>Well, as I stated I do think the Repubs need more spine. I'm glad to see you can let the light of reason in and agree with me. *BG*
>
>Now, I do have a question.. Jim's suggesting to me that Gore is within his legal rights to pursue these matters. I have no reason to argue with him ovewr that issue though I do think there comes a time when you must realize you're not gaining ground. I do think Gore's at that point. I mean... Four recounts in some places and you'd think he'd figure it out. <g>
>
>However, if it is OK for Gore to use all legal means to get what he wants now, why is it wrong for Mr. Bush to have used all legal means at his disposal to get what he wanted then (your reference to the Vietnam war).
>
>Chris, I do not oppose people using the system to fight a good political fight. Rather I would that they had the grace to follow the rules - and I would also suggest that if the Republicans didn't follow the rules they are equally wrong. As I see it though Mr. Bush is equally within his rights to follow the rules now. As I now count it the Democrats have changed the counting rules in Florida some 4-6 times. Who's changing the rules here?
>
>The Supreme Court of Florida's decision is now before the US Supreme Court for the very fact that they may have violated an older US federal statute that expressly forbad them from changing these rules after an election, so from where I sit it most assuredly is not the Republicans doing the damage here. If that have, well, they should get punished as well - as long as everyone is equally punished.

I have no problem with that. Bottom line... my lawyer can beat up your lawyer < g >

>Of the two parties though I must say that the evidence I've seen over the last 20-30 years of watching this stuff that it is indeed the liberals (of both parties) who are more predisposed to placing existentialist expediency above the rule of law.
>
>IOW, what gripes me Chris is the blatant double standard.

Thanks, I was going to have to look up existentialist < g >.

>Right.. As a protected reporter.

But still just a wee bit closer to the action than a bar in Alabama.

>And he did inhale. <g> There are two first-hand witnesses who have come forth (reluctantly I might add) and so sworn.
>Now, if I understand liberals correctly the first order of business is to denigrate these two people rather than assessing the information they bring forth. THis is typical liberal politics. The politics of personal destruction.

I believe he has publicly admitted this. And he did not try the line "youthful indescretions". And while he was smoking dope, he was not driving DUI with a line of coke on the dashboard < g >

>Sure, Nixon was an example of how the unbridled lust for power can ruin someone. That and a liberal press. <g> That is certainly no justification for Gore doing the same is it?? Surely this isn't an argument for the lowering of all standards like I've seen in every other liberal endeavor is it? Nahh.. Just a cover I suppose and a poor attempt to change the subject. Typical. <g>
>
>However, when faced with his indescretions he took the high road and resigned.

Yeah, right after he erased the tapes. Oh, and nearly every other Republican, as well as the rest of the nation, demanded it.

>Remember Chuck "The Hatchet" Colson? Went to federal proson over one misplaced FBI file.
>
>How many did the Clinton administration have?? 900+ <g>
>
>And how many people went to jail over that? 0
>
>Clinton should have resigned as well but he and his missus seem to think they're above the law. That's ok since they will stand before God to give an account for their lives. I wish they would change and pray for them that they do.
>
>But I do feel badly for all those poor stupid peole who just couldn't remember anything when asked though... My what a stistically amazing assemblege of forgetful people. <g>

As well as those Republican senators who, when the had the chance, were too chicken to impeach.

>Right, and Kennedy was a philanderer, Roosevelt was one and so on.
>
>About the only ones who didn't were Carter, Reagan and Truman as far as I can see. That's two R's to 1 D which seems just about in line with reality. <g>

Roosevelt - I would too if I were married to Eleanor. Ike - had enough in WWII. Kennedy - dog in heat. Johnson - who cares. Nixon - who would have him?. Ford - too clumsy. Carter - lust in his heart. Reagan - too old, and too much in love with his wife (to the exclusion of his children). George senior - could not get the words out to woo a woman. Clinton - married to an ice-box. < vbg >

>Ohh.. Now shame on you for making a racist prejudiced personal attack statement like that...

I know, Republicans aren't prejudiced... they hate all minorities equally < vbg >. In a news clip, I was almost blinded when the Republicans were trying to violently interrupt the Dade county recount... not from the TV lights, but all the ghostly white people.

>Tsk tsk.. Where's all that liberal tolerance I always hear about? <g> Oh, I forgot.. Liberals and Liberalism is morally superior and anyone holding those tenents are as well.
>
>NOT! <g>
>
>We're all sinners pal. <g> And I suppose I am among the chiefest of them.
>
>What about you?

I have no problems with sinners. I may be going to Hell, but I'll be surrounded by friends < g >. My problem is with hypocrits. In other words, most Republicans < g >.