[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Cool Hand:

Well, Mr. Limbaugh, what makes you think I'm a Democrat?

If obvious truths about our government being stolen are "sour grapes" to you, I could just as well determine that you just don't give a shit about how our country is run. I believe that the fact that the Supreme Court acted outside its constitutional bounds and selected the current president is evidence that this country's highest offices are tainted. If you don't agree, then fine, don't. But it seems you don't care.

And... The last president we had was impeached and tried for not being forthright about an illicit blowjob. This president gets away with lying to the American public about involvement in the Middle East and siphoning off millions in tax revenues so that the rich can get richer. With your attitude, why do YOU even bother to vote....your vote doesn't count and you don't care.

Oh, wait... I think I see a trend, here....

godfry

Heh heh. Well, I called you James Carville, so I suppose it's fair for you to call me Mr. Limbaugh.

For the record, I think Limbaugh is a big, fat blowhard. He does not present facts at all. If you understood how much I dislike the guy, you wouldn't be calling me him.

On the other hand, it is simply disingenuous to claim that the Supreme Court acted outside its bounds. The Florida Supreme Court proceedings were a sham, and the whole searching in vain for hanging and pregnant chads in order to count them as votes thing was a mockery of the voting by secret ballot.

I don't know how you can infer that I don't care. What I don't care for is how the Democrats made a big issue out of counting every vote when so many of the votes they wanted to count simply weren't clearly marked as votes one way or the other. Ambiguous votes aren't votes at all. If the voters are too stupid to mark their ballots clearly, then their "votes," such as they may have been, don't deserve to be counted. Let's not forget that the Democrats cherry picked the counties they wanted recounted so that they were heavily Democratic counties. I don't see how anyone could seriously believe that Democrats were interested in fairness. They were interested in winning, period.

The hanging and pregnant chads searches we all saw on TV were positively absurd. You can't invent comedy better than that. That's no way to select a President.

The Supreme Court didn't select the President. It overrruled the Florida Supreme Court's order upholding a trial court's ruling that the votes in certain counties must by recounted, well outside the deadline for certification. I simply don't see the corruption on the part of the Court that you seem to imply must have taken place. That's clearly what those who claim the Supreme Court stole the election from Albert Gore imply about the Court. The Court consists of appointees from Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. At least two of the justices are widely and consistently regarded as swing voters. How anyone with much knowledge about how the Supreme Court works can claim that they conspired together to rob Gore of the election is beyond me. There simply was no such conspiracy and no rigging of their decision.

No matter how many times Democrats bring it up, or how they try to spin it, President Clinton's lying under oath in a federal case is clearly perjury. He was sanctioned by the court for it and he was disbarred in Arkansas for it too. He can no longer practice law in the state of Arkansas because of it. That should be something the former President is ashamed of, not a rallying cry for Democrats to whine about how mean and unfair Republicans are for bringing it up.

Calling President Bush's justifications for proceeding with the invasion of Iraq lies is stretching the definition of lies. Using alternative grounds for justification after the fact when the intelligence the White House relied on turned out to be incorrect does not mean that the President lied. It means his intelligence was incorrect. A lie requires that the teller of it have an intent to deceive his audience and that he know the matter to be untrue at the time of his utterance of the lie. No one can claim with certainty that Bush lied about WMDs. The most one can say is that he was mistaken.

The business about taxes isn't a lie either. The figures being tossed about during the campaign from both sides all have a basis in fact, but they are each presented in a light most favorable to the proponent of the figures. That doesn't make them lies.

I'm not sure what you think my attitude is. I don't buy the rhetoric the Democrats use to attack the President and to make him seem like a lying frat boy who is interested only in helping his cronies get richer. That's bullshit. This President may not be the smoothest or most effective President ever, but the ridiculous attempts to blame the economy on him and to blame him for bin Laden's still being at large, and for the Arab world's apparent hatred for our county on the President reflects a fundamental dishonesty on the part of those claiming such things, or at least a gross misunderstanding on their part of the degree of the President's influence on those matters and how much of the current state of affairs he inherited from previous Presidents.

By the way, President Clinton's being impeached simply means that he was tried by the Senate for an alleged offense. Impeachment and trial in this context are synonymous. He was in fact acquitted. Again, it's not truthful at all for Democrats to claim that President Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. The fact is that he was impeached for lying under oath in a federal case pending in a federal court. His untruthful testimony had a very real, tangible, and substantial impact on his pending case brought by the plaintiff Paula Jones. As the President of the United States, and as an attorney, his lying in his sworn deposition was disgraceful and self-serving, demonstrated a lack of integrity on his part, and was rightfully treated as a criminal matter.

Oh, and the reason I think you must be a Democrat is that you are making the same arguments they make so stridently, some of them for four years now. Most of the party members have moved on, but the James Carvilles just won't let go of the "stolen election" rhetoric. It's nonsense.

Your claim that you see a trend here with regard to what you think my views are is misguided. I don't think you understand my political views at all. I'm hardly a right winger. On the other hand, I try to maintain a comfortable distance from the absurd left-wing demogoguery that has dominated the Kerry campaign. For what it's worth, I don't buy much of Bush's rhetoric either. That doesn't mean by default I believe what the Democrats keep saying about him, however.

Cool Hand