Democratic Convention 2004

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
You've got to have counterbalance on this left wing wackjob of a forum.

Counterbalance? How is it 'counterbalance' when a self-proclaimed libertarian non-Bush voting poster writes in support of Bush? I mean, I couldn't bring myself to support someone who has views on gay marriage, abortion, drugs, government spending (hey, nice deificit there fella) and civil liberties that are completely at odds with my libertarian views.

Anyway, since when were libertarians right wing. Never, as far as I recall. So it kinda makes the comment about this being a left-wing forum (scuse me while I laugh) somewhat irrelevant.

But I guess I can steal a line from Kerry here... "Saying you are a libertarian, doesn't make it so".

 

[Brondbyfan]

Elder, I can't believe you quoted the New York Post. Quote Fox News while you're at it. Quote Goebbels. Same thing.

The thing about the legislation we were talking about earlier that is so interesting is that the Patriot Act hit the lawmakers desks so quickly after 9/11 that it was clearly sitting on a shelf long before 9/11. What conclusion do we draw? The first conclusion is that, because the Patriot Act existed before 9/11, it has nothing to do with 9/11, and thus could not have been designed to prevent such attacks. Secondly, because it existed before 9/11 but was only released in the wake of that tragedy, its authors were waiting for such a "Pearl Harbor" to release it. Now we must ask ourselves, since they clearly so wanted this act to be passed, but knew it could only pass in a climate of fear spawned by something like 9/11, would they allow such a tragedy to pass in order to enact this law?

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I think you're a little too paranoid Brondbyfan. I think it's more possible that writing the Patriot Act gave Ashcroft and his friends such a huge hardon that they cranked it out (bad pun sorry, wasn't intended) as fast as they could.

 

[rhizome17]

Ashcroft will have you hung for such use of sexual innuendo.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

And one more thing...probably the most heinous crime of the 2000 election in Florida was a list of "felons" who were not allowed to vote. The list contained around 47,000 people and the state admitted after the election that thousands of names should not have been taken off the record.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63781,00.html

The truth is out there Elder, but you can't just dismiss it as sour grapes or BS. People tend to do that to opinions that don't jive with their own.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Who would have thought that the Reichstag fire would turn out to be Hitler's own doing?

 

[Brondbyfan]

Also, since Elder had such a problem with Kerry's botox, let's see what he has to say about this one:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000631.html

 

[Virgo]

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Counterbalance? How is it 'counterbalance' when a self-proclaimed libertarian non-Bush voting poster writes in support of Bush? I mean, I couldn't bring myself to support someone who has views on gay marriage, abortion, drugs, government spending (hey, nice deificit there fella) and civil liberties that are completely at odds with my libertarian views.

Anyway, since when were libertarians right wing. Never, as far as I recall. So it kinda makes the comment about this being a left-wing forum (scuse me while I laugh) somewhat irrelevant.

But I guess I can steal a line from Kerry here... "Saying you are a libertarian, doesn't make it so".

Actually I think I have been arguing against Kerry more than I have been supporting Bush. I won't be voting for Bush in November, and that is for the reasons you listed above. It's the same reason I didn't voted for him the first time. What I find fascinating is the level of hatred for the man, and the fact that they would support someone like Kerry, a guy who is willing to say and do anything to get a vote, just to get Bush out. If they honestly think this country will be better with Kerry, then that's okay with me. But the problem I see is that nobody actually likes Kerry, but are willing to vote for him out of hatred for Bush. That's worse than having Bush himself in my opinion. At least I know where Bush stands on the issues... With Kerry, it's something different every day.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Elder, I can't believe you quoted the New York Post. Quote Fox News while you're at it. Quote Goebbels. Same thing.

The fact that you link the New York Post with Goebbels is rather intersting. I guess I can start linking the New York Times with such murderous people like Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Get a clue.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Also, since Elder had such a problem with Kerry's botox, let's see what he has to say about this one:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000631.html

Uh yeah... Bush is in the public eye every day of his life... someone might have seen the bruising caused by surgery on a nose.

Keep trying...

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Originally posted by Elder
The fact that you link the New York Post with Goebbels is rather intersting. I guess I can start linking the New York Times with such murderous people like Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Get a clue.

I agree, it's stupid. But Bill O'Reilly did it on his VERY highly rated primetime show when he likened Michael Moore to Goebbels. What's the worse offense, some Carlos*ass on a forum, or one of the most watched men in America?

 

[Elder]

Shifty*ERETZ:

I applaued you for going through all the effort to post such a long reply. I'll give my quick version of things.


First off, if someone "overvotes", meaning punch two names for President, that vote is spoiled and should be thrown out. How did they think to go about counting these overvotes? Only for Al Gore or what? My opinion, honestly, is that if you aren't smart enough to just punch one button for President, you shouldn't be voting. And if you know you made a mistake, get a new card... Maybe some people went in there pinching two on purpose... you have to throw ALL overvotes away to be fair.

The most "liberal" standards was in reference to pregnant chads, dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. Think about it logically... What if someone went into the booth, started to punch for Gore or whoever, made a little tiny mark, and then changed their minds and didn't punch all the way through. This would have coutned as a "vote." You can't honestly discern the "intent" of the voter by looking at a piece of paper. You need to find the ******* voter and ask him or her!!

The Equal Protection argument was the basis for the Surpreme Court decision, or am I wrong? You can't go around finding the intent of the voter, for just certain counties in the ENTIRE country! If Gore was a man, he would have done what Nixon did when there was obvious voter fraud for Kennedy... let it go, and come back to win it 4 years later. In fact, there are cases of voter fraud all over the country for democrats in close elections, but they went unchallenged. They would have been challenged if Bush lost Florida though.


Anyway, for me it's very simple. I know for those on the side who lost it's not, but I didn't vote for Bush in the first place so I didn't have a dog in the fight. I also don't blame Florida on Gore losing. I blame Gore himself for losing. He lied and got caught too much, he 3 different personalites at each of the debates, he couldn't carry his own home state, he left Clinton out when he should have kept him in, he was an android with no personality, and basically, he just wasn't meant to be President.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
I agree, it's stupid. But Bill O'Reilly did it on his VERY highly rated primetime show when he likened Michael Moore to Goebbels. What's the worse offense, some Carlos*ass on a forum, or one of the most watched men in America?

He did?!?! hahahahaha, that's funny as ****. Not veyr bright of O'reilly, but I do get his point. His point being that Goebbels was the master of propoganda, just as Moore is also. Kind of funny, but not very appropriate considering Moore isn't getting people killed. I think O'Reilly is becoming too much for himself.

 

[Vagegast]

Originally posted by Elder
The military is not pro democrat. There is a reason for that... democrats tend to **** all over the miltary whenever they can.

With the Department of Defense using about 400 billion in taxmoney we're allowed to sh*t on them once in a while. Like when they kill and tortuse innocent people in their jails in foreign countries.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Originally posted by Elder
He did?!?! hahahahaha, that's funny as ****. Not veyr bright of O'reilly, but I do get his point. His point being that Goebbels was the master of propoganda, just as Moore is also. Kind of funny, but not very appropriate considering Moore isn't getting people killed. I think O'Reilly is becoming too much for himself.

Well the funny part was when he was interviewing a former Clinton aide and he said "no, you're wrong, I was simply saying that Goebbles was a Propagandaist, just like Michael Moore is a Propagandaist; I was mearly explaining what Propaganda was. We can get the tape if you want, but that wasn't my intention"

And the aide goes "You know full well that it was your intention to link them" Bill completely denied trying to connect them.

Elder, 97% of the overvotes should be thrown out, but the 3% where people voted for a candidate and then wrote the same candidate in, clearly shows what their intent was.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Well the funny part was when he was interviewing a former Clinton aide and he said "no, you're wrong, I was simply saying that Goebbles was a Propagandaist, just like Michael Moore is a Propagandaist; I was mearly explaining what Propaganda was. We can get the tape if you want, but that wasn't my intention"

And the aide goes "You know full well that it was your intention to link them" Bill completely denied trying to connect them.

Elder, 97% of the overvotes should be thrown out, but the 3% where people voted for a candidate and then wrote the same candidate in, clearly shows what their intent was.

Of course Bill was trying to link them! What a tool for not having the guts to at least admit that.

And I am with you on the 3 percent part. If someone did actually write in a name, and it was the same name as was punched or whatever, then it should be counted. BUt the dimples pimples and hangers should be trashed. Hopefully they got rid of that crap for this election, or no matter how large the vote margin is, there will be chaos.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Vagegast
With the Department of Defense using about 400 billion in taxmoney we're allowed to sh*t on them once in a while. Like when they kill and tortuse innocent people in their jails in foreign countries.

Well, **** on them then. But don't go shaking their hands as a photo op in a Wendy's...

But it's funny how I don't hear anything about killing and torturing of people in other countries, at the hands of brutal dictators and the like. Don't you think, as a world who cares about the "innocent" that these dictators should be brought up more often? Nah, I didn't think so either.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Originally posted by Elder
Uh yeah... Bush is in the public eye every day of his life... someone might have seen the bruising caused by surgery on a nose.

Keep trying...

Not really, since Bush is on vacation all the time. He'd have plenty of time to get his nose done while supposedly on the ranch.

 

[Pontiakos]

Originally posted by Elder

But it's funny how I don't hear anything about killing and torturing of people in other countries, at the hands of brutal dictators and the like. Don't you think, as a world who cares about the "innocent" that these dictators should be brought up more often? Nah, I didn't think so either.

.....um the U.S. supports those dictators today....like it supported Saddam in the early 80s......maybe that's why you don't hear much about them