Interesting you should mention the press in Georgia,Mr. Satelitte.I heard about US troops in Georgia from a friend in Russia two days before it was reported here at all.
At an appearance in Minnesota, President Bush expressed his condolences to the families of the U.S. military personnel who died, but he said he hopes they remember that "the cause is important, the cause is just."
I have nothing that I want to add(though I could go on and on about the dubya)
however I just think its sad that there is such disparity between democrats and republicans...it just seems pointless...I mean sure its obvious that there are different views to the respective parties, and that some of these views are totally opposing to the other parties views. but it just seems so....unproductive when stark bickering occurs over things like what camp you supposedly(apparantly) side with.
Word up to that wrong robot. There is too much partisan division here in the US. It's like 2 different species of humans fighting a battle of words. I never liked partisan politics. It makes me sick. People adopt the whole hook line and sinker of one party with all the issues with out really forming their own opinion oon any of the issues. It's just a big scam and the people that pay for it in the end are the common folks.
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).
<strong>back to the topic at hand (reasons to hate Bush):
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Children doesn´t inherit the guilt of their parents (but unfortunetly they inherit the consequences of it.) And beside that there is enough to hate Bush for without looking down the family tree
</strong><hr></blockquote>After all your quoting and eye rolling, there's still the simple fact: Thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida, but enough of their votes were thrown out on legal technicalities to get Bush elected.
Just because a murderer gets off on a legal technicality doesn't mean he's actually innocent - he's not. We can hold our noses and let him out of prison, while at the same time recognizing that it shouldn't have happened and we should try not to let it happen in the future.
[quote]The point that most Gore supporters call on is that the elections are neither a legal battle to be won, nor a game to be played, but a set of votes to be counted. It shouldnt matter than "as the game is played Bush won" because the intention is that the person whom the people want should be elected.
<hr></blockquote>
Even that is not 100% clear, because (as I asked above), what of the military votes that were thrown out on equally ridiculous technicalities?
Law is not a game, and you're right, the elections were not a game, which is why I think it was pretty lame of Gore to treat it as such after he clearly lost by the proper methods used as mandated by Florida law.
I would love to see this moral forthrightness, "Law be damned, we've got votes to count!", if Gore had actually gotten a few more votes in Florida and Bushites were stomping and crying. I'm sure you would be the same bastion of truth that you are now, eh?
[quote]Links? Evidence? Whered you hear this? Anything?<hr></blockquote>
I have yet to see any evidence of blacks being disenfranchised at all. I have heard people called up before Civil Rights boards talk about how they were pulled over by police miles from ballot centers, only to make it there in plenty of time to vote.
There was no disenfranchisement, it's kind of difficult to prove with links. I can't prove with links that Canada didn't launch a nuclear attack on France, either.
BRussell:
[quote]Thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida, but enough of their votes were thrown out on legal technicalities to get Bush elected.<hr></blockquote>
You're looking at it backward; Bush won the original count as mandated by state law. Then he won all subsequent recounts, as required by state law. Then Gore tried to subvert state law (so far as it was in his favor) and failed.
Also, the newspaper recounts didn't include the military votes that were thrown out (or the servicepeople who were told they couldn't vote or never received proper forms).
(Maybe throwing out the double votes is a method of making sure that complete imbeciles aren't allowed to vote. )
I didn't even vote for Dubya, yet somehow I can manage to view this logically. You Democrats are hilarious.
<strong>Sorry-- been a really busy day-- but here's a quick list I threw together:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Mr. Satellite (Reference to Lou Reed there?) I have the information I need to get a better understanding. I don't know where some people here get their news or information...probably from a political propaganda pamphlet they found next to the Chick comic on the subway. Or TeeVee news.
Your links are much more educational and enlightening than all this ranting and raving....
Oh, and as for the Jesus reference someone else mentioned...hilarious...didn't he die for our sins? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Even that is not 100% clear, because (as I asked above), what of the military votes that were thrown out on equally ridiculous technicalities?</strong><hr></blockquote>You're probably right about the black votes. But you're making the same mistake you accuse others of when you talk about the military votes. Dems did not challenge the military votes - they thought it would hurt them in the PR campaign. The military votes were accepted with the loosest standard of any votes in Florida. [quote]Then Gore tried to subvert state law...<hr></blockquote>Huh? Included in Florida state law are provisions for recounts and challenges, which the courts mediate. In what way did Gore do anything illegal? [quote]I didn't even vote for Dubya, yet somehow I can manage to view this logically. You Democrats are hilarious.<hr></blockquote>You're not viewing it very objectively if you don't admit that the system failed in 2000.
[quote]If you aren't actually a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. None of this affects you. I'd rather have a couple hundred people in jail for a while than have my downtown blown up.<hr></blockquote>
By that logic, why would Dick Cheney refuse to talk about his energy policy meetings? I mean, if he has nothing to hide...right?
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).
Children doesn´t inherit the guilt of their parents (but unfortunetly they inherit the consequences of it.) And beside that there is enough to hate Bush for without looking down the family tree
<hr></blockquote>
But the Bush family is covering up the truth about Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis.George Walker,the inspiration for the "W" in Bush's name was also involved.I thinkk it is a very interesting story,and I'm astounded that none in the media have picked up on it.
[quote]Dems did not challenge the military votes - they thought it would hurt them in the PR campaign. The military votes were accepted with the loosest standard of any votes in Florida.<hr></blockquote>
The military votes were challenged by the Democrats, most certainly, and not just in Florida, but in California as well.
Many were accepted (only those that were received one day after the election, although post-marked earlier) and lawyers from the Democrat side whined about it being "inconsistent with Florida law."
[quote]Huh? Included in Florida state law are provisions for recounts and challenges, which the courts mediate. In what way did Gore do anything illegal?<hr></blockquote>
There is no provision in Florida law for a state-wide recount to result from disputes in specific counties. The 4 (?) counties did recounts repeatedly and Bush won them all.
Gore's camp wanted a state-wide recount, which wasn't anywhere in Florida law. They essentially wanted to ignore/create laws so far as they benefited their cause.
If the interest is really fairness and not Gore-winning, why not a nationwide recount? Hell, why not just re-vote everywhere?
[quote]You're not viewing it very objectively if you don't admit that the system failed in 2000.
<hr></blockquote>
A circus and a fiasco, absolutely.
I don't see the failure. I see controversy and sour grapes, but I'm not following how it's a failure. It obviously didn't fail, we have a president.
The legal channels set up to manage these things were used and found Bush to be the winner over and over.
(One does not have to worship Dubya to see things the way I do. That fact that you think I do only serves to illustrate how indoctrinated you are within your own party.)
The easiest way to sum it up is that the 'war' on terrorism is being used to severely curtail civil liberities, much like the 'war' on drugs. He hides behind patriotism to further his ultra-pro-business-aganda.
Bush is a corporate man through an through, who fundamentally believes in the power of the elite. From his days as a Texas oil man, he has played off his name and family position, never achieving a single thing that did not rely on those things. Read Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower to get a good history.
On top of all that he is a hypocrite, persecuting those who engage in the same vices he did, but is unwilling to admit to. His administration is full of hawks who never served in the military, Cheney said he had 'different priorities' during Vietnam. Like the ghetto blacks who died there thought their priority was to get shot and killed. His administration is filled with former corporate execs, greasing the government wheels for their business associates, knowing there is a huge payday when the return to the private sector.
I don't trust Bush at all, or his cronies. I believe he is leading down a dark path of war without end, a perfect excuse for totaltarian-like control of political life. And make no mistake, these corporate elitists live for control. Our government is corrupt beyond belief, both Republican and Democratic. But Bush is the most cynical and unabashed one of the group. I hope our democracy survives him.
Hear,hear.Ever since September 11 I've been afraid there will be another major terrorist attack and the government will declare martial law,with democracy to be restored at some unknown date in the future.The amount of power the government and large corporations is seizing is astounding,very few are protesting,and the stories are being kept out of the media.Members of the Green party are being harrassed,prohibited from travelling by plane to attend political grounds,etc.I'm afraid we are headed for dark times folks.
It's almost as if we're being prepped for an invasion by Canada with the consent of united states officials. This is worse than ever imagined folks. Much worse.
But the Bush family is covering up the truth about Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is GWB using his power as president to hinder formal investigations into his relatives or is he just not talking about it? If he is use his position to suppress actions from official side then of course its wrong but if not its his own business. Even if he knew that his grandfather did something wrong and he said he was innoncent it would be okay for me. It has nothing to do with the presidency. Of course if he was displayed as a liar people could take that into account when they placed their vote next time but thats another story.
Its just like the Clinton incident. It had nothing to do with the presidency (even though it happened int he oval office).
[quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:
<strong>It is a very interesting story,and I'm astounded that none in the media have picked up on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny. I take it as a good sign if the press use their time with other things (of course still under the assumption that GWB hasn´t used his position to halt an officially investigation)
Comments
<strong>Executive Summary of Report: <a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm</a>;
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is hardly unbiased or nonpartisan.
<strong>
Coulda fooled me...
Executive Summary of Report: <a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm</a>;
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. I guess you were. Mary Francis Berry wouldn't allow the dissenting voices on her commission to be heard. She wanted to fool you and she did.
At an appearance in Minnesota, President Bush expressed his condolences to the families of the U.S. military personnel who died, but he said he hopes they remember that "the cause is important, the cause is just."
<hr></blockquote>
however I just think its sad that there is such disparity between democrats and republicans...it just seems pointless...I mean sure its obvious that there are different views to the respective parties, and that some of these views are totally opposing to the other parties views. but it just seems so....unproductive when stark bickering occurs over things like what camp you supposedly(apparantly) side with.
but I doubt anyone will take heed to my views.
Nader had it right all along...
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).
<strong>back to the topic at hand (reasons to hate Bush):
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Children doesn´t inherit the guilt of their parents (but unfortunetly they inherit the consequences of it.) And beside that there is enough to hate Bush for without looking down the family tree
<strong>
</strong><hr></blockquote>After all your quoting and eye rolling, there's still the simple fact: Thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida, but enough of their votes were thrown out on legal technicalities to get Bush elected.
Just because a murderer gets off on a legal technicality doesn't mean he's actually innocent - he's not. We can hold our noses and let him out of prison, while at the same time recognizing that it shouldn't have happened and we should try not to let it happen in the future.
<hr></blockquote>
Even that is not 100% clear, because (as I asked above), what of the military votes that were thrown out on equally ridiculous technicalities?
Law is not a game, and you're right, the elections were not a game, which is why I think it was pretty lame of Gore to treat it as such after he clearly lost by the proper methods used as mandated by Florida law.
I would love to see this moral forthrightness, "Law be damned, we've got votes to count!", if Gore had actually gotten a few more votes in Florida and Bushites were stomping and crying. I'm sure you would be the same bastion of truth that you are now, eh?
[quote]Links? Evidence? Whered you hear this? Anything?<hr></blockquote>
I have yet to see any evidence of blacks being disenfranchised at all. I have heard people called up before Civil Rights boards talk about how they were pulled over by police miles from ballot centers, only to make it there in plenty of time to vote.
There was no disenfranchisement, it's kind of difficult to prove with links. I can't prove with links that Canada didn't launch a nuclear attack on France, either.
BRussell:
[quote]Thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida, but enough of their votes were thrown out on legal technicalities to get Bush elected.<hr></blockquote>
You're looking at it backward; Bush won the original count as mandated by state law. Then he won all subsequent recounts, as required by state law. Then Gore tried to subvert state law (so far as it was in his favor) and failed.
Also, the newspaper recounts didn't include the military votes that were thrown out (or the servicepeople who were told they couldn't vote or never received proper forms).
(Maybe throwing out the double votes is a method of making sure that complete imbeciles aren't allowed to vote.
I didn't even vote for Dubya, yet somehow I can manage to view this logically. You Democrats are hilarious.
<strong>Sorry-- been a really busy day-- but here's a quick list I threw together:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Mr. Satellite (Reference to Lou Reed there?) I have the information I need to get a better understanding. I don't know where some people here get their news or information...probably from a political propaganda pamphlet they found next to the Chick comic on the subway. Or TeeVee news.
Your links are much more educational and enlightening than all this ranting and raving....
Oh, and as for the Jesus reference someone else mentioned...hilarious...didn't he die for our sins? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Even that is not 100% clear, because (as I asked above), what of the military votes that were thrown out on equally ridiculous technicalities?</strong><hr></blockquote>You're probably right about the black votes. But you're making the same mistake you accuse others of when you talk about the military votes. Dems did not challenge the military votes - they thought it would hurt them in the PR campaign. The military votes were accepted with the loosest standard of any votes in Florida. [quote]Then Gore tried to subvert state law...<hr></blockquote>Huh? Included in Florida state law are provisions for recounts and challenges, which the courts mediate. In what way did Gore do anything illegal? [quote]I didn't even vote for Dubya, yet somehow I can manage to view this logically. You Democrats are hilarious.<hr></blockquote>You're not viewing it very objectively if you don't admit that the system failed in 2000.
By that logic, why would Dick Cheney refuse to talk about his energy policy meetings? I mean, if he has nothing to hide...right?
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bawjaws:
back to the topic at hand (reasons to hate Bush):
how about the fact that his grandfather made a fortune fronting a Nazi bank in New York during the second world war (yes, even after the US joined the war, which for your information, did not begin with the bombing of pearl harbor).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children doesn´t inherit the guilt of their parents (but unfortunetly they inherit the consequences of it.) And beside that there is enough to hate Bush for without looking down the family tree
<hr></blockquote>
But the Bush family is covering up the truth about Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis.George Walker,the inspiration for the "W" in Bush's name was also involved.I thinkk it is a very interesting story,and I'm astounded that none in the media have picked up on it.
The military votes were challenged by the Democrats, most certainly, and not just in Florida, but in California as well.
Many were accepted (only those that were received one day after the election, although post-marked earlier) and lawyers from the Democrat side whined about it being "inconsistent with Florida law."
[quote]Huh? Included in Florida state law are provisions for recounts and challenges, which the courts mediate. In what way did Gore do anything illegal?<hr></blockquote>
There is no provision in Florida law for a state-wide recount to result from disputes in specific counties. The 4 (?) counties did recounts repeatedly and Bush won them all.
Gore's camp wanted a state-wide recount, which wasn't anywhere in Florida law. They essentially wanted to ignore/create laws so far as they benefited their cause.
If the interest is really fairness and not Gore-winning, why not a nationwide recount? Hell, why not just re-vote everywhere?
[quote]You're not viewing it very objectively if you don't admit that the system failed in 2000.
<hr></blockquote>
A circus and a fiasco, absolutely.
I don't see the failure. I see controversy and sour grapes, but I'm not following how it's a failure. It obviously didn't fail, we have a president.
The legal channels set up to manage these things were used and found Bush to be the winner over and over.
(One does not have to worship Dubya to see things the way I do. That fact that you think I do only serves to illustrate how indoctrinated you are within your own party.)
The easiest way to sum it up is that the 'war' on terrorism is being used to severely curtail civil liberities, much like the 'war' on drugs. He hides behind patriotism to further his ultra-pro-business-aganda.
Bush is a corporate man through an through, who fundamentally believes in the power of the elite. From his days as a Texas oil man, he has played off his name and family position, never achieving a single thing that did not rely on those things. Read Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower to get a good history.
On top of all that he is a hypocrite, persecuting those who engage in the same vices he did, but is unwilling to admit to. His administration is full of hawks who never served in the military, Cheney said he had 'different priorities' during Vietnam. Like the ghetto blacks who died there thought their priority was to get shot and killed. His administration is filled with former corporate execs, greasing the government wheels for their business associates, knowing there is a huge payday when the return to the private sector.
I don't trust Bush at all, or his cronies. I believe he is leading down a dark path of war without end, a perfect excuse for totaltarian-like control of political life. And make no mistake, these corporate elitists live for control. Our government is corrupt beyond belief, both Republican and Democratic. But Bush is the most cynical and unabashed one of the group. I hope our democracy survives him.
<strong>
But the Bush family is covering up the truth about Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is GWB using his power as president to hinder formal investigations into his relatives or is he just not talking about it? If he is use his position to suppress actions from official side then of course its wrong but if not its his own business. Even if he knew that his grandfather did something wrong and he said he was innoncent it would be okay for me. It has nothing to do with the presidency. Of course if he was displayed as a liar people could take that into account when they placed their vote next time but thats another story.
Its just like the Clinton incident. It had nothing to do with the presidency (even though it happened int he oval office).
[quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:
<strong>It is a very interesting story,and I'm astounded that none in the media have picked up on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny. I take it as a good sign if the press use their time with other things (of course still under the assumption that GWB hasn´t used his position to halt an officially investigation)