaced yet (people ARE making plans at this point for, say, 6 months ahead and entering it into the database).

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Treat it just like any other day. Why everybody is making a big deal out of 2000 is beyond me. Life is so fragile, it doesn't need an excuse to end. I could walk outside in 15 minutes and get hit by a bus. If I went around worrying about all the things that could happen to me in a day, I wouldn't get out of bed. The same should be true for the Y2K thing. Yes, the more calendar days we put onto 2000, the more chance we have of something bad happening--the more days we put on any calendar, the more chance we have of something bad happening. It is good that people are being vigilant, but is it too narrow a scope to be vigilant about? I could clutter all my thoughts with Y2K bug fixes, sorting through code in my head, and worrying about financial transactions--then step off a curb in front of a bus and die. Is it that important? Will the world still be here even if computers stop working? Will humanity as a race end, simply because circuits in some machine somewhere fail? How did mankind ever survive and evolve to the level we've attained now, if we depend so much on computers to shape our lives?

Keep it in mind--but don't obsess. Y2K is nearly here. I am ready.

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Ah, but what if we eat all your food at the New Year's party? ;)

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

The future is always difficult to see. The events that shape it are constantly in motion, right up until it happens--but then it becomes the present, but only for a moment. Once this miraculous change comes about, we can see with the utmost clarity the events which have just unfolded... And call it 'the past'. So, by this simple logic, the future is nothing more than a past which has not happened yet. Why worry about it?

We look to the past to learn from the events which have already happened, so we may better shape the present and the future. We should, also, try to see the likely impact of what we do today, to see how it might possibly effect the future. But do we know for certain that the future itself will definately happen? So, no matter what plans we make or how much we claim to have an impact on the future--there is still the unpredictable. There is always the uncertain. Allowing for these to exist is the true sign of knowledge and wisdom.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

And who says I'll be serving food? ;>

By Who yo Daddy? (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

aaaaggghhh! I'll bring frosted flakes. You buy the milk!

By Funk Soul Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

"If we could shrink the earth's
population to a village
of precisely 100 people, with all the
existing human
ratios remaining the same, it would
look like
something like the following.

There would be:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere,
both north and south
8 Africans

52 would be female
48 would be male

70 would be nonwhite
30 would be white

70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian

89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual

6 people would possess 59% of the
entire world's
wealth and all 6 would be from the
United States

80 would live in substandard housing

70 would be unable to read

50 would suffer from malnutrition

1 would be near death; 1 would be
near birth

1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education

1 would own a computer

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I would be the one that owned the computer, with the college education, white-guy from America, who can read and is heterosexual, in possession of that 59% of the entire wealth of the world.

I have a big ego, don't I? ;>

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Yes you do, and I would hate it if it was any other way!


Sol

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

On May 5th, 2000, the Earth, moon, Sun, Mars, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn will all be in a straight line. There is some speculation that the gravitational effects from this astronomical "conjunction" could cause a polar-shift on Earth (swapping of magnetic north and sout poles). Thoughts? Could it be The End? ;>

PS--this only occurs once in like, every 6000 years.

By Amanda (Starkindler) on Unrecorded Date:

Not the end...too predictable.

By THE ALL POWERFULL (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

The Millenium was supposed to be the end and it wasn't so I doubt this will be it either.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Yeah, but there was nothing spectacular about the millenium--just another new year, only the numbers rolled over to 2000. This is an actual astronomical event with real-life impact. Also, all the predictions about the world ending "in the year 2000" will still be accurate, considering May 5th is actually in the year 2000.

Besides, the new millenium doesn't officially start until 2001, anyway. There was no year zero (but we already covered that). So technically speaking, the world will end before the new millenium can arrive. Thank you. ;>

By Amanda (Starkindler) on Unrecorded Date:

*shrugs* I don't think it will end.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

When you think about the unbelievable distances between the planets, I think the gravitational effect would be nearly microscopic. The sun has more mass than all of the other planets combined... against that, the other 8 planets are nothing. If you took a pea and said "this is Earth" you know how far away Jupiter would be? (to scale)? It would be out the window and somewhere across the street.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

When you think about the unbelievable distances between the planets, I think the gravitational effect would be nearly microscopic. The sun has more mass than all of the other planets combined... against that, the other 8 planets are nothing. If you took a pea and said "this is Earth" you know how far away Jupiter would be? (to scale)? It would be out the window and somewhere across the street.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Yeah, but look what the moon does to our oceans. How far away is that? Really far. It took astronauts what, 17 days flying near the speed of sound to get there? Maybe the tides would get significantly higher on May 5th... Reasonably speaking, of course. Maybe it'll just mess everybody up alot, and people will start killing each other and going crazy (gravity DOES affect the human physiology, after all).

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Attention Members of Lev who live in New York
State.

The Republican and Democratic party primaries
are being held on Tuesday, March 7, 2000.

If you are registered for either of these parties
don't forget to vote!

This is a presidential primary year and your vote does matter!

The matchups are the following:

In the republican fight we have:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush vs. Senator John McCain of Arizona


In the Democratic battle we have:

Vice President Al Gore Vs former NJ Senator Bill Bradley


The winners of these fights will compete to become the next heavyweight ruler of the world!

*ding ding*

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Super Tuesday came and went. George Bush Jr. and Al Gore are the only two left standing.

Does anyone have any views to share about the current canidates?

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

Today is VE day. The following is an except from a post written by a Dutch subject on just what that means:

"On May 5, 1945, the Germans signed a treaty of defeat in Hotel De Wereld ("The World") in Wageningen, The Netherlands. Earlier that day, the last German troops had been driven across the Dutch-German border by the Allied Forces and the Dutch army. A five year siege ended. People rushed out into the streets and squares of our country, and celebrated their regained freedom, together with the soldiers that drove the enemy away. The Kingdom of the Netherlands was an independant state again.

This evening, at 7:58 pm local time, life stopped in the Netherlands, like it does every year on May 4. Everyone observes two minutes of silence to remember that freedom is not something to take for granted. To remember that people died to regain our freedom: compatriots, but also complete strangers, rushed in by their respective governments to help out a country in need - to combat the evil that had Western Europe in its grip. To remember those who have fallen: Dodenherdenking, the remembrance of the dead.
At the Dam Square in Amsterdam, a ceremony is held every year. The Royal family attends it - they place a commemorative flowerpiece at the National Monument, after which the two minutes of silence are announced by a military trumpet anthem. Usually, some 100,000 people are assembled at the square. There is complete silence for two full minutes. It is a very sad, yet serene moment.

...I tend to think about all those British, American and Canadian soldiers that were shipped to Europe. They had nothing to do with this war. I'm sure most of them were terrified when faced with the knowledge they were to be put in a war zone to fight the Germans. But for better or worse, they realised that liberating Europe was indeed in everybody's interest. From D-Day onward, they slowly but surely forced back the German troops and finally made their way to Berlin. The rest, as they say, is history.

Many young men lost their lives, leaving many more family members and friends behind back home. They paid with their lives for something that wasn't even going to be theirs: my freedom.

This may, and never will be, forgotten.

In 1995, the 50th Anniversary of the Liberation was celebrated. For this occasion, many WWII veterans from the US, Canada and England came over to parade through our streets once more. In full army uniforms, in their original vehiculs. As I was watching the parade, it halted for some reason. A Canadian Jeep stopped in front of me, an old war veteran on the passenger seat. He was visibly touched by the mass attention the parade drew: a mixture of amazement, joy and sadness was written over his face. I stepped up to the Jeep and extended my hand. So did he. As we shook hands, I told him my feelings. I could only use the simplest of words, as there are no words in any language to express my (our, really) gratitude towards these heroes: "Thank you Sir, for liberating my country and giving us back our freedom".

I was born in 1973. Yet, the celebration of our Liberation always has a great impact on me. I will make sure, that my kids will learn to be thankful for their freedom too. And I will also make sure they know who to be thankful to.

If any of you have a father or grandfather that fought for the liberation of Europe: do me a favour and tell them one thing. Tell them, that they are nor forgotten. Nor will they ever be. We will remember, so that this will never happen again.

Thank you."

Just thought you'd like to know.

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Subject: The one dollar bill.

Take out a one dollar bill and look at it. The one dollar bill you're looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design.

This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually material.

We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is over-printed with symbols and then it is starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice crisp look.

If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States Treasury Seal. On the top you will see the scales for the balance-a balanced budget. In the center you have a carpenter's T-square, a tool used for an even cut. Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.

That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that dollar bill is something we should all know.

If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles. Both circles, together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States. The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.

If you look at the left hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice the face is lighted and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning. We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could do for Western Civilization.

The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the capstone you have the all-seeing eye, and ancient symbol for divinity.
It was Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything. "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this currency. The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means "God has favored our undertaking". The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, means "a new order has begun.". At the base of the pyramid is the Roman Numeral for 1776.

If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States. It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery and is the centerpiece of most hero's monuments. Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet no one knows what the symbols mean.

The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons: first, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong and he is smart enough to soar above it. Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from the King of England. Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on its own. At the top of that shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation. In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning "one nation from many people".

Above the Eagle you have thirteen stars representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one. Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.

They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a worldwide belief. You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or a hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But, think about this: 13 original colonies, 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 13 stripes on our flag, 13 steps on the Pyramid, 13 letters in the Latin above, 13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum", 13 stars above the Eagle, 13 plumes of feathers on each span of the Eagle's wing, 13 bars on that shield, 13 leaves on the olive branch, 13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows. And for minorities: the 13th Amendment.

By Rigel (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Whoo boy.... Has anyone seen the pro-life website? I went there just to read up on their perspective, you know, to try and see their side of things- open minded as I am... I was completely disgusted with the way they twist things like medical science, statistics and psychology out of context to support their argument. I've got nothing against their view of fetuses as a living being, but their misinformation disturbed me because it skirts the definition of a premeditated lie. Luckily I was learned enough to see it. Wow it was sick. I was so angered that I wrote the pro-life organization a letter.

www.prolife.org

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

*crosses fingers*

Please let Gore get Florida. Please let Gore get Florida, please, please, please? Oh my is this gonna be a close one!

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Hillary Clinton won the NY senate race. I need to vent, bear with me.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo! Oh, man, that really sucks! Agggghhhhh!

Ok. I'm done now.

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

*crosses fingers*

Go G.W. Bush!


(Nat, no offense I respect your choice, but I have to root for the team I picked too. :)

-bryan

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

We agree to disagree =)

I would have voted for Guiliani if he stayed in the race, but between Lazio and Hillary I'd pick her instead. I think Lazio is a nice guy, but too conservative for my conscience.

I'm very worried about women's rights if Bush gets elected because of the three Supreme Court seats that will soon be up for grabs, the Republican majority and the narrow miss of H.R.1122 (thankfully vetoed by Bill Clinton). Bush has stated that he supports the "partial-birth abortion ban" (H.R.1122) which would have overturned Roe vs. Wade. The conservative right came too close for comfort on that one, and anyone who claims abortion rights aren't in danger are gravely mistaken- just look at what the pro-lifers have tried to sneak through Congress and the Senate! Most of the people who think Roe vs Wade is secure are MEN who don't keep current on women's rights. Go figure. If I lost my abortion rights I would seriously consider leaving the US and move to England or France where I know my human rights would be safe from conservative fanatics. That is how important my abortion rights are to me, and I won't stand for any man passing laws over my right to control my destiny. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement.

I'm also an avid believer in the separation of church and State- something Bush is not. His "After-School Enrichment" stance would promote faith-based school activities. Any mixing of religion with public school is a violation of the constitution. Religion should have no place in public school whatsoever. Should an individual want to congregate with others of their faith to participate in religious activities, they can go to a church of their choice- that's what they're there for. Parents also have the option of enrolling their children in private schools with a stronger emphasis on religion. Turning public schools into a vehicle to spread religion is unconstitutional no matter how you try to sneak around it.

Bush's lack of support for single mothers, children's welfare, neglect on collecting child support from dead-beat dads and the poor envirinmental conditions in his OWN STATE of Texas while serving as Governor makes me want to laugh when he preaches that he's for "family values" and environmental protection.

I find these reasons too important to ignore.

Thank you, now I'll climb of my soapbox.. At least for now =)

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

My brain has been oatmeal ALL DAY today since I was up until 3am last night watching the election. I had to down two capuccinos just to stay conscious.

Did anyone see the exit polls? It's very interesting seeing how divided this nation is. Gore got most of the minority, women and low-income voters, meanwhile Bush got the Protestant/Christian and upper class vote.

I'm still hoping for Gore to win Florida. He's only 1700 votes behind Bush in that state- which is more or less just a fraction of one SINGLE district. My mom tells me that in Florida some people had to vote by paper and that it was so confusing that lots of people ended up voting for the wrong person by accident. Since the election is as close as it is, that's REALLY bad.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I don't want spineless liar Al Gore as my president. He's worse than Clinton is. Forgive me for not being a bleeding heart liberal, but I gotta go with Bush, simply because the media wants us all to love Gore, but they STILL can't make him look good. They say by close of business today it will be done. Go Bush!

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Everyone knows ALL politicians are liars- nothing new there, but you just admitted that you voted for Bush simply because the media favors Gore? That sounds rather absurd as a reason to vote vote for Bush. In fact that sounds kind of mindless- no offense or anything, I just thought you'd have some better reasons.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I don't watch ANY sort of media anymore, because I know all they want is to control our minds. I based my decision on other factors, since I was not subjected to any sort of campaign ads or nastiness. I voted for Bush because I have seen the kinds of things Gore has said and done. I also voted so I had the right to be a loudmouth obnoxious prick about the current state of affairs in the US, since I firmly believe that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the government. And thank you for calling me mindless...

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Hey, you initially said you voted for Bush simply because the media favors Gore. You gotta admit that DOESN'T sound too rational; I didn't call you mindless, I just said that your reason sounded mindless. Had you elaborated further in your first post things would be different.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Well, I don't think voting for Gore is an act of a rational mind... ;> Let's be friendly! ;> I'm gonna play Diablo 2 tonight and romp many minions of evil into mush with the mighty bootheel of MINSC! L8R

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Got any little green men? We can play Democrats vs. Republicans =)

Minsc is cool.

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm sorry, this is just too funny not to post:


Who Is Smarter?

Palm Beach, Florida Democrats or 2nd Graders?

Second-graders have no problem with butterfly ballot "That so-called butterfly ballot may have been confusing to the grown-ups in Florida, but some second-graders here made it look like child"s play. School psychologist Ron McGee asked the 8-year-olds at Lee County Elementary to vote for their favorite Disney character, using a ballot similar to the one that has caused controversy in Florida"s Palm Beach County. "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap2000111_846.html

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Oops.. here is the correct url:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20001110_846.html

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I didn't know where to put this, so I'll put it here...

See the Bush-Gore Dance!

There. I did it. Enjoy.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

I was bored today and began to wonder if we had
liberal party, and we have a conservative party..
I wondered.. could their be a centrist party?

http://www.centrist.org/

Yep.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Very interesting Bry, thanx!

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Yeah, just like I have a left leg, a right leg, and a center... nevermind. ;> Sorry. I couldn't resist... I'll punish myself later.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

"Mother, why is my nose so big?"

"Will you stop thinking about SEX! You're always thinking about SEX!"

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

A little somethin' I ran across recently:

_________

The reactionary right-wingers call me a liberal

I refuse to pretend that racism and sexism no longer exist, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that "market forces" are some magical panacea, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe cutting the military from being able to blow up the world 10 times over down to only 8 times over is a bad thing, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe family means a man ruling over a wife and kids, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that money magically trickles down from the rich, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe giving a mother food stamps to feed her kids is a waste of money, while buying the air force a billion dollar bomber it doesn't want isn't, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe cutting the taxes of the rich helps the poor, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh has talent on loan from God, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that the profit motive creates virtue in people, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that might makes right, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe the government should control women's reproductive choices, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that single mothers are necessarily bad parents, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe only northern Europeans have culture, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe a union worker making $17/hr is overpaid while a CEO making $1 million/year is not, so they call me a liberal.

I refuse to ignore the long history of oppression, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe teaching children about cultural diversity is wrong, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe the only good jobs are ones where someone else is skimming off a profit, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe Americans are inherently superior to other nationalities, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe homosexuals are evil, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe non-Christians are evil, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe liberals are subhuman monsters, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe that things are black-and-white, so they call me a liberal.

I don't believe their lies, so the reactionaries call me a liberal
The more they talk, the more being called a liberal sounds like a compliment.

- Douglas Giles

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Ummm... I agree with the majority of what this person said. And they call me A CONSERVATIVE. (except for the military part. A cut to the military is a weakening of the security of America. I am a PATRIOT.) ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Fred... You ARE a conservative. You vote conservative and you've said that you consider yourself to be conservative (at least that's what you told me on at least three occasions), you present yourself like a conservative when it comes to politics- which is probably why people think you're conservative. You're not exactly right-wing material (in which case we'd argue all the time in stead of occasionally), but you're definately conservative.

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm a centrist on social/moral issues and
I tend to lean slightly conservative on economic
issues.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm a liberal when it comes to women's rights (you all know that), social programs concerning children's welfare & the elderly, separation of church and state, education and environmental issues.

On gun control and legalizing drugs I'm undecided for many reasons.

On immigration issues, and foreign policy I'd have to say centrist.

On economics, I'm really not sure.

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

I follow no one's lead and make up my own damn mind about all of the above issues - what does that make me? Even those called 'Independent' have a party line on some things. I think I'll start my own party, you all can join, we'll call the Higher Brain Function Party....

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I think that would probably put you in the "undecided" category.

Or you could design a new political party around your cute, adorable son, and we could all assist him in accomplishing world domination once he grows to physical maturity =)

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

No, Nat. That's a CULT. And besides, we already have one; isn't that right, mother of the almighty conquerer of the universe? ;>

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

(I received this in my e-mail. I don't know when it was written.)


TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES

This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

America: The Good Neighbor.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a
Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his
trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the
earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted
out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of
dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is
today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United
States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on
the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened
by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing
about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet,
the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly
them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American
Planes?

Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on
the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You
talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.

You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not
once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store
window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not
pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them,
unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars
from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the
Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned
them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other
people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced
to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even
during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned
tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this
thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb
their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I
hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is one of the best editorials that I have ever read regarding the
United States. It is nice that one man realizes it. I only wish that the
rest of the world would realize it. We are always blamed for everything,
and never even get a thank you for the things we do.

I would hope that each of you would send this to as many people as you
can and emphasize that they should send it to as many of their friends
until this letter is sent to every person on the web. I am just a single
American that has read this, I SURE HOPE THAT A LOT MORE READ IT SOON.
Stand proud, America!

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Well, we have a president. You still moving to Canada, Nat? ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Let's see how much damage Bush does in these next four years, then I'll tell ya. The american government is still lagging behind the rest of civilization when it comes to women's rights and social programs. And knowing we have a new president who doesn't give a rat's a$$ about my rights as a human being won't make me feel patriotic in the least.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

How do you know he doesn't give a rat's a$$ about your rights as a human being? Oh, wait, am I poking the sleeping grizzly bear with a pointy stick again? ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Fred, you know very well why I don't like Bush being elected, and his stance on women's rights is regressive. If you need a refresher course on the basics, refer to post -28.

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

On the losing side of class warfare

Donald Lambro

When Al Gore gave his business-bashing, class-warfare speech to the Democratic National Convention this summer, the head of the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council predicted that the vice president's strategy would fail. Mr. Gore's deeply divisive, powerful-vs.-the-powerless speech shocked and depressed Al From, who for two decades has worked to yank the party away from its leftist, anti-business, class-envy, big-government roots. Mr. From supported Mr. Gore and would do so in the campaign, but he told friends in the media that the attempts to pit one economic group against another and portray big business as the enemy of the people would not work. "I guarantee it," Mr. From said. Of course he was right. With DLC Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman on the ticket, Mr. From and other top DLC strategists remained silent throughout the campaign. But last week, they resumed their war with the party's left wing, charging that Mr. Gore's retro, leftist message was the chief reason for his narrow defeat — that it had driven away the very voters he need to win the presidency. "Bush won the white working class (people making between $35,000 and $75,000 a year) by 13 points. The message does not seem to have prevailed with the group it was supposed to be aimed at," said Will , who helped to found the DLC organization that backed Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency. Mr. Gore's business-hating, anti-wealth message —- attacking the oil, health-care, drug and insurance companies — sounded more like Walter Mondale than President Clinton. It was old-economy politics instead of the new Internet, investor-class economy politics. Such leftist, social-welfare red meat played to educated academic elites and the party's urban, labor-union and low-income minority base, but not to the swing, independent, suburban, middle-class, middle-American voters who own stock in corporate America. "It's no secret that I think the populism approach hurt us with critical swing voters, particularly wired voters and men in the new economy. We were hurt because we were viewed in this election as being too liberal and too much in favor of big government," Mr. From said at a press briefing last week. Mark Penn, who polls for Mr. Clinton, said Mr. Gore's "populist message is by itself a limiting message. . . . It had a lot of negative resonance with precisely the voters Gore had to win to get above 50 percent on Election Day." Mr. Gore, with a strong, high-employment economy behind him, was unable to rise above that threshold. Much has been made of his edge in the popular vote, though the race ended in a statistical tie that contains important voting trends that do not bode well for the Democrats. Mr. Gore won 90 percent of the black vote with deeply disturbing racial appeals, but there's not much, if any, growth there for Democrats in the future. In fact, with younger, professional blacks identifying themselves as independents, there are opportunities for the GOP to appeal to these upwardly mobile, more entrepreneurial voters, who like school-choice vouchers and private Social Security investment accounts. Elsewhere, Mr. Bush made significant inroads into the Democrats' base constituencies, winning one-third of the Hispanic vote, 41 percent of the Asian vote and 36 percent of the union household vote. But it was Mr. Gore's weakness among white voters that reflected the utter failure of his liberal, big-government, business-bashing pitch. He won only 43 percent of whites compared with 53 percent for George W. Bush. Notably, he scored 10 percent higher among men. In a high-tech, Internet era of growing affluence among America's new-economy voters, Mr. Gore's cultural-warfare, smoke-stack populism has lost its appeal. Mr. From and Mr. Marshall note that almost all of the 22 million new jobs over the past eight years are in non-manufacturing sectors, with the income-range ratio tilting in favor of higher-income jobs. A look at a county-by-county election map of the country shows that Mr. Gore's votes came mostly from heavily concentrated urban areas in the Northeast and industrial Midwest. Mr. Bush's vote, on the other hand, was more broadly spread across the country, sweeping the entire South and virtually all of the Western plains and mountain states and parts of the Midwest, including Ohio, Indiana and Missouri. In all, Mr. Bush carried 30 states to Mr. Gore's 20. Mr. Bush won a whopping 2,434, or 78 percent of all the counties, while Mr. Gore's vote was restricted to 677 heavily populated counties. Wall Street economic analyst Larry Kudlow notes that Mr. Bush largely won in new-economy states in the West and South, while Mr. Gore won in old-economy, population-losing states such as New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, which cling to old, big-government, liberal models. So expect more criticism from the DLC and other conservative, centrist-leaning Democrats who think that Mr. Gore's divisive message is the political kiss of death for their party. Blue Dog Democrats in the House were openly complaining about Mr. Gore's performance last week, vowing to re-assert themselves in the new year and suggesting that they can work with Mr. Bush on tax policy and other issues. "We've got to change our message," Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas told me. Thus, while the national news media has been forecasting dissension between Mr. Bush and the Republicans, the real postelection war is likely to be among the Democrats.