PDA

View Full Version : Another gem from our GENIUS President



Meatwad
08-05-2004, 03:12 PM
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0620_BC_Bushism&&news&election2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."



LOL

ohall
08-05-2004, 03:13 PM
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0620_BC_Bushism&&news&election2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."



LOL


Damn who knew, MM was right!

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 03:34 PM
Damn who knew, MM was right!

Oliver...

Told you so. :lol:

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 06:35 PM
But to be fair, that is taken out of context. He was saying that they never stop thinking about what harm terrorists could to the country. But why would terrorists attack our country when Bush is doing enough harm himself?

Karl_12
08-05-2004, 09:03 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/08/bushsignsdefensebill-1.gif

DolphinDevil28
08-05-2004, 09:37 PM
Do you even want me to begin a list of all the dumb things Kerry has said?

Do you have a lot of free time?

Karl_12
08-05-2004, 10:00 PM
Do you even want me to begin a list of all the dumb things Kerry has said?

Do you have a lot of free time?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 10:19 PM
Do you even want me to begin a list of all the dumb things Kerry has said?

Do you have a lot of free time?

I got lots of free time, do show.

Clumpy
08-05-2004, 11:54 PM
Bush is a moron

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 02:43 AM
Do you even want me to begin a list of all the dumb things Kerry has said?

Do you have a lot of free time?

Please do, because this is a consistence pattern of Bush...he's a non speaking, non thinking puppet on a string who embrasses us at every opportunity he gets to speak..I can't stand knowing this Man is our president. I've never heard of any of our President being this dump..It goes on and on and on...Has the standard for intelligence in our president been lowered that much where they can't even speak clearly without what we heard yet again today...it's enough...anybody, and I mean anybody but bush..it's too degrading...we are the laughing stock of the world and all the conservative can do is defend him because he's in a party....that doesn't say too much about you guys..it's like he can be retarted, but as long as he's party man we'll stand behind him..this clearly shows he's not running the country, he can't even articulate his thoughts to his cabinet to do anything.

ohall
08-06-2004, 02:49 AM
Please do, because this is a consistence pattern of Bush...he's a non speaking, non thinking puppet on a string who embrasses us at every opportunity he gets to speak..I can't stand knowing this Man is our president. I've never heard of any of our President being this dump..It goes on and on and on...Has the standard for intelligence in our president been lowered that much where they can't even speak clearly without what we heard yet again today...it's enough...anybody, and I mean anybody but bush..it's too degrading...we are the laughing stock of the world and all the conservative can do is defend him because he's in a party....that doesn't say too much about you guys..it's like he can be retarted, but as long as he's party man we'll stand behind him..this clearly shows he's not running the country, he can't even articulate his thoughts to his cabinet to do anything.

LoL I'd like to see how any of you would handle doing speach after speach day in day out. What a joke.

I swear some of you act like Kerry is this perfect public speaker. If Bush is flawed there, Kerry is 10 times more flawed. The mic he uses everyday has more personality than he does by far!

Oliver...

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 02:58 AM
LoL I'd like to see how any of you would handle doing speach after speach day in day out. What a joke.

I swear some of you act like Kerry is this perfect public speaker. If Bush is flawed there, Kerry is 10 times more flawed. The mic he uses everyday has more personality than he does by far!

Oliver...


I've done public speaking. It's relatively easy if you are prepared. The one time I had a problem (word pronunciation), I made it part of my opening statement and it was in the form of a joke. My audience laughed and I gave my presentation. Bush lack of public speaking prowess is evident and makes him much less credible. Kerry is 10 times the public speaker

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:08 AM
LoL I'd like to see how any of you would handle doing speach after speach day in day out. What a joke.

I swear some of you act like Kerry is this perfect public speaker. If Bush is flawed there, Kerry is 10 times more flawed. The mic he uses everyday has more personality than he does by far!

Oliver...


Again excuses for him,,do you want your president to have some simulance of intelligence...just a little, I could see if this was every great once and awhile, but he's done it so much that the washington post did a story on it and the number of lapses by him could fill 2 pages of the paper..that's bad..can you hear him negoiating with another country..I can't believe you actually defended this. Use your head and not your party.

ohall
08-06-2004, 03:25 AM
Again excuses for him,,do you want your president to have some simulance of intelligence...just a little, I could see if this was every great once and awhile, but he's done it so much that the washington post did a story on it and the number of lapses by him could fill 2 pages of the paper..that's bad..can you hear him negoiating with another country..I can't believe you actually defended this. Use your head and not your party.

You do not graduate from Harvard and I believe Yale unless you are an intelligent person. As I have said many times his accent is his thing, and so is the way he delivers his words. It’s all a part of having his opponents take him lightly. This is how he destroyed Gore in the debates and how he will do it with Kerry. During those types of debates you will see the real Bush, someone who can speak the English language as well as any other politician. I am shocked how so many of you have not caught on to that yet. Didn't you watch the Gore/Bush debates in 2000? If you did you should know exactly what I'm talking about. The only candidate stumbling and bumbling in those debates were Mr. Gore.

When they fill those 2 pages I'll speak about that, and everyone knows the Wash. post is a liberal leaning news paper, what else are they going to say?

Oliver...

ohall
08-06-2004, 03:28 AM
I've done public speaking. It's relatively easy if you are prepared. The one time I had a problem (word pronunciation), I made it part of my opening statement and it was in the form of a joke. My audience laughed and I gave my presentation. Bush lack of public speaking prowess is evident and makes him much less credible. Kerry is 10 times the public speaker

I'm not sure what your public speaking abilities has anything to do with Kerry or Bush. And I don't agree with your assessment of Kerry public speaking abilities. This is the man that almost put the audience asleep when he was talking to the NAACP I believe. I’d rather have a cowboy candidate speaking American than a politician who pronounces every word so well the Queen of England would blush while putting everyone to sleep.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:33 AM
You do not graduate from Harvard and I believe Yale unless you are an intelligent person. As I have said many times his accent is his thing, and so is the way he delivers his words. It’s all a part of having his opponents take him lightly. This is how he destroyed Gore in the debates and how he will do it with Kerry. During those types of debates you will see the real Bush, someone who can speak the English language as well as any other politician. I am shocked how so many of you have not caught on to that yet. Didn't you watch the Gore/Bush debates in 2000? If you did you should know exactly what I'm talking about. The only candidate stumbling and bumbling in those debates were Mr. Gore.

When they fill those 2 pages I'll speak about that, and everyone knows the Wash. post is a liberal leaning news paper, what else are they going to say?

Oliver...

Or unless your father is a politician..His accent had nothing to do with the statement he made today..that's a full face lie and terrible excuse. He doesn't think..period...the real bush is rehearse and rehearse when you see the debate, things like today was the real bush..I'm telling you I can't really stand to hear him talk,,and I'm from FL..just as southern as anyone..I was born and raised there..but he's rediculous, Clinton had a accent too being from Ark...but you didn't hear him make these mistakes, as you guys call them, continuously or you didn't hear his Father make them..I could listen to Bush 1 without be embasses..his son just doesn't measure up..this is the dummy down of America everyone refers to..now I can tell little kids you don't have to speak good, see the president can't either and you too might become president.. :lol:

ohall
08-06-2004, 03:41 AM
Or unless your father is a politician..His accent had nothing to do with the statement he made today..that's a full face lie and terrible excuse. He doesn't think..period...the real bush is rehearse and rehearse when you see the debate, things like today was the real bush..I'm telling you I can't really stand to hear him talk,,and I'm from FL..just as southern as anyone..I was born and raised there..but he's rediculous, Clinton had a accent too being from Ark...but you didn't hear him make these mistakes, as you guys call them, continuously or you didn't hear his Father make them..I could listen to Bush 1 without be embasses..his son just doesn't measure up..this is the dummy down of America everyone refers to..now I can tell little kids you don't have to speak good, see the president can't either and you too might become president.. :lol:

The majority of ppl who graduate from those schools have more wealth than Bush, even more than Kerry. They do not sell their diplomas, period.

No he misspoke; he didn't mispronounce a word or sentence. Let's not forget the gaff Kerry made the other day. I thought we were talking about how he talks and how he pronounces the English language?

Of course he thinks, he's a human being who is the President of the United States. Stop insulting yourself that way.

I heard Clinton make mistakes just like anyone else. They are all human, none of them are perfect. Clinton's thing was how he connected with ppl. His southern accent was not his hook.

And no you don't have to speak English well to be President; you can speak American well and become the President of the United States of America. I couldn't think of a better message to send everyone in this country. You're looking at this from a very snobbish POV. It seems to be a real problem for some of you.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:59 AM
The majority of ppl who graduate from those schools have more wealth than Bush, even more than Kerry. They do not sell their diplomas, period.

No he misspoke; he didn't mispronounce a word or sentence. Let's not forget the gaff Kerry made the other day. I thought we were talking about how he talks and how he pronounces the English language?

Of course he thinks, he's a human being who is the President of the United States. Stop insulting yourself that way.

I heard Clinton make mistakes just like anyone else. They are all human, none of them are perfect. Clinton's thing was how he connected with ppl. His southern accent was not his hook.

And no you don't have to speak English well to be President; you can speak American well and become the President of the United States of America. I couldn't think of a better message to send everyone in this country. You're looking at this from a very snobbish POV. It seems to be a real problem for some of you.

Oliver...

Bottom line does Bush speak like a Havard or Yale grad as we know it..and if you're earnest you have to say NO..but if you're a party man, you'll find an excuse.

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 01:14 PM
The majority of ppl who graduate from those schools have more wealth than Bush, even more than Kerry. They do not sell their diplomas, period.

Oliver...

This stat is total BS. So most of the 20 something thousand kids that go there have hundreds of millions of dollars? Is that what you are saying?

GWB may not have bought his diploma, but he sure as heck got help getting in. Please don't tell me you think otherwise.

ohall
08-06-2004, 05:17 PM
Bottom line does Bush speak like a Havard or Yale grad as we know it..and if you're earnest you have to say NO..but if you're a party man, you'll find an excuse.

As I've said yes he does when he's throws out his cowboy act. When he debated Gore in 2000 he spoke perfect English and totally dominated Gore in logic and the self confidence he displayed for everyone to see.

One day you all will understand he puts on an accent and while talking in a way he normally does not talk he makes mistakes because it is an act. Again every politician has their act/hook.

It's all a part of him making ppl he's stupid, and when it counts he leaves the stupid act behind.

Oliver...

ohall
08-06-2004, 05:19 PM
This stat is total BS. So most of the 20 something thousand kids that go there have hundreds of millions of dollars? Is that what you are saying?

GWB may not have bought his diploma, but he sure as heck got help getting in. Please don't tell me you think otherwise.

Yes the majority of the kids going there I believe are very rich. Obviously in today's world, a dif world than when Bush #43 attended those schools, they now have to give away scholarships to minority groups.

Not BS, it's called reality.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
08-06-2004, 05:30 PM
Yes the majority of the kids going there I believe are very rich. Obviously in today's world, a dif world than when Bush #43 attended those schools, they now have to give away scholarships to minority groups.

Not BS, it's called reality.

Oliver...

Most of the kids who go there are rich because of the prices of the school but they get in because they are extremely smart at the same time. However, you can buy your way into a school like Yale by donating large amounts of money to the school, and I have no doubt in my mind that GWB got into Yale because of that. S126 posted that he got a "1206" on his SAT, that score is impossible to get because every SAT score ends in 0, but anything in the 1200s is not the type of score you need to get into a school like Yale. I personally doubt anyone with English skills as poor as his could pull off a 1200 even with an amazing math section though. :) Yeah, you need to be rich to afford it (unless you get financial aid), but you also need something like a 1400 on your SAT which is very high along with perfect grades and a lot of other things to even have a chance of getting in. I got a 1260 which is among the top 20 percent of the country and I would guess that a 1400 would be among the top 5 percent. There is no way that Bush got into Yale based on merit.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 05:31 PM
As I've said yes he does when he's throws out his cowboy act. When he debated Gore in 2000 he spoke perfect English and totally dominated Gore in logic and the self confidence he displayed for everyone to see.

One day you all will understand he puts on an accent and while talking in a way he normally does not talk he makes mistakes because it is an act. Again every politician has their act/hook.

It's all a part of him making ppl he's stupid, and when it counts he leaves the stupid act behind.

Oliver...

I disagree, but that's the beauty of these discussions, we're Americans and we can do that. But the stupid seems to follow him around.. :lol:

Section126
08-06-2004, 06:09 PM
Most of the kids who go there are rich because of the prices of the school but they get in because they are extremely smart at the same time. However, you can buy your way into a school like Yale by donating large amounts of money to the school, and I have no doubt in my mind that GWB got into Yale because of that. S126 posted that he got a "1206" on his SAT, that score is impossible to get because every SAT score ends in 0, but anything in the 1200s is not the type of score you need to get into a school like Yale. I personally doubt anyone with English skills as poor as his could pull off a 1200 even with an amazing math section though. :) Yeah, you need to be rich to afford it (unless you get financial aid), but you also need something like a 1400 on your SAT which is very high along with perfect grades and a lot of other things to even have a chance of getting in. I got a 1260 which is among the top 20 percent of the country and I would guess that a 1400 would be among the top 5 percent. There is no way that Bush got into Yale based on merit.


I got that 1206 number from a Democratic Website where they were comparing his SAT with Al Gore's (1310).........

I further researched it and found a Boston Glode Article that put the number at 1260......

Bush got into Yale because his SAT at the time was acceptable if you have a "legacy" as far as alumni in Family.......

I got a 1250 on my SAT and was not accepted to U of M.......I was also below standard to enter FIU...but because my father had gone to FIU..I was accepted....

On the other hand....How do you explain Bush getting into Harvard and getting his MBA there?

Harvard is a heavily Democratic institution and he still got in.....DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT? Probably not......

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 06:21 PM
On the other hand....How do you explain Bush getting into Harvard and getting his MBA there?




Harvard is a heavily Democratic institution and he still got in.....DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT? Probably not......

EXACTLY!!!

Can YOU explain that?

YOU DONT GET INTO THE MBA PROGRAM AT HARVARD BY GETTING Cs IN COLLEGE!!!!

He had help from daddy. You proved MY point.

CirclingWagons
08-06-2004, 06:21 PM
I got that 1206 number from a Democratic Website where they were comparing his SAT with Al Gore's (1310).........

I further researched it and found a Boston Glode Article that put the number at 1260......

Bush got into Yale because his SAT at the time was acceptable if you have a "legacy" as far as alumni in Family.......

I got a 1250 on my SAT and was not accepted to U of M.......I was also below standard to enter FIU...but because my father had gone to FIU..I was accepted....

On the other hand....How do you explain Bush getting into Harvard and getting his MBA there?

Harvard is a heavily Democratic institution and he still got in.....DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT? Probably not......
****-It-University...I went there from fall of 02-spring 03 :D ..so many hot girls on the 2nd floor at University Park Towers dorm during that time.

Section126
08-06-2004, 06:31 PM
EXACTLY!!!

Can YOU explain that?

YOU DONT GET INTO THE MBA PROGRAM AT HARVARD BY GETTING Cs IN COLLEGE!!!!

He had help from daddy. You proved MY point.



So a bunch of Democrats decided to help a Republican with a Republican Congressman father get into their SHRINE of a University.....

Sorry...that doesn't hold water.

ohall
08-06-2004, 06:34 PM
EXACTLY!!!

Can YOU explain that?

YOU DONT GET INTO THE MBA PROGRAM AT HARVARD BY GETTING Cs IN COLLEGE!!!!

He had help from daddy. You proved MY point.

That's your opinion. That most certainly is not a fact however.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 06:41 PM
So a bunch of Democrats decided to help a Republican with a Republican Congressman father get into their SHRINE of a University.....

Sorry...that doesn't hold water.


I want you to tell me that George Bush got into the best MBA program in the country by getting C's in college. I want you to tell me that.

GHWB was more than just a measley congressman. That's why he eventually became ambassador to China, Head of the CIA, VP for 8 years and Pres for 8. Not the normal Congressman... And yes, he had connections. Just because he was a REP doesn't mean he couldn't pull strings. Come on man, you're really trying to say that there were never any REPS who got into Harvard because of connections?

Sorry...THAT doesn't hold any water.

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 09:25 PM
That's your opinion. That most certainly is not a fact however.

Oliver...Dude, take off the REP shades for a minute and use common sense...

Does it make sense to you that a man who gets C's in college can get into the best MBA program in the country without getting any help? Do you really think that makes sense...I couldn't get into my program at Michigan State with more than a couple of C's. Now you're telling me that Harvard accepts C students, even in the 1970's?

Explain how you think that works?

Also, just because an institution isn't hurting for money doesn't mean they don't want more. It's called capitalism...Don't use that excuse.

ohall
08-06-2004, 10:14 PM
Dude, take off the REP shades for a minute and use common sense...

Does it make sense to you that a man who gets C's in college can get into the best MBA program in the country without getting any help? Do you really think that makes sense...I couldn't get into my program at Michigan State with more than a couple of C's. Now you're telling me that Harvard accepts C students, even in the 1970's?

Explain how you think that works?

Also, just because an institution isn't hurting for money doesn't mean they don't want more. It's called capitalism...Don't use that excuse.

Yup makes sense to me. Until I see proof that strings were pulled I have no reason to not believe he earned everything has in his life.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
08-07-2004, 12:55 AM
I got that 1206 number from a Democratic Website where they were comparing his SAT with Al Gore's (1310).........

I further researched it and found a Boston Glode Article that put the number at 1260......

Bush got into Yale because his SAT at the time was acceptable if you have a "legacy" as far as alumni in Family.......

That means that Bush got in because he had a legacy, which means that he didn't get in because he deserved to get in but got in because a family member went there! Thanks for proving my point.


I got a 1250 on my SAT and was not accepted to U of M.......I was also below standard to enter FIU...but because my father had gone to FIU..I was accepted....

You are either lying or had really crappy grades. There is no way that a 1250 is below standard at FIU. This is what the college board says about how FIU students did on their SATs:

Middle 50% of
First-Year Students Percent Who
Submitted Scores
SAT I Verbal: 480-570
SAT I Math: 480-570

http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=2472

Those in the 75th percentile on either subject got a 570. If someone scored in the 75th percentile among FIU students in both sections, they would only have an 1140. Since it is likely that those who scored in the 75th percentile in one section did worse on the other section, the 75th percentile is going to be lower than an 1140. There is no way that a 1250 is below standard at FIU, it is actually way above standard. I also checked Princeton Review, and they say the average SAT score at FIU is an 1163 (different sources always come up with different numbers, I have a guidebook that doesn't have FIU but has a bunch of other colleges and princetonreview.com always seems to have higher average SAT scores than other sources). Even if that number is inflated, which it probably is, your score is still way above standard.


On the other hand....How do you explain Bush getting into Harvard and getting his MBA there?

Harvard is a heavily Democratic institution and he still got in.....DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT? Probably not......

Considering that he was a horrible college student, he probably gave the school a lot of money to get into their MBA program.

ABrownLamp
08-07-2004, 12:37 PM
Yup makes sense to me. Until I see proof that strings were pulled I have no reason to not believe he earned everything has in his life.

Oliver...
That's just utter ignorance. Until you see that strings were pulled? What do you want a written trascript of the conversation? Use your head...

The guy makes C's in college and gets into Harvard...
His father is a powerful congressman and has millions of dollars...
Put 2 and 2 together. There is no evidence that he DID get in on his merits

DolFan31
08-07-2004, 01:09 PM
As I've said yes he does when he's throws out his cowboy act. When he debated Gore in 2000 he spoke perfect English and totally dominated Gore in logic and the self confidence he displayed for everyone to see.

One day you all will understand he puts on an accent and while talking in a way he normally does not talk he makes mistakes because it is an act. Again every politician has their act/hook.

It's all a part of him making ppl he's stupid, and when it counts he leaves the stupid act behind.

Oliver...

Thats the weakest excuse you've come up for Bush as of yet. Why would he want people to think he's stupid? Why woulkd he act stupid at certain times then "turn smart" when it counts? Thats so stupid I cant even contemplate what you just said because its so ridiculously stupid. The ignorance that plagues you and your party!

ohall
08-07-2004, 04:25 PM
That's just utter ignorance. Until you see that strings were pulled? What do you want a written trascript of the conversation? Use your head...

The guy makes C's in college and gets into Harvard...
His father is a powerful congressman and has millions of dollars...
Put 2 and 2 together. There is no evidence that he DID get in on his merits

LoL, yes I'd like some proof, not more signs of DEM paranoia!

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-07-2004, 05:19 PM
LoL, yes I'd like some proof, not more signs of DEM paranoia!

Oliver...

I'm not being paranoid. Just basing my beleifs on what common sense and facts tell me. If you weren't so blinded by partisanship, you would agree with me.

Everythin GWB has gotten in his life was because of connections. From his education to his oil company to his stint with the Rangers, to his political career. I'm not saying John Kerry didn't get his either...but let's not kid ourselves. GWB is just a regular dude with really rich parents and a whole lot of connections.

Section126
08-07-2004, 05:56 PM
I'm not being paranoid. Just basing my beleifs on what common sense and facts tell me. If you weren't so blinded by partisanship, you would agree with me.

Everythin GWB has gotten in his life was because of connections. From his education to his oil company to his stint with the Rangers, to his political career. I'm not saying John Kerry didn't get his either...but let's not kid ourselves. GWB is just a regular dude with really rich parents and a whole lot of connections.


Not true.......When Bush started his first Oil company, he started it with $250,000....that's it....when that company went belly up...he then took to brokering deals between companies because he got his foot in the door first......He brokered about 400 million in deals of which he took home 5% of all sales......Trust me....nobody hands you commissions based on who your daddy was or is.....you got to work it to find Buyers and sellers.......He used some of that money to get into the rangers.......

MDFINFAN
08-07-2004, 09:21 PM
Not true.......When Bush started his first Oil company, he started it with $250,000....that's it....when that company went belly up...he then took to brokering deals between companies because he got his foot in the door first......He brokered about 400 million in deals of which he took home 5% of all sales......Trust me....nobody hands you commissions based on who your daddy was or is.....you got to work it to find Buyers and sellers.......He used some of that money to get into the rangers.......

So let me get this straight, he can't run his own business which he started with $250000, where did he get that from? but someones going to let him broker deals for them, when he couldn't broker it for himself...Hmmm, Now it just so happen that that someone, wait, one of those someones, just happens to be the Royal Family, who knew who very well..Mmm Mmm, GB1, okay no privelegde involved, hey i hear you, your hooked..when someone wants to believe something, it's hard to see it another way or even want to give it the remote possibly that it would be another way..I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I try to be open minded enough to know the possibility exist.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2004, 01:34 AM
Yeah...like anybody in the last quarter century has gotten to the White House without a ton of connections. Christ, John Kerry not only started out as a member of one of the wealthiest families in America, he was also firends with the Kennedy's. How many more connections does a Democrat need? What's more, if he DOES become President, it will be due more to the stupid mistakes of his opponent than any merit of his own. How's THAT for getting something without deserving it?

Section126
08-08-2004, 12:35 PM
So let me get this straight, he can't run his own business which he started with $250000, where did he get that from? but someones going to let him broker deals for them, when he couldn't broker it for himself...Hmmm, Now it just so happen that that someone, wait, one of those someones, just happens to be the Royal Family, who knew who very well..Mmm Mmm, GB1, okay no privelegde involved, hey i hear you, your hooked..when someone wants to believe something, it's hard to see it another way or even want to give it the remote possibly that it would be another way..I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I try to be open minded enough to know the possibility exist.


He never dealt with the Saudi Royal family at that time....all his Brokered deals are documented...they were all with American Companies. Will you please stop with these LIES?

Bling
08-08-2004, 02:26 PM
Please do, because this is a consistence pattern of Bush...he's a non speaking, non thinking puppet on a string who embrasses us at every opportunity he gets to speak..

1 has nothing to do with the other. Do you know what good public speaking is? Many people lack it. You seem unintelligent when you can't speak well in public....



.....And you seem unintelligent for not knowing that.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2004, 02:32 PM
Please do, because this is a consistence pattern of Bush....

What's wrong with Bush's "consistence"? Is he too mushy? Too solid? Do we need to add water or flour? What is the proper "consistance" of a US President? ;) BTW...when are you going to continue writing speeches for Jesse Jackson?

Bling
08-08-2004, 02:35 PM
Most of the kids who go there are rich because of the prices of the school but they get in because they are extremely smart at the same time. However, you can buy your way into a school like Yale by donating large amounts of money to the school, and I have no doubt in my mind that GWB got into Yale because of that. S126 posted that he got a "1206" on his SAT, that score is impossible to get because every SAT score ends in 0, but anything in the 1200s is not the type of score you need to get into a school like Yale. I personally doubt anyone with English skills as poor as his could pull off a 1200 even with an amazing math section though. :) Yeah, you need to be rich to afford it (unless you get financial aid), but you also need something like a 1400 on your SAT which is very high along with perfect grades and a lot of other things to even have a chance of getting in. I got a 1260 which is among the top 20 percent of the country and I would guess that a 1400 would be among the top 5 percent. There is no way that Bush got into Yale based on merit.


I thought we weren't taught to judge a book by its cover? Is Kerry now going to preach how Bush really didn't show up to school and they gave him a passing grade still? Any idiot that bases their opnion on Bush for his college degree needs to ask themselves 1) Who cares? 2) You knew his High School GPA? I can gurantee it's better than yours.

Democrats should really stop with this crap that happened 30 years ago, and judge the man on what he's doing today and how much more beneficial it is than Kerry.

ABrownLamp
08-08-2004, 02:59 PM
Not true.......When Bush started his first Oil company, he started it with $250,000....that's it....when that company went belly up...he then took to brokering deals between companies because he got his foot in the door first......He brokered about 400 million in deals of which he took home 5% of all sales......Trust me....nobody hands you commissions based on who your daddy was or is.....you got to work it to find Buyers and sellers.......He used some of that money to get into the rangers.......
Dude you are ridiculous...WHO HAS 250,000 DOLLARS AND THE ABILITY TO START UP AN OIL COMPANY!!!!!????

Again, I'm not saying Kerry hasn't had his fair share...But this whole charade you guys are trying to pull about GWB being his own man, and EARNING everything he ever got is total BS.

First of all GWB had 50 investors cough up 4.7 million dollars to Arbusto, which they all subsequently lost. I won't even get into who those investors were... My point is, GWB did not get 250,000 dollars from hard work, and it certainly wasn't hard work which convinced 50 people to give him almost 5 million in investments.

Next when Arbusto went belly up, it was bought out by Spectrum 7. The owners of which were not only staunch Bush and Reagan supporters who donated tons of money to their cause, but who were also OWNERS OF THE TEXAS RANGERS!!! They sold him a share of the team and made him one of the two GMs. Hey, what were his qualifications to become GM of a baseball team anyway?? Several years of operating a failing business, or connections from his father. I tend to beleive the latter.

Again, I don't know why you have such a difficult time beleiving GWB got everything he has because of his father. Kerry is a rich snob too. GWB just puts on a better act. Come on man, you know he doesn't know the first thing about life on a ranch. The guy doesn't even know how to ride a horse (see Putin visit to Crawford, Texas)

ABrownLamp
08-08-2004, 03:17 PM
I thought we weren't taught to judge a book by its cover? Is Kerry now going to preach how Bush really didn't show up to school and they gave him a passing grade still? Any idiot that bases their opnion on Bush for his college degree needs to ask themselves 1) Who cares? 2) You knew his High School GPA? I can gurantee it's better than yours.

Democrats should really stop with this crap that happened 30 years ago, and judge the man on what he's doing today and how much more beneficial it is than Kerry.
I think its much more disgusting to delve into exactly "how brave" a man was in a war 30 years ago than it is to examine their academic life.
BTW we are judging him on what he does today. See previous posts.

ohall
08-08-2004, 04:13 PM
I'm not being paranoid. Just basing my beleifs on what common sense and facts tell me. If you weren't so blinded by partisanship, you would agree with me.

Everythin GWB has gotten in his life was because of connections. From his education to his oil company to his stint with the Rangers, to his political career. I'm not saying John Kerry didn't get his either...but let's not kid ourselves. GWB is just a regular dude with really rich parents and a whole lot of connections.

Still waiting for the proof.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-09-2004, 04:57 PM
Still waiting for the proof.

Oliver...

Stop stonewalling. There will never be enough proof for you.

This is the last time I say it because I don't want to belabor this silly thing anymore...

You can't get into Harvard with C's unless you have some pull. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

George Bush Sr. had money and clout. Those two things are clearly what got GWB into school, what got him his first oil company, what got him a job as manager for the Texans, and what led to his political tenure. Everyone knows it, including you.

PhinPhan1227
08-09-2004, 05:16 PM
Stop stonewalling. There will never be enough proof for you.

This is the last time I say it because I don't want to belabor this silly thing anymore...

You can't get into Harvard with C's unless you have some pull. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

George Bush Sr. had money and clout. Those two things are clearly what got GWB into school, what got him his first oil company, what got him a job as manager for the Texans, and what led to his political tenure. Everyone knows it, including you.


I can agree with all of that...I also know that Kerry's family and influence got him home early from Vietnam, got him into school, and got him elected to office. What's more it has kept him in office despite not doing anything of any note. Bush at least would have won reelection based on the fact that Texas was VERY happy with him as Governor.

DolFan31
08-09-2004, 06:11 PM
Stop stonewalling. There will never be enough proof for you.

This is the last time I say it because I don't want to belabor this silly thing anymore...

You can't get into Harvard with C's unless you have some pull. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

George Bush Sr. had money and clout. Those two things are clearly what got GWB into school, what got him his first oil company, what got him a job as manager for the Texans, and what led to his political tenure. Everyone knows it, including you.

Actually, according to The House of Saud/Bush, Bush Sr. didnt help Dubya with his first oil company. Investors close to the Bush family, including James R. Baath(and Jim Baker I believe), helped him with his first and other oil companies. Bush Sr. didnt have a direct financial stake in it, but businessmen close to him did.

ohall
08-09-2004, 09:45 PM
Stop stonewalling. There will never be enough proof for you.


If you can't show proof I would then hope no one would go along with this type of angry jealous fiction.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 01:31 AM
If you can't show proof I would then hope no one would go along with this type of angry jealous fiction.

Oliver...

I think it's things like this that calls into question his getting consideration that you and I probably wouldn't get in his situation.

Bush Oil Business (http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background_4.htm)

G. Bush as Jr. (http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm)

Bush Family Values (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html)

If this was Clinton, I know every Bush faithful would be screaming bloody murder and congress would have double the investigation money. This is why people question things like this, common sense dictates that one would at least think about it...then again, I did say common sense. that would require someone to think on their own. I say this is the OJ of oil and influence..Must be nice to have a father in high places. :roflmao: Can't wait to read the rebuttals, mostly it'll be something about the sources, even if one is a Texas paper itself. I don't know much about the other news groups. But in most books and report, pretty much the same info is written. I tried to stay away from known Democratic sources..can't say I was perfect but I did try to find non partisan sources.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 02:56 AM
I think it's things like this that calls into question his getting consideration that you and I probably wouldn't get in his situation.

Bush Oil Business (http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background_4.htm)

G. Bush as Jr. (http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm)

Bush Family Values (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html)

If this was Clinton, I know every Bush faithful would be screaming bloody murder and congress would have double the investigation money. This is why people question things like this, common sense dictates that one would at least think about it...then again, I did say common sense. that would require someone to think on their own. I say this is the OJ of oil and influence..Must be nice to have a father in high places. :roflmao: Can't wait to read the rebuttals, mostly it'll be something about the sources, even if one is a Texas paper itself. I don't know much about the other news groups. But in most books and report, pretty much the same info is written. I tried to stay away from known Democratic sources..can't say I was perfect but I did try to find non partisan sources.

I have no doubt that Bush used his and his families influence to get ahead. But what about Kerry getting relations with Vietnam normalized so that his cousin could win the rebuilding rights? Ask any member of POW/MIA what they think of THAT move.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 03:17 PM
I have no doubt that Bush used his and his families influence to get ahead. But what about Kerry getting relations with Vietnam normalized so that his cousin could win the rebuilding rights? Ask any member of POW/MIA what they think of THAT move.

Can't argue with that, I'm defintely not here to defend Kerry, he's not my first choice for President. I just think he's a better choice over Bush for lack of alternatives. But PhinPhan1227 thanks for at least acknowlegding that influence could have been used. Most want even come close to thinking something like that was used.

Section126
08-10-2004, 04:19 PM
Actually, according to The House of Saud/Bush, Bush Sr. didnt help Dubya with his first oil company. Investors close to the Bush family, including James R. Baath(and Jim Baker I believe), helped him with his first and other oil companies. Bush Sr. didnt have a direct financial stake in it, but businessmen close to him did.


Not true......Bush Sr. gave GWB $250,000 to start his first company...it is common knowledge.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 04:40 PM
Can't argue with that, I'm defintely not here to defend Kerry, he's not my first choice for President. I just think he's a better choice over Bush for lack of alternatives. But PhinPhan1227 thanks for at least acknowlegding that influence could have been used. Most want even come close to thinking something like that was used.

Well MD, if you would read my posts instead of just labeling me a Bush flunkie you would know that I have a list of candidates...some of whom are Democrats, who I would prefer to have as President. I have listed on this site just SOME of my complaints about Bush. But Kerry is WORSE. Kerry violates EVERY tenet of EVERY leadership course I've ever taken. Pop quiz...what one factor comprises the worst possible attribute of a leader?

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 06:56 PM
Well MD, if you would read my posts instead of just labeling me a Bush flunkie you would know that I have a list of candidates...some of whom are Democrats, who I would prefer to have as President. I have listed on this site just SOME of my complaints about Bush. But Kerry is WORSE. Kerry violates EVERY tenet of EVERY leadership course I've ever taken. Pop quiz...what one factor comprises the worst possible attribute of a leader?

I do read your posts, but you've been bashing me so much about writing, and not being who I am, that's you haven't really give me much to learn about you. You don't think Bush violates those same tenets? My answer would be Lying...and Bush does that well. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 07:08 PM
I do read your posts, but you've been bashing me so much about writing, and not being who I am, that's you haven't really give me much to learn about you. You don't think Bush violates those same tenets? My answer would be Lying...and Bush does that well. :D


Speaking and writing are two different things(although it sounds like you translate one directly into the other). I'm not dismissing your opinion because of your poor writing skills MD, I'm only dismissing your back story. I don't have to worry about that with Bush, I actually saw him get elected.

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 02:49 PM
Speaking and writing are two different things(although it sounds like you translate one directly into the other). I'm not dismissing your opinion because of your poor writing skills MD, I'm only dismissing your back story. I don't have to worry about that with Bush, I actually saw him get elected.

See no you didn't you saw the supreme court put him in, there is a fuzzy area there. yea we're disagree from here to eternity about it, but it's our opinion and that's what counts, doesn't it? :lol:

BAMAPHIN 22
08-11-2004, 04:29 PM
Yes, the Supreme Court validated President Bush appointment... but his younger brother Gov. Jebb Bush ensured his election...

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 04:33 PM
See no you didn't you saw the supreme court put him in, there is a fuzzy area there. yea we're disagree from here to eternity about it, but it's our opinion and that's what counts, doesn't it? :lol:


RAMPANT freaking ignorance!!! The Supreme Court ONLY told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't violate the Forida Constitution, and change election laws which they had NO authority to do. The US Supreme Court upheld the Florida Constitution and placed a time limit on recounts. That's ALL they did. I saw Bush get elected as CLEARLY stated by the US Constitution. You remember, it's that document you swore to uphold when you joined the military? You do remember that oath right?

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 04:54 PM
RAMPANT freaking ignorance!!! The Supreme Court ONLY told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't violate the Forida Constitution, and change election laws which they had NO authority to do. The US Supreme Court upheld the Florida Constitution and placed a time limit on recounts. That's ALL they did. I saw Bush get elected as CLEARLY stated by the US Constitution. You remember, it's that document you swore to uphold when you joined the military? You do remember that oath right?


Well there are those of us, who think things were done a little shady in FL, which cause all of this, FL was attempting to fix what they saw as a problem too. We all know the rest..I forgot this was a hot button for Bush supporters as it is for Dem's. There is a lot of argument by scholars on this subject and they didn't state it as simply as you. That argument you used has been argued and there's still scholars who don't agree with you. It's not as simple as you state. Ignorance in this case is only for those who don't agree with you. As you show your mannerism, your character, your inability to disagee without criticism, I'm finding that I gave you too much respect as you are the kind of person who won't apologize for calling someone something, a fool is what I'm seeing, and those who defend Bush in the mannor you do are low lifes. Can't say that about all of you. There are a lot of people on this board with some class. Just those who can't debate without the name calling. That is getting too personal, I've tried to stay above this, but it's getting to the point I'm going to use a few choice words if this continues..I'll give you plenty of gammar to correct and remark about then.. :fire:

BAMAPHIN 22
08-11-2004, 04:56 PM
Be that as it may that the Supreme Court interpret the Florida Supreme Court Laws.. Apparently they were not aware of people being denied to vote in the State that received so much visiabilty during that election period... The lessons the general population learned throughout the country was that in the 60's there was agreat effort put forth to ensure that all Americans were granted the rights to vote... In the early 2000's it reflected that inspite of those efforts your vote did not really count... So how constitutional is that...

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 05:12 PM
Well there are those of us, who think things were done a little shady in FL, which cause all of this, FL was attempting to fix what they saw as a problem too. We all know the rest..I forgot this was a hot button for Bush supporters as it is for Dem's. There is a lot of argument by scholars on this subject and they didn't state it as simply as you. That argument you used has been argued and there's still scholars who don't agree with you. It's not as simple as you state. Ignorance in this case is only for those who don't agree with you. As you show your mannerism, your character, your inability to disagee without criticism, I'm finding that I gave you too much respect as you are the kind of person who won't apologize for calling someone something, a fool is what I'm seeing, and those who defend Bush in the mannor you do are low lifes. Can't say that about all of you. There are a lot of people on this board with some class. Just those who can't debate without the name calling. That is getting too personal, I've tried to stay above this, but it's getting to the point I'm going to use a few choice words if this continues..I'll give you plenty of gammar to correct and remark about then.. :fire:


Ignorance was certainly the appropriate word. Stating that the Supremes "appointed" Bush is as ignorant as stating that he was AWOL from the Guard. It's JUST NOT ACCURATE. You can certainly argue improper election practices. I would never call you ignorant for that. But eh Cupremes UPHELD THE LAW. They didn't appoint anyone...they didn't fix anything. They looked at the Florida Constitution which does NOT allow the Florida Supreme Court to alter the election process, and they upheld the Florida Constitution. Plain and simple. They SET A TIME LIMIT. If the EC had been determined to be certified for Gore in that time, then Gore would have won...it didn't and he wasn't. BTW, had they NOT set that time limit, it STILL wouldn't have made a difference. All the FLORIDA Supremes stated was that a full recount of the pro-Gore counties would be allowed. Even if that had happenned, the recount would have STILL gone for Bush. There was no provision made for "disinfranchised" blacks. So none of those non-votes would have counted ANYWAY. The only result would have been that Bush would have had even LESS time before taking office. That's it.Can you show anything otherwise? Can you show me any POSSIBILITY that the "disinfranchised" non-votes would have somehow been counted? Because if you can't than your argument is total BS. BTW, as for giving me "respect", you started off our discussions by mislabeling me as a Republican in utter ignorance(again) of my background and beliefs. If that's how you show "respect", I welcome any changes in your behavior since it seems to me you have nowhere to go but up.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 05:16 PM
Be that as it may that the Supreme Court interpret the Florida Supreme Court Laws.. Apparently they were not aware of people being denied to vote in the State that received so much visiabilty during that election period... The lessons the general population learned throughout the country was that in the 60's there was agreat effort put forth to ensure that all Americans were granted the rights to vote... In the early 2000's it reflected that inspite of those efforts your vote did not really count... So how constitutional is that...

It's immaterial to this election. Any votes not cast were gone. The Florida Supremes were ONLY trying to allow extra time for Dade/Broward/PB to be recounted. No provision was ever mentioned for disinfranchised votes. No provision for such votes was even possible. Had the violation of the Florida Constitution been allowed and ONLY those three counties recounted, Bush STILL would have won. That has been put to rest by THREE seperate recounts conducted by different media outlets, some QUITE liberal.

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 05:23 PM
It's immaterial to this election. Any votes not cast were gone. The Florida Supremes were ONLY trying to allow extra time for Dade/Broward/PB to be recounted. No provision was ever mentioned for disinfranchised votes. No provision for such votes was even possible. Had the violation of the Florida Constitution been allowed and ONLY those three counties recounted, Bush STILL would have won. That has been put to rest by THREE seperate recounts conducted by different media outlets, some QUITE liberal.

Hey why he's on the net, bamaphin is the guy I said to ask about my military record, otherwords the fact that I was in the Military, ask him.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 05:34 PM
Hey why he's on the net, bamaphin is the guy I said to ask about my military record, otherwords the fact that I was in the Military, ask him.

Ok...um...Bamaphin...kindly relate to us your years of time spent with MDFinFan while he was in the military...oh...and kindly find a way of proving that you are not MDFinFan posting under a different user name while you are at it. Once again MD, I'm not really looking to go round and round with you on this. I'd prefer to actually ATTEMPT to stick to the relevent facts...which BTW, we could have done if you had just avoided your "when I was working in Area 51" comments.

BAMAPHIN 22
08-11-2004, 05:55 PM
You are correct that the disinfranshised votes were immaterial... But they should have been.. The reported incidents leading up to these controversies should have been throughly investigated... Their were numerous inconsistencies notied throughout the various Florida counties that were strategically overlooked.... That was an outraged...The Florida citizens should have demanded for a statewide referendum for re-election...That process would have enable and permeated fairness throughout that state... If that would have taken place we would been discussing issues about Vice President Gore instead of Govenor Bush...

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 06:36 PM
You are correct that the disinfranshised votes were immaterial... But they should have been.. The reported incidents leading up to these controversies should have been throughly investigated... Their were numerous inconsistencies notied throughout the various Florida counties that were strategically overlooked.... That was an outraged...The Florida citizens should have demanded for a statewide referendum for re-election...That process would have enable and permeated fairness throughout that state... If that would have taken place we would been discussing issues about Vice President Gore instead of Govenor Bush...


Actually, no you probably wouldn't have. The disenfranchised voters for Gore are balanced out by the disenfranchised voters for Bush in the Panhandle. All that aside, can you show me where the Constitution of either Florida or the US allows for a recount in that situation? You've heard of the Constitution right? It's that thing that you...I mean..MDFinFan...took when he swore to uphold when he joined the military.

ohall
08-11-2004, 06:41 PM
Actually, no you probably wouldn't have. The disenfranchised voters for Gore are balanced out by the disenfranchised voters for Bush in the Panhandle. All that aside, can you show me where the Constitution of either Florida or the US allows for a recount in that situation? You've heard of the Constitution right? It's that thing that you...I mean..MDFinFan...took when he swore to uphold when he joined the military.

Exactly, but when you bring up the fact that some Bush voters didn't go to the polls because the election was already called most DEM's just ignore that reality. It doesn't fit their lil conspiracey theory so it's a non factor to them.

Oliver...

P4E
08-11-2004, 06:55 PM
Mod Note: 1227 and MDFINFAN, the two of you have had profound differences of opinion on political matters and on some matters that are very personal. I commend you both for showing a lot of patience in keeping these discussions civil. MDFINFAN, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that you've shown great patience in responding to questions about your service. PhinPhan1227, it puts me in a tough spot to be a moderator here -- where we have a policy against derogatory personal attacks on other members -- and to bear witness to one member suggesting that another is lying about their military credentials. Were it not for the fact that you've expressed objective reasons for your doubts, I would have stepped in as a mod and asked that you ease up on this sooner. I don't see it as a specific violation to challenge someone on the basis you have, but it is clearly up against that line where it could reasonably be construed as personal.

Since we are all friends here, I will put on my mod cap and the caps that designate me as a friend to each of you... and, in the interest of the forum as a whole, I will ASK you each to step back a bit and lighten up on the personal antagonisms. Insightful posts beat inciteful ones hands down.

Thanks,
P4E

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 07:23 PM
Mod Note: 1227 and MDFINFAN, the two of you have had profound differences of opinion on political matters and on some matters that are very personal. I commend you both for showing a lot of patience in keeping these discussions civil. MDFINFAN, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that you've shown great patience in responding to questions about your service. PhinPhan1227, it puts me in a tough spot to be a moderator here -- where we have a policy against derogatory personal attacks on other members -- and to bear witness to one member suggesting that another is lying about their military credentials. Were it not for the fact that you've expressed objective reasons for your doubts, I would have stepped in as a mod and asked that you ease up on this sooner. I don't see it as a specific violation to challenge someone on the basis you have, but it is clearly up against that line where it could reasonably be construed as personal.

Since we are all friends here, I will put on my mod cap and the caps that designate me as a friend to each of you... and, in the interest of the forum as a whole, I will ASK you each to step back a bit and lighten up on the personal antagonisms. Insightful posts beat inciteful ones hands down.

Thanks,
P4E

No problem man...in fact I've already suggested two or three times that we avoid the issue and just stick to the political issues. I'm more than happy to drop it.

Bling
08-11-2004, 08:44 PM
Mod Note: 1227 and MDFINFAN, the two of you have had profound differences of opinion on political matters and on some matters that are very personal. I commend you both for showing a lot of patience in keeping these discussions civil. MDFINFAN, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that you've shown great patience in responding to questions about your service. PhinPhan1227, it puts me in a tough spot to be a moderator here -- where we have a policy against derogatory personal attacks on other members -- and to bear witness to one member suggesting that another is lying about their military credentials. Were it not for the fact that you've expressed objective reasons for your doubts, I would have stepped in as a mod and asked that you ease up on this sooner. I don't see it as a specific violation to challenge someone on the basis you have, but it is clearly up against that line where it could reasonably be construed as personal.

Since we are all friends here, I will put on my mod cap and the caps that designate me as a friend to each of you... and, in the interest of the forum as a whole, I will ASK you each to step back a bit and lighten up on the personal antagonisms. Insightful posts beat inciteful ones hands down.

Thanks,
P4E


:up:
Good move

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 03:27 AM
Ok...um...Bamaphin...kindly relate to us your years of time spent with MDFinFan while he was in the military...oh...and kindly find a way of proving that you are not MDFinFan posting under a different user name while you are at it. Once again MD, I'm not really looking to go round and round with you on this. I'd prefer to actually ATTEMPT to stick to the relevent facts...which BTW, we could have done if you had just avoided your "when I was working in Area 51" comments.

Phinphan, I read pe4's statement and he's right, but clearly bama and I are different people, just read his writing style :lol: Which is the only credible question of my being an Officer, which really isn't a bases for being an Officer. I wasn't going go into this, but the biggest thing is that one either finish college with a bs degree or one is working on his degree at the time of commissioning. Once you're commission then you have to complete your OBC course. Funny thing is I completed one of the hardest Army schools, FA. Funny how writing didn't stop me. Mmm, could it be that we weren't tested on writing? Let's see, I had to learn how to used the TFT's to find firing solutions to point howtizers to targets, didn't require writing, but a lot of math. What else, oh, yea, how to adjust fire as a fist team member, Umm a lot of writing to call in a fire mission, I can see it now, I'm on the radio, hold up guys I have to write this down, yea I know you can't see it, because I will be saying it over the radio, Left 50, Drop 50 FFE, (Fire for effect). Let's see, TCAD, now that took a lot of writing, how is the FA organized to go to war with the rest of the Armed forces, especially the infantry. Yep a lot of writing there. I don't think so, it was more stragety than writing. Shooting a howitzer takes a lot of writing skills, ya think? As you've guessed by now, the test were like any other, mulitply choice, or questions and give the answer, and a lot of hands on testing. Of course like just about all schools in the military or Army at least, you must pass your PT test. Didn't have time to write while I did pushups, situps and run 2 miles. Writing wasn't tested for some reason, I guess they felt that it was best for a person to know how to run a FA battery than how to be an excellent writer, believe me, and there's plenty of Officers who are not good writers. I had that discussion while in the Military. Oh yea, before you asked, A person who is commissioned while still working on this degree, basically he has to have an Associated degree, must finish college with a bs before they can be promoted to Major. Any way I did serve in the army as an Officer, never said anything about area 51, but I said I studied the Iraq area while in Optec, I did work on a black program that had implications in Iraq, as in some testing was done there, but that had nothing to do with studying Iraq for informational purposes and the fact that the Gulf war 1 was about to start did kind of tweat my interest. I saw more indepth info in the black program areas on Iraq, and yes it help form some of my opinions, especially the after action reports. The revelent fact was that I stated that Iraq was no threat to us, and I listed the reasons. 1. Gulf war 1 swipe out most of their Military, 2. Their equipment was destroyed as well, remember the highway of death, that was just one picture of the destruction, there were plenty more. 3. He never had a chance to rebuild his tanks and other equipment. 4. his planes to my knowledge weren't returned to him. (the ones he sent to other countries when he knew we were blowing them up as soon as we found them). 5. Soon after the War, as a part of the peace agreement, he had to destroy all WMD's, reason for the inspections and inspectors, yea, maybe? 6. The inspectors were verifying the destruction of WMD and we watch film of this on the news, we knew those weapons were being destroyed. 7. We blew up numberous buildings suspected of being plants that could create WMD. Remember the baby factories?. 8. The reason I stated he really never rebuilt was because for the first 5-7 years after the war, he was under embargoes, Oil selling rations and other restrictions design to ensure he couldn't rebuild his military. The whole time the inspectors were there and could go any place on a minutes notice. Even with the back and forth with the inspectors, weapons were still being destroyed. He only had a few fighter plans left and he defintely couldn't go anywhere. 9. It was us who ordered the inspectors out in 98 or 99. 10. We've had a force there the whole time enforcing the no fly zones, so he's been surrounded in his own country..you think we didn't do a little spying? We knew he was pissed at us, do you honestly think we didn't keep tabs?
The only question I thought was legit in this whole mess, was how many WMD's did Iraq start with, that's the only question that wasn't answered properly at the beginning of the inspections. I actually believe not that many, since he used some pre Gulf war 1 on both Iran and his own people. I really think the inspectors destroyed just about everything, if not everything he had. I still think that's why we haven't found anything. And if we have not found anything, then what credible proof could we have provided prior to the war, none, if we don't know where they are and we couldn't show any pictures or name any sites that they were at prior to the war, what was our evidence for going to war? Remember right before the war, we asked the inspectors to check out certain sites and they found nothing there. At that time they had free passage, because Saddam was trying to stop our invasion. 11. Finally, after seeing the war and seeing little to no resistance and seeing no WMD used on us, or found, and seeing he had hardly any tanks or howitzers or anything else to defend himself, can't you see why I stated that to my knowlegde and reading the things I saw after the first gulf war that I didn't think him a threat. Can you guys SEE where I'm coming from..just a little. And please do not refer to pre Gulf war 1 when he use chemicals on his people, that was pre destruction orders. He's had no chance to build weapons the last 12 years, I'm sure the same intelligence who told the administration that he had WMD, had to have seen or knew where he was building them. :shakeno: Anyway there's no way he starts a program without our knowing, We have some very sophisticated equipment to help us keep tabs on people, especially a country who lacked the technology to keep up with us and stop us, defintely lacked the funds, even thought he misused the funds he did get, building palaces, what a jerk. Even that doesn't take away from the fact there's NOthing now, and if there's nothing but some planned programs to build WMD, which you guys say they found, I remember something reported, but not the specifics, plans without actual buildings=nothing. So why, with the evidence you now have, continue to defend a flawed and questionable war. You can stick with the "he believed he had evidence", well we've already debated why he shouldn't have come to that conclusion, ie, he had no concrete proof, as in pictures and other things to back up his belief. That in itself such cause a reasonable person to stop and think. "Hmmmm"

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 10:54 AM
Jesus MD...if you went through FA school you MUST know what the word "drop" means, but apparently you've chosen to ignore it. All that aside...you're research must have been pretty crappy. Saddam didn't BUILD any of his weapons except for some small arms. Everything he had he bought. And another FYI..sanctions were not in place for 5-7 years. Sanctions were in place until AFTER WE INVADED. 12 years of sanctions. The impact on the Iraqi people has been well documented, they were being starved to death. So along with everything else, your "kinder, gentler" liberal mindset includes allowing millions of people to be slowly strangled to death. Now, assuming that you MIGHT recognize that it's nessesary that the sanctions be ended in one way or the other, lets take a look at what happens AFTER the sanctions end. Saddam is capable of pumping out more oil than any other country besides the Saudi's. And what does he have to spend that money on? Civil development programs? Education for the Kurds? Welfare? Or just maybe...um...tanks...fighters...SPG's...oh, and as another little income source, he can sell chem and bio weapons to terrorist groups. So give him MAYBE 10 years and he's got a military MORE than capable of sweeping south to the tip of the Arabian penninsula. And this time he's got a better threat to try to keep it. Burning the Kuwaiti rigs sucked but it was livable. Torch all the wells in Iraq, Kuwait, AND Arabia and the western world shuts down in 4 months. THAT'S the threat of Saddam. THAT'S what makes Saddam different. Show me another dictator that has attacked two of his neighbors? Show me another dictator with that revinue source. Show me another dictator that can threaten THAT kind of damage to a region THAT important. Lastly, show me a dictator who is THAT ripe for overthrow. Show me those things and I will agree that we should have gone after him and left Saddam alone. Now, as for moving the WMD's, are you aware that our close observation allowed Saddam's sons to move 4 tractor trailers worth of cash out of the country just prior to the invasion? 4 tractor trailers. Do you know how much chem/bio material will fit into 4 tractor trailers? Here's a clue...there was a descrepency between the WMD's we knew Saddam had before Gulf War I and the WMD's that we knew were destroyed/used during/after Gulf War I. The amount of those Chem/bio weapons would have fit on roughly 12-15 tractor trailers. So we already know that we missed 4, and that's WHILE we were patrolling the border in preparation for an invasion. That is an established fact. So how is it unlikely that we didn't miss more? Iraq is the size of California. I guess you guys weren't working on a better geo stat satelite because our ability to keep Iraq locked up was about as good as Jamar Fletchers ability to keep Eric Moulds locked up. Almost as important, how is it that with all your research, you still don't know how poor/thin our intelligence gathering abilities were in Iraq? We're not talking about identifying soviet ICBM's on a boat here. We're talking about being able to tell the difference between an asparin factory and a factory which turns out Serin. Just FYI...you need Human Intel for that because nothing we've got in the air will tell you that. But with your extensive research I'm sure you already know that.

Section126
08-12-2004, 11:20 AM
The Florida Supremes in their last decision said that they would take the results from an incomplete recount of Dade County and credit those votes to GORE......as it turns out...The areas that were left out of that recount was............Well, of course......HEAVILY Cuban populated areas that went 80% for Bush.......

If you don't think that the Florida Supremes were trying to fix the election...then I can't help you......

BTW, why do you think that the last decision by the Florida Supremes was 4 to 3 with the Chief Justice of the court saying in the minority that the Decision was a blatant violation of Florida Law and that The US Supremes should reverse it immediately?

You know why? Because 3 out of the 7 Florida Supremes thought that the attempted theft of the election by those dishonorable 4 was getting to the point were "criminal" was going to be a descriptive term.

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 12:17 PM
Jesus MD...if you went through FA school you MUST know what the word "drop" means, but apparently you've chosen to ignore it. All that aside...you're research must have been pretty crappy. Saddam didn't BUILD any of his weapons except for some small arms. Everything he had he bought. And another FYI..sanctions were not in place for 5-7 years. Sanctions were in place until AFTER WE INVADED. 12 years of sanctions. The impact on the Iraqi people has been well documented, they were being starved to death. So along with everything else, your "kinder, gentler" liberal mindset includes allowing millions of people to be slowly strangled to death. Now, assuming that you MIGHT recognize that it's nessesary that the sanctions be ended in one way or the other, lets take a look at what happens AFTER the sanctions end. Saddam is capable of pumping out more oil than any other country besides the Saudi's. And what does he have to spend that money on? Civil development programs? Education for the Kurds? Welfare? Or just maybe...um...tanks...fighters...SPG's...oh, and as another little income source, he can sell chem and bio weapons to terrorist groups. So give him MAYBE 10 years and he's got a military MORE than capable of sweeping south to the tip of the Arabian penninsula. And this time he's got a better threat to try to keep it. Burning the Kuwaiti rigs sucked but it was livable. Torch all the wells in Iraq, Kuwait, AND Arabia and the western world shuts down in 4 months. THAT'S the threat of Saddam. THAT'S what makes Saddam different. Show me another dictator that has attacked two of his neighbors? Show me another dictator with that revinue source. Show me another dictator that can threaten THAT kind of damage to a region THAT important. Lastly, show me a dictator who is THAT ripe for overthrow. Show me those things and I will agree that we should have gone after him and left Saddam alone. Now, as for moving the WMD's, are you aware that our close observation allowed Saddam's sons to move 4 tractor trailers worth of cash out of the country just prior to the invasion? 4 tractor trailers. Do you know how much chem/bio material will fit into 4 tractor trailers? Here's a clue...there was a descrepency between the WMD's we knew Saddam had before Gulf War I and the WMD's that we knew were destroyed/used during/after Gulf War I. The amount of those Chem/bio weapons would have fit on roughly 12-15 tractor trailers. So we already know that we missed 4, and that's WHILE we were patrolling the border in preparation for an invasion. That is an established fact. So how is it unlikely that we didn't miss more? Iraq is the size of California. I guess you guys weren't working on a better geo stat satelite because our ability to keep Iraq locked up was about as good as Jamar Fletchers ability to keep Eric Moulds locked up. Almost as important, how is it that with all your research, you still don't know how poor/thin our intelligence gathering abilities were in Iraq? We're not talking about identifying soviet ICBM's on a boat here. We're talking about being able to tell the difference between an asparin factory and a factory which turns out Serin. Just FYI...you need Human Intel for that because nothing we've got in the air will tell you that. But with your extensive research I'm sure you already know that.

I said after the war the sanctions started, not before, with all that you said, it's just speculation. You don't know what would have happened. Regardless of what we may think of Saddam, and I called him a Jerk, he’s done some horrible things to his people. But so has every nation, and it Africa there more horror. But, he still didn't have anything to be a threat to us. If people could invade people based on what they might have in the future, then the world would be trying to invade us. Again, there's no proof of having anything before this war started. Good presentation by you on what could happen. BTW, I never said Saddam built his arsenal, I pointed out that in Gulf War 1, we bomb what we considered buildings were weapons could be built or chemicals stored, i.e. the baby milk factories. I didn't get into how he got his weapons. Bush should hire to you to paint who Kerry is, you do a good job of distorting things. Also I didn't say they were in place for only 5-7 years, I said the first 5-7 years, there's a difference. As you’ve asked me, I now ask you, did you read what I wrote or did you scan the text and come up with a response without really reading? The established fact is we don't know what we missed in those trailers, because we never saw what was there, only assumed, and of course you know what assumptions can make you. We're looking just like one right now with nothing to show for our "reasons to go to war". NO WMD, No ties to Al Quida. No matter how you peel it, slice it, spin it, or blow smoke, you got nothing as the bottom line. I say again, NO WMDs. I've also stated that there was no real Military there. No nothing. So as the world looks at us, they have to be shaking their heads. We’ve proved nothing, and your crystal ball on what could happen is not justification for what we did, we needed to be right, and we weren't. You have to apply the same principles to others as you want them applied to you. I'm a proud American, and proud of this Country, I never want it to look like a fool to know one. I won't make excuses for us if I feel we were in error, and in this case, we have no proof to show we were right. We do have however, new enemies, new recruits for Al Quida, We still have Iran, Pakistan. Korea; Bin Laden is still out there. We have insurgents taking pot shots at our troops and the people of Iraq. We have elevated alerts just about every month. We have new laws that allow the gov't to spy on us, even though it's meant for bad guys, remember we're dealing with people and people are corrupt. We do have a big, big Budget deficit. And most of all, I hate this with a passion; we have other civilized countries looking at us like monsters, with no respect, liars and bullies. We have set the bar high now, when other countries decide to invade another country and say that country was going to be a threat to them, and we disapprove, what the hell are we going to say. We'll come after you if you do. We've lost the moral advantage to question others for a long time my friend. You guys see the short term and don't think of all the ramifications of our actions and there's more. But I've already written a book here, so I’ll stop here until your rebuttal and I know I'll get one. :D

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 12:22 PM
The Florida Supremes in their last decision said that they would take the results from an incomplete recount of Dade County and credit those votes to GORE......as it turns out...The areas that were left out of that recount was............Well, of course......HEAVILY Cuban populated areas that went 80% for Bush.......

If you don't think that the Florida Supremes were trying to fix the election...then I can't help you......

BTW, why do you think that the last decision by the Florida Supremes was 4 to 3 with the Chief Justice of the court saying in the minority that the Decision was a blatant violation of Florida Law and that The US Supremes should reverse it immediately?

You know why? Because 3 out of the 7 Florida Supremes thought that the attempted theft of the election by those dishonorable 4 was getting to the point were "criminal" was going to be a descriptive term.

Interesting that you didn't use the same analysis on the Supreme court. Their vote was by party lines as well. So is it law or is it politics? I know Phinphan227 will disagree with me, but for the same reasons you presented here, I say Bush was given the presidency by the supreme court. If the people of the FL court was on the supreme court, Gore would have won, It just so happened the Supreme Court had more Republicians. Can you guys see my point or why I say the crazy things I do? :cooldude:

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 03:20 PM
3. He never had a chance to rebuild his tanks and other equipment.

8. The reason I stated he really never rebuilt was because for the first 5-7 years after the war, he was under embargoes,

Hardly ambiguous MD. Perhaps you meant to say it originally as you stated it the 2nd time, but it's not my fault that you mispoke. Bottom line...the US had three choices..

#1-Allow the sanctions to continue and maintain the status quo allowing Iraqi civilians to suffer and slowly be strangled to death.

#2-End sanctions and allow Saddam to rebuild AND CARRY OUT THE PLANS HE DETAILED AND ALREADY EXPRESSED.

#3-Remove Saddam from power.

Those are the three options. Keep the sanctions and allow the Iraqi people to starve to death, remove the sanctions and allow Saddam to BECOME A threat, or remove Saddam. Once again, DON'T talk about other dictators, unless you can compare apples to apples. Are those other dictators KNOWN threats to their neighbors..ie...have they invaded them before? And are those dictators able to threaten our entire economy with a complete collapse? Keep it on topic MD. Some shmuck in Liberia is probably doing terrible things to his people. Great...if a coalition of African nations wants our help in removing him I say go for it...and that's EXACTLY what we just recently did. If however a shmuck in Iraq has ignored to terms of a CEASE FIRE, and has PUBLICLY stated that he wants to bring the entire region under his control, thus holding a gun to our heads because he controls the oil..than that is OUR problem. Oh, and as for those "civilized countries"? France was selling Saddam the weapons he was using to slaughter his people AFTER the trade sanctions were levied by the UN. Russia has been occupying and slaughtering Chechens for the last decade. And if Germany decides to raise a moral outcry they can happily suck my rectum because they still have about 100 years before they can say boo. So who exactly are you so upset about? Who is standing on moral high ground that can throw the first stone?

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 03:24 PM
Interesting that you didn't use the same analysis on the Supreme court. Their vote was by party lines as well. So is it law or is it politics? I know Phinphan227 will disagree with me, but for the same reasons you presented here, I say Bush was given the presidency by the supreme court. If the people of the FL court was on the supreme court, Gore would have won, It just so happened the Supreme Court had more Republicians. Can you guys see my point or why I say the crazy things I do? :cooldude:


Wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. The disenting opinions of the Florida Supremes AND the majority opinions of the US Supremes ARE BACKED UP BY THE Florida Constitution. The other opinions IGNORED the Florida Constitution. Yes, if they had a majority in the US Supreme Court than they might have hijacked it. How does that make you feel any better? FYI...many of those right leaning US Supremes have ruled in favor of left wing issues. If they were all party hacks they would have overturned Roe v Wade. If they were honest enough to support Roe, I trust them to be honest enough to support the law during an election.

Section126
08-12-2004, 04:08 PM
Wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. The disenting opinions of the Florida Supremes AND the majority opinions of the US Supremes ARE BACKED UP BY THE Florida Constitution. The other opinions IGNORED the Florida Constitution. Yes, if they had a majority in the US Supreme Court than they might have hijacked it. How does that make you feel any better? FYI...many of those right leaning US Supremes have ruled in favor of left wing issues. If they were all party hacks they would have overturned Roe v Wade. If they were honest enough to support Roe, I trust them to be honest enough to support the law during an election.


Not to mention that the vote was 7 to 2 to VACATE the Florida Supremes decision......So 7 out of 9 thought the FL Supremes were full of crap......

The 5-4 decision was to stop any more recounts.

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 04:13 PM
Wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. The disenting opinions of the Florida Supremes AND the majority opinions of the US Supremes ARE BACKED UP BY THE Florida Constitution. The other opinions IGNORED the Florida Constitution. Yes, if they had a majority in the US Supreme Court than they might have hijacked it. How does that make you feel any better? FYI...many of those right leaning US Supremes have ruled in favor of left wing issues. If they were all party hacks they would have overturned Roe v Wade. If they were honest enough to support Roe, I trust them to be honest enough to support the law during an election.

Dang PP1227, you want it both ways, first you say wrong, then you say yes if they......which is it. Then you try to mask with the rest of the left wing thing...I don't care about left and right wings. I care about facts and the fact is the partyline in the supreme court decided the presidency...obviously everyone in the Supreme court didn't agree on the FL constitution other wise the vote would have been unanimous. So once again, I can't buy into your explanation...obviously our lawyers and judges disagree, so there's desent on both sides, but majority rules, it this case the majority was Repubs on the supreme court. Law had little to do with it. Bush won by partyline vote. Good debate though.

BAMAPHIN 22
08-12-2004, 04:48 PM
Gentlemen, I love you opposing views about the last presidential elections... That is what makes our country great by exercising your 1st admendment rights... Attached below will give us an accurate indication of how critical the Florida election process molded our country from year 2000 to 2004. The electorial votes were a margin of five Electorial votes... This was not an overwhelming victory... This just indicates that we as citizens are apathectic when it comes to voting.. This election year is very critical... Opposing views or not... We need to emphasize on this site to those who have not registered .. To please do so, and exercise your rights to vote come this November... When you enter this site just click on year 2000.


http://www.usconstitution.net/elecvotes.html

DolFan31
08-12-2004, 07:10 PM
Dang PP1227, you want it both ways, first you say wrong, then you say yes if they......which is it. Then you try to mask with the rest of the left wing thing...I don't care about left and right wings. I care about facts and the fact is the partyline in the supreme court decided the presidency...obviously everyone in the Supreme court didn't agree on the FL constitution other wise the vote would have been unanimous. So once again, I can't buy into your explanation...obviously our lawyers and judges disagree, so there's desent on both sides, but majority rules, it this case the majority was Repubs on the supreme court. Law had little to do with it. Bush won by partyline vote. Good debate though.

Yep exactly :clap:

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 07:18 PM
Dang PP1227, you want it both ways, first you say wrong, then you say yes if they......which is it. Then you try to mask with the rest of the left wing thing...I don't care about left and right wings. I care about facts and the fact is the partyline in the supreme court decided the presidency...obviously everyone in the Supreme court didn't agree on the FL constitution other wise the vote would have been unanimous. So once again, I can't buy into your explanation...obviously our lawyers and judges disagree, so there's desent on both sides, but majority rules, it this case the majority was Repubs on the supreme court. Law had little to do with it. Bush won by partyline vote. Good debate though.


What...the flock...are you talking...about? 7 of 9 judges agreed to put aside the Florida judges. That's not party line now is it? And the only "yes" is that if the Dems HAD voted to ignore the State Constitution that WOULD have been hijacking an election. As it was, the judges did their jobs.

DolFan31
08-12-2004, 08:24 PM
What...the flock...are you talking...about? 7 of 9 judges agreed to put aside the Florida judges. That's not party line now is it? And the only "yes" is that if the Dems HAD voted to ignore the State Constitution that WOULD have been hijacking an election. As it was, the judges did their jobs.

What about the other 2?

Section126
08-12-2004, 08:48 PM
What about the other 2?


They're idiots.

ABrownLamp
08-12-2004, 08:52 PM
There idiots.
"they're" idiots. :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 09:49 PM
What about the other 2?


There's a reason why there are 9 judges...it's in the hope that most of them will do thier jobs. If the court was suppossed to be unanimous every time we would only need one judge.

Section126
08-12-2004, 09:52 PM
"they're" idiots. :roflmao:


Oh...and you never create a typo?
:shakeno:

ohall
08-12-2004, 09:59 PM
What about the other 2?

What about them? I think it's pretty obvious why they did what they did.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-13-2004, 12:28 AM
Oh...and you never create a typo?
:shakeno:
I'm not on grammar patrol, but that was just too ironic :astro:

DolFan31
08-13-2004, 06:14 PM
What about them? I think it's pretty obvious why they did what they did.

Oliver...

And I can say the same for the rest.

MDFINFAN
08-16-2004, 12:01 AM
What...the flock...are you talking...about? 7 of 9 judges agreed to put aside the Florida judges. That's not party line now is it? And the only "yes" is that if the Dems HAD voted to ignore the State Constitution that WOULD have been hijacking an election. As it was, the judges did their jobs.

What are you talking about, I remember a 5-4 vote along partisian lines.

Here's a article to support me.

A quote: The Court's Decision

The US Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court. The full text of the decision is at Cornell Law School, Bush v. Gore . Five Justices signed the opinion. They were Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. The Court's opinion was per curiam, meaning issued on behalf of the court, and not attributed to a specific Justice or Justices as author. Courts usually use per curiam opinions for non-controversial or routine matters, often where the decision is unanimous. This was hardly the situation in Bush v. Gore. Presumably, none of the Justices who agreed to it was willing to put his or her name on this particular piece of garbage.

Particularly loved this:

Lose the excuses. Bush v. Gore was decided by a partisan, political group of Republican Supreme Court Justices who concocted a poorly reasoned opinion to assure that the Republican candidate, Bush, won the 2000 Presidential election. The Code Of Conduct For United States Judges states that "A judge... should not be swayed by partisan interests". The Code also says "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party".

Worst US Supreme Court Decisions (http://www.hereandok.com/WorstSupreme.html)

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:17 AM
What are you talking about, I remember a 5-4 vote along partisian lines.

Here's a article to support me.

A quote: The Court's Decision

The US Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court. The full text of the decision is at Cornell Law School, Bush v. Gore . Five Justices signed the opinion. They were Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. The Court's opinion was per curiam, meaning issued on behalf of the court, and not attributed to a specific Justice or Justices as author. Courts usually use per curiam opinions for non-controversial or routine matters, often where the decision is unanimous. This was hardly the situation in Bush v. Gore. Presumably, none of the Justices who agreed to it was willing to put his or her name on this particular piece of garbage.

Particularly loved this:

Lose the excuses. Bush v. Gore was decided by a partisan, political group of Republican Supreme Court Justices who concocted a poorly reasoned opinion to assure that the Republican candidate, Bush, won the 2000 Presidential election. The Code Of Conduct For United States Judges states that "A judge... should not be swayed by partisan interests". The Code also says "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party".

Worst US Supreme Court Decisions (http://www.hereandok.com/WorstSupreme.html)


Nice site...read a little further into it and I wouldn't be surprised to find it on the American Socialist Web Ring. The vote was 7-2 to put aside the Florida Supreme Courts ruling. The 5-4 ruling was only concerning the deadline for the recount. Try checking the facts on a website other than one that lists all of the worst recent corporate misdeeds but somehow forgets Global Crossing.

MDFINFAN
08-16-2004, 12:27 AM
Nice site...read a little further into it and I wouldn't be surprised to find it on the American Socialist Web Ring. The vote was 7-2 to put aside the Florida Supreme Courts ruling. The 5-4 ruling was only concerning the deadline for the recount. Try checking the facts on a website other than one that lists all of the worst recent corporate misdeeds but somehow forgets Global Crossing.

Hey that site gave more info than any of the others. :lol: but it had what I was looking for. That 5-4 vote is what effectively ended the election, otherwise the count would have taken place and who knows. They stopped the count with taking up the time to do the vote..funny how that worked.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:32 AM
Hey that site gave more info than any of the others. :lol: but it had what I was looking for. That 5-4 vote is what effectively ended the election, otherwise the count would have taken place and who knows. They stopped the count with taking up the time to do the vote..funny how that worked.


"Who knows"? EVERYONE knows!! Christ man, how many times do you have to be told that the RECOUNT WAS DONE AND BUSH WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY!! Do you even dispute that fact?

MDFINFAN
08-16-2004, 11:49 AM
"Who knows"? EVERYONE knows!! Christ man, how many times do you have to be told that the RECOUNT WAS DONE AND BUSH WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY!! Do you even dispute that fact?

Yes, but it's just me view. Besides that was 4 years ago. I didn't like the way it went down and I guess I just remember it too well. Hopefully there's no gliches this time.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:36 PM
Yes, but it's just me view. Besides that was 4 years ago. I didn't like the way it went down and I guess I just remember it too well. Hopefully there's no gliches this time.


What "view"? This isn't an opinion...THEY COUNTED THE BALLOTS! Bottom line, and kindly answer the question...do you deny that Bush would have won the recount? If so, on what do you base that denial?

MDFINFAN
08-17-2004, 05:32 PM
What "view"? This isn't an opinion...THEY COUNTED THE BALLOTS! Bottom line, and kindly answer the question...do you deny that Bush would have won the recount? If so, on what do you base that denial?

PP1227, I didn't see the recount, I was fustrated at the time and turned completely away from all news and anything dealing with it. I thought I read something recently that said Gore would have won the recount. So I've thought all this time that Bush lost. The only clear thing I remember after the Supreme Courts decision is that Gore won the popular vote. Even though that doesn't mean anything, it at least let me know the majority of Americans weren't crazy.. :D

ohall
08-17-2004, 06:35 PM
PP1227, I didn't see the recount, I was fustrated at the time and turned completely away from all news and anything dealing with it. I thought I read something recently that said Gore would have won the recount. So I've thought all this time that Bush lost. The only clear thing I remember after the Supreme Courts decision is that Gore won the popular vote. Even though that doesn't mean anything, it at least let me know the majority of Americans weren't crazy.. :D

I don't know why you have such a problem with this. Gore didn't win one recount, and he never would have. The only way he had a chance was to pick and choose what counties to have recounted. Anyone that wants to be fair understands that type of action is totally inappropriate and unfair.

If Gore had taken the HIGH road like Nixon did against JFK he would be way ahead in today’s run for President. Instead he's just seen as a bitter angry man.

Ugh we do not elect the President by popular vote, if we did Bush would have run a different type of campaign. Man I don't get some of you.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-17-2004, 07:41 PM
PP1227, I didn't see the recount, I was fustrated at the time and turned completely away from all news and anything dealing with it. I thought I read something recently that said Gore would have won the recount. So I've thought all this time that Bush lost. The only clear thing I remember after the Supreme Courts decision is that Gore won the popular vote. Even though that doesn't mean anything, it at least let me know the majority of Americans weren't crazy.. :D


CNN:

"April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.""



"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN


Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.


Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. "

Now...will you stop spouting that tripe?

MDFINFAN
08-18-2004, 12:16 AM
CNN:

"April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.""



"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN


Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.


Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. "

Now...will you stop spouting that tripe?

Thanks PP1227, Ohal reread the end of my statement about the popular vote, I think you missed the joke.. :lol: