I endorse Bush

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Of course the Bush camp wanted to stop the recounts. They won.

They won because the process was stopped before completion.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


They won because the process was stopped before completion.

Changing the standards on what is a "vote" over and over until you get lucky enough to win isn't bringing the process to completion. It's subverting.

[Wiglaf]

The point is that every election has a few flaws in it, but he didn't sue because that one was particularly corrupt. (Certainly not on a Kennedy-Nixon 1960 standard) He sued entirely because he was a sore loser and wanted to win, not out of some moral concern for the rights of the disenfranchised.

You are awesome

Kerry voted for a forceful message granting the President the authority to go to war as a last resort after other options had been exhausted. It wasn't a green light, it was a warning that the US had had it up to here *brings hand to upper forehead* with Saddam, that if he persisted in defying the UN resolutions there would be real consequences, war if necessary. Congress was told the Saddam had uber-buttloads of WMD's and if they didn't give Bush the authority to act there would be Iraqi UAVs flying down Main Street, USA. Hmmm...

That's absurd. Congress and its men have the responsiblity to verify the intelligence. If it's not there, or inadequate, you don't vote for it. And if you want to scare Saddam, you don't tell the president he can invade at will. There's a certain leap of logic there.

And conservatives fought against a free election? There were concerns about who counted the damn votes. In some counties it was a 3 man panel, 2 of which had liberal connections. Plus the election was called early. Plus Bush initially won +500 votes. I think it is bogus you still whine about this, and it is your mindset that is leading to lawsuits already before the election has taken place. Sue sue sue and hope for the best, tell your poll workers that there is voter intimidation, yadadaa. It's hokey and criminal and punishable.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Changing the standards on what is a "vote" over and over until you get lucky enough to win isn't bringing the process to completion. It's subverting.

Bush's camp participated in that agrivating exercise as did Gore's. I don't blame either more than the other on that issue, but stopping the process does not complete the process. I would have accepted a Bush win had the process not been stopped by the USSC. Remember, I voted for Nader in 2000 as I disliked both major party candidates, so I was ambivalent to Bush back then. ~4 years have shown just how bad a choice that had been.

[Kuciwalker]

Bush would have won without the recount. Therefore, what's the problem with the SC stopping it? It's not like what they did resulted in a partial recount changing the vote to Bush.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


You are awesome

Thank you, but you're still a loon.

That's absurd. Congress and its men have the responsiblity to verify the intelligence.

Oh, you mean all the intelligence the Bush Administration used to prove Saddam had sought yellowcake, aluminum tubes, unmanned deathgliders, mobile germ labs, big scary balloons, strategery meetings with... uh, erm... what was that name again... Osama bin Forgotten yadadaa (FYI the term is 'yadda yadda')?

If it's not there, or inadequate, you don't vote for it. And if you want to scare Saddam, you don't tell the president he can invade at will. There's a certain leap of logic there.

So you think Congress should have instead threatened more sanctions?

And conservatives fought against a free election? There were concerns about who counted the damn votes. In some counties it was a 3 man panel, 2 of which had liberal connections. Plus the election was called early. Plus Bush initially won +500 votes. I think it is bogus you still whine about this, and it is your mindset that is leading to lawsuits already before the election has taken place. Sue sue sue and hope for the best, tell your poll workers that there is voter intimidation, yadadaa. It's hokey and criminal and punishable.

Seeing as there are already discrepencies in early elections and the ever-popular e-voting machines, litigation may be the only recourse against what is gearing up to another debacle, this time on a national scale. Had the federal government been serious about cleaning up the mess from 2000, HAVA would have been much more effective and thorough in outlining what needed to be done. Too many politicans got caught up in the belief that e-voting would be a cure-all that they didn't give a critical look at it in time. I don't know enough about the other things that have come out of HAVA, but e-voting nationally was mind-bogglingly poorly planned (setting aside the plethora of conspiracy theories).

And yes, Big Media shares in the blame for 2000 by calling elections before an aceptable percentage of the vote has been counted (I would say 90% at the very least but would much rather they keep their damn mouths shut until official numbers are released), but they don't physically block people from reaching the polls, that's the fault of voters who say, "F*ck it, I'm not voting."

[Wiglaf]

The yellowcake crap was British memo intel, that Congress signed off on. As was every other thing you mentioned. Besides, I might be wrong, but I think Kerry's problem with Iraq is the execution, not the invasion per se. He likes vanilla but does not want to steal it from the ice cream man, if that tickles your fancy.

And I cannot believe you are arguing Kerry voted for war to scare Saddam. If you want to do that, you'd better damn well have a good reason, and that is that he ought to be invaded. But now since Dean picked up momentum, hold up, let me change my story and pander.

[MalevolentLight]

Isn't it interesting how Kerry says we did all of this unilaterally and illegally (even though we have some 30 countries supporting us) and that anyone who is with us is apart of the coerced and the bribed. Before the war all he could talk about was how right a decision it was to go to war. He talked about how Saddam had WMD and he supported terrorism, and even said that anyone who thinks Saddam isn't a threat isn't fit to lead the country (he said this in televised interviews so don't try to deny it). As soon as Dean started gaining he changed his position. He also voted against the first Iraq war which was supposedly an enormous coalition. He voted against funding the troops, yet he constantly harps on Bush saying the troops are underfunded. I could go on and on and on about everything Kerry has done and then not done. There is absolutely no consitency to what he says and does. And then you guys come on here and try to say we are distoring his record. How can you distort something someone says themselves on a recorded television interview?

[Dis]

I endorse Kerry.

take that.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


They won because the process was stopped before completion.

give it up.

gore lost. No matter how many recounts they did. And Bush won the state without even including military absentee ballots.

[DRoseDARs]

I'll "give it up" when Bush supporters stop claiming Bush recieved a mandate. I'll "give it up" when people stop claiming there aren't serious problems brewing for this election. I'll "give it up" when Wiglaf stops offering me ice cream.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Isn't it interesting how Kerry says we did all of this unilaterally and illegally (even though we have some 30 countries supporting us)

Like Poland?

Face it, Britain was our only ally that actually meant anything.

[Dis]

I still can't believe we invaded another country for no reason.

What really bothers me is more americans aren't upset by this.

People were more upset by Vietnam, and we had more justification there.

This shows how apathetic people are now days compared to the 60's.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Um.. Bush didn't deserve to get in by traditional standards...

Much like the 2000 sElection...

Sure, if by "traditional standards" you mean ballot box-stuffing. The Dems tried every trick they've got and couldn't pull it off.

Which one media-sponsored recount (out of the dozens of recounts made trying to beat that dead horse to a gallop) put Gore ahead by barely a hundred votes?

Those "letters from three prominent Britons" are as full of crap as Michael Moore. The writer and the poet, sure, you expect them to take liberties with the truth. Half the so-called facts cited by the one "scientist" on the panel are outright lies (I use the word in quotes, as his looseness with and manipulation of the data calls his general credibility into question).

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Dissident
I still can't believe we invaded another country for no reason.

What really bothers me is more americans aren't upset by this.

People were more upset by Vietnam, and we had more justification there.

This shows how apathetic people are now days compared to the 60's.

Yeah, excellent example of the crap anti-Bush people spew on a regular basis. It wasn't "for no reason." It was for reasons that now, in hindsight, you disagree with and wish you could edit both history and the present so you'd look wise.

What bothers me is more Americans aren't upset by the blatant lies and demonstrable forgeries that consist the incessant attacks on the President.

People were more upset by the Clinton impeachment move, and there was certainly more justification in a charge of lying under oath.

Just shows how apathetic people are when it is a Republican under attack compared to a Democrat.