It's coming, Tuesday

[Fencer128]

I think that the only thing that will make Arafat happy is for Israel to cease to exist. Why is there not any pressure being put on Palestine to negotiate? If Arafat were true in his alleged intentions, *he* would be hunting down his country's suicide bomber factions, and he'd be dealing with them himself.

I don't believe that - Hamas may believe that - but most realise that a comprimise must be reached as no-one is moving. I do believe that only a few years ago progress (more than that region had ever seen) was being made and a Palestinian state was definitely on the cards. Arafat has been lax - but then the suicide bombers only really took off when this new "crackdown" started a couple of years ago. Someone has to de-escalate first.

How are we expected to talk directly to the indoctrinated? We are the great evil. They wouldn't believe us if we told them that the sky was blue.

Speak through policy. You don't need a megaphone and you might not change the mind of those already signed up. However, the people growing up to be tomorrows terrorists may see the change leading to an alternative to bloody conflict.

I think the only long-term solution is to just annihilate the whole region, but, obviously, that's not going to happen.

That's the problem at the moment - no one "believes" anything is possible so they keep on fighting. When someone tries and fails then they can be justified in holding that opinion. I think its just easier and more convenient for those involved to stick with their current policies than try something else.

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Read This Bluga

A very good read. Excellent information and a very compelling reason to go to war.

Ryan

That pea-brain's argument doesn't hold water, if Saddam is responsible for everything why not send in a team of snipers and just snipe him out along with all his doubles?
And don't give me that US law doesn't allow assination bs, if Saddam is a terrorist, then we have a right to assinate him (recent CIA reasoning for killing an al qaeda member).

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Read This Bluga

A very good read. Excellent information and a very compelling reason to go to war.

Ryan

That pea-brain's argument doesn't hold water, if Saddam is responsible for everything why not send in a team of snipers and just snipe him out along with all his doubles?
And don't give me that US law doesn't allow assination bs, if Saddam is a terrorist, then we have a right to assinate him (recent CIA reasoning for killing an al qaeda member).

Regardless of whether that approach would solve any problems - it is logistically extremely difficult if not impossible. If not, I'm sure it would have already been tried.

Andy

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Read This Bluga

A very good read. Excellent information and a very compelling reason to go to war.

Ryan

That pea-brain's argument doesn't hold water, if Saddam is responsible for everything why not send in a team of snipers and just snipe him out along with all his doubles?
And don't give me that US law doesn't allow assination bs, if Saddam is a terrorist, then we have a right to assinate him (recent CIA reasoning for killing an al qaeda member).

Regardless of whether that approach would solve any problems - it is logistically extremely difficult if not impossible. If not, I'm sure it would have already been tried.

Andy

C'mon, if US intelligence is so good that they are sure that Saddam got wmd and that unmanned drone that can fly over Atlantic ocean and drop bombs on US soil (Bush's words), how hard is it to locate Saddam and snipe him?

 

[GTaudiophile]

People like Bluga just prove that all the protesting and disagreement is really not about the war. It's simply continued whining about the 2000 election that Bush won by law. I too read the reports of the recounts, stating that Bush still got more votes state-wide. God forbid what would have happened after 9/11 if Gore were president. We would have launched a dozen tomahawks into some aspirin factory, told Osama not to do it again, or sent negotiators to some cave or something. We would have looked like pu$$ies!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
People like Bluga just prove that all the protesting and disagreement is really not about the war. It's simply continued whining about the 2000 election that Bush won by law. I too read the reports of the recounts, stating that Bush still got more votes state-wide. God forbid what would have happened after 9/11 if Gore were president. We would have launched a dozen tomahawks into some aspirin factory, told Osama not to do it again, or sent negotiators to some cave or something. We would have looked like pu$$ies!

No - some people are using it to protest the election - not everyone - not by a long shot!

Nothing like a good bit of generalisation and rampant speculation to move a debate forward.

Andy

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Bluga
wish upon stars that my friends living in New York, London, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and other susceptible places around the world will survive an unavoidable dangerous situation brought about by people who stole the election.

I think this is completely unnecessary and besides the point.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Bluga
wish upon stars that my friends living in New York, London, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and other susceptible places around the world will survive an unavoidable dangerous situation brought about by people who stole the election.

I think this is completely unnecessary and besides the point.

I think this is the point :frown:

 

[xirtam]

...and preemptively kill them first.

That's what it comes down to. We must preemptively kill them first.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Bluga
wish upon stars that my friends living in New York, London, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and other susceptible places around the world will survive an unavoidable dangerous situation brought about by people who stole the election.

I think this is completely unnecessary and besides the point.

I think this is the point :frown:

So this war is all because someone contends that the election was screwed up? I don't think so.

I think I just realized the level of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," that the US is at right now. IF for some reason we were to completely pull out of Saudi Arabia, per Al-Qaeda's demands, Saddam would be left unchecked to do whatever he wanted. After Saddam decides to do something against his neighbors, it'll be OUR fault. "Look at the mess you made and you didn't clean it up! This is all your fault because You didn't take care of Saddam in 1991!"

We can't win.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: fuzzy bee

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Bluga
wish upon stars that my friends living in New York, London, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and other susceptible places around the world will survive an unavoidable dangerous situation brought about by people who stole the election.

I think this is completely unnecessary and besides the point.

I think this is the point :frown:

So this war is all because someone contends that the election was screwed up? I don't think so.

I think I just realized the level of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," that the US is at right now. IF for some reason we were to completely pull out of Saudi Arabia, per Al-Qaeda's demands, Saddam would be left unchecked to do whatever he wanted. After Saddam decides to do something against his neighbors, it'll be OUR fault. "Look at the mess you made and you didn't clean it up! This is all your fault because You didn't take care of Saddam in 1991!"

We can't win.

You're going to fight a war you can't win!

Andy

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Drekce

A technicality? The United States of America has elected its presidents using the electoral college since 1789 when George Washington was made our first commander in chief. For over 200 years we have used this system and it has allowed us to become the best country in the world. George W. Bush is OUR president and he deserves respect for holding the most difficult job on the planet. He is the leader of the free world, and above all he wants it to remain free. This war is not about oil, not about finishing up what his father started, it is about protecting the freedoms that have been passed down to us for the past 227 years.

There's no reason for the Electoral College anymore. It's a relic that no longer serves any purpose. Most experts agree. Everyone's vote should be counted equally. It's ludicrous that one candidate should get the majority of the votes and the other win the election. The rest of the world was laughing at us after that election. Anyway, I don't want to start a debate over this. The point is that Bush did not win the popular vote and in my eyes that really puts his legitimacy in question.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Drekce

A technicality? The United States of America has elected its presidents using the electoral college since 1789 when George Washington was made our first commander in chief. For over 200 years we have used this system and it has allowed us to become the best country in the world. George W. Bush is OUR president and he deserves respect for holding the most difficult job on the planet. He is the leader of the free world, and above all he wants it to remain free. This war is not about oil, not about finishing up what his father started, it is about protecting the freedoms that have been passed down to us for the past 227 years.

There's no reason for the Electoral College anymore. It's a relic that no longer serves any purpose. Most experts agree. Everyone's vote should be counted equally. It's ludicrous that one candidate should get the majority of the votes and the other win the election. The rest of the world was laughing at us after that election. Anyway, I don't want to start a debate over this. The point is that Bush did not win the popular vote and in my eyes that really puts his legitimacy in question.

Electoral college prevents a Unitarian-style election. There's a reason why we have a Senate AND a house of representatives. One house has elected by population, the other has elected by State. The States need to retain their power, it's to prevent the Federal government from completely taking over, it gives us checks and balances. This also prevents the widepread epidemic of welfare collecting baby making trailor trash from skewing the majority vote.

 

[Triumph]

I think the fact that people can't even operate a voting booth properly is proof that we need an electoral college. True, the Florida ballots were misleading. But just this year, after a greatly simplified voting process in Florida state elections, there were STILL problems. People are just idiots.

 

[clamum]

i wish people would stop saying "god bless america." go read a bible or something

lol

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Drekce

A technicality? The United States of America has elected its presidents using the electoral college since 1789 when George Washington was made our first commander in chief. For over 200 years we have used this system and it has allowed us to become the best country in the world. George W. Bush is OUR president and he deserves respect for holding the most difficult job on the planet. He is the leader of the free world, and above all he wants it to remain free. This war is not about oil, not about finishing up what his father started, it is about protecting the freedoms that have been passed down to us for the past 227 years.

There's no reason for the Electoral College anymore. It's a relic that no longer serves any purpose. Most experts agree. Everyone's vote should be counted equally. It's ludicrous that one candidate should get the majority of the votes and the other win the election. The rest of the world was laughing at us after that election. Anyway, I don't want to start a debate over this. The point is that Bush did not win the popular vote and in my eyes that really puts his legitimacy in question.

Here is a roll of quarters. There is a clue machine. Go buy one, or a dozen, or as many as that empty skull of yours will hold.

HE WON UNDER THE SYSTEM THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME, AND IS STILL IN PLACE NOW.

Don't like it? Fine, work to change the system. That does nothing to change the fact that STILL WON, and changing the system now will not change that.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: americangigolo
i wish people would stop saying "god bless america." go read a bible or something

lol

Oh no! The offensive G word! :Q RUN AWAY RUN AWAY

 

[Corn]

It's always nice to see there's still folks around who actually thing the recount of florida showed Bush won. It showed he won if you count this war or that, but it showed he lost if you count the entire state according to what were legal votes by state law. Gore got the majority of the votes state wide. He actually won the election.

Moonbeam, I'm still waiting on you to provide me something substantive about your ascertation that county voting commissions would have agreed with the findings of a media consortium with regard to over votes. The fact that a media consortium determined the intention of a voter does not a "legal" vote make. Only elected voting commissions can determine a legal vote in Florida. Since these overvotes were not considered to be legal votes by the local county voting commissions and thus not counted, your position that there were "legal votes by state law" had not been counted is a factual error.

You are free to quote the Florida state law that validates ballots examined by a media consortium as "legal". Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hold your breath or waste it, it's your choice. You know perfectly well that what I mean by a legal vote is a vote that would have passed Florida state law as it was written at the time of the election if the ballots were recounted. They were never recounted as part of the election. They were only recounted by the consortium applying the Florida state law standards. Those aren't mysterious or difficult to determine.

 

[BooGiMaN]

so if they do find this 'proof' after the war is said and doen with..are you goign to take back everything you said and such..

i think not im starting to believe alot of this is anti-bush not anti-war...sorta like the french..no matter what proof is provided, these people will hate bush and not believe or agree...

i am waiting for the inevitable...if there is proof to be found people will say we planted it or that its not the real proof

 

[Corn]

You know perfectly well that what I mean by a legal vote is a vote that would have passed Florida state law as it was written at the time of the election if the ballots were recounted.

No, I do not know "perfectly well" any such intention. Once again I'll ask you to provide evidence that county voting commissions would have agreed with the standard applied by the media consortium that had "counted" such overvotes.

Quote me this Florida state law as it was written that determine the standards by which overvotes would be considered valid or legal. Something specific would be nice, chop chop.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Corn

You know perfectly well that what I mean by a legal vote is a vote that would have passed Florida state law as it was written at the time of the election if the ballots were recounted.

No, I do not know "perfectly well" any such intention. Once again I'll ask you to provide evidence that county voting commissions would have agreed with the standard applied by the media consortium that had "counted" such overvotes.

Quote me this Florida state law as it was written that determine the standards by which overvotes would be considered valid or legal. Something specific would be nice, chop chop.

Yeah...if they adopted the method used by that cranky woman (forget the county but she was clearly counting any kind of mark for Gore as a valid vote) then I could see a Gore victory.

 

[Corn]

Well, I'll let Moonbeam off the hook, he won't find what he is looking for because it does not exist:

No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter... Section 101.5614(5).

That is the standard by which the State of Florida determines "legal" votes. There is no set "standard" by the state, instead it was left to the local voting canvassing boards to determine the vote delivery systems and to determine the standards that result in legal votes, ie: determining the clear indication of the intent of the voter.

The only scenerio that conclusively hands the majority victory to Gore in the Florida election is when statistical formulae are applied to the overvotes in which more than 1 candidate received a vote for President. This is not a a clear indication of the intent of the voter, no matter what Moonie wishes to believe.

 

[conjur]

Carol Roberts...that's the woman's name. I remember watching her during all of that recounting and just shaking my head and wondering how the heck she was counting some ballots as Gore votes...I would have sworn she was paid by Al or secretly wished she could have his babies or something...

Miami Herald article on recount

An ironic note was that Theresa LaPore, one of the Democratic commissioners in Palm Beach was the one who designed/approved that very ballot!

 

[Moonbeam]

here's an unbiased link you can play with, Corn.