Now Caddy , the real culprit confessed and you still try to blame me. Shame on you. You should remove your head and try to screw it back on right. "get over it." Sure right after you. You should have studied the Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby like I did when I was a kid. It would help you not to be so obsessed. Don't 'xpect me ta be throwen ya in de briar patch. Dat ain't gonna hap'n.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
President Bush to Iraqi Resistance: "Bring them On Beeattcch"
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
CADapopulus,
Read Gore v Harris...
Read FSSC decision...
Read the USSC decision
They (harris would not accept the additional Gore votes after 5 pm on the seventh day following the election.. even though she could have and this would have negated the USSC and all the rest... It was harris person who said to the Civil Rights Commission "I had no real role in all of this..."
Gore tallied more votes when and according to Florida law you determine the will of the voter.... it is mandated that the election official do this... IN THE LAW of the sovereign state of Florida....
Read Gore v Harris...
Read FSSC decision...
Read the USSC decision
They (harris would not accept the additional Gore votes after 5 pm on the seventh day following the election.. even though she could have and this would have negated the USSC and all the rest... It was harris person who said to the Civil Rights Commission "I had no real role in all of this..."
Gore tallied more votes when and according to Florida law you determine the will of the voter.... it is mandated that the election official do this... IN THE LAW of the sovereign state of Florida....
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I'm not obsessed - I'm not the one bringing it up all the time😉
HJD1-I have read them. And the FACT still remains that under the law at the time of the election the votes were counted and Bush won. It wasn't until the recounts that the courts decided they should overstep their bounds and change the way votes were counted. Each county or district had differing "rules" - that isn't Bush's fault - it is Florida's. Bush won.
We've been over this time and time again. I'd be glad to take this further if either of you want to put it in it's own thread and show PROOF that Gore won by following laws that existed when the ballots were cast.
I won't hold my breath.:Q
CkG
It's very simple, Caddy. After the election all the votes that were never recounted were recounted using the standard of Florida law. Gore got the most votes. The people of Florida voted for Gore. All your BS about legal standards and courts is just BS. Elections are about counting who got the most legal votes. It was Gore. It?s a fact that was established from the ballots themselves. The people of this nation were robbed. Bush lost the election but was selected by the Supreme Coup. Go read the record of the paper recount. It's all there. No need for an other thread or proof. The proof was in the count. You just don't want to hear. You would have to fact the fact that you support a complete and total fraud. Bush didn't win. He was selected by the Thwart. The terrible tragedy of the Bush robbery has been visited on the world. Because people like you can't separate what they want to believe from the truth we are all living in hell. Thanks, and what a sad sad shame. I understand why you can't see. It would really hurt.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Your tripe should be in a new/different thread. Oh, and PROOF seems to be a bit thin in your post. Please be prepared if either of you wish to back up your assertions by showing PROOF in a thread dedicated to "debating" the 2000 Election all over again.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Why am I not suprised. You both won't address a direct question and both resort to poems and riddles.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
OK, to appease you both - change "question" to "challenge" so you two can easily understand what I mean 😉 The question of PROOF is directly questioned in the challenge I laid out. So again, do either of you have the balls to start a new thread or go to the appropriate thread where the election of 2000 was the thread's original discussion, and show PROOF that Gore won the election?
CkG
Edit - I think I know the answer to the question of whether you have the balls to stand up to the challenge, I expect the same answer that etech got a few weeks back.
Back to the subject.
We have a White House occupant who is a draft dodger starting a pre-emptive war in Iraq based on false information telling the enemy there to attack our troops.
How can anyone defend the actions of this moron and his administration?
A CNN poll shows support for Bush's war in Iraq eroding. Maybe Americans are finally waking up to the truth.
I realize there are many here among us who will never wake up.
We have a White House occupant who is a draft dodger starting a pre-emptive war in Iraq based on false information telling the enemy there to attack our troops.
How can anyone defend the actions of this moron and his administration?
A CNN poll shows support for Bush's war in Iraq eroding. Maybe Americans are finally waking up to the truth.
I realize there are many here among us who will never wake up.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
Thank you Mr. President, we are now at 31 KIA since the end of fighting. Almost one a day, everyday. And once again, I am surprised at the absence of the right wingers. They have all magically disappeared in less than a month and a half! I remember the days when they steadfastly stood beside their commander and chief, defending his every last action. I miss the debate, its no fun when everyone in the thread agrees with you. Where is my good friend UltraQuiet?
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
I'm sorry Moon, I didn't quiet get what you were trying to say.
Hehe, spectacle should have been skeptical.
UltraQuiet was never in that other camp. He just wants the proof. You want your military to be automatically negative to the President? It's your job to be skeptical, not theirs. You don't want the military making up their own rules.
UQ's in the military. The Pres is the commander in chief. You don't want the military going off on their own and deciding what to or not to do. For good or ill the military's not supposed to buck Bush. He's the boss. Nor are they, in uniform, sposed to be tearing him down. That is the job of civilians. That doesn't mean everybody in there is brain dead, but asking for proof of claims that Bush engaged in an illegal war have to be accompanied by clear and obvious proof. Even the duck test isn't good enough in that respect. In other words, the military isn't free to react to opinion, particularly their own. I don't think you'd want it any other way. Your job is to supply the clear and incontrovertible proof. Just my opinion. UQ might be a bit brutal but it strikes me it's pretty much about where's the proof or pointing out that assumptions are being offered without any real proof. If you mistake an opinion you hold for your self and your credibility in the world, you could get offended by what he says even in cases where he may actually feel the same 9except for the lack of proof) Just my take on UQ. You may not agree.
UltraQuiet was never in that other camp. He just wants the proof. You want your military to be automatically negative to the President? It's your job to be skeptical, not theirs. You don't want the military making up their own rules.
UQ's in the military. The Pres is the commander in chief. You don't want the military going off on their own and deciding what to or not to do. For good or ill the military's not supposed to buck Bush. He's the boss. Nor are they, in uniform, sposed to be tearing him down. That is the job of civilians. That doesn't mean everybody in there is brain dead, but asking for proof of claims that Bush engaged in an illegal war have to be accompanied by clear and obvious proof. Even the duck test isn't good enough in that respect. In other words, the military isn't free to react to opinion, particularly their own. I don't think you'd want it any other way. Your job is to supply the clear and incontrovertible proof. Just my opinion. UQ might be a bit brutal but it strikes me it's pretty much about where's the proof or pointing out that assumptions are being offered without any real proof. If you mistake an opinion you hold for your self and your credibility in the world, you could get offended by what he says even in cases where he may actually feel the same 9except for the lack of proof) Just my take on UQ. You may not agree.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
It don't matter what the president does.... he is the commander in chief until he is not... All members of the military especially must follow his orders as any one else in his chain of command... what is alleged, proved or whatever... can not interfere with the proper order of things... If he's convicted of the charges leveled in impeachment then they still have to determine action... we ain't any where near any where close to an impeachment hearing..
So... I'd hope all military folks would defend or remain mute on the issue of president Bush... and his shrubbery...
So... I'd hope all military folks would defend or remain mute on the issue of president Bush... and his shrubbery...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
