View Full Version : Al Gore is a Biblical Genius

08-24-2000, 06:35 PM
When Al announced the selection of Joe Lieberman, he admits that Joe started quoting a verse from the Bible, and then Al finished the quote.

Al states, "It was a verse of thanksgiving. I think from the book of Prophets or Psalms, from the old testament." Quote from August 21st issue of Newsweek.

Al is playing the media like a harp. If Dan Quayle had made this statement a decade ago, the press would have had a field day.

Let's rip this statement apart:

#1. Yes, Al, it is a quote from the Old Testament. Since Joe is Jewish he studies only the first five books of the Bible - known as the Pentateuch. Good guess, Mr. Genius. For someone that can quote scripture, you don't seem very well versed, pun intended, in the scripture's structure.

#2. Psalms is not in the Pentatuech, so I sincerely doubt that Joe was quoting that particular book.

#3. The Prophets is not a book in the Bible, per se. There are several prophets studied by the Jewish faith, but no book with that particular name in the Bible. Perhaps you meant "Proverbs", but if so you are still wrong.

Al, if you are going to construct loving Christian moments for the media with your wife and running mate, at least do ALL of your homework.

Puttin' on my game face!

08-24-2000, 06:54 PM
You're absolutely right about the media, Russ. They'll sugarcoat or ignore every assinine statement this guy ever makes.

I guess Al was too busy inventing the internet to study up on his scripture.

I must confess my level of biblical knowledge is probably about as lame as Al's - I could probably quote the 23rd Psalm and know most of the Commandments, but that's about it. Of course, not being a lying weasel, I'll admit to MY lack of knowledge.

Too bad we can't defect from the media....

08-24-2000, 06:56 PM
Meanwhile Russ, the press is ripping George W over every single slip up, ala Dan Quayle. As a famous radio personality recently said, the press isn't even trying to prented to be fair.

(Uh-oh, is this thread going to get us in trouble?) http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif<BR>

F. Gump
08-24-2000, 07:06 PM
rush nailed it.........the press wants algore so bad they are willing to let anything he says slip and will rip GWB for any small slip.......its a sad state of affairs......

go george go

08-24-2000, 07:09 PM
That and the contrived kiss is enough to sicken me.

08-24-2000, 07:43 PM
<img src=http://members.tripod.com/~starsportscards/smiledevil_16427.gif>
Al Gore???

08-24-2000, 07:46 PM
More sickening than the kiss was the number of women who called in and said they are supporting Algore on the basis of that contrived kiss. I found it quite disturbing actually. I mean if Algore is your guy, fine, it's a free country. But to support him because of a kiss that was quite possibly and probably staged?

08-24-2000, 07:54 PM
gh - The crew that was present for the kiss, were the same ones that took the 'totally unrehearsed' http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif picture of the dance in the moonlight between Bill and Hillary on the beach a few years ago.... The dance occurred around the same time Bill was getting hummed under the oval office desk.

How coincidental.

[This message has been edited by KCWolfman (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 08:02 PM
LOL Russ!<P>

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:03 PM
So Gore doesn't know the Bible. Big Deal IMO! I am not voting for an elected official based on his/her knowledge of the bible.

At least he didn't fail a political quiz about foreign leaders like your man Bush did.

And that is scary considering the man has already stated that he opposes a nuclear test ban treaty. He wants to let anyone and everyone test nuclear weapons and he doesn’t even KNOW or care who does it.

If he does get in, I hope the man chooses a great cabinet. He’s gonna need the help. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/redface.gif


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 08:05 PM
Cannibal - George W. never pretended to know world leaders. He didn't have his press monkeys make up a lie about world leaders, and he chose a running mate to make up for that deficit.

Gore lied about this (obviously) and didn't even lie well....

Again, if this was Dan Quayle, do you believe the press would have let him off the hook with the faux pas?

08-24-2000, 08:07 PM
Cannibal - BTW, those limited bans didn't stop the East Indians or the Pakistani's from testing. Nor did it stop Hussein's exploration and attempt to build them as well.

What is the purpose of the ban and how do you enforce it?


08-24-2000, 08:09 PM
I don't think it's the fact that Algore made the goof about the bible that is the point Jeff. It's the fact that he can do it, and it's no big deal, but let Bush do the same thing, make some kind of silly gaffe that is, and the press is all over it, questioning his intelligence.

If someone's intelligence is going to be questioned because they occasionally mispeak, then I'd venture to say we're all morons, because it happens to all of us.

08-24-2000, 08:10 PM
GH - It was more than a goof, it was an out and out lie, and the press deliberately overlooked it.<BR>

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:11 PM
The man is probably going to be president of the United States of America. He SHOULD know the names of the World Leaders that he's going to be dealing with. I guess he's going to wait and get on the job training from his cabinet.

Maybe his father can teach him a thing or two about blowing chunks all over those world leaders when he meets them. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif<BR>

08-24-2000, 08:12 PM
Oh I was referring to your original post. I thought he just piped up and said something stupid, a gaffe as I said. Maybe I misunderstood.

08-24-2000, 08:13 PM
That political quiz crap is getting old. If Gore had been ambushed with a similar test and bombed on it, guess what - YOU'D NEVER HAVE HEARD A WORD ABOUT IT. GW's failings get plastered on every newscast and headline in the country - Al's get swept under the rug.

And do you really think Gore would have faired any better on that quiz it he'd been asked those questions out of the blue?

08-24-2000, 08:13 PM
LOL Jeff, there's actually a couple of world leaders he should blow chunks on.

08-24-2000, 08:15 PM
Cannibal - You still avoided the obvious question. Did Al not commit a huge stupid mistake? And if a Republican made the same mistake wouldn't he be roasted by the press?

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:17 PM
Yes I do think Gore would fair better if given a political quiz out of the blue like that.

I also think Gore will destroy Bush in the upcoming debates.

When are the debates BTW? They are going to make interesting conversation on the BB.

08-24-2000, 08:19 PM
Another Al Gore story:

The first year of his vice-presidential reign, Gore presides over a dinner for the big pork producers in the U.S. He finishes his meal and starts his speech, "This was one of the best pork cutlets I have ever had."

The dinner made for AL was Chicken Marsala.

Again, if any Elephant made that mistake it would have been AT LEAST a human interest blurb in the nightly news and more likely a headline story. As it was it appeared on page 6 of the Louisville Courier Journal (I lived in So. Indiana at the time) and never made national coverage.

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:19 PM
No, I don't think he made "a huge stupid mistake". But that's my opinion.

I am actually glad he's not a bible thumper.

08-24-2000, 08:22 PM
George W's two greatest accomplishments to date:

1. No longer abusing cocaine.
2. No longer abusing alcohol.

I can't wait to see what is next. And people gave Clinton a hard time about trying weed, a lot less dangerous than snorting the devil's dandruff. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

08-24-2000, 08:23 PM
Cannible - So instead of voting for the guy who blew chunks on the japanese(?) you are going to vote for the guy that blew the chinese for money, interesting choice.

Which is illegal and by his own email he admits that he knew what he was there for.

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:28 PM
I don't like that aspect of Gore admittedly.

But it's akin to Bush getting his palms greased by oil company money since his early thirties. <BR>

08-24-2000, 08:28 PM
Perception: Gore hates big oil companies and will not allow them to push the country around.

Fact: Time magazine writes, "...[Al Gore] helps control up to $500,000 worth of Oxy stock inherited from his father Al Gore Sr., a longtime Occidental board member."<P>

08-24-2000, 08:30 PM
Cannibal - You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You don't want Gore to be a "Bible thumper" so badly that you praise him although he lied about quoting the Bible and he is willing to bed with an admitted religious man as his V.P.

08-24-2000, 08:31 PM
Give me a "Bible Thumper" over a liar and soul-seller anyday.

08-24-2000, 08:32 PM
Perception : Gore is for the "average Joe"

Fact: ...allegations leveled by a family that rents from Al Gore and lives within sight of Gore’s house in Carthage, Tennessee. The story broke into print that Tracy Mayberry complained to the local CBS affiliate that Gore and his property managers haven’t responded to months of complaints about their broken toilets and other household collapses. In fact, they threatened to evict the family, which lives on Social Security disability payments.

From Time’s "Winners & Losers"

How can the man find a World Leader if he can't even find one plumber in the entire state of Tennessee?

08-24-2000, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
But it's akin to Bush getting his palms greased by oil company money since his early thirties.

Oh, so being bought by former and potential future enemies is similar to selling out to a domestic oil company.... I get it.

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 08-24-2000).]

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 08:36 PM
Want to breath our air here in Houston? I don't think so. I can thank Bush for all the smog here and I do every time there is a smog alert. It didn't used to be this way bit things changed once he was voted into office. Since he's been the govener here, our air quality is as bad as LA's. He's not around to breath the stuff. He was here a few weeks ago and decided not to jog at Memorial Park. Wise decision George!

08-24-2000, 08:37 PM
KPhobia - Cannibal is reading from a company line..... Gore has been deep with Occidental Oil before he was 18 years old. In fact he was involved in the eviction of a limited tribe in Colombia South America:

"The indigenous U'wa people of the cloud forest of Columbia have courageously resisted invasion of their ancestral land by
Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum, a company that Al Gore has a stake in."

Unfortunately, Al and Company got enough money circulated to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs in Colombia that he had the entire tribe evicted.

08-24-2000, 08:40 PM
KC Fan - Do you really believe those scathing ads? Funny how Al is already slinging mud. So how did George W single handedly raise the pollution factor in Houston?

First of all Houston was a dying city until the Republicans (supported by the local voting base) decided the only way to revive the city was to incorporate more business. It was a short term solution and it has it's problems. But in no way was it tied to George W. being a governor of the entire state.

If George is guilty of smogging up Houston, why aren't the other cities of TX suffering? After all, the state is not made up of one city.

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:44 PM
You’ve stated numerous times that you don’t trust/believe the “liberal” media, yet you post numerous quotes from them.

Then in a recent reply you say:

“Fact: allegations…”

Those two words don’t go together my friend they are incongruous.

I believe it is you that is cutting off his nose to spite his face.<BR>

08-24-2000, 08:44 PM
Texas Rankings Under George W.
(Comparison to the other 50 states)

Highest # of children living in poverty - 2
% of children with no health insurance - 1
% of population with no health insurance- 2
Teen birth rate - 5
Child support collection - 45
Teen drug use up 30%

Poor, pregnant, drug abusing teens with no health insurance and dead beat dads - you must be living in Texas, the family values State. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

08-24-2000, 08:46 PM
I guess its GW's fault that Texas is right next door to Mexico - duh.

08-24-2000, 08:50 PM
Cannibal - Actually, I read constantly. If I quote from the National Review, you state their bias in the case. Since I use your own media for proof, you state that I should not believe what they say. So which do you want me to post for proof? I have both.

And again, you blame George W. for greasing it up with the oil companies. Do you believe that Gore does not own interest in Occidental Oil, or is Time Magazine lying to merely make you look foolish?

08-24-2000, 08:51 PM
ChiefNJ - Do your stats that include illegal aliens that your democrats have fought so viciously over the last 40 years to give rights to?

08-24-2000, 08:53 PM
Oh, I recognize that chain email, chiefnj. Quoting stats from a chain email, spam from the likes of people that tell you that Bill Gates is giving away trips to disneyworld and the cancer society will get a 10 cent donation for every person you send an email too.... I believe that stuff.

Highest # of children living in poverty - 2

2 children in poverty for the whole state of Texas is not a high #.

% of children with no health insurance - 1
1% isn't bad either.

% of population with no health insurance- 2
2% isn't great but it's down from 4 so he's doing better.

Teen birth rate - 5
5 teen pregnancies in a year is really good for Texas.

Child support collection - 45
I'm not sure I understand this stat. My child support DAMN sure gets collected!

Teen drug use up 30%
yeah, there are more teens now. All of last year's 12 year olds are now teenagers. DUH!

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 08-24-2000).]

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 08:53 PM
I guess you pick and choose.

Not surprising.

If if goes with your argument then you believe it, if not, it's the "liberal media".

I see ya working.

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 08:54 PM
Houston was a dying city? When was that? I've lived here my whole life and never remember Houston as dying. The economy did slow down in the late '70's when the oil industry bottomed out and NASA's troubles didn't help matters much in the mid '80's but things have been great since the late '80's. The '90's have been great, especially the past 8 years.

BTW, those piolitical ads have nothing to do with my opinion. I've lived here and have seen the Changes that Bush is respinsible for first hand and base my opinions on those things, not any stupid TV ad.

This type of topic is exactly what ruined the other BB. Isn't this a FOOTBALL BB???

08-24-2000, 08:55 PM
Wow! Texas sounds like paradise! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Duck Dog
08-24-2000, 08:59 PM
Okay guys
Put the mice down and slowly back away from the keyboards.

hey don't let arguements get in the way of great friendships. LIFE is too short.


The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 09:00 PM
Have you ever been to Houston? How about Pasadena or Baytown? There you will find the answer to your smog question. You'll understand first hand why this part of the state is suffering from bad air and the rest isn't as much. No Houston is not the only city in Texas, but it is the state's largest and now, thanks to Bush it has the State's Nation's worst air. Come down and see for yourself how many oil refineries used to have regulated burn operating hours and now they're free to burn all day and night 352 days a year.

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 09:01 PM
That's a total of ONLY 13 days of "non burn" a year!!!

08-24-2000, 09:03 PM
KC - I don't understand your post....

Help me understand why you are posting your opinion on a political message and then complaining about others doing the same?

Cannibal - NEVER, have I stated that the media (left or right) lied. I stated that the liberal media deliberately avoids their blatant hypocrisy when they complain about the spelling of 'potato' and ignore the fact that a man doesn't know the difference between a pork chop and a chicken breast.

Spin it as you like, but it is duly noted that you just never get around to answering the questions I have asked you.

08-24-2000, 09:04 PM
KC - And please explain to me how George W single handedly cause this situation in Houston.

08-24-2000, 09:08 PM
Man I think I'm gonna cry.......

I truely feel at home now, a political thread http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

KC you stated:

"This type of topic is exactly what ruined the other BB. Isn't this a FOOTBALL BB???

Thats why you have the choice to pick and choose which thread you respond too. FYI if you get involved in a political thread, then don't cry foul when you don't like or agree wuith what you hear.

Just remember it YOUR CHOICE, thats why we have THIS BB, so you do HAVE A CHOICE.


08-24-2000, 09:09 PM
Where Texas ranks in comparison to the other states (Under George W.)

Spending for parks and recreation 48th
Spending for the arts 48th
Spending for public libraries 46th
Spending on the environment 49th

Well as long as the oil execs enjoy a great quality of life nothing else really matters.

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 09:10 PM
I have posted on the old board numerous allegations brought up about W by the "liberal" media which you quickly dismissed as lies.

But now when we talk about Gore, you believe the liberal press.

Like I said I see you working, you pick and choose when it suits your argument.

BTW, I play you in week # 1 of the Playa league, you're not making it any easier on yourself. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-24-2000).]

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 09:10 PM
I know that I had the option of not responding to the thread, and that's exactly what I should have done. But, once I read some posts, I was compelled to respond. Then, after I responded I realized that I shouldn't have. There is NO winning these types of discussions. You're right, I should practice what I preach and treat these threads the same way that I treat threads started by trolls. I still feel that they don't belong on a football BB, but that's only my opinion and the only power I have is to ignore them - which is exactly what I'll do in the future. I didn't mean to "pull your tail."

08-24-2000, 09:10 PM
Oh yea, Politics is not what ruined the other BB. Censurship (sp?) is what ruined it.

08-24-2000, 09:11 PM
ChiefNJ - You mean the oil execs like Al Gore, right?

BTW - You didn't answer my question. Where did you get your stats and do they include illegal aliens that the democrats insist on giving rights to instead of sending them back where they belong?

08-24-2000, 09:13 PM
Cannibal - Can you tell me what you like about Gore? Are you voting for him and supporting him because he is a liberal and not a republican, or do you actually like the choice of him as our President? I'm not looking for smack material, just a better understanding of things.

[This message has been edited by morphius (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 09:14 PM
Cannibal -

#1. The "press" you speak of is a radio station who calls themselves a press only when it suits the situation, otherwise they believe that they "speculate for entertainment".

As I have stated, I have never denied the liberal PRESS the truth (I am speaking of TV News, magazines, newspapers), merely that they do not always report ALL of the truth.

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 09:15 PM
Well, it's time for me to hit the hay.

I'll check back in tomorrow night after the Chiefs game.

I would check in on my lunch hour tomorrow, but I use Netscape at work. I've tried to use Windows Explorer, but it's F'd up for some reason. Probably something with the settings.

08-24-2000, 09:16 PM



08-24-2000, 09:17 PM
Cannibal - When you state I have defended Bush against the media, I am sure that you have me confused for someone else. Never before this week have I ever defended George W.

I was waiting for the Independents to come to terms before I made my decision. They obviously cannot.

I will never come off with a lame argument like "Oh, Newsweek is lying". I challenge you to ever find a post to that effect.

BTW - I realize that you are nervous over next weeks confrontation and I will take it easy on you when you are stomped into a little bloodpuddle on the field (Learning smack as slowly as I am FFL).

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 09:19 PM


I will be choosing the "the lesser of two evils" just like you will.<P>

Fort Chief
08-24-2000, 09:21 PM
Talk to you dudes tomorrow night.<BR>

08-24-2000, 09:23 PM
ChiefNJ - Let's be serious about this.

Which state has one of the HIGHEST populations in the United States? ANY of those stats that do not use percentages and instead use Totals is obviously skewed. I am sure that Rhode Island ranked near the lowest number of children in poverty and lowest number of children without healthcare.

And again, this document uses ALL the population in TX, including illegal aliens. If you want to complain about high birth rates of teenagers and high rates of uncollected child support, thank your Demmies for allowing so many illegal hispanics in our country while men like Pete Wilson and George Bush are ridiculed for attempting to send them back where they belong.

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 09:23 PM

Teacher salaries at beginning of 1st term 36 (1)
Teacher salaries at beginning of 2nd term 38 (1)
% Change in Average Salaries 1989-99 constant $ -1.1% (1)
Teacher salaries plus benefits 50 (1)
High school completion rate 48 (2)
SAT scores - 1996 combined math & verbal: 995 44 (13)
SAT scores - 1997 combined math & verbal: 995 45 (13)
SAT scores - 1998 combined math & verbal: 995 44 (13)

Bush Family Values in Texas
Highest number of children living in poverty 2 (3)
Highest number of children without health insurance 2 (3)
Highest % of children without health insurance 1 (3)
Highest % of poor working parents without insurance 1 (3)
Highest % of population without health insurance 2 (3)
Highest number of people stripped of Medicare benefits 1 (10)
Highest teen birth rate 5 (4)
Per capita funding for public health 48 (4)
Delivery of social services 47 (4)
Mothers receiving prenatal care 45 (9)
Child support collections 45 (3)
Number of executions 1 (11)
Teen smoking - down nationally, flat in Texas (5)
Teen drug use - down nationally, up 30% in Texas w/ Bush (5)

Pollution in Texas
Pollution released by manufacturing plants 1 (6)
Pollution by industrial plants in violation of Clean Air Act 1 (6)
Greenhouse gas emissions 1 (6)

Quality of Life in Texas
Spending for parks and recreation 48 (7)
Spending for the arts 48 (7)
Public libraries and branches 46 (8)
Spending for the environment 49 (7)
Best place to raise children 48 (9)
Affordable Housing 48 (12)
Home ownership 44 (2)
Highest homes insurance rates in the nation 1 (11)
Spending for police protection 47 (12)

Sources: (1) National Education Agency, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the States 1999 (2) U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Development (3) U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Populations Trends (4) U.S. Dept Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics (5)1998 Texas School Survey of Substance Use Among Students: Grades 7-12, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (6) U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution and Prevention (7) Texas Observer (8) Statistical Rankings by State (9) Children's Rights Council (10) Families USA
(11) National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(12) U.S. Bureau of Census, State Government Finances 1998 (13) College Examination Board

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 09:30 PM
So Russ, it is the fault of the hispanics for the hight teen birth rates and child support problems?

Good night.

08-24-2000, 09:31 PM
Moose - Obviously you did not read my post prior to yours......

Totals for the state of Texas instead of percentages is a lie. Let me demonstrate:

Jeffersonville High School had a graduating class of 452 students in 1982.
Our Lady of Providence had a graduating class of 62 students in 1982.

You are assuming that Jeffersonville High School is much better at teaching, which is unintelligent as you did not take ALL data into account.

Jeffersonville High School had an enrollment of 580 students in 1977.
Our Lady of Providence had an enrollment of 65 students in 1977.

Jeff High graduated a mere 77% while OLP graduated 95%.

Also, you too deliberately ignore the fact that Texas is one of the two highest states in population of illegal aliens (which factor greatly into your stats). Illegal aliens that Republicans are not allowed to send home because of Bleeding Heart Liberals.

08-24-2000, 09:32 PM
ChiefNJ - Yes, the illegal hispanics that reside in CA and TX are large contributors to the welfare ride. MUCH more so than any other state in the Union.

08-24-2000, 09:43 PM
ChiefNJ - And again I ask,

How did George W single handedly cause the pollution of the city of Houston?

So many people mention it, but none have yet told me how it was his fault.

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 09:49 PM
I'll try to answer the question since nobody has and then I'm out of here.

Because it happened on his watch. Like anything else, fair or unfair, the person at the top is responsible. How did Bush single handedly so anything good? He didn't, he's the govener so all the good things he's done, with the help of others, he gets credit for. Does that help/ I do know that while Bush has been in office, the number of regulated "burn days" for the oil refineries (sp) has drastically diminished. That has effected the air quality in the Greater Houston Area.

Does this help?

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 09:54 PM
We can throw all the excuses out there that we want. It hasn't gotten any better under his watch.

08-24-2000, 09:54 PM
KC Fan - First of all let me say that I value your opinion. I hope you are not "out of here" as you are the only one presenting a logical argument against Bush.

Secondly, okay, it happened on his watch. Now let's apply that same theory to the current White House. Illegal Chinese money, illegal FBI documents, botched invasions of Bosnia, Ethiopia, Iran, and Somalia, interns offered jobs for sexual favors, lies to a grand jury.

Now as you stated, these are not all faults of Al, but they happened on his watch, right?

08-24-2000, 09:56 PM
More importantly, not only did these events happen under AL Gore's "watch" he still supports the administration that committed these crimes.

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:01 PM
That's like saying passing through a red light happened under the watch of the person in the passenger seat. They may have yelled stop, but in the end it is the decision of the driver that determines what happens.

08-24-2000, 10:03 PM
Moose - LOL. So bad things that happen when Gov are in office are the fault of the governor, but bad things that happen when a VP is in office is someone else's fault?

BTW - I must have missed that cry for "STOP". Was that when he stated he supported Billy boy and thought he was brave to confess?

Your double standard is just silly.

08-24-2000, 10:07 PM
No Russ,

That was when he said that he thought Clinton would go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents ever.

just trying to help...

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:08 PM
You are talking about a governor who makes final decisions for the state vs a VP who assists in decision making but does not have the final say because there is another guy in charge. For example if Gore becomes president and the school voucher thing doesn't pass, even though Lieberman is for it, does that mean it is Lieberman's fault? And to lump the interns and lying under oath as the fault of the VP is just absurd to me.

08-24-2000, 10:09 PM
Luz - Ohhhh, I understand. When a President commits a felony, calling him one of the greatest leaders is a code word for "STOP"....

Wondering how sooooo many people refuse to think for themselves?

08-24-2000, 10:11 PM
Moose -

First of all the Gore, not Clinton, is guilty of conspiring with the Chinese.

Secondly, Gore PRAISED the president for his illegal activities. He never yelled stop or censured the man for his felonious actions.

Finally, are you stating that since Gore had no control over the last eight years, he will not state that he is one of the reasons for our great economy? C'mon, the idiot has already taken credit for the internet.

You are still running around in circles trying to come up with reasons for him without a basis in fact.

08-24-2000, 10:12 PM

If Leiberman actively campains against it then you bet ~ he's just as responcible.

Gore has repeatedly given support, justification, political pressure, and obfuscation in his support and defence of Bill Clinton and his undefendable actions.

By his own words and actions he shares the culpability.

this should be obvious to all...

Bob Dole
08-24-2000, 10:15 PM
It seems the truth is something liberals don't like to play with.

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:17 PM
You are getting carried away with the twisting of words. Read it again. A person calling out "stop" yet the guy runs the red light anyway does not mean to imply Gore was this super guy who was telling slick Willie not to do these baaad things, but Willie decided to do them anyway. It was a metaphor meant to try and say a person who is second in charge could offer up opinions which differ or are the same as the person in charge, but in the end it is the guy in the hot seat that makes the call. I wasn't there with Gore so I don't know what he was saying to Clinton. Just making an observation.

08-24-2000, 10:18 PM
Sorry guys.

F. Gump
08-24-2000, 10:19 PM
if the state rankings really matter......why did anyone ever vote for clinton.......arkansas was and is last in just about everything.....unless you look at the kissin your cousin stats....then they are first......
here's why im voting for Bush....tax cuts....his tax cuts benifit everyone who pays taxes......if you make 35000 or less you will pay no federal tax under his plan......algore has flat out misrepresented bush's plan......and one last thing.....if you think gore will fix the smog in houston...i got a bridge for sale

[This message has been edited by sun (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 10:19 PM
oops, ok that didn't work.

Unless they really are all post #1!!!

08-24-2000, 10:20 PM
SO far all I have heard from Algore's supporters is:

#1 No answer to AL's involvement and ownership with Occidental Oil after complaining about Bush's involvement with oil companies.

#2 No answer to Al's obvious lies about quoting the Bible and being in sympatico with Lieberman.

#3 No answer to the mainstream media missing blatant inconsistencies in Gore's thought processes.

Instead I hear what Bush did and didn't do and why he is to blame even though no specifics can be mentioned of his culpability.

You see why the arguments seem weak to me? Please attempt to answer the three questions above before you start slinging mud at someone else.... It makes you look like you are crying fire to take away from the robbery that is taking place in front of us.

08-24-2000, 10:23 PM
Moose - Okay so you are attempting to allude to the idea that AL may have offered Bill friendly advice in private. There is no basis for your assumption, is there?

Fact is that Al openly supported the President after the fact, which means he shares in the responsibility, yet not necessarily the crime.

Exactly what you are complaining about with Bush.

08-24-2000, 10:24 PM
Kyle - <font size=18><font color=red> WHOOOO HOOOO!!! You did it.


Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:26 PM
OK, how did he PRAISE the president for his illegal activities? That is just a case of someone hearing what they want to hear. I guess we'll forget when he said he is deeply disappointed in the president personally. But I really doubt a VP is going to stand there and flush the things they had accomplished down the toilet by claiming he was a bad president. When you are trying to seperate the job he has done as president from the personal errors, what you do is talk about the accomplishments and why he'll be looked upon as history as one of the great presidents because of his policies. Now I'm not agreeing with that, history has yet to determine that. There seems to be a faction that wants to lump the personal errors with the job he has done as president, and there is a faction that seperates the two. Which is why Clinton right now according to last nights news has the highest job approval rating a president has had at this time of his candidacy than anyone has in a long time.

People are going to hear what they want to hear obviously. A valid point to one is running around the argument to another. It is the Rush Limbaugh/Bill Press syndrome. One side is right and the other side sucks, no matter what.

08-24-2000, 10:31 PM

Does Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and using the power of the Presidency to deny a fellow citizen her fair day in court fall under personal errors, or the job he has done as President?

just curious...

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:31 PM
OK Wolfman, again you are reading what you want to read, not what I wrote. I already answered your question.

Bottom line, if it is a policy error, that is attributed to Clinton/Gore. If it is a personal error, that is attributed to Clinton, unless Gore performed a personal misdeed.

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:33 PM
Forget the other response I had Luz, reread your comment, misunderstood what you were asking at first.

To me, the job he has done as president is what affects me and my everyday life and the government as a whole. Personal errors are what he has himself done for his own selfish reasons in order to gain personal satisfaction or beat a rap, but that have not affected me or the job government is doing.

I suppose it all depends on what you want out of a president.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-24-2000).]

08-24-2000, 10:34 PM
Moose - Then I am still correct.

Accepting illegal funds for the DNC
Making illegal phone calls for funds on my tax dollars from the White House.

All of those are policy errors, and AL shares the blame (or in some cases is the blame).

08-24-2000, 10:35 PM
No Moose,

I'm talking about the man that Gore endorses and considers to be one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had.

If Bush considered Nixon to be a great role model on how to run the Presisency would you be a little concerned?

do you really disagree with this?...

The Blessed Virgin Larry
08-24-2000, 10:35 PM
I didn't want to leave without giving you a chance to get your point accross.

The points that you brought up are good. It's for those reasons that Gore should distance himself from Clinton. Politics is a funy business in that a 2nd in command always has a way out - or room to wiggle. They can always take credit for the good and distance themselves from the bad. Gore did in fact praise Clinton on a number of brow raising decisions, but again, fair or unfair, he was the #2 guy and that entitles him room to wiggle.
Bush as th #1 guy in the state of Texas is not afforded that same luxery. It's not fair but neither is the nature of politics in general. When you're the #1 guy, you're held more accountable. Bush did have veto power here in Texas and if he wanted to limit the number of burn days in the refineries, or not increase them - he certainly could have. However, he knew that it would cost him millions of campaign $$$$. That's where I stand on the air polution issue here in Houston. I don't want to see him increase things like burn days nation-wide.
Anyways, that's the best explination I can offer. We'll just agree to disagree on this topic and I'll use my freedom of choice not to respond to political threads in the future. In fairness, I didn't want to post and then hide. Now that you have had a chance to respond, and I have tried to answer your question to the best of my ability, I'm REALLY out of here. *grin*

08-24-2000, 10:36 PM
Moose - Again, you attribute all the faults to Clinton. Are you then firmly stating that Al Gore can take NO credit for the last eight years, since he assumes no culpability?

F. Gump
08-24-2000, 10:36 PM
the problem most of us have here is algore stood by while all of this happened.....do you expect us to believe he didnt know what was going on?......he has called himself the most envolved vice president in history.......i can neither respect or vote for a person who believes i am that stupid.

08-24-2000, 10:37 PM
KC - Thanks for the reply.

Have a good evening.

*never have liked wiggling or squiggling*

08-24-2000, 10:43 PM
The election is not about Clinton, I agree it is about the party of Clinton. The party that supported his lying, his betraying the trust of the American people, the party who was not even strong enough to support a strong censure for a President who perjured himself. Last time I checked Gore is now the defacto leader of that party and he never once spoke out about these issues that cloud the reputation of the entire Democratic party.

No Gore would prefer to talk about how the big, bad U.S. should stop using up the worlds resources. How our country should sacrifice more than the rest of the world. Because if we do we will save a tree.

Love being able to talk a little politics!

Jim Reynolds

Please no squiggles in my discussion zone!

[This message has been edited by Logical (edited 08-24-2000).]

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 10:54 PM
OK, seems like it is seven against one right now. Let me just respond to the whole tone of things as I believe I have read them. And Luz, again, I misread your last comment, so I edited my response to it.

Here is what I am saying: Al Gore and Bill Clinton should both be critisized or credited due to the policies that occur under the Clinton/Gore administration. If we want to argue against Gore based on the policies, that is fine. But remembering that he was the VP and noth the top guy making the decisions, we should take into account what his stances are now that he is running for the top position. If they contradict something he said in the past 8 years in terms of policy, he ought to be critisized for it. If it is something he is saying that the administration did not do during their tenure, it is up for critisism with the qualifier that it is possible that the policy is something he was for but Clinton was against, so Clinton went with his own judgement on the matter, like the school voucher thing with Gore/Lieberman. As someone pointed out, if a guy says they are against something but actively supports it in public because of the president, that should be critisized. If a person is against something but honors the president's decision and says I will support the president and respect his decision, that is being a team player and playing the game of politics so that you do not cause disharmony on the team (see, I got that football analogy in there! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif ).

OK, where was I? If a person comits personal wrongs, like lying, perjury, and obstruction of justice, that have nothing to do with policy, then the other guy is totally seperated from the matter. I doubt Gore was in there giving Bill pointers on how to use a cigar. Gore critisized Clinton's personal actions. Now if you want to blame him for playing the game of politics and supporting the president's job in terms of policy, then fine. But it is suicide to stand up there and denounce the president overall, both for the party and for your own political future, because you are telling people he is an overall faliure as a president, thus basically saying that your administration that you are involved in an overall faliure. You can support the job a guy has done as president and still seperate that from the personal mistakes. The majority of the country seems to do that. Some do not. Depends how you see the president.

This is getting too long, so I'll see what other points there are to address after I read other responses. Again, in order to argue points, we all see things the way we want to see them.

Zach Thompson
08-24-2000, 11:11 PM
In the game of politics that is what happens. Tricky Dick got pardoned real quick by Ford. Lies and scandals have always been going on, the Kenedy affairs, the Iran/Contra things, etc.

To me, personally, I can seperate personal misconduct from the job one is doing as president. I mean personally I am better off right now than I was when Bush was president. Now is that coincidence? Maybe. But I don't see the administration as a faliure because I feel things have gotten better. The personal misdeeds were very disappointing, but to me they did not have the impact that they seem to have on some. I thought a lot of the complaining just got carried way too far. On one hand republicans want less government involvement in our lives, but on the other hand they want a moral symbol up there as president influencing our behavior. That is very unlikely to happen because every president in my lifetime has had their share of deception and scandals, and many of the events that occur withouth the public ever being aware. I'm not saying that is the right perception to have, that is just my perception. It would be great to have a great guy who does no wrong as leader. But the bottom line to me is did he do the job as president that he was elected to do in terms of policy. Morality I can take care of.

I guess to me it's sort of like focusing on Elvis Grbac spiking the ball at the wrong time, but yet the team goes on to win the game. The difference is do you percieve us as coming out winners or losers (IE better off or worse off) after these last 8 years, and that seems to be split down party lines obviously.

OK OK, weak analogy, just had to get more football into that topic. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif And no, I'm not accusing all Clinton bashers of also being Grbashers. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-25-2000).]

08-24-2000, 11:58 PM
It may help to see the Clinton thing from the perspective of most Americans. Most see the whole thing as a case of a guy weasling about getting caught doing the hanky-panky. Nothing more. You may see all kinds of horrible stabs to the American way of life. Most people see it as a personal thing that involves other peoples private lives. Thats why Clinton has such a amazingly high approval rating, one that went up after the "impeachment." And most won't make any connection at all between Monica and Gore. And thats the way it is....

Lick Bush in 2000 !!!

08-25-2000, 12:03 AM

I understand your point of view, but I do not believe the Democrats are allowed to have it one way (off easy) while the Republicans were being persecuted because of Nixon. The old what is good for the goose is good for the gander is my belief. In short that is enough on its own for me to be done with Gore. Not to mention his tree hugging and alegience to the world as a whole before the good of the citizens of this country. You are well spoken, but unconvincing.

Zach Thompson
08-25-2000, 12:18 AM
I understand your POV Logical. We've all got our own opinions and preferences, and each of us has a valid point in terms of the way we see the country and how things should be or are. And we argue about it and vote on it. That's what is so great about the process.

Besides, we're going for the undecided voters anyway. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

08-25-2000, 12:22 AM

Are you originally from England? The reason I ask is your spelling of "critisize" the US spelling is "criticize" and I know from working with the English on certain projects that they often use an "S" instead of a "C"

Jim Reynolds
Please no squiggles in my discussion zone!

08-25-2000, 12:30 AM
Logical......Most Americans see Watergate as a threat to our electoral process. Most see Monicagate as a private fling gone bad. Most see apples and oranges, and do not equate the two gates.

Lick Bush in 2000 !!!

Zach Thompson
08-25-2000, 12:48 AM
Nope, from the USA. Just don't know how to spell I guess. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/redface.gif

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-25-2000).]

08-25-2000, 01:03 AM

I do not care that he had an affair. I care that he lied under oath, to the American people, and to Congress and was exposed as a liar. To me that is the same reason Nixon deserved to leave office. The rest of Nixon and Clinton's transgressions were done by many other Presidents.

Zach Thompson
08-25-2000, 01:43 AM
Again that is based on perspective. To me, and I presume to Duck, lying about affairs directly related to government vs lying about having a sexual relationship are different things. It may all be lying under oath or whatnot, but to most people in the country it seems, at least according to the polls, that lying about an embarassing personal misdeed is not on the same level as the crime it was being made out to be. No one likes to be lied to, but when it has to do with personal matters, people are less inclined to care. People probably cared about Bush's "No new taxes" promise more than the Clinton thing, even though it wasn't anything under oath, because breaking the taxes promise directly affected them.

08-25-2000, 05:10 AM
Duck, and how do you see BuddhaTempleGate? Is that a personal thing, too?

08-25-2000, 06:28 AM
I really want to get into this one, however, I would feel like I'm unarmed in a battle of political wit.

I did hear Gore quote his favorite verse from the bible John 16:3. I'm sure his writers wanted him to say John 3:16. You may ask, What's the difference?

John 16:3 basically goes - They do these things because they know me not.

John 3:16 goes - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.....

It is better to be a bible thumper than to lie about being one.

Bush may not be perfect, we know Gore isn't.

Besides Alan Keyes would be the better choice for President. (Yes I know he is black. He is the most intelligent man that wanted to run.) Listen to him speak sometime.

Devin Vierth
08-25-2000, 06:46 AM

I agree Keyes was probably the most eloquent candidate that has run for president in the last 30 years. Unfortunately, the US is still too racist to vote for a black a president. I definitely think there will be a woman president before a black. I am not sure the country is ready for a Jewish VP. I think there is still too much ignorance out there. I would not vote for AlGore because I don't like his policies. His better-than-thou attitude. I know what is best for you.


08-25-2000, 07:14 AM
What do you mean by "I am not sure the country is ready for a Jewish VP." You just said that the country is too racist for a black President and then you make that statement. Maybe I misunderstood your message. Racism is a touchy subject that has gotten way out of hand in the United States.

The media will continue to cherish Gore and down play Bush. They have always favored the liberals. Gore has played the media since the start. Look at the Convention. Clinton's speech ran about an hour late and the press followed it. Heaven forbid they give the Republicans and extra free minute.

[This message has been edited by 47mack (edited 08-25-2000).]

08-25-2000, 07:40 AM
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/confused.gif I still haven't seen one bit of information that shows me why either Bush or Gore is clearly superior to the other, especially if you assume that none of their promises will occur in the real world. They never do, ya know?

This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

08-25-2000, 07:57 AM
I hear you loud and clear.....many promises, little results. The downfall to our government is Democrat vs. Republican. Both have a hard time supporting the other, even when it may benefit the citizens. They care more about their party than the people who rely on their decisions.

Devin Vierth
08-25-2000, 08:07 AM

I think there is too much animosity[sp] for a certain group in America to vote for a Jewish VP, even though their savior according to some is the pres cand. Don't some of the black spokesmen state that the Jews were worse than the whites because of their hand in slavery. Farakhan or some of his diciples have said that Jew women should be the ones killed so they would quit reproducing. Can the dem's get elected w/o the black vote, I am not sure.


08-25-2000, 08:32 AM
No, I don't think they can. I believe that they count on the minority voted to win. that is why they tend to play more to that side. Republicans are seen as racists. Even Powell has said that they have a bad relation. Why is that? What have they done that is so wrong?

Back to the topic at hand. I will probably lean toward the Bush side. I agree with much of what wolfman has said. I am all for tax cuts and tired of the Clinton Admin. hiding behind the excuse that "it only benefits the rich." That old story has to go.

Devin Vierth
08-25-2000, 08:35 AM
It is amazing how the southern dems had to be convinced that Civil rights were a good thing. I don't understand how a group can be so against a party when it wants to teach them to fish instead of giving them fish. We all know that teaching them to fish is a lot better in the long run.


Gracie Dean
08-25-2000, 08:48 AM
Cannibal talked earlier on this thread about supporting the lesser of two evils. Did anyone catch Politically Incorrect last night. Bill Maher had one of his best insights [biased because it was an insight I picked up on immediately].

They were discussing the Survivor finale and he stated that he now realized why we end up with the presidential choices we do. Just like Survivor, the incompetents or more obviously unqualified leave first [Gary Bauer, buh-bye. Teve Torbes, buh-bye]. THEN comes a round where the STRONG and LIKEABLE are purged out of fear and machinations [McCain, Bradley, people like Colin Powell or William Weld seeing the trend ahead of time and refusing to run in the first place]. NOW, we're left with Bore and Gush, the rat and the snake, the Kelly and Rich of the America stage.

[End of Maher's input - now for mine]

Someday, the man or woman who will truly change this country [for the better, natch] is the one who figures out the way to allow, coax, convince the American people to overcome their base fears and insecurities in the middle stages of the political process and grant them the license to pick the strong, moral, solid candidate over the savvy, well-coffered, triangulated, weasel.<BR>

08-25-2000, 08:48 AM
Wow, I am impressed! A civil political debate!

Good points on all sides. Duck brings up a good point that I want to explore. Most citizens fall into the category of not paying sufficient attention to politics to be able to know who’s who. This is one reason that it is very difficult for a honest politician to succeed, and the majority of those undecided votes that we’re all going after are probably made up of this group.

The press, therefor, has a huge impact on our electoral process. The Democrats, with a willing press, have succeeded in defining Clinton’s problems as personal, when in fact, the issues are much graver. Moose, I respect your opinion (and the obvious thought that has gone into it), but I would ask you to consider the following.

The Fourth Estate in our country has always served an ingenious purpose in our political process. That purpose has been to expose corruption.

Bill Clinton, by ALL accounts, has run the most corrupt administration in living memory. Rather than expose it, the press has helped to overlook it. My personal belief is that this extends from a ‘the ends justify the means’ mentality so prevalent in that generation.

Having traveled internationally (rather extensively) and having spent considerable amounts of time in third world countries, I can assure you that what has lead the US to a position of world power and dominance is not our natural resources, it is not a ‘ruthless’ attitude, and it is not the fact that we are a democracy! Our success is due almost totally to the fact that we adhere to the ‘Rule of Law’. We, uniquely of all nations, have been vigilant in rejecting and punishing corruption when we find it at all levels (and we do find it ~ always have, always will).

Al Gore has been a willing part of this administration and this corruption. Typically when liberals try to defend Clinton or Gore, they do it by attacking the opponent and implying ‘he’s no better’. This is because in Washington, where this race to control the largest economy and weld the mightiest power on earth is being held, the corruption is an open secret. They spend more time trying to justify it than they do denying it.

This election is about whether we as a people are comfortable with this new level of corruption in our government. You can forget just about all of the ‘issues’ (even the philosophical ones which are near and dear to my heart), because they are all peripheral. If we, as a people, allow this kind of corruption to go unchecked, then our nation will loose it’s power and status and seed much of our authority elsewhere (probably the UN).

Make no mistake, there are those that want this to happen and therefor support this level of corruption. I stand diametrically opposed to them.

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest to you that this may be the most important election that you have ever participated in, and the issues are not school vouchers or the environment. The issue is whether your grandkids will live in a US that leads the world, or one that is subverted to the will of many others.

As always, you get to decide.

Sorry for the length…


Gracie Dean
08-25-2000, 09:28 AM
Dang it Luz - just when I get my little Volkwagen of an insight posted, you blow in with your Earthmover, Space Shuttle transport, of an observation. Great point. The most irritating aspect of the great Clinton debate over the past eight years is the "everyone does it" excuse for every foilable. EVERY politician lies to us. EVERYone has affairs. EVERY lie is same. EVERY politician goes money grubbing to every illegal, questionable, available source.

Clinton is in search of a legacy and I think, in all honesty, that his will be a redefinition of success in American culture. In many facets of life, not just politics, charisma and ruthless will [regardless of merit] are overshadowing ethic and merit as the yardstick for success.

Not every politician is beholden to special interests. Not every one lies to your face [finger wagging]. Not every politician juices himself on the denigration of ideological opponents. Not every politician views self-preservation, no matter the cost, as the prime directive. HOWEVER, the most successful politician of the past decade is this politician.

Will another way emerge and resonate with the American people, or has Clinton completed the new blueprint for success?

Fat Homer
08-25-2000, 09:31 AM
NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED! Do you guys want to have your threads deleted & your accounts deactivated?!?!

Oh, wait a mintue... that was at the other board! Whew...


08-25-2000, 02:32 PM

There are many goog posts on this thread and yours stands out.

I too am optomistic about our future and think that our best days are ahead of us.

That doesn't mean that we don't have our battles to fight. I take a sense of pride in standing up for what I know is right and, though I don't always win, I will never be accused of not caring enough about my country to wage the war (give up).

I suspect that, as many here do, you feel the same sense of obligation and duty. To me, this is the biggest reason to post here. To share views and ideas with others that I can respect and admire (even if I don'r always agree).

the election race is on...

08-25-2000, 04:03 PM
Is this the right board? I thought the reason we all came over here was because of the BS political threads. Let's talk some football!

08-25-2000, 04:11 PM
I don't know about you, but for most of us it was about censorship and bb performance (and of course, the daily diet of trolls!).

If you don't want to read a thread, skip over it and click on something else.

I think you'll find very little support on trying to restrict people's speach.

so what did you think about the debate on this topic?...

08-25-2000, 10:39 PM

08-26-2000, 12:21 PM
I really like this discussion. Although opinions are not consistant with the mainline parties the bottom line is that we can discuss what we want and when we want it on this board.

I wonder if Alan Keyes can win on a write in if he has a woman for the VP? We could get smart and practical all in one package. I think that it's time for the people in the US to accept that a leader is a leader no matter the color or gender.


[This message has been edited by TomCash (edited 08-26-2000).]