Oil exploration.

OzOn wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:58:05 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
scribbled thusly:


OzOn wrote:
Yep, It's so scary when the most powerful country on earth has a Govt
that will falsify and exagerrate in order to invade another country.

That's a lie, Oz. We didn't invade Iraq.

Oh, my mistake.
I thought that sending a whole ****ing army into another country
against their wishes was called an invasion.

What would you call it.?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Probably. He's now being touted by the Bushyites as being on the road
to rehabilitation.

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote: BTW, who's sitting
on that Committee on Human Rights these days?


That be that Khadafi fellow per chance?

Cheers
marty

I thought I was quite responsive. You just don't like the response.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Again not responsive to the question.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:39:52 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I have always, currently, and will always be a Grateful Dead fan,
but I don't rely on them.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:11:20 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

No. I'm not willing to rely on the Bush administration to tell me.
They've
already lied and mis-applied the intelligence reports that they were
given.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:29 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Not likely. There's no evidence to suggest it.

IOW, you're willing to rely on those much-maligned intelligence
sources
to
tell you if Syria or another country got WMDs from Iraq, but not to
tell
you
whether Iraq had them in the first place? A minor inconsistency,
perhaps?

OK, now that you've made your speech, can you answer the question?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

No. They didn't lose because of votes. They lost because of underhanded
deals and the SC. Believe what you want, but the facts don't support it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:42:20 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

An honest count?? hahaha... ok. Sure. There was nothing honest about the
Florida
situation during the voting. Many, many were disenfranchised by the
process.

Time to get over it, Jonathan. The study showed pretty conclusively that
the
Dems lost the state based on a proper application of the process they had
no
problems with before the election. Only after they lost did they claim the
rules they had agreed to were unfair.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

"Dave" wrote in message

IOW, yea, even if (as the post-election study showed) an honest count would
have given Bush the election, Gore was deprived of that honest count so he
and all who voted for him are poor innocent victims wronged by evildoers.


I believe the study result was that a recount of the two counties might have
given it to Bush, but a statewide recount would have given to Gore.

This is without taking into account things like the "butterfly ballots." I
spoke to a number of folks who said they intended to vote for Gore but fear they
voted for Buchanan! In fact, this alone swung the vote for Bush, since the Gore
"overvotes" outnumbered the Bush "overvotes" 4 to 1.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:36:50 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:


This is without taking into account things like the "butterfly ballots." I
spoke to a number of folks who said they intended to vote for Gore but fear they
voted for Buchanan! In fact, this alone swung the vote for Bush, since the Gore
"overvotes" outnumbered the Bush "overvotes" 4 to 1.

You have to be pretty stupid to misread a ballot.

My newspaper reprinted the butterfly ballet. I took it to Hooters,
and showed it to every waitress. Every one of them knew where to mark
for Gore. So if you marked Buchanan instead of Gore, you are stupider
than a Hooters Girl.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Wow, you're really coming unraveled yourself, Dave! Is this a Republican thing?

Your source agreed pretty much with what I said. If Gore had won his attempt to
recount the two counties, he would have lost. On various other scenarios, he
would have won.

Your source says: "The study provides evidence that more Florida voters
attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush"

And I'm not Jonathan. Sounds to me like you're the one blinded by "religious
beliefs."


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:36:50 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

I believe the study result was that a recount of the two counties might have
given it to Bush, but a statewide recount would have given to Gore.

We don't have to rely on what you "believe" Jonathan. I pointed you before
to a fairly extensive summary in that radical right-wing paper the LA Times.
But don't let such things interfere with your religious beliefs.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Exactly.

Besides, I'm not asking you to rely on what I believe. I'm relying on what
I believe (supported by the facts of course).

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Wow, you're really coming unraveled yourself, Dave! Is this a Republican
thing?

Your source agreed pretty much with what I said. If Gore had won his
attempt to
recount the two counties, he would have lost. On various other scenarios,
he
would have won.

Your source says: "The study provides evidence that more Florida voters
attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush"

And I'm not Jonathan. Sounds to me like you're the one blinded by
"religious
beliefs."


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:36:50 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

I believe the study result was that a recount of the two counties might
have
given it to Bush, but a statewide recount would have given to Gore.

We don't have to rely on what you "believe" Jonathan. I pointed you
before
to a fairly extensive summary in that radical right-wing paper the LA
Times.
But don't let such things interfere with your religious beliefs.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Well, unlike you, many of the people who tried to vote
correctly were either fairly old or fairly uneducated. Of
course, if you want to claim that you're a stupid idiot,
be my guest.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:36:50 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:


This is without taking into account things like the "butterfly ballots."
I
spoke to a number of folks who said they intended to vote for Gore but
fear they
voted for Buchanan! In fact, this alone swung the vote for Bush, since
the Gore
"overvotes" outnumbered the Bush "overvotes" 4 to 1.

You have to be pretty stupid to misread a ballot.

My newspaper reprinted the butterfly ballet. I took it to Hooters,
and showed it to every waitress. Every one of them knew where to mark
for Gore. So if you marked Buchanan instead of Gore, you are stupider
than a Hooters Girl.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

1) Three priests and a nun would never swear.
2) You're right. During an election, one is supposed to count who voted.
Also, one is
supposed to be able to vote and not be so confused by the process that they
were
unable to accurately record their vote. Both of these were problematic in
Florida
(as they were in other states) but even more so in Florida. Last I checked,
the rules
said nothing about denying whole groups of people the right to vote by
either preventing
them from getting to the voting booth, denying them their ability to vote
after they got
there, or making the ballots difficult to parse.

Squirm as you like, the facts are that Bush is the only president to have
been elected
by the Supreme Court. I believe there was one other that was elected via a
backroom
deal, but that was in the 1800s as I recall.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:49:20 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

Your source says: "The study provides evidence that more Florida voters
attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush"

Two points.

First, you have to read these things a bit more closely. The term
"provides
evidence" is very different from "concluded." If I get up and swear in
court
on a stack of Bibles that the sky was green, I've "provided evidence" that
the sky is green. If three priests and a nun swear that the sky was blue
as
could be, chances are pretty good the person evaluating the evidence will
"conclude" that the sky was blue. Given the LA Times's notorious point of
view, I suspect they stretched about as far as they could to convey the
impression you got.

Second, even if the study had shown conclusively that more people
"attempted
to vote" for Gore than for Bush, the election is decided based on who
voted,
not who "attempted to vote." The rules about how to decide what was a vote
and what was an ineffective "attempt to vote" were set in advance and had
been used for some time, and nobody objected until after the fact, when
the
Gore folks and the FL Supremes unsuccessfully tried every way to Sunday to
change the rules.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27