NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is just a question to clarify something for me, so don't all the Americans go and bust my balls over it, ok? But considering that evidence has existed, for a while now, to prove that Bush didn't actually win the election that got him his presidency and that it was the result of gross error and/or cheating in the election process, why the hell haven't the american people come forward and had him stripped of the position to either award it to Al Gore or whoever might have won, or simply hold another election. It would have been hard sure, but then again your country is being mis-represented by a globally reviled simpleton who rules like he won on a landslide and not a favour from the governor of florida! :confused:

Because, the evidence has not existed for a while now that Bush cheated his way to the White House, simply put. Its amazing how many people, especially outside of America, take this (along with other misinformation) as a fact. The joys of Micheal Moore's #1 bestsellers... in Europe.

Ok, this is just a question to clarify something for me, so don't all the Americans go and bust my balls over it, ok? But considering that evidence has existed, for a while now, to prove that Bush didn't actually win the election that got him his presidency and that it was the result of gross error and/or cheating in the election process, why the hell haven't the american people come forward and had him stripped of the position to either award it to Al Gore or whoever might have won, or simply hold another election. It would have been hard sure, but then again your country is being mis-represented by a globally reviled simpleton who rules like he won on a landslide and not a favour from the governor of florida! :confused:


BECAUSE he WON electoral votes … but not the popular vote

With the current system … that is how it can work.

I don't like Michael Moore that much.
I don't like Bush either.
They're just the opposite sides of the same coin.

Because, the evidence has not existed for a while now that Bush cheated his way to the White House, simply put. Its amazing how many people, especially outside of America, take this (along with other misinformation) as a fact. The joys of Micheal Moore's #1 bestsellers... in Europe.

Well, I personally don't get my information from Michael Moore.. however few can deny the evidence that showed that Katherine Harris took thousands of registered democrats off the voters list who had a legal right to vote. We know this. Had she not done that, Gore would be president. As for those who scream about the military votes that came in late, Harris did count them in the official count.

However, we are a little over 70 days till the next election. So whether Bush won the white house fair and square is sort of moot at this point. There will be international observers this time and if Bush wins fair and square, I for one will stop bitching about it.

no offence but that system seems a bit shit to me

however few can deny the evidence that showed that Katherine Harris took thousands of registered democrats off the voters list who had a legal right to vote.
Felons and ex-felons don't have the right to vote in Florida.

no offence but that system seems a bit shit to me
The last candidate to get over 50% was George Bush Sr. in '88, so the majority wouldn't have won either way.

Every presidential election goes by the electoral college. Popular vote only determines which individual states' electoral points go to which candidate.

That being said, where is your proof that Bush "stole" the election? One question for you. Why didn't Gore want the military absentee votes counted?
They were on time afterall. Maybe it was because Gore knew they wouldn't vote for him after 8 years of Clintons' military policies.

no offence but that system seems a bit shit to me
It was set up for a simpler time … where accurately tallying votes didn’t even seem remotely possible.

And the land area that the us covered … there needed to be a simplified way.

Now it has just hung on because of tradition.

Has it occured to anyone that if we impeach our president, espescially while in a war, it could cause more problems than solve? The whole thing would become a mess with everyone trying to find a way to power.

There will be international observers this time and if Bush wins fair and square, I for one will stop bitching about it.

You think having international observers is a good thing? Then you really do believe the stuff you type.

no offence but that system seems a bit shit to me

Fo sho

Felons and ex-felons don't have the right to vote in Florida.
True, but some felons who had had their voting privelidges restored weren't allowed to vote, and some people who were not felons at all but merely had similar names and the same birthdates as felons weren't allowed to vote either.

Felons and ex-felons don't have the right to vote in Florida.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. However that is not what happened. Any one who shared the same last name, same D.O.B. , the first names didn't even have to match up. Most of these people of course were African Americans who we know in large vore democrat. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happened. However, as stated, it's moot now. It was a black spot on democracy for America in my opinion. But, we shall see this time around. Of course unless they give a paper trail to people's votes using the Diebold machines whos' owner has clearly been quoted as saying "I will do any thing to get Bush elected" the election this time may very well come into question again, international observers or not. Would you use your ATM with no receipt, no, probably not, most of us wouldn't. This is what I see as a major problem with the up-coming election. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

True, but some felons who had had their voting privelidges restored weren't allowed to vote, and some people who were not felons at all but merely had similar names and the same birthdates as felons weren't allowed to vote either.
Felons who had their voting rights restored in other states still lost them in Florida, because thats the law of Florida, and they don't go by other state's laws. And to the claim that people who had similar names and birthdates, the only thing I've seen supporting that is the court case of the NAACP vs the State of Florida that ended in a settlement between the two. It hardly had enough evidence to back it up and actually get something done, which is why the NAACP didn't push it.

That being said, where is your proof that Bush "stole" the election? One question for you. Why didn't Gore want the military absentee votes counted? Another lie. He didn't want ones that were mail-stamped after election day to be counted, which is what the rules dictate.

You think having international observers is a good thing? Then you really do believe the stuff you type.

Only Premier Blair is in love with Bush.
But then Blair would probably support Gore too if he won.

I'm sure Chirac, Schroeder and so many others would want to see Bush out.

Felons who had their voting rights restored in other states still lost them in Florida, because thats the law of Florida, and they don't go by other state's laws. And to the claim that people who had similar names and birthdates, the only thing I've seen supporting that is the court case of the NAACP vs the State of Florida that ended in a settlement between the two. It hardly had enough evidence to back it up and actually get something done, which is why the NAACP didn't push it.
Well if Florida doesn't observe that, then they're breaking the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. However, even ignoring that, people were removed from the rolls merely for the suspicion that they were felons, based on an 80% match of information (80% sounds like a lot, but its enough to in theory misidentify thousands upon thousands of people)

You think having international observers is a good thing? Then you really do believe the stuff you type.
Sorry, do you believe that the US should have fair elections or not?

True, but some felons who had had their voting privelidges restored weren't allowed to vote, and some people who were not felons at all but merely had similar names and the same birthdates as felons weren't allowed to vote either.


I thought voting was a RIGHT not a privelidge
:confused:

Sorry, do you believe that the US should have fair elections or not?

Elections on the whole are fair here. If you want true election corruption your looking at the wrong political party. Try the Democrats and their funky Chicago elections (ie Kennedy in 1960). Gotta love how the dead can rise from the grave and make it to the polls.

Why should someone from a foreign land be able to observe our elections? It is just plain stupid. Why not just give up our soverignty and become yet another UN pawn? If an American believes in allowing foreigners to observe our elections for fairness, then they are truly un-American, and traitors.

Well if Florida doesn't observe that, then they're breaking the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. However, even ignoring that, people were removed from the rolls merely for the suspicion that they were felons, based on an 80% match of information (80% sounds like a lot, but its enough to in theory misidentify thousands upon thousands of people)
But I've yet to see something that actually supports this with fact. There was the whole court case which came out in favor of neither the NAACP or State of Florida. The Constitutional debate over whether to allow ex-felons who had their voting rights restored goes down to the fact that its the states who decide who gets to vote or not, so long as they aren't denied that right based on race, gender, age (18). Of course if there's a dispute as to whether the they're unfairly taking away the rights of people, the state can be sued. Florida has not been ordered by the courts to change their system regarding felons.

Has it occured to anyone that if we impeach our president, espescially while in a war, it could cause more problems than solve? The whole thing would become a mess with everyone trying to find a way to power.
i msure some one has already replied, but this statement makes me want ot bang my head on my desk


1) WE ARE NOT AT WAR, PERIOD.

2) the constitution sets up a very clear and defined line of secession should something happen to the president on down for about 5 or 6 ranks of people and the list goes on after that but its not in the constitution

I thought voting was a RIGHT not a privelidge
:confused:

voting is a privalege not a right. Not everyone can vote in the US.

Elections on the whole are fair here. If you want true election corruption your looking at the wrong political party. Try the Democrats and their funky Chicago elections (ie Kennedy in 1960). Gotta love how the dead can rise from the grave and make it to the polls.

Why should someone from a foreign land be able to observe our elections? It is just plain stupid. Why not just give up our soverignty and become yet another UN pawn? If an American believes in allowing foreigners to observe our elections for fairness, then they are truly un-American, and traitors.

No, they believe in exercising their right of free speech.
To deny them that and seek to silence them by declaring them un-American is in itself un-American.
Land of the Free, isn't it?

America is currently the single most powerful nation and is intent on destroying the Middle East. Should this happen then the world will see a major shift in the balance of power.
This seems to hinge mostly on if Bush is allowed into office again or not.
Therefore the world at large cannot sit by and allow any type of corruption in the US elections.
The trouble with being a celebrity is that everyone has an interest in what you do.

Ok this was the compromise when writing the U.S. Constitution. The rich people(The Upper Class) wanted the rich people to elect the President while the poorer people(the regular citizen) wanted it so that everyone could participate in the election of the President. The upper classes point of thought was that if the normal citizen was able to effectively manage their money and life they would have been part of the upper class. After much debate, the decision was made that the 'poorer' people (the regular citizen) would be able to elect Congress (House and Senate) while the rich people would be able to elect the President. That is how the electoral college works. The system works. Every state has the same amount of electoral representatives as congressmen from that state. The traditional way of doing it is that the electoral representative votes usually based upon the popular vote of their particular state. The votes are tallied up but the results aren't 'officially' known until the day when the President elect is inaugurated.

And where is your evidence that America has the intent of destroying the middle east?

voting is a privalege not a right. Not everyone can vote in the US.
Amendment 15, Section 1
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment 19
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any State on account of sex.


the right to vote is also protected in the 26th amendment, care to try again ?

Ok this was the compromise when writing the U.S. Constitution. The rich people(The Upper Class) wanted the rich people to elect the President while the poorer people(the regular citizen) wanted it so that everyone could participate in the election of the President. The upper classes point of thought was that if the normal citizen was able to effectively manage their money and life they would have been part of the upper class. After much debate, the decision was made that the 'poorer' people (the regular citizen) would be able to elect Congress (House and Senate) while the rich people would be able to elect the President. That is how the electoral college works. The system works. Every state has the same amount of electoral representatives as congressmen from that state. The traditional way of doing it is that the electoral representative votes usually based upon the popular vote of their particular state. The votes are tallied up but the results aren't 'officially' known until the day when the President elect is inaugurated.
you have no idea what your talking about do you?

No, they believe in exercising their right of free speech.
To deny them that and seek to silence them by declaring them un-American is in itself un-American.
Land of the Free, isn't it?

America is currently the single most powerful nation and is intent on destroying the Middle East. Should this happen then the world will see a major shift in the balance of power.
This seems to hinge mostly on if Bush is allowed into office again or not.
Therefore the world at large cannot sit by and allow any type of corruption in the US elections.
The trouble with being a celebrity is that everyone has an interest in what you do.

Should we let armed UN peace keepers at our polling places? Our elections are fair enough. The majority of Americans do not want foreign observers here. It is un-American to talk of allowing foreigners here to oversee our sovereign affairs. We are an independent nation, we do not receive our marching orders from the EU, the UN or anyone. But I guess you are too much of a pinko to see that.

And where is your evidence that America has the intent of destroying the middle east?

The fact they keep doing it unnecessarily.
They turn on previous allies as fast as they want to.

Who put the Taliban there?
Who put Saddam there?
Who supports Israel?

They want power there as that's where the oil is.
They want dominion over the oil which is why they seek to drive all competition away, even if it means taking down regimes.
They also have a long term plan which is why the US won't sell of its own oil reserves yet until noone else has any.

Should we let armed UN peace keepers at our polling places? Our elections are fair enough. The majority of Americans do not want foreign observers here. It is un-American to talk of allowing foreigners here to oversee our sovereign affairs. We are an independent nation, we do not receive our marching orders from the EU, the UN or anyone. But I guess you are too much of a pinko to see that.
evil, we shouldnt let foreign nations involve themselves in our sovereign affairs, but it is perfectly fine for us to get involved and intefere in the affairs of sovereign nations without their consent or request

Should we let armed UN peace keepers at our polling places? Our elections are fair enough. The majority of Americans do not want foreign observers here. It is un-American to talk of allowing foreigners here to oversee our sovereign affairs. We are an independent nation, we do not receive our marching orders from the EU, the UN or anyone. But I guess you are too much of a pinko to see that.

But it's your right to tell other nations what they should do?

If your elections are fair then you won't mind other countries watching what happens as then they might too see the brilliance of the American system and use it at home as well?
Why should these officers be armed?
Even if they are; how is that different from your police?

Most of the observation would be merely that; observation. Only if there was gross misconduct like obstruction of a major group from voting would anyone seek to interfere.

If you're such a free country then let others watch too.
With great power comes great responsibility.

"Previous condition of servitude" refers to slavery and indentured servitude. If you commit a felony, you have breached the social contract and surrendered rights.

Amendment 15, Section 1
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment 19
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any State on account of sex.


the right to vote is also protected in the 26th amendment, care to try again ?

He dumbo, non-citizens cannot vote, people under 18 cannot vote. If some people living here cannot vote then it wouldn't be a right. It is only a right if you are of legal citizenship and of legal age. Plus you have to register, you just can't go to the polls and vote.

Just like driving a car butt-nut, it is a privalege, not a right. You have to be 16, so everyone under 16 is denied the legal operation of a motor vehicle. Plus you need to receive a license in order to drive.

Ok, this is just a question to clarify something for me, so don't all the Americans go and bust my balls over it, ok? But considering that evidence has existed, for a while now, to prove that Bush didn't actually win the election that got him his presidency and that it was the result of gross error and/or cheating in the election process, why the hell haven't the american people come forward and had him stripped of the position to either award it to Al Gore or whoever might have won, or simply hold another election. It would have been hard sure, but then again your country is being mis-represented by a globally reviled simpleton who rules like he won on a landslide and not a favour from the governor of florida! :confused:

Because big business owns the gov't and Bush helps big business.

He dumbo, non-citizens cannot vote, people under 18 cannot vote. If some people living here cannot vote then it wouldn't be a right. It is only a right if you are of legal citizenship and of legal age.

Just like driving a car butt-nut, it is a privalege, not a right. You have to be 16, so everyone under 16 is denied the legal operation of a motor vehicle.

Ex-felons are still citizens though.
Once you've served your time then your slate should be clean.
Unless the prison system doesn't work...
But that's just another hole to be dug.

Elections on the whole are fair here. If you want true election corruption your looking at the wrong political party. Try the Democrats and their funky Chicago elections (ie Kennedy in 1960). Gotta love how the dead can rise from the grave and make it to the polls.

Why should someone from a foreign land be able to observe our elections? It is just plain stupid. Why not just give up our soverignty and become yet another UN pawn? If an American believes in allowing foreigners to observe our elections for fairness, then they are truly un-American, and traitors.


Because Americans have observed other elections in third world countries to make sure they were fair.

Thousands of nonthinking persons don't realise that America is republican with a lowercase r. The electoral college keeps the large states from just ruling the smaller states.

Ex-felons are still citizens though.
Once you've served your time then your slate should be clean.
Unless the prison system doesn't work...
But that's just another hole to be dug.

In some states you don't regain your voting privaleges. This is a good idea because after all if you commit a felony you blew it in the eyes of society, and thus have lost your chance, and since you committed a felony you lack proper judgement.

Because Americans have observed other elections in third world countries to make sure they were fair.

Well in America you don't have roving gangs of people killing each other with machetes. The UN has far more experience supervising elections then the US has.

He dumbo, non-citizens cannot vote, people under 18 cannot vote. If some people living here cannot vote then it wouldn't be a right. It is only a right if you are of legal citizenship and of legal age. Plus you have to register, you just can't go to the polls and vote.

Just like driving a car butt-nut, it is a privalege, not a right. You have to be 16, so everyone under 16 is denied the legal operation of a motor vehicle. Plus you need to receive a license in order to drive.
YOU DAMNED IDIOT, no really. look up EVERY voting amendment in teh constitution it says THE RIGHT TO VOTE, voting is a PROTECTED RIGHT in the constitution in manners it has outlined, it is NOT a privilidge, driving IS a privilidge, the constitution does not protect your right to drive a car however it SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY protects the RIGHT to vote, good job dipshit, you dont know how to read

In some states you don't regain your voting privaleges. This is a good idea because after all if you commit a felony you blew it in the eyes of society, and thus have lost your chance, and since you committed a felony you lack proper judgement.

But you've been punished; you've learned your lesson.
Repeat offenders you could use your argument for, but not for one timers.


'The UN has far more experience supervising elections then the US has.'
Therefore they're the best ones to make sure yours are kept fair.

"Previous condition of servitude" refers to slavery and indentured servitude. If you commit a felony, you have breached the social contract and surrendered rights.
Amendment 13, Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as punishment for a crime whereas the party has been duly convicted, , shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to its jursidiction


servitude is EXPLICITLY linked to conviction of a felony. amendment 15 does not say involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. it just says "involuntary servitude. denying ex-felons the right to vote is a violtion of the 14 and 15th amendments

Well, I personally don't get my information from Michael Moore.. however few can deny the evidence that showed that Katherine Harris took thousands of registered democrats off the voters list who had a legal right to vote. We know this. Had she not done that, Gore would be president. As for those who scream about the military votes that came in late, Harris did count them in the official count.

You are right, she did do this....and the liberal media also announced Gore won before the polls, causing thousands of voters in the primarily Republican panhandle to leave, not go to the polls. Democrats also sent out memos to voting districts that attcked the absentee military vote...basically showed them all the things that could have them not counted for technicalities. Also there is the whole under voting/over voting issue. Plus the democrats who were stricken from the voting rosters.

So the truth is in the end there is no final "truth" on who won, because both sides were very shady.

Thousands of nonthinking persons don't realise that America is republican with a lowercase r. The electoral college keeps the large states from just ruling the smaller states.
which has become completely irrelevant when the biggest states have 10 times the electoral votes as a small state

He didn't cheat his way into the white house... that's just how the system works. He won electoral votes, not the popular votes. It's how it works, nothing went wrong, he didn't do anything dishonestly. It might be unfair, it might make you mad, but at the end of the day, that's what happened, live with it.

Elections on the whole are fair here...

Why should someone from a foreign land be able to observe our elections? It is just plain stupid. Why not just give up our soverignty and become yet another UN pawn? If an American believes in allowing foreigners to observe our elections for fairness, then they are truly un-American, and traitors.

I know you already know this, but Americans first asked OSCE monitors to drop by. OSCE-participating nations agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States.

Like you said, You run fair elections. What's there to sweat about.

Here's some facts about OSCE monitors:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/

Dunno about UN involvement. Don't care really. And rest assured, the OSCE observers won't be armed (probably not even in polling stations.).

Who put the Taliban there?
Who put Saddam there?
They put themselves there, mostly.

Every recount, EVERY RECOUNT, including the ones that were technically illegal by Florida law, showed Bush the winner in the state. The more important question is why wasn't the media held accountable for illegally declaring Gore the winner in Florida, even before the Florida polls had closed? How many people, on both sides, do you think DIDN'T vote because they thought Gore had already won? ABC, NBC, and CBS should all be brought outside and shot execution style for gross incompetence and an obvious attempt to influence the results of the election.

They put themselves there, mostly.

Someone helped them.
Someone who turned the tide of the war.
I have no doubt you're smart enough to know to whom I am alluding.

Interestingly, the reason that the US weren't afraid to use their air force was becuase they knew that the US made Taliban missles would not target US planes.

servitude is EXPLICITLY linked to conviction of a felony. amendment 15 does not say involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. it just says "involuntary servitude. denying ex-felons the right to vote is a violtion of the 14 and 15th amendments
Like many legal documents the Constitution isn't as explicit as you might like it and its open for interpretation. Its been interpreted that denying felons the ability to vote is constitutional, at least by some states' Supreme Courts.

Felons and ex-felons don't have the right to vote in Florida.

Come on Kwangistar. If you are up that far on why thousands werent allowed to vote, then you also know that it was a Texas based company with ties to Bush who provided the list of felons and Oops! mistakenly added thousands of names that werent felons, who also happened to be Black (Black voters were 93% for Gore)

Has it occured to anyone that if we impeach our president, espescially while in a war, it could cause more problems than solve? The whole thing would become a mess with everyone trying to find a way to power.

Maybe, but surely its better to impeach him than be led into a war most people seem to be against which can be traced back someway to being the US's fault (funding and training terrorists etc)? I know that impeaching and evicting the president would create a lot of hassle but being led by a loony puppet isn't exactly great either, is it?

Every recount, EVERY RECOUNT, including the ones that were technically illegal by Florida law, showed Bush the winner in the state. The more important question is why wasn't the media held accountable for illegally declaring Gore the winner in Florida, even before the Florida polls had closed? How many people, on both sides, do you think DIDN'T vote because they thought Gore had already won? ABC, NBC, and CBS should all be brought outside and shot execution style for gross incompetence and an obvious attempt to influence the results of the election.
the winner is changed as the poles change..at one time it looks like bush is gonna win, then its gore is gonan win, it goes back and forth, why dont you just go tell the media what they can and cant do oh wait you cant do that, its unconstitutional, especially since saying who did or didnt win is in no way hurting anything or illegal

Like many legal documents the Constitution isn't as explicit as you might like it and its open for interpretation. Its been interpreted that denying felons the ability to vote is constitutional, at least by some states' Supreme Courts.

1) that is an explicit word for word thing, servitude is linked to punishment of a felony, you can be put into involuntary servtiude for committing a crime


2) provide the cases

Someone helped them.
Someone who turned the tide of the war.
I have no doubt you're smart enough to know to whom I am alluding.

Interestingly, the reason that the US weren't afraid to use their air force was becuase they knew that the US made Taliban missles would not target US planes.
Actually, any equipment that the Taliban would have that could have been US made would have been over a decade old by that point, even though most of it is captured Soviet equipment of cheap knock-offs. Saddam came to power in a palace coup in 1979, I think, after the Baath party was already in power for a while, and when the Taliban came to power in 1996 it was supported indirectly (mainly via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) by the US, however, to say that the US put the Taliban and Saddam in power is far from the complete truth, they were a small factor in the grand scheme of things.

Look like I must show the this link that shows all:
Introducing Grand Theft America-
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html

Its a Flash movie about how its possible that a republican helped Bush win unethically: I'm not saying they did though its highly likely, but its not impossible.
Hope you actually listen then consider rather than ignore, ignore ignore.
Thinking and listening is always good even when you don't agree.

1) that is an explicit word for word thing, servitude is linked to punishment of a felony, you can be put into involuntary servtiude for committing a crime


2) provide the cases
Need I provide the cases? Certain states - I think 6 of them now, along with others that have other lesser restrictions - deny felons the right to vote, and this is not a new practice. If it was unconstitutional, I would think that it would have been struck down already, no? There's another series if cases in the courts right now. In July of 2002, there was US District Judge James King who dismissed the case against allowing ex-felons to vote. And it dosen't matter how explicit you get, most likely there's going to be room for interpretation. Look at the "Church and State" debate, where there is nothing that says that, but its interpreted as that anyway even though the strict literal interpretation would provide you with a different ruling in mayn court cases.

I checked the Constitution. It does not say that "No person shall be denied the right to vote on account of crime."
Plus, i think it's really the state's decision to decide whether a criminal regains voting priveliges.

Actually, any equipment that the Taliban would have that could have been US made would have been over a decade old by that point, even though most of it is captured Soviet equipment of cheap knock-offs. Saddam came to power in a palace coup in 1979, I think, after the Baath party was already in power for a while, and when the Taliban came to power in 1996 it was supported indirectly (mainly via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) by the US, however, to say that the US put the Taliban and Saddam in power is far from the complete truth, they were a small factor in the grand scheme of things.

And had they chosen the other side...
So now they put another regime in it's place that suits these times just as the regimes then had suited those times.

And the US supplied arms to the Taliban until they fell from favour.
You can't defend the US and say this is untrue, It's capitalism so is perfectly ethical in capitalist ethics and so not a point I'm going to argue about as that would be pointless.
However, pretending the Taliban were terrorists all along and you never liked them and have finally rid the world of their evil 3 months after selling weapons to them is hypocritical.

However, pretending the Taliban were terrorists all along and you never liked them and have finally rid the world of their evil 3 months after selling weapons to them is hypocritical.
Have any evidence/proof of this, or its just a wild claim? As far as I can tell the Taliban fell out of our favor soon after they came to power in 1996, and the time we supplied them with weapons was back when we suplied the Afghan rebels vs the Soviets back in the 70's and 80's, when they were rather insignificant if there at all.

Chess squares, everyone knows the polls go back and forth, but declaring Gore the WINNER in Florida, when he obviously wasn't, that is trying to influence an election. It's idiotic on anybody's part to think of it in any other context. And if you want to get real dirty on this, there's documented evidence that the media would report every state Gore won as quickly as possible, while holding the bush information for up to three hours for release. The media was trying to influence the outcome of the election, and there's no way anyone can argue their way out of that...

Have any evidence/proof of this, or its just a wild claim? As far as I can tell the Taliban fell out of our favor soon after they came to power in 1996, and the time we supplied them with weapons was back when we suplied the Afghan rebels vs the Soviets back in the 70's and 80's, when they were rather insignificant if there at all.

It was in something like a History magazine a while ago.
Even so, it doesn't matter if the US sold weapons to them in terms of US ethics as that's what capitalism is about.
Explain to me how so many stinger missiles came into their hands.
If you've seen footage of that plane nearly shot down by a stinger then you'll see that the missile simply would not target the plane.
It works like a Roman pilum; it's very clever really and all major countries use it.
However, the US ones are incompatible with the European ones so the US has to swap them for combined missions. When they don't, you start with the friendly fire.

Explain to me how so many stinger missiles came into their hands.
If you've seen footage of that plane nearly shot down by a stinger then you'll see that the missile simply would not target the plane.

Via the support flooding in from nearly everywhere in the anti-Communist and Islamic world during their war with the USSR. This is was not 3 months before 9/11, this was over half a decade before the Taliban even came to power.

Via the support flooding in from nearly everywhere in the anti-Communist and Islamic world during their war with the USSR. This is was not 3 months before 9/11, this was over half a decade before the Taliban even came to power.

Arms were still supplied.
The US didn't oppose the Taliban for a long time while they Taliban did what they wanted.
Where were the human rights issues then?
No matter how you argue, you cannot argue away the fact that the US is hypocritical about the Middle East and seeks to establish its own base of power there.
And I was wrong about the country with the 3 month pre-invasion.
That was Iraq and US companies were the only ones to defy trade barriers.

Well, I didn't say we weren't hypocritical or that we shouldn't have let them get in power, but its a far cry from putting either the Taliban or Saddam in power.

Well, I didn't say we weren't hypocritical or that we shouldn't have let them get in power, but its a far cry from putting either the Taliban or Saddam in power.

Saddam was a Western invention though.
Not just the US admittedly, but Bush tries to act like the US is innocent and not even most Americans believe THAT one.

Saddam was a Western invention though.
Not just the US admittedly, but Bush tries to act like the US is innocent and not even most Americans believe THAT one.
Saddam was supported by the West and even the Communists (the USSR gave him the most amount of weapons out everyone by far) during the Iran-Iraq war. He came to power himself.

you have no idea what your talking about do you?

Chess Squares. I do know what I'm talking about. Its all there. Read the history. Look at the constitution. Everything is there to support the facts. Don't tell me about what I do and do not know. Assumptions are dangerous.

You are right, she did do this....and the liberal media also announced Gore won before the polls, causing thousands of voters in the primarily Republican panhandle to leave, not go to the polls. Democrats also sent out memos to voting districts that attcked the absentee military vote...basically showed them all the things that could have them not counted for technicalities. Also there is the whole under voting/over voting issue. Plus the democrats who were stricken from the voting rosters.

So the truth is in the end there is no final "truth" on who won, because both sides were very shady.

Well this is not exactly accurate, Gore was called the winner after the polls had closed. So any one who wanted to vote had already voted and the polls had been closed. I recall it quite well, it was about 11 PM when they said Gore had won Florida. So your theory is more then a little off. The military votes that were technically illegal because they were post-marked after the due date were in fact counted. The reality is had Katherine Harris not taken thousands of legal voters off the list (which were mostly African American democrats) Gore would in fact be president.

Just like driving a car butt-nut, it is a privalege, not a right.

Butt-nut? You nippin' at the hootch again, HS? :D

Ok, this is just a question to clarify something for me, so don't all the Americans go and bust my balls over it, ok? But considering that evidence has existed, for a while now, to prove that Bush didn't actually win the election that got him his presidency and that it was the result of gross error and/or cheating in the election process, why the hell haven't the american people come forward and had him stripped of the position to either award it to Al Gore or whoever might have won, or simply hold another election. It would have been hard sure, but then again your country is being mis-represented by a globally reviled simpleton who rules like he won on a landslide and not a favour from the governor of florida! :confused:

It no longer matters whether he won or not anymore, we're about to have another election. you should have asked this question 4 years ago. And he did win, the way our system works.

Ok, this is just a question to clarify something for me, so don't all the Americans go and bust my balls over it, ok? But considering that evidence has existed, for a while now, to prove that Bush didn't actually win the election that got him his presidency and that it was the result of gross error and/or cheating in the election process, why the hell haven't the american people come forward and had him stripped of the position to either award it to Al Gore or whoever might have won, or simply hold another election. It would have been hard sure, but then again your country is being mis-represented by a globally reviled simpleton who rules like he won on a landslide and not a favour from the governor of florida! :confused:

Because Bush won the election legally. Deal with it.

1.) There is a direct Constitutional link between crime and community service.
2.) In a state with a Republican State Legislature and a Republican Governor, is it so unlikely that they'll vote for a Republican President?

To all you people who grip about the Bush only winning the electorial college and not the popular vote. First of all, he is not the first President to do so. Second, and most important, it is an institution that ensures that a presidential candidate must take every state into consideration instead of pandering to the two most populous states California and New York. It is because of the electorial college that a state like Florida or any other can be the turning point in an election. If you really want to be disenfranchised, then do away with the electorial college, and you will really grip when those two states elect every president, and they don't even waste the time to run ads in others. We do not live in a pure democracy, but a representative democracy.

For all the people who don't live in the United States and are basing information off the media. 1. There are many of us who believe Bush cheated and have looked into it (not persuaded by Michael Moore) 2. The electoral system was an attempt to give fair representation to even the smaller states because otherwise you could just have California and New York vote. (whether it is working out that way can be debated) 3. I am a republican and I am disgusted by Bush, people can continute to ignore the lies, the government contracts to Haliburton and the financial investment in the oil industry of the Bush family but I wont. He is hiding behind the republican tag and distracting the bible belt by saying, lets make gay marriage illegal. However, there is a strong movement right now, there is even a c.d. flying off the shelf called Rock Against Bush. He made the biggest mistake ever, he mobilised young people who almost always vote liberal. Look around in this chat room, it can't be the rest of the world wrong and only republicans right. Everyone hates us now and it isn't jealousy anymore, our economy isn't very strong. I want to be proud to be American again and right now I am emberassed. I don't believe everything I see or read but he has admitted to lying "exaggerating" to get us into a war. When asked about a good friend of his that works for Enron, he said who, I don't know what that is. I want my president to be an honest man, (or women) preferably one who doesn't deceive the American people with smoke clouds such as I want to ammend the constitution. I don't like Carrey but I don't want a liar representing the republican name or my country. If we don't realise this, we are going to lose a complete young generation who will be resentful to a government that had put the rich man first. Then they will never grow up to be republicans unless they go to bible school.

I thought voting was a RIGHT not a privelidge
:confused:

Not if you are a convicted felon.

Also, curiously, the Supreme Court stopped the recount, which is why many people felt it was done unfairly. Polls closed early, voters who had every right to vote were turned away... and the hanging chad nonsense was also suspect. Throw in that it's Bubba Jeb's state and yes, there was plenty of reason to be suspicious.

Oddly, I have heard that several newspapers did their own unofficial recount, and that Gore still would have lost... it doesn't mean, however, that I don't think there was something awfully fishy about what went on.

The next election in Florida after the Presidential one of 2000 was a disaster too, if I recall.....

So it will be VERY INTERESTING to see how this pans out.

And I am sorry -- but to say Bush should stay in office because we are at war is silly. We're in Iraq PRIMARILY because he had a vendetta against his daddy's enemy, and also because the US and UK had very little information to go on but still sold to the world the idea that Saddam HAD weapons that, at best, there was only a good likelihood he had.

Also, the f*** you, if you're not with us you're against us attitude has strained relations with some very good allies of ours -- another huge mistake -- a bigger one, if you ask me, than presenting the evidence as conclusive.

When the coach of an NFL team blows it, do they replace him the next season, or let the team keep losing????

In some states you don't regain your voting privaleges. This is a good idea because after all if you commit a felony you blew it in the eyes of society, and thus have lost your chance, and since you committed a felony you lack proper judgement.


Wait a minute .... do you honestly believe that a mistake made by someone when they're 18 should translate into their rights when they're 50? I cannot imagine that you're the same person you were when you were 18. Do you think you should be held accountable for bad decisions you made when you were 18?

Don't give me any milarky about how smart and wise you were at 18 ... we were all complete dumbasses at 18 ... it's part of the age.

"Felony" has a strange definition to it. Say some 18 year old kid gets stupid at work and steals a some money from the register and gets caught. Anything over $750 is a Felony in Texas. He didn't stick a gun in anyone's face and he didn't beat anyone up, so he gets 5 years of probation.

He's committed a "Felony". 15 or so years go by and he's never done anything wrong since then and is now a husband and father. Should his voice in those who are supposed to represent him not be heard because of a mistake of his youth? If so, then he can never truly be represented by the Government and, thus, should he not be subject to tax? (No taxation without representation)

Or are you just trolling?