Richard,

Well, here's round two, I suppose. I think I'll just respond specifically to your comments rather than branch out into new territory...

>It's not the issue of the infidelity it's more an issue of >the dishonesty. The reason why Lazio can hammer Hillary is >because she was an accesory to Bubba's lies. She firstly >denied that it happened then admitted he was unfaithful.

Infidelity is dishonesty. If you tell your spouse that you're cheating on him/her, then it's not infidelity, it's having an open marriage. Not that I think that those things work, but cheating on someone implies that they don't know. Of COURSE Clinton lied about having an affair; what man in his right mind wouldn't lie about it? The real reason why Lazio can hammer Hilary is because he's preying on the anti-Clinton media's overblown reaction to the whole Lewinsky affair. (millions of people die on another continent and we get 2 minutes a day for a week; Bill fools around behind his wife's back, and we're bombarded with it for 8 months???) If anyone got hurt by this affair, it's Hilary, yet somehow SHE should take the blame for her husband's infidelity? Gee, she covered up at first, then admitted it later... Well what do you think, she WANTED to tell the entire population of America that her husband was getting blowjobs from interns? Of course she covered it up, until her private life became too publicized for her to cover it up any more!

>The reason why Gore has been called on it is because on one >hand he said Clinton was one of the greatest
>presidents of all time, now he seemingly wants nothing to >do with him.
> So because he went spinning for his boss after the guy >was impeached, and then realised that it could loose him >the
>election if he allows him on the same stage he's made >himself look incredibly inconsistent.

Again, it's politics as usual. Gore doesn't decide what topics he's going to talk about in his speeches. His speech writers and spin doctors do that. Same with George W, same with anyone who's anyone in politics. When America loved Clinton because of the booming economy, Gore's PR guys told him to play up his Clinton connections. When America hated Clinton because of everyone being offended at his having cheated and lied about it, Gore's PR guys told him to downplay the connection. Every single politician out there would do exactly the same.

>If you speak to any psychologist or anyone who can read >body language (armchair or otherwise!) then look at the
>footage of him giving testimony or him denying that either >Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers "weren't telling the
>truth" you'll know he was lying like hell.

Again, yes it's obvious that Clinton lied. He is a womanizer, and he lies about that to cover it up. But those flaws in his personal character have no bearing on whether he does a good job. I don't CARE if he fools around with interns and then covers it up! How's the economy? How are foreign relations going? Does his sex life have any effect on these things? No.

> I get the impression you've been listening to the >criminal liberal media! I won't turn this into a party >political
>broadcast, but PLEASE don't listen to the way the >opposition has demonized him. If you can find *Republican*
>evidence that holds out any of the above (not any of the >Democratic scare-mongering) then I'll *seriously*
>re-evaluate my position. Other than that, just stick to the >facts.

Okay, this is one of my very biggest pet peeves. I'm going to say this as clearly as possible. There is no such thing as the liberal media. There is no such thing as the liberal media. It is a huge scapegoat used by certain politicians, so that any time a news program says something with which they don't agree, they can say, "well, it's the liberal media." I have many problems with the media, mainly that they tend to cover any story in which they can show people (preferably women) crying, but to say that they have a liberal bias is completely unfounded. Yes, some news programs lean a little to the left. And some others lean to the right. Newsweek leans a bit left, though George Will straigtens that out. Time leans a bit right. I'm absolutely fed up with right-wing folks concluding that anything the media says that they don't like is "just the liberal bias." Baloney!

And speaking of bias, "Democratic scare-mongering"? Oh, come on. And you'll only believe stats if they come from the Republican party? That's what I call a real bias. Personally, I don't believe stats unless they come from a non-party-affiliated group.

And as for you, you assume that because I have left-leaning opinions, I must just be really gullible and listen to everything that your so-called "liberal media" says. Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I am an actual liberal. Yes, it's true, we exist, and are not just stupid people who accept everything the liberal media (like Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh, the 2 most popular radio hosts?) say.

>Here are some things to consider....If the top 1% of the >taxpayers pay over 40% of the current tax burden - and if
>Bush gets in they be paying even more why is Mr Gore being >so undemocratic about whether they are deserving of tax >relief? Don't the top 1% actually deserve to get the tax >break back in relation to the tax they paid or is Gore
>a closet Commie?

Distribution of wealth does not make one a commie. It just makes one a non-libertarian. The whole system of taxation revolves around taking money from people who have a lot and using it to help people who need it desperately. That's how taxes work. And I'm sorry, but no, I don't think that the rich folks should get their money back. I think that while we have this lovely surplus of money (thanks, Mister adulterous president) we should use it to help the people who are starving, poor, unemployed, and homeless. Our democracy is partially communistic (if you must use that word) by design. Our nation's army is about the closest thing North America has to a Socialist institution. And I think our nation is the better for it.

>Regarding vouchers - Gore sent his kids private....why is >he objecting to the majority getting a break into the
>private school system? Is he being undemocratic again?

No, he's just not willing to let the public school system, an institution into which we've put an incredible amount of money (and for good reason) over our nation's history, go to hell. And anyway, if you send everyone to private schools, you'll destroy those schools and bring them right down to the mediocre level that our public schools are at now. The whole point of private schools is that they're small and personalized. If everyone goes into them, they'll have bigger classes, need to hire more teachers (who will no doubt come directly from the public school system), build bigger facilities, etc etc etc etc. Basically, private schools will become public schools and we'll be left with thousands of deserted old public institutions. Or, we can fix our system we have now, which while it may not be the best in the world, has some pretty good things going for it.

> If AG is also a pathological exaggerator who consorts >with the Russians to allow them to sell arms to Iran, why >are those inclinations any less harmful? Are you saying >that Middle East threats to the USA are of no issue but >praying in school is! Why does our money say "In God We >Trust"?

Well, I have issues with our money saying "In God We Trust," but let's suppose I didn't. Our money still doesn't say "In Christ We Trust." It's not specific. Our nation was founded on freedom to practice whatever religion we desire. We have Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Baha'i, Shintoists, Christians, Wiccans, and just about anything else you can think of. The thought of a young Buddhist child having to recite prayers to Christ every morning in school is one of the most sickening things I can think of, and against everything our country stands for.

And if you want to talk about media biases, look at how they've pounced on Al Gore after the debates. You say "pathological exaggerator"? Please. Yes, he got a few numbers wrong. Perhaps he even intentionally got a few numbers wrong. Now all of a sudden, he's pathological and a threat to our nation? Everybody lies to get into office, as we agreed on before. Maybe he's not as sneaky about covering his lies up. I wouldn't hold that against him.
Well, that's it for now......

-Scott