Richard,

Here we go again...

> 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?

It is absolutely asburd to fault Hilary because Bill is a sex maniac. She doesn't need to ACT like the victim, she IS the victim. If you're going to blame Hilary because her husband destroyed her marriage, then you might as well start blaming rape victims for the violence of rapists. A woman's husband cheats on her in front of the whole nation, smashing her trust to bits, and you blame her?

>Watch CNN and read the New York Times.

I do watch CNN and read the New York Times. Whereas you find them too liberal for your liking, I find them too conservative for my liking. The difference is that while I recognize that as showing up my own liberal leanings, you turn that into a liberal bias conspiracy theory.

While some of their stories have liberal biases, just as many of them have conservative biases. Conservatives don't notice the ones with conservative biases, because they agree with them. Therefore, they see a liberal bias. The truth of the matter is just that they take the ones with conservative biases for granted. Hence the phony "liberal media" is created.

> 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.

Again, I need to stress the same thing. Yes indeed, Democrats are calling voters to try to sway them. Republicans are doing the same thing. But whereas you don't see the Republican calls as anything noticeable, you label the Democratic calls as scare-mongering propaganda. Neither side tells the whole truth; they tell the parts of the truth that they want people to hear. If they told the whole truth, then they wouldn't be able to sway people one way or the other. So yes, some of the Democratic facts are not entirely true. The Republican facts have the same amount of untrueness. I've been getting plenty of mail and watching plenty of ads from both sides in the last few days. They're both trying to scare the others, it's obvious. But you seem to only notice the Democratic ads because you agree with the Republican ones.

> 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.

Here's my issue with what you're saying on this...let me see if I can word it well. The Republicans are obviously not going to say anything that could incriminate them. The Democrats won't either. So, if the Democrats say something bad about Bush, his spin doctors will have no choice but to deny it firmly, no matter whether it's true or not. If the Republicans say something bad about Gore, the same thing applies. So checking the Democrats' facts with the Republican stats is absurd; the Republican party would never admit, in the middle of a heated race, that Bush ever did anything bad. So again, the only people whose facts can be trusted are non-partisan organizations. If you found out that Jackson Browne had spent 3 years covering up an enormous plagiarism scandal, would you ask him? Of course not, he's already trying to cover things up, and his lawyers would undoubtedly tell him to cover it up even more than before. The same applies with Bush (or Gore).

> 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...

I agree; if Gore gets in, he'll never actually change anything. But if Bush gets in, I think he will change some things, and those changes will (in my opinion) totally screw up our economy worse than it's already screwed up, and have truly disastrous consequences for the nation. People's priorities won't change; if Bush gives the rich money, they'll hoard it, because that's how they got rich in the first place. Look at the last time they tried this, "trickle-down" economics. Our national debt tripled in 4 years, and our homeless, poor, and unemployed population skyrocketed thanks to the plan that was supposed to help our country out. I'd much rather have someone do nothing than have someone do something awful.

> 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?

Just to make the same point again, anyone who gets anywhere in politics says anything to get into office. If you don't do that, you are a failure in politics. And maybe he will lie to congress. Just like Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and many others before them. Politicians are liars. But again, I would much rather have a smart liar with no guts who'll never get anything accomplished in office than a dumb liar with guts who'll get lots of destructive things accomplished in office.

-Scott