Richard,

Well, I think we may be getting down to just plain fundamental differences in ideology, but I'm still having fun with this, so let's go on!

>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?

Well, while she hasn't technically held any office, everyone (Republican and Democrat) knows that she's done a whole lot in the last 8 years in the white house, and before that in Arkansas. Whether you see that as inappropriate or wonderful is irrelevant; it's clear that she's been very involved in politics. Plus, look at how the election was run; all the ads for both sides, and all the media coverage, was either pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. Does anyone know anything about Lazio? She became the main issue in the election. It's kind of like advertisements for products; whether you hate or love the ad, the name of the product takes hold in your brain. Plus, in my opinion, her various crusades in the white house have been some of the most successful things in the Clinton presidency. I think that a whole lot of Americans (and New Yorkers) would agree with me. The conservative media has made fun of Bill for being dominated by the strong-willed Hillary. Well, that strength is a great asset for a holder of public office.

> 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.

Again, I find your slighting of Hillary to be mean. Yes, of course she lied about the affair, but anyone who was the victim of an adulterous spouse would do the same. Would you want to let the whole country know that you were cheated on, thus submitting yourself to the ridicule of the nation? Calling her an accessory is just mean-spirited; she was trying to salvage her dignity. Again, I think that's another reason people voted for her in New York; anyone who can maintain her dignity and composure in the midst of that media blitz has an amazing skill that would be incredibly good to have in Congress.

> 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.

I'm not going to argue about abortion rights. That is such an extremely touchy issue that I just don't feel comfortable talking too much about it. But I will say a few small things. You ask why the media promotes ideas that are liberal-leaning, and I will respond the same as last time. Yes, certain members of the media promote liberal ideas. And certain other members of the media promote conservative ones. For every newsperson putting forth a liberal idea, there is another one somewhere else saying the opposite. This is a great thing; instead of only hearing unbiased opinions, we also get to hear left-biased ones and right-biased ones. All I want to say about the abortion issue here is that "partial birth abortion" is a horribly slanted term.

> 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. Would you >still maintain that there is no "liberal media"

They are not 9-month old children. They are unborn fetuses. A 9-month old child plans on turning 1 year old in 3 months. And the issue which is being argued nationally is not late-term abortions, but the fact that Bush consistently supports people (i.e. Justices Scalia and Thomas) who wish to ban all abortions, no matter what stage of pregnancy. Again, I'm not going to go there, but I just want to ask if you think contraception should be illegal because it stops a life from being created.

And yes, I still maintain firmly that there's no liberal media. Not oly do I think the media is well-balanced (as I said in my last paragraph), but Michael Moore is about the only real visible radical left-winger I can think of. Meanwhile, we've got Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and George Will (to name a few) on the radical right-wing side.

> 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?

As fact-checking goes, it just seems completely pointless to me to do it as you say. Whatever unpleasant things one side says about the other, that other side will deny it. Thus, any fact checked on both sides will lead to two conflicting facts. Pointless.

Yes, Gore gets money from Hollywood. Entertainment industry people tend to be liberal, so they give Democrats lots of money. I'd rather that such soft money didn't change hands. Similarly, Bush gets heaps of money from the oil corporations. I'd prefer that that soft money didn't change hands either. Again, you seem to only be discussing the faults of the democrats, when it seems fairly clear to me that the republicans have the same faults.

> 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%".

What do you consider to be democratic? Our whole system of taxation is about the Communistic (a word which you seem to regard as dirty, but I just see as the opposite end of the spectrum from anarchistic) principle of distributing wealth among the people. And your slighting of the poor and middle-class citizens of America is incredibly disturbing to me. Do you really see the middle class as "stragglers"? My father spent 30 years fighting his way through the field to become a successful middle-class lawyer. Along the way, he worked 60-hour weeks and sacrificed much of his personal life for the sake of his job. And yet, you think he's a straggler because he's not rich? The tax cut for the middle class is not "a great prospect if you don't want to go out and actually work." Anyone who doesn't work is going to be dirt poor and struggling to eat. Just try to find me a substantial contingent of unemployed middle-class citizens. The tax break is to help people who are struggling despite the fact that they're working like dogs. If, as you suggest, we were to eliminate the rich, this would not get rid of 40% of our national revenue. The money wouldn't disappear, it would be distributed throughout the population, and then we wouldn't need so much of a tax break.

>If Bush is so dumb how did he match
> this lying Beltway lackey in one attempt?

You are just about the only person who likes Bush that I've spoken to who has given me an actual reason that they're voting for him other than the following: "I don't like Clinton" or "I just like Bush". The fact is that the vast majority of voters don't know much about the issues of this election. Most that I've had contact with are either voting for Bush because they're fed up with the current administration (thanks to the conservative media's demonization of Clinton) or because Bush seems nicer and Gore seems to have no personality. So I don't find it surprising that Bush is neck-in-neck with Gore. On purely surface issues, Gore seems stiff and Bush seems like an amiable college-buddy type.

And to address your previous issue about the electoral college, you seem to dismiss the issue because it's a selfish move by the democrats. I'll admit that trying to get rid of it in time to overturn the (possible) results of this election is probably not the right thing to do. But the electoral college, apart from any partisan topics relevant to this election, seems totally silly to me. If this country is a democracy (or a republic, as the case actually is), then each person's vote should count equally. There used to be issues of practicality that didn't allow equal representation, but those issues are now defunct. There's no reason why each citizen's vote shouldn't count the same, no matter where they live.


All for now,

Scott