BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI

Subject: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:20 AM

It's all over the news, so I thought it merited comment.

I have always maintained that what happens to a person in life, is not as important as how he or she responds to it. Watching the response to this "November surprise" will be interesting.

I personally don't believe that this arrest, by itself, should matter in this election. It was a long time ago. He doesn't drink anymore. 14 years sober is something to commend.

There are two things about this that bother me, however. 1. When asked last night if this was the only substance problem in the Governor's past, neither he nor his campaign spokesman would give a simple "NO" for an answer.

There is the time for absolute candor. If he has nothing else in his past - say it! And it's not college pranks that I'm afraid lurk in the background (theft of a Christmas Wreath with some pals in college, also disclosed by his campaign spokesman. Big freaking deal).

2. He has repeatedly said about himself that "what you see is what you get". If he knew this was out there, an isolated incident that is truly insignificant, why didn't he just say it at some point over the past eighteen months of campaigning? Get it out there and basically de-fuse the issue. He thought he could slip this passed the electorate. In card playing terms, he tried to finesse the point. And he lost.

Did the Gore campaign slip Bush the old "shanghai surprise"? A Gore supporter did, no question about it. But I seriously doubt that the Gore campaign OK'ed it. They're not that good at campaigning. If they would have known about proof like this before they would have been hammering it in ads for the past month until no one really cared anymore. And even if they did know - I once again quote the late great Mayor Harold Washington, "Politics ain't beanbag".

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:26 AM

maybe its safe to vote for Nader after all! wuddaya think Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: JedMarum
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:29 AM

It's very safe to vote for Nader!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: SINSULL
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:30 AM

More funny than tragic. I am more concerned about the rumors of cocaine use and a possible arrest. Makes ole Bubba Clinton look like a member of the "silent majority".

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: MMario
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:38 AM

I'm more concerned about a nation and a press that can take a 24 year old minor traffic incident that is a matter of public record and blow it up into national news. There has been more coverage of this then of the USS Cole incident, and 17 lost their lives in that!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:40 AM

I don't see it as having any significant effect on the election. The public statement made by Bush will play in Peoria and I doubt if it matters much at this stage anyway. Though I would like to see anything happen to assure Gore's victory, I'm sick of these personal life issues that are not relevant whether its a blow job or a DUI. Yeah, I know......There are all these hidden issues that speak to the character of blah,blah,blah..........bullshit. It would also be easy to want some quid pro quo here and I'm sure both parties are childish enough to play the game. That's bullshit too.

I have no idea how history will judge Bill Clinton and neither does anyone else, we can only speculate. I hope that 50 or 100 years from now we have all wised up to the point of judging the performance of a job and not the frailities of the human species. We seem to be going in the wrong direction at the moment.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:52 AM

I agree, 'Spaw, about the life issues thing being irrelevant. I find it interesting, though, that Bush, who has been campaigning as the "un-Clinton", is linked to him by something that (as MMario maintains) was a matter of public record.

MMario - 24 years ago it may have been a minor traffic incident, but things change when you're five days from the White House. And the Cole incident was page one news and well covered.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:02 AM

I agree with Spaw; this shouldn't matter, period. It will be interesting to see what effect it has. It could hurt Bush by reflecting badly on his candor, or it could hurt Gore if people feel he was behind the 11th-hour disclosure. For myself, I would prefer that the election be decided on the issues and qualifications of the candidates; there isn't much about a 24 year old DUI that interests me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: SINSULL
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:03 AM

Spaw,
I disagree with your statement "we seem to be going in the wrong direction." The Press may be but most of the people I know shrug, laugh, and say it's not relevant. That includes GW's arrest and Clinton's sexual affairs - Oh Sorry - he didn't have sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: MMario
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:12 AM

I didn't say the COle incident wasn't well covered. I said this has had more coverage (which it HAS).

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:14 AM

A vote for Nader is AT LEAST a half vote for Bush.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:31 AM

I dunno' Sins......I hope so. What bothers me is that we have so much interest in it. I agree that the person on the street is wearying of the thing, but it still hasn't hit the press or the parties themselves yet. The press runs a story saying that few are interested in whatever and then turn around and triple the coverage. Polls showed that the general public was tired of the whole Clinton thing and it still didn't stop and indeed the issues became more trivial, but MORE investigated. They'll get it one of these days........I hope.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:37 AM

Dubya may have made it at least slightly relevant by assuming the 'moral high ground' throughout & beating the issue to death. I agree it shouldn't matter any more than Whitewater allegations should have mattered.Yet we were saddled with that BS for quite a while.
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: GUEST,Chaz
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:37 AM

Americans, Educate yourselves on abortion. In Congress they're debating as to whether or not an infant has the right to life and many democrats are saying no. This debate arose from an awareness of the NUMEROUS times that an abortion was unsuccessful, and so the abortionist needed to finish the job in order to collect his salary. There really isn't much difference between eliminating the life of a child inside of the womb or outside. If this isn't THE most important issue in this election, than I don't know what is. I'm scared. It often happens that when people actually investigate the reality of abortion, not only do they change their minds on the issue, but they become vehemently pro-life. Please educate yourselves, my friends. There are 4400 abortions everyday in our country alone. I can't look myself in the mirror and call myself a man if I don't do everything in my power to stop it. Thanks for listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:38 AM

Re. the USS Cole.When the first bodies were flown back to the States, the Commander-in-Chief was at a fund raiser instead of being present at the airport.
Raising $200,000 for the Gore campaign was more important than showing support to the grieving families of 14 dead sailors. The papers didn't report THAT either.
As far as I can tell. Bush did not try to get out of the tickrt at the time, and he did not try to deny it when confronted with it. His answer when asked if there was anything else in his past was properly evasive. If there was, and it is later disclosed, he didn't say "no". If there wasn't, no harm done. In the meantime, Gore supporters and reporters will waste time looking.
Smart campaign move if you ask me.Candid where he has to be and evasive where a problem may or may not exist.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: paddymac
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:47 AM

Well, I'm basically in agreement w/ MMario & 'Spaw. My thoughts on the DUI are: 1) he owned up to it - "That's a true story. I'm not proud of it, but it's true"; and 2) the only difference between he and I, and more other folks than I can count, is that we were lucky and didn't get stopped.

I think most people who did or do drink have been behind the wheel when they shouldn't have been. Most of us learn as we get older(or if we're lucky enough to get older). So, a great many people are in no position to throw stones. I'm not real fond of self-righteous hypocrits under any circumstances.

As to controlled substances, there is great hypocrisy there as well. I don't know it to be true, but I would not be surprised if the people who have never smoked pot are in a minority in the US. Pot has been an article of commerce for at least 10,000 years, and it hasn't yet brought down civilization. Even George Washington cultivated it; some for fiber and some for "other uses." How else could he smile with wooden false teeth?

I have no idea what proportion of the population uses, or has used, other controlled substances, but i suspect it is substantial. I have a range of sentiments about those other drugs. Coke has been around in various forms for a long, long time. I think I would be tolerant about most forms, but I am absolutely positive I would do my best to personaly assassinate anyone who pushed crack to someone I loved. Did you know that sugar was considered an addictive drug and was a controlled substance 100 years or so ago? If public health is the real reason for regulation, I think there are many good reasons sugar should be on the list again. Sadly, public health is rarely the real reason.

I believe most listings are based on economic motivation. Regulated markets are more profitable for the manufacturers and the gate-keepers. That's true in many areas, but probably nowhere more so than in pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco.

Apologies for the rant. I need my caffeine "fix".

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:58 AM

Some miscellaneous thoughts:

I personally do NOT consider a DUI conviction (or DWI, as we call it here in Minnesota) 24 years ago to be a big deal. If it happened to a friend of mine - especially if it happened only once - no way would it undermine my loyalty to that friend. But I also admit to a strong temptation right now to hope the information will be used to discredit Bush. I dislike him, I dislike his politics, and I hope he doesn't win.

It was a TACTICAL blunder for George W. not to reveal the information himself a long time ago. Probably the best time to reveal it would have been right after he had the Republican nomination locked up, possibly even before the convention. If he had, it would have been would have been overshadowed by all the hoopla of the convention, and it would have been forgotten by now. I understand Dick Chaney had some similar problems in his past and he DID reveal them, and it made hardly a ripple. Why didn't George W. follow his example?

As a MORAL matter, George W. should have revealed it even earlier, during his campaign for the primaries. As a rule, Republicans are less forgiving of such peccadilloes than Democrats are. No doubt they will stick by their man now, because he IS their man, their only hope against the Democrats. But if it had come out during the primaries, they might have nominated John McCain. Now the question arises, did Bush defeat McCain fair and square? If I were a McCain supporter, I would feel cheated.

The Gore staff is wise to keep silent. They don't NEED to say anything. The press will have its own feeding frenzy. Anything Gore or his staff could have said, the press, and the numerous "pundits" that appear on talk shows will say for them, and more. They will pick this thing apart, examine it from every possible angle, interview everyone who knows anything, or has anything halfway intelligent to say about it, or less than halfway. They won't stop until they have a bigger story to report. As of next Tuesday, the election itself, and the election results will be the bigger story. Therefore this story has a time limit of only about four days. After that, it will be practically forgotten (assuming some even more damaging information doesn't come out).

The question is naturally being raised of whether the Gore campaign leaked the news. It's possible, I suppose, but I doubt it. For one thing, why did they wait so long? Surely it would have benefited the Gore campaign a lot more if this information had come out a couple of weeks ago. Then the feeding frenzy would have lasted longer, and done more damage, and perhaps even more damaging information would have come out. Now, there isn't time.

Also, assuming the Gore staff had the info a long time ago, how could they have kept it out of the press until now? Even if the vast majority of Gore staff thought it was best to hold it back, remember, it only takes one dissenter to leak.

There is one thing that puzzles me: Why didn't some reporter discover this independently? No doubt there are hundreds of reporters who would give their eyeteeth to be the one who broke the story. During Monicagate, lowlifes like Matt Drudge and Larry Flynt were raised to fame and near respectability by the roles they played. Why weren't similar types digging up the dirt on George W.? I, for one, am not so interested in who leaked the news, as in, who kept it secret for so long, and how did they do it?

Maybe it just goes to show how little investigative reporting really goes on in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:11 PM

The only relevance this has is on Bush's self-definition as a straight-shooting, square-rigged, HONEST man over and against Clinton. That the voters haven't seen through Bush yet is a very high tribute to P.T. Barnum.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:33 PM

How many of you did dumb things in 1976? I was only nine years old then but I'm sure I contributed my share. Not a Bush supporter but I think 24-year-old stupidity is a non-issue unless we're talking about something serious like war crimes.

There are plenty of things like that I have done since I was about 18, that could be held against me if I ever ran for office. I inhaled. I drank too much. I had sex before I got married. I have never had an affair but I have been known to shamelessly flirt with men other than my husband (not seriously, of course). I have been tattooed three times and probably will go for a fourth.

What a relief to know that I would never be able to get elected!!!!! ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:36 PM

Sorry to disagree Mario, but, the oui thing is news today..one day.. the Cole incident has been in the news almost every day since it happened. Drunk driving a minor traffic offense? not here it aint!If his name had been John Smurd he would have gone to jail!
The matter of timing..that story was broken by a local reporter for Fox tv, a very conservative station right here in Portland Maine. The idea that it is a democrat plot is horse shit. Its too late to do the demos any good. What bugs me about Bush, well one of the things, is his "holier than thou" stance all along. I believe the word is hypocrite. Maybe now he will come clean about his drug use too.
For a while there I thought we were getting rid of a liar and getting a drunk..now, it seems we may be getting two for the price of one..
I'll say it again..these birds are all politicians and lawyers. What can you expect? Paragons of virtue? HA!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:54 PM

Americans stand poised to elect an alcoholic to the most stressful job in the world, and the first stressful job GWB will have ever had in his life. What's to keep him on the wagon? Do we want to risk a drunk with his finger on the nuclear button?

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Bert
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:57 PM

More important issues than DUI Family values

100 people have been executed in Texas under Governor George W. Bush.
In a poll of Texans conducted by the Public Policy Resource Laboratory of Texas A&M University, 47.5 % of the respondents favored a life sentence with no possibility of parole over the death penalty, with 13 % unsure and 39.5 % favoring executions.here

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:57 PM

And his vice president has had TWO convictions!!
Maybe it's Christmas Dems!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:59 PM

Let's be fair. Bush is not a lawyer, he is not a drunk, and as far as I am concerned he is not a liar (on this topic, anyway). He told people early on that he didn't intend to discuss his youthful indiscretions, and he stuck to his word until this came to light yesterday. I don't like the guy either, and I hope he loses. But I don't want him to lose over this little piece of trivia.

Paddymac and Kim are right -- we've all got something in our past that we would rather not be judged by now. It might be drunk driving (yes, most drinkers who drive have been inebriated behind the wheel at some point), or use of illegal substances (virtually everyone around my age in the USA has used illegal drugs at some point, and for most of us it was a lot more than "experimentation"), sexual relations outside of marriage (it's a rare individual indeed who can honestly deny this one), or something a good deal more sinister than those. If we continue to insist on using those things as our selection criteria, we'll end up choosing between misfits and liars. Sure, if you dig hard enough the information is out there, but it's up to us what we do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:10 PM

Youthful indiscretion? he was 30 at the time. I dont have a serious problem with a 24 year old crime, I DO have a problem with his phoney taking of the high ground.That was a bit strong, calling him a drunk. He's probably not a drunk..drunks dont have money. Cheney has been convicted not once, but twice for oui. Now there is a suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:13 PM

One more problem bothers me: George W. drove drunk in 1976, and he says he quit drinking in 1986. What was going on during those 10 years? Often one drunk driving conviction is enough to make someone see the light and swear off the bottle. Did it take George W. ten more years to bottom out? How bad did it get? What other skeletons are in the closet?

I have heard recovering alcoholics say that the years they spent drinking were "lost years" as far as growth and maturity are concerned. This is especially noticeable in young people. If a kid starts drinking heavily at say, age 16, and doesn't quit till age 26, when he sobers up he will have the maturity of a 16-year-old, if that. It's true of adults, too, but not always noticeable, because you don't automatically expect much greater maturity, wisdom, whatever, in a 53-year-old than in a 43-year-old.

By contrast, the children of alcoholics (like Bill Clinton) often seem wise beyond their years, at least in some areas, because of the problems they had to start dealing with at an early age. But they often end up with blind spots - they are often unable to give up the coping strategies that enabled them to get along with the alcoholic parent.

I think an interesting book could be written on the subject of how various politicians have been influenced by alcohol in their lives.

Anyway, maybe we should start thinking of GWB as 10 years younger than he really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:33 PM

Only have a second. For our more conservative friends, the fact that he got caught driving drunk has no more, or every bit as much, relevance than some of Clinton's indiscretions. It was 24 years ago, there has not been a repeat, and there but for the grace of God go I. It means nothing by itself. But measured in the light of the man's native ability, it certainly means something. He makes such a deal out of restoring integrity and honor to the office. A person of integrity running for the office of the President of the United States, especially with this as his mantra, would have come out early with this information. As Dick Cheney did. I don't like Cheney's views, but the facts are that he had the good sense to not hide this information during his confirmation process for Cabinet Secretary. He waited till he was caught and only then does he come to grips. The bit about his daughters is hogwash. I am sure they are fine young ladies, and I am sure that he and Mrs. Bush (who is a wonderful person) love them dearly. But for this guy to think that he could run for this office, and not have this come out is ludicrous. He should have been honest with them, and honest with the American people and did it early. He wouldn't have this problem then. And then he blames others for releasing it. YOU, MR. BUSH, ARE THE ONE WHO DID IT, WHY WOULDN'T IT MAKE ITS WAY OUT??????? One more example of how unprepared he is for this role. I could care less that he had the DWI 24 years ago. But his unconscious hypocrisy causes me great concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:39 PM

Driving when you're drunk means you're risking killing other people. And the man was 30? That makes it seriously serious. And so does trying to ciover it up when you're making a pitch for being mister honest-and-clean.

Now I imagine the Bushaholics will be charging round like blue-arsed looking for an equivalent thing about Gore. But it'd have to be something involving putting the lives of other peiople at risk to count. Personal stuff like illegal drugs or drinking to excess (when not behind a wheeel), or being a stupid teenager, wouldn't meet the bill.

It could just get a bit interesting. I can never understand why people have such a down on "negative campaigning". It's what stops everyone falling asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 02:50 PM

I like to see them kick the shit out of each other..IF they would stick to the issues, AND the truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 02:53 PM

Bush can't stick to the issues because he's out of step with the voters. He has to obfuscate.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM

Just rec'd this & though it is a bit of drift, think it speaks to the "truthfulness" issue. Apologies for the length-

Best, Greg

(Copy Follows:)

With the election drawing nigh and so much rhetoric floating around, I found this info from the folks who were there a refreshing change of pace. I'm including both the link to the page and pasting a part of the text so you can get the flavor without looking at the whole thing.

http://www.schindler.org/psacot/20001009.html#computer_industry_news

Vint Cerf is widely known as "the father of the Internet." Here's what he says about Al Gore's role in founding it.

Al Gore And The Internet By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:00 PM

RATS! Meant to make tyhat a clicky thing:
GORE-INTERNET

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: MMario
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:03 PM

DUI not DWI - there is a difference. just being nit-picky.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:13 PM

DUI = Driving Under the Influence

DWI = Driving While Intoxicated

OUI = Operating Under the Influence (?)

Other than terminology, what's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: jeffp
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:21 PM

In Maryland, the difference between DUI and DWI is the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream. This creates two categories of intoxication with different penalties depending on which category you are in.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:26 PM

Well that's in Maryland. What's the difference in a REAL state?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Songster Bob
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM

I have to say that not being forthcoming early on, when it was not just a "secret," like private drug use might be, but a matter of public record, just waiting to be found, indicates a basic stupidity on Bush's part. Or a too-clever-by-half-ness, if it was a "finess," as has been suggested. Neither is a character element I'd like to see much of in my leader(s).

And those who say "shame on Gore" for its release (even though it seems to have been a Democrat working independently) should read the Washington Times, the local loonie-moonie paper in DC, for featuring slanted, innuendo-filled, "news" stories with little or no fact within 'em, all aimed at Clinton and Gore. And no one on that paper, it seems, sees anything wrong with it. After all, conservative voices are so rarely heard in the media, who cares about a dearth of facts?

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Songster Bob
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:31 PM

Oops! That should be "finesse."

Bob c.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Peg
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:33 PM

Chaz the guest wrote:

Americans, Educate yourselves on abortion. --okay, I have. Now what?

In Congress they're debating as to whether or not an infant has the right to life and many democrats are saying no. --a fetus is not the same as an infant. The one cannot live outside the womb; the other can. Big difference. That's why the law is what it is.

This debate arose from an awareness of the NUMEROUS times that an abortion was unsuccessful, and so the abortionist needed to finish the job in order to collect his salary. --what??? This is utter hogwash. If you knew anything about the relaity of abortion providers in this country, you would know that enough of them believe in making the service accessible to women in communitites hwere it is problematic, that they provide these services as volunteers, with no pay, or minimal pay. Educate *yourself*, why don't ya?

There really isn't much difference between eliminating the life of a child inside of the womb or outside. --I would have to beg to differ on that. A six-week old cell-divider isn't conscious. A six-week old infant, that has reached full term development, is conscious. Why you can't figure this one out is beyond me.

If this isn't THE most important issue in this election, than I don't know what is. I'm scared. --me, too. I don't much cozy to the idea of a buncha white guys in suits telling women what they can do with their own bodies.

Why, precisely, are YOU scared?

It often happens that when people actually investigate the reality of abortion, not only do they change their minds on the issue, but they become vehemently pro-life. --oh, really? Any documentation on this? Just curious to know what these statistics are in your carefully-researched argument.

Know what the reality of abortion is? The reality is, birth control is still pretty much in the stone age. The reality is, women get pregnant even when using birth control. The reality is, women in abusive relationships find themselves pregnant even when trying to extricate themselves from those relationships. The reality is, accidental or unintentional pregnancy is a way of life.

The reality is, the "right to life" movement, this whole debate on whetehr or not life begins at conception, was never antyhing anyone gave a second thought to...until the 1960s, when abortion became a safe surgical procedure. Woemn had always sought out abortions, from the village wisewoman to the back-alley doctor. They often died trying to end their pregnancies, but the risk was worth it to them.

Once abortion became a safe procedure, people like yourslef, who cannot fathom a world where women are able to ocntrol their own reproductive freedom, well, they got upset. They thought it was wrong of women to have this sort of control over their bodies. And thus the idea that somehow, abortion was the killing of an innocent life was, you'll excuse the expression, born. This handily coincided with the rise of the anti-feminist religious right wing, and the idea that women who were starting to attain equal pay for equal work, and focus on careers over domestic life, were somehow overstepping their true fucntion as laid out in the bible.

The rest is history. People (mostly men, I am sorry to say) who have no idea of what the *reality* of an unwanted pregnancy is like, should nto go shooting their mouths off about whether a woman has a right to control this most personal matter.

Please educate yourselves, my friends. --Done. You do the same.

There are 4400 abortions everyday in our country alone. --I would imagine htere are a similar number of children born to poverty, drug abuse and neglect. Which makes our already-overpopulated world a worse place?

I can't look myself in the mirror and call myself a man if I don't do everything in my power to stop it. --I wonder what you would say if, instead of a penis, you had a vagina, and thus were forced to call yourslef a woman when looking in the mirror? I think your tune might be a different one.

Thanks for listening. --yeah, you bet.

By the way...I used to get my gyn exams and birth control supplies from a little Planned Parenthood clinic at 1031 Beacon Street in Brookline, Massachusetts. It was a great place to go, except for those annoying protestors who screamed at women from the sidewalk and threatened them and threw things at them. Those crazy protestors who yelled at women not to kill their babies, that they'd raise the baby for them (though oddly they never offered to put this in writing).

Then one day a nutcase who thought abortion was murder (much as you yourself do) walked in with a sawed-off shotgun and tried to blow everybody away. He killed a receptionist, not an abortionist. (One might conclude he was actually anti-reception, as opposed to anti-abortion). Thereafter I had to submit to a body search and walk through a metal detector every time I wanted to get a pap smear or some birth control pills. Most inconvenient.

The nutcase went a couple miles up the road to another women's clinic and did the same thing.

It is a thin line between ill-informed indignation and fanaticism.

Thank YOU for listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:42 PM

Peg, believe it or not, some people who are opposed to abortion really think they are saving lives, and that is the foremost and primary thing they have in mind. The whole thing about "oppressing women" and "limiting women's choices" is not the issue for them at all, and seems to them a dodge from the "real" issue, which is the taking of a human life.

We will never be able to talk together on this issue until we stop talking past one another.

trying to build a bridge here,
Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Peg
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:57 PM

Alex, I see your point, but I think that to see this issue with such blinders on does not help legitimize someone's view. I can acknowledge that an abortion prveents a pregnancy from going to term. So why can't a pro-lifer acknowledge that preventing women from choosing what is best for them (and the potential child) is oppressive?

I don't have any desire to talk "together" with someone who tells me what to do with my own body. Someone who has never experienced unwanted pregnancy. Someone who can't see the difference between a clump of fetal tissue and a living breathing baby. There is no arguing about it, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:13 PM

Do me a favor - if you want to debate abortion, start another thread with an appropriate title. Then I can ignore you more easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:31 PM

WARNING, SKIP OVER THIS ONE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ANYTHING MORE ABOUT ABORTION!!

Peg, thank you for saying pretty much the same that I feel and was going to post.

Mousethief, they may believe that, but if they were to honestly look deep within and be totally honest, I think they would find that it is indeed more about control over women and their bodies, than whatever with a foetus. No matter what their motivation that is what it somes down to.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM

As far as I can tell, saying, "I made some mistakes in my youth, but there's no value in being specific about them" is not one of the Twelve Steps--

And if he stopped drinking at all(would it surprise you to know that sometimes alcoholics continue to drink even after telling people that they have stopped?) it wasn't by participating in any sort of rehabilitation program--his dad simply arranged for him to have a long talk with Billy Graham, which "Dubious" claimed was all it took for him to break loose from more than twenty years of lost weekends--

Subject: RE: abortion
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM

WARNING THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION

Kat, I must respectfully disagree. That is what it comes down to from the pro-abortion side. From the anti-abortion side, it comes down to killing babies. I've been on both sides of this issue and have seen it from both sides. It really doesn't help any for one side to say that they can tell the other side what their REAL motivation is. It's both disrespectful and counterproductive.

Just as guilty are those on the pro-life side who say things like "They know deep down that it's murder but for them convenience is more important than human life." This too is disrespectful and counterproductive.

Until both sides are able to accept that the other side really is in earnest in what it says is its real motive, there will never be constructive dialogue on this subject.

I was amazed and pleased that a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago (I think it was) has joined forces with a local adoption agency. Of course extremists on both sides of the fence decry this, because (IMHO) they have become too entrenched in their shouting-match foxholes to see what the real issue is -- helping women who find themselves in "trouble."

But of course it's so much easier to demonize one's opponent and project your fears onto their motives. This is what "The Handmaid's Tale" is all about, and it's very chilling. It shows better than any debate or argument that the pro-life side and the pro-choice side really aren't communicating at all. When I read the book (which is masterfully written) I was a fervent, anti-abortion evangelical Christian, and what I thought was, "boy, we just aren't getting our message across to these people."

But if "these people" refuse to listen, and prefer to decide for themselves what the other side "REALLY thinks," then no amount of communicating will ever get any message across.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:53 PM

Dear Sweet Jesus, Mouse, you were determined to get into this, weren't you? Please take it
HERE
Thanks, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Peg
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM

thanks, Greg. That was the appropriate thing to do. I didn't start this topic in this unrelated thread, but I did choose to respond here...

BTW (on topic) I could care less if Dubya had a DUI conviction twenty some years ago. I think there are afar more significant reasons not to vote for the guy...

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:01 PM

I dont know if you call Maine a real state or not, but, the legal limit here is 0.08. It used to be 0.10. We have a sign as you enter Maine that says MAINE HAS A TOUGH DRUNK DRIVING LAW FOR YOUR PROTECTION. I dont drive while drinking, and, I have no pity for anyone who does.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:01 PM

For what its worth, Peg, I'm with you on BOTH counts.  ;-)
Managed to head this off a few days back, but was afraid the cease-fire wouldn't hold. Watch out for stray rounds & collateral damage.
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Dubbya, Gore and DUI
From: DonMeixner
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:07 PM

I am amazed to see that forgiveness extends to everyone but elected officials or those seeking office.

I see no relevance in opening 25 year old closets for traffic infractions. The diference tween George and I 25 years ago is he got caught and I never have.

As regards to voting for Nader. I would vote for Nader any year but this one. If Nader takes away votes from Gore and gives the supreme court to Bush we can see many liberties that we now enjoy as precidence disappear with the next appointment. ( Besides Rights to choose) I can see Miranda going away, freedoms of assembly, Speach, and Habius Corpus being so narrowly defined that we won't really know what "IS" is.

Its the local elections that matter in our lives far more that the who is President. Beyond picking the supreme court and opening up baseball season, we can do without the big guy completely.

The Pres has nothing to do with setting taxes, creating laws, or steering the ship of state beyond the end of his veto pen. The work is done by the congress and senate. As it should be.

Don