"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"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?

That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda
is.

LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a
trick!


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 anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the
ballots that has Gore winning.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

You could find dozens more if you looked.


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.

Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots
in
Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period.

We'll never know who won. Bush wouldn't let us find out.


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'm quite certain that you don't.


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.

That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not
"full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the
election.

The fact that he wasn't intrested in the truth is why people think he stole
it.

First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in
election fraud. No such evidence exists.

Some people think it does.

Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence,
it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence
of
evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that
either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as
reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be
just
as incorrect as you are.

If Gore has stopped the recount, I'd be right there saying he stole it.

Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush
won
the election.

There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United
States
Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the
Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional.

LOL.

As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots,
the
law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the
election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time
frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of
the
certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to
a
halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the
election.

There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to
vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted
as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the
election.
If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR
problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask
for
assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the
Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring
that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in
order
for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would
have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the
election commission's problem.

The whole thing is a disgrace. From the same president who lectures
Europeans about democracy. LOL!


The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the
Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left,
however,
even to suit Castro or Marx.

What is Socialist about the Democratic party?


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.

I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make
the decisions.

Only because he stole the election.

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.

That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of
the election.

The election was a MESS by any standard. It was never cleaned up, just swept
under the rug.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"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.

Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating
with rick and Scott, to comment on my post.

The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he
limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard
what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not
other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and
more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the
human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team,
etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow
countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition
airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and
generally terrorize the US.

That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN
violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about
human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their
inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent
points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other
calls to action that were being made.

If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can
understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by
choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not
presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them.

Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not
characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I
would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean
listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say,
but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same
tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of
being uninformed. TnT

I listened and read EXACTLY what the Bush administration cited as their
reasons for invading, and it was, to a massive degree, all about WMD, and
only some brainwashed freak who ONLY watches Fox "News" would fall for the
sloppy revisionism that has gone on in the days since the WMD disappeared.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's a fact well documented even by the liberal media.

They surrendered - it's the "gladly" part that is a fiction.
The US media showed huge crowds of cheering Iraqis welcoming
the US soldiers. Media in the rest of the world showed
the exact same scenes without the tightly cropped view.
The "huge" crowds turned out to be dozens of people. Same
technique is used in Hollywood to make a few extras look like
a mob. US fiction.

He did. That he couldn't get his troops to fight for him to the death shows
that his style of rule was ineffective at garnering loyalty.

If he had them and the Iraqi troops left them alone, then why didn't the
yanks find them? They can't be spirited out of the country in an instant
and wouldn't likely be hidden by folks that wouldn't support their leader.

He had twelve years.

Which means he _didn't_ have them to fight with. I ask again. Did he
have them to fight with or not?

He miscalculated US determination and military power...twice.

But got away with it once. That sorta doesn't make your point.

That's why we're called a "sovereign nation."

There are lots of soveriegn nations. Perhaps the US should remember that.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what
"God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

Unless you are insane. Those who KNOW that "god" exists are quite certain
about it and see no problem with promoting their unique personal fantasy as
factual reality.

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

Since God exists in a spiritual world

A thinking human being can't help but conclude that such Gods as may exist
(assuming that any do) probably don't feel constrained by your vapid
pronouncements. One cannot but believe they'd exist wherever the hell they
please.

and we exist in a physical world,

Being both expectant and patient, we hope that will
change........soon.........for some of us. But, we are willing to wait as
long as necessary.

there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

And thus we all see.......and some sympathize with........your problem.

Wolfgang

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.

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.

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?

Mike

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?
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."

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?

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

Weiser, in reference to frtzw906 says:
====================
And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to
save
water for other uses.
================

Nope. Wasn't me. Perhaps KMAN or michael, but never me.

frtzw906

Weiser, in reference to the genesis of this part of the thread say:
===============
Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture.
======================

Nope. It was ALWAYS about the economics of subsidies, with
agri-business standing in as a prime example thereof.

frtzw906

"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. 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.

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.


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.


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