I've said it before, and on this one thing, I agree with you -- I don't vote based on character.

I'm voting for Bush because 1) I feel that it will help ease my tax burden, and 2) because there's no way I could vote for Gore.

The problem I have with Clinton goes way beyond a DUI here or smoking pot or whatever. I didn't really care if they impeached him or not. I don't care that he's the president. I have a problem with Clinton the MAN. I realize that you would consider all of these things unsubstantiated, but I don't watch Tom Brokaw, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I get my news from what I consider to be neutral sources, and from those sources I've gathered that Clinton is 1) in bed with the Chinese 2) a possible rapist and murderer and 3) a habitual liar that will do anything to get what he wants.

I just don't like the guy, and I see that same smug smile on Al Gore's face everytime he talks.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator

[This message has been edited by htismaqe (edited 11-03-2000).]

DD, exactly what events or actions has Bush gotten a free ride that Clinton did not?

Did Bush lie under oath? Commit crimes while in office? Cheat on his wife? Sell access to the Chinese?

Please name the exact same events Bush has done as Clinton. I can't find them...<BR>

This is ridiculous, Clinton lies under oath, lies to the American people (you and me), sells our secrets to Red China, raped a woman, and helped cover up a double murder of two kids who accidentally discovered his drug operation in Arkansas. The press makes excusses for him say that it's not that big a deal Blah blah blah. Oh yeah, lets not forget White Water, and draft dodging. There are others I could name. Now that it is discovered that Bush was arressted 24 years ago for DUI the press is trying to imply that maybe he is not fit to be president (not like they weren't anyways). There is a clear double standard for liberals and Conservatives, and it is sickening. Watch for the Dominant Left Wing Media to try some underhanded tactics this weekend, such as doing features on alchaholics. They won't even have to talk about Bush, they will just bring up people who used to be alchaholics then got sober and sooner or later they found themselves in a job with lots of pressure and started drinking again. Don't be fooled by it because they are trying to plant the notion in your mind doubt about Bush. Bush hasn't taken a drink in 14 years and has held the stressful job of being govenor of the second biggest state in the Union for 6 of those years. The man has admitted what he had done and at the time that it happend he did not try to use his family name to try and get out of it. Instead he asked the officer what he had to do and accepted punishment like a man. Wich is a whole lot more than you can say for Slick Willie and Algore!

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

Another thing, this is part of an October surprise. That's right "part". The Domocrats are facing something that none of them have faced in thier lifetimes, total control of all thee branches of government by republicans. They are not going to sit idly by and leave this campaing to chance. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Beware of more to come all the way through Tuesday.

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

(Damn, despite my own objections, I let myself get sucked into a political thread) Whoa, now! I'd been lurking around here for quite some time when I came across some facts that I had never heard before. Can someone tell me when Clinton was convicted of rape, drug smuggling, and possession? That stuff sounds pretty serious. How did they ever let him run for Pres having a rap sheet like that?

TFM
*Gore and Bush make me want to Ralph!

TeenagerFromMars,

Welcome to the BB and we hope you'll join in often.

Clinton has obviously never been convicted of those things.

There are many people that believe he is guilty of them however, because of the other things he is guilty of (proven).

He lied under oath. He lied to the American people (not dodged the question or preveracated ~ lied). He denied a citizen her right to a fair trial (and thereby broke the oath of his office). He on numerous occasions lied to Congressmen.

The above are just some of the admitted and proven facts.

Would you trust this man?

Luz
this isn't rocket science...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 11-03-2000).]

Luz,

Thanks for the welcome. I can't promise to post very often, I just feel compelled to chime in when I think things are getting out of hand.

Unfortunately, lying to the people is not a sufficient ground for being ousted from office in Washington. (I wonder, do these politicians deal with "national security" THAT much?!) I hope Clinton is punished for lying under oath after his term is up.

I also hope that, in the future, civil lawsuits aren't allowed to take the government and media hostage as it was with the Jones case. If I'm not mistaken, the perjury charge came out of testimony during the Jones case (which was civil). If this is the precedent, our government is worse off than I thought...

TFM
*Watch out GW, paybacks are hell!

TFM,

I look forward to having many enjoyable conversations with you.

The question of whether a sitting President should be immune from civil suite while in office is a valid one to debate, however, the issue of Clinton's innocence is not open.

He is proven guilty. And that is good reason to believe that he could very well be guilty of many other things that haven't yet been proven.

Only a fool would give him the same benefit of the doubt that you'd give someone who's never lied under oath.

Luz
pretty basic...

this campaign would have been a perfect time for the so-called Liberal media to show its true colors . . . and yet I don't see it.

Seem to me this Liberal media is anything that doesn't enlighten you like Rush does.

While I'm here . . . would one of you kind Clinton/Gore haters please send me a transcript of the speech where Al said he invented the internet? Can't to wait to see that.

Thanks Friends


------------------
C.R. Pants
(The Resident Liberal)

CRP,

I would much rather send you a link to Gore's saying he didn't know the Buddist Temple event was a Fundraiser...

or that there was no controlling authority over his making campaign fundraising calls from his office (even though it's illegal)...

or that Bill Clinton is the greatest President in the history of this country (on the day of the Impeachment and the governments bombing of an asparin factory)...

Again, this isn't rocket science. Only a fool would continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Luz
if someone repeatedly lies to you, it's usually because he's a lier...
if someone repeatedly breaks the law, it's probably because he's a criminal (and a lier)...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 11-04-2000).]

CRP

I am a Gore "hater" and I bought the whole "I invented the internet story." I saw the speech and his words were misinterpreted. I will agree with you all there.

I also saw the speech when he compared the medication cost with his dog's. There was no misinterpretation for that.

I also saw him apologize during the debate for misleading people on some of his statements.

I also couldn't have cared less when the story of Clinton smoking pot came out. I voted against him for other reasons. I don't judge people on what they did long ago. God knows if people judged me on my faults years ago, I would be a lonely person.

The internet story is all played out, find a new one. And for you to say the media is "SO CALLED" LIBERAL is an insult to the public's intelligents. If you can't see that then you are blind to reality.

------------------
TWB

Luz
well said 47...

TFM -- how can you say perjury is not grounds for removal? Its a felony under state and federal statue. We fought a whole Civil War over "states rights". We had riots and peace marches and students escorted by troops over "civil rights" in the 50's and 60's. We have a presidental oath of office that says "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" as a duty of that office. He denies the "civil rights" of a woman in a federal case by giving false and misleading statements to a federal court. He has at least violated his oath of office and that is grounds for removal