PDA

View Full Version : Dirty Politics - 24 year old Drunk Driving "Breaking News" on Bush


milkman
11-02-2000, 10:03 PM
I'm surprised none of our resident political types have started this, but its a slow night, so what the hell.

On the eve of the election, a Portland, Maine reporter broke the story that GW was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. This is, of course, the political equivalent of a brand new Ferrari for the liberal press, and they've got it red-lined already.

Thoughts on this:

1. Funny how this broke four days before the election. I'm sure the Gore camp had nothing to do with it... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

2. IT WAS 24 YEARS AGO! It's not like the guy got crocked and plowed into a school bus last week.

3. The libs are painting this as a character issue, labeling GW a hypocrit for not disclosing this incident, yet railing on the moral indiscretions of Gore and Clinton. GW says he kept it quiet because he didn't want his kids to know about it. Hmm... it seems to me that the President of the United States lying under oath is a bit more damning that not disclosing that GW once got a DUI decades ago. Perhaps that's just me.

4. GW says he quit drinking 14 years ago.

5. Like the guy drives himself anywhere, anyway!

I hope the American public can see this for what it so obviously is - a timebomb Gore has known about, probably for months, that is dropped at the 11th hour in an attempt to salvage his mercifully-failing campaign. This is dirty politics at its worst. As a result of this, I support GW more strongly than ever now.

sd4chiefs
11-02-2000, 10:06 PM
I don't post on political threads because it forces me back to reality and the Chiefs are what I use to escape. However, all this crap is why good guys don't run for office. Who in their right mind would want people digging up 24 year old mistakes...

Totally disappointed by our choices.
AZ

milkman
11-02-2000, 10:11 PM
I here you, AZ. I personally wanted McCain, but I'll take Bush over Gore any day.

I sure wouldn't want these vultures digging up the skeletons in my closet.

TEX
11-02-2000, 10:15 PM
Frazod-

Weren't you one of the Republican minority in '92 whining about Clinton's past mistakes?? Maybe I am mistaken here, but judging by your political leanings, my guess would be yes. If you want to let Bush off the hook for endangering people's lives, why hold Clinton accountable for mistakes that affect only himself and his only family??

Mark-
you can't have it both ways.....

DaKCMan AP
11-02-2000, 10:16 PM
I seem to remember the other canidate and his wife admitting to smocking a little illegal weed, I guess we will not hear about that during these last few days.

Duck Dog
11-02-2000, 10:21 PM
But they didn't inhale....
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

milkman
11-02-2000, 10:26 PM
Revolver, this is the equivalent of the crap about Clinton not inhaling the joint. Now we all know he inhaled. My problem with it then was why he lied about it. He was a kid at the time, and regardless of what I think about Clinton now I doubt seriously that he's doing bong hits in the Oval Office.

While Bush was not forthcoming with this, when this news broke he acted like a man and dealth with it.

My major problem with Clinton is that he is a habitual liar, has lied under oath WHILE IN OFFICE, and has reduced the office of President to nothing more than late night cannon fodder for Leno and Letterman. Can you even hear the man's voice and NOT think he's lying? These things he did as a MATURE ADULT.

And God only knows what other "youthful indiscretions" were performed by both Clinton and Gore. Do you really think ANY of these guys are saints? Perhaps Clinton and Gore are just better at covering their tracks.

dallaschiefsfan
11-02-2000, 10:34 PM
Revolver, Gore smoked pot in his college days and thats a known fact. And I am sure he never went out on the road after a drag or two did he. Please driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, its all dangerous. And yes I cant beleive the desperation tactics under way at Gore HQ. I mean come on man do they think were that stupid..

Cannibal
11-02-2000, 10:37 PM
There is hipocrosy on all sides in politics. That is why I don't align myself with any political party. This accusation is nothing serious and I don't anticipate it will hurt anyone. However it is to be expected. Both sides engage in hipocrosy. I remember 8 years ago the battlecry against Clinton was he was a pot smoking draft dodger, and now we've got an AWOL drunk driver. Won't make a bit of difference in the vote...

AustinChief
11-02-2000, 10:53 PM
I dont recall George W. lying about it, nor lying under oath about it.

The term oxymoron continues to apply more ways than one for the democratic party.

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 10:59 PM
This didn't quite fly as anticipated, so the other "scandals" that are in the can may not be released.

It's a desperation move that the dems had hoped they wouldn't have to use.

Now they played the card, and have only the mainstream talking heads talking about it, while mainstream America shrugs it off.

Looks like they will move on to plan X. (With only Y & Z left)

The Blessed Virgin Larry
11-02-2000, 11:04 PM
IMHO, Bush is a hypocrit for the simple reason that he and the Repubs have made morality a focal point of his campaign. He should have come clean before they beat the morality thing into the groumd. I doubt that this will sway anyone. Most here have made up their minds and depanding on who they're for is how they'll view this issue. BTW, if George W had this on Gore, he would have done the SAME thing. IMHO, those who think otherwise are foolish. Bush is full of it, I breath his CRAP every day here in Houston and I LAUGH at how "SMALL" our state government is. It's so small that it's MUCH LARGER than it was 4 years ago! Anyone that doubts this can look up the information for themselves, but I'm sure that Bush has his reasons for not being "honest" here. *grin*

milkman
11-02-2000, 11:05 PM
Plan X? This is so lame it's more like Plan 9 from Outer Space.

I think (and certainly hope) that this will backfire badly. As the campaign has worn on, GW has impressed me as being very resilient. I think he handled this latest blast just fine.

Of course, we'll see what the papers do with this tomorrow.

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 11:12 PM
frazod-

I refered to it as "Plan X" as the dems are almost out of options. They do have a couple of things left for these desperate times when they are trailing. (Including a 30-minute infomercial on algore to run on Monday)

The "papers" will run it above the fold. However, it has already backfired, rallying a base that is energized and pissing off people who grew tired of this during Clinton's term(s).

Indeed Bush handled it well tonight, and once he came out and did that, it sealed the fate of this scam.

[This message has been edited by Michael Michigan (edited 11-03-2000).]

milkman
11-02-2000, 11:16 PM
Michael, the "Plan 9" reference was a slam on them, not you - hope you didn't take it the wrong way.

Up here in Chicago, both of the major newspapers, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, have endorsed Bush. I'm still shocked by this, especially in this liberal democrat dead-beat hellhole. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this story after declaring him to be their guy.

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 11:26 PM
Frazod-

No problem, just wanted to make sure my position was clear. I saw both Chicago papers endorsed Bush. This will not change that. It will run news wise above the fold. Editorial wise, it will be challenged and the story will turn to "Is gore behind this?"

Other than partisans, no one cares about a 1976 DUI conviction.

Backfire. By tomorrow night gore will be under a huge microscope and unlike Bush, doesn't have the credibilty to come forward and say he didn't have anything to do with this.

milkman
11-02-2000, 11:37 PM
Certainly hope you're right, Michael. It would be sad if the future of our country could hinge on such a transparent political BS ploy.

I'm off to bed. Goodnight to all.

Cannibal
11-02-2000, 11:40 PM
I'm just curious to know why people think Bush has more credibility. IMO he's no better or worse than Gore. I've seen nothing from him to prove he has more credibility.

I also would have preferred McCain. He has credibility IMO...

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 11:41 PM
frazod-

G'night.

Here is the latest e-mail I just received.

**BUSH DUI STORY FED TO MAINE REPORTERS BY DELEGATE TO 2000 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, LAWYER IN ORIGINAL CASE, FOX NEWS IS REPORTING... DEVELOPING///**

I would imagine it is from the Drudge Report.

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 11:43 PM
DW-

Is that a serious question?

Cannibal
11-02-2000, 11:50 PM
Michael,
Not if you are a partisan, I suppose...

mikey23545
11-02-2000, 11:55 PM
DW-

I am partisan, well at least I will celebrate when Bush wins.

Bush comes out says, yea, I did it, I'm not proud of it, etc.

Gore would have handled it differently.

No one trusts what the guy says, not even his own campaign.

That's why I asked if you were serious.

I'm in AZ, we are all fortunate McCain's bid failed.

Cannibal
11-03-2000, 12:05 AM
I thinking that if Gore comes out and says he didn't say anything about it because he wanted to protect his daughters, he'd be getting ripped for trying to use his daughters to protect himself like I'm hearing some people on these talk shows doing now. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. If we support someone then we are more likely to believe them vs someone that we don't support. What I'm trying to say is if you are a democrat, then Bush has very little credibility (IE I'm listening to some talk shows right now in the Bay Area and he is getting ripped big time) and if you are a Republican Gore has very little credibility. I don't see either as being more credible than the other, and yes I am serious when I say that... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

mlyonsd
11-03-2000, 05:27 AM
If roles were reversed, I know all of you who are backing Bush wouldn't claim it a cheap shot, but would instead begin labeling Gore a drunk and other such things.

The fact is, throughout every debate and rally Bush has said what he wants done, but he has no plan to get these things done. He has laid a lot of his campaign on credibility, attacking the Clinton-Gore office every other word about their credibility and morality. This drunk driving incident is very relevant, even if it happened a long time ago.

chiefs2034
11-03-2000, 06:35 AM
I haven't been watching the campaings much, but I do not remember Bush ever ... EVER!!!... bringing out something like this. All of Gore's downfalls have come by way of his own words (lies, exagerations, etc.)

Why would you spill the beans and then claim ownership of it?

I'm sure that if either campaign let out something like that it would be handled exactly as it has been.

BTW....Bush has admitted to making mistakes in the past, he just wasn't specific about what they were. Are they any of our business? Have any of you done anything in your youth that you are not too proud of?

Try digging up stuff on Gore, I'm sure there are things that he has done that is public record (lying, etc.)

------------------
Remember Joe Delaney?
Some of us do and are acting on our belief that he was a hero.
This is a bandwagon that all are invited to jump on!!!

37 Forever

htismaqe
11-03-2000, 06:47 AM
DaKCMan AP,

You're wrong.

Bush has run a very positive campaign, only resorting to anything close to a 'negative ad' when finally having to stand up for himself against all of the Gore campaign lies.

When someone lies about you, to defend yourself you have to show that the other guy is lying. This is the only reason that anyone can say that Bush is attacking and it is bogus.

This is not a tactic that fits Bush's chatacter (or that of the Republican Party).

I warned yesterday that the Gore campaign was desperate and would be committing dispicable acts such as this. I was right ~ and I'm not the only one that expected it.

The American people are tired of sleazy politics.

Luz
character does count...

redshirt32
11-03-2000, 06:51 AM
Da Wolf:

"I also would have preferred McCain. He has credibility IMO..."

I know a great many people who would dispute that statement. Funny how McCain, when campaigning for votes here in SC during the GOP primaries stated that he thought that the "Flag controversy" should be settled by the citizens of the state, but when he was out of the race, he came back here and did a 180 on his stance.

That's not credibility...

mmaddog
***************
and that was just one of his turns<P>

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 06:59 AM
I wouldnt support anyone that would dick with my first ammendment rights. McCain-Feingold would have done just that.<P>

crazy chiefs fan
11-03-2000, 07:26 AM
The DNC know that they are down,going down,try'nswing for the home run!
1) Nader not being married ?
2) Now Bush,something that happened 24 yrs ago! Like nobody has ever made a mistake in life before they became responsible!

This will backfire on the DNC !

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 08:20 AM
It doesn't matter.

This is called DESPERATION. All those 3-5% leads you see for Gore are media embellishments.

It's pretty obvious now that Bush is going to win, and it's probably not even going to be close.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:27 AM
LOL!!! This is classic what goes around comes around. I was listening to our local Rush wannabe coming into work and he was whining about these meany weany tactics. Thanks for the ideas Atwater, Baker, Dole and Bush!!! Thanks for the inspiration Lott, Delay, Helms and Newt!!!!

I'm guessing this is just the tip of the iceberg, too.

God I've been waiting to see the old barrell get plugged with mud and backfire!!! Its good, ol' fashioned justice!!!

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 08:30 AM
I still love your insistence that Clinton was innocent. I'm not a republican and more of an objective bystander, so I'll agree with you that there's probably alot more forthcoming on GW.

But to insist that the whole Clinton thing was a manufactured witchhunt shows a lack of understanding of the facts.

Of course, taped interviews with Arkansas state patrolman were part of the manufactured witchhunt, right?

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:32 AM
Ha!!!! I just saw another DUI arrest report for Austin, Texas!!! Same year!!! W. got the Duece!!!

Whhoooohooooo!!!! These next few days are gonna be fun.

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-03-2000).]

DaKCMan AP
11-03-2000, 08:34 AM
Drew - This is a tactic used by Demo's long before the "JUSTICE DEPARTMENT" investigated Clinton. The Demo's know that republicans actually think charecter is an issue, something democrats have proved is not.

Morphius
For example see the "untruthful statements" lady running for the senate in NY.

redbrian
11-03-2000, 08:35 AM
Let's just forget those rape allegations against Clinton...I mean, it supposedly happened so LONG ago...

redbrian
11-03-2000, 08:37 AM
If the same, EXACT story was reported about Gore, you "Cons" would be all over it.

Once again, a conservative can do no wrong.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:38 AM
Maybe today we'll get to meet some of W.'s cocaine suppliers. That'd be neat, wouldn't it?

Lurker Brett
11-03-2000, 08:40 AM
I don't know, the guy got caught, paid his debt to society, it's over. Not sure why anyone would think this is a big deal. He didn't try to use his fathers influence to get out of it.

I haven't seen any proof that he lied about it which would be a bigger offense to me.<P>

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 08:41 AM
Im surprised that Clint and Drew arent calling this a witchhunt. It's the same word they used when discussing the 'dirt' dug up on Clinton.

redbrian
11-03-2000, 08:44 AM
Dirty politics? RATS!

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 08:44 AM
Hey Clint, I wasn't one of those guys crying "it happened 24 years ago, let it go", but there is a problem here.

Find a decent American that has enough money to run for President AND a clean backgroung. I don't think it can be done. Too much inbred corruption in our aristocracy.

I think the process is broken. The only reason I support Bush is because Gore is the other option.

It's been YEARS since either candidate was a "good" choice, because REAL people can't run for president.


------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:45 AM
Titus:

Yup. I been saying it all along: wait until what goes around comes around. I couldn't have predicted it better. The hypocrits are screaming bloody murder!!!!

Apparently, Bush had his driver's liscense number changed in an attempt to cover this little nugget up. The dumbass actively tried to deceive the American public when he could have just said "by the way, back in '76 I had a problem and this is what has happened since..."

Can you say, 'self destruct'.

Whooohooo, an American Classic!!!!

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 08:48 AM
The dumbass actively tried to deceive the American public when he could have just said

LMFAO...And you defend Clinton?

Too funny.

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 08:50 AM
Clint: have you figured out, yet, the difference between a payroll deduction and income taxes or how to increase your paycheck w/o govt help?

Just checking...allways willing to help out.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:50 AM
Now I'm starting to understand why Bush's handlers are so terrified of spontenaity. You know, no live interviews, no comments to the press at events, no utterances beyond the chosen script. It's not just because the man is dumber than a learning disabled tree stump-- its because they don't know what the next question is going to be. They are TERRIFIED of the next question!!!

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 08:51 AM
This cracks me up!

This is a very "Big Deal", right Gaz. I mean, this is a VERY BIG DEAL! Mark, Pitt, this guy just CAN'T be president now! I mean, even though he "failed to kill anyone" (how am I doing Gaz), he must be a bad, bad man.

Wait, he isn't a Bronco, well nevermind then, it is not that "Big a deal".

xoxo~
BroncoFan
Smiling at the thought of both Griese, and the President in jail together.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 08:52 AM
I don't defend Clinton. I just point out the common ground to the hypocrits. Big difference.

I guess this means many of you will be changing your vote now. Perhaps Buchanan or somebody like that?

redbrian
11-03-2000, 08:54 AM
Titus,

30% of my income going towards various taxes is far too much, IMO. If that amount is fine with you, so be it.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 09:01 AM
Oh my gosh!!! Two Cheney DUIS!!!! Hopefully they both aren't into the Long Island Ice Teas when the missles fly...

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 09:01 AM
You expect your president to affect your state or local taxation or you payroll deductions? Hmm...sorry, dont think that's going to happen even with a good lib in there.

I guess since you confuse the difference a discussion about taxes is lost on you.

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> If the same, EXACT story was reported about Gore, you "Cons" would be all over it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know if I count as one of the "Cons," but yes I would be all over it if a story of this nature came out about Gore. ALL OVER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Bush has run a clean campaign. Despite the numerous acts of questionable legality and dubvious ethics embodied in the veep, Bush has limited his criticism to pointing out that Al Gore has been lying about his and Bush's social security plan. This despite pundits screaming for him to 'go for the jugular' and 'land the knockout punch' on Gore's obvious liabilities. I would be very disappointed if a 'leak' like this were connected to Bush's campaign [as apparently this one is going to be connected to the Gore campaign, although tangentially. . . Natch].

The local Fox news reporter who broke this, states that a delegate to the 200 Democrat convention mentioned this to her, then called her later to provide the reference number for the paper file. Materials were, at the same time faxes to numerous news outlets, though I don't think the source of that fax has been identified as yet.

Also, it seemed like someone was alluding to this [the DUI] possibly being a felony. the Kennebunkport police report this was a Class D Misdemeanor.


[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-03-2000).]

redbrian
11-03-2000, 09:09 AM
Gore and Bush have both promised tax cuts. They will either make good on their promises, or they're liars, IMO. Especailly Bush, considering that Congress won't be standing in his way at every turn.

Lurker Brett
11-03-2000, 09:09 AM
They just named the guy on the CBS radio news. He is a democratic activist.

redbrian
11-03-2000, 09:10 AM
The media will find any tidbit of information they can, and blow it WAAAAY out of proportion in an attempt to gain readers/viewers. I doubt that Gore had anything to do with the breaking of this story at all.

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 10:19 AM
Tax cuts are one thing. You keep confusing tax cuts with payroll deductions. I dont believe either of the two candidates called for payroll deduction decreases which would directly affect your 'paycheck'. You can decrease your payroll deductions w/o any legislation currently.

Oh and btw, only 30% is deducted from your check? Lucky you. Mine's like 45%.

Cannibal
11-03-2000, 10:27 AM
From what I hear, it came from a reporter in Maine who checked on it after hearing a courthouse rumor about it. I find it doubtful that Al Gore rolled out of bed one day and said, "Hmm, let's hit him with the DUI today." This is Bush's past, people are going to find things about him, and he'll get attacked. If he gets into office, it will continue as it would for Gore. The people on top are under a bigger microscope in this day and age of the media than they've ever been. I give Cheney credit for at least admitting to his when asked if he had been in trouble in the past before someone had to go drag it out of his past...

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 10:27 AM
Titus:

But wouldn't the withholding go down the same percentage as the actual taxes? I would think that due to the change in tax rates, the amount required to be taken out on a payroll cycle would also be less. Isn't this the case?



------------------
bk

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 10:28 AM
Here's an article on the 'issue' which happened in 1976.

Washinton Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001103/aponline095357_000.htm)

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 10:38 AM
Bkkcoh: True, but that's assuming a tax rate cut. Which is obviously more possible with Bush than Gore depending upon the makeup of the Congress/Senate.

Most of the 'cuts' I have heard about are 'targeted' credits and above the line items. (deductions that reduce your AGI)--examples would be the increase in the amount you can deduct for IRA contributions. Currently the max is 2000, Bush would try to up it to 4000.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 11:13 AM
From the Washington Post:

Tom Connolly, a Portland lawyer and Democratic activist who attended the Democratic National Convention, confirmed Friday to The Associated Press that he was the source of the report.

Connolly said someone who was in Biddeford District Court when Bush's 1976 case came up was alarmed that it had never been reported and alerted "a public figure" about the case. That person passed the word to Connolly, he said, though he would not name the public figure.

Connolly, who ran unsuccessfully for governor two years ago, said he had been talking about the case at the courthouse Thursday. He said he had confirmed Bush's arrest by obtaining a copy of the court docket which he gave to a local television reporter.

"It's not a dirty trick to tell the truth," Connolly said, maintaining that Bush should have made the case known a long time ago.

- - - - - - - -
No it's not. He's been on-the-wagon for 14 years. That's relevant. He has not broken any laws as an elected official. That's relevant. He has not lied to the American people as an elected official. That's relevant.

Talk about desperation tactics by the Democratic party... It's sickening...

WarPaint
11-03-2000, 11:18 AM
Boy a week ago most people were slamming Brian Griese for his DUI. It comes out that Bush did it and now it isn't a big deal. People want to hold Corey Dillon's past against him and use it as an excuse for KC not to sign him, but Bush's past indiscretions shouldn't be considered.

Clinton is a bad person and lacks moral convictions for having an affair, but yet the same standard doesn't apply to a presidential candidate who abused alcohol and cocaine.

I'm starting to see a trend here.

[This message has been edited by Chiefnj (edited 11-03-2000).]

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 11:19 AM
Look for Tom Connolly to be given an appointment in the Gore Administration if there is such a beast. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
bk

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 11:20 AM
Chiefnj: It's funny...after the previous two election cycles we were told this 'old' stuff didnt matter and that it was a witchhunt and dirty politics. Now it does matter?

You're right there is a trend here.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 11:22 AM
Oh Clint and DD, yes I guess a DUI is so much more serious than a rape... My gosh, where have I been living?!

Bush's DUI was as a private citizen. Clinton's rape occurred while as an elected official representing the state of Arkansas...

There is a big difference here... You guys just don't want to see it...<BR>

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 11:23 AM
Donkey Drew: Do you remember this post?

This is inexcusable behavior on Griese's behalf, but its amazing how the self righteous come out of the woodwork when a pro athlete shows a lapse in judgement. Let's not forget that Griese is still very young and very prone to the stupid mistakes that most young men make. He was probably one of 50 DUI arrests in the Denver metro area saturday night, and the only one to make the papers. That doesn't make it right, but lets not confuse this sort of lack of judgement with a character issue..

or this one?
I was pointing out that this is a common mistake among the 20 something set, and that by itself, it isn't indicative of some sort of character problem.

Can you say hypocrisy?

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 11-03-2000).]

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
Boy a week ago most people were slamming Brian Griese for his DUI. It comes out that Bush did it and now it isn't a big deal. People want to hold Corey Dillon's past against him and use it as an excuse for KC not to sign him, but if something is in the past regarding Bush, it shouldn't be considered <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope my fellow republicans will agree with me with this statement:

It happened 24 years ago, not 24 hours ago. Last I knew alcohol was a legal drug at the time, Clinton and Gore smokin' pot was against the law to possess it much less to smoke it. I think it is incredible the free pass Clinton or Gore for smoking pot from the liberals. But I guess that is to be expected because of the stand a lot of liberals have with the 'legalization of pot'.

True, it was a horrible lapse of judgement, but didn't the lib's say something to the effect of: 'It was a youthful indescression' or 'He hasn't done it since then'.

Doesn't this truely show how desperate the Gore camp is?



------------------
bk

htismaqe
11-03-2000, 11:33 AM
Clint, Drew, nj,

You state that you can't see the difference between this and the stench that has come from the Clinton Administration and the Liberals that have supported it.

OK, I'll take you at your word. I'll assume that you really can't understand the difference, but rest assured, most of the American people can. You will see that in five days.

And when this does become obvious, I hope you will all take pause and ask yourself, "what is it that everyone else knows that I don't?"

On this BB there are a number of people that we can all learn from their great insight, there are others that don't have a clue ~ but will 'loudly' talk anyway.

Luz
perhaps you need to reevaluate who's who...

<BR>

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 11:35 AM
Luz,

I think the majority of the people will see this for what is is really a political ploy to win the white house. Like I said before, the Gore team is desperate.

------------------
bk

BigMeatballDave
11-03-2000, 11:36 AM
Luzap...........AMEN

------------------
Chiefs Rock

sun
11-03-2000, 11:55 AM
Coming from a Bush voter/Independant (not a Republican), I don't think Gore is behind this.

I will say this, I would rather vote for someone who got a DUI over 2 decades ago, than for a man who has been lying to the American people, himself, his family, etc. during his whole campaign.

------------------
TWB

Baby Lee
11-03-2000, 11:59 AM
It's late in the 4th quarter for Gore and he's behind. He's starting to throw Hail Mary's. He's desperate

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 12:14 PM
Let's just hope GW doesn't pull a CS.... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif<P>

redshirt32
11-03-2000, 12:15 PM
BroncoFan:

"This is a very "Big Deal", right Gaz. I mean, this is a VERY BIG DEAL! Mark, Pitt, this guy just CAN'T be president now!"

Once again your mouth starts yapping WAY before you brain engages. Do you ANYWHERE see where I have condoned this behaviour by Bush?NO YOU DON'T !!!.
And you won't either. I have a little less respect for Bush today knowing that he did that.

Now onto the bait you laid out here hoping that I would exhibit a double standard. Nowhere did I say that Greise should be kept from plying his trade, just that, although you consider it "nothing" that he was caught but didn't kill anyone, I consider it a little more deserving of something more than a "ho-hum".

Keep your pitiful attempts to fish to yourself.

mmaddog
***********

redbrian
11-03-2000, 12:15 PM
Jeez, if you conservatives are so condescending now, it'll be incredible around here if Bush wins the election.

diz
11-03-2000, 12:17 PM
bkkcoh - re#65 - I just want to add to this running record that Bush admits to using cocaine when he was young. I'm not saying one drug is worse than the other and I'm also not saying that one candidate is worse than the other. You just might want to rethink that post. Both men have made mistakes with illicit drugs in the past and both men still have support from their political brethren.

I'm gonna go try to stand in a neutral corner now...

alanm
11-03-2000, 12:38 PM
BroncoFan-

Yep, it was a big deal, just like any Dick is a big deal. He should be ashamed that he was Dick. The same criteria obtains whether Dick is a Broncos QB, a Presidential candidate or a once and future Engineer.

Did you expect that I would suddenly reverse my stand on drunk driving because I find out that a politician was Dick over two decades ago? Sorry, BF, my moral foundation is more solid than that.

I still consider Bush the lesser of two evils. A 24-year old Dick episode doesn't change that.

xoxo~
gaz
Dick for a Day about 28 years ago.<BR>

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 12:43 PM
There are absolutely no facts to support a charge of cocaine use. No corraborating testimony from any of his friends who would have known. Nothing. Nada.

This was, again, a rumor started by the Democratic party, not based on facts, to scorch and burn the Bush camp. The only "witness" was a convicted drug dealer, sitting in jail, with a reputation for being "loose" with the truth...

Now why would a convicted drug dealer cooperate? Hmmmm.... I can think of lots of reasons...

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> Bush admits to using cocaine when he was young. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Three words for you Disco - SHOW ME WHERE.

Bush has consistently refused to confirm or deny any drug use other than alcohol at any point in his life. Positions of issues of governance aside, I applaud this tact as possibly the only way to wean the media of its bloodthirsty quest for drama in a political campaign. You can believe that his refusal to answer is an admission. You can believe it is a principled stand. But you cannot know anything.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-03-2000).]

TCB
11-03-2000, 12:46 PM
Only shallow and hateful people will make an issue of this OUI thing. I feel sorry for George Bush that he has to deal with this so close to Election day.

One thing I do find interesting is that in '94 Ross Perot endorsed Ann Richards(D) for Governor of Texas. I suppose Ross wants GWB for President so he can keep a few million in his pocket come tax day.

------------------
C.R. Pants
(The Resident Liberal)

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 12:52 PM
Here are my predictions for the Chiefs and the election:

- Chiefs romp Raiders (40-21)
- Bush stampedes to White House (300 Electoral votes)

The reasoning?
The Chiefs are motivated, baby!
The polls, depending on the wording of the questions, do NOT reflect the likely voter turnout, but are being used to make the race closer than it actually is...<BR>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 12:58 PM
Titus:

Sorry, but your missing my point. I don't give a damn about Bush's DUI. In fact, I think its silly BS that its even being brought up. If you can't be forgiven for your mistakes, what the hell is the use of even trying to self improve?

I just love the hypocrisy. The Republicans set the precedent for this sort of irrelevance with Dukakis and continued on through Clinton. Now, the worm turns and they're all screaming bloody murder. The thing is, if its relevant to some of you when a Democrat shows a lack of judgement, why not when one of your beloved Republicans does the same?

Thats my point.

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-03-2000).]

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:03 PM
No, didnt miss the point. Thanks, however, for proving mine.

It's obvious you love hypocrisy, you practice it nicely.

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 11-03-2000).]

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:05 PM
I still think it's funny that it was the Republican witchhunt, and not Clinton's blatant disregard for the law, that is at issue in this hypocrisy debate.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> One thing I do find interesting is that in '94 Ross Perot endorsed Ann Richards(D) for Governor of Texas. I suppose Ross wants GWB for President so he can keep a few million in his pocket come tax day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, this WAS one of the most interesting parts of the interview. Pee-row said he endorsed Ann Richards because he had the same questions of experience and ability regarding Bush that some are having now on a national level. He though Ann's job experience gave her an edge. However, in the past 6 years, Ross has observed that Bush has done a much better job than he imagined Bush could. More enticing for Ross, was that Bush accomplished his success in government in much the same way Ross did in the private sector, by admitting that he cannot be the smartest guy in the room on every issue and finding, placed, and trusting competent and principled advisors from a broad range of backgrounds and expertise.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:08 PM
Titus:

You are an absolute kick in the rear!!!

By the way, are you changing your vote now?

diz
11-03-2000, 01:13 PM
Thanks to all who have replied to my post re Bush and the coke. I don't remember EXACTLY where I first read about it, and it was quite a long time ago (towards the beginning of this whole campaign deal), but I will try to do some research and see what I find one way or the other. If he didn't do it, I will have more respect for him. If he did do it and admitted it, I will have more respect for him. Now, if he did do it, but hasn't admitted it, I don't think any conclusion can be drawn - I don't even know how anyone could truely know. Fair enough?

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:15 PM
Thanks. Why would I change my vote?

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> Ha!!!! I just saw another DUI arrest report for Austin, Texas!!! Same year!!! W. got the Duece!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only mention of Austin is as below;
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> The Dallas Morning News on Friday reported that Bush was called for jury service in a 1996 drunken driving case in Austin, but was dismissed from the panel before potential jurors were questioned about their histories of drinking and driving. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Donkeyboy - admit you can't read, or admit you're lying, or SHOW US something different to corroborate your childish snarking.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:25 PM
Titus:

All these character issues. The man wasn't forthright about his past. He snorted cocaine!!! He made a $1,000,000 on a stock deal one week before the company announced unexpected poor earnings, and the stock dove!!! He's been using verbal trickery to exaggerate his record in Texas!!!

The guy doesn't have anymore character than Clinton. Why doesn't the standard apply across the board?<P>

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:27 PM
Drew: but you convinced me earlier that Clinton's character didnt matter so I assume, like you say, the standard applies to Bush as well.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:28 PM
JC Johnny:

But somebody told me that the Austin thing was true. Geez, its gotta be because I want to believe it...sort of like the Clinton rape allegations and the Clinton drug allegations and the Clinton murder allegation. I mean, thats how it works right-- if somebody, anybody makes the claim, why it must be true?

Am I missing something here?

Lurker Brett
11-03-2000, 01:28 PM
I'm getting dizzy. Better have another beer.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:29 PM
Titus:

In my case, it is true. I wouldn't hold any of it against W. But what of all these people that used to say character WAS an issue? Why the backtracking now.

See my point?

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:29 PM
TIME OUT! EVERYONE GO TO YOUR CORNERS AND DRINK A PITCHER OF BEER!!!! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:31 PM
mmmm...beer...I am working up quite a thirst talking all this politics stuff.

Drew: first one's on me.

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 01:31 PM
Cut the crap Donkey. you didn't say, someone told me something was true. YOU SAID - - I SAW THE ARREST REPORT.

Tell ya' what. This BB accepts HTML. Run that arrest report through your scanner and post that baby RIGHT HERE!!

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:32 PM
It wasn't just "anybody" that brought up the Clinton rape charge. It was 2 Arkansas state troopers. And it was recorded.

Clinton's criminal past is well documented, and despite the witchhunt, the majority of Americans just don't care.

It's too bad really, because many people that have no ties to the Republicans whatsoever would agree that Clinton is one of the sneakiest, crookedest presidents ever.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:36 PM
No, I just saw somebody claiming there was a second arrest and decided to believe him for sh!ts and giggles and to prove a point. I can no more PROVE that Bush had a second DUI than you can PROVE that Clinton raped or killed anybody. Kind of annoying, isn't it?

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:39 PM
Oh you mean the time that Clinton killed Vince Foster? Everyone knows he was behind that. -- Im kidding.

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 11-03-2000).]

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:46 PM
I just heard that Clinton had an affair with a young intern and then blamed a vast right wing conspiracy and bombed an aspirin factory to show he was still in charge!<BR>

ansonsdad
11-03-2000, 01:47 PM
Yea everyone knows Bill is a freaking saint. There have been people dropping dead all around that guy ever since he has been in office. I am sure it is all just a huge coincidence.

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 01:48 PM
Big Daddy,

We have been over that before... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

It's a flamer...

------------------
bk

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:49 PM
I guess there's no need to address the fact that the people that first reported the "rape" incident, as well as many other incidents while Bill was governor, were ARKANSAS STATE TROOPERS?

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 01:49 PM
oops...

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 11-03-2000).]

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 01:50 PM
Oh I see. Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you pull the old switcheroo by distorting what you think "someone like me" might say. I have never posted, here or anywhere, regarding the rape allegations or the Vince Foster suicide. I hold those matters to the same level of scrutiny I hold you.

That said, there is a qualitative difference between hearing the allegations of another and finding them sufficiently credible to warrant attention and stating you have proof positive of an allegation you overheard somewhere. Those who discuss the rape allegations say, "I believe her," or "I believe he is capable of that," or it "fits a pattern." They don't blast on here with
"HAAA!! I just watched a tape of Clinton f*^&king some chick who was tied to a bed and screaming."

Then later say they were 'just trying to make a point.'

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 01:50 PM
Titus,

Actually that was what I was talking about...

------------------
bk

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 01:56 PM
Johnny:

Spin it as you like. Anybody with an ounce of objectivity will see my point.

As for the Arkansas State Trooper allegations against Clinton, NONE of us have ever heard of a saintly cop stretching the truth. Why, it just doesn't happen.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 01:59 PM
Now Drew's the bastion of objectivity? HAHA

That explains why your such an ardent backer of Clinton. You have about as much respect for the law as Clinton.

And, no I've never known a cop to stretch the truth, cops and presidents don't do that...

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 02:02 PM
And just what is your point? That its OK to lie, then when you get caught point your finger at those who hold you to the truth?


Wonder where you learned that.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 02:03 PM
Drew,

As champion of objectivity and smiter of hypocrisy, I find it odd that you choose to refute my statement by calling the state troopers liars, instead of presenting evidence to vindicate Clinton.

Obviously, you can't because it doesn't exist. I suggest that you stop calling people hypocrites at this juncture, unless you would like to continue to look like an idiot.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

Devin Vierth
11-03-2000, 02:03 PM
Cops and Presidents should be held to a higher standard.

Even if you take a look at Clinton's behavior in the ****e House, it has been dispicable......

ansonsdad
11-03-2000, 02:07 PM
Donkey,
Tell me that you are not truely trying to defend this position. It is amazing that everyone around this guy is lying about him. How can you possibly defend a chronic liar?.

htismaqe
11-03-2000, 02:08 PM
It's obvious to me why Drew defends the dishonesty we've seen from the White House/Gore campaign; he's one of them.

By that I mean he apparently shares the same moral values and ethics.

Drew, if I am mischaracterizing you I am sorry, but I am left with no other conclusion. You are welcome to correct me by stating exactly what specific lack of ethics Gore has that you don't.

Luz
or do you claim that Gore has no ethical problems???...<BR>

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 02:09 PM
Another reliable source told me that:
- the aspirin factory was full of mean-spirited Republicans
- and that Osama Bin Laden was recruited by the RNC to put Clinton in a compromising position!

Wow... I didn't know it was so bad...

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 02:16 PM
Again, I'm left to ask: Why is it okay to say whatever you like about Clinton, but a reflection of substandard liberal morals to say whatever I like about Bush? I'm pretty comfortable that I'm safely on the proper side of hypocrisy here.

P.S. I don't know how many times I have to say that I'm not a Clinton supporter. I tend to favor Democrats, but Clinton lost me with the "I did not have sex with that woman..." statement. I'm simply playing a little Devil's Advocate here.

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 02:16 PM
Luz - you're not wrong. He said he saw an arrest sheet for a second DUI. I asked Donkey to admit he had read it wrong, admit he was lying, or prove it.

He then said he'd HEARD someone talking about another arrest and decided to say he SAW an arrest sheet to prove a point.

You decide which of the three he chose.

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 02:18 PM
Htis:

How do you prove a guy innocent of something when there isn't even the slightest evidence of guilt? Isn't the lack of proof of his guilt enough to prove his innocence?

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 02:20 PM
Cmon Drew, yesterday you were going on and on about the 'politics of destruction' and how bad the Republicans were for doing this.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you seem to condone it or revel in it. That's hypocrisy.

Gracie Dean
11-03-2000, 02:21 PM
Go through the archives Donkey. Anything I've ever said about any candidate has either been completely, without question, backed up by the facts, or clearly an expression of my opinion.

Matter of fact, I have posted on numerous occasions that there are enough negative aspects to Clinton/Gore that are clear and established to render speculation frivolous.

ansonsdad
11-03-2000, 02:22 PM
Donkey,
You should change your animal association to sheeple. You just continue down the road the AP has pointed you mocking those of us that question what we are being told. Even my freinds that are Demos are ashamed of what this administration has done to their party. Most of them also believe that there have been way too many coincidental suicides and timely deaths surrounding this guy to even attempt to defend him.

BIG DADDY
Finds it hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone with no ability to grasp of the obvious.

ansonsdad
11-03-2000, 02:29 PM
Donkey,
No it is not proof of his innocence you freak. How many of us, if we had to answer the same allegations would be able to select our own Attorney General to pursue the evidence?. Hello

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 02:30 PM
Titus:

Again, you're missing my point. I am not championing the release of this DUI stuff. I'm not changing my opinion on Bush. If Bush wasn't such an idiot, I'd think about voting for him because his politics aren't all that offensive.

I'm just enjoying all the whining about this DUI disclosure. In 1988, Republican candidate George Bush Sr. found himself 18 points down after the conventions. He had an adviser named Lee Atwater that convinced him to distract the people from the issues at hand and try to destroy his opponents character and image. I'll remind you that Micheal Dukakis had none of the stigma attached to Clinton. His only crime was being from the other party. Atwater's strategy, which included attacking Dukakis' wife and brother, won Bush Sr. the Whitehouse.

Republican strategists, so enamored with these tactics, carried them over to the next presidential election. They weren't nearly as successful, but nobody cared. For eight years, they conducted a witchhunt of gargantuin proportions. Now, the Democrats leak one little thing, and all the poor GOPers are crying about dirty tactics. That is HYPOCRISY.

Thats my point.

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 02:33 PM
Drew: Im NOT missing your point. You decry politics of destruction and then when the part you favor does it, you enjoy it.

THAT's hypocrisy.

As far as 'one little thing', the media has dogged Bush with all sorts of stuff.

Might I remind you it wasnt Bush, Sr. that beat Dukakis, rather it was that dumba$$ tank ride with Dukakis wearing that helmet that was so funny, no one could take that man seriously anymore.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 02:34 PM
A huge difference, DD, which you refuse to dwell upon... Bush was a private citizen at the time of the offense... Clinton was not...

But I'm sure reveling in releasing info on a private citizen is more important to you than condemning the corruption of a public official...

CarolinaChief
11-03-2000, 02:37 PM
Thank you, fly. It really is that simple.

------------------
GO PITT!

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 02:41 PM
Titus:

I think you're misreading my glee. I actually think its pretty pathetic that Bush even has to answer questions about a mistake he made when he was thirty. I don't condone these tactics in the least bit. What I'm enjoying is watching all the rationalization and backtracking on this board and on the DPO board. It disgusts me, for example, that both Clinton and Bush avoided Vietnam via the National Guard, but that republicans, with a straight face, call Clinton a draft dodger. It disgusts me that Bush made a $1,000,000 on a questionable stock transaction and all the same people that went after Hillary about her commodities trades aren't raising a ruckus. It disgusts me that Clinton gets abused for not being forthright on his Marijuana use but Bush gets a free ride for his Cocaine use.

I'm just wallowing in the hypocrisy like a pig in a mud flat.

TCB
11-03-2000, 02:44 PM
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif
This thread is a perfect example of why politics can get so ugly. People tend to focus on PERSONAL problems and rumors conjured up in the press (newspapers & magazines)and talk show topics while the issues get ignored.

When you look at the core stances on the issues of the Democratic and Republican parties there's really no comparing the two. Therefore its futile to waste keystrokes on "I, the Democrat" or "I, the Republican, am right because . . ."

The only people we should call an idiot or a misinformed person is one who doesn't back their opinion with a trip to the ballot box.

damn Chief Red Pants . . . blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah . . . don't you ever say something worth while?

((really wants this election past us))

------------------
C.R. Pants
(The Resident Liberal)

Raiderhader
11-03-2000, 02:50 PM
Drew: you're right, you are wallowing in hypocrisy. Sorry to say, it's making you look silly.

I dont see anyone one here with the possible exception of the title post bemoaning this. I think it's quite funny that the moral, upright and 'above the fray' dems have resorted to 'nasty' campaigning and the politics of destruction to try to win this race.--something you abhor, but seem to revel in.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 02:54 PM
It's hard to argue with someone who obviously can't admit the obvious. I choose to get my news from sources that are a little more genuine than Dan Rather.

For that reason, I can no longer continue this debate. It's impossible to teach insects the same tricks that dogs can learn. In the same spirit, it's hard to impress the ability of human reason on a sheep.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 02:56 PM
Actually, what I revel in is definitive proof that most of the members of one of our major political parties have two sets of standards: the ones they live by and the ones the enemy should live by. I think any American with an IQ above 80 now understand that most republican pundits have the same credibility O.J. Simpson has.

Thats what I revel in.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 03:00 PM
DD, you are right. There are two sets of standards. One for Dems where no wrong is bad because you are so right on the issues; and one for Repubs where they are always wrong on the issues and any other wrong is just further proof of how 'bad' they are...

If Clinton had been a Republican with a Democratic Congress would he have survived impeachment? Not on your life!

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 03:02 PM
Drew,

You're starting to sound like a raving lunatic. You'd better stop now, lest you get dragged away by the "white coats".

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 03:06 PM
Fly:

Your attempts to drag me into the slime pool with the Republicans would be relevant except for one minor detail: I don't claim to make voting decisions based on character. Most Republicans do unless said flaws are pinned to one of their guys. When that happens, they just go the 'yeah, but..' route and pretend that its different.

Newsflash: It ain't.

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 03:17 PM
I'm too lazy to drag you into the "slime pool" since that would mean we'd have to drag you out of that 14' hole you've dug for yourself. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

chiefsnathan
11-03-2000, 03:19 PM
I take it you don't agree that Bush is getting a free ride on all sorts of stuff that Clinton got hammered for?

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 03:24 PM
I've said it before, and on this one thing, I agree with you -- I don't vote based on character.

I'm voting for Bush because 1) I feel that it will help ease my tax burden, and 2) because there's no way I could vote for Gore.

The problem I have with Clinton goes way beyond a DUI here or smoking pot or whatever. I didn't really care if they impeached him or not. I don't care that he's the president. I have a problem with Clinton the MAN. I realize that you would consider all of these things unsubstantiated, but I don't watch Tom Brokaw, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I get my news from what I consider to be neutral sources, and from those sources I've gathered that Clinton is 1) in bed with the Chinese 2) a possible rapist and murderer and 3) a habitual liar that will do anything to get what he wants.

I just don't like the guy, and I see that same smug smile on Al Gore's face everytime he talks.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator

[This message has been edited by htismaqe (edited 11-03-2000).]

AustinChief
11-03-2000, 03:38 PM
DD, exactly what events or actions has Bush gotten a free ride that Clinton did not?

Did Bush lie under oath? Commit crimes while in office? Cheat on his wife? Sell access to the Chinese?

Please name the exact same events Bush has done as Clinton. I can't find them...<BR>

KCWolfman
11-03-2000, 06:13 PM
This is ridiculous, Clinton lies under oath, lies to the American people (you and me), sells our secrets to Red China, raped a woman, and helped cover up a double murder of two kids who accidentally discovered his drug operation in Arkansas. The press makes excusses for him say that it's not that big a deal Blah blah blah. Oh yeah, lets not forget White Water, and draft dodging. There are others I could name. Now that it is discovered that Bush was arressted 24 years ago for DUI the press is trying to imply that maybe he is not fit to be president (not like they weren't anyways). There is a clear double standard for liberals and Conservatives, and it is sickening. Watch for the Dominant Left Wing Media to try some underhanded tactics this weekend, such as doing features on alchaholics. They won't even have to talk about Bush, they will just bring up people who used to be alchaholics then got sober and sooner or later they found themselves in a job with lots of pressure and started drinking again. Don't be fooled by it because they are trying to plant the notion in your mind doubt about Bush. Bush hasn't taken a drink in 14 years and has held the stressful job of being govenor of the second biggest state in the Union for 6 of those years. The man has admitted what he had done and at the time that it happend he did not try to use his family name to try and get out of it. Instead he asked the officer what he had to do and accepted punishment like a man. Wich is a whole lot more than you can say for Slick Willie and Algore!

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

KCWolfman
11-03-2000, 06:40 PM
Another thing, this is part of an October surprise. That's right "part". The Domocrats are facing something that none of them have faced in thier lifetimes, total control of all thee branches of government by republicans. They are not going to sit idly by and leave this campaing to chance. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Beware of more to come all the way through Tuesday.

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

The 12th Man
11-03-2000, 08:07 PM
(Damn, despite my own objections, I let myself get sucked into a political thread) Whoa, now! I'd been lurking around here for quite some time when I came across some facts that I had never heard before. Can someone tell me when Clinton was convicted of rape, drug smuggling, and possession? That stuff sounds pretty serious. How did they ever let him run for Pres having a rap sheet like that?

TFM
*Gore and Bush make me want to Ralph!

htismaqe
11-03-2000, 08:26 PM
TeenagerFromMars,

Welcome to the BB and we hope you'll join in often.

Clinton has obviously never been convicted of those things.

There are many people that believe he is guilty of them however, because of the other things he is guilty of (proven).

He lied under oath. He lied to the American people (not dodged the question or preveracated ~ lied). He denied a citizen her right to a fair trial (and thereby broke the oath of his office). He on numerous occasions lied to Congressmen.

The above are just some of the admitted and proven facts.

Would you trust this man?

Luz
this isn't rocket science...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 11-03-2000).]

The 12th Man
11-03-2000, 09:52 PM
Luz,

Thanks for the welcome. I can't promise to post very often, I just feel compelled to chime in when I think things are getting out of hand.

Unfortunately, lying to the people is not a sufficient ground for being ousted from office in Washington. (I wonder, do these politicians deal with "national security" THAT much?!) I hope Clinton is punished for lying under oath after his term is up.

I also hope that, in the future, civil lawsuits aren't allowed to take the government and media hostage as it was with the Jones case. If I'm not mistaken, the perjury charge came out of testimony during the Jones case (which was civil). If this is the precedent, our government is worse off than I thought...

TFM
*Watch out GW, paybacks are hell!

htismaqe
11-04-2000, 08:52 AM
TFM,

I look forward to having many enjoyable conversations with you.

The question of whether a sitting President should be immune from civil suite while in office is a valid one to debate, however, the issue of Clinton's innocence is not open.

He is proven guilty. And that is good reason to believe that he could very well be guilty of many other things that haven't yet been proven.

Only a fool would give him the same benefit of the doubt that you'd give someone who's never lied under oath.

Luz
pretty basic...

TCB
11-04-2000, 09:41 AM
this campaign would have been a perfect time for the so-called Liberal media to show its true colors . . . and yet I don't see it.

Seem to me this Liberal media is anything that doesn't enlighten you like Rush does.

While I'm here . . . would one of you kind Clinton/Gore haters please send me a transcript of the speech where Al said he invented the internet? Can't to wait to see that.

Thanks Friends


------------------
C.R. Pants
(The Resident Liberal)

htismaqe
11-04-2000, 11:06 AM
CRP,

I would much rather send you a link to Gore's saying he didn't know the Buddist Temple event was a Fundraiser...

or that there was no controlling authority over his making campaign fundraising calls from his office (even though it's illegal)...

or that Bill Clinton is the greatest President in the history of this country (on the day of the Impeachment and the governments bombing of an asparin factory)...

Again, this isn't rocket science. Only a fool would continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Luz
if someone repeatedly lies to you, it's usually because he's a lier...
if someone repeatedly breaks the law, it's probably because he's a criminal (and a lier)...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 11-04-2000).]

sun
11-04-2000, 11:13 AM
CRP

I am a Gore "hater" and I bought the whole "I invented the internet story." I saw the speech and his words were misinterpreted. I will agree with you all there.

I also saw the speech when he compared the medication cost with his dog's. There was no misinterpretation for that.

I also saw him apologize during the debate for misleading people on some of his statements.

I also couldn't have cared less when the story of Clinton smoking pot came out. I voted against him for other reasons. I don't judge people on what they did long ago. God knows if people judged me on my faults years ago, I would be a lonely person.

The internet story is all played out, find a new one. And for you to say the media is "SO CALLED" LIBERAL is an insult to the public's intelligents. If you can't see that then you are blind to reality.

------------------
TWB

htismaqe
11-04-2000, 11:16 AM
Luz
well said 47...

Chieffan
11-04-2000, 08:11 PM
TFM -- how can you say perjury is not grounds for removal? Its a felony under state and federal statue. We fought a whole Civil War over "states rights". We had riots and peace marches and students escorted by troops over "civil rights" in the 50's and 60's. We have a presidental oath of office that says "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" as a duty of that office. He denies the "civil rights" of a woman in a federal case by giving false and misleading statements to a federal court. He has at least violated his oath of office and that is grounds for removal