|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and fundamental fairness in voting. As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been able to prove anything. To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that Bush won and Gore lost. None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually demolished, but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put "stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of "impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election. This is dishonest debate. The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are trying to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that they have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote, so they can pound sand. Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
|
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================ You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit motive to dissuade us from invading. ================ Could it be that the USA, which is corruptly in bed with the Saudis, had a motive to control oil supplies and thus invaded Iraq? Of course it could. But it isn't. Not only that, but that motive is much more credible that any motives ascribed to the French. Excuse me? The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence efforts, but they were actively trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, in direct violation of the UN sanctions. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ====================== Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming pools and Bluegrass laws? ====================== Fair enough. But I think a "simultaneous" bashing of agriculture is appropriate. Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass and weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to agriculture what it's water needs are? I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture. On the swimmings pools et al, Scott, I suspect you are absolutely right. So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing agriculture. In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits and determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to us on how much of it comes from California. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. Where is your source for this? The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one with Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more. It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then it disappeared from the radar. "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html Well, that's Fox news, who I think we can agree have traded off their credibility for sensationalism and an openly confessed pro-Bush bias quite a while ago. Nontheless, Fox and all the other news agencies reported that the conclusion was that this bomb was an artifact left over from the Pre-1991 era, that the people who rigged it probably had no idea that it contained binary Sarin, and in his later report, Duelfer concluded that the existance of this bomb did not constitute evidence that there was any ongoing WMD program. If you are merely stating that some left over munitions exist, I don't think anyone who ever shopped at an ArmyNavy store would disagree. If your statement is that Saddam intentionally hid weapons from the pre-1991 era from the inspectors with the intent to use them later, and the discovery of these bombs are proof, then I refer you to Fox news again, and an excerpt from Charles Duelfer's report: "Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said. Instead, the report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining "intellectual capital" - in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html --riverman |
Weiser says:
================ If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in, nobody out. It's much cheaper for us to force you to fix it than to do it ourselves. ================= But Scott, that's a huge IF. I think someone (perhaps Michael) has already pointed out that the trade between our two countries is HUGE. And trade, as I'm sure you know, is a two-way street. If this 2-way trade were not extremely advantageous to the USA (and, of course, to Canada as well), you wouldn't be engaging in it. Now in terms of dollars required to fix whatever problem you perceive there to be with our mutual border: do you really believe that cutting off trade with Canada will be cheaper than the USA fixing whatever this problem is? I suggest that if that's your position, then you cannot even begin to fathom how valuable this trade is to your country. Fixing a border problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're talking about. frtzw906 |
Scott, notwithstanding everything you said between:
"It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable." AND "Seventh, he provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's nose at the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North Korea...among others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded. " That's NOT what Colin Powell was preaching at the UN. The justification for going to war with Iraq was made to the world community, at the UN. The weapons inspectors were well on their way to NOT finding WMD. The aluminum tubes et al turned out to be a hoax. He threatened world peace you say?!!! Fer crissakes man, your army walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world peace? Are you now telling me that your intelligence agencies (the one that KNEW he had WMD) did NOT know that his armed forces weren't worth a popcorn fart? Threaten world peace! Not likely! As to refusing to allow mandated inspections. Was that a UN issue, or was that an issue for the USA? Nope. It was WMD. frtzw906 |
==============
Clearly you get all your information from the CBC. ================= and your point is..... ? That you are a brainwashed dupe with no perspective on the issues other than that spoon-fed you by the notoriously left-wing, Socialist, American-hating CBC. =============== What's wrong with the CBC? Don't you like classical music? frtzw906 |
Scott says:
===================== You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam... Excuse me? The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence efforts, but they were actively trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, in direct violation of the UN sanctions. ================== So, Scott, how were the Germans corruptly in bed with Saddam? As to the French, when you say "The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence efforts", are you suggesting that that's why the USA had it all wrong with respect to WMD? Damn those Frencies. If they hadn't messed with your intelligence, you would have known there were no WMD and the whole war could have been avoided. You're right! No more French fries for honest American citizens. Ought to be part of the Patriot Act, I say. frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a king weasel! |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of the Justices is irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines. Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. Indeed. My mistake. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not because of the political affiliations of the Justices. In your warped view. Others will continue to carry a different view. Go read the case sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing whatever to do with politics. Others will continue to carry a different view. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Science probably can either prove or disprove the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to the point that we can identify the concept. Religions define their gods quite well. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You're grasping at straws here. Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from science fiction. And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard. Nor does it disprove it. Thank you for restating what I keep on saying. You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your intellectual credibility somewhat. Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world. Well, not just yet, anyhow. That is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the existence of a deity. Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety. Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and wealth - all thanks to a fantasy! And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that science cannot explain. Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were dinosaurs. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 6:53 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: Let's debunk this: First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the press to describe semi-automatic long-guns that were visually similar to military BATTLE RIFLES or ASSAULT RIFLES. Modern military battle rifles and assault rifles are select-fire, shoulder-fired firearms that can fire semi-automatically or fully-automatically. You better tell your President, he uses the term assault weapons. And I think he knows what he means be it - he means weapons meant for killing a whole bunch of human beings quickly, slightly modified so that the trigger has to be pulled repeatedly instead of just holding it down. As I said, it's a coined phrase that's entered the lexicon for the express purpose of demonizing particular visual aspects of certain semi-automatic firearms. That the president may use it is not really relevant. It's totally relevant. Most people who are not gun nuts understand what is meant by "assault weapons" and that includes the president, who could hardly be described as anti-gun. A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. This is true. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. The "concealability" statement is empty rhetoric. No non-class III rifle legal in the US is less than 26 inches from end to end when in an operable configuration. Hardly "concealable." This is why, contrary to anti-gunner rhetoric, "assault weapons" are not the "weapons of choice" for drug dealers. In fact, rifles of any sort are very rarely used by criminals of any ilk. As for mobility in close combat, this is true. It's also true that folding or collapsible stocks are useful for storage and when carrying the firearm. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. "Spray-fire" is a rhetorical nullity, and the claim that a pistol grip "facilitates" firing from the hip ignores fundamental human mechanics. It's far easier to fire a Garand or a hunting rifle from the hip than to fire an AR-15 from the hip. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire Not just rapid fire, but at all times. Nothing wrong with stabilizing the firearm, it makes it easier to hit the target and gives the shooter better control over the point of impact, which make it safer. and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. Blatant hogwash and tripe! Only the Terminator can shoot a major-caliber rifle with one hand and expect to even come close to hitting anything by design. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. Yes, so what? A "barrel shroud" is nothing more than a different sort of stock, the purpose of which in any long gun is to provide a grip for accuracy and protection from burns, which, contrary to this hogwash, can occur after firing just a few rounds. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. Or during any other sort of fire. Stabilizing the weapon is of primary importance, and anything that facilitates it is good. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. Except, of course, suppressing flash. Hunters and sportsmen do shoot recreationally during low-light periods. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, Complete bull****. A flash suppressor does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the flash signature from IN FRONT of the firearm. It's purpose is to reduce the flash visible to the shooter, to prevent blinding during low-light shooting. an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. Whether it is "necessary" is not up to this twit to decide. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. Wrong. A "muzzle brake" performs that function, not a flash suppressor, although devices may be designed to provide both functions. Once again, maintaining control is a good thing. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, Er, no, actually, they are threaded to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle brake. That one can thread other objects on the same threads is not the same thing. which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Now here is a complete anti-gun biased falsehood. Silencers have plenty of utility for sportsmen. The major utility is that it reduces the muzzle report, which reduces or eliminates the need for hearing protection. Sound reduction is also useful in eliminating noise pollution and annoyance to neighbors. They are also used frequently when shooting varmints and vermin to avoid scaring them off with the muzzle report. Silencers are illegal Another blatant lie. Silencers are perfectly legal in the US. Anyone who is otherwise qualified to possess a firearm can own one. All you have to do is file the tax paperwork with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax and you can have one. so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. Untrue editorialism. As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a person would want a silencer and a barrel threaded to accept it. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. Well, unless you get too close to a bear, where it might have some utility. Still, it's a harmless feature. And I do mean harmless. I defy this twit to provide a single example of a civilian crime committed with an "assault weapon" with a fixed bayonet. It's a cosmetic item that poses no danger to the public, but might be useful if the particular arm had to be used by the militia or the military in close combat. ==== I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Ignoring for the moment that this almost never happens BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I note that you cannot refute any of my arguments. he can only "arm his posse" illegally, not from the local "gun shack," which is tightly regulated by the BATFE, and only if he can pass the background check, at which point the idea is that other law-abiding citizens will be similarly armed and able to take out the crack dealer before any harm is done. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. The important freedom to protect is MY right to have an assault weapon that I can use at need to kill the deranged crack dealer and his posse if and when he decides to shoot up the local park. That, and my right to have an assault weapon so I can defend the Constitution and my fellow citizens against tyranny. Heehee. You wish you were God, don't you? Nope, I'm just an ordinary citizen who understands his duty to his fellow citizens and his right to be armed for self-defense and the defense of others against violent attack. You are sitting in your living room right now with a grenade launcher just cursing the fact that the USSR collapsed before you had a chance to take to the streets and defend your fellow citizens. Nah, I donąt have a grenade launcher. They're too expensive and the ammunition's too hard to get. Besides, area weapons rarely qualify as proper self-defense arms. As for defending my fellow citizens, I do it every day by carrying a gun every day. It's often a pain, but it's my duty and my right and I take both seriously. You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not available to the general public. So much for this line of crap. My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47." It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is, of course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which makes your ignorance entirely understandable. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? FYI: The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/akru/ak47.html The AK Info Center is a collection of articles on AK related items. We provide free information on different variants, parts, ammunition and accessories for the AK. You are free to browse or download the printed version, however none of the images/trademarks may be used without explicate permission from their owners. http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/index.html |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. Why are you offended by the term assault weapons? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. How did they manage this? I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and fundamental fairness in voting. As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been able to prove anything. Not to you. To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that Bush won and Gore lost. There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won. None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put "stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of "impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election. This is dishonest debate. I'm not sure you understand what I am debating. I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole. The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow. worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are trying to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that they have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote, so they can pound sand. The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing. Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it? I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Weiser says: ================ Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. ================ OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing? After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" make up your minds. frtzw906 You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story, just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now acknowledge you heard. When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly stated that it's about WMD. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. Why are you offended by the term assault weapons? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. ================== ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity, eh? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a king weasel! ==================== No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what you say. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. Since you asked, there are obviously pros and cons to each system, many of which I have readily acknowledged you've chosen not to pay attention, perhaps because you have managed to humiliate yourself so thoroughly. ==================== LOL What a hoot! You're the one running as fast as you can from any data. You really are this stupid, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. Have you ever asked me what problems there are with Canadian health care? I've actually mentioned some, but you haven't been paying attention. ==================== No, you're too busy chest-thumping... And again, you continue making insults and showing no interest. =========================== LOL You are the one proving that you have no interest in finding out the facts. Thanks again for proving you don't have anything to say. I got invovled in this thread because there was a ridiculous and utterly false allegation made that Canadians were dying in wait lines for health care. It isn't true. If you'd care to simply acknoweldge that there is no evidence to support that allegation, perhaps we can move on and actually talk about the merits and problems of different health care systems. =========================== Then prove that the canadians sites data I've seen is false. But then, you'd have to actually look into the data first, and we know you are afraid to do that, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. frtzw906 I'd love to hear from someone who lives or has lived there! |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. Why are you offended by the term assault weapons? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or that, they should post them, or a link to them. ================== ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity, eh? Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a king weasel! ==================== No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what you say. Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it. You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line waiting for health care. Your new position is that the system isn't working well for every single Canadian. Since the latter would be true for any system of health care, you've watered down your position to something that is totally without meaning. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. Please post a link to the message in which which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. Since you asked, there are obviously pros and cons to each system, many of which I have readily acknowledged you've chosen not to pay attention, perhaps because you have managed to humiliate yourself so thoroughly. ==================== LOL What a hoot! You're the one running as fast as you can from any data. You really are this stupid, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. Have you ever asked me what problems there are with Canadian health care? I've actually mentioned some, but you haven't been paying attention. ==================== No, you're too busy chest-thumping... And again, you continue making insults and showing no interest. =========================== LOL You are the one proving that you have no interest in finding out the facts. Thanks again for proving you don't have anything to say. Please post the facts that prove Canadians are dying in line waiting for health care. I got invovled in this thread because there was a ridiculous and utterly false allegation made that Canadians were dying in wait lines for health care. It isn't true. If you'd care to simply acknoweldge that there is no evidence to support that allegation, perhaps we can move on and actually talk about the merits and problems of different health care systems. =========================== Then prove that the canadians sites data I've seen is false. But then, you'd have to actually look into the data first, and we know you are afraid to do that, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. I invite anyone else wo has seen your post to this effect to share it with me. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. |
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message om... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message . com... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore to win the Presidency?? I have no idea. I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? I don't think so. I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people (obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was "stolen." For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the matter, and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. How would Go 1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on 11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris??? 2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature was in the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on 12/14/2000)?? 3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify his slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5???? 4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House??? Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind, who controlled the US House and the US Senate. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html I have no idea. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System. No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it this way. I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate. Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They were awarded to him on 11/26/2000. At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker, thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the Republicans. During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change in election law. Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge (which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House. Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots, illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's electors. That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C. section 5. The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts. Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not proof Bush stole the election. IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if post-certification recounts would have shown a different result. Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period??? It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being first to certification. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are many others) contributors to that viewpoint. That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They don't care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into office. I don't think it is realistic to assume that all those people were pro-Gore or anti-Bush. What they see is a very messed up electoral process with a very close result and a recount that was halted by judges that were appointed by the governing party. I guess they missed the fact that the judges appointed by the challenging party violated the law as to get a shame of a recount, twice. I guess they missed the fact that Congress controlled by that same challenging party passed laws to protect the rights of the voter, BUT when those laws got in the way that same challenging party tried to have those laws overturned in violation of US Code. |
"riverman" wrote in message
... "Mark Cook" wrote in message om... The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida. Yet another example of Bush's Orwellian logic in action. --riverman I get it, Bush should have allowed the Democrats to throw out the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, and Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. |
Weiser says:
==================== Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass and weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to agriculture what it's water needs are? ======================= I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth to a child to become an OBGYN. That little bit notwithstanding, as you guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is not agricultural but, rather, economic. As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture what it's water needs are". So I don't. I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries (and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they consume. If I remember correctly, the issue was less about agri-business and more about subsidies to industries. The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their water) to the firm. Weiser says: ================== So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing agriculture. =============== At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested, though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus agricultural fields? Weiser says: ====================== In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits and determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to us on how much of it comes from California. ================== Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So, while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the agri-busnesses). So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute products like BC-grown apples. Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message
... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of the Justices is irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines. Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that. Apparently you have not read Gore vs. Harris, which became Bush vs. Gore, or Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris. Down party lines???? More Democrat propaganda. The fact is it was BI-PARTISAN decision between the courts. The Florida Supreme Court has 6 Democrats, 0 Republicans, and 1 Independant. The SCotUS has 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Judges Sauls is a Democrat. Two of the questions in Bush vs. Gore was the counting standards and the safe harbor date as the deadline. One the first question, the counting standards. Gore vs. Harris (I) Judge Sauls questioned the change of the counting standards in the first recount. He quoted GORE'S own Florida Campaign Chair, Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth. That is 1 Democrat. Gore vs. Harris (II) 3 members of the Florida Supreme Court found problems with the lack of a counting standard. That is 2 more Democrats and 1 Independent. Bush vs. Gore 7 members of the Supreme Court of the United States found problems with the "arbitrary" counting standards that were being used. That is 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The totals on this point, 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Independent, vs. 6 PARTISAN DEMOCRATS. On safe harbor deadline of 12/12/2000. In Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris, the DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court ruled TWICE, include 12/11/2000, that the 12th was the FINAL DEADLINE. The totals on this, is 6 DEMOCRATS, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent vs. 4 PARTISAN DEMOCRATS. Your "down party lines" are from the DEMOCRATS who said that identically marked ballots DO NOT MEAN the same thing, and that the Constitutional requirement that only a state legislature can enact election code does not apply (i.e. a state legislature does not have the right to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887). **** From Gore vs.. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls (Democrat) writing.... "The Palm Beach County board did not abuse its discretion in its review and recounting process." "Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit court in and for Palm Beach County." "Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of this process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such process and standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards, perhaps contrary to Title III, Section (5) of the United States code." "Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in its review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard utilized was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under another standard would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier situation within one county, as well as with respect to other counties." "The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter dated November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of the Palm each County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows: "A two-tier system would have the effect of treating voters differently, depending upon what county they voted in." http://www.quarterly-report.com/elec...s_opinion.html The dissent of the FSC, in Gore vs. Harris, also found an equal protection problem. Justice Wells writing his dissent said "I must regrettably conclude that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make provision for....(9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards." and "Harding with Shaw concurring. "...as I have serious concerns that Appellant's interpretation of 102.168 would violate other votes' rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States." Notice what Justice Wells said, "(9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards." Gore vs. Harris, 12/8/2000 See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf Note that none of these judges or the Fla. Attny. General are Republicans. The count here is 4 Democrats and 1 Independent. From Bush vs. Gore. "The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment." and "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)." Link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html Justice Souter wrote that the change in counting standards was "arbitrary". ".....But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g., Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000) (soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html Justice Beyer also wrote: "The majority's third concern does implicate principles of fundamental fairness. The majority concludes that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a manual recount be governed not only by the uniform general standard of the "clear intent of the voter," but also by uniform subsidiary standards (for example, a uniform determination whether indented, but not perforated, "undervotes" should count). The opinion points out that the Florida Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of Broward County's undercounted "legal votes" even though those votes included ballots that were not perforated but simply "dimpled," while newly recounted ballots from other counties will likely include only votes determined to be "legal" on the basis of a stricter standard. In light of our previous remand, the Florida Supreme Court may have been reluctant to adopt a more specific standard than that provided for by the legislature for fear of exceeding its authority under Article II. However, since the use of different standards could favor one or the other of the candidates, since time was, and is, too short to permit the lower courts to iron out significant differences through ordinary judicial review, and since the relevant distinction was embodied in the order of the State's highest court, I agree that, in these very special circumstances, basic principles of fairness may well have counseled the adoption of a uniform standard to address the problem. In light of the majority's disposition, I need not decide whether, or the extent to which, as a remedial matter, the Constitution would place limits upon the content of the uniform standard." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000, all seven members agreed that the safe harbor date was the deadline. (6 DEMOCRATS, 1 Independent) "Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55) "Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)." The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. Actually, Clinton won. I think you mean Al Gore. Indeed. My mistake. And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W Bush stole. The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not because of the political affiliations of the Justices. In your warped view. Others will continue to carry a different view. Go read the case sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing whatever to do with politics. Others will continue to carry a different view. |
KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote: And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that science cannot explain. Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were dinosaurs. Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"... http://www.flat-earth.org/ Guess where it's based... :-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message m... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that voted to stop the recount. The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of the Justices is irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines. Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that. Apparently you have not read Gore vs. Harris, which became Bush vs. Gore, or Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris. Down party lines???? More Democrat propaganda. I think you'll find this useful. It was designed for teens, and you seem to have an adoloscent approach to things... ==== Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent US Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me? A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes. Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right? A: Right. Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal? A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done. Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots? A: Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be. Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that? A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women. Q: Is there an exception in this case? A: Yes, the "Gore Exception." States have no rights to control their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation. Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating! A: Nope. They held, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Q: What complexities? A: They didn't say. Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court, "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right? A: Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong. Q: Huh? A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard. Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election. A: Right. Q: So what's the problem? A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote" Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law. A: Right. Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned. A: Right. You're catching on. Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And since it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules? That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible Gore victory. A: Right. Next question. Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem? A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 98% of the votes. So approximately 2% of Democratic-leaning votes (several thousand) are thrown in the trash can. Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!! A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 2% of Democratic-leaning ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem. Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 10,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or both Gore and Buchanan? A: Nope. The courts have no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler. Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem? A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 2% of Democrat-leaning voters (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes) may have been determined under slightly different standards, because judges and county officials -- doing what Americans have done for more than 200 years -- will look at the ballots under strict public scrutiny and record voters' votes. At the end of the day, they may have a slightly different opinion about a few hundred votes, but a single judge was overseeing the entire process to resolve any disputes under a single standard. Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I thought that was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion. A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform when the US Supreme Court stopped him from counting the uncounted votes (because they were favoring Gore, according to Scalia's stay opinion). Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those .005% of difficult-to-tell votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone, even Republicans, agrees the voter's intent is clear, right? A: Nope. Q: Why not? A: No time. Q: I thought the Supreme Court said that the Constitution was more important than speed. A: It did. It said, "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when the intent is clear and everyone is treated equally then. Right? A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it. Q: But they just said that the Constitution is more important than time! A: You forget. There is the "Gore Exception." Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not? A: Because they issued the opinion at 10 p.m. on December 12. Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes? A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961 Q: So why is December 12 important? A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results. Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court? A: Nothing. In fact, some 20 states still (as of December 13, 2000) haven't turned in their results. Q: But I thought... A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to "help" the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding. Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12. A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday. Q: Why? A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal. Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- hanging chads for Gore, indentations for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida? A: Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held in stopping the count on December 9 that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won and that Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability." Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory? A: Yes. Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one? A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air. Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes afterward? A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12. Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline? A: Yes. Q: But, but... A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts. Q: Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional? A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the Legislature drafted the law in such an unfair way that the Florida votes can never be fairly counted. Q: Are the election laws of any of the other 49 states unconstitutional as well? A: Yes, if one logically applies the Supreme Court opinion. The voters of the 50 states use different systems and standards to vote, and 33 states have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida. Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out? A: Um. Because.um...the Supreme Court doesn't say. Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right? A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 23,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). See http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?c...ion/104268.htm Q: So, what do we do? Count under a single uniform standard? Have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? A: No. As there's no time for a re-vote or a re-count based on the non-binding "deadline", the Supreme Court will just choose itself who will be President, and it picks Bush to win 5-4, based on the flawed count it just called unconstitutional. Q: That's completely bizarre! Were there any apparent conflicts of interest? A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers at law firms working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration. Q: Why didn't they remove themselves from the case? A: If either had recused himself, the vote would have been 4-4, the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed, and Scalia feared Gore would have won the election. Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way. A: Read the opinions for yourself: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf (December 9 - stay stopping the recount) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supr...-949_dec12.fdf (December 12 - opinion) Q: So what are the consequences of this? A: The guy who got the most votes in the US, in Florida, and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice (George W. Bush) who won the all- important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps America's choice. Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. At least in the Electoral College, shouldn't the guy with the most votes in Florida win? A: That's true, but in this election it seems that the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins. Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President? A: He will appoint more pro-Republican justices. Q: Is there any way to stop this? A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supreme Court and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror will end..and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law and the will of the People. Q: What can I do to help? A: Email this article to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator, reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three to five times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS, not JUDGES should determine who wins an election. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you ask your Senators to confirm NO NEW FEDERAL JUDGES APPOINTED BY A NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by the American people in a new election. Q: What do the four dissenting US Supreme Court justices have to say about all this? A: Read excerpts below: Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford): "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush): "Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton): "Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] "The court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States." Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton): "There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . We risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation." |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote: And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that science cannot explain. Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were dinosaurs. Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"... http://www.flat-earth.org/ Guess where it's based... :-) Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is a factual document. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is a factual document. There are a lot of accurate factual statements in "The Bible".........whichever version one happens to peruse. Wolfgang who has read several and finds all of them.......begats and all.......considerably less tedious than this interminable competition between idiots on one side and morons on the other, whose only purpose appears to be to determine which group is stupider. |
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. Where is your source for this? The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one with Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more. It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then it disappeared from the radar. "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html Well, that's Fox news, who I think we can agree have traded off their credibility for sensationalism and an openly confessed pro-Bush bias quite a while ago. No, we most certainly cannot agree. At worst, Fox News presents a reasonably balanced view of the news that struggles to overcome the pervasive ultra-liberal left-wing bias of virtually all other major media sources. Nontheless, Fox and all the other news agencies reported that the conclusion was that this bomb was an artifact left over from the Pre-1991 era, Which was supposed to have been destroyed long ago. Where there's one, there's very likely others, probably buried in the desert in massive stockpiles that we have not yet discovered. You are aware that there are miles and miles of deeply-buried underground bunkers and tunnels under Baghdad alone that Saddam built in the 12 years after the original invasion. There is no reason to believe that he did not construct similar bunkers in remote regions to store his WMD's, along with other munitions. The insurgents in Iraq are getting their munitions from somewhere. that the people who rigged it probably had no idea that it contained binary Sarin, Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue, which is that it constitutes more proof positive that Hussein had, and used WMD's. and in his later report, Duelfer concluded that the existance of this bomb did not constitute evidence that there was any ongoing WMD program. Who said anything about "ongoing?" He had WMD's, he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds, he stockpiled such munitions in large quantities, and he refused to permit UN inspections intended to ensure that ALL those stockpiles had been destroyed. That's entirely sufficient. If you are merely stating that some left over munitions exist, I don't think anyone who ever shopped at an ArmyNavy store would disagree. If your statement is that Saddam intentionally hid weapons from the pre-1991 era from the inspectors with the intent to use them later, and the discovery of these bombs are proof, then I refer you to Fox news again, and an excerpt from Charles Duelfer's report: "Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said. Instead, the report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining "intellectual capital" - in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html What makes you think that Dueifer is infallible? Besides, the quote itself proves my point. At the time, the best intelligence we had indicated that Saddam DID have WMD's, that he HAD deployed them and killed thousands of his own citizens with them, that he WAS very likely squirreling them away in the desert during the 12 years he defied the UN sanctions, and that he WAS playing a shell-game with UN inspectors to prevent them from finding the evidence. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the president's decision. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================ If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in, nobody out. It's much cheaper for us to force you to fix it than to do it ourselves. ================= But Scott, that's a huge IF. Indeed. It's a last resort option. We'd much rather you agree to keep your drug dealers and terrorists up there so we don't have to. I think someone (perhaps Michael) has already pointed out that the trade between our two countries is HUGE. And trade, as I'm sure you know, is a two-way street. Which can be made a no-way street when the costs exceed the benefits. It won't take too many terrorist incursions from Canada to make it worth it to close the border. If this 2-way trade were not extremely advantageous to the USA (and, of course, to Canada as well), you wouldn't be engaging in it. Now in terms of dollars required to fix whatever problem you perceive there to be with our mutual border: do you really believe that cutting off trade with Canada will be cheaper than the USA fixing whatever this problem is? The mere threat will probably be sufficient to persuade your masters to clean up their act. If not, the sanctions can be imposed gradually, increasing the economic pressure until you cave, which you will long before we do. I suggest that if that's your position, then you cannot even begin to fathom how valuable this trade is to your country. Fixing a border problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're talking about. That's a good reason for Canada to clean up its act. Mexico too... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott, notwithstanding everything you said between: "It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable." AND "Seventh, he provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's nose at the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North Korea...among others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded. " That's NOT what Colin Powell was preaching at the UN. The justification for going to war with Iraq was made to the world community, at the UN. Fu*k the UN. What we choose to tell the UN has nothing whatever to do with what we base our independent sovereign actions on. The UN is a bunch of leftist pussies who hate America and who wouldn't lift a finger to help us if we were under attack. They do nothing but dither, debate and pontificate, and the people who run it are massively corrupt. The UN should be disbanded and kicked out of the US entirely. Screw the world community too, if they were too blind to see the horrors taking place in Iraq and the dangers posed by Hussein. "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The weapons inspectors were well on their way to NOT finding WMD. The aluminum tubes et al turned out to be a hoax. No, they didn't. He threatened world peace you say?!!! Yup. Fer crissakes man, your army walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world peace? By using UN oil-for-food money to fund international terrorism, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union by terrorist organizations, for one. Are you now telling me that your intelligence agencies (the one that KNEW he had WMD) did NOT know that his armed forces weren't worth a popcorn fart? Threaten world peace! Not likely! I never said he threatened world peace through military invasion. As to refusing to allow mandated inspections. Was that a UN issue, or was that an issue for the USA? It was an issue for the US, which we misguidedly contracted out to the UN in an ill-considered attempt to curry favor with the international community. Turns out the UN really didn't give a crap about holding Saddam's feet to the fire, because the UN, as an organization, hates the US and is happy to see us embarrassed or put at risk. Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement SEVENTEEN TIMES in the 12 years after the first war. That's sixteen times too often. When the UN failed to reinvest Baghdad with UN troops after the FIRST violation of the cease fire agreement, the UN gave up any right to complain when the US eventually (and belatedly) decided to act unilaterally to enforce the agreement. Nope. It was WMD. Nope, it was a lot of things. But even if it was only WMD's, nothing changes. He had WMD's, he used WMD's, he concealed WMD's, he illegally retained information about the manufacture of WMD's, he moved WMD's about in a shell-game to avoid detection, he refused inspections for WMD's, and he very likely exported WMD's to Syria. That's all the justification we needed. BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian intelligence officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency, supplying arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from Syria. So, we'd better go clean out that nest of vipers too. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
============== Clearly you get all your information from the CBC. ================= and your point is..... ? That you are a brainwashed dupe with no perspective on the issues other than that spoon-fed you by the notoriously left-wing, Socialist, American-hating CBC. =============== What's wrong with the CBC? Don't you like classical music? No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weiser says (in answer to frtzw906):
===================== Fixing a border problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're talking about. That's a good reason for Canada to clean up its act. Mexico too.. ======================= But, who sees it as a problem? We don't. If canada thought it were a problem, we'd have done something about it. frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/22/05 12:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 2/21/05 10:58 PM: KMAN, I suggested to rick that we take this debate to another level as he alluded to being interested in discussions beyond Canada versus USA comparisons. However, when I asked him for examples of what he deemed to be better systems, he reverted to an adversarial stance. I have to conclude that he actually knows nothing at all about healthcare. What was your first clue? His quick descent into name-calling, or inability to provide sources to back any of his ridiculous claims? ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! I have provided proof. Please point me to the post in which you provided proof that Canadians are dying while in wait lines for care. If you can do so, I will gladly apologize. ===================== Pucker up, fool... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. Please post a link to the message in which which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. You, on the other hand, rely on chest-thumping, 'mines better than yours' mentality even when i never claimed a system better. that you refuse to see the flaws pointed out by your own sources proves your ideology has far more control than your brain. Could be, but that does nothing to change the fact that an allegation was made and it cannot be substantiated. ================= Yet there are, by many Canadian sources. You are afraid to look into them... Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. Since you asked, there are obviously pros and cons to each system, many of which I have readily acknowledged you've chosen not to pay attention, perhaps because you have managed to humiliate yourself so thoroughly. ==================== LOL What a hoot! You're the one running as fast as you can from any data. You really are this stupid, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. I would welcome a healthcare discussion. For example, I'd really welcome input from anyone who knows something about Finland. Over the last 4-5 years I've marvelled as Finland scores high on a variety of international comparisons -- health, education, quality of life, economy. I'd love to know how they're doing it. I doubt, however, that rick can be of much help in that regard. =========================== I know that you we not be of any help, since you have decided to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is fine. Have you ever asked me what problems there are with Canadian health care? I've actually mentioned some, but you haven't been paying attention. ==================== No, you're too busy chest-thumping... And again, you continue making insults and showing no interest. =========================== LOL You are the one proving that you have no interest in finding out the facts. Thanks again for proving you don't have anything to say. Please post the facts that prove Canadians are dying in line waiting for health care. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. I got invovled in this thread because there was a ridiculous and utterly false allegation made that Canadians were dying in wait lines for health care. It isn't true. If you'd care to simply acknoweldge that there is no evidence to support that allegation, perhaps we can move on and actually talk about the merits and problems of different health care systems. =========================== Then prove that the canadians sites data I've seen is false. But then, you'd have to actually look into the data first, and we know you are afraid to do that, aren't you? Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet. I invite anyone else wo has seen your post to this effect to share it with me. Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology. ======================= I have. And I've told you where else to look. That you are too stupid, ignorant, or ideological to accecpt data based on the messenger just proves your stupidity. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott says: ===================== You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam... Excuse me? The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence efforts, but they were actively trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, in direct violation of the UN sanctions. ================== So, Scott, how were the Germans corruptly in bed with Saddam? Among other things, they were transferring advanced technology to Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions for money. As to the French, when you say "The French not only actually obstructed our intelligence efforts", are you suggesting that that's why the USA had it all wrong with respect to WMD? Damn those Frencies. If they hadn't messed with your intelligence, you would have known there were no WMD and the whole war could have been avoided. Investigation of the existence of WMD's is hardly the only intelligence data we were looking for. One of the things they did was attempt to conceal the fact that they knew (and had photographic evidence) of Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with representatives of Bin Laden in Paris. We now find out that Saddam took much of the oil for food money from the UN and stashed it away in tens of thousands of numbered bank accounts all across the world, and gave access to those funds to terrorist organizations, including OBL, Hezbolla and many others. You're right! No more French fries for honest American citizens. Ought to be part of the Patriot Act, I say. Well, since "French fries" aren't French, it's not really a problem. However, boycotting France and French import products is a very good idea, and something I'm doing. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com