>>Well, I think we may be getting down to just plain >>fundamental differences in ideology, but I'm still having >>fun with this, so let's go on!

That's fine with me!

On the topic of Senator Clinton....
>>Whether you see that as inappropriate or wonderful is >>irrelevant; it's clear that she's been very involved in >>politics.

>>Does anyone know anything about Lazio? Again, I find your >>slighting of Hillary to be mean.

Ok, I'll make two comments and we can take this beyond just Hillary bashing and move on to other things. Firstly Lazio didn't establish himself, that's why he lost. We haven't heard the last of him though. If he'd run an issue based campaign he would have won.

Secondly, even though we're holding differing ends of the spectrum we're arguing two sides of the same coin. To be pragmatic, I'd be a fool to say that Hillary walked the election for nothing. She must have something going on. (When we know what we can talk again!) With due respect, you could be seen by some of the right-wing as a fool if you can't acknowledge that legally and morally she's let herself down. Now before you say "But haven't we all" I agree, BUT you and I have no sway in the ruling of the country. If you and I are going to start plotting for our own corrupt ends then so be it. But surely the government has to set the standard for us mortals? If there is evidence that a governement is corrupt, then surely they have to be called to account?

>>You ask why the media promotes ideas that are liberal->>leaning, and I will respond the same as last time. Yes, >>certain members of the media promote liberal ideas. And >>certain other members of the media promote conservative >>ones. For every newsperson putting forth a liberal idea, >>there is another one somewhere else saying the opposite.

I see it this way... because the mainstream media seems to have a bent toward the left surely by deduction there has to be traces of a liberal media and a liberal elite. For example, if the networks will only call moderates from the medical profession to debate abortion whilst Christian fundamnetalists are sidelined and ridiculed surely that misrepresents the public opinion.

The only way there can be an unbiased media is when the ultra-right and the ultra-left and everyone in between has the right to the same podium. You can't call a media unbiased and fair when you just look at pockets whose idea of a relevent left wing voice is Alec Baldwin and a relevent right wing voice is Dr Laura. Why doesn't Larry King prove me wrong by putting Daid Baerwald and Mancow Muller head to head? We all know why...

>>They are not 9-month old children. They are unborn >>fetuses. A 9-month old child plans on turning 1 year old >>in 3 months. And the issue which is being argued >>nationally is not late-term abortions, but the fact that >>Bush consistently supports people who wish to ban all >>abortions, no matter what stage of pregnancy. Again, I'm >>not going to go there, but I just want to ask if you >>think contraception should be illegal because it stops a >>life from being created.

Ok, I'll flag up my answers as cleanly as possible. Maybe then leave it to the `experts`!

Firstly, Bush has no direct legal sway to overturn Roe V Wade. (That I know of!) Even if he tried, it would have to go through what looks like an evenly balanced Senate. If he did, he knows that the left wing would hunt him down and he'd be out on his ear by 2004. (If he gets in, that is)

In cases like this, if we take a steady breath, we see that the lobbyists and legaslators are the ones who call the shots on that one. I don't think it's wise to call for a wholesale ban on abortion, but I do call for a reasonable evaluation of the topic. If we had a balanced media, I think they would purvey the opinions of everyone equally. You'd already know what the right-wing actually thinks. I think the above comments should allow everyone breathing space. If you do have the inclination, I would encourage you to check out some of the facts if you haven't already. As to your contraception question, I don't think they should be banned. The question is to diverse to fully answer this time round =o)

>>As fact-checking goes, it just seems completely pointless >>to me to do it as you say. Whatever unpleasant things one >>side says about the other, that other side will deny it. >>Thus, any fact checked on both sides will lead to two >>conflicting facts. Pointless.

If there are agencies that disclose hard facts then they should be checked. Now David Geffen would probably never admit that he's bankrolling Gore. But there is a government website that records how much he's donated so you can colour your facts and opinions of his work with your cross-referencing.

>>Again, you seem to only be discussing the faults of the >>democrats, when it seems fairly clear to me that the >>republicans have the same faults.

Al Gore and his team have gone to great pains to let the country know just where GWB got his money from. If GwB called Gore on the fact that Hollywood bankrolls him it becomes "a personal attack on my character".

>>What do you consider to be democratic? Our whole system >>of taxation is about the Communistic principle of >>distributing wealth among the people. And your slighting >>of the poor and middle-class citizens of America is >>incredibly disturbing to me. Do you really see the middle >>class as "stragglers"?

No I don't. Again, I'm sorry if my slap-happiness reads like I'm moving too far right. Again, in an attempt to get back on the track, I think democratic is when you get a benefit back that is proportionate to what you put in. Around that, the benefit net is important because in some cases (for many reasons) people can't put in the same ammount. They shouldn't be allowed to slip into the cracks.

>>My father spent 30 years fighting his way through the >>field to become a successful middle-class lawyer. Along >>the way, he worked 60-hour weeks and sacrificed much of >>his personal life for the sake of his job. And yet, you >>think he's a straggler because he's not rich? The tax cut >>for the middle class is not "a great prospect if you >>don't want to go out and actually work." Anyone who >>doesn't work is going to be dirt poor and struggling to >>eat.

Again, I apologise if my flippancy reads as another politcal ideology starting with an `F`. I'm from working class stock too, my father wasn't a rich man. But lets be honest, whoever gets in, they won't bring in their ideas for a couple of years and our tax burdens will be the same. Why then be sold on an idea that is selective in who it benefits? What is so wrong about an idea that could eventually benefit everyone? An idea that could relieve those at the bottom of the ladder of *all* taxes? An idea that even though the "top 1%" get a pretty healthy kickback, after the fact, they'll pay MORE taxes? Right now the "top 1%" pay about 40% of the tax bill. After everyone gets their money, the "top 1%" will pay more than they do now?!?! Isn't that a good thing?

>>And to address your previous issue about the electoral >>college, you seem to dismiss the issue because it's a >>selfish move by the democrats. I'll admit that trying to >>get rid of it in time to overturn the (possible) results >>of this election is probably not the right thing to do.

Fair enough...

>>But the electoral college, apart from any partisan topics >>relevant to this election, seems totally silly to me. If >>this country is a democracy (or a republic, as the case >>actually is), then each person's vote should count >>equally. There used to be issues of practicality that >>didn't allow equal representation, but those issues are >>now defunct. There's no reason why each citizen's vote >>shouldn't count the same, no matter where they live.

It's a fair comment, but unless you can take out *all* corporate money from driving elections and make sure *people* drive elections then they can discuss removing the electoral college. If the politics would descend to a tap dancing extravaganza in the swing-states, then it's a bad idea.

I'll quit while I still can...
Richard