Personal attacks

[billvon 3,008]

>This is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. You are
>a hypocrite.

Cut it out. No personal attacks even if you think you're right. Only warning.

[rhino 0]

Quote

You may not like it but this war is seen as illegal by most of the world including some of the best legal minds in both the UK and US.

Most of the countries that were saying this war was illegal come to find out were ILLEGALLY "RUSSIA" supplying Iraq with weapons technology they aren't allowed to have. UN resolutions mandated by those very legal minds you speak of pushed that very UN resolution. And some of those other legal minds now want in on the action even though they aren't risking the lives of a SINGLE "FRANCE" soldier from their military.

You may not like it but the war is NOT illegal according to US law. Quiet a number of elected officials decided to give GWB the ability to use our military if he sees fit to. They recognize that GWB was elected and is in fact our president. By the US constitution and the US congress it was not illegal. We live in the US and our national security is of #1 importance.

Most of those legal brain wizards stay employed and maintain their feelings of importance by continuing to stur up legal b.s.

Rhino

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Your president wasn't elected by the majority of your nation and gained power through some very dodgy circumstances.

I was waiting for the real intellectuals to jump on this statement and correct it, but it didn't happen. I guess some folks like to correct facts only when it suits them. The "dodgy circumstances" is called the Electoral College as is framed by our Constitution. This is old and the folks still fretting about it are the ones who could not accept the outcome. Had it gone the other way, I suspect we'd have a different group of whiners. If anyone wants to abolish the Electoral College, they can work towards a new ammendment.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,008]

>The "dodgy circumstances" is called the Electoral College as
>is framed by our Constitution.

Actually the "dodgy circumstances" was the supreme court stepping in to interrupt that process. We've had a few elections where one candidate got more votes but the second candidate won; that's a result of the electoral college at work. This is the first time that:

-the contested state was governed by one candidate's brother
-the official in charge of certifying the election (Katherine Harris) was also chair of one candidate's election campaign, and was instrumental in trying to stop recounts
-the supreme court overrode the local courts and essentially declared the winner of the election

The election is over; Bush won. The supreme court was doing its job. To claim that there wasn't some very odd stuff going on, though, isn't realistic. This election will live in history as one of the most contested and suspicious elections ever.

[Muenkel 0]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "dodgy circumstances" is. Was it a unique election? Yes. The supreme court's decision will be analyzed for years to come, but it is not an illegal election. The fact that the Governor was the candidate's brother is pure coincidence. Surely you are not suggesting the Bush's are intelligent enough to pull that one off. You also left out the fact that Gov. Bush recused himself during the election dispute because of his relationship to the Candidate. Katherine Harris was instrumental in stopping counts in individually picked counties that would only benefit one side. If you recall, the Republicans asked that if there be a recount, that it be all districts. Lastly, I can't let you spin what the Supreme Court did. They did not declare the winner. They declared that it was unconstitutional to continue recounting votes that were already counted and in only hand picked districts. In all recounts, GWB won. The voters of Florida declared the winner of the election.

I do agree with you that the election is over, and Bush did win. Debating this election is now moot. However, debating the circumstances is not.

In Bill O'Reilly's words, "I'll give you the last word."

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

This election will live in history as one of the most contested and suspicious elections ever.

I disagree. Do you know the history between the Adams/Jackson election in which Jackson was defeated? (hint: 1824)

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[skreamer 1]

Quote

You may not like it but the war is NOT illegal according to US law. Quiet a number of elected officials decided to give GWB the ability to use our military if he sees fit to. They recognize that GWB was elected and is in fact our president. By the US constitution and the US congress it was not illegal. We live in the US and our national security is of #1 importance.

This war is not being fought in the USA. This war was rushed into against the wishes of most of the world. Whether the war was designed to be pre-emptive, preventive or retaliatory doesn't matter anymore. What does matter is that when this war is over and Saddam is defeated (which is inevitable) you will be left with massive turmoil in the Middle East and a rift in the global community.

The american administration is already mentioning the Palestinian crisis. If (once Saddam is defeated) the Bush administration can resolve the Palestinian issue using diplomacy perhaps the dust will settle in the Middle East.

[billvon 3,008]

>Lastly, I can't let you spin what the Supreme Court did. They did
>not declare the winner.

No, they did not. Like I said, they did their job, which was to decide the legality of the continual recounts. What that did _effectively_ was decide the winner (i.e. that was the effect of their decision.) That's not illegal, just very unusual.

I (and most people) don't dispute the legitimacy of the current administration. But I think it's just as wrong to claim that there was nothing dodgy about this election as it is to claim that Gore should have been elected. I hope we learn from it so we can avoid some of the problems we saw in Florida in the future.

(from AggieDave)

>I disagree. Do you know the history between the Adams/Jackson
> election in which Jackson was defeated? (hint: 1824)

Yep. I didn't say most contested election, I said "one of the most contested elections."

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

The american administration is already mentioning the Palestinian crisis. If (once Saddam is defeated) the Bush administration can resolve the Palestinian issue using diplomacy perhaps the dust will settle in the Middle East.

I pray that this is what happens. And I expect it to be done by our administration. We as Americans must hold them to this promise. This endless cycle must end.

[rhino 0]

Quote

This war was rushed into against the wishes of most of the world.

WROOOONGOOOOOOO!!!

Quote

What does matter is that when this war is over and Saddam is defeated (which is inevitable) you will be left with massive turmoil in the Middle East and a rift in the global community.

I hope you are wrong. I believe you will be wrong. I don't believe their will be turmoil in the middle east. At least no more than already exists. And as far as the global community goes blame that on France, Russia, China.. The countries that were selling weapons to the Sadham Regime. None of which supportes Britain and the US and ALL of which want in on the action of rebuilding Iraq thet they won't get because they didn't earn the right.

Rhino

[california 0]

Quote

We can still make fun of California, though! Woohoo

Why? What'd I ever do to you? Have you even met me?

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

We can still make fun of California, though! Woohoo

Why? What'd I ever do to you? Have you even met me?

Oh California. You suck in the nicest possible way.

[california 0]

Thanks DiverDriver, at least someone appreciates me