Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are
>>again here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the
>>facts you are.
>
>> For
>>example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at
>>least a week and you never heard of it - well duh!
>
> Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
> plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...unt/index.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2058638

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/front.htm

And if that's not enough:

http://floridarecount.newstrove.com/

And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only the
took the ones at the top of the search.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are
>>again here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the
>>facts you are.
>
>> For
>>example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at
>>least a week and you never heard of it - well duh!
>
> Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
> plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...unt/index.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2058638

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/front.htm

And if that's not enough:

http://floridarecount.newstrove.com/

And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only the
took the ones at the top of the search.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:

> I watched and listened with horror as the propoganda was ramped
> upn last year, and I cheered when our PM (Canadian) said "no". (He
> had his faults, a whole fistful of them, but he had limited scope
> for damage!)

Damn right. I was proud of Jean for not caving in. I'm a bit worried
about the current poobah, though, although I think in the end he will
abide by the long-standing policy.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:

> I watched and listened with horror as the propoganda was ramped
> upn last year, and I cheered when our PM (Canadian) said "no". (He
> had his faults, a whole fistful of them, but he had limited scope
> for damage!)

Damn right. I was proud of Jean for not caving in. I'm a bit worried
about the current poobah, though, although I think in the end he will
abide by the long-standing policy.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>A lot of the US military acted exactly like Nazis in VN and the
>>chain of command knew all about it, all the way back to LBJ.
>>>
>>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>>
>>Kerry told the truth, even if he hadn't seen it first-hand.
>
> O.K. now what did you do about this.

If nothing else, he has now made it public and informed you of what
he witnessed. What are YOU going to do about it is my question,
because as someone who was a policeman for many years in Chicago, you
should have a keen sense of justice and take this matter to heart and
find the guilty parties. Did you often ask witnesses to take on the
role of the constabulary or the judiciary? Of course you didn't so
stop being difficult. Where's your vaunted compassion when it
clashes with your weltanschauung?

Bob, my thanks. That took a lot of courage.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>A lot of the US military acted exactly like Nazis in VN and the
>>chain of command knew all about it, all the way back to LBJ.
>>>
>>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>>
>>Kerry told the truth, even if he hadn't seen it first-hand.
>
> O.K. now what did you do about this.

If nothing else, he has now made it public and informed you of what
he witnessed. What are YOU going to do about it is my question,
because as someone who was a policeman for many years in Chicago, you
should have a keen sense of justice and take this matter to heart and
find the guilty parties. Did you often ask witnesses to take on the
role of the constabulary or the judiciary? Of course you didn't so
stop being difficult. Where's your vaunted compassion when it
clashes with your weltanschauung?

Bob, my thanks. That took a lot of courage.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Its out there if you want to read or see it!

Just after John Kerry came back from Vietnam, he wrote the book THE NEW
SOLDIER.

The book is out of print. John Kerry does not allow the publisher to reprint
it.
To make a rational decision on November 2, you need to have all available
facts.
You can now read John Kerry's THE NEW SOLDIER online for FREE.

Simply log on and go to this web site, <
http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/ > it is all there for your reading
enjoyment, despite Kerry's attempts at keeping it out of our hands by buying up
all available copies and not allowing it to be reprinted.

There are also several chapters of Unfit for Command by John O'Neil, on the web
site. This is the book that is currently in the news, and which Kerry is also
attempting to ban, so far unsuccessfully, I might add.

Unfit for Command is, or soon will be, number one on the New York Times best
seller list.

Regardless of how you feel about the presidential race, it is hard for me to
understand why anyone would want to elect a man who is actively attempting to
suppress Article 1 to the Constitution of the United States.
---




---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

On 2 Sep 2004 12:29:19 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>>>A lot of the US military acted exactly like Nazis in VN and the
>>>chain of command knew all about it, all the way back to LBJ.
>>>>
>>>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>>>
>>>Kerry told the truth, even if he hadn't seen it first-hand.
>>
>> O.K. now what did you do about this.
>
>If nothing else, he has now made it public and informed you of what
>he witnessed.

Could he not have sent a unsigned letter to the inspector general?

> What are YOU going to do about it is my question,
>because as someone who was a policeman for many years in Chicago, you
>should have a keen sense of justice and take this matter to heart and
>find the guilty parties.

O.K. Michel lets do a joint investigation.

Bob I will need the designation of this group, the location, (in Nam)
and the approximate dates. (as close as possible.)
Any names of the offenders that you remember, the officer in charge,
and his commander.
Also what your unit was and the dates and location that you were in,
in VN.

> Do you often ask witnesses to take on the
>role of the constabulary or the judiciary?

No but I did ask what their action were, immediately after the
witnessing of a crime.

> Of course you didn't so stop being difficult.
That's not being difficult, it's being thorough.

>Bob, my thanks. That took a lot of courage.

I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have talked
to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage action.

In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"



Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:56:04 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>> No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?

>The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
>place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.

Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
wide spread.
Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:56:04 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>> No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?

>The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
>place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.

Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
wide spread.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>If nothing else, he has now made it public and informed you of
>>what he witnessed.
>
> Could he not have sent a unsigned letter to the inspector general?

You asked, he answered. Oy...

> Also what your unit was and the dates and location that you were
> in, in VN.

I wasn't in Vietnam. Bob was.

>>Do you often ask witnesses to take on the
>>role of the constabulary or the judiciary?
>
> No but I did ask what their action were, immediately after the
> witnessing of a crime.

And what do you expect witnesses to do after witnessing a crime that
is sanctioned by the authorities? Who would he have complained to?
Look at what Calley did and how long it took to get anywhere and in
the end, the symbol of ugliness was pardoned.

You can bring anyone to justice any time for a capital crime.

>> Of course you didn't so stop being difficult.
> That's not being difficult, it's being thorough.

You say tomayto and I say tomahto...

>>Bob, my thanks. That took a lot of courage.
>
> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage action.
>
> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"

"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
"everybody knows" things?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>If nothing else, he has now made it public and informed you of
>>what he witnessed.
>
> Could he not have sent a unsigned letter to the inspector general?

You asked, he answered. Oy...

> Also what your unit was and the dates and location that you were
> in, in VN.

I wasn't in Vietnam. Bob was.

>>Do you often ask witnesses to take on the
>>role of the constabulary or the judiciary?
>
> No but I did ask what their action were, immediately after the
> witnessing of a crime.

And what do you expect witnesses to do after witnessing a crime that
is sanctioned by the authorities? Who would he have complained to?
Look at what Calley did and how long it took to get anywhere and in
the end, the symbol of ugliness was pardoned.

You can bring anyone to justice any time for a capital crime.

>> Of course you didn't so stop being difficult.
> That's not being difficult, it's being thorough.

You say tomayto and I say tomahto...

>>Bob, my thanks. That took a lot of courage.
>
> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage action.
>
> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"

"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
"everybody knows" things?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
m...
> "Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> > You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> > Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> > the U.S.
> > Pan Ohco
>
> Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
> thanks to the Supreme Court.

Bush gained an electoral victory as a result of the remedy crafted by the
DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court. This took place 2 weeks BEFORE the
SCOTUS handed down their decision in Bush vs. Gore.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

Once the DEMOCRATS on the FSC had allowed for Bush to become the certified
winner of the state (11/26/2000), ONLY Congress could take that
certification, thus those electors away from him.

From The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/12/2000.......

"More political than legal"

MARGARET WARNER: Stuart Taylor, weigh in on this. What do you see could be
the reason for, or the benefit to Republicans of the Bush forces to have the
Florida legislature act?

STUART TAYLOR: I think I agree with the thrust of what has been said, which
is it's more a political benefit than legal. There are already Bush electors
sitting - figuratively speaking -- in Washington, D.C. Nothing makes them
disappear. The legislature weighing in is probably a debating point for
people in Congress who want to say, here's another reason we should take the
Bush electors if it ever comes to that.

MARGARET WARNER: So you don't think they're afraid, though, that there could
be a court ordered recount and a court could order the current slate of Bush
electors replaced, say, with a Gore slate?

STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the
United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is
that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of
electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another
slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count
and the courts have no part in it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elect...gal_12-12.html

The SCotUS did not have the power to take away Bush's certification, and
give it to Gore. To say that the Supremes "gave" Bush Florida is false. They
could not give Bush something that he ALREADY had, i.e. Florida's 25
Electors.

Further, the DEMOCRATS (who held the majority 51-50) in the US Senate had an
opportunity to challenge Florida's electors, but refused to do so. They
became the last arbiters in the 2000 Presidential election, and they let the
results stand.

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the
Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in
writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the
ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member
of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all
objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been
received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections
shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to
the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or
votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose
appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this
title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the
two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that
such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose
appointment has been so certified."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

As we saw, the Democrats were not denied the right to challenge Bush's
Florida's Electors by the SCotUS.

"CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE AND CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OPPOSE FLORIDA
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES"

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.

A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order.

http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.

> But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
> those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact that if all the
> votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that
the
> Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
> small margin and hence the electoral vote.

Since there has NEVER been a recount of all of the disputed ballots by the
Media, what are you talking about???

"NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every
rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and
punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99
percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as
2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties
of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the
same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of
error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

Others, including the NORC, report that number of disputed ballots may be as
many as 179,855, thus as many as 4,845 ballots went unchecked by the NORC.

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp

How does a partial recount of disputed ballots prove that Gore won???

> It is also almost surely truethat if the Florida felony
> conviction "cannot vote" list had not been riddled
> with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
> administration),

ChoicePoint was hired by the DEMOCRATS.

"In the Salon Politics article "Florida's flawed 'voter-cleansing' program,"
it was incorrectly stated that Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris
hired a company, ChoicePoint, to create a voter "purge" list. The company
was hired in 1998 before Harris was elected to her post. Also, Rick Rozar
was incorrectly identified as a founder of ChoicePoint. Rozar was the
president of a company, CDB Infotek, of which Choicepoint owned 70 percent,
and which ChoicePoint eventually bought. Salon regrets the errors.
[Corrections made 12/19/00]"

http://archive.salon.com/letters/cor...ml#choicepoint

> preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
> ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater.

While the purge law, enacted by Democrat Lawton Chiles, is very poorly
written, it has been proven that the purge list did not cost Gore the
election. Reports lead by Greg Palast, the Palm Beach Post, and the Miami
Herald show that not all of the voter on list were purged, nor if they were
purged were they NOT allowed to vote. The hearings from the Democrat lead
United States Commission of Civil Rights talk about the system that was in
place to allow voters to cast ballots even if they were not on the
registration rolls.

"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial groups,
but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls through the
state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no evidence of that.
Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that election officials
were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when unregistered voters
presented themselves."

See: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the first
of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first experience
with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
accurate list."

and

"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Palast writing,

"If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly
targeted for removal from voting rosters."

And

"In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed
to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all.
But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names
from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort
at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the
file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names
incorrectly identified as felons."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...ile/print.html

The Palm Beach Post finished Palast's check of Florida Counties. Apparently,
the ratio did not hold up. While Palast contacted only 10 counties, The Palm
Beach Post did a study that included all 67 counties. They found that 20
counties, or 30% of them did not use the list. The Post could only find 1,10
4 were wrongfully removed.

"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not
share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he
couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."

"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

Besides the Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post also found that is was Gore
may have benefited errors on the felon list, not Bush. They found 5,643
felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do
the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
the Palm Beach Post.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost...ay/news_1.html

Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gor...11378?source=1

> It is also almost surely true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had
> not been poorly designed, causing thousands of Gore voters
> to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin would have
> been still larger.

If you take a look at the history of the voting in Palm Beach County, you
have to wonder why Buchanan did receives MORE votes. In the 1996 Republican
Presidential Primary, Buchanan received 8,788 votes. In 2000, he receives
3,407 in the General election.

This is Buchanan running in the LARGEST county for the Reform Party in the
state. Other than Buchanan, there were few Reform Party Candidates in the
state.

Palm Beach County, 2000 election results for the Reform Party.

President................, Buchanan, 3,704
State Senator, Dist 27, Clabo......., 11,751
State Senator, Dist 35, Lowe........, 3,120

There was more than 14,800 reform party voters in Palm Beach County for the
2000 election. You have an active party in Palm Beach County, yet you find
it odd that 25% of these voters cast a ballot for the head of their ticket?

> Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral
vote
> "victory" was by a razor-thin margin. Yet he is governing as if he won in
a
> landslide, refusing to compromise and cooperate, pandering to the far
right
> wing elements of the party, and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He
is
> in effect saying to the majority of voters "**** you, I don't care what
you
> think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."
That's
> not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. The Republicans
are in the majority, but that are not supposed to govern as if they hold the
majority? Get real.

> If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
> illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Your reasons are based on myths, not facts.

> Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
m...
> "Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> > You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> > Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> > the U.S.
> > Pan Ohco
>
> Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
> thanks to the Supreme Court.

Bush gained an electoral victory as a result of the remedy crafted by the
DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court. This took place 2 weeks BEFORE the
SCOTUS handed down their decision in Bush vs. Gore.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

Once the DEMOCRATS on the FSC had allowed for Bush to become the certified
winner of the state (11/26/2000), ONLY Congress could take that
certification, thus those electors away from him.

From The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/12/2000.......

"More political than legal"

MARGARET WARNER: Stuart Taylor, weigh in on this. What do you see could be
the reason for, or the benefit to Republicans of the Bush forces to have the
Florida legislature act?

STUART TAYLOR: I think I agree with the thrust of what has been said, which
is it's more a political benefit than legal. There are already Bush electors
sitting - figuratively speaking -- in Washington, D.C. Nothing makes them
disappear. The legislature weighing in is probably a debating point for
people in Congress who want to say, here's another reason we should take the
Bush electors if it ever comes to that.

MARGARET WARNER: So you don't think they're afraid, though, that there could
be a court ordered recount and a court could order the current slate of Bush
electors replaced, say, with a Gore slate?

STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the
United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is
that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of
electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another
slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count
and the courts have no part in it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elect...gal_12-12.html

The SCotUS did not have the power to take away Bush's certification, and
give it to Gore. To say that the Supremes "gave" Bush Florida is false. They
could not give Bush something that he ALREADY had, i.e. Florida's 25
Electors.

Further, the DEMOCRATS (who held the majority 51-50) in the US Senate had an
opportunity to challenge Florida's electors, but refused to do so. They
became the last arbiters in the 2000 Presidential election, and they let the
results stand.

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the
Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in
writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the
ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member
of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all
objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been
received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections
shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to
the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or
votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose
appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this
title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the
two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that
such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose
appointment has been so certified."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

As we saw, the Democrats were not denied the right to challenge Bush's
Florida's Electors by the SCotUS.

"CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE AND CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OPPOSE FLORIDA
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES"

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.

A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order.

http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.

> But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
> those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact that if all the
> votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that
the
> Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
> small margin and hence the electoral vote.

Since there has NEVER been a recount of all of the disputed ballots by the
Media, what are you talking about???

"NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every
rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and
punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99
percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as
2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties
of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the
same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of
error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

Others, including the NORC, report that number of disputed ballots may be as
many as 179,855, thus as many as 4,845 ballots went unchecked by the NORC.

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp

How does a partial recount of disputed ballots prove that Gore won???

> It is also almost surely truethat if the Florida felony
> conviction "cannot vote" list had not been riddled
> with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
> administration),

ChoicePoint was hired by the DEMOCRATS.

"In the Salon Politics article "Florida's flawed 'voter-cleansing' program,"
it was incorrectly stated that Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris
hired a company, ChoicePoint, to create a voter "purge" list. The company
was hired in 1998 before Harris was elected to her post. Also, Rick Rozar
was incorrectly identified as a founder of ChoicePoint. Rozar was the
president of a company, CDB Infotek, of which Choicepoint owned 70 percent,
and which ChoicePoint eventually bought. Salon regrets the errors.
[Corrections made 12/19/00]"

http://archive.salon.com/letters/cor...ml#choicepoint

> preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
> ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater.

While the purge law, enacted by Democrat Lawton Chiles, is very poorly
written, it has been proven that the purge list did not cost Gore the
election. Reports lead by Greg Palast, the Palm Beach Post, and the Miami
Herald show that not all of the voter on list were purged, nor if they were
purged were they NOT allowed to vote. The hearings from the Democrat lead
United States Commission of Civil Rights talk about the system that was in
place to allow voters to cast ballots even if they were not on the
registration rolls.

"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial groups,
but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls through the
state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no evidence of that.
Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that election officials
were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when unregistered voters
presented themselves."

See: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the first
of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first experience
with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
accurate list."

and

"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Palast writing,

"If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly
targeted for removal from voting rosters."

And

"In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed
to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all.
But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names
from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort
at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the
file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names
incorrectly identified as felons."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...ile/print.html

The Palm Beach Post finished Palast's check of Florida Counties. Apparently,
the ratio did not hold up. While Palast contacted only 10 counties, The Palm
Beach Post did a study that included all 67 counties. They found that 20
counties, or 30% of them did not use the list. The Post could only find 1,10
4 were wrongfully removed.

"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not
share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he
couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."

"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

Besides the Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post also found that is was Gore
may have benefited errors on the felon list, not Bush. They found 5,643
felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do
the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
the Palm Beach Post.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost...ay/news_1.html

Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gor...11378?source=1

> It is also almost surely true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had
> not been poorly designed, causing thousands of Gore voters
> to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin would have
> been still larger.

If you take a look at the history of the voting in Palm Beach County, you
have to wonder why Buchanan did receives MORE votes. In the 1996 Republican
Presidential Primary, Buchanan received 8,788 votes. In 2000, he receives
3,407 in the General election.

This is Buchanan running in the LARGEST county for the Reform Party in the
state. Other than Buchanan, there were few Reform Party Candidates in the
state.

Palm Beach County, 2000 election results for the Reform Party.

President................, Buchanan, 3,704
State Senator, Dist 27, Clabo......., 11,751
State Senator, Dist 35, Lowe........, 3,120

There was more than 14,800 reform party voters in Palm Beach County for the
2000 election. You have an active party in Palm Beach County, yet you find
it odd that 25% of these voters cast a ballot for the head of their ticket?

> Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral
vote
> "victory" was by a razor-thin margin. Yet he is governing as if he won in
a
> landslide, refusing to compromise and cooperate, pandering to the far
right
> wing elements of the party, and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He
is
> in effect saying to the majority of voters "**** you, I don't care what
you
> think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."
That's
> not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. The Republicans
are in the majority, but that are not supposed to govern as if they hold the
majority? Get real.

> If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
> illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Your reasons are based on myths, not facts.

> Peter Aitken

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:06:19 GMT, stark >
wrote:

>In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:
>
>
>> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
>> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
>> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.
>>
>
>Another perk for the 1%. Hmmm. That $5900 was my money, goofus. Just
>another reason why I'm not voting for GWB.

And how did you pay more taxes?
And i'm in about the upper 30%, my son is in about the lower 30%.
And if it was your money, Thanks.

Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:06:19 GMT, stark >
wrote:

>In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:
>
>
>> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
>> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
>> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.
>>
>
>Another perk for the 1%. Hmmm. That $5900 was my money, goofus. Just
>another reason why I'm not voting for GWB.

And how did you pay more taxes?
And i'm in about the upper 30%, my son is in about the lower 30%.
And if it was your money, Thanks.

Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 12:15:39 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
>> plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
#1 From the beginning , the investigator state that Bush won.
They then go on to say that with the problems they in countered the
report is "instructive but not definitive".
They further report that under the standards of the local election
boards, bush would have won by 400+ votes.
In only recounting under the most least restrictive Palm Beach
Standard, gore would have won by 40 votes.

>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
Authored by Gores attorney.

>http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...unt/index.html
You have got to be kidding!

>http://slate.msn.com/id/2058638
One new paper castigation another over their reaction to the review in
#1 above.
>http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm
Drudge reported that the media said that the report (#1 above) would
be released

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ount/front.htm
A report on the above review (#1) from the black prospective.

>http://floridarecount.newstrove.com/
The only thing that I could see on this page relevant to this
discussion is a Aug 24 2004 reporting about Fla disenfranchising the
overseas troops. (AGAIN)

>And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only the
>took the ones at the top of the search.

Michel did you read these or just google and post the first thing that
showed up? You really should check your sources.

Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 12:15:39 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
>> plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
#1 From the beginning , the investigator state that Bush won.
They then go on to say that with the problems they in countered the
report is "instructive but not definitive".
They further report that under the standards of the local election
boards, bush would have won by 400+ votes.
In only recounting under the most least restrictive Palm Beach
Standard, gore would have won by 40 votes.

>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
Authored by Gores attorney.

>http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...unt/index.html
You have got to be kidding!

>http://slate.msn.com/id/2058638
One new paper castigation another over their reaction to the review in
#1 above.
>http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm
Drudge reported that the media said that the report (#1 above) would
be released

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ount/front.htm
A report on the above review (#1) from the black prospective.

>http://floridarecount.newstrove.com/
The only thing that I could see on this page relevant to this
discussion is a Aug 24 2004 reporting about Fla disenfranchising the
overseas troops. (AGAIN)

>And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only the
>took the ones at the top of the search.

Michel did you read these or just google and post the first thing that
showed up? You really should check your sources.

Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:57:44 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.
>
>As for records, at least he has well documented records, as opposed to
>our dress up C in C.

And President Bush has released his records.
Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........



Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:57:44 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.
>
>As for records, at least he has well documented records, as opposed to
>our dress up C in C.

And President Bush has released his records.
Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........



Pan Ohco

>
>
>Reported it up the chain of command to the point where I started taking
>more fire from behind than from in front.
>

This must have been terrible, I am sorry that you had no success with your
efforts to stop this

Rosie

>
>
>Reported it up the chain of command to the point where I started taking
>more fire from behind than from in front.
>

This must have been terrible, I am sorry that you had no success with your
efforts to stop this

Rosie

>
>
>Reported it up the chain of command to the point where I started taking
>more fire from behind than from in front.
>

This must have been terrible, I am sorry that you had no success with your
efforts to stop this

Rosie

On 1 Sep 2004 20:20:59 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

> I'm in the
>recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political life of
>the Parliament of Canada.

So would calling you an archivist be all right?
Michel have you done any teaching. You have that "do what the teach
said, I know best" that grammar school teacher forget to drop when
talking to adults.

>> You put it on my reading list?
>
>Ok, let's say I do now.
Lets say you don't put it on my list, and just suggest that I read it.
>
>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>
>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss it
>intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.

How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
intelligently , I will read the manifesto.

> Tit for tat,
>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft refuted
>explanation provided by INGSOC
What is INGSOC?


>>>What do you get out of
>>>Bush being president and not Kerry?

>>
>> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
>> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
>
>I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into your
>pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none. Your
>overall wealth is the same.

This makes no sense what so ever.You will have to be more specific.

> That you were able to retain some of the
>money you generated merely indicates that opportunities were provided
>to you to do so more easily. Had you invested in various tax-reducing
>schemes or been able to deduct these sums for other reasons, you still
>would have had the same amount of money that you do now. No new money
>was generated.
My tax rate went down, I don't know how much more simple to make it
for you.

> So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
>when the crippling deficit hits the fan?
Another assumption on your part.


>
>Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have the
>opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that I am not
>only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting programs to
>support the indigent and the needy, but that they should make
>reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the mistakes of
>right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.

How many homeless do you have living with you? How many children have
you adopted, either physically or financially?

>>>Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
>>>manner.
>> And calling someone irrational is a positive form of discussion?
>
>I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
>irrational.
Don't you even read your own writings? Was the word "irrational"
used, no, but the intent shows.
Pan Ohco

On 1 Sep 2004 20:20:59 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

> I'm in the
>recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political life of
>the Parliament of Canada.

So would calling you an archivist be all right?
Michel have you done any teaching. You have that "do what the teach
said, I know best" that grammar school teacher forget to drop when
talking to adults.

>> You put it on my reading list?
>
>Ok, let's say I do now.
Lets say you don't put it on my list, and just suggest that I read it.
>
>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>
>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss it
>intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.

How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
intelligently , I will read the manifesto.

> Tit for tat,
>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft refuted
>explanation provided by INGSOC
What is INGSOC?


>>>What do you get out of
>>>Bush being president and not Kerry?

>>
>> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
>> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
>
>I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into your
>pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none. Your
>overall wealth is the same.

This makes no sense what so ever.You will have to be more specific.

> That you were able to retain some of the
>money you generated merely indicates that opportunities were provided
>to you to do so more easily. Had you invested in various tax-reducing
>schemes or been able to deduct these sums for other reasons, you still
>would have had the same amount of money that you do now. No new money
>was generated.
My tax rate went down, I don't know how much more simple to make it
for you.

> So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
>when the crippling deficit hits the fan?
Another assumption on your part.


>
>Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have the
>opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that I am not
>only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting programs to
>support the indigent and the needy, but that they should make
>reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the mistakes of
>right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.

How many homeless do you have living with you? How many children have
you adopted, either physically or financially?

>>>Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
>>>manner.
>> And calling someone irrational is a positive form of discussion?
>
>I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
>irrational.
Don't you even read your own writings? Was the word "irrational"
used, no, but the intent shows.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
news
>>And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only
>>the took the ones at the top of the search.
>
> Michel did you read these or just google and post the first thing
> that showed up? You really should check your sources.

Can't you read what I just wrote above? Of course I just Googled it.
You didn't say you had to agree with the URLs, just that you wanted
some, so I obliged. I may be many things, but one I'm not is a mind-
reader.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
news
>>And that's five minutes using that equanimous tool, Google. Only
>>the took the ones at the top of the search.
>
> Michel did you read these or just google and post the first thing
> that showed up? You really should check your sources.

Can't you read what I just wrote above? Of course I just Googled it.
You didn't say you had to agree with the URLs, just that you wanted
some, so I obliged. I may be many things, but one I'm not is a mind-
reader.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:57:44 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.
>>
>>As for records, at least he has well documented records, as
>>opposed to our dress up C in C.
>
> And President Bush has released his records.
> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........

If he does, will you vote for him?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:57:44 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.
>>
>>As for records, at least he has well documented records, as
>>opposed to our dress up C in C.
>
> And President Bush has released his records.
> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........

If he does, will you vote for him?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 1 Sep 2004 20:20:59 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm in the
>>recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political
>>life of the Parliament of Canada.
>
> So would calling you an archivist be all right?
> Michel have you done any teaching. You have that "do what the
> teach said, I know best" that grammar school teacher forget to
> drop when talking to adults.

Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you aware
that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
discussion between consenting adults?

>>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>>
>>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss
>>it intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.
>
> How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
> intelligently , I will read the manifesto.

No no no...you were challenged first. You either accept or reject,
those are your options. If you accept, then we will proceed to the
point where I am satisfied that you understand the Manifesto (I'll be
gentle on your bruised USAian psyche) and then we pass on to step two
which I have agreed to do upon your completion of the task. If you
reject it, the discussion stops there, but you lose the right to use
the word commie or to make any disparaging remarks about Karl Marx in
the future.

>> Tit for tat,
>>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft
>>refuted explanation provided by INGSOC
> What is INGSOC?

It's a term referring to a totalitarian state ideology, for example
one where a government would bolster its power by convincing its
citizens that they are constantly at risk by the regular issuing of
coded alerts and then telling them they live in paradise.
Specifically it refers to the government in 1984 (INGSOC = English
Socialism), but generally to any government that gets too big for its
britches. Bush and his coven of cronies are a manifestation of
INGSOC. Don't tell me you never read 1984...

>>I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into
>>your pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none.
>>Your overall wealth is the same.
>
> This makes no sense what so ever.You will have to be more
> specific.

It makes sense if you have a foundation in economics. Let's assume
that you generate wealth (through labour and investment) to a value
of 100 dinars. The government takes 10 dinars. Those dinars were
generated by you. If the government returns 4 dinars through tax
incentives or reductions, those 4 dinars were still generated by you.
This is part of the original 100 dinars you generated. This is not
new money. If you base income goes from 100 to 120 dinars, then you
have 20 dinars of new money, some of which will go to the government.

Do you get it? Saying you got 4000$ tax deduction is not answering
my question with respect to how much of the overall wealth generated
in the US is being filtered to you. For it be counted, it has to be
over and above your basic earning of 100 dinars.

>> So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
>>when the crippling deficit hits the fan?
> Another assumption on your part.

Bad economics, as it turns out that deficits are like karma,
unavoidable.

>>Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have
>>the opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that
>>I am not only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting
>>programs to support the indigent and the needy, but that they
>>should make reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the
>>mistakes of right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.
>
> How many homeless do you have living with you? How many children
> have you adopted, either physically or financially?

I am helping directly as I can and indirectly through taxes. I will
not go into particulars as it is none of your business. Nor is what
you do any of mine and I didn't ask.

>>I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
>>irrational.
> Don't you even read your own writings? Was the word "irrational"
> used, no, but the intent shows.

Oh, so, now not using it is using it...fine example of consie
doublespeak :-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 1 Sep 2004 20:20:59 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm in the
>>recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political
>>life of the Parliament of Canada.
>
> So would calling you an archivist be all right?
> Michel have you done any teaching. You have that "do what the
> teach said, I know best" that grammar school teacher forget to
> drop when talking to adults.

Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you aware
that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
discussion between consenting adults?

>>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>>
>>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss
>>it intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.
>
> How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
> intelligently , I will read the manifesto.

No no no...you were challenged first. You either accept or reject,
those are your options. If you accept, then we will proceed to the
point where I am satisfied that you understand the Manifesto (I'll be
gentle on your bruised USAian psyche) and then we pass on to step two
which I have agreed to do upon your completion of the task. If you
reject it, the discussion stops there, but you lose the right to use
the word commie or to make any disparaging remarks about Karl Marx in
the future.

>> Tit for tat,
>>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft
>>refuted explanation provided by INGSOC
> What is INGSOC?

It's a term referring to a totalitarian state ideology, for example
one where a government would bolster its power by convincing its
citizens that they are constantly at risk by the regular issuing of
coded alerts and then telling them they live in paradise.
Specifically it refers to the government in 1984 (INGSOC = English
Socialism), but generally to any government that gets too big for its
britches. Bush and his coven of cronies are a manifestation of
INGSOC. Don't tell me you never read 1984...

>>I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into
>>your pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none.
>>Your overall wealth is the same.
>
> This makes no sense what so ever.You will have to be more
> specific.

It makes sense if you have a foundation in economics. Let's assume
that you generate wealth (through labour and investment) to a value
of 100 dinars. The government takes 10 dinars. Those dinars were
generated by you. If the government returns 4 dinars through tax
incentives or reductions, those 4 dinars were still generated by you.
This is part of the original 100 dinars you generated. This is not
new money. If you base income goes from 100 to 120 dinars, then you
have 20 dinars of new money, some of which will go to the government.

Do you get it? Saying you got 4000$ tax deduction is not answering
my question with respect to how much of the overall wealth generated
in the US is being filtered to you. For it be counted, it has to be
over and above your basic earning of 100 dinars.

>> So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
>>when the crippling deficit hits the fan?
> Another assumption on your part.

Bad economics, as it turns out that deficits are like karma,
unavoidable.

>>Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have
>>the opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that
>>I am not only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting
>>programs to support the indigent and the needy, but that they
>>should make reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the
>>mistakes of right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.
>
> How many homeless do you have living with you? How many children
> have you adopted, either physically or financially?

I am helping directly as I can and indirectly through taxes. I will
not go into particulars as it is none of your business. Nor is what
you do any of mine and I didn't ask.

>>I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
>>irrational.
> Don't you even read your own writings? Was the word "irrational"
> used, no, but the intent shows.

Oh, so, now not using it is using it...fine example of consie
doublespeak :-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

On 2 Sep 2004 12:18:28 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:
>
>> I watched and listened with horror as the propoganda was ramped
>> upn last year, and I cheered when our PM (Canadian) said "no". (He
>> had his faults, a whole fistful of them, but he had limited scope
>> for damage!)
>
>Damn right. I was proud of Jean for not caving in. I'm a bit worried
>about the current poobah, though, although I think in the end he will
>abide by the long-standing policy.

<chuckle> He's constrained by a minority government. I'm hoping that
we are in for a period of change at all levels. There is certainly
going to be lots of negotiation in and around Parliament and the PMO
this time 'round...

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario


"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

On 2 Sep 2004 12:18:28 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:
>
>> I watched and listened with horror as the propoganda was ramped
>> upn last year, and I cheered when our PM (Canadian) said "no". (He
>> had his faults, a whole fistful of them, but he had limited scope
>> for damage!)
>
>Damn right. I was proud of Jean for not caving in. I'm a bit worried
>about the current poobah, though, although I think in the end he will
>abide by the long-standing policy.

<chuckle> He's constrained by a minority government. I'm hoping that
we are in for a period of change at all levels. There is certainly
going to be lots of negotiation in and around Parliament and the PMO
this time 'round...

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario


"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

On 2 Sep 2004 12:18:28 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:
>
>> I watched and listened with horror as the propoganda was ramped
>> upn last year, and I cheered when our PM (Canadian) said "no". (He
>> had his faults, a whole fistful of them, but he had limited scope
>> for damage!)
>
>Damn right. I was proud of Jean for not caving in. I'm a bit worried
>about the current poobah, though, although I think in the end he will
>abide by the long-standing policy.

<chuckle> He's constrained by a minority government. I'm hoping that
we are in for a period of change at all levels. There is certainly
going to be lots of negotiation in and around Parliament and the PMO
this time 'round...

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario


"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:

> <chuckle> He's constrained by a minority government. I'm hoping
> that we are in for a period of change at all levels. There is
> certainly going to be lots of negotiation in and around Parliament
> and the PMO this time 'round...

That, of course, is a plus. Who wants another three term
dictatorship. Personally, I strongly favour proportional
representation. It keeps the candidates humble :-)

I was shocked to hear Boudria in the House claim that no
industrialized nation uses proportional representation. I felt like
shouting at him: Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Spain...just for
starters. That debate really showed the ugly, lying, weasely side of
the Liberal party.

Now just watch all the Republicans think we favour Bush because I
said that ;-)

OT: READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT LIBERALS -- SHOCKING!

Just thought I'd save Nancree the trouble.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

PENMART01 wrote:

> Its out there if you want to read or see it!
>
> Just after John Kerry came back from Vietnam, he wrote the book THE NEW
> SOLDIER.
>
> The book is out of print. John Kerry does not allow the publisher to reprint
> it.
> To make a rational decision on November 2, you need to have all available
> facts.
> You can now read John Kerry's THE NEW SOLDIER online for FREE.
>
> Simply log on and go to this web site, <
> http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/ > it is all there for your reading
> enjoyment, despite Kerry's attempts at keeping it out of our hands by buying up
> all available copies and not allowing it to be reprinted.
>
> There are also several chapters of Unfit for Command by John O'Neil, on the web
> site. This is the book that is currently in the news, and which Kerry is also
> attempting to ban, so far unsuccessfully, I might add.
>
> Unfit for Command is, or soon will be, number one on the New York Times best
> seller list.
>
> Regardless of how you feel about the presidential race, it is hard for me to
> understand why anyone would want to elect a man who is actively attempting to
> suppress Article 1 to the Constitution of the United States.
> ---
>
>
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
> Sheldon
> ````````````
I'll bet he was hiding a tee-shirt of El Che underneath those greens.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

PENMART01 wrote:

> Its out there if you want to read or see it!
>
> Just after John Kerry came back from Vietnam, he wrote the book THE NEW
> SOLDIER.
>
> The book is out of print. John Kerry does not allow the publisher to reprint
> it.
> To make a rational decision on November 2, you need to have all available
> facts.
> You can now read John Kerry's THE NEW SOLDIER online for FREE.
>
> Simply log on and go to this web site, <
> http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/ > it is all there for your reading
> enjoyment, despite Kerry's attempts at keeping it out of our hands by buying up
> all available copies and not allowing it to be reprinted.
>
> There are also several chapters of Unfit for Command by John O'Neil, on the web
> site. This is the book that is currently in the news, and which Kerry is also
> attempting to ban, so far unsuccessfully, I might add.
>
> Unfit for Command is, or soon will be, number one on the New York Times best
> seller list.
>
> Regardless of how you feel about the presidential race, it is hard for me to
> understand why anyone would want to elect a man who is actively attempting to
> suppress Article 1 to the Constitution of the United States.
> ---
>
>
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
> Sheldon
> ````````````
I'll bet he was hiding a tee-shirt of El Che underneath those greens.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

On 2 Sep 2004 23:36:27 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Shirley Hicks > wrote in
:
>
>> <chuckle> He's constrained by a minority government. I'm hoping
>> that we are in for a period of change at all levels. There is
>> certainly going to be lots of negotiation in and around Parliament
>> and the PMO this time 'round...
>
>That, of course, is a plus. Who wants another three term
>dictatorship. Personally, I strongly favour proportional
>representation. It keeps the candidates humble :-)

Im thinking it might be a nice experiment to try. Let's see how BC
faires first.

>I was shocked to hear Boudria in the House claim that no
>industrialized nation uses proportional representation. I felt like
>shouting at him: Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Spain...just for
>starters. That debate really showed the ugly, lying, weasely side of
>the Liberal party.

Ooh. Time to tune into CPAC again.

>Now just watch all the Republicans think we favour Bush because I
>said that ;-)
>
>OT: READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT LIBERALS -- SHOCKING!
>
>Just thought I'd save Nancree the trouble.

Ooh, can I add to i?

Not only am I Canadian, I'm a green, secular, liberal (hell, let's go
for north country socialist!) feminist Canadian. I ride a bicycle to
work regularly, work as a creative type, own a co-ownership
co-operative (predates condos), qualify as a NAFTA professional and
can act as a dangerous proseletizer of outside viewpoints and foreign
languages. My experience teaches me that you can get more work out
of the worker bees with honey rather than fear, and a parent with a
good childcare arrangement and a decent benefits package is a more
productive employee than one without.

Did I miss any Republican Evil Words(TM)?

SHirley Hicks
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

On 2 Sep 2004 16:33:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>>
>> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
>> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage action.
>>
>> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
>> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"
>
>"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
>"everybody knows" things?

Most was in reference to those that I have spoken to.
Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 16:33:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>>
>> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
>> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage action.
>>
>> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
>> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"
>
>"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
>"everybody knows" things?

Most was in reference to those that I have spoken to.
Pan Ohco