The main call I've made on this thread, in a few posts, has been that of dispassionate, factually-based, balanced observations.
Without slander, personal attacks, or name-calling.
To paraphrase GWB, if you think I've been engaging in slander, personal attacks, or name-calling, I think you've misread me. I really do.
I've been remarkably pleased to see hundreds of messages on this very topic, not a single one of which I thought was rude, intentionally misleading, or at all inappropriate. This is particularly impressive given that many of us care very deeply about the outcome, in addition to the sanctity of the democratic system.
I did think many of them contained factual errors, or errors of judgment, and I pointed this out. Sounds rather curmudgeonly to me.
You, for instance, seemed to imply that the candidates are equally advantaged by nepotism, and that claiming otherwise is politically motivated. I disagreed, and said so.
While I happen to believe quite strongly that Gore is the better candidate, and that Gore is more right on the present issue, I honestly don't think this is due to bias. I'm generally pretty intellectually honest. E.g. from a policy perspective, I'm very socially liberal, but I agreed with almost everything Robert Bork ever said, from a legal standpoint. If I thought a revote was legally inappropriate in this case, I would, like tekboy, say so. |
