BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/27823-re-bill-moyers-environment-politics-christian-fundamentalists.html)

Weiser, again on the genesis of this thread:
===============
Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try
to
pick one thesis and stick to it.
=================

If you read carefully, it is still about subsidies. Clearly, if
environmental costs are not accounted for, we have a subsidy to the
firm -- the "people's" water being given, very cheaply, to firms.

I'm on topic, but I'm not sure about you.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:58 GMT, "No Spam"
wrote:

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?

The prison existed - much faster than building new.

I realize it was faster to use the existing prison, but if speed is the
criteria, it would have been faster to not have any trials or prisoners at
all. Obviously speed was not the criteria.

It should be destroyed
now that there is time to do it. But since it belongs to the new government
it really should be their decision what to do with it. I'm sure the families
of anyone that was ever there would like to see it replaced by something
else.

So why was it used and not destroyed in the first place?

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?
Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Yes it probably does, but it was a fast moving invading force and they
wanted secure command areas and I would assume that the palaces were
fortified and built to be easily defended. I wonder what they will do with
them now? I suggest Universitys/Schools/librarys something for the public
good.

For Pete's sake. The palaces and such have been used long after the
invasion. I could see taking them and holding them as strategic locations,
but turning them over to the CPA and having US soldiers swimming in
Saddam's swimming pools is just a little over the top. Remember, these
things were Saddam's previously, but the wherewith all to get them was
*stolen* from the Iraqi people. Didn't anyone think about *them*?

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated
the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and
9/11.

I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They
reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the
results of the invasion were revealed.

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not
the
administration's fault

The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that
proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with
Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why
should we believe anything the US Administration says?

Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what
would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately
forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam,
the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet
Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq,
this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria?

Inteligence agents and weathermen - don't bet your life on either. But I
guess each are right sometime - as I sit watching the snow come down that
was supposed to be over by now.

I call 'em the weatherguessers. If we changed the nation's economists with
the nation's meterologists...no one would ever notice.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...
...Obviously speed was not the criteria...

No, probably not. I mean, hell, fast as it is, speed generally has its
hands full being even a single criterion.

Wolfgang
typing slowly for those who.....um......well, you know.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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.

Indeed. Therein lies the problem.

If canada thought it were a problem, we'd have done something about it.

And we intend to convince you it's a problem, and cause you to do something
about 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:
==================
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.
================

Interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Interesting indeed. Smoking gun interesting.

Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping
the US away from
Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of
Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their
cause?

More likely it's because they know darned well that the US will discover all
sorts of WMD's and other terrorist-facilitating evidence upon which to base
a decision to sanction them.

Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters?

Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries.
In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries.
The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any
western country.

The issue is not the absolute number of violent crimes it's the TREND of
violent crime associated with the banning of guns.

Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a
few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians,
comparatively speaking.

What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime,
which is indeed skyrocketing in Britain and Australia, increasing in Canada,
and dropping in the US.
--
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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:06:32 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .
...Obviously speed was not the criteria...

No, probably not. I mean, hell, fast as it is, speed generally has its
hands full being even a single criterion.

Wolfgang
typing slowly for those who.....um......well, you know.

Hey, if you take enough speed you can do anything.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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?

You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes
little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users.

Yeah, right.

Anyone who says that agriculture contributes "little" to the economy is just
too stupid to bother arguing with.

Buh-bye Netwit.
--
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

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs."
I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the
water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any
other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I
said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On the topic of subsidies, I chatted with my sugar-beet farmer
relative, in Mn, and ask about the price of sugar beets being
subsidized by US Gov. He said in agreement with you that there is no
subsidy, the price of sugar depends on world market price. That is part
of the problem for the small farmer, it is hard to compete unless you
have a very large operation, ie. Corporate farm, that can operate on a
very small margin.

He can take out a low interest loan, to buy fuel and seed, but if he
has to rent land, it kills what profit margin is left. Then if you have
a bad year, you can literally lose the farm. He has chosen to keep is
operation small, and out of debt, not rent land. Even at that, last
year he invested $35,000 for an annual return of $3,500 profit, and
says it is hardly worth the effort if you figure your time in to the
equation at all. More of a hobby income than anything. He ends up
working for one of the large farm operations with side jobs for income.

Anyway, I stand corrected, but I knew the farm life is a hard way to
make a living. TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser in reference to the CBC:
================
No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda.
====================

And you have evidence of this? Please share with us....

Turn on CBC. Listen and watch. You will witness first-hand all the evidence
needed.
--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to
exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So I guess that part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free State" is the part you've never bothered to
read?

You guess wrong. You also, again, fail to understand the meaning of the
phrase. This deliberate misapprehension is commonplace amongst gun-banners.

No Supreme Court case has ever supported the notion that membership in the
Militia is a predicate to keeping and bearing arms. Ever.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nope.

Prove it.

Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty.

Idiot - you are afraid to address the facts.

International law forbids invading any country.

No, it doesn't, and even if it did, the US is not subject to international
law. We are a sovereign nation with our own laws, which we obey. One of
those laws permits us to go to war, and invading a combatant nation is part
of going to war.

End of story.

Hardly.

The US
does not respect other countries' borders,

Only terrorist and terrorist-supporting nations, and they don't deserve to
be respected by anyone...and their leadership deserves to be extirpated so
the people of those nations can live free.

hence we shouldn't bother
respecting theirs.

That's your choice. But, I suggest that you have the force to back it up
with.
--
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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snippage...

For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post
again. Thanks.
=================
I have. And I've told you where else to check several times.
That you are still willfully ignorant is your decision.

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:58 GMT, "No Spam"
wrote:

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good
place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it
down?

The prison existed - much faster than building new.

I realize it was faster to use the existing prison, but if speed is the
criteria, it would have been faster to not have any trials or prisoners at
all. Obviously speed was not the criteria.

So what are you saying? The prison is bad so we are not going to use it, so
let's just kill everyone. No what you are saying is we should not be there
at all, which is a whole other argument (just read anything posted here
recently). My point was, we went in and we rounded up people that we thought
were a threat. They needed to be placed somewhere - quickly. The existing
prisons were the logical answer. I'm only dealing with logistics here not
the ideology of the invasion. My other point was that now is the time to let
the new government take over the prisons and prisoners and decide for
themselves if they would prefer to tear down the old reminders of both their
old government and the occupations use of them.

It should be destroyed
now that there is time to do it. But since it belongs to the new
government
it really should be their decision what to do with it. I'm sure the
families
of anyone that was ever there would like to see it replaced by something
else.

So why was it used and not destroyed in the first place?

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?
Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss
same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Yes it probably does, but it was a fast moving invading force and they
wanted secure command areas and I would assume that the palaces were
fortified and built to be easily defended. I wonder what they will do
with
them now? I suggest Universitys/Schools/librarys something for the public
good.

For Pete's sake. The palaces and such have been used long after the
invasion. I could see taking them and holding them as strategic
locations,
but turning them over to the CPA and having US soldiers swimming in
Saddam's swimming pools is just a little over the top. Remember, these
things were Saddam's previously, but the wherewith all to get them was
*stolen* from the Iraqi people. Didn't anyone think about *them*?

With all the car bombs etc still happening I still think they serve a
purpose. But I will still stand by my earlier remarks that they should be
turned over and converted to something for the people as soon as possible.
Something I did see was that Iraq did have, at one time, a strong Boy Scout
tradition. There are now people trying to get it started again and the
people that are old enough to remember being Boy Scouts are very enthused
about getting it going again. To this end they had petitioned the interim
government for a place for their headquarters and were granted rights to a
property previously used to train secret police. Apparently it is a quite
large complex located on a river. I was a scout and I think every kid should
have the opportunity to be one. I wish them well and I think it is a great
use for this property - better than just tearing it apart.

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and
facilitated
the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and
9/11.

I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine.
They
reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the
results of the invasion were revealed.

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the
administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is
not
the
administration's fault

The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda
that
proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled
with
Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent,
why
should we believe anything the US Administration says?

Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what
would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that
accurately
forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet
Nam,
the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet
Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq,
this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria?

Inteligence agents and weathermen - don't bet your life on either. But I
guess each are right sometime - as I sit watching the snow come down
that
was supposed to be over by now.

I call 'em the weatherguessers. If we changed the nation's economists
with
the nation's meterologists...no one would ever notice.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snippage..

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.
================================
No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what I'd
call a system that is working for everyone. Again, sarcasm is
above your level of comprehension, isn't it?

Please post a link to any evidence that Canadians are dying in
line waiting for health care.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snippage...

Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual.
=============
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of...

"...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..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41

...doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming
that somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your
name?

No look at what you said:

"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"
==============
Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew that is
so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the derision it
deserves.

I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that a
crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on the
corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire.
=======================
No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or are
trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no rights to
buy arms.

What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s
of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that
position.
==================
Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there, how
many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your fantasy
world of make-believe.

Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting
information.

We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves. What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less vicious
gun?

:-)

Mike

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"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...

Starting the personal attacks. I see that you know that you are losing this
debate. Thank you that admission.

I noticed that you decide to quote Mark Levine, the attorney for
Democrats.com. Is there a reason why you didn't supply a link?? You weren't
trying to hide the fact that this was a biased piece were you?? Did you not
want us to know that he was an attorney for the Democrats???

====

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.

HOLD ON!!!!!!

Mr. Mark "itsnotover" Levine knows better, HE WROTE the challenge under 3
U.S.C. section 15, that was used by the Congressional Black Caucus, on
1/6/2000.

IF he really believes that the court gave the election to Bush, then he
would NOT HAVE FILED this challenge.

http://www.mediasense.com/itsnotover...gressbrief.htm

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.

WHOOPS. Wrong again, The DEMCORAT majority of the Florida Supreme Court
ruled twice that the State Legislature wanted to take advantage of the safe
harbor provision of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Since Art II of the US
Constitution gives the State Legislature the right to enact election law, it
would be a VIOLATION of the rights of the State Legislature to allow a
recount to take them OUT of safe harbor.

"........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)."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

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.

BUT, the problem with the recount was not that they counties were using the
"clear intent of the voter", that problem was they were NOT using any
standards at all.

".........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

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"

Nothing stopped the court from telling the counties to go back to the
standards that were in place before the election. That would NOT be a new
counting standard.

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.

HOLD ON!!!! This was NOT part of Bush v. Gore, i.e. this case was NOT
settled by the SCotUS.

The DEMOCRAT majority of the Florida Supreme Court found the ballot to be
legal. Under both Florida and Federal Case Law, a candidate has no
Constitution right to a position on a ballot, thus the DEMOCRAT election
supervisor who designed this ballot did not violate the law.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2373.pdf

BTW, an example of this ballot was sent to every voter BEFORE the election
had taken place. The Democrats had plenty of time to have this ballot
changed, yet they did not take any action. IF they thought that this ballot
was unfair, why did they wait until the election was over to complain??

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).

That does NOT solve the problem. Remeber this recount was NOT statewide, it
was for 64 of Florida's 67 Counties. The FSC had entered into the state's
totals ballots that had been recounted with this "arbitary" counting
standards. Lewis had done nothing to fix this problem.

"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands
of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly
partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours after
the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence on)
what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds of
untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions,
thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a
recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted twice."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-28.htm

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.

Neither with the DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court. The count between
the two courts was 6 DEMOCRATS, 5 Republicans, and 1 Indepentent.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

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

WRONG again. Article II of the US Constitution gives the right to hold
elections to the state legislatures. Just because the Hawaii State
Legislature did not want to take advantage of safe harbor does NOT mean that
the court could force the state of Florida to do the same.

From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000.

"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

Also see their decision on 12/11/2000

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/...346-remand.pdf

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.

BUT it has everything to do with the rights of Florida State Legislature.

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.

Who is this everyone???

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.

I suggest that you read Article II of the US Constitution. Pay close
attention to the passage about the State Legislatures shall enact.......

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.

Except that they deferred to the ruling by the DEMOCRAT majority of the
Florida Supreme Court who found that Dec 12 WAS the deadline.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

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.

Since dimpled chads were not legal votes in the state of Florida, the
ballots HAD been fairly counted. It was only after Gore needed more votes
did DEMOCRAT Controlled canvassing boards made up new rules as they went
along.

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...000/decision/1
04268.htm

Bad link.

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.

WRONG. Bush already held Florida Electors. Under the law, there was NOTHING
the court could do to take those electors away from him.

And of course, Levine knows this to be true, because he wrote the challenge
to those electors that was presented on 1/6/2001 to Congress.

Further, the Florida Courts found that a revote was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/revote.pdf

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.

What conflict??? The Court had NO AUTHORITY to take Bush's elector away,
thus there was NO REMEDY available to Gore for him to win Florida outright.
He has to win in CONGRESS.

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."

Fine, let them stay out, Gore loses in Congress. Apparently Levine does not
know who controls the US House.

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."

Weiser says:
=========
Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."
=============

depends whose ox is being gored...

a rose by any other name....

six of one - one half dozen of another

who is writing the history books?

frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snippage...

IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand
your money back...

for anything but killing a lot of people quickly.

TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

Weiser, as media critic, recommends the CBC:
========
Turn on CBC. Listen and watch. You will witness first-hand all the
evidence
needed.
=========

Hmmm... got the TV news on right now. Gosh you're right! NOT!

Do you EVER listen? How would you know? Is there an affiliate in CO? If
so, you gotta admit, the best damned hockey broadcaster on the face of
this earth.

frtzw906

KMAN wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
om...

snip
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.

For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post again. Thanks.

If anyone else has seen the message, please repost. Thanks.

What message? He didn't post any link to any credible Canadian
reference, either in this thread or any other, I only saw "I have" a
couple of times.

--
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/

"Wilko" wrote in message
...

KMAN wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
. com...

snip
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.

For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post
again. Thanks.

If anyone else has seen the message, please repost. Thanks.

What message? He didn't post any link to any credible Canadian
reference,
================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! That's it, shoot the messenger when they
don't agree with you. More willful ignorance?

either in this thread or any other, I only saw "I have" a
couple of times.

--
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/