What do you think about the news this evening that Bush got a DUI? Is this more of a moral character issue than Gore's association with the Clinton administration? I am reeling from this information, and truth be told, pretty saddened. Can't we get any decent candidates anymore????

What are your thoughts?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 02, 2000

Answers

Since we don't have a tv maybe you could give a little more info. When was this DUI?

Thanks.

Terry

-- Terry (aunt_tm@hotmail.com), November 02, 2000.

24 yrs ago. Quit drinking 14 yrs ago. Hmm, wonder when the last lie, untruth or distortion from Clinton/Gore? Lets see, how many seconds have passed since I started typing? God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), November 02, 2000.

AND the use of crack cocaine, AND his dad getting him out of jail time by doing community service while jailing other addicts here in the states, while getting people killed in Panama as we INVADED a souvereign state to arrest the head of state for allegedly dealing with drugs.....How about that nice little savings and loan scandal of his too? http:??www.bushisms.com/

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 02, 2000.

I would LIKE to add to that post 'can't we get any decent candidates any more?' Would you vote for a man who gave us the Clean Water Act, or the Clean Air Act, or who was instrumental in getting decent wages for workers and safety implemented on the job, and the mandatory use of car seats for children so that they wouldn't be killed even if their parents didn't think it was any of his business? Ralph Nader.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 02, 2000.

Julie, I admire your dedication even if I disagree with your choice! Never give up your ideals and beliefs, apathy is the true enemy of freedom! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 02, 2000.

Hey, Annie, here is an article that you might find interesting, even if it doesn't persuade you of anything:

Libertari an voting for Nader

Have you twigged yet that Julie is my sister? :-)

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), November 03, 2000.

With the Gore camp so very quiet about this I am waiting for more skeletons on day 5, 4, 3, 2,,,,,,,,,,,,,Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Registering 1.0 or more blood alcohol content isn't that hard. Say a 125 pound woman consumed three 12-ounce beers within one hour at a party. Chances are, because of body size, she would come up as legally intoxicated. Some medications produce excess blood sugar levels. Go check the label on the brand of mouthwash you use. Mine contains 21.4% alcohol, compared to about 4% for beer and 12% for wine. Thus, on a per ounce basis, mouthwash has about five times the intoxicating impact as beer (which is probably why the label says not to swallow it). Business people coming back from that three martini lunch may register high. Share a bottle of wine at dinner - probably over the limit for at least an hour or two.

Look, he sobered up 14 years ago. Give the man a break. You don't have anyone in your extended family who wouldn't occasionally qualify for a DUI? Look back at your own history. You have never, ever been in a situation where you might have qualified for a DUI? No sneaking a bottle of beer at a family gathering when, at your body size then, would have qualified you? No dorm parties? It is somewhat a matter of getting caught.

A fine, restricted driving privilages and community service for a first DUI is pretty well standard procedure even today - 24 years later. It does vary though from state to state today, but pretty well everywhere it was pretty lax back then. A DUI wasn't considered to be a serious offense.

On the cocaine, if he even did it, which has not been proven, it was highly likely not crank or crack cocaine. Regular, put a line on glass, cocaine. Adulterated (enhanced) cocaine is about 100% additive and the remission rate of those who try to go off it is about 100%. Again, you don't have anyone in your extended family who has never experimented with cocaine.

I think the character issue is he has been stone sober for at least 14 years. OK, a show of hands, who has not had a drop of alcohol, in its variety of forms, in the past 14 years? Remember, swallowing mouthwash or a sip of Uncle Budda's homemade wine counts.

Sounds to me like the Gore campaign is getting desperate as Bush has been bumping up a little in polls. Bush's campaign could truthfully say Gore's parents operated a toxic waste dump. On their family farm there was a place, and in the area likely a sinkhole, which was used as a family dump. What are considered to be toxic wastes today, such as no longer wanted paints and thinners, were dumped there.

I consider this to be a non-issue.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), November 03, 2000.

Ken, I agree. I also consider this to be a non-issue. For goodness sakes, it happened 24 years ago! Admittedly, I have been a fence sitter on who to vote for. I still was until last night when I saw this story. I am now going to vote for Bush. The timing of the leak of the story made me sooooooooo mad. I do not like this kind of politics and I hope it backfires for the Democrats. My 2 cents.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), November 03, 2000.

I was just wondering if this same spirit of forgiveness now extends to Bill Clinton for his situation with Monica Lewinsky.

I was just wondering if folks are judging this developing situation with a consistent standard of evaluation, or if let's say because they like George W. Bush, that there is more of an inclination to think "boys will be boys", etc.

The election has had so much talk about moral character, that this can't help but be an issue, I guess.

I was just shocked when I first heard this last night. Then I heard the explanation about the cover-up (so his twin daughters didn't have to hear about it.) I though about Chelsea Clinton, then, and what she had to be exposed to.

I'm glad I made my decision before I heard about any of this stuff...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

Julie:

No, I could not vote for the man who gave us clean water, etc. I value freedom above all else. Have you listened to a Nader speech? Does his socialist agenda not scare you? He has more in common with Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler than Tom Jefferson and Geo Washington.

Sheepish:

No, we can't get any decent candidates any more. Why would a decent person want to go through that process? Why would a decent person want that job? We have been choosing between the lesser of two sleazebags since Harry Truman left office. Next Tuesday, I will enthusiastically cast my vote for Sleazebag Bush.

-- Jim (catchthesun@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

I don't think that ranks anywhere near selling neuclar secrets to the Chinese for campaign money or rape or murder. All of which Clinton/Gore could be involved. A DUI 24 years ago? So what. I wonder how many Democrats have driven drunk and just not gotten caught.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

Okay. Good points here. Now, what specifically has AL GORE done? Folks have mentioned things that his family has done; that his boss has done, and I guess references were made to other possible members of his party (who knows if there are DUIs among Democrats? Probably. As well as other members of every other party.) Very quick to associate him with whatever wrongs committed/allegedly committed by the Clinton Administration. The only thing I can think of is the Buddhist Temple fundraiser, and like Bush, Gore has admitted that he was wrong, and apologized. I don't think there was a risk of anyone being hit by a gong, or anything...not as lethal as an automobile with a drunk driver! :)

Bush, besides the association of being the son of a former President,stand on his own? He doesn't get blamed for anything? Even stuff he admits he has done? Very generous!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

Ken and Annie I totally agree with ya'll!!!!!!! I wouldn't vote for anyone whom believes late term abortion is fine. How can that protect a dying women when over half the baby has been delivered. Not trying to stir anyone up about abortion but I can't stand it, My daddy always told us you lay in the bed and have the fun you deal with it! and yes I could have been very easily aborted, my Mom was pregnant with me before they got married. My dad knew what his responsiblty was and then took it. More men today need to learn that.

-- Sandy(FL.) (MANDARINHILLBILLYS@prodigy.net), November 03, 2000.

Gore is a pathalogical liar. I can't accept that.

I live in Texas and Bush has been a good governor. A good governor for rich people, for middle class people and for poor people. That, inspite of what the TV networks tell you. W Bush is well liked by white people, black people, Tejanos. W Bush is a good, honest man. W Bush was re-elected with over 70 percent of the votes. W Bush was endorsed by Bob Bullock, one of the most powerful democrats in Texas for over two decades.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

Will someone of you tell me why all of you freedom loving self-sufficient, personal responsibility accepting people not voting for harry browne the liberatiarian candate jkg

-- jkg (godseyj@mail.ipa.k12.in.us), November 03, 2000.

Jim -- yes, I've listened to his speeches, have you? While I don't always agree with everything he says, he's so far out in the lead that the others aren't specks on the horizon.

I can also honestly say that I never used cocaine -- and I never have driven DUI. My extended family that may have done so should sit in jail. If they are going to drink, they should sit their butts where they are til they sober up, or sit on their butts in jail til they do. I like that idea a whole lot better than I liked it when friends had their car smashed into by a drunk driver who killed the wife and mother, one of the children, and mentally disabled a third.

Do I read this right that it's in effect 'only Cocaine'? I didn't vote for Slippery Willy 8 years ago when he lied in his teeth about not inhaling...I didn't think that smoking marijuana was such gross misconduct as the fact that he was giving us a preview of the way he'd behave in future. George W. is smart to take dad's advice and not say anything to incriminate himself by denying his drug use. There are other drug users in Texas jails who'd also like to be forgiven and get back out on the streets (I've read a few of their letters to George).

I'd also like to point out Bush's environmental record as well -- oh, that's right, he doesn't HAVE one, other than clearcut, stripmine, and drill oil wells everywhere. Bush scares me blue.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 03, 2000.

I would vote Libertarian but, one Libertarian who is running for the state legislature said, when asked what he would do if elected, "I don't know. I don't know what a state senator does". Another said he wasn't going to bother to vote because he knew he couldn't get elected. That is why most Libertarian-thinking people, like me, are going to vote for W. Bush.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

Does anyone take into account current vs past (way past) behavior? This seems so obvious. The difference is ongoing, current and unchanged patterns. If you told me Bush drank and drove a car 2 yrs, 2 months or 2 wks ago, it would make a difference. This is what is so interesting. Liberals call us conservatives harsh, unforgiving and judgemental, while they consider themselves loving, kind & forgiving. The difference is generally conservatives will not put up with ongoing, unchanged immoral choices. And we make the distinction regarding past and present. Has it stopped? Are they changed? What is the pattern?

Liberals on the hand, (some) seem unable to comprehend the difference. I hear how hypocritical we are for holding Bush (or anyone) to some different standard. Wrong. Having done horrible things is not the question, the question should be, has there been change? The proof is in the pudding. We can not know for certain what is in any man/womans heart, but we can judge the outward behavior and patterns that are an indication of one's character. I think that is the difference, we are not shocked that people make bad choices, only that they consistently, willfully, continue to do so. And we want people held accountable for those ongoing choices. Not excused. And to those who have committed to change thier course and do the right thing, yeehaa! What more can be asked? It is the pattern....God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Let us not forget that Gore voted the deciding vote for, (breaking the tie) NAFTA.

While I think both Gore & Bush are sleazy, at least I think that under Bush I have a better chance of using my land the way I want. Logging, oil production etc.

-- Rich (pntbeldyk@wirefire.com), November 03, 2000.

Hmmm, lets see. Story leaked to press by attorney who also happens to be deligate to Democratic convention less than 5 days prior to election. Opinion..... SET UP. I think it would be great if he retailiated by defending his possition by either saying he was just gargling, never really drank it, it only looked like he was or he wasn't really driving, just steering (it worked for the last guy and he got two terms and a date). If nothing else, this election is high in entertainment content. I thought it was cool that Cheney volunteered his own disclosure. At least they admit to their misjudgments of their younger days.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

Sheepish, I personally didn't think that Clinton should be impeached for the sex part of the Monica thing, although I didn't think it was appropriate at all in the White House. What I did find disturbing is his pointing his finger at us and lying and lying under oath. And that was in the here and now, while he was president. What I did find disturbing last night, was the media (and a Democrat lawyer), bringing up an incident that happened 24 years ago, when George W. didn't mean squat to any of us, just days before the election. Doesn't that seem strange? I don't hold Al Gore responsible for Clintons' rude behavior in the White House. In fact I held him at a much higher standard. That is what disappointed me. I can take (and discern) all of the political disagreements on policy, of both of these men, but when one party stoops to something so desperate right before the election, I lost all respect. Weren't the issues enough to try to win on? Did they really need to stoop so low? It just reminded me of how sick I am of these kind of childish ploys. And I would have felt just as strongly if Bush would have done it to Gore, and I would have voted for Gore. That was how much on the fence I was, this incident just pushed me over.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), November 03, 2000.

The only difference between Bush and Clinton is their politics. Al Gore is the only decient one in the group. Also Gore has not lied any more than everyone in this forum. Check the people around you for saying the truth and nothing but the truth. Know any hunters or fishermen? Also I don't believe for one moment that Bush does not drink. You notice he never talks about his past. Did you notice that he never says anything? Also everyone waiting to do what you will with your land and the hell with everyone else, Don't bet on it. After big business gets done with your land you won't have anything left to it with. Check out the Coal and strip mining history in this country. That is what a vote for bush is going to take us back to.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 03, 2000.

Annie, Clinton wasn't impeached for his sex thing with that Monica chick. He was impeached for lying under oath.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

Yea Shooter, I know. But when you talk to most people, the sex part is what bothered them so much and that is what the media tried to focus on, more than the lying under oath.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), November 03, 2000.

It's not what bothered me. That lying under oath would put me or you in prison if we did it. Clinton should be treated the same as everyone else. That wagging his finger at the camera and lying to the people of this country bothered me too. al gore is just continuing the actions of his bud. al gore has shown he won't hesitate to lie to the people of this country.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

As far as I'm concerned this will make him an even worthier candidate. If all our obviously biased media can come up with is a 24 year old piece of dirt to throw into the works in a pathetic atempt to defame his character, then they must be really desperate. This is actually good news! This man has obviously changed his life. Something he freely admits to. I like Bush. He is more than likely not perfect, neither am I, but he ia a real person. I am sure that this is utterly embarrassing for him with his children. The thing is that we all have some dirt to dig up, because none of us are perfect. The question for the nation is the dirt a continuing pattern or something done in the stupidity of youth that we've grown past.

Bill Clinton had so many skeletons and nobody wanted to look behind the curtain. There were so many things the press could have investigated and didn't. The press has obviously looked high and low for this and all they came up with was this pitiful excuse for news. It actually makes me laugh. George Bush has admitted to the public that he didn't always do what was right in the past, but he has also admitted that a few years ago he had a life changing experience called Christ. I know how he feels so did I. If indeed he got into office and continued behavior that could hurt or embarrass this country I would b3e the first in line to cast him out on his behind. I would be the first in line to throw him in jail if he endangered someones life by drinking and driving. No matter how much I like the man, no matter how good the economy, no matter how much of a loss to my party, I would stand up and proclaim his inadequacies before all. I feel that this is the basic difference between me and what the democratic party did the last eight years. I have watched as many liberals on this forum have complained about how Clinton got the short endof the stick for his embarrassing display over the last eight years, but for me the Monica Lewinski scandle was the least of Clinton's crimes. It is true that it degraded the office of the president and made us the laughing stock of the world, but it's timing was simply designed to prevent the pursuit of Clinton in any number of illegal activities and I for one am thankful the last eight years will soon come to an end if God wills.

The true stories of the last eight years were stories of the continual grab of constitutional power away from congress and toward the executive branch of the government. There are stories of treason, of secrets being given to the enemies of our nation to be used in our planned destruction. There are stories of the continued overuse of power and manipulation of our Constitution. I say the Heck with Monica Lewinski! She is just the grout between the tiles of deceit and criminal behavior. Does Al Gore deserve to pay the price for the sins of the Administration that he was second in command to. You'd better believe he does! He does, because he didn't have the moral conviction to put a stop to it when he could have. He could have stood up and denounced what was happening and he didn't. He is an accessory even as someone who sees a murder happening and does nothing to prevent it is.

For several months I have seen posts on how mistreated poor little old Bill has been. Let me tell you were my child to behave in such a way I would expect him or her to stand up and face the music. I would expect the law to step in protect this nation from the onslaught. I cannot tell you how ashamed that I am that this was not done in the present administration. The law let us down and all the men who shed their blood for this country. I can only pray that someone soon will come along with the motivation to bring to light all the corruption and clean Washington up so that we can again hold our heads up before the world.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), November 03, 2000.

Yea, Little Bit!!! Wish I could have said it so well!!!

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

jkg, where have you been, I have been just one small voice in the wilderness, everyone says that Harry Browne doesn't have a chance, so therefore, they are not voting for him! Weird psycology, I keep telling everyone if you want change and a return to Constitutional beliefs above all, you have to vote for it! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 03, 2000.

Harry Browne can't win. Harry Browne can't win....He can't.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

Since Al "invented' the internet, if he wins, can we get him to make the forum easier to access? :)

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

What I don't understand about Bush is how he can be against pro- choice but for the death penalty.In my mind murder is murder!How can it be despicable in one situation but okay in another?

-- nobrabbit (conlane@prodigy.net), November 03, 2000.

See, it's a little different when you kill a little helpless little baby and call it birth control and when you kill someone who tortured and murdered somebody because of greed or being just plain mean. If you can't see that, you should just stay at home and not vote.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

The reason that I am asking these questions has to do with whether or not people vote subjectively or objectively. Hardly anyone answered my question or close to it, about what measure of forgiveness you have for Bill CLinton? Is it the same as that for Geo. W. Bush? I am not condoning anyone's behavior. I am asking a question about ethics.

Also, other than the pathological liar response, and the one about NAFTA, nobody has told be what they think Al Gore has done that is indecent. I keep hearing conversation about his association with the Clinton administration. As if he could just NOT toe the line. You can't even do that in a corporation, much less the U.S. government.

It is my opinion that most people vote SUBJECTIVELY and not OBJECTIVELY. Think of how you buy a house...do you measure the square footage, calculate the energy requirements, plot out the taxes required, estimate your costs for changes or repairs? Or do you buy a house because it seems like it would be a nice HOME?

I think most of the people on this forum have brains in their heads, but from what I keep hearing on the news, you would think people were going into this election based on whether or not somebody "seems like such a nice guy." No wonder that Senator wanted to release the DUI info....he's probably as sick as I am of hearing such lame reasoning.

I think that it was a boneheaded thing to publish, and I don't think it has much to do with anything these days (Geo. and DUI). I felt the same way a couple of weeks ago when Larry Flint released the information about Geo. W. being involved in that abortion business in the 70s. But if we accept and forgive that he wasn't perfect, we ought use the same standard for our other candidate(s).

I just think fairness should be an important and AMERICAN quality, and I hate to see it said that everything the Democrats do is heinous, and everything the Republicans do is based on some spirit of inherent goodness, and if not...well, they made their mistakes, but they apologized, and now they are good citizens, and therefore, "go and sin no more" is only applicable to those who "seem like a nice guy."

Guess I'm ranting? Sorry. As I have always said, do the homework, and vote your conscience. I hope you have a clear one!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

Yes, you are ranting and making no sense. Typical liberal. Why don't you vote for Nader, you sound like him.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

p.s. Where are the posts about Bill Clinton getting the short end of the stick (funny choice of words, too! LOL) from the liberals? Was that before I started posting here almost a year ago? I don't recall them at all.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

Joe, I have considered you a friend, and I am genuinely disappointed that you felt the need to respond that way. I am just voicing my opinion too.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

I assure you. I have no friends who think like you seem to.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 03, 2000.

You go, Julie. This forum represents what I love about America. I don't agree with one word you've said, but I still like you and your willingness to express your opinion. I'd fight against Nader if I thought he had a chance, but I'd go to war to defend your right to support him and your beliefs. Who knows, I might even stay sober and fly again :)

-- Jim (catchthesun@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

That's fine with me, Joe. I meant a cyber friend; one who I would want to read opinion from on this forum. I am grateful that I have real-life friends of many different political convictions. They help me keep an open mind. But this isn't about me.... :) Or you, either!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000.

Sheepish, you are making perfect sense to me. Some people just like to negatively criticize, it makes them feel bigger I wager. I agree with you that George W's personal problems are of no concern to us, and I hold to the same standard with Clinton, or whoever. They have nothing to do with who can run the country, in my mind. I, unlike some others, do not feel pure and holy enough to judge them, nor do I feel it necessary that my leaders be so either.Any when people call me a "liberal" ,which incidentally is not really accurate, I do consider it a compliment. Liberal means 'generous', and to me, this is an attribute, not a character flaw.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

(tongue in cheek) Actually this will affect both the candidates as it also came out that Al Gore invented beer which is what got G W in trouble. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Shooter-murder is murder period.If you can't understand that get a dictionary to help you.

-- nobrabbit (conlane@prodigy.net), November 03, 2000.

"...He doesn't get blamed for anything? Even stuff he admits he has done? Very generous!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 03, 2000. .."

In all fairness, sheepish, at the time G.W. Busch went to court and admitted to being guilty when asked by the judge, it wasn't just forgotten - he did pay the penalty at that time. Some people we know never pay - just want it forgotten because they admit it (after much coaxing?).

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Terry (aunt_tm@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Ethics???? Let's see....

Clinton's impeachment was not for sex. Anyone who can take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and works non stop to destroy it through dishonorable personal behaviour, un Constitutional Executive orders, and "wags the dog" incessantly to distract from the latest revelation of the content of his character, and inordinate amounts of people committing suicide with the wrong hand or getting up and walking to lie down someplace else after they have shot thmselves with the wrong hand in the head is worth investigating and also worthy of absolute derision and judgement on the part of the people he purports to serve.

That said, when Clinton and his wife were talking about the affair WAAAAY back before he was elected the first time. I had no problem with the fact that he'd had an affair and they worked it out at all. Voted for Perot in that one. Then as Billy showed his colors in the first four years, I decided that the past did indeed matter.

Bush and his DUI are due the same amount of investigation as SHOULD have been done with Bill and his complete lack of self control. I do think that the "vow" he took when he married should have meant much more than it does, but he doesn't take vows seriously either. Also, Geo. has QUIT drinking. Bill didn't QUIT fornicating.

I think there's a big difference in that Clinton also gave Lewinsky top secret clearance and she was just a floozy. But yes, he can beforgiven for being a philanderer. However, dragging the country through the slime of his sexual excesses and endangering national security because of it, isn't easily forgotten.

Gore.....the man has been compromised by two things as I see it. I believe Bill has taught him to be a better liar than he otherwise would have been. Also, it would seem to me that he has done an incredible 180 on the abortion issue since he was a Senator. He was one of very few pro life democrats....that changed when he started hanging with Bill. Coupled with his inability to be polite in disagreements as evidenced by his behaviour in the debates, I wonder if he has any ability to be effectively diplomatic? His disregard for the Constitution even though he has taken 9 oaths to uphold and defend it is quite telling as well. He's been a politician for too long and will say anything to get elected. What's your pain? He feeeels it. And will happily throw other peoples money at it all day long to make it better.

Personally, I have to say I am in complete agreement with whomever said that they are all sleazes...think it was another thread, though.

I couldn't vote for either of them and be able to sleep at night. If the President of the United States of America can't be held up to higher standards than Joe Blow on the street corner we have a big problem. I don't want someone who can't keep his nose out of coke, his hands out of intern's pants, or his hands out of Buddhist temples pockets, or chinese business men's pockets, or oil industry pockets, or chemical companies pockets, or MY pockets.

In other words, human is fine, degenerate and dishonest is not. Sorry Earthmamma, but when a fifth grader shows more self control and knowledge of right and wrong than the contenders for the highest office in the world, the definition of is IS important.

Prediction still holds....BUSH will win. Even if you don't vote for him. And yes, he is less evil than Gore if you value any rights at all. Still, his father did usher in the first time that our troops served under foreign command....apples usually don't roll that far from the tree.

There are three candidates who will uphold the Constitution. Buchanon, Brown and Phillips. But this country no longer cares about the Constitution except for a few fringe crazies who think principles matter.

Having bored you to death with these meanderings, I would like to suggest that anyone who wants to get back to the Constitution should vote for Gore or Nader. That will bring about the revolution we need more quickly than Bush. Course it might not be a lot of fun for a bit, but hey, a quick death is more desirable than a slow one, isn't it?

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 03, 2000.

Half a minute there....just the thought of Monica and Bill having sex (with each other or anyone else) makes me want to hurl....and far be it from me to jump to Willie's defense, but I seem to recall a lot of muck raking 'back when' of skeletons in his closet ( "I smoked, but I did not inhale" , draft-dodging, etc.) I also seem to remember (nevermind that they both seem to need poking with a sharp stick to do it) that BOTH Clinton and Bush 'admitted to wrongdoing in past and have learned from it" -- I didn't catch either one apologizing for it or saying WHAT they had learned, other than don't get caught.

I also see that Bush, like Gore, supports NAFTA. Having listened to the Gush/Bore debates, I had to wonder what they WERE debating. Not much. It seemed like they were in agreement practically without deviation -- except one says he's a Republican and the other says he's a Democrat. If you dropped their respective platforms into a bag and shook 'em up, then drew them out at random, it would be hard to guess who said which. Well, except that Gore's actually make a sentance.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think much of a candidate who would pantomine groping a woman on national tv when he thought he was off air, or blithely telling reporters that he was going to tell his Israeli hosts that 'they're all going to hell' any kind of material to put into the Oval Office or want to let deal with other countries.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 03, 2000.

" However, dragging the country through the slime of his sexual excesses and endangering national security because of it, isn't easily forgotten." Ummmmmm..........who dragged the country through the slime?? The Republicans seems to me....we didnt need to know about ANY of it, couldn't possibly care less, but they wouldnt let loose, and proceeded to drag us all through it,and then and still now, are blaming Clinton for dragging us through the mud!! Very interesting logic.........

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

With all due respect Earthmamma, the implication I was trying to make is that the highest elected official in the world should be at least a tic above the aforementioned slime. Clinton wallowed in the slime, the Republicans pushed the exposure of his wallowing...Inference is that YES, Bill is guilty of dragging the country into his humidor because he can't control himself.

The Republicrats are no better for the most part. But as for Clinton, are you defending his record, his right to be as base as a billy goat, or what? Do you think the position of the President should require more respectability than a strip club bartender? (oops, I don't intend to offend the moral sensibilities of strip club bartenders, they tend to be honest people)

To make myself clear to you, the two parties are opposite sides of the same coin, and it's a plastic coin! NO WORTH.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 03, 2000.

Doreen, Yes I guess I am defending his right to be as base as a billy goat! :) I can see you dont agree at all, and thats fine; it just really doesnt matter a bit to me what the Prez does for kicks. I guess we just have different priorities. Of all the dire circumstances in the world that need fixing, with people suffering and the planet dying and the power controlled by corporate greedies, etc, I just couldnt care less. Here's something I found balancing though, for all you Bushers (not you Doreen):

For Bush, Conservatives Have Lowered the Bar

WASHINGTON

magine if the roles were reversed. Imagine if the Democratic presidential candidate had spent the Vietnam War years in a National Guard unit B and then didn't bother to serve out his full obligation.

In fact, we don't have to imagine very hard. President Clinton changed his mind about serving in the University of Arkansas ROTC and has been denounced for eight years as a draft dodger, even though he was subject to the draft.

But George W. Bush, we now learn, received a preferential acceptance to the Texas Air National Guard, signed up for a six-year hitch, spent 22 months flying after completing training B and then simply walked away.

According to The Boston Globe, there is no record that Bush ever flew a plane between April 1972 and September 1973, when he left the Guard on an early out B and no explanation why. There are no witnesses or records to attest that he attended mandatory drills.

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), a Congressional Medal of Honor winner in Vietnam, says, "When you make a commitment for six years, you should honor it." Bush, he notes, is the one accusing Vice President Gore of character flaws and exaggerations.

It is now clear that Bush has exaggerated his own National Guard service, a deception somewhat more basic than Gore's claim, for example, to have sponsored legislation creating the Internet (which he actually did). Yet Gore is called the liar, and Bush is the candidate of "character."

Now imagine that another role has been reversed: Imagine what the Republican Party's intellectual pooh-bahs would be saying if, say, a black Democratic presidential candidate uttered even one of the absurdities that have dropped from Bush's lips on the campaign trail. Imagine the howls if a liberal candidate made a $1 trillion mistake in calculating a spending program.

Again, we don't have to imagine very hard. When Jesse Jackson was running for the Democratic nomination in 1988, George Will asked him, "As President, would you support measures such as the G-7 measures in the Louvre accords?"

After Jackson asked Will what in the world he was talking about, Will jeered. "Because [Jackson] is black," he said, "his white rivals sit silently beside him, leaving his foolishness unremarked. The real racism in this campaign is the unspoken assumption that it is unreasonable to expect a black candidate to get rudimentary things right."

But now we have Bush unable to explain where he gets $1trillion for his own Social Security reform when the money is already committed to future benefits. And we hear him uttering absurdities like, "Insurance B that's a Washington term" and "our priorities is our faith."

Yet this time, the Republican pundits assure us that Bush's intellectual capacities are not to be questioned.

To paraphrase Will, the real demagoguery in politics is that a white conservative can get away with inanities that would instantly draw hoots and jeers from conservative pundits if uttered by a liberal.

Likewise, the Bushes, Newt Gingriches, Rush Limbaughs and Pat Buchanans can get away with a military-service record that would tar a liberal as disloyal, or worse.

If nothing else, the Bush campaign shows us that the conservatives' high standards for intellect, patriotism and character seem to be a good deal lower when they are measuring themselves.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

Oh my! Julie! You misunderstood the thing I sent you -- GWB didn't pantomime groping the producer (of David Letterman's show). It LOOKED like he was going to FOR A SECOND to ME, but then he just grasped her blazer tail and cleaned his glasses on her jacket. Jules, you must apologize and say what you learned from this! :-P I apologize for not being clear! ;-)

Sheepish: I think people are forgiving of people that they like and less forgiving (or unforgiving) of those that they don't like. Being fair is something that is important to me, and apparently to you. Doesn't mean we always succeed; doesn't mean it's important to everyone.

Regarding Al Gore: His promises sound good, but I don't trust him to keep them. This is based on his record (objective) and my feeling (subjective) that he won't stick to his word. Granted, because no President has total power, there is no way s/he can totally keep all their promises. Probably why you hear so often, "I promise to WORK for [insert action or program or whatever here].

However, just for example, Clinton put Gore in charge of environmental issues, and Gore's performance was less than exemplary, including not fulfilling several promises made and being wimpy on other issues. He now pledges to support the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, but has taken plenty of "soft" money for this campaign -- and I, personally, have my doubts about his keeping that pledge.

Then there is the abortion issue. When you flip-flop on an important issue (he used to be anti-abortion, now he's pro-choice), I start to wonder whether it's a true change of heart or just saying anything to win, especially when I don't think he's shown himself to be trustworthy. And the ads showing GWB's "favorite" Justices, Scalia and Thomas and threatening us that GWB wants to put more of like these on the Supreme Court -- well, Al voted FOR confirmation of Scalia! Rather hypocritical, IMO.

Please note that these are my personal feelings derived from my interpretation of actual occurances. I can point you to discussions of these matters if you want, but I'm not going to post them here -- save space. Email me if you want sources or to discuss this more.

Regarding Bush: I really would hate to see him become President. First because I think he has little intelligence (I'm being polite here). Secondly, because he doesn't seem to care about the majority of the population, despite his promises to the contrary, and seems to actively want to destroy the environment -- the one that keeps us all alive and, until recent time, healthy. I can also cite information to illustrate my opinion here if anyone cares. Again, a matter of not trusting him. I believe he will be controlled by the corporations who have paid for his campaign, for their benefit, not ours (I also think this about Gore).

Regarding his DUI: In and of itself, it was indeed a long time ago. But though he admits to making mistakes in the past, he doesn't admit to having a problem with alcohol. I find that scary. I freely admit that is partially subjective.

What I find most disturbing about this is that it seems he has been lying to the public as well. I can't find it right now, but I'll keep looking -- I saw a quote from Bush today, responding to a question if he had been arrested, saying something close to "Since 1968? No." Being arrested in 1976 would make that statement a lie. I totally agree with those who felt that Clinton's big transgression was not his relationship, but the lying under oath. Frankly, I don't feel any President or candidate for same should lie to us, whether under oath or no!

Okay, that's enough from me, for now.

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), November 03, 2000.

Having read all that has been posted since I last did; I really fail to understand how anyone can vote for Al OR George, it's like comparing dumb and dumber!If you really think the main two choices, and their parties, are so equally disgusting, try voting for something else, like the Libertarian party, who will put this country back on true Constitutional track! Why waste time and energy arguing who is worse, and pick someone better? And Shooter, how can someone who says they have Libertarian leanings, vote for Bush? The two cannot co-exist at all, and I know, I know, as you said, Harry Browne can't win,......this time! What about the next time? You have to start at the beginning to effect a change, and change won't happen if you don't vote for it. Doreen, glad your back, I've been outnumbered here lately, but doing my best to change minds and make people think! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 04, 2000.

The mud slinging just hides the real issues. The presidential election is not the only race out there, there are congressmen/women, senators, locals, and all sorts of things. Neither Al or Dubya are going to make a big difference to any of us unless you/we are in the top 10% finacially. George senior & Jr. are in the oil business, as is Dick Cheney, THEY WILL DRILL FOR OIL IN ARTIC CIRCLE if elected. what happened to Neil Bush after he left the Silverado S&L,(1885-1988) I'm sure he did not go on unemployment?

-- Howard C. Williams (redgate@echoweg.netm), November 04, 2000.

You would be correct, except for the Executive Orders, which carry the weight of actual legislation if they have not been rescinded by congress within six months of issuance. Clinton has made several EO's that directly affect our individual freedoms or lack of such. There's one requiring fingerprinting for drivers licenses by King Willy and a plethora of others. Roosevelt made a TON that made it illegal for individuals to own gold, stock up on food or fuel,and more that my little pea brain can't pull up right now.

There is a bill in congress, authored by Ron Paul that would revoke EO's. You can go to senate.gov and do a search on content or by author to find it.

So, everyone...please vote for Gore or Nader so we can get the revolution going, okay?

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 04, 2000.

Doreen, this is interesting about the Executive orders. Can you tell us what were all these EOs that Clinton made that directly affects our freedoms? And whats the one about requiring fingerprinting for drivers licenses? I thought DLs were controlled by states,and I dont believe I've ever been fingerprinted. Thanks! Earthmama

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), November 04, 2000.

Earthmamma, go to whitehouse.gov and scroll down looking for correspondence and library and you will see all of the executive orders. Granted, Clinton is a lawyer and I never said the man wasn't smart, so there is about a Mt. McKinley worth of legaleese to wade through. Here are some articles on these things mostly from world net daily...I can't find everything as all of this freedom fighting stuff has now got me back to smoking cigarettes, and I 'm out so I am going to go buy some and hope I don't get cancer and fall into the indigent care system here. Of course it would be all my own fault and I wouldn't want a kleenex from any one because of it!

I will have to do a ton of wading to find the one about fingerprinting as the link I had for that was expired. You can have enough fun with these, though...

EO 13086- court martials for refusing to take experimental anthrax vaccine

EO "Greening the Government" 6/3/99....effectively institutes the Kyoto Agreement with out going through all of the proper legislative channels.

EO 13043- Implements a citizen manned method to increase safety belt use....suggests to have people at waysides checking everyone for seat belts.

EO 13112...restricts land use and is very broad in scope and could be interpreted to mean that you can't even have pets on certain properties.

http://worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990211_xex_clintons_lat.shtml

EO12949...http://caq.com/caq53.court.html

EO13083...suspended, but not rescinded by 13095...

http:/worldnetdaily.combluesky_bresnahan19990806_xex_executive_or.shtml

Regarding all executive orders, go to:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html

Have a good time!

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 04, 2000.

Well personally if you thought about what Bill and Monica were doing in the White House you really need to be drunk can't say as I blame Bush. He didn't LIE about it, and I'm really fond of the fact that Bush is a normal human being he makes mistakes. Thank God that no-one is perfect although some people think they are. I am more afraid of a wolf in sheeps clothing. I think its' a dirty little trick that Al has learned from his buddy Bill. Who knows' what you'll find out about Al if he's ever elected president.

-- Richard Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 04, 2000.

Hello again, sorry, but the whitehouse site no longer considers it important to link you to the EO's. You can get there from this addy.

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/retrieve-documents.html

Add to the above list 13166 I believe, on language proficiency.

-- Doreen (animalwaitreess@excite.com), November 04, 2000.

Hey Doreen, got a question for ya. This afternoon I was flipping the channels and came upon C-Span 2 and saw an author named James Bovard. Seems like he has wrote alot of books on the Citizens' loss of freedom. He has a new book out called "Feeling your pain" about the abuse of Government power in the Clinton-Gore years, with about 70 pages of references at the end of the book to back him up. Have you ever heard of him? He sounded real interesting.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), November 04, 2000.

No, I haven't heard of him, but I'll check into him. Thanks for the tip!

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 04, 2000.

I think that the difference between Bush's dui and Clinton's lying under oath is that Bush's offense was before any office was taken and Clinton's was durring his administration. I think it may be wrong to judge people for elective office on every thing they once did. I think it is more important to look at who they are when in a campaign and then in office if they win. I think that a lot of very good people just don't want to go thru what has become to invasive to thier life. Even God does His judging after death but it takes in all of the life. I am so glad I have Christ's sacrafice and am in His Grace as I could never pass the test without it. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.

This is why we have PRIVATE voting booths. Please, lets not fight. Be nice to each other. After Tuesday, we only have each other.

-- Terri Perry (stuperry@stargate.net), November 05, 2000.

I do not believe Gore will carry his own home state.

Bush will. That should tell you something.

Wanda

-- Wanda King (wanda7@edge.net), November 05, 2000.

Wanda:

The race in TN is too close to call. Still within the percentage of error.

Odd situation in that while Gore is from Tennesee, he really isn't much of a favorite son. Really didn't do anything before being elected as Senator. Largely it was his family name responsible for his winning. As a Senator he was not very popular, such as is Senator Thompson.

If anything a win by Bush would just show TN has transitioned from a Southern Democrat to a Republican state.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), November 06, 2000.

If I understand earthmomma's point about the impeachment being all the Republican's fault because they investigated the wrong doing, then anything I do is morally and ethically right as long as I don't get caught? Good deal as long as you can live with yourself.

-- ray (mmoetc@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.

No, Ray, I wouldn't say that was the way I feel. I think that peoples' private lives are private, and certainly ones sexual exploits are in that category. Your sex life, or my neighbors, or George Bush's , or whoever, does not interest me in the least.Nor would I ever be so arrogant as to deign to decide whether someone was 'morally and ethically right'. I feel that is between oneself and one's God. If I 'catch' you doing something, in the privacy of your home, that I find morally offensive, and try to impune your reputation for it, then I have become judge and jury over something to which I had no right to witness, and had no right to discuss with others. If I publicly accuse you of something the disclosure of which would deeply hurt your loved ones, endanger your job security,and publicly humiliate you, I would expect that you would deny it, because you are a human being trying to hold onto your job, your reputation, and the love and respect of those you hold dear.I would be the fool, for pointing my finger at someone for something that was never any of my business, and for something which is as common and old a story as human history, regardless how many times some sanctimonious souls wish to deny it. This is a country of sexual prudes, and the making of us as the "laughingstock of the world" someone mentioned earlier is true. I did a lot of reading of foreign papers during this circus, and the reason we looked like fools to a good part of the world was most assuredly NOT because of Clintons exploits; it was because it was made a big deal of.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.

Excuse me but the only reason Clinton got his sexual exploits blared across every American's living room is because he exposed his private parts to an unwilling recipient. The woman sued him big time. He lied under oath and got caught. Granted the republicans used the opening, but Clinton opened the door all by himself. Democrats did the same with Richard Nixon and with the Iran Contra hearings and a host of other things. As far as I am concerned when we have a president that can't be honest while under oath, we probaly have a president that will not live by his other oaths either, like his oath of office for instance. I guess that's how all our military secrets designed to protect us from invasion have ended up on every potential enemies doorstep around the world. China has repeatedly threatened to nuke the United States. It seems to me that I would rather know when my president has no moral character. At least then I know how to protect myself and my country from his abuse of power, when it comes. Is it okay to lie in a court of law because your family might get mad at you/ If it is then maybe we should empty out the prisons, because that is the excuse of every convict there. Lets just quit being sanctamonious to those poor murderers and thieves. After all nothing anyone does matters anyway. I guess your right this country is prudish for expecting people to have some kind of standards about their personal behavior. We should all just let go of every moral laws because if it feels good do it. It was not the Republicans that hurt Clinton's family. It was him. His actions, his responsibility. He hurt his family the day he decided to cheat on his wife and he has continued to hurt them ad nauseum. He shouldn't be impeached for his sexual exploits until it gets in the way of his office. Lying under oath is an impeachable offense and should have been pursued, but it should have gone futher than that. A whole lot futher. Clinton got off easy. All those things you say got destroyed were destroyed by his own actions. His own choice. The same way a thief who goes into rob a liquor store loses those things because of his actions. Clinton had the Republicans after him and the thief has the police after him. Either way justice is done. The irony is in the justice wasn't really done, but it is coming. This man will have to live with all the dirt that will eventually leak out in the glaring light of history and so will every Democrat.

Little bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), November 06, 2000.

I have to agree with Little Bit, it's not what he did, I don't care what he does in his private life, but I do care about the lying under oath, which would get the rest of us thrown in jail real quick. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 06, 2000.

By some way of thinking then, I guess, Chelsea Clinton is going straight to hell. After all, she could have stood up and made a big deal out of her dad's situation and changed the course of history. Anyone who walked within a stone's throw of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, too. Way too close to the current Administration. ;)

I don't think anyone in their remotely right mind would even consider thinking that a sitting (or reclining!) President lying under oath is not worth our scorn, at the very least. It is reprehensible. He got impeached, and he got out of it. The end. His sex life is as much of our business as Geo W's DUI, assault on the goal posts, abortion participation, etc. That is to say, it's not relevant for only one and not the other. National security measures, honesty in office are. It's not exactly news! Let's move on....

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 06, 2000.

Ditto. What Little Bit said. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), November 06, 2000.

I second Little Bit and don't understand Chelsea's sentence to hell???

Now don't tell me I spent all that time digging through Executive Orders and you guys aren't checking them out. I will be very dissappointed and start throwing out some even more controversial stuff and just tell you where to start looking for the info so that you end up with too much information and get really upset about all of it....like your SS number isn't even required by any law and yet they reequire you to have it for just about everything including a video rental card.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 06, 2000.

Doreen, I am just being a smart***. But it has been said that AL Gore is guilty by association with Bill Clinton, and I thought I would extrapolate that to an absurd conclusion. No harm meant.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 06, 2000.

Sheepish, you really do not see the difference between being a relative of a "known liar, cheat, etc.." and choosing to align yourself with and defend known liar, cheat, etc..? Its about choice...daughter has no choice, Gore has a choice. And I would not expect from a child the character, fortitude or wisdom that I expect from an adult. She has not always been 18 and over (adult, now).

Although I would add that I have met many children with a firmer understanding and willingness to adhere to high moral convictions and place right and wrong above personal gain, than our current administration. Guess that means there are some really amazing children out there, and/or, their standard does not have to be set too high to exceed the expectations we have regarding our illustrious pres and vp, hmm, wonder which it is? God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), November 07, 2000.

Well I guess that even if we assume that Geo. W. has fine character, it would surprize me to think that he hasn't aligned himself with some rather sleazy characters just to get elected! They are ALL sleazy, is my contention. That's why they are in politics. It does, however (for the 80th million time) drive me a bit over the edge to continually see folks who feel so comfortable that their party/candidate of choice is flawless/forgiven (pick one), whereas the other candidate/party is evil/perpetrator of evil.

It's very naive to think so, even though it makes us feel more comfortable. Now let's see which of the sleazy candidates gets elected, and get this over with!

Have a great day!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 07, 2000.

Good points Sheepish, I think both of the mainstream guys are tainted, I kinda hope Bush wins though, just for a change, but I am voting for Nader. I know he has done some righteous stuff.

Blessings, Judy Murray

-- Judy Murray (jmurray@tulane.edu), November 07, 2000.

This is a little late, as the election is today, but does anybody remember some news a few years ago about Gore attending a world summit of environmental leaders, in Vancouver, B.C., I think, and signing a contract saying he would work to reduce the standard of living in the United Sates by 25%? Sounds like a recipe for higher (much higher) gas prices to me, and a recession or a depression. Setting the moral issues aside -- though in my opinion the moral issues are more important than the financial issues -- but does this bode well for the economy if Gore is elected?

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), November 07, 2000.

I scanned some of your answers and I dont think anyone has gotten the point. Has anyone forgotten that theres a war on the people of america that the politicians dont seem to want to talk about. they say its on drugs but that must just mean the poor people that do drugs cause I dont see bush in jail for doing cocaine and cheney isnt in jail for trafficking cocaine but hundreds of thousands of people are in jail for marijuanna(a NON ADDICTIVE drug no matter what they say)and non violent offenders. bush should have come out and said he had a dui, he knows the routine, us poor people have to put ours on a resume to get a job he's no better than us even though he thinks he is. Maybe we should start drug testing our politicians and see what else they have in thier system, frankly I dont want a drunk playing with my freedom and a drunken liar is worse. Until the gov't stops the war on drugs and the war on the people of america I quess we have to deal with the drunks. Yes he may have stopped drinking 14 yrs ago but you cant run from your mistakes. Also about the abortion, bush may not want abortions but wait till his daughter gets pregnant from the so called biker trash down the road and he'll be first in line getting rid of it, partial or full, tainted blood you know. As far as leaders go I wouldnt follow any of the candidates to the bathroom much less put my life on the line for them and there so called freedom not until they quit wasting our money on war and start helping the farmers and the other workers who keep this great country alive. BUILD SCHOOLS NOT PRISONS!!

-- Ange (oldcrone40@hotmail.com), November 07, 2000.

Kathleen, was it maybe the Tokyo summit? Where the "leaders" of the "free world" got together to discuss environmental concerns? At that meeting, Gore was our spokesperson, and he advocated reducing our emissions by something like ??25%, in order to help clean up the global environment. (Somebody who knows more here, help us out!) Gore brought the issue back to the U.S. and the congress wouldn't vote it (it would impact our oil businesses, and automobile manufacturing, etc.) It was thought too extreme. To this day, I think everyone in Michigan hates Gore b/c he advocated changing the structure of U.S. auto manufacturing. Anyway, if I lived in Michigan, and thought that such a deal was happening, I would consider that impacting my standard of living by, ? 25% sounds like a good number.

RE: Vancouver? I would like to know more. Can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to advocate lowering our standard of living by 25% as a policy. But dumb is as dumb does. I'm still voting for the dumb sleazy guy who can craft a sentence, maybe even a paragraph....

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 07, 2000.

I believe you're talking about the Kyoto Accord. That was turned down by the congress if I remember correctly, and instituted by Executive Order.(greening one) So much for a representativedemocracy....otherwise known as a Republic, which is what we are supposed to be. But they took out the pledge of allegiance back in the days of the dinosaur when I was in school.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 07, 2000.

Right on Ange!! Seems that the entire election has been overshadowed by non-issues, or issues the President doesn't really have control over, when things that are really effecting us day to day are overlooked. We spend billions on a "war on drugs" that does nothing. We are spending millions each year building more prisons to house non- violent offenders and drug addicts, and to house all the juveniles that are now sentenced as adults. Why, b/s the prison industry has one of the most powerful lobby groups in America. They lobby for tougher laws, then get rewarded with building more prisons. Lets now start arresting nicotine addicts - that'll help boost the prison population. We spend millions to help elect leaders in foreign countries, but won't give a dime to third parties in America. Both Bush and Gore have these wonderful plans about testing our children to death in the schools to make them more accountable, but don't mention the fact that the tests don't mean anything. I personally would rather they take issue with and find the millions of our tax dollars that the Dept. of Education has "lost". Maybe that would help our schools more. Neither candidate would touch on the issue of the WTO or NAFTA - both claim to want to help our country, to help the working class, but both support openning the doors of trade so wide we will lose the little control we have left. By joining the WTO, we have to follow their rules - our environmental and labor laws and policies will be destroyed, and there is nothing we can do b/c we are bound by the rules of the WTO. Both candidates refuse to discuss human rights, expect when it comes to condemning Cuba. However, we will kill innocent Americans who are wrongly convicted, we will open trade doors with China (money speaks louder than their human rights violations), and we keep Cubans in jail for 13 years when they were sentenced to only a few months, b/c Castro won't let them back in Cuba and they aren't American citizens, so federal law says we can't release them. They both have these plans to reduce taxes, but aren't mentioning the fact that if Washington would stop wasting billions of dollars every year, all our taxes would be reduced b/c they would be wasting or spending the money on special interests. Over 40 million Americans don't have health insurance - I'd like to see Congress give up their benefits until they get affordable benefits for all. Corporations get tax relief of billions - many major corporations pay NO taxes, but common citizens get harassed by the IRS for owing a few hundred. We call ourselves a democracy, yet the Republicans and Democrats have such a strong hold on elections that they won't let other parties in. They knew Nader would confront them on many of these issues, so kept him out of the debates. Didn't hear the platforms of third party candidates? That is b/c they were locked out by the media - the same media that has a powerful lobby in Washington. There are decent candidates out there, however, we are a society that is controlled by corporate power and money that you don't get enough info. on them. And when you do get info on them, it is slanted to make them look like radicals, therefore, you keep voting for "the lesser of two evils" instead of a person who actually cares about citizens. - Julia

-- Julia in Tally (tofubiscuit@excite.com), November 07, 2000.

Excuse me earthwoman- when did the oval office become the president's private bedroom. i agree that no one should no or care what I or anyone else does in a private residence with another consenting adult. However, Mr. Clinton's behavior occurred in the workplace, with a person who, in the vernacular of the day, was in a subordinate position to him. In the private workplace this constitutes the violation of workplace rules in every business in this country, leading to punishment and possible firing by one's employer in the least and possible lawsuits in state and federal courts in the extreme. It is my opinion that Mr. Clinton and all federal employees work for me and should not be exempt from the same laws that govern my workplace. In his capacity as my employee I have the right to know what he is doing on my time and to advocate censure or punishment as I see fit. I will forgive Mr. Clinton for his transgressions when he finally admits that he did something wrong and quits blaming others for his problems. It is somewhat akin to a 5 year old saying "I wouldn't be in trouble if Bobby hadn't told on me."

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), November 07, 2000.

Juli in Tally has said it all, Gore or Bush have not said one thing about the issues. They've taken two issues Education and Social Security and ramble on and on what the other guy is going to do. Not one newpaper or news station has taken up the issues that needed to be addressed. Bush what did happen to that savings and loan issue...daddy bailed you out but what about all the small investors?? Who cares if they weren't saints 30 years ago, their personal life is just that personal but what they have done in and for (or more like against) the public is what is important. Even with Clinton who cares how many women he had that was personal. But when he lied under oath that became an issue but then I feel the whole issue was none our business and our government should never spent a dime on that stupidity. Our government has sold the american workers down the tubes and stole money out of social security for years and years until now they're screaming there won't be anything for you the worker. Why aren't issues like why is a loaf of bread $2.00. Why are 100 and 100 of americans laid off because mfg. plants are closing left and right while the same companies are going overseas. And last but not least where did all the social security money go???? Come on if we're going to get in an uproar lets get to the real issues. We're not electing saints but are we electing crooks? This is my opinion only.

-- Wendy in Lee (chick@excite.com), November 07, 2000.

shooter its true in the libertarian push 2000 for 2000 to run 2000 candidates in the year 2000 some people ran just to kept ballet acccess alive and they where very qualified but the liberatarian position is the only one for self reliant people who want to make their own decisions and live with the results jkg

-- jkg (godseyj@mail.ips.k12.in.us), November 09, 2000.

To set the names straight: I think it was Neil Bush who was in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal (Geo. W's brother)not George. George Sr. was the former Director of the CIA and he was also involved in Iran-Contra; Neil as mentioned above, and Jeb in the HMO thing (HMO thing of which I know not much). George only has his DUI and he apologized. And these things all happened a long time ago.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 09, 2000.

Everything seemed so funny last night watching Letterman diss Bush. I thought the next 4 years is going to be funny. Today I looked up the silverado S&L bust(Neil Bush was on the Board of Directors) and found out about the Broward S&L bust. (Yes, that Broward.) Jeb Bush was given a huge loan and got to keep a building with a 7 million mortgage after it crashed. All ties to Bush Senior and CIA.

This really is a coup d'etat and things are serious. The meltdown predicted for Y2K is perhaps going to happen this year. If one thinks seriously about math, then one must take the number 0 (zero) seriously. It is not oh, it is zero and it is a number. So the millenium is this year, not last year. Have you been watching the dot.coms.

Hre are some links that are rather heavyweight, some more than others:

http://www.gwbush.com This one is site savvy.

http://www.tapley.net/busbb.htm. Absolutely chilling when you "open the book" on Bush senior. Very accessible.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/14/bush/index.html

http://mega.nu:8080/ampp/ampp.html#metatop This is the most intellectual,dense, and chilling one of all.

-- tenaj (tenajyebba@yahoo.com), December 19, 2000.

Well, tenaj, brace yourself for the flames that post will probably get you.

I don't know why I didn't put it in here before, probably because I didn't find out about it until AFTER the election and it seemed anti- climatic. Besides, I didn't vote for either Gore or Bush. But here is another: GW Bush, yes, our president-elect, was involved in some scandal/scam with a sports stadium in Texas, I think for the Texas Rangers (baseball, right? I am vague on these teams). He and his partners "condemned" far more land than was needed for the stadium, paid very low prices for it, built the stadium, then sold the excess land for big bucks. I don't remember the entire outcome -- I believe he and his partners had to make restitution. Anyone interested can dig around for themselves and find it. Anyone interested in flaming me and calling me a liar, well, you can find it if you dig around, or maybe you just don't care.

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 19, 2000.

This truly cracks me up. All that whining about how Republicans smeared Clintons reputation, but we can't even wait till the ne guy's sworn in before we play trash the new president. Well why should I be surprised Liberals in control or out of control wrote the book on smear campaigns. The next several months should be very entertaining indeed. I wish you all luck as race from rock to rock trying to find the dirt. I on the other hand am extremely thankful, that we have a new president. I am thankful that America can maybe pick up the pieces from the last eight years and try to get back some of our dignity.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 19, 2000.

I like you, Little Bit !! I think, after reading ALL these posts, that one of the problems we're facing is that no one has any respect anymore. You know, the President, in our Oval Office, having "whatever your definition of 'oral' sex is" with an employee; then lying about it under oath (they call this perjury - it's a crime); you've got scientists selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese, and Al Gore taking campaign money from the Chinese Buddhist monks, but didn't know it was a fund raiser because he had to pee. No respect - for themselves, for us, for the law. Hillary's in New York as the new Senator - half black, half Puerto Rican, half Jewish. All pandering to as many groups as possible.

I live in Tennessee, and you might be interested to know that Al Gore has taken campaign money from a little company called Champion Paper for a long time. They're in North Carolina, just up the Pigeon River from us. There are parts of the Pigeon that are so polluted that there are signs posted concerning swimming, fishing, etc. Black ponds, heavily laced with dioxin, from Champion Paper. Environmental Vice President ? Not in Tennessee. That's why he didn't carry this state - we know what he's all about.

-- Bill I. in Tennessee (mtnescape@email.msn.com), January 02, 2001.

You guys must be snowed in and reading the archives!

There's scandals aplenty on both sides of the aisle. I think we could talk about this all the way back to when Joseph got sold into slavery by his brothers. I can't recall which political party that was though...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), January 02, 2001.