>>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.

Lazio can hammer her because her husband was impeached because he perjured himself. She then goes round as though there was a right wing conspiracy. They both know he can't keep his cock in his pocket so why does she need to act like the victim when Clinton shot himself in the foot?

>>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.

His sex life doesn't have anything to do with it, you're right. The fact he committed a crime when he was in office has a *lot* to do with it.

>>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,

Watch CNN and read the New York Times.

>>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.

Ok - if we agree that all people have common sense enough to vote for the party they most identify with, why are calls going to Michigan and Florida trying to scare people to the left? It isn't the republicans going "Hide up your savings Grandpa - we're comin' for ya" the calls are coming from Democrats who say "OOOOhhhhhhhh Look out for those wascally wepublicans" They don't present substance, they present scare-mongering propoganda.

As to your comment on bias, imagine if David Baerwald said something about a topic on this message board and then on a Jackson Browne message board someone partially quotes that or misquotes that. Should we go to Jackson Browne's message board, just in case. Or should we hang around here, ask Mr B's supporters what they know - and we might even get information from the man himself? I think we'd need to be here first and then go to JB's message board for the sake of balance. Both Messers Baerwald and Browne are truthful kinds of guys, so we could get a balanced picture. I think you can see what I'm getting at.

>>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.

I didn't mean that, I'm sorry.

>>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.

The reason why there is a surplus is because money is being funnelled off the top of the tax that is already paid. For arguments sake, lets say for every $100 - $80 is kicked back to the system and $20 goes under a mattress. The surplus are all the $20 the governemnt keeps pocketing.

(Wasn't it also true that after the last two major tax cuts, JFK and Reagan, the economy actually *grew*?)

In itself, your idea about honoruably spending money is great. But as Gore seems to be from the school of all talk and no walk - after 8 years why do you think he'll spend your money any better now than the way he's only talked about. From what I understand, Bush doesn't plan to write cheques for money to be gushed out. What he is doing is trying to encourage investment for all.

If Bush gets in, surely people's priorities could change, and they could decide for themselves that as a protest they donate their tax break to the local homeless shelter? Will the majority do that, no probably not. Will Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand do a damm thing? When pigs fly. If Gore gets in, will he redirect wealth? After 8 years of prevarication? I think not...

>>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?

If he saying anything to get into office, you really don't see a threat if he starts lying to world leaders or to congress?

>>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.

Back to you....
Richard