I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully

[Mighty1]

I disagree with -duma- only about 50% of America voted and only 50% of that voted for Bush/Bore so only about 1/4 of america will be pissed.

[Nash]

 

You're entitled to twist this to your pleasure (and I'm sure you will). Please, refute how the Democratic rhetoric isn't designed to diminish a Bush presidency to illegitimacy and ultimately set up the 2002 elections.

How quickly I forget what a 'debate' (call it what you will) with you winds up like.

Instead of further 'twisting', let me first ask you how the above differs from [Republican]  rhetoric designed to diminish a [Clinton] presidency to illegitimacy and ultimately set up the [1994 and 1996] elections?

Selective in your scorn? If you've only just recently had your blinders removed, I apologize, and understand your confusion.

[Kieren]

You did exactly what I knew you would do- you didn't address my point directly, you dragged another anecdote in. The fact you may be right in the anecdote matters not a bit WRT my question; the Democratic rhetoric is intended to delegitimize the Bush presidency, and eyes the 2002 election, correct?

[Nash]

Fine. Yeah, by the sounds of it, much of the rhetoric *is* slanting that way. Of course, nobody will come out and say something like this openly... but sure, guys like Carville aren't gonna pass this one up.

That you agree that this is shaping up to be a replay of what the Republicans did (and in fact started - the extent of which was unprecendented) throughout two terms of a Clinton administration, still begs the question: Can you blame them? If not, why your selective scorn? If so, how are you able to draw this distinction?

[Kieren]

You ask, I'll tell.

So much of what I have disagreed with you about has been your method of justifying illicit behavior- that is, saying the Republicans have done it too. I agree, they have. What you have assumed is that I agree with them on that behavior, which I don't. The fact is, behavior is right or wrong for the most part, and each individual is accountable for that behavior. I don't care one bit if 15 different Presidents boffed interns in the Whitehouse- I will address the one that is in the office doing it at the time.

By your reasoning, since this behavior has gone on for so long we should ignore these types of behaviors in all leaders. Wrong. We hold them accountable. This is how we get leaders that lead the way we want them to.

To me, this is a character issue, and always has been. I trust Bush's character more than Gore's by far. I don't care what Bush Sr. did, nor Reagan, nor Nixon, etc. I care what Clinton did, and Gore by association and on his own. If you cannot see that Gore has his own misdeeds by now, I can never convince you. Yes, Bush has skeletons in his closet too, but you cannot begin to legitimately impugn him the way it is so easy to impugn Gore in terms of following statutes of law.

If Bush comes out in the next four years and behaves like Clinton has, you can bet I will rail against him. I am a teacher, and that profession places me in the traditional Democratic mold- still, I cannot forgive all that has happened in the last eight years. I am holding this administration accountable for what they have done. I voted against this administration. And it isn't a revenge vote for that matter; I think Gore has, as I have repeatedly stated, placed himself on the other side of the law many times in this administration. There is no reason to believe he would be any different as President, now is there?

That is what it is like debating with me. I lay it on the table, like it or not. I will directly address the points you put before me.

[Toad]

Amen, brother Kieren!

"If Bush comes out in the next four years and behaves like Clinton has, you can bet I will rail against him"

Responsibility. Accountability. All parties, all officeholders, indiscriminately.

I'm of the same mind.

[Nash]

This is what it's like debating with you? In talking about retribution I get a 400 word blow by blow on what you find wrong on with the Florida election fiasco. In trying to focus in a bit tighter on the retribution you give me your principles on Clinton getting "boffed". I applaud those  principles Kieren, but I'll remind you that the "boffing" situation didn't arise untill the 7th year of his term.The witch-hunt that you seem to fear coming from the democrats in 2000, was in full swing the moment Clinton was sworn in.  And just how did we arrive at a discussion about  "boffing" in the first place?

Yeah, you sure 'lay it on the table', all right. The question is, lay *what* on the table? It's a good thing you're not a waiter because nobody would know what the hell to expect. Look at your last post for heaven sakes - the whole bloody thing is now about "behavour"? Where do you get this stuff? Why are you now talking about *behaviour*?

Going back up this thread to the *original* post that sparked this.

 

Kieren-
It's like this; if the Democrats can't have the office, they are going to "soil the nest" so badly that no one could successfully hold it. They then take back Congress in 2002 to "save us all".

Ironic no doubt.... and no, not you Kieren, don't take it personally here.... I'm reffering to the situation. And I still contend that it's a hypocritical stance if you're assigning blame to the democrats this time around.

*This is what I am saying.*

To justifying the republican witch-hunt by saying that Clinton finally got caught 7 years later lying about a blowjob is to give free reign to a 2000 democrat witch-hunt in the event that something scandelous *could also* be dredged up.  

Hmm... I'm probably gonna get a reply to this from you outlining your absolute shock at Gore's fundraising techniques.

<shrug>



[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Toad]

Why do I jump into these tar pits?  

Nash, I think the initial animosity towards BC stemmed primarily from his own history. He was being called "Slick Willie" long before he became Prez.

For me, the basic, initial animosity stems from his draft dodging. I'll admit, I hated to see a guy like that get the Presidency.

The "Monica" thing was just a culmination of a long career of dodging responsibility and accountability for BC. Some people thought they finally "had him" but as you mentioned, he's indeed good at being "Slick".

[Kieren]

Are you the arbiter of what is moot and what isn't? What is legitimate or not?

Go back and read what I have written. Over and over I have talked about what this administration has done. That at least must be clear to you. I have honestly stated to you why I have disliked this process, and my disdain for the DNC in the way it has supported Gore in this process.

Let me rephrase that particular quote in a manner that is easier to understand- "It is clear now that a Bush presidency is all but inevitable. That the Democrats are extending this fight means they are preparing for the 2002 election, and they want to get as much political ammunition as possible for that run. This they are doing at the expense of the Bush administration and the country as a whole, given the very unsteady economic environment. In fact, the worse things go for the country the next two years, the better for the DNC."

Does that appear wrong?

This is going to come as a shock to you- I am not a registered Republican. Read my stuff again. You will see that I am vehemently anti-Clinton, and the DNC insofar as they support him.

You didn't know me during Iran/Contra. Guess what? I thought Ollie and Reagan should have shared a cell. I didn't buy Reagan's amnesia story any more than anyone else did. The point I keep trying to make to you is this; what difference does it matter who did what before this administration? Before this election cycle? Every four years we get to grade our leaders. There isn't a thing I can do to Reagan now, or Kennedy, or Roosevelt, or any other president you wish to allude to. I can grade this one. I can also base my vote on what I have heard and seen from the VP in the last eight years.

Here is another little tidbit for you- I split my ticket on this election. I probably pretty equally distributed my votes between parties. I have done so in every election I have voted. I vote for the person I believe will do the best job irrespective of party affiliation. Where I do defend the RNC in this election is their lawsuits have been defensive in nature for the most part, and they appear to have tried to stay on the high road. The Florida legislature is making a big mistake IMHO, but that issue will reap its own reward two years from now.

So, hypocritical references aside, you have no idea what my voting record is.

[Nash]

My god, now it's your voting record?.... Where oh WHERE was your voting record brought up?

<throws hands up in the air>



[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Kieren]

The point is, Nash, you have attempted to paint me as a hypocrital partisan. There is no truth to that statement, and my voting record is relevant evidence to that point.

You never admit directly to anything wrong with your guy without immediately pointing to someone else and saying "look, they did it too!". Yes, they did. I address them with my vote when I vote on their election. Fact is, we are dealing with these candidates based on their records. This schoolyard diversion of attention to others just doesn't excuse misconduct.

I'm gonna throw something else at you; if Seminole throws out the 15,000 votes I cannot complain. Know why? The law was broken. It may be a technicality, but it is a fact. Yes, that means Gore is president. Yes, then I can accept it, though I still wouldn't like it. I sound pretty partisan, don't I?

[Nash]

Kieren,

Again....

You condemn the current Democrat rhetoric as an effort to deligitimize a Bush presidency. I have tried to address this. I am saying this would be hypocritical if you didn't *also* condemn the Republicans, in light of the last 8 years.

I may be wrong on this, but that is my opinion, repeated once again.

 

Kieren:
I will directly address the points you put before me.

... a bunch of unrelated points later...

 

Kieren:
The point is, Nash, you have attempted to paint me as a hypocrital partisan.

So now *that's* the point? It is not my intention to draw *you* out as a hypocritical bipartisan. Only (and from time to time) the issues that get raised here, by you or anyone else. It's becoming crystal clear that you are just unable to discuss issues without interjecting yourself and taking it personally.

You and I are not the point.

 

You never admit directly to anything wrong with your guy without immediately pointing to someone else and saying "look, they did it too!".

You are unable to look at *this issue* and admit directly "look, they did it too!"

You haven't admitted they did it, you haven't denied they did it...Hell, you haven't offered anything but ballots, behaviour and voting records.

You wanna change the 'point' to "my guy" Clinton? Would that suit you better here?

---edit---

I really have got to figure out how to do the html where ya can include the name of the person your quoting.




[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Kieren]

Once again, you have decided what is moot and what isn't.

I relate everything to my point of view because I don't try to divine what other people think- unlike certain canvassing boards I can think of.

I don't attempt to be the voice of the crowd, I have no right to be that voice.

If you want to cast aspersions to the effect I am partisan and hypocritical, I can respond with the evidence against it if I choose. I chose to do so. You immediately said it was irrelevant.

Your guy lies. Your guy has broken the law, and likely will again if he takes office. Maybe Bush will too, but I know Gore has/will. That is important to me enough to pick Bush over Gore.

And while we are talking about "points", what was the point of your original topic- given the tone of conversation here lately, you knew it would draw a heated response. It was inflammatory, as were the similar posts about Gore. Face it- you like to needle, and you enjoy the debate afterward. This is a point I made early on and maintain even now.

[-ammo-]

 

Originally posted by Kieren:


I'm gonna throw something else at you; if Seminole throws out the 15,000 votes I cannot complain. Know why? The law was broken. It may be a technicality, but it is a fact. Yes, that means Gore is president.

actually the way i understand it is the Fla Legislature can forge ahead and choose the electors at that point and there is not much that Gore's legal team can do. It would be an act that is backed up by the FLA constitution.

ammo


------------------
56thFG, 63rdFS

[Nash]

Kieren,

Toad and banana immediately got into the 'payback' issue. Your very first post addressed this issue: "soiling the nest".

I talked on some of Toad's other issues, and said I would probably say something about the payback issue. You invited me to do so. I did so. In return I got ballots, behaviour and voting records. In fact I got everything *but* the payback issue from you.

It's like trying to catch water in a sieve.

I am not "the arbiter of what is moot and what isn't".  I *tried* to address your point. I continued  to try.

I am giving up.




[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-04-2000).]