Gore's Fairy Tales....the latest...

[AndrewR]

I'm not so pessimistic about Bush's chances tonight, but I generally agree with your comments about his election bid, chess9. I think it is misguided to say that he cannot benefit from the debates, though he probably won't. If he has prepared well enough, he may come off as disarming and sway those who look at appearances (much as in the Kennedy/Nixon debates, where Kennedy's poise accounted for more than his answers -- those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won). We'll see what happens.


<< Gore may embroider the truth... >>


Is this the new euphemism for lying? There have been several concrete examples of falsehoods from Gore, not mere &quot;embroidery&quot;.


<< Just my two farthing's worth, which is more than you paid for it. >>


Does that mean that if I Paypal you some money, I can get a better opinion?

 

[jjm]

AndrewR - Look it up. Gore was co-sponsor of the bill that permitted commercial use of the internet, much to the chagrin of those who wanted to use it strictly for military communications. His legislation created the ability to use the internet in its current commercial form. In that sense, he was there at the birth of the effort to use the internet for commercial purposes. Without the legislation to remove military restrictions, there would be no internet as we know it.

Any politician who sponsors a bill takes some credit for anything good that develops from it, even if the &quot;good&quot; is tangential to the original intent. Is this news to you?

Could enemies read more into his statement? Sure, they have and will continue to twist it for their purposes. And I have no doubt that Gore attempted to make it sound as pompous as possible. But only a pea-brain would actually believe that Gore or any other non-technical person was in any way a major contributor to the technology that made the internet work. If you are stating that Republicans do take it that way, then I think you are insulting their intelligence.

Now that I have responded, I am still waiting for you to interpret Jr Bush's exaggerations for us all. Still ducking the issue?

Should we also touch upon his excuses on why he was able to avoid being sent oversees during the war? What about the fact that he refuses to comment on any history of drug use prior to the mid '70s?

And I still would like to know what politician has not embellished his record or conveniently &quot;forgot&quot; an embarrassing episode in the quest for votes.

The point is that none of this matters at all. I do not consider either candidate unfavorably as a result of these silly statements. Only small-minded people would let this stuff get in the way of discussing real issues.

 

[AndrewR]

Couple points before I leave work:

1. Making the internet available for commerce and &quot;creating&quot; the internet are not equal. That's not embellishment, that's deceit (it's called quibbling -- you say one thing in the hopes that your listener understands a lie, though you might not actually say it -- it's still lying). &quot;Did you drop the money off at the bank?&quot; &quot;I went to the bank, yes.&quot; Notice how the question isn't answered, but the intent to deceive is there. At best, that's what Gore did in my mind.


<< But only a pea-brain would actually believe that Gore... >>


Taken a good look at the American electorate lately? Keep in mind these are the same people who reelected Clinton.

2. On military readiness: Technically speaking, Bush's statement on the readiness of the two Army divisions was correct. They were reported as being non-combat ready due to the deployment of units overseas. That being said, you can talk to just about anyone in the military right now and find out that our armed forces are in a deplorable state both in terms of equipment and morale. Ask on this board -- I've seen numerous comments to that effect. We have Democrats in office, and the military declines. What happens if Gore is elected, and we have yet more neglect? The next time a nuclear sub goes to the bottom of the sea, it might be an American boat.

3. Vietnam service: Give me a break. Bush was far from the only man to not serve in Vietnam, and Gore had enough strings pulled by Daddy to keep him safe and warm at a quiet base away from any conceivable danger. The worst danger he faced in Vietnam was VD from a prostitute.

4. Drug use: He's an admitted recovered alcoholic. So what? At least he hasn't lied about it -- he just hasn't commented. At what point do a person's actions from 30 years ago which have not been repeated and make no impact on the current person have no further bearing on him/her? My problem with Clinton was his refusal to admit that he inhaled the dope. He lied in the present about something which happened in the past. It was the lying, later borne out as a repetitive problem with him, that was the issue, not the marijuana use. However, this issue does trouble me to an extent about Bush, but I haven't read about it extensively.



<< Only small-minded people would let this stuff get in the way of discussing real issues. >>


I don't look at small issues either as being representative of a candidate. However, the big picture does make an impression on me. With Clinton, there was evidence of a pattern of dishonesty that was later starkly confirmed, which bore out the prior criticism that was denounced as partisan politics. With Gore, I see some of the very same problems. The Buddhist temple. The fund raising phone calls. The story about Vietnam. The story about his mother and the dog. The internet. The aggregate to me is worrisome, not the individual nuggets.

 

[jjm]

Okay, AndrewR, one last comment. When Jr Bush takes credit for the improvement in Texas test scores for students, should I assume that he was personally responsible for teaching these kids? Or, should I assume he signed the legislation to tighten standards which may have compelled schools to improve? To follow your logic on Gore's statements, I would have to call Jr Bush a blatant liar because he only signed the legislation that led to the result, right? He didn't actually teach the kids.

 

[DanC]

I say overthrow the bloody government... go back to the way the framers of the constitution set it up. They were alot smarter than anyone in government now.

 

[AndrewR]

<< Only a total Rube would take what he said to mean that he was personally responsible for inventing the internent >>


The people that are on this board and those that commonly use the internet regularly surely understand that Gore was not responsible for creating or inventing the internet (what about the calculator? Heh.). However, there are plenty of people in this country who have little to no experience with the internet and never even heard of the thing prior to a couple years ago. Would they perhaps believe that Gore created the internet several years ago? I wouldn't be surprised, quite honestly.


<< Do you actually think that you are more intelligent than anybody that voted for Clinton? >>


More than most, yes, not all obviously. However, it's not the intellectual elite that elected Clinton -- it's the average voter who was swayed by his false promises. Taken as an aggregrate, there are plenty of examples of how stupid the American public can be. Go out into the street and ask people some history questions -- even recent history. Perhaps stupid is too harsh -- ignorance is not though. I argue nothing as a result of that (not an IQ test for voting rights, for example), just that the fact exists that only a minority in our country are well informed about the world and their country. And you think these people examined the issues closely and decided quite sagely to vote against the Republicans to counter-balance the Religious Right? Call me myopic but that's delusional.


<< American electorate showed extreme wisdom >>


Well, I guess I'm more cynical about the American public than you.

jjm:

<< When Jr Bush takes credit for the improvement in Texas test scores for students... >>


George W. Bush never claimed that he &quot;took the initiative in creating education&quot;, now did he? A claim of improvement on an existing program is far different from a claim of &quot;creating&quot; something.

 

[abracadabra1]

powell's a hero already.
he wants to remain a living hero and that's why he's not running for president.

The meaning I picked, the one that changed my life: Overcome fear, behold wonder
he would have made a great president.
oh well

 

[AndrewR]

<< Now that liquor can be sold on Election day,I wouldn't be suprised if a good majority of them don't even know it's election day until they get home at night and see the election results when they turn on the TV to watch WWF Tuesday Terror or what ever it is the Winston Cup set watches on Tuesday Nights. >>


LOL!!

 

[jjm]

AndrewR - I think your response is hogwash. But if that is what you want to stick with, then I suggest it is as evasive and &quot;legalistic&quot; as a Clinton response. Perhaps you have more in common with our current President than you might imagine.