Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on December 02, 2000, 01:36:00 PM
-
You've seen the Gore-isms... In the spirit of a good chuckle, I bring you some Bush-isms:
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."— Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."—Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
"They misunderestimated me."—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
"It's going to require numerous IRA agents."—On Gore's tax plan, Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000
"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."—Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000
"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were," he said. "It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."—Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000
"If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency-room care, we're going to have gag orders."
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"—Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."—St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000
"More and more of our imports come from overseas."—Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live."—Cleveland, June 29, 2000
"I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking."—Salinas, Calif., Aug. 10, 2000
"We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans."—Scranton, Pa., Sept. 6, 2000
"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.''—Ibid.
"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help us turn out the vote, after we've convinced the good Americans to vote, and while they're at it, pull that old George W. lever, if I'm the one, when I put my hand on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not—to uphold the laws of the land."—Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2000
"Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it."
"It's your money. You paid for it."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
"That's a chapter, the last chapter of the 20th, 20th, the 21st century that most of us would rather forget. The last chapter of the 20th century. This is the first chapter of the 21st century. "—On the Lewinsky scandal, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
"It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term."
"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."
"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is—I'm not sure 80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the president."
"Our priorities is our faith."—Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000
"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children."—Second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."—Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000
"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans."—Oprah, Sept. 19, 2000
"The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some of their own money."—Westminster, Calif., Sept. 13, 2000
"They have miscalculated me as a leader."—Ibid.
"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs."—Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000
"This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them."—Outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000
"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He
represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally
comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where
I'm coming from."—Detroit, Sept. 7, 2000
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."--Ibid.
"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes."—Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000
'This campaign not only hears the voices of the entrepreneurs and the farmers and the entrepreneurs, we hear the voices of those struggling to get ahead."—Ibid.
"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together."—Bartlett, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2000
"And if he continues that, I'm going to tell the nation what I think about him as a human being and a person."—President George H.W. Bush, on the Today show, Aug. 1, 2000
"You might want to comment on that, Honorable."--To New Jersey's secretary of state. -Washington Post, July 15, 2000
"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as being against things."—Cleveland, July 1, 2000
"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000 (Thanks to Andy Nouraee.)
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read—I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do."—On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000
"Actually, I—this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about—when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."—Ibid.
"I think we agree, the past is over."—On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000
GOV. BUSH: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
JIM LEHRER: Florida.
GOV. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida.—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis."—Meet the Press, April 15, 2000
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."—In Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
"Reading is the basics for all learning."—Announcing his "Reading First" initiative in Reston, Va., March 28, 2000
"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal—federal cufflink."—At Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000
"Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads."—Fund-raising letter from George W. Bush, quoted in the Washington Post, March 24, 2000
"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me."—Interview with the New York Times, March 15, 2000
"It's evolutionary, going from governor to president, and this is a significant step, to be able to vote for yourself on the ballot, and I'll be able to do so next fall, I hope."—In an interview with the Associated Press, March 8, 2000
"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature.''—Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
"I understand small business growth. I was one."—New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have—he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."—To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
"I don't want to win? If that were the case why the heck am I on the bus 16 hours a day, shaking thousands of hands, giving hundreds of speeches, getting pillared in the press and cartoons and still staying on message to win?"—Newsweek, Feb. 28, 2000
"I thought how proud I am to be standing up beside my dad. Never did it occur to me that he would become the gist for cartoonists."—ibid.
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."—Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?"—Explaining the need for educational accountability in Beaufort, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
"We ought to make the pie higher."—South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
"I do not agree with this notion that somehow if I go to try to attract votes and to lead people toward a better tomorrow somehow I get subscribed to some—some doctrine gets subscribed to me."—Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000
"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less—I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more interacting with people."—ibid
"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth."—Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins in the New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000
"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."—Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000
"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."—Speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H. As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house."—Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses."—At a South Carolina oyster roast, as quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000
"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself."—ibid.
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
"Gov. Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure."—ibid.
"There needs to be debates, like we're going through. There needs to be town-hall meetings. There needs to be travel. This is a huge country."—Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999
"I read the newspaper."—In answer to a question about his reading habits, New Hampshire Republican Debate, Dec. 2, 1999
"I think it's important for those of us in a position of responsibility to be firm in sharing our experiences, to understand that the babies out of wedlock is a very difficult chore for mom and baby alike. ... I believe we ought to say there is a different alternative than the culture that is proposed by people like Miss Wolf in society. ... And, you know, hopefully, condoms will work, but it hasn't worked."—Meet the Press, Nov. 21, 1999
"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas."—To a Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Bush's meeting was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.
"If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I'm sure I'll have a statement."—Quoted by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, June 16, 1999
"Keep good relations with the Grecians."—Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999
"Kosovians can move back in."—CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1999
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."—From a 1994 interview, as quoted in First Son, by Bill Minutaglio
-
hehe yeah SNL should have some fun with GW over the next 4 or 8 years.
udie
-
Funny post. Our president-elect mis-speaks.
Kinda like the Gerald Ford of words
I don't see any lies though. SNL will have fun and so will the media. America will prosper in many ways (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I get my tax cut and social security to invest. The Congress will support our President,G W Bush (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
All will live happy, America won't get gored to death (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ha! You think after all the sh%@!t the Reps have heaped on the dems for the past eight years, that we're all gonna roll right over and cooperate?
My arse.
-
Btw, GWB makes Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar!
-
banana, so now you will seek retribution?
This is the "kinder, gentler" liberal approach? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
IMHO, "we, the people" need to rise above "them the politicians."
The people have things that need doing. If WE would work together we might actually get the pols to do something worthwhile.
Besides, if you catch a conservative in the White House boffing a woman less than half his age and then looking into the camera and lying about it (depending upon your definition of "is").....
You'll be right there yelling for his resignation because this time he's not a Democrat?....Of course, I will also be doing that AGAIN. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
...and that's the difference. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Don't wag that "Kinder, gentler" finger at me, Toad.
The Reps can't have it both ways. For them to spew venom and slander for eight solid years, then to turn around and say that it's time to come together and work in harmony, is at best a farce. In fact, it's the epitomy of hypocrisy.
The gloves are off. The only way the Reps are gonna get anything done for the next four years is by ramming it down our throats, something they've proven to be very good at.
The Reps control the government now, and if you think they're going to stay out of your life and let "states rights" rule, you're sadly mistaken.
-
awww, poor wittle losercrats (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
[list=1]
- this isn't over yet.
- Gore may still succeed in getting 15,000 more votes tossed.
- Boies may still succeed in the FSC.
- The Florida Legislature may continue down its foolhardy path of trying to guarantee a GWB win, resulting in an inevitable backlash.
- Didn't you just chastize me for not being open-minded?[/list=a]
Bear in mind it is highly unlikely at this point the FSC would allow the tossing of 15,000 votes on a technicality (especially in the light of it disallowing a deadline technicality from stopping the original hand count). Still, a Gore presidency is not out of the question. The anger you feel this week is precisely the anger I felt last week with the FSC one-sided opinion. The only solice I had was that the president is only a person, and any decision made would have to pass through Congress. Essentially the situation is same this week, but it is the other guy with the upper hand. The Republicans are hardly in control of the country- it is a 50-50 Senate. There will be very little meaningful legislation for the next two years, as deadlock will be the fashion.
Let me ask you this question; how many Democrats are supporting Gore, and how many are posturing for the 2002 Congressional races? If we are to be truthful, most Democrats knew at the point of certification the race was, for all intents and purposes, over. Dragging us through all of this court battle isn't about fighting for the right to vote; if it had been, we would have demanded a state-wide recount from the beginning. This prolonged fight now is intended to discredit any outcome, and legitimize the Democratic call to arms for 2002. That the economy is now obviously adversely affected by this continued fight should have been the signal to knock this nonsense off, but Gore has not moved to do so yet.
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".
-
The really funny thing about this is that no matter who wins, almost exactly 50% of the US will get pissed off and start yelling about how unfair the whole process was (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well, I guess it's not that funny. Still, it shows just how bad the candidates have been that the nation's completely divided over which they want least...
-
Originally posted by banana:
In fact, it's the epitomy of hypocrisy.
Wank, would that be as hypocritical as, say, this?
"The 1995 agreement was secretly forged by Vice President Al Gore and then Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.
The agreement maintained that the U.S would not punish Russia for its arms sales to Iran if Russia agreed to stop selling arms by Dec. 31, 1999
...many said they were furious with Gore for sidestepping the legislature, particularly since Gore wrote the 1992 law that said any country that sold arms to Iran would be sanctioned."
Come on banana. There IS no difference between Democrats and Republicans. None. They are ALL hypocritical bastiges. Accept it; I have. It brings inner peace. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The gloves are off. The only way the Reps are gonna get anything done for the next four years...
Damn straight! To the barricades, men! Oppose all ideas, even if they are good! This isn't about common sense! This is about REVENGE! Let us destroy everything to make ourselves pay!
The Reps control the government now, and if you think they're going to stay out of your life and let "states rights" rule, you're sadly mistaken.
1. The Reps don't control anything yet. First the election brouhaha isn't over. Second, the Legislative Branch IS split almost exactly between Dems and Reps.
2. If I had to bet on who was going to stay out of my life and who would be more likely to allow "states rights" there is no doubt that the history of the last 30 years would show that the Republicans are far more likely to do that than the Democrats. Gotta go with the averages, I guess. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'm still just sitting, waiting and sipping beer waiting for the Supremes to end this thing one way or the other.
After it's over, I'll go back to writing my Congressional reps to pass on my views, supporting new candidates that I think somewhat share my views AND......
living my life. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You know, all the dyed in the wool Reps told me Clinton was the end of the world; the Dems scoffed at that idea. Now, the Dems are telling me that Bush will be the end of the world and the Reps are scoffing at that idea.
Oh, gee...what a dilemma...who should I believe? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sure hope the old globe will keep orbiting the sun for another 4 years so I can find out who is gonna end it in the next round!
Breathe in....hold...hold...hold...br eathe out. There, don't you feel better?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Well... Toad, there *is* a difference between the two parties. Fundamental (though ever shrinking) differences. It is the reason, for example, that you voted for Bush; the upcoming Supreme Court picks... and for that reason solely. And ideoligical differences... as in you pointing out, for example, State's rights.
Hell, Gore may even be knowingly commiting political suicide over this election for the Supreme Court issue alone. *You* recognize the importance of this, and you can bet Gore and the democrats do too. His political career is finished if he loses this fight (and even perhaps if he wins). I bet there are not just a few Democrat politicians quietly but forcefully urging him to stick it out, despite his better judgement at this point. For that reason, one might go as far as to call him a true patriot. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Probably an unlikely scenario - but yah, it's possible.
But I digress (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The ideology of the two parties is quite different (like I said though, currently on a collision course for the middle ground). It is the *methods* of these two parties that are the same. This is why I have to scoff at the seeming lack of real discussion of the issues on this board (with exceptions), in favour of broad characterizations of the "he's a liar!" ilk.
You are right in that regard. They are *all* lying hypocrites. One might ask if this is the sole fault of the politicians themselves, or if it is in fact a *requirement* in order to govern these days, and within this system. Another discussion entirely.
The democrat/republican retribution subject that has sprout up here is a very interesting subject as well (eg. "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" - Kieren). I'd like to take a crack at this one, definately...but I gotta get some flyin' time in right now... will comment later I hope.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Patriot is not a word I would ever use to describe Bore.
Unless you are talking about a Patriot for china.
Bore is a traitor plain and simple.
-
By all means, crack at it.
Being of the ilk you have described, let me add to my thoughts.
Let's face an idealogical fact you may have ignored or missed; Al Gore and the Democratic automatons have stated over and over that they want only "a complete and fair count", which I submit is a patent lie. It is quickly pointed out that the DNC never asked for a full recount of the State at the outset, and the universal reply by the DNC is "the Republicans were stupid, they didn't ask for one"- now that sounds like someone being interested only in "an accurate and full count", right? The thought has also been forwarded the Democrats have smarter lawyers, and too bad for the Republicans. Again, sounds like a party trying to champion the Constitution, right? How do you personally feel about the exclusion of the military vote? Makes me feel great to be an American. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) I also loved the parade of the blacks and elderly the Florida legislature endured during their committee meeting- funny the DNC didn't contact one person in uniform to speak for them, eh? Now Boies continues to misrepresent his Illinois case to (which by the way he used to convince Broward county to lower their standards on ballots, and in turn he is using Broward as the "Holy Grail" of counties in ballot interpretation- lie upon lie upon lie) forward his hand recount and standards for hand recount argument- never mind he completely lied about the results of the case to begin with. Presidency by litigation, spin it later.
The very thought that any candidate that would use this method to gain office- and I include the Republicans for the Florida legislature's premature attempt to seat GWB- is the antithesis of legitimacy. In the end, Gore will be no champion of your rights. Don't be standing in the road if his limousine is on its way to a fundraiser- you won't like the result.
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.
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Ok, so I may have been a teensy-weensy bit reactionary in my last post. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Toad, I love ya man. We don't always agree, but I'd have a drink and debate with you anytime. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Duma, go to the head of the class. I think you've nailed it pretty darn well.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).]
-
Why do I jump into these tar pits? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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".
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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?
-
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).]
-
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.
-
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 (http://www1.jump.net/~cs3/index.php)
-
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).]
-
Ammo-
I am not so clear on that point. Both sides of the Florida legislature have to cooperate, and I am not sure that is going to happen. There is also a window of opportunity that might be easy to miss.
Nash-
This has gotten too personal both ways. I will apologize that my political views offend you, but I cannot change my beliefs in that regard. I will not respond to you in any future political posts.
-
Hrmph... Your political beleifs do not offend me in the *slightest*! The fact that you hold your beleifs so strongly is commendable! It would be outrageous to ask that you change those beleifs. I am certainly not asking you to do that. That is up to you and nobody else.
It is only my opinion, and I apologize in advance, that you are unable to hear *anyone else's* personal beleifs without... well... taking it personally.
It makes it kinda hard to talk about things with you. That's all.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
ah....heck
I'll buy both of ya a beer if we meet at a con.
I think Kieren and I may share a lot of viewpoints that are unrelated to political party.
I can at least discuss topics with Nash without having to watch it degenerate into spit-flinging, name-calling irrational diatribes that may include threats of violence like I've seen from other peace-love-and-understanding libs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Of course, you're still wrong, Nash! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Of course I am..... NOT (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Yes, I've enjoyed my discussions with you Toad... thas fer sure.
The fact that we at least share these *differences*, in an odd way, gives us a lot in common. You buy the first round of beers, and I'll get the next. Kieren's gettin' the next three (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I accept my penance with a smile. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ahhh cripes! Beers at the con for everyone!
But this is getting much too mushy for a BBS! This isn't what a BBS is for! The inventors...or I mean investors... of the BBS systems are watching this display and rolling over in their gra....er I mean millions!
Let the determined, hillarious, reasoned, left field, and head-shaking arguments fly forth in all their absolute glory!
Kieren, you said... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The law was broken. It may be a technicality, but it is a fact. Yes, that means Gore is president.
By logical inference are you suggesting that Bush is going to become president because laws were broken?
Toad... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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.
Bush Jr. went AWOL from his National Guard unit during that war. Do you... erhm, I guess I'm not making much of a point here - ya have disdain fer *both* of them. It makes you a bit more of a dodgey target, but I'll nail ya down *one* of these times! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
Nash,
Ever been in the service?
Being AWOL is a serious charge. For Bush, in this case, it means he had written orders to report to whatever unit in Alabama and didn't show up (IIRC the point that web page was trying to make).
It's been a while since I read that page you've been clipping. What's the address? I'd like to see what they have for proof. I'd think if he really did go AWOL there'd be something substantial and verifiable in the public record. The military knew where to find him; there should be something in writing.
Now beyond the AWOL charge (and I'm not ready to really give that creedence without seeing more on it) Bush still served 22 months in the Texas Air Guard. I've mentioned before that the Guard committment from UPT is about 24 months. So it may be that he "did his duty".
Can't say that about Bill in any case.
Pass on your source(s) for the AWOL charge. I'd like to re-read that stuff.
-
Sorry, dropping my head back under the radar on this. We all stay happier that way. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Nash just because he was AWOL does not mean that it was intentional.
I was in the USAF and while I left for the weekend to come home we had an alert and I was considered AWOL since I was no where to be found. I didn't get in trouble when I came back because it wasn't my fault but technically I WAS AWOL.
-
I was AWOL too. My logistics group screwed up and didn't inform me that normal travel plans were now different. I was supposed to just transfer from one gate to a military gate.. instead I went to billeting at a nearby base (same as I did on the first trip). As a result, it took me two extra weeks to get to the assignment.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
Toad - I got the story from the Boston Globe, but am unable to find it on their site now.
However, I did a search in Google.com for +Bush +AWOL
Alotta sites referencing this, so you should have no trouble finding info. One caveat, as always - choose your sources carefully! - and cross reference. Er, I know I don't need to tell *you* that Toad... I just wanted to say it in light of some of the junk posted...
-
Awww... Because I'm such a nice guy, I did the dirty work for you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"Vets want proof of Bush service" - The Birmingham, AL News 10/14/00: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html)
"Questions remain on Bush's service as Guard pilot." - The Boston Globe 10/31/00: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/ (http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/)
(Atlanta Journal Constitution article available online from the Chicago Tribune: http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0011020310,FF.html (http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0011020310,FF.html) )
Medal of Honor winner Sen. Bob Kerrey blasts Bush on Service - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+ .shtml (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+.shtml)
Bush Let Guard Down - Washington Post, 11/3/00: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4291-2000Nov2.html (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4291-2000Nov2.html)
Sen. Max Cleland Questions Bush Service - The Tennessean, 11/3/00: http://www.tennessean.com/local/00613269.shtml (http://www.tennessean.com/local/00613269.shtml)
DUI and AWOL stories break on same day - The Sacramento Bee, 11/3/00: http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01_20001103.html (http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01_20001103.html)
Bush working to keep truth hidden - The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/3/00: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/saturday/news_a3305 b396349414b001f.html (http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/saturday/news_a3305b396349414b001f.html)
Bush pressured on military gaps - Boston Globe, 11/3/00: http://www.globe.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_pressured_on_military_gaps .shtml (http://www.globe.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_pressured_on_military_gaps.shtml)
Bush military record berated - The Dallas Morning News, 11/3/00: http:// [url=http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/208224_attack_06pol.A.html]http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/208224_attack_06pol.A.html[/url]
Bush probably skipped the final 17 months of his National Guard commitment - The New Republic, 11/13/00: http://newrephtml.html (http://newrephtml.html)
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 12-05-2000).]