Anybody else see the abject FEAR in the Gore campaign? It is rare to see so much filth and muckraking coming out of one camp so close to an election. I haven't noticed any similar episode other than the "commie" one from the Bush followers...What gives? And why would anybody in their right mind want such a filthmonger for their President?

"Of Course!" "Cuz, Hollyweird has spoken!"......Cher, Alec, and Marlo are G-E-N-U-I-N-E authorities on who should rule...err run this country.....riiiiiiiiiiiiight......uh huh....

-- mmmph (stupidis@stupiddoes.com), November 03, 2000

Answers

Yup, I noticed.

Headlines from today's Newsmax.com

Dirty Tricks Fraud Fears Grow; Hollywood Steps Up Anti-Bush Tirade

Things are getting nasty as Election Day nears. The Gore campaign just unleashed its most negative attack ad, focusing on Bush's record in Texas. With more and more states encouraging voting by mail and loosening restrictions on absentee voting, many observers are concerned about election fraud. Vote-swap Web sites try to help Al Gore and Ralph Nader at the expense of George W. Bush. News organizations receive copies of a 1976 police report that Bush pleaded guilty to DUI.

Tinseltown's attack on Bush turns increasingly vicious. Foul-mouthed Cher ridicules 'stupid, lazy' Bush. NBC "News" lets TV has-been Marlo Thomas rant against Bush on national television. ABC "News" is letting Barbra Streisand rant against Bush, but Hollywood's pro-Gore frenzy might backfire. Still, Miramax's Harvey Weinstein scrambles to make a star-studded Gore-Lieberman "infomercial."

Reform Party founder Ross Perot endorses Bush for his leadership and integrity. Also: Read excerpts of Perot on Larry King. Not liking the direction the country is heading under Clinton-Gore, Jewish Press endorses Bush and Rick Lazio. On the campaign trail, Bush and Gore sound familiar themes in the Midwest.To get the latest presidential race tracking polls every day, Click Here.

Adv. B Campaign House Managers Under Attack

The 13 House managers who conducted the impeachment trial of President Clinton are under attack from the Clinton-Gore "Revenge Machine." They are pleading for help.

-- Justme (justmeagain@news.com), November 03, 2000.

"They are pleading for help."

LOL, sorry they won't get any help from us!

-- liberals (revenge@is.sweet), November 03, 2000.

>The 13 House managers who conducted the impeachment trial of President Clinton are under attack from the Clinton-Gore "Revenge Machine." They are pleading for help.

Awwwww ... that's cuuuuute. Poor little naive Republicans didn't anticipate that if they spent all that time and effort trying to blow up Clinton's perjury into a constitutional matter beyond what it legally deserved, then Democrats would decide that the GOP had set a new standard for political fighting? Awwwww ...

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

NSP you are SOOoooooo right! Please tax audit me after you rape my wife and send my son to some farflung unheard of country to "wage war" on behalf of folks who have been warring for centuries but now pose an incipient threat to the modernized free world so he can die hiding your indiscretions....yes, yes, YES I AM deserving of your attacks!

Do me baby like you know I want it done! Here's a cigar.

-- rukidding (doit@doit.com), November 03, 2000.

rukidding (doit@doit.com),

Which of the terms "impeachment", "perjury", or "constitutional" did you not understand? Ever heard of "non sequitur"?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

I understood all of them. Unfortunately, none of the senators who "voted" (some would say were blackmailed into NOT voting) even looked at the room filled with evidence. Had they done so, they would have been legally bound to vote to impeach. The evidence was/is all there. There is a book coming out (out now?) by one of the men who helped assemble the obstruction of justice charges, abuse of power, etc....read it and then talk to me about it.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Or are you still so deluded that you consider Clinton a "hero for saving the Constitution"..."one of the greatest presidents of all time"...."a man who never lies"...

You go and smoke that cigar NSP....But I think yours must have a little of Gore's pot in it as you are obviously in lala land where the present administration is concerned.

-- (doit@doitnow.com), November 03, 2000.

I understood all of them. Unfortunately, none of the senators who "voted" (some would say were blackmailed into NOT voting) even looked at the room filled with evidence. Had they done so, they would have been legally bound to vote to impeach. The evidence was/is all there. There is a book coming out (out now?) by one of the men who helped assemble the obstruction of justice charges, abuse of power, etc....read it and then talk to me about it.

Look yo-yo, go read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and ask yourself about Bill Clinton's freaking rights. Ask yourself how it was we came close to unseating a two-term sitting president over a BJ. Based on evidence from a woman who does not do laundry for 2 years. Eight years and millions of taxpayer dollars later.

Surprising? Hell no, we maybe on the verge of electing a President who is running on the idea the Seperation of Church and State is silly. A man who gets his philosophy from guys who think like Gary North.

BTW, while you are pondering, where is your evidence to support your claims? Blackmail? didn't even look at the evidence? Where is it? same place your email is at probably.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), November 03, 2000.

FBI files found in Hillary's bedroom.....blackmail?

I really don't know, but I really do suspect it.... personal files from the FBI don't just "wander" into the presidential boudoir, no matter what dope you've been smokin' you should be able to realize that.... sure was whitewatered/whitewashed fast, wasn't it?

Ever read an FBI file? I understand they are quite thorough and contain lots of "personal" stuff.....

I've always wondered why 50 senators wouldn't deign to review evidence in the biggest trial in history.....haven't you? The statement is true. They didn't even go into the room. Check it out. Trial? Not hardly. It was bought and paid for and You and I paid for it and the country will continue to pay for it if Gore is elected....and heaven help us when Senator Hillary gets elected.

-- (stupidis@stupiddoes.com), November 03, 2000.

Oh Great Constitutional Expert (doit@doitnow.com),

>I understood all of them.

Guess you forgot to re-read the part of the Constitution that covers impeachment, then.

>none of the senators who "voted" (some would say were blackmailed into NOT voting) even looked at the room filled with evidence. Had they done so, they would have been legally bound to vote to impeach.

No, they wouldn't. By the time that Senators were voting during the impeachment trial, the House had already voted to impeach Clinton. That's why the impeachment proceeded to the Senate for trial. Senators have no authority to vote to impeach.

Don't claim to know stuff if you really don't. Looks foolish.

>You really don't have a clue, do you?

_You_, who apparently don't yet know what "impeach" means, think you have any standing to tell me that I don't have a clue?

Don't claim to know stuff if you really don't. Looks foolish.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

House votes...then the senate votes....no use talking to idiots. next please

-- (doit@doitnow.com), November 03, 2000.

(doit@doitnow.com),

>House votes...then the senate votes

House votes to impeach, then Senate votes to convict. You haven't yet shown that you know the difference.

>no use talking to idiots.

In your case, I think there's hope, so I continue.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

All part of the same trial...it's called the impeachment trial. yes, clinton was impeached and was awaiting conviction of his "impeachment"....same trial, same thing.....you like to look for trivialities, don't you? No wonder you're a democrat..

Got a joke for you:

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don 't know where I am." The woman replied, "Your are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be a republican," said the balloonist. "I am," said replied the woman. "How did you know?" "Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The woman below responded. "You must be a democrat." "I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?" "Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

yup!

-- (stupidis@stupiddoes.com), November 03, 2000.

(stupidis@stupiddoes.com),

Good grief! If you're going to post a political joke, don't use one that originated as an engineer/manager joke and has simply had "Republican" substituted for "engineer" and "Democrat" for "manager".

Especially when it doesn't fit your jibe at me unless the substitutions are done the other way around.

>All part of the same trial...it's called the impeachment trial. yes, clinton was impeached and was awaiting conviction of his "impeachment"....same trial, same thing...

No, the impeachment itself is not a trial. The trial is called an impeachment trial because it results from an impeachment. To say they're the same is like saying that an indictment is the same as a trial. An impeachment is like an indictment.

>...you like to look for trivialities, don't you? No wonder you're a democrat..

You like to argue about trivialities -- otherwise you'd have just ignored my responses. Are you sure you're not ... well, just what are you?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.