0
   

GW's resume and refute.

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 04:04 pm
Consider it never minded.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 01:14 am
One of the real problems on these posts is that people make statements that just won't stand scrutiny.

Craven De Kere stated that he was unaware that the election of 2000 was illegal.

P Diddie seems to indcate that it was illegal.

I can only go to what I consider to be reliable sources for my information. I invite anyone interested to rebut the information which I present since I would be delighted to be shown facts which contradict the article I am replicating below:

I know little about either the works or person of Greg Palast and would appreciate seeing the evidence he has to bear on the question. However, I do know something about the paper of record, the paper read by all other major news outlets in the USA, namely- "The New York Times" which on November 12, 2001 published an article from which I quote:

"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote'

by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder

A comprehensive review of the uncounted FLorida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"

end of quote.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 01:19 am
There are many posts on the Internet which purport, without any real evidence to detail President Bush's failings( real or imagined).

I am sure that I can access as many posts which detail former President Clinton's failings( real or imagined).

Which proves nothing except to assuage the partisans on either side.

I would strongly suggest that all of the energy that may be gathering to denigrate Bush would be better put to use in organizing to defeat him, however, if a blame game and name calling contest is called for, I am sure that I can posit a great deal which excoriates President Bush's predecessor.

What shall it be?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 01:21 am
Italgo, it's probably a dead end. Any liberal worth his/her salt will cede that the post ballot actions were not illegal.

The only hole now is the one PDiddie referenced that suggests pre-election dastardly behavior.

To me that accusation doesn't hold water. It would indicate near-perfect foresight by the alleged perpetrators. They'd have to have known that the election would be that close because voting fraud on that scale would simply not make sense if it were not for the sake of playing king-maker.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 02:08 am
Mr. De Kere:

I donn't suppose this will happen but it would be, in my opinion, pofitabble for all if discussion would center around topics which lend themselves to research-
e.g Is the current deficit deleterious to our country's economic future? If so, how?

If not, why not?

Rather than:

Was Bush an alcoholic in his younger days?

Was Clinton a rapist in his younger days?

Meaningless questions!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 06:28 am
Italgato wrote:
Mr. De Kere:

I donn't suppose this will happen but it would be, in my opinion, pofitabble for all if discussion would center around topics which lend themselves to research-
e.g Is the current deficit deleterious to our country's economic future? If so, how?

If not, why not?

Rather than:

Was Bush an alcoholic in his younger days?

Was Clinton a rapist in his younger days?

Meaningless questions!!!!!!


I quite agree, Gato.

The relevant question should be:

Do the individuals involved have enough intelligence to be president? Do we want this individual to be the person articulating the American position to the rest of the world?


Here are a few examples of Dubya doing his articulating:



Quote:
Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with us. They are near retirement ?- retiring ?- in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring." ?-George W. Bush, Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003




Quote:
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." ?-George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003





Quote:
"I'm a patient man. And when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. Nothing he [Saddam Hussein] has done has convinced me ?- I'm confident the Secretary of Defense ?- that he is the kind of fellow that is willing to forgo weapons of mass destruction, is willing to be a peaceful neighbor, that is ?- will honor the people ?- the Iraqi people of all stripes, will ?- values human life. He hasn't convinced me, nor has he convinced my administration." ?-George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 21, 2002


Quote:
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.'' ?-George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000



Quote:
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis." ?-George W. Bush, CNBC, April 15, 2000



Quote:
"I understand small business growth. I was one." ?-George W. Bush, New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000


Quote:
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have ?- he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." ?-George W. Bush, on Sen. John McCain, speaking to reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000



Quote:
"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." ?-George W. Bush, speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, New Hampshire, Jan. 28, 2000



Quote:
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" ?-George W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000







The man is a moron!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 09:44 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
The only hole now is the one PDiddie referenced that suggests pre-election dastardly behavior.

To me that accusation doesn't hold water. It would indicate near-perfect foresight by the alleged perpetrators. They'd have to have known that the election would be that close because voting fraud on that scale would simply not make sense if it were not for the sake of playing king-maker.


You're entitled to your opinion.

Everyone knew the election was close; the parties, the press, the pollsters. Too close to call, in states across the nation, and particularly Florida.

Motive.

The Secretary of State of Florida, Katherine Harris, the elections registrar, was the Bush state campaign chairperson. The three people on the board of the Florida Elections commission were Harris, Clay Roberts, and Jeb Bush.

Means.

And if you click on the links I provide in the previous post you can clearly see the influence Harris and Roberts had on the discriminant removal of minority voters by Choicepoint in the two years prior to the 2000 election.

This body of evidence is the proof. 94,000 Florida voters -- supposedly felons but the overwhelming majority innocent of any crime; more than half of them black or Hispanic -- removed from the voter rolls by the Florida Secretary of State.

Opportunity.

To me it presents only one conclusion, Craven; I respect the fact that you simply don't agree.

But your rationalization ("it would require perfect foresight") isn't a refutation.

I'll offer a few last bits of anecdotal evidence, none of which are likely to convince a closed mind:

Quote:
TALLAHASSEE, Dec. 18 -- A call was placed from the cell phone of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to George W. Bush's mansion in Austin at 11:50 p.m. on election night, records show.

The phone call, which lasted two minutes, came more than 90 minutes after the television networks began rescinding projections that Vice President Gore had won Florida, but long before they prematurely called the race for Bush.


Wa Po

Quote:
"Florida's wrong," Rove had insisted in a telephone call earlier in the evening, when the networks had called the state for Gore.


Wa Po

Quote:
The head of Fox's projection team said he spoke five times with his cousin, George W. Bush, on election night but insists he did not give out confidential exit poll information. Bush got that information elsewhere, he said.

John Ellis, an election night consultant for Fox, was hired by Inside.com to write an account of what happened that night; it was posted on the Web site (Dec. 11, 2000).

Publicity about his relationship to Bush has proved an embarrassment to Fox, whose executives were angry with him Monday for writing about it. The network is still investigating whether Ellis, who was working on a temporary contract, provided the Bush campaign with insider data.

Fox was criticized for having a Bush cousin as director of its team responsible for projecting the presidential race. The network, and Ellis, said an executive above Ellis had the final say on whether a state was called.


CNN

Means. Motive. And lots of Opportunity.

But, like I said, if you don't see it....never mind.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 09:51 am
PDiddie,

Are you saying it would not have been excellent foresight if they had altered the scales by a few thousand votes and Florida just so happened to be kingmaker?

The risks of vote fraud of that scale would only be worth it if those vote were the clincher.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 10:14 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
PDiddie,

Are you saying it would not have been excellent foresight if they had altered the scales by a few thousand votes and Florida just so happened to be kingmaker?


No. Of course not. It was excellent foresight, proper planning, due diligence (even if it belies corruption). What's your point? Do you think these efforts were conducted solely with Election 2000 in mind?

Craven de Kere wrote:
The risks of vote fraud of that scale would only be worth it if those vote were the clincher.


Well, those votes were the clincher.

You seem to be clinging to the contention that they couldn't have predicted how important their fraudulent actions in Florida could be, and/or wouldn't have risked going to jail unless they had known.

Is that what you're thinking?

'Cause if it is, my last word on the subject is "Bullshit."

Of course, it could be that you consider that this is just too fantastic a set of circumstances to fall within the realm of possibility. "Crackpot conspiracy theory", "impossible to pull all the elements together and keep it a secret", etc.

In which case I would say, "I understand."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 10:18 am
I never suggested that it was impossible PDiddie. In any case I agree with the earlier nevermind part.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 07:35 pm
Hmmmm. Patently false! Well, Craven, my young friend, nothing is patently false or patently true. Damn, I love that word "patently"..oops..got sidetracked again, Mac... but, I will say this. It is patently ironic that in a dry county, many will stagger to the polls to keep it dry. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 03:44:58