Duct tape and plastic sheeting.

williamhenry3 - Allow me to respond, point-by-point, to all the accurate, factual statements you made in your recent comments addressed to me:

William Henry,

Yes, Bush was elected President of the United States. It was a very close election and the American People were deeply divided over who they wanted to lead the nation. There were voting irregularities in a number of jurisdictions, and in Florida the electorial process was especially muddled. The election laws were unclear and the voting process itself was compromised. Our system provides for these events, and the remedy is to take the dispute to the courts. The election disputes were taken to the courts, and the courts decided upon the interpretation that favored the Republicans. They might just as easily adopted the Democratic interpretation of the laws, but they did not. You will probably say, but the court justices were mostly Republican. Yes, and I'm sure that all other things being equal they would choose to support their own Party. If it had happened that there were more Democratic judges, then the result may have been different. Unfortunately for the Democrats, neither Carter or Clinton appointed enough judges to prevail in this political fight.

Now, some argue that this was a unique problem in American electoral politics. That isn't so. Jefferson "stole" a tied election from Burr. Quincy became President as a result of a political bargain with Calhoun to keep Jackson (who had a virtual landslide of popular votes) from the White House. Ballot box stuffing, theft, and the purchase of votes by passing around a jug on the courthouse steps were common throughout the 19th century. The last election was close and it was a more vicious political fight than any in the late 20th century, but it wasn't really all that unique.

Quite elegant, but not factual - Bush was appointed. He is the unPresident - sad as it may be <sigh>

Bill,

Please point out which facts are incorrect. The Judiciary didn't appoint Bush, they decided upon an interpretation of the law that favored his cause. The Democratic Party had equal standing before the courts, they made their arguements, and they lost. Even Al Gore, a man by the way who I feel much more kinship with than the Shrub, has acknowledged the legitimacy of this administration.

WH, Bill Clinton WAS impeached, on December 19, 1998, in case you don't recall, by the U.S. House of Representatives.

So I am suppose to drop my beliefs , disregard the truth and appease the right by haboring their illegitimate spawn - I think not think so. The Right Wing Court took yet another activist position (may I remind you the score was 5 - 4) and appointed Bush - going against a massive precedence of states rights in relation to elections of their own states.

Gore steped aside - yes, and no one believes he meant what he said, he is a diplomate. Gore is simply good for the country. Bush would bring the nation to its knees (as he is doing currently) rather than step aside in an election he obviously lost. The worst person to sit in the Oval Office in the history of this once great nation.

Hopefully, we are just going through a few ugly years and will once again rise up after this horrendous blemish is removed!

The Justices interpret the laws, and decision has the force of law no matter how small the majority opinion. The rational followed by the courts can sometimes be difficult to follow, and almost always will find ready opponents. The easy cases don't usually get very far up the Appellate ladder. I think it wrong to typify the Justices as "Right Wing", or "Left Wing". These people are highly regarded jurists who have little need to cater to any political pressure, or party. Their philosophical and legal approaches are well-known when they go before the Senate for confirmation. Sometimes, they come up with decisions that surprise folks. Bush was elected, no appointed. Bush is the legitimate President of the United States, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. You will have an opportunity to elect someone different in just a little while, be patient.

Well said, BillW! They think if they say it often enough, it'll be true. This is what Bush himself does and is one of the many things which makes him so disliked -- abroad, as I was hearing today -- and at home -- vide A2K, among other discussion areas.

Anyone (historian for example) examining the Clinton impeachment will be caught between disbelief and disgust when they see who brought charges which led to the impeachment and why. The same historians, looking back some years from now at Bush's degradation of this country's standing in the world, will wonder at a Congress which brought impeachment proceedings after violating personal privacy, and at a nation which, only a few years later, would submit to further incursions on privacy, security, and liberty. We see a pattern, Bill, which has obviously escaped the notice of Bush supporters. Maybe some day they'll bang their heads against the wall and wonder how they could have been so blind.

You must have powerful quads, Asherman!

The court is Right Wing, Bush is Right Wing - I have to be patient, the alternative is Right Wing! And, Bush will never stand elected in the 2000 elections - even your typo proves that he was appointed - a true act of God! Forever saved right here:

History also shows up the factions that represent evil. The same faction that "impeached" Clinton put Bush into power. This factions' power is at its zenith, I hope. Otherwise, the USA is doomed.

Of course, I blame Clinton for his stupid actions - though not impeachable. I know the local Right Wing establishments radio voice was getting glee out of Clintons predicament and jokingly talked about impeachment - never believeing even his cohorts would put the country in that kinda quandry for a little sperm - but it did.

It is sad, and now look where we stand - possibly at the brink of the war that will end the domain of man! A war that doesn't have to be!

Lets think about this for a moment.

Nixon, who resigned his office in the face of certain Impeachment conviction for a whole laundry list of felonies and abuse of office charges, was not as bad as Bush. I don't agree.

Jefferson, who brought on one of the worst depressions in the nation's history, reduced the Army and Navy to the level of a palace guard, who used his office to pursue and punish his own enemies list, and whose acts in office brought on the War of 1812 during Madison's administration is not as bad as Bush. I don't agree, though Jefferson did have some redeeming features that have endeared him to legions of Americans.

LBJ, who led us into Vietnam and made it fashionable to have a National Debt that will never be paid off. An administration typified by civil strife, riots, terrorist acts against the Federal government, and more devisive than any period since the Civil War. I don't think Bush is any worse than LBJ.

How about the succession of Presidents who did nothing while in office, even though the nation cried out for leadership. Hoover sat in his Office and declined to do anything to reduce the suffering of Americans during the Great Depression. The farmers driven from their land by the Dust Bowl became despised refugees in their own country. There were Presidents who were either corrupt, or whose administrations were corrupt almost beyond belief. Grant, Hays, and other Reconstructionis Administrations plundered the South, while railroad cronies made great fortunes stealing from the public trough. Cleveland who served twice is best remembered today for fathering a bastard while in the White House. The list of Presidential mis-deeds, and lies is a long one.

Most Presidents are neither saints nor devils, they are just politicians who find their way into the Executive Chair. Once in office most are faced with challenges. Some fail, others endure, and a few rise to greatness if the challenge is large enough. Men who were "failures" in private life may grow to gigantic proportions in office. Others whose preparation for office and experience promise great things, sometimes become dismal failures when faced with the smallest challenge. No one can really judge how good a President is until long after the fact. The opposition of to Lincoln during the Civil War was every bit as bitter as that directed at the Shrub. Lincoln today is a great hero. How will history judge Bush? Who knows what will transpire during the remainder of his term in office? Who knows whether in a hundred years his administration is regarded highly, or not?

Tartan,

I don't understand "quads"? That's a muscle group, right? You'll have to be more clear I'm afraid.

Bill,

For a fellow so concerned with Rightwing, radical Christianity, you sure seem obsessed with "evil". Are you suggesting that Bush is the Anti-Christ? Is the Republican Party, and everyone who doesn't share your extreme views, the Army of Darkness? Clinton was convicted of a felony while in office, that is a High Crime. Clinton wasn't charged with giving secret intelligence documents to agents of the PRC, though many of us believe that charge could have been supported. Clinton skated, but he was wise enough to step aside before the broom. Clinton and his wife were to many on the Right, communist sympathizers with no other interest beyond their personal political power. I recall hearing really right-wing Republicans denigrate Clinton almost as bad as you now cry against Bush.

Asherman
Nixon, who resigned his office in the face of certain Impeachment conviction for a whole laundry list of felonies and abuse of office charges, was not as bad as Bush. I don't agree.

IMO Bush worse than Nixon by a country mile. Nixon may have lied to protect the Watergate conspirators but he did not hurt the nation. Name on thing that Bush has done well or even passably. He has managed to turn the entire world against us.

We would never see eye to eye - Clinton was not evil, the Right Wing is!

Clinton convicted of a felony - ? please support!

Instructional video for the Ready.gov campaign is here:

Ready.gov instructional video

(broadband connection recommended)

Bill,

Perjury and inducing others to lie under oat is a felony. Clinton was disbarred after leaving office for the crime.

"Evil", Bill you sling that word around more than Bush. Since I don't agree with you, I must be "evil". Now that is a personal slur that is clearly outside the civil bounds we try to adhere to at A2K.

Au,

Nixon was guilty of crimes whose import was the destruction of Constitution. No other President was ever more clearly Impeachable than was Nixon. Nixon was a bad man, but a pretty good President if you are able to overlook his crimes.

What crime has Bush committed? Many do not like the policies he is pursuing, but his Constitutional duties and responsibilities don't say that he should be bound by popular sentiment. He is bound instead to defend the Constitution and the nation from all enemies. Bush and his administration are convinced that the Nation is endangered by the continued existence of the Hussein Regime, and the DPRK. The administration has adopted a strategy that they believe is appropriate to the circumstances. You and many others disagree. Time may prove you right, and the President wrong. On the other hand, there are many of us who believe that the President is pursuing the proper course. Time may prove us right. I will be terribly sorry if things go as badly as you all claim, but I believe this is a necessary risk. If you are wrong, how sorry will you be?

It is also a misdemeanor - please show proof!

And, he wasn't convicted-he copped a plea and it wasn't in office, it was out of office. Please, state facts factually!

Evil, you have created the strawman not me Asherman- please use logic! You slurred yourself!

Asherman says (this goes to the last post):

Asherman, the left you are arguing with are so far left that you'll never be able to get through to them, no matter how much logic and knowledge of history you use. Just so you know you are appreciated.