The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Seems to me that all you have to do is to cast your ballot without
voting for anyone and you've accomplished the same as you would
have if you had marked a ballot for "None of the Above".


It should be that way. But some panel of judges could later decide you
intended to vote for a candidate in that race.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to express them.
Maybe
Bush did not actually lie about WMDs. Maybe he was just plain stupid.
There were
lots of other world leaders who were not sucked into the phoney proof.
It's
getting close to a year since Bush ordered his troops to invade Iraq
because
Saddam's stockpile of WMDs was a threat to the US. I have maintained all
along
that if there was enough proof of the existence of those WMDs to justify
invasion, they should have been found long ago.

So is he a liar, or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people
who are
still working for him?


Are those the only possibilities?

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

So is he a liar,

Most likely.

or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people who are
still working for him?

.....and most likely still have the same ulterior motives.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!


People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 1/30/2004 10:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: et


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Learn to use Google, mcnicoll. Apparently you don't want to learn
anything.

Here's a reference for you to read to see how black Florida voters
were disenfranchised by Gov. Bush and his cohort, Harris.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_electio...406541,00.html


Thanks, I was familiar with it. Here's something for you, if you're ready
to learn:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U29C31047

Despite many recounts by the media and many attempts by the media to prove
anyone was denied the right to vote absolutely no proof has come forth.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
wasn't.

Turby the Turbosurfer

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Kal Alexander" wrote:

wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm
Beach, were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be
counted accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being
derided, and Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine
with everybody when they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were
just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal



Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results
on
that so foreign to GOPs?

No. That system was acceptable when Clinton was elected, twice.
That same system was objected to by demo-rats only AFTER Gore
lost.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

RogerM wrote:
John Gaquin wrote:

"RogerM" wrote in message

One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.

If more people live in
urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large
degree on population.

"based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.

In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't
constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
of
a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

RogerM wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
conversation.

No one's writing a book, here.

You know this for a fact?


(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)
--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Kal Alexander wrote:

RogerM wrote:
Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.


The problem with that, is that the alternative is control by the will of
a tiny minority. Do you really think that is better?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.