2000 Election

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Since it seems to crop up in EVERY DAMN THREAD and then takes it over....HERE IS YOUR Thread!

Bash Bush as an election stealer or Gore as a tree-huggin communist - I don't care - JUST KEEP IT OUT OF THE OTHER THREADS!!!!

:|:|:|

CkG
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
At least we don't have to worry about who will win in 2004. Bush's election stealing tactics will be honed to a fine edge by that time and his adversary will no doubt lose in all 50 States.:p
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover. It's sort of like they all realize he did steal it and are proud of the fact, but don't want to outright admit to it.

And before I get labeled as anything (besides a Bush hater, which I wouldn't deny), knowing what I know now I wish Dole would have won in '96 and been re-elected in 2000.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover. It's sort of like they all realize he did steal it and are proud of the fact, but don't want to outright admit to it.

And before I get labeled as anything (besides a Bush hater, which I wouldn't deny), knowing what I know now I wish Dole would have won in '96 and been re-elected in 2000.

You seem to miss the moonbeam posts?

CkG
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover. It's sort of like they all realize he did steal it and are proud of the fact, but don't want to outright admit to it.

And before I get labeled as anything (besides a Bush hater, which I wouldn't deny), knowing what I know now I wish Dole would have won in '96 and been re-elected in 2000.

With the exclusion of Morph (now banned), I would say that 80% of the time that I see it get brought up, it is brought up by Moonbeam. I dont think you could call him a Bush lover, either
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I have seen A LOT of 'Gore lost, get over it' posts since before this forum was created from pro-Bushies in response to valid criticism of the administration.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I have seen A LOT of 'Gore lost, get over it' posts since before this forum was created from pro-Bushies in response to valid criticism of the administration.


You mean "...in response to attacks on his legitimacy." not "in response to valid critcism of the administration" ;)

Either way though - the election is over and whether you like it or not Bush IS the president. If you don't like the election laws then do something to help strengthen them to make them "error free" instead of whining.

CkG
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I have seen A LOT of 'Gore lost, get over it' posts since before this forum was created from pro-Bushies in response to valid criticism of the administration.

See the seventh post from the top...

Just as part of my point... I havent even read past MB's post, and I'm sure there will be plenty of "get over it", but you were arguing over who initiated it.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I have seen A LOT of 'Gore lost, get over it' posts since before this forum was created from pro-Bushies in response to valid criticism of the administration.

Actually, I remember posting a "Gore lost, move on" message recently, and I don't think anyone is likely to accuse me of being pro-Bush. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter any more. Yes, I think Bush stole the election. I also recognize that the real vote was still pretty close to 50-50. On any given day, either one of them could have won. Sad commentary on your average American, but it is what it is. (Yes, you can pick which 50% to scorn.)

Besides, there are so many current reasons to dislike Bush-lite (tastes great, less filling), we don't have to dwell on the past.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover.

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

The anti-war crowd has suffered this malady from the beginning. Witness Michael Moore commanding a national stage yet couldn't resist beginning his remarks by questioning the legitimacy of the current administration.

It's a loser issue and it's one of the reasons you lost the war debate. The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.


 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Maybe if we offer him a reward, Bush will give it back. :) This is silly. I hope no one is suggesting we get rid of the electoral college. Bush won. He is our standing president. I think its good for those who can't get over it to have a place to vent though.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
It's only the red assed extremists on either side that still grind their teeth over this issue. Forget the past, let's concentrate on the future. Right now Bush seems to be doing a satisfactory job but now that the War in Iraq is over he has to concentrate on the economy. If it picks up by next year he should easily get re-elected but if it is still in the Doldrums he may have trouble. Fortunately for him right now the front runners for the Democrats are the same old tired Politicos that have been in the news for the last 8 years. Even so, if the economy is still faltering one might be able to defeat Bush.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It's only the red assed extremists on either side that still grind their teeth over this issue. Forget the past, let's concentrate on the future. Right now Bush seems to be doing a satisfactory job but now that the War in Iraq is over he has to concentrate on the economy. If it picks up by next year he should easily get re-elected but if it is still in the Doldrums he may have trouble. Fortunately for him right now the front runners for the Democrats are the same old tired Politicos that have been in the news for the last 8 years. Even so, if the economy is still faltering one might be able to defeat Bush.



This is true. He could fall into his father's trap. People will naturally blame him for the economy if it keeps getting worse. 2004 debates will be very interesting and probably very heated.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover.

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

The anti-war crowd has suffered this malady from the beginning. Witness Michael Moore commanding a national stage yet couldn't resist beginning his remarks by questioning the legitimacy of the current administration.

It's a loser issue and it's one of the reasons you lost the war debate. The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't lose anything. I don't think the anti-war crowd has lost anything either. We won't know who was right or wrong on that for years.

And to my knowlege, Micheal Moore isn't posting on these forums.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,129
2,217
136

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover.

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

The anti-war crowd has suffered this malady from the beginning. Witness Michael Moore commanding a national stage yet couldn't resist beginning his remarks by questioning the legitimacy of the current administration.

It's a loser issue and it's one of the reasons you lost the war debate. The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't lose anything. I don't think the anti-war crowd has lost anything either. We won't know who was right or wrong on that for years.

And to my knowlege, Micheal Moore isn't posting on these forums.


The anti-war crowd never had anything legitimate TO LOSE, and havent found one thing in this whole conflict to hold up as EVIDENCE their claims were right.

Like???
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You know, I find it rather strange, but every time I've seen this subject brought up in an unrelated thread, it has been initiated by a Bush lover.

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

The anti-war crowd has suffered this malady from the beginning. Witness Michael Moore commanding a national stage yet couldn't resist beginning his remarks by questioning the legitimacy of the current administration.

It's a loser issue and it's one of the reasons you lost the war debate. The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't lose anything. I don't think the anti-war crowd has lost anything either. We won't know who was right or wrong on that for years.

And to my knowlege, Micheal Moore isn't posting on these forums.


The anti-war crowd never had anything legitimate TO LOSE, and havent found one thing in this whole conflict to hold up as EVIDENCE their claims were right.

Like???


And you guys did? Lets keep it simple: WHERE'S THE WMD?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Good question, tried getting a straight answer out of Saddam on that very issue.

Humor me for a sec, let's give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. When he submitted that 12,000 page report, of which only the 5 permanent members of the security council saw in it's entirety, he included ALL the WMD he really had.

Where are the ones he admitted having but could never account for?

We have a surrendered scientist who claims they courted Al-Queda (proven), that WMD were moved to Syria in the mid 90's (?) who also said he WORKED on the programs, and they were ordered to destroy everything just MONTHS before the war. He was able to lead US forces to buried precursor chemicals that HE could have used to make WMD.

What about the public interview of Dr. Death? The wife of the Former Iraqi Oil Minister.
He has already turned over computers ands documents, and named some people for us to talk to, he headed their clandestine weapons programs, his wife played with the nasty bio bugs.

Iraq's leading biologist, dubbed "Dr Germ", has refused to meet UN weapons inspectors but did agree to talk to Panorama Reporter Jane Corbin.

It was the first time the woman dubbed "Dr Germ" and even "toxic Taha" had ever agreed to be interviewed.

It is our right to defend ourselves



Dr Rihab Taha


Dr Rihab Taha was head of Iraq's biological weapons programme for seven years, until 1995.

And she is top of the list of scientists the UN team want to interview.

I asked her if she was ashamed of her past work.

"No, not at all," came Taha's answer. "Iraq has been threatened by different enemies, and we are in an area which suffers from regional conflict. It is our right to defend ourselves."

Liver cancer

While she acknowledged research and development into biological agents, she insisted the regime never weaponised the bacteria it developed.

"We never intended to use it," she continued. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody."

But the facts are undeniable. Dr Taha's team grew 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin, a food poison that swells the tongue and suffocates its victim.

Two thousand litres of aflatoxin were produced, which causes liver cancer. And they also prepared gas gangrene, which causes skin to melt away.

UN weapons inspectors discovered munitions filled with these agents dumped in a river, proving they had indeed been weaponised.

Dr Taha studied plant toxins at the University of East Anglia, between 1980 and 1984.

She had been sent by the regime, like others, to gain the expertise which Saddam intended to harness for military purposes.

By 1991 she was responsible for three of the country's major bio facilities and was responsible for transportation, concealment and deployment of munitions.

She married General Amer Rashid who became the man in charge of liaising with UN inspectors after the Gulf War. He was later appointed Iraq's oil minister.

For years Dr Taha insisted her work at the al-Hakem laboratory was veterinary science for civilian purposes.

"She would become extremely emotional and cry to put us off the scent," one former inspector remembered.

Deadly poisons

When a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein defected in 1995, the UN learned the truth about what was going on at al-Hakem.

But they have been unable to account for 8,500 litres of anthrax and large quantities of growth medium to culture germs.

And there has been no definitive answer to the question of whether Iraq has developed viruses such as smallpox and haemorrhagic fever.

The inspectors want to talk to Dr Taha about small-scale biological production she is believed to have pioneered after the destruction of al-Hakem.

Intelligence sources believe small stocks of agents are held in laboratories hidden in lorries and trains.

An Iraqi defector recently told Panorama that he fitted out special "clean rooms" for biological weapons manufacture, describing filtration systems and confirming "everything is mobile now".

There were rumours her estranged husband was in trouble for daring to argue with Saddam Hussein that Iraq should come clean with the UN.

A few days ago, I received a call. A Kurdish newspaper was reporting that Dr Taha had been murdered. The report alleged it was to stop her confessing what she knew to inspectors.

An Iraqi official denied this, calling the report "shameless propaganda".

In the murky pool of rumour, propaganda and fear that swirls around Baghdad, there is no way of knowing where Rihab Taha is now and what secrets she still protects.

do you want more, there is more? There is the man in cutody who is affiliated with the group run by the jordainian backed AQ member who operated in western Baghdad, fought in Afghainstan, returned to Iraq only to recieve the best medical care possible in Saddams elite military hopsital, then went off north to open a terrorist camp where WMD recipes and dispersion manuals were found. This is all stuff Powell presented to the UN BTW.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
When a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein defected in 1995, the UN learned the truth about what was going on at al-Hakem.

But they have been unable to account for 8,500 litres of anthrax and large quantities of growth medium to culture germs.



The question has been and continues to be, where are they?

I will glady say it again, I hope the current Iraqi claims we are hearing that everything that was left was destroyed months before the war are correct. Better that than given away, and at least they are gone.