Lasher and the Magic 8 Ball...

[Thumper]

I just knew it would happen...

I don't give a rat's ass about the DUI or his not bringing it up...

BUT....it did bring out the hypocrisy of the Republicans...

Clinton smokes Marijuana one or two times he's a drug addict
George gets busted for drinking and driving...no big deal.

They can certainly dish it out but can they take it?
Hell no!

I heard Rush Limbaugh today speculate that this is some Democratic conspiracy...sounded so much like Hillary and her right wing conspiracy comment that they crucified her for...

Ah...*I can hear them saying*...But this is different

How?

Just imagine what they would be saying if it was Gore with the DUI....You know they would be screaming for his head.

If you don't believe that then your naivete is bottomless...

 

[Lasher]

I agree with about 92% of what you said, Laurel. There's hypocrisy abounding on both sides... It's the nature of the beasts. I just happened to comment on this particular situation because of the comments made by some of the people above, and because I can empathize with some of what Dubbayah is going through from personal experience.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for the man, but in this case I can certainly understand the situation. We are all human beings after all, and part of being human is making mistakes.

But this is way too much of a coincidence to not believe that it isn't coming out of the Gore campaign, and I think that stinks. I'd feel the same way if I clicked on msnbc.com in the morning and saw that the guy who was the Honcho of Hwang Dick Province, Vietnam in 1969 says he arranged for Al Gore to have sex with 10 yr old Vietnamese boys. Shit like that has no business in a political campaign. THAT's the problem I've had with the process from the beginning. You've got two guys who will make anything they say sound like what you want to hear to get elected... And if that's not enough then they'll go out and pull shit like this.

I'm inches away from staying home on Tuesday. I guess maybe I shoulda gave the Magic 8 Ball a 5th choice...

 

[Laurel]

Shit like that has no business in a political campaign.

I couldn't agree with you more. That's been my whole problem from the beginning. Frankly, I could care less who fucked who, who aborted what, who inhaled/sniffed/drank what, etc. That has never been an issue for me. It HAS been an issue for the GOP - they've made it an issue. Now, suddenly, it's not. It shows that the whole "character" campaign was entirely politically motivated. Imagine how GWB would have reacted had it been Gore who hid the DUI. I doubt they would've let it pass with a curt "no comment".

I'm sure the Democratic party had some hand in that leak, just as I'm sure that the Republicans leaked the Gore Russian memo and were behind the flowergirl ads. Neither party will let things like human dignity, privacy, or national security get in the way of getting elected. It's disgusting.

Issues, baby, issues. Environment. Social Security. Immigration. This is the shit that matters. I can't say I'm thrilled with Gore - he's handled his campaign (or, more aptly, mishandled his campaign) like a moron. However, of the two I agree more of what he has to say. Does that mean he'll follow through with his promises? Well, do they ever? But I gotta try, or I can't bitch later.

And I refuse to protest vote for some itty-bitty extremist party, especially one with Nader at its helm. Nader's arrogance surpasses Gore's, and that's saying something. He's a puppet of the trial lawyer lobby, a candidate who refuses to disclose his finances, and on top of that he screams about big business while owning stock in the companies he screams about. Pullease!

 

[Ezzy]

Duuuuuuuuuur

Sending out emails to elderly voters saying the Voting Committee would like the Democrats to vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday?

(And yes, that is happening - I got one of those emails).

Oooooooooops perhaps you ought to update your voters register information, and include your real age.LOL.

Then they might not include you in their bulk E mails then.


EZ http://cgi.tripod.com/smilecwm/cgi-bin/s/cwm2/sleep.gif

<Ducking and running off the thread as fast as my little legs can carry me>.

 

[Lasher]

Today's result's (11/4/00)

George W. Bush... It is Decidedly So (13 pts, total 51)
Al Gore.... Outlook not so good (5 pts, total 47)
Ralph Nader.... My Reply is No (1 pt, total 41)
Pat Buchanan.... My Sources Say No (2 pts, total 22)

 

[Renee]

I feel the need to say one more time that I am sorry, this time it would be to Lasher. I think GWB deserves a lot of respect for being sober for so long. I also want to say that I know very well that a person who has conquered their addiction, whatever it may be, is a strong person who should not be criticized for their past problems. I completely understand the respect someone deserves for conquering an addiction, I know this firsthand because someone in my immediate family is a recovering alcoholic, and has been sober for 12 years now. I realize that it is very hard to overcome a drinking/drug addiction. I also know the pain and heartache it causes the individual and those around them when they aren't able to quit. Maybe this is why at times I can be very flip about the whole thing, without meaning to be. However, with that said, I also want to say that I am apologizing to WH and Lasher because I truly do like them, and care. I do not intend to send out individual apologies to everyone who enters a new post about thoughtless comments regarding addictions. I never set out to hurt anyone especially these two ppl.

As far as Bush and his addiction, it makes no difference to me. Just like I didn't care that Clinton didn't serve his Country, or didn't inhale, I voted for him anyway. I also didn't care that he screwed Monica or rented out the Lincoln Bedroom. It's his office and his house. I don't care that Al, has a dry sense of humor or that he comes across very stiff when talking ... who cares, can he do the job? That's the only question I need answered. But, the Republicans couldn't wait to try to crucify Clinton and now it seems the Democrats want their payback. I think all of the parties suck for what they do to each other. I just wish the media wouldn't play on all of this mud slinging shit, because it really is a waste of time.


So, in the end I will vote based on who I tend to agree with more, and of course by what the Magic 8 Ball has to say.


Once again, Lasher and WH I'm sorry.

(((WH))) (((Lasher)))


BTW Lasher, has anyone ever hugged you on here before, or am I the first?

Okay so here are the results for 11/4/00

Bush - Without a Doubt (20 pts. total 43)

Gore - Concentrate and Ask Again (6 pts. total 68)

Nader - Outlook Good (14 pts. total 48)

Buchanan - Reply Hazy Try Again (8 pts. total 36)



[Edited by Renee on 11-04-2000 at 08:05 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Drunk Driving - Bad for Democrats, Good for GWB?

This is the kind of hypocrisy I was talkin about:

- - - - -

Drunken Driving Ad Pulled

Nov. 4 — Hours after the nation learned Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush has a drunken driving conviction, the Republican nominee for Florida education commissioner pulled a television ad criticizing his opponent’s drunken driving record. Republican Charlie Crist’s ad criticized Democrat George Sheldon for a 1984 drunken driving conviction and for sponsoring legislation in 1975 that would have kept first-time marijuana users out of jail. The ad questioned whether Sheldon could be a role model for the state’s children.

Even though the Crist campaign contacted a South Florida television station at 1:30 a.m. Friday to stop future showings of the ad, Crist said it was not pulled because of Thursday afternoon’s news about Bush. Crist said he pulled the ad because his own polling showed voters want him to run a positive campaign.

Sheldon said his drunken driving arrest was a “serious mistake and it’s not something I’m proud of. … It is part of my record, it is part of my past, and I can’t argue with people knowing it.” —The Associated Press

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/CAMPAIGN_BUSH.html

 

[Laurel]

Oooooooooops perhaps you ought to update your voters register information, and include your
real age.LOL.

Then they might not include you in their bulk E mails then.

LMAO! No, they're not coming to me - I own a couple of domains that used to be owned by other people. I get over 400 pieces of spam a day - no lie. I saw the email and thought it was funny, then later read about it on one of the news sites. Apparently, many elderly voters were calling their local government trying to find out why they'd segregate the voting.

GWB's gonna win because Gore's run his campaign into the ground. I almost feel Gore deserves to lose because he's so badly misread the American people. However, I think that GWB's an utter fool. I'm comforted, though, that with all the scandals, his utter lack of knowledge and experience, and the fact that the American people disagree with him on most issues, I think he'll be a lame duck Pres. He'll be in for four years, then out. I just hope he doesn't push through his plans to drill in that Alaskan wildlife refuge, because that sets an enormously bad precedent.

 

[Ezzy]

Thought I had gotten away with that one...

EZ http://cgi.tripod.com/smilecwm/cgi-bin/s/cwm2/sleep.gif

 

[Laurel]

Does he deserve your respect for avoiding punishment?

Bush Avoided Rehab After DUI
A former state official calls it "unusual" that the Texas governor received a waiver from the program.

By Jake Tapper

Nov. 5, 2000 | JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives raised questions today over whether a law requiring those arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol to attend a rehabilitation program should have been waived in 1978 for George W. Bush.

The law, which passed the Maine legislature in the summer of 1975 and took effect on October 1 that year, specifically required first-time offenders arrested for DUI to attend rehab. The one exception to this requirement would be granted if, after two months, the offender petitioned the secretary of state for a hearing, after which the secretary of state "determined that the public safety will not be endangered by issuing a new license or restoration of right to operate," according to the law.

Bush, however, waited more than a year and a half after his DUI arrest -- until 1978 -- to petition for the waiver. Bush said he couldn't take the required rehabilitation class since he lived in Midland, Texas. The secretary of state's hearing examiner, David Schulz, granted Bush his driving privileges after Bush told him, according to the Boston Globe, that that he had only the "occasional beer."

. . . . .

[And Even Funnier...]

Then (in a statement that recalled the current president's fumbling "definition of 'is' is") Bartlett said: "But he never quantified what the definition of 'too much' is. He could have been referring to a time in the early 80s."

continued at
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/05/waiver/index.html

 

[Laurel]

Adding insult to injury...

When asked by a reporter if he had spent any time in jail as a result of his drunk driving arrest, Bush scoffed and said no.

With that in mind, check out Dubya's stance on drunk driving, straight from his own website...

http://ink.e-quill.com/view/bc871c1bc90a7be1

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: Does he deserve your respect for avoiding punishment?

Bush Avoided Rehab After DUI

Way to go, Laurel! Yup, let's preach a little more to the board about "sticking with the issues", about how you don't "care about character, it is all about the issues." Uh Huh. Sure you do...... hey, what was that definition of hypocrite you used awhile back???

Okay everyone, flame away! I'm off to dinner.

 

[Laurel]

Precisely my point. Funny how the tide turns, doesn't it? Even Rush Limbaugh, who blasted Clinton for his indiscretions, defended GWB - he's human, and makes mistakes. It sure puts the whole Clinton witch-hunt into perspective, don't it?

Like I said at least twice on this thread, I could give a rat's ass about Bush's DUI. I didn't care about the Monica thing. It's the Republicans - not the Democrats - have made much hay over this 'character' issue, haven't they? Screaming about morality for 8 years. It is sooooo funny to see them turn 180 degrees. Goes to show that I was right after all - it's all just a big political smear game.

Whether Bush wins or not, the Republicans have now been called on their own game. They can't ride that high horse anymore. They've been shown to be complete and utter hypocrites - running negative ads shaming their Democratic rivals drunk driving convictions, then turning around to say that it means nothing when it's THEIR candidate drinking and driving.

If you like, Cheyenne, we can revive that character discussion...something about how a candidate who lies and avoids punishment isn't suitable for office...?

 

[Renee]

I can understand that the two parties have different views and aren't always going to agree. What I can't understand is why they choose to act like school kids and pull each other's characters apart. I thought people resulted to this when they weren't educated or mature enough to argue their points in a fair manner. Frankly, it makes me not want to vote for any of them. I get so disgusted with all of the ridiculous, time wasting comments they throw at us. When watching the debates it is aggravating because they can never get to the point, they instead try to cut the other one down for something he "lied" about and the opponent of course has to say at his turn how he wasn't telling a lie the other guy was. Or, they just keep answering with the same answers, for fear that if they somehow actually listen to the question and answer with a heartfelt answer, rather than the cookie cutter form answer they were given, they may piss off a few thousand people. Grow up, get a back bone and stick to the issues and your policies. If they are as good as you think they are, then you will get the votes. How confident can you be with your policies if you aren't willing to just use them as your strength over your opponent? Look, let's face it, the "followers" will always vote for the "more popular" candidates while the rest of us no matter what your life's skeleton closet holds, will vote for you based on whether or not we agree with your ideas and policies. If the future candidates could just understand that, then maybe all of this time wasting mud slinging would stop, and we could get to the heart of the matter and actually feel like we want to back someone with our vote, not just vote in hopes that the worse of the bunch won't get in.

And now, here is a word from the 8 Ball:

Results for 11/5/00

Bush - It is Certain (16 pts. total 59)

Gore - Don't Count On It(4 pts. total 72)

Nader - Ask Again Later(7 pts. total 55)

Buchanan - Without a Doubt(20pts. total 56)

 

[Cheyenne]

Like I said at least twice on this thread, I could give a rat's ass about Bush's DUI. I didn't care about the Monica thing. It's the Republicans - not the Democrats - have made much hay over this 'character' issue, haven't they? Screaming about morality for 8 years. It is sooooo funny to see them turn 180 degrees. Goes to show that I was right after all - it's all just a big political smear game.

If you like, Cheyenne, we can revive that character discussion...something about how a candidate who lies and avoids punishment isn't suitable for office...?

And the fly gets caught in the spider's web... you made that just too easy. Although I'm a little disappointed that no one came to your defense Laurel to flame me while I was gone to dinner! Maybe they all saw the trap that you missed?

No problem on my part if you want to revive the character thread, Laurel. See, I'm the one who has been saying all along that character IS an issue in the campaign. It IS something that should be considered along with all of the other issues. I have been consistent on that point from the beginning. You, on the other hand, kept preaching about how character wasn't an issue and shouldn't be. "Issues, baby, issues, it is all about the issues" - isn't that what you've been preaching? hmmm? Now, check out the posts to this thread since Bush's DUI was made public knowledge. Where are the issues (by your definition) addressed? If character isn't an issue for you, why are you expending so much effort to post about Bush, now that you have something to post about? Goes to show that I was right after all- character is an issue in this campaign, even for you. And that leads us to a perfect definition of hypocrisy- yours. Character isn't an issue when it is Gore's that is being reviewed, but it is an issue when Bush is being reviewed. Hmmmmmm.....

By the way, I challenge you to find anywhere in my post that I have defended Bush on his DUI issue, either. Don't assume that you know how I will judge character.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The way I see it, character certainly is an issue in campaigns, because in public service character can't be separated from competency. They're both essential.

In a republican government (that's lower-case "republican", not the party) the people are the source of all political power, but entrust most actual governance to elected representatives. In light of that, it's obvious that the public should desire a politician not only be able to govern ably, but also able to be trusted to act in their ineterests.

As such, character issues are absolutely essential to decide whether our leaders and would-be leaders are worthy representatives to act in our interests. However, I think a particular candidate's character issues are only relevant if they show consistent patterns of behavior that would allow us to question whether or not he could serve in our best interests .

For example, in this case, I see Bush's DWI, per se, as being an only a minor issue; he hasn't touched a drop in 15 years (and you'll find no credible source to dispute that fact). I don't think the liklihood that this past problem will rear its head in oval office increases with this bit of information. We already knew he had a history of alcohol abuse. And we have no reason do doubt that the problem's solved.

However, if he's lied about it, it's much more troubling and it's a similar situation to Clinton lying to the Paula Jones Grand Jury and to the Independent Counsel's investigation. It may point to a pattern of deception which might continue into his Presidency.

Laurel, maybe you should come live here in Lousiana. Here character seems to be virtually irrelevant in politics. We recently elected a state insurance commisioner just weeks after he was indicted on raqueteering and corruption charges. Our former 4-time governor, Edwin Edwards (recently convicted for corruption, himself), was once asked if character issues might hurt his chances of re-election and replied, "the only way I could lose this election is if I was found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy".

I'd like to hold our elected officials to a slightly higher standard.

 

[Laurel]

However, if he's lied about it, it's much more troubling and it's a similar situation to Clinton lying to the Paula Jones Grand Jury and to the Independent Counsel's investigation. It may point to a pattern of deception which might continue into his Presidency.

That's my point - that it is shockingly similar to the Clinton situation. However, I'm not particularly convinced that a lie told to cover up a personally embarrassing situation necessarily foretells that a candidate will lie in office. Reagan sold arms to the contras behind our backs - that's a mighty big lie - yet I don't think he ever cheated on his wife or attempted to cover up any criminal past.

There are many other things that concern me much, much more than Bush's DUI - namely, his ties to Big Oil, his admitted disregard for the environment and a woman's right to choose, and his proclamation that the US shouldn't be involved in foreign affairs unless it has a "vested interest" (read: $$$). By his stance, we would never have been involved in WWII and many many many more people would have perished in the Holocaust. His simplistic view of world politics may appeal to middle America (the people who don't seem to realize that everything's connected on this big world, and that strife elsewhere can have direct and lasting effects on us) but it scares me shitless.

The only reason I post the articles about Bush on this forum, as I already stated, is to point out the hypocrisy. This whole boondaggle says much more about the Republican party and its partisan political stance than it does about the good Governor. They're all too ready to seek out dirt on their rivals and then pull out the "man of questionable character" argument, but things sure do change when it turns out that it's THEIR man with the skeletons in his closet.

I'm moving to Louisiana, Oliver.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

This whole boondaggle says much more about the Republican party and its partisan political stance than it does about the good Governor.

I agree with you and fully recognize the hypocrisy of the position, but isn't there a matching Democratic hypocrisy here? After arguing against the relevance of the Republicans' attacks on Clinton's and Gore's character, haven't they flip-flopped and are now arguing the Repub's former position that a president's personal life should matter?

Or are they just trying to illustrate Republican hypocrisy like you are by quoting these articles? I'm not sure, but if they were simply trying to catch the Republicans in a hypocritical position, why wait 4 months to release the information? (I don't think it's worth arguing that the Al Gore campaign didn't have any part in leaking the story. It's pretty obvious). And pointing out hypocrisy seems a bit too subtle a point to try to make 5 days before an election. More likely, the intent was to imply that Bush's character isn't worthy of the presidency.

You're right that Bush is less interventionist than Gore and prior Republicans in international affairs. I find the recent flip between the two parties on this issue interesting. Until Clinton's 2nd term, the Republicans were always more interventionist (Bush Sr. going into Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, etc. and the democrats opposing him each time). I think the switch is mainly due the fact that we've been in the Balkans recently and because the Republicans tend to support military intervention in regions where we have national military and economic interests, while democrats tend to support military missions for humanitarian/peacekeeping reasons. The Balkans have little strategic or economic importance to the U.S., hence flip-flop.

Your World War II analogy is wrong, however. As you may recall, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to bring the United States into the war. When Congress approved FDR's declaration of war request, Dec. 8, 1941, Germany responded by declaring war on the U.S. the following day. After that, the United States was practically forced to follow suit... and voila a world war. GWB or any other president would have been forced to do the same. And the holocaust played almost zero role in why we went to war. The Allies severely underestimated the severity of the Jewish situation until capturing Germany and Poland at the end of the war and seeing the concentration camps first hand.

(I was a history major in college and WWII is my favorite period, btw, so forgive my longwindedness.)

GWB might take us out of the Balkans, though. I disagree with his position. As one of the few nations in the world with a strong history of democracy and the know-how to make it work, in additon to the military might to exert our will, I think we have the moral obligation to make the world a little more democratic at the point of a sword (if necessary).

That's right... I said moral obligation.

P.S. I'll save ya a nice spot in the French Quarter.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 11-05-2000 at 11:39 PM]

 

[insideShiraz]

Jesus Wuz Red Long Before Marx...

There are 20 possible Magic-8-Ball responses? Wow, learn something new every day.

I'm so sick of the election I could seriously hurl. I know who I'm voting for and why. What's annoying to me is the people who are voting for people that they don't know anything about.

For example, have any of you Nader supporters checked out the Green Party platform? Everyone I talk to about it thinks they're about the environment, but that's not the case. It's greenparty.org, I think. Go read it, and then tell me Marx wouldn't be proud. They should call themselves the Red Party. How can people vote for a party without knowing their platform? It boggles my mind.

Are there any Paul Robeson haters here? Laurel, you always bring up great stuff, though my slant might be different...

Platform promises, how often are they kept? The whole government iz way too complicated anymore for any of them to keep their promises...

Jesus' ways could be construed as communist, does that make him a Marxist? Communist is tied to U.S.S.R now. Look up the word "communist" and print all definitions here...

 

[Lovely Latina]

No update for 11/5/00, Lash?

Well, I read this thread, Lasher...and I just have to say that I think it is absotively, posilutely...


LASH-TASTIC!!! LMAO!


*runs like mad giving BrainyBeauty a righteous high-5 on the way out* LOL

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Slappin ya right back, you Spanish Sizzler!

My Magic 8 Ball said the following

20. Without a Doubt
19. Yes - Definitely
18. You May Rely On It
17. Yes
16. It is Certain
15. As I see it, Yes
14. Outlook Good
13. It is Decidedly So

when I asked if our hero was truly

LASH-TASTIC!

 

[Cheyenne]

I agree with you and fully recognize the hypocrisy of the position, but isn't there a matching Democratic hypocrisy here? After arguing against the relevance of the Republicans' attacks on Clinton's and Gore's character, haven't they flip-flopped and are now arguing the Repub's former position that a president's personal life should matter?

Exactly. That is the same flip/flop that I see in Laurel's posts, hence the reason I pointed out the hypocrisy in them. You can't say character isn't an issue one day, and then turn around and post all items about character when the shoe is on the other foot. Character didn't magically become an issue over night. That is not only inconsistent, but hypocritical.

 

[Thumper]

Oh Magic 8 Ball....

What are the chances....

That I may see a woman wearing nothing but a smile pull alongside my truck as I drive through the Kenwood area on I71 south at around 2PM tomorrow?


....Hey...I thought this place was as good as any to ask.

On a serious note....imagine that! I think Laurel was indeed only pointing up the hypocrisy of the Republicans. After the past 8 years of their hue and cry they do an abrupt about face...and then expect everyone to not see it. They did the same thing in the Elian Gonzalez incident. All along they espouse family family family...then this comes along they automatically discount the father's rights.

It's not the DUI...it is the double standard that it points up. In any case it seems the Gore camp is keeping quiet about it...it is the media that is harping on it...as they always do...

Do we really think there exists someone so sanitary and clean as to survive this kind of scrutiny. If there exists such a person, I would be very suspicious of their abilities and motives...

[Edited by Thumper on 11-06-2000 at 12:11 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Exactly. That is the same flip/flop that I see in Laurel's posts, hence the reason I pointed out the
hypocrisy in them. You can't say character isn't an issue one day, and then turn around and post
all items about character when the shoe is on the other foot. Character didn't magically become
an issue over night. That is not only inconsistent, but hypocritical.

Argh! *pulls hair out*

For the third and last time, I DON'T CARE about GWB's DUI. I DON'T CARE about Clinton's personal issues. I DIDN'T MAKE PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES AN ISSUE - THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DID. I brought the DUI up merely to point out the hypocrisy - the same people who screamed and yelled about "character" all over the media are now saying it doesn't matter in THEIR candidate. I don't think the DUI makes Bush a worse candidate - I think his policies and lack of experience make him a worse candidate. YOU are the one who brought up the character issue, NOT I. I have always believed that it's been a scam played by the Republican party to discredit their opponents. And as I watch all the Republican wonks dish out "He's human...poor guy...youthful indiscretions..." (YOUTHFUL? He was 30!) speeches, I'm proved to be right.

Is that clear enough? If not, next time, I'll go back to my other posts on this thread and just quote myself.

More later...need to respond to Oliver and Shiraz, but I'm headed out the door right now...

 

[Lasher]

Re: No update for 11/5/00, Lash?

Well, I read this thread, Lasher...and I just have to say that I think it is absotively, posilutely...


LASH-TASTIC!!! LMAO!


*runs like mad giving BrainyBeauty a righteous high-5 on the way out* LOL

LMAO... Nope, no update for 11/5, nor are there going to be anymore updates. The thread devolved into politics (Of all things! Can ya believe that? LOL!), and not wanting to get in the way of the discussion, me and the Magic 8 Ball have decided to post no more on the subject.

Along with that, I removed myself from the undecided category over the weekend, so there wasn't any work left for the Magic 8 Ball to do.

(Btw, LL, glad you finally found a place to work posilutely in, LOL)


[Edited by Lasher on 11-06-2000 at 07:01 PM]