US chooses Saddam's successor

[Effendi]

.
The United States has chosen a successor to Saddam Hussein from Iraq's notoriously fractious opposition groups, according to a former Iraqi diplomat who lives in Sydney.

Mohamed al-Jabiri, who has just returned from in talks with Washington, said the White House has given its "blessing" to the head of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, to lead a transitional coalition government in Iraq once Saddam has been deposed.

Dr al-Jabiri, who talked to Mr Chalabi over the phone last month, said: "He told me that he would take over. He has the blessing of the White House and the State Department."

He said Mr Chalabi had been in talks with another major Iraqi opposition group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Iranian Government while in Tehran.

Mr Chalabi moved to Sala-huddin in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq last week, ahead of an expected United States-led invasion. Opposition forces will hold a summit in northern Iraq on February 15.

Mr Chalabi, who is a progressive liberal, is far from universally popular among Iraqi exiles. However, successful talks in Tehran, and Iranian assistance in getting him into Iraq, shows he has galvanised considerable support from the Iraqi opposition.

Analysts believe disunity in the Iraqi opposition would make it near impossible to form a transitional government from its ranks, leading to speculation that the US will have to effectively occupy Iraq for a year or longer to maintain order.

Dr al-Jabiri said the US was keen to avoid such a situation, aware that it would create resentment among the Iraqi people and in the Middle East.

Mr Chalabi, the 58-year old scion of an Iraqi financial dynasty, left Iraq aged 11, spending most of his exile in Britain and the US, where he studied mathematics. In 1996 he led an unsuccessful uprising against Saddam that resulted in hundreds of deaths. A sentence of 22 years hard labour hangs over him in Jordan where he was convicted in his absence in 1992 of fraud.

Dr al-Jabiri, who spent two years in solitary confinement before escaping to the US and then Australia, has been working with the US State Department and Iraqi exiles to draw up a political blueprint for Iraq after Saddam, developing plans for health, education, the media and judiciary.

He said a new government would be in place three months after Saddam's removal and elections for a national parliament after one year.

The aim is to have a new constitution that would adopt a federal structure to ease power-sharing among Iraq's different religious and ethnic groups.

Most Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims but there is a substantial Kurdish community to the north. Sunni Muslims, Christians, Assyrians and Turks also make up the country's 22 million population.

"We all agreed that a federation must be established," Dr al-Jabiri said.

"We have drafted over 1000 pages of new rules and regulations. It's really quite a work. It's very impressive."

A meeting in Washington on March 7 is scheduled to formally adopt the plan.

Dr al-Jabiri has been most involved in the "transitional justice working group", which is examining ways to prosecute Saddam and leading figures in the Iraqi regime.

He said that they would be prosecuted in Iraqi courts, not in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. "We don't want to give Saddam the chance like [former Yugoslav leader Slobodan] Milosevic to use it for propaganda," he said.

International jurists and the media would be invited to attend, he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/03/1044122320739.html


What the Fuck?
I guess this is part of the "New World Order" the Illuminati take out leaders around the world it does not like and installs it's own puppets in place. They started with America, then Afganistan, now Iraq then Iran, and North Korea. Pretty soon it may just be the United States of the world.

Scott!!

[StarPhox]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
What the Fuck?
I guess this is part of the "New World Order" the Illuminati take out leaders around the world it does not like and installs it's own puppets in place. They started with America, then Afganistan, now Iraq then Iran, and North Korea. Pretty soon it may just be the United States of the world.

Scott!!

I don't see what is "New" about this "New World Order."
The U.S. has been installing new leaders in countries (and in some cases supporting guerrilla warfare) for years.

As for the installation of leaders in foreign countries (and I'm not saying I support our policy in Iraq) it would seem a logical choice to replace one foreign leader with another that is more favorable to our political views.
Especially when a great deal of the conflict arises solely from the personal agendas of the current political leader!

[Star_Dancer]

so?

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Star_Dancer
so?

Well OK, For those of you who don't mind the fact that our own government was hijacked, I can understand why you could care less of other governments getting hijacked.

Scott!!

[seattle science]

God forbid Sadam's brutally totalitarian dictatorship be 'hijacked' by the evil clutches of demcracy.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Effendi


Well OK, For those of you who don't mind the fact that our own government was hijacked, I can understand why you could care less of other governments getting hijacked.

Scott!!


And that where your logic breaks down Scott. The government wasn't hijacked. You just dont like the direction the current administration is going.

As far as the administration picking the new ruler of Iraq. I imagine there will be an interim government, supported and defended by the US, untill one that is representative of the people can be elected.

Good.

MS

[Sophistik]

I have a really wierd feeling about this... al-Jabiri??? Hmm...

Dave

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Mike S

And that where your logic breaks down Scott. The government wasn't hijacked. You just dont like the direction the current administration is going.


Actually, Mike our government was hijacked by Baby Bush. He LOST the popular election, and is all but 100% certain to have lost the electoral college as well. Fortunately for him (and for the rabid religious right he represents) the republicans organized riots in Florida to stop the vote counting (this happened in AMERICA), and the Supreme Court installed Baby Bush as president by the narrowest of possible margins in a ruling almost universally decried as purely politically motivated and lacking in logic and precedent.

Those who have benefitted from the Baby Bush junta might want to sweep this nasty little episode under the rug, but the majority of Americans who voted AGAINST this tin-pot dictator wannabee won't forget so easily, Mike.

Less than two years and counting until we vote him the loser AGAIN - only this time we'll do it with enough force to evict him from our government for good. We will return America to a true democracy again, and we'll do so peacefully and with smiles on our face. The scurrying forces of the fundamentalist christian right can go back to preaching hatred and fear for a living, and stop inciting global armed conflict in the the name of "god."

Peace,

D-d0g

[StarPhox]

Originally posted by Sophistik
I have a really wierd feeling about this... al-Jabiri??? Hmm...

Dave

You just don't trust anyone who isn't Filipino like you. ;)

[Effendi]

.
But I challenge you to show me a TRUE successful democracy?

We are NOT a democracy...we weren't founded that way and we're certainly not today!!

We are a Republic, where the people are "led" to believe that their voices are heard, but here is always and has always been a select few with enough power to overrule the choices of the General Public.
This can be done outright when absolutely necessarry, but is done much cleaner over time by using every tool of spin to actually convince you that "God" would have it done their way.

Most of the Killing in the last 2,000 since the inception of organized religeon has been done in the name of God, Even WE do it in the name of God.

Even our pledge of alligeance says "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, One nation, under GOD , with Liberty and justice for all"......hahahahhahahaha...Yea right..

You may have Liberty if your "White, Uptight and Out of sight"
You may have justice if you've never dug a ditch, and your rich, ain't that a bitch!!

Would someone please point out to me the Democracy part of our constitution, and even better yet, the proof of a true working democracy?

Scott!!

[What time?]

When was OUR government hijacked? And who was it hijacked by? Or was this stated based on opinion rather than fact?

[Effendi]

Originally posted by What time?
When was OUR government hijacked?

I guess D-Dog pretty much just answered that.

And who was it hijacked by?

The people now running Rabid within it!

Or was this stated based on opinion rather than fact?
Well you certainly must know all the facts regarding the occurrence of the 2000 Election right? So you tell us, was that Democracy at work, and is the US Government representing the will of the majority of the American Public?

Is the double standard regarding the crimes we now allow israel to commit, as oppossed to the rest of the world.
Hell we even ARM them to increase the pace of fullfilling "Biblical Prophecy" by returning the land of Cannan to the israelites so that the temple of Soloman can be rebuilt in Jerusalem, which will precipetate the promise christians believe that this will bring the second coming of Jesus Christ.....or something like that...

Scott!!

[StarPhox]

America was never hijacked.

We are (and always will be) owned by the big corporations.

Doesn't matter if you're left, right, up, down or in the middle.

[ChickenFucker]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
The United States has chosen a successor to Saddam Hussein from Iraq's notoriously fractious opposition groups, according to a former Iraqi diplomat who lives in Sydney.

Mohamed al-Jabiri, who has just returned from in talks with Washington, said the White House has given its "blessing" to the head of the Iraqi National Congress

this is wrong on so many levels.
why don't all the leaders of nations vote who is successor, not just the u.s.? I love the u.s. but at the same time i hate it more than any other nation.

wtf is this "blessing" shit.

[LordWoon]

We DON'T live in a democracy. I always get into arguments with people about that. We're a republic, just like Rome was before it became an empire. There hasn't been a true democracy since it was created by the Athenians.

But, as far as this whole "removing Saddam" thing goes- I've already expressed my opinions on the man, so no need to reiterate here.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by LordWoon
We DON'T live in a democracy. I always get into arguments with people about that. We're a republic, just like Rome was before it became an empire. There hasn't been a true democracy since it was created by the Athenians.

But, as far as this whole "removing Saddam" thing goes- I've already expressed my opinions on the man, so no need to reiterate here.


Don't bother LW. Its futile trying to discuss political reality with someone who believes Bush is an idiot that somehow masterfully turned the 2000 election into a coup d'etat. I mean which one is it. Is he an idiot or an absolute genius that managed to pull off a coup d'etat in The United States of America?

My question for people like Dog is if the situation had been totally reversed in every way.. . would he be as opposed to the person sitting in office?

Doubt it.

MS

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Mike S

Don't bother LW. Its futile trying to discuss political reality with someone who believes Bush is an idiot that somehow masterfully turned the 2000 election into a coup d'etat. I mean which one is it. Is he an idiot or an absolute genius that managed to pull off a coup d'etat in The United States of America?

He's a blithering idiot, Mike. His handlers are more than competent in the art of taking power by any means necessary. Little Bush himself should have been failed out of Andover - had he not his daddy to wipe his nose for him all along.

My question for people like Dog is if the situation had been totally reversed in every way.. . would he be as opposed to the person sitting in office?

Mike, the situation was not reversed because the Democrats didn't organize riots in an attempt to get their way. Gore, as a gentleman with moral boundaries, eventually stood down from the catastrophe that that Rabid Republicans were willing to subject our country to. When riots determine who is president, America is dead.

The republican party did this, not the democrats. The republicans were willing to do anything to regain power. . . and they did. No amount of prevarication on your part (or anyone else's), Mike, will change the judgment of history in years to come. The 2000 election was a coup d'etat, plain and simple.

Dictionary defintion of coup d'etat (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coup%20d%27etat):

Coup d'['e]tat(k??" d?-t?") [F.] (Politics), a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy.

source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996

The outcome of the 2000 American election for president was, by defintion, an overthrow of the duly-elected government of our country.

Peace,

D-d0g

[StarPhox]

Originally posted by D-d0g
Gore, as a gentleman with moral boundaries.

Without getting into the rest of the argument I would like to say that this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. You paint the Democrats as angels coming to save us from the vile Republicans.

We're talking about two parties that are both owned by big business in one way or another. Let's not put one on a pedestal and turn a blind eye to it's sins.

[seattle science]

Originally posted by StarPhox


We're talking about two parties that are both owned by big business in one way or another. Let's not put one on a pedestal and turn a blind eye to it's sins.


Amen. The only reason a representitive from either of the two major parties will ever place a vote in congress, basically depends solely on what special interest has contributed the most to buy that vote. With a few exceptions, there is no way in a dark hell that I would vote Dem or GOP.

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by StarPhox


Without getting into the rest of the argument I would like to say that this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. You paint the Democrats as angels coming to save us from the vile Republicans.

We're talking about two parties that are both owned by big business in one way or another. Let's not put one on a pedestal and turn a blind eye to it's sins.

Again, I reiterate. The republicans organized riots to steal the election (and halt the vote count) in Florida. The democrats did not. Whatever other feelings we may have about the American system of political oligopoly, this is an irrefutable fact. Too, the decision by the republicans to resort to violence and intimidation in stealing the presidency was an unprecedented escalation of battle tactics in American national politics. The "before and after" are qualitatively - not quantitatively - different.

Saying "they are all the same anyway" is the same argument the Greens used in the 2000 election. Tempting to subscribe to, true, but the last 24 months of Little Bush's reign of terror have pretty much put a stake in the heart of that particular argument. Would this country be half as FUCKED as it is today with Gore (who won the election) in the White House? Not a fucking chance in hell.

While the democrats may well be in the pocket of special interests, the republicans are so far up the bungholes of corporate america and the fundamentalist right that they are more likely to come out their nostrils than return the way they came.

Prior to Clinton, one could say that both parties were more or less on the same moral ground (and not a pristine moral ground, most certainly). With Clinton's string of victories in the electoral and policy areas, the republicans clearly tossed whatever moral constraints they had left and committed themselves to doing anything to recapture power. Let's not forget the multi-year, near-$100 million "Whitewater" investigation. Funded by taxpayer dollars, spearheaded by a fanatical, fundamentalist Christian idealogue (Kenny Starr), and tasked with bringing down an elected president by any means possible, that "investigation" turned up nothing more than a blow job but nonetheless nearly toppled a sitting president.

One must also ask whether, had the republicans not been so hell-bent on kneecapping Clinton by any means possible for years in the '90s, our government might have been less focused on its navel and more focused on external threats. Remember Gingrich and his "let's shut down the government" games of the late '90s? I am sure that I'm not the only one who recalls those debacles from the precariousness of America in 2003 and simply wonders. . . "what the FUCK was the thinking that allowed those games to go on while the world curdled and turned against America?"

On policy issues, I disagree with the democrats probably 70% of the time - I'm far more libertarian than democratic, and on fiscal issues I'm probably more "republican" in the traditional sense of the word (fiscally conservative, respectful of free markets in general, etc.). However, the republican party in America has been hijacked by the Christian fundamentalists. Tiptoeing around this sad truth won't make it go away, nor will sticking our heads deep in the sand do so.

Say what you will, but only one major political party in America today is free from the thrall of religious fundamentalism. It was fundamentalists that flew planes full of passengers into the World Trade Centers, and it is fundamentalists that are about to fly America into World War III.

Peace,

D-d0g

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
The United States has chosen a successor to Saddam Hussein from Iraq's notoriously fractious opposition groups, according to a former Iraqi diplomat who lives in Sydney.



Israel chooses ours right? So what's your point?

<G>

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g


Actually, Mike our government was hijacked by Baby Bush. He LOST the popular election, and is all but 100% certain to have lost the electoral college as well. Fortunately for him (and for the rabid religious right he represents) the republicans organized riots in Florida to stop the vote counting (this happened in AMERICA), and the Supreme Court installed Baby Bush as president by the narrowest of possible margins in a ruling almost universally decried as purely politically motivated and lacking in logic and precedent.

Those who have benefitted from the Baby Bush junta might want to sweep this nasty little episode under the rug, but the majority of Americans who voted AGAINST this tin-pot dictator wannabee won't forget so easily, Mike.

Less than two years and counting until we vote him the loser AGAIN - only this time we'll do it with enough force to evict him from our government for good. We will return America to a true democracy again, and we'll do so peacefully and with smiles on our face. The scurrying forces of the fundamentalist christian right can go back to preaching hatred and fear for a living, and stop inciting global armed conflict in the the name of "god."

Peace,

D-d0g

http://www.signswithanattitude.com/images00/images-signs/animal_signs/miscellaneous_animal_signs/no_dog_pooping_sign.jpg

[Daz]

well... i'm just going to sit back and watch as everyone in america realizes once again how bad we are at putting in puppet governments...
(ahem.. Iran and Cuba)

its not that I don't think Hussein (I hate how everyone always calls him Saddam... like they're homies with him.... no one refers to our president as "George") is a good guy... or shit... I do actually think he might be hiding something... but... in all reality... I think having him in office is a lot better than having us string in a puppet leader... have him get a quick taste of the "Dictator for life" position.... have him instituted Killing fields... have the people overthrow... and have another country that doesn't just hate us... they all survive for the soul purpose of destroying our nation....

I think I'm pretty happy with Iraq just the way it is...


Jeff

[Effendi]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Israel chooses ours right? So what's your point?

-Jason

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g
When riots determine who is president, America is dead.

What riots? Bro are you just a bush hater, or do you actually believe this shit your spouting?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi


Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Ohh I'm just jabbin a little fun at ya brother. :)

[Effendi]

Originally posted by seattle science

there is no way in a dark hell that I would vote Dem or GOP.

Yea we know....you vote Likud...........american traitor...

Scott!!

[Mike S]

Originally posted by D-d0g


He's a blithering idiot, Mike. His handlers are more than competent in the art of taking power by any means necessary. Little Bush himself should have been failed out of Andover - had he not his daddy to wipe his nose for him all along.



Mike, the situation was not reversed because the Democrats didn't organize riots in an attempt to get their way. Gore, as a gentleman with moral boundaries, eventually stood down from the catastrophe that that Rabid Republicans were willing to subject our country to. When riots determine who is president, America is dead.

The republican party did this, not the democrats. The republicans were willing to do anything to regain power. . . and they did. No amount of prevarication on your part (or anyone else's), Mike, will change the judgment of history in years to come. The 2000 election was a coup d'etat, plain and simple.

Dictionary defintion of coup d'etat (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coup%20d%27etat):

Coup d'['e]tat(k??" d?-t?") [F.] (Politics), a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy.

source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996

The outcome of the 2000 American election for president was, by defintion, an overthrow of the duly-elected government of our country.

Peace,

D-d0g


Hi dog..

Interesting reply as always. Might you be talking about the "riots" outside of a Miami Dade election office when the democratic election officers decided they were going to count ballots with out republicans present to verify? I'm sorry but those weren't riots and your assertion that a bunch of white bread southern republicans were rioting in the streets is comical. It seems to me you've either repeated this scenario so many times in your head you think its true or you think if you repeat it enough you'll revise history.

Here's my take D..

the election in as much as Florida was concerned was a cluster fuck. a goat screw extraordinaire. I believe that neither candidate orchestrated or wanted the political nightmare that ensued.
I believe that overzealous party hacks individually attempted to do things favorable for their parties. I think the ensuing reaction to these same actions from the opposite party created a sort of cluster fuck cascade effect leading all the way up to the Florida supreme court stepping on its dick and the US supreme court subsequently falling on the proverbial sword.

I think that at one point the control of the situation on the democratic side got out of Gores hands forcing him to want to focus on a recount only in specific counties instead of a statewide recount that Bush wanted.
I wont speculate as to why the democrats wanted to focus only on certain counties. Common sense says if you're going to recount, recount them all.

The people who are the right wing equivalent of you.. meaning extreme, reactionaries... think the dems wanted to steal the election. Maybe. Maybe not.

To me this thing read like a Kurt Vonnegut (sp) novel. (specifically Galapagos) A bunch of seemingly unconnected situations woven together to create one big FUBAR event.

I take it you refuse to look at the midterms as am affirmation of his election... which is possible.

Also.. with my family working in and around GOP politics we know that the dems have attempted and will again attempt to turn the 2000 fiasco into a "remember the Alamo" moment.

Should be entertaining to say the least.

I'll tell ya something.. without going into too many details.. My family is what you might call "party apparatus" and on my mothers grave I swear I've never even caught a whiff of any sort of party orchestrated coup. If I had you and I would most likely be mouthing the same stuff about it. I do know individuals and groups within the party that have some pretty over the top ideas regarding the dems.. I think they're freaks just like I think, politically, you are.

Getting back to this "riot" if my memory serves me well I believe it was orchestrated by a group of republican lawyer/activists.
The reason I say this is because I met a guy while in Wyoming that was discussing that. My comment to him was that in watching the demonstration on TV I was struck by how asinine a bunch of preppy republicans looked demonstrating as if they were being victimized by the system.
He didn't take that too well. Tough shit though.

Anyway D, as always you have an interesting perspective.

Mike

[D-d0g]

A good statement of principal - and a sober recitement of the facts - surrounding the election fiasco of 2000 can be found here. (http://www.takebackthepresidency.com/BostonStatement.html)

Below I quote verbatim a synopsis of major media coverage of the republican riots (Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report) from the Media Research (https://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/magwatch/mag20001130.html) website:
----------------
Thirty or forty Republicans in khakis were transformed into the purveyors of a "mob scene," a "melee," and a "riot," preceded by James Baker’s "midnight bombing assault."

Newsweek carried the most temperate coverage. Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff explained how an unmarked Winnebago unloaded "about a hundred Republican volunteers from across the country, neatly dressed in suits or khakis and oxford shirts, some carrying walkie-talkies, began milling about, yelling slogans and waving signs." They also noted the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board aroused suspicions by deciding to examine just 10,750 "undercounted" ballots, and "They decided to do the counting in a small, glass-enclosed office on the 19th floor."

Thomas and Isikoff reported on what happened next: ""Pushing and shoving, waving arms and pumping fists, about 30 or 40 clean-cut looking young Republicans poured into the 19th floor reception area. Shouting ‘Let us in! Stop the count! Stop the fraud!' they banged on the double doors of the ballot-counting room." Miami-Dade Democratic chairman Joe Geller charged the group "It was classic Brownshirt tactics." They noted liberal Rep. Jerrold Nadler's remark about a "whiff of fascism, but they found it "a little overwrought." A little?

Time reporter Tim Padgett’s article was headlined "Mob Scene in Miami." Padgett found a undemocratic nightmare: "Just two hours after a near riot outside the counting room, the Miami-Dade canvassing board voted to shut down the count. Yet the way the Republicans went after it, by intimidating the three-member board or by providing the excuse it was looking for, gave Americans the first TV view of strong-arm tactics in what was supposed to be a showcase of democracy in action. If Jesse Jackson can do it, the Republicans argued, so can we. But the GOP's march turned into a mob. The screaming, the pounding on doors, the alleged physical assaults on Democrats suddenly made a bemused public queasy."

Padgett didn’t just find a mob, either: "What the world watched was a GOP melee." He carried two claims from Democratic activists, adding that real evidence wasn’t as important as scary TV pictures: "Republicans dispute the charges, but video cameras caught scenes of activism that had morphed into menace." Padgett concluded: ""Democrats are asking what the board said – and with whom they met – while holed up in the Clark Center waiting out the riot." Just in case you’d hadn’t heard this was a "riot," Time’s table of contents read: "Who led the riot?"

Nancy Gibbs also hit the spin line in her cover story: "But nothing made Gore and his allies dig in as much as the roving ‘rent-a-rioters,' some of them Bush campaign operatives, who were controlled by radio from a mobile home....Miami-Dade officials ultimately insisted that the rioters had not scared them into calling off the recount."

In U.S. News, Roger Simon began: "About 11 pm, a beaming Gore took to the airwaves to assure the public that he would not invite electors pledged to Bush to vote for him instead. This was a ploy designed to get Bush to make a similar pledge. it not only failed, but in a midnight bombing assault, former Secretary of State James Baker, who is heading Bush's vote counting effort in Florida, delivered what amounted to a declaration of war." Midnight bombing assault? (Just as strangely, Time’s table of contents called Baker "The Knife of the Party.")

Simon reported Baker "did not say...that the Republicans were taking the fight underground with the purpose of stopping the recount by public demonstration." Simon claimed "A group of demonstrators, some of whom resorted to violence, descended on the government center. Shouting and kicking doors, they attempted to storm the counting room. The Chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party had to be rescued by police after the crowd chased him down a hallway. People were kicked, punched, and trampled before sheriff's deputies restored order."

Simon did include canvassing board chairman David Leahy, who said "These were people in ties and jackets. This was not a mob." Simon added Jerry Nadler's "A whiff of fascism is in the air," and for good measure, Small Business Administration Deputy Administrator Fred P. Hochberg added: ‘My family came here from Nazi Germany. My uncle was thrown down a flight of stairs...because of who he was. To have it happen in America is just shocking."

In his commentary, U.S. News owner Mortimer Zuckerman also attacked the "mob" action: "The protesters forcefully entered the building where ballots were being counted and provoked a mini-riot by yelling, screaming, and resorting to violence, including punching and kicking the Democratic chairperson.....As Joe Lieberman rightly put it, ‘This is not the rule of law. It is the rule of the mob.' Our democracy is too strong to yield to such extralegal pressures, and the fact that this action was organized, if not condoned, by a major party is not an acceptable form of political expression."

{emphasis added}
----------------
That, by anybody's definition, is the foundation of a coup d'etat. It is truly sad, Mike, that your familial allegiance to (and financial dependance on) the republican party makes you unable to accept this nauseating reality.

Peace,

D-d0g

[Mike S]

Originally posted by D-d0g
A good statement of principal - and a sober recitement of the facts - surrounding the election fiasco of 2000 can be found here. (http://www.takebackthepresidency.com/BostonStatement.html)

Below I quote verbatim a synopsis of major media coverage of the republican riots (Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report) from the Media Research (https://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/magwatch/mag20001130.html) website:
----------------
Thirty or forty Republicans in khakis were transformed into the purveyors of a "mob scene," a "melee," and a "riot," preceded by James Baker’s "midnight bombing assault."

Newsweek carried the most temperate coverage. Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff explained how an unmarked Winnebago unloaded "about a hundred Republican volunteers from across the country, neatly dressed in suits or khakis and oxford shirts, some carrying walkie-talkies, began milling about, yelling slogans and waving signs." They also noted the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board aroused suspicions by deciding to examine just 10,750 "undercounted" ballots, and "They decided to do the counting in a small, glass-enclosed office on the 19th floor."

Thomas and Isikoff reported on what happened next: ""Pushing and shoving, waving arms and pumping fists, about 30 or 40 clean-cut looking young Republicans poured into the 19th floor reception area. Shouting ‘Let us in! Stop the count! Stop the fraud!' they banged on the double doors of the ballot-counting room." Miami-Dade Democratic chairman Joe Geller charged the group "It was classic Brownshirt tactics." They noted liberal Rep. Jerrold Nadler's remark about a "whiff of fascism, but they found it "a little overwrought." A little?

Time reporter Tim Padgett’s article was headlined "Mob Scene in Miami." Padgett found a undemocratic nightmare: "Just two hours after a near riot outside the counting room, the Miami-Dade canvassing board voted to shut down the count. Yet the way the Republicans went after it, by intimidating the three-member board or by providing the excuse it was looking for, gave Americans the first TV view of strong-arm tactics in what was supposed to be a showcase of democracy in action. If Jesse Jackson can do it, the Republicans argued, so can we. But the GOP's march turned into a mob. The screaming, the pounding on doors, the alleged physical assaults on Democrats suddenly made a bemused public queasy."

Padgett didn’t just find a mob, either: "What the world watched was a GOP melee." He carried two claims from Democratic activists, adding that real evidence wasn’t as important as scary TV pictures: "Republicans dispute the charges, but video cameras caught scenes of activism that had morphed into menace." Padgett concluded: ""Democrats are asking what the board said – and with whom they met – while holed up in the Clark Center waiting out the riot." Just in case you’d hadn’t heard this was a "riot," Time’s table of contents read: "Who led the riot?"

Nancy Gibbs also hit the spin line in her cover story: "But nothing made Gore and his allies dig in as much as the roving ‘rent-a-rioters,' some of them Bush campaign operatives, who were controlled by radio from a mobile home....Miami-Dade officials ultimately insisted that the rioters had not scared them into calling off the recount."

In U.S. News, Roger Simon began: "About 11 pm, a beaming Gore took to the airwaves to assure the public that he would not invite electors pledged to Bush to vote for him instead. This was a ploy designed to get Bush to make a similar pledge. it not only failed, but in a midnight bombing assault, former Secretary of State James Baker, who is heading Bush's vote counting effort in Florida, delivered what amounted to a declaration of war." Midnight bombing assault? (Just as strangely, Time’s table of contents called Baker "The Knife of the Party.")

Simon reported Baker "did not say...that the Republicans were taking the fight underground with the purpose of stopping the recount by public demonstration." Simon claimed "A group of demonstrators, some of whom resorted to violence, descended on the government center. Shouting and kicking doors, they attempted to storm the counting room. The Chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party had to be rescued by police after the crowd chased him down a hallway. People were kicked, punched, and trampled before sheriff's deputies restored order."

Simon did include canvassing board chairman David Leahy, who said "These were people in ties and jackets. This was not a mob." Simon added Jerry Nadler's "A whiff of fascism is in the air," and for good measure, Small Business Administration Deputy Administrator Fred P. Hochberg added: ‘My family came here from Nazi Germany. My uncle was thrown down a flight of stairs...because of who he was. To have it happen in America is just shocking."

In his commentary, U.S. News owner Mortimer Zuckerman also attacked the "mob" action: "The protesters forcefully entered the building where ballots were being counted and provoked a mini-riot by yelling, screaming, and resorting to violence, including punching and kicking the Democratic chairperson.....As Joe Lieberman rightly put it, ‘This is not the rule of law. It is the rule of the mob.' Our democracy is too strong to yield to such extralegal pressures, and the fact that this action was organized, if not condoned, by a major party is not an acceptable form of political expression."

{emphasis added}
----------------
That, by anybody's definition, is the foundation of a coup d'etat. It is truly sad, Mike, that your familial allegiance to (and financial dependance on) the republican party makes you unable to accept this nauseating reality.

Peace,

D-d0g


No Dog that is what happens when you have a bunch of partisan democrats locking themselves in a room to count the ballots that may decide who is president of the united states. I have no idea as to the validity of the stories accusing the "rioters" of resorting the violence. But.. considering the air of mistrust between the two parties and the level of perceived dishonesty the republicans view the democrats as having I'm quite sure passions ran extremely high.

So I take it you refuse to acknowledge the miderm defeat of the democrats and their tactics as an affirmation of the presidents election.
How does the electorate giving the republicans such a stunning and historic mid term victory over the democrats tie into your coup conspiracy?


Interesting and entertaining as always D

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S
I think that at one point the control of the situation on the democratic side got out of Gores hands forcing him to want to focus on a recount only in specific counties instead of a statewide recount that Bush wanted.

Actually Mike.. Bush never wanted such a thing, legaly impossbile for him todo. And yeah I remember that shit down in South Florida, the canvasing board (run by democrats) wanted to recount the votes without minders that's why those Republican in the shirt and ties and polo shits were pissed off. If you were up on what was happening shit loads of Democrats on these canvasing boards changed the standards time and time again in the middle of the game to gain the most votes possible for Gore so I guess you can understand why they were pissed. Dog can try all he wants to accuse someone of stealing the election but the facts speak for themselves.

-Jason

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Actually Mike.. Bush never wanted such a thing, legaly impossbile for him todo. And yeah I remember that shit down in South Florida, the canvasing board (run by democrats) wanted to recount the votes without minders that's why those Republican in the shirt and ties and polo shits were pissed off. If you were up on what was happening shit loads of Democrats on these canvasing boards changed the standards time and time again in the middle of the game to gain the most votes possible for Gore so I guess you can understand why they were pissed. Dog can try all he wants to accuse someone of stealing the election but the facts speak for themselves.

-Jason

My mistake then. I was of the opinion that if a recount had to be done he wanted a state wide recount not just the 3 or 4 counties the Gore camp wanted.
By the way have you noticed the new "chic" word the wacko leftists are using in regards to the administration. "junta".
I've noticed it here and some other sites over the past couple of weeks. Cant remember what progressive web site I first remember reading it on.. think it was workingforchange - but they all seem to jump on the fashionable rhetoric dont they. funny.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


My mistake then. I was of the opinion that if a recount had to be done he wanted a state wide recount not just the 3 or 4 counties the Gore camp wanted.

I had this exact debate with tons of my friends who voted for Gore, they insisted that the actions of the Democratic Party and the Gore camp was in the right, I debated with the facts they quickly had to eat their words on the subject of course (Thanks to state law being online and the internet having a mass amount of information to counter their emotionaly based perspective <G>) so we basicaly came to this.

...

Yeah the law is specific and clear, yes it's wrong for the courts to make law from the bench, yes it's the legislature who makes the law, yes changing the standards time and time again after the fact is not a fair system, yes deciding voter intent with out the voter present is impossible, and etc etc etc BUT <put your Democratic subjective reason here> Ohh I heard them all. :)

By the way have you noticed the new "chic" word the wacko leftists are using in regards to the administration. "junta".
I've noticed it here and some other sites over the past couple of weeks. Cant remember what progressive web site I first remember reading it on.. think it was workingforchange - but they all seem to jump on the fashionable rhetoric dont they. funny.

MS

Hey I think that's kewl.. Hey allot of people love these clic names for things.. I been reading some blogs who refer to the word "idiotarian" to refer to the radical leftists similar to the ones we debate with here on NWTekno. I think "junta" is cute. I fail to see how the definition matches but maybe some radicals here can enlighten us on that topic.

Later!

-Jason

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I had this exact debate with tons of my friends who voted for Gore, they insisted that the actions of the Democratic Party and the Gore camp was in the right, I debated with the facts they quickly had to eat their words on the subject of course (Thanks to state law being online and the internet having a mass amount of information to counter their emotionaly based perspective <G>) so we basicaly came to this.

...

Yeah the law is specific and clear, yes it's wrong for the courts to make law from the bench, yes it's the legislature who makes the law, yes changing the standards time and time again after the fact is not a fair system, yes deciding voter intent with out the voter present is impossible, and etc etc etc BUT <put your Democratic subjective reason here> Ohh I heard them all. :)

[b]

Hey I think that's kewl.. Hey allot of people love these clic names for things.. I been reading some blogs who refer to the word "idiotarian" to refer to the radical leftists similar to the ones we debate with here on NWTekno. I think "junta" is cute. I fail to see how the definition matches but maybe some radicals here can enlighten us on that topic.

Later!

-Jason

idiotarian. anti-american leftists. poseur progressives. same thing.


lates

MS

[Justin]

At the same time, the consitution is explicit that any questions arising from the selection of the president are to be settled by congress. I haven't heard a single judicial scholar say that the Supreme Court didn't overstep their authority.

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

There's no part in the whole document where it says or implies the supreme court has any authority over presidential selection. It would have been the same outcome, but it would have been cleaner.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
At the same time, the consitution is explicit that any questions arising from the selection of the president are to be settled by congress. I haven't heard a single judicial scholar say that the Supreme Court didn't overstep their authority.



There's no part in the whole document where it says or implies the supreme court has any authority over presidential selection. It would have been the same outcome, but it would have been cleaner.

I see your point and, in my opinion, had the Florida Supreme Court not overstepped theirs effectivelly forcing the US Supreme Court to act I think the election would have wound up in the house of representatives.

MS

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Mike S

idiotarian. anti-american leftists. poseur progressives. same thing.


<chuckles> perfect, you two.

Actually, the majority of Americans who voted AGAINST Little Bush aren't "anti-american." We're just anti-idiot, and perhaps a bit anti-totalitarianism. Guilty as charged!. :D

Peace,

D-d0g

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
At the same time, the consitution is explicit that any questions arising from the selection of the president are to be settled by congress. I haven't heard a single judicial scholar say that the Supreme Court didn't overstep their authority.



There's no part in the whole document where it says or implies the supreme court has any authority over presidential selection. It would have been the same outcome, but it would have been cleaner.

The Supreme Court never "selected" anyone. I'd love to read the opinion of a judicial scholar who thinks otherwise if you can direct me to it.

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g


<chuckles> perfect, you two.

Actually, the majority of Americans who voted AGAINST Little Bush aren't "anti-american." We're just anti-idiot, and perhaps a bit anti-totalitarianism. Guilty as charged!. :D

Peace,

D-d0g

The Bush Administration is a totalitarian regime?

[mercuria]

I dare say, the Bush Administration is not what one may call totalitarian, but the information awareness act is not something KGB dreamed up.

[Effendi]

.
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

n.
A practitioner or supporter of such a government.



OK so maybe it's not totalitarian, but it's sure not a democracy...Jason, how would you honestly describe it?

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


The Supreme Court never "selected" anyone.

Agreed, but they had no part in the affair of presidential selection. How a state chooses it's electors is a state issue, how those electors are considered is an issue of congress. The supreme court has no part whatsoever in the whole process.

[D-d0g]

Some interesting background information on Saddam Hussein's deep ties to Little Bush & Company:

Samer Shehata, acting director of Arab studies programs, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

No one doubts Saddam Hussein's record on human rights. No one doubts the brutality of the Iraqi regime -- a regime, incidentally that received massive support from the United States in the 1980s -- including billions of dollars in agricultural aid, intelligence support in Iraq's eight-year war against Iran (and more specifically, satellite photos of Iranian troop positions with the full knowledge that Iraq would use chemical weapons against those troops -- chemical weapons which were obtained through U.S. companies with the tacit approval of several U.S. administrations.) Let's also not forget that the present secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, after all, traveled to Baghdad and shook Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983!

Full article can be found here. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/powell_reacts/index.html)

Want to do an interesting exercize in totaltarian analysis? Re-read Orwell's 1984, then go through American life (and the future of American life, as envisioned by Ashcroft the Anointed and Little Bush), and see how many similarities you find.

1984? Close. . . 2004.

Peace,

D-d0g

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

n.
A practitioner or supporter of such a government.



OK so maybe it's not totalitarian, but it's sure not a democracy...Jason, how would you honestly describe it?

Why isn't it a democracy? I would describe it as an executive branch that you don't like, how else can I describe it?

Take care Scott..

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Agreed, but they had no part in the affair of presidential selection. How a state chooses it's electors is a state issue, how those electors are considered is an issue of congress. The supreme court has no part whatsoever in the whole process.

Agreed, which is exactly why I think people who run around with this selected nonsense are complete idiots. They think this whole thing came down to the SCOTUS pointing over at Dubya and declaring him the winner, the SCOTUS never declared any winner.. IMHO it was a close election the Gore camp didn't have much of a case and Dubya happend to sqeeze by having a few more votes.

Take care Doc,
Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g
Some interesting background information on Saddam Hussein's deep ties to Little Bush & Company:

Samer Shehata, acting director of Arab studies programs, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

No one doubts Saddam Hussein's record on human rights. No one doubts the brutality of the Iraqi regime -- a regime, incidentally that received massive support from the United States in the 1980s -- including billions of dollars in agricultural aid, intelligence support in Iraq's eight-year war against Iran (and more specifically, satellite photos of Iranian troop positions with the full knowledge that Iraq would use chemical weapons against those troops -- chemical weapons which were obtained through U.S. companies with the tacit approval of several U.S. administrations.) Let's also not forget that the present secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, after all, traveled to Baghdad and shook Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983!

Full article can be found here. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/powell_reacts/index.html)

Want to do an interesting exercize in totaltarian analysis? Re-read Orwell's 1984, then go through American life (and the future of American life, as envisioned by Ashcroft the Anointed and Little Bush), and see how many similarities you find.

1984? Close. . . 2004.

Peace,

D-d0g

No offense Dog, but I fail to see how this is even relevant even if what your saying is 100% factual. If the Bush Family was to all of a sudden vanish from existence tomorrow the case against Saddam Hussain would still exist.

-Jason

[Cedwyn]

i am sick of people carrying on about how the republicans "swept" the election.

they only have the most marginal of a majority - 51 to 49 percent (or whatever it's called...heh).

but most significantly, that "majority" was granted by only 40-some odd percent of voters. so, wheee...they barely won over less than half of the electorate.

you can quit patting them on the back anytime now....

and you can kick all your non-voting friends.

[Daz]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
i am sick of people carrying on about how the republicans "swept" the election.

they only have the most marginal of a majority - 51 to 49 percent (or whatever it's called...heh).

but most significantly, that "majority" was granted by only 40-some odd percent of voters. so, wheee...they barely won over less than half of the electorate.

you can quit patting them on the back anytime now....

and you can kick all your non-voting friends.


and I'm sick and fucking tired of all of the people who I meet that want to wax politically over subjects all seem to think that Bush stole the election because he didn't get the majority vote....

OUR COUNTRY HAS NEVER BEEN RUN ON A MAJORITY VOTE!!! DID NO ONE TEACH YOU THAT SHIT IN HIGH SCHOOL!?!?!?

It drives me nuts... and this comes from a guy who wholeheartedly dislikes a majority of Bush's decisions in office and gladly proliferated the idea of voting against him....

but jesus... learn to fucking suck it up.... he played by the rules and won by the rules...

so be it... you've still got 2004


Jeff

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Cedwyn

but most significantly, that "majority" was granted by only 40-some odd percent of voters. so, wheee...they barely won over less than half of the electorate.

Only about 35% of Americans voted during the mid term elections (high by normal standards, sadly).
So technically, less than 18% of this country is officially behind the republicans strongly.
I'm sure someone will pull out the latest polls about how 60 some percent of americans are behind president Bush or support a republican agenda in some form or another.
But considering only about 30% of people called in polls actually agree to be surveyed, making that sort of an assumption about all of Ameirca based on nothing more than Gallup polls and underattended elections gets to be pretty spurious.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Daz



but jesus... learn to fucking suck it up.... he played by the rules and won by the rules...

About 57,000 Floridian voters who were carelessly purged from the voting rosters by a company instructed by Jeb Bush would disagree.
Read this book and then try and tell me with a straight face that Bush won Florida fair and sqaure.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0745318460.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[DJ Rawkus]

I don't feel like bickering (imagine that! :p )so i'll state the facts and let people decide what kind of democracy we live under at the moment--

Scrub has had an oily spoon in his mouth from day one. His grandfather was an oil baron, his dad was an oil baron, and he is an oil baron. Coincidence?

Followthemoney website shows that the Republican party had a substantial increase in fundage during the last election. Incidentally, the major sponsors are now failing companies or altogether deposed.

I'll just say, i don't think scrub is going to do shit. That's right.. he's a fucking wuss like his father. He'll go about as far as daddy did (72 hrs and then turn around and come home. Then all of his little media cronies will make sure that it's painted as a "sound victory". NWO? whatever. :rolleyes: the NWO is already installed a la big corps. Starphox already spelled it out clear: The new way to unite and divide is under labels and brands, not governments. And we all know how democratic big corps are. ;)

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Roddimus

About 57,000 Floridian voters who were carelessly purged from the voting rosters by a company instructed by Jeb Bush would disagree.
Read this book and then try and tell me with a straight face that Bush won Florida fair and sqaure.

Well spoken.

In a stunning "fuck you" to democracy, the republican establishment in Florida used the exact same purge system AGAIN in the 2002 mid-term elections. There are lawsuits pending with the FEC to ban this sort of "oops, gosh, so sorry we 'accidentally' purged tens of thousands of legitimate voters" fraud.

Democracy? Yeah, so long as you are white and live in a republican-leaning district and aren't poor.

Peace,

D-d0g

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by D-d0g

Democracy? Yeah, so long as you are white and live in a republican-leaning district and aren't poor.

Yeah, it pisses me off when right wingers and conservatives try to write off people who are still angry at what happened in Florida as nothing more than "whiney sore losers."
I didn't even vote for Gore and I'm pissed.
It's not that we're pissed off that Gore lost, it's that Bush won UNFAIRLY.
Jeb Bush and Kathrine Harris did everything in their power to assure that as many potential democrat voters as possible would be unable to vote on election day. The company they hired has asserted this many times, and both the company and various news sources have documentation that prove the election in Florida was far from fair.
At its best, the state of Florida acted EXTREMELY irresponsibly when purging the voting polls, and as a result, thousands of perfectly legal voters (most of whom were either black or hispanic) were denied their right to vote.
At its worst, the Florida government did everything in their power to rig the election in Bush's favor.
So whether the 57,000 people removed was an horrendous acciedent or maliciously purposeful, either way Bush did not win Florida fairly.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
i am sick of people carrying on about how the republicans "swept" the election.

they only have the most marginal of a majority - 51 to 49 percent (or whatever it's called...heh).

but most significantly, that "majority" was granted by only 40-some odd percent of voters. so, wheee...they barely won over less than half of the electorate.

you can quit patting them on the back anytime now....

and you can kick all your non-voting friends.

Yes Cedwyn but if the situation were reversed you would be trumpeting the democratic sweep of the republicans. You're also forgetting that the mid term ass stomping the dems rightfully deserved went against the trending in mid terms.. which was that the party in the white house loses seats in congress.

Oh.. and I guess Clinton didnt get a majority when he was elected with only 43 percent of the vote? I mean using that same logic i could drone on - like dog- about how Clinton never received a majority of the electorates vote thus he was illegitimate. but.. you know as well as I that its all a crock of shit.

Besides how could I bitch about BC only getting 43 percent of the vote when I was one of the 43 percent that voted for him.

Also I got bad news for ya.. when you kick your non voting friends you might find they just told you that to spare you from the fact they voted republican. I've been pleasantly surprised to run into this quite a lot.

Until the dems find themselves - ditch this stupid knee jerk opposition that you see in people like dog - and actually compete with some workable ideas. I think they're going to keep getting their asses handed to em. Witch does fucking suck because the country is better when we have competing ideas. Not when we have one group that has certain ideas and another group - personified by Dog - who's ideas are predicated on pathologically hating the opposition and their ideas.
Real fresh and inspiring..:rolleyes:

MS

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Mike S

Oh.. and I guess Clinton didnt get a majority when he was elected with only 43 percent of the vote? I mean using that same logic i could drone on - like dog- about how Clinton never received a majority of the electorates vote thus he was illegitimate. but.. you know as well as I that its all a crock of shit.

Out of the three candidates running in 1992 (Bush, Clinton and Perot), Clinton recieved the most votes, both popular and electorate.
Technically Clinton got the plurality, which is more or less the same as a majority.

[Effendi]

.
Recently, several hundred thousand courageous, committed, peace-loving Americans turned out to try and stop their country from being stampeded into a senseless, insane war by a belligerent monomaniac hell- bent on dropping bombs, spilling blood and throwing gasoline on the simmering inferno of the Middle East. For their efforts, bloviating bullhorn Rush Limbaugh called these people "communists, "anti-capitalist" and "anti-American." Screed-spewing David Horowitz has called antiwar protesters "America-hating communists, who regard their own country as the enemy and who sympathize with America's terrorist adversaries." And of course psycho whack-job Ann Coulter has a new book called "Treason," where she'll presumably echo all her fellow wingnuts in calling everyone who doesn't want this war a traitor.

"Traitor." Funny how often that word gets lobbed into the "debate" by right-wing screech monkeys. Let's take a closer look at what's about to happen, and see who is the patriot, and who is the traitor.

Even if things go perfectly, hundreds of Americans will die in America's invasion of Iraq. If things DON'T go well, tens of thousands of Americans will die because...why, exactly? The Bushies haven't found nuclear bombs over there. They haven't found a convincing al-qaeda connection. There's virtually NO EVIDENCE that we have to go to war. In the words of Joe Klein in Time magazine, we're hurtling "thoughtlessly toward this moment of truth in a lather of righteous arrogance and dimwitted machismo." Isn't the patriot the one who tries to save lives? Isn't the traitor the one who kills Americans recklessly, for virtually no reason?

After 9-11, I'm guessing the patriot would demand a thorough, vigorous, comprehensive investigation of what went wrong. The traitor would be dead-set against this, and do whatever it took to sabotage it.

The patriot would secure our borders and our ports, and seek out possible "sleeper cells." The traitor would quietly leave things as they are, cutting funding for security, and encouraging terrorists to find the same weaknesses in the system that led to the first attack.

The patriot would find those who failed America in the FBI and CIA, get rid of them, and replace them with those who sounded alarm bells but weren't heard. The traitor would destroy the courageous whistle-blowers, and leave the incompetents right where they are, or even promote them

The patriot would make the capture of Osama bin Laden and his al-qaeda operatives his number one priority, never stopping until they were immobilized. The traitor would quietly give up on this search, and direct his countrymen's attentions elsewhere...like, oh, say, Iraq, for example...

The patriot would rally his fellow Americans to conserve energy so that America could free itself from dependence on Middle East oil, and the repressive, decadent monarchies that pump it. The patriot would use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to inspire his countrymen to do whatever it takes to become self-sufficient. The traitor would encourage oil consumption, offer incentives for people to buy huge gas-guzzling SUVs, and ridicule any kind of conservation ethic. The traitor would do whatever it took to keep us hooked on foreign oil, dependent on the kindness of despots and dictators.

The patriot would listen to the wisdom of veterans of past wars -- World War II, Vietnam, and Gulf War I. If he'd opted out of one of these wars, he'd be especially sensitive to heeding the advice of those who defended our freedom in the past. The traitor would blow off everyone who disagreed with him and commit the country to what could be a catastrophic adventure on the advice of a small number of self-righteous ideologues who had "other priorities" the last time America fought a war.

The patriot would consider the economic consequences of launching a war without provocation. He'd ponder the best use of a hundred billion dollars -- to light a powder keg in the most volatile part of the world, or finance health care for the 44 million Americans who aren't covered? Launch an invasion with no provocation and virtually no support from other nations around the world, or use the money to create jobs and opportunity and hope for millions of his fellow countrymen? The traitor would eagerly go to war and shove through massive "enrich the rich" tax cuts at the same time, crippling the government's ability to pay for even the most modest "safety net" programs.

I'm not calling anyone a traitor -- that's for the chickenhawk wingnuts. I am saying that the people who are trying to stop this war -- the World War II vets and working families with no health care and families of 9-11 victims and everyone else -- are the true patriots.

We should remind ourselves that President Bush will feel no pain from this war. (Karl Rove is whispering in his ear that he'll probably get a "bounce" in the polls). He doesn't have a son who will fight and die. He won't lose his health care coverage because the federal budget money went for "daisy cutter" bombs. He'll be retired, out on the golf links with his Secret Service caddies when future generations of young men and women are still getting shot, blown up and incinerated trying to enforce our futile "nation-building" efforts in Iraq for the next twenty or so years. And his army of chickenhawk blowhards will still be calling peacemakers "traitors."

http://www.counterpunch.org/procter02052003.html

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
i am sick of people carrying on about how the republicans "swept" the election.

they only have the most marginal of a majority - 51 to 49 percent (or whatever it's called...heh).

but most significantly, that "majority" was granted by only 40-some odd percent of voters. so, wheee...they barely won over less than half of the electorate.

you can quit patting them on the back anytime now....

and you can kick all your non-voting friends.

Cedwyn the reason why you hear that the Republicans "swept" the mid term election is becuase the Republicans were to lose seats not gain them, not only did they win some seats but they won many substancial and crucial elections. The first republican governor elected in Georgia since reconstruction. The first republican governor elected in Maryland in 36 years. They simply made shocking gains in American politics thats why. Never in American history did a party who's president was in the white house win so many seats in congress like they did thats all. Your right though if you "feel" that it's not legit kick your friends for not voting, but I will remind you that these gains were made in other parts of the country where progressives are not very popular so you can only kick so many people for not voting how you wanted them to.

Take care,
Jason

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus

About 57,000 Floridian voters who were carelessly purged from the voting rosters by a company instructed by Jeb Bush would disagree.
Read this book and then try and tell me with a straight face that Bush won Florida fair and sqaure.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0745318460.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Really!! WOW!! Are you telling me this one guy found the smoking gun every east coast Bush hating newspaper was looking for to splash across their front pages about the Bush election being illegitimate!!
Hot damn!!
Remind me to put in the part of my library housing the book that "proves" the democrats were trying to steal the election.

Hey I got a good one for ya Rodd.. there's this undercover reporter who's set to bust out with a book saying that Bush really isn't who he says he is..He's not really married.. and he's actually gay!!


*snicker*

I'll ask it again my whining friends - IF the situation would have reversed in EVERY way would you all be as indignant and ranting about the "resident" that was "selected".
Rodd would you be posting books about how someone discovered that Al Gore supposedly stole the election. Dog would you be screaming about the end of the republic if the situation were the other way around? Or is this just partisan crying over spilled milk?
That's fine and all... I'm sure I'd be just as pissy if I had the elitist attitude that made me think my candidate and party was entitled to the office over some person who's background I look down upon.. a so called spoiled frat boy who's family was rich.


MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Out of the three candidates running in 1992 (Bush, Clinton and Perot), Clinton recieved the most votes, both popular and electorate.
Technically Clinton got the plurality, which is more or less the same as a majority.

I know Rodd. that was kind of my point. Cedwyn was whining about the repubs winning with 40 percent and alluding to it not being legitimate.
MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Only about 35% of Americans voted during the mid term elections (high by normal standards, sadly).
So technically, less than 18% of this country is officially behind the republicans strongly.
I'm sure someone will pull out the latest polls about how 60 some percent of americans are behind president Bush or support a republican agenda in some form or another.
But considering only about 30% of people called in polls actually agree to be surveyed, making that sort of an assumption about all of Ameirca based on nothing more than Gallup polls and underattended elections gets to be pretty spurious.

I agree polls don't tell a complete accurate story. But what you said is just a given in American politics, not everyone will vote, and most polls taken are a poll on all Americans possible, if you want to get a more accurate poll consisting of people who actually vote you will always get a different result than a poll that is conducted with everyone including non-voters. Your assessment relates to both parties I don't see how this only relates to one particular party. Why would you overlook this fact? In 1992, Bill Clinton won the white house with only what? 42% of the popular vote? He got the nessessary electoral votes that is how we choose a president and he won those and he gets the nod for president. Using your logic only 55% of eligiable voters voted in that election, with Clinton recieving 42% of the vote means in your type of figures would mean that Clinton only had the support of 23% of the country? I don't think such a figure is accurate enough to make such a claim to make that someone does or does not have the ability to govern. Why use it? Another thing I find troubling wih your figures would be the claim that those who didn't vote wouldn't of voted for the Republicans either. I only had one encounter with a conservative who used such figure to claim Bill Clinton wasn't able to govern as he did, I refuted his claim with the exact same questions, why the left repeats these claims over and over and over and over always will puzzle me, but isn't that what makes politics amuzing anyways? Idealogues who are willing to use subjective reasons, figures, and etc regardless of what side of the political spectrum I think deserve to be silenced by the solid facts from those of us willing to refute them.

Take care,
Jason

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Mike S

Really!! WOW!! Are you telling me this one guy found the smoking gun every east coast Bush hating newspaper was looking for to splash across their front pages about the Bush election being illegitimate!!
Hot damn!!
Remind me to put in the part of my library housing the book that "proves" the democrats were trying to steal the election.

Sigh...
Sorry you missed this bombshell when it first came out, but the BBC, Salon.com, the San Francisco Bay Guardian and The Guardian (among others) all gave ample coverage to this story. Unfortunately, the big corporate news sources chose not even to mention its existence.
This story isn't just another left wing artistic wank that relies on heresay and anecdotal evidence.
Palast quotes many Floridian governemntal sources, internal documents, court testimonies and one-on-one interviews with those in charge of managing the voter rosters in Florida. His evidence is rock solid.
Here's some of the columns he's written for various news sources.
http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency
Give the book a read. You might find some of the facts he presents VERY interesting.

I'll ask it again my whining friends - IF the situation would have reversed in EVERY way would you all be as indignant and ranting about the "resident" that was "selected".
Rodd would you be posting books about how someone discovered that Al Gore supposedly stole the election. Dog would you be screaming about the end of the republic if the situation were the other way around? Or is this just partisan crying over spilled milk?
That's fine and all... I'm sure I'd be just as pissy if I had the elitist attitude that made me think my candidate and party was entitled to the office over some person who's background I look down upon.. a so called spoiled frat boy who's family was rich.

Grrrr...You're doing it again Mike!!! I hate it when you try and pull this "if the situation was reversed" argument bullshit.
IF the situation was reversed, I'd be equally disgusted with Al Gore (as if I wasn't disguted enough with him already).
But as the situation stands, Bush did not win Florida fairly. So unless you can disprove or discredit this fact, leave your assumptions and partisan cards by the wayside.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus

About 57,000 Floridian voters who were carelessly purged from the voting rosters by a company instructed by Jeb Bush would disagree.
Read this book and then try and tell me with a straight face that Bush won Florida fair and sqaure.

[The best Democracy money can buy]


Kewl!! A Green Party guy wrote a book about the 2000 election? I'll have to check it out. But let me get this straight Jeb Bush purposley and melisously purged 57,000 Floridian voters from the voting rolls to steal the election?

[Mike S]

Just checkin Rodd

Actually of all the people who still complain about that fiasco I expect you to be consistent roddimus.
And as far as Bush winning fairly.. there are books with bits of so called "evidence" that suggest the dems were trying to steal the election.. there are books with bits of so called "evidence" that say the repubs did steal the election. None of em prove anything and the only irrefutable fact about any of it I've seen is that some folks are selling a hell of a lot of books on the matter.

MS

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Kewl!! A Green Party guy wrote a book about the 2000 election? I'll have to check it out. But let me get this straight Jeb Bush purposley and melisously purged 57,000 Floridian voters from the voting rolls to steal the election?
Hmmm, I didn't know Greg Palast was a registered Green...
Especially since he lives in England...
I never said Jeb Bush DEFINITETLY purposefully and melicously purged 57,000 voters. I was simply saying, based off the information uncovered by Palast, that was one of the two possibilities.
But, from the internal notes and correspondances between Jeb Bush and Database (the company that conducted the purge) I'm inclined to believe that this isn't a simple case of shoddy and irresponsible management on Florida's part. Jeb Bush practically encouraged Database to be as sloppy as possible. He even specifically said that an 80% accuracy rate for the purge was not only acceptable, but almost perferred.
Granted, there's no evidence that shows that the sloppy purge was premeditated on Bush's part, but the evidence shows that it probably wasn't a simple mistake or miscommunication either.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Hmmm, I didn't know Greg Palast was a registered Green...
Especially since he lives in England...

I don't if he's a registered Green but I do know he's heavly envolved in the Green Party idelogy. But I'm not trying to discredit anything here I wanted you and everyone else just to know the source does have an axe to grind with his political opponents. I'm gonna look into his book, I have hunch that his book has the underlying point of it all that Bush stole the election.

BTW the green party exists in the UK.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

I never said Jeb Bush DEFINITETLY purposefully and melicously purged 57,000 voters. I was simply saying, based off the information uncovered by Palast, that was one of the two possibilities.

Ohh I thought you said, "Jeb Bush and Kathrine Harris did everything in their power to assure that as many potential democrat voters as possible would be unable to vote on election day."

Sounds like to me you did say they purposeley and melicously purged 57,000 voters from the rolls. <G>

But, from the internal notes and correspondances between Jeb Bush and Database (the company that conducted the purge) I'm inclined to believe that this isn't a simple case of shoddy and irresponsible management on Florida's part. Jeb Bush practically encouraged Database to be as sloppy as possible. He even specifically said that an 80% accuracy rate for the purge was not only acceptable, but almost perferred.
Granted, there's no evidence that shows that the sloppy purge was premeditated on Bush's part, but the evidence shows that it probably wasn't a simple mistake or miscommunication either.

So which is it? Did the company who was contracted supposedly fuck up or did Jeb Bush?

Reading shit so far this guy Greg, he's very shrill on these matters that's for sure. IMHO the guy would gain much more credability in what he reports if he would leave that aside and just report the facts. Ohh well.

I'm reading his web site.
http://www.gregpalast.com/

I did hear about this story a long time ago during the US Commision on Civil Rights hearing that went over it back in early 2001, they couldn't come up with much on this, I'll look into it for the sake of the debate. But before I do what exactly are you saying though Rodd? Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother?

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

But before I do what exactly are you saying though Rodd? Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother?
I personally think it's very possible he did.
And as far as my quote, that's mainly my opinion, I'm sorry if it came accross as tho I was stating fact.
But the evidence remains very compelling.
The communications between Database and Jeb Bush make it seem as though he could have cared less as to whether or not Database had a high accuracy rate for purging the rosters.
Like the fact that he removed the names of people who were convicted felons who had had their voting rights restored in another state. The Florida supreme court has consistently ruled that the state must recognize out of state felons whose voting rights have been restored as legal voters. But Jeb Bush used every legal loophole at his disposal to make sure these people were not added to the voting roster.
Or the fact that they removed names from the roster that SOUNDED like the names of people to be purged. If there was a Johnson who needed to be removed, Johnston also got removed. There was very little cross checking done to make sure every person removed had had their voting rights suspended.
There's a slew of other damning evidence that makes the purge seem anything but accidental.
Granted, there's no smoking gun, but the as you read the evidence presented, the possibility of it all being a gross accident seems less and less likely.
And even if it WAS a gross accident, that still doesn't discount that fact that Bush unfairly won Florida.
Because the majority of people unfairly removed were minorities, and since minorities vote for democrats 90% of the time, thousands of perfectly legal and registered voters were denied their opportunity to more than likely tip the scale for Gore.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus
I personally think it's very possible he did.
And as far as my quote, that's mainly my opinion, I'm sorry if it came accross as tho I was stating fact.
But the evidence remains very compelling.
The communications between Database and Jeb Bush make it seem as though he could have cared less as to whether or not Database had a high accuracy rate for purging the rosters.
Like the fact that he removed the names of people who were convicted felons who had had their voting rights restored in another state. The Florida supreme court has consistently ruled that the state must recognize out of state felons whose voting rights have been restored as legal voters. But Jeb Bush used every legal loophole at his disposal to make sure these people were not added to the voting roster.
Or the fact that they removed names from the roster that SOUNDED like the names of people to be purged. If there was a Johnson who needed to be removed, Johnston also got removed. There was very little cross checking done to make sure every person removed had had their voting rights suspended.
There's a slew of other damning evidence that makes the purge seem anything but accidental.
Granted, there's no smoking gun, but the as you read the evidence presented, the possibility of it all being a gross accident seems less and less likely.
And even if it WAS a gross accident, that still doesn't discount that fact that Bush unfairly won Florida.
Because the majority of people unfairly removed were minorities, and since minorities vote for democrats 90% of the time, thousands of perfectly legal and registered voters were denied their opportunity to more than likely tip the scale for Gore.

No problem bro, I'm glad your interested. If you seek the truth like I do than all I suggest is that you never take all of Greg's claims at face value and validate him and what he is writing about thats all. I like to seek the truth through the facts, you'd be suprised that I do the same with Republicans in my debates as well. It's kind of funny though becuase we never touch on those subjects becuase I guess obviously they must be places we all agree on. I get into lively debates with conservatives on social issues more than anything nothing shrill on their part that I find but yes probaly unaware of some facts that I love to point out to them, and better yet believe it or not sometimes you guys do come accross some points I use as well. :)

Anyways on to the topic at hand. <G>

I been reading through the official investigation of the 2000 election by the US Commission on Civil rights and I haven’t come across anything about Jeb Bush purposely and maliciously doing in any of these things but one thing is for sure the system is flawed and needs to be fixed. From what I've read is that there was massive voting fraud happening in the state of Florida after the federal motor voter law was passed, the Florida legislature passed a law to deal with the fraud and they came up with a system to do so, the state and the Department of Elections contracted out the process through the private company called Database Technologies (DBT) where a list of people to be purged from the list included felons, the diseased, and people who have moved. And apparently the same system was recently adopted by state legislatures in CO, GA, IN, KS, MT, SD, TX, VA, and WA. The results of this list in question are 3,000 to 4,000 non-felons (out of approximately 174,000 names) were mistakenly listed on this "purge" list provided to the state. The list identified 74,900 potentially dead voters, 57,770 potential felons, and 40,472 potential duplicate registrations. Under Florida law, the supervisors of elections in each county were required to verify the ineligible-voter list by contacting these supposedly ineligible voters. The list is created and handed over to the local election canvassing board in each county. Again under Florida law the quality of the list is dependent on the accuracy of public records in each county, each county was responsible for cross-checking and confirming the information. Some counties verified the list and corrected it, some did not and used it, and some did not use the list what so ever. The US Commission on Civil rights had an inquiry into the whole mess. The conclusion of studies resulted in the total number of wrongly-purged felons at 1,104, including 996 convicted of crimes in other states and 108 who were not felons. Not anywhere close to the over 50,000 number that Greg claimed. Allthough I'd give him credit for correcting his error in one of his articles where he claimed, and I quote.. "Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent." Problem is that's still wrong accroding to the studies conducted on the whole fucking mess.. ohh well [Go Greg!] What’s even more puzzling is that The Commission did not hear from one single witness who was actually prevented from voting as a result of being identified as a felon. People did testify that they had trouble voting but were not denied the right to vote. And what’s even more interesting is that whites were twice as likely as blacks to be placed on the purge list be purged not the other way around which is advocated by Greg. But what I think Greg is doing purposely here was referring to the felon portion of the purge list, which of course if you purge a list of felons your going to have higher proportion of blacks because blacks have been convicted of more felonies over whites in Florida. Duh! I find it interesting that he left out the rest of the purge list, which included things like moves. Basicaly the Commission found that there was no “conclusive evidence" of a state-sponsored conspiracy to keep minorities from voting. And what troubles me is that if purging voter rolls that included felons and according to Greg that they were overwhelming proportionally to vote Democrat (because felons vote Democrat?) is that a positive statistic for Democrats to be proud of? Hey look even the felons/ex-felons vote for us!! :confused:

I think Greg is a bit more ambitious in his claims than what the facts represent. I think he’s done a great job in reporting on the fucked up system but he’s obviously alluding to allot more than what really exists.

Anyways what really troubles me is what lead to this law to be passed in the first place that gave way to this system that obviously has some flaws in it. The 1993/1994 National Motor Voter Laws and the state laws passed to implement them. The Motor Voter Law allows an individual to easily register to vote or update your registration to make it very simple. Problem is that it makes it very easy once registered to receive absentee ballots for any reason at all besides being over seas, moving, and etc that are provided to individuals to vote when not being able to be present at the polls. What the law allows is a no questions asked voter registration. Obviously the ability for fraud to occur is extremely dangerous. Fraud becomes possible through minimal identification and citizen proof requirements which included the ability to change address to vote in the election when in fact no change of address has actually occurred. Obtaining an absentee ballot for every election and a lack of being present at the polls creates no accountability for who you say you are and makes absentee ballots that easy for those who are inclined to commit voter fraud to do so, it also creates the opportunity for others to vote for another person by gaining access others absentee ballot and voting their ballot for them, often with the actual voter not knowing what the fuck is going on. This offers tremendous opportunity for vote fraud, particularly to those who have access to other ballots or the names of people who are felons, diseased, or moved. And also selling votes as well. All of this can be done with out a trace. I’ll give you “X” amount of money to hand over your absentee ballot so I can cast it type of shit. False information can be given as well. Shit there is tons of ways that I have yet to come up with. And well what happened when this law came into effect voter fraud all over the state happened heck the whole nation has experienced voter fraud because of this law. Some has been caught but there are shit loads that never get caught. People registering more than once? I mean isn’t that ridiculous? As you can see why countless of states have introduced legislation or passed them to counter this right? I’m just reading though some sources and I find the law that makes it easy for voter fraud is very damaging to our republic. Check out these links. Allot of information and numbers that you be interesting in knowing. The Libertarian think tank Cato Institute is very good to read. The FL State link is quite informative as well.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-js031401.html
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/publications/voter_fraud.asp

Enjoy =)

Great discussion. I'm gonna split and get back to my game. Playing Splinter Cell on the XBOX. =)

Take care,
Jason

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

Anyways what really troubles me is what lead to this law to be passed in the first place that gave way to this system that obviously has some flaws in it. The 1993/1994 National Motor Voter Laws and the state laws passed to implement them. The Motor Voter Law allows an individual to easily register to vote or update your registration to make it very simple. Problem is that it makes it very easy once registered to receive absentee ballots for any reason at all besides being over seas, moving, and etc that are provided to individuals to vote when not being able to be present at the polls. What the law allows is a no questions asked voter registration. Obviously the ability for fraud to occur is extremely dangerous. Fraud becomes possible through minimal identification and citizen proof requirements which included the ability to change address to vote in the election when in fact no change of address has actually occurred. Obtaining an absentee ballot for every election and a lack of being present at the polls creates no accountability for who you say you are and makes absentee ballots that easy for those who are inclined to commit voter fraud to do so, it also creates the opportunity for others to vote for another person by gaining access others absentee ballot and voting their ballot for them, often with the actual voter not knowing what the fuck is going on. This offers tremendous opportunity for vote fraud, particularly to those who have access to other ballots or the names of people who are felons, diseased, or moved. And also selling votes as well. All of this can be done with out a trace. I’ll give you “X” amount of money to hand over your absentee ballot so I can cast it type of shit. False information can be given as well. Shit there is tons of ways that I have yet to come up with. And well what happened when this law came into effect voter fraud all over the state happened heck the whole nation has experienced voter fraud because of this law. Some has been caught but there are shit loads that never get caught. People registering more than once? I mean isn’t that ridiculous? As you can see why countless of states have introduced legislation or passed them to counter this right? I’m just reading though some sources and I find the law that makes it easy for voter fraud is very damaging to our republic. Check out these links. Allot of information and numbers that you be interesting in knowing. The Libertarian think tank Cato Institute is very good to read. The FL State link is quite informative as well.

Those are pretty funny qoutes from our friends at the Corporate, err, "Cato" institute. After all, Oregon has had mail-in balloting for a couple of elections now and nobody has shown evidence of increased fraud. What has been shown is that the folks who get fucked out of registering under the old (pre Motor Voter) registration structure are underclass, underpriveliged, minorities, etc. That's irrefutable fact.

Dude, this is America. We're supposed to encourage folks to vote, remember? Waving one's hands about and screeching "fraud" when voting participation is increased is a pretty thin line of logic.

Hey, here's an idea. If NOBODY but Little Bush votes then we are 100% sure we will have absolutely no voter fraud. Bingo - perfect solution :rolleyes:

Peace,

D-d0g

ps: in Oregon, the voter must sign the outside of the ballot after filling it out, across the seal of the envelope. How is someone going to sell a ballot to be filled out by some nefarious (nonesistent) organization that buys and sells absentee ballots?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g


Those are pretty funny qoutes from our friends at the Corporate, err, "Cato" institute.

What's wrong with the Cato Institute's findings? Before i start here, I don't why your so negative and cynical towards everyone.. any explanations?

After all, Oregon has had mail-in balloting for a couple of elections now and nobody has shown evidence of increased fraud.

I dunno but a simple search around I found some interesting information that tell quite a different story.

Melody Rose, an assistant professor of political science at Portland State University, conducted a survey after the election in Washington County. Approximately 5% of the 818 respondents said that other people marked their ballots and 2.4% said other people signed their ballot envelopes. This could mean that more than 36,000 of Oregon's 1.5 million voters submitted illegal ballots.

http://www.oregonvoting.org/2000_oregon_election.htm

How many votes did Gore get over Bush in Oregon again? 6,765 votes? If a simple survey only surveyed 818 people and 5% said other people marked their ballot and 2.4% said their someone else signed their ballot envelopes than I wonder what fuck happend to the rest of the 1.5 million votes.

What has been shown is that the folks who get fucked out of registering under the old (pre Motor Voter) registration structure are underclass, underpriveliged, minorities, etc. That's irrefutable fact.

I dunno please point me to those facts.

Dude, this is America. We're supposed to encourage folks to vote, remember? Waving one's hands about and screeching "fraud" when voting participation is increased is a pretty thin line of logic.

No it's not, there is a considerable amount of evidence that fraud has increased since moter voter period, don't argue about it with me yell at the people who do it and has exposed these vote fraud schemes.

Hey, here's an idea. If NOBODY but Little Bush votes then we are 100% sure we will have absolutely no voter fraud. Bingo - perfect solution :rolleyes:

Haha everything always has something todo with Bush doesn't it? [shakes head]

ps: in Oregon, the voter must sign the outside of the ballot after filling it out, across the seal of the envelope. How is someone going to sell a ballot to be filled out by some nefarious (nonesistent) organization that buys and sells absentee ballots?

I don't see how it would be that hard for me to sell my vote to you. I got my mail in abensetee ballot you paid me 100 bucks I allowed you to put the marks you wanted in their and I signed it off.. never mind just think about it for second you'll figure out possiblities.

Oregon's Vote-By-Mail Fails To Fulfill Its Promise
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-16.htm

No matter which way you try to cut it, again Motor Votor law has opened the door to fraud..

Later,
Jason

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

I don't see how it would be that hard for me to sell my vote to you. I got my mail in abensetee ballot you paid me 100 bucks I allowed you to put the marks you wanted in their and I signed it off.. never mind just think about it for second you'll figure out possiblities.

Surely, if this vote-selling as a result of mail voting in Oregon is so commonplace, you can show me a few examples of people being caught doing it? Or is there a vast, left-wing conspiracy to sell votes to Ralph Nader that is so efficient, so dastardly, so "evil genius" that nobody is being caught doing it?

Or, rather, are you grasping at straws and trying to justify Bush's theft of the Florida vote by clouding the waters with specious, far-right generated "change the subject quick" blather?

Why am I justifiably cautious about the ravings of the Cato Institute fanaticals? Why does one think twice before regurgitating verbatim statements made by the John Birch Society? Duh.

Peace,

D-d0g

ps: why is it all "about Bush?" Well because he and his cronies stole the election of president of the United States of America. Did you miss that one?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g


Surely, if this vote-selling as a result of mail voting in Oregon is so commonplace, you can show me a few examples of people being caught doing it? Or is there a vast, left-wing conspiracy to sell votes to Ralph Nader that is so efficient, so dastardly, so "evil genius" that nobody is being caught doing it?

How would you catch anyone if it's mailed in? Again if I recieved my mail-in absentee ballot you paid me 100 bucks and I gave the ballot to you to fill out to vote for me, I signed it and mailed it in or what ever the case.. how in the world would anyone find out unless someone came clean and turned themselves in which means facing some surious crimes. All I said it that it would be easy to commit voter fraud that's it.

Or, rather, are you grasping at straws and trying to justify Bush's theft of the Florida vote by clouding the waters with specious, far-right generated "change the subject quick" blather?

Why am I justifiably cautious about the ravings of the Cato Institute fanaticals? Why does one think twice before regurgitating verbatim statements made by the John Birch Society? Duh.

Peace,

D-d0g

ps: why is it all "about Bush?" Well because he and his cronies stole the election of president of the United States of America. Did you miss that one?

I raised some points I didn't say it was a a vast left wing conspiracy, I said nothing that had todo with Nadar, I'm not trying to justify anything, cloud the waters, right wing mantra, and etc... Enough of the red herrings! I'm talking about voter fraud not partisan politics. You don't like Cato becuase they are a Libertarian think tank for free markets so what. Your opinion has been noted. Bush stealing the election is your opinion as well. Talk about drawing straws.

-Jason

[Mike S]

Cato institute Fanaticals!

Bahahahahahaha!!..hahahaha!!....Bahahahahahahahaha haha! *snort*

Yeah NOW I've heard it all!! fanatical libertarians!

Look out everybody!! Its the attack of the mad centrists!!

Jezus Kay Ryst - Oh dude I really need to thank you for the laugh I'm having. woo hoo!! Oh my gawd my gut hurts from laughing so hard!!

Yeah those libertarians at the CATO ya gotta watch out for em.. They might just bore you to death with their data and statistics.


Dude please tell me you're just fuckin around here and trying to be funny.. NO ONE is that much of a leftist tool.

*wipes tears from eyes laughing*

Oh Dog you are a funny funny man.

MS