Tom Daschle

[Darris Chambless]

Hello to all,

Does anyone besides me think that Tom Daschle is the Devil? This man is either blatantly stupid or just plain evil. I see the man during interviews and honestly cannot believe that he truly thinks that people care about the issues he's trying to bring to the forefront when there are so many other pressing issues at hand.

It amazes me to no end, but what amazes me even more are people that actually think he's fighting the good fight and actually trying to make a difference for the American people. He's fighting for nothing more than political gain at the expense of the American people.

Then there's Toms minion, Dick Gephardt. If ignorance was an alley Dick would be a freeway! :) Why couldn't Joe Lieberman have been the Senate Majority leader? At least he's likeable and has some integrity (albeit not much)

Whew! I feel better now that I have that off my chest.

Darris C.

[wmcdonald]

I am aware that forums such as this make people targets, but I must take offense to the above comments regarding Congressman Gephardt. Dick has a home in North Carolina and I have had the pleasure and honor of knowing him for many years. He is a distinguished member of the United States Congress and a dedicated public servant. Whether or not you like his political views, I want to share with the readers that he is anything but ingorant and a fine gentleman.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Warren,

Take offense if you must but it's unfounded I'm afraid as once again the definition of ignorance has been twisted, but not by me ;) Whether you know Dick or not is immaterial since I'm am referring to him from a political standpoint. Do I agree with his or Daschles views? (Chuckle) Obviously not.

I have no doubt that Dick may be a great guy once a person gets to know him. He might even be a guy that one could hang out with, but when it comes to politics I've never heard so much drivel in all my life. A three year old could make more sense than most of the policy these two support.

To clarify the definition being used where "ignorance" is being used: It is not a disrespectful name but is, in fact, how I view a persons lack of knowledge and or lack of common sense. My attitude is that it's always aggrivating to be governed by someone you know you're smarter than ;)

As to the "Smothers Brothers" :) I'll stand by my original statements in my original post sense it's true. Sorry to offend but those two have already offended me and I don't see anyone apologizing to me for it. At least until these same two guys rewrite the constitution and take away our freedom of speech (which they are trying to do by the way) I will voice my opinions and concerns where I feel the threat. These guys and their cronies have a lot of power and they are wielding it with reckless abandon and I don't take kindly to that sort of thing. I have rights and I have freedoms that are slowly but surely being stripped away by the likes of these men.

Anyway, you take care. If you like Dick personally then great! But I cannot and will not say that I like any of his policy and would rather see him and Tom gone. Hopefully this will happen come election time, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Darris C.

[Steve Machol]

I just have two words:

Newt Gingrich!

:D

[Darris Chambless]

I agree Steve...,

Newt should have never been crucified by the likes of vermin such as these men. Thanks for bringing him up. :) Newt was the perfect example of what political enemies with a lot of power and no leg to stand on can do to a person. The Democrats wanted him out and so they pressured him until he had had enough and left. The Democrats are still trying to do the same thing with Enron and the Bush Administration and yet there is no scandal associated with the Bush Administration and Enron.

My favorite thing about Enron is that investigation into the whole thing will show that The DNC recieced just as much money from Enron as the Republican party and that one Joseph Lieberman was the single largest recipient of contributions from Enron and I believe Dick Gephart was the second largest recipient of money from them for his campaign. Terry McCauliff made an investment of $100,000 into Enron and walked away with $18 million. Since his party is so vocal about being the ones standing up for all those people that lost their retirements because of Enrons failure, I wonder when he's going to return that money to help out all those unfortunate displaced employees? They will also find out that the Clinton administration actually had more scandal that can be uncovered regarding Enron than anyone else on the face of the planet.

The Clinton administration did all kinds of monetary favors for Enron (with our money) in exchange for political favors from Enron. One favor in particular envolved India and a business venture there to the tune of a couple billion dollars and some political insurance for overseas ventures to the tune of a couple hundred million if memory serves. The Bush administration told Enron that they couldn't do anything for them because it was "impropper and unethical." So I'm scratching my head in wonder as to why the upstanding politicos are being investigated (with our money), the illegal actions of the corrupt politicos have been swept under the carpet and why people can't see that all this is just political rangling before the up coming elections and see these people for what they are? Not the parties mind you but the people representing the parties. The Dick Gephardts, Tom Daschles, Arlen Spectors, John McCains, Jim Jefferds and so on so forth. I honestly don't see how these weenies made it into the political arena.

As to Newt Gingrich and what happened to him, I would ask one Mr. Steve this question "So what's your point?" This is one that I would just love to debate. In fact I'm just all giddy about the possibility of doing so.

Anyway, take care Warren and Steve,

Darris C.

[Steve Machol]

Darris Chambless said:
As to Newt Gingrich and what happened to him, I would ask one Mr. Steve this question "So what's your point?"

I'm surprised you don't get the point. I thought it was pretty obvious! ;)

[Johns]

I'm sure that everyone is aware that why Tom Dashole was spouting off about "campaign reform", he and the other "merry men" were falling over themselves to lap up every last penny from the Holllywood. He really knows the meaning of "reform".

Is everyone also aware that if his "reform" bill passes, it will be illegal to advertise against a political opponent w/in 60 days of an election??!! It is not an exageration to say that he is trying to re-write the consititution of the United States. Freedom of speech and freedom from unfair taxation is what our country was founded on.

Your correct Darris, getting rid of those two would be a great service to our country, but do you really think they have that many people fooled ?

[shanbaum]

This has taken a disturbing turn.

It's one thing to have an emotionally charged enthusiam for one brand of politics or another, but it's quite something else to cast dehumanizing epithets at the "opposition" - especially in the absence of substantial intellectual arguments.

A line is crossed when words like "vermin" and phrases like "getting rid of" appear. I hear a disturbing echo of the Nazis' characterization of the Jews, when exactly those terms were employed.

While I deplore the political correctness movement - I think that no topic should be beyond discussion - what's been written here is not discussion; it's ranting. Readers should see this kind of thing for what it is - a reflection of the inability of the writer to express his thoughts (such as they may be) in a reasoned, logical fashion - and in place of the indignation that the writer hoped to invoke, they should respond with contempt for the source.

I would hope that others would comment. It's easy to disregard this kind of thing as merely juvenile, but I would hope that the Optiboard community would have sufficient character to establish some minimum level of decency below which one can't descend - at least not without a modicum of censure, in the form of critical posts.

[Pete Hanlin]

Shanbaum said:
I would hope that others would comment.
As usual, I'm going to agree with both and neither side...

Darris said:
Does anyone besides me think that Tom Daschle is the Devil?
No, I think he is just a politician making himself familiar with the American public. I imagine he'll be making a run at the Presidency in 2004 if he thinks he can win. Does most of what he says turn my stomach? Absolutely!

Warren said:
Whether or not you like his [Dick Gephardt's] political views, I want to share with the readers that he is anything but ingorant and a fine gentleman.
I'm sure you are correct, and Mr. Gephardt is indeed a fine human being. I'm sure it would be quite entertaining and pleasant to sit and chat with him over a bowl of tobacco and some rum and cokes. I think in the name of civility I would avoid any political discussions, however- since he seems to be almost diametrically situated to my own views on politics.

Steve said:
I just have two words: Newt Gingrich!
I have just two words (followed by a few more ;) )- COME ON! I'm disappointed, Steve! You're the one who is always whinging about "all politicians being the same, regardless of party." Maybe you hated his policies, but Newt Gingrich was certainly a politician who clearly stated the ideas he espoused and followed through on his statements (which is really why he is now back to being a private citizen, the American public doesn't know what to do with a political animal like Newt Gingrich). As a Republican, I have to admit that he single handedly re-elected Bill Clinton and gang, but I did appreciate where he was coming from (and his "Contract with America" combined with the blunders of Clinton in the beginning of his first term did gain Republicans a majority in both houses).

Darris said:
So I'm scratching my head in wonder as to why the upstanding politicos are being investigated (with our money), the illegal actions of the corrupt politicos have been swept under the carpet and why people can't see that all this is just political rangling before the up coming elections and see these people for what they are?
To borrow Steve's "two words," I'll say Richard Nixon. Since Watergate, Americans have never quite trusted their elected officials. Subsequently, investigations such as these are tolerable because deep in the mind of Joe Q. Public is the thought "you never know what they just might turn up on those untrustworthy ba$tards!"

I believe Jimmy Carter did a lot to restore faith in the public (he had integrity, if not capability), and Ronald Reagan could have continued that trend if not for the Iran-Contra scandal (and by "scandal," I'm referring to the ridiculously blown-out-of-proportion investigation into relatively minor wrong doings. Unfortunately, I'm convinced that the Republicans spent a lot of money during the past few years "getting even" with all the Whitewater hearings (a side-effect of which was the introduction of Monica Lewinsky and her pretty blue dress to the American public).

Johns said:
It is not an exageration to say that he is trying to re-write the consititution of the United States. Freedom of speech and freedom from unfair taxation is what our country was founded on.
That depends on how you view the Constitution. I'm not sure the framers of this document could have possibly predicted the influences of money on the election process. Note that I don't usually go for these "the framers couldn't have predicted" arguments! Consider the mindset of the framers, however. They were coming from England- a monarchy. Monarchs don't "run" for office...

I think "election reform" is probably a good idea that has no chance of being done correctly (sorta like the Patient's Bill of Rights). If it is necessary, it is only because of the apathy of the American public! Has everyone forgotten that representatives are elected??? If people would get involved and think for themselves about who they are voting for, it wouldn't matter who paid for what message. Did you vote for Al Gore last election (like the majority of Americans who voted)? That's fine with me- IF Mr. Gore happened to espouse ideas that you agreed with. If you only voted for him (or for Bush) because a tobacco company, environmental group, labor union, or oil interest paid for a cutsey commercial, then I'd suggest we don't need election reform- we need VOTER REFORM!

Finally, Shanbaum said:
This has taken a disturbing turn.
You are exactly right, Robert. What is particularly disturbing is that the "turn" is not unique to this forum. All across America, political discussions are composed mostly of emotional reactions and very rarely on factual issues!

[Steve Machol]

Sorry, but both Newt Gingrich and Tom Daschle were and are politicians. Therefore I'm always amused when someone accuses them of acting like - uh, politicians!

I'm also amused when people consistently accuse only those people they disagree with of acting like politicians, while the politicians they do agree with are always acting 'on principle'. Now it's my turn to say 'COME ON!' ;)

P.S. I don't believe I ever said all politicians are the same. I do believe that many of the fundamental problems of this country will not be solved by either of the political parties - primarily because they are financially captive to the entities that are the source of those problems.

[Steve Machol]

P.P.S. I actually have respect for some politicians of both parties. There are people out there that do put principles ahead of their own narrow political interests. Unfortunately these people are in the minority and the system is skewed in favor of those people who have the money to back politicians and political parties. One analogy that might strike home is the relative effectiveness of Optometric organizations in protecting the interests of their members as opposed to organizations for Opticianry.

[Pete Hanlin]

Yes, but MY point was that Newt Gingrich could surely not be accused of being a Republicrat or a Demolican! He was a politician who took a rather distinctive, somewhat extremist stand and lived and died by it.

[Steve Machol]

When Newt first started out, he took very progressive stands on a number of issues that were not typical 'Republican' stances. However he never really followed up on those and instead fell into the same 'He Said/She Said' policial discourse that runs endemic throughout out system. He may have started out with some interesting principles, but in the end he was simply a politician - and not at all much different from all the other politicos.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello to all,

Since I started this and am really enjoying it so far :) let me say that although I'm acting juvenile and childish (according to Robet who's opinion I value almost as much as I value the opinions of Tom Daschle and or Dick Gephardt ;) I am basing my opinions on some fundemental facts if any of you can believe that.

First is Tom Daschle acting like a politician? Well, actually he is acting power hungry. Like the old saying goes "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't feel that corruption is a common everyday practice in politics, but it does happen and Mr. Daschle is exhibiting every mannerism to that effect in my opinion (my opinion based on interviews and voting records).

"A line is crossed when words like "vermin" and phrases like "getting rid of" appear. I hear a disturbing echo of the Nazis' characterization of the Jews, when exactly those terms were employed."

Well, its better than being called a "fachist pig" I guess :) Perhaps my use of the term "Devil" would have been more suitable for nitpicking but in this case I guess the two lesser sufficed. My use of the term "vermin" was more ambiguos and means those things that are more of a nuissance than a help, but perhaps it was a little strong for some delicate sensativities. "Getting rid of" meaning in the political arena or "being voted out" which I believe I clearly stated but I can't vouch for others.

As too Newt, yes let's talk "fact" and explain what happened to Newt. I'm all ears at this point. Since we're gonna use this as a counter example let's use it. Explain the facts of what happened to Newt Gingrich and then we can do a little comparison shopping so to speak.

Emotion? Were my remarks based on emotion? No more so than Roberts, Steves, Petes, Johns or Warrens. So let's get back to the matters at hand an hear the "facts" about Newt in comparison to Tom and Dick (The Smothers Brothers :) So let 'er rip dudes.

Darris "Von Mengelahausen" C.

[Steve Machol]

With all due respect, talking about Newt is as boring as talking about Clinton. My only point is that politicians act like politicins and we should not be surprised when they do. For the record, I thought Newt started out with some truly unique and progressive ideas, but in the end he acted in the same manner as most every other politician.

Perhaps I should have used the words - TRENT LOTT - instead of Newt Gingrich! ;)

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Steve,

Way to avoid the issue! But I'm still waiting and will expect a discertation in triplicate on my desk by Tomorrow noon :)

Just between you and me you may want to watch using the word "boring" when referring to a person. Robert might find it to be juvenile ;)

Take care,

Darris "WE CAN HAVE NONE OF THAT!" C.

[Steve Machol]

Darris Chambless said:
Way to avoid the issue!

Actually it's a matter of conserving my time for more important things. (Like munching down a whole box of Samoas!)

I used to love talking about politics and could do it for hours at a time. Perhaps one day I'll have that kind of passion for politics again. However right now I am simply too disillusioned with the whole mess. The problem is that there are very few people left with truly open minds and I've found it's a waste of time and energy discussing these issues with people who believe they have all the answers and have nothing left to learn. No matter what you say, they have an answer for it. Life is simply too short to waste time like that. [This is not directed at any particular person here. It's just a general observation.]

I freely admit I don't have all the answers and am constantly looking to broaden my scope of knowledge. My political (and other) views have changed dramatically over the years as I discover new facts and new convincing arguments. I fully expect that these views will continue grow and change as I learn more. However I do believe that I am one of the few remaining open minds left. We are a dying breed and we need to conserve our resources! ;)

[shanbaum]

If you want to discuss facts, submit some. In all of your posts, I can find the following:

1. "Newt was the perfect example of what political enemies with a lot of power and no leg to stand on can do to a person. The Democrats wanted him out and so they pressured him until he had had enough and left."

Yeah, I'm sure that Newt left because he couldn't stand the unrelenting opposition of the minority party.

2. "The DNC recieced just as much money from Enron as the Republican party and that one Joseph Lieberman was the single largest recipient of contributions from Enron and I believe Dick Gephart was the second largest recipient of money from them for his campaign."

As I have suggested before, it would be really helpful if you would include authoritative references supporting your assertions (that is, it might keep you from appearing to be, well, ignorant). For instance, you might cite http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6...ong_senate.asp where Enron's contributions are listed. Oh, but wait - the list actually shows that Gebhardt received nothing, and Lieberman was down around 45th on the list (well below Tom Daschle, in fact). Elsewhere on that site you can find that Enron's total contributions were split roughly 75/25 in favor of Republicans. Now, a rational response might be, "oh, but here's this other reference that shows, to the contrary...". Can you make such a response?

3. "The Clinton administration did all kinds of monetary favors for Enron (with our money) in exchange for political favors from Enron. One favor in particular envolved India and a business venture there to the tune of a couple billion dollars and some political insurance for overseas ventures to the tune of a couple hundred million if memory serves."

Can you cite a source for this "information"? A newspaper story? Gordon Liddy's radio show? Anything?

[Darris Chambless]

Let's see Robert,


"1. "Newt was the perfect example of what political enemies with a lot of power and no leg to stand on can do to a person. The Democrats wanted him out and so they pressured him until he had had enough and left."

Yeah, I'm sure that Newt left because he couldn't stand the unrelenting opposition of the minority party."

So that's an "Oh yeah!" as to your defense against this then? So your facts would then be...?

"2. "The DNC recieced just as much money from Enron as the Republican party and that one Joseph Lieberman was the single largest recipient of contributions from Enron and I believe Dick Gephart was the second largest recipient of money from them for his campaign."

Your link was one to prove or factualize my statement but here's a little additional to back it up with a link to your link at the bottom :) http://www.congressaction.info/2002/ca01202002.html regarding the Dems and Reps contribution from Enron. In '89 it was rather disproportionate I will admit but I thought I was talking about the more recent past but according to you I must not have been. I guess I was wrong and you must be right since you said it it must be true ;) But according to even your information and link the Dems recieved 45% of Enrons generosity which if my ignorance can be quelled for just a moment would be 5% off from equal dollars. Granted I did say that the Dems received "just as much" so I was off 5%. Sorry I'll try harder next time.

"where Enron's contributions are listed. Oh, but wait - the list actually shows that Gebhardt received nothing, and Lieberman was down around 45th on the list (well below Tom Daschle, in fact). Elsewhere on that site you can find that Enron's total contributions were split roughly 75/25 in favor of Republicans. Now, a rational response might be, "oh, but here's this other reference that shows, to the contrary...". Can you make such a response?"

Perhaps I should asking you the same question Robert. As to Gephardt and contributions I was thinking Gore and saying Gephardt so you're correct on that one. But as to Mr. Leiberman his primary contributor was Enrons primary creditor Citibank and that can be found on several sites like the one I posted or just do a google search for Joe Lieberman and Enron contributions. I'll also check the archives of Rush Limbaugh and find the dollar amount for the contributions to Joe and see if I can get those to you.

Again by your own site as well as the one I posted the link to 45% of Enron contributions went to the Dems.

"3. "The Clinton administration did all kinds of monetary favors for Enron (with our money) in exchange for political favors from Enron. One favor in particular envolved India and a business venture there to the tune of a couple billion dollars and some political insurance for overseas ventures to the tune of a couple hundred million if memory serves."

Can you cite a source for this "information"? A newspaper story? Gordon Liddy's radio show? Anything?"

Sure. Let's top it with YOUR link. Then the link I posted as well as all the others that will be found through the google search, Rush Limbaugh, I believe I read some of it on the CNN page but not sure how long ago. AP, New York Times, Washington Post (I don't listen to G. Gordon anymore because he's gotten to be more vulgar than informative lately) Rodger Hedgecock out of California I believe he is, Bill O'Rielly I believe has also been doing pieces on this for a while, my local paper had a blurb about it from the AP and the list can go on if you'd like but it's quicker for me if you go read the information off the search. There's lots of biased reporting out there so be aware :)

Honestly with regard to Newt I really want to know or get the information that others have on the situation whether it bores people or not (Steve ;) I may be missing some vital information and would like to have it if one or the other can give it. As to debating when one "doesn't have an open mind" I'm not sure what that means "open mind." By whos definition is one closed or open minded and why does that not make the definer just as closed minded? Hmmm. I wonder?

Anyway, keep up the good work and lets milk this cow till the udders fall off shall we? :) And Robrt, I got nothin' but love for you bro.

Darris C.

PS. Posting links seems so impersonal to me and it makes it look like someone else did your thinking for you :)

[Steve Machol]

open-minded

o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
adj.
Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded.

Glad to help! :D

[shanbaum]

Sorry to be so dismissive, but your remark about Gingrich being forced out by the Democrats was so completely loopy - the very idea! If you'll look back to news reports like

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...1/06/gingrich/

it may jog your memory - though perhaps you think that the Dems put Livingston (remember him? the other affair guy?) up to it?

With regard to the Enron contributions - I take it you're getting the 45% number from the following quote from the site you cite: "According to the Washington Post, 45% of Enron's soft money in the 2000 election went to democrats and their party organizations". The table I was referring to is at

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_totals.asp

which shows total contributions since 1990 - the 76/24 split.

Not that I find that particularly edifying. I don't think that anything that can't vote should be allowed to make political contributions. Or be made to pay taxes, for that matter.

And let me see if I get this - you think that if Citibank contributed to Lieberman, and loaned money to Enron, that that obligates Lieberman to Enron? Hmm - I have a Citibank credit card - have you got Joe's home phone number?

As far as posting links is concerned - I think they're wonderfully convenient. Virtually no-one does his own first-hand discovery about any of these topics (i.e., by examining Enron's books). By identifying the source of assertions of fact, one lends credence to one's arguments... at least it gives the suggestion that the points made haven't been spun out of so much thin air (or hot air, in the case of Limbaugh). It's not letting "someone else do your thinking for you" - it shows that you're not just making it up.

For instance, I can't find anything about Clinton doing "monetary favors" for Enron on the opensecrets page, as you suggested I could (not that it would surprise me if Clinton did in fact do favors for Enron). See, if you would just post a link, I could be enlightened immediately.

[Pete Hanlin]

Like Steve, I am probably getting quite a bit of amusement from your little tete-a-tete guys...

Just because I can't resist, however, I'll just throw two more words in:
Ralph Nader

I can empathize with your frustration and disillusionment with the "system," Steve. However, if the solution is Ralph Nader I think I'll just be content with the way things are. Now, if Alan Simpson or Rick Santorum or some other Republican wanted to run with Joe Biden or some other Democrat on a no-bull platform that showed real promise (btw, they'd be unelectible, but...), I'd vote for 'em.

Its just never gonna happen... (btw, I don't think John McCain is a third party answer either- Ross Perot, if he could get rid of a few of his wacky quirks, would actually be okay I suppose).

[shanbaum]

Pete Hanlin said:
Its just never gonna happen... (btw, I don't think John McCain is a third party answer either- Ross Perot, if he could get rid of a few of his wacky quirks, would actually be okay I suppose).

I'd vote for his crazy aunt in the basement...

[Darris Chambless]

Hello again Steve and Robert,

First to Steve,

"o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
adj.
Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded."

I'll repeat my original question:

"By whos definition is one closed or open minded and why does that not make the definer just as closed minded?" So Pete not thinking that Ralph Nader would make a good option over what we currently have would make him close minded? Or if he thought that he would he would be open minded according to you? If Robert thinks I should be hit by a bus and taste my own blood but I disagree, I'm being closed minded? Or if Robert thinks I should be hit by a bus and taste my own blood and I agree then I'm open minded according to him? Likewise you disagree with my views on many points so why wouldn't you be considered closed minded? The definition is still dependant upon ones interpretation :)

"it may jog your memory - though perhaps you think that the Dems put Livingston (remember him? the other affair guy?) up to it?"

Ummm. Nope. But Liningston saying he would run against Newt was more a final straw than the cause. The uproar in the Republican party came from the conservative freshman turning more moderate after getting into their perspective postions. This created a problem for Newt and gave the Dems more fire power because their were so few to stand up with. At that point Newt couldn't get things progressing any longer and became stagnant. Actually I had forgotten about Livingston because he seemed so insignificant to the whole thing, but thanks for the "link" :)

"With regard to the Enron contributions - I take it you're getting the 45% number from the following quote from the site you cite: "According to the Washington Post, 45% of Enron's soft money in the 2000 election went to democrats and their party organizations". The table I was referring to is at

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_totals.asp

which shows total contributions since 1990 - the 76/24 split."

Yup, but since I was originally talking about Daschle, Gephardt and what's going on now, what gave you the impression that I was talking about what went on in '90? Not to mention Enron was still rolling at that time but didn't collapse and go under until just recnetly (remember the "scandal" idea regarding Enron and the Bush administration which was the original subject matter regarding this point which happened just recnetly)

"And let me see if I get this - you think that if Citibank contributed to Lieberman, and loaned money to Enron, that that obligates Lieberman to Enron? Hmm - I have a Citibank credit card - have you got Joe's home phone number?"

Actually no. The articles keep talking about the link between the three (hence trying to get that fact you're looking for through written info) Did I make that connection? Absolutely not, others did and are investigating, although minimally at present. Am I to believe what I read or not? ;) I will try to find the information about Enron contributions for you though but the number that I read was in the $200,000.00 range but perhaps I was mistaken as to it's source, but I don't think so.

"As far as posting links is concerned - I think they're wonderfully convenient. Virtually no-one does his own first-hand discovery about any of these topics (i.e., by examining Enron's books). By identifying the source of assertions of fact, one lends credence to one's arguments... at least it gives the suggestion that the points made haven't been spun out of so much thin air (or hot air, in the case of Limbaugh). It's not letting "someone else do your thinking for you" - it shows that you're not just making it up."

Thank you for the compliment. I try :)

"For instance, I can't find anything about Clinton doing "monetary favors" for Enron on the opensecrets page, as you suggested I could (not that it would surprise me if Clinton did in fact do favors for Enron). See, if you would just post a link, I could be enlightened immediately."

You see? This is just sad. I post a link and you don't even bother to read it. I'm weeping uncontrolably, Robert, I really am. I thought that by posting a link it would add credence to my assertions but alas no. Sorry to have wasted my time then ;(

:)

Darris C.

[Steve Machol]

shanbaum said:
I don't think that anything that can't vote should be allowed to make political contributions.

Damn Liberal!

shanbaum said:
Or be made to pay taxes, for that matter.

Damn Consvervative!

:D