Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Just received from a friend in Australia. It's written in response to the article written by the top scientists in this country about how GWBush has disrupted scientific research in the US.
**************
"Isn't it amazing how the most scientifically advanced country in the
world -- a nation that owes its amazing progress and vast wealth largely to science and scientific thinking -- is today lead by such a primitive
man, one who purportedly reads his bible morning and night and prides
himself on the fact that he doesn't read reports, "just the headlines". That
George W. Bush puts his faith in a literal interpretation of the bible (seven
days and all that) comes as no great surprise, but we also suspect that he
is a fervent believer in a flat earth. -- Murf"

the literal interpretation of the bible. Funny stuff. That means that George must believe that God created him in one day. Yeah, it looks like he rushed it.

the literal interpretation of the bible. Funny stuff. That means that George must believe that God created him in one day. Yeah, it looks like he rushed it.

Again, Mr. Blatham, Do you have any specifics with regard to Bush's "distortions" with regard to the environment.

I ask because I am fairly familiar with that topic and am not aware of "distortions".

Please enlighten us.

Tresspassers will is absolutely correct.

The Miami Herald on Feb. 26, 2001 contained the following story:

DADE UNDERVOTES SUPPORT BUSH WIN

If Secretary of State Katherine Harris had let South Florida counties complete manual recounts before certifying the results of last November's election, George W. Bush likely would have won the preisidency outright, without weeks of indecision and political warfare, a review of Miami-Dade County's "undervote" ballot shows.

Al Gore would have netted no more than 48 votes if a manual recount of Miami-Dade's ballots had been completed, according to the review, which was sponsored by the Herald and its parent company, Knight Ridder. That would have been 140 too feew to overcome Bush's lead even when joined with Gore gains in Volusia, Palm Beach and Broward counties- the three other counties where Gore had requested manual recounts."

Similar evidence is given in a New York Times Story on Nov. 18 2001.

bocdaver, If you're going to bring up the 2000 elections in Florida, how about talking about all the black votes that were not counted?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/front.htm

Scrat- You are absolutely correct.

If the economy is "strong and growing" then the fact that one person or one percent of the people do not have jobs does not change that fact.

My post was made in the knowledge that the naysayers would denigrate any objective analysis so I went anecdotal.

However, it would appear that the naysayers are really quite dense when it comes to economic analysis. They seem to be very fond of repeating the mantra that millions of jobs have been lost.

Steve Chapman, in today's Chicago Tribune pens an interesting article entitled:

'OUTSOURCING AND TRADE ARE NO THREAT TO JOBS"

( I will quote from part of his article)

"A nation doesn't prosper by spending lots of money to produce goods or to provide services that foreigners can offer for less. If it's sensible for American consumers to save money by buying clothes from Malaysia or care from Japan, why isn't it smart for American firms to save money hiring people in India to answer phones?THE ANSWER YOU USUALLY HEAR IS THAT WE NEED THE JOBS, but the American companies have to compete with foreign companies, here and abroad, and if our spurn cheap labor in India, they stand to lose out to rivals that are not so fastidious. A US company that cuts costs by moving some operations overseas has a better chance of flourishing in the market place-WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING THOSE JOBS THAT REMAIN HERE.

MOST AMERICAN JOBS ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE RELOCATE THAN THE HOOVER DAM.

We have been warned that the outsourcing will cost the US 3.3 million service jobs by 2015. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT UNTIL YOU REMEMBER THAT IN ITS RELENTLESS CHURNING, THE AMERICAN ECONOMY TYPICALLY LOSES AND CREATES 7 TO 8 MILLION JOBS EVERY QUARTER...."

If trade were a net detriment to American workers, the prosperity of the Clinton era would not have followed passage of NAFTA."

Dear Cicerone Imposter:

Please critique the article from the Miami Star first, then provide some hard evidence concerning black votes that weren't counted.

If Mr. Blatham's claim that Bush is "distorting" the scientific fact with regard to the environment is correct( Mr. Blatham gives no evidence) then we are in more trouble than is apparent at first glance.

It appears that the National Academy of Sciences, which was asked by Bush to review the state of knowledge about climate change in 2001 gave a report which flies in the face of the charge of the "distortion" of scientific fact.

If Mr. Blatham is correct, then even the august members of the National Academy of Sciences are corrupt.

However, I repeat my request to Mr. Blatham.

Please provide specifics with regard to "distortion".
especially in the realm of climate change.

It is my position that there has been no "distortion".

bocdaver, I trust the Washington Post more than any publication in Florida. Sorry, but you do the reading. I've already done mine.

Ciceroen Imposter- What Washington Post Article?

Would you be so good as to give me a link or a quote from the Article. I never heard of the Post article although I followed the subject closely.

Does such an article exist?

I have one from the New York Times(Does it trump the Post?- I think so.

The link is http:www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

I will quote from the Article:

HEADLINE

STUDY OF DISPUTED FLORIDA BALLOTS FINDS JUSTICES DID NOT CAST THE DECIDING VOTE

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that Geroge 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."

The entire article can be accessed by the link I provided above, but this paragraph explains the problem in Florida best. "Democrats and African American leaders have charged repeatedly that black voters were disproportionately affected by the state's election procedures, including confusing ballot designs and instructions. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report in June criticizing management of the Florida election for disenfranchising voters, particularly blacks."

Here's an interesting article on the black vote in Florida. http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-103.htm

And another. http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-101.htm

Finally, this article about the coming elections and the black vote in Florida. Should be very interesting to watch. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/7975358.htm

Cicerone Imposter

Sir:

First you excoriate me for providing a link from a Florida Paper and then you do so. Hardly consistent.

Then, you give me links from Common Dreams.

I am insulted. I would not stoop to give you a link from National Review or Weekly Standard.

PLEASE- No links from obviously partisan sources.


The allegations prove nothing. They are just that- allegations.

However, if you can find for me a court case which was heard in which it was proven that black votes were discounted in Florida, I will agree. Otherwise, the articles prove nothing.

However, the New York Times article, cited by me, shows that a CONSORTIUM of newspapers, including the New York Times( known as the paper of record) and yes, the Washington Post, agreed on the finding printed in the November 18th issue of the New York Times-

Again--
quote

"A comprensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last yeat's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush wouldhave 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"



and who was involved in this consortium?

Not common dreams

but the best and most important papers in the country.

they were

quote

"The media consortium included the New York Times, The Wall Streen Journal, The Tribune Company, THE WASHINGTON POST, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post and CNN."

bocdaver

Of course, it isn't blatham's claim. Either gross intellectual carelessness, or a rather silly and ineffective rhetorical move has you stating it as such. If you wish to play seriously here, pick up your standards a bit. And read the link below.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsirelease.html

bodaver, I post an article from Florida, since you seem to give them credit. For your eyes only, or some such. If you haven't been following this administration's lack of cooperation in sharing information, you haven't learned anything about this president and the neo-cons.

Is it your contention that Khadafi's exposure of his weapons programs and willingness to completely abandon them was not a response to Bush's "posturing", or is it your contention that the world is not more safe now that Khadafi is disarming? (And that's just one reaction to Bush's "posturing". There are many others, and it looks to me like ALL of them have made us MORE safe, not less so.)

Clinton tried to be "nice" to those who hate us, and sent them the message that we were weak and unwilling to stand up for ourselves. They bombed the WTC and he did nothing. They bombed the barracks in Saudi Arabia and he did nothing. They bombed the USS Cole and he did nothing. Then Bush took office. They attacked 4 planes, the WTC and the Pentagon, and would probably have taken out the White House, if not for the actions of men and women on one of the planes. Bush responded swiftly and decisively, and let the whole world know that America would do so to whomever might attempt to do us harm or support those who would do so. Is there really any question as to whether this has had a chilling effect on those who author terror in the world? Even if these zealots are not afraid to be killed by us, it certainly has to factor into their thinking at some point that we will not be swayed by terrorism. That means that even if they are willing to suffer retaliation for their actions, they know that their actions will achieve NO OTHER RESULT, only retaliation. Killing our people or attacking our property will not change our course, it will only draw our fire. Terrorism has a purpose. We have not only let them know they will be punished for acts against us, but that their PURPOSE will not be achieved by terrorism. If the entire world took this position, terrorism would be a sad memory inside of ten years. People turn to terrorism to accomplish some goal. If they know ABSOLUTELY that their goal will never be furthered, will only be harmed by resorting to terrorism, they will not do so.

Scrat, What I have observed is how this country has aided and abetted the wrong leaders that eventually backfired on us. We are NOT the world's saviors or police. We have enough problems at home to go 'searching' for problems outside our borders.