Richard, Here we go again...
>>It is absolutely absurd to fault Hilary because Bill is a >>sex maniac. She doesn't need to ACT like the victim, she >>IS the victim.
We keep straying from the point I think I'm trying to make. Why is it that Hillary has done nothing politically and yet she's gone-a carpet bagging in NYC? Secondly why were New Yorkers stupid enough to vote for her?
http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/15347.htm
As to the victimhood, it's not because Bill's a sex maniac it because they are both liars. It's because BC was impeached for perjury and she was an accesory to that whole gig.
>>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.
I'll give this portion of the argument up then.
>>The truth of the matter is just that they take the ones >>with conservative biases for granted. Hence the >>phony "liberal media" is created.
Why does the media promote the ideas that are liberal leaning then? For example there is an outcry from some that partial birth abortion should be legal. I would encourage you to find a medical website and find the exact procedure for a partial birth abortion.
The media slants it that this is based around the woman's right to choose. Ok, I can accept that. But why can't the left wing accept that there are clear thinking people who actually disagree with murdering babies in the birth canal? Or is murder only acceptable when doctors do it to 9 month old children? If the media can't accept two differing opinions then they have a "leaning" based on whichever side they a) ignore b) ridicule c) misrepresent.
As those most compassionate women know, they could always abandon their babies. But apparently killing them is better. There are some occasions where abortion could and should be bought into play, but how stupid must a woman be to carry the child for 9 months and then go "Ahhh I don't want it" Would you still maintain that there is no "liberal media"
>>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.
What, you mean fact checking is absurd in a similar way that you access government websites and know that the Stephen Spielbergs and the Dave Geffens of the world are pumping in soft-money to the Democrats like it's going out of style? From that you might conclude that Gore's `Hollywood Crusade` is a whole lot of hot air? Regardless of the fact that Gore's sister died from smoking-induced lung cancer, on one hand he started an `anti tobacco crusade` and on the other he goes and kisses the ass of the tobacco farmers? Regardless of the fact that it's in the public domain that on one hand he's `anti-big-drug-company` and that he's been to South Africa in the name of the big drug companies he asks them to stop manufacturing generic brands of drugs to combat AIDS because he's trying to protect profit margins?
http://www.fair.org/extra/9909/gore-aids.html
>>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
The top 1% paid 40% of the taxes. It's an undemocratic tax break if stragglers in the middle class get all the help. Perhaps if you saw your tax level once the top 1% were eliminated you'd probably change your tune. If you think tax levels are bad now, once the wealthy are eliminated you'd pay about twice as much. Admittedly, Gore is a great prospect if you don't want to actually go out and work. Go and get government hand-outs that are mostly supplied by the "wealthiest 1%".
>>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
Check the homepage of the Whitehouse. Bill and Al take credit for a portion of all the destructive things that Bush did. If Bush is so dumb, why is the Whitehouse singing the praises of Texas? If Bush is so dumb how did he match this lying Beltway lackey in one attempt?
Over to you...
Richard
here we go again....
R
Richard Smith
(view)
Richard, Here we go again...
>>It is absolutely absurd to fault Hilary because Bill is a >>sex maniac. She doesn't need to ACT like the victim, she >>IS the victim.
We keep straying from the point I think I'm trying to make. Why is it that Hillary has done nothing politically and yet she's gone-a carpet bagging in NYC? Secondly why were New Yorkers stupid enough to vote for her?
http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/15347.htm
As to the victimhood, it's not because Bill's a sex maniac it because they are both liars. It's because BC was impeached for perjury and she was an accesory to that whole gig.
>>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.
I'll give this portion of the argument up then.
>>The truth of the matter is just that they take the ones >>with conservative biases for granted. Hence the >>phony "liberal media" is created.
Why does the media promote the ideas that are liberal leaning then? For example there is an outcry from some that partial birth abortion should be legal. I would encourage you to find a medical website and find the exact procedure for a partial birth abortion.
The media slants it that this is based around the woman's right to choose. Ok, I can accept that. But why can't the left wing accept that there are clear thinking people who actually disagree with murdering babies in the birth canal? Or is murder only acceptable when doctors do it to 9 month old children? If the media can't accept two differing opinions then they have a "leaning" based on whichever side they a) ignore b) ridicule c) misrepresent.
As those most compassionate women know, they could always abandon their babies. But apparently killing them is better. There are some occasions where abortion could and should be bought into play, but how stupid must a woman be to carry the child for 9 months and then go "Ahhh I don't want it" Would you still maintain that there is no "liberal media"
>>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.
What, you mean fact checking is absurd in a similar way that you access government websites and know that the Stephen Spielbergs and the Dave Geffens of the world are pumping in soft-money to the Democrats like it's going out of style? From that you might conclude that Gore's `Hollywood Crusade` is a whole lot of hot air? Regardless of the fact that Gore's sister died from smoking-induced lung cancer, on one hand he started an `anti tobacco crusade` and on the other he goes and kisses the ass of the tobacco farmers? Regardless of the fact that it's in the public domain that on one hand he's `anti-big-drug-company` and that he's been to South Africa in the name of the big drug companies he asks them to stop manufacturing generic brands of drugs to combat AIDS because he's trying to protect profit margins?
http://www.fair.org/extra/9909/gore-aids.html
>>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
The top 1% paid 40% of the taxes. It's an undemocratic tax break if stragglers in the middle class get all the help. Perhaps if you saw your tax level once the top 1% were eliminated you'd probably change your tune. If you think tax levels are bad now, once the wealthy are eliminated you'd pay about twice as much. Admittedly, Gore is a great prospect if you don't want to actually go out and work. Go and get government hand-outs that are mostly supplied by the "wealthiest 1%".
>>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
Check the homepage of the Whitehouse. Bill and Al take credit for a portion of all the destructive things that Bush did. If Bush is so dumb, why is the Whitehouse singing the praises of Texas? If Bush is so dumb how did he match this lying Beltway lackey in one attempt?
Over to you...
Richard
>>It is absolutely absurd to fault Hilary because Bill is a >>sex maniac. She doesn't need to ACT like the victim, she >>IS the victim.
We keep straying from the point I think I'm trying to make. Why is it that Hillary has done nothing politically and yet she's gone-a carpet bagging in NYC? Secondly why were New Yorkers stupid enough to vote for her?
http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/15347.htm
As to the victimhood, it's not because Bill's a sex maniac it because they are both liars. It's because BC was impeached for perjury and she was an accesory to that whole gig.
>>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.
I'll give this portion of the argument up then.
>>The truth of the matter is just that they take the ones >>with conservative biases for granted. Hence the >>phony "liberal media" is created.
Why does the media promote the ideas that are liberal leaning then? For example there is an outcry from some that partial birth abortion should be legal. I would encourage you to find a medical website and find the exact procedure for a partial birth abortion.
The media slants it that this is based around the woman's right to choose. Ok, I can accept that. But why can't the left wing accept that there are clear thinking people who actually disagree with murdering babies in the birth canal? Or is murder only acceptable when doctors do it to 9 month old children? If the media can't accept two differing opinions then they have a "leaning" based on whichever side they a) ignore b) ridicule c) misrepresent.
As those most compassionate women know, they could always abandon their babies. But apparently killing them is better. There are some occasions where abortion could and should be bought into play, but how stupid must a woman be to carry the child for 9 months and then go "Ahhh I don't want it" Would you still maintain that there is no "liberal media"
>>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.
What, you mean fact checking is absurd in a similar way that you access government websites and know that the Stephen Spielbergs and the Dave Geffens of the world are pumping in soft-money to the Democrats like it's going out of style? From that you might conclude that Gore's `Hollywood Crusade` is a whole lot of hot air? Regardless of the fact that Gore's sister died from smoking-induced lung cancer, on one hand he started an `anti tobacco crusade` and on the other he goes and kisses the ass of the tobacco farmers? Regardless of the fact that it's in the public domain that on one hand he's `anti-big-drug-company` and that he's been to South Africa in the name of the big drug companies he asks them to stop manufacturing generic brands of drugs to combat AIDS because he's trying to protect profit margins?
http://www.fair.org/extra/9909/gore-aids.html
>>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
The top 1% paid 40% of the taxes. It's an undemocratic tax break if stragglers in the middle class get all the help. Perhaps if you saw your tax level once the top 1% were eliminated you'd probably change your tune. If you think tax levels are bad now, once the wealthy are eliminated you'd pay about twice as much. Admittedly, Gore is a great prospect if you don't want to actually go out and work. Go and get government hand-outs that are mostly supplied by the "wealthiest 1%".
>>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
Check the homepage of the Whitehouse. Bill and Al take credit for a portion of all the destructive things that Bush did. If Bush is so dumb, why is the Whitehouse singing the praises of Texas? If Bush is so dumb how did he match this lying Beltway lackey in one attempt?
Over to you...
Richard
-
Election Day Is Looming!!! – Richard M Smith on November 1st, 2000-
irresistible urges – Scott on November 2nd, 2000-
Well Said! – kravitz on November 2nd, 2000
-
election day – mark j on November 3rd, 2000
Weighing Up The Candidates – Richard M Smith on November 2nd, 2000
-
Silence from the right wing nuts – Peter T. on November 7th, 2000
part 2 – Scott on November 2nd, 2000
-
-
-
