Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 30, 2000, 10:28:00 AM
-
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/gore.gif)
FICTION:
Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than
$100 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes
the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!"
FACT:
Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the
information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also
reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any
medication and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know
anything about his dog's "arthritis".
FICTION:
Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil
rights during the 1960's.
FACT:
Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964
and was a racist who was fond of using the "N" word.
FICTION:
Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join
the Peace Corps.
FACT:
By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were
already over 100 members.
FICTION:
The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed
to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions.
FACT:
Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to
the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted
it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported"
contributions.
FICTION:
While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he
was a "Brilliant Student".
FACT:
Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and
consistently earned D's and C's.
FICTION:
Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his
extensive study at law school.
FACT:
Al Gore dropped out of law school.
FICTION:
Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came
to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school.
FACT:
Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.
FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in
the 1990's.
FACT : Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the
Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational
institutions since the early 1970's.
FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and
Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim.
(Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't
die? )
FICTION : Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his
stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals.
FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue
(Also known as lying).
FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows
him daily, especially among blacks.
FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim
they are not being promoted to positions guarding the Vice-President.
FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal
nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and
covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.
FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would
put harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme
sex and violence.
FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood
producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would
only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million.
FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands.
FACT : Totally false!
FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private
and public schools because public schools are far better.
TRUTH : Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to
private schools.
FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by
singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".
FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years
old.
FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign
Reform Act.
FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over
a year.
FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low.
FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on
gasoline.
In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number
One enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your
vehicle that gets you to work and takes your kids to school)
FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested
regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't
know what a mammogram was.
FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would
finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that
would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the
"special rates".
FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When
Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that
I know of. " SOUND FAMILIAR?
Election Day is ticking away.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 10-30-2000).]
-
Rip (you mean ole Republican)
Sounds like he's qualified to follow in Clinton's footsteps to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Oh, God!!
I hope the US elections come quick!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yup. One week Naso. I'll be working the polls (it's volunteer work here, we don't get paid). Still, I'm seriously considering not actually voting.
-
Fiction: Al Gore is genuine and sincere.
Fact: Al Gore has a great future in infomercials.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Rip I knew there was a reason I liked you.
------------------
Mighty1
The New Baby Harp Seals
"Come try to club THIS Seal"
-
Fiction:
All of those statements are well researched and factual.
Fact:
Those statements are easily disproven misrepresentations authored by the RNC and blindly passed on by a press corp that is afraid of being labeled "liberal".
I, in fact, posted a link here not too long ago that contained documented rebuttals to those statements. Here it is again:
The New Science of Character Assasination (http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.New.Science.of.C.html)
Included in that rebuttal is the fact that the RNC relies on gullible people, like Ripsnort here, to pass on its lies as fact.
So, Ripsnort, I CHALLENGE you to Tell the truth
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-30-2000).]
-
Karnak, what more do you want? All this has been recorded on A)Television, or B)Radio waves, and no one was pretending to be Gore, it really was his words, I'm not going to get every voice wav file of the past, if you didn't view it, or hear it yourself, then too bad.
BTW, the "liberal" press is finally figuring out what a disaster it would be to have Gore in office, that's why they are reluctantly not pushing Gore as much as they had.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 10-30-2000).]
-
Karnak using a lie to cover a lie doesn't make the first lie true.
Clinton/Gore have been caught in to many lies to believe ANYTHING they say.
You can believe in him if you want but I think I'm going to be one of the gullible who votes for Bush.
-
Umm...
First of all, ignoring Karnak's evidence won't get you anywhere.
Secondly, claiming Bush to be a person of integrity is ludicrous.
Third, do you think it really matters whether you vote for Kang or Kodos?
-
Karnak, <S>
Websites abound that cater to each candidate, that supposedly expose each candidate's faults and screw ups. Much of the stuff is true, too. Like the following:
Daily Town Hall Meetings
"I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period" - Al Gore,in Congress, speaking to NPR’s Bob Edwards.
Do the math. That’s 187 town hall meetings per year, or a meeting in Tennessee every other day for 16 years, including weekends, holidays, vacations, and time spent running for president in 1988 and for vice president in 1992.
(Source: ]http://www.cei.org/UpdateReader.asp?ID=777) (http://www.cei.org/UpdateReader.asp?ID=777)[/i)[/url]
One can attempt to make excuses about why Gore said this or that, or minimize the importance of a single incident, but the body of evidence is growing. And hasn't the Democratic party itself acknowledged that Gore has a credibility problem??
Gore obviously doesn't operate from an inner principle, and he's so contemptuous of us that he continues to make off the cuff statements like the one above.
When Gore was grilled on one of his most shamefull lies, the one where he used his sister's death by cancer as an opportunity to make an impassioned speach about how he will never accept tobacco money, yet subsequently got over his grief and took tobacco money, Gore answered the following:
"Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to."
-- Al Gore, discussing why he accepted checks from his family tobacco farm and contributions from tobacco companies for years after the tragic death of his sister that he spoke about so emotionally at the 1996 Democratic convention.
(Source: "'Numbness' Let Gore Accept Tobacco Help," San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 1996)
Karnak, it's gonna be kind of hard to package this guy, and give him a new image in time for the election. Gore should have just stuck with the truth.
-
Ripsnort,
Read the article I linked too. Its not lies.
Just because something is on TV or radio doesn't make it true. Conservatives have been harping about that for a long time, now that you like the lies doesn't make them suddenly true.
I have no problem with things that Gore diddlyed up on being reported, but lies don't cut it.
I could post all sorts of misrepresentations of Bush, but I won't because I believe that is slimy.
The truth is what we need. From that we can make up our minds.
Mighty1,
I didn't cover a lie with a lie. The stuff I post is the truth. It isn't necessarily what people want to hear, but it is the truth. Neither Al Gore or George Bush are out to ruin the US because they a power hungry. I think they both want to make things better. Its just a matter of which has better ideas.
BTW, Voting for Bush doesn't make you gullible. Passing on RNC or DNC lies makes one gullible.
Examples:
Claim:
FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in
the 1990's.
FACT : Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the
Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational
institutions since the early 1970's.
Reality
So when Mr. Gore said in an interview with CNN in March 1999
that "during my service in the United States Congress, I took
the initiative in creating the Internet", Senator Trent Lott of
Mississippi, the majority leader, issued this mocking statement:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the paper clip".
The problem, of course, was that Gore's claim was correct. As the
Internet's scientific leaders attest, often heatedly, Gore recognized
the significance of the Internet very early, and took the initiative
in doing the political work and articulating the public vision that
made the Internet possible. His sentence, which is often not quoted
in its entirety, makes perfectly clear that he was talking about the
work he did in the context of his Congressional service, and that he
is not claiming, ridiculously, to have done the technical work as well.
Mitchell shades the story by omitting the Republicans' (and media's)
most common distortion of the matter, that Gore claimed to have invented
the Internet. This falsehood has been repeated on literally hundreds of
occasions, and George W. Bush routinely uses it in his speeches.
http://chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0008220064,FF.html (http://chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0008220064,FF.html)
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.campaign.lunacy.html (http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.campaign.lunacy.html)
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore.and.the.Inte.html (http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore.and.the.Inte.html)
Claim
FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal
nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and
covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.
Reality
Gore told some students in New Hampshire the story of a Tennessee
community activist who brought his attention to a toxic dump, whereupon
he looked for other examples, found Love Canal, and held the first
hearings on the issue. "Journalists" first misquoted him as having
claimed to to have started the issue, when in fact he was giving credit
to the activists. Even when the misquotation was grudgingly corrected,
they continued to distort his words, as if he were claiming to have
discovered the toxic pollution at Love Canal.
"Found "Love Canal", as in: Found records of it as another example of polution, not found it as in: Personally located the pollution himself.
Claim
FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and
Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim.
(Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't
die? )
Reality
... in December 1997 ... the [Republican National] committee announced
it had started a contest to come up with a slogan for Mr. Gore after
he told reporters that the hero and heroine in the novel "Love Story"
were modeled after him and his wife, Tipper. (Erich Segal, the
author, soon said that his protagonist, Oliver Barrett IV, was only
partly based on Mr. Gore, while Jenny Cavilleri had nothing to do with
Tipper Gore.)
In this case, the RNC's claim was false. Gore had not told anyone that
Love Story was based on him and his wife. Rather, he had mentioned a
newspaper article that had inaccurately said that, and was carefully to
say that he only had the article's word to go on. Observe that Mitchell
repeats the RNC's false account, and then (following the longstanding
convention) makes it sound as though Segal was contradicting Gore, when
in fact he was defending him. The false "Love Story" store continues to
be repeated to the present day.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092800_1.shtml (http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092800_1.shtml)
What we can see from this is that quotes taken out of context or slightly altered make a huge difference.
I'm not saying "Don't hate Al Gore", I'm saying "If you want to hate Al Gore, hate hime for real reasons, not for things that aren't true".
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-30-2000).]
-
Karnak
Can't believe you don't see the consistent inconsistencies of Gore's statements. There is a troublesome pattern here. Not mention his political contribution pandering he did for his mentor Clinton, many of which were illegal. You can't say that if both he and Clinton were Republicans, the media wouldn't of ripped them to shreds - Monica to China to political contributions illegally based.
Now I hear Clinton wants an apology from the Republicans for his impeachment! Excuse me, who lied under oath ?(the other shoe hasn't fallen on that yet) The nerve of these two and the Democrats is insulting as it portrays a gullible and ignorant American public. They should apologize to us!!!!!
Eagler
-
A Lifetime of Lies
It's time to hold Al Gore accountable.
BY WILLIAM J. BENNETT
Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. is a habitual liar.
I realize that in the political culture in which we live, making such a charge--even if it is true--is considered to be mean-spirited, in bad form, indecorous. Nevertheless, as the Founders understood, almost nothing matters more in a chief executive than his public character and trustworthiness, his truthfulness and integrity. And on these grounds alone, Mr. Gore should be disqualified from being president.
Mr. Gore's defenders dismiss his reputation as an "embellisher" as unremarkable. Shading the truth, they say, is what almost all politicians do, and Al Gore is no different. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that from time to time most politicians do take liberties with the truth and distort the facts. Still, among major political figures in the past quarter-century, Al Gore and his boss, Bill Clinton, are in a league of their own.
The vice president lies reflexively, promiscuously, even pathologically. He lies on matters large and small, significant and trivial, when he "needs" to and when he doesn't, on matters public and private, about his opponents and his family. When asked to come up with an explanation for Mr. Gore's "misstatements," Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said, "I have no idea. I'm not a psychiatrist."
Mr. Gore has told so many lies, over so many years, on such a range of issues, that to recount them all would require far more space than this page can allow. But it is useful to recapitulate some of what we know.
Most recently, Mr. Gore lied about traveling to Texas with the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and about whether he'd questioned George W. Bush's experience to be president. In a speech during which he received the endorsement of the Teamsters, Mr. Gore claimed that as a child he was lulled to sleep by the union ballad "Look for the Union Label"--even though the tune was written when he was 27 years old. His campaign initially said Mr. Gore meant a different song; a few days later they said the vice president was telling a joke.
These examples are recent, but the pattern of lies is not a recent phenomenon. It is, rather, the habit of a political lifetime. Consider the following:
In 1997, Mr. Gore told investigators that fund-raising calls he made from the White House were made only in order to raise (legal) soft-money donations. When a memorandum later surfaced and disclosed that the vice president had attended meetings in which discussions about (illegal) "hard money" accounts took place, Mr. Gore told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he was sometimes inattentive and that "he drank a lot of iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a restroom break."
Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said in a deposition that he remembers Mr. Gore "attentively listening" to the hard-money conversations, and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes testified that whenever the vice president left the room, he, Mr. Ickes, stopped the meetings. In light of the evidence, FBI General Counsel Larry Parkinson wrote to the assistant attorney general that there was "sufficient evidence" to prove that the vice president made a false statement to investigators on this matter.
In an April 18 deposition conducted by Robert Conrad, the chief of the Justice Department's campaign-finance task force, Mr. Gore was asked if he had any recollection of conversations he had with his old friend, Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia, about a 1996 fund-raising breakfast for Asian-Americans at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington. "I have none," Mr. Gore responded. He was then asked if he recalled being seated at her table. "No, I don't," he answered. In fact, as photos show, Hsia (convicted of illegally raising $25,000 for the Democratic National Committee at the breakfast) was seated right next to Mr. Gore.
During the same April 18 deposition, the vice president denied having a "concrete recollection" of his attendance at any of the more than 30 fund-raising coffees he hosted or co-hosted between January 1995 and August 1996 (Mr. Gore later said he misunderstood the question). He claims that he did not know at the time that a 1996 event at a Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles was an (illegal) fund-raiser. He says this despite the fact that the Secret Service, the National Security Council, the White House deputy chief of staff, staff members, and his own e-mail referred to it as a fund-raiser before the visit occurred.
In November 1999, Mr. Gore claimed to be a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform legislation. But that bill was not introduced until three years after Mr. Gore left the Senate. And during the same month the vice president claimed to be the author of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In fact, the EITC law was enacted in 1975--two years before Mr. Gore entered Congress.
The misleading statements predate Mr. Gore's term as vice president. They include his claims about his service as an Army journalist in Vietnam; his work as a reporter at the Nashville Tennessean; his view regarding Senate hearings on music lyrics; his position on the nuclear test ban treaty; his assertion (made during the 1988 presidential campaign) that half his staff were women; and his role in Hubert Humphrey's 1968 convention speech. These and other incidents led Mr. Gore's own staff to warn him about his propensity for "exaggeration" and for making claims that "may be impossible to back up."
One might think that the Gore campaign would be vaguely embarrassed about his record of deception. But Gore aide Mark Fabiani refuses to explain it. Rather, he says, "We've never attacked Bush for his numerous crimes against the English language." This is a revealing statement; the Gore team views poor syntax as the equivalent of compulsive lying. And Mr. Gore himself dismisses concerns about his veracity as an "ad hominem personal attack." We hear this argument made all the time, that "attacking" an opponent's character is a way to avoid talking about the "real issues." If Mr. Gore invokes this defense in tonight's debate, how should Mr. Bush respond?
First, by pointing out that persistent lies by a person in high public office are not merely "personal"; they have to do with the public interest. Public office is a public trust, and people who violate it ought to be held accountable--particularly if they deceive federal investigators.
Second, if the people can't trust your word, why should they trust your proposals? Mr. Gore's primary opponent, Sen. Bill Bradley, uttered the single most devastating line of the 2000 campaign: "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?"
Third, if an individual is a habitual liar, it will manifest itself in all sorts of ways. As Mr. Clinton demonstrated, a person who has utter contempt for the truth is likely to have utter contempt for the law.
Fourth, the American public's loss of trust in government is a vital national issue. We don't need another president to deepen further the people's cynicism.
Finally, whether you're talking about a police officer, a teacher, a doctor or a car mechanic, it matters greatly whether that person's word is good. If it matters for all these people, then it surely matters in choosing a president.
James Madison famously wrote that men are not angels, and nobody is insisting that the president be a saint. But with Mr. Gore, one begins to suspect that his lies are symptomatic of something fundamentally disquieting, and quite relevant. This is, after all, an individual who has been warned repeatedly to take care not to lie, embellish, or misstate the facts and his own history. He is acknowledged to be a master of details. Yet the problem persists. His lying appears to be incorrigible. And it is a matter of public record.
If the Clinton years have taught us anything, it is that character matters in a president. And Al Gore, like Bill Clinton before him, is manifestly lacking in that regard. As the public considers for whom it will vote on Nov. 7, it should recall the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Surely the past eight years of persistent half-truths, lies and lawlessness have been enough.
Haven't they?
Mr. Bennett is co-director of Empower America.
-
Who are Bush and Gore, again?
-
Bush is Tweedledum.
Gore is Tweedledummer.
Bush says he wants the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.
Gore says he wants the government to meddle in my life as much as possible.
Easy, Easy choice.
Down through the ages, the wise men have always known it....and tried to tell us.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson (1791)
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
-Thomas B. Reed (1886)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt (1783)
I heartily accept the motto’ "That government is best which governs least".
-Henry David Thoreau
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.
-Tacitus
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H.L. Mencken
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
More laws, less justice.
-Marcus Tullius Ciceroca (42 B.C.)
The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients.
-Edmund Burke (1899)
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. (Man, that describes Gore to me!)
-Louis Brandeis (1928)
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.
-Thomas Sowell (1992)
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-Daniel Webster
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
-Thomas Jefferson (1801)
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
-H.L. Mencken
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.
-Abraham Lincoln
Edit
Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.
-Woodrow Wilson (I forgot one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
Vote.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-30-2000).]
-
WTG Toad!
Toad for President (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Man, I am getting sick and tired of the same old same old preaching to the choir.
Am I gonna be glad when the yanks have chosen their next pres? Sure; it'll decrease the yank ethnocentricity on this board by 50%.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I would still vote for Duma.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Toad you for got one.
"If you are a part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to for for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.
If this is too blind for your taste. consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."
Robert Heinlein
Mav
-
Appeals to the authority of a science fiction author are not going to sway anybody.
How about this:
By voting you implicitly declare the political system (in the amurrican case, the income tax- and special interest-perpetuated two-party system) to be legitimate. By withholding your vote, you deny to both parties (which are hardly different anyway) your consent.
As it stands, you're basically voting for whether you want it with vaseline or KY.
-
Alas......tis a sad state of affairs in the US when all we have to chose from for a president is Al Gore, and George Bush. When younger, I bet when they were choosing sides for a neighborhood baseball game these two dweebs were picked last... and this statment comes from a registered Republican, me. seems like we are either voting for Moe or Larry, I think I'll abstain, like Curly. appears to be the same ole same ole in gridlocked US politics.
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
Appeals to the authority of a science fiction author are not going to sway anybody.
How about this:
By voting you implicitly declare the political system (in the amurrican case, the income tax- and special interest-perpetuated two-party system) to be legitimate. By withholding your vote, you deny to both parties (which are hardly different anyway) your consent.
Yes Dinger, correct.
As it stands, you're basically voting for whether you want it with vaseline or KY.
LOL, and this is more correct than the one above. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Seem some of you amurricans (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) is learning from our experience in political sexology. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Fact Every new US President for the past 20+ years has managed to get himself embroiled in a fresh military conflict. Usually with a lesser degree of sucess
Carter : Iran. Resounding disaster.
Reagan : Panama. A total military blunder, that didn't turn into a debacle when the locals helped pull the US servicemen out of the mud they were landed on.
Granada. A victory, if you can call the capture of a virtually undefended 3rd world ireland a victory.
Bush: Kuwait. Had the slight advantage of having the world virtually united and supplying troops too.
Somalia: A balls-up of Epic proportions.
Clinton: Former Yugoslavia. More of a NATO than a US only opp. Also probably the campaign with the longest delays in getting the troops in for fear of casulties (applies to all countries in this opp.)
So which war is Bush/Gore going to dive head-first into? The law of averages says it will happen....
Thrax
-
Hi
Can I vote for someone else, please, please?
Either way well have an unremarkable president. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
oops
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Thrax:
Fact: Every new US President for the past 20+ years has managed to get himself embroiled in a fresh military conflict. Usually with a lesser degree of success
Bush: Kuwait. Had the slight advantage of having the world virtually united and supplying troops too.
Somalia: A balls-up of Epic proportions.
Clinton: Former Yugoslavia. More of a NATO than a US only opp. Also probably the campaign with the longest delays in getting the troops in for fear of casualties (applies to all countries in this opp.)
Wasn't Somalia Clinton's blunder? See below:
MORE ON CLINTON AND THE MILITARY - Part 1
Lt. Colonel Thomas McKenney (retired)
11-25-97 McKenney; comments by Doug from Upland
Lt. Colonel McKenney wrote a chapter for THE CLINTON CHRONICLES Book. In this part are some of his comments regarding the tragedy in Somalia in which brave Rangers died needlessly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Any of those Rangers could have told that gathering of politicians that armored vehicle support in such an operation is a must; but the politicians didn't know that, and refused to listen to those who did.
Retired Army Captain James H. Smith, the father of Corporal Jamie Smith, himself a disabled veteran in infantry combat in Vietnam, told a May 27 press conference in Washington, that the disaster was the result not only of Clinton's ignorance of military matters, but also of the same ignorance by his top advisers.
The late Colonel Charlie Beckwith, perhaps the leading authority on such military operations agreed, saying that the deadly failures to properly utilize and support the Rangers were all inflicted "by civilian leadership."
Concerning the Mogadishu disaster, Beckwith wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the raid was bungled by committing the Rangers and Delta Force without giving them the freedom and the support they needed.
Captain James H. Smith, lays the blame for the death of his son directly at the door of the White House. In summarizing the disaster, he bluntly states that his son's death had served no purpose, and that "the Rangers had been betrayed---denied proper combat support, and with unreliable U.N. allies, disaster was preordained."
Retired Army Lt. Colonel Larry Joyce, also a veteran of combat in Vietnam and father of Sergeant Casey Joyce, agreed with Captain Smith and said that the dead soldiers were "betrayed by an administration that gave them a no-win mission and didn't provide them with the resources and the support they desperately needed."
Major General Garrison, commander of the Ranger Task Force, when asked by Senator William S. Cohen (R-Maine) whether lives would have been saved if the armored vehicles had been provided, answered, "I am absolutely certain that would have been the case." Eventually, after Clinton had sat on the paper work for eight weeks, two of the slain soldiers, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shughart, were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. As usual in such cases, the medals were presented to the next of kin.
Following the May 23 presentation at the White House, the families of the two men were invited into the Oval Office for a private visit with Clinton. Inside the office, the father of Sergeant Shughart refused to shake Clinton's hand, then looked him in the face and calmly told him that he was responsible for his son's death, that it was for no purpose, that he was not fit to be President, and not fit to be Commander in Chief.
Clinton was visibly shocked, amazed, and momentarily speechless. It was revealing that he was surprised that the man should feel that way. Clinton really doesn't think the way most people do, seeming to lack a sense of personal responsibility. After a brief, awkward silence, Clinton caught his breath. Becoming angry, he turned to the mother of the dead hero and said, "What's he jumping on me for? I didn't kill the kid!"
(A few paragraphs later...)
But in speaking to the parents he went even further outdoing himself, placing at least part of the blame on the sacrificed soldiers themselves. In perhaps the most unbelievably insensitive, outrageous thing a president ever said, Clinton told those grieving parents of the fallen Rangers that the Rangers themselves may have been responsible for their own deaths by being "too aggressive."
Yep, most Presidents find a war.
Good Presidents don't cut the military, use them as a global police force for political gains/distractions and then find a war. Does the occasional cruise missile launched here and there count as a war? The poor s.o.b it lands on I think would think so. How many of those has slick willie popped off?
Truth be told, without the US, there would not be a free world as the rest of the "free" countries combined do not equal the US military or resources. They need us to play cop as they can't /won't do it themselves.
Eagler
[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
What's with the infatuation with Heinlein - why are people hailing him as some great philosophical mind? I've read some of books and I wouldn't call him a literary giant by any means - he's run of the mill, to be honest.
I used to like science fiction, but then I grew up and discovered REAL literature. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Besides, I think Wells has never been bettered in terms of creative writing.
Oh, BTW, Star Trek (except maybe the Next Gen.) is crap. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Truth be told, without the US, there would not be a free world as the rest of the "free" countries combined do not equal the US military or resources.
Economically, a fully integrated Europe has a population and economy to rival the US. Militarily, a similar situation exists. The question is, do we Europeans want a fully integrated Europe?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
Karnak I never meant to imply that YOU were lying I was just saying that Gore has a habit of trying to cover up a lie with a lie.
And as far as being on the Bush band wagon well...Like I've said before I don't like either one of them but I think I've seen enough of Gore to say I would like to try someone new.
-
there would not be a free world as the rest of the "free" countries combined do not equal the US military or resources.
Thats such a pig ignorant, arrogent and also factually flawed answer, it's on a par with the old chiche "America Won WWII Single-handidly" . Utter toejame.
-
Originally posted by Thrax:
there would not be a free world as the rest of the "free" countries combined do not equal the US military or resources.
Thats such a pig ignorant, arrogent and also factually flawed answer, it's on a par with the old chiche "America Won WWII Single-handidly" . Utter toejame.
Thank You (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
How about this:
By voting you implicitly declare the political system (in the amurrican case, the income tax- and special interest-perpetuated two-party system) to be legitimate. By withholding your vote, you deny to both parties (which are hardly different anyway) your consent.
As it stands, you're basically voting for whether you want it with vaseline or KY.
and
seems like we are either voting for Moe or Larry, I think I'll abstain, like Curly. appears to be the same ole same ole in gridlocked US politics.
---------------------------------------
<S> It is faulty reasoning if you believe that you are sending a message to someone by abstaining from the vote. It's like the many people who commit suicide believing that the act will teach thier "survivors" a lesson.
In actuality, the "survivors" of your nihilistic act couldn't care less! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
This is a numbers game!
Hold your nose if you have to, but pick the least offensive candidate and VOTE!
---------------------------------------------
BUSH 2000
Gunthr
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
Gunthr the recent politics practiced in the US call for a shift in paradigms. There has really nothing been accomplished but for a few things. And these appear to have little if any effect. Our Congress has been gridlocked, embroiled in finger pointing, and involved in nothing but partisan politics. In recent years do you remember anything at all that benefitted the people of the US coming from either house? I don't! The candidate that I had a great deal respect for alas did not have the financial resourses or the political machine to continue his quest for the presidency. I thought Sen. McCain a refreshing change, LOL even members of his party, my party by the way, such as Trent Lott disliked him because of his stance on campaign financing etc. Gee, what a novel idea, don't let someone be bought by special interests..Gee what a refreshing idea! actually having your elected representatives actually represent you instead of major corporations and Lobbyist groups. Seems that didn't fly with the established politicians, they couldn't have all that extra money from PACs, and no more trips to the Bahamas for fact finding tours <G> The reason I'm not voting is not to prove a point, it's just not worth the fuel to drive there and vote for either of these two dimwits.
-
Originally posted by Hajo:
Gunthr the recent politics practiced in the US call for a shift in paradigms. There has really nothing been accomplished but for a few things. And these appear to have little if any effect. Our Congress has been gridlocked, embroiled in finger pointing, and involved in nothing but partisan politics. In recent years do you remember anything at all that benefitted the people of the US coming from either house? I don't! The candidate that I had a great deal respect for alas did not have the financial resourses or the political machine to continue his quest for the presidency. I thought Sen. McCain a refreshing change, LOL even members of his party, my party by the way, such as Trent Lott disliked him because of his stance on campaign financing etc. Gee, what a novel idea, don't let someone be bought by special interests..Gee what a refreshing idea! actually having your elected representatives actually represent you instead of major corporations and Lobbyist groups. Seems that didn't fly with the established politicians, they couldn't have all that extra money from PACs, and no more trips to the Bahamas for fact finding tours <G> The reason I'm not voting is not to prove a point, it's just not worth the fuel to drive there and vote for either of these two dimwits.
That's exactly what they want you to do!
Take the populous out of the equation and what are you left with .. the "electoral college". You not voting does nothing, sends no message other than the fact you don't give a crap about your government and/or country. I used to think that way too, when I was 20.
Eagler
-
Hajo,
Our forefathers shed blood so that you could live free and vote your choice! It is almost a duty! Democracy depends on it.
To justify not voting, you stated:
"In recent years do you remember anything at all that benefitted the people of the US coming from either house?"
Haven't you been listening? The less that comes out of either the US Congress or US Senate, THE BETTER! We don't need more legislation. (Very, very little, at most.)
Join your fellow patriots in supporting the United States of America and vote for the best candidate. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S>
Gunthr
-
If you do not vote, you get the government you deserve. If you do not vote you have absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about the results of the election.
Not voting sends absolutely no message at all. It is the same result as the occupant of a cemetery not voting, and about as intelligent. (This has nothing to do with the votes in Chicago's cemetery districts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
If you do not vote don't try to take some "moral high ground" about it. You have just displayed apathy and there is no particular high morality about that. If you don't like things, vote and try to change them. If that isn't enough, run for office yourself and make the changes. If you do nothing, you have nothing to complain about.
Dowding, SF author or subject aside. Did you not understand the sentiment of the quote? What part of it was not germain to the topic?
<rant off>
Mav
-
Why do we have to bring Germans into it Maverick? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It was a decent quote, but I have read several books of his and can't see why anything he says should be given any more credence than the man in the street. He's pretty average. The only reason 'Stranger in a Strange Land' gets any more recognition than any other of his works is the fact it was banned when it was first published.
Gonna stop now, starting to sound even more pretentious... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
Dowding,
It would be a full time occupational effort for you to sound more pretentious! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mav
-
Hey! If I don't don't fulfill the Yank stereotypical view of a Brit, who the hell will!!?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Geez.....sounds like a lot of talking heads stating "if you do not vote etc. etc. etc. Sounds like you've all bought into the system hook, line , and sinker. Do you have a mind of your own??? Or are you listening to the politicians telling you to exercise your right to vote? Yup, my forefathers died so I could have these freedoms, but reading some of the posts in here sounds to me that the majority are satisfied with the way things now are. If this is as good as it gets, count me out. Where is the great difference between either of the two candidates? I don't see much of a difference between the two! One is Democrat, one is Republican. I've been voting since 18 year olds were first allowed to cast their ballot<G> showing my age here LOL. There used to be choices in candidates because of the differences between the two! Where are there any major differences? They both have similar political viewpoints! One's a confessed liar, the other running on the shirt tails of his father? Great choices eh? And since there is no great disparity between the two, the only difference between them is which party they are representing. Since neither of them really impresses me, and whoever or whomever is elected is really not going to do anything of difference then the other, what is the big deal over not casting a ballot when it will make no difference anyway? someday, during the state primaries, when the nation gets fed up with the gridlock, finger pointing, highly partisan politics, and corruption in government,the people of this country will show their displeasure with the status quo, and elect officials to run for the house,senate, or presidency of different parties, or at least the idea that the candidates have better ideas and programs. Until that time,we are stuck with the status quo, you like NAFTA? You've got it, the domestic steel industry as an example is suffering greatly because of illegaly dumped steel. That's only one example. The technology industries are just starting to feel the pinch also, there are more industries just starting to feel the effect of a "World Economy." Most of us make a good wage, let's hope that continues,because if I were an industrialist, and I could get a product made out of country for 50% less and got tax breaks from that country so I could build facilities there to manufacture with tax breaks and cheap labor, it only makes sense to do so. We need change from our president in many areas, with the two we have running now there is only the status quo! If you like it the way it is, it really doesn't
matter for which of these two candidates you cast your ballot. At least for this Presidential election, I have more important things to do then give my endorsement to the way things are.
Eagler...to respond to your point about the electoral college, as I recall, at least one
president, maybe more has won the Presidency by wining the electoral college, but did not win the majority of the popular vote. So much for getting elected by the majority eh?
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 10-31-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 10-31-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
If you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome.
-
That's exactly it, Maverick.
Besides, when I feel I can't be arsed to go to the polling station, I usually think about the millions of people being tortured, raped and killed because all they want to do is decide who leads them.
Hopefully we will never know how fortunate we are, right now.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Mav, Dowding, I couldn't agree more.
Hajo, if you could see beyond your general defeatism and overall malaise, there are sharp differences between the two candidates, and some of them could effect you personally.
But don't bother. Just lay there. Rest. The world will walk around you, and events will leave you far behind.
-
LOL! You people sure get worked up about things that won't do much for you personally. As for Al Gore & George W Bush, well, they're both inverterate liars. Professional liars. Lying honed to a fine art. In other words, car salesmen, er, politicians. The only reason Bush is doing so well is that he's been steadily calling Gore a "LIAR!" louder throughout this entire farcical campaign. And the fact that Gore tried defending himself was his undoing. He should have just shouted "LIAR!" back, and louder too. What a joke this whole election is, and what an absolute farce that people like these have duped us into believing they are actually working in our best interests!
God, where is Uncle Joe when you need him!
"Mr. Stalin, I believe that the House will not pass your taxation program."
"Hm. They will not? Oh, but I think they will. Tell Secretary of State Beria to pay the Speaker a special visit tonight - privately. And send memos to every congressmen, inquiring on their health."
"At once, Mr. President!"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Oh, and as for freedom, it's our Federal Government that keeps us free, not a bunch of clowns we happen to call 'politicians'. All politicians do is balance each other out, so that we effectively get zippo while making sure that the right people's pockets get a hearty padding of our taxes. Namely, multinational corporations. And they dupe us by proclaiming 'free enterprise' when all they're doing is ensuring that we are buried in mind-numbing adult toys, like entertainment systems, and appliances, and gimmicks of all types. And then, we, not knowing any better equate selection of 'toys' to a high standard of living, and 'freedom of choice'!
HAH!
-
Leonid - I agree to a certain extent. But I don't know an alternative to the political systems we have.
It's a shame communism didn't work.
The one ray of light in recent years in British politics was the humongous defeat the Conservatives suffered in 1997. I was a first year at uni. and I remember us setting around a TV at three o'clock in the morning as the prominant Tory politicians lost their seats. No-one could beleive it - after 18 years we'd finally gotten rid of the stink of the Thatcher years; politicians who I despised, who had earlier looked at the public with disdain had gone! Real people power and a tonic to anyone who thought the British electorate system didn't work.
I'm not sure the Labour government is that much better than the Tories in some respects, but I believe Britain has been improved by the new government.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Heh, my last two posts were highly charged with cynicism as they were meant to be, but, yeah Dowding, I haven't the foggiest idea for an alternative either, though I do think UK/Europe is generally going in the right direction.
-
Dowding, you've never experienced a Labour (not NL) government, have you. A more complete bunch of f***-ups will prove hard to find.
There were only been two good British PMs in the 20th Century - Mr Churchill and Mrs Thatcher.
Note that I said 'good', not 'great'.
But I suggest that we pursue your political naivety in private email
-
There will be MAJOR change as a result of this election.
At least 1/3, if not more, of the sitting Justices of the US Supreme Court will retire and their replacements appointed FOR LIFE by the next President. It could go as high as 5/9 of the Court.
If you don't think this is an opportunity for MAJOR change, you really don't understand the US Government.
There is a clear choice between the two contestants with respect to this issue.
Vote or don't. Your choice.
It's easy to claim this election isn't important or nothing will change but the retiring Justices give the lie to those ideas.
"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you."
-Pericles (430 B.C.)
------------------
Toad
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.
-Joseph Sobran (1995)
-
qts - there's no need to pursue this through email. This is the O-Club, and as such is open to any discussion. If you're willing to listen to my views, I'll listen to yours.
Firstly, to answer your first point it is true I am too young to have lived under a previous labour government. I know about the 'bad' old days of general strikes etc., but I was born in 1978 and lived under a Tory government for 18 of my 22 years. Let me tell you about some my earliest memories...
I've lived in South Yorkshire, just outside Barnsley all my life (apart from when I was at uni.). My father worked at Manvers coal mine at the cokeing plant and then when that was shut down, at Smithy Wood. In 1984 the Miner's Strike began, and my father refused to cross the picket line. My mother had just given birth to my little brother and was not working. We did not live in a council house, but lived on a new estate half a mile from from Cortonwood Mine.
Faced with severe financial hardship (mortgae repayments et al), my parents had to make a few savings. One of them was coal for the fire. One of my earliest memories was going down to the railway track with my father and filling a sack full of coal that had fallen from the trucks that took coal from the mine. I also remember hearing the riots at night that took place at the picket line as Thatcher ordered the local police (and bully boys from 'down south') to arrest the miners. I remember the burned out house with the words 'Scab' spray painted on one of the walls. I look at the mining village now and see how it is a no-go area after dark, whereas before there was a community. These things might explain why I have nothing but disdain for Thatcher and her policies.
Meanwhile, London and the home counties thrived.
Thatcher increased the divide between north and south, and that sentiment is still in evidence to this day.
This ain't some sob story - alot of people have it a lot worse than I have it. My parents are now comfortably wealthy (with NO help from Thatcher) and I have a degree from Durham University.
I hope you can appreciate why I don't share your admiration for Thatcher, and I find it hard to comprehend the reasoning that puts Maggie and Churchill in the same category of leader.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Curious how many of those complaining that they're left with 2 bad candidates voted in the primaries?
-
Toad,
The last liberal Supreme Court Justice was nominated under Reagan. Scalia and Thomas were nominated with Democratic approval. Thus, who gets into the Supreme Court during this presidential term is nothing more than a crap shoot.
Like I said, they're all liars, and damn good ones too.
Oh, and if you want proof about the Supreme Court nominations, look it up yourself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Fatty I for one do not like either candidate but I DID vote in the primary.
I used to be one of those people who didn't vote because I didn't like either candidate but soon learned the one I liked the least would win.
I'm also under the opinion that if you don't vote you don't have the right to squeak about who won.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number
One enemy is the internal combustion engine.
Well, he's right about that one. How many people in the US _don't_ have asthma or some kind of allergy because of the heavy pollution?
------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)
-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Bush is Tweedledum.
Gore is Tweedledummer.
Bush says he wants the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.
Gore says he wants the government to meddle in my life as much as possible.
Easy, Easy choice.
<snip>
Is it? The Republicans say they want government out of our lives. That sounds peachy. But they're only talking about fiscal concerns because they're right back in our face when it comes to moral issues.
The Right will loosen up tax laws then balance it with a host of chicken toejam laws as they codify morality into legal commandments. This is why our prison system is one of our fastest growing industries.
The Left will give us more freedom regarding moral issues but they certainly want to micro-manage how we live fiscally. They want to spread the wealth around until everyone is just "slightly" unhappy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Remember that young unwed welfare mother with four kids in Poughkeepsie, there's another bun in the oven and she'd sure appreciate it if you working folks take that extra job.
From the perspective of the average taxpayer the result is still the same; both parties will take your hard-earned money and piss it away.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
Mav, Dowding, I couldn't agree more.
Hajo, if you could see beyond your general defeatism and overall malaise, there are sharp differences between the two candidates, and some of them could effect you personally.
But don't bother. Just lay there. Rest. The world will walk around you, and events will leave you far behind.
Gunthr.....sorry to say you'll have little say in whom is elected, that decision was made by the Corporations, Lobbyists, and major contributors to each party! If you don't believe me watch the television, and see the political advertisements night after night. People actually believe what some of these advertisements are saying, just like you should buy this mouthwash because etc. etc. etc. The crime is no research is done, people or last minute voters decide by how many political endorsements they see or hear, not on actual facts. For instance our surplus <G> LOL yet the national debt climbs at a faster rate week by week. Looks like a big mortgage someone in the future is actually going to have to address. No one is walking by me this election, if Sen. McCain were in the running I would be deeply involved. He suggested change, members of both parties were particularly afraid of his views on campaign financial reform.....give everyone an equal share etc. So that they could all present their ideas equally. As it stands now....those with the most money win. Is that what you endorse? You don't endorse the idea of giving each candidate the same opportunity to express his values or ideas? Gunthr if that's what you want you've already got it. Because as in the 1960, I believe it to be that year, during the Presidential election, in Cook County Illinois, even the dead voted, sometimes twice <G> And why? Because someone had the money to make it so. Not my idea of democracy.
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
<S> Blur. I disagree. You are only half right. It is liberal Democrats who wish to legislate morality.
They tried to use the military as a social experiment on behalf of homosexuals.
They legislated laws that cut out Federal Grants for the Boy Scouts of America because they didn't want homosexuals as Scoutmasters.
And they have been trying for years to pass legislation creating special new rights exclusively for homosexuals.
You won't see Republicans trying to legislate morality that way.
It is a matter of record that the liberal administrations in this country have churned out massively more new legislation, codes, rules and laws than Republican administrations, much of it stuff we will probably never free ourselves from. Pages and pages of the stuff are the hallmark of the Democrats.
However, you are absolutely correct that the Dems will redistribute your money to those that they feel deserve it more than you...
I believe that in your part of the country people defer to that liberal, gluttonous, boozy buffoon TED KENNEDY to make those moral and financial decisions for them. How do you good people stomach that guy?
No thanks.
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
I'm sorry, whatever side has Jesse Jackson and the NCAAP (to mention just two) on their side... I'll be on the opposite side.
You are judged by the company you keep.
Eagler
You've heard the NCAAP are now trying to get criminals to vote, Democrat of course!
-
<S> Blur. I disagree. You are only half right. It is liberal Democrats who wish to legislate morality.
Ask any Republican their opinion on homosexuals, drugs, abortion, etc. These are moral issues, aren't they?
They tried to use the military as a social experiment on behalf of homosexuals.
The military is a dehumanizing organization that turns impressionable young people into unthinking robots to be used as tools of the state. Therefore, whether someone is straight or homosexual isn't the issue, neither group should join. This is another case of government corrupting its citizens. Believe it or not having a standing army in peacetime used to be an issue at one time.
They legislated laws that cut out Federal Grants for the Boy Scouts of America because they didn't want homosexuals as Scoutmasters.
If the Boy Scouts want to teach intolerance that's their business except when they're receiving public funds. That now makes it the public's business. In any case the government has no business funding this nonsense anyway.
And they have been trying for years to pass legislation creating special new rights exclusively for homosexuals.
If there are no Constitutional provisions curtailing the rights of homosexuals, then they have them by default.
I believe that in your part of the country people defer to that gluttonous, boozy buffoon TED KENNEDY to make those moral and financial decisions for them.
Hey, I can't help it if Ted's a bad date! I'm not voting for him anyway. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Hajo, <S> I agree with much of what you say. The difference between me and you is that you are a cynical old fart.
I'm just an old fart. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Blur:
The military is a dehumanizing organization that turns impressionable young people into unthinking robots to be used as tools of the state. Therefore, whether someone is straight or homosexual isn't the issue, neither group should join. This is another case of government corrupting its citizens. Believe it or not having a standing army in peacetime used to be an issue at one time.
Blur, I think America's need for a military is pretty well established. Soldiering is a viable occupation for people because we will always need a military, in greater or lesser strength.
I disagree with the liberals who seem to be willing to pay for the homosexual votes they recieve by attempting to burden the military with a social adventure at our expense.
The last thing you want to do is try to make the military politically correct. It's weakened and demoralized enough as it is.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that this is a diatribe against homosexuals who want to be in the military. It isn't.
Hey, I can't help it if Ted's a bad date! I'm not voting for him anyway.
Yeah, but I bet he's a fun guy to party with! Bill, too! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler:
You might want to consider adding Hustler publisher Larry Flint to your list of fervent liberals who's company you would rather not keep. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S> Gunthr
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
Leonid,
I feel absolutely certain that Bush will nominate potential Supreme Court Justices that are far more to my liking than those that Gore would nominate.
Those individuals will still have to jump through the confirmation process, so it won't just be the President's decision.
As I said, however, Gore and I don't see much of anything the same.
I'm more than willing to support Bush on this issue alone. Guess I'm a "single issue" voter.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-02-2000).]