Drunk driver for PRESIDENT!

[Mr. Miyagi]

The record of Texas Governor George W. Bush

The state of Texas under Governor Bush is ranked:

50th in spending for teachers' salaries.
49th in spending on environmental protection.
48th in per capita spending on public health.
47th in delivery of social services.
42nd in child support collections.
41st in per capita spending on public education.
and...
5th in percentage of population living in poverty.
1st in air and water pollution.
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance.
1st in percentage of children without health insurance.
1st in executions (average of 1 per 2 wks. during 5 years that George Bush was Governor)

Not bad, huh?

[KyGJJ]

Please.......

Al Gore really stands out as a man of exceptional quality if you ask me. The press goes after Bush for a DUI in 1974 (hasn't taken a drink since 1986) but never looks into Gore's dubious record on taking money in LA. Oh, sorry, he didn't know it was a fundraiser... I forgot. Let's see Pro-Life, Pro-Choice - See Example Below.

Another thing that irks we about Gore... Boasting about his Vietnam record. Let me say having a father in the Senate can provide you with nice "photo" jobs in the Army. It sickens me that people like my father (twice purple heart - 2 tours) did the tough work, never complained and his guy will talk like he was Rambo on the front lines. Please!! He was never CLOSE to the action thanks to Daddy in the Senate. At least Bush (Air National Guard) was a fighter pilot and had balls to take on a challenging job. - See Example Below.


Example Lie #1:
Washington Post, Sept. 24
CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.”
TRUTH: President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman

Example Lie #2:
OFF KEY
USA Today, Sept. 19
CLAIM: Addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of lullabies from his youth and sang, "Look for the union label."
TRUTH: The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27.


Example Lie #3:
October 17; third presidential debate, St. Louis
CLAIM: “The big drug companies…are now spending more money on advertising and promotion — you see all these ads — than they are on research and development.”
TRUTH: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reported in July that drug companies spent between $5.8 billion and $8.3 billion on marketing and $21 billion on research in 1998, according to CBS News.


Example Lie #4:
March 1, 2000; San Jose Mercury News
CLAIM: “It’s not fair to say, ‘Okay, after his sister died, he continued in the same relationship with the tobacco industry.’ I did not. I did not. I began to confront them forcefully. I don’t see the inconsistency there.”
TRUTH: The same month Gore’s sister died in 1984, he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco. The next year, he voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco. In the 1988 campaign, Gore bragged of his tobacco background: “I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put [tobacco] in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it, I’ve dug in it, I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it and sold it” (Newsday, 2-26-88).


Example Lie #5:
February 20, 2000; New York Times
CLAIM: Gore said he has “always, always, always” supported Roe v. Wade.
TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.


Example Lie #6 (And worst of All!!!)
October 15, 1999; Los Angeles Times
CLAIM: “I carried an M-16. . . . I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass, and I was fired upon.” In 1988, Gore told the Washington Post: “I was shot at. . . . I spent most of my time in the field.”
TRUTH: Gore never faced direct enemy fire, although he may have arrived on the scene after fighting was completed.


Example Lie #7
January 24, 1997; Today show
CLAIM: “I did not know that it was a fundraiser.”
TRUTH: A DNC memo prepared for Gore made plain that the event at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif., was a fundraiser. A Secret Service document called it a fundraiser, Gore’s staff described the event as a fundraiser to reporters, and DNC chairman Don Fowler testified to the Senate that he knew “there was a fundraising aspect to this event.” Six weeks before attending the event, Gore met with temple master Hsing Yun at the White House with fundraisers Maria Hsia and John Huang. Later that day, Gore sent an e-mail saying that he couldn’t be in New York on April 28, 1996: “If we have already booked the fundraisers [in California], then we have to decline.”

Example Lie #8
August 22, 1987; Associated Press
CLAIM: Gore “said half his campaign staff were women, and he would make half of a Gore Cabinet women.”
TRUTH: “But pressed by reporters later to name women on his staff, he fumbled and then mentioned one name, which later turned out to be incorrect.”

Miyagi - Al Gore has been hanging around Clinton too long... He seems to embellish everything.

[NDIrish]

death penalty?

Why is it that people always bring up Texas's recrod regarding the death penalty? Do no Gore supporters realize that the governor of a state cannot "order" someone executed? This is left completely to the court system, which usually has a very rigorous system of appeals. The only thing a governor can do is issue a pardon, and that would have to be in an extreme case.
Therefore, to hold Bush responsible for the number of executions is absolutely ridiculous. I am sure you would feel differently about the death penalty if the victim of a violent crime was somenoe close to you...

It's also interesting that you did not cite Texas's violent crimes per capita...or was that statistic one you decided that you didn't want to share?


On another note, isn't it a COINCIDENCE that Bush's DUI came to light just a few days before the election? Wow, Mr. Gore is indeed a very lucky man!

[Darren]

Nice responses.

I think it is very interesting to see the same people who were running around and trying to downplay affairs, alleged rapes, corruption, arguable treason, drug use, draft dodging, etc. as being immaterial" b/c it was "In the past", yet they are now out there trying to feign being Indignant over such "dishonest and deceptive" behavior by Bush.

Give me a break. NOBODY is buying into this BS, b/c the hypocrisy is so obvious that it is insulting to the average American.

Did Clinton have an express duty to come forth and dislose his many sins without it being raised by others? No. If it comes up you have to answer to it though, and in the case of Clinton and Gore there is a great distinction b/n the way THEY have dealt with this type of information, and the way Governor Bush has dealt with it. Clinton/Gore have always lied and stonewalled upon being "caught" with their indiscretions. Bush on the other hand dealt with it like an honorable man. He openly admitted it, explained it, and moved on. I was VERY impressed with the way he dealt with this matter. It said ALOT about the man, and it was really a perfect opportunity to showcase the drastic differences between the 2 men running for this office.

That said much more to me than the 24 year old act.

I am very pleased to see that the nation sees it my way as well. It has not hurt Bush at all, in fact if anything it may have helped a bit, and will probably continue to do so.

[Linden]

>>Why is it that people always bring up Texas's recrod regarding the death penalty?<<

Because Texas puts to death more people each year than any other State, while having one of the lowest overturn rates in the union.

>>Do no Gore supporters realize that the governor of a
state cannot "order" someone executed?<<

I'm not a Gore supporter, but I can try and answer for them.

The Governor of course cannot order executions, yet he has the power to give a stay of execution if he feels there is sufficient evidence that someone might possibly be unjusticely being sentenced to death; or if he simply feels that saomeone needs to have his or her case seriously reviewed.

George W. Bush himself claimed at the time when 80 people had been sentenced to death during his Governership that he felt that not one of them was unjusticely put to death. Now, taking into acccount the law of averages alone that is a rather ignorant statement. There were cases where evidence had been provided for review, and it was completely ignored by Mr. Bush, which shows in itself a lack of respnsibility and basic apathy for his power.

As for your comments on the appeals process, well, George W.Bush said hismelf that he wants to cut down the appeals process for death row criminals, and therefore make it harder for people to have their sentences taken back to court. After all, it's only life or death.

>>Therefore, to hold Bush responsible for the number of executions is absolutely ridiculous. I am sure you would feel differently about the death penalty if the victim of a violent crime was somenoe close to you...<<

Umm, that was a grossly ignorant statement. I think you would feel differently about the death penalty if someone close to you was unjusticely sentenced to death. Our justice is not perfect and can never be perfect. The state or the federal governments job is not to extract revenge for crimes committed, it is to prosecute the crime, and sentence that person to jail time, whether it be for life or what have you.

Even Geroge W. Bush himself said that he doesn't think that capital punishment should be used as a revenge tool, he thinks it should be used as a deterrent, which any person with any amount of common sense would know and agree that having a death penalty does absolutely nothing to deter a viscious, pathological murders, whther they be in serial form or in a moments of passion.

I would have to say that Conservative people are the most unintellectual, unprogressive lot I have ever come across.

Money and power are what the Conservative party re all about.

It's a souped up frat for white collar business men.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Thanks Linden, I agree with you, I'm not a Gore supporter either, but a vote for him is a vote against Bush. The title of this thread was just to get people's attention, not because I am "indignant" over his DUI arrest years ago. I don't think such a trivial thing will cause any voters to change their mind and I don't see the Democrats making a big deal out of this and condemning Mr. Bush over this. His record regarding the environment, those less well off, and his overall lack of intelligence are what make me shun him. Why are Republicans so determined the find out who "leaked" the info about the DUI? This is public stuff everyone has a right to know and if he is truly sorry and is a changed man (he has quit drinking) then this matters not.
The Republicans are a wierd mix of the bible thumpers and filthy rich people that have little in common brought together by anti-abortion beliefs.

[Linden]

I understand how you feel Mr. Myagi, it's just that I feel my vote for Nader has a lot more potential to change things, and begin to cut into the two part monopoly that we currently have. I feel a vote for Nader has a chance to give the Green part necessary funds to remain relevant and become an overseer of the two major parties. I want more open diversified elections where many different views and issues can be displayed. I just don't feel that under the current two party system we will see dramatic progress. And as long as campaign finance reform remians unresolved, I guarantee you that we will never see any dramtic change.

It's funny how conservative people speak of Communism in regards to social reform, when in reality the new Communism is big business, and the consolidation of power by people who are only interested in money and social status, and not in improving peoples lives, and intensifying Democracy.

Our problem is that for the most part the wealthy influence politics more than any other group, yet form the smallest group of our population. The poor, unlike most other countries, are basically absent from politics.

The reason the poor are not involved in politics in this country is because they have been made to feel that their vote doesn't count.

Of course this needs to change by widening the way our elections are carried out, and having real issues offered to people.

And there is one last point I wanted to make.

My numbers were wrong, George W. Bush has sentenced 125 people to death during his term as Governor.

He likes to smile and brag when he talks about executions so I think he msut feel greatly responsible for what has happned on Texas' death row.

I think what people fail to realize in an argument reagarding the death penalty is that it's not about the guilty criminal, it's about the innocent person who gets put to death.

Even if it was only one person it would be unacceptable, yet it is much more, and Conservative people don't seem to grasp this.

I mean let's be truthful, most conservative people have intense religious leanings, and that being said, do you really think that people who believe in an imaginary man in the sky, who punishes you for bad deeds, and rewards you for good ones, really have the rational and intelligence to know what they are talking about?

[fascistfury]

i live in TX...it is a dirty, shitty place to live. bush has done nohing to address our problems as governor, so i could never entrust him to overwatch the entire nation...also, bush is a dumb-dumb. a vote fo bush is a vote for a dumb president!

[rockinronnie]

......"I SMOKED MARIJUIANA ONCE BEFORE, BUT I DID NOT INHALE"......

......"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN"!!....

...oh, sorry...wrong politition.


Bush certainly can't deny this, it's on his record. It shouldn't really make a difference in the way people feel about him, it was some 25 years ago. This is just my opinion. I realize some will say that it does make a difference, because he's in the position to very well be running the country soon if he wins, and he's needed to make critical decisions, etc.

He's human like everyone else, and has made mistakes like everyone else. He should be judged for the man he is now - not for a mistake he did 25 yrs ago.

Ronnie.

______________________________
A straight arm's still a broken arm - Master JPF

[Jimmy23]

I mean let's be truthful, most conservative people have intense religious leanings, and that being said, do you really think that people who believe in an imaginary man in the sky, who punishes you for bad deeds, and rewards you for good ones, really have the rational and intelligence to know what they are talking about?

HAHAHA great man,Id buy you a beer if you were here.Ill bet youd like this site here

http://www.truthbeknown.com

again ,well said hope you really pissed some people off

[John Bennett]

Originally posted by Linden
Because Texas puts to death more people each year than any other State, while having one of the lowest overturn rates in the union.

Ha! You act like this is a bad thing.

I challenge you to name even ONE innocent person who was executed in Texas in the last 100 years.

Just ONE.

[Mr. Miyagi]

John Bennett, we obviously do not have access to the case by case history of Texas executions but we read of people that are unjustly sentenced quite frequently. With 120 executions during the stellar leadership of George W Bush, do you think that perhaps there may have been one of more innocent person in there? All you have to do is admit that it is possible and we will be finished with this point as far as I'm concerned.

Rockinronnie, this isn't about silly little scandals. If you'll notice in the opening thread, I never made any big deal about George Bush's scandal, the title was just to get peoples' attention.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"- This was not about obstruction of justice at all. This was about the richest conservatives in this country green with envy at Clinton's popularity. The rich powerful conservatives used this "affair" to ignite the wrath of the masses of Christians at having a president that committed adultury. Most educated people would agree that the bad publicity Clinton received because of the Lewinsky scandal was very little related to obstruction of justice and very much simply for committing the sin of adultury. The masses of Christians are simply pawns that belong to the super filthy rich conservatives that are using them in their quest to get richer, without the hassle of the government imposing regulatory laws, environmental dumping restrictions, and high taxes. Why can't the Christians realize this?

Linden, I admire you for sticking to your ideals and voting for Nader. You are conceding that it will be fine with you if Bush wins this election if in the long run, the bi-partisan system is less of a force, independent candidates have more opportunity for publicity and support, and more people turn up to vote. That's fine, but for me it really is not OK if George Bush wins this election.

Everyone, I implore you, not to get stuck weighing scandals and denials when you vote. Clinton denied the Lewinsky scandal and later was forced to admit it. Bush claimed that he had always been a law abiding citizen and that he was not worried about skeletons in his closet, but of course had to recant and admit his previous mistake later on. These are embarrassing but they should not have so much bearing on who you decide to vote for as how you believe the country will progress the best with. Nader will not win but if it's important to you to vote for him, then I encourage you to do so by all means. I am very unimpressed by Governor Bush's record as Texas governor, his public speaking has been dismal, he has not shown great intelligence, and I believe he will be very bad news if he is elected, so I am dismissing Nader because a vote for him indirectly supports Bush as well.

[Kevin]

Politics

Hi,

I am pro-death penalty and prefer Bush's stand on firearms, but I will still vote against him on Tuesday. I think the biggest impact this presidency will be in the Supreme Court, via presidential appointment of new Justices. I am pro-choice and that will be the deciding factor in this election for me.

Plus.... my perception of Bush is that he is a "trust-fund baby" who had life handed to him on a platinum platter. He spent a good part of his earlier years leading the "high-life". His father gave him three businesses... oil companies, which he ran into bankruptcy. I understand now that Larry Flynt has made allegations that George W got an abortion for his girl friend before abortions were legal! I don't know if this is true, but to the best of my knowledge he has refused to address this allegation.

I don't think that Al Gore is any prize... but he'll get my vote.

JMO....
~Kev

[NDIrish]

Linden,

You stated
<< I would have to say that Conservative people are the most unintellectual, unprogressive lot I have ever come across.

Money and power are what the Conservative party re all about. >>

In the previous paragraph, you talk about ignorant statements...talk about ignorant! Conservatives are all about money and power? puhlease...I am a starving grad student, with neither money nor power. Its about a system of values. Our's may differ, but please don't pretend that I have the views I have, simply because I am a power hungry millionaire...

Now, as far as the death penalty issue goes. The fact that "Texas puts more people to death than any other state" MAY be true (you didn't provide the stats to prove it though), but you fail to recognize that Texas is a bigger state, population wise, than most others. Therefore, any rational and intelligent person such as yourself (uh-hubullshit...) would recognize that the absolute amount is not as important as is the number of executions per capita. Where does Texas rank in EXECUTIONS per capita per year, as compared to other states. My guess is that it would be pretty much in line with the other states that enforce the death penalty (it's a guess though).

This brings me to my next point. The death penalty is not a means of revenge, and should never be used as such. It should be a deterrent to crime. Will it deter the crazy fool that goes on a rampage and kills five? Maybe not. Will it deter the burglar from raping the little old lady, then killing her? Probably. That one life saved is worth it, in my opinion. With that being said, the biggest injustice that could possibly be done is to have a death penalty in a state that does not enforce it strictly, at all times. What good is it as a deterrent if it is not strictly enforced? Not a very good one. Therefore, on that basis, I would say that Texas has done a very good job in enforcing its death penalty.

You also talk about the low overturn rate in Texas. This would be a bad thing if, and only if, the people were innocent. I challenge you to provide ONE CASE of an execution in which the person could not be undeniably tied to the crime. Just one. Don't give me this "law of averages" crap, give me hard facts. If you wanted to use your law of averages argument, you would have to qualify it. What exactly is the law? What basis is it formed on? What types of distributions are you using? How large of a sample size is used? How large of a sample size is needed? If you can't proveide these, than your (law of averages) argument is seriously flawed....

[Edited by NDIrish on 11-05-2000 at 12:03 PM]

[Jimmy23]

Unfortunately I dont have the URLs,but several studies have indicated that Texas has a big problem with its justice system.Yea,its weak of me to say that and not provide refernces,sorry.
But,all sources will agree that there is no statistical relationship between violent crime and the death penalty.The type of scumbag that murders for profit or for lust doesnt think logically.
However,my opposition to the death penalty comes from the problems in the administraion of it.Usually when these cases are discussed,a heinous crime is described,and a defendent is sentenced to death .The left rails against the death penalty,the right dwells on details of the crime,buttoo often no one questions the basic assumption:is the guy guilty?Too often justice is a machine that cries for victims,and the poor and those with records for other crimes are unable to defend thamselves.prosecutors dont reveal all the evidence to defense attorneys,who all to often are incompetant .There is a reason that the pro death penalty governer of illinois has stopped all executions in that state,until the pronlems I have mentioned are resolved.
My question to conservatives is,if you believe that Big Government is the problem,that beauracies(sp?) tend to perpetuate themselves and to lose sight of their original purpose,why do you not apply this attitude to the justice system?Why do you question all branches of government except for law enforcment and prosecutors?The same people work there as in the EPA or OSHA,people are people,and the same forces that encourage the IRS agent to crush people encourage the district attorney to do the same.Im sure that you (pro death penalty people) want the guilty executed,not the innocent,my contention is that with a little bit of research you will see that it is questionable whether our current system accomplishes this.Combine this with the fact (well documented)that the death penalty is NOT an effective deterrent,and I,personally,must oppose it.
BTW,let me explain what I mean about the death penalty not being a deterrent .Yes many death penaly states have had a drop in violent crime,but statistically it is the same drop seen in non death penalty states.

[Edited by Jimmy23 on 11-05-2000 at 01:48 PM]