The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"devil" wrote in message
news

So?


So his book isn't worth the read.


We agree. Pardon me while I have a stroke!

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

"devil" wrote in message

It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed?

Which is precisely what the Gore campaign wanted the FSJC and the USSC to
approve.

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?

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?

--

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.

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
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?

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?

Why not indeed? But it won't happen because the states that presently have more
critters than they have voters will have even less to say about how things are
run than they presently have. Not only are they not apt to go along with a
scheme like that, but they'll gang up into a pack to make sure that it doesn't
happen.

George Z.

"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.

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

And exactly who got to vote twice and how was that accomplished?/


Not voting twice, recasting votes. I saw it on one of the news networks,
judges were in the process of reviewing the ballots, I believe it was in
Broward County.

One of the judges examined a ballot, noted that except for a clean punch for
Bush it showed a straight Democrat vote. It also, in her opinion, had a
nick on the ballot where a Gore vote would go. She deemed that ballot to be
a vote for Gore.

The next judge had a different opinion. He deemed a clean punch for Bush
and an intact chad for Gore to be a clear vote for Bush.

The third judge agreed with the first.

How many other votes were recast in the same way?

As for voting twice, students interviewed in Madison and Milwaukee stated
they voted locally and also by absentee ballot. Many stated it was very
easy to do and was very widespread. Gore took Wisconsin by a narrow margin.

"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. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.

--

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.

"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.

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?

"RogerM" wrote in message
...

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual conversation.
No one's writing a book, here. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.


Don't want to be challenged? Don't want to support anything you assert?
Then don't express your opinions as if they were facts.