Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105405] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 23:32   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is this the vote that you said never happened?
| Quote: |
Divergent views were expressed by the representatives of the United States, United Kingdom and Spain, which had tabled a further resolution on the situation on 7 March containing a deadline of Monday, 17 March, for Iraq’s full compliance. Failing to win the necessary support for the draft in the Council and amid the threat of a veto by a permanent member, the three announced on Monday that they would not put it to a vote
|
If so, that "vote that never happened" was to set the "full compliance" for that monday. Nothing about attacking Iraq or not.
If I'm mistaken, please point out where I could find the answer to what you mean.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105427] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 00:57 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Note that I couldn't be bothered to read through five pages of what has probably degenerated into a flamefest, but I just want to say this:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And, Diebold [One of the companies that makes these machines] has posted the source code for the machines on an unprotected FTP site.
|
That is because then everyone can check the source code for errors, bugs or downright fraud. Whilst if the source wasn't released to the public you never know what errors may be in it and the company would be less inclined to fix things because they may think noone has noticed anyway. I just wanted to point out that they put it online on purpose.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105499] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 07:45 |
hareman
Messages: 340
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Preface: Normally I don't post here anymore, personal reasons and the little children like nodbugger trying to argue with intelligent people and then resoerting to insults when it's obvious they can't win an argument.
It sort of reminds me or my own arguments with raveshaw long ago, except he was intelligent and he also had seen many of the things he was talking about first hand.
For those who were not around, he and I (and a number of others) debated quite frequently on the issue of Serbia. He was as a I understand it actually from there. My positionwas that Serbia was not worth one american life unless the rules of engagement actaully allowed the soldiers to do their job. They weren't actually protecting legitimate US interests. They were "peacekeepers".
And so now Java has directed me to an argue ment that sounds sort of reminiscent of my flame wars with raveshaw.
Some enlightening information:
1 Iraq is predominately Shi'a. The Head of the Shi'a branch of Islam is Iran. This is why BushSr did not finish off Iraq the first time. He believed (quite rightly), that any government formed post US-Coalition would eventually devovle into a fundamentalist governement and fall into the majority Shi'a hands. Which would be unduly influenced by Iran.
2 'Shrub's reason's for going to war which have been so ably pointed out in this thread were basically manufactured to suit his own needs. The intel he was given on WMD was single sourced and came from someone known to have an axe to grind. What otehr intel he used to prove his reason for this was all conjecture. Not one piece of proof has surfaced. I am in a position to know it has or will surface as well. Before anyone attacks this, yes thereis/was sufficient evidence to believe that Saddam was researching WMD's but we still haven't found definative proof.
3 I will say this now since the evidence is out there for anyone to see if they have an open mind. Iraq was a war the US couldn't lose that is why we are there. Who else could we so easily beat with minimal loss of life so our president could point to his victory on terror?
Iran? lmao not haapening despite real phyical evidence they still support terror worlwide. Training camps, active nuclear weapons program, repeated violations of international treaties, financial funding of terror suspects, shelter for wanted international terror suspects ... but wait we couldn't win a war here easily and the cost in US lives would be really high
Korea? State sponsored teorror at its finest, Nuclear weapons program but they do have a standing 2 million man army. And China has publicly stated they will invene for N Korea if attacked. Diplomacy is the best option but it will take time a lot of time.
So who does that leave for an easy victory? Columbian Drug lords? Gosh no, they keep their terror cinfined to the police the courts government. officials. Besides they are harder to get rid of than damn roaches.
I have also seen people debating what will happen in Iraq now that the "War" is done.
Democracy? oops one problem with that. Do they still teach in school that it takes a certain level of education and financial prosperarity for democracy to work. Sorry, but it doesn't work in this situaltion. Why?
Kind of hard to care about who is charge if you have to struggle to feed your family everyday isn't it?
So, what does that leave us?
Hmmmmm
Lots of sand small, angry brown men who don't like us?...
<here coomes some sarcasm just so you know>
Veitnam without the jungle?
Doubt anyone will actually see my points and cataully consider them without having real intelectual honesty
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105502] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 08:14 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
Oh, one more thing. Is this the vote that you said never happened?
| Quote: |
Divergent views were expressed by the representatives of the United States, United Kingdom and Spain, which had tabled a further resolution on the situation on 7 March containing a deadline of Monday, 17 March, for Iraq’s full compliance. Failing to win the necessary support for the draft in the Council and amid the threat of a veto by a permanent member, the three announced on Monday that they would not put it to a vote
|
If so, that "vote that never happened" was to set the "full compliance" for that monday. Nothing about attacking Iraq or not.
If I'm mistaken, please point out where I could find the answer to what you mean.
|
As it says, it never happened. They were going to vote to go to Iraq.
France was going to vote No. They were the only one voting no they had the Veto power. So out of the 7 or so that mattered. Only 1 was going to vote no.
In the UN Majority does not rule.
And as I have said before. The war is not illegal. In no way has it ever been illegal. Every thing you have said does not make it illegal.
Besides, why are you so agaisnt this war? What is your reasoning.
Don't say casualties, or terrorist attacks. We knew those were going to happen. Everyone knew that was going to happen. The fact is less happened than people thought were going to happen. People were saying thousands of American soldiers will die and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be killed. Well it isn't even close to that. And when you do get rid of a government in a country you will always have people that do not like that. No matter who you take out of power or what country you are going into what is going on in Iraq is what has happened every time anyone has done something like this. And every time we have replaced their style of government the country becomes much better for it.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105505] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 08:34 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Preface: Normally I don't post here anymore, personal reasons and the little children like nodbugger trying to argue with intelligent people and then resoerting to insults when it's obvious they can't win an argument.
|
When I get pissed off I generally start to swear. If I argued with you in person it would seem better. Typing words doesn't bring out the full emotion of actual speaking.
And in no way did I lose and in no way is Java intelligent.
How hard is it to understand my cake analogy.
Our reasons for going to war were for what happens after wards.
We cannot have the "what happens after wards" with out the war.
| Quote: |
1 Iraq is predominately Shi'a. The Head of the Shi'a branch of Islam is Iran. This is why BushSr did not finish off Iraq the first time. He believed (quite rightly), that any government formed post US-Coalition would eventually devovle into a fundamentalist governement and fall into the majority Shi'a hands. Which would be unduly influenced by Iran.
|
The UN said no, Bush told the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, which they did. then the cease fire was signed. And Saddam slaughtered all of the rebels.
| Quote: |
2 'Shrub's reason's for going to war which have been so ably pointed out in this thread were basically manufactured to suit his own needs. The intel he was given on WMD was single sourced and came from someone known to have an axe to grind. What otehr intel he used to prove his reason for this was all conjecture. Not one piece of proof has surfaced. I am in a position to know it has or will surface as well. Before anyone attacks this, yes thereis/was sufficient evidence to believe that Saddam was researching WMD's but we still haven't found definative proof.
|
When you have MI6, CIA, and Russian intelligence telling you Saddam has WMD. And you have Putin telling you Iraq has plans to attack in the United States. When you have 40 years of oppression and murderous rampages. When you the use of chemical weapons on a civilian populace. When you have a man that is willing to do anything to stay in power. He doesn't care who has has to kill. That is not someone you leave there.
| Quote: |
3 I will say this now since the evidence is out there for anyone to see if they have an open mind. Iraq was a war the US couldn't lose that is why we are there. Who else could we so easily beat with minimal loss of life so our president could point to his victory on terror?
|
There are not many countries who have posed as much of a significant threat as Saddam. Saddam is a very well known dictator. Very few people do not know of his crimes. Saddam is what i would call the poster boy for Evil Dictators. When every they need an evil guy to make fun of they go straight to Saddam. Every watch South Park? Saddam is a raving homosexual with Satan. On Saturday night live he is also getting blow jobs by Monica Lewinsky. There was no better place to start than Iraq. Besides Iran is now giving up secrets. Libya, they just gave up. They don't want to end up like Saddam did. Korea, they are still on the shelf. Negotiations are still going on. And as you said you really cannot just invade a country with millions in their Army and Nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
Democracy? oops one problem with that. Do they still teach in school that it takes a certain level of education and financial prosperity for democracy to work. Sorry, but it doesn't work in this situation. Why?
Kind of hard to care about who is charge if you have to struggle to feed your family everyday isn't it
|
One thing Saddam did good was his schooling. while it was filled with propaganda about him the people did learn. Iraqis are in no way stupid or poor. Given just like everything you have the stupid and poor. But it isn't as widespread as you think.
My dad was stationed near Iraqis only port city. You would think they would rich as hell. Well Saddam did not like them so much. So they are poor as hell. When American troops first rolled through their city every Iraqi there was as happy as a person could possibly be. Coalition soldiers have built them roads, schools, they have gotten them clean water, they are getting jobs working on things. Armor divisions pay Iraqis to swap out parts when ever they are needed. Satellite dish and used car sales have gone through the roof. People can actual get information from outside of Iraq.
I think you would know that Iraq at one point was a Republic. Well it has been a Republic. It is just Saddam has kept the Republic part out of it. He kills all political opponents and forces people to vote for him. Democracy worked in Nazi Germany and Democracy worked in Japan. It can certainly work in Iraq.
| Quote: |
Lots of sand small, angry brown men who don't like us?...
|
It really is not that many people. 99% of Iraqis want to live their lives how they want to live their lives. They are glad Saddam is gone and they want everything to settle down. There are now 200,000k Iraqi police patrolling the streets. that is about 3 times the Amount of Americans Guarding anything.
They want their country to be better and by saying the things you are you are just slowing down the effort. Either you start being positive or you can stay out of it. If you don't want anything to do with it then you can just shut the fuck up.
PS...Don't ever compare this to Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105508] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 09:19 |
hareman
Messages: 340
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
OK, I am in a position to know so much more than you abut anything involving Terrorism. You don't know anything except what you read.
Your points are inane and self serving. You try to argue but instead look like an ass. My bit out intelectual honesty is on the money with you.
Trying to refute what I said makes you look desperate and combative. I am in a position to know and be able to prove everything I said while you on the other hand offer glib statements in rebuttle (sp?).
Number one what do you know of the histoory of the region? Your assinine statement that Bush told then to rise up was shear lunacy. after that I did not bother to continue reading as you lack any credibilty after that one idiotic point.
NEWSFLASH: Saddam's trouble with the kurds predates BushSr's war. Did you forget the US backed him against Iraq? even while our country was brokering an arms for hostages deal with IRAN that violated so many laws that your children will be feeling its repercussions.
So what is your reason for that? Go look it up on the web somewhere and copy and paste it.
YOu are the type of person who propagates myths, urban legends, half truths, and outright fallacies becuase you lack the moral courage and intelectual honesty to question what you see.
The truth is that we are where we are because of outrageous intelligence failuers, shamefull foriegn diplomacies debacles, outright bad policy, shamefull treatment of our allies, lack of respect for other cultures ..... but this is my country and I love it. I serve it to this day by helping to defend it. I work for the Office of Homeland Security (the very name makes me sick) and I fight the war on terror very day.
What do you do? Sit behind a computer and pat yourself in the back for not have the necessaey fortitude to ask why? If you believe your drivel so much go serve in Iraq. We definately need more cannon fodder.
As far as your crack about Java. I have known him for over 2 year. HE at least admits when he is in error and is willing to look at things a new way. He may look down at you but this only because YOU have not earned his respect and you never will this way.
SO GO ENLIST OR DO SOMETHING TO HELP
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105551] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 13:10 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
| warranto |
Oh, one more thing. Is this the vote that you said never happened?
| Quote: |
Divergent views were expressed by the representatives of the United States, United Kingdom and Spain, which had tabled a further resolution on the situation on 7 March containing a deadline of Monday, 17 March, for Iraq’s full compliance. Failing to win the necessary support for the draft in the Council and amid the threat of a veto by a permanent member, the three announced on Monday that they would not put it to a vote
|
If so, that "vote that never happened" was to set the "full compliance" for that monday. Nothing about attacking Iraq or not.
If I'm mistaken, please point out where I could find the answer to what you mean.
|
As it says, it never happened. They were going to vote to go to Iraq.
France was going to vote No. They were the only one voting no they had the Veto power. So out of the 7 or so that mattered. Only 1 was going to vote no.
In the UN Majority does not rule.
And as I have said before. The war is not illegal. In no way has it ever been illegal. Every thing you have said does not make it illegal.
Besides, why are you so agaisnt this war? What is your reasoning.
Don't say casualties, or terrorist attacks. We knew those were going to happen. Everyone knew that was going to happen. The fact is less happened than people thought were going to happen. People were saying thousands of American soldiers will die and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be killed. Well it isn't even close to that. And when you do get rid of a government in a country you will always have people that do not like that. No matter who you take out of power or what country you are going into what is going on in Iraq is what has happened every time anyone has done something like this. And every time we have replaced their style of government the country becomes much better for it.
|
Ya, I know. You don't bother to read things.. so let me quote it once more for your benifit...
| warranto |
When did I ever say I was against the war? Oh, right... never.
|
I never stated that majority rules in the UN, so I don't know why you like making up "facts" that people supposedly say, al it does is damage your credability. Strike two, all in one post.
As for completely ignoring my post in the first place, I guess that forces me to repeat what I had asked. Where is the documentation that states the supposed vote was not going to happen? I mean, even the vote-that-never-happened regarding the March 17 deadline was documented. But I'll just take your word for it, no vote happened regarding the attack on Iraq. Thank you for supporting the statement that it was illegal! Using the proof that you provided (resolution 1441) and subsequent resolutions on it has affirmed and reaffirmed the "soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq". Perhaps you don't quite understand what that means, so here are some definitions for you to remember...
sovereignty
n 1: government free from external control
ter·ri·to·ri·al (tr-tôr-l, -tr-)
adj.
Of or relating to the geographic area under a given jurisdiction: the territorial limits of a country.
n·teg·ri·ty (n-tgr-t)
n.
The state of being unimpaired; soundness or wholeness.
In otherwords, no one was allowed to usurp control, or violate the territory of Iraq. Guess what America did? Right... usurped control and violated the territory of Iraq. And since there was no vote to do otherwise, it WAS ILLEGAL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105614] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 18:16 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
What about how Iraq violated the cease fire on daily basis?
|
So? What does that have to do with America's attack? America hasn't been appointed the world police, you do realize that don't you?
| Quote: |
The Gulf War never ended. It was only put at a cease-fire. Every time Iraq attacked an American or British plane patrolling the area we could have started the war right back up.
|
If you want to use this as a defence, then explain to me the pretence of going in because Iraq had WMD's? I'm sure that if the war was still going on, something that serious would not have been needed. Had this been the case, the subject matter would not have even begun to go through the UN, to not be voted on.
Oh.. so me saying I didnt agree with the war is factual? Show me where I stated this. You've accused me three times now, saying that those accusations were factual. So, please show me where I stated this.
In short, nothing you have supplied gives any reason to thing that the war was legal. The UN not voting on it does not make it legal to do something. In order to enter the country of a UN member, more so for the purpose of conducting war on them, you need the UN's approval. As you so fondly point out, it was not voted on. Therefor the United Stats and Britian did not have the approval of the UN to go in and start fighting. That makes it illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105632] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 19:13 |
 |
U927
Messages: 709
Registered: February 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
From the beginning he told the UN we will do it whether you like it or not. They never voted, they have passed resolutions since then. The UN has never said it is illegal.
|
So let me get this straight; just because the UN doesn't say it is illegal, it is automatically legal?
I can't wait for Javaxcx to get a hold of this one.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle
8-Bit Theatre. The power of evil compels you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105645] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 20:44 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
How I feel about the war won't make it any less illegal. I've always supported the outcome of the war, it doesn't make it any less illegal though. Once again, I refer to the vigilante cause. Some people not entrusted with the security of the people go out and stop criminals, it is usually accompanied with public support, though some complain. Even though the cause is just, and I happen to support what was does, doesn't make it any less against the law.
As you said so yourself, the UN never said yay or nay in regards to the invasion of Iraq. That in itself makes any invasion illegal, regardless of who invades who.
As I stated earlier, you need the UN's approval to invade another Member State. Thats the whole point of belonging to the UN, and why the UN usually offers punishment if a member does something it's not supposed to.
Bases on your logic, once again, I'm sure you'd go out and steal a car if you could. The Police never told you that you couldn't do it, so I guess it must be legal for you to do it!
And remember, just because the UN may hav eforgiven it, doesn't mean it was never illegal. You said so yourself, stealing is stealing. Even though I'm sure that kid who stole the loaf of bread was forgiven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105654] |
Sun, 01 August 2004 21:34 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
hmm.. I can open it fine. I'll just post the search link then...
This should be a direct link to the text version, via the search:
Clicky
This should be to the search page if the above does not work. Click on the PCNICC link.
clicky
And if none of them work, go to the UN homepage ( http://www.UN.org ) and search for this topic: Charter +invasion, thats how I found it.[/url]
[Updated on: Mon, 02 August 2004 10:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105702] |
Mon, 02 August 2004 07:03 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Nodbugger.
You make everyone who is in favor of this war look like an idiot by arguing on their side. I wanted to grab quotes of every dumb thing you said, but there are too amny of them to fit. So I'm just going to try to address all the points I can remember after reading 5 pages of your drivel.
Let me start with this statement:
Your cake analogy is stupid, flawed, and contributes nothing to the discussion. All you're saying is that a "reason" causes an action. Something you should remember: desire for a certain result can be a reason ... but just because a result happens does NOT, repeat does NOT make it a reason.
Now, this is the natural progression of things:
reason -> action -> result/repercussion
and FYI, a "repercussion" is the exact same thing as a "result," except in common terminology, a "repercussion" creates secondary results.
Lets look at the war on Iraq.
"They have weapons of mass destruction" (reason) ->
"We will get Saddam" (action) ->
"The Iraqi people are free" (result), "The world hates the US" (repercussion)
What Bush did, however, was about 1/2 through "Operation Fuck Iraq up" was say, "Oh, shit, no WMD's ... umm, let's call it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'"
And before you call me a "Bush-hater," look at my other posts. I plan to vote for Bush, but just cause Kerry's a lying piece of shit. Bush is an honest idiot, which IMO is better than a smart crook.
Anyway.
Saddam was bad. The UN should have done something about him. And OH EMM GEE, they were. Through a process called "diplomacy." But rather than waiting, we (the US) rushed in. This is patently illegal.
See, back during the gulf war, (GB Sr.) Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went there to help Kuwait out. We were not the agresssor. This was legal.
During WWII, Germany invaded France. We went there to help France out. We were not the agressor. This was legal.
2003 - W's reign of terror ... We invaded Iraq. We WERE the agressor. This was illegal.
Now, I'm not saying it was Right or Wrong (yet). I'm making no judgements on morality. I'm simply saying that it WAS illegal, and now we have to deal with the consequences of that.
Here is a statement I'm going to make.
The ends do NOT justify the means.
What does that mean? It means that even if what we does results in a Good Thing, if we do it in a Bad Way then it is a Bad Thing.
So even if freeing the Iraqi's was a Good Thing, we did it in a Bad Way, so therefore it is a Bad Thing.
Look at it this way: what if France was under poor leadership (as always), and one of their neighbors decided to help them out? Say, oh ... Germany. Germany sees that France needs help, so they go over to France and remove the current leadership. They post their army there, as a "Police Force," and install a new government in France that feels "the right way" about things.
Cause me, I'd call that World War II. Now, replace "Germany" with "The US" and "France" with "Iraq" and tell me what you get.
Here are a couple other salient points:
as for terrorism, from m-w:
the use of violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Now, does that sound like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to anyone else?
Also, calling java an idiot, while you consider to spout the same drivel about a cake (that is a MEANINGLESS analogy) does not help your argument at all. In fact, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to back off the arguments and add to the proof.
Just my $.02 (abotu $.0266 CAD)
Viper.
PS. Warranto - could you do us a favor and alias those links (ie, [url="-long shit-"] CLICK HERE [/ URL]) so they don't extend the page off the end? Thanks.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105709] |
Mon, 02 August 2004 07:54 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NHJ BV |
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And, Diebold [One of the companies that makes these machines] has posted the source code for the machines on an unprotected FTP site.
|
That is because then everyone can check the source code for errors, bugs or downright fraud. Whilst if the source wasn't released to the public you never know what errors may be in it and the company would be less inclined to fix things because they may think noone has noticed anyway. I just wanted to point out that they put it online on purpose.
|
No, the source code can be checked by some government authorities working in the voting machine department. If you put the source code for the otherwise secret voting machines on an unprotected FTP server, then people can download the code and hack into voting machines, and play whatever tricks they want, like one candidate getting 1,337 vote, and another getting 8 billion. These electronic voting machines are a terrible idea. There should always be a paper trail for the vote, so we can recount if necessary. But all the Republicans in Congress are blocking bills for a paper trail and saying, "Why do we need a paper trail? Just trust us and these machines that have been proven time and time again to not work."
Like you, I also cannot be bothered to read the previous 3 pages and everyone making mountain-sized posts.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105785] |
Mon, 02 August 2004 16:16 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
These voting machines could be "tweaked" either way. Maybe two hackers will get into a hacking war and each candidate will get 479 bazillion votes. You just assume that it will be tweaked in a way that doesn't help you.
Of course that's based on the assumption that any tampering will occur.
As for the war justification, I couldn't care less about international law blah blah blah... The United States Congress voted in a large majority to disarm Saddam Hussein. I don't believe the liberation of the people was a main goal, but merely a very nice side effect. I see firsthand the improvements in Iraq through the appearance of a Cisco Networking Academy in the country. This tells me that the citizens of Iraq are now going to be able to learn higher technology. Couple that with the oil in Iraq and that country is well-equipped to stand on its own feet. It will take a couple years, yes... but they are on the right path. Iraq was a largely unstable area and it's been proven time and time again that Saddam fostered and nurtured terrorists. It's a great place to start turning that region into a more productive and safe place for their citizens and the world.
Since the start of military action in Iraq, we have others who DO definitely have nukes who are now willing to play ball and have diplomatic relations with the United States (and the UN I'm sure) because they see that the US takes care of its own. You can shove the politics and the red tape of international law and the UN right up your asses because I don't want myself or anyone I care about become the victim of another terrorist attack.
The troops who are there right now were not forced to serve. Every single one of them knows that they may die in service. I don't want to see a single person die, but the worst thing we can do to those brave men and women is to dishonor them by saying that they died for nothing. The strength of the military's numbers lies in how we treat them when they come back. To read your own countrymen saying that your friends who died in the sand died for no good reason would infuriate me.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105818] |
Mon, 02 August 2004 18:40 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
These voting machines could be "tweaked" either way. Maybe two hackers will get into a hacking war and each candidate will get 479 bazillion votes. You just assume that it will be tweaked in a way that doesn't help you.
Of course that's based on the assumption that any tampering will occur.
|
I know they could be tweaked either way. That's bad. What we should do is just not use electronic voting machines, especially when they show themselves to be highly unreliable and that they don't leave a paper trail. Besides, it seems like Republicans want to tweak the vote, since they have stonewalled any attempts to get rid of these highly ineffective voting machines, and don't believe in a paper trail...
These machines need to be gone. It's far too simple to make big changes in something that should never be tampered with.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 13:21:37 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01617 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
