[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You have the party line down pretty straight as well Teal. It's just as obvious you do like Gore and so don't hesitate to excuse or attempt to explain away his inconsistancies. Personally I don't care enough about him to continue this topic. I was merely trying to provide some facts to the discussion since very few on either side of the issue when it came up every even heard or read what he actually said. They were merely parroting one or the other camps spin, as you have pretty faithfully done here.

Point of fact I don't like Gore much at all (think he is much preferable to Bush yes, like him no). I am just willing to provide him the benefit of the doubt just as I am willing to provide Bush the benefit of the doubt when his numerous so called verbal gaffes get circled around the office. In those cases I am much less willing to do hard work to try and defend him true, but there are others who will do that. I content myself with not joining on the bandwagon.

Calling my point of view "the party line" I find somewhat offensive. It should be everyone's "party line" that until given overwhelming evidence to the contrary (of the "I hold in my hand the names of X communists at the state department" or "I have not had sexual relations with that woman" variety) that a willfull deception has indeed occured it is always the default position that someone was being smeared for political gain by their enemies. To rephrase that somewhat awkward sentence: the burden of proof that a politician is lying lays squarely at the feet of the accuser and it should be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof otherwise one should believe the person being accused. The case against Gore wouldn't even be admitted to court, much less achieve the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. To be fair the case that Bush is stupid is equally dumb.