Aranian said:
If you're talking about Me, then you missed the point entirely. I think it's pretty obvious that I do have an opinion on the subject. I've stated it clearly and concisely several times on this board. If you need me to go into more detail, or to use smaller words and shorter sentences so you can understand, I'd be more than happy to.
However, I really think that if you don't understand my opinion from the post above, then maybe you really need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.
You know what's really, really funny, is people who post because their poor little feelings get hurt when others don't agree with their particular point of view.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
I support Al Gore and my real name is....
Hey, wait a minute..!
Tried to catch me there, didn't you, Lasher? LOL
Look, I don't listen much to debate and TV ad rhetoric. Politics is the art of the possible, and you do what you need to do to get in office.
But I also don't listen to total dismissals of the two leaidng candidates. "They're both fucking morons" isn't really a well thought out response, though it feels good after listening to a Bushism sound bite or watching Gore high five Oprah.
Both men are in positions of enormous power and influence, and they got there by doing more than skating the middle of the road or spending Daddy's money. Not taking them seriously is silly.
And I do think there is an enormous difference between who gets elected. We're not just electing a man, we're electing an administration that will shape policy, history and American perception for four, maybe eight years. We're electing a government that will create a definitve "era". Sure, we're still gonna have guns and high taxes and it may feel like nothing changes, but things do change, every day, in small but substantial ways. To just pooh-pooh a presidential election because you're tired of guys in red ties on your TV screen isn't really be a good Joe Citizen, and you're not really looking past the middle of the road rhetoric the candidates have to spew to reach the undecided.
I'd love to vote for Cuomo or John Anderson (again) but if I have to choose I choose Gore because, despite his intellectual snobbery and dubious "achievements" I believe the administration he creates will forward the country, and I believe that Bush's administration will take us back to the "good old days" of small government and The Great Society and hundred other ideas that didn't work and won't work.
I'd love to vote for Nader, because I'm ALL about campaign finance reform and loosing the stranglehold big business has on policy making, but the man's a big time isolationist and that's dangerous.
So. Gore's my man. And he'd better not fuck up.
Hey, wait a minute..!
Tried to catch me there, didn't you, Lasher? LOL
Look, I don't listen much to debate and TV ad rhetoric. Politics is the art of the possible, and you do what you need to do to get in office.
But I also don't listen to total dismissals of the two leaidng candidates. "They're both fucking morons" isn't really a well thought out response, though it feels good after listening to a Bushism sound bite or watching Gore high five Oprah.
Both men are in positions of enormous power and influence, and they got there by doing more than skating the middle of the road or spending Daddy's money. Not taking them seriously is silly.
And I do think there is an enormous difference between who gets elected. We're not just electing a man, we're electing an administration that will shape policy, history and American perception for four, maybe eight years. We're electing a government that will create a definitve "era". Sure, we're still gonna have guns and high taxes and it may feel like nothing changes, but things do change, every day, in small but substantial ways. To just pooh-pooh a presidential election because you're tired of guys in red ties on your TV screen isn't really be a good Joe Citizen, and you're not really looking past the middle of the road rhetoric the candidates have to spew to reach the undecided.
I'd love to vote for Cuomo or John Anderson (again) but if I have to choose I choose Gore because, despite his intellectual snobbery and dubious "achievements" I believe the administration he creates will forward the country, and I believe that Bush's administration will take us back to the "good old days" of small government and The Great Society and hundred other ideas that didn't work and won't work.
I'd love to vote for Nader, because I'm ALL about campaign finance reform and loosing the stranglehold big business has on policy making, but the man's a big time isolationist and that's dangerous.
So. Gore's my man. And he'd better not fuck up.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,694
I was really suprised as just how unmasterful Bush was as a debator. I would think that a career politician running for the highest office in the US would have taken a few oration classes or joined the debate team in school or joined toastmaster or something, anything, fer chrissakes. I would also expect a presidential canidate to have a good understanding of recent and current foriegn affairs. If he can't handle Gore, how the hell is he gonna deal with middle east peace talks?
Yeah, that was scary. Even I knew that the Russians supported Milosevic, and I'm just some chick who reads the newspaper. It's even scarier that he came to the debate with zero facts, and instead of debating Gore on his tidalwave of facts & figures (yawn), resorted to throwing around silly terms like "fuzzy math". Somehow, I don't think cliches, folkisms, and Internet jokes would work well with Milosevic or Hussein.
I disagree with Bush on many fundamental issues, like a woman's right to choose abortion (which I feel, as does the current Supreme Court, is Constitutional). I disagree that we need to drill for oil in wildlife refuges, as it will destroy forever a pristine natural environment and provide a limited supply of oil. I disagree on his social security policy. I disagree on his gun policy.
However, intelligent people can disagree on issues. I disagree with McCain on many issues, yet if he were elected President I would feel confortable that he would represent us well in the UN and in meetings with foreign dignitaries. I feel he would be able to handle the job, both abroad and at home.
My biggest concern is that Bush doesn't strike me as that smart. He let Gore run all over him, and Gore wasn't near as aggressive as he was with Dukakis. The ability to speak coherently and effectively on topic is crucial in a President, especially with the turmoil in eastern Europe and the Mideast. If Bush can't take on Gore without stuttering, how will he do with Iran? And how is it that he could train for a debate for so long and STILL not understand the Milosevic situation? That's truly bizarre.
The character issues are a wash. Reagan lied about selling arms. Bush did coke and didn't show up for duty. Gore's got his fund-raising scandal. Call me cynical, but all politicians are less than moral - a saint won't get too far under today's system. Gore's wooden and uninspiring. I found his river of figures and facts boring and unimaginative, and he seemed to have trouble staying on topic. However, he was the only person in the debate who knew what the hell was going on. It's really scary when one has to choose between Wood Man and Dopey. I really wish McCain would have been nominated. THAT would have been a debate...
Yeah, that was scary. Even I knew that the Russians supported Milosevic, and I'm just some chick who reads the newspaper. It's even scarier that he came to the debate with zero facts, and instead of debating Gore on his tidalwave of facts & figures (yawn), resorted to throwing around silly terms like "fuzzy math". Somehow, I don't think cliches, folkisms, and Internet jokes would work well with Milosevic or Hussein.
I disagree with Bush on many fundamental issues, like a woman's right to choose abortion (which I feel, as does the current Supreme Court, is Constitutional). I disagree that we need to drill for oil in wildlife refuges, as it will destroy forever a pristine natural environment and provide a limited supply of oil. I disagree on his social security policy. I disagree on his gun policy.
However, intelligent people can disagree on issues. I disagree with McCain on many issues, yet if he were elected President I would feel confortable that he would represent us well in the UN and in meetings with foreign dignitaries. I feel he would be able to handle the job, both abroad and at home.
My biggest concern is that Bush doesn't strike me as that smart. He let Gore run all over him, and Gore wasn't near as aggressive as he was with Dukakis. The ability to speak coherently and effectively on topic is crucial in a President, especially with the turmoil in eastern Europe and the Mideast. If Bush can't take on Gore without stuttering, how will he do with Iran? And how is it that he could train for a debate for so long and STILL not understand the Milosevic situation? That's truly bizarre.
The character issues are a wash. Reagan lied about selling arms. Bush did coke and didn't show up for duty. Gore's got his fund-raising scandal. Call me cynical, but all politicians are less than moral - a saint won't get too far under today's system. Gore's wooden and uninspiring. I found his river of figures and facts boring and unimaginative, and he seemed to have trouble staying on topic. However, he was the only person in the debate who knew what the hell was going on. It's really scary when one has to choose between Wood Man and Dopey. I really wish McCain would have been nominated. THAT would have been a debate...
Scary Stuff!
The snippets of the debate which I caught (and they were only fragments), the demeanor of the two men was vastly different. Bush was courteous. Gore was more like a petulant child. The gross sighs while Bush spoke, the constant interruptions and the compulsion to have the last word every time were genuinely disrespectful.
Gore's behavior makes me wonder if he is still the childish insecure son of a racist Senator from Tennessee in the 50's and 60's wo has yet to grow up. The insecurity aspect frightens me more than the proclivity for the compulsion to lie about the most easily checked facts, e. g., the girl standing in the classroom in the newspaper clipping. The people he is implicating in his lies are apparently beginning to tire of it and are letting it be known that they are not complicit.
Another thing I find frightening is seeing people whose intellect I respect based on past participation in the BB willing to accept or prefer blatant dishonesty over what I perceive as some minor glitches in public speaking, i. e., malapropisms. While I respect intellect, the cardinal value is truth, honor, honesty and integrity. Those qualities are TOTALLY absent from the Democratic ticket. Gore's blatant and more and more overt lies are becoming legendary.
Lieberman has reversed his position on virtually everything he stood for before becoming the Veep nominee. Couple this with his totally partisan vote to acquit Clinton on the impeachment charges despite the evidence and compare these actions with his proclamation of being a righteous Jew. How does that wash? It's like telling me day is night and night is day; it flies in the face of reality.
Of what value is intellect without integrity?
Liars and traitors frighten me far more than someone who's a bit linguistically handicapped. Bush has done nothing of which I'm aware to make me question his integrity (yes, I read the hit piece about his military service and by comparison he warrants vastly more respect than Clinton from whom Gore is politically cloned). Gore, on the other hand, has done little if anything which does not make me question his integrity. Of the approximately $6,000,000 in contributions made by the Chinese government, Gore was the beneficiary of only about $2,000,000 so far as records can be traced thus far. Since he was stiffed by Clinton for the big bucks, does that mean he will be less inclined to sell us out to the Chinese? Or whoever can come up with the big bucks? What is it makes you people think you can trust Gore based on anything he says?
Between the two, I see the choice being the unknown (Bush) or a known liar and someone who holds himself above the laws by which he expects others to abide. And another question for those who have an affinity with the Democrats: which party was controlling the Congress when numerous laws were enacted containing specific and explicit language exempting Congress from those laws? Which party was in control of the Congress which rescinded those provisions? Now tell me which party you find more frightening.
That you find this acceptable I find terrifying because you people are the ones voting away my freedom! I have as much to fear from your intellectual lapses as I do from Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, Ted Kennedy, Gray Davis, Steve Peace, Dede Alpert, Susan Davis, et al.
I will iterate for those who presume me to be republican, my vote will be Libertarian (Harry Browne) since I am not constrained to vote for the lesser of the other four evils (including Nader and Buchanan). Republicans bring to mind John McCain (of the Keating 5), Chuck Quackenbush, Nixon and a few others of whom my opinion is less than stellar.
However, in all honesty, taken as a group, republicans seem to be far more honest, honorable and forthright than democrats, especially those with higher public profiles. This is a gross generalization obviously and certainly does not apply to everyone and I feel ashamed that in today's marketplace of ideas that I need to make that explicit declaration. It is sad the level to which general public knowledge and understanding have sunk that requires it.
And, BTW, I do listen to Rush (and Dr. Laura). While I have significant philosophical differences with both of them, I have sincere respect for their integrity. And for Dr. Laura, I have serious respect for her intellect. She earned the Ph.D. (in physiology) unlike Gore whose college profession was barely satisfactory (predominantly C's D's and F's if the news media is to be believed).
I find it curious that you presume I'm defending Bush when I clearly stated I'm not voting for him. Had I the choice of Gore or Bush only, I would vote Bush as a vote AGAINST Gore. Bush is not so flagrantly and arrogantly dishonest. He may commit a malapropism occasionally but I find the much more acceptable, even desirable, compared to a compulsive, pathological liar.
The snippets of the debate which I caught (and they were only fragments), the demeanor of the two men was vastly different. Bush was courteous. Gore was more like a petulant child. The gross sighs while Bush spoke, the constant interruptions and the compulsion to have the last word every time were genuinely disrespectful.
Gore's behavior makes me wonder if he is still the childish insecure son of a racist Senator from Tennessee in the 50's and 60's wo has yet to grow up. The insecurity aspect frightens me more than the proclivity for the compulsion to lie about the most easily checked facts, e. g., the girl standing in the classroom in the newspaper clipping. The people he is implicating in his lies are apparently beginning to tire of it and are letting it be known that they are not complicit.
Another thing I find frightening is seeing people whose intellect I respect based on past participation in the BB willing to accept or prefer blatant dishonesty over what I perceive as some minor glitches in public speaking, i. e., malapropisms. While I respect intellect, the cardinal value is truth, honor, honesty and integrity. Those qualities are TOTALLY absent from the Democratic ticket. Gore's blatant and more and more overt lies are becoming legendary.
Lieberman has reversed his position on virtually everything he stood for before becoming the Veep nominee. Couple this with his totally partisan vote to acquit Clinton on the impeachment charges despite the evidence and compare these actions with his proclamation of being a righteous Jew. How does that wash? It's like telling me day is night and night is day; it flies in the face of reality.
Of what value is intellect without integrity?
Liars and traitors frighten me far more than someone who's a bit linguistically handicapped. Bush has done nothing of which I'm aware to make me question his integrity (yes, I read the hit piece about his military service and by comparison he warrants vastly more respect than Clinton from whom Gore is politically cloned). Gore, on the other hand, has done little if anything which does not make me question his integrity. Of the approximately $6,000,000 in contributions made by the Chinese government, Gore was the beneficiary of only about $2,000,000 so far as records can be traced thus far. Since he was stiffed by Clinton for the big bucks, does that mean he will be less inclined to sell us out to the Chinese? Or whoever can come up with the big bucks? What is it makes you people think you can trust Gore based on anything he says?
Between the two, I see the choice being the unknown (Bush) or a known liar and someone who holds himself above the laws by which he expects others to abide. And another question for those who have an affinity with the Democrats: which party was controlling the Congress when numerous laws were enacted containing specific and explicit language exempting Congress from those laws? Which party was in control of the Congress which rescinded those provisions? Now tell me which party you find more frightening.
That you find this acceptable I find terrifying because you people are the ones voting away my freedom! I have as much to fear from your intellectual lapses as I do from Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, Ted Kennedy, Gray Davis, Steve Peace, Dede Alpert, Susan Davis, et al.
I will iterate for those who presume me to be republican, my vote will be Libertarian (Harry Browne) since I am not constrained to vote for the lesser of the other four evils (including Nader and Buchanan). Republicans bring to mind John McCain (of the Keating 5), Chuck Quackenbush, Nixon and a few others of whom my opinion is less than stellar.
However, in all honesty, taken as a group, republicans seem to be far more honest, honorable and forthright than democrats, especially those with higher public profiles. This is a gross generalization obviously and certainly does not apply to everyone and I feel ashamed that in today's marketplace of ideas that I need to make that explicit declaration. It is sad the level to which general public knowledge and understanding have sunk that requires it.
And, BTW, I do listen to Rush (and Dr. Laura). While I have significant philosophical differences with both of them, I have sincere respect for their integrity. And for Dr. Laura, I have serious respect for her intellect. She earned the Ph.D. (in physiology) unlike Gore whose college profession was barely satisfactory (predominantly C's D's and F's if the news media is to be believed).
