The bad part is that all
this posturing likely means something will happen and people will get killed. This whole thing sucks big time and I
don't have any answers myself.
I honestly can't believe that they could even consider doing this!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec04
0712
We are Americans.... and we (as a people) will find a way to get to the polling stations regardless
of any terrorist attacks!!!! Postpone the elections because of an attack.... and we might as well call it quits,
because all that says is that the terrorists have already won!!!
I personally feel that Dub'ya is looking
for a way to steal this election... just as he did in 2000, but thats just my opinion.
What does everyone else
think?
(No lizard freaks need respond..b/c your numbers up )
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
The bad part is that all
this posturing likely means something will happen and people will get killed. This whole thing sucks big time and I
don't have any answers myself.
I don't believe we ever will stopOriginally Posted by Gossamer_2701
an election for any reason, too much fallout if they tried. However, anybody that believes that sad old fable about
Bush stealing the last election really needs to go back and re-read the facts. At least one newspaper independently
varified the results and Bush would have won anyway. He may be a contempable idiot but he is legally the president.
But his only real competition was a contemptable idiot as well.The people lost in either case.
so true, and it's about to
happen all over again.
Everything was just peachy
when Clinton was in office, suddenly Bush gets into office, 3,000 people die, gas prices go up 200%, and we go to
war, has anyone else noticed this?!
There's an old saying that power corrupts. That isn't true. PowerOriginally Posted by koolking1
attracts the corrupt and the corruptable. Anybody seeking to feed at the public trough should be suspected of being
corrupt before ever starting out. Who in their right mind would spend millions for a job that pays so little and has
such high demands unless there was some other return for their investment. The return doesn't have to be money but
I think I would trust money more than egotistical rewards. That type really scares me.
That's nonsense! The economic bubble was ready toOriginally Posted by TopDawg2050
collapse and the terrorist attacks were already in motion before Bush was elected. Nothing like that happens
overnight, each event took years.
I do not agree with the war in Iraq and do fault Bush there. If we had to go
to war, it should have been against the real perpetrators, not over daddy's grudge
There was a terrorist attack on the Twin TowersEverything was just
peachy when Clinton was in office, suddenly Bush gets into office, 3,000 people die, gas prices go up 200%, and we
go to war, has anyone else noticed this?!
back in '93 while Clinton was in office. It just didn't do the damage the terrorists had planned for. Perhaps
had these subhumans been dealt with then those 3,000 lives wouldn't have been lost in the first place. You
can't blame EVERYTHING on Bush.
Yeah, but what was all that
junk about Saddam, did everyone just forget completely about Osama, i haven't heard his name in months.....
Well, 9/11 happened during
Bush II and now they are telling us it's likely to happen again, disrupting elections??? Of course the authorities
in power would want the election postponed as who in their right mind would vote for people who let not one but two
devestating attacks to occur.
Well.... I'm not gonna argue with you..... the fact is, Dub'ya became the president under veryHowever, anybody
that believes that sad old fable about Bush stealing the last election really needs to go back and re-read the
facts.
shady circumstances and will forever have an * next to his name in the record books.
The hell I can't!!! Every decision he's made has been to further hisYou can't
blame EVERYTHING on Bush.
daddy's GOP agenda.... regardless of the fact that none of those decisions have been in the best intrest of this
country.
Saddam was just a ploy.... and you haven't heardYeah, but what was all that junk about Saddam, did everyone just forget completely about
Osama, i haven't heard his name in months.....
anything about Bin Laden because they don't like to put a spotlight on their worst failures.
Something is
seriously wrong in the way this counrty is being run... and with our choices in Nov..... well..... we're in deep
shit no matter how you look at it
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
CANT WE ALL JUST GET
ALONG?!?!?!?
I think im just gonna move to
canada, whens the last time you've heard of a war or political problems there. Canada exists, it just dosent,
people just dont notice canada, thats why its cool there.
you might not be alone.
Originally Posted by Gossamer_2701
Say what
you want about the Lizards...Icke was predicting this months ago!
Oh so you think Dubya might be trying to
steal the election...Hmmm...& the pentagon says Bush's military records were destroyed by misktake...hmmm...The
Patriot act is really an excuse for a police state...keep connecting the dots Gossamer you're almost there
bro...
Bin Laden is a CIA asset & stooge...Who do you think he was working for during the SovietOriginally Posted by TopDawg2050
occupation during the 80's. The wealthy Saudi family he comes from is very highly connected in the Bush
Admin...Why do you think they were hustled out of the country so quietly after 9/11? Bin Laden is a semi delusional
nut case...theres no way he was the 9/11 master mind...Has anyone asked themselves why it took the military one and
a half hours to respond the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners? When the year before the had several intercepts
within 10 to 15 mins...the jig is up...the official 9/11 story put out by the govt & mainstream news media is total
BS...9/11 was allowed to happen by Dubya, et al...
Wrong.Originally Posted by belgareth
There was never an official recount. A consortium of
8 newspaper gathered up all the uncounted ballots and commissioned the U of Chicago’s National Opinion Center to
examine them. Using six different schemes for interpreting questionable ballots the consortium found that, in the
words of the AP release, “A full, statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's
537-vote victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes, depending on how valid votes are
defined.”
Gore had requested a recount of just two counties (which he no doubt thought would vote in
his favor). But he eventually conceded, and dropped his request, when the Supreme Court decided that the recount was
“too disruptive”. What the newspapers reported was that HAD THOSE TWO COUNTIES BEEN RECOUNTED Bush would have still
won. I still have the Nov. 12, 2001 copy of the NYT (I followed this issue like a hawk). The headline reads "Study
of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" and there’s a lot of verbiage about how
Gore would have still lost if he’d gotten HIS (two county) recount. But there’s also a little paragraph that
explains how he would have won with a total state wide recount.
Gore messed up. No doubt. It was his right,
and his duty, to demand a full statewide recount. Because of his spinelessness the people’s voice was not heard.
Add to this, the fact that there was much evidence of fraud — geared towards disenfranchising Black voters — which
the Senate REFUSED to investigate, despite pleas from elected representatives of the voters in question.
But,
Most Importantly, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to stop a recount or declare a winner in any
election (that’s what Election Commissions are for). Think back to 9th grade civics and the separation of powers
that makes our government so unique. The Supreme Court interprets LAWS that are written by elected representatives
of the people. It can’t directly interpret the will of the people. It can’t interpret when a recount’s gone on for
too long. And it sure can’t select presidents.
Even if the votes had come out in Bush’s favor — which it
turns out they didn’t — his “presidency” is still illegitimate. He was selected, not elected. The Supreme Court
“decision” is unprecedented, not just in US history, but in the history of democracy as we know it.
The
implications are staggering — if you admit that the 2000 elections were stolen you have to draw a whole series of
unpleasant conclusions about the press, government, courts, and everybody else that’s supposed to be safeguarding
our democracy — and that’s why our natural response is to want to believe that somehow nothing really bad happened.
That everybody (courts, government, press) did the right thing and our democracy has not been undermined. It’s too
mind boggling to think otherwise. But that’s the way it is nonetheless
True. The Clinton “recovery” wasOriginally Posted by belgareth
little more than a glorified pyramid scheme. Banks loaned out start-up capital — on the basis of assets that they
were ANTICIPATING to get from a manufacturing sector that was in steady decline — to dot coms that were increasing
their stock value on the basis of profits they were ANTICIPATING to reap. Meanwhile industrial capacity was steadily
declining and the manufacturing sector was reporting record losses.
When the bills started coming due the bubble
burst.
That's what happened and
then our legally elected officials did the unpardonable by not taking the time to read and fully understand the
implications of the USA Patriot Act before voting for it so even greater powers were handed to an unelected
President. I do thank AKA for reminding at least myself about this and instead of not voting this year as was my
plan (I don't care for the alternative) I will vote if only in the hope that it will help at least legitimize our
governement.
Of course. It's far too big a reality check for most people to deal with. That'sOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
exactly what they (Bush, Inc.) were counting on and, sadly, it's worked like a charm.
Good post.
Now we'll just have to
wait and see what kind of funny business happens this time, hopefully it won't entail any deaths. I imagine that
at least all democratic political protests during the RNC will be declared illegal in that they "just could" aid the
terrorists who are "certainly" planning an attack.
Look it up, the truth is that
the economy in general has always prospered under the republicans at the expense of the poorest. Under the
democrats, the richest have always been forced to carry the load for taking care of the poorest resulting in fewer
investment dollars. Neither way is right or fair or to the benefit of this country. Party politics are the worst
thing for good government. Independent thinking people voting their concience is what will do the most good.
People who babble the party line, whether democrat or republican always make me nervous, especially when it runs
counter to established facts. Let's face it, neither major party (and most of the minors too) is interested in
anything more than promoting their own agenda to their own benefit. Do yourselves a favor, stop repeating the crap
you hear, learn and accept the facts. The alternative news is no more or less accurate than the major sources, they
just have their own slant and agenda. If you take the time to study the various stands and consider how it will
effect the country you'll be better off. And I don't mean the short term, warm, fuzzy, feel good nonsense, think
long term. How is giving business free rein going to hurt or help us? How are hand outs to the poor going to help
us? How is increasing your tax burden or adding new laws or allowing prices to soar or shipping jobs overseas going
to help this country?
Don't you guys
just love debating about politics!?
I wish more people would pay attention to this. Good post.Originally Posted by belgareth
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
well, this all sounds good
to me but are you trying to say that as long as we flip-flop the two viable political parties every election or so
that we'll be better off?
In short, there are a mountain
of fishy facts about the Gore/Bush runoff in Florida (e.g., Bush cronies in charge of the counting). There is no way
to just say it was OK. Many likely Gore voters were elimenated from the counting, for example. The major networks
and press corporations did a bad job of reporting it at the time, unfortunately. Nice post, A.K.A. Of course
Bush will do everything he can get away with, ethical or not, to influence the upcoming election. Expect it
and watch. That is probably what the latest Homeland Security warning was all about. The intelligence was reportedly
all old.
If the Lakers can let Phil Jackson go, we ought to be able to let Bush go! Time for a new approach!
Give someone else a shot! To say this guy is an ineffective diplomat, for example, is absolutely unquestionable. He
is damaged goods. The world hates him. Right or wrong, he is not going to talk his way back into the world's hearts
any time soon, with his self-admitted expressive disorder. There is no way Bush could do the job for four more
years, even if he wasn't the moral equivalent of Stalin. Even traditional Republican interests would be better
served by Kerry at this point than by Bush. For example, Kerry has a much, much better military mind. There is no
way Bin Laden would still be at large if Kerry had been in there.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Originally Posted by koolking1
I am saying that there are no viable
political parties. I'm saying that the american people have been hoodwinked into believing they only have the
choice between supporting one party or the other. I'm saying that our political system has degenerated into apathy
and pointless mudslinging rather than face and address the real issues.
What I am advocating is using your brain
and taking the time to study rather than pay attention to the crap in the news. There is almost nothing regarding
the elections in the mainstream or alternative news that is worth reading. Ignore what one candidate claims the
other said or did. Instead, check congressional records and voting histories. Read up on what they really do and
have done rather than listening to pointless mudslinging. Know your facts then vote for the person without regard to
parties.
Great post AKA....
Those were the facts that I was unable to locate yesterday, thanks for posting them
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
I really have to agree with that.Originally Posted by belgareth
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
I'm an independent... and I have refused to voteKnow your facts
then vote for the person without regard to parties.
for people because they sling way too much mud But the fact of the matter is..... this IS a two party
system..... you can vote for whoever you want, but if its not for a Dem or Rep.... its for a loosing side!!!
Hopefully we can throw out this deadend party system one day and vote for the person... NOT the party.
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks