| Subject: Re: ELECTION 2004 |
Author:
Crackpot
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:14:25 03/11/04 Thu
In reply to:
James
's message, "ELECTION 2004" on 15:44:01 03/10/04 Wed
>SO tell me how do you think this election is sizing
>up? You think Bush will win again?
Nah, he's already slipping in the popularity polls. Even among republicans. Although, I don't want either John Kerry nor George Bush in office.
>Ok just some FACTS about this last election.
>
>The race in Florida was VERY close last time. However
>after FOUR recounts the Sec. of State of Florida Ms
>Harris followed the law to the T and certified the
>election and Bush was pronounced the winner. The
>Democrats sued saying that this was somehow illegal
>and it was "disenfranchising" the people. It went to
>the Florida Supream Court and they ruled saying that
>"every vote must count." Then the state of florida
>appealed to the United States Supream Court and the
>decision was retuned back to the Florida Supream court
>(in a 9-0 decision) saying that they need to re-think
>their ruling. The Florida court ruled again that the
>recounts must continue and once again the State of
>Florida appealed. This time in a 5-4 vote the Supream
>court ruled in favor of the state of Florida saying
>that "the law is clear in Florida. The Votes must be
>certified after so many days. Therefore Florida's
>certification of the votes was accepted." Bush won the
>election despite the cries of injustice by democrats.
>
>Let me let you in on a FACT again. All the trouble in
>florida was started BY democrats. You see all those
>voting districts where people were "disenfranchised"
>were run BY DEMOCRATS. Those Democrats came up with
>those horrid hanging chad ballots. Those democrats
>then blamed republicans for stealing the election when
>the voters could not figure out how to use them.
>
>The Supream Court did not elect a president they
>simply undid the wrong that the Florida Supream Court
>commited by forcing the recounts. End of Story.
Okay, which "facts" are you going by, exactly? Check out a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Since the merging of media and business, and the Telecommunications Act of '96, where businesses can buy up the news and the media, I'm not too comfortable relying on their "information".
Also, keep in mind that all this merging happened during the Clinton era. Bill Clinton should have been impeached for selling the sovereignty of this country.
>Economy: It is again a FACT that the economy was
>slipping all during 1999 and 2000. Yes during
>Clinton's reign. It is a FACT that Bus's tax cuts are
>the reason the economy has recovered AT ALL.
Economic globalization. Company's jumping up and shipping to Mexico is the problem. The way businesses are treating their employees are the problem. Still, how is it such a "fact" when even Alan Greenspan came out during 1998/99 and said the economy was "booming"? Although, he did say it was mostly Wall Street stock and shareholders who were reeking the benefits. Not any of us.
>WMD in Iraq: Bush and all of us in the military acted
>upon what we thought was good intelligence. Turned out
>it was faulty. I know this because I WORK in Intel.
How, exactly, do you explain the New American Century group, then? The war would have been unjustified even if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Simply because, not only were we selling him weapons and subsidizing his efforts clear until the point when he gassed his own people. If Saddam was ever a threat, it was during the eighties. That's when we should have taken him out. Now we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either way things go we look like hypocrites.
>Gay marraige/civil unions: It is a fact that there are
>people who do not get the same rights or equal
>protection under the law due to their sexuality.
That doesn't mean it should continue.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 