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

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.

It reminds me of how they now report fatalities in Iraq. When a soldier
is killed, and the media picks up the story, report it on 30 different
TV and radio stations around the world for the next three days, and it
sounds like 100 casualties, and the war is going terrible wrong.
Granted, each death is sad, but for the media to twist the stories the
way they do is unconscienceable.

So I understand what you heard, and I regret that you did not hear the
full story, but I heard alot more than just WMDs and Oil. I heard about
a despotic tyrant and his sons, about oppressed people who desired to
be set free, and yes WMDs. WMDs that we wanted to be very aware of
during an invasion where they could possibly be deployed. All Saddam
had to do was open his country to unhindered UN inspection, and he
would have saved himself from a military invasion. He knew his time was
short, he gambled and lost.

I did have a good social ski time, and feel very refreshed. However
there was no socialist gov. assistance for buying lift tickets. Had to
buy them myself. TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself 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?

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. Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks. Third, he refused to allow inspections as mandated by the
cease-fire agreement. Fourth, he was known to have, and have used WMD's on
his own people and Iran. Fifth, he was attempting to obtain nuclear
materials in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Fifth, he conspired to
attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. Sixth, his
actions destabilized the region and threatened world peace. 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.


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!"

First, what you heard and what was actually said are clearly very different
things. I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

Second, what makes you think that we are obligated to justify our actions to
you, personally?

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.


make up your minds.

We did. We decided to invade Iraq and free its people from a brutal tyrant
and we decided to ignore your country's (and everybody else's) opinion that
we didn't have sufficient justification to do so.

Evidently, you prefer the daily raping and torture of innocent young virgins
by brutal sex perverts, among other atrocities.

You're a real sterling fellow. Canada deserves you.


--
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 wrote:

Weiser says:
================
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.

--
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