If you would like to see what it means, watch the returns pour in Tuesday night. 400+ EC votes for Bush.
I figure that after PA, FL, MI and OH go for Bush, the network anchors will be at a loss to explain why they are calling the race for Bush so early in the night.
My biggest regret is that I won’t be in Tennesee to watch the faces on the people at the Gore sink or swim party.
You were the one throwing out insults and questioning my intelligence based on what I think will happen Tuesday. I don’t remember attacking you personally up there. I will just chalk this up as another example of a democratic panic attack.
Caution, things will get worse between now and Tuesday night.
I admit that I’m riding a natural high right now. I have a lot of hate for Clinton/Gore. Most of it stems from the gun issue, but there are many other reasons as well. The closer Tuesday gets, the more giddy I am feeling.
So give me until Tuesday, then give me a couple of days to gloat over people like you who chose to attack me personally. Then I will probably be able to get over myself.
Okay, I’m no big fan of Al here (which is why I will be voting for Ralph on Tuesday here in the “safe” state of New York), but while this factoid may be technically true, I think it might hide the reality of how the who thing unfolded. The problem wasn’t so much the bringing up of this incident at all…I think to some degree, it might be fair game to question the results of programs, such as the furlow one, in a governor’s home state…even if I might disagree. However, what Bush Sr. and the Republicans did with it in terms of the whole feeding-on-fear, racial prejudice, etc. was despicable. And, let’s see, I also seem to recall that the son of that candidate was heavily involved in the campaign, wasn’t he (or did he not come on until '92…I am honestly not sure)?
Freedom: Thanks for the cites. Could you give us the WSJ link anyway? I’m an online subscriber and couldn’t find the article. If you are working off hard copy, pls give us the date (as you know, the WSJ is not published during the weekend).
When I went looking for the info for you, I found that it is also posted on opinionjournal.com. It was written by John Fund.
My excerpt is the 5th paragraph.
BTW…I do not think that the last 8 years have been kind to Libertarians. To many new gun laws, to many no-knock drug raids. The attempts to pry into our personal lives through mass data collection by the federal gov’t.
The corruption in the federal gov’t also bothers me. I don’t think it bothers me becasue I’m a libertaran, but I think it should bother all Americans on basic principle alone.
BTW…There are plenty of Republicans who are very guilty of promoting programs that strip away away privacy and freedom along with the democrats. I do not support the Republican party. If you will notice, I haven’t really been promoting Bush up anywhere on the forum, merely defending him.
Consider me a Gore hater. I fall into the Bush camp by way of:
An enemy of my enemy is my friend.
After Gore is out of the way, I will most likely become critical of Bush. Anything he does that limits freedom will not be defended by me. I am a bit of a realist though, I know that libertarianism would be practically impossible to implement in America today. The most I can really hope for is a slow rolling back of the federal gov’t’s intrusion. I would not become a Bush hater just because he doesn’t move radically enough for me.
Hardly - can’t you see the ol’ misdirection play in action here? That’s accusing your opponent of something you’re guilty of too, so when it comes out that you’re doing it, it looks like simple sour grapes. Cases in point: All the GOP congresspersons who have been found to be fooling around with their own staffers, and voted to impeach Clinton anyway.
You fell for it and can’t admit it.
[/QUOTE]
All thoroughly investigated by multiple GOP-led Congressional investigations, with no evidence of Gore’s wrongdoing found.
**I’ve repeatedly asked for a single example of a Gore lie. You have mentioned a few things that have been highly publicly disproven for some time now. I’ve highlighted a few examples, but I fear further examples are fruitless - you’ll keep screaming “Gore is a liar!” no matter what, won’t you?
If you repeatedly say something you know not to be factual, that makes you a liar.
BTW, it’s not panic I’m feeling about the election, simply disappointment that so many Americans are so easily fooled by such old tactics.
Hey elvis…I’m not a Republican. I’m an Independent. You don’t have to be a Republican to hate Clinton. I don’t see how you can try to smear me with the dirt of the Republican house managers who voted on impeachment.
Impeachment was not about sex anyway. It was about obstruction of justice and perjury. FYI…Nader also thinks that Clinton should have resigned or been removed from office. Does he also share in a guilt by association with the GOP house managers?
You will have to be a little more specific. I must have fallen for it pretty hard, because I have no idea what you think I fell for.
Let me help you out here since you seem to be confused by reading my posts. I think that Gore’s testimony that he did not know the Buddhist Temple visit was a fundraiser is a lie.
Would you be so kind as to explain to me what “old tactics” we are being fooled by? I guess it would to much for you to just simply accept that the majority of America would prefer Bush over Gore as our next president.
Stoid, if a receptionist at Corporation XYZ has an affair with the Chairman of the Board, she is partly to blame. I agree. But the minute SHE gets fired because of it, and HE suffers NO consequences, THEN it becomes a case of sexual harrassment.
It is amazing that supporters of all the parties fail to realize the hypocritcal nature of politics and people in general.
The conservatives think that if Gore gets elected that it will be the end of the country as we know it. The liberals think that if Bush gets elected it will be the end of the coutry as we know it.
Lets be honest with ourselves. Speaking about the parties as a whole, it should be clear to anyone that all of them lie, accuse the other side of using an issue for political gain, use an issue for political gain, cover up lies, misuse funds, sleep with peolpe they arent married to, and generally act like the rest of society.
It is true that, in general, the parties support some opposing views that draw certain voters: Anti-abortion or pro-choice, gun control or not, affermitive action or not.
If one has similar views of a party then one is more likely to overlook its members mistakes, lies and other indescretions. If a party has opposing views then its pretty easy to use the members mistakes as an excuse to remove him from his position. This is exactly what happened during the impeachment. Some people love Bill Clinton and dont care what he does. Other people hate Bill Clinton and will use any legal means to get rid of him. Do people really think it wouldnt have been the other way around if it had been a democratic controled congress and a republican president. Remember Nixon.
Most people are issue voters who try to shore up support for their ideas with debates about their opponents lack of character and such in an effort to bring the swing voters to their side.