Re: JESSE VENTURA ABOUT TO RUN FOR THE SENATE?
Hein
> Butler To A Hottie wrote:
>
> > This would have been entertaining if Ventura hadn't become (or
> > revealed himself to be) a nutjob 911 conspiracy geek.
>
> 9/11 is The Emperor's New Clothes Mk II, only in this version the crowd
> turns on the child when he points out reality.
>
> The official version of 9/11 is nothing but a massive conspiracy theory,
> and people who imagine that Arab guys in caves planning and
> orchestrating it is somehow more believable than a government coup are
> both ignorant of history and stupid.
What else did you expect from the Fat Dolts of Amerika? These are the
geniuses that still insist that JFK was taken out by a lone nut.
Amerikans are too concerned with stuffing their faces and watching TV
to be aware of anything going on around them in reality. Which makes
them perfect targets. Look at the Iraq swindle and how it was neatly
executed off the back of 9-11. What incredible dupes they are.
Honestly, can you really blame the power elite for exploiting them
repeatedly? They're virtually begging for it. One might even say
they deserve it.
Hein
> Why don't you take your little claims to the alt.politics groups and
> try to sell it there.
> BTW Idiots that like to believe that they are somehow reenforcing
> their arguments by playing cute little spelling tricks like "Amerika"
> or "AmeriKKKa" are nothing more than childish imbeciles.
> If they had anything of any real substance they would deliver more
> than just simple unsubstantiated rhetoric.
> Now run along before your mommy catches you playing on her computer.
Hey look, a furious fatso named after a children's scifi movie has
waddled into the discussion to prove the point.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting President.
Aaron Hirshberg
Burly...@gmail.com
Ben Holmes
aaronhi...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of the people in
>Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting President.
>
>Aaron Hirshberg
Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known for being the equal of
Yale and Harvard.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of the people in
> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting President.
>
> >Aaron Hirshberg
>
> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known for being the equal of
> Yale and Harvard.
Bush is an Ivy Leaguer in name only. He used his last name to get his
academic pedigree.
Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences. I have seen
him on PBS, giving a lecture at the Kennedy School of Government.
You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will not be giving any
college lectures. He is too stupid.
Aaron Hirshberg
Ben Holmes
aaronhi...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Jul 10, 10:16=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of the people in
>> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting President.
>>
>> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known for being
>> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>
>Bush is an Ivy Leaguer in name only. He used his last name to get his
>academic pedigree.
Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid issuing grades for money.
Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'august' institutions.
Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the intellect. It's
certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences.
Bravo for him! He also is a fairly competent writer for his beliefs, I own
several of his books.
>I have seen
>him on PBS, giving a lecture at the Kennedy School of Government.
>
>You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will not be giving any
>college lectures. He is too stupid.
>
>Aaron Hirshberg
Another Bush-basher...
Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't see the 'obvious', and
vote in a Kerry or a Gore, right? And it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that
you're pulling the lever for Obama.
But this doesn't change the facts.
curtjester1
They would smear him endlessly. He is the only one that hates the
conspirators that took away JFK, and he is the only one that talks
about the embarrassing national debt and would do something about
those folk who put US there.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
"Another Bush-basher...
What facts? That Bush was NEVER elected as President of the United
States in 2000?
Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right? If not, why
do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 10, 1:49=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >On Jul 10, 10:16=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g2000hsf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of the people i=
>n
>> >> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting President.
>>
>> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known for being
>> >> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>>
>> >academic pedigree.
>>
>> Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid issuing grades for=
> money.
>>
>> Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'august' institutions=
>.
>>
>> Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the intellect. =A0It'=
>s
>> certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>>
>> >Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences.
>>
>> I own several of his books.
>>
>> >I have seen
>> >him on PBS, giving a lecture at the Kennedy School of Government.
>>
>> >You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will not be giving any
>>
>> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>
>"Another Bush-basher...
>
>Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't see the
>'obvious', and vote in a Kerry or a Gore, right? And it wouldn't be a
>stretch to imagine that you're pulling the lever for Obama.
>
>But this doesn't change the facts"
>
>What facts? That Bush was NEVER elected as President of the United
>States in 2000?
Of course he was. Repeated recounts by journalists have *NEVER* been able to
find enough votes to put Al Gore in office, using Al Gore's own specifications.
Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to argue
otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke.
Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the table,
Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find something that you think
is stronger.
But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the facts
behind it. Here's merely one recount example:
***************************************************************************
Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount
April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's
close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two
newspapers reported Wednesday.
The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248
"undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in
December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to
1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival,
former Vice President Al Gore.
"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been
president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor.
"I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how
the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."
Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots
advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three
votes, the newspaper reported.
The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and
Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no
different from ballots deemed to be valid.
The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those
ballots had been counted.
The experts assigned by USA Today and the Herald began counting the undervotes
-- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines -- on
December 18, 2000.
They concluded their work on March 13.
Reaction to the verdict of the two newspapers was mixed, but some of the people
who were key players in the 36-day recount drama that followed last Election Day
agreed Wednesday that the results indicated Florida has a lot of work to do to
improve its elections system.
"We have to try to improve the election infrastructure, improve the education of
voters," said former Florida elections official and CNN analyst David Cardwell.
Cardwell argued Florida needs to implement a more uniform method of collecting
and counting votes across the state, and many localities are in desperate need
of updated voting equipment. Many of the counties that logged significant
numbers of undervotes were using punch card machines that were more than 30
years old.
Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Gore, concurred with Cardwell, saying the
federal government should take the initiative to provide money to localities
that cannot afford to replace aging and unreliable equipment.
Hattaway told CNN on Wednesday that the Gore camp has accepted Bush as the
legitimate president, but there are still lessons to be learned from the efforts
of the Miami Herald and USA Today, and other ongoing recount endeavors,
including a consortium recount of both undervotes and "overvotes."
"Overvotes" are ballots that displayed more than one mark that might be
interpreted as a vote for president. CNN is one of many news organizations
participating in that ballot count.
"People understand that this is an academic exercise," Hattaway said.
"Hopefully, this will lead to some sort of reform so this does not happen again.
He did level some criticism at the Bush White House, saying the new
administration has shown little interest in tackling the problem.
Montana Republican Gov. Mark Racicot, who acted as a spokesman for the
Republicans as the Gore and Bush camps tussled in the media through the long
November-December recount battle in the courts, said Wednesday that the
administration is interested in finding a resolution to counting problems in
Florida and other states.
But, he added, this is primarily an issue that the states need to address
themselves.
"These are specifically state problems," Racicot said. "You can't wield the
power of the federal government on the states."
Racicot said Bush hasn't given much thought to the various recount projects in
Florida.
"This shows President Bush wins again," he said. "He won the first count, then
the recount, then the manual recounts, and was declared the victor this time by
the media.
"What this says is what the American people set in their minds a long time ago,"
Racicot continued. "This election is over, and President Bush is the victor."
Hattaway, in turn, said Gore is getting on with his life.
"His bottom line was that all the votes should be counted," Hattaway said. "He's
following (the count) to see what this says about the system and what we can do
to reform it.
CNN Miami Bureau Chief John Zarrella and Ian Christopher McCaleb contributed to
this story.
***************************************************************************
Gore tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the Supreme Court made, in my
view, the only correct decision.
>Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that overall, his
performance has been average.
>If not, why
>do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply Google
"Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various offerings.
Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the overhaul of the
welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into kicking and
screaming by the Conservatives in Congress...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <79db057f-2daf-41fe-8f37-1593c3a9e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
You obviously have missed the stats (minus the three states in dispute
or not declaring a winner- Florida, New Mexico and Oregon) showing the
results:
Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
polls. Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
and of itself is cause for a red flag. Thirdly, the fraud was evident
to all who were old enough to understand what was going on, thus the
whole Supreme Court process should have been thrown out the window and
the three states above should have been nixed. The Constitution (I
hope you agree this is worthy enough for you) has a provision for this
instance:
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five
highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the
President."
Article II, Section 1
Thus we see with Gore's lead:
Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
he could have been declared the winner, or at worst there should have
been a Congressional vote, the Supreme Court should have had nothing
to do with it.
"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
something that you think is stronger."
I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence? I
know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
recent memory, but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
one:
"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you
do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." — Speaking during
"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.
— As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things like
compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
things like this:
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." — Greater
Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food on
their table. I have read many things that say when he is talking
about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
than him.
"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
facts behind it. Here's merely one recount example:"
Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
LNers. Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
different? If you really believe the below article to reflect the
god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
the JFK case as well then.
How did he try and circumvent Florida election law? Do you find the
fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
of interest at all? Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
327.
> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
overall, his performance has been average."
I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
Coolidge.
> >If not, why
> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>
"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply
Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
offerings."
Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good? Clinton is a
crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
families are best of friends.
"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
overhaul of the
welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
kicking and
screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 10, 6:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <79db057f-2daf-41fe-8f37-1593c3a9e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Jul 10, 1:49=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g2000hsf.googlegro=>> >> >On Jul 10, 10:16=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g2000hsf.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of the peopl=
>e i=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting Preside=
>nt.
>>
>> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known for being
>> >> >> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>>
>t his
>> >> >academic pedigree.
>>
>> >> Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid issuing grades =
>for=3D
>> > money.
>>
>> >> Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'august' instituti=
>ons=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the intellect. =3D=
>A0It'=3D
>> >s
>> >> certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>>
>> >> >Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences.
>>
>fs,
>> >> I own several of his books.
>>
>> >> >I have seen
>> >> >him on PBS, giving a lecture at the Kennedy School of Government.
>>
>y
>> >> >college lectures. =3DA0He is too stupid.
>>
>> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >"Another Bush-basher...
>>
>> >Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't see the
>> >'obvious', and vote in a Kerry or a Gore, right? And it wouldn't be a
>> >stretch to imagine that you're pulling the lever for Obama.
>>
>> >But this doesn't change the facts"
>>
>> >What facts? That Bush was NEVER elected as President of the United
>> >States in 2000?
>>
>
>"Of course he was. Repeated recounts by journalists have *NEVER* been
>able to find enough votes to put Al Gore in office, using Al Gore's
>own specifications."
>
>You obviously have missed the stats (minus the three states in dispute
>or not declaring a winner- Florida, New Mexico and Oregon) showing the
>results:
>
>Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
>Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
If you allow me to pick and choose which states I'd like to include, I can have
almost *anyone* who's on the ballots "elected" President.
But the U.S. voting regulations simply don't allow people to do that.
Care to try again?
(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state... if he'd
only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in office)
>"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
>argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>
>Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
>had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
>polls.
Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition, here's
some data to chew on:
****************************************************************
Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida?
Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida before polls were closed?
Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida when Bush never trailed in
tabulations?
Further, what about other states? In contrast to Florida, the networks decided
to wait longer to declare states for Bush, even the states where he won
handedly. For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five minutes to
project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent. In Ohio, it
took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 percent.
In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it was "too
close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed. This caused Tom Brokaw to
exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call does come as a
surprise this evening." They waited at least thirty minutes on a variety of
other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.
Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Wouldn't it make sense for the networks
to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight races like
Florida?
****************************************************************
In addition - had the media *NOT* called the race before the polls closed, it
would not have been as close as it was.
See: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
>Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
>and of itself is cause for a red flag.
Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he have done?
Be specific ... and provide citations.
>Thirdly, the fraud was evident
>to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
Quite clearly untrue...
>thus the
>whole Supreme Court process should have been thrown out the window and
>the three states above should have been nixed. The Constitution (I
>hope you agree this is worthy enough for you) has a provision for this
>instance:
>
>"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
>President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
>Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
>Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
>Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
>President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five
>highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the
>President."
>
>Article II, Section 1
>
>Thus we see with Gore's lead:
>
>Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
>Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
>
>he could have been declared the winner, or at worst there should have
>been a Congressional vote, the Supreme Court should have had nothing
>to do with it.
I wonder why you keep throwing out perfectly legitimate and valid state votes?
Isn't it the Democrats who keep yelling about disenfranchisement? And here you
are, trying to do it to THREE WHOLE STATES WORTH OF AMERICAN CITIZENS!!
>"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
>table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
>something that you think is stronger."
>
>I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence. Perhaps
it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much like the evidence
in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the evidence here isn't going to
support the argument that Bush is "stupid."
>I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
>recent memory,
Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a treasure trove
of dumb comments recorded.
Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to crucify.
Feel free to browse http://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.html among others on
the net...
>but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
>one:
>
>"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you
>do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." =97 Speaking during
>"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.
>=97 As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
>
>I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things like
>compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
>things like this:
>
>"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." =97 Greater
>Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
>
>because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food on
>their table.
You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his character
on far less evidence.
This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks about President
Bush.
>I have read many things that say when he is talking
>about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
>at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
>I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
>University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
>than him.
So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously known for
being the equal of Yale and Harvard.
LOL!
>"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
>facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>
>Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
>to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
>Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
>LNers.
Then you should be able to document it... right?
Provide the citations...
>Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
>below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
>different?
The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
demonstrated their bias on many occasions.
>If you really believe the below article to reflect the
>god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
>the JFK case as well then.
With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story.
Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER to be able
to report a story that would have sent their circulation soaring beyond all
count.
(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause - Monica's
dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was buried by the traditional
mass media.)
>
>> *************************************************************************=
>**
>> Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount
>>
>> April 4, 2001
>> Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)
>>
>> MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last =
>year's
>> close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supre=
>me
>> Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, tw=
>o
>> newspapers reported Wednesday.
>>
>> The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248
>> "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
>>
>> Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certifie=
>d in
>> December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled=
> to
>> 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic=
> rival,
>> former Vice President Al Gore.
>>
>> "In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should hav=
>e been
>> president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing e=
>ditor.
>> "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions abou=
>t how
>> the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."
>>
>> Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots
>> advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just =
>three
>> votes, the newspaper reported.
>>
>> The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Bea=
>ch and
>> Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were n=
>o
>> different from ballots deemed to be valid.
>>
>> The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those
>> ballots had been counted.
>>
>> The experts assigned by USA Today and the Herald began counting the under=
>votes
>> -- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines -- on
>> December 18, 2000.
>>
>> They concluded their work on March 13.
>>
>> Reaction to the verdict of the two newspapers was mixed, but some of the =
>people
>> who were key players in the 36-day recount drama that followed last Elect=
>ion Day
>> agreed Wednesday that the results indicated Florida has a lot of work to =
>do to
>> improve its elections system.
>>
>> "We have to try to improve the election infrastructure, improve the educa=
>tion of
>> voters," said former Florida elections official and CNN analyst David Car=
>dwell.
>>
>> Cardwell argued Florida needs to implement a more uniform method of colle=
>cting
>> and counting votes across the state, and many localities are in desperate=
> need
>> of updated voting equipment. Many of the counties that logged significant
>> numbers of undervotes were using punch card machines that were more than =
>30
>> years old.
>>
>> Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Gore, concurred with Cardwell, sayi=
>ng the
>> federal government should take the initiative to provide money to localit=
>ies
>> that cannot afford to replace aging and unreliable equipment.
>>
>> Hattaway told CNN on Wednesday that the Gore camp has accepted Bush as th=
>e
>> legitimate president, but there are still lessons to be learned from the =
>efforts
>> of the Miami Herald and USA Today, and other ongoing recount endeavors,
>> including a consortium recount of both undervotes and "overvotes."
>>
>> "Overvotes" are ballots that displayed more than one mark that might be
>> interpreted as a vote for president. CNN is one of many news organization=
>s
>> participating in that ballot count.
>>
>> "People understand that this is an academic exercise," Hattaway said.
>> "Hopefully, this will lead to some sort of reform so this does not happen=
> again.
>>
>> He did level some criticism at the Bush White House, saying the new
>> administration has shown little interest in tackling the problem.
>>
>> Montana Republican Gov. Mark Racicot, who acted as a spokesman for the
>> Republicans as the Gore and Bush camps tussled in the media through the l=
>ong
>> November-December recount battle in the courts, said Wednesday that the
>> administration is interested in finding a resolution to counting problems=
> in
>> Florida and other states.
>>
>> But, he added, this is primarily an issue that the states need to address
>> themselves.
>>
>> "These are specifically state problems," Racicot said. "You can't wield t=
>he
>> power of the federal government on the states."
>>
>> Racicot said Bush hasn't given much thought to the various recount projec=
>ts in
>> Florida.
>>
>> "This shows President Bush wins again," he said. "He won the first count,=
> then
>> the recount, then the manual recounts, and was declared the victor this t=
>ime by
>> the media.
>>
>> "What this says is what the American people set in their minds a long tim=
>e ago,"
>> Racicot continued. "This election is over, and President Bush is the vict=
>or."
>>
>> Hattaway, in turn, said Gore is getting on with his life.
>>
>> "His bottom line was that all the votes should be counted," Hattaway said=
>. "He's
>> following (the count) to see what this says about the system and what we =
>can do
>> to reform it.
>>
>> CNN Miami Bureau Chief John Zarrella and Ian Christopher McCaleb contribu=
>ted to
>> this story.
>> *************************************************************************=
>**
>
>"Gore tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the Supreme Court
>made, in my view, the only correct decision."
>
>How did he try and circumvent Florida election law?
If you don't even know what the Supreme Court ruled on - I suggest you do some
simple research.
The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the Supreme
Court stopped it.
>Do you find the
>fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
>of interest at all?
How can their be any "conflict of interest?"
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE FLORIDA
GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR CON IN THE FLORIDA
ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU ARE SOUNDING!
>Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
>327.
One is all it takes.
>> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>
>"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
>overall, his performance has been average."
>
>I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
>am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
>"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
>wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
>horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
>Coolidge.
Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?
>> >If not, why
>> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>>
>
>"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply
>Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
>offerings."
>
>Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good?
Because the vast over-riding majority of "Bush bashers" are both liberal, and
believe that Clinton was a good President.
>Clinton is a
>crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
>families are best of friends.
I voted for Bush - who did you vote for?
>"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
>overhaul of the
>welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
>kicking and
>screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
>
>I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
>with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his Socialism
a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bushes higher
than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
David E. Powell
> Starkiller wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Hein
Snip "9/11 was a hoax" cry for attention and mental help.....
> > Too bad everything you just posted is complete and utter bullshit.
> > Why don't you take your little claims to the alt.politics groups and
> > try to sell it there.
> > BTW Idiots that like to believe that they are somehow reenforcing
> > their arguments by playing cute little spelling tricks like "Amerika"
> > or "AmeriKKKa" are nothing more than childish imbeciles.
> > If they had anything of any real substance they would deliver more
> > than just simple unsubstantiated rhetoric.
> > Now run along before your mommy catches you playing on her computer.
>
> Hey look, a furious fatso
How do would know his weight? What would be the point anyway? He could
be as fat as Big Vis or as skinny as Stacy Kiebler and it doesn't
matter to the argument.
named after a children's scifi movie has
> waddled into the discussion to prove the point
Yes. His point is valid and the other one he rebutted is not, then.
Otherwise you would have more than implying he has a weight problem.
Thank you for admitting he was right, then. Please move along.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <82867e8c-f25b-43f5-b347-1b0e28012...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Care to try again?"
You lost me as the states I listed were not "picked and choosed" as
New Mexico and Oregon could not reach a conclusion regarding who won,
whereas Florida was obviously corrupted. Not counting those three
states would have been a fair thing to do as would turning it over to
the Congress. Eventually the two states, New Mexico and Oregon did
reach a conclusion, but they did not carry enough electoral votes to
decide the issue. I always thought the courts were not supposed to
meddle in the legislative branch.
"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state...
if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
office)"
The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
shenanigans in Florida.
> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>
> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
> >polls.
"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition,
here's some data to chew on:"
Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is why
the media called it.
> ****************************************************************
> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida?
>
> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida before polls were closed?
>
> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida when Bush never trailed in
> tabulations?
>
> Further, what about other states? In contrast to Florida, the networks decided
> to wait longer to declare states for Bush, even the states where he won
> handedly. For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five minutes to
> project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent. In Ohio, it
> took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 percent.
>
> In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it was "too
> close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed. This caused Tom Brokaw to
> exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call does come as a
> surprise this evening." They waited at least thirty minutes on a variety of
> other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.
>
> Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Wouldn't it make sense for the networks
> to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight races like
> Florida?
> ****************************************************************
>
"In addition - had the media *NOT* called the race before the polls
closed, it would not have been as close as it was."
Don't get your point as the only part of the state still voting when
they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
left. People there said no one stopped voting either. I think the
confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
the media calling the projected winner.
> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
>
> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this as it has
nothing to do wiht the JFK assassination, but as the governor he was
in a position to do a lot when it came to recounts. If you don't
believe that you are niave or not being honest. A governor can
control a lot in their state including being on the inside of all
things that go on in their state. You shouldn't need me to provide
cites for this if you are familar with politics.
> >Thirdly, the fraud was evident
> >to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
>
"Quite clearly untrue..."
You are a Bush supporter so of course you don't think so....
Two of them couldn't reach a decision on their own for some time,
although they eventually did, and in the case of Florida I don't like
the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
got involved according to the Constitution.
> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
> >something that you think is stronger."
>
> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
"stupid.""
I never said he was, so what is your point? I don't think he is
exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you say
why he is so smart? Remember how you reacted when you said I put
words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
> >recent memory,
>
"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I think
the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
crucify."
More baloney, the media is NOT liberal, I don't know where this came
from but it is not accurate. The media is a big business and they
don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
occassion.
"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
others on
the net..."
Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
him.
> >but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
> >one:
>
> >"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you
> >do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." =97 Speaking during
> >"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.
> >=97 As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
>
> >I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things like
> >compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
> >things like this:
>
> >"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." =97 Greater
> >Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
>
> >because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food on
> >their table.
>
"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
character on far less evidence."
Actually many pshycologists and socialogists have said this about
him. People only stammer or trip over themselves when they are
speaking about things they are not comfortable with or in some cases
lying about.
"This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks about
President Bush."
This "speaks" to your assumption, which you are very quick to do all
the time. You are always assuming things about people without proof.
As I said, if Bush was a liberal I would say the same things about
him.
> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
> >than him.
>
"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
known for
being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
and make something of themself.
"LOL!"
Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
mater?
> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
> >facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>
> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
> >LNers.
>
"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
Document what? The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
well, Google it for yourself.
"Provide the citations..."
Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
> >different?
>
"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal. They
have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
would it be liberal?
> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
> >the JFK case as well then.
>
"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
method in Florida, or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
count as well.
"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER
to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
soaring beyond all count."
Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
don't want them to.
"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
buried by the traditional mass media.)"
All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they are
owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tell
me who is better for defense contracts?
Another assumption. Perhaps I don't believe what the Supreme Court,
something they had no right to be involved in by the way, ruled on,
how about that?
"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
Supreme Court stopped it."
By having a recount? What harm could a recount do? Maybe this
article will answer it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
> >Do you find the
> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
> >of interest at all?
>
"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush? Did Gov. Bush not make
Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
majority of minority votes)? Harris broke numerous laws including
Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
journalists.
"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
ARE SOUNDING!"
The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
votes, if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
stupid. They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
allowed to vote due to fraud and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you. Can't
you ever discuss anything without getting rude? I see why you are a
Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
are? Dictatorship?
> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
> >327.
"One is all it takes."
Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO winding
up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>
> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
> >overall, his performance has been average."
>
> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
> >Coolidge.
>
"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
> >> >If not, why
> >> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>
> >"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply
> >Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
> >offerings."
>
> >Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good?
>
"Because the vast over-riding majority of "Bush bashers" are both
liberal, and believe that Clinton was a good President."
Well I'm not one of them, I don't care about party or labels, I care
about results. You assume too much most of the time.
> >Clinton is a
> >crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
> >families are best of friends.
"I voted for Bush - who did you vote for?"
I went with Nadar in 2000 as I didn't like the message of the
Libertarian candidate then. I voted most recently for Ron Paul as he
sadly had to become a Republican just to be included in debates. When
I was young and dumb I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. as well, but then
I learned none of the "mainstream" candidates gave a damn about me.
> >"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
> >overhaul of the
> >welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
> >kicking and
> >screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
>
> >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
> >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>
> Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his Socialism
> a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bushes higher
> than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
they were NEVER Presidents. Gore was not part of the Clinton camp and
Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. Some claim Gore
was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
incident. I would rate Truman higher than either Bush, Teddy
Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
Hein
> On Jul 10, 8:48�am, Hein <heinrich.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Starkiller wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Hein
> > > <heinrich.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Snip "9/11 was a hoax" cry for attention and mental help.....
You're a lazy arguer, and a traitor to your own country and its
purported ideals. Your entire country got hijacked and here you are
playing Tory Loyalist against anyone who won't just mildly accept it.
Your founding fathers would be utterly ashamed of your ilk's cowardice
and slavish willingness to not only fall in line, but subdue your
fellow victims.
> > > Too bad everything you just posted is complete and utter bullshit.
> > > Why don't you take your little claims to the alt.politics groups and
> > > try to sell it there.
> > > BTW Idiots that like to believe that they are somehow reenforcing
> > > their arguments by playing cute little spelling tricks like "Amerika"
> > > or "AmeriKKKa" are nothing more than childish imbeciles.
> > > If they had anything of any real substance they would deliver more
> > > than just simple unsubstantiated rhetoric.
> > > Now run along before your mommy catches you playing on her computer.
> >
> > Hey look, a furious fatso
>
> How do would know his weight? What would be the point anyway? He could
> be as fat as Big Vis or as skinny as Stacy Kiebler and it doesn't
> matter to the argument.
You should follow the thread before inserting yourself into it. We
were discussing the Fat Dolts of Amerika, after all, and their
propensity to pay more attention to what they're constantly shoving
down their shiny round faces -- and what's on the boob tube -- than
what's actually happening in reality.
>
> named after a children's scifi movie has
> > waddled into the discussion to prove the point
>
> Yes. His point is valid and the other one he rebutted is not, then.
> Otherwise you would have more than implying he has a weight problem.
> Thank you for admitting he was right, then. Please move along.
His point was the same as yours: to insult, demean and ridicule anyone
who questions the government version of events, avoid reasoning or
substantive debate, and rejoice in the dull comfort of majority
belief. Yet, you people sob like infants when served a little of your
own medicine.
Phil Gramm was right; Amerikans are pathetic whiners. And gullible
dupes, who let their country be hijacked and did nothing about it
except abuse, suppress and ostracize those who try to expose the
truth.
Like I said, you're traitors.
Ben Holmes
There's been *NO* evidence given by you that "Florida was obviously corrupted"
Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. The law was
followed.
>Not counting those three
>states would have been a fair thing to do
What does the *LAW* say?
>as would turning it over to
>the Congress. Eventually the two states, New Mexico and Oregon did
>reach a conclusion, but they did not carry enough electoral votes to
>decide the issue.
And yet, Bush carried the Electoral college... you'll just have to live with
that.
>I always thought the courts were not supposed to
>meddle in the legislative branch.
Then you have a more serious problem with understanding the Constitution that I
imagined.
>"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state...
>if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
>office)"
>
>The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
>shenanigans in Florida.
The "shenanigans" you refer to is Florida attempting to follow the law - Gore
bringing suit, the activist Florida Supreme court overturning Florida election
law in the middle of an election - and the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the
clearly wrong actions of the Florida State Court.
Go ahead and tell everyone here that you are IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE ELECTION
LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION...
Say it right here, in print.
Because that *IS* what you're arguing.
>> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
>> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>>
>> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
>> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
>> >polls.
>
>"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition,
>here's some data to chew on:"
>
>Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
>are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is why
>the media called it.
The media has been *repeatedly* wrong using exit polling. So your "facts" are
simply incorrect. You can easily validate this by simply Googling "exit poll
discrepancy", or "exit poll problems" or any similar term.
>> ****************************************************************
>> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida?
>>
>> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida before polls were closed?
>>
>> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida when Bush never trailed in
>> tabulations?
>>
>>Further, what about other states? In contrast to Florida, the networks decided
>> to wait longer to declare states for Bush, even the states where he won
>> handedly. For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five minutes to
>>project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent. In Ohio, it
>> took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 percent.
>>
>> In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it was "too
>>close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed. This caused Tom Brokaw to
>>exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call does come as a
>> surprise this evening." They waited at least thirty minutes on a variety of
>> other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.
>>
>>Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Wouldn't it make sense for the networks
>> to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight races like
>> Florida?
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>
>"In addition - had the media *NOT* called the race before the polls
>closed, it would not have been as close as it was."
>
>Don't get your point
You mean you don't *want* to 'get my point'.
If you don't believe that the Florida numbers would have been even higher for
Bush if the media hadn't 'jumped the gun', then you're merely being dishonest
with the facts.
But don't take my word for it - do the research yourself.
>as the only part of the state still voting when
>they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
>left. People there said no one stopped voting either.
How many people said that the "results" being broadcast STOPPED THEM FROM GOING
TO THE POLLS?
>I think the
>confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
>the media calling the projected winner.
Speculation is a LNT'er game... what do the voters *THEMSELVES* give as the
reason?
>> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
You must not have read this - as it gives the polled reason that the non-voters
THEMSELVES mention for not voting...
>> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
>> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
>
>"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
>
>Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
>have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
>
>I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this
Of *course* you aren't. People often begin running away when I demand a
citation.
>as it has
>nothing to do wiht the JFK assassination, but as the governor he was
>in a position to do a lot when it came to recounts.
If you can't provide a citation for what he *DID*, or was even *allowed* to do,
then you're merely being dishonest.
>If you don't
>believe that you are niave or not being honest.
I'm not the one simply spattering speculation against a fan...
>A governor can
>control a lot in their state including being on the inside of all
>things that go on in their state. You shouldn't need me to provide
>cites for this if you are familar with politics.
Be specific... document your charges...
>> >Thirdly, the fraud was evident
>> >to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
>>
>
>"Quite clearly untrue..."
>
>You are a Bush supporter so of course you don't think so....
Then you should have no problem *SPECIFICALLY* describing this "fraud"... What
was "fraudulent?"
Merely tossing out sly innuendo isn't going to convince anyone other than a
Bush-bashing leftist liberal.
Did they do so in accordance with their own state laws?
That's the *ONLY* question that's relevant.
>and in the case of Florida I don't like
>the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
Be specific... the Supreme Court PUT THE LAWS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED INTO PLACE
*BACK* IN PLACE.
It was Gore, and the Florida Supreme Court - that tried to change the Florida
election laws in the middle of an election.
So tell everyone here - who was right? Gore suing to change state election law
in the middle of the election? Or the U.S. Supreme court who upheld Florida
voters?
>Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
>got involved according to the Constitution.
Yes, you *are* silly... mainly because you're simply ignorant of what actually
happened - so your words just fall flat when the facts are brought forth.
You're actually arguing that the election laws *should* have been capable of
being changed right in the middle of an election.
Let's hear you say it, in black and white, right here:
>> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
>> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
>> >something that you think is stronger."
>>
>> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
>
>"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
>like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
>evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>"stupid.""
>
>I never said he was, so what is your point?
This *was* what the thread was about. You jumped in and changed the topic. I
merely comment on that fact.
>I don't think he is
>exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you say
>why he is so smart?
No-one who graduates from both Yale and Harvard is "stupid"
>Remember how you reacted when you said I put
>words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
Quote what words I've 'put in your mouth'.
Here... let me help you - here was the statement again: "Interesting to note
that you couldn't argue what was already on the table, Bush's supposed lack of
intelligence - and had to find something that you think is stronger."
What is untrue about that statement?
>> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
>> >recent memory,
>>
>
>"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
>treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
>
>I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
>Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I think
>the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
You'll put your memory against mine? Then explain to the nice lurkers just why
you don't seem to realize that you're supporting the changing of election law in
the middle of an election...
*I* remember it... why don't you?
>"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
>crucify."
>
>More baloney, the media is NOT liberal,
The proof is overwhelming... many books have been written on the topic. I'll be
happy to provide you with a few titles from my library if you're actually
interested in learning the truth.
But I suspect that you're just another leftist with an agenda.
>I don't know where this came
>from but it is not accurate.
How about the journalists themselves?
>The media is a big business and they
>don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
>occassion.
If you truly believe that the traditional mass media is not left of center -
then you simply have blinders on.
>"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
>others on
>the net..."
>
>Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
>him.
He's merely the most recent. I can also bring Carter into the mix, but the
further back I go, the less people remember.
Clinton provides the proof of your bias.
All you have to do is tell everyone that I'm wrong. But you *DID* vote for
Clinton, Gore, Kerry... etc, and you *DO* plan on voting for Obama.
You simply realize that being tarred with the "leftist liberal" brush is
damaging. (and rightfully so.)
>> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
>> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
>> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
>> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
>> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
>> >than him.
>>
>
>"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
>known for being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>
>Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
>years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
>the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
>either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
>they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
>happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
>and make something of themself.
So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously known for
being the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>"LOL!"
>
>Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
>mater?
Ventura Jr. College, and San Jose State University.
Telling everyone the *OBVIOUS* fact that "North Hennepin Community College" is
not in the same league as Yale and Harvard is merely the truth, nothing more,
nothing less.
>> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
>> >facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>>
>> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
>> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
>> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
>> >LNers.
>>
>
>"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
>
>Document what?
You've just asserted that I'm "just as gullible as the LNers" - yet when
challenged to support such an assertion - you pretend you don't understand.
LOL!!
>The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
>copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
>well, Google it for yourself.
>
>"Provide the citations..."
>
>Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
It's not possible for me to Google the citation that demonstrates that I'm just
as gullible as the LNers.
Seems that once again you demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice.
>> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
>> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
>> >different?
>>
>
>"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
>demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
>
>This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal.
These will start you out:
Inventing Reality, by Michael Parenti
Bias, by Bernard Goldman
Slander, by Ann Coulter
Showdown, by Larry Elder
Be sure to read the other side too:
What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman.
I know I have a few other books lying around my home library that would be
useful, but these titles can start you off.
You see, I *do* take the time to educate myself on topics of interest to me -
how many books have *YOU* read about media bias? Any?
>They
>have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
Untrue.
*demonstrably* untrue.
>JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
>up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
>would it be liberal?
A frequently asserted statement that reveals your ignorance of the topic. Try
picking up a few books on the subject and educate yourself. Or remain
ignorant... no-one other than you really cares about your knowledge. And I
suspect that you don't care either.
>> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
>> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
>> >the JFK case as well then.
>>
>
>"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
>
>There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
>method in Florida,
The "butterfly" ballot? Who created it? Let's see how far your memory extends.
>or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
>count as well.
And just who claimed that they voted, but their vote wasn't counted? Just how
did they know that their vote "wasn't counted?"
>"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER
>to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
>soaring beyond all count."
>
>Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
>conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
>don't want them to.
Beginning to sound like a kook...
>"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
>- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
>buried by the traditional mass media.)"
>
>All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
>unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
>"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
>state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
>system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
>Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
>years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
>they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they are
>owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tell
>me who is better for defense contracts?
Until you educate yourself, spouting nonsense is merely going to brand you as
gullible.
What did the U.S. Supreme court rule?
Explain it to the lurkers...
When you spout off without knowing the facts, you almost always 'step in it.'
>"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
>Supreme Court stopped it."
>
>By having a recount?
Yep. Can you explain the law that was being circumvented?
>What harm could a recount do?
Break the law.
>Maybe this
>article will answer it:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
I like it! Quoting a British paper - when I've cited the actual recounts done
AFTER THE ELECTION BY SEVERAL NEWSPAPERS!!
It's a stretch, isn't it?
>> >Do you find the
>> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
>> >of interest at all?
>>
>
>"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
>
>Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush?
What did Katherine Harris do that was contrary to the law?
Be specific.
>Did Gov. Bush not make
>Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
>clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
>2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
>majority of minority votes)?
Be specific. What are you trying to claim here?
That private companies are verboten?
That the laws against felons voting should be repealed?
That some people were removed who shouldn't have been?
Tell everyone here about Gore and the military vote... you *do* remember, don't
you?
>Harris broke numerous laws including
>Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
>journalists.
What "document" was withheld. Be specific. Provide a citation.
>"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
>FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
>CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
>ARE SOUNDING!"
>
>The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
>votes,
Harris followed the law.
>if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
>stupid.
You're implying that Harris violated the law. Document your charge or be known
for the partisan that you are...
>They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
>allowed to vote due to fraud
Document this charge.
>and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
>Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you.
You may be sure, I suspect that lurkers might have a different opinion.
>Can't
>you ever discuss anything without getting rude?
Demanding citations and proof will always be considered "rude" by the other
side. LOL!!!
>I see why you are a
>Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
>are? Dictatorship?
Do you understand why Bush isn't a true conservative? Do you understand the
difference between a liberal and a conservative?
Can you name a President that was further to the right than Bush, yet not a
"dictator?"
>> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
>> >327.
>
>"One is all it takes."
>
>Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO winding
>up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
You think that a close election is statistically "ridiculous?"
Bugs you that Bush was not only elected, but *RE* elected, doesn't it?
>> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>>
>> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
>> >overall, his performance has been average."
>>
>> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
>> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
>> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
>> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
>> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
>> >Coolidge.
>>
>
>"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
>
>Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
>"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
>therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
>parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
*Not* voting for either of the only two candidates with any chance at all of
being elected is "throwing away your vote."
Tell us your opinion of the Rural Electrification Administration... if you were
elected, what would you do with this particular agency?
Ditto with the U.S. Department of Education.
>> >> >If not, why
>> >> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>>
>> >"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply
>> >Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
>> >offerings."
>>
>> >Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good?
>>
>
>"Because the vast over-riding majority of "Bush bashers" are both
>liberal, and believe that Clinton was a good President."
>
>Well I'm not one of them, I don't care about party or labels, I care
>about results. You assume too much most of the time.
You've already implied your approval of Clinton
And if you don't understand results, then you can't understand what results you
want.
>> >Clinton is a
>> >crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
>> >families are best of friends.
>
>"I voted for Bush - who did you vote for?"
>
>I went with Nadar in 2000 as I didn't like the message of the
>Libertarian candidate then. I voted most recently for Ron Paul as he
>sadly had to become a Republican just to be included in debates. When
>I was young and dumb I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. as well, but then
>I learned none of the "mainstream" candidates gave a damn about me.
You don't seem very politically aware...
>> >"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
>> >overhaul of the
>> >welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
>> >kicking and
>> >screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
>>
>> >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
>> >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>>Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his Socialism
>>a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bushes higher
>> than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>
>Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
>they were NEVER Presidents.
They both would have been disasters as President.
>Gore was not part of the Clinton camp
Presumably, you mean that Vice President doesn't count.
>and
>Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. Some claim Gore
>was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
>plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
>died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
>incident. I would rate Truman
He wasn't included in your original list.
>higher than either Bush, Teddy
>Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
Tell us, can you describe the basic differences between Conservatives, Liberals,
and Libertarians?
curtjester1
> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>
> > Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his Socialism
> > a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bushes higher
> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>
> Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
> they were NEVER Presidents. Gore was not part of the Clinton camp and
> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. Some claim Gore
> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
> incident. I would rate Truman higher than either Bush, Teddy
> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal, that has to
include the regime they incorporated on 11/22/63 along with Jerry
Ford, and Richard Nixon? I do believe the Bushes had boats/ships in
the harbor of the Bay of Pigs, were instrumental in getting Sadaam
Hussein into power, and well with a record of LYING about his
whereabouts (G.H.W.) on 11/22/63, even tried making up an alibi that
actually indicted him (it was so poor), and lied continually to the
nation that he was never in the CIA. It's totally amusing to me that
people who claim to bash the Warren Report, the FBI and the CIA for
the involvment in the JFK assassination fiasco, will go out and
support the conspirator's themselves. I think it was Prescott who
said something to the effect that if they actually knew what we do/
did, they would be all running us out of town.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
Good points CJ, and it was Bush 41 who said if they knew what we
really did they would "hang us from the nearest trees!" The Bushes,
and their Clinton cronies (remember a young Clinton drove Hale Boggs
to the airport to take his fateful flight), are up to their eyeballs
in guilt. Clinton opened China for them and they are making a fortune
off of it now. He was also instrumental in passing NAFTA, which again
the Bushes are benefitting from (himself included). The Bushes
benefited from the collaspe of the airlines post-9/11 as they moved in
and bought interests in the industry at a .05 cents on the dollar.
I always wondered how Clinton became what he became coming from a
single parent household in Arkansas, and then many years ago I read he
was supposedly the illegitimate son of one of the Rockefellers. This
would make sense since there is no other explanation how a poor kid
from Arkansas can go to Yale and Oxford in my book. I have read he was
recruited by the CIA and during his time in Oxford he was there to
report on kids who had dodged the draft (of course he was too good to
go himself). Hilliary was hand picked by Bush 41 to serve on one of
his foundations when she came out of school as well, so their ties go
way back. Hilliary would have just been a continuation of the Bushes,
now they have McCain who is a just a small figure of who he was in the
past as he has completely sold out.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
>> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>ocialism
>> > a disaster for the country.) =A0Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bu=
>shes higher
>> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>> Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
>> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =A0Some claim Gore
>> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
>> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
>> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
>> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>
>
>Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath... Bush Jr, you
must be kidding! Have you ever thought to take a look at how *old* he was when
JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you subtract 1946 from 1963?
>that has to
>include the regime they incorporated on 11/22/63 along with Jerry
>Ford, and Richard Nixon? I do believe the Bushes had boats/ships in
>the harbor of the Bay of Pigs, were instrumental in getting Sadaam
>Hussein into power, and well with a record of LYING about his
>whereabouts (G.H.W.) on 11/22/63, even tried making up an alibi that
>actually indicted him (it was so poor), and lied continually to the
>nation that he was never in the CIA. It's totally amusing to me that
>people who claim to bash the Warren Report, the FBI and the CIA for
>the involvment in the JFK assassination fiasco, will go out and
>support the conspirator's themselves.
And I think it's amusing when people make veiled accusations that they can't
support.
When I merely point out that North Hennepin Community College isn't in the same
league as Yale & Harvard, and that these facts illustrate that Bush is hardly
"stupid", you take my support of the obvious as hypocrisy. This means that you
must believe that North Hennepin Community College is indeed the equal of Yale &
Harvard...
Sadly, at least half of America is on the conservative side, and you're accusing
half of America. And yet, with your incredible belief that a 17 year old boy
was involved in the JFK assassination, you've merely illustrated your political
biases, nothing more.
curtjester1
> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>
> >> > Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his S=
> >ocialism
> >> > a disaster for the country.) =A0Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bu=
> >shes higher
> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>
> >> Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =A0Gore was not part of the Clinton camp and
> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =A0Some claim Gore
> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
> >> incident. =A0I would rate Truman higher than either Bush, Teddy
> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>
> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>
> Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath...
Oh really? Then you must have some 'intuition' that isn't being
backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh? I
am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
well. Perhaps you would do well to just look at the popular 'where
were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
Nixontrocities as well....
Bush Jr, you
> must be kidding! Have you ever thought to take a look at how *old* he was when
> JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you subtract 1946 from 1963?
>
Well certainly you can entertain the idea they are a political family,
and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
Russert asking President Bush about his Skull and Bones involvement
on Meet The Press.
> >that has to
> >include the regime they incorporated on 11/22/63 along with Jerry
> >Ford, and Richard Nixon? I do believe the Bushes had boats/ships in
> >the harbor of the Bay of Pigs, were instrumental in getting Sadaam
> >Hussein into power, and well with a record of LYING about his
> >whereabouts (G.H.W.) on 11/22/63, even tried making up an alibi that
> >actually indicted him (it was so poor), and lied continually to the
> >nation that he was never in the CIA. It's totally amusing to me that
> >people who claim to bash the Warren Report, the FBI and the CIA for
> >the involvment in the JFK assassination fiasco, will go out and
> >support the conspirator's themselves.
>
> And I think it's amusing when people make veiled accusations that they can't
> support.
>
Well they could, and I may give this a whirl when I get my computer
fixed that is barely limping along. But then, one might do a little
research, and invest in some researchers that have already invested in
Bush and his JFK links. I am sure your well aware and if not, can
look under JFK Murder Solved Site and get even a familiar photo of
G.H.W. Bush that is deemed by many standing on the steps of the TSBD
after the assassination. Anwyay, there is quite a plethora of
information that could be gone into with all the potential underhanded
dealings and embarrassing situations of the Bushes just as it relates
to CIA-JFK-Presidential Shenanigans.
> When I merely point out that North Hennepin Community College isn't in the same
> league as Yale & Harvard, and that these facts illustrate that Bush is hardly
> "stupid", you take my support of the obvious as hypocrisy. This means that you
> must believe that North Hennepin Community College is indeed the equal of Yale &
> Harvard...
>
That's your issue not mine. It's interesting how much a pattern it is
with you that you try to draw in issues that cloud real issues. You
might do a research on President Bush and his Yale Professor that
didn't give him very high marks with intelligence, character....and
such...It's been posted before on the group.
> Sadly, at least half of America is on the conservative side, and you're accusing
> half of America. And yet, with your incredible belief that a 17 year old boy
> was involved in the JFK assassination, you've merely illustrated your political
> biases, nothing more.
>
LOL.
CJ
>
>
> >I think it was Prescott who
> >said something to the effect that if they actually knew what we do/
> >did, they would be all running us out of town.
>
> >CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting stuff, I would like to look into further, or have it given
to me, Rob..:). There is a new book that is on ebay for $20 about the
Rockefeller's and the JFK assassination. If people only new how much
murder these folks have been tied into, and covered-up it would just
be amazing. I think a Rockefeller has put his cards on Obama. That
should be a red flag right there.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <e6df23de-73ef-4a9a-8e45-e1fb3c336...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
You should have read lower first as the "clensing of voters" by
Choicepoint (who got their list of names from the state of Texas by
the way) was illegal as it deprived many honest minorities from voting
(some non-minorities too).
"Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. The
law was followed."
You should read the article I attached done by British reporters as it
disputes what you just said, but as in the JFK case, we need to look
overseas to find the truth most of the time.
> >Not counting those three
> >states would have been a fair thing to do
>
"What does the *LAW* say?"
Two them counted anyway, and for Florida it should have gone to the
Congress as this is what the constitution says. There is NO mention
of the Supreme Court (many of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush
41 by the way) making any decisions.
> >as would turning it over to
> >the Congress. Eventually the two states, New Mexico and Oregon did
> >reach a conclusion, but they did not carry enough electoral votes to
> >decide the issue.
>
"And yet, Bush carried the Electoral college... you'll just have to
live with that."
Of course I have to live with it, just like I have to to live with my
government and media saying LHO shot JFK all by himself, but this
doesn't make it right. And he only had enough electoral votes because
of Florida.
> >I always thought the courts were not supposed to
> >meddle in the legislative branch.
>
"Then you have a more serious problem with understanding the
Constitution that I imagined."
Really? How come your candidate agreed with me? That is the irony of
all of this as Bush wanted Article 2 enforced.
> >"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state...
> >if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
> >office)"
>
> >The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
> >shenanigans in Florida.
>
"The "shenanigans" you refer to is Florida attempting to follow the
law - Gore bringing suit, the activist Florida Supreme court
overturning Florida election law in the middle of an election - and
the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the clearly wrong actions of the
Florida State Court."
Look who doesn't know what he is talking about now, the Supreme Court
did not overrule the FL. Supreme Court, it merely set it aside and
gave them a chance to explain their ruling better.
"Go ahead and tell everyone here that you are IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE
ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION..."
I'd rather say you aren't sure of what you are talking about. The
verdict that did Gore in came from the FL. courts, NOT the federal
government. Your boy got the Federal court involved because he did
not trust the state courts at all.
"Say it right here, in print."
Say what? You're wrong?
"Because that *IS* what you're arguing."
No, what I'm arguing is the illegal use of voter cleansing used by
Florida and Sec. of State Harris that did not allow others to vote
that should have. Also, the issue of the confusing ballots that may
have lead some to vote for the person they did not want. Hand
recounts had been allowed for 80 years in Florida, and were allowed in
some cases here, but due to Bush's theory they would be unjust (sure
he can claim things but others can't) the Florida courts disallowed a
recount in two of the largest areas for Gore (Palm Beach County and
Dade County).
> >> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
> >> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>
> >> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
> >> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
> >> >polls.
>
> >"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition,
> >here's some data to chew on:"
>
> >Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
> >are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is why
> >the media called it.
>
"The media has been *repeatedly* wrong using exit polling. So your
"facts" are simply incorrect. You can easily validate this by simply
Googling "exit poll discrepancy", or "exit poll problems" or any
similar term."
Perhaps, but in my lifetime of watching elections on a national stage
I can't remember too many other times they called a state for a
candidate and then the candidate lost it. It may happen a lot, I just
don't recall it in a Presidential election. The networks pride
themselves on being right, this made them look real bad.
> >> ****************************************************************
> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida?
>
> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida before polls were closed?
>
> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida when Bush never trailed in
> >> tabulations?
>
> >>Further, what about other states? In contrast to Florida, the networks decided
> >> to wait longer to declare states for Bush, even the states where he won
> >> handedly. For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five minutes to
> >>project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent. In Ohio, it
> >> took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 percent.
>
> >> In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it was "too
> >>close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed. This caused Tom Brokaw to
> >>exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call does come as a
> >> surprise this evening." They waited at least thirty minutes on a variety of
> >> other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.
>
> >>Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Wouldn't it make sense for the networks
> >> to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight races like
> >> Florida?
> >> ****************************************************************
>
> >"In addition - had the media *NOT* called the race before the polls
> >closed, it would not have been as close as it was."
>
> >Don't get your point
>
"You mean you don't *want* to 'get my point'."
There is NO proof people stopped voting if that is what you mean.
"If you don't believe that the Florida numbers would have been even
higher for Bush if the media hadn't 'jumped the gun', then you're
merely being dishonest with the facts."
This is your thoughts, how about some proof?
"But don't take my word for it - do the research yourself."
Typical, you demand cites and proof, but you never provide any.
Everyone else has to "do it themselves".
> >as the only part of the state still voting when
> >they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
> >left. People there said no one stopped voting either.
>
"How many people said that the "results" being broadcast STOPPED THEM
FROM GOING TO THE POLLS?"
It was called with 15 minutes left in the western part of the state,
meaning the eastern part was already done for the most part,
therefore, I have not read of anyone saying they did not vote because
of it. With that little time left the people would have been at the
voting area by then.
> >I think the
> >confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
> >the media calling the projected winner.
>
"Speculation is a LNT'er game... what do the voters *THEMSELVES* give
as the reason?"
So is believing everything their government tells them and for someone
who believes in two Presidential assassinations you sure take their
word for it on everything else. Google the "dimple chads" and
"hanging chads" for yourself to see.
> >> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
"You must not have read this - as it gives the polled reason that the
non-voters THEMSELVES mention for not voting..."
It is one poll, surely you are NOT saying it is definitive of all
voters, right?
> >> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
> >> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
>
> >"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
>
> >Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
> >have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
>
> >I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this
>
"Of *course* you aren't. People often begin running away when I
demand a citation."
I have never run from you Ben, so save the bullcrap for someone else.
I get tired of you never providing real proof, you thrown in media
articles and polls, big deal. And for your "demand" of a citation,
why don't you follow your own guidelines and stop telling everyone to
"Google it themselves" and start providing real cites?
> >as it has
> >nothing to do wiht the JFK assassination, but as the governor he was
> >in a position to do a lot when it came to recounts.
"If you can't provide a citation for what he *DID*, or was even
*allowed* to do, then you're merely being dishonest."
Google it yourself, and why you are at it, Google about his re-
election campaign, you find some good stuff there. Of course you
think I'm dishonest, as whoever doesn't agree with you is always
dishonest in your mind.
> >If you don't
> >believe that you are niave or not being honest.
>
"I'm not the one simply spattering speculation against a fan..."
No, you are the one basically repeating the government and major media
spiel.
> >A governor can
> >control a lot in their state including being on the inside of all
> >things that go on in their state. You shouldn't need me to provide
> >cites for this if you are familar with politics.
"Be specific... document your charges..."
You can do this yourself, that is what you tell me and everyone else.
Surely, you don't need to have me point out dishonesty in the White
House when you believe two Presidents died because of a conspiracy,
right? Same goes for Governors.
> >> >Thirdly, the fraud was evident
> >> >to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
>
> >"Quite clearly untrue..."
>
> >You are a Bush supporter so of course you don't think so....
>
"Then you should have no problem *SPECIFICALLY* describing this
"fraud"... What
was "fraudulent?""
Clensing of voters rolls to prohibit many minorities from voting and
the ban of recounts in two of the largest Pro-Gore counties to name a
few.
"Merely tossing out sly innuendo isn't going to convince anyone other
than a Bush-bashing leftist liberal."
I'm not here to convince anyone on this topic as they all have their
own thoughts already. Why do you always think you can "convince"
people?
Yes.
"That's the *ONLY* question that's relevant."
It is, but recounts were NEVER banned in Florida before, and in fact
they allowed some counties to proceed with them so why the decision to
bar Palm Beach and Dade counties from doing so?
> >and in the case of Florida I don't like
> >the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
>
"Be specific... the Supreme Court PUT THE LAWS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED
INTO PLACE *BACK* IN PLACE."
Actually they didn't do anything in terms of a ruling, but their
weight may have had an impact the Judge (Saul) who then decided to bar
those big Democrat counties to have recounts.
"It was Gore, and the Florida Supreme Court - that tried to change the
Florida election laws in the middle of an election."
How? Recounts were ruled to be okay and he got an extension from the
courts to count them so I'm missing what he did wrong.
"So tell everyone here - who was right? Gore suing to change state
election law in the middle of the election? Or the U.S. Supreme court
who upheld Florida voters?"
You keep saying he changed the laws but you provide no proof. He
didn't change them as the courts ruled initially in his favor that is
why Bush went to the federal level.
> >Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
> >got involved according to the Constitution.
>
"Yes, you *are* silly... mainly because you're simply ignorant of what
actually happened - so your words just fall flat when the facts are
brought forth."
What happened? You keep making charges against Gore but do NOT
provide any proof.
"You're actually arguing that the election laws *should* have been
capable of being changed right in the middle of an election."
No, what I am saying since it was virtual tie without Florida, and
there were many issues with the process in Florida it would have been
better to have the issue decided by the Congress instead of letting
the courts handle it as the results of this election will never be
looked at by many people as being correct.
"Let's hear you say it, in black and white, right here:"
Say what? You always focus on some dumb issue you get stuck in your
head and never deal with the real larger issues. Say for everyone how
Gore tried to change the elections laws of Florida.
> >> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
> >> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
> >> >something that you think is stronger."
>
> >> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
>
> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >"stupid.""
>
> >I never said he was, so what is your point?
>
"This *was* what the thread was about. You jumped in and changed the
topic. I
merely comment on that fact."
So?? That gives you the right to put words in my mouth? Especially
when you hate that so much if it is done to you? I also don't see the
guy who started out saying that here anymore.
> >I don't think he is
> >exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you say
> >why he is so smart?
"No-one who graduates from both Yale and Harvard is "stupid""
Gullible to the core, I'm sure being a member of a powerfull family
and being in the "Skull and Bones" society there was never any
cheating or assisting happening, right? I keep wondering why you
believe in a conspiracy in the Lincoln and JFK cases since you're so
gullible in everything else we discuss. He may be "book smart" who
knows.
> >Remember how you reacted when you said I put
> >words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
>
"Quote what words I've 'put in your mouth'.
Here... let me help you - here was the statement again: "Interesting
to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the table, Bush's
supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find something that you
think is stronger."
What is untrue about that statement?"
I like how he leaves this out:
> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >"stupid."" - Ben Holmes
I wasn't discussing him being stupid at any point, so why would you
make reference to this?
> >> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
> >> >recent memory,
>
> >"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
> >treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
>
> >I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
> >Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I think
> >the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
>
"You'll put your memory against mine? Then explain to the nice
lurkers just why
you don't seem to realize that you're supporting the changing of
election law in
the middle of an election..."
You really need to get beyond being stuck on one issue constantly.
Prove how I or Gore were trying to change election laws.
" *I* remember it... why don't you?"
I remember citing the U.S. Constitution, I see nothing wrong about
that.
> >"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
> >crucify."
>
> >More baloney, the media is NOT liberal,
"The proof is overwhelming... many books have been written on the
topic. I'll be happy to provide you with a few titles from my library
if you're actually interested in learning the truth."
The media gives the "perception" of being liberal to attract large
audiences so they can charge more for their ad times. They are NOT
liberal at the core. I like how Ben claims this is the truth because a
few books say so.
"But I suspect that you're just another leftist with an agenda."
Sure, call out Ben's buddy and you must be a "leftist with an agenda",
that is good way to look at things in a supposed democracy. Why are
you NOT an LNer again?
> >I don't know where this came
> >from but it is not accurate.
"How about the journalists themselves?"
What about them? If they do not report what they are told to report
they have no job. They all go through a rigorous Secret Service
screening (I don't know how this is possible in a democracy) to get
their credentials, if they find anything that shows they won't play
ball they don't get approved.
> >The media is a big business and they
> >don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
> >occassion.
>
"If you truly believe that the traditional mass media is not left of
center - then you simply have blinders on."
NO, you have blinders on as you fall for the right-wing vs. left-wing
crap they peddle, these groups all have the same thing in common -
money and power and how to get more.
> >"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
> >others on
> >the net..."
>
> >Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
> >him.
"He's merely the most recent. I can also bring Carter into the mix,
but the further back I go, the less people remember."
I did not vote for Clinton so it is a waste of time.
"Clinton provides the proof of your bias."
The only one "bias" here is you as I don't have an allegiance to one
party like you do.
> >> >but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
> >> >one:
>
> >> >"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you
> >> >do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." =97 Speaking during
> >> >"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.
> >> >=97 As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
>
> >> >I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things like
> >> >compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
> >> >things like this:
>
> >> >"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." =97 Greater
> >> >Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
>
> >> >because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food on
> >> >their table.
>
> >"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
> >character on far less evidence."
>
> >Actually many pshycologists and socialogists have said this about
> >him. People only stammer or trip over themselves when they are
> >speaking about things they are not comfortable with or in some cases
> >lying about.
"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
character on far less evidence."
Aren't you judging Clinton and Gore and all other non-right-wingers
with the same set of "evidence?"
> >"This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks about
> >President Bush."
>
> >This "speaks" to your assumption, which you are very quick to do all
> >the time. You are always assuming things about people without proof.
> >As I said, if Bush was a liberal I would say the same things about
> >him.
"All you have to do is tell everyone that I'm wrong. But you *DID*
vote for Clinton, Gore, Kerry... etc, and you *DO* plan on voting for
Obama."
This is why no one wants to talk with you Ben, you are juvenile, and
in this case a Liar! I never voted for any of them and don't plan on
voting for Obama, if I did, I would say so. Why would I cover this
when talking to you? You do have an inflated opinoin of yourself.
"You simply realize that being tarred with the "leftist liberal" brush
is damaging. (and rightfully so.)"
You are a liar, but nothing new there. You are also a facist I'm
guessing by your stances on most issues. Do you have a "skin head?"
> >> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
> >> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
> >> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
> >> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
> >> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
> >> >than him.
>
> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
> >known for being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>
> >Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
> >years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
> >the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
> >either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
> >they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
> >happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
> >and make something of themself.
>
"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
known for
being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
Never said that, but someone can be bright without a fancy college,
just look at Perot and Gates.
> >"LOL!"
>
> >Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
> >mater?
"Ventura Jr. College, and San Jose State University."
I don't make fun of anyone's school, so I will refrain from comment.
Telling everyone the *OBVIOUS* fact that "North Hennepin Community
College" is not in the same league as Yale and Harvard is merely the
truth, nothing more, nothing less."
Of course it is not in terms of stature, but you act like everyone who
is accepted to those schools actually earned it through academic
achievement. That is very funny.
> >> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
> >> >facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>
> >> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
> >> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
> >> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
> >> >LNers.
>
> >"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
>
> >Document what?
>
"You've just asserted that I'm "just as gullible as the LNers" - yet
when challenged to support such an assertion - you pretend you don't
understand."
All anyone has to do is read any of your non-JFK posts to see how
gullible you are. You believe in two conspriacies against Presidents,
but in everything else you believe every word of the government and
media (unless they are liberal of course).
"LOL!!"
It is funny, and it makes me wonder if you are really sincere with
your JFK stuff or not. There are plants everywhere.
> >The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
> >copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
> >well, Google it for yourself.
>
> >"Provide the citations..."
>
> >Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
>
"It's not possible for me to Google the citation that demonstrates
that I'm just as gullible as the LNers."
Wrong as usual. Google within this group as I know we have had
discussions on quite a few things beyond JFK and you take the
government's point of view as gospel on ALL of them.
"Seems that once again you demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice."
Hardly, once again you show how dumb you are. That is why you use
words like dishonesty and cowardice so much, because you really are
those things and you assume everyone else is too.
> >> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
> >> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
> >> >different?
>
> >"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
> >demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
>
> >This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal.
"These will start you out:
Inventing Reality, by Michael Parenti
Bias, by Bernard Goldman
Slander, by Ann Coulter
Showdown, by Larry Elder"
A bunch of right-wingers claiming the media is liberal! LOL!!!
>
> Be sure to read the other side too:
> What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman.
"I know I have a few other books lying around my home library that
would be
useful, but these titles can start you off."
I studied the media in college, I don't need your silly books to help
me out.
"You see, I *do* take the time to educate myself on topics of interest
to me - how many books have *YOU* read about media bias? Any?"
LOL!! I have a degree in Communications and the media!! What a
dufus. A man who obviously was not that bright trying to better
himself (you) is fine, but you shouldn't make fun of others because
you have read "some books."
> >They
> >have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
"Untrue.
*demonstrably* untrue."
What a dufus. So you think every Democratic President has gotten a
pass? I guess when one is elected they all take four years off and do
something else.
> >JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
> >up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
> >would it be liberal?
>
> A frequently asserted statement that reveals your ignorance of the topic. Try
> picking up a few books on the subject and educate yourself. Or remain
> ignorant... no-one other than you really cares about your knowledge. And I
> suspect that you don't care either.
>
> >> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
> >> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
> >> >the JFK case as well then.
>
> >"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
>
> >There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
> >method in Florida,
>
"The "butterfly" ballot? Who created it? Let's see how far your
memory extends."
Ah, Ben got out one of his books. It was first used in 1964, and the
benefit for Bush was he got listed first because his brother was
Governor so all the mistakes people made in puching the second hole
affected Gore as they gave the vote to Buchanan.
> >or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
> >count as well.
"And just who claimed that they voted, but their vote wasn't counted?
Just how did they know that their vote "wasn't counted?""
It was "counted" for the person they intended it for. Many people
punched the second hole thinking it was for Gore and their vote went
to Buchanan. Now you may view this as "counting" but to someone NOT
supporting Buchanan it didn't.
> >"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER
> >to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
> >soaring beyond all count."
>
> >Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
> >conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
> >don't want them to.
"Beginning to sound like a kook..."
This is why I doubt very much you are a CTer as you believe all the
fairy tale stuff in all other things. To think powerful people don't
own media outlets is the kooky stuff in my mind.
> >"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
> >- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
> >buried by the traditional mass media.)"
>
> >All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
> >unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
> >"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
> >state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
> >system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
> >Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
> >years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
> >they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they are
> >owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tell
> >me who is better for defense contracts?
>
"Until you educate yourself, spouting nonsense is merely going to
brand you as gullible."
I guess I should have gone to San Jose State, right? You are the one
deep-rooted in your right-wing fanatical leanings, not me. I'm open
to more than that.
Nothing really other than declaring Bush the winner.
"Explain it to the lurkers..."
Why don't you explain what they ruled on since you are under the
assumption they actually ruled on anything.
"When you spout off without knowing the facts, you almost always 'step
in it.'"
That is your nature though, a big mouthed, "know-it-all" who accuses
others of his own faults.
> >"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
> >Supreme Court stopped it."
>
> >By having a recount?
"Yep. Can you explain the law that was being circumvented?"
NO since they were allowing recounts to go on despite Bush's
petition.
> >What harm could a recount do?
"Break the law."
What law, why don't you explain it for us and explain why they had
done recounts for 80 years beforehand as well. While you are at it
explain why 91,180 people were listed as felons when they were not and
thus COULD NOT vote.
> >Maybe this
> >article will answer it:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
>
"I like it! Quoting a British paper - when I've cited the actual
recounts done AFTER THE ELECTION BY SEVERAL NEWSPAPERS!!"
Much like the JFK case, you have to leave the US to get a true account
of things.
"It's a stretch, isn't it?"
Not in my book, you go ahead and believe your US newspapers. Data is
data and the British can get the same data, the difference is what is
done with the data and how it is presented.
> >> >Do you find the
> >> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
> >> >of interest at all?
>
> >"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
>
> >Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush?
"What did Katherine Harris do that was contrary to the law?
Be specific."
There is no need to go on then if you think she was innocent of any
wrong doing. I have listed a few things she did.
> >Did Gov. Bush not make
> >Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
> >clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
> >2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
> >majority of minority votes)?
"Be specific. What are you trying to claim here?"
Is this specific enough - 97,000 people were listed as felons, thus
they could NOT vote. As it turned out on 3% actually were!!! That
means 91,180 people could not vote in 2000. This private company got
their data from the state of Texas and this would not have happened if
the state did not go with a private company.
"That private companies are verboten?"
They are when they get data that is incorrect, and the source of the
data is from a state one of the candidates happens to be a Governor
of.
"That the laws against felons voting should be repealed?"
No, but they should list ONLY felons, not include 97% innocent people.
"That some people were removed who shouldn't have been?"
Some people? 97% of the names listed were NOT felons. You sound DVP
with his origins of the shots argument.
"Tell everyone here about Gore and the military vote... you *do*
remember, don't
you?"
Most military vote allegedly went with Bush, but since none of the
mail-ins actually had date stamps on them there is much conjecture
about whether all of them came in by the deadline.
> >Harris broke numerous laws including
> >Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
> >journalists.
"What "document" was withheld. Be specific. Provide a citation."
Google it.
> >"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
> >FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
> >CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
> >ARE SOUNDING!"
>
> >The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
> >votes,
"Harris followed the law."
Sure, just like she used her own money when travelling, right?
> >if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
> >stupid.
"You're implying that Harris violated the law. Document your charge
or be known
for the partisan that you are..."
It has been documented many times. Google it. Start with the people
she didn't allow to vote, it is called fraud.
> >They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
> >allowed to vote due to fraud
"Document this charge."
Come on, like you haven't heard of this before. Google it.
> >and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
> >Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you.
"You may be sure, I suspect that lurkers might have a different
opinion."
I know Ben, in your mind ALL lurkers only see the world they way they
do because of you. LOL!!!
> >Can't
> >you ever discuss anything without getting rude?
>
"Demanding citations and proof will always be considered "rude" by the
other side. LOL!!!"
Ben is a liar. You are distorting what was said, you brought into
play my intelligence, or lack of it, it had nothing to do with
citations. You are still a liar I see.
> >I see why you are a
> >Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
> >are? Dictatorship?
"Do you understand why Bush isn't a true conservative? Do you
understand the
difference between a liberal and a conservative?"
It is all malarky, you are so to the right you have to be a facist.
"Can you name a President that was further to the right than Bush, yet
not a "dictator?""
At some point the right leads to a dictatorship mentality, and Bush
has it, and it also leads to frame of minds like facism. One should
not be totally conservative or liberal.
> >> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
> >> >327.
>
> >"One is all it takes."
>
> >Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO winding
> >up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
"You think that a close election is statistically "ridiculous?""
No, I think it is fraud. We know the majority of the 91,180 would
have voted for Gore.
"Bugs you that Bush was not only elected, but *RE* elected, doesn't
it?"
I don't think he was ever elected, nor do I think he was ever re-
elected, remember Ohio? Why can't this man win a election fair and
square?
> >> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>
> >> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
> >> >overall, his performance has been average."
>
> >> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
> >> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
> >> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
> >> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
> >> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
> >> >Coolidge.
>
> >"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
>
> >Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
> >"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
> >therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
> >parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
>
"*Not* voting for either of the only two candidates with any chance at
all of being elected is "throwing away your vote.""
That is a sad statement, true probably, but this is how our
"democracy" works, pick one of two controlled candidates. Too bad if
you want more of a choice. I rather vote with my conscience even if
they have no chance of winning.
"Tell us your opinion of the Rural Electrification Administration...
if you were elected, what would you do with this particular agency?"
Ben, you are getting silly in an attempt to try and sound smart, I
never said I was running for President.
"Ditto with the U.S. Department of Education."
Ditto.
> >> >> >If not, why
> >> >> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>
> >> >"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simply
> >> >Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
> >> >offerings."
>
> >> >Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good?
>
> >"Because the vast over-riding majority of "Bush bashers" are both
> >liberal, and believe that Clinton was a good President."
>
> >Well I'm not one of them, I don't care about party or labels, I care
> >about results. You assume too much most of the time.
"You've already implied your approval of Clinton"
You're a liar, show me where I gave approval of Clinton. All I
remember saying about 50 times is I'm not a supporter of him.
"And if you don't understand results, then you can't understand what
results you
want."
More gibberish.
> >> >Clinton is a
> >> >crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
> >> >families are best of friends.
>
> >"I voted for Bush - who did you vote for?"
>
> >I went with Nadar in 2000 as I didn't like the message of the
> >Libertarian candidate then. I voted most recently for Ron Paul as he
> >sadly had to become a Republican just to be included in debates. When
> >I was young and dumb I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. as well, but then
> >I learned none of the "mainstream" candidates gave a damn about me.
"You don't seem very politically aware..."
LOL!!! You are supporting a liar and war-monger and I'm not
politically aware. Liars attract liars though.
> >> >"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
> >> >overhaul of the
> >> >welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
> >> >kicking and
> >> >screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
>
> >> >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
> >> >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>
> >>Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his Socialism
> >>a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bushes higher
> >> than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>
> >Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
> >they were NEVER Presidents.
"They both would have been disasters as President."
This is unprovable since they were never President. I doubt either
one could have been worse than Bush.
> >Gore was not part of the Clinton camp
"Presumably, you mean that Vice President doesn't count."
Being the VP doesn't mean you see things the same, remember LBJ and
JFK? And I'm the one who is not politically aware!! LOL!!
> >and
> >Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. Some claim Gore
> >was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
> >plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
> >died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
> >incident. I would rate Truman
>
> He wasn't included in your original list.
>
> >higher than either Bush, Teddy
> >Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>
"Tell us, can you describe the basic differences between
Conservatives, Liberals,
and Libertarians?"
Of course I can. In a nutshell Conservatives believe in less
government, which is a joke as under Reagan and the Bushes the
government has gotten bigger and bigger, Liberatarians believe in
following the Constitution (also less government), and liberals are
tagged with socialistic agendas for the multitude of people.
Of course there are more like the right is for the rich, and the left
is for the middle to low income, etc... and the right is for family
values, and the left is for the good of the masses, etc... the
Liberatarians are pretty consistent, if it was not part of the
founding fathers edicts (Constitution and Bill of Rights) they are not
for it.
robcap...@netscape.com
The Rockefellers had the means, the opportunity and the motive (money,
tons of it) to do this. They reported to two major groups who have
been mentioned by some - the Vatican and the British Monarch. Follow
those trails and you will find a lot. Many have said there is a lot
of evidence that shows the British were involved in Lincoln's
assassination. I have read of 6 main conspirators, a ton more, but 6
main ones in the killing of JFK.
Ben Holmes
"Illegal?" Try what Democrats routinely do - making every attempt to get
non-citizens to vote.
When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to vote - don't,
you cry foul.
>"Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. The
>law was followed."
>
>You should read the article I attached done by British reporters as it
>disputes what you just said, but as in the JFK case, we need to look
>overseas to find the truth most of the time.
I already commented on this. Need I repeat the obvious?
>> >Not counting those three
>> >states would have been a fair thing to do
>>
>
>"What does the *LAW* say?"
>
>Two them counted anyway,
Then why do you continue to raise them?
>and for Florida it should have gone to the
>Congress as this is what the constitution says.
No, that's *NOT* what the constitutions says.
You are *STILL* avoiding the fact that the law was EXACTLY followed in Florida.
Although, to be sure, the Florida Supreme court tried to change the law in the
middle of the election - and was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I wonder why you can't admit what actually happened here?
>There is NO mention
>of the Supreme Court (many of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush
>41 by the way) making any decisions.
Why is it that you can't simply admit what actually happened in the Florida
case? What Gore sued for, and why he was overturned?
>> >as would turning it over to
>> >the Congress. Eventually the two states, New Mexico and Oregon did
>> >reach a conclusion, but they did not carry enough electoral votes to
>> >decide the issue.
>>
>
>"And yet, Bush carried the Electoral college... you'll just have to
>live with that."
>
>Of course I have to live with it, just like I have to to live with my
>government and media saying LHO shot JFK all by himself, but this
>doesn't make it right. And he only had enough electoral votes because
>of Florida.
He only had enough electorial votes because of Tennessee.
He only had enough electorial votes because of Michigan.
He only had enough electorial votes because of California.
He only had ... well, perhaps even you can catch the drift...
>> >I always thought the courts were not supposed to
>> >meddle in the legislative branch.
>>
>
>"Then you have a more serious problem with understanding the
>Constitution that I imagined."
>
>Really? How come your candidate agreed with me? That is the irony of
>all of this as Bush wanted Article 2 enforced.
Bush merely wanted the CURRENT LAW upheld. It was. You're whining about it.
>> >"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state...
>> >if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
>> >office)"
>>
>> >The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
>> >shenanigans in Florida.
>>
>
>"The "shenanigans" you refer to is Florida attempting to follow the
>law - Gore bringing suit, the activist Florida Supreme court
>overturning Florida election law in the middle of an election - and
>the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the clearly wrong actions of the
>Florida State Court."
>
>Look who doesn't know what he is talking about now, the Supreme Court
>did not overrule the FL. Supreme Court, it merely set it aside and
>gave them a chance to explain their ruling better.
What did the Florida Supreme Court rule...
What did the U.S. Supreme Court rule...
Who is President?
Better yet, read and weep: "The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion."
Can you understand that simple statement? Can you guess where it came from?
>"Go ahead and tell everyone here that you are IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE
>ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION..."
>
>I'd rather say you aren't sure of what you are talking about.
Then, you've merely illustrated once again that you're a dishonest liar.
>The
>verdict that did Gore in came from the FL. courts,
Untrue. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor.
>NOT the federal
>government.
Untrue again... even *YOU* are claiming that the Supreme Court put Bush in
office.
>Your boy got the Federal court involved because he did
>not trust the state courts at all.
The Florida Supreme Court overturned Florida election law in the middle of an
election. That's blatantly irresponsible.
>"Say it right here, in print."
>
>Say what? You're wrong?
Yep... gutless coward and dishonest to boot.
>"Because that *IS* what you're arguing."
>
>No, what I'm arguing is the illegal use of voter cleansing used by
>Florida
Wasn't "illegal"... they were attempting to FOLLOW the law.
>and Sec. of State Harris that did not allow others to vote
>that should have.
Most states have laws covering the issuing of provisional ballots, I'd be
surprised if Florida didn't.
>Also, the issue of the confusing ballots that may
>have lead some to vote for the person they did not want.
These "confusing" ballots were created and implemented by DEMOCRATS. Live with
it.
>Hand recounts had been allowed for 80 years in Florida, and were allowed in
>some cases here, but due to Bush's theory they would be unjust (sure
>he can claim things but others can't) the Florida courts disallowed a
>recount in two of the largest areas for Gore (Palm Beach County and
>Dade County).
Untrue.
>> >> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
>> >> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>>
>> >> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
>> >> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
>> >> >polls.
>>
>> >"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition,
>> >here's some data to chew on:"
>>
>> >Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
>> >are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is why
>> >the media called it.
>>
>
>"The media has been *repeatedly* wrong using exit polling. So your
>"facts" are simply incorrect. You can easily validate this by simply
>Googling "exit poll discrepancy", or "exit poll problems" or any
>similar term."
>
>Perhaps, but in my lifetime of watching elections on a national stage
>I can't remember too many other times they called a state for a
>candidate and then the candidate lost it. It may happen a lot, I just
>don't recall it in a Presidential election. The networks pride
>themselves on being right, this made them look real bad.
A simple Google of exit polling results will show even *you* just how wrong you
are.
Sadly, you're simply a liar.
I've already cited the polling data that showed otherwise.
>"If you don't believe that the Florida numbers would have been even
>higher for Bush if the media hadn't 'jumped the gun', then you're
>merely being dishonest with the facts."
>
>This is your thoughts, how about some proof?
Already cited it. Clearly, you didn't take the time to click on it, and read
it.
>"But don't take my word for it - do the research yourself."
>
>Typical, you demand cites and proof, but you never provide any.
>Everyone else has to "do it themselves".
Rather dishonest of you, isn't it? I've provided numerous citations to what
I've stated in this thread, and it's clear immediately above that you don't even
bother to read them.
Nor will you do your own research...
>> >as the only part of the state still voting when
>> >they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
>> >left. People there said no one stopped voting either.
>>
>
>"How many people said that the "results" being broadcast STOPPED THEM
>FROM GOING TO THE POLLS?"
>
>It was called with 15 minutes left in the western part of the state,
Actually, Wikipedia labeled it 70 minutes. I've not checked the times, but 70
minutes is more consistent with the large numbers of voters who decided not to
vote.
>meaning the eastern part was already done for the most part,
>therefore, I have not read of anyone saying they did not vote because
>of it.
Of course you haven't... even though I provided you with the citation - you're
too much of a coward to read anything that might dispute your world view.
>With that little time left the people would have been at the
>voting area by then.
>
>
>> >I think the
>> >confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
>> >the media calling the projected winner.
>>
>
>"Speculation is a LNT'er game... what do the voters *THEMSELVES* give
>as the reason?"
>
>So is believing everything their government tells them and for someone
>who believes in two Presidential assassinations you sure take their
>word for it on everything else. Google the "dimple chads" and
>"hanging chads" for yourself to see.
>
>
>> >> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
>
>"You must not have read this - as it gives the polled reason that the
>non-voters THEMSELVES mention for not voting..."
>
> It is one poll, surely you are NOT saying it is definitive of all
>voters, right?
Feel free, at any time, to provide citations that support your position.
>> >> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
>> >> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
>>
>> >"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
>>
>> >Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
>> >have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
>>
>> >I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this
>>
>
>"Of *course* you aren't. People often begin running away when I
>demand a citation."
>
>I have never run from you Ben, so save the bullcrap for someone else.
>I get tired of you never providing real proof, you thrown in media
>articles and polls, big deal.
Then by all means, let everyone know right here and now just *WHAT* you would
accept as proof.
For if you can't accept anything I provide, then all you're doing is
illustrating just your political viewpoint, and not any particular intelligence.
>And for your "demand" of a citation,
>why don't you follow your own guidelines and stop telling everyone to
>"Google it themselves" and start providing real cites?
I have been... repeatedly.
>> >as it has
>> >nothing to do wiht the JFK assassination, but as the governor he was
>> >in a position to do a lot when it came to recounts.
>
>"If you can't provide a citation for what he *DID*, or was even
>*allowed* to do, then you're merely being dishonest."
>
>Google it yourself,
What were you just chiding me to do? Gutless coward, aren't you?
>and why you are at it, Google about his re-
>election campaign, you find some good stuff there. Of course you
>think I'm dishonest, as whoever doesn't agree with you is always
>dishonest in your mind.
>
>
>> >If you don't
>> >believe that you are niave or not being honest.
>>
>
>"I'm not the one simply spattering speculation against a fan..."
>
>No, you are the one basically repeating the government and major media
>spiel.
If you aren't capable of reading the Florida Supreme Court decision, and the
Florida election law, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court decision ... as I did
when this was first news (it *is* available on the net), then you're merely a
lazy coward.
>> >A governor can
>> >control a lot in their state including being on the inside of all
>> >things that go on in their state. You shouldn't need me to provide
>> >cites for this if you are familar with politics.
>
>"Be specific... document your charges..."
>
>You can do this yourself, that is what you tell me and everyone else.
>Surely, you don't need to have me point out dishonesty in the White
>House when you believe two Presidents died because of a conspiracy,
>right? Same goes for Governors.
More citation ducking...
>> >> >Thirdly, the fraud was evident
>> >> >to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
>>
>> >"Quite clearly untrue..."
>>
>> >You are a Bush supporter so of course you don't think so....
>>
>
>"Then you should have no problem *SPECIFICALLY* describing this
>"fraud"... What was "fraudulent?""
>
>Clensing of voters rolls to prohibit many minorities from voting
This was an effort to *FOLLOW* the law. That it wasn't done perfectly is
neither here nor there. Interestingly, a number of counties did *NOT* use the
list to purge their voting records - and a check later of one county showed 445
ineligible felons had voted.
The process was certainly flawed - but you are evidently supporting a complete
refusal to attempt to stop ineligible voters from voting.
And *that* bespeaks a wee bit of nervousness about elections - and voter
intelligence.
>and
>the ban of recounts in two of the largest Pro-Gore counties to name a
>few.
That was merely following the law. Why are you a proponent of breaking the law?
>"Merely tossing out sly innuendo isn't going to convince anyone other
>than a Bush-bashing leftist liberal."
>
>I'm not here to convince anyone on this topic as they all have their
>own thoughts already. Why do you always think you can "convince"
>people?
I don't convince *anyone*. I merely point out the facts - and let the facts
decide people's minds.
If you want to lie about the facts, and run from them, I'll merely point it out.
Then you don't have an argument, do you?
So why bother to bring in these other two states? Is it merely because you were
trying to imply a pattern that didn't exist?
>"That's the *ONLY* question that's relevant."
>
>It is, but recounts were NEVER banned in Florida before,
Nor were they now. That was *never* the issue. You clearly aren't even aware
of the election law in Florida, and what was at issue.
>and in fact
>they allowed some counties to proceed with them so why the decision to
>bar Palm Beach and Dade counties from doing so?
If you have to lie about the facts, what does that suggest about your entire
argument?
>> >and in the case of Florida I don't like
>> >the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
>>
>
>"Be specific... the Supreme Court PUT THE LAWS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED
>INTO PLACE *BACK* IN PLACE."
>
>Actually they didn't do anything in terms of a ruling,
You're definitely starting to sound like a kook.
You blame the U.S. Supreme Court for putting Bush in office, but then you deny
that they actually did anything.
>but their
>weight may have had an impact the Judge (Saul) who then decided to bar
>those big Democrat counties to have recounts.
>
>"It was Gore, and the Florida Supreme Court - that tried to change the
>Florida election laws in the middle of an election."
>
>How? Recounts were ruled to be okay and he got an extension from the
>courts to count them so I'm missing what he did wrong.
Perhaps because you haven't bothered to read the law, and the court decisions.
>"So tell everyone here - who was right? Gore suing to change state
>election law in the middle of the election? Or the U.S. Supreme court
>who upheld Florida voters?"
>
>You keep saying he changed the laws but you provide no proof.
Nor will I.
If you're too stupid to understand the issues, I'm only going to point you to
the relevant sources. Florida election law is online, as is the Florida court
decision, and the Supreme Court decision.
If you continue to believe your fairy tales without the background source
material, then people will judge you based on that...
>He didn't change them as the courts ruled initially in his favor
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULED TO OVERTURN THE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW THAT WAS
ALREADY IN PLACE.
Just how many times do I have to repeat it?
>that is why Bush went to the federal level.
>
>> >Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
>> >got involved according to the Constitution.
>>
>
>"Yes, you *are* silly... mainly because you're simply ignorant of what
>actually happened - so your words just fall flat when the facts are
>brought forth."
>
>What happened?
I've stated it over and over.
>You keep making charges against Gore but do NOT
>provide any proof.
Then by all means, tell lurker here EXACTLY what Gore sued to get. And then,
provide the citation to the Florida law that ALLOWED HIM TO GET IT.
But you won't...
>"You're actually arguing that the election laws *should* have been
>capable of being changed right in the middle of an election."
>
>No,
Yes, you are. But you firmly intend to remain ignorant of what happened.
>what I am saying since it was virtual tie without Florida,
It was *NOT* a tie.
>and
>there were many issues with the process in Florida it would have been
>better to have the issue decided by the Congress instead of letting
>the courts handle it as the results of this election will never be
>looked at by many people as being correct.
The law was followed... hurts, doesn't it?
>"Let's hear you say it, in black and white, right here:"
>
>Say what? You always focus on some dumb issue you get stuck in your
>head and never deal with the real larger issues. Say for everyone how
>Gore tried to change the elections laws of Florida.
Yep... too yellow.
or too ignorant...
>> >> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
>> >> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
>> >> >something that you think is stronger."
>>
>> >> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
>>
>> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
>> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
>> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >"stupid.""
>>
>> >I never said he was, so what is your point?
>>
>
>"This *was* what the thread was about. You jumped in and changed the
>topic. I merely comment on that fact."
>
>So?? That gives you the right to put words in my mouth?
Quote the "words" I "put" in your mouth.
Or retract your lie.
>Especially
>when you hate that so much if it is done to you? I also don't see the
>guy who started out saying that here anymore.
>
>
>> >I don't think he is
>> >exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you say
>> >why he is so smart?
>
>"No-one who graduates from both Yale and Harvard is "stupid""
>
>Gullible to the core, I'm sure being a member of a powerfull family
>and being in the "Skull and Bones" society there was never any
>cheating or assisting happening, right? I keep wondering why you
>believe in a conspiracy in the Lincoln and JFK cases since you're so
>gullible in everything else we discuss. He may be "book smart" who
>knows.
If there is no standard by which you can be proven wrong - then you are arguing
faith, not fact.
>> >Remember how you reacted when you said I put
>> >words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
>>
>
>"Quote what words I've 'put in your mouth'.
>
>Here... let me help you - here was the statement again: "Interesting
>to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the table, Bush's
>supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find something that you
>think is stronger."
A statement that is 100% correct, and does *NOT* put any words in your mouth.
So why lie about it?
>What is untrue about that statement?"
>
>I like how he leaves this out:
>
>> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
>> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
>> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >"stupid."" - Ben Holmes
>
>I wasn't discussing him being stupid at any point, so why would you
>make reference to this?
For exactly the reason that the sentence above notes...
>> >> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
>> >> >recent memory,
>>
>> >"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
>> >treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
>>
>> >I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
>> >Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I think
>> >the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
>>
>
>"You'll put your memory against mine? Then explain to the nice
>lurkers just why
>you don't seem to realize that you're supporting the changing of
>election law in
>the middle of an election..."
>
>You really need to get beyond being stuck on one issue constantly.
>Prove how I or Gore were trying to change election laws.
If you aren't willing to examine Florida election laws, and READ the Florida
Court decision, as well as the Supreme Court decision that overturned the
Florida court, then there's nothing more I can do.
You aren't willing to examine the primary source material - you simply have your
belief system in place.
>" *I* remember it... why don't you?"
>
>I remember citing the U.S. Constitution, I see nothing wrong about
>that.
Nothing wrong with it as long as it applies to the situation at hand.
>> >"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
>> >crucify."
>>
>> >More baloney, the media is NOT liberal,
>
>"The proof is overwhelming... many books have been written on the
>topic. I'll be happy to provide you with a few titles from my library
>if you're actually interested in learning the truth."
>
>The media gives the "perception" of being liberal to attract large
>audiences so they can charge more for their ad times. They are NOT
>liberal at the core. I like how Ben claims this is the truth because a
>few books say so.
The evidence is overwhelming. Have you bothered to examine *any* of the
evidence? Have you read so much as a *single* book on the topic?
>"But I suspect that you're just another leftist with an agenda."
>
>Sure, call out Ben's buddy and you must be a "leftist with an agenda",
>that is good way to look at things in a supposed democracy. Why are
>you NOT an LNer again?
With up to 90% of Americans polled stating their belief in a conspiracy, the
idea that you have that you must be a liberal to be a believer in the conspiracy
that took JFK's life is rather stupid on the face of it.
But if you want to keep looking stupid, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Hint: America is *NOT* 90% liberal...
>> >I don't know where this came
>> >from but it is not accurate.
>
>"How about the journalists themselves?"
>
>What about them?
You ask where the idea that the traditional mass media is liberal, and it
appears that you won't even accept what *THEY* say...
>If they do not report what they are told to report
>they have no job. They all go through a rigorous Secret Service
>screening (I don't know how this is possible in a democracy) to get
>their credentials, if they find anything that shows they won't play
>ball they don't get approved.
I have no idea what planet you're living on. Journalists have no such job
requirements.
>> >The media is a big business and they
>> >don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
>> >occassion.
>>
>
>"If you truly believe that the traditional mass media is not left of
>center - then you simply have blinders on."
>
>NO, you have blinders on as you fall for the right-wing vs. left-wing
>crap they peddle, these groups all have the same thing in common -
>money and power and how to get more.
Tell everyone here - is there *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that you'd accept that
would tend to show that you're wrong?
If not, then you're preaching faith, not defending truth.
>> >"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
>> >others on
>> >the net..."
>>
>> >Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
>> >him.
>
>"He's merely the most recent. I can also bring Carter into the mix,
>but the further back I go, the less people remember."
>
>I did not vote for Clinton so it is a waste of time.
Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt among
lurkers to whom your vote & support would go.
>"Clinton provides the proof of your bias."
>
>The only one "bias" here is you as I don't have an allegiance to one
>party like you do.
Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt among
lurkers to whom your vote & support would go.
>> >> >but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
>> >> >one:
>>
>> >> >"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you
>> >> >do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." =97 Speaking during
>> >> >"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.
>> >> >=97 As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
>>
>> >> >I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things like
>> >> >compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
>> >> >things like this:
>>
>> >> >"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." =97 Greater
>> >> >Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
>>
>> >> >because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food on
>> >> >their table.
>>
>> >"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
>> >character on far less evidence."
>>
>> >Actually many pshycologists and socialogists have said this about
>> >him. People only stammer or trip over themselves when they are
>> >speaking about things they are not comfortable with or in some cases
>> >lying about.
>
>"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
>character on far less evidence."
>
>Aren't you judging Clinton and Gore and all other non-right-wingers
>with the same set of "evidence?"
Nope. I don't label Clinton "stupid" as one person did, in complete disregard
for the facts.
>> >"This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks about
>> >President Bush."
>>
>> >This "speaks" to your assumption, which you are very quick to do all
>> >the time. You are always assuming things about people without proof.
>> >As I said, if Bush was a liberal I would say the same things about
>> >him.
>
>"All you have to do is tell everyone that I'm wrong. But you *DID*
>vote for Clinton, Gore, Kerry... etc, and you *DO* plan on voting for
>Obama."
>
>This is why no one wants to talk with you Ben, you are juvenile, and
>in this case a Liar! I never voted for any of them and don't plan on
>voting for Obama, if I did, I would say so. Why would I cover this
>when talking to you? You do have an inflated opinoin of yourself.
I suspect that you'd lie about your vote anyway...
>"You simply realize that being tarred with the "leftist liberal" brush
>is damaging. (and rightfully so.)"
>
>You are a liar, but nothing new there. You are also a facist I'm
>guessing by your stances on most issues. Do you have a "skin head?"
Rather tarred, aren't you?
>> >> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
>> >> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
>> >> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
>> >> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
>> >> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
>> >> >than him.
>>
>> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
>> >known for being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>>
>> >Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
>> >years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
>> >the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
>> >either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
>> >they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
>> >happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
>> >and make something of themself.
>>
>
>"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
>known for
>being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>
>Never said that, but someone can be bright without a fancy college,
>just look at Perot and Gates.
Evidence bug you?
>> >"LOL!"
>>
>> >Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
>> >mater?
>
>"Ventura Jr. College, and San Jose State University."
>
>I don't make fun of anyone's school, so I will refrain from comment.
Since you just got shot down, that's a wise move...
>Telling everyone the *OBVIOUS* fact that "North Hennepin Community
>College" is not in the same league as Yale and Harvard is merely the
>truth, nothing more, nothing less."
>
>Of course it is not in terms of stature, but you act like everyone who
>is accepted to those schools actually earned it through academic
>achievement. That is very funny.
What's funny is your ability to slip, slide, and duck.
>> >> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
>> >> >facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>>
>> >> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
>> >> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
>> >> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
>> >> >LNers.
>>
>> >"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
>>
>> >Document what?
>>
>
>"You've just asserted that I'm "just as gullible as the LNers" - yet
>when challenged to support such an assertion - you pretend you don't
>understand."
>
>All anyone has to do is read any of your non-JFK posts to see how
>gullible you are. You believe in two conspriacies against Presidents,
>but in everything else you believe every word of the government and
>media (unless they are liberal of course).
Then you should be able to document this. Why can't you?
>"LOL!!"
>
>It is funny, and it makes me wonder if you are really sincere with
>your JFK stuff or not. There are plants everywhere.
Nutcase, aren't you?
>> >The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
>> >copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
>> >well, Google it for yourself.
>>
>> >"Provide the citations..."
>>
>> >Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
>>
>
>"It's not possible for me to Google the citation that demonstrates
>that I'm just as gullible as the LNers."
>
>Wrong as usual. Google within this group as I know we have had
>discussions on quite a few things beyond JFK and you take the
>government's point of view as gospel on ALL of them.
Well, the few non-JFK issues I've discussed, such as the idea that 9/11 was a
government bomb job, or that the moon landing was filmed in Arizona - are real
kook material. Sorry, but I'm in the *majority* of Americans on these issues.
>"Seems that once again you demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice."
>
>Hardly, once again you show how dumb you are. That is why you use
>words like dishonesty and cowardice so much, because you really are
>those things and you assume everyone else is too.
Still no citation...
>> >> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
>> >> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
>> >> >different?
>>
>> >"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
>> >demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
>>
>> >This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal.
>
>"These will start you out:
>Inventing Reality, by Michael Parenti
>Bias, by Bernard Goldman
>Slander, by Ann Coulter
>Showdown, by Larry Elder"
>
>A bunch of right-wingers claiming the media is liberal! LOL!!!
I left a trap in there just to see if you'd fall in it, and indeed you did.
Michael Parenti argues the opposite. Here's the first sentence on the back
cover: "Michael Parenti has been a major voice on the American political left
for more than twenty years."
I wanted to see just how honest you'd be, and once again you've demonstrated
your basic *dishonesty*.
If you are unwilling to review the evidence, both pro *AND* con, then you aren't
intellectually rigorous, and will continue to follow the line given to you.
>> Be sure to read the other side too:
>> What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman.
>
>"I know I have a few other books lying around my home library that
>would be
>useful, but these titles can start you off."
>
>I studied the media in college, I don't need your silly books to help
>me out.
Clearly not, if you don't even recognize the books and authors I mention.
Bernard Goldman, for example, is a self-proclaimed leftist - yet you didn't
recognize him. Nor, I'm quite sure, have you dared to read his books.
>"You see, I *do* take the time to educate myself on topics of interest
>to me - how many books have *YOU* read about media bias? Any?"
>
>LOL!! I have a degree in Communications and the media!! What a
>dufus. A man who obviously was not that bright trying to better
>himself (you) is fine, but you shouldn't make fun of others because
>you have read "some books."
Your "degree" clearly doesn't mean much if you try to argue against the leftist
bent of the traditional mass media.
Particularly when you didn't even recognize the authors I listed.
>> >They
>> >have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
>
>"Untrue.
>
>*demonstrably* untrue."
>
>What a dufus. So you think every Democratic President has gotten a
>pass? I guess when one is elected they all take four years off and do
>something else.
I merely label your lies for what they are.
>> >JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
>> >up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
>> >would it be liberal?
>>
>>A frequently asserted statement that reveals your ignorance of the topic. Try
>> picking up a few books on the subject and educate yourself. Or remain
>> ignorant... no-one other than you really cares about your knowledge. And I
>> suspect that you don't care either.
>>
>> >> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
>> >> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
>> >> >the JFK case as well then.
>>
>> >"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
>>
>> >There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
>> >method in Florida,
>>
>
>"The "butterfly" ballot? Who created it? Let's see how far your
>memory extends."
>
>Ah, Ben got out one of his books. It was first used in 1964, and the
>benefit for Bush was he got listed first because his brother was
>Governor so all the mistakes people made in puching the second hole
>affected Gore as they gave the vote to Buchanan.
I see that you ducked that question fast enough. Rather cowardly, wasn't it?
Just to answer it for you - it was created by Theresa LePore, a DEMOCRAT. It
was approved by BOTH the Republican and Democratic parties.
Yet Rob here is trying to imply what is simply not the truth.
>> >or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
>> >count as well.
>
>"And just who claimed that they voted, but their vote wasn't counted?
>Just how did they know that their vote "wasn't counted?""
>
>It was "counted" for the person they intended it for. Many people
>punched the second hole thinking it was for Gore and their vote went
>to Buchanan. Now you may view this as "counting" but to someone NOT
>supporting Buchanan it didn't.
Stupidity can't be fixed.
>> >"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER
>> >to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
>> >soaring beyond all count."
>>
>> >Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
>> >conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
>> >don't want them to.
>
>"Beginning to sound like a kook..."
>
>This is why I doubt very much you are a CTer as you believe all the
>fairy tale stuff in all other things. To think powerful people don't
>own media outlets is the kooky stuff in my mind.
To run from the evidence is what people do when they believe things not
supported by evidence.
>> >"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
>> >- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
>> >buried by the traditional mass media.)"
>>
>> >All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
>> >unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
>> >"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
>> >state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
>> >system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
>> >Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
>> >years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
>> >they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they are
>> >owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tell
>> >me who is better for defense contracts?
>>
>
>"Until you educate yourself, spouting nonsense is merely going to
>brand you as gullible."
>
>I guess I should have gone to San Jose State, right? You are the one
>deep-rooted in your right-wing fanatical leanings, not me. I'm open
>to more than that.
You're as deeply rooted in the left-wing as I am in the right. Don't pretend
otherwise, it's not honest.
That isn't, of course, what they ruled. Have you bothered to ever *read* the
Supreme Court's decision?
>"Explain it to the lurkers..."
>
>Why don't you explain what they ruled on since you are under the
>assumption they actually ruled on anything.
Simple, they ruled on the legality of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
>"When you spout off without knowing the facts, you almost always 'step
>in it.'"
>
>That is your nature though, a big mouthed, "know-it-all" who accuses
>others of his own faults.
And yet, the citations and evidence I keep bringing up supports what I say...
why is that?
>> >"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
>> >Supreme Court stopped it."
>>
>> >By having a recount?
>
>"Yep. Can you explain the law that was being circumvented?"
>
>NO since they were allowing recounts to go on despite Bush's
>petition.
I didn't think you'd be able to name the law that was being circumvented.
>> >What harm could a recount do?
>
>"Break the law."
>
>What law, why don't you explain it for us and explain why they had
>done recounts for 80 years beforehand as well.
You imply that the law was being broken for the last 80 years... simply untrue.
>While you are at it
>explain why 91,180 people were listed as felons when they were not and
>thus COULD NOT vote.
57,700 is the number I've seen. About 15% of the totals.
Tell us, do you support efforts made to enforce the law? Or do you support
allowing anyone physically present in the U.S. to vote?
>> >Maybe this
>> >article will answer it:
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
>>
>
>"I like it! Quoting a British paper - when I've cited the actual
>recounts done AFTER THE ELECTION BY SEVERAL NEWSPAPERS!!"
>
>Much like the JFK case, you have to leave the US to get a true account
>of things.
A good illustration of how far you have to go to avoid the facts.
>"It's a stretch, isn't it?"
>
>Not in my book, you go ahead and believe your US newspapers. Data is
>data and the British can get the same data,
The *data* came from the U.S. newpaper journalists who did the recounts.
You believe that the numbers changed in their trip across the ocean???
>the difference is what is
>done with the data and how it is presented.
>
>> >> >Do you find the
>> >> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
>> >> >of interest at all?
>>
>> >"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
>>
>> >Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush?
>
>"What did Katherine Harris do that was contrary to the law?
>
>Be specific."
>
>There is no need to go on then if you think she was innocent of any
>wrong doing. I have listed a few things she did.
Yep... duck and run...
>> >Did Gov. Bush not make
>> >Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
>> >clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
>> >2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
>> >majority of minority votes)?
>
>"Be specific. What are you trying to claim here?"
>
>Is this specific enough - 97,000 people were listed as felons,
Just above you listed 91,180... how many different numbers do you have?
>thus
>they could NOT vote. As it turned out on 3% actually were!!!
!!!! You're trying to claim that only 3% of the list provided by ChoicePoint
were in fact, actual felons???
Are you nuts?
>That
>means 91,180 people could not vote in 2000. This private company got
>their data from the state of Texas and this would not have happened if
>the state did not go with a private company.
Ah! I see... you don't know enough about what sources you use.
That's where you keep coming up with different numbers.
Sadly, however, you're simply wrong about the underlying facts.
Will you be man enough to retract your assertion that only 3% of ChoicePoint's
list were actual ineligible felons? Or will you prove once again your basic
dishonesty by refusing to correct the record?
>"That private companies are verboten?"
>
>They are when they get data that is incorrect, and the source of the
>data is from a state one of the candidates happens to be a Governor
>of.
Yep... the government can always do it better... oops, Governor Bush was the
state governor... seems that no matter which way you turn, you can't lose, can
you?
>"That the laws against felons voting should be repealed?"
>
>No, but they should list ONLY felons, not include 97% innocent people.
When you have to lie about the facts, that only illustrates that you're a liar,
not that it supports your argument.
>"That some people were removed who shouldn't have been?"
>
>Some people? 97% of the names listed were NOT felons.
Untrue.
>You sound DVP with his origins of the shots argument.
>
>"Tell everyone here about Gore and the military vote... you *do*
>remember, don't you?"
>
>Most military vote allegedly went with Bush, but since none of the
>mail-ins actually had date stamps on them there is much conjecture
>about whether all of them came in by the deadline.
Yep... disenfranchise the military, known to be heavily conservative, provide
reason for the heavily conservative panhandle to not come out to vote, and
pretend that it doesn't make you a hypocrite when you refuse to decry these
problems as well as the butterfly ballot.
>> >Harris broke numerous laws including
>> >Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
>> >journalists.
>
>"What "document" was withheld. Be specific. Provide a citation."
>
>Google it.
Ducked another citation, didn't you?
>> >"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
>> >FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
>> >CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
>> >ARE SOUNDING!"
>>
>> >The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
>> >votes,
>
>"Harris followed the law."
>
>Sure, just like she used her own money when travelling, right?
Ducked that one, didn't you?
>> >if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
>> >stupid.
>
>"You're implying that Harris violated the law. Document your charge
>or be known for the partisan that you are..."
>
>It has been documented many times. Google it. Start with the people
>she didn't allow to vote, it is called fraud.
Ducked another citation, didn't you?
>> >They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
>> >allowed to vote due to fraud
>
>"Document this charge."
>
>Come on, like you haven't heard of this before. Google it.
Another one you ducked.
Cat got your tongue when asked to document what you assert?
>> >and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
>> >Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you.
>
>"You may be sure, I suspect that lurkers might have a different
>opinion."
>
>I know Ben, in your mind ALL lurkers only see the world they way they
>do because of you. LOL!!!
>
>
>> >Can't
>> >you ever discuss anything without getting rude?
>>
>
>"Demanding citations and proof will always be considered "rude" by the
>other side. LOL!!!"
>
>Ben is a liar. You are distorting what was said, you brought into
>play my intelligence, or lack of it, it had nothing to do with
>citations. You are still a liar I see.
>
>
>> >I see why you are a
>> >Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
>> >are? Dictatorship?
>
>"Do you understand why Bush isn't a true conservative? Do you
>understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"
>
>It is all malarky, you are so to the right you have to be a facist.
Yep... I really didn't think you had the knowledge to answer that one...
>"Can you name a President that was further to the right than Bush, yet
>not a "dictator?""
>
>At some point the right leads to a dictatorship mentality, and Bush
>has it, and it also leads to frame of minds like facism. One should
>not be totally conservative or liberal.
Yep... another one that you couldn't answer. One of several correct answers, of
course, was Reagan.
>> >> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
>> >> >327.
>>
>> >"One is all it takes."
>>
>> >Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO winding
>> >up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
>
>"You think that a close election is statistically "ridiculous?""
>
>No, I think it is fraud. We know the majority of the 91,180 would
>have voted for Gore.
We know that the panhandle was largely conservative...
>"Bugs you that Bush was not only elected, but *RE* elected, doesn't
>it?"
>
>I don't think he was ever elected, nor do I think he was ever re-
>elected, remember Ohio? Why can't this man win a election fair and
>square?
The American people must be a big disappointment to you...
>> >> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>>
>> >> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
>> >> >overall, his performance has been average."
>>
>> >> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
>> >> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
>> >> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
>> >> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
>> >> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
>> >> >Coolidge.
>>
>> >"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
>>
>> >Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
>> >"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
>> >therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
>> >parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
>>
>
>"*Not* voting for either of the only two candidates with any chance at
>all of being elected is "throwing away your vote.""
>
>That is a sad statement, true probably, but this is how our
>"democracy" works, pick one of two controlled candidates. Too bad if
>you want more of a choice. I rather vote with my conscience even if
>they have no chance of winning.
>
>"Tell us your opinion of the Rural Electrification Administration...
>if you were elected, what would you do with this particular agency?"
>
>Ben, you are getting silly in an attempt to try and sound smart, I
>never said I was running for President.
It's merely an illustration of how well you know conservative political thought.
Or understand the issues here.
>"Ditto with the U.S. Department of Education."
>
>Ditto.
There's no reason for me to expand here... since real political types already
know to what I was referring to here.
Thankyou. Lurkers will be able to correctly judge your political knowledge from
those two paragraphs.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 12, 10:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
>> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>s S=3D
>> >ocialism
>> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3DA0Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* bo=
>th Bu=3D
>> >shes higher
>> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>> >> Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
> and
>> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3DA0Some claim =
>Gore
>> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force 2
>> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
>> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
>> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>>
>> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>> Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath...
>
>Oh really? Then you must have some 'intuition' that isn't being
>backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh? I
>am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
>well. Perhaps you would do well to just look at the popular 'where
>were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>Nixontrocities as well....
>
>> Bush Jr, you
>> must be kidding! Have you ever thought to take a look at how *old*
>> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you
>> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>Well certainly you can entertain the idea they are a political family,
>and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>Russert asking President Bush about his Skull and Bones involvement
>on Meet The Press.
You live in kooksville.
This is really simple - President Bush was a 17 year old kid when JFK was
assassinated. The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he needed to be "in on
it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you might as well
believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the Moon Landing Hoax, and
a Flat Earth.
>> >that has to
>> >include the regime they incorporated on 11/22/63 along with Jerry
>> >Ford, and Richard Nixon? =A0I do believe the Bushes had boats/ships in
>> >the harbor of the Bay of Pigs, were instrumental in getting Sadaam
>> >Hussein into power, and well with a record of LYING about his
>> >whereabouts (G.H.W.) on 11/22/63, even tried making up an alibi that
>> >actually indicted him (it was so poor), and lied continually to the
>> >nation that he was never in the CIA. =A0It's totally amusing to me that
>> >people who claim to bash the Warren Report, the FBI and the CIA for
>> >the involvment in the JFK assassination fiasco, will go out and
>> >support the conspirator's themselves.
>>
>> And I think it's amusing when people make veiled accusations that they ca=
>n't
>> support.
>>
>
>Well they could, and I may give this a whirl when I get my computer
>fixed that is barely limping along. But then, one might do a little
>research, and invest in some researchers that have already invested in
>Bush and his JFK links. I am sure your well aware and if not, can
>look under JFK Murder Solved Site and get even a familiar photo of
>G.H.W. Bush that is deemed by many standing on the steps of the TSBD
>after the assassination. Anwyay, there is quite a plethora of
>information that could be gone into with all the potential underhanded
>dealings and embarrassing situations of the Bushes just as it relates
>to CIA-JFK-Presidential Shenanigans.
>
>> When I merely point out that North Hennepin Community College isn't in th=
>e same
>> league as Yale & Harvard, and that these facts illustrate that Bush is ha=
>rdly
>> "stupid", you take my support of the obvious as hypocrisy. =A0This means =
>that you
>> must believe that North Hennepin Community College is indeed the equal of=
> Yale &
>> Harvard...
>>
>That's your issue not mine. It's interesting how much a pattern it is
>with you that you try to draw in issues that cloud real issues. You
>might do a research on President Bush and his Yale Professor that
>didn't give him very high marks with intelligence, character....and
>such...It's been posted before on the group.
>
>> Sadly, at least half of America is on the conservative side, and you're a=
>ccusing
>> half of America. =A0And yet, with your incredible belief that a 17 year o=
>ld boy
>> was involved in the JFK assassination, you've merely illustrated your pol=
curtjester1
> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
assassination. It's like saying Haldeman wasn't around this
era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive like
JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the 'Bay
of Pigs thing'. And yet you will try and use this as to not
investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as their
other documented political shenanigans. I just call that being
willfully ignorant.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 13, 6:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 12, 10:13=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack =
>up
>> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
> hi=3D
>> >s S=3D3D
>> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3DA0Then again, I'd rate all *PLU=
>S* bo=3D
>> >th Bu=3D3D
>> >> >shes higher
>> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>> >> >> Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
> camp=3D
>> > and
>> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3DA0Some c=
>laim =3D
>> >Gore
>> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air Force =
>2
>> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK Jr.
>> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing without
>> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>>
>> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>> >> Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath...
>>
>> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh? =A0I
>> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
>> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> Bush Jr, you
>> >> must be kidding! Have you ever thought to take a look at how *old*
>> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you
>> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>> >Well certainly you can entertain the idea they are a political family,
>> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> You live in kooksville.
>>
>> This is really simple - President Bush was a 17 year old kid when JFK was
> "in on
>> it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you might as w=
>ell
>> believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the Moon Landing Ho=
>ax, and
>> a Flat Earth.
>>
>You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>assassination. It's like saying Haldeman wasn't around this
>era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive like
>JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the 'Bay
>of Pigs thing'. And yet you will try and use this as to not
>investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as their
>other documented political shenanigans. I just call that being
>willfully ignorant.
>
>CJ
And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager would be
involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
An honest person would retract...
>> >> >that has to
>> >> >include the regime they incorporated on 11/22/63 along with Jerry
>> >> >Ford, and Richard Nixon? =3DA0I do believe the Bushes had boats/ships=
> in
>> >> >the harbor of the Bay of Pigs, were instrumental in getting Sadaam
>> >> >Hussein into power, and well with a record of LYING about his
>> >> >whereabouts (G.H.W.) on 11/22/63, even tried making up an alibi that
>> >> >actually indicted him (it was so poor), and lied continually to the
>> >> >nation that he was never in the CIA. =3DA0It's totally amusing to me =
>that
>> >> >people who claim to bash the Warren Report, the FBI and the CIA for
>> >> >the involvment in the JFK assassination fiasco, will go out and
>> >> >support the conspirator's themselves.
>>
>> >> And I think it's amusing when people make veiled accusations that they=
> ca=3D
>> >n't
>> >> support.
>>
>> >Well they could, and I may give this a whirl when I get my computer
>> >fixed that is barely limping along. =A0But then, one might do a little
>> >research, and invest in some researchers that have already invested in
>> >Bush and his JFK links. =A0I am sure your well aware and if not, can
>> >look under JFK Murder Solved Site and get even a familiar photo of
>> >G.H.W. Bush that is deemed by many standing on the steps of the TSBD
>> >after the assassination. =A0 Anwyay, there is quite a plethora of
>> >information that could be gone into with all the potential underhanded
>> >dealings and embarrassing situations of the Bushes just as it relates
>> >to CIA-JFK-Presidential Shenanigans.
>>
>> >> When I merely point out that North Hennepin Community College isn't in=
> th=3D
>> >e same
>> >> league as Yale & Harvard, and that these facts illustrate that Bush is=
> ha=3D
>> >rdly
>> >> "stupid", you take my support of the obvious as hypocrisy. =3DA0This m=
>eans =3D
>> >that you
>> >> must believe that North Hennepin Community College is indeed the equal=
> of=3D
>> > Yale &
>> >> Harvard...
>>
>> >That's your issue not mine. =A0It's interesting how much a pattern it is
>> >with you that you try to draw in issues that cloud real issues. =A0You
>> >might do a research on President Bush and his Yale Professor that
>> >didn't give him very high marks with intelligence, character....and
>> >such...It's been posted before on the group.
>>
>> >> Sadly, at least half of America is on the conservative side, and you'r=
>e a=3D
>> >ccusing
>> >> half of America. =3DA0And yet, with your incredible belief that a 17 y=
>ear o=3D
>> >ld boy
>> >> was involved in the JFK assassination, you've merely illustrated your =
>pol=3D
curtjester1
> In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
themselves. You invented the 17 year old teenager issue. One doesn't
have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
unknowingly. I think you should know better in your siding with the
Bush Regime. In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
One can also benefit from the actions as well, and the fact the Bushes
have ties to the assassination (Prescott owned Nixon who is up to his
eyeballs in the asssassination muck) is the reason they went on to
become the power they are currently. Prescott was a Senator, but
since 1963 they family has climbed higher and gotten a lot richer. I
dare anyone to say that is NOT G.H.W.B. in front of the TSBD shortly
after the shooting. He had memory issues of where he was as well when
asked. Dubya wouldn't be President if the power accrued from 11/22/63
on did not go to his family.
I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in
some people's minds.
David Von Pein
>>> "I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in some people's minds." <<<
Shot and killed Tippit and tried to kill Walker.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 14, 6:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 13, 6:07=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya sta=
>ck =3D
>> >up
>> >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>der=3D
>> > hi=3D3D
>> >> >s S=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3DA0Then again, I'd rate all=
> *PLU=3D
>> >S* bo=3D3D
>> >> >th Bu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >shes higher
>> >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>se
>> >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3DA0Gore was not part of the Cl=
>inton=3D
>> > camp=3D3D
>> >> > and
>> >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3D3DA0S=
>ome c=3D
>> >laim =3D3D
>> >> >Gore
>> >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air For=
>ce =3D
>> >2
>> >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JFK =
>Jr.
>> >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing withou=
>t
>> >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than either Bush, =
>Teddy
>> >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>>
>> >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>> >> >> Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath...
>>
>> >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh? =
>> >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
>re
>> >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> >> Bush Jr, you
>> >> >> must be kidding! Have you ever thought to take a look at how *old*
>> >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you
>> >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>,
>> >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>ent
>> >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>was
>> >> assassinated. The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he needed to be
>> >> "in on it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you
>> >> the Moon Landing Hoax, and a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>> >assassination. It's like saying Haldeman wasn't around this
>> >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive like
>> >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the 'Bay
>> >of Pigs thing'. And yet you will try and use this as to not
>> >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as their
>> >other documented political shenanigans. I just call that being
>> >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager
>> would be involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> An honest person would retract...
>>
>An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>themselves. You invented the 17 year old teenager issue.
I didn't "invent" the historical fact that Bush Jr. was just 17 at the time of
the assassination.
Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
Tis that simple.
>One doesn't
>have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
>without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is ludicrous
on the face of it.
That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothing more.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 14, 5:17=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 6:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >On Jul 13, 6:07=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >> >On Jul 12, 10:13=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.goog=
>legro=3D
>> > >ups=3D3D
>> > >> >.com>,
>> > >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya s=
>tack =3D
>> > >up
>> > >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>sider=3D
>> > > hi=3D3D
>> > >> >s S=3D3D3D
>> > >> >> >ocialism
>> > >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3DA0Then again, I'd rate a=
>ll *PLU=3D
>> > >S* bo=3D3D
>> > >> >th Bu=3D3D3D
>> > >> >> >shes higher
>> > >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>ause
>> > >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3DA0Gore was not part of the =
>Clinton=3D
>> > > camp=3D3D
>> > >> > and
>> > >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3D3DA=
>0Some c=3D
>> > >laim =3D3D
>> > >> >Gore
>> > >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air F=
>orce =3D
>> > >2
>> > >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before JF=
>K Jr.
>> > >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing with=
>out
>> > >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than either Bush=
>, Teddy
>> > >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>>
>> > >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>> > >> >> Bush Sr. quite likely, although probably more in the aftermath...
>>
>g
>> > >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh?=
>> > >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
>here
>> > >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> > >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> > >> >> Bush Jr, you
>*
>> > >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can you
>> > >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>ly,
>> > >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>ement
>> > >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> > >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>K was
>> > >> assassinated. =3DA0The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he neede=
>d to be=3D
>> > > "in on
>> > >> it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you might=
> as w=3D
>> > >ell
>> > >> believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the Moon Landi=
>ng Ho=3D
>> > >ax, and
>> > >> a Flat Earth.
>>
>> > >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>> > >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive like
>> > >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the 'Bay
>> > >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as their
>> > >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> > >CJ
>>
>> > And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager wou=
>ld be
>> > involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> > An honest person would retract...
>>
>
>"An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
>without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>Bush Regime. =A0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
>trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK."
>
>One can also benefit from the actions as well, and the fact the Bushes
>have ties to the assassination (Prescott owned Nixon who is up to his
>eyeballs in the asssassination muck) is the reason they went on to
>become the power they are currently. Prescott was a Senator, but
>since 1963 they family has climbed higher and gotten a lot richer. I
>dare anyone to say that is NOT G.H.W.B. in front of the TSBD shortly
>after the shooting. He had memory issues of where he was as well when
>asked. Dubya wouldn't be President if the power accrued from 11/22/63
>on did not go to his family.
>
>I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in
>some people's minds.
The idea that a 17 year old teenager was involved in killing JFK is straight out
of "Alice in Wonderland."
It's just amazing what Bush-hatred will lead people to believe...
curtjester1
> In article <143f5e2d-db7b-4b5c-8799-e7283f203...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
involvement in the JFK assassination. You were giving him a perfect
teflon shield. I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he wasn't
born yet to have potential involvment.
> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
>
You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
grooming for his political life. Your worse than all the President's
giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
and it's continued effect of this country.
> Tis that simple.
>
> >One doesn't
> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>
> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is ludicrous
> on the face of it.
>
> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothing more.
>
I don't hate the man. I am not even a politcal activist. I just know
that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
of this nation more third-world like...and the Bushes are in the
middle of the cabal that perpetuates it's will on the people of this
nation and the world, with the elimination of JFK just one more thing
on their long list of agendi.
CJ
>
>
> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
> >unknowingly. I think you should know better in your siding with the
> >Bush Regime. In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
> >trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK.
>
robcap...@netscape.com
<ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <ecbaf147-142c-4cbb-a0bf-c54528e2c...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Go tell the 91,000 plus they had NO right to vote.
"When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to
vote - don't, you cry foul."
You are skirting the issue, the Harris-Bush team made sure 91,000 plus
were smeard with the stigma of being felons, when they were not, thus
they could not vote. You can dance all you want, but this is the way
it is.
> >"Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. The
> >law was followed."
>
> >You should read the article I attached done by British reporters as it
> >disputes what you just said, but as in the JFK case, we need to look
> >overseas to find the truth most of the time.
>
"I already commented on this. Need I repeat the obvious?"
It is only obvious to you. Any press is open to comment, but you only
want to believe those that support your opinion. I guess the British
media is "liberal" too.
> >> >Not counting those three
> >> >states would have been a fair thing to do
>
> >"What does the *LAW* say?"
>
> >Two them counted anyway,
>
"Then why do you continue to raise them?"
I only raised them because initially there were three states hanging
in limbo, but the other two did not the issues Florida did. We can
skip them.
> >and for Florida it should have gone to the
> >Congress as this is what the constitution says.
"No, that's *NOT* what the constitutions says."
Since the Florida case was so mixed up, and biased (I mean his brother
is the Gov. and the Secretary of the State is his co-chairman for his
campaign in FL), this is what should have happened, or the Supreme
Court should have stayed out of it.
"You are *STILL* avoiding the fact that the law was EXACTLY followed
in Florida."
No it wasn't, and you HAVE NOT provided anything that shows hand
recounts or recounting were illegal in FL. I like how you assume you
have proven this point already. I like how the co-chaire of the Bush
campaign decided not to allow an extension of the recount from 5PM
Sunday to 9AM Monday, I guess because in the brief time Miami-Dade did
do a recount we saw a 150 net gain for Gore. Of course Harris wouldn't
count these votes and went with the returns prior to the recount.
"Although, to be sure, the Florida Supreme court tried to change the
law in the middle of the election - and was shot down by the U.S.
Supreme Court."
You keep saying this but you have provided nothing to show they did
anything contrary to their laws.
"I wonder why you can't admit what actually happened here?"
I wonder the same about you. Why did a number of counties take upon
themselves to recount votes if the state law did not allow them to do
so? It was Harris (again, Bush's co-chair for his election) who had
the authority to make deadlines stick and Ben sees no problem with
this in a democracy.
> >There is NO mention
> >of the Supreme Court (many of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush
> >41 by the way) making any decisions.
>
"Why is it that you can't simply admit what actually happened in the
Florida case? What Gore sued for, and why he was overturned?"
Why can't you admit what he petitioned for is not contrary to state
law? Other counties did manual recounts and other types of recounts
on thier own.
> >> >as would turning it over to
> >> >the Congress. Eventually the two states, New Mexico and Oregon did
> >> >reach a conclusion, but they did not carry enough electoral votes to
> >> >decide the issue.
>
> >"And yet, Bush carried the Electoral college... you'll just have to
> >live with that."
>
> >Of course I have to live with it, just like I have to to live with my
> >government and media saying LHO shot JFK all by himself, but this
> >doesn't make it right. And he only had enough electoral votes because
> >of Florida.
"He only had enough electorial votes because of Tennessee.
He only had enough electorial votes because of Michigan.
He only had enough electorial votes because of California.
He only had ... well, perhaps even you can catch the drift..."
Same thing goes for Bush.
> >> >I always thought the courts were not supposed to
> >> >meddle in the legislative branch.
>
> >"Then you have a more serious problem with understanding the
> >Constitution that I imagined."
>
> >Really? How come your candidate agreed with me? That is the irony of
> >all of this as Bush wanted Article 2 enforced.
>
"Bush merely wanted the CURRENT LAW upheld. It was. You're whining
about it."
Why don't you point out this law for us? You never say what it is,
how come? It can't be recounts, because the law does not forbid
recounts.
> >> >"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state...
> >> >if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
> >> >office)"
>
> >> >The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
> >> >shenanigans in Florida.
>
> >"The "shenanigans" you refer to is Florida attempting to follow the
> >law - Gore bringing suit, the activist Florida Supreme court
> >overturning Florida election law in the middle of an election - and
> >the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the clearly wrong actions of the
> >Florida State Court."
>
> >Look who doesn't know what he is talking about now, the Supreme Court
> >did not overrule the FL. Supreme Court, it merely set it aside and
> >gave them a chance to explain their ruling better.
>
"What did the Florida Supreme Court rule..."
Essentially that Miami-Dade would not be recounted and there were
10,000 votes at stake there.
"What did the U.S. Supreme Court rule..."
Same thing.
"Who is President?"
One of the worst in our history, Bush.
"Better yet, read and weep: "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with
this opinion.""
Supreme Court, but the game was over when Judge Saul from Florida woud
not allow recounts in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.
"Can you understand that simple statement? Can you guess where it
came from?"
Already know that - the Supreme court, but you need to show me what
law Gore was violating as you keep claiming. Also, the Supreme Court
voted along party lines and the Republicans happened to have 5 on the
bench.
> >"Go ahead and tell everyone here that you are IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE
> >ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION..."
>
> >I'd rather say you aren't sure of what you are talking about.
"Then, you've merely illustrated once again that you're a dishonest
liar."
Once again. LOL!!! Everyone is a liar but Ben I guess. Show me the
law(s) he was trying to change. IF you don't we will know who the
liar is.
> >The
> >verdict that did Gore in came from the FL. courts,
"Untrue. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor."
By the time this came the game was nearly over anyway as Judge Saul
impounded the ballots and sent them to Tallahassee, and by the time
Gore got the approval from the FL. Supreme Court there was not enough
time to count them all.
So in essence, Saul sank them (along with Harris).
> >NOT the federal
> >government.
>
> Untrue again... even *YOU* are claiming that the Supreme Court put Bush in
> office.
>
> >Your boy got the Federal court involved because he did
> >not trust the state courts at all.
>
"The Florida Supreme Court overturned Florida election law in the
middle of an election. That's blatantly irresponsible."
All they did was extend the deadline for recounts, I think it was as
fair as having Bush's co-chair (Harris) deciding not to allow for
recounts in predominantly Democratic counties. Or coming into work on
a Sunday so votes couldn't be counted until Monday morning. How many
other Sundays was her office open? Or having the Republican appointed
Sauls sieze the ballots and send them to Tallahassee so they couldn't
be looked at in full by December 12.
> >"Say it right here, in print."
>
> >Say what? You're wrong?
>
"Yep... gutless coward and dishonest to boot."
You have attacked me since I came here and I have never run from you.
You are bully who can't discuss things, you have to hurl insults and
call people names constantly. As I learned in grade school, most
bullies are the real cowards.
> >"Because that *IS* what you're arguing."
>
> >No, what I'm arguing is the illegal use of voter cleansing used by
> >Florida
>
"Wasn't "illegal"... they were attempting to FOLLOW the law."
You are a liar. They labled over 91,000 people as FELONS thus
preventing them from voting, this is called FRAUD, but of course they
were just minorities for the most part, right?
> >and Sec. of State Harris that did not allow others to vote
> >that should have.
"Most states have laws covering the issuing of provisional ballots,
I'd be surprised if Florida didn't."
Most states did NOT have the co-chair of one of the candidates
deciding these issues.
> >Also, the issue of the confusing ballots that may
> >have lead some to vote for the person they did not want.
>
"These "confusing" ballots were created and implemented by DEMOCRATS.
Live with it."
Already have, luckily Bush is going to be gone soon.
> >Hand recounts had been allowed for 80 years in Florida, and were allowed in
> >some cases here, but due to Bush's theory they would be unjust (sure
> >he can claim things but others can't) the Florida courts disallowed a
> >recount in two of the largest areas for Gore (Palm Beach County and
> >Dade County).
>
"Untrue."
Prove it.
> >> >> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish to
> >> >> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke."
>
> >> >> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because he
> >> >> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
> >> >> >polls.
>
> >> >"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition,
> >> >here's some data to chew on:"
>
> >> >Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
> >> >are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is why
> >> >the media called it.
>
> >"The media has been *repeatedly* wrong using exit polling. So your
> >"facts" are simply incorrect. You can easily validate this by simply
> >Googling "exit poll discrepancy", or "exit poll problems" or any
> >similar term."
>
> >Perhaps, but in my lifetime of watching elections on a national stage
> >I can't remember too many other times they called a state for a
> >candidate and then the candidate lost it. It may happen a lot, I just
> >don't recall it in a Presidential election. The networks pride
> >themselves on being right, this made them look real bad.
>
"A simple Google of exit polling results will show even *you* just how
wrong you
are."
Maybe, I admit I'm going from personal experience, but this is a side
issue anyway. The recounts, the undercounts, the voter fraud and the
bias of having a co-chair decide important issues are enough to deal
with.
I guess you think you are talking to someone as gullible as you. Who
conducted the poll? How do you know it is totally accurate? With 15
minutes to closing I would think most people who wanted to vote were
already at the voting booths.
> >"If you don't believe that the Florida numbers would have been even
> >higher for Bush if the media hadn't 'jumped the gun', then you're
> >merely being dishonest with the facts."
>
> >This is your thoughts, how about some proof?
>
"Already cited it. Clearly, you didn't take the time to click on it,
and read it."
No, I didn't because I don't think polls are proof of anything as they
are one of the most biased forms of data one can use. Its all in
who's asking the questions.
> >"But don't take my word for it - do the research yourself."
>
> >Typical, you demand cites and proof, but you never provide any.
> >Everyone else has to "do it themselves".
>
"Rather dishonest of you, isn't it? I've provided numerous citations
to what I've stated in this thread, and it's clear immediately above
that you don't even bother to read them."
Polls are NOT proof!! Biased news reports are NOT proof. The proof
is you had a state that was using biased data to preclude innocent
people from voting, and you had a Sec. of State who was the co-chair
for Bush's campaign determining everything. I bet if Bush was behind
and could benefit from major recounts she would have agreed to extend
the timelines.
"Nor will you do your own research..."
Another lie.
> >> >as the only part of the state still voting when
> >> >they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
> >> >left. People there said no one stopped voting either.
>
> >"How many people said that the "results" being broadcast STOPPED THEM
> >FROM GOING TO THE POLLS?"
>
> >It was called with 15 minutes left in the western part of the state,
>
"Actually, Wikipedia labeled it 70 minutes. I've not checked the
times, but 70 minutes is more consistent with the large numbers of
voters who decided not to
vote."
Perhaps it was, too bad you weren't there to Google how wrong the
media is for them. My guess is they didn't want to vote that bad
anyway.
> >meaning the eastern part was already done for the most part,
> >therefore, I have not read of anyone saying they did not vote because
> >of it.
>
"Of course you haven't... even though I provided you with the citation
- you're too much of a coward to read anything that might dispute your
world view."
Back to name calling, how about real proof? Something beyond a poll?
> >With that little time left the people would have been at the
> >voting area by then.
>
> >> >I think the
> >> >confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
> >> >the media calling the projected winner.
>
> >"Speculation is a LNT'er game... what do the voters *THEMSELVES* give
> >as the reason?"
>
> >So is believing everything their government tells them and for someone
> >who believes in two Presidential assassinations you sure take their
> >word for it on everything else. Google the "dimple chads" and
> >"hanging chads" for yourself to see.
>
> >> >> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
>
> >"You must not have read this - as it gives the polled reason that the
> >non-voters THEMSELVES mention for not voting..."
>
> > It is one poll, surely you are NOT saying it is definitive of all
> >voters, right?
>
"Feel free, at any time, to provide citations that support your
position."
Why? You are the one contending it was a bunch of people who did not
vote because of the media, not me. I'm too worried about the co-chair
of Bush's campaign being in charge of all that happened with the
election.
> >> >> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
> >> >> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
>
> >> >"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
>
> >> >Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
> >> >have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
>
> >> >I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this
>
> >"Of *course* you aren't. People often begin running away when I
> >demand a citation."
>
> >I have never run from you Ben, so save the bullcrap for someone else.
> >I get tired of you never providing real proof, you thrown in media
> >articles and polls, big deal.
>
"Then by all means, let everyone know right here and now just *WHAT*
you would
accept as proof."
I want proof that other states have precluded 91,000 plus people from
voting by labeling them "Felons", and I want proof that other states
have had someone in charge of determining all aspects of the election
laws who at the same time was the co-chair for one of the
candidates!!! Oh, and throw in the one the co-chair thing happened
the Gov. was the candidate's brother as well.
"For if you can't accept anything I provide, then all you're doing is
illustrating just your political viewpoint, and not any particular
intelligence."
The thing you are arguing, the people not voting due to medias' call,
is not relevent in the big picture. We had numerous undercounts not
counted. Here were the results simply from the counts:
Not everyone is being deceitful, I mentioned the other two because
they also had a delay in decididing a candidate but I was not trying
to show any pattern. Florida had enough problems by itself.
> >"That's the *ONLY* question that's relevant."
>
> >It is, but recounts were NEVER banned in Florida before,
>
"Nor were they now. That was *never* the issue. You clearly aren't
even aware
of the election law in Florida, and what was at issue."
You're all over the place and you WON'T state what law Gore and the FL
Supreme law looked to change mid-election so I'm trying to figure it
out.
> >and in fact
> >they allowed some counties to proceed with them so why the decision to
> >bar Palm Beach and Dade counties from doing so?
>
"If you have to lie about the facts, what does that suggest about your
entire argument?"
They were barred until the 11th hour and by then it was too late as
the deadline was too close to recount them all, but I guess because
they counted some you are considering that the same as recounting them
all.
> >> >and in the case of Florida I don't like
> >> >the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
>
> >"Be specific... the Supreme Court PUT THE LAWS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED
> >INTO PLACE *BACK* IN PLACE."
>
> >Actually they didn't do anything in terms of a ruling,
>
"You're definitely starting to sound like a kook.
You blame the U.S. Supreme Court for putting Bush in office, but then
you deny
that they actually did anything."
They made the final announcement that sealed it, but the real cause of
the injustice was Harris and Saul by making sure the recounts could
NEVER be done by the 26th of November, and this made Gore seek help in
extending the timeline again, but no deal.
> >but their
> >weight may have had an impact the Judge (Saul) who then decided to bar
> >those big Democrat counties to have recounts.
>
> >"It was Gore, and the Florida Supreme Court - that tried to change the
> >Florida election laws in the middle of an election."
>
> >How? Recounts were ruled to be okay and he got an extension from the
> >courts to count them so I'm missing what he did wrong.
>
"Perhaps because you haven't bothered to read the law, and the court
decisions."
Why don't you simply state it for us? What is the big secret? You
keep saying this but don't mention what "it" is he did wrong. I like
how he keeps talking about laws when they violated the rights of
91,000 plus people by labeling them "Felons!" Not worried laws then,
huh?
> >"So tell everyone here - who was right? Gore suing to change state
> >election law in the middle of the election? Or the U.S. Supreme court
> >who upheld Florida voters?"
>
> >You keep saying he changed the laws but you provide no proof.
>
"Nor will I."
Coward.
"If you're too stupid to understand the issues, I'm only going to
point you to the relevant sources. Florida election law is online, as
is the Florida court decision, and the Supreme Court decision."
Coward. This is like when someone doesn't know the answer and they
"You don't know the answer?" and then walk away.
"If you continue to believe your fairy tales without the background
source material, then people will judge you based on that..."
I can research and read all I want, but it WON'T give me your take of
events, this is what we are supposed to be doing here. Again, I say
you are a coward as you won't list what he did wrong.
> >He didn't change them as the courts ruled initially in his favor
>
"THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULED TO OVERTURN THE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW
THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.
Just how many times do I have to repeat it?"
All they did is give more time for a recount, and since the person who
did not want to extend the timeline was co-chair for Bush's campaign,
I don't think they did anything wrong. There is NO doubt a recount in
Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties would have made Gore the next
President. He gained 150 votes in the brief recount they did do and
he was only behind by less than a 1000.
> >that is why Bush went to the federal level.
>
> >> >Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
> >> >got involved according to the Constitution.
>
> >"Yes, you *are* silly... mainly because you're simply ignorant of what
> >actually happened - so your words just fall flat when the facts are
> >brought forth."
>
> >What happened?
>
"I've stated it over and over."
I was playing with you.
> >You keep making charges against Gore but do NOT
> >provide any proof.
"Then by all means, tell lurker here EXACTLY what Gore sued to get.
And then,
provide the citation to the Florida law that ALLOWED HIM TO GET IT.
But you won't..."
All he wanted was recount of votes that machines may have not
counted. The issue was he was the second candidate, but the third
hole, therefore, many voted for Buchannan by accident. In the main
areas of Miami-Dade and Palm Beach the "butterfly" method that this
issue pertained to was used more than anywhere else in the state due
to the size of the populations. He simply wanted a manual recount to
make sure he got all the votes he was intended to get because over
19,000 people said they punched the second and third holes, thus the
machine would discount them as "double-voted." He wanted these votes
and they would have made him the winner, there is NO doubt about that.
> >"You're actually arguing that the election laws *should* have been
> >capable of being changed right in the middle of an election."
>
> >No,
"Yes, you are. But you firmly intend to remain ignorant of what
happened."
How is a recount changing the law? I thought the goal of all
elections was to make sure ALL votes counted? I guess I was wrong.
Gore, to his credit, NEVER mentioned changing the December 12th date
that is final day for a decision.
> >what I am saying since it was virtual tie without Florida,
"It was *NOT* a tie."
You're right, Gore was ahead.
> >and
> >there were many issues with the process in Florida it would have been
> >better to have the issue decided by the Congress instead of letting
> >the courts handle it as the results of this election will never be
> >looked at by many people as being correct.
>
"The law was followed... hurts, doesn't it?"
It was followed by the CO-CHAIR for the Bush campaign! Also by the 5
justices appointed by Reagan and his dad!
> >"Let's hear you say it, in black and white, right here:"
>
> >Say what? You always focus on some dumb issue you get stuck in your
> >head and never deal with the real larger issues. Say for everyone how
> >Gore tried to change the elections laws of Florida.
>
"Yep... too yellow.
or too ignorant..."
YOU are on BOTH counts.
> >> >> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the
> >> >> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
> >> >> >something that you think is stronger."
>
> >> >> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence?
>
> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >> >"stupid.""
>
> >> >I never said he was, so what is your point?
>
> >"This *was* what the thread was about. You jumped in and changed the
> >topic. I merely comment on that fact."
>
> >So?? That gives you the right to put words in my mouth?
"Quote the "words" I "put" in your mouth.
Or retract your lie."
Classic Ben!! He is the biggest nutcase on this board by far, way
ahead of any LNer. He says this about me:
>"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - ***the
> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >> >"stupid.""***
and now I'm the one who is lying! LOL!!!! This guy is one nutjob! By
the by, I DID quote them before, you just ignored them.
> >Especially
> >when you hate that so much if it is done to you? I also don't see the
> >guy who started out saying that here anymore.
>
> >> >I don't think he is
> >> >exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you say
> >> >why he is so smart?
>
> >"No-one who graduates from both Yale and Harvard is "stupid""
>
> >Gullible to the core, I'm sure being a member of a powerfull family
> >and being in the "Skull and Bones" society there was never any
> >cheating or assisting happening, right? I keep wondering why you
> >believe in a conspiracy in the Lincoln and JFK cases since you're so
> >gullible in everything else we discuss. He may be "book smart" who
> >knows.
>
"If there is no standard by which you can be proven wrong - then you
are arguing
faith, not fact."
Believe whatever you want, but no one is dumb enough (besides you) to
believe Dubya could have gotten into Yale if he was NOT a Bush.
> >> >Remember how you reacted when you said I put
> >> >words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
>
> >"Quote what words I've 'put in your mouth'.
>
> >Here... let me help you - here was the statement again: "Interesting
> >to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the table, Bush's
> >supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find something that you
> >think is stronger."
"A statement that is 100% correct, and does *NOT* put any words in
your mouth.
So why lie about it?"
You're a liar to the core, you quoted the WRONG THING to make yourself
look good. Here is what I was refering to:
>"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - **the
> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >> >"stupid.""**
See, liar?
> >What is untrue about that statement?"
>
> >I like how he leaves this out:
>
> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
> >> >"stupid."" - Ben Holmes
>
> >I wasn't discussing him being stupid at any point, so why would you
> >make reference to this?
>
"For exactly the reason that the sentence above notes..."
You're a liar, but no big news there for the people on this board.
> >> >> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other President in
> >> >> >recent memory,
>
> >> >"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
> >> >treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
>
> >> >I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
> >> >Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I think
> >> >the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
>
> >"You'll put your memory against mine? Then explain to the nice
> >lurkers just why
> >you don't seem to realize that you're supporting the changing of
> >election law in
> >the middle of an election..."
>
> >You really need to get beyond being stuck on one issue constantly.
> >Prove how I or Gore were trying to change election laws.
>
"If you aren't willing to examine Florida election laws, and READ the
Florida Court decision, as well as the Supreme Court decision that
overturned the Florida court, then there's nothing more I can do.
"You aren't willing to examine the primary source material - you
simply have your
belief system in place."
You're right! I believe the Bush campaign, vis-a-vis, his brother and
co-chair committed voter fraud by labeling 91,000 plus voters "Felons"
so they couldn't vote. I believe the co-chair of his campaign was in
charge of "evaluating" Florida laws for the election. I believe a
Republican appointed appellete court judge took valuable time away by
impounding all the ballots in the two largest counties. I believe
another 19,000 people in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties did not
have their votes counted since they accidentally punched two holes. I
believe a full recount in ALL major counties would have NOT harmed
anyone, it would have been in the best interest of the country to make
sure elections seem honest.
> >" *I* remember it... why don't you?"
>
> >I remember citing the U.S. Constitution, I see nothing wrong about
> >that.
>
"Nothing wrong with it as long as it applies to the situation at
hand."
Well, I don't see how Gore could get a fair shake, or anyone else
beyond Bush, as he had his brother, co-chair and a majority on the
Supreme Court (this is why he went to them).
> >> >"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
> >> >crucify."
>
> >> >More baloney, the media is NOT liberal,
>
> >"The proof is overwhelming... many books have been written on the
> >topic. I'll be happy to provide you with a few titles from my library
> >if you're actually interested in learning the truth."
>
> >The media gives the "perception" of being liberal to attract large
> >audiences so they can charge more for their ad times. They are NOT
> >liberal at the core. I like how Ben claims this is the truth because a
> >few books say so.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming. Have you bothered to examine *any* of the
> evidence? Have you read so much as a *single* book on the topic?
>
> >"But I suspect that you're just another leftist with an agenda."
>
> >Sure, call out Ben's buddy and you must be a "leftist with an agenda",
> >that is good way to look at things in a supposed democracy. Why are
> >you NOT an LNer again?
>
"With up to 90% of Americans polled stating their belief in a
conspiracy, the idea that you have that you must be a liberal to be a
believer in the conspiracy that took JFK's life is rather stupid on
the face of it."
Another problem of Ben's, he can't keep up. I was referring to you
calling me a liberal because I don't like Bush. I KNOW you are not a
liberal, most fascist aren't.
"But if you want to keep looking stupid, there's nothing I can do to
stop you.
Hint: America is *NOT* 90% liberal..."
This guy CAN'T even follow along and I'm the one looking stupid!!
Priceless!
> >> >I don't know where this came
> >> >from but it is not accurate.
>
> >"How about the journalists themselves?"
>
> >What about them?
>
"You ask where the idea that the traditional mass media is liberal,
and it appears that you won't even accept what *THEY* say..."
You crack me up!! Never heard of "Operation Mockingbird", huh? I love
how we have not had a real liberal (if you want to count Carter) in
forever yet the media is liberal. Amazing stuff. I guess they just
keep getting trascripts and stories given to them by the conservatives
even though they are "liberal."
> >If they do not report what they are told to report
> >they have no job. They all go through a rigorous Secret Service
> >screening (I don't know how this is possible in a democracy) to get
> >their credentials, if they find anything that shows they won't play
> >ball they don't get approved.
>
"I have no idea what planet you're living on. Journalists have no
such job requirements."
If they want to work at or near the major powers of government they
do. Do you think they let them near the President and other high
people without background checks? My God you're clueless.
> >> >The media is a big business and they
> >> >don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
> >> >occassion.
>
> >"If you truly believe that the traditional mass media is not left of
> >center - then you simply have blinders on."
>
> >NO, you have blinders on as you fall for the right-wing vs. left-wing
> >crap they peddle, these groups all have the same thing in common -
> >money and power and how to get more.
>
"Tell everyone here - is there *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that you'd
accept that would tend to show that you're wrong?"
Who needs evidence? Can't you figure this stuff out for yourself? I
mean just watch t.v. or any other media. It is all playacting for the
most part. If Keith Olberman didn't get the okay from someone he
would be dead for the way he has attacked the President. The
Conservatives have had a lock on the White House since the death of
JFK, and you think the media is liberal? Priceless stuff there. How
many conservative candidates have been assassinated again?
"If not, then you're preaching faith, not defending truth."
And you are buying a boatload of crap.
> >> >"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
> >> >others on
> >> >the net..."
>
> >> >Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
> >> >him.
>
> >"He's merely the most recent. I can also bring Carter into the mix,
> >but the further back I go, the less people remember."
>
> >I did not vote for Clinton so it is a waste of time.
>
"Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt
among
lurkers to whom your vote & support would go."
Because you are a liar who pushes his thoughts out as the truth. I
would vote Libertarian in all liklihood. I have compassion for people
in trouble and feel bad for them, but this doesn't make me a liberal
by itself. You have NO compassion and DON'T feel bad for anyone, but
that alone doesn't make you a conservative.
> >"Clinton provides the proof of your bias."
>
> >The only one "bias" here is you as I don't have an allegiance to one
> >party like you do.
>
"Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt
among
lurkers to whom your vote & support would go."
You're full of it, and a liar. You can't prove this so you are just
showing what a liar you are for NOT taking my word for it. Not
everyone lies like you do.
I haven't labled Bush stupid either.
> >> >"This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks about
> >> >President Bush."
>
> >> >This "speaks" to your assumption, which you are very quick to do all
> >> >the time. You are always assuming things about people without proof.
> >> >As I said, if Bush was a liberal I would say the same things about
> >> >him.
>
> >"All you have to do is tell everyone that I'm wrong. But you *DID*
> >vote for Clinton, Gore, Kerry... etc, and you *DO* plan on voting for
> >Obama."
>
> >This is why no one wants to talk with you Ben, you are juvenile, and
> >in this case a Liar! I never voted for any of them and don't plan on
> >voting for Obama, if I did, I would say so. Why would I cover this
> >when talking to you? You do have an inflated opinoin of yourself.
>
"I suspect that you'd lie about your vote anyway..."
Of course you do, ALL liars assume everyone else lies.
> >"You simply realize that being tarred with the "leftist liberal" brush
> >is damaging. (and rightfully so.)"
>
> >You are a liar, but nothing new there. You are also a facist I'm
> >guessing by your stances on most issues. Do you have a "skin head?"
>
"Rather tarred, aren't you?"
I know you are fascist, I can tell. I have studied them for a very
long time, I can always tell one I read one.
> >> >> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
> >> >> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or goofs
> >> >> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. All
> >> >> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Yale
> >> >> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk better
> >> >> >than him.
>
> >> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
> >> >known for being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>
> >> >Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
> >> >years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
> >> >the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
> >> >either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
> >> >they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
> >> >happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
> >> >and make something of themself.
>
> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
> >known for
> >being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>
> >Never said that, but someone can be bright without a fancy college,
> >just look at Perot and Gates.
"Evidence bug you?"
What evidence? You have NOT proven that everyone that goes to Harvard
or Yale is smarter than everyone else. I have NOT seen this proof.
> >> >"LOL!"
>
> >> >Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
> >> >mater?
>
> >"Ventura Jr. College, and San Jose State University."
>
> >I don't make fun of anyone's school, so I will refrain from comment.
>
"Since you just got shot down, that's a wise move..."
You delusional and a liar. Shot down, this guy is demented.
> >Telling everyone the *OBVIOUS* fact that "North Hennepin Community
> >College" is not in the same league as Yale and Harvard is merely the
> >truth, nothing more, nothing less."
>
> >Of course it is not in terms of stature, but you act like everyone who
> >is accepted to those schools actually earned it through academic
> >achievement. That is very funny.
"What's funny is your ability to slip, slide, and duck."
You are the slipper, slider and ducker as I have seen NO evidence from
you that everyone who goes to Yale and Harvard are smarter than
everyone else. There are schools with stricter codes of entry and
cost more than these two, that is how clueless you are.
> >> >> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have the
> >> >> >facts behind it. =Here's merely one recount example:"
>
> >> >> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspiracy
> >> >> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy for
> >> >> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as the
> >> >> >LNers.
>
> >> >"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
>
> >> >Document what?
>
> >"You've just asserted that I'm "just as gullible as the LNers" - yet
> >when challenged to support such an assertion - you pretend you don't
> >understand."
>
> >All anyone has to do is read any of your non-JFK posts to see how
> >gullible you are. You believe in two conspriacies against Presidents,
> >but in everything else you believe every word of the government and
> >media (unless they are liberal of course).
"Then you should be able to document this. Why can't you?"
I'm just following your lead, Google it.
> >"LOL!!"
>
> >It is funny, and it makes me wonder if you are really sincere with
> >your JFK stuff or not. There are plants everywhere.
"Nutcase, aren't you?"
You are a plant, aren't you? I mean this guy claims to believe in a
conspiracy to kill a President, but he doesn't think these people
would then figure, let's do other things as well. Nah! I'm sure they
all "retired" from bad crimes after JFK.
> >> >The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
> >> >copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
> >> >well, Google it for yourself.
>
> >> >"Provide the citations..."
>
> >> >Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
>
> >"It's not possible for me to Google the citation that demonstrates
> >that I'm just as gullible as the LNers."
>
> >Wrong as usual. Google within this group as I know we have had
> >discussions on quite a few things beyond JFK and you take the
> >government's point of view as gospel on ALL of them.
>
> Well, the few non-JFK issues I've discussed, such as the idea that 9/11 was a
> government bomb job, or that the moon landing was filmed in Arizona - are real
> kook material. Sorry, but I'm in the *majority* of Americans on these issues.
>
> >"Seems that once again you demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice."
>
> >Hardly, once again you show how dumb you are. That is why you use
> >words like dishonesty and cowardice so much, because you really are
> >those things and you assume everyone else is too.
>
"Still no citation..."
Do it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else to do. I remember
all the talks, you thought the camps we put Japanese-Americans in were
like country clubs. Priceless. Typical fascist.
> >> >> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
> >> >> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
> >> >> >different?
>
> >> >"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
> >> >demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
>
> >> >This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal.
>
> >"These will start you out:
> >Inventing Reality, by Michael Parenti
> >Bias, by Bernard Goldman
> >Slander, by Ann Coulter
> >Showdown, by Larry Elder"
>
> >A bunch of right-wingers claiming the media is liberal! LOL!!!
"I left a trap in there just to see if you'd fall in it, and indeed
you did. Michael Parenti argues the opposite. Here's the first
sentence on the back cover: "Michael Parenti has been a major voice on
the American political left for more than twenty years."
I wanted to see just how honest you'd be, and once again you've
demonstrated
your basic *dishonesty*."
Whew, you got me! I'm sure he is a real liberal when we haven't had a
liberal President since 1963. Good way to make a living in a
conservative-controlled world.
"If you are unwilling to review the evidence, both pro *AND* con, then
you aren't intellectually rigorous, and will continue to follow the
line given to you."
I don't need to read a ton of books on this topic, I can judge for
myself who is what. I don't fall for labels. Watch C-Span sometime
and you'll see all these guys are the best of friends. It is all an
act most of the time. IT is like a fraternity in D.C.
You are the one who can't think for himself, he needs a book to tell
him if somethign is a liberal or not.
> >> Be sure to read the other side too:
> >> What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman.
>
> >"I know I have a few other books lying around my home library that
> >would be
> >useful, but these titles can start you off."
>
> >I studied the media in college, I don't need your silly books to help
> >me out.
>
"Clearly not, if you don't even recognize the books and authors I
mention. Bernard Goldman, for example, is a self-proclaimed leftist -
yet you didn't recognize him. Nor, I'm quite sure, have you dared to
read his books."
You fall for the whole act, there is ONE party, the "Republicrats",
there is NO difference beyond the mouthpieces. Do you think Carvelle
and his wife could last if they were that diametrically opposed on all
issues? It is a shell game, and as a supposed believer in a JFK
conspiracy as you claim, how can you think things are truly free when
we had a Coup D'etat occur? This is the only reason there is no truth
44 years later as they are still reaping the benefits. IF everyone was
dead why not tell us?
> >"You see, I *do* take the time to educate myself on topics of interest
> >to me - how many books have *YOU* read about media bias? Any?"
>
> >LOL!! I have a degree in Communications and the media!! What a
> >dufus. A man who obviously was not that bright trying to better
> >himself (you) is fine, but you shouldn't make fun of others because
> >you have read "some books."
>
"Your "degree" clearly doesn't mean much if you try to argue against
the leftist
bent of the traditional mass media."
It just seems like that since the Conservatives have OWNED the WHITE
HOUSE since 1963. Again, how many Conservative candidates have been
assassinated?
Clinton was NO liberal. LBJ was NO liberal. Carter was to some
extent, but he had to work a full Free Mason cabinet.
"Particularly when you didn't even recognize the authors I listed."
I don't care about those authors, I can handle this issue on my own.
> >> >They
> >> >have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
>
> >"Untrue.
>
> >*demonstrably* untrue."
>
> >What a dufus. So you think every Democratic President has gotten a
> >pass? I guess when one is elected they all take four years off and do
> >something else.
>
"I merely label your lies for what they are."
I think your problem is you don't know what it is like to have a real
LIBERAL President in office since JFK (and he was conservative on some
issues) so you only get one view - Conservative President and not-
quite-as-conservative media, therefore, you think they are liberal. I
mean NBC hired Buchanan, how is that possible if they are "Liberal?"
If anyone is old enough here to rememer Truman or Roosevelt they will
tell you they were attacked as well by the media.
> >> >JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
> >> >up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
> >> >would it be liberal?
>
> >>A frequently asserted statement that reveals your ignorance of the topic. Try
> >> picking up a few books on the subject and educate yourself. Or remain
> >> ignorant... no-one other than you really cares about your knowledge. And I
> >> suspect that you don't care either.
>
> >> >> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
> >> >> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate with
> >> >> >the JFK case as well then.
>
> >> >"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
>
> >> >There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
> >> >method in Florida,
>
> >"The "butterfly" ballot? Who created it? Let's see how far your
> >memory extends."
>
> >Ah, Ben got out one of his books. It was first used in 1964, and the
> >benefit for Bush was he got listed first because his brother was
> >Governor so all the mistakes people made in puching the second hole
> >affected Gore as they gave the vote to Buchanan.
"I see that you ducked that question fast enough. Rather cowardly,
wasn't it?"
I'm NOT defending the ballot, it stinks. That is why a manual recount
was imperative.
"Just to answer it for you - it was created by Theresa LePore, a
DEMOCRAT. It was approved by BOTH the Republican and Democratic
parties."
It was approved for 1964 elections Ben, this was 2000! Why can't we
get up-to-date?
"Yet Rob here is trying to imply what is simply not the truth."
What I said is true, whatever party the Gov. is favors that party's
candidate. Jeb's 1998 run for Gov. was full of controversy as well.
> >> >or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
> >> >count as well.
>
> >"And just who claimed that they voted, but their vote wasn't counted?
> >Just how did they know that their vote "wasn't counted?""
>
> >It was "counted" for the person they intended it for. Many people
> >punched the second hole thinking it was for Gore and their vote went
> >to Buchanan. Now you may view this as "counting" but to someone NOT
> >supporting Buchanan it didn't.
"Stupidity can't be fixed."
More compassion from the fascist. Many of the people were elderly AND
they did realize their mistake and punched the third hole as well,
unfortunately for them the machine will not count it when two holes
are punched. This happened to over 19,000 people, therefore, a manual
recount was necessary. The Constitution doesn't mention a certain IQ
level to be able to vote. Typical fascist, the fewer who vote the
better.
> >> >"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER
> >> >to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
> >> >soaring beyond all count."
>
> >> >Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
> >> >conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
> >> >don't want them to.
>
> >"Beginning to sound like a kook..."
>
> >This is why I doubt very much you are a CTer as you believe all the
> >fairy tale stuff in all other things. To think powerful people don't
> >own media outlets is the kooky stuff in my mind.
>
"To run from the evidence is what people do when they believe things
not supported by evidence."
Not running, it is a FACT, that about 6-8 companies OWN ALL major
Media in the U.S. The days of hundreds of companies are long gone.
> >> >"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
> >> >- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
> >> >buried by the traditional mass media.)"
>
> >> >All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
> >> >unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
> >> >"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
> >> >state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
> >> >system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
> >> >Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
> >> >years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
> >> >they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they are
> >> >owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tell
> >> >me who is better for defense contracts?
>
> >"Until you educate yourself, spouting nonsense is merely going to
> >brand you as gullible."
>
> >I guess I should have gone to San Jose State, right? You are the one
> >deep-rooted in your right-wing fanatical leanings, not me. I'm open
> >to more than that.
>
"You're as deeply rooted in the left-wing as I am in the right. Don't
pretend otherwise, it's not honest."
You don't know what you are talking about as usual. I have many
conservative leanings as well as some moderate and some liberal. I am
NOT strictly a fascist like you.
I boiled it down for you, but NOT allowing all votes to be counted and
by NOT allowing those 91,000 falsely accused of being felons to vote
the Supreme Court basically named Bush the winner. This is why he ran
to them in the first place.
> >"Explain it to the lurkers..."
>
> >Why don't you explain what they ruled on since you are under the
> >assumption they actually ruled on anything.
>
"Simple, they ruled on the legality of the Florida Supreme Court's
decision."
Right, which they have no right to do in all honesty as the state
should know their own laws better, right? Remember each state being
independent according to the founding fathers?
> >"When you spout off without knowing the facts, you almost always 'step
> >in it.'"
>
> >That is your nature though, a big mouthed, "know-it-all" who accuses
> >others of his own faults.
>
"And yet, the citations and evidence I keep bringing up supports what
I say... why is that?"
Only in your dreams.
> >> >"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
> >> >Supreme Court stopped it."
>
> >> >By having a recount?
>
> >"Yep. Can you explain the law that was being circumvented?"
>
> >NO since they were allowing recounts to go on despite Bush's
> >petition.
>
"I didn't think you'd be able to name the law that was being
circumvented."
It is a sectional law under the state of Florida, can't remember the
whole number.
> >> >What harm could a recount do?
>
> >"Break the law."
>
> >What law, why don't you explain it for us and explain why they had
> >done recounts for 80 years beforehand as well.
"You imply that the law was being broken for the last 80 years...
simply untrue."
You imply recounts have not been done for 80 years, simply untrue.
> >While you are at it
> >explain why 91,180 people were listed as felons when they were not and
> >thus COULD NOT vote.
"57,700 is the number I've seen. About 15% of the totals."
I have seen that number too, but I have seen the 94,000 more. Either
way, there is plenty of votes for Gore in there.
"Tell us, do you support efforts made to enforce the law? Or do you
support allowing anyone physically present in the U.S. to vote?"
I support enforcing the laws properly, NOT accusing a ton of people of
being felons and stealing their right as a U.S. Citizen to vote. Quit
sidestepping the issue, do you support illegally stealing someone's
right to vote by falsely accusing them of being a CONVICTED FELON?
> >> >Maybe this
> >> >article will answer it:
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
>
> >"I like it! Quoting a British paper - when I've cited the actual
> >recounts done AFTER THE ELECTION BY SEVERAL NEWSPAPERS!!"
>
> >Much like the JFK case, you have to leave the US to get a true account
> >of things.
>
"A good illustration of how far you have to go to avoid the facts."
That is your interpretation.
> >"It's a stretch, isn't it?"
>
> >Not in my book, you go ahead and believe your US newspapers. Data is
> >data and the British can get the same data,
"The *data* came from the U.S. newpaper journalists who did the
recounts."
Then how come they got different results?
"You believe that the numbers changed in their trip across the
ocean???"
The British may NOT have the same bias in making sure they came out
"right."
> >the difference is what is
> >done with the data and how it is presented.
>
> >> >> >Do you find the
> >> >> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO conflict
> >> >> >of interest at all?
>
> >> >"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
>
> >> >Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush?
>
> >"What did Katherine Harris do that was contrary to the law?
>
> >Be specific."
>
> >There is no need to go on then if you think she was innocent of any
> >wrong doing. I have listed a few things she did.
>
"Yep... duck and run..."
1) She was the CO-CHAIR for his campaign, can anyone say conflict of
interest?
2) She, along with the Gov., you know Bush's brother, scrubbed 91,000
plus (or to be fair, 57,000 plus) from the voting list by accussing
them of being felons when they were not.
3) She refused to extend the certification deadline past November 14
to allow for recounts. The courts upheld Harris's authority to
certify, but allowed Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia to
continue their recounts and file amended returns after the deadline.
Harris could use her discretion to accept or reject the amended
filings. Harris stated she would reject late filings. However, on
November 17, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Harris not to certify
election results before a November 20 hearing. This hearing granted
Gore an extension to November 26. Bush appealed to the United States
Supreme Court.
4) Palm Beach County requested an extension in the recount deadline
from 5pm to 9am of the next day. Governor Jeb Bush's Secretary of
State Katherine Harris denied the extension and instead used the
returns compiled before the recount. I wonder if Bush was behind if
she would have done the same thing.
5) Despite a 150 vote gain for Gore based on the limited recount done
in Miami-Dade county, Harris would nix these votes one the deadline
came.
In a side note, she has been shown to use taxpayer money to pay for
her personal things, so she is obviously a very dishonest person. IT
goes to character.
> >> >Did Gov. Bush not make
> >> >Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
> >> >clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
> >> >2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
> >> >majority of minority votes)?
>
> >"Be specific. What are you trying to claim here?"
>
> >Is this specific enough - 97,000 people were listed as felons,
>
"Just above you listed 91,180... how many different numbers do you
have?"
Some of the 97,000 were ACTUALLY felons. Go figure.
> >thus
> >they could NOT vote. As it turned out on 3% actually were!!!
"!!!! You're trying to claim that only 3% of the list provided by
ChoicePoint
> were in fact, actual felons???
Are you nuts?"
That is what I have read. Even if it was 15% like you said, and I
don't know if it was that high, that means 85% of people had their
rights trounced on. Not acceptable in a supposed democracy.
> >That
> >means 91,180 people could not vote in 2000. This private company got
> >their data from the state of Texas and this would not have happened if
> >the state did not go with a private company.
"Ah! I see... you don't know enough about what sources you use.
That's where you keep coming up with different numbers.
Sadly, however, you're simply wrong about the underlying facts.
Will you be man enough to retract your assertion that only 3% of
ChoicePoint's list were actual ineligible felons? Or will you prove
once again your basic dishonesty by refusing to correct the record?"
I have always CORRECTED my errors, you on the other hand never do.
Yes, I did read the wrong numbers from this article. Here it is:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
Can't totally blame me as this post has gotten longer than "War &
Peace". Can't you snip some of the old stuff?
> >"That private companies are verboten?"
>
> >They are when they get data that is incorrect, and the source of the
> >data is from a state one of the candidates happens to be a Governor
> >of.
>
"Yep... the government can always do it better... oops, Governor Bush
was the state governor... seems that no matter which way you turn, you
can't lose, can you?"
It is called covering all your bases.
> >"That the laws against felons voting should be repealed?"
>
> >No, but they should list ONLY felons, not include 97% innocent people.
>
"When you have to lie about the facts, that only illustrates that
you're a liar, not that it supports your argument."
It could also be that I made a mistake, the bottom line is a TON of
people were deprived of voting, to me if only 1 person was cheated
that is too many. In Ben's world everyone is a liar.
> >"That some people were removed who shouldn't have been?"
>
> >Some people? 97% of the names listed were NOT felons.
>
"Untrue."
Correct, but close to 58,000 is still unbelievable.
> >You sound DVP with his origins of the shots argument.
>
> >"Tell everyone here about Gore and the military vote... you *do*
> >remember, don't you?"
>
> >Most military vote allegedly went with Bush, but since none of the
> >mail-ins actually had date stamps on them there is much conjecture
> >about whether all of them came in by the deadline.
>
"Yep... disenfranchise the military, known to be heavily conservative,
provide reason for the heavily conservative panhandle to not come out
to vote, and pretend that it doesn't make you a hypocrite when you
refuse to decry these problems as well as the butterfly ballot."
Please, you have all those Harris issues to deal with along with voter
fraud.
> >> >Harris broke numerous laws including
> >> >Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
> >> >journalists.
>
> >"What "document" was withheld. Be specific. Provide a citation."
>
> >Google it.
>
"Ducked another citation, didn't you?"
Why is it NOT ducking when you do this?
> >> >"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
> >> >FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
> >> >CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
> >> >ARE SOUNDING!"
>
> >> >The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
> >> >votes,
>
> >"Harris followed the law."
>
> >Sure, just like she used her own money when travelling, right?
"Ducked that one, didn't you?"
Hardly, I think I have mentioned 10 times what she did wrong in this
post, meanwhile, no mention of what Gore did wrong by Ben. Hmmm.
> >> >if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
> >> >stupid.
>
> >"You're implying that Harris violated the law. Document your charge
> >or be known for the partisan that you are..."
>
> >It has been documented many times. Google it. Start with the people
> >she didn't allow to vote, it is called fraud.
"Ducked another citation, didn't you?"
See above. I love how this guy refuses to list what Gore and the FL
Supreme Court did wrong, but I have to list 50 times what Harris did
wrong.
> >> >They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
> >> >allowed to vote due to fraud
>
> >"Document this charge."
>
> >Come on, like you haven't heard of this before. Google it.
"Another one you ducked."
See above.
"Cat got your tongue when asked to document what you assert?"
Look's who talking, he thinks polls are proof!
> >> >and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
> >> >Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you.
>
> >"You may be sure, I suspect that lurkers might have a different
> >opinion."
>
> >I know Ben, in your mind ALL lurkers only see the world they way they
> >do because of you. LOL!!!
>
> >> >Can't
> >> >you ever discuss anything without getting rude?
>
> >"Demanding citations and proof will always be considered "rude" by the
> >other side. LOL!!!"
>
> >Ben is a liar. You are distorting what was said, you brought into
> >play my intelligence, or lack of it, it had nothing to do with
> >citations. You are still a liar I see.
>
> >> >I see why you are a
> >> >Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
> >> >are? Dictatorship?
>
> >"Do you understand why Bush isn't a true conservative? Do you
> >understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"
>
> >It is all malarky, you are so to the right you have to be a facist.
>
"Yep... I really didn't think you had the knowledge to answer that
one..."
Sieg Heil!
> >"Can you name a President that was further to the right than Bush, yet
> >not a "dictator?""
>
> >At some point the right leads to a dictatorship mentality, and Bush
> >has it, and it also leads to frame of minds like facism. One should
> >not be totally conservative or liberal.
>
"Yep... another one that you couldn't answer. One of several correct
answers, of
course, was Reagan."
He wasn't that far right until a Bush family friend tried to kill him,
then lo and behold, he is a utra-right-wing conservative.
> >> >> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
> >> >> >327.
>
> >> >"One is all it takes."
>
> >> >Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO winding
> >> >up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
>
> >"You think that a close election is statistically "ridiculous?""
>
> >No, I think it is fraud. We know the majority of the 91,180 would
> >have voted for Gore.
"We know that the panhandle was largely conservative..."
So why not vote anyway? You are saying these people actually believed
that Gore won simply because the media said so? I thought they were
all liberals anyway, why listen to them?
> >"Bugs you that Bush was not only elected, but *RE* elected, doesn't
> >it?"
>
> >I don't think he was ever elected, nor do I think he was ever re-
> >elected, remember Ohio? Why can't this man win a election fair and
> >square?
>
"The American people must be a big disappointment to you..."
In some ways yes, we have become so passive, but it is NOT un-American
to want fair elections, only fascists like you try and act like you
are unpatriotic if you don't believe everything you are told by the
government.
> >> >> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>
> >> >> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
> >> >> >overall, his performance has been average."
>
> >> >> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, but I
> >> >> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to their
> >> >> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate is
> >> >> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
> >> >> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
> >> >> >Coolidge.
>
> >> >"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
>
> >> >Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
> >> >"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
> >> >therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
> >> >parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
>
> >"*Not* voting for either of the only two candidates with any chance at
> >all of being elected is "throwing away your vote.""
>
> >That is a sad statement, true probably, but this is how our
> >"democracy" works, pick one of two controlled candidates. Too bad if
> >you want more of a choice. I rather vote with my conscience even if
> >they have no chance of winning.
I thought this was pretty good, but Ben just skipped it. Hmmm.
> >"Tell us your opinion of the Rural Electrification Administration...
> >if you were elected, what would you do with this particular agency?"
>
> >Ben, you are getting silly in an attempt to try and sound smart, I
> >never said I was running for President.
>
"It's merely an illustration of how well you know conservative
political thought. Or understand the issues here."
I doubt ALL conservatives know about this.
> >"Ditto with the U.S. Department of Education."
>
> >Ditto.
>
"There's no reason for me to expand here... since real political types
already know to what I was referring to here."
Real political types! You are hilarious, now you are a real political
type. What offices have you run for and held? You try so hard to
make yourself important. It is sad really.
Nothing wrong with them, and of course the "view" is how one
interprets at the Constitution as well. I can ONLY vote once, so my
view is the only view I need. I'm not trying to be important like
you.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in some people's minds." <<<
"Shot and killed Tippit and tried to kill Walker."
What are you parroting? No one mentioned LHO, and you NEVER prove he
shot anyone, why?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <4026e063-e29e-471d-897c-4fc548b8d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
I never said he was, but his family is probably another story, and he
has reaped the benefits that is for sure.
David Von Pein
>>> "What are you parroting? No one mentioned LHO, and you NEVER prove he shot anyone, why?" <<<
Oswald shot and killed JFK & JDT, and he attempted to kill Gen.
Walker, idiot.
Your protestations to the contrary couldn't possibly matter less.
Why not join Dankbaar's forum, Robcap? He seems to like ABO kooks over
there. And you'd fit right in with the nutjob [Wim] who had the 'nads
to post this picture (of a man who is at least 5 to 6 inches taller
than Lee Oswald and looks nothing like LHO, to boot <Large Laugh Break
Here>)......
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tip.jpg
BTW, Jimmy Files is 5-feet-11.
Oswald = 5-9.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "What are you parroting? No one mentioned LHO, and you NEVER prove he shot anyone, why?" <<<
"Oswald shot and killed JFK & JDT, and he attempted to kill Gen.
Walker, idiot."
Let's start over. Act like I'm knew and trying to figure this out.
Lay out your "proof" and "evidence" for why LHO did these things. Be
precise as you are trying to convince me.
"Your protestations to the contrary couldn't possibly matter less."
It is more than protestations, it is a fact you have NO proof,
evidence or motive for why LHO would shoot anyone.
"Why not join Dankbaar's forum, Robcap? He seems to like ABO kooks
over there. And you'd fit right in with the nutjob [Wim] who had the
'nads to post this picture (of a man who is at least 5 to 6 inches
taller than Lee Oswald and looks nothing like LHO, to boot <Large
Laugh Break Here>)......"
I like it here.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tip.jpg
"BTW, Jimmy Files is 5-feet-11.
Oswald = 5-9."
I never said I believed in James Files being the shooter.
David Von Pein
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 14, 7:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <4026e063-e29e-471d-897c-4fc548b8d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 14, 5:17=3DA0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 14, 6:36=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.com>,
>> >> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> > >On Jul 13, 6:07=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >roups=3D3D
>> >> > >.com>,
>> >> > >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> > >> >On Jul 12, 10:13=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrot=
>e:
>> >> > >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.g=
>oog=3D
>> >legro=3D3D
>> >> > >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >.com>,
>> >> > >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Duby=
>a s=3D
>> >tack =3D3D
>> >> > >up
>> >> > >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>con=3D
>> >sider=3D3D
>> >> > > hi=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >s S=3D3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >> >ocialism
>> >> > >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3D3DA0Then again, I'd r=
>ate a=3D
>> >ll *PLU=3D3D
>> >> > >S* bo=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >th Bu=3D3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >> >shes higher
>> >> > >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>bec=3D
>> >ause
>> >> > >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3D3DA0Gore was not part of=
> the =3D
>> >Clinton=3D3D
>> >> > > camp=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > and
>> >> > >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3D=
>3D3DA=3D
>> >0Some c=3D3D
>> >> > >laim =3D3D3D
>> >> > >> >Gore
>> >> > >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Ai=
>r F=3D
>> >orce =3D3D
>> >> > >2
>> >> > >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before=
> JF=3D
>> >K Jr.
>> >> > >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing w=
>ith=3D
>> >out
>> >> > >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than either=
> Bush=3D
>> >, Teddy
>> >> > >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge=
>.
>>
>> >> > >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>...
>>
>> >> > >> >Oh really? =3D3DA0Then you must have some 'intuition' that isn't=
> bein=3D
>> >g
>> >> > >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', =
>eh?=3D
>> > =3D3DA0I
>> >> > >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath =
>as
>> >> > >> >well. =3D3DA0Perhaps you would do well to just look at the popul=
>ar 'w=3D
>> >here
>> >> > >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> >> > >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> > >> >> Bush Jr, you
>old=3D
>> >*
>> >> > >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can =
>you
>> >> > >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>ami=3D
>> >ly,
>> >> > >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>nvolv=3D
>> >ement
>> >> > >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> > >> You live in kooksville.
>>
> JF=3D
>> >K was
>> >> > >> assassinated. =3D3DA0The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he =
>neede=3D
>> >d to be=3D3D
>> >> > > "in on
>> >> > >> it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you mi=
>ght=3D
>> > as w=3D3D
>> >> > >ell
>> >> > >> believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the Moon La=
>ndi=3D
>> >ng Ho=3D3D
>> >> > >ax, and
>> >> > >> a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >> > >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>> >> > >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive li=
>ke
>> >> > >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the '=
>Bay
>> >> > >of Pigs thing'. =3DA0 And yet you will try and use this as to not
>> >> > >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as the=
>ir
>> >> > >other documented political shenanigans. =3DA0I just call that being
>> >> > >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >> > >CJ
>>
>> >> > And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager =
>wou=3D
>> >ld be
>> >> > involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> >> > An honest person would retract...
>>
>> >"An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>oesn't
>> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
>> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>e
>> >Bush Regime. =3DA0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
>> >trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK."
>>
>> >One can also benefit from the actions as well, and the fact the Bushes
>> >have ties to the assassination (Prescott owned Nixon who is up to his
>> >eyeballs in the asssassination muck) is the reason they went on to
>> >since 1963 they family has climbed higher and gotten a lot richer. =A0I
>> >dare anyone to say that is NOT G.H.W.B. in front of the TSBD shortly
>> >asked. =A0Dubya wouldn't be President if the power accrued from 11/22/63
>> >on did not go to his family.
>>
>> >I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in
>> >some people's minds.
>>
>
>"The idea that a 17 year old teenager was involved in killing JFK is
>straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."
>
>It's just amazing what Bush-hatred will lead people to believe."
>
>I never said he was, but his family is probably another story, and he
>has reaped the benefits that is for sure.
Willing to use the plural of "Bush", but unwilling to retract your obvious
implication.
Rather dishonest, isn't it?
Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone refers to "the
Bushes?"
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <b563d672-d787-422d-a49d-d4e7b0687...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
It breaks my heart that you guys can't get along.
Is the CT love fest drawing to a close?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 13, 9:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes
><ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <ecbaf147-142c-4cbb-a0bf-c54528e2c...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 11, 10:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>s.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 10, 10:08 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >>>>In article
>> >><82867e8c-f25b-43f5-b347-1b0e28012...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >>>> >> In article <79db057f-2daf-41fe-8f37-1593c3a9e...@34g2000hsf.googl=
>egroups.=3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 1:49=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g2000hsf.g=
>ooglegro=3D>> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:16=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>>> >> >> >> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g2000hs=
>f.google=3D
>> >> >> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >>>> >> >> >> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most of t=
>he peopl=3D
>> >> >> >e i=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >n
>> >>>> >> >> >> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitting=
> Preside=3D
>> >> >> >nt.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >>>> >> >> >> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously known f=
>or being
>> >> >> >> >> >> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>>
>name to ge=3D
>> >> >> >t his
>> >> >> >> >> >academic pedigree.
>>
>> >>>> >> >> Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid issuing=
> grades =3D
>> >> >> >for=3D3D
>> >> >> >> > money.
>>
>> >>>> >> >> Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'august' i=
>nstituti=3D
>> >> >> >ons=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.
>>
>> >>>> >> >> Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the intell=
>ect. =3D3D=3D
>> >> >> >A0It'=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences.
>>
> his belie=3D
>> >> >> >fs,
>> >> >> >> >> I own several of his books.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I have seen
>ment.
>>
>> >>>> >> >> >You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will not be g=
>iving an=3D
>> >> >> >y
>> >> >> >> >> >college lectures. =3D3DA0He is too stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >> >> >"Another Bush-basher...
>>
>> >> >> >> >Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't see the
>t be a
>> >> >> >> >stretch to imagine that you're pulling the lever for Obama.
>>
>> >> >> >> >But this doesn't change the facts"
>>
>ted
>> >> >> >> >States in 2000?
>>
>> >> >> >"Of course he was. Repeated recounts by journalists have *NEVER* b=
>een
>> >> >> >able to find enough votes to put Al Gore in office, using Al Gore'=
>s
>> >> >> >own specifications."
>>
>> >> >> >You obviously have missed the stats (minus the three states in dis=
>pute
>> >> >> >or not declaring a winner- Florida, New Mexico and Oregon) showing=
> the
>> >> >> >results:
>>
>> >> >> >Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
>> >> >> >Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
>>
>> >> >"If you allow me to pick and choose which states I'd like to include,
>> >> >I can have almost *anyone* who's on the ballots "elected" President.
>>
>> >> >But the U.S. voting regulations simply don't allow people to do that.
>>
>> >> >Care to try again?"
>>
>> >> >You lost me as the states I listed were not "picked and choosed" as
>> >> >New Mexico and Oregon could not reach a conclusion regarding who won,
>> >> >whereas Florida was obviously corrupted.
>>
>> >"There's been *NO* evidence given by you that "Florida was obviously
>> >corrupted""
>>
>> >You should have read lower first as the "clensing of voters" by
>> >Choicepoint (who got their list of names from the state of Texas by
>> >the way) was illegal as it deprived many honest minorities from voting
>> >(some non-minorities too).
>>
>
>""Illegal?" Try what Democrats routinely do - making every attempt to
>get non-citizens to vote."
>
>Go tell the 91,000 plus they had NO right to vote.
I don't see your retraction that this was only 15% of the total number - the
other 85% *WERE* ineligible to vote.
You simply lied ...
>"When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to
>vote - don't, you cry foul."
>
>You are skirting the issue, the Harris-Bush team made sure 91,000 plus
>were smeard with the stigma of being felons, when they were not,
Actually, most of them *were*... they had simply either regained their rights to
vote, or they were being confused namewise with those who were felons.
You're trying to imply that someone was 'targeting' Democratic voters... simply
not true.
>thus they could not vote. You can dance all you want, but this is the way
>it is.
No, it isn't. As pointed out, and citations provided for...
>> >"Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. The
>> >law was followed."
>>
>> >You should read the article I attached done by British reporters as it
>> >disputes what you just said, but as in the JFK case, we need to look
>> >overseas to find the truth most of the time.
>>
>
>"I already commented on this. Need I repeat the obvious?"
>
>It is only obvious to you. Any press is open to comment, but you only
>want to believe those that support your opinion. I guess the British
>media is "liberal" too.
You rely on a foreign paper using speculations to try to over-ride U.S.
newspaper journalists who ACTUALLY DID THE RECOUNT.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
>> >> >Not counting those three
>> >> >states would have been a fair thing to do
>>
>> >"What does the *LAW* say?"
>>
>> >Two them counted anyway,
>>
>
>"Then why do you continue to raise them?"
>
>I only raised them because initially there were three states hanging
>in limbo, but the other two did not the issues Florida did. We can
>skip them.
It was, however, an excellent scheme to confuse people.
>> >and for Florida it should have gone to the
>> >Congress as this is what the constitution says.
>
>"No, that's *NOT* what the constitutions says."
>
>Since the Florida case was so mixed up, and biased (I mean his brother
>is the Gov. and the Secretary of the State is his co-chairman for his
>campaign in FL), this is what should have happened, or the Supreme
>Court should have stayed out of it.
Again - that's *NOT* what the Constitution says.
If the Florida Supreme Court had not changed election laws in the middle of an
election - I have no doubt that there wouldn't have been anything for the U.S.
Supreme Court to rule on.
If Gore wants to go to the courts to change the law - then you should *expect*
the courts to do their duty.
If the courts had said "No - we don't want to hear the case" to Gore - you'd be
screaming just as loud.
>"You are *STILL* avoiding the fact that the law was EXACTLY followed
>in Florida."
>
>No it wasn't, and you HAVE NOT provided anything that shows hand
>recounts or recounting were illegal in FL. I like how you assume you
>have proven this point already. I like how the co-chaire of the Bush
>campaign decided not to allow an extension of the recount from 5PM
>Sunday to 9AM Monday, I guess because in the brief time Miami-Dade did
>do a recount we saw a 150 net gain for Gore. Of course Harris wouldn't
>count these votes and went with the returns prior to the recount.
What does Florida election law state? Until you actually sit down and read
Florida election law, the Florida & Supreme Court decisions - you're going to
keep looking like a leftist kook to those who actually followed the facts.
>"Although, to be sure, the Florida Supreme court tried to change the
>law in the middle of the election - and was shot down by the U.S.
>Supreme Court."
>
>You keep saying this but you have provided nothing to show they did
>anything contrary to their laws.
I have no intention of trying to copy the sources I've mentioned to this thread.
You'll research and read it yourself, or you'll remain ignorant... who cares?
>"I wonder why you can't admit what actually happened here?"
>
>I wonder the same about you. Why did a number of counties take upon
>themselves to recount votes if the state law did not allow them to do
>so?
Because you still don't even realize that it wasn't the *recounting* that is at
issue as far as the law.
>It was Harris (again, Bush's co-chair for his election) who had
>the authority to make deadlines stick and Ben sees no problem with
>this in a democracy.
"Deadlines" were simply the law. Harris followed the law.
>> >There is NO mention
>> >of the Supreme Court (many of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush
>> >41 by the way) making any decisions.
>>
>
>"Why is it that you can't simply admit what actually happened in the
>Florida case? What Gore sued for, and why he was overturned?"
>
>Why can't you admit what he petitioned for is not contrary to state
>law?
It was.
>Other counties did manual recounts and other types of recounts
>on thier own.
Recounts weren't the legal issue.
I notice that you've been silent about the Supreme Court's *OVERTURNING* of the
Florida court.
Got caught in a lie, didn't you? You really *should* read the decision before
trying to assert that they didn't make any decision.
Bravo! You're starting to think!
Whether you'll ever actually *READ* the source material or not isn't something
I'd hold my breath for though...
>> >> >"(What's *really* hilarious is that Gore couldn't win his own state..=
>.
>> >> >if he'd only carried his own state, we'd have had President Gore in
>> >> >office)"
>>
>> >> >The man should have carried his own state, but it doesn't excuse the
>> >> >shenanigans in Florida.
>>
>> >"The "shenanigans" you refer to is Florida attempting to follow the
>> >law - Gore bringing suit, the activist Florida Supreme court
>> >overturning Florida election law in the middle of an election - and
>> >the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the clearly wrong actions of the
>> >Florida State Court."
>>
>> >Look who doesn't know what he is talking about now, the Supreme Court
>> >did not overrule the FL. Supreme Court, it merely set it aside and
>> >gave them a chance to explain their ruling better.
>>
>
>"What did the Florida Supreme Court rule..."
>
>Essentially that Miami-Dade would not be recounted and there were
>10,000 votes at stake there.
They *OVERTURNED* the Florida court decision. Contrary to your lie above.
When are you going to admit it?
>"What did the U.S. Supreme Court rule..."
>
>Same thing.
>
>"Who is President?"
>
>One of the worst in our history, Bush.
Your paragraph above was a lie, wasn't it? Have you ever even *read* the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision???
>"Better yet, read and weep: "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
>Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
>not inconsistent with
>this opinion.""
>
>Supreme Court,
Come on, Rob... let's hear you say it: The U.S. Supreme Court *OVERTURNED* the
Florida State Court decision.
You lied, and I'd enjoy seeing you admit it.
>but the game was over when Judge Saul from Florida woud
>not allow recounts in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.
Then by your *OWN WORDS*, you have no complaint to make of the U.S. Supreme
Court. You argue that they didn't overturn the Florida State Court, which held
for Gore, and you claim that it wasn't the U.S. Supreme Court that was the cause
of "game over"
>"Can you understand that simple statement? Can you guess where it
>came from?"
>
>Already know that - the Supreme court, but you need to show me what
>law Gore was violating as you keep claiming.
No Rob - I just demonstrated that you're a liar when you tried to assert that
the U.S. Supreme Court didn't overturn the Florida State Court.
You lied, you got caught, and you refuse to retract.
>Also, the Supreme Court
>voted along party lines and the Republicans happened to have 5 on the
>bench.
I'd hate to have to educate you on the Supreme Court...
>> >"Go ahead and tell everyone here that you are IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE
>> >ELECTION LAWS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION..."
>>
>> >I'd rather say you aren't sure of what you are talking about.
>
>"Then, you've merely illustrated once again that you're a dishonest
>liar."
>
>Once again. LOL!!! Everyone is a liar but Ben I guess. Show me the
>law(s) he was trying to change. IF you don't we will know who the
>liar is.
If you'd ever take the time to read the source material - you'd know. Hint: it
*wasn't* the recounts.
>> >The
>> >verdict that did Gore in came from the FL. courts,
>
>"Untrue. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor."
>
>By the time this came the game was nearly over anyway as Judge Saul
>impounded the ballots and sent them to Tallahassee, and by the time
>Gore got the approval from the FL. Supreme Court there was not enough
>time to count them all.
>
>So in essence, Saul sank them (along with Harris).
You're a liar. Here's the proof:
*****************************************************
Tallahassee Judge Rebukes Gore Attorney Boies
Jack Thompson Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2000
Fireworks went off late Wednesday afternoon in the Tallahassee, Fla., courtroom
of Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls at the expense of Gore lead attorney David
Boies.
Boies has been in front of Sauls this week, parrying with the Bush campaign's
attorneys over a range of issues, including whether the judge should order yet
another hand recount of thousands of contested ballots from Palm Beach and
Miami-Dade counties.
Tuesday, Sauls refused to order the recount at this time, instead setting a
hearing later in the week on the issue. But the ballots are now on a truck
headed for Tallahassee just in case.
*****************************************************
So it's crystal clear that the ballots you're referring to that were sent to
Tallahassee were from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade.
Palm Beach & Miami-Dade.
Palm Beach & Miami-Dade.
Palm Beach & Miami-Dade.
What did the Florida Supreme Court say about those EXACT ballots?
"On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit
Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It
also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified
in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice
President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates
for President and Vice President."
The Florida Supreme Court also held that the Palm Beach votes *WERE NOT LEGAL*,
thus upholding Saul's opinion. ("However, we find no error in the trial court's
findings, which are mixed questions of law and fact, concerning (3) the Nassau
County Canvassing Board and the (4) additional 3300 votes in Palm Beach County
that the Canvassing Board did not find to be legal votes.")
Lied, didn't you?
Sooner or later, Rob - you're going to *HAVE* to read the original Florida
election law, and the relevant court decisions.
Why keep putting it off? I did so back in 2000 & 2001. There's no reason for
you not to do so - it's all available on the internet.
>> >NOT the federal
>> >government.
>>
>> Untrue again... even *YOU* are claiming that the Supreme Court put Bush i=
>n
>> office.
>>
>> >Your boy got the Federal court involved because he did
>> >not trust the state courts at all.
>>
>
>"The Florida Supreme Court overturned Florida election law in the
>middle of an election. That's blatantly irresponsible."
>
>All they did was extend the deadline for recounts,
What does the law say?
Let's do an *accurate* rewrite of your assertion: 'All they did was change the
existing election law in the middle of an election'
Sounds like you're beginning to see the light.
>I think it was as
>fair as having Bush's co-chair (Harris) deciding not to allow for
>recounts in predominantly Democratic counties.
It's fair to have a recount in *ONLY* "predominantly Democratic counties?"
Are you even listening to what you're saying???
>Or coming into work on
>a Sunday so votes couldn't be counted until Monday morning. How many
>other Sundays was her office open?
You're not even making sense here...
>Or having the Republican appointed
>Sauls sieze the ballots and send them to Tallahassee so they couldn't
>be looked at in full by December 12.
Despite your lies, the Florida Supreme court overturned this.
And Sauls was only following the law.
>> >"Say it right here, in print."
>>
>> >Say what? You're wrong?
>>
>
>"Yep... gutless coward and dishonest to boot."
>
>You have attacked me since I came here
I "attack" lies and cowardice. I really don't care *where* it's coming from.
>and I have never run from you.
>You are bully who can't discuss things,
Facts aren't open to "discussion." It's either true, or not true.
>you have to hurl insults and
>call people names constantly. As I learned in grade school, most
>bullies are the real cowards.
>
>
>> >"Because that *IS* what you're arguing."
>>
>> >No, what I'm arguing is the illegal use of voter cleansing used by
>> >Florida
>>
>
>"Wasn't "illegal"... they were attempting to FOLLOW the law."
>
>You are a liar. They labled over 91,000 people as FELONS thus
>preventing them from voting, this is called FRAUD, but of course they
>were just minorities for the most part, right?
Tell us just how many of the *TOTAL* number by ChoicePoint this "91,000" number
represents.
Are you willing to lie once again?
>> >and Sec. of State Harris that did not allow others to vote
>> >that should have.
>
>"Most states have laws covering the issuing of provisional ballots,
>I'd be surprised if Florida didn't."
>
>Most states did NOT have the co-chair of one of the candidates
>deciding these issues.
Yep... citizens lose their rights when they hold office, right?
The person who designed the butterfly ballot wasn't *really* a Democrat, was
she? After all, she was holding office...
>> >Also, the issue of the confusing ballots that may
>> >have lead some to vote for the person they did not want.
>>
>
>"These "confusing" ballots were created and implemented by DEMOCRATS.
>Live with it."
>
>Already have,
Then why haven't you castigated the Democratic party for creating the ballot
that caused so much confusion, and cost Gore votes???
>luckily Bush is going to be gone soon.
To be replaced with McCain.
>> >Hand recounts had been allowed for 80 years in Florida, and were allowed=
> in
>> >some cases here, but due to Bush's theory they would be unjust (sure
>> >he can claim things but others can't) the Florida courts disallowed a
>> >recount in two of the largest areas for Gore (Palm Beach County and
>> >Dade County).
>>
>
>"Untrue."
>
>Prove it.
You've already admitted it. When you mentioned the legal deadline - it proved
that you knew of it.
>> >> >> >"Bush won the election fairly, and he did it LEGALLY. If you wish =
>to
>> >> >> >argue otherwise, you'll have to cite what law you believe he broke=
>."
>>
>> >> >> >Really? First of all the media declared Gore the winner because h=
>e
>> >> >> >had a 3 to 1 lead in the state with 15 minutes to closing of the
>> >> >> >polls.
>>
>> >> >"Sadly, this isn't the way we elect our representatives. In addition=
>,
>> >> >here's some data to chew on:"
>>
>> >> >Never said it was, but when someone has a 3 to 1 lead when the polls
>> >> >are pretty much done, there is rarely a loss in the state, that is wh=
>y
>> >> >the media called it.
>>
>> >"The media has been *repeatedly* wrong using exit polling. So your
>> >"facts" are simply incorrect. You can easily validate this by simply
>> >Googling "exit poll discrepancy", or "exit poll problems" or any
>> >similar term."
>>
>> >Perhaps, but in my lifetime of watching elections on a national stage
>> >I can't remember too many other times they called a state for a
>> >candidate and then the candidate lost it. It may happen a lot, I just
>> >don't recall it in a Presidential election. The networks pride
>> >themselves on being right, this made them look real bad.
>>
>
>"A simple Google of exit polling results will show even *you* just how
>wrong you are."
>
>Maybe, I admit I'm going from personal experience, but this is a side
>issue anyway. The recounts, the undercounts, the voter fraud and the
>bias of having a co-chair decide important issues are enough to deal
>with.
You can keep running if you want... matters little to me.
>> >> >> ****************************************************************
>> >> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida?
>>
>> >> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida before polls were c=
>losed?
>>
>> >> >> Why did they declare Gore the winner of Florida when Bush never tra=
>iled in
>> >> >> tabulations?
>>
>> >>>>Further, what about other states? In contrast to Florida, the networ=
>ks
>> >>decided
>> >> >> to wait longer to declare states for Bush, even the states where he=
> won
>> >>>> handedly. For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five mi=
>nutes to
>> >>>>project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent. In=
> Ohio, it
>> >> >> took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 perce=
>nt.
>>
>> >>>> In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it w=
>as "too
>> >>>>close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed. This caused To=
>m Brokaw
>> >>to
>> >>>>exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call doe=
>s come as
>> >>a
>> >>>> surprise this evening." They waited at least thirty minutes on a va=
>riety of
>> >> >> other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.
>>
>> >>>>Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Wouldn't it make sense for the=
> networks
>> >>>> to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight r=
>aces like
>> >> >> Florida?
>> >> >> ****************************************************************
>>
>> >> >"In addition - had the media *NOT* called the race before the polls
>> >> >closed, it would not have been as close as it was."
>>
>> >> >Don't get your point
>>
>> >"You mean you don't *want* to 'get my point'."
>>
>> >There is NO proof people stopped voting if that is what you mean.
>>
>
>"Sadly, you're simply a liar.
>
>I've already cited the polling data that showed otherwise."
>
>I guess you think you are talking to someone as gullible as you. Who
>conducted the poll? How do you know it is totally accurate? With 15
>minutes to closing I would think most people who wanted to vote were
>already at the voting booths.
70 minutes... and I cited the poll. The fact that you're asking who conducted
it is proof enough that you didn't have enough courage to read my citations.
>> >"If you don't believe that the Florida numbers would have been even
>> >higher for Bush if the media hadn't 'jumped the gun', then you're
>> >merely being dishonest with the facts."
>>
>> >This is your thoughts, how about some proof?
>>
>
>"Already cited it. Clearly, you didn't take the time to click on it,
>and read it."
>
>No, I didn't because I don't think polls are proof of anything as they
>are one of the most biased forms of data one can use. Its all in
>who's asking the questions.
In other words - 'Don't confuse me with the facts'.
If there's no evidence that can *POSSIBLY* invalidate your opinion, then what
you're "arguing" is your faith.
>> >"But don't take my word for it - do the research yourself."
>>
>> >Typical, you demand cites and proof, but you never provide any.
>> >Everyone else has to "do it themselves".
>>
>
>"Rather dishonest of you, isn't it? I've provided numerous citations
>to what I've stated in this thread, and it's clear immediately above
>that you don't even bother to read them."
>
>Polls are NOT proof!! Biased news reports are NOT proof.
Present the evidence that you'd accept.
>The proof
>is you had a state that was using biased data to preclude innocent
>people from voting, and you had a Sec. of State who was the co-chair
>for Bush's campaign determining everything. I bet if Bush was behind
>and could benefit from major recounts she would have agreed to extend
>the timelines.
Bush went to court to request that the law be followed. Gore went to court to
try to change the election law in the middle of an election.
Harris merely followed the law.
>"Nor will you do your own research..."
>
>Another lie.
And yet, as illustrated in this very post - you've never bothered to read any of
the court decisions - you keep asserting "facts" that aren't true.
>> >> >as the only part of the state still voting when
>> >> >they called it was the western section and they only had 15 minutes
>> >> >left. People there said no one stopped voting either.
>>
>> >"How many people said that the "results" being broadcast STOPPED THEM
>> >FROM GOING TO THE POLLS?"
>>
>> >It was called with 15 minutes left in the western part of the state,
>>
>
>"Actually, Wikipedia labeled it 70 minutes. I've not checked the
>times, but 70 minutes is more consistent with the large numbers of
>voters who decided not to
>vote."
>
>Perhaps it was, too bad you weren't there to Google how wrong the
>media is for them. My guess is they didn't want to vote that bad
>anyway.
Speculation is always a LNT'er characteristic. CT'ers don't need it, they have
the facts.
>> >meaning the eastern part was already done for the most part,
>> >therefore, I have not read of anyone saying they did not vote because
>> >of it.
>>
>
>"Of course you haven't... even though I provided you with the citation
>- you're too much of a coward to read anything that might dispute your
>world view."
>
>Back to name calling, how about real proof? Something beyond a poll?
When you can't provide any evidence you'd accept, you're arguing faith, not
facts.
>> >With that little time left the people would have been at the
>> >voting area by then.
>>
>> >> >I think the
>> >> >confusing system of choosing a candidate had more to do with it than
>> >> >the media calling the projected winner.
>>
>> >"Speculation is a LNT'er game... what do the voters *THEMSELVES* give
>> >as the reason?"
>>
>> >So is believing everything their government tells them and for someone
>> >who believes in two Presidential assassinations you sure take their
>> >word for it on everything else. Google the "dimple chads" and
>> >"hanging chads" for yourself to see.
>>
>> >> >> See:http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm
>>
>> >"You must not have read this - as it gives the polled reason that the
>> >non-voters THEMSELVES mention for not voting..."
>>
>> > It is one poll, surely you are NOT saying it is definitive of all
>> >voters, right?
>>
>
>"Feel free, at any time, to provide citations that support your
>position."
>
>Why?
Oh, I'm just illustrating that while I provide citations, you can't.
I'm pointing out facts, you're arguing faith.
>You are the one contending it was a bunch of people who did not
>vote because of the media, not me.
And, of course, I've provided the *ONLY* evidence possible that supports that
exact position.
While you refuse to do so.
>I'm too worried about the co-chair
>of Bush's campaign being in charge of all that happened with the
>election.
She followed the law. Tis that simple.
>> >> >> >Secondly, the Governor of the state was his brother, which in
>> >> >> >and of itself is cause for a red flag.
>>
>> >> >"Sounds like something squishy and smelly under my boots...
>>
>> >> >Tell us, just *what* did the Governor of Florida do? What *could* he
>> >> >have done? Be specific ... and provide citations."
>>
>> >> >I'm not getting into a long drawn out conversation on this
>>
>> >"Of *course* you aren't. People often begin running away when I
>> >demand a citation."
>>
>> >I have never run from you Ben, so save the bullcrap for someone else.
>> >I get tired of you never providing real proof, you thrown in media
>> >articles and polls, big deal.
>>
>
>"Then by all means, let everyone know right here and now just *WHAT*
>you would accept as proof."
>
>I want proof that other states have precluded 91,000 plus people from
>voting by labeling them "Felons", and I want proof that other states
>have had someone in charge of determining all aspects of the election
>laws who at the same time was the co-chair for one of the
>candidates!!! Oh, and throw in the one the co-chair thing happened
>the Gov. was the candidate's brother as well.
I asked you *WHAT* you would accept as proof. You've already stated that polls
aren't proof, you've already denied that journalist's reporting in the U.S.
won't be accepted (unless, of course, it supports your faith.)
When there is nothing that you will accept that is capable of contradicting what
you assert - then you are asserting faith, not facts.
>"For if you can't accept anything I provide, then all you're doing is
>illustrating just your political viewpoint, and not any particular
>intelligence."
>
>The thing you are arguing, the people not voting due to medias' call,
>is not relevent in the big picture.
Of course it is... for simple math will lead anyone to understand that Bush
would have carried Florida with an even *bigger* lead had the state not been
wrongly 'called' for Gore.
That's simply too obvious...
>We had numerous undercounts not
>counted. Here were the results simply from the counts:
>
>
>>
>> >And for your "demand" of a citation,
>> >why don't you follow your own guidelines and stop telling everyone to
>> >"Google it themselves" and start providing real cites?
>>
>> I have been... repeatedly.
>>
>> >> >as it has
>> >> >nothing to do wiht the JFK assassination, but as the governor he was
>> >> >in a position to do a lot when it came to recounts.
>>
>> >"If you can't provide a citation for what he *DID*, or was even
>> >*allowed* to do, then you're merely being dishonest."
>>
>> >Google it yourself,
>>
>> What were you just chiding me to do? Gutless coward, aren't you?
>>
>> >and why you are at it, Google about his re-
>> >election campaign, you find some good stuff there. Of course you
>> >think I'm dishonest, as whoever doesn't agree with you is always
>> >dishonest in your mind.
>>
>> >> >If you don't
>> >> >believe that you are niave or not being honest.
>>
>> >"I'm not the one simply spattering speculation against a fan..."
>>
>> >No, you are the one basically repeating the government and major media
>> >spiel.
>>
>> If you aren't capable of reading the Florida Supreme Court decision, and =
>the
>> Florida election law, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court decision ... as I=
> did
>> when this was first news (it *is* available on the net), then you're mere=
>ly a
>> lazy coward.
>>
>> >> >A governor can
>> >> >control a lot in their state including being on the inside of all
>> >> >things that go on in their state. You shouldn't need me to provide
>> >> >cites for this if you are familar with politics.
>>
>> >"Be specific... document your charges..."
>>
>> >You can do this yourself, that is what you tell me and everyone else.
>> >Surely, you don't need to have me point out dishonesty in the White
>> >House when you believe two Presidents died because of a conspiracy,
>> >right? Same goes for Governors.
>>
>> More citation ducking...
>>
>> >> >> >Thirdly, the fraud was evident
>> >> >> >to all who were old enough to understand what was going on,
>>
>> >> >"Quite clearly untrue..."
>>
>> >> >You are a Bush supporter so of course you don't think so....
>>
>> >"Then you should have no problem *SPECIFICALLY* describing this
>> >"fraud"... What was "fraudulent?""
>>
>> >Clensing of voters rolls to prohibit many minorities from voting
>>
>> This was an effort to *FOLLOW* the law. That it wasn't done perfectly is
>> neither here nor there. Interestingly, a number of counties did *NOT* us=
>e the
>> list to purge their voting records - and a check later of one county show=
>ed 445
>> ineligible felons had voted.
>>
>> The process was certainly flawed - but you are evidently supporting a com=
>plete
>> refusal to attempt to stop ineligible voters from voting.
>>
>> And *that* bespeaks a wee bit of nervousness about elections - and voter
>> intelligence.
>>
>> >and
>> >the ban of recounts in two of the largest Pro-Gore counties to name a
>> >few.
>>
>> That was merely following the law. Why are you a proponent of breaking t=
>he law?
>>
>> >"Merely tossing out sly innuendo isn't going to convince anyone other
>> >than a Bush-bashing leftist liberal."
>>
>> >I'm not here to convince anyone on this topic as they all have their
>> >own thoughts already. Why do you always think you can "convince"
>> >people?
>>
>> I don't convince *anyone*. I merely point out the facts - and let the fa=
>cts
>> decide people's minds.
>>
>> If you want to lie about the facts, and run from them, I'll merely point =
>it out.
>>
>> >> >> >thus the
>> >> >> >whole Supreme Court process should have been thrown out the window=
> and
>> >> >> >the three states above should have been nixed. The Constitution (=
>I
>> >> >> >hope you agree this is worthy enough for you) has a provision for =
>this
>> >> >> >instance:
>>
>> >> >> >"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
>> >> >> >President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
>> >> >> >Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
>> >> >> >Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
>> >> >> >Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
>> >> >> >President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five
>> >> >> >highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the
>> >> >> >President."
>>
>> >> >> >Article II, Section 1
>>
>> >> >> >Thus we see with Gore's lead:
>>
>> >> >> >Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) 246 (electoral votes)
>> >> >> >Gore (Democrat) 49,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
>>
>> >> >> >he could have been declared the winner, or at worst there should h=
>ave
>> >> >> >been a Congressional vote, the Supreme Court should have had nothi=
>ng
>> >> >> >to do with it.
>>
>> >> >"I wonder why you keep throwing out perfectly legitimate and valid
>> >> >state votes?
>>
>> >> >Isn't it the Democrats who keep yelling about disenfranchisement? An=
>d
>> >> >here you are, trying to do it to THREE WHOLE STATES WORTH OF AMERICAN
>> >> >CITIZENS!!"
>>
>> >> >Two of them couldn't reach a decision on their own for some time,
>> >> >although they eventually did,
>>
>> >"Did they do so in accordance with their own state laws?"
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>
>"Then you don't have an argument, do you?
>
>So why bother to bring in these other two states? Is it merely
>because you were trying to imply a pattern that didn't exist?"
>
>Not everyone is being deceitful, I mentioned the other two because
>they also had a delay in decididing a candidate but I was not trying
>to show any pattern. Florida had enough problems by itself.
Did their "delay" violate their state laws in any way whatsoever?
And how does this mean anything in relation to a state that was delayed *ONLY
BECAUSE GORE SUED IN COURT TO OVERTURN FLORIDA ELECTION LAW?"
>> >"That's the *ONLY* question that's relevant."
>>
>> >It is, but recounts were NEVER banned in Florida before,
>>
>
>"Nor were they now. That was *never* the issue. You clearly aren't
>even aware of the election law in Florida, and what was at issue."
>
>You're all over the place and you WON'T state what law Gore and the FL
>Supreme law looked to change mid-election so I'm trying to figure it
>out.
I'm a big believer in the Socratic method. Unless you're willing to research it
yourself, and READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL - it would be meaningless for me
to mention the historical facts.
>> >and in fact
>> >they allowed some counties to proceed with them so why the decision to
>> >bar Palm Beach and Dade counties from doing so?
>>
>
>"If you have to lie about the facts, what does that suggest about your
>entire argument?"
>
>They were barred until the 11th hour and by then it was too late as
>the deadline was too close to recount them all, but I guess because
>they counted some you are considering that the same as recounting them
>all.
If you have to lie about the facts, what does that suggest about your entire
argument?
>> >> >and in the case of Florida I don't like
>> >> >the state and federal Supreme Courts making decisions for the voters.
>>
>> >"Be specific... the Supreme Court PUT THE LAWS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED
>> >INTO PLACE *BACK* IN PLACE."
>>
>> >Actually they didn't do anything in terms of a ruling,
>>
>
>"You're definitely starting to sound like a kook.
>
>You blame the U.S. Supreme Court for putting Bush in office, but then
>you deny that they actually did anything."
>
>They made the final announcement that sealed it,
"Actually they didn't do anything in terms of a ruling,"
So they both "sealed it", and "didn't do anything."
You can't figure out just *what* you want to assert. Why not merely read the
decision so that you can be accurate and historically correct?
>but the real cause of
>the injustice was Harris and Saul by making sure the recounts could
>NEVER be done by the 26th of November, and this made Gore seek help in
>extending the timeline again, but no deal.
They followed the law.
>> >but their
>> >weight may have had an impact the Judge (Saul) who then decided to bar
>> >those big Democrat counties to have recounts.
>>
>> >"It was Gore, and the Florida Supreme Court - that tried to change the
>> >Florida election laws in the middle of an election."
>>
>> >How? Recounts were ruled to be okay and he got an extension from the
>> >courts to count them so I'm missing what he did wrong.
>>
>
>"Perhaps because you haven't bothered to read the law, and the court
>decisions."
>
>Why don't you simply state it for us?
Nope.
Those who are interested in the truth will go to the original evidence and READ
IT. Those who aren't won't be interested.
>What is the big secret? You
>keep saying this but don't mention what "it" is he did wrong. I like
>how he keeps talking about laws when they violated the rights of
>91,000 plus people by labeling them "Felons!" Not worried laws then,
>huh?
You lied about that number - and I haven't seen a retraction from you yet...
>> >"So tell everyone here - who was right? Gore suing to change state
>> >election law in the middle of the election? Or the U.S. Supreme court
>> >who upheld Florida voters?"
>>
>> >You keep saying he changed the laws but you provide no proof.
>>
>
>"Nor will I."
>
>Coward.
I've cited it a number of times now. Feel free to click on the cites.
>"If you're too stupid to understand the issues, I'm only going to
>point you to the relevant sources. Florida election law is online, as
>is the Florida court decision, and the Supreme Court decision."
>
>Coward. This is like when someone doesn't know the answer and they
>"You don't know the answer?" and then walk away.
Sorry, I'm not responsible for your education. I'm only going to continue to
point out your historical errors of fact.
>"If you continue to believe your fairy tales without the background
>source material, then people will judge you based on that..."
>
>I can research and read all I want, but it WON'T give me your take of
>events, this is what we are supposed to be doing here. Again, I say
>you are a coward as you won't list what he did wrong.
You've presented assertion after assertion that you COULD NOT HAVE STATED if
you'd simply read the original source material.
I'm merely going to keep correcting you.
>> >He didn't change them as the courts ruled initially in his favor
>>
>
>"THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULED TO OVERTURN THE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW
>THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.
>
>Just how many times do I have to repeat it?"
>
>All they did is give more time for a recount,
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULED TO OVERTURN THE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW THAT WAS
ALREADY IN PLACE.
>and since the person who
>did not want to extend the timeline
'did not want to change election law in the middle of an election'
>was co-chair for Bush's campaign,
>I don't think they did anything wrong.
You can "think" all you want... the law is still the law.
>There is NO doubt a recount in
>Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties would have made Gore the next
>President. He gained 150 votes in the brief recount they did do and
>he was only behind by less than a 1000.
The recounts *WERE* done after the election ... they failed to put Gore ahead.
>> >that is why Bush went to the federal level.
>>
>> >> >Call me silly. The Congress should have been used before any court
>> >> >got involved according to the Constitution.
>>
>> >"Yes, you *are* silly... mainly because you're simply ignorant of what
>> >actually happened - so your words just fall flat when the facts are
>> >brought forth."
>>
>> >What happened?
>>
>
>"I've stated it over and over."
>
>I was playing with you.
>
>
>> >You keep making charges against Gore but do NOT
>> >provide any proof.
>
>"Then by all means, tell lurker here EXACTLY what Gore sued to get.
>And then,
>provide the citation to the Florida law that ALLOWED HIM TO GET IT.
>
>But you won't..."
>
>All he wanted was recount of votes that machines may have not
>counted.
Untrue.
>The issue was he was the second candidate, but the third
>hole, therefore, many voted for Buchannan by accident.
You can't merely decide that all Buchanan votes were yours...
>In the main
>areas of Miami-Dade and Palm Beach the "butterfly" method that this
>issue pertained to was used more than anywhere else in the state due
>to the size of the populations. He simply wanted a manual recount to
>make sure he got all the votes he was intended to get because over
>19,000 people said they punched the second and third holes, thus the
>machine would discount them as "double-voted."
They *WERE* "double-voted", and thus invalid.
>He wanted these votes
>and they would have made him the winner, there is NO doubt about that.
Using invalid ballots can make anyone the winner...
This is why we have the rule of law...
>> >"You're actually arguing that the election laws *should* have been
>> >capable of being changed right in the middle of an election."
>>
>> >No,
>
>"Yes, you are. But you firmly intend to remain ignorant of what
>happened."
>
>How is a recount changing the law?
It isn't.
>I thought the goal of all
>elections was to make sure ALL votes counted?
Unless they're military votes...
>I guess I was wrong.
>Gore, to his credit, NEVER mentioned changing the December 12th date
>that is final day for a decision.
He didn't have to. It was a prerequisite for his lawsuit.
>> >what I am saying since it was virtual tie without Florida,
>
>"It was *NOT* a tie."
>
>You're right, Gore was ahead.
Sadly, no legal count or recount has ever shown this.
>> >and
>> >there were many issues with the process in Florida it would have been
>> >better to have the issue decided by the Congress instead of letting
>> >the courts handle it as the results of this election will never be
>> >looked at by many people as being correct.
>>
>
>"The law was followed... hurts, doesn't it?"
>
>It was followed by the CO-CHAIR for the Bush campaign!
And if the law had been followed by Gore, would that have made any difference?
The law was the law. Tis as simple as that. The legislature can vote to change
it whenever they want.
>Also by the 5
>justices appointed by Reagan and his dad!
Again, how does that change the law?
For example, it was the conservative justices that recently struck down the
Washington DC ban on handguns, you certainly have no problem with that - yet it
was the exact same situation - with some of the same judges involved.
>> >"Let's hear you say it, in black and white, right here:"
>>
>> >Say what? You always focus on some dumb issue you get stuck in your
>> >head and never deal with the real larger issues. Say for everyone how
>> >Gore tried to change the elections laws of Florida.
>>
>
>"Yep... too yellow.
>
>or too ignorant..."
>
>YOU are on BOTH counts.
And yet, it's the citations I keep giving that keeps proving *YOUR* assertions
not factual.
>> >> >> >"Interesting to note that you couldn't argue what was already on t=
>he
>> >> >> >table, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find
>> >> >> >something that you think is stronger."
>>
>> >> >> >I don't know the man Ben so how can I argue about his intelligence=
>?
>>
>> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for muc=
>h
>> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
>> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >> >"stupid.""
>>
>> >> >I never said he was, so what is your point?
>>
>> >"This *was* what the thread was about. You jumped in and changed the
>> >topic. I merely comment on that fact."
>>
>> >So?? That gives you the right to put words in my mouth?
>
>"Quote the "words" I "put" in your mouth.
>
>Or retract your lie."
>
>Classic Ben!! He is the biggest nutcase on this board by far, way
>ahead of any LNer. He says this about me:
>
>> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for
>> >> >much
>> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - ***the
>> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >> >"stupid.""***
>
>and now I'm the one who is lying!
Yep... you ARE lying. For it's quite clear that at no time in the above quote
did I "quote" you saying anything.
I suggested that you can examine the evidence. I suggested that it's perhaps
evidence that you don't want to examine - but at NO TIME WHATSOEVER DID I CLAIM
THAT YOU'D ASSERTED SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT.
You see, this is why I demand that you provide the quote proving what you
assert, as anyone can see, it does no such thing.
>LOL!!!! This guy is one nutjob! By
>the by, I DID quote them before, you just ignored them.
And each time you make the assertion, I'm going to demand AGAIN that you quote
the evidence.
Lied... didn't you?
>> >Especially
>> >when you hate that so much if it is done to you? I also don't see the
>> >guy who started out saying that here anymore.
>>
>> >> >I don't think he is
>> >> >exactly the brighest bulb on the tree either though. Why don't you sa=
>y
>> >> >why he is so smart?
>>
>> >"No-one who graduates from both Yale and Harvard is "stupid""
>>
>> >Gullible to the core, I'm sure being a member of a powerfull family
>> >and being in the "Skull and Bones" society there was never any
>> >cheating or assisting happening, right? I keep wondering why you
>> >believe in a conspiracy in the Lincoln and JFK cases since you're so
>> >gullible in everything else we discuss. He may be "book smart" who
>> >knows.
>>
>
>"If there is no standard by which you can be proven wrong - then you
>are arguing faith, not fact."
>
>Believe whatever you want, but no one is dumb enough (besides you) to
>believe Dubya could have gotten into Yale if he was NOT a Bush.
Oh, I suspect that half of America is "dumb enough" by your standards...
You're arguing faith... not facts.
>> >> >Remember how you reacted when you said I put
>> >> >words in your mouth? I don't like it either.
>>
>> >"Quote what words I've 'put in your mouth'.
>>
>> >Here... let me help you - here was the statement again: "Interesting
>> >to note that you couldn't argue what was already on the table, Bush's
>> >supposed lack of intelligence - and had to find something that you
>> >think is stronger."
>
>"A statement that is 100% correct, and does *NOT* put any words in
>your mouth.
>
>So why lie about it?"
>
>You're a liar to the core, you quoted the WRONG THING to make yourself
>look good. Here is what I was refering to:
>
>> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for much
>> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - **the
>> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >> >"stupid.""**
>
>See, liar?
You still haven't shown where I quoted you.
This thread started out with the claim that Bush was "stupid", and I'm pointing
out that you're unwilling to defend or oppose that viewpoint.
This is why I was careful to state "THE" argument, not 'YOUR' argument.
I can't teach you literacy, but I *can* point out that you're a liar once again.
>> >What is untrue about that statement?"
>>
>> >I like how he leaves this out:
>>
>> >> >"You can do *EXACTLY* what anyone else can do - examine the evidence.
>> >> >Perhaps it's the evidence that you don't *want* to examine... for muc=
>h
>> >> >like the evidence in the JFK case not supporting the WCR - the
>> >> >evidence here isn't going to support the argument that Bush is
>> >> >"stupid."" - Ben Holmes
>>
>> >I wasn't discussing him being stupid at any point, so why would you
>> >make reference to this?
>>
>
>"For exactly the reason that the sentence above notes..."
>
>You're a liar, but no big news there for the people on this board.
How can I be a "liar" about my own reasons for bringing an issue up?
>> >> >> >I know he has said more dumb things than almost any other Presiden=
>t in
>> >> >> >recent memory,
>>
>> >> >"Your memory is rather poor then. *ANY* public figure will have a
>> >> >treasure trove of dumb comments recorded."
>>
>> >> >I put my memory against yours anyday, and your are wrong, most
>> >> >Presidents are not the laughing stock of comedians every day. I thin=
>k
>> >> >the last President who provided so much material was Ford.
>>
>> >"You'll put your memory against mine? Then explain to the nice
>> >lurkers just why
>> >you don't seem to realize that you're supporting the changing of
>> >election law in
>> >the middle of an election..."
>>
>> >You really need to get beyond being stuck on one issue constantly.
>> >Prove how I or Gore were trying to change election laws.
>>
>
>"If you aren't willing to examine Florida election laws, and READ the
>Florida Court decision, as well as the Supreme Court decision that
>overturned the Florida court, then there's nothing more I can do.
>
>"You aren't willing to examine the primary source material - you
>simply have your belief system in place."
>
>You're right!
Of course I am. Your every post illustrates it.
>I believe the Bush campaign, vis-a-vis, his brother and
>co-chair committed voter fraud by labeling 91,000 plus voters "Felons"
>so they couldn't vote.
They didn't. You'll have to talk to ChoicePoint about that...
>I believe the co-chair of his campaign was in
>charge of "evaluating" Florida laws for the election.
What needs to be "evaluated" about December 12th?
>I believe a
>Republican appointed appellete court judge took valuable time away by
>impounding all the ballots in the two largest counties.
Even the Florida Court upheld a portion of what he did.
>I believe
>another 19,000 people in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties did not
>have their votes counted since they accidentally punched two holes.
That's merely the law.
>I believe a full recount in ALL major counties would have NOT harmed
>anyone, it would have been in the best interest of the country to make
>sure elections seem honest.
It would have harmed Gore - which is why he refused to request such...
>> >" *I* remember it... why don't you?"
>>
>> >I remember citing the U.S. Constitution, I see nothing wrong about
>> >that.
>>
>
>"Nothing wrong with it as long as it applies to the situation at
>hand."
>
>Well, I don't see how Gore could get a fair shake, or anyone else
>beyond Bush, as he had his brother, co-chair and a majority on the
>Supreme Court (this is why he went to them).
A "fair shake" that involved changing the law?
>> >> >"Particularly conservatives whom the traditional mass media love to
>> >> >crucify."
>>
>> >> >More baloney, the media is NOT liberal,
>>
>> >"The proof is overwhelming... many books have been written on the
>> >topic. I'll be happy to provide you with a few titles from my library
>> >if you're actually interested in learning the truth."
>>
>> >The media gives the "perception" of being liberal to attract large
>> >audiences so they can charge more for their ad times. They are NOT
>> >liberal at the core. I like how Ben claims this is the truth because a
>> >few books say so.
>>
>> The evidence is overwhelming. Have you bothered to examine *any* of the
>> evidence? Have you read so much as a *single* book on the topic?
>>
>> >"But I suspect that you're just another leftist with an agenda."
>>
>> >Sure, call out Ben's buddy and you must be a "leftist with an agenda",
>> >that is good way to look at things in a supposed democracy. Why are
>> >you NOT an LNer again?
>>
>
>"With up to 90% of Americans polled stating their belief in a
>conspiracy, the idea that you have that you must be a liberal to be a
>believer in the conspiracy that took JFK's life is rather stupid on
>the face of it."
>
>Another problem of Ben's, he can't keep up. I was referring to you
>calling me a liberal because I don't like Bush.
How can *MY* calling *YOU* a liberal have anything to do with "Why are you NOT
an LNer again?"
Can you try to keep on track here... ?
>I KNOW you are not a
>liberal, most fascist aren't.
"LNer", not "liberal"... try to stay on topic...
>"But if you want to keep looking stupid, there's nothing I can do to
>stop you.
>
>Hint: America is *NOT* 90% liberal..."
>
>This guy CAN'T even follow along and I'm the one looking stupid!!
>Priceless!
Read it again... illiteracy CAN be cured.
>> >> >I don't know where this came
>> >> >from but it is not accurate.
>>
>> >"How about the journalists themselves?"
>>
>> >What about them?
>>
>
>"You ask where the idea that the traditional mass media is liberal,
>and it appears that you won't even accept what *THEY* say..."
>
>You crack me up!! Never heard of "Operation Mockingbird", huh? I love
>how we have not had a real liberal (if you want to count Carter) in
>forever yet the media is liberal. Amazing stuff. I guess they just
>keep getting trascripts and stories given to them by the conservatives
>even though they are "liberal."
Will you accept the journalist's themselves...
Yes or no.
(Be careful, I have liberal journalists ready to name and quote....)
>> >If they do not report what they are told to report
>> >they have no job. They all go through a rigorous Secret Service
>> >screening (I don't know how this is possible in a democracy) to get
>> >their credentials, if they find anything that shows they won't play
>> >ball they don't get approved.
>>
>
>"I have no idea what planet you're living on. Journalists have no
>such job requirements."
>
>If they want to work at or near the major powers of government they
>do.
Simply not true.
>Do you think they let them near the President and other high
>people without background checks? My God you're clueless.
The few journalists that you're referring to - those who are with the Washington
Press Corps, aren't all journalists.
I'm speaking of American journalists, and you're trying to narrow it down to
those who question the President.
>> >> >The media is a big business and they
>> >> >don't care about the little person for the most part either except on
>> >> >occassion.
>>
>> >"If you truly believe that the traditional mass media is not left of
>> >center - then you simply have blinders on."
>>
>> >NO, you have blinders on as you fall for the right-wing vs. left-wing
>> >crap they peddle, these groups all have the same thing in common -
>> >money and power and how to get more.
>>
>
>"Tell everyone here - is there *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that you'd
>accept that would tend to show that you're wrong?"
>
>Who needs evidence?
Yep... the cry of the LNT'er in the wild. More commonly heard on the censored
newsforum, but occasionally heard here as well.
But if you aren't willing to accept evidence, then you're arguing faith, not
facts.
>Can't you figure this stuff out for yourself? I
>mean just watch t.v. or any other media. It is all playacting for the
>most part. If Keith Olberman didn't get the okay from someone he
>would be dead for the way he has attacked the President. The
>Conservatives have had a lock on the White House since the death of
>JFK, and you think the media is liberal? Priceless stuff there. How
>many conservative candidates have been assassinated again?
If you aren't willing to look at the evidence, then all I can do is point out
that fact.
Coward, aren't you?
>"If not, then you're preaching faith, not defending truth."
>
>And you are buying a boatload of crap.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >"Feel free to browsehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.htmlamong
>> >> >others on
>> >> >the net..."
>>
>> >> >Always back to Clinton. I guess you are afraid too many people liked
>> >> >him.
>>
>> >"He's merely the most recent. I can also bring Carter into the mix,
>> >but the further back I go, the less people remember."
>>
>> >I did not vote for Clinton so it is a waste of time.
>>
>
>"Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt
>among lurkers to whom your vote & support would go."
>
>Because you are a liar who pushes his thoughts out as the truth.
And yet, I'm providing citations and evidence, and you're the one admitting that
you refuse to look at evidence, and reject my citations.
>I would vote Libertarian in all liklihood. I have compassion for people
>in trouble and feel bad for them, but this doesn't make me a liberal
>by itself. You have NO compassion and DON'T feel bad for anyone, but
>that alone doesn't make you a conservative.
>
>> >"Clinton provides the proof of your bias."
>>
>> >The only one "bias" here is you as I don't have an allegiance to one
>> >party like you do.
>>
>
>"Were it a choice between Clinton and Bush, there's virtually no doubt
>among lurkers to whom your vote & support would go."
>
>You're full of it, and a liar. You can't prove this so you are just
>showing what a liar you are for NOT taking my word for it. Not
>everyone lies like you do.
Don't worry... the more you post, the more you reveal your thinking.
>> >> >> >but this doesn't mean he is dumb by itself. Like this
>> >> >> >one:
>>
>> >> >> >"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what =
>you
>> >> >> >do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." =3D97 Speaking=
> during
>> >> >> >"Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N=
>.H.
>> >> >> >=3D97 As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000
>>
>> >> >> >I have read he gets uncomfortable when talking about human things =
>like
>> >> >> >compassion, empathy, or non-violent things thus he messes up small
>> >> >> >things like this:
>>
>> >> >> >"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." =3D97 =
>Greater
>> >> >> >Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
>>
>> >> >> >because he DOESN'T give a crap about the people who can't put food=
> on
>> >> >> >their table.
>>
>> >> >"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
>> >> >character on far less evidence."
>>
>> >> >Actually many pshycologists and socialogists have said this about
>> >> >him. People only stammer or trip over themselves when they are
>> >> >speaking about things they are not comfortable with or in some cases
>> >> >lying about.
>>
>> >"You claim you can't judge his intelligence - yet you are judging his
>> >character on far less evidence."
>>
>> >Aren't you judging Clinton and Gore and all other non-right-wingers
>> >with the same set of "evidence?"
>>
>
>"Nope. I don't label Clinton "stupid" as one person did, in complete
>disregard for the facts."
>
>I haven't labled Bush stupid either.
Nor have I claimed that you did - contrary to your assertion otherwise.
I've been quite careful to correctly label the arguments being made.
>> >> >"This speaks about your political stance far more than it speaks abou=
>t
>> >> >President Bush."
>>
>> >> >This "speaks" to your assumption, which you are very quick to do all
>> >> >the time. You are always assuming things about people without proof.
>> >> >As I said, if Bush was a liberal I would say the same things about
>> >> >him.
>>
>> >"All you have to do is tell everyone that I'm wrong. But you *DID*
>> >vote for Clinton, Gore, Kerry... etc, and you *DO* plan on voting for
>> >Obama."
>>
>> >This is why no one wants to talk with you Ben, you are juvenile, and
>> >in this case a Liar! I never voted for any of them and don't plan on
>> >voting for Obama, if I did, I would say so. Why would I cover this
>> >when talking to you? You do have an inflated opinoin of yourself.
>>
>
>"I suspect that you'd lie about your vote anyway..."
>
>Of course you do, ALL liars assume everyone else lies.
What are you going to say about your *PROVABLE* lies, such as the 3% figure on
Choicepoints numbers?
Or the Supreme Court's overturning of the Florida Court?
>> >"You simply realize that being tarred with the "leftist liberal" brush
>> >is damaging. (and rightfully so.)"
>>
>> >You are a liar, but nothing new there. You are also a facist I'm
>> >guessing by your stances on most issues. Do you have a "skin head?"
>>
>
>"Rather tarred, aren't you?"
>
>I know you are fascist, I can tell. I have studied them for a very
>long time, I can always tell one I read one.
Provide your definition of "Fascist"... I suspect that it's just as simplistic
as your definitions of conservative and liberal.
>> >> >> >I have read many things that say when he is talking
>> >> >> >about violence, revenge and his own virtues he never stammers or g=
>oofs
>> >> >> >at all. This is all second hand though, so I don't know for sure. =
> All
>> >> >> >I can say is he does not speak like someone who was educated at Ya=
>le
>> >> >> >University, and a man who made his mark as a wrestler can talk bet=
>ter
>> >> >> >than him.
>>
>> >> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famousl=
>y
>> >> >known for being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>>
>> >> >Have you ever been to Yale or Harvard? I have many times over many
>> >> >years, just going there doesn't mean you are the brightest person in
>> >> >the world. JFK went to Harvard and he was not a great student
>> >> >either. Many people get into these schools because of the families
>> >> >they come from, there are legacies and many donations to make sure it
>> >> >happens. IF one is bright, they can get a good education anywhere,
>> >> >and make something of themself.
>>
>> >"So you *do* believe that North Hennepin Community College is famously
>> >known for
>> >being the equal of Yale and Harvard."
>>
>> >Never said that, but someone can be bright without a fancy college,
>> >just look at Perot and Gates.
>
>"Evidence bug you?"
>
>What evidence?
Run from it... who cares?
>You have NOT proven that everyone that goes to Harvard
>or Yale is smarter than everyone else. I have NOT seen this proof.
>
>
>> >> >"LOL!"
>>
>> >> >Which college did you go to since you are making fun of Ventura's alma
>> >> >mater?
>>
>> >"Ventura Jr. College, and San Jose State University."
>>
>> >I don't make fun of anyone's school, so I will refrain from comment.
>>
>
>"Since you just got shot down, that's a wise move..."
>
>You delusional and a liar. Shot down, this guy is demented.
Oh, I doubt if very many lurkers missed your thoughts there... when you asked
what college I went to, you clearly thought that I hadn't.
>> >Telling everyone the *OBVIOUS* fact that "North Hennepin Community
>> >College" is not in the same league as Yale and Harvard is merely the
>> >truth, nothing more, nothing less."
>>
>> >Of course it is not in terms of stature, but you act like everyone who
>> >is accepted to those schools actually earned it through academic
>> >achievement. That is very funny.
>
>"What's funny is your ability to slip, slide, and duck."
>
>You are the slipper, slider and ducker as I have seen NO evidence from
>you that everyone who goes to Yale and Harvard are smarter than
>everyone else. There are schools with stricter codes of entry and
>cost more than these two, that is how clueless you are.
And yet... I've been on the campus of one such University that fits exactly
those facts. More expensive, anyway.
I find it amusing that you confidently assert facts on which I've not said
anything at all.
>> >> >> >"But even the "Bush lost the 2000 election" argument doesn't have =
>the
>> >> >> >facts behind it. =3DHere's merely one recount example:"
>>
>> >> >> >Ben, this is what confuses me about people who believe in a conspi=
>racy
>> >> >> >to kill two Presidents (you have said you believe in a conspiracy =
>for
>> >> >> >Lincoln and JFK) that in other areas you are just as gullible as t=
>he
>> >> >> >LNers.
>>
>> >> >"Then you should be able to document it... right?"
>>
>> >> >Document what?
>>
>> >"You've just asserted that I'm "just as gullible as the LNers" - yet
>> >when challenged to support such an assertion - you pretend you don't
>> >understand."
>>
>> >All anyone has to do is read any of your non-JFK posts to see how
>> >gullible you are. You believe in two conspriacies against Presidents,
>> >but in everything else you believe every word of the government and
>> >media (unless they are liberal of course).
>
>"Then you should be able to document this. Why can't you?"
>
>I'm just following your lead, Google it.
I'm providing citations - you're running. That's okay.
>> >"LOL!!"
>>
>> >It is funny, and it makes me wonder if you are really sincere with
>> >your JFK stuff or not. There are plants everywhere.
>
>"Nutcase, aren't you?"
>
>You are a plant, aren't you? I mean this guy claims to believe in a
>conspiracy to kill a President, but he doesn't think these people
>would then figure, let's do other things as well. Nah! I'm sure they
>all "retired" from bad crimes after JFK.
Another reference to the 17 year old who was involved in the JFK assassination?
>> >> >The story of the 2000 election is everywhere, so to
>> >> >copy your lazy effort when I just curiously asked you say what he did
>> >> >well, Google it for yourself.
>>
>> >> >"Provide the citations..."
>>
>> >> >Google it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else.
>>
>> >"It's not possible for me to Google the citation that demonstrates
>> >that I'm just as gullible as the LNers."
>>
>> >Wrong as usual. Google within this group as I know we have had
>> >discussions on quite a few things beyond JFK and you take the
>> >government's point of view as gospel on ALL of them.
>>
>> Well, the few non-JFK issues I've discussed, such as the idea that 9/11
>> was a government bomb job, or that the moon landing was filmed in Arizona
>> - are real kook material. Sorry, but I'm in the *majority* of Americans
>> on these issues.
>>
>> >"Seems that once again you demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice."
>>
>> >Hardly, once again you show how dumb you are. That is why you use
>> >words like dishonesty and cowardice so much, because you really are
>> >those things and you assume everyone else is too.
>>
>
>"Still no citation..."
>
>Do it yourself, this is what you tell everyone else to do. I remember
>all the talks, you thought the camps we put Japanese-Americans in were
>like country clubs. Priceless. Typical fascist.
And you said that you thought child molestation was enjoyable.
Waga kusa kusakanai, neh? It's not, you know.
>> >> >> >Bush was declared the President by the time of your article
>> >> >> >below, do you think the major media would write or say anything
>> >> >> >different?
>>
>> >> >"The traditional mass media is quite liberal, and indeed has provably
>> >> >demonstrated their bias on many occasions."
>>
>> >> >This is inaccurate, provide citations proving it is liberal.
>>
>> >"These will start you out:
>> >Inventing Reality, by Michael Parenti
>> >Bias, by Bernard Goldman
>> >Slander, by Ann Coulter
>> >Showdown, by Larry Elder"
>>
>> >A bunch of right-wingers claiming the media is liberal! LOL!!!
>
>"I left a trap in there just to see if you'd fall in it, and indeed
>you did. Michael Parenti argues the opposite. Here's the first
>sentence on the back cover: "Michael Parenti has been a major voice on
>the American political left for more than twenty years."
>
>I wanted to see just how honest you'd be, and once again you've
>demonstrated your basic *dishonesty*."
>
>Whew, you got me! I'm sure he is a real liberal when we haven't had a
>liberal President since 1963. Good way to make a living in a
>conservative-controlled world.
For someone who claim a degree in communications & media - you aren't showing
any knowledge of the topic.
>"If you are unwilling to review the evidence, both pro *AND* con, then
>you aren't intellectually rigorous, and will continue to follow the
>line given to you."
>
>I don't need to read a ton of books on this topic,
Yep... the same ole 'I don't need to see the evidence' garbage.
>I can judge for
>myself who is what. I don't fall for labels. Watch C-Span sometime
>and you'll see all these guys are the best of friends. It is all an
>act most of the time. IT is like a fraternity in D.C.
>You are the one who can't think for himself, he needs a book to tell
>him if somethign is a liberal or not.
You can't recognize a liberal if you see it. You've already denied the rampant
liberalism that's in the traditional mass media...
Nor will you accept what they themselves say on the topic...
>> >> Be sure to read the other side too:
>> >> What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman.
>>
>> >"I know I have a few other books lying around my home library that
>> >would be
>> >useful, but these titles can start you off."
>>
>> >I studied the media in college, I don't need your silly books to help
>> >me out.
>>
>
>"Clearly not, if you don't even recognize the books and authors I
>mention. Bernard Goldman, for example, is a self-proclaimed leftist -
>yet you didn't recognize him. Nor, I'm quite sure, have you dared to
>read his books."
>
>You fall for the whole act, there is ONE party, the "Republicrats",
>there is NO difference beyond the mouthpieces. Do you think Carvelle
>and his wife could last if they were that diametrically opposed on all
>issues? It is a shell game, and as a supposed believer in a JFK
>conspiracy as you claim, how can you think things are truly free when
>we had a Coup D'etat occur? This is the only reason there is no truth
>44 years later as they are still reaping the benefits. IF everyone was
>dead why not tell us?
Good duck ... run from the evidence, and fall back on speculation.
>> >"You see, I *do* take the time to educate myself on topics of interest
>> >to me - how many books have *YOU* read about media bias? Any?"
>>
>> >LOL!! I have a degree in Communications and the media!! What a
>> >dufus. A man who obviously was not that bright trying to better
>> >himself (you) is fine, but you shouldn't make fun of others because
>> >you have read "some books."
>>
>
>"Your "degree" clearly doesn't mean much if you try to argue against
>the leftist bent of the traditional mass media."
>
>It just seems like that since the Conservatives have OWNED the WHITE
>HOUSE since 1963.
Carter, for example, was hardly a conservative. Tis silly to argue such.
LBJ, of course, was a Democrat as well... and hardly a conservative.
>Again, how many Conservative candidates have been
>assassinated?
Has *NOTHING* to do with the leftist tilt of the traditional mass media.
>Clinton was NO liberal.
Of course he was.
>LBJ was NO liberal.
Of course he was.
>Carter was to some extent,
It would be silly to argue otherwise...
>but he had to work a full Free Mason cabinet.
>
>"Particularly when you didn't even recognize the authors I listed."
>
>I don't care about those authors, I can handle this issue on my own.
>
>
>> >> >They
>> >> >have attacked all the Democrat Presidents as much as the Republican.
>>
>> >"Untrue.
>>
>> >*demonstrably* untrue."
>>
>> >What a dufus. So you think every Democratic President has gotten a
>> >pass? I guess when one is elected they all take four years off and do
>> >something else.
>>
>
>"I merely label your lies for what they are."
>
>I think your problem is you don't know what it is like to have a real
>LIBERAL President in office since JFK (and he was conservative on some
>issues)
Carter was far more liberal than JFK.
>so you only get one view - Conservative President and not-
>quite-as-conservative media, therefore, you think they are liberal. I
>mean NBC hired Buchanan, how is that possible if they are "Liberal?"
Why can't you deal with the traditional mass media? You act as if the
Presidency controlled the media.
>If anyone is old enough here to rememer Truman or Roosevelt they will
>tell you they were attacked as well by the media.
What evidence, if any at all, would you be willing to accept on the topic of the
left, right, or center tilt of the traditional mass media?
Anything at all?
>> >> >JFK was constantly under attack, he just was better at butter them
>> >> >up. The media is big business and is owned by big business so why
>> >> >would it be liberal?
>>
>> >>A frequently asserted statement that reveals your ignorance of the topi=
>c. Try
>> >> picking up a few books on the subject and educate yourself. Or remain
>> >> ignorant... no-one other than you really cares about your knowledge. =
>And I
>> >> suspect that you don't care either.
>>
>> >> >> >If you really believe the below article to reflect the
>> >> >> >god's honest truth, you must believe the major media is accurate w=
>ith
>> >> >> >the JFK case as well then.
>>
>> >> >"With the JFK case - we have the eyewitnesses telling their story."
>>
>> >> >There were many voters saying they could not figure out the voting
>> >> >method in Florida,
>>
>> >"The "butterfly" ballot? Who created it? Let's see how far your
>> >memory extends."
>>
>> >Ah, Ben got out one of his books. It was first used in 1964, and the
>> >benefit for Bush was he got listed first because his brother was
>> >Governor so all the mistakes people made in puching the second hole
>> >affected Gore as they gave the vote to Buchanan.
>
>"I see that you ducked that question fast enough. Rather cowardly,
>wasn't it?"
>
>I'm NOT defending the ballot, it stinks. That is why a manual recount
>was imperative.
Yet you, by implication, defend the Democrat bureaucrat that created it, as well
as the FACT that both the Democratic and Republican parties accepted it before
the election.
>"Just to answer it for you - it was created by Theresa LePore, a
>DEMOCRAT. It was approved by BOTH the Republican and Democratic
>parties."
>
>It was approved for 1964 elections Ben, this was 2000! Why can't we
>get up-to-date?
You brought it up. If you want to whine about the butterfly ballot, then you
should have the courage to decry that the Democrats did it.
>"Yet Rob here is trying to imply what is simply not the truth."
>
>What I said is true, whatever party the Gov. is favors that party's
>candidate. Jeb's 1998 run for Gov. was full of controversy as well.
Butterfly ballot... Rob. Try to stay on track.
>> >> >or that they voted for Gore and their votes did not
>> >> >count as well.
>>
>> >"And just who claimed that they voted, but their vote wasn't counted?
>> >Just how did they know that their vote "wasn't counted?""
>>
>> >It was "counted" for the person they intended it for. Many people
>> >punched the second hole thinking it was for Gore and their vote went
>> >to Buchanan. Now you may view this as "counting" but to someone NOT
>> >supporting Buchanan it didn't.
>
>"Stupidity can't be fixed."
>
>More compassion from the fascist.
I don't have compassion for the willfully stupid.
The facts ARE out there for you to examine, yet you've admitted that you refuse
to look at them.
>Many of the people were elderly AND
>they did realize their mistake and punched the third hole as well,
In every election *I'VE* ever voted in, there have been clear instructions about
the procedure to get another ballot if you make a mistake.
Are you asserting that the Democrat controlled counties had a problem with this?
Or that voters were too stupid to realize that they simply needed another
ballot?
>unfortunately for them the machine will not count it when two holes
>are punched.
True in any state in the Union. You can't flip a coin and decide who the vote
is really for.
If someone doesn't present you with a valid and legal ballot, you can't count
it. Tis that simple.
>This happened to over 19,000 people,
Happens all the time, in every voting district in the country. There are
*ALWAYS* invalid ballots.
>therefore, a manual
>recount was necessary.
"Manual recounts" won't change double punched ballots.
>The Constitution doesn't mention a certain IQ
>level to be able to vote. Typical fascist, the fewer who vote the
>better.
You mean like eliminating the military vote?
>> >> >"Below you have newspapers who WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THEIR POWE=
>R
>> >> >to be able to report a story that would have sent their circulation
>> >> >soaring beyond all count."
>>
>> >> >Newspapers rarely get a huge bump in circulation from one story,
>> >> >conversely, they can lose more by printing things the power people
>> >> >don't want them to.
>>
>> >"Beginning to sound like a kook..."
>>
>> >This is why I doubt very much you are a CTer as you believe all the
>> >fairy tale stuff in all other things. To think powerful people don't
>> >own media outlets is the kooky stuff in my mind.
>>
>
>"To run from the evidence is what people do when they believe things
>not supported by evidence."
>
>Not running, it is a FACT, that about 6-8 companies OWN ALL major
>Media in the U.S. The days of hundreds of companies are long gone.
And as everyone knows, "companies" are big, bad, evil, and CONSERVATIVE... and
have tight control over their subsidiaries.
But the evidence shows otherwise. That explains why you refuse to examine it.
>> >> >"(As long, of course, as the story is beneficial to the liberal cause
>> >> >- Monica's dress, for example, as *great* a story as it was, was
>> >> >buried by the traditional mass media.)"
>>
>> >> >All stories that go against the power of the government are buried,
>> >> >unless they are approved to be released by the power people, like the
>> >> >"Pentagon Papers". The media so depends on the government (local,
>> >> >state and federal) for their stories they can't afford to buck the
>> >> >system that feeds them. Look what happened to Rather when he grilled
>> >> >Bush Sr. in the 1988 elections, he never got a scoop or a lead for 4
>> >> >years. This crap that the media is liberal is bull, they support who
>> >> >they are told to support. NBC is supposed to be "liberal" but they ar=
>e
>> >> >owned by a company that makes a fortune off of defense contracts, tel=
>l
>> >> >me who is better for defense contracts?
>>
>> >"Until you educate yourself, spouting nonsense is merely going to
>> >brand you as gullible."
>>
>> >I guess I should have gone to San Jose State, right? You are the one
>> >deep-rooted in your right-wing fanatical leanings, not me. I'm open
>> >to more than that.
>>
>
>"You're as deeply rooted in the left-wing as I am in the right. Don't
>pretend otherwise, it's not honest."
>
>You don't know what you are talking about as usual. I have many
>conservative leanings as well as some moderate and some liberal. I am
>NOT strictly a fascist like you.
Tell the lurkers on what issues you hold a conservative stance.
>> *************************************************************************=
>=3D
>>
>> >> >> >**
>> >> >> >> Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount
>>
>> >> >> >> April 4, 2001
>> >> >> >> Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)
>>
>> >>>> >> MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes =
>in last =3D
>> >> >> >year's
>> >>>> >> close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.=
>S. Supre=3D
>> >> >> >me
>> >>>> >> Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White H=
>ouse, tw=3D
>> >> >> >o
>> >> >> >> newspapers reported Wednesday.
>>
>> >>>> >> The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review o=
>f 64,248
>> >> >> >> "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last =
>month.
>>
>> >>>> >> Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- =
>certifie=3D
>> >> >> >d in
>> >>>> >> December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have=
> tripled=3D
>> >> >> > to
>> >>>> >> 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his De=
>mocratic=3D
>> >> >> > rival,
>> >> >> >> former Vice President Al Gore.
>>
>> >>>> >> "In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush sh=
>ould hav=3D
>> >> >> >e been
>> >>>> >> president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's ma=
>naging e=3D
>> >> >> >ditor.
>> >>>> >> "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questi=
>ons abou=3D
>> >> >> >t how
>> >> >> >> the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."
>>
>> >> >> >> Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched =
>ballots
>> >>>> >> advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead =
>of just =3D
>> >> >> >three
>> >> >> >> votes, the newspaper reported.
>>
>> >>>> >> The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in =
>Palm Bea=3D
>> >> >> >ch and
>> >>>> >> Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks tha=
>t were n=3D
>> >> >> >o
>> >> >> >> different from ballots deemed to be valid.
>>
>> >>>> >> The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today =
>if those
>> >> >> >> ballots had been counted.
>>
>> >>>> >> The experts assigned by USA Today and the Herald began counting t=
>he under=3D
>> >> >> >votes
>> >>>> >> -- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machin=
>es -- on
>> >> >> >> December 18, 2000.
>>
>> >> >> >> They concluded their work on March 13.
>>
>> >>>> >> Reaction to the verdict of the two newspapers was mixed, but some=
> of the =3D
>> >> >> >people
>> >>>> >> who were key players in the 36-day recount drama that followed la=
>st Elect=3D
>> >> >> >ion Day
>> >>>> >> agreed Wednesday that the results indicated Florida has a lot of =
>work to =3D
>> >> >> >do to
>> >> >> >> improve its elections system.
>>
>> >>>> >> "We have to try to improve the election infrastructure, improve t=
>he educa=3D
>> >> >> >tion of
>> >>>> >> voters," said former Florida elections official and CNN analyst D=
>avid Car=3D
>> >> >> >dwell.
>>
>> >>>> >> Cardwell argued Florida needs to implement a more uniform method =
>of colle=3D
>> >> >> >cting
>> >>>> >> and counting votes across the state, and many localities are in d=
>esperate=3D
>> >> >> > need
>> >>>> >> of updated voting equipment. Many of the counties that logged sig=
>nificant
>> >>>> >> numbers of undervotes were using punch card machines that were mo=
>re than =3D
>> >> >> >30
>> >> >> >> years old.
>>
>> >>>> >> Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Gore, concurred with Cardwe=
>ll, sayi=3D
>> >> >> >ng the
>> >>>> >> federal government should take the initiative to provide money to=
> localit=3D
>> >> >> >ies
>> >> >> >> that cannot afford to replace aging and unreliable equipment.
>>
>> >>>> >> Hattaway told CNN on Wednesday that the Gore camp has accepted Bu=
>sh as th=3D
>> >> >> >e
>> >>>> >> legitimate president, but there are still lessons to be learned f=
>rom the =3D
>> >> >> >efforts
>> >> >> >> of the Miami Herald and USA Today, and other ongoing recount end=
>eavors,
>> >> >> >> including a consortium recount of both undervotes and "overvotes=
>."
>>
>> >> >> >> "Overvotes" are ballots that displayed more than one mark that m=
>ight be
>> >>>> >> interpreted as a vote for president. CNN is one of many news orga=
>nization=3D
>> >> >> >s
>> >> >> >> participating in that ballot count.
>>
>> >> >> >> "People understand that this is an academic exercise," Hattaway =
>said.
>> >>>> >> "Hopefully, this will lead to some sort of reform so this does no=
>t happen=3D
>> >> >> > again.
>>
>> >> >> >> He did level some criticism at the Bush White House, saying the =
>new
>> >> >> >> administration has shown little interest in tackling the problem=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >> Montana Republican Gov. Mark Racicot, who acted as a spokesman f=
>or the
>> >>>> >> Republicans as the Gore and Bush camps tussled in the media throu=
>gh the l=3D
>> >> >> >ong
>> >> >> >> November-December recount battle in the courts, said Wednesday t=
>hat the
>> >>>> >> administration is interested in finding a resolution to counting =
>problems=3D
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> Florida and other states.
>>
>> >>>> >> But, he added, this is primarily an issue that the states need to=
> address
>> >> >> >> themselves.
>>
>> >>>> >> "These are specifically state problems," Racicot said. "You can't=
> wield t=3D
>> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> power of the federal government on the states."
>>
>> >>>> >> Racicot said Bush hasn't given much thought to the various recoun=
>t projec=3D
>> >> >> >ts in
>> >> >> >> Florida.
>>
>> >>>> >> "This shows President Bush wins again," he said. "He won the firs=
>t count,=3D
>> >> >> > then
>> >>>> >> the recount, then the manual recounts, and was declared the victo=
>r this t=3D
>> >> >> >ime by
>> >> >> >> the media.
>>
>> >>>> >> "What this says is what the American people set in their minds a =
>long tim=3D
>> >> >> >e ago,"
>> >>>> >> Racicot continued. "This election is over, and President Bush is =
>the vict=3D
>> >> >> >or."
>>
>> >> >> >> Hattaway, in turn, said Gore is getting on with his life.
>>
>> >>>> >> "His bottom line was that all the votes should be counted," Hatta=
>way said=3D
>> >> >> >. "He's
>> >>>> >> following (the count) to see what this says about the system and =
>what we =3D
>> >> >> >can do
>> >> >> >> to reform it.
>>
>> >>>> >> CNN Miami Bureau Chief John Zarrella and Ian Christopher McCaleb =
>contribu=3D
>> >> >> >ted to
>> >> >> >> this story.
>> >>>> >> *****************************************************************=
>********=3D
>> >> >> >**
>>
>> >> >> >"Gore tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the Supreme Co=
>urt
>> >> >> >made, in my view, the only correct decision."
>>
>> >> >> >How did he try and circumvent Florida election law?
>>
>> >> >"If you don't even know what the Supreme Court ruled on - I suggest
>> >> >you do some simple research."
>>
>> >> >Another assumption. Perhaps I don't believe what the Supreme Court,
>> >> >something they had no right to be involved in by the way, ruled on,
>> >> >how about that?
>>
>> >"What did the U.S. Supreme court rule?"
>>
>> >Nothing really other than declaring Bush the winner.
>>
>
>"That isn't, of course, what they ruled. Have you bothered to ever
>*read* the Supreme Court's decision?"
>
>I boiled it down for you,
Have you bothered to ever *read* the Supreme Court's decision?
Tis a simple question.
>but NOT allowing all votes to be counted and
>by NOT allowing those 91,000 falsely accused of being felons to vote
>the Supreme Court basically named Bush the winner.
And yet, they really didn't decide anything... Saul did that, remember?
Talk about being all over the place...
>This is why he ran to them in the first place.
You have your facts mixed up. It was GORE who went to the courts.
>> >"Explain it to the lurkers..."
>>
>> >Why don't you explain what they ruled on since you are under the
>> >assumption they actually ruled on anything.
>>
>
>"Simple, they ruled on the legality of the Florida Supreme Court's
>decision."
>
>Right, which they have no right to do in all honesty as the state
>should know their own laws better, right? Remember each state being
>independent according to the founding fathers?
And in a state election, I'm quite sure that the U.S. Supreme Court would have
had no jurisdiction.
But this *WASN'T* a state election... this was a national issue, wasn't it?
It's clear that Florida DID know their laws, they were just willing to
circumvent them in the middle of an election.
>> >"When you spout off without knowing the facts, you almost always 'step
>> >in it.'"
>>
>> >That is your nature though, a big mouthed, "know-it-all" who accuses
>> >others of his own faults.
>>
>
>"And yet, the citations and evidence I keep bringing up supports what
>I say... why is that?"
>
>Only in your dreams.
You refuse to read them, how would you know whether or not they support what I
say?
>> >> >"The Gore campaign tried to circumvent Florida election law, and the
>> >> >Supreme Court stopped it."
>>
>> >> >By having a recount?
>>
>> >"Yep. Can you explain the law that was being circumvented?"
>>
>> >NO since they were allowing recounts to go on despite Bush's
>> >petition.
>>
>
>"I didn't think you'd be able to name the law that was being
>circumvented."
>
>It is a sectional law under the state of Florida, can't remember the
>whole number.
I didn't think you'd be able to name the law that was being circumvented.
>> >> >What harm could a recount do?
>>
>> >"Break the law."
>>
>> >What law, why don't you explain it for us and explain why they had
>> >done recounts for 80 years beforehand as well.
>
>"You imply that the law was being broken for the last 80 years...
>simply untrue."
>
>You imply recounts have not been done for 80 years, simply untrue.
Nope. Let me be quite specific... RECOUNTS HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH
THE RELEVANT LAW THAT GORE TRIED TO BYPASS IN FLORIDA.
>> >While you are at it
>> >explain why 91,180 people were listed as felons when they were not and
>> >thus COULD NOT vote.
>
>"57,700 is the number I've seen. About 15% of the totals."
>
>I have seen that number too, but I have seen the 94,000 more. Either
>way, there is plenty of votes for Gore in there.
Ditto with the panhandle... so what?
>"Tell us, do you support efforts made to enforce the law? Or do you
>support allowing anyone physically present in the U.S. to vote?"
>
>I support enforcing the laws properly, NOT accusing a ton of people of
>being felons and stealing their right as a U.S. Citizen to vote. Quit
>sidestepping the issue, do you support illegally stealing someone's
>right to vote by falsely accusing them of being a CONVICTED FELON?
Done intentionally, of course I would.
Sadly, many Democrat controlled counties used the ChoicePoint list, and others
did not. Those who didn't had felons voting. In violation of the law.
So the law (and voting) was affected whether they tried to follow the law or
not.
>> >> >Maybe this
>> >> >article will answer it:
>> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
>>
>> >"I like it! Quoting a British paper - when I've cited the actual
>> >recounts done AFTER THE ELECTION BY SEVERAL NEWSPAPERS!!"
>>
>> >Much like the JFK case, you have to leave the US to get a true account
>> >of things.
>>
>
>"A good illustration of how far you have to go to avoid the facts."
>
>That is your interpretation.
I merely point out that you're willing to use a foreign source instead of an
American source that actually did the recounts.
>> >"It's a stretch, isn't it?"
>>
>> >Not in my book, you go ahead and believe your US newspapers. Data is
>> >data and the British can get the same data,
>
>"The *data* came from the U.S. newpaper journalists who did the
>recounts."
>
>Then how come they got different results?
That *IS* a question you're going to have to resolve, isn't it?
>"You believe that the numbers changed in their trip across the
>ocean???"
>
>The British may NOT have the same bias in making sure they came out
>"right."
Since you refuse to accept the left-wing bias of the traditional mass media,
there's nothing to say here.
>> >the difference is what is
>> >done with the data and how it is presented.
>>
>> >> >> >Do you find the
>> >> >> >fact that the Gov. at the time was Dubya's brother to be NO confli=
>ct
>> >> >> >of interest at all?
>>
>> >> >"How can their be any "conflict of interest?""
>>
>> >> >Did Katherine Harris NOT report to Gov. Bush?
>>
>> >"What did Katherine Harris do that was contrary to the law?
>>
>> >Be specific."
>>
>> >There is no need to go on then if you think she was innocent of any
>> >wrong doing. I have listed a few things she did.
>>
>
>"Yep... duck and run..."
>
>1) She was the CO-CHAIR for his campaign, can anyone say conflict of
>interest?
Yep... strip away all rights if elected to public office.
>2) She, along with the Gov., you know Bush's brother, scrubbed 91,000
>plus (or to be fair, 57,000 plus) from the voting list by accussing
>them of being felons when they were not.
No, she didn't. ChoicePoint made that determination - and Florida didn't
cross-check.
>3) She refused to extend the certification deadline past November 14
>to allow for recounts.
She refused to break the law.
>The courts upheld Harris's authority to certify,
You mean, they upheld the LAW.
>but allowed Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia to
>continue their recounts and file amended returns after the deadline.
Overturned. Can't change the law in the middle of an election.
>Harris could use her discretion to accept or reject the amended
>filings. Harris stated she would reject late filings.
That *was* the law.
>However, on
>November 17, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Harris not to certify
>election results before a November 20 hearing. This hearing granted
>Gore an extension to November 26. Bush appealed to the United States
>Supreme Court.
Yep... Bush merely wanted the existing law followed.
>4) Palm Beach County requested an extension in the recount deadline
>from 5pm to 9am of the next day. Governor Jeb Bush's Secretary of
>State Katherine Harris denied the extension
Harris didn't have the legal authority to change the law.
>and instead used the
>returns compiled before the recount. I wonder if Bush was behind if
>she would have done the same thing.
Why are you so intent on changing election law in the middle of an election?
>5) Despite a 150 vote gain for Gore based on the limited recount done
>in Miami-Dade county, Harris would nix these votes one the deadline
>came.
In accordance with the law.
>In a side note, she has been shown to use taxpayer money to pay for
>her personal things, so she is obviously a very dishonest person. IT
>goes to character.
And yet, everything you've listed above was in strict compliance with the law.
>> >> >Did Gov. Bush not make
>> >> >Florida the first state to use a private company, Choicepoint, to
>> >> >clense its voter rolls which prevented many people from voting in
>> >> >2000 (and most of these were minorities and we know Gore got the vast
>> >> >majority of minority votes)?
>>
>> >"Be specific. What are you trying to claim here?"
>>
>> >Is this specific enough - 97,000 people were listed as felons,
>>
>
>"Just above you listed 91,180... how many different numbers do you
>have?"
>
>Some of the 97,000 were ACTUALLY felons. Go figure.
>
>
>> >thus
>> >they could NOT vote. As it turned out on 3% actually were!!!
>
>"!!!! You're trying to claim that only 3% of the list provided by
>ChoicePoint
>> were in fact, actual felons???
>
>Are you nuts?"
>
>That is what I have read.
Provide the citation...
Let's see if it was a mistaken citation, or if you're lying.
>Even if it was 15% like you said, and I
>don't know if it was that high, that means 85% of people had their
>rights trounced on. Not acceptable in a supposed democracy.
You still can't read, can you?
15% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER PROVIDED BY CHOICEPOINT WERE *NOT* INELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
85% were.
You're trying to claim that 97% of ChoicePoint's list were eligible to vote.
Provide the citation, or provide a retraction.
>> >That
>> >means 91,180 people could not vote in 2000. This private company got
>> >their data from the state of Texas and this would not have happened if
>> >the state did not go with a private company.
>
>"Ah! I see... you don't know enough about what sources you use.
>
>That's where you keep coming up with different numbers.
>
>Sadly, however, you're simply wrong about the underlying facts.
>
>
>Will you be man enough to retract your assertion that only 3% of
>ChoicePoint's list were actual ineligible felons? Or will you prove
>once again your basic dishonesty by refusing to correct the record?"
>
>I have always CORRECTED my errors, you on the other hand never do.
>Yes, I did read the wrong numbers from this article. Here it is:
>
>http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
>
>Can't totally blame me as this post has gotten longer than "War &
>Peace". Can't you snip some of the old stuff?
Good of you to admit your mistake. Thankyou.
It's quite a *HUGE* difference in your argument, isn't it?
>> >"That private companies are verboten?"
>>
>> >They are when they get data that is incorrect, and the source of the
>> >data is from a state one of the candidates happens to be a Governor
>> >of.
>>
>
>"Yep... the government can always do it better... oops, Governor Bush
>was the state governor... seems that no matter which way you turn, you
>can't lose, can you?"
>
>It is called covering all your bases.
Yep... you do it so well.
You can't admit that the state was merely attempting to follow the law.
>> >"That the laws against felons voting should be repealed?"
>>
>> >No, but they should list ONLY felons, not include 97% innocent people.
>>
>
>"When you have to lie about the facts, that only illustrates that
>you're a liar, not that it supports your argument."
>
>It could also be that I made a mistake, the bottom line is a TON of
>people were deprived of voting, to me if only 1 person was cheated
>that is too many. In Ben's world everyone is a liar.
I give you an opportunity to retract, and if you refuse to provide a citation,
and refuse to retract an obviously false assertion, then yes, I'll label it for
what it is, a lie. And the person who told it, a liar.
Believe it or not, it's not all grey out there. There *ARE* objective facts.
When you have to spin, twist, and outright lie to make a point, you haven't made
a point... at least, not the one you thought you were making.
>> >"That some people were removed who shouldn't have been?"
>>
>> >Some people? 97% of the names listed were NOT felons.
>>
>
>"Untrue."
>
>Correct, but close to 58,000 is still unbelievable.
15%, and we don't even know how accurate *that* figure is. Just how do you
propose to follow the law in Florida?
>> >You sound DVP with his origins of the shots argument.
>>
>> >"Tell everyone here about Gore and the military vote... you *do*
>> >remember, don't you?"
>>
>> >Most military vote allegedly went with Bush, but since none of the
>> >mail-ins actually had date stamps on them there is much conjecture
>> >about whether all of them came in by the deadline.
>>
>
>"Yep... disenfranchise the military, known to be heavily conservative,
>provide reason for the heavily conservative panhandle to not come out
>to vote, and pretend that it doesn't make you a hypocrite when you
>refuse to decry these problems as well as the butterfly ballot."
>
>Please, you have all those Harris issues to deal with along with voter
>fraud.
Harris followed the law. What issue is there to "deal with?"
>> >> >Harris broke numerous laws including
>> >> >Florida's "Sunshine" law (public records) by witholding documents from
>> >> >journalists.
>>
>> >"What "document" was withheld. Be specific. Provide a citation."
>>
>> >Google it.
>>
>
>"Ducked another citation, didn't you?"
>
>Why is it NOT ducking when you do this?
I have no intention of pasting Florida election law, or the court decisions
here. Other than that, I've provided citations for everything I've stated.
>> >> >"IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE JUST HOW THE
>> >> >FLORIDA GOVERNOR WAS CAPABLE OF DOING *ANYTHING AT ALL* EITHER PRO OR
>> >> >CON IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION - YOU SHOULD REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU
>> >> >ARE SOUNDING!"
>>
>> >> >The Governor controlled Harris, Harris controlled ALL the counting of
>> >> >votes,
>>
>> >"Harris followed the law."
>>
>> >Sure, just like she used her own money when travelling, right?
>
>"Ducked that one, didn't you?"
>
>Hardly, I think I have mentioned 10 times what she did wrong in this
>post, meanwhile, no mention of what Gore did wrong by Ben. Hmmm.
Gore didn't do anything "wrong"... anyone has the right to petition the courts
to change existing law.
A recent example was the Washington D.C. ban on handguns... that WAS THE LAW -
yet someone went to court to fight it.
I'm sure that you, as I, am happy that the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct
ruling on that issue.
>> >> >if you don't see the connection you are the one sounding
>> >> >stupid.
>>
>> >"You're implying that Harris violated the law. Document your charge
>> >or be known for the partisan that you are..."
>>
>> >It has been documented many times. Google it. Start with the people
>> >she didn't allow to vote, it is called fraud.
>
>"Ducked another citation, didn't you?"
>
>See above. I love how this guy refuses to list what Gore and the FL
>Supreme Court did wrong, but I have to list 50 times what Harris did
>wrong.
Harris followed the law.
You can read the court decisions as easily as I can. Why don't you?
>> >> >They both delibrately scrubbed innocent minorities from being
>> >> >allowed to vote due to fraud
>>
>> >"Document this charge."
>>
>> >Come on, like you haven't heard of this before. Google it.
>
>"Another one you ducked."
>
>See above.
You can't defend such an assertion - in fact, the charge itself is racist.
>"Cat got your tongue when asked to document what you assert?"
>
>Look's who talking, he thinks polls are proof!
Yep.
>> >> >and this directly benefited Bush, NOT
>> >> >Gore. As for having intelligence I'm sure I have more than you.
>>
>> >"You may be sure, I suspect that lurkers might have a different
>> >opinion."
>>
>> >I know Ben, in your mind ALL lurkers only see the world they way they
>> >do because of you. LOL!!!
>>
>> >> >Can't
>> >> >you ever discuss anything without getting rude?
>>
>> >"Demanding citations and proof will always be considered "rude" by the
>> >other side. LOL!!!"
>>
>> >Ben is a liar. You are distorting what was said, you brought into
>> >play my intelligence, or lack of it, it had nothing to do with
>> >citations. You are still a liar I see.
>>
>> >> >I see why you are a
>> >> >Bush supporter. By the way, what is right of Bush as you claim you
>> >> >are? Dictatorship?
>>
>> >"Do you understand why Bush isn't a true conservative? Do you
>> >understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"
>>
>> >It is all malarky, you are so to the right you have to be a facist.
>>
>
>"Yep... I really didn't think you had the knowledge to answer that
>one..."
>
>Sieg Heil!
Another duck... tis a simple question: Do you understand why Bush isn't a true
conservative? Do you understand the difference between a liberal and a
conservative?
>> >"Can you name a President that was further to the right than Bush, yet
>> >not a "dictator?""
>>
>> >At some point the right leads to a dictatorship mentality, and Bush
>> >has it, and it also leads to frame of minds like facism. One should
>> >not be totally conservative or liberal.
>>
>
>"Yep... another one that you couldn't answer. One of several correct
>answers, of course, was Reagan."
>
>He wasn't that far right until a Bush family friend tried to kill him,
>then lo and behold, he is a utra-right-wing conservative.
He was extremely right-wing most of his life. His writings document it.
Here, for example, is a speech he gave in 1964. Try, if you care to, to find
any liberalism in it: http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.asp
>> >> >> >Remember, out of 6 MILLION votes Bush won by ONLY
>> >> >> >327.
>>
>> >> >"One is all it takes."
>>
>> >> >Of course, but these odds are as ridiculous as Frazier and LHO windin=
>g
>> >> >up in the same neighborhood and workplace. Astronomical.
>>
>> >"You think that a close election is statistically "ridiculous?""
>>
>> >No, I think it is fraud. We know the majority of the 91,180 would
>> >have voted for Gore.
>
>"We know that the panhandle was largely conservative..."
>
>So why not vote anyway?
What did *THEY* give as the answer for why they didn't vote?
>You are saying these people actually believed
>that Gore won simply because the media said so? I thought they were
>all liberals anyway, why listen to them?
It's okay to disenfranchise conservative voters... it's only worth complaint if
they're Gore supporters, right?
>> >"Bugs you that Bush was not only elected, but *RE* elected, doesn't
>> >it?"
>>
>> >I don't think he was ever elected, nor do I think he was ever re-
>> >elected, remember Ohio? Why can't this man win a election fair and
>> >square?
>>
>
>"The American people must be a big disappointment to you..."
>
>In some ways yes, we have become so passive, but it is NOT un-American
>to want fair elections,
You mean like not allowing ineligible people to vote?
Or not counting illegal ballots?
>only fascists like you try and act like you
>are unpatriotic if you don't believe everything you are told by the
>government.
You believe the government to be conservative, not I.
>> >> >> >> >Even you have to admit he has done a horrible job, right?
>>
>> >> >> >"He's not a conservative, if that's what you mean. I think that
>> >> >> >overall, his performance has been average."
>>
>> >> >> >I could care less about labels. I am technically a Libertarian, b=
>ut I
>> >> >> >am NOT stuck to one party or cause. I hate how people stick to the=
>ir
>> >> >> >"party" like it was their alma mater, if your party or candidate i=
>s
>> >> >> >wrong you should say so. If Bush was a liberal I would say he is
>> >> >> >horrible. I think he is worse than average. He is up there with
>> >> >> >Coolidge.
>>
>> >> >"Tell us the truth - do you plan on voting for Obama?"
>>
>> >> >Hell no, the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing - the
>> >> >"Republicrats" for short. I have told you I'm a Libertarian,
>> >> >therefore, I am voting for Barr/Root, to vote for either of the "two"
>> >> >parties is to throw away one's vote in my opinion.
>>
>> >"*Not* voting for either of the only two candidates with any chance at
>> >all of being elected is "throwing away your vote.""
>>
>> >That is a sad statement, true probably, but this is how our
>> >"democracy" works, pick one of two controlled candidates. Too bad if
>> >you want more of a choice. I rather vote with my conscience even if
>> >they have no chance of winning.
>
>I thought this was pretty good, but Ben just skipped it. Hmmm.
>
>
>> >"Tell us your opinion of the Rural Electrification Administration...
>> >if you were elected, what would you do with this particular agency?"
>>
>> >Ben, you are getting silly in an attempt to try and sound smart, I
>> >never said I was running for President.
>>
>
>"It's merely an illustration of how well you know conservative
>political thought. Or understand the issues here."
>
>I doubt ALL conservatives know about this.
I thought this was pretty good, but Rob just skipped it. Hmmm.
I guess that if you don't understand the REA, you certainly don't understand
conservative thought in America.
>> >"Ditto with the U.S. Department of Education."
>>
>> >Ditto.
>>
>
>"There's no reason for me to expand here... since real political types
>already know to what I was referring to here."
>
>Real political types! You are hilarious, now you are a real political
>type.
I clearly understand more about politics than you do.
>What offices have you run for and held?
Not a requirement for informed citizens.
>You try so hard to
>make yourself important.
Nope... merely accurate with the truth.
>It is sad really.
>
>> >> >> >> >If not, why
>> >> >> >> >do you think he has been good for the country? Just curious.
>>
>> >> >> >"Why do I think he's been good for the country? Feel free to simpl=
>y
>> >> >> >Google "Clinton vs Bush economy", and read through the various
>> >> >> >offerings."
>>
>> >> >> >Why are making the assumption I think Clinton was good?
>>
>> >> >"Because the vast over-riding majority of "Bush bashers" are both
>> >> >liberal, and believe that Clinton was a good President."
>>
>> >> >Well I'm not one of them, I don't care about party or labels, I care
>> >> >about results. You assume too much most of the time.
>>
>> >"You've already implied your approval of Clinton"
>>
>> >You're a liar, show me where I gave approval of Clinton. All I
>> >remember saying about 50 times is I'm not a supporter of him.
>>
>> >"And if you don't understand results, then you can't understand what
>> >results you
>> >want."
>>
>> >More gibberish.
>>
>> >> >> >Clinton is a
>> >> >> >crony of the Bush family, everyone who reads knows that. The two
>> >> >> >families are best of friends.
>>
>> >> >"I voted for Bush - who did you vote for?"
>>
>> >> >I went with Nadar in 2000 as I didn't like the message of the
>> >> >Libertarian candidate then. I voted most recently for Ron Paul as he
>> >> >sadly had to become a Republican just to be included in debates. Whe=
>n
>> >> >I was young and dumb I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. as well, but the=
>n
>> >> >I learned none of the "mainstream" candidates gave a damn about me.
>>
>> >"You don't seem very politically aware..."
>>
>> >LOL!!! You are supporting a liar and war-monger and I'm not
>> >politically aware. Liars attract liars though.
>>
>> >> >> >"Even a number of the things that Clinton takes credit for (the
>> >> >> >overhaul of the
>> >> >> >welfare system being one excellent example) he was dragged into
>> >> >> >kicking and
>> >> >> >screaming by the Conservatives in Congress..."
>>
>> >> >> >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya stack up
>> >> >> >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>> >>>>Poorly... All listed I would rate higher (Except FDR - I consider his
>> >>Socialism
>> >>>>a disaster for the country.) Then again, I'd rate all *PLUS* both Bu=
>shes
>> >>higher
>> >> >> than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>> >> >Well, you can't vote the Bushes higher than Gore and Kerry because
>> >> >they were NEVER Presidents.
>>
>> >"They both would have been disasters as President."
>>
>> >This is unprovable since they were never President. I doubt either
>> >one could have been worse than Bush.
>>
>> >> >Gore was not part of the Clinton camp
>>
>> >"Presumably, you mean that Vice President doesn't count."
>>
>> >Being the VP doesn't mean you see things the same, remember LBJ and
>> >JFK? And I'm the one who is not politically aware!! LOL!!
>>
>> >> >and
>> >> >Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. Some claim Gor=
Other than being simplistic, no.
But I've answered the same question before. Read it and compare:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e30a9b521cd67d7a?hl=en&
>and of course the "view" is how one
>interprets at the Constitution as well. I can ONLY vote once, so my
>view is the only view I need. I'm not trying to be important like
>you.
Important? No. Accurate with the facts? Yes.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <b563d672-d787-422d-a49d-d4e7b0687...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
You have the wrong person as I never said Bush 43 was involved as he
was too young
"Rather dishonest, isn't it?"
No, because I never said he was involved. You have the wrong person.
"Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone
refers to "the
Bushes?"
No need to as there is more to the family than Dubya, how about
Prescott? How about Nixon who they controlled? You have no proof
**I** said Dubya was involved so either provide some or move on. You
are now making up stuff to show someone is dishonest. Amazing.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 15, 1:07=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <b563d672-d787-422d-a49d-d4e7b0687...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 14, 7:28=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <4026e063-e29e-471d-897c-4fc548b8d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 14, 5:17=3D3DA0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> >> On Jul 14, 6:36=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.com>,
>> >> >> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> > >On Jul 13, 6:07=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> >> > >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.g=
>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >roups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >.com>,
>> >> >> > >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> > >> >On Jul 12, 10:13=3D3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>> >> >> > >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hs=
>a.g=3D
>> >oog=3D3D
>> >> >legro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >.com>,
>> >> >> > >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does D=
>uby=3D
>> >a s=3D3D
>> >> >tack =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >up
>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
> I =3D
>> >con=3D3D
>> >> >sider=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > hi=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >s S=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> > >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3D3D3DA0Then again, =
>I'd r=3D
>> >ate a=3D3D
>> >> >ll *PLU=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >S* bo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >th Bu=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >> >shes higher
>> >> >> > >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>ry =3D
>> >bec=3D3D
>> >> >ause
>> >> >> > >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Gore was not pa=
>rt of=3D
>> > the =3D3D
>> >> >Clinton=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > camp=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> > and
>> >> >> > >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =
>> >3D3DA=3D3D
>> >> >0Some c=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >laim =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >> >Gore
>> >> >> > >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his=
> Ai=3D
>> >r F=3D3D
>> >> >orce =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >2
>> >> >> > >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week bef=
>ore=3D
>> > JF=3D3D
>> >> >K Jr.
>> >> >> > >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landin=
>g w=3D
>> >ith=3D3D
>> >> >out
>> >> >> > >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than e=
>ither=3D
>> > Bush=3D3D
>> >> >, Teddy
>> >> >> > >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Cooli=
>dge=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>ath=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> >> > >> >Oh really? =3D3D3DA0Then you must have some 'intuition' that =
>isn't=3D
>> > bein=3D3D
>> >> >g
>> >> >> > >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up=
>', =3D
>> >eh?=3D3D
>> >> > =3D3D3DA0I
>> >> >> > >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforema=
>th =3D
>> >as
>> >> >> > >> >well. =3D3D3DA0Perhaps you would do well to just look at the =
>popul=3D
>> >ar 'w=3D3D
>> >> >here
>> >> >> > >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as man=
>y
>> >> >> > >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> Bush Jr, you
>w *=3D
>> >old=3D3D
>> >> >*
>> >> >> > >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? C=
>an =3D
>> >you
>> >> >> > >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>l f=3D
>> >ami=3D3D
>> >> >ly,
>> >> >> > >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...l=
>ike
>> >> >> > >> >Russert asking President Bush about his Skull and =3D3D3DA0Bo=
>nes i=3D
>> >nvolv=3D3D
>> >> >ement
>> >> >> > >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> >> > >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>hen=3D
>> > JF=3D3D
>> >> >K was
>> >> >> > >> assassinated. =3D3D3DA0The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* though=
>t he =3D
>> >neede=3D3D
>> >> >d to be=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > "in on
>> >> >> > >> it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that you=
> mi=3D
>> >ght=3D3D
>> >> > as w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ell
>> >> >> > >> believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the Moon=
> La=3D
>> >ndi=3D3D
>> >> >ng Ho=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ax, and
>> >> >> > >> a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >> >> > >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>is
>> >> >> > >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive=
> li=3D
>> >ke
>> >> >> > >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it th=
>e '=3D
>> >Bay
>> >> >> > >of Pigs thing'. =3D3DA0 And yet you will try and use this as to =
>not
>> >> >> > >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as =
>the=3D
>> >ir
>> >> >> > >other documented political shenanigans. =3D3DA0I just call that =
>being
>> >> >> > >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >> >> > >CJ
>>
>> >> >> > And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenag=
>er =3D
>> >wou=3D3D
>> >> >ld be
>> >> >> > involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> >> >> > An honest person would retract...
>>
>> >> >"An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>A0One d=3D
>> >oesn't
>> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>n
>> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>> >> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>th th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >Bush Regime. =3D3DA0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so =
>much
>> >> >trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK."
>>
>> >> >One can also benefit from the actions as well, and the fact the Bushes
>> >> >have ties to the assassination (Prescott owned Nixon who is up to his
>> >> >eyeballs in the asssassination muck) is the reason they went on to
>> >> >since 1963 they family has climbed higher and gotten a lot richer. =
>> >> >dare anyone to say that is NOT G.H.W.B. in front of the TSBD shortly
> when
>> >> >asked. =3DA0Dubya wouldn't be President if the power accrued from 11/=
>22/63
>> >> >on did not go to his family.
>>
>> >> >I guess those that killed JFK have NEVER done anything else wrong in
>> >> >some people's minds.
>>
>> >"The idea that a 17 year old teenager was involved in killing JFK is
>> >straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."
>>
>> >It's just amazing what Bush-hatred will lead people to believe."
>>
>> >I never said he was, but his family is probably another story, and he
>> >has reaped the benefits that is for sure.
>>
>
>"Willing to use the plural of "Bush", but unwilling to retract your
>obvious implication."
>
>You have the wrong person as I never said Bush 43 was involved as he
>was too young
Then you're merely a poor writer, right?
>"Rather dishonest, isn't it?"
>
>No, because I never said he was involved. You have the wrong person.
You deny that you pluralized "Bush?"
>"Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone
>refers to "the Bushes?"
>
>No need to as there is more to the family than Dubya, how about
>Prescott?
So you were referring to Bush Sr and Prescott?
>How about Nixon who they controlled?
Oh? Does "Bushes" now refer to Nixon? Not, I suspect, to the overwhelming
majority of literate people.
>You have no proof
>**I** said Dubya was involved so either provide some or move on.
It wasn't *I* who spoke of the "Bushes."
>You are now making up stuff to show someone is dishonest. Amazing.
Your words, not mine.
This is really simple... all you really need to do is to state that it is just
silly for the idea to be put forth that a 17 year old teenager was involved in
the assassination of JFK.
You claim I "invented" the issue, yet this is exactly what Curt tried to assert.
I label it as silly.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 14, 4:23=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <143f5e2d-db7b-4b5c-8799-e7283f203...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 14, 6:36=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dubya =
>sta=3D
>> >ck =3D3D
>> >> >up
>> >> >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>nsi=3D
>> >der=3D3D
>> >> > hi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >s S=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3D3DA0Then again, I'd rat=
>e all=3D
>> > *PLU=3D3D
>> >> >S* bo=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >th Bu=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>cau=3D
>> >se
>> >> >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3D3DA0Gore was not part of t=
>he Cl=3D
>> >inton=3D3D
>> >> > camp=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3D3D=
>3DA0S=3D
>> >ome c=3D3D
>> >> >laim =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >Gore
>> >> >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his Air =
>For=3D
>> >ce =3D3D
>> >> >2
>> >> >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week before J=
>FK =3D
>> >Jr.
>> >> >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing wit=
>hou=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than either B=
>ush, =3D
>> >Teddy
>> >> >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidge.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>.
>>
>> >> >> >Oh really? =3D3DA0Then you must have some 'intuition' that isn't b=
>eing
>> >> >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up', eh=
>? =3D
>> >=3D3DA0I
>> >> >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath as
> 'whe=3D
>> >re
>> >> >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> >> >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> >> >> Bush Jr, you
>d*
>> >> >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can yo=
>u
>> >> >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>ily=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...like
>olvem=3D
>> >ent
>> >> >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>FK =3D
>> >was
>> >> >> assassinated. The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he needed to=
> be
>> >> >> "in on it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that y=
>ou
>> >> >> might as well believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11,
>> >> >> the Moon Landing Hoax, and a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >> >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>> >> >assassination. It's like saying Haldeman wasn't around this
>> >> >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensitive like
>y
>> >> >of Pigs thing'. =A0And yet you will try and use this as to not
>> >> >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as their
>> >> >other documented political shenanigans. I just call that being
>> >> >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager
>> >> would be involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> >> An honest person would retract...
>>
>> >An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>>
>> I didn't "invent" the historical fact that Bush Jr. was just 17 at
>> the time of the assassination.
>>
>Yes you did.
No Curt... I didn't. It's an historical fact that has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to
do with me. Anyone can do the math.
The FACT that Bush Jr. was just 17 in 1963 predates my mention of it in this
forum. Here's a mention that I Googled that predates this post by a few years:
"That’s what makes us so smart. We know that JFK was actually assassinated by a
17-year-old George W. Bush in order ensconce fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson in the
White House, thus laying the historical background necessary to facilitate Lady
Bird Johnson’s highway beautification scheme years later—a scheme that
encourages oil consumption by brainwashed pleasure drivers entranced by the
wafting aroma of beautiful mind-controlling uber-poppies. Oh, and Halliburton.
Sometimes you’ve just got to be proud to be Homo sapiens. We’re the smartest
apes ever. My sympathy to the chimpanzees."
I don't have the power to actually "invent" such a historical fact.
>You asserted that the fact that he was 17 years old at
>the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
>involvement in the JFK assassination.
No, let me make it crystal clear - I LABEL ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT CONSPIRATORS
IN THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD INVOLVE A 17 YEAR OLD KID AS A KOOK.
The idea is beyond ludicrous.
You have ZERO evidence for his involvement in any way shape or form. Nor will
you ever provide any.
Your hatred is driving your speculation.
>You were giving him a perfect
>teflon shield. I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he wasn't
>born yet to have potential involvment.
Yep... I think I'll go around and claim that Barack Obama was involved in the
assassination. Surely if a 17 year old can be involved, a 2 year old isn't a
stretch.
Fits my conservative agenda too. For clearly, if Obama can be good friends with
Bill Ayers, being an assassin is not much of a stretch.
>> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
>>
>You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
>grooming for his political life. Your worse than all the President's
>giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
>and it's continued effect of this country.
And you're a nutcase.
The conspiracy that took the life of JFK doesn't need kooks to explain the
evidence to lurkers interested in the topic.
When they see garbage like this - they will simply 'tune out' anything else you
say because it's clear that you're not playing with a full deck.
Evidence is what drives the JFK conspiracy case - not speculation and left-wing
ideology.
>> Tis that simple.
>>
>> >One doesn't
>> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
>> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>>
>> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is ludi=
>crous
>> on the face of it.
>>
>> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothing =
>more.
>>
>I don't hate the man.
Willing to accuse him of murder... but you don't hate him??? How strange??
>I am not even a politcal activist. I just know
>that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
>country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
>control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
>of this nation more third-world like...
That's a left-wing agenda.
>and the Bushes are in the
>middle of the cabal that perpetuates it's will on the people of this
>nation and the world, with the elimination of JFK just one more thing
>on their long list of agendi.
>
>CJ
>
>
>>
>>
>> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>> >unknowingly. =A0 I think you should know better in your siding with the
>> >Bush Regime. =A0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <88722ba0-2c72-48ac-8116-e32aa9b65...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
I say "Bushes" and you assume Dubya, what do you know I don't?
> >"Rather dishonest, isn't it?"
>
> >No, because I never said he was involved. You have the wrong person.
>
"You deny that you pluralized "Bush?""
NO, but the family is quite large and you are trying to make it sound
like I said Dubya was involved. You are the one being dishonest.
> >"Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone
> >refers to "the Bushes?"
>
> >No need to as there is more to the family than Dubya, how about
> >Prescott?
>
"So you were referring to Bush Sr and Prescott?"
They are the ones mentioned the most, more Bush 41, but Prescott owned
Eisenhower and Nixon.
> >How about Nixon who they controlled?
>
"Oh? Does "Bushes" now refer to Nixon? Not, I suspect, to the
overwhelming majority of literate people."
Quite playing games, Nixon was owned by the Bush family, therefore he
could be used.
> >You have no proof
> >**I** said Dubya was involved so either provide some or move on.
>
"It wasn't *I* who spoke of the "Bushes.""
What is your point? "Bushes" doesn't have to mean Dubya. Prove *I*
said he was involved or leave me alone.
> >You are now making up stuff to show someone is dishonest. Amazing.
>
"Your words, not mine."
Actually my WORD (Bushes), but why count? I never mentioned Dubya.
"This is really simple... all you really need to do is to state that
it is just silly for the idea to be put forth that a 17 year old
teenager was involved in the assassination of JFK.
You claim I "invented" the issue, yet this is exactly what Curt tried
to assert. I label it as silly."
I do put forth that as Dubya was very immature and did not really
assume a grown up role for a long time, so to think he was inovolved
at 17 is silly, but I didn't say it nor did I ever agree with it. Why
aren't you writing to Curt?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <6fc9c4e9-3e21-4f5f-8a58-2a0c518d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Don't try and use my poor math as an excuse for fraud, there where
many times the number of people who could not vote due to this
practice or "error" than Bush won by. These numbers are readily
available so again I point out, why would I "lie" about something
someone could so easily check for themself? Especially when I then
attached an article? Hey, I never said the Clintons didn't help the
Bushes win Florida either. Read about Hillary's brother for
example.
Also, I guess the fact that Bush's co-chair for his campaign
"sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either. They shouldn't
have been so obvious about it.
"You simply lied ..."
I simply made a mistake and admitted it. I did read an article that I
thought said only 3% of the names were felons, but I was probably
incorrect. So be it, these things are out there for all to see do
people don't have to take our words for it.
> >"When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to
> >vote - don't, you cry foul."
>
> >You are skirting the issue, the Harris-Bush team made sure 91,000 plus
> >were smeard with the stigma of being felons, when they were not,
>
"Actually, most of them *were*... they had simply either regained
their rights to vote, or they were being confused namewise with those
who were felons."
Here are some details of the voter-felon issue.
1. Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials
a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of
voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies,
only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it
on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas (Dubya's
state).
2. 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.
3. Hillsborough County's elections supervisor, Pam Iorio, tried to
make sure that that the bugs in the system didn't keep anyone from
voting. All 3,258 county residents who were identified as possible
felons on the central voter file sent by the state in June were sent a
certified letter informing them that their voting rights were in
jeopardy. Of that number, 551 appealed their status, and 245 of those
appeals were successful. Some had been convicted of a misdemeanor and
not a felony, others were felons who had had their rights restored and
others were simply cases of mistaken identity.
An additional 279 were not close matches with names on the county's
own voter rolls and were not notified. Of the 3,258 names on the
original list, therefore, the county concluded that more than 15
percent were in error. If that ratio held statewide, **no fewer than
7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted for removal from voting
rosters.**
4. Smith added that the DBT computer program automatically
transformed various forms of a single name. In one case, a voter named
"Christine" was identified as a felon based on the conviction of a
"Christopher" with the same last name. Smith says ChoicePoint would
not respond to queries about its proprietary methods. Nor would the
company provide additional verification data to back its fingering
certain individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the
ChoicePoint list is a local judge.
5. ChoicePoint spokesman Martin Fagan concedes his company's error in
passing on the bogus list from Texas. ("I guess that's a little bit
embarrassing in light of the election," he says.) He defends the
company's overall performance, however, dismissing the errors in 8,000
names as "a minor glitch -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the
electorate" (though the total equals 15 times Gov. George W. Bush's
claimed lead over Gore). But he added that ChoicePoint is responsible
only for turning over its raw list, which is then up to Florida
officials to test and correct.
6. Florida is the only state in the nation to contract the first stage
of removal of voting rights to a private company. And ChoicePoint has
big plans. "Given the outcome of our work in Florida," says Fagan,
"and with a new president in place, we think our services will expand
across the country."
Especially if that president is named "Bush." ChoicePoint's board and
executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including
billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the
fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run
against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by
another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard
Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber
lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998,
Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated
$100,000 to the Republican Party.
Greg Palast
"You're trying to imply that someone was 'targeting' Democratic
voters... simply
not true."
I'm not implying anything, the facts are the facts, the majority of
those effected were minorities and 93% of the African-Americans who
voted went with Gore. What number of those 8,000 that couldn't vote
would have given Gore the win? Certainly not 93%, probably 10% would
have done it.
> I notice that you've been silent about the Supreme Court's ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> In article <66688b8e-f1d9-4aeb-9b11-f10a626fd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
your way of ducking by inserting the younger Bush.
> The FACT that Bush Jr. was just 17 in 1963 predates my mention of it in this
> forum. Here's a mention that I Googled that predates this post by a few years:
>
> "That’s what makes us so smart. We know that JFK was actually assassinated by a
> 17-year-old George W. Bush in order ensconce fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson in the
> White House, thus laying the historical background necessary to facilitate Lady
> Bird Johnson’s highway beautification scheme years later—a scheme that
> encourages oil consumption by brainwashed pleasure drivers entranced by the
> wafting aroma of beautiful mind-controlling uber-poppies. Oh, and Halliburton.
>
> Sometimes you’ve just got to be proud to be Homo sapiens. We’re the smartest
> apes ever. My sympathy to the chimpanzees."
>
> I don't have the power to actually "invent" such a historical fact.
>
I am saying that you did by making a mockery of Non-Bush involvement
by sticking in the President. I even told you that age had nothing to
do with it if he wasn't even born because he could have been an
accessory after the fact.
> >You asserted that the fact that he was 17 years old at
> >the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
> >involvement in the JFK assassination.
>
> No, let me make it crystal clear - I LABEL ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT CONSPIRATORS
> IN THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD INVOLVE A 17 YEAR OLD KID AS A KOOK.
>
Who would care what YOU make crystally clear? Like it something to be
reckoned with?! Dream on. Let me assert to avoid the issue of Bush
or any Bush involvement in the assassination of JFK or it's coverup,
that you are like an LNT'er or WC Defender when you think that the
President's character IS NOT involved with his family's past
doings.
> The idea is beyond ludicrous.
>
Actually the idea is so probable, that one who didn't want to
investigate is probably an Gov't Agent who is trying to
Disinformationalize the issue.
> You have ZERO evidence for his involvement in any way shape or form. Nor will
> you ever provide any.
>
I will provide tons when my as I have already told you when my
computer is fixed so it won't crash, if I deem it even being
worthwhile to even run across a total BLOCKHEAD like yourself. And it
will be well-documented from REAL JFK assassination researchers.
> Your hatred is driving your speculation.
>
How could I possibly hate just one man when their is so much
dishonesty and disgust in the world, especially in the people that
took over the country on 11/22/63? You even claim dishonesty from
'above' in the autopsy, the Zapruder film alteration and other
issues...but you turn turtle when it comes to the effect the murder
had on the public and you seem to go out of your way to protect those
that are and should and could be prime suspects in that murder.
> >You were giving him a perfect
> >teflon shield. I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he wasn't
> >born yet to have potential involvment.
>
> Yep... I think I'll go around and claim that Barack Obama was involved in the
> assassination. Surely if a 17 year old can be involved, a 2 year old isn't a
> stretch.
>
Why not, when you have the personality and dispostion of a two year
old?!
> Fits my conservative agenda too. For clearly, if Obama can be good friends with
> Bill Ayers, being an assassin is not much of a stretch.
>
Well if Obama is backed by the Rockefeller, and Jesse Ventura comes to
Dealey Plaza and gives speeches about those who assassinated JFK and
how they should be brought to justice.....we can know it's not a
stretch to see what side of justice you are on.
> >> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
>
> >You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
> >grooming for his political life. Your worse than all the President's
> >giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
> >and it's continued effect of this country.
>
> And you're a nutcase.
>
And you're a poor resercher for not even knowing what kind of CIA life
G.H.W Bush had between 1960-63.
> The conspiracy that took the life of JFK doesn't need kooks to explain the
> evidence to lurkers interested in the topic.
>
They're obviously not listening to you are they? Your posts don't get
much play except for occasional trollism, do they?
> When they see garbage like this - they will simply 'tune out' anything else you
> say because it's clear that you're not playing with a full deck.
>
No, they will know to stay clear from you as they can see more agenda
and flak from you than pure discussion.
> Evidence is what drives the JFK conspiracy case - not speculation and left-wing
> ideology.
>
Is this because you are afraid to admit that most of the backing of
the JFK murder came from The Right Wing?
> >> Tis that simple.
>
> >> >One doesn't
> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
> >> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassination
> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>
> >> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is ludi=
> >crous
> >> on the face of it.
>
> >> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothing =
> >more.
>
> >I don't hate the man.
>
> Willing to accuse him of murder... but you don't hate him??? How strange??
>
They murdered the most revered person in history, who told us not to
hate. People are capable of understanding to hate deeds instead of
people. Of course it may be different for Bushites, eh?
> >I am not even a politcal activist. I just know
> >that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
> >country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
> >control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
> >of this nation more third-world like...
>
> That's a left-wing agenda.
You must have gotten an inheritance from H.L. Hunt.
CJ
>
>
>
> >and the Bushes are in the
> >middle of the cabal that perpetuates it's will on the people of this
> >nation and the world, with the elimination of JFK just one more thing
> >on their long list of agendi.
>
> >CJ
>
> >> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
> >> >unknowingly. =A0 I think you should know better in your siding with the
> >> >Bush Regime. =A0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so much
> >> >trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK.
>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 15, 4:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <88722ba0-2c72-48ac-8116-e32aa9b65...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 15, 1:07=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <b563d672-d787-422d-a49d-d4e7b0687...@x35g2000hsb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 14, 7:28=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <4026e063-e29e-471d-897c-4fc548b8d...@b1g2000hsg.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Jul 14, 5:17=3D3D3DA0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>> >> >> >> On Jul 14, 6:36=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> >> > In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.g=
>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >rou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ps.com>,
>> >> >> >> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > >On Jul 13, 6:07=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>> >> >> >> > >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hs=
>b.g=3D
>> >oog=3D3D
>> >> >leg=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >roups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >.com>,
>> >> >> >> > >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >On Jul 12, 10:13=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji=
>.com>=3D
>> > wrot=3D3D
>> >> >e:
>> >> >> >> > >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g200=
>0hs=3D
>> >a.g=3D3D
>> >> >oog=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >legro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >ups=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> > >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How doe=
>s D=3D
>> >uby=3D3D
>> >> >a s=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >tack =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >up
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
>R -=3D
>> > I =3D3D
>> >> >con=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >sider=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > > hi=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >s S=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Then ag=
>ain, =3D
>> >I'd r=3D3D
>> >> >ate a=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ll *PLU=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >S* bo=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >th Bu=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >shes higher
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
>Ker=3D
>> >ry =3D3D
>> >> >bec=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ause
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Gore was n=
>ot pa=3D
>> >rt of=3D3D
>> >> > the =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >Clinton=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > > camp=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> > and
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't.=
> =3D
>> >> >3D3DA=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >0Some c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >laim =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >> >Gore
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as =
>his=3D
>> > Ai=3D3D
>> >> >r F=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >orce =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >2
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week =
>bef=3D
>> >ore=3D3D
>> >> > JF=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >K Jr.
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency lan=
>din=3D
>> >g w=3D3D
>> >> >ith=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >out
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher t=
>han e=3D
>> >ither=3D3D
>> >> > Bush=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >, Teddy
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Co=
>oli=3D
>> >dge=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>erm=3D
>> >ath=3D3D
>> >> >...
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >Oh really? =3D3D3D3DA0Then you must have some 'intuition' =
>that =3D
>> >isn't=3D3D
>> >> > bein=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >g
>> >> >> >> > >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something=
> up=3D
>> >', =3D3D
>> >> >eh?=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > =3D3D3D3DA0I
>> >> >> >> > >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of befor=
>ema=3D
>> >th =3D3D
>> >> >as
>> >> >> >> > >> >well. =3D3D3D3DA0Perhaps you would do well to just look at=
> the =3D
>> >popul=3D3D
>> >> >ar 'w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >here
>> >> >> >> > >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as =
>man=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> > >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >> Bush Jr, you
> ho=3D
>> >w *=3D3D
>> >> >old=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >*
>> >> >> >> > >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math=
>? C=3D
>> >an =3D3D
>> >> >you
>> >> >> >> > >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>ica=3D
>> >l f=3D3D
>> >> >ami=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ly,
>> >> >> >> > >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal.=
>..l=3D
>> >ike
>> >> >> >> > >> >Russert asking President Bush about his Skull and =3D3D3D3=
>DA0Bo=3D
>> >nes i=3D3D
>> >> >nvolv=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ement
>> >> >> >> > >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>d w=3D
>> >hen=3D3D
>> >> > JF=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >K was
>> >> >> >> > >> assassinated. =3D3D3D3DA0The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* t=
>hough=3D
>> >t he =3D3D
>> >> >neede=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >d to be=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > > "in on
>> >> >> >> > >> it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly that =
>you=3D
>> > mi=3D3D
>> >> >ght=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > as w=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >ell
>> >> >> >> > >> believe in the American government's bombing on 9/11, the M=
>oon=3D
>> > La=3D3D
>> >> >ndi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ng Ho=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > >ax, and
>> >> >> >> > >> a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >> >> >> > >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>nd th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >> > >era....yet they had to have a code name when something sensit=
>ive=3D
>> > li=3D3D
>> >> >ke
>> >> >> >> > >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it=
> th=3D
>> >e '=3D3D
>> >> >Bay
>> >> >> >> > >of Pigs thing'. =3D3D3DA0 And yet you will try and use this a=
>s to =3D
>> >not
>> >> >> >> > >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well =
>as =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >ir
>> >> >> >> > >other documented political shenanigans. =3D3D3DA0I just call =
>that =3D
>> >being
>> >> >> >> > >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >> >> >> > >CJ
>>
>> >> >> >> > And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old tee=
>nag=3D
>> >er =3D3D
>> >> >wou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ld be
>> >> >> >> > involved, even in only knowledge, of the JFK assassination.
>>
>> >> >> >> > An honest person would retract...
>>
>> >> >> >"An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>=3D3D3D=3D
>> >A0One d=3D3D
>> >> >oesn't
>> >> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bus=
>h'
>> >> >> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassina=
>tio=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaz=
>a.
>> >> >> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>ng wi=3D
>> >th th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >Bush Regime. =3D3D3DA0In fact it's a downright shame, when you kno=
>w so =3D
>> >much
>> >> >> >trivia and evidence that has to do with the assassination of JFK."
>>
>shes
>> >> >> >have ties to the assassination (Prescott owned Nixon who is up to =
>his
>> >> >> >eyeballs in the asssassination muck) is the reason they went on to
>, but
>> >> >> >since 1963 they family has climbed higher and gotten a lot richer.=
> =3D
>> >> >> >dare anyone to say that is NOT G.H.W.B. in front of the TSBD short=
>ly
>> >> >> >after the shooting. =3D3DA0He had memory issues of where he was as=
> well=3D
>> > when
>> >> >> >asked. =3D3DA0Dubya wouldn't be President if the power accrued fro=
>m 11/=3D
>> >22/63
>> >> >> >on did not go to his family.
>>
>in
>> >> >> >some people's minds.
>>
>> >> >"The idea that a 17 year old teenager was involved in killing JFK is
>> >> >straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."
>>
>> >> >It's just amazing what Bush-hatred will lead people to believe."
>>
>> >> >I never said he was, but his family is probably another story, and he
>> >> >has reaped the benefits that is for sure.
>>
>> >"Willing to use the plural of "Bush", but unwilling to retract your
>> >obvious implication."
>>
>> >You have the wrong person as I never said Bush 43 was involved as he
>> >was too young
>>
>
>"Then you're merely a poor writer, right?"
>
>I say "Bushes" and you assume Dubya, what do you know I don't?
There are only *two* famous Bushes. Kindly don't insult everyone's intelligence
by pretending otherwise.
>> >"Rather dishonest, isn't it?"
>>
>> >No, because I never said he was involved. You have the wrong person.
>>
>
>"You deny that you pluralized "Bush?""
>
>NO, but the family is quite large and you are trying to make it sound
>like I said Dubya was involved. You are the one being dishonest.
There are only *two* famous Bushes.
>> >"Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone
>> >refers to "the Bushes?"
>>
>> >No need to as there is more to the family than Dubya, how about
>> >Prescott?
>>
>
>"So you were referring to Bush Sr and Prescott?"
>
>They are the ones mentioned the most, more Bush 41, but Prescott owned
>Eisenhower and Nixon.
Then it would have been far more accurate to refer *directly* to those that you
were referring to, wouldn't it have?
Particularly as you were RESPONDING to a post where Curt *still* maintains the
idea that a 17 year old Bush Jr. could have been involved in the JFK
assassination.
Context is worth considering, wouldn't you agree?
>> >How about Nixon who they controlled?
>>
>
>"Oh? Does "Bushes" now refer to Nixon? Not, I suspect, to the
>overwhelming majority of literate people."
>
>Quite playing games, Nixon was owned by the Bush family, therefore he
>could be used.
No-one in the literate world would think of Nixon when the term "Bushes" is
used.
Despite your belief.
>> >You have no proof
>> >**I** said Dubya was involved so either provide some or move on.
>>
>
>"It wasn't *I* who spoke of the "Bushes.""
>
>What is your point? "Bushes" doesn't have to mean Dubya. Prove *I*
>said he was involved or leave me alone.
No Rob, I don't have to prove that *YOU* meant Bush Jr. I merely have to
illustrate yet again your inability to write well leads people to conclusions
that you may or may not mean.
Don't you ever proof-read your posts before sending 'em?
>> >You are now making up stuff to show someone is dishonest. Amazing.
>>
>
>"Your words, not mine."
>
>Actually my WORD (Bushes),
Plural, isn't it?
>but why count?
Because plural is greatly different from singular.
>I never mentioned Dubya.
The term "Bushes" is used routinely to mean both President and former President.
Feel free to Google the many examples you can find.
>"This is really simple... all you really need to do is to state that
>it is just silly for the idea to be put forth that a 17 year old
>teenager was involved in the assassination of JFK.
>
>You claim I "invented" the issue, yet this is exactly what Curt tried
>to assert. I label it as silly."
>
>I do put forth that as Dubya was very immature and did not really
>assume a grown up role for a long time, so to think he was inovolved
>at 17 is silly, but I didn't say it nor did I ever agree with it.
It's good to see that you have *some* common sense, at least enough to realize
that any hatred of Bush isn't enough justification to try to pin involvement in
the assassination on him as a 17 year old teenager.
By the way, your constant usage of "Dubya" to refer to President Bush, or even
'Bush Jr,' is rather characteristic for those who despise the President.
Perhaps I need to start referring to Senator Obama as "Obamamama" or some other
such stupid nomenclature.
>Why aren't you writing to Curt?
I have. Do you presume that if you jump into a thread that I'm going to refuse
to respond to you?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 15, 3:02=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <6fc9c4e9-3e21-4f5f-8a58-2a0c518d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 13, 9:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes
>> ><ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <ecbaf147-142c-4cbb-a0bf-c54528e2c...@z66g2000hsc.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 11, 10:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>oup=3D
>> >s.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:08 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>In article
>> >> >><82867e8c-f25b-43f5-b347-1b0e28012...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >>>> >> In article <79db057f-2daf-41fe-8f37-1593c3a9e...@34g2000hsf.go=
>ogl=3D
>> >egroups.=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 1:49=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >>>> >> >> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g2000hs=
>f.g=3D
>> >ooglegro=3D3D>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:16=3D3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.=
>com> =3D
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> >> >> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g200=
>0hs=3D
>> >f.google=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than most o=
>f t=3D
>> >he peopl=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >e i=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >n
>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the sitt=
>ing=3D
>> > Preside=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >nt.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> >> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously know=
>n f=3D
>> >or being
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>>
>last =3D
>> >name to ge=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >t his
>> >> >> >> >> >> >academic pedigree.
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid issu=
>ing=3D
>> > grades =3D3D
>> >> >> >> >for=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > money.
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'august=
>' i=3D
>> >nstituti=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ons=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the int=
>ell=3D
>> >ect. =3D3D3D=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >A0It'=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> >> certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Jesse Ventura can think and speak in complete sentences.
>>
>r for=3D
>> > his belie=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >fs,
>> >> >> >> >> >> I own several of his books.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >I have seen
>ern=3D
>> >ment.
>>
>> >> >>>> >> >> >You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will not b=
>e g=3D
>> >iving an=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >y
>> >> >> >> >> >> >college lectures. =3D3D3DA0He is too stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >"Another Bush-basher...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't see t=
>he
>> >> >> >> >> >'obvious', and vote in a Kerry or a Gore, right? And it woul=
>dn'=3D
>> >t be a
>> >> >> >> >> >stretch to imagine that you're pulling the lever for Obama.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >But this doesn't change the facts"
>>
>Uni=3D
>> >ted
>> >> >> >> >> >States in 2000?
>>
>> >> >> >> >"Of course he was. Repeated recounts by journalists have *NEVER=
>* b=3D
>> >een
>> >> >> >> >able to find enough votes to put Al Gore in office, using Al Go=
>re'=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> >own specifications."
>>
>> >> >> >> >You obviously have missed the stats (minus the three states in =
>dis=3D
>> >pute
>> >> >> >> >or not declaring a winner- Florida, New Mexico and Oregon) show=
>ing=3D
>> > the
>> >> >> >> >results:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) =A0246 (electoral votes)
>> >> >> >> >Gore (Democrat) =A049,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
>>
>> >> >> >"If you allow me to pick and choose which states I'd like to inclu=
>de,
>> >> >> >I can have almost *anyone* who's on the ballots "elected" Presiden=
>t.
>>
>> >> >> >But the U.S. voting regulations simply don't allow people to do th=
>at.
>>
>> >> >> >Care to try again?"
>>
>s
>> >> >> >New Mexico and Oregon could not reach a conclusion regarding who w=
>on,
>> >> >> >whereas Florida was obviously corrupted.
>>
>> >> >"There's been *NO* evidence given by you that "Florida was obviously
>> >> >corrupted""
>>
>> >> >You should have read lower first as the "clensing of voters" by
>> >> >Choicepoint (who got their list of names from the state of Texas by
>g
>> >> >(some non-minorities too).
>>
>> >""Illegal?" Try what Democrats routinely do - making every attempt to
>> >get non-citizens to vote."
>>
>> >Go tell the 91,000 plus they had NO right to vote.
>
>
>"I don't see your retraction that this was only 15% of the total
>number - the other 85% *WERE* ineligible to vote."
>
>Don't try and use my poor math as an excuse for fraud,
Your argument falls apart... it's not the grand conspiracy to prevent eligible
people from voting when the percentage dropped from 97% down to 15%.
Certainly 15% is nothing to crow about - but neither is it the grand right-wing
conspiracy you started with.
>there where
>many times the number of people who could not vote due to this
>practice or "error" than Bush won by.
There were many ineligible voters that were *still* allowed to vote. And, of
course, you still deny the panhandle vote.
>These numbers are readily
>available
Yep... The *correct* numbers are. That's why I cited them.
>so again I point out, why would I "lie" about something
>someone could so easily check for themself?
Because having 97% of valid eligible voters being knocked out by a vast
right-wing conspiracy is far more damaging than the true facts.
>Especially when I then
>attached an article?
After, I note, I pointed out the truth.
>Hey, I never said the Clintons didn't help the
>Bushes win Florida either. Read about Hillary's brother for
>example.
Ah! So this is a vast right-wing, left-wing conspiracy... who's not included?
>Also, I guess the fact that Bush's co-chair for his campaign
>"sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either.
Also, I guess the fact that Florida election law, passed by the legislature,
"sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either.
>They shouldn't
>have been so obvious about it.
Yep... those stupid voters shouldn't have written the law so precisely. Need to
give Gore some 'wriggle room'.
>"You simply lied ..."
>
>I simply made a mistake and admitted it. I did read an article that I
>thought said only 3% of the names were felons, but I was probably
>incorrect. So be it, these things are out there for all to see do
>people don't have to take our words for it.
That's why I keep telling people to read the source material that you've been
avoiding for so long.
>> >"When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to
>> >vote - don't, you cry foul."
>>
>> >You are skirting the issue, the Harris-Bush team made sure 91,000 plus
>> >were smeard with the stigma of being felons, when they were not,
>>
>
>"Actually, most of them *were*... they had simply either regained
>their rights to vote, or they were being confused namewise with those
>who were felons."
>
>Here are some details of the voter-felon issue.
>
>1. Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials
>a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of
>voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies,
>only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it
>on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas (Dubya's
>state).
Yep... that is, as I understand it, quite true.
>2. 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.
Yep, that is what Salon asserts.
>3. Hillsborough County's elections supervisor, Pam Iorio, tried to
>make sure that that the bugs in the system didn't keep anyone from
>voting. All 3,258 county residents who were identified as possible
>felons on the central voter file sent by the state in June were sent a
>certified letter informing them that their voting rights were in
>jeopardy. Of that number, 551 appealed their status, and 245 of those
>appeals were successful. Some had been convicted of a misdemeanor and
>not a felony, others were felons who had had their rights restored and
>others were simply cases of mistaken identity.
>
>An additional 279 were not close matches with names on the county's
>own voter rolls and were not notified. Of the 3,258 names on the
>original list, therefore, the county concluded that more than 15
>percent were in error. If that ratio held statewide, **no fewer than
>7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted for removal from voting
>rosters.**
Without the original numbers, you'd have to rely on this source for the
"conclusions"
But you seem to have forgotten the vast right-wing conspiracy link here... so
far, everyone is merely following the law.
>4. Smith added that the DBT computer program automatically
>transformed various forms of a single name. In one case, a voter named
>"Christine" was identified as a felon based on the conviction of a
>"Christopher" with the same last name. Smith says ChoicePoint would
>not respond to queries about its proprietary methods. Nor would the
>company provide additional verification data to back its fingering
>certain individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the
>ChoicePoint list is a local judge.
Yep... those vicious mean ChoicePoint people were on a racist rampage.
>5. ChoicePoint spokesman Martin Fagan concedes his company's error in
>passing on the bogus list from Texas. ("I guess that's a little bit
>embarrassing in light of the election," he says.) He defends the
>company's overall performance, however, dismissing the errors in 8,000
>names as "a minor glitch -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the
>electorate" (though the total equals 15 times Gov. George W. Bush's
>claimed lead over Gore).
Oh my! An error rate of one-tenth of 1 percent!!! Hang 'em, then shoot his
corpse for such an error rate!
>But he added that ChoicePoint is responsible
>only for turning over its raw list, which is then up to Florida
>officials to test and correct.
>
>6. Florida is the only state in the nation to contract the first stage
>of removal of voting rights to a private company. And ChoicePoint has
>big plans. "Given the outcome of our work in Florida," says Fagan,
>"and with a new president in place, we think our services will expand
>across the country."
>
>Especially if that president is named "Bush." ChoicePoint's board and
>executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including
>billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the
>fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run
>against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by
>another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard
>Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber
>lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998,
>Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated
>$100,000 to the Republican Party.
>
>Greg Palast
Let's see the list of Democrats on the ChoicePoint board.
I find it hilarious that the very person who denies a liberal bent to the
traditional mass media (When journalists are 80% or more liberals), yet want's
to claim that a company, who's board has conservatives on it, is actually acting
conservative!!!
>"You're trying to imply that someone was 'targeting' Democratic
>voters... simply not true."
>
>I'm not implying anything, the facts are the facts, the majority of
>those effected were minorities
It's simply a sad fact that minorities comprise a larger percentage of felons
(as a percentage of their representation) than white Americans.
>and 93% of the African-Americans who
>voted went with Gore. What number of those 8,000 that couldn't vote
>would have given Gore the win? Certainly not 93%, probably 10% would
>have done it.
Speculation on the liberal side only... is this the best you can do?
>> >thus they could not vote. =A0You can dance all you want, but this is the=
> way
>> >it is.
>>
>> No, it isn't. =A0As pointed out, and citations provided for...
>>
>> >> >"Every recount done since then has UPHELD the original results. =A0Th=
>e
>> >> >law was followed."
>>
>> >> >You should read the article I attached done by British reporters as i=
>t
>> >> >disputes what you just said, but as in the JFK case, we need to look
>> >> >overseas to find the truth most of the time.
>>
>> >"I already commented on this. =A0Need I repeat the obvious?"
>>
>> >It is only obvious to you. =A0Any press is open to comment, but you only
>> >want to believe those that support your opinion. =A0I guess the British
>> >media is "liberal" too.
>>
>> You rely on a foreign paper using speculations to try to over-ride U.S.
>> newspaper journalists who ACTUALLY DID THE RECOUNT.
>>
>> Embarrassing, isn't it?
>>
>> >> >> >Not counting those three
>> >> >> >states would have been a fair thing to do
>>
>> >> >"What does the *LAW* say?"
>>
>> >> >Two them counted anyway,
>>
>> >"Then why do you continue to raise them?"
>>
>> >I only raised them because initially there were three states hanging
>> >in limbo, but the other two did not the issues Florida did. =A0We can
>> >skip them.
>>
>> It was, however, an excellent scheme to confuse people.
>>
>> >> >and for Florida it should have gone to the
>> >> >Congress as this is what the constitution says.
>>
>> >"No, that's *NOT* what the constitutions says."
>>
>> >Since the Florida case was so mixed up, and biased (I mean his brother
>> >is the Gov. and the Secretary of the State is his co-chairman for his
>> >campaign in FL), this is what should have happened, or the Supreme
>> >Court should have stayed out of it.
>>
>> Again - that's *NOT* what the Constitution says.
>>
>> If the Florida Supreme Court had not changed election laws in the middle =
>of an
>> election - I have no doubt that there wouldn't have been anything for the=
> U.S.
>> Supreme Court to rule on.
>>
>> If Gore wants to go to the courts to change the law - then you should *ex=
>pect*
>> the courts to do their duty.
>>
>> If the courts had said "No - we don't want to hear the case" to Gore - yo=
>u'd be
>> screaming just as loud.
>>
>> >"You are *STILL* avoiding the fact that the law was EXACTLY followed
>> >in Florida."
>>
>> >No it wasn't, and you HAVE NOT provided anything that shows hand
>> >recounts or recounting were illegal in FL. =A0I like how you assume you
>> >have proven this point already. I like how the co-chaire of the Bush
>> >campaign decided not to allow an extension of the recount from 5PM
>> >Sunday to 9AM Monday, I guess because in the brief time Miami-Dade did
>> >do a recount we saw a 150 net gain for Gore. Of course Harris wouldn't
>> >count these votes and went with the returns prior to the recount.
>>
>> What does Florida election law state? =A0Until you actually sit down and =
>read
>> Florida election law, the Florida & Supreme Court decisions - you're goin=
>g to
>> keep looking like a leftist kook to those who actually followed the facts=
>.
>>
>> >"Although, to be sure, the Florida Supreme court tried to change the
>> >law in the middle of the election - and was shot down by the U.S.
>> >Supreme Court."
>>
>> >You keep saying this but you have provided nothing to show they did
>> >anything contrary to their laws.
>>
>> I have no intention of trying to copy the sources I've mentioned to this =
>thread.
>>
>> You'll research and read it yourself, or you'll remain ignorant... who ca=
>res?
>>
>> >"I wonder why you can't admit what actually happened here?"
>>
>> >I wonder the same about you. =A0Why did a number of counties take upon
>> >themselves to recount votes if the state law did not allow them to do
>> >so?
>>
>> Because you still don't even realize that it wasn't the *recounting* that=
> is at
>> issue as far as the law.
>>
>> >It was Harris (again, Bush's co-chair for his election) who had
>> >the authority to make deadlines stick and Ben sees no problem with
>> >this in a democracy.
>>
>> "Deadlines" were simply the law. =A0Harris followed the law.
>>
>> >> >There is NO mention
>> >> >of the Supreme Court (many of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush
>> >> >41 by the way) making any decisions.
>>
>> >"Why is it that you can't simply admit what actually happened in the
>> >Florida case? =A0What Gore sued for, and why he was overturned?"
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 15, 1:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <66688b8e-f1d9-4aeb-9b11-f10a626fd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 14, 4:23=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <143f5e2d-db7b-4b5c-8799-e7283f203...@k37g2000hsf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <b3b35e72-ddd6-4410-9e9b-12202a936...@z72g2000hsb.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> In article <4a4bbbf7-5896-4a2f-a89d-0f47fb469...@m45g2000hsb.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>rote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <e835581c-2b46-4fc5-895b-b11272da9...@f36g2000hsa.=
>goo=3D
>> >gle=3D3D
>> >> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >I never said Clinton was a good President. How does Dub=
>ya =3D
>> >sta=3D3D
>> >> >ck =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >up
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >with Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and JFK?
>>
> co=3D
>> >nsi=3D3D
>> >> >der=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > hi=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >s S=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ocialism
>> >> >> >> >> >> > a disaster for the country.) =3D3D3D3D3DA0Then again, I'=
>d rat=3D
>> >e all=3D3D
>> >> > *PLU=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >S* bo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >th Bu=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> > than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
>>
> be=3D
>> >cau=3D3D
>> >> >se
>> >> >> >> >> >> they were NEVER Presidents. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Gore was not part=
> of t=3D
>> >he Cl=3D3D
>> >> >inton=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > camp=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> >> Clinton tried to get rid of him in 1996 but couldn't. =3D3=
>D3D3D=3D
>> >3DA0S=3D3D
>> >> >ome c=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >laim =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >Gore
>> >> >> >> >> >> was almost the victim of an assassination in 1998 as his A=
>ir =3D
>> >For=3D3D
>> >> >ce =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >2
>> >> >> >> >> >> plan had all the engines die during a flight (a week befor=
>e J=3D
>> >FK =3D3D
>> >> >Jr.
>> >> >> >> >> >> died), but luckily for him they made an emergency landing =
>wit=3D
>> >hou=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >> >> >> incident. =3D3D3D3D3DA0I would rate Truman higher than eit=
>her B=3D
>> >ush, =3D3D
>> >> >Teddy
>> >> >> >> >> >> Roosevelt too. Dubya is on the level of Hoover and Coolidg=
>e.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Aren't the Bushes part of the JFK Assassination cabal,
>>
>h..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Oh really? =3D3D3DA0Then you must have some 'intuition' that is=
>n't b=3D
>> >eing
>> >> >> >> >backed up, yet you must know that 'there must be something up',=
> eh=3D
>> >? =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3DA0I
>> >> >> >> >am sure if you google up Bush you will find a lot of beforemath=
> as
>> >> >> >> >well. =3D3D3DA0Perhaps you would do well to just look at the po=
>pular=3D
>> > 'whe=3D3D
>> >> >re
>> >> >> >> >were you on JFK's assassination', and find he has just as many
>> >> >> >> >Nixontrocities as well....
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Bush Jr, you
>*ol=3D
>> >d*
>> >> >> >> >> he was when JFK was assassinated? Can you do simple math? Can=
> yo=3D
>> >u
>> >> >> >> >> subtract 1946 from 1963?
>>
>fam=3D
>> >ily=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> >> >and there are things that political families don't reveal...lik=
>e
>> >> >> >> >Russert asking President Bush about his Skull and =3D3D3DA0Bone=
>s inv=3D
>> >olvem=3D3D
>> >> >ent
>> >> >> >> >on Meet The Press.
>>
>> >> >> >> You live in kooksville.
>>
>n J=3D
>> >FK =3D3D
>> >> >was
>> >> >> >> assassinated. The chances that *ANYONE AT ALL* thought he needed=
> to=3D
>> > be
>> >> >> >> "in on it," or consulted about assassinating JFK is so silly tha=
>t y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> >> might as well believe in the American government's bombing on 9/=
>11,
>> >> >> >> the Moon Landing Hoax, and a Flat Earth.
>>
>> >> >> >You simply are just trying to tie in an age with the JFK
>> >> >> >assassination. It's like saying Haldeman wasn't around this
>ike
>> >> >> >JFK was discussed for obvious sensitivity when they called it the =
>'Ba=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >of Pigs thing'. =3DA0And yet you will try and use this as to not
>> >> >> >investigate the Bush family in the JFK assassination as well as th=
>eir
>> >> >> >other documented political shenanigans. I just call that being
>> >> >> >willfully ignorant.
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> And your a nutcase for trying to assert that a 17 year old teenager
>.
>>
>> >> >> An honest person would retract...
>>
>> >> >An honest person wouldn't try to invent issues to try to justify
>>
>> >> I didn't "invent" the historical fact that Bush Jr. was just 17 at
>> >> the time of the assassination.
>>
>> >Yes you did.
>>
>> No Curt... I didn't. It's an historical fact that has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER*
>> to do with me. Anyone can do the math.
>>
>It's not about doing the math, it's about Bushes being involved and
>your way of ducking by inserting the younger Bush.
"Bushes" is at least two. You *ADMIT* that you don't exclude the 17 year old
teenager.
You're a kook!
>> The FACT that Bush Jr. was just 17 in 1963 predates my mention of it
>> in this forum. Here's a mention that I Googled that predates this post
>> by a few years:
>>
>> "That's what makes us so smart. We know that JFK was actually assassinated
>> by a 17-year-old George W. Bush in order ensconce fellow Texan Lyndon
>> Johnson in the White House, thus laying the historical background
>> necessary to facilitate Lady Bird Johnson=92s highway beautification
>> scheme years later - a scheme that encourages oil consumption by
>> brainwashed pleasure drivers entranced by the wafting aroma of beautiful
>> mind-controlling uber-poppies. Oh, and Halliburton.
>>
>> Sometimes you've just got to be proud to be Homo sapiens. We're the smartest
>> apes ever. My sympathy to the chimpanzees."
>>
>> I don't have the power to actually "invent" such a historical fact.
>>
>I am saying that you did by making a mockery of Non-Bush involvement
>by sticking in the President. I even told you that age had nothing to
>do with it if he wasn't even born because he could have been an
>accessory after the fact.
Bush-bashing kook... aren't you?
>> >You asserted that the fact that he was 17 years old at
>> >the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
>> >involvement in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> No, let me make it crystal clear - I LABEL ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT
>> CONSPIRATORS IN THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD INVOLVE A 17
>> YEAR OLD KID AS A KOOK.
>>
>
>Who would care what YOU make crystally clear?
If you're willing to attempt to assert what I believe, then you'll just have to
stand around and listen to a more precise assertion.
>Like it something to be
>reckoned with?! Dream on. Let me assert to avoid the issue of Bush
>or any Bush involvement in the assassination of JFK or it's coverup,
>that you are like an LNT'er or WC Defender when you think that the
>President's character IS NOT involved with his family's past
>doings.
Nah... I'm just not an American bashing Bush hater...
Nor, unlike LNT'ers, will I make pronouncements of 'fact' with no evidence.
>> The idea is beyond ludicrous.
>>
>Actually the idea is so probable, that one who didn't want to
>investigate is probably an Gov't Agent who is trying to
>Disinformationalize the issue.
This is what makes you a kook, Curt. The idea that it's even *probable* that a
17 year old kid is being involved in assassinating a President.
Just at a guess, you believe that the government was responsible for bombing the
twin towers on 9/11, and the moon landing is a hoax. Just a guess, of course,
but it would fit with someone who hates the President so much that he wants to
believe him involved in the JFK assassination.
>> You have ZERO evidence for his involvement in any way shape or form.
>> Nor will you ever provide any.
>>
>I will provide tons when my as I have already told you when my
>computer is fixed so it won't crash, if I deem it even being
>worthwhile to even run across a total BLOCKHEAD like yourself. And it
>will be well-documented from REAL JFK assassination researchers.
Have a chat with Toddy Vaughn, who is going to correct the record regarding my
posts about FBI intimidation - just as soon as he gets to his file cabinet...
He can fill you in on how to keep ducking the issue.
>> Your hatred is driving your speculation.
>>
>How could I possibly hate just one man when their is so much
>dishonesty and disgust in the world, especially in the people that
>took over the country on 11/22/63? You even claim dishonesty from
>'above' in the autopsy, the Zapruder film alteration and other
>issues...
Yep... the evidence supports that the Zapruder film was altered, and that some
of the autopsy photos & X-rays are altered.
>but you turn turtle when it comes to the effect the murder
>had on the public
A strange comment that you don't have *ANY* evidence for.
My political beliefs are in line with many in America, and have nothing to do
with my belief that the evidence proves a conspiracy.
>and you seem to go out of your way to protect those
>that are and should and could be prime suspects in that murder.
ROTFLMAO!!! I laugh at the suggestion that a 17 year old was a "prime suspect"
in the JFK assassination.
>> >You were giving him a perfect
>> >teflon shield. =A0I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he wasn't
>> >born yet to have potential involvment.
>>
>> Yep... I think I'll go around and claim that Barack Obama was involved
>> in the assassination. Surely if a 17 year old can be involved, a 2 year
>> old isn't a stretch.
>>
>Why not, when you have the personality and dispostion of a two year
>old?!
The irony escapes you, doesn't it?
>> Fits my conservative agenda too. For clearly, if Obama can be good
>> friends with Bill Ayers, being an assassin is not much of a stretch.
>>
>Well if Obama is backed by the Rockefeller, and Jesse Ventura comes to
>Dealey Plaza and gives speeches about those who assassinated JFK and
>how they should be brought to justice.....we can know it's not a
>stretch to see what side of justice you are on.
And, much in common with other cowards, you'd never have the balls to try saying
that to my face.
Despite a complete lack of evidence that I've *ever* believed or held LNT'er
beliefs.
>> >> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
>>
>> >You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
>> >grooming for his political life. =A0 Your worse than all the President's
>> >giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
>> >and it's continued effect of this country.
>>
>> And you're a nutcase.
>>
>And you're a poor resercher for not even knowing what kind of CIA life
>G.H.W Bush had between 1960-63.
I'm always amused at those who bring in non sequiturs when they are being shot
down in flames...
17 Year old Bush Jr. was hardly even cognizant of the CIA at that time in his
life.
I'm well aware of at least two memos that reflect what Bush Sr. was doing during
that time. So Curt... you're just a liar.
>> The conspiracy that took the life of JFK doesn't need kooks to explain the
>> evidence to lurkers interested in the topic.
>>
>They're obviously not listening to you are they? Your posts don't get
>much play except for occasional trollism, do they?
>
>
>> When they see garbage like this - they will simply 'tune out' anything
>> else you say because it's clear that you're not playing with a full deck.
>>
>No, they will know to stay clear from you as they can see more agenda
>and flak from you than pure discussion.
I cite... you don't. Common thread, isn't it?
>> Evidence is what drives the JFK conspiracy case - not speculation and
>> left-wing ideology.
>>
>Is this because you are afraid to admit that most of the backing of
>the JFK murder came from The Right Wing?
There's quite strong evidence for *precisely* this.
But, much like your silly assertion that the conspirators would have involved a
17 year old teenager - the idea that I'm responsible for anything done by a
right-winger is sheerest nonsense.
And you should *agree*. Because if you want to go down that road, I can list
the atrocities committed in the name of liberalism.
>> >> Tis that simple.
>>
>> >> >One doesn't
>> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
>> >> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassinatio=
>n
>> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>>
>> >> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is l=
>udi=3D
>> >crous
>> >> on the face of it.
>>
>> >> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothi=
>ng =3D
>> >more.
>>
>> >I don't hate the man.
>>
>> Willing to accuse him of murder... but you don't hate him??? How strange??
>>
>They murdered the most revered person in history, who told us not to
>hate. People are capable of understanding to hate deeds instead of
>people. Of course it may be different for Bushites, eh?
Haven't been paying much attention, have you?
>> >I am not even a politcal activist. =A0I just know
>> >that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
>> >country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
>> >control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
>> >of this nation more third-world like...
>>
>> That's a left-wing agenda.
>
>You must have gotten an inheritance from H.L. Hunt.
Are you *denying* that it's the far left-wing agenda to de-industrialize
America?
If so, it merely illustrates how far you're willing to lie ...
>CJ
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >and the Bushes are in the
>> >middle of the cabal that perpetuates it's will on the people of this
>> >nation and the world, with the elimination of JFK just one more thing
>> >on their long list of agendi.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> >> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>> >> >unknowingly. =3DA0 I think you should know better in your siding with=
> the
>> >> >Bush Regime. =3DA0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know so mu=
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <6410d943-3cd4-4153-9860-285e33339...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Too you maybe, but most of know all about Prescott, Jeb and Neil.
Don't *assume* everyone is limited like you.
> >> >"Rather dishonest, isn't it?"
>
> >> >No, because I never said he was involved. You have the wrong person.
>
> >"You deny that you pluralized "Bush?""
>
> >NO, but the family is quite large and you are trying to make it sound
> >like I said Dubya was involved. You are the one being dishonest.
>
> There are only *two* famous Bushes.
For you, but I would guess most people know Jeb, especially after the
2000 elections. You are trying to make an issue out of nothing,
typical bully behavior
> >> >"Care to start a poll on what people believe is meant when someone
> >> >refers to "the Bushes?"
>
> >> >No need to as there is more to the family than Dubya, how about
> >> >Prescott?
>
> >"So you were referring to Bush Sr
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <91f16ff1-a4c1-40af-a66c-28e1f0e50...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
This is a waste of time. The 15% equals 8,000 people and when Bush
won by 327 votes, that is a LOT of votes to not have casted. To say
anything else is just propaganda.
"Certainly 15% is nothing to crow about - but neither is it the grand
right-wing conspiracy you started with."
I NEVER labled it a "right-wing" conspiracy, as fraud is wrong for
either party. You have made it a left vs. right thing by insisting I'm
a Democrat when I have said I am not. Slick Willy and Dubya have been
friends for many years, and Slick Willy didn't want Gore to be
President either.
> >there where
> >many times the number of people who could not vote due to this
> >practice or "error" than Bush won by.
>
> There were many ineligible voters that were *still* allowed to vote. And, of
> course, you still deny the panhandle vote.
There is NO doubt in most rational people's minds that Gore lost more
votes than Bush did with the felon issue and the lack of a manual
recount for the butterfly ballots that were punched twice. To argure
otherwise is pure propaganda.
> >These numbers are readily
> >available
>
"Yep... The *correct* numbers are. That's why I cited them."
And I'm glad you did, the correct numbers still show Gore would have
won if the fix wasn't in. Come on, the person deciding and
interpreting the state's election laws is his co-chair. No bias
there.
> >so again I point out, why would I "lie" about something
> >someone could so easily check for themself?
>
"Because having 97% of valid eligible voters being knocked out by a
vast right-wing conspiracy is far more damaging than the true facts."
I was wrong, but I'm sure many already knew that so I doubt I was
swaying anyone. I have never invoked right-wing or left-wing, that is
you doing that. I am an American first and want the appearence of a
honest election even if they are not.
> >Especially when I then
> >attached an article?
>
"After, I note, I pointed out the truth."
I feel sorry for you, you don't think anyone is honest do you? I made
a mistake, and admitted it, something you never do. Lying is not
needed to see the fix was in just like lying is not needed to see
there was a conspiracy in the JFK case.
> >Hey, I never said the Clintons didn't help the
> >Bushes win Florida either. Read about Hillary's brother for
> >example.
>
"Ah! So this is a vast right-wing, left-wing conspiracy... who's not
included?"
Ron Paul. The Clintons and the Bushes go way back, and if you are
well read as you claim then you are lying if you act like you don't
know this. Gore and Clinton were not on good terms.
> >Also, I guess the fact that Bush's co-chair for his campaign
> >"sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either.
>
"Also, I guess the fact that Florida election law, passed by the
legislature, "sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either."
You are wrong as the Supreme court of FL is supposed to have the final
say in interpreting the state laws, and they saw no problem in
extending the timeline for a recount. The Federal courts should have
stayed out of it, and you have it wrong as Gore was granted the
extension to have a full recount until the Federal court stopped it.
The "sactioning and certifying" was done by one person - Harris.
> >They shouldn't
> >have been so obvious about it.
>
"Yep... those stupid voters shouldn't have written the law so
precisely. Need to give Gore some 'wriggle room'."
What you don't get is the highest court in FL saw NO problem with the
extensions, ONLY the Federal court did. So how can you continue to
claim Gore violated state election laws?
> >"You simply lied ..."
>
> >I simply made a mistake and admitted it. I did read an article that I
> >thought said only 3% of the names were felons, but I was probably
> >incorrect. So be it, these things are out there for all to see do
> >people don't have to take our words for it.
>
"That's why I keep telling people to read the source material that
you've been avoiding for so long."
8,000 is still a lot of votes to deny.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jul 15, 6:40=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <91f16ff1-a4c1-40af-a66c-28e1f0e50...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 15, 3:02=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <6fc9c4e9-3e21-4f5f-8a58-2a0c518d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegro=>> >> >On Jul 13, 9:03=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes
>> >> ><ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <ecbaf147-142c-4cbb-a0bf-c54528e2c...@z66g2000hsc.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Jul 11, 10:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>egr=3D
>> >oup=3D3D
>> >> >s.com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 10:08 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>In article
>m>,
>> >> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 6:57=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> >>>> >> In article <79db057f-2daf-41fe-8f37-1593c3a9e...@34g2000hsf=
>.go=3D
>> >ogl=3D3D
>> >> >egroups.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jul 10, 1:49=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> In article <8c630b9e-c782-44f2-8795-60bde8107...@i76g200=
>0hs=3D
>> >f.g=3D3D
>> >> >ooglegro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>daji.=3D
>> >com> =3D3D
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> In article <f29cc883-3171-4b8d-9e43-2e80b7526...@k37g=
>200=3D
>> >0hs=3D3D
>> >> >f.google=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >gro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >Jesse Ventura has a cleaner criminal record than mos=
>t o=3D
>> >f t=3D3D
>> >> >he peopl=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >e i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >n
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >Congress. And he is much more intelligent than the s=
>itt=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > Preside=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >nt.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> Yep... North Hennepin Community College is famously k=
>now=3D
>> >n f=3D3D
>> >> >or being
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the equal of Yale and Harvard.
>>
> his =3D
>> >last =3D3D
>> >> >name to ge=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >t his
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >academic pedigree.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Yep... Yale & Harvard teachers are too stupid to avoid i=
>ssu=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > grades =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >for=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> > money.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Quite obviously, no credibility on the part of such 'aug=
>ust=3D
>> >' i=3D3D
>> >> >nstituti=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ons=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Whereas North Hennepin Community College challenges the =
>int=3D
>> >ell=3D3D
>> >> >ect. =3D3D3D3D=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >A0It'=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> certainly the place for the intelligentsia, right?
>>
>s.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Bravo for him! =3D3D3D3DA0He also is a fairly competent =
>write=3D
>> >r for=3D3D
>> >> > his belie=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >fs,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I own several of his books.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I have seen
>Gov=3D
>> >ern=3D3D
>> >> >ment.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >You can be sure that after GW leaves office, he will no=
>t b=3D
>> >e g=3D3D
>> >> >iving an=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >y
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >college lectures. =3D3D3D3DA0He is too stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Aaron Hirshberg
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Another Bush-basher...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Simply irritates you that the American people couldn't se=
>e t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> >> >> >'obvious', and vote in a Kerry or a Gore, right? And it w=
>oul=3D
>> >dn'=3D3D
>> >> >t be a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >stretch to imagine that you're pulling the lever for Obam=
>a.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But this doesn't change the facts"
>>
>he =3D
>> >Uni=3D3D
>> >> >ted
>> >> >> >> >> >> >States in 2000?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >"Of course he was. Repeated recounts by journalists have *NE=
>VER=3D
>> >* b=3D3D
>> >> >een
>> >> >> >> >> >able to find enough votes to put Al Gore in office, using Al=
> Go=3D
>> >re'=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> >own specifications."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You obviously have missed the stats (minus the three states =
>in =3D
>> >dis=3D3D
>> >> >pute
>> >> >> >> >> >or not declaring a winner- Florida, New Mexico and Oregon) s=
>how=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >results:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Bush (Republican) 48,999,459 (48%) =3DA0246 (electoral votes=
>)
>> >> >> >> >> >Gore (Democrat) =3DA049,222,339 (48%) 255 (electoral votes)
>>
>> >> >> >> >"If you allow me to pick and choose which states I'd like to in=
>clu=3D
>> >de,
>> >> >> >> >I can have almost *anyone* who's on the ballots "elected" Presi=
>den=3D
>> >t.
>>
>> >> >> >> >But the U.S. voting regulations simply don't allow people to do=
> th=3D
>> >at.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Care to try again?"
>>
>" a=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> >New Mexico and Oregon could not reach a conclusion regarding wh=
>o w=3D
>> >on,
>> >> >> >> >whereas Florida was obviously corrupted.
>>
>ly
>> >> >> >corrupted""
>>
>> >> >> >You should have read lower first as the "clensing of voters" by
>y
>> >> >> >the way) was illegal as it deprived many honest minorities from vo=
>tin=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >(some non-minorities too).
>>
>> >> >""Illegal?" Try what Democrats routinely do - making every attempt to
>> >> >get non-citizens to vote."
>>
>> >> >Go tell the 91,000 plus they had NO right to vote.
>>
>> >"I don't see your retraction that this was only 15% of the total
>> >number - the other 85% *WERE* ineligible to vote."
>>
>> >Don't try and use my poor math as an excuse for fraud,
>>
>
>"Your argument falls apart... it's not the grand conspiracy to prevent
>eligible people from voting when the percentage dropped from 97% down
>to 15%."
>
>This is a waste of time. The 15% equals 8,000 people and when Bush
>won by 327 votes, that is a LOT of votes to not have casted. To say
>anything else is just propaganda.
How many votes in the panhandle?
Plus, you're pretending that the whole 15% of eligible voters who were wrongly
on the list actually came to vote.
What's the normal percentage of eligible people who actually vote?
>"Certainly 15% is nothing to crow about - but neither is it the grand
>right-wing conspiracy you started with."
>
>I NEVER labled it a "right-wing" conspiracy, as fraud is wrong for
>either party.
You didn't so label it, but everytime you turn around you're mentioning Harris
and Gov. Bush.
It's not hard to see where you're headed.
>You have made it a left vs. right thing by insisting I'm
>a Democrat when I have said I am not.
You're known by your arguments.
>Slick Willy and Dubya have been
>friends for many years, and Slick Willy didn't want Gore to be
>President either.
>
>
>> >there where
>> >many times the number of people who could not vote due to this
>> >practice or "error" than Bush won by.
>>
>> There were many ineligible voters that were *still* allowed to vote. And, of
>> course, you still deny the panhandle vote.
>
>There is NO doubt in most rational people's minds that Gore lost more
>votes than Bush did with the felon issue and the lack of a manual
>recount for the butterfly ballots that were punched twice. To argure
>otherwise is pure propaganda.
As for the "felon" vote, certainly.
As for the manual recount, provably *FALSE*.
It *was* done... and done by those who would have been overjoyed to splash
headlines pointing out that Bush really lost. But they couldn't do it - the
facts simply weren't there.
And once again, you refuse to discuss the panhandle vote. Which, as I'm sure
even you will admit, would have been overwhelmingly in Bush's favor.
>> >These numbers are readily
>> >available
>>
>
>"Yep... The *correct* numbers are. That's why I cited them."
>
>And I'm glad you did, the correct numbers still show Gore would have
>won if the fix wasn't in.
No Rob, they don't.
There's been *NO* legal recount done by *ANYONE* that showed Gore winning.
>Come on, the person deciding and
>interpreting the state's election laws is his co-chair. No bias
>there.
Again, you've decided that once elected to public office, you must give up your
rights as an ordinary citizen.
>> >so again I point out, why would I "lie" about something
>> >someone could so easily check for themself?
>>
>
>"Because having 97% of valid eligible voters being knocked out by a
>vast right-wing conspiracy is far more damaging than the true facts."
>
>I was wrong, but I'm sure many already knew that so I doubt I was
>swaying anyone. I have never invoked right-wing or left-wing, that is
>you doing that. I am an American first and want the appearence of a
>honest election even if they are not.
Then why can't you examine the actual evidence? Why do you REFUSE to examine
the source material?
>> >Especially when I then
>> >attached an article?
>>
>
>"After, I note, I pointed out the truth."
>
>I feel sorry for you, you don't think anyone is honest do you?
Don't worry, honest people have never had anything to fear from anything I
write.
>I made a mistake, and admitted it, something you never do.
Why lie? I'm rarely wrong - as I'm rather careful with what I post - but I
*have* retracted in the past... and will no doubt be forced to do so in the
future.
But I retract *IMMEDIATELY*, I don't wait post after post before admitting
error.
>Lying is not
>needed to see the fix was in
Yep... it was called "the law"... enacted by the Florida legislature.
>just like lying is not needed to see
>there was a conspiracy in the JFK case.
>
>
>> >Hey, I never said the Clintons didn't help the
>> >Bushes win Florida either. =A0Read about Hillary's brother for
>> >example.
>>
>
>"Ah! So this is a vast right-wing, left-wing conspiracy... who's not
>included?"
>
>Ron Paul. The Clintons and the Bushes go way back, and if you are
>well read as you claim then you are lying if you act like you don't
>know this. Gore and Clinton were not on good terms.
>
>
>> >Also, I guess the fact that Bush's co-chair for his campaign
>> >"sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either.
>>
>
>"Also, I guess the fact that Florida election law, passed by the
>legislature, "sanctioned" his win cause no problems for you either."
>
>You are wrong as the Supreme court of FL is supposed to have the final
>say in interpreting the state laws,
Electing a federal President is a states issue???
Which Florida state citizen brought the suit?
>and they saw no problem in
>extending the timeline for a recount.
They saw no problem in changing legislatively voted election law in the middle
of an election.
>The Federal courts should have
>stayed out of it,
So to, should the state courts.
>and you have it wrong as Gore was granted the
>extension to have a full recount until the Federal court stopped it.
I defy you to quote me saying otherwise.
I'd appreciate a retraction otherwise.
>The "sactioning and certifying" was done by one person - Harris.
>
>
>> >They shouldn't
>> >have been so obvious about it.
>>
>
>"Yep... those stupid voters shouldn't have written the law so
>precisely. Need to give Gore some 'wriggle room'."
>
>What you don't get is the highest court in FL saw NO problem with the
>extensions, ONLY the Federal court did. So how can you continue to
>claim Gore violated state election laws?
Tell everyone the makeup of the Florida State court. List their political
ideology, and who put them in office.
You've been precise enough to do this for the Supreme court, I wonder if the
hypocrisy of a Democratic controlled Florida State Court has eluded you.
And once again, deciding to change election law in the middle of an election IS
SIMPLY WRONG - PERIOD.
That you can't seem to understand that simple point simply illustrates your
bias.
>> >"You simply lied ..."
>>
>> >I simply made a mistake and admitted it. =A0I did read an article that I
>> >thought said only 3% of the names were felons, =A0but I was probably
>> >incorrect. =A0So be it, these things are out there for all to see do
>> >people don't have to take our words for it.
>>
>
>"That's why I keep telling people to read the source material that
>you've been avoiding for so long."
>
>8,000 is still a lot of votes to deny.
So is the approximately 15,000 that polling and statistical data show failed to
vote because of the premature AND INCORRECT calling of the state for Gore.
http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001206panh.htm
>> >> >"When efforts are made to ensure that those not legally allowed to
>> >> >vote - don't, you cry foul."
>>
>> >> >You are skirting the issue, the Harris-Bush team made sure 91,000 plu=
curtjester1
> >> >Yes you did.
>
> >> No Curt... I didn't. It's an historical fact that has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER*
> >> to do with me. Anyone can do the math.
>
> >It's not about doing the math, it's about Bushes being involved and
> >your way of ducking by inserting the younger Bush.
>
> "Bushes" is at least two. You *ADMIT* that you don't exclude the 17 year old
> teenager.
>
Noone is trying to say that a teenager had anything to do with the
assassination of JFK on the day of his assassination, or are even
remotely hinting at that. Yet in all inaneness you seem to think this
SHOULD be an issue?!
> You're a kook!
>
Your beyond nutty.
> >> The FACT that Bush Jr. was just 17 in 1963 predates my mention of it
> >> in this forum. Here's a mention that I Googled that predates this post
> >> by a few years:
>
> >> "That's what makes us so smart. We know that JFK was actually assassinated
> >> by a 17-year-old George W. Bush in order ensconce fellow Texan Lyndon
> >> Johnson in the White House, thus laying the historical background
> >> necessary to facilitate Lady Bird Johnson=92s highway beautification
> >> scheme years later - a scheme that encourages oil consumption by
> >> brainwashed pleasure drivers entranced by the wafting aroma of beautiful
> >> mind-controlling uber-poppies. Oh, and Halliburton.
>
> >> Sometimes you've just got to be proud to be Homo sapiens. We're the smartest
> >> apes ever. My sympathy to the chimpanzees."
>
> >> I don't have the power to actually "invent" such a historical fact.
>
> >I am saying that you did by making a mockery of Non-Bush involvement
> >by sticking in the President. I even told you that age had nothing to
> >do with it if he wasn't even born because he could have been an
> >accessory after the fact.
>
> Bush-bashing kook... aren't you?
>
Your running from what young Bush could have developed into. You have
given him a 'full pardon' for consideration of potential Family
sinisterism that could have been part of his upbringing. In fact he
was at an age where he might have even had a hint of what was going on
if he were able to hear anything say at his household from
conversation with father Bush and cronies. I wouldn't call that
bashing, I would call that being aware of the potential.
> >> >You asserted that the fact that he was 17 years old at
> >> >the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
> >> >involvement in the JFK assassination.
>
> >> No, let me make it crystal clear - I LABEL ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT
> >> CONSPIRATORS IN THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD INVOLVE A 17
> >> YEAR OLD KID AS A KOOK.
>
> >Who would care what YOU make crystally clear?
>
> If you're willing to attempt to assert what I believe, then you'll just have to
> stand around and listen to a more precise assertion.
>
All we know is that what you believe to be what is politically correct
today would defy what happened in the JFK case with who are the most
probable suspects in higher echelon government to his demise....and
what they stood for and what they had to gain.
> >Like it something to be
> >reckoned with?! Dream on. Let me assert to avoid the issue of Bush
> >or any Bush involvement in the assassination of JFK or it's coverup,
> >that you are like an LNT'er or WC Defender when you think that the
> >President's character IS NOT involved with his family's past
> >doings.
>
> Nah... I'm just not an American bashing Bush hater...
>
But you seem more PRO conspiracy for JFK's demise by not including The
Bushes.
> Nor, unlike LNT'ers, will I make pronouncements of 'fact' with no evidence.
>
Most LNT'ers will run from evidence or not even consider it. Could
this be your pattern?
> >> The idea is beyond ludicrous.
>
> >Actually the idea is so probable, that one who didn't want to
> >investigate is probably an Gov't Agent who is trying to
> >Disinformationalize the issue.
>
> This is what makes you a kook, Curt. The idea that it's even *probable* that a
> 17 year old kid is being involved in assassinating a President.
>
No one even hinted at this, yet you persist in this fallacy.
> Just at a guess, you believe that the government was responsible for bombing the
> twin towers on 9/11, and the moon landing is a hoax. Just a guess, of course,
> but it would fit with someone who hates the President so much that he wants to
> believe him involved in the JFK assassination.
>
Why consider these side issues? Of course there were many anomalies
of the lunar landing that did have to be explained, and having
buildings topple really don't have anything to do with if there was a
conspiracy or not on 9/11 is there?
> >> You have ZERO evidence for his involvement in any way shape or form.
> >> Nor will you ever provide any.
>
> >I will provide tons when my as I have already told you when my
> >computer is fixed so it won't crash, if I deem it even being
> >worthwhile to even run across a total BLOCKHEAD like yourself. And it
> >will be well-documented from REAL JFK assassination researchers.
>
> Have a chat with Toddy Vaughn, who is going to correct the record regarding my
> posts about FBI intimidation - just as soon as he gets to his file cabinet...
>
Why? I already believe in intimidation. I may even believe in more
than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
clandestine ruse for all I know.
> He can fill you in on how to keep ducking the issue.
>
> >> Your hatred is driving your speculation.
>
> >How could I possibly hate just one man when their is so much
> >dishonesty and disgust in the world, especially in the people that
> >took over the country on 11/22/63? You even claim dishonesty from
> >'above' in the autopsy, the Zapruder film alteration and other
> >issues...
>
> Yep... the evidence supports that the Zapruder film was altered, and that some
> of the autopsy photos & X-rays are altered.
>
Yet you give a pass to those who might have done this in the upper
echelon's.
> >but you turn turtle when it comes to the effect the murder
> >had on the public
>
> A strange comment that you don't have *ANY* evidence for.
>
> My political beliefs are in line with many in America, and have nothing to do
> with my belief that the evidence proves a conspiracy.
>
But how can you say that when 'a' conspiracy was 'a coup d' etat'
which changed policy for people that were of bad character?
> >and you seem to go out of your way to protect those
> >that are and should and could be prime suspects in that murder.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! I laugh at the suggestion that a 17 year old was a "prime suspect"
> in the JFK assassination.
>
Of course who wouldn't laugh at the absurd suggestion of a 17 year old
to begin with?
> >> >You were giving him a perfect
> >> >teflon shield. =A0I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he wasn't
> >> >born yet to have potential involvment.
>
> >> Yep... I think I'll go around and claim that Barack Obama was involved
> >> in the assassination. Surely if a 17 year old can be involved, a 2 year
> >> old isn't a stretch.
>
> >Why not, when you have the personality and dispostion of a two year
> >old?!
>
> The irony escapes you, doesn't it?
>
No, the 'invention' is all yours.
> >> Fits my conservative agenda too. For clearly, if Obama can be good
> >> friends with Bill Ayers, being an assassin is not much of a stretch.
>
> >Well if Obama is backed by the Rockefeller, and Jesse Ventura comes to
> >Dealey Plaza and gives speeches about those who assassinated JFK and
> >how they should be brought to justice.....we can know it's not a
> >stretch to see what side of justice you are on.
>
> And, much in common with other cowards, you'd never have the balls to try saying
> that to my face.
>
I just did. What did you not understand?
> Despite a complete lack of evidence that I've *ever* believed or held LNT'er
> beliefs.
>
Who cares, when you act like one?
> >> >> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape or form.
>
> >> >You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
> >> >grooming for his political life. =A0 Your worse than all the President's
> >> >giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
> >> >and it's continued effect of this country.
>
> >> And you're a nutcase.
>
> >And you're a poor resercher for not even knowing what kind of CIA life
> >G.H.W Bush had between 1960-63.
>
> I'm always amused at those who bring in non sequiturs when they are being shot
> down in flames...
>
Of course you have to try to defend but claiming ignorance is
bliss....
> 17 Year old Bush Jr. was hardly even cognizant of the CIA at that time in his
> life.
>
> I'm well aware of at least two memos that reflect what Bush Sr. was doing during
> that time. So Curt... you're just a liar.
>
Waiting with bated breath. How could I lie, when I do have lots of
evidence and was willing to dig for it...when you won't?
> >> The conspiracy that took the life of JFK doesn't need kooks to explain the
> >> evidence to lurkers interested in the topic.
>
> >They're obviously not listening to you are they? Your posts don't get
> >much play except for occasional trollism, do they?
>
> >> When they see garbage like this - they will simply 'tune out' anything
> >> else you say because it's clear that you're not playing with a full deck.
>
> >No, they will know to stay clear from you as they can see more agenda
> >and flak from you than pure discussion.
>
> I cite... you don't. Common thread, isn't it?
>
When have you cited here? I told you I would when the puter got fixed
if I felt like it. I offered for you to do research in the meantime.
Hardly 'lying' is it?
> >> Evidence is what drives the JFK conspiracy case - not speculation and
> >> left-wing ideology.
>
> >Is this because you are afraid to admit that most of the backing of
> >the JFK murder came from The Right Wing?
>
> There's quite strong evidence for *precisely* this.
>
Yet you condone the same Right Wing today that has profited from this
execution? with the Bushers?
> But, much like your silly assertion that the conspirators would have involved a
> 17 year old teenager - the idea that I'm responsible for anything done by a
> right-winger is sheerest nonsense.
>
> And you should *agree*. Because if you want to go down that road, I can list
> the atrocities committed in the name of liberalism.
>
> >> >> Tis that simple.
>
> >> >> >One doesn't
> >> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bush'
> >> >> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassinatio=
> >n
> >> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaza.
>
> >> >> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination is l=
> >udi=3D
> >> >crous
> >> >> on the face of it.
>
> >> >> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, nothi=
> >ng =3D
> >> >more.
>
> >> >I don't hate the man.
>
> >> Willing to accuse him of murder... but you don't hate him??? How strange??
>
> >They murdered the most revered person in history, who told us not to
> >hate. People are capable of understanding to hate deeds instead of
> >people. Of course it may be different for Bushites, eh?
>
> Haven't been paying much attention, have you?
>
I think so, maybe you don't understand the Christ??
> >> >I am not even a politcal activist. =A0I just know
> >> >that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
> >> >country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
> >> >control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
> >> >of this nation more third-world like...
>
> >> That's a left-wing agenda.
>
> >You must have gotten an inheritance from H.L. Hunt.
>
> Are you *denying* that it's the far left-wing agenda to de-industrialize
> America?
>
Well that may be another discussion, but I do think of Industrializing
as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>> >> >Yes you did.
>>
>> >> No Curt... I didn't. It's an historical fact that has *NOTHING WHATSOE=
>VER*
>> >> to do with me. Anyone can do the math.
>>
>> >It's not about doing the math, it's about Bushes being involved and
>> >your way of ducking by inserting the younger Bush.
>>
>ar old
>> teenager.
>>
>Here you are again trying to produce a weird piece of propaganda.
>Noone is trying to say that a teenager had anything to do with the
>assassination of JFK on the day of his assassination, or are even
>remotely hinting at that. Yet in all inaneness you seem to think this
>SHOULD be an issue?!
It should be when you don't deny it.
It's been ludicrous from the beginning that you included *BOTH* Bushes in the
JFK assassination.
Pointing out that Bush Jr was only 17 at the time didn't faze you - indeed, you
mentioned that it wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't been born at the time, or
somesuch.
>> You're a kook!
>>
>Your beyond nutty.
My views are fairly mainstream.
>> >> The FACT that Bush Jr. was just 17 in 1963 predates my mention of it
>> >> in this forum. Here's a mention that I Googled that predates this post
>> >> by a few years:
>>
>> >> "That's what makes us so smart. We know that JFK was actually assassin=
>ated
>> >> by a 17-year-old George W. Bush in order ensconce fellow Texan Lyndon
>> >> Johnson in the White House, thus laying the historical background
>> >> necessary to facilitate Lady Bird Johnson=3D92s highway beautification
>> >> scheme years later - a scheme that encourages oil consumption by
>> >> brainwashed pleasure drivers entranced by the wafting aroma of beautif=
>ul
>> >> mind-controlling uber-poppies. Oh, and Halliburton.
>>
>> >> Sometimes you've just got to be proud to be Homo sapiens. We're the sm=
>artest
>> >> apes ever. My sympathy to the chimpanzees."
>>
>> >> I don't have the power to actually "invent" such a historical fact.
>>
>> >I am saying that you did by making a mockery of Non-Bush involvement
>> >by sticking in the President. =A0I even told you that age had nothing to
>> >do with it if he wasn't even born because he could have been an
>> >accessory after the fact.
>>
>> Bush-bashing kook... aren't you?
>>
>Your running from what young Bush could have developed into.
Bush-bashing kook... aren't you?
>You have
>given him a 'full pardon' for consideration of potential Family
>sinisterism that could have been part of his upbringing.
Kindly quote this "full pardon" ...
I know you can't, because you've decided to simply create the facts you need for
your argument. Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>In fact he
>was at an age where he might have even had a hint of what was going on
>if he were able to hear anything say at his household from
>conversation with father Bush and cronies.
Yep... the conspirators were so stupid that they discussed assassination plans
around others not involved.
>I wouldn't call that
>bashing, I would call that being aware of the potential.
I call that being a kook.
>> >> >You asserted that the fact that he was 17 years old at
>> >> >the time was somehow relevant for him escaping any potential
>> >> >involvement in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> >> No, let me make it crystal clear - I LABEL ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT
>> >> CONSPIRATORS IN THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY WOULD INVOLVE A 17
>> >> YEAR OLD KID AS A KOOK.
>>
>> >Who would care what YOU make crystally clear?
>>
>> If you're willing to attempt to assert what I believe, then you'll
>> just have to stand around and listen to a more precise assertion.
>>
>All we know is that what you believe to be what is politically correct
>today would defy what happened in the JFK case with who are the most
>probable suspects in higher echelon government to his demise....and
>what they stood for and what they had to gain.
I have a hard time unraveling that statement.
>> >Like it something to be
>> >reckoned with?! =A0Dream on. =A0Let me assert to avoid the issue of Bush
>> >or any Bush involvement in the assassination of JFK or it's coverup,
>> >that you are like an LNT'er or WC Defender when you think that the
>> >President's character IS NOT involved with his family's past
>> >doings.
>>
>> Nah... I'm just not an American bashing Bush hater...
>>
>But you seem more PRO conspiracy for JFK's demise by not including The
>Bushes.
You're a kook.
Because I don't buy into your anti-American, Bush-bashing leftism... I must be a
part of the conspiracy coverup.
>> Nor, unlike LNT'ers, will I make pronouncements of 'fact' with no
>> evidence.
>>
>Most LNT'ers will run from evidence or not even consider it. Could
>this be your pattern?
When you can produce the evidence that Bush Jr. was involved in the
assassination, I'll certainly consider it.
Until that time, you're a kook who prefers speculation to evidence.
>> >> The idea is beyond ludicrous.
>>
>> >Actually the idea is so probable, that one who didn't want to
>> >investigate is probably an Gov't Agent who is trying to
>> >Disinformationalize the issue.
>>
>> This is what makes you a kook, Curt. The idea that it's even *probable*
>> that a 17 year old kid is being involved in assassinating a President.
>>
>No one even hinted at this, yet you persist in this fallacy.
"Actually the idea is so probable...."
>> Just at a guess, you believe that the government was responsible for
>> bombing the twin towers on 9/11, and the moon landing is a hoax. Just a
>> guess, of course, but it would fit with someone who hates the President
>> so much that he wants to believe him involved in the JFK assassination.
>>
>Why consider these side issues? Of course there were many anomalies
>of the lunar landing that did have to be explained, and having
>buildings topple really don't have anything to do with if there was a
>conspiracy or not on 9/11 is there?
Wow! My crystal ball is working perfectly...
>> >> You have ZERO evidence for his involvement in any way shape or form.
>> >> Nor will you ever provide any.
>>
>> >I will provide tons when my as I have already told you when my
>> >computer is fixed so it won't crash, if I deem it even being
>> >worthwhile to even run across a total BLOCKHEAD like yourself. =A0And it
>> >will be well-documented from REAL JFK assassination researchers.
>>
>> Have a chat with Toddy Vaughn, who is going to correct the record
>> regarding my posts about FBI intimidation - just as soon as he gets
>> to his file cabinet...
>>
>Why? I already believe in intimidation.
That wasn't the point. You, just like Toddy... is going to provide the evidence
when (insert excuse here...)
>I may even believe in more
>than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
>clandestine ruse for all I know.
Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited during my time
with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
My job is to point out flakes like you...
>> He can fill you in on how to keep ducking the issue.
>>
>> >> Your hatred is driving your speculation.
>>
>> >How could I possibly hate just one man when their is so much
>> >dishonesty and disgust in the world, especially in the people that
>> >took over the country on 11/22/63? =A0You even claim dishonesty from
>> >'above' in the autopsy, the Zapruder film alteration and other
>> >issues...
>>
>> Yep... the evidence supports that the Zapruder film was altered, and
>> that some of the autopsy photos & X-rays are altered.
>>
>
>Yet you give a pass to those who might have done this in the upper
>echelon's.
Kook... aren't you?
>> >but you turn turtle when it comes to the effect the murder
>> >had on the public
>>
>> A strange comment that you don't have *ANY* evidence for.
>>
>> My political beliefs are in line with many in America, and have nothing
>> to do with my belief that the evidence proves a conspiracy.
>>
>But how can you say that when 'a' conspiracy was 'a coup d' etat'
>which changed policy for people that were of bad character?
The coup d'etat, which occurred over 40 years ago, doesn't control every facet
of government life today...
Put your aluminum hat back on before you learn the truth...
>> >and you seem to go out of your way to protect those
>> >that are and should and could be prime suspects in that murder.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! I laugh at the suggestion that a 17 year old was a "prime
>> suspect" in the JFK assassination.
>>
>Of course who wouldn't laugh at the absurd suggestion of a 17 year old
>to begin with?
You. Other kooks... Anyone who's hatred of Bush blinds them to everyday facts.
>> >> >You were giving him a perfect
>> >> >teflon shield. =3DA0I simply pointed out it wouldn't matter if he was=
>n't
>> >> >born yet to have potential involvment.
>>
>> >> Yep... I think I'll go around and claim that Barack Obama was involved
>> >> in the assassination. Surely if a 17 year old can be involved, a 2 yea=
>r
>> >> old isn't a stretch.
>>
>> >Why not, when you have the personality and dispostion of a two year
>> >old?!
>>
>> The irony escapes you, doesn't it?
>>
>No, the 'invention' is all yours.
Historical fact cannot, by definition, be *my* invention.
>> >> Fits my conservative agenda too. For clearly, if Obama can be good
>> >> friends with Bill Ayers, being an assassin is not much of a stretch.
>>
>> >Well if Obama is backed by the Rockefeller, and Jesse Ventura comes to
>> >Dealey Plaza and gives speeches about those who assassinated JFK and
>> >how they should be brought to justice.....we can know it's not a
>> >stretch to see what side of justice you are on.
>>
>> And, much in common with other cowards, you'd never have the balls to
>> try saying that to my face.
>>
>I just did. What did you not understand?
Illiteracy *can* be cured.
>> Despite a complete lack of evidence that I've *ever* believed or held
>> LNT'er beliefs.
>>
>Who cares, when you act like one?
Stupidity cannot.
>> >> >> Your a kook to suggest that he was involved in any way shape
>> >> >> or form.
>>
>> >> >You have no idea if he was at all influenced in his upbringing, or
>> >> >grooming for his political life. Your worse than all the President's
>> >> >giving pardons for heinous crimes for a Coup D' Etat on the government
>> >> >and it's continued effect of this country.
>>
>> >> And you're a nutcase.
>>
>> >And you're a poor resercher for not even knowing what kind of CIA life
>> >G.H.W Bush had between 1960-63.
>>
>> I'm always amused at those who bring in non sequiturs when they are
>> being shot down in flames...
>>
>Of course you have to try to defend but claiming ignorance is
>bliss....
Why bother to present a coherent argument when you can simply lie? Right?
>> 17 Year old Bush Jr. was hardly even cognizant of the CIA at that time
>> in his life.
>>
>> I'm well aware of at least two memos that reflect what Bush Sr. was
>> doing during that time. So Curt... you're just a liar.
>>
>Waiting with bated breath. How could I lie, when I do have lots of
>evidence and was willing to dig for it...when you won't?
Talk to Toddy... he'll fill you in on how to keep dragging out the excuses for
the next few years.
The chances of you *EVER* providing evidence for our current President's
involvement in the JFK assassination is next to nil.
>> >> The conspiracy that took the life of JFK doesn't need kooks to explain=
> the
>> >> evidence to lurkers interested in the topic.
>>
>> >They're obviously not listening to you are they? =A0Your posts don't get
>> >much play except for occasional trollism, do they?
>>
>> >> When they see garbage like this - they will simply 'tune out' anything
>> >> else you say because it's clear that you're not playing with a full
>> >> deck.
>>
>> >No, they will know to stay clear from you as they can see more agenda
>> >and flak from you than pure discussion.
>>
>> I cite... you don't. Common thread, isn't it?
>>
>When have you cited here? I told you I would when the puter got fixed
>if I felt like it.
Change "computer" to "file cabinet", and you have Toddy's excuse to a 'T'.
>I offered for you to do research in the meantime.
>Hardly 'lying' is it?
>
>> >> Evidence is what drives the JFK conspiracy case - not speculation and
>> >> left-wing ideology.
>>
>> >Is this because you are afraid to admit that most of the backing of
>> >the JFK murder came from The Right Wing?
>>
>> There's quite strong evidence for *precisely* this.
>>
>Yet you condone the same Right Wing today that has profited from this
>execution? with the Bushers?
White, aren't you? Own any slaves lately? Looking to buy one? Racist, aren't
you?
All true, by *YOUR* standards of proof. Conspirators who were in all likelihood
right-wing conspired to assassinate JFK - so anyone who is rightwing today
"condones" the assassination.
Therefore you must "condone" owning slaves, unless, of course, you're of another
cultural heritage. Tell me which one, and I'll tell you your 'crime'.
>> But, much like your silly assertion that the conspirators would have
>> involved a 17 year old teenager - the idea that I'm responsible for
>> anything done by a right-winger is sheerest nonsense.
>>
>> And you should *agree*. Because if you want to go down that road, I can list
>> the atrocities committed in the name of liberalism.
Or for the mere fact that you're white.
>> >> >> Tis that simple.
>>
>> >> >> >One doesn't
>> >> >> >have to be there or involved in the planning and still be 'non-Bus=
>h'
>> >> >> >and as I showed people can become quite complicit in the assassina=
>tio=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >without being directly involved in the machinations of Dealey Plaz=
>a.
>>
>> >> >> The idea that a 17 year old kid was involved in the assassination i=
>s l=3D
>> >udi=3D3D
>> >> >crous
>> >> >> on the face of it.
>>
>> >> >> That your hatred of Bush doesn't allow you to see this is funny, no=
>thi=3D
>> >ng =3D3D
>> >> >more.
>>
>> >> >I don't hate the man.
>>
>> >> Willing to accuse him of murder... but you don't hate him??? How stran=
>ge??
>>
>> >They murdered the most revered person in history, who told us not to
>> >hate. People are capable of understanding to hate deeds instead of
>> >people. Of course it may be different for Bushites, eh?
>>
>> Haven't been paying much attention, have you?
>>
>I think so,
Clearly not. I voted for Bush because there was nothing better out there, but
he's hardly a conservative in my mold. He's conservative when compared to
Clinton, but he's far to the left of Reagan.
So no, you haven't been paying attention at all. I disagree with Bush on many
of his policies, and support him on others.
>maybe you don't understand the Christ??
Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more than you,
as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. What do you think of
James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly driven by his murder, as
some evidence suggests? What's your opinion of the position of the Desposyni in
the first few centuries, and what do you think that signifies? What do you
think of the two Messiah idea, and what faction would you correlate it with?
Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a new thread.
>> >> >I am not even a politcal activist. =3DA0I just know
>> >> >that there are reasons why things have changed dramatically in this
>> >> >country...from a country that was strong, now being an oligarchy of
>> >> >control for a few, and making it apparent that it wants the citizenry
>> >> >of this nation more third-world like...
>>
>> >> That's a left-wing agenda.
>>
>> >You must have gotten an inheritance from H.L. Hunt.
>>
>> Are you *denying* that it's the far left-wing agenda to de-industrialize
>> America?
>>
>Well that may be another discussion,
An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you?
The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite idea in the
extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, isn't the solution
in their minds, since we should be going back to bicycles.
>but I do think of Industrializing
>as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
Wow! I've never seen such disparate ideas confused with each other...
>CJ
>
>> If so, it merely illustrates how far you're willing to lie ...>CJ
>>
>> >> >and the Bushes are in the
>> >> >middle of the cabal that perpetuates it's will on the people of this
>> >> >nation and the world, with the elimination of JFK just one more thing
>> >> >on their long list of agendi.
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> >People side with the Conspirators all the time, knowingly and
>> >> >> >unknowingly. =3D3DA0 I think you should know better in your siding=
> with=3D
>> > the
>> >> >> >Bush Regime. =3D3DA0In fact it's a downright shame, when you know =
>so mu=3D
curtjester1
>
> >I may even believe in more
> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>
> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited during my time
> with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>
know why you double-speak with ease.
> My job is to point out flakes like you...
Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
at this site anymore.
>
> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>
> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more than you,
> as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. What do you think of
> James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly driven by his murder, as
> some evidence suggests? What's your opinion of the position of the Desposyni in
> the first few centuries, and what do you think that signifies? What do you
> think of the two Messiah idea, and what faction would you correlate it with?
>
> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a new thread.
Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
the holy land. It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
Luke 21, and Matt. 24. Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
I don't know who Desposyni.
Well, I don't know if the two Messiah idea coincides with the two-
Oswald idea...but....
Since the prophecies contain the room for many false Messiahs, and the
latter anti-christs....I think that one would be too subjective.
>
> >Well that may be another discussion,
>
> An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you?
>
> The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite idea in the
> extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, isn't the solution
> in their minds, since we should be going back to bicycles.
>
Well most of the CIA is going to support people who like imperialism
at practically any cost with no scrupples....
I have no particular viewpoint on oil, as I don't know that it's safe
for the environment. I don't think the oil companies care, and non-
oil would be nice to implement without oil company issues....
> >but I do think of Industrializing
> >as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
>
> Wow! I've never seen such disparate ideas confused with each other...>CJ
Gee, I could have added self-interest, murder for hire, flooding
markets, causing horrendous problems that cause people to sell
stocks...but the leftists sometimes get caught in those hijinkes
too.....
My time is up as the puter usually crashes within 10 minutes. CIA
bashing over in the Bay of Pigs topic if it interests you...:)
BTW, I am probably one of the most watched people on the planet. You
better put me at the top of your list, Agent Benzadrine
CJ
Ben Holmes
Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my statements.
Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the coward is
running from...
In article <a1efab5d-d21f-4b0c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>>
>> >I may even believe in more
>> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
>> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>>
>> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
>> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>>
>Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
>know why you double-speak with ease.
It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>
>Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
>at this site anymore.
Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with respect to the
assassination of JFK.
>> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>>
>> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more
>> than you, as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. What
>> do you think of James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly
>> driven by his murder, as some evidence suggests? What's your opinion
>> of the position of the Desposyni in the first few centuries, and what
>> do you think that signifies? What do you think of the two Messiah idea,
>> and what faction would you correlate it with?
>>
>> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a
>> new thread.
>
>Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
>hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
Another complete non-sequitur.
I've said nothing on the topic, and you've presumed again...
>James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
>the holy land.
The first leader after Jesus of the movement started under his name, and he's of
no consequence.
Well, that defines your knowledge of early Christianity...
>It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
>Luke 21, and Matt. 24.
All of which *POSTDATE* the war.
>Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
>territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
Another non-sequitur... I'm speaking of the war, not "control." You *do*
realize that there was a war with Rome beginning in 66 AD, right?
>I don't know who Desposyni.
Thankyou for your honesty. Easily Googled.
I was, in effect, asking you what your thoughts were on the fact that the
movement founded by Jesus was controlled by members of his family for several
hundred years. His brother James was merely the first.
>Well, I don't know if the two Messiah idea coincides with the two-
>Oswald idea...but....
There were, of course, *many* historical messiah's... Jesus was merely one of
them. I referred to the Essene scripture where the concept of *two* redeeming
messiah's are to be found, one from the line of David, and one from the line of
Aaron. King and Priest.
Jesus, it has been presumed by some evidence, merged both lines ... Mary might
well have descended from the line of Aaron according to some evidence.
>Since the prophecies contain the room for many false Messiahs, and the
>latter anti-christs....I think that one would be too subjective.
>
>
>>
>> >Well that may be another discussion,
>>
>> An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you?
>>
>> The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite idea
>> in the extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, isn't
>> the solution in their minds, since we should be going back to bicycles.
>>
>Well most of the CIA is going to support people who like imperialism
>at practically any cost with no scrupples....
>
>I have no particular viewpoint on oil, as I don't know that it's safe
>for the environment. I don't think the oil companies care, and non-
>oil would be nice to implement without oil company issues....
Well, ignorance can always be cured.
>> >but I do think of Industrializing
>> >as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
>>
>> Wow! I've never seen such disparate ideas confused with each other...
>CJ
>
>Gee, I could have added self-interest, murder for hire, flooding
>markets, causing horrendous problems that cause people to sell
>stocks...but the leftists sometimes get caught in those hijinkes
>too.....
>
>My time is up as the puter usually crashes within 10 minutes. CIA
>bashing over in the Bay of Pigs topic if it interests you...:)
>
>BTW, I am probably one of the most watched people on the planet.
No, we're keeping a closer eye on Gil Jesus. He worries us. Those videos are
too convincing...
But keep your aluminum foil hat on - we can't see or influence you when you do
that.
muc...@gmail.com
> Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my statements.
> Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the coward is
> running from...
>
> curtjester1 says...
>
> >> >I may even believe in more
> >> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
> >> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>
> >> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
> >> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>
> >Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
> >know why you double-speak with ease.
>
> It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>
> >> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>
> >Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
> >at this site anymore.
>
> Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
>
> You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with respect to the
> assassination of JFK.
Wasn't this done by several posters in regard to your *Lady in Yellow
Pants* theory?
Note to lurkers: Ben was arguing (a few months ago) that the presence
of a certain figure in Nix and not Zapruder proved that one or both
films were altered. When that idea was shot down by (most notably) Tim
Brennan, the cowardly response by Ben was to "killfile" him.
curtjester1
> Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my statements.
> Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the coward is
> running from...
>
to stupid, inaneness, it's usually welcomed, right invisible-in-Ben's-
imagination lurkers?
> In article <a1efab5d-d21f-4b0c-9784-a0ec8084d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
> >> >I may even believe in more
> >> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
> >> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>
> >> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
> >> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>
> >Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
> >know why you double-speak with ease.
>
> It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>
LHO has been known to be much slicker than this demonstration of what
drunkards often do when they have imbibed....blab about the crimes
they have committed.
> >> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>
> >Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
> >at this site anymore.
>
> Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
>
How is one to even believe anything you say when you have divulged
your motive to be agency-agenda orientated? We know the agency is
noted for lying for any means to further their goals, tries to
infiltrate universitites and media to control thought processes not to
mention use dupes for patsys. At least we have to be veddy veddy
careful for Agent Benny may havea file going for yuze.
> You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with respect to the
> assassination of JFK.
>
I generally think you do a good job with JFK stuff. Why don't you go
over to the 'Bay of Pigs' topic and help your comrades, they are
taking a beating? G.W.H. Bush is lagging in the ratings as well.
> >> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>
> >> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more
> >> than you, as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. What
> >> do you think of James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly
> >> driven by his murder, as some evidence suggests? What's your opinion
> >> of the position of the Desposyni in the first few centuries, and what
> >> do you think that signifies? What do you think of the two Messiah idea,
> >> and what faction would you correlate it with?
>
> >> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a
> >> new thread.
>
> >Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
> >hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
>
> Another complete non-sequitur.
>
It's one of the most primary doctrines of the Christ if not the most.
Of course that's in the Gospel's that are widely known.
> I've said nothing on the topic, and you've presumed again...
If you didn't, I did, and you commented.
>
> >James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
> >the holy land.
>
> The first leader after Jesus of the movement started under his name, and he's of
> no consequence.
>
Well he wrote a book of the Bible. I would think he would be of the
body of elders initiated right after Penecost. I would think that he
would be just one of the twelve, and not near as a headliner as Paul.
> Well, that defines your knowledge of early Christianity...
>
Actually, the early Christians would not 'hail Caesar' nor go into the
military. That is very well documented.......
> >It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
> >Luke 21, and Matt. 24.
>
> All of which *POSTDATE* the war.
>
Hardly. The were the exact words of Jesus that pre-dated his death.
In order for the prophecy to come to fruition....the matter of
escaping Jerusualem would have to be understood by the Chrisians in
order for them to escape in time. This came true, as Jesus said the
disgusting thing causing desolation would come and leave...so that was
the prophecy and their signal to escape. Genera Titus came and
surrounded Jerusalem in 66 A.D., inexplicably left, and then came back
in 70 A.D. and left no stone unturned. The believing and acting with
faith Chrisians, escaped.
> >Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
> >territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
>
> Another non-sequitur... I'm speaking of the war, not "control." You *do*
> realize that there was a war with Rome beginning in 66 AD, right?
>
Yes, but the warring factions were not Christians...only the ones that
were not heeding Jesus' words.
> >I don't know who Desposyni.
>
> Thankyou for your honesty. Easily Googled.
>
I am always honest. It's your agenda,wavering mind that wants to
somehow find 'dishonesty'.
> I was, in effect, asking you what your thoughts were on the fact that the
> movement founded by Jesus was controlled by members of his family for several
> hundred years. His brother James was merely the first.
>
> >Well, I don't know if the two Messiah idea coincides with the two-
> >Oswald idea...but....
>
> There were, of course, *many* historical messiah's... Jesus was merely one of
> them. I referred to the Essene scripture where the concept of *two* redeeming
> messiah's are to be found, one from the line of David, and one from the line of
> Aaron. King and Priest.
>
Satan is one tricky dude.
> Jesus, it has been presumed by some evidence, merged both lines ... Mary might
> well have descended from the line of Aaron according to some evidence.
>
Mary's lineage is documented in Scripture I believe. David's line
usually was the barometer. Aaron was prior to David, and don't know
if he was in Abraham's line.
>
>
>
>
> >Since the prophecies contain the room for many false Messiahs, and the
> >latter anti-christs....I think that one would be too subjective.
>
> >> >Well that may be another discussion,
>
> >> An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you?
>
> >> The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite idea
> >> in the extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, isn't
> >> the solution in their minds, since we should be going back to bicycles.
>
> >Well most of the CIA is going to support people who like imperialism
> >at practically any cost with no scrupples....
>
> >I have no particular viewpoint on oil, as I don't know that it's safe
> >for the environment. I don't think the oil companies care, and non-
> >oil would be nice to implement without oil company issues....
>
> Well, ignorance can always be cured.
>
Well, we can't let the oil companies hold any sacredness can we? I
think they would kill their mother's for the last drop of oil not
caring about the environment or people that might have better ideas
with lesser money and power.
> >> >but I do think of Industrializing
> >> >as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
>
> >> Wow! I've never seen such disparate ideas confused with each other...
> >CJ
>
> >Gee, I could have added self-interest, murder for hire, flooding
> >markets, causing horrendous problems that cause people to sell
> >stocks...but the leftists sometimes get caught in those hijinkes
> >too.....
>
> >My time is up as the puter usually crashes within 10 minutes. CIA
> >bashing over in the Bay of Pigs topic if it interests you...:)
>
> >BTW, I am probably one of the most watched people on the planet.
>
> No, we're keeping a closer eye on Gil Jesus. He worries us. Those videos are
> too convincing...
>
Good, I have enough with that. I think Gil would be huge in the
Establishmen't concern. He is getting a lot of hits, and I am one big
fan.
> But keep your aluminum foil hat on - we can't see or influence you when you do
> that.
>
I know I am on the right side, and when David Healy says disinfo
people use condescending tactics for their CIA-type of agendaizing, I
pay attention.
CJ
>
>
> >You better put me at the top of your list, Agent Benzadrine
>
> >CJ- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 17, 8:39=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my statem=
>ents.
>> Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the coward=
> is
>> running from...
>>
>Snipping is just a way of cleaning up a messy post, And when it comes
>to stupid, inaneness, it's usually welcomed, right invisible-in-Ben's-
>imagination lurkers?
There's never a problem with snipping *OLD* content - but when you use un-noted
snipping to snip comments that you simply don't care to answer - it's dishonest,
and I'll point it out.
As merely one example, you'd claimed I'd said something, and I asked you to cite
it - rather than cite it, or retract your statement, you merely snipped it.
Cowardly, and dishonest. Tis that simple.
>> In article <a1efab5d-d21f-4b0c-9784-a0ec8084d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >I may even believe in more
>> >> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
>> >> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>>
>> >> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
>> >> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>>
>> >Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
>> >know why you double-speak with ease.
>>
>> It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>>
>LHO has been known to be much slicker than this demonstration of what
>drunkards often do when they have imbibed....blab about the crimes
>they have committed.
My last job in the Corps was Battalion 'SACO'... "Substance Abuse Control
Officer". Very difficult to be a SACO and a drunk at the same time.
>> >> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>>
>> >Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
>> >at this site anymore.
>>
>> Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
>>
>How is one to even believe anything you say when you have divulged
>your motive to be agency-agenda orientated?
Kook, aren't you?
>We know the agency is
>noted for lying for any means to further their goals, tries to
>infiltrate universitites and media to control thought processes not to
>mention use dupes for patsys. At least we have to be veddy veddy
>careful for Agent Benny may havea file going for yuze.
Ah! It seems that Cutsy can't remember my name. Congratulations, you now join
Toddy, Buddy, and many other trolls too numerous to remember - all who can't
remember someone's name.
>> You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with respect =
>to the
>> assassination of JFK.
>>
>I generally think you do a good job with JFK stuff. Why don't you go
>over to the 'Bay of Pigs' topic and help your comrades, they are
>taking a beating? G.W.H. Bush is lagging in the ratings as well.
The 'Bay of Pigs' isn't a topic of interest to me. I generally prefer the
photographic and medical evidence... as well as the obvious places where the WCR
lied to the public.
That, and exposing kooks...
>> >> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>>
>> >> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more
>> >> than you, as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. Wha=
>t
>> >> do you think of James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly
>> >> driven by his murder, as some evidence suggests? What's your opinion
>> >> of the position of the Desposyni in the first few centuries, and what
>> >> do you think that signifies? What do you think of the two Messiah idea=
>,
>> >> and what faction would you correlate it with?
>>
>> >> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a
>> >> new thread.
>>
>> >Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
>> >hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
>>
>> Another complete non-sequitur.
>>
>It's one of the most primary doctrines of the Christ if not the most.
>Of course that's in the Gospel's that are widely known.
I repeat, a complete non-sequitur. You're quite obviously completely unaware of
his gospel of the kingdom - which permeated almost everything he said and did.
What an embarrassing lack of knowledge from someone proclaiming his
Christianity.
>> I've said nothing on the topic, and you've presumed again...
>
>If you didn't, I did, and you commented.
Yep... I commented that you brought it up as if I'd demonstrated a lack of
knowledge on it.
As you just have with the Kingdom of God.
>> >James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
>> >the holy land.
>>
>> The first leader after Jesus of the movement started under his name,
>> and he's of no consequence.
>>
>Well he wrote a book of the Bible. I would think he would be of the
>body of elders initiated right after Penecost. I would think that he
>would be just one of the twelve, and not near as a headliner as Paul.
Paul, in fact; makes it clear that he needed the approval of the elders in
Jerusalem - headed by, none other than James the Just. (Although he *also*
denigrates that he needed their approval...)
>> Well, that defines your knowledge of early Christianity...
>>
>Actually, the early Christians would not 'hail Caesar' nor go into the
>military. That is very well documented.......
>
>
>> >It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
>> >Luke 21, and Matt. 24.
>>
>> All of which *POSTDATE* the war.
>>
>Hardly.
Sorry... you're on quicksand when you try to claim that the scriptures you
mention predate the war with Rome beginning in 66 AD. There is *NO* scholarship
that you can cite.
>The were the exact words of Jesus that pre-dated his death.
>In order for the prophecy to come to fruition....the matter of
>escaping Jerusualem would have to be understood by the Chrisians in
>order for them to escape in time. This came true, as Jesus said the
>disgusting thing causing desolation would come and leave...so that was
>the prophecy and their signal to escape. Genera Titus came and
>surrounded Jerusalem in 66 A.D., inexplicably left, and then came back
>in 70 A.D. and left no stone unturned. The believing and acting with
>faith Chrisians, escaped.
>
>> >Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
>> >territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
>>
>> Another non-sequitur... I'm speaking of the war, not "control." You *do*
>> realize that there was a war with Rome beginning in 66 AD, right?
>>
>Yes, but the warring factions were not Christians...only the ones that
>were not heeding Jesus' words.
Another non-sequitur. I asked you if the murder of James was the 'straw that
broke the camel's back' and began the war with Rome. You seem to be like most
people, completely ignorant of 1st century Christianity and history.
>> >I don't know who Desposyni.
>>
>> Thankyou for your honesty. Easily Googled.
>>
>I am always honest. It's your agenda,wavering mind that wants to
>somehow find 'dishonesty'.
It's not hard to find... you've snipped some examples of YOUR dishonesty
already.
>> I was, in effect, asking you what your thoughts were on the fact that the
>> movement founded by Jesus was controlled by members of his family for
>> several hundred years. His brother James was merely the first.
>>
>> >Well, I don't know if the two Messiah idea coincides with the two-
>> >Oswald idea...but....
>>
>> There were, of course, *many* historical messiah's... Jesus was merely
>> one of them. I referred to the Essene scripture where the concept of
>> *two* redeeming messiah's are to be found, one from the line of David,
>> and one from the line of Aaron. King and Priest.
>
>Satan is one tricky dude.
>
>> Jesus, it has been presumed by some evidence, merged both lines ... Mary
>> might well have descended from the line of Aaron according to some evidence.
>>
>Mary's lineage is documented in Scripture I believe. David's line
>usually was the barometer. Aaron was prior to David, and don't know
>if he was in Abraham's line.
>
>> >Since the prophecies contain the room for many false Messiahs, and the
>> >latter anti-christs....I think that one would be too subjective.
>>
>> >> >Well that may be another discussion,
>>
>> >> An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you?
>>
>> >> The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite id=
>ea
>> >> in the extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, isn'=
>t
>> >> the solution in their minds, since we should be going back to bicycles=
>.
>>
>> >Well most of the CIA is going to support people who like imperialism
>> >at practically any cost with no scrupples....
>>
>> >I have no particular viewpoint on oil, as I don't know that it's safe
>> >for the environment. =A0I don't think the oil companies care, and non-
>> >oil would be nice to implement without oil company issues....
>>
>> Well, ignorance can always be cured.
>>
>Well, we can't let the oil companies hold any sacredness can we? I
>think they would kill their mother's for the last drop of oil not
>caring about the environment or people that might have better ideas
>with lesser money and power.
Hate corporations, don't you?
>> >> >but I do think of Industrializing
>> >> >as sometimes monopolistic, stifling, and communistic...
>>
>> >> Wow! I've never seen such disparate ideas confused with each other...
>> >CJ
>>
>> >Gee, I could have added self-interest, murder for hire, flooding
>> >markets, causing horrendous problems that cause people to sell
>> >stocks...but the leftists sometimes get caught in those hijinkes
>> >too.....
>>
>> >My time is up as the puter usually crashes within 10 minutes. =A0CIA
>> >bashing over in the Bay of Pigs topic if it interests you...:)
>>
>> >BTW, I am probably one of the most watched people on the planet.
>>
>> No, we're keeping a closer eye on Gil Jesus. He worries us. Those videos are
>> too convincing...
>>
>Good, I have enough with that. I think Gil would be huge in the
>Establishmen't concern. He is getting a lot of hits, and I am one big
>fan.
>
>> But keep your aluminum foil hat on - we can't see or influence you
>> when you do that.
>>
>I know I am on the right side, and when David Healy says disinfo
>people use condescending tactics for their CIA-type of agendaizing, I
>pay attention.
>
>CJ
>
>>
>>
>> >You better put me at the top of your list, Agent Benzadrine
>>
>> >CJ
Well, I think that this has gone as far as it can go, Cutsy...
curtjester1
> In article <9ec1c9b5-6ada-464f-b746-42a217daa...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
> >On Jul 17, 8:39=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my statem=
> >ents.
> >> Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the coward=
> > is
> >> running from...
>
> >Snipping is just a way of cleaning up a messy post, And when it comes
> >to stupid, inaneness, it's usually welcomed, right invisible-in-Ben's-
> >imagination lurkers?
>
> There's never a problem with snipping *OLD* content - but when you use un-noted
> snipping to snip comments that you simply don't care to answer - it's dishonest,
> and I'll point it out.
>
non-answering yourself, which is just fine. It's not dishonest
especially, it just means you don't think the material is worthy. It
could be a duck, but a bad habit of yours is assuming that the person
is dishonest. That's a terrible character flaw, which imputes that
the person has a bad motive. All of anybody who disagrees or is not
in your style..is lying or being a coward, or something of that
nature. Tis the only reason you can hangout here, because you can get
away with all that 'offensive' behavior. I like top posters because
there is immediate clarity and it saves time and effort for the reader
many times. It's just a style, not a Ben-right or Ben-wrong thing.
> As merely one example, you'd claimed I'd said something, and I asked you to cite
> it - rather than cite it, or retract your statement, you merely snipped it.
>
> Cowardly, and dishonest. Tis that simple.
>
There you go again. My computer already crashed in trying to answer
this. I just don't have time or I don't care, or I may not even want
to cite because I think people should by the author's book who took
all the time to verify it, and should be compensated for it. You
don't think. You just lash.
> >> In article <a1efab5d-d21f-4b0c-9784-a0ec8084d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> curtjester1 says...
>
> >> >> >I may even believe in more
> >> >> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as a
> >> >> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>
> >> >> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
> >> >> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>
> >> >Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
> >> >know why you double-speak with ease.
>
> >> It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>
> >LHO has been known to be much slicker than this demonstration of what
> >drunkards often do when they have imbibed....blab about the crimes
> >they have committed.
>
> My last job in the Corps was Battalion 'SACO'... "Substance Abuse Control
> Officer". Very difficult to be a SACO and a drunk at the same time.
>
That's fine and I was only tongue-in-cheek as anybody would know, but
the fact remains you divulged to us a status beyond that, and that
includes people in that organization who purposely set themselves up
as moles to gather informtion or effect agendas. Those kinds of
people especially here, would not be trusted as much as an ordinary
citizen, generally.
> >> >> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>
> >> >Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
> >> >at this site anymore.
>
> >> Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
>
> >How is one to even believe anything you say when you have divulged
> >your motive to be agency-agenda orientated?
>
> Kook, aren't you?
>
See, you won't answer the obvious that people would want to know, with
a name-call. I just call that a piece of bad character.
> >We know the agency is
> >noted for lying for any means to further their goals, tries to
> >infiltrate universitites and media to control thought processes not to
> >mention use dupes for patsys. At least we have to be veddy veddy
> >careful for Agent Benny may havea file going for yuze.
>
> Ah! It seems that Cutsy can't remember my name. Congratulations, you now join
> Toddy, Buddy, and many other trolls too numerous to remember - all who can't
> remember someone's name.
>
Well, sometimes Walt calls Anthony Marsh, Agent Mush. I think 'we'
get the idea.
> >> You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with respect =
> >to the
> >> assassination of JFK.
>
> >I generally think you do a good job with JFK stuff. Why don't you go
> >over to the 'Bay of Pigs' topic and help your comrades, they are
> >taking a beating? G.W.H. Bush is lagging in the ratings as well.
>
> The 'Bay of Pigs' isn't a topic of interest to me. I generally prefer the
> photographic and medical evidence... as well as the obvious places where the WCR
> lied to the public.
>
I especially like your research there. I do wonder why you might not
care for all the CIA atrocities that dealt with Cuba, and BoP?
> That, and exposing kooks...
>
I get no thrill in exposing, as there is so much that people wrongly
say. I think truth should be defened as far as what we can deem what
truth is.
> >> >> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>
> >> >> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more
> >> >> than you, as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. Wha=
> >t
> >> >> do you think of James? Do you think that the war with Rome was truly
> >> >> driven by his murder, as some evidence suggests? What's your opinion
> >> >> of the position of the Desposyni in the first few centuries, and what
> >> >> do you think that signifies? What do you think of the two Messiah idea=
> >,
> >> >> and what faction would you correlate it with?
>
> >> >> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a
> >> >> new thread.
>
> >> >Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
> >> >hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
>
> >> Another complete non-sequitur.
>
> >It's one of the most primary doctrines of the Christ if not the most.
> >Of course that's in the Gospel's that are widely known.
>
> I repeat, a complete non-sequitur. You're quite obviously completely unaware of
> his gospel of the kingdom - which permeated almost everything he said and did.
>
It's not non-sequitur when you say that I should hate Bush. That's a
false accusation and that's what I backed it up with. You just don't
want to defend it.
> What an embarrassing lack of knowledge from someone proclaiming his
> Christianity.
>
I have preached a lot of Gospel in my day, and I defend the Word with
anybody.
> >> I've said nothing on the topic, and you've presumed again...
>
> >If you didn't, I did, and you commented.
>
> Yep... I commented that you brought it up as if I'd demonstrated a lack of
> knowledge on it.
>
Not true. It stemmed what you thought I was in regards of what I
should have felt for Bush. I do admit, I think he has a lot of
confessing up to do.
> As you just have with the Kingdom of God.
>
You broached the topic after that....I have only responded.
> >> >James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
> >> >the holy land.
>
> >> The first leader after Jesus of the movement started under his name,
> >> and he's of no consequence.
>
> >Well he wrote a book of the Bible. I would think he would be of the
> >body of elders initiated right after Penecost. I would think that he
> >would be just one of the twelve, and not near as a headliner as Paul.
>
> Paul, in fact; makes it clear that he needed the approval of the elders in
> Jerusalem - headed by, none other than James the Just. (Although he *also*
> denigrates that he needed their approval...)
>
Ok....
> >> Well, that defines your knowledge of early Christianity...
>
> >Actually, the early Christians would not 'hail Caesar' nor go into the
> >military. That is very well documented.......
>
> >> >It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
> >> >Luke 21, and Matt. 24.
>
> >> All of which *POSTDATE* the war.
>
> >Hardly.
>
> Sorry... you're on quicksand when you try to claim that the scriptures you
> mention predate the war with Rome beginning in 66 AD. There is *NO* scholarship
> that you can cite.
>
You can't support a theory like that on when things were written
down. These people were leaders in the new Christian Congregation,
and held meetings and had their messages listened to time and again.
It's obvious again, that Jesus gave the words as a warning. It would
hardly be effective for them to escape the Roman Armies if they did
not heed that message from him, would it?
> >The were the exact words of Jesus that pre-dated his death.
> >In order for the prophecy to come to fruition....the matter of
> >escaping Jerusualem would have to be understood by the Chrisians in
> >order for them to escape in time. This came true, as Jesus said the
> >disgusting thing causing desolation would come and leave...so that was
> >the prophecy and their signal to escape. Genera Titus came and
> >surrounded Jerusalem in 66 A.D., inexplicably left, and then came back
> >in 70 A.D. and left no stone unturned. The believing and acting with
> >faith Chrisians, escaped.
>
> >> >Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
> >> >territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
>
> >> Another non-sequitur... I'm speaking of the war, not "control." You *do*
> >> realize that there was a war with Rome beginning in 66 AD, right?
>
> >Yes, but the warring factions were not Christians...only the ones that
> >were not heeding Jesus' words.
>
> Another non-sequitur. I asked you if the murder of James was the 'straw that
> broke the camel's back' and began the war with Rome. You seem to be like most
> people, completely ignorant of 1st century Christianity and history.
>
I don't recall you asking, that. I would say no. Paul's death by
beheading didn't, why would the death of James? Christians didn't go
warring against anyone. They actually practiced the teachings of
Christianity.
> >> >I don't know who Desposyni.
>
> >> Thankyou for your honesty. Easily Googled.
>
> >I am always honest. It's your agenda,wavering mind that wants to
> >somehow find 'dishonesty'.
>
> It's not hard to find... you've snipped some examples of YOUR dishonesty
> already.
>
I will snip and always snip. Again it's only your very one-sided
thinking that has always imagined that.
Well, I don't claim to know how the world is best goverened for
efficiency, but I do like Ma and Pop. I don't like corporations
owning all the prime real estate on freeways and the best road
locations when I know that Mom and Pa could do the same thing if they
had the opportunity. I don't like wealth being passed on to wealth
to keep laws in favor of themselves and enslaving and deceiving the
public. So, my answer is no, but I don't know how much of a no it
is. I don't think of political parties or ideologies, I think of
'whatever is fair.'
>
> Well, I think that this has gone as far as it can go, Cutsy...
I am holding you to it.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 17, 6:29=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <9ec1c9b5-6ada-464f-b746-42a217daa...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 17, 8:39=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> Curt has been snipping without notice, and running from many of my sta=
>tem=3D
>> >ents.
>> >> Be sure to compare this post with the previous one to see what the cow=
>ard=3D
>> > is
>> >> running from...
>>
>> >Snipping is just a way of cleaning up a messy post, =A0And when it comes
>> >to stupid, inaneness, it's usually welcomed, right invisible-in-Ben's-
>> >imagination lurkers?
>>
>> There's never a problem with snipping *OLD* content - but when you use
>> un-noted snipping to snip comments that you simply don't care to answer
>> - it's dishonest, and I'll point it out.
>>
>Really there is no proper way of posting.
You know, I know, and anyone with half a brain knows that you were dishonest
with your snipping.
Don't bother to try spinning it.
Tell you what - why don't you bring the original post before you snipped it to
your pastor, minister, or whomever you trust in religious guidance - and then
put *THIS* post next to it, and have *THEM* comment privately to you?
>For one thing you do some
>non-answering yourself, which is just fine.
And it's *IMMEDIATELY* noticeable to anyone who reads the replies.
By snipping, you've made it invisible. So don't be the hypocrite.
You didn't want to provide responses, it's dishonest to hide that fact.
>It's not dishonest
>especially, it just means you don't think the material is worthy.
Of *course* you wouldn't... you got caught trying to assert something I've never
said, and didn't want to look stupid when you couldn't supply the citation.
>It could be a duck, but a bad habit of yours is assuming that the person
>is dishonest.
If you *were* honest, you'd have retracted your statement, or provided a
citation - not run from it.
>That's a terrible character flaw, which imputes that
>the person has a bad motive.
By all means, offer any *reasonable* motive, let's see if anyone will believe
it.
>All of anybody who disagrees or is not
>in your style..is lying or being a coward, or something of that
>nature.
You asserted something I'd never said. That's dishonest on the face of it,
particularly when after it's pointed out, instead of retracting, you hide it.
>Tis the only reason you can hangout here, because you can get
>away with all that 'offensive' behavior. I like top posters because
>there is immediate clarity and it saves time and effort for the reader
>many times. It's just a style, not a Ben-right or Ben-wrong thing.
I didn't accuse you of top-posting, I asserted that you'd snipped material
before anyone could see that you were refusing to respond to it.
>> As merely one example, you'd claimed I'd said something, and I asked
>> you to cite it - rather than cite it, or retract your statement, you
>> merely snipped it.
>>
>> Cowardly, and dishonest. Tis that simple.
>>
>
>There you go again. My computer already crashed in trying to answer
>this. I just don't have time or I don't care, or I may not even want
>to cite because I think people should by the author's book who took
>all the time to verify it, and should be compensated for it. You
>don't think. You just lash.
You got caught in a lie, Cutsy. I know it's embarrassing, but it wouldn't be at
all if you'd merely retracted it.
>> >> In article <a1efab5d-d21f-4b0c-9784-a0ec8084d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >I may even believe in more
>> >> >> >than that.... You could even work for the FBI and are just here as=
> a
>> >> >> >clandestine ruse for all I know.
>>
>> >> >> Nope... I'm with a special branch of the CIA. I was recruited
>> >> >> during my time with the Marine Corps - just like Oswald.
>>
>> >> >Wow, we have a confession here, folks! A moment of weakness? Now we
>> >> >know why you double-speak with ease.
>>
>> >> It's not difficult to isolate the kooks... as just demonstrated.
>>
>> >LHO has been known to be much slicker than this demonstration of what
>> >drunkards often do when they have imbibed....blab about the crimes
>> >they have committed.
>>
>> My last job in the Corps was Battalion 'SACO'... "Substance Abuse Control
>> Officer". Very difficult to be a SACO and a drunk at the same time.
>>
>That's fine and I was only tongue-in-cheek as anybody would know,
Actually, Cutsy; were you to know anything at all about the CIA, you'd know that
they don't casually reveal themselves to be "secret agents", and when they were
"recruited"
But you fell hard right into that kook trap.
>but the fact remains you divulged to us a status beyond that, and that
>includes people in that organization who purposely set themselves up
>as moles to gather informtion or effect agendas.
Yep... we're targeting Gil for his highly effective videos. (Watch out, Gil!)
>Those kinds of people especially here, would not be trusted as much as
>an ordinary citizen, generally.
The only person who's *really* admitted to having worked with the CIA is such a
doofus that I doubt that anyone does much more than laugh at him. Eddy
"Disgrace" Dolan.
You see, the *TRUTH* is a powerful weapon.
>> >> >> My job is to point out flakes like you...
>>
>> >> >Well, your job is more difficult since you simply have NO credibility
>> >> >at this site anymore.
>>
>> >> Sadly for kooks like you, this isn't alt.politics.leftist
>>
>> >How is one to even believe anything you say when you have divulged
>> >your motive to be agency-agenda orientated?
>>
>> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>See, you won't answer the obvious that people would want to know, with
>a name-call. I just call that a piece of bad character.
I'm pointing out the obvious, that you're world-view has you so blinded that you
accept virtually *any* statement as long as it fits your preconceived notions.
This is why you so readily accepted my "admission" that I'm a CIA agent.
Were I to tell you that I'm a Baptist preacher - such a concept, merged with my
obviously right-wing conservatism - wouldn't fit - and you'd immediately
disbelieve it. Were I to tell you that I'm George Christie's deputy in the
Ventura chapter of the Hell's Angels, again - it wouldn't make any sense, and
you'd rightfully doubt such an assertion.
But you clearly despise conservatives, corporations, and the government - so my
"admission" that I was recruited into the CIA while serving in another
institution that finds no favor among the left was entirely believable to you,
and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
But the JFK case isn't about the political spectrum, it's about historical
truth... and truth is defined by the evidence... not by fanaticism or faith.
>> >We know the agency is
>> >noted for lying for any means to further their goals, tries to
>> >infiltrate universitites and media to control thought processes not to
>> >mention use dupes for patsys. =A0At least we have to be veddy veddy
>> >careful for Agent Benny may havea file going for yuze.
>>
>> Ah! It seems that Cutsy can't remember my name. Congratulations, you now join
>> Toddy, Buddy, and many other trolls too numerous to remember - all who can't
>> remember someone's name.
>>
>Well, sometimes Walt calls Anthony Marsh, Agent Mush. I think 'we'
>get the idea.
I really don't answer for Walt - but I have *NEVER* called someone by other than
their given name until they decided that they couldn't remember and use mine.
So "Cutsy" it is...
>> >> You can't refute WITH CITATION a *SINGLE* thing I've argued with
>> >> respect to the assassination of JFK.
>>
>> >I generally think you do a good job with JFK stuff. Why don't you go
>> >over to the 'Bay of Pigs' topic and help your comrades, they are
>> >taking a beating? G.W.H. Bush is lagging in the ratings as well.
>>
>> The 'Bay of Pigs' isn't a topic of interest to me. I generally prefer the
>> photographic and medical evidence... as well as the obvious places where
>> the WCR lied to the public.
>>
>
>I especially like your research there. I do wonder why you might not
>care for all the CIA atrocities that dealt with Cuba, and BoP?
You see? There you go with your fanaticism reading all sorts of things into my
preferences.
The simple fact is that "CIA atrocities" and the BOP are prone to opinion and
speculation - but *NO-ONE* can argue with the alteration of the extant Z-film.
The facts are simply there.
When you mention "CIA atrocities," the next person will come along and simply
say that you know 10% of the facts... and they'd be right.
Does "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail" ring a bell?
>> That, and exposing kooks...
>>
>I get no thrill in exposing, as there is so much that people wrongly
>say. I think truth should be defened as far as what we can deem what
>truth is.
The *truth* is that you've misrepresented what I've stated, then snipped it
rather than retract or cite.
You want truth, you can't get it by lying.
>> >> >> >maybe you don't understand the Christ??
>>
>> >> >> Another non-sequitur, but I'll bite. I probably understand far more
>> >> >> than you, as early Christianity is another favorite topic of mine. =
>Wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> do you think of James? Do you think that the war with Rome was trul=
>y
>> >> >> driven by his murder, as some evidence suggests? What's your opinio=
>n
>> >> >> of the position of the Desposyni in the first few centuries, and wh=
>at
>> >> >> do you think that signifies? What do you think of the two Messiah i=
>dea=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> and what faction would you correlate it with?
>>
>> >> >> Presuming you can even start on any of these topics, we can start a
>> >> >> new thread.
>>
>> >> >Well simply first you don't understand the Christ doctrine of non-
>> >> >hate, which includes loving one's enemies....
>>
>> >> Another complete non-sequitur.
>>
>> >It's one of the most primary doctrines of the Christ if not the most.
>> >Of course that's in the Gospel's that are widely known.
>>
>> I repeat, a complete non-sequitur. You're quite obviously completely
>> unaware of his gospel of the kingdom - which permeated almost everything
>> he said and did.
>>
>It's not non-sequitur when you say that I should hate Bush. That's a
>false accusation and that's what I backed it up with. You just don't
>want to defend it.
Those on the far left *DO* hate Bush. That's simply a fact.
So far, you've not said anything that would put you in any other place other
than the far left.
>> What an embarrassing lack of knowledge from someone proclaiming his
>> Christianity.
>>
>I have preached a lot of Gospel in my day, and I defend the Word with
>anybody.
Oh, I think we've seen your level of knowledge on this issue.
>> >> I've said nothing on the topic, and you've presumed again...
>>
>> >If you didn't, I did, and you commented.
>>
>> Yep... I commented that you brought it up as if I'd demonstrated a lack of
>> knowledge on it.
>>
>Not true.
Then all you have to do is point out ANY COMMENTS BY ME ON THAT TOPIC ANYWHERE.
(Particularly in this thread)
But, much like my comment about the Kingdom of God - you can't.
>It stemmed what you thought I was in regards of what I
>should have felt for Bush. I do admit, I think he has a lot of
>confessing up to do.
>
>> As you just have with the Kingdom of God.
>>
>You broached the topic after that....I have only responded.
Right over your head....
>> >> >James would be of inconsequence when it came to the Romans decimating
>> >> >the holy land.
>>
>> >> The first leader after Jesus of the movement started under his name,
>> >> and he's of no consequence.
>>
>> >Well he wrote a book of the Bible. I would think he would be of the
>> >body of elders initiated right after Penecost. I would think that he
>> >would be just one of the twelve, and not near as a headliner as Paul.
>>
>> Paul, in fact; makes it clear that he needed the approval of the
>> elders in Jerusalem - headed by, none other than James the Just.
>> (Although he *also* denigrates that he needed their approval...)
>>
>Ok....
There are only two people other than Jesus himself that you should know in
depth. Paul and James. They both had a tremendous impact on Christianity.
If you don't know how they impacted Christianity - then your faith isn't based
on history.
>> >> Well, that defines your knowledge of early Christianity...
>>
>> >Actually, the early Christians would not 'hail Caesar' nor go into the
>> >military. That is very well documented.......
>>
>> >> >It was predicted already in Jesus' time in Mark 13,
>> >> >Luke 21, and Matt. 24.
>>
>> >> All of which *POSTDATE* the war.
>>
>> >Hardly.
>>
>> Sorry... you're on quicksand when you try to claim that the scriptures
>> you mention predate the war with Rome beginning in 66 AD. There is *NO*
>> scholarship that you can cite.
>>
>You can't support a theory like that on when things were written
>down.
Or so you believe. Yet scholars do it all the time.
Can you name *ANY* citation that would put any recognized book of the New
Testament prior to around 50 AD or so? Paul with Galations, if I remember
correctly.
The evidence that *no* canonical New Testament book was written when Jesus was
alive is overwhelming, if you undestand what he taught.
>These people were leaders in the new Christian Congregation,
>and held meetings and had their messages listened to time and again.
You're quite a few decades removed. The earliest Christians met in the
synagogues.
>It's obvious again, that Jesus gave the words as a warning. It would
>hardly be effective for them to escape the Roman Armies if they did
>not heed that message from him, would it?
>
>
>> >The were the exact words of Jesus that pre-dated his death.
>> >In order for the prophecy to come to fruition....the matter of
>> >escaping Jerusualem would have to be understood by the Chrisians in
>> >order for them to escape in time. =A0This came true, as Jesus said the
>> >disgusting thing causing desolation would come and leave...so that was
>> >the prophecy and their signal to escape. =A0Genera Titus came and
>> >surrounded Jerusalem in 66 A.D., inexplicably left, and then came back
>> >in 70 A.D. and left no stone unturned. =A0 The believing and acting with
>> >faith Chrisians, escaped.
>>
>> >> >Anyway, the Romans already had control of the
>> >> >territory the Jews held even when Jesus was residing there.
>>
>> >> Another non-sequitur... I'm speaking of the war, not "control." You *d=
>o*
>> >> realize that there was a war with Rome beginning in 66 AD, right?
>>
>> >Yes, but the warring factions were not Christians...only the ones that
>> >were not heeding Jesus' words.
>>
>> Another non-sequitur. I asked you if the murder of James was the
>> 'straw that broke the camel's back' and began the war with Rome. You
>> seem to be like most people, completely ignorant of 1st century
>> Christianity and history.
>>
>I don't recall you asking, that. I would say no. Paul's death by
>beheading didn't, why would the death of James?
This betrays an almost total ignorance of James. Paul may well have died
*after* the war began, the year of his death is uncertain. Paul had virtually
*zero* effect on the Jews of his time - he spent most of his time in Roman
territory, as I'm sure you know. In fact, it's clear that he was despised (at
best) by, most likely, the Zealot faction.
If you want to cure your ignorance, perhaps the best source is "James the
Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. But weighing in at over 1,000 pages (with
notes) it's almost as thick as Bugliosi's tome.
You might want to consider that although Jesus clearly intended Peter to be his
successor, (and the Roman Church still considers such to be the case) it was
James that led the community after Jesus died.
>Christians didn't go
>warring against anyone. They actually practiced the teachings of
>Christianity.
>
>> >> >I don't know who Desposyni.
>>
>> >> Thankyou for your honesty. Easily Googled.
>>
>> >I am always honest. It's your agenda,wavering mind that wants to
>> >somehow find 'dishonesty'.
>>
>> It's not hard to find... you've snipped some examples of YOUR dishonesty
>> already.
>>
>I will snip and always snip. Again it's only your very one-sided
>thinking that has always imagined that.
It's dishonest to snip - particularly when you've asserted that I've said
something, and when challenged to cite or retract, you snip and run.
I will *ALWAYS* point out dishonesty and cowardice. What would Jesus have
thought of such actions?
>> >> I was, in effect, asking you what your thoughts were on the fact that =
>the
>> >> movement founded by Jesus was controlled by members of his family for
>> >> several hundred years. His brother James was merely the first.
>>
>> >> >Well, I don't know if the two Messiah idea coincides with the two-
>> >> >Oswald idea...but....
>>
>> >> There were, of course, *many* historical messiah's... Jesus was merely
>> >> one of them. I referred to the Essene scripture where the concept of
>> >> *two* redeeming messiah's are to be found, one from the line of David,
>> >> and one from the line of Aaron. King and Priest.
>>
>> >Satan is one tricky dude.
>>
>> >> Jesus, it has been presumed by some evidence, merged both lines ...
>> >> Mary might well have descended from the line of Aaron according to
>> >> some evidence.
>>
>> >Mary's lineage is documented in Scripture I believe. David's line
>> >usually was the barometer. Aaron was prior to David, and don't know
>> >if he was in Abraham's line.
>>
>> >> >Since the prophecies contain the room for many false Messiahs, and th=
>e
>> >> >latter anti-christs....I think that one would be too subjective.
>>
>> >> >> >Well that may be another discussion,
>>
>> >> >> An excellent non-answer. Ducked that one rather quickly, didn't you=
>?
>>
>> >> >> The truth is that the de-industrialization of America is a favorite=
> id=3D
>> >ea
>> >> >> in the extreme left-wing of today. Drilling for oil, for example, i=
>sn'=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> the solution in their minds, since we should be going back to bicyc=
>les=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >Well most of the CIA is going to support people who like imperialism
>> >> >at practically any cost with no scrupples....
>>
>> >> >I have no particular viewpoint on oil, as I don't know that it's safe
>> >> >for the environment. =3DA0I don't think the oil companies care, and n=
>on-
>> >> >oil would be nice to implement without oil company issues....
>>
>> >> Well, ignorance can always be cured.
>>
>> >Well, we can't let the oil companies hold any sacredness can we? =A0I
>> >think they would kill their mother's for the last drop of oil not
>> >caring about the environment or people that might have better ideas
>> >with lesser money and power.
>>
>> Hate corporations, don't you?
>>
>Well, I don't claim to know how the world is best goverened for
>efficiency, but I do like Ma and Pop. I don't like corporations
>owning all the prime real estate on freeways and the best road
>locations when I know that Mom and Pa could do the same thing if they
>had the opportunity.
Yep... this is the typical leftist chant.
>I don't like wealth being passed on to wealth
>to keep laws in favor of themselves and enslaving and deceiving the
>public. So, my answer is no, but I don't know how much of a no it
>is. I don't think of political parties or ideologies, I think of
>'whatever is fair.'
And, since you don't have an understanding of "fair," your world-view is
influenced.
You want equality of results, not equality of opportunity. A common failing
among liberals.
>> Well, I think that this has gone as far as it can go, Cutsy...
>
>I am holding you to it.
All I can do is educate you - you don't know enough about early Christian
history to debate.
Nor the underlying understanding of liberalism and conservatism, I suspect. Of
course, most liberals don't.
>CJ
curtjester1
>
> Actually, Cutsy; were you to know anything at all about the CIA, you'd know that
> they don't casually reveal themselves to be "secret agents", and when they were
> "recruited"
>
> But you fell hard right into that kook trap.
>
>
>
> >> Well, I think that this has gone as far as it can go, Cutsy...
>
> >I am holding you to it.
>
> All I can do is educate you - you don't know enough about early Christian
> history to debate.
>
> Nor the underlying understanding of liberalism and conservatism, I suspect. Of
> course, most liberals don't.>CJ
I have snipped to show that you are not a person of character or your
word. Obviously you seem that lying is good, to expose one as being
not on your 'wavelength'. I think you are grasping for credibility.
How come nobody ever comes to your rescue, Ben? So, we are here with
one who says he is a CIA Agent, but yet only lies to a select 'few'.
Perhaps we just think that you were caught on one of your drunks and
now have formed a new 'cover' for your little slip? Of course who
would really care, except for Ben going off on his upper crust right
wing and religious 'knowledge' so he can preach to 'the lowly'. Well
I am sorry you have boughten into the James that would have all this
military rallying by the Christians, but just as you avoid what
Christianity is all about according to Scriptures and the divine
warning for Christians that James would have embraced and made sure
that the Christains would have known and girded themselves for the big
event of invasion, he simply wants to make Christians 'war-like' and
ones involved in this great battle against the Romans. Well, to me
that is being an agent that is far from even being a 'pretend' CIA
agent. That's being an agent against the Christ...which involves
much more sinister of character. Of course he also has lied, when he
said "it has gone as far as it can go." He simply lied and prattled
his skewed thinking of the world and what is 'proper'. My Good Book
says that the politics of this world is not quite up to snuff, as the
theme and thrust of the Word is government by God, that will uproot
and eventually replace the inferior quality of earth's governments
that have been largely ineffiecient and many times damaging to man his
need to be ruled in security and in good character. Under that rule
we won't have to worry about paying rent, and worrying about food, or
health issues, the basics that this and other worldly govt's can't
seem to organize but of course are willing to spend on
'industrializing' that seems to be Ben's god. Please killifile me,
Ben, then killifile yourself.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>>
>> Actually, Cutsy; were you to know anything at all about the CIA, you'd
>> know that they don't casually reveal themselves to be "secret agents",
>> and when they were "recruited"
>>
>> But you fell hard right into that kook trap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >I am holding you to it.
>>
>> All I can do is educate you - you don't know enough about early Christian
>> history to debate.
>>
>> Nor the underlying understanding of liberalism and conservatism, I
>> suspect. Of course, most liberals don't.
>
>CJ
>
>I have snipped to show that you are not a person of character or your
>word.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Do you want to explain how *YOUR* actions reflect on me???
>Obviously you seem that lying is good,
And yet, you can't quote any "lie" on my part, along with the citation that
makes it a "lie". Why is that, Cutsy?
>to expose one as being
>not on your 'wavelength'. I think you are grasping for credibility.
>How come nobody ever comes to your rescue, Ben?
I doubt seriously if there's *anyone* on this forum that could debate me
knowledgeably on early Christian history. (Or Judo, for that matter) But why
would someone know those topics and be on *this* forum? There *are* forums that
are more relevant.
But trust me when I say this, Cutsy - I don't rely on *ANYONE* else for
"credibility". I stick to the truth, and let others think anything they like.
I don't run from defending my own words, and I'm capable of citing for virtually
anything I assert.
>So, we are here with
>one who says he is a CIA Agent, but yet only lies to a select 'few'.
Feel free to quote the "lie". But, as in your previous places where you've been
too embarrassed by a lack of citation - this'll probably be snipped also.
>Perhaps we just think that you were caught on one of your drunks and
>now have formed a new 'cover' for your little slip?
Oh no! By all means, believe me to be a CIA agent. I've already discussed
this, but you snipped it. I know you took off your aluminum foil hat - it was
in the daily briefing report this morning... so take a friendly warning, put it
back on.
>Of course who
>would really care, except for Ben going off on his upper crust right
>wing and religious 'knowledge' so he can preach to 'the lowly'.
We found out just how much knowledge of Christianity you have... didn't we? I
didn't bring it up - you did. You thought you'd go somewhere with it, but you
brought it up to the wrong person.
>Well
>I am sorry you have boughten into the James that would have all this
>military rallying by the Christians,
Illiteracy? Or a flat out lie?
Why don't you provide a citation, or a retraction?
Or, as has become your habit, simply snip this. Your a liar, Cutsy. You're
implying I stated what I've clearly *never* said.
>but just as you avoid what
>Christianity is all about according to Scriptures
Provably have not. Embarrassing, isn't it? That you didn't even know Jesus'
central message.
>and the divine
>warning for Christians that James would have embraced and made sure
>that the Christains would have known and girded themselves for the big
>event of invasion, he simply wants to make Christians 'war-like' and
>ones involved in this great battle against the Romans.
I have no clue where you developed this idea. Nor is it true. I suspect that
it's merely your dishonest nature being illustrated yet again.
>Well, to me
>that is being an agent that is far from even being a 'pretend' CIA
>agent. That's being an agent against the Christ...which involves
>much more sinister of character.
When you have to concoct lies to 'prove a point', the only point you've proven
is that you're a liar.
>Of course he also has lied, when he
>said "it has gone as far as it can go."
How can it be a lie, Cutsy? I've stated that you simply don't have any
knowledge to have a discussion on the issues I raised, and YOU PROVABLY DON'T.
I really didn't expect you to. There are just a few topics that I'm quite well
informed on - the JFK Assassination, Judo, Early Christianity, and a few other
miscellaneous odds & ends.
You pick one of them, and you'll likely find yourself out of your league.
You've demonstrated an atrocious ignorance of one of the three most important
figures in early Christianity - and we haven't even tried discussing Paul. I
suspect that you'd prove yourself ignorant on Pauline issues as well.
>He simply lied and prattled
>his skewed thinking of the world and what is 'proper'. My Good Book
>says that the politics of this world is not quite up to snuff, as the
>theme and thrust of the Word is government by God, that will uproot
>and eventually replace the inferior quality of earth's governments
>that have been largely ineffiecient and many times damaging to man his
>need to be ruled in security and in good character. Under that rule
>we won't have to worry about paying rent, and worrying about food, or
>health issues, the basics that this and other worldly govt's can't
>seem to organize but of course are willing to spend on
>'industrializing' that seems to be Ben's god. Please killifile me,
>Ben, then killifile yourself.
>
>CJ
Oh no! I enjoy watching people snip my comments rather than answer them. You
demonstrate your character far more convincingly than I ever could.
Ben Holmes
Looks like I was wrong. Cutsy didn't bother to snip - he merely refuses to
respond.
Embarrassing, isn't it? To be caught on the LNT'ers side... with unmarked
snips, lies about what I've stated, and running from supporting your own words.
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
news:g608k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Looks like I was wrong. Cutsy didn't bother to snip - he merely refuses
> to
> respond.
This from the "man" who edited Burlyguards posts without telling him. You
are lower than a lizard drinking Benny.
curtjester1
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g608k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > Looks like I was wrong. Cutsy didn't bother to snip - he merely refuses
> > to
> > respond.
>
> This from the "man" who edited Burlyguards posts without telling him. You
> are lower than a lizard drinking Benny.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Embarrassing, isn't it? To be caught on the LNT'ers side... with unmarked
> > snips, lies about what I've stated, and running from supporting your own
> > words.
>
> > In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
SHhhh.. I am having a conversation with my LNT contact. Benjamin is
using clandestine strategies now. Testing the killifile, testing.
Listen closer. Benji thinks that he can smoke people out (uncover
their being a mole) by pretending he is a CIA agent. He uses the ruse
that since LHO did it, he did it. Now that 'we' have bought into it
hook-line-and-sinker....I had to 'call' him on it. Now he says it's a
'ruse' and not a 'lie.' Shhhhhh. Me thinks 'Gentle' Ben is either
totally wacky and just does stuff for attention because he believes
all CT's should be right wingers like himself...or he really IS a CIA
agent and got a little careless, and you know how they deny, deny,
deny, stuff. Shhhh... Even Allen Dulles said they would lie rather
than give straight Info to the enemy. Now to me Benny is either a
liar or a CIA agent like he said. I don't buy the uncovering Me
thing viable because nobody else is trying to uncover me. Now I know
he's on the run because he knows he is backed into a corner, and now
wants to divert by calling me a Bush-hater. I said well, I don't
hate, because the Christians might come after me for doing all that
hating instead of loving the enemy thing....Now he actually could be
wacky because he wants to debate the first century Church
infrastructure where they had all these divine plans for the future of
the world that included war strategies and industrial-corporation
right-wing epiphanies and such.....Shhhh. tip-toe vewwy vewwy kwietly
around Benny. I think he is going to form a new idea on JFK that we
might not be used to....Shhhhhh....Don't invite him into any CIA, or
BoP arguments either...he is vewwy vewwy sensitive these days if you
know what I mean. And don't mention Jesse Ventura and a Bush in the
same sentence either. His imagination is a little 'spikey' if ya know
what I mean...
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Jul 20, 4:44=A0pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:g608k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>ses
>> > to
>> > respond.
>>
>> This from the "man" who edited Burlyguards posts without telling him. You
>> are lower than a lizard drinking Benny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>arked
>> > snips, lies about what I've stated, and running from supporting your ow=
>n
>> > words.
>>
>> > In article
>> > <4fbcec2d-57ec-4466-a1f9-9929f557b...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>d
>> >>> know that they don't casually reveal themselves to be "secret agents"=
>,
>> >>> and when they were "recruited"
>>
>> >>> But you fell hard right into that kook trap.
>>
>> >>> >> Well, I think that this has gone as far as it can go, Cutsy...
>>
>> >>> >I am holding you to it.
>>
>> >>> All I can do is educate you - you don't know enough about early
>> >>> Christian
>> >>> history to debate.
>>
>> >>> Nor the underlying understanding of liberalism and conservatism, I
>> >>> suspect. Of course, most liberals don't.
>>
>> >>CJ
>>
>> >>I have snipped to show that you are not a person of character or your
>> >>word.
>>
>> > ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>> > Do you want to explain how *YOUR* actions reflect on me???
>>
>> >>Obviously you seem that lying is good,
>>
>> > And yet, you can't quote any "lie" on my part, along with the citation
>> > that
>> > makes it a "lie". Why is that, Cutsy?
>>
>> >>to expose one as being
>> >>not on your 'wavelength'. I think you are grasping for credibility.
>> >>How come nobody ever comes to your rescue, Ben?
>>
>e
>> > knowledgeably on early Christian history. (Or Judo, for that matter) Bu=
>t
>> > why
>> > would someone know those topics and be on *this* forum? There *are* for=
>ums
>> > that
>> > are more relevant.
>>
>> > But trust me when I say this, Cutsy - I don't rely on *ANYONE* else for
>> > "credibility". I stick to the truth, and let others think anything they
>> > like.
>> > I don't run from defending my own words, and I'm capable of citing for
>> > virtually
>> > anything I assert.
>>
>> >>So, we are here with
>> >>one who says he is a CIA Agent, but yet only lies to a select 'few'.
>>
>'ve
>> > been
>> > too embarrassed by a lack of citation - this'll probably be snipped als=
>o.
>>
>> >>Perhaps we just think that you were caught on one of your drunks and
>> >>now have formed a new 'cover' for your little slip?
>>
>ed
>> > this, but you snipped it. I know you took off your aluminum foil hat - =
>it
>> > was
>> > in the daily briefing report this morning... so take a friendly warning=
>,
>> > put it
>> > back on.
>>
>> >>Of course who
>> >>would really care, except for Ben going off on his upper crust right
>> >>wing and religious 'knowledge' so he can preach to 'the lowly'.
>>
>> > We found out just how much knowledge of Christianity you have... didn't
>> > we? I
>ut
>> > you
>> > brought it up to the wrong person.
>>
>> >>Well
>> >>I am sorry you have boughten into the James that would have all this
>> >>military rallying by the Christians,
>>
>> > Illiteracy? Or a flat out lie?
>>
>> > Why don't you provide a citation, or a retraction?
>>
>te
>> > well
>> > informed on - the JFK Assassination, Judo, Early Christianity, and a fe=
>w
>> > other
>> > miscellaneous odds & ends.
>>
>e.
>>
>> > You've demonstrated an atrocious ignorance of one of the three most
>> > important
>ul.
>> > I
>> > suspect that you'd prove yourself ignorant on Pauline issues as well.
>>
>> >>He simply lied and prattled
>> >>his skewed thinking of the world and what is 'proper'. My Good Book
>> >>says that the politics of this world is not quite up to snuff, as the
>> >>theme and thrust of the Word is government by God, that will uproot
>> >>and eventually replace the inferior quality of earth's governments
>> >>that have been largely ineffiecient and many times damaging to man his
>> >>need to be ruled in security and in good character. Under that rule
>> >>we won't have to worry about paying rent, and worrying about food, or
>> >>health issues, the basics that this and other worldly govt's can't
>> >>seem to organize but of course are willing to spend on
>> >>'industrializing' that seems to be Ben's god. Please killifile me,
>> >>Ben, then killifile yourself.
>>
>> >>CJ
>>
>.
>> > You
>> > demonstrate your character far more convincingly than I ever could.- Hi=
>de quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>SHhhh.. I am having a conversation with my LNT contact. Benjamin is
>using clandestine strategies now. Testing the killifile, testing.
>Listen closer. Benji thinks that he can smoke people out (uncover
>their being a mole) by pretending he is a CIA agent. He uses the ruse
>that since LHO did it, he did it. Now that 'we' have bought into it
>hook-line-and-sinker....I had to 'call' him on it. Now he says it's a
>'ruse' and not a 'lie.' Shhhhhh. Me thinks 'Gentle' Ben is either
>totally wacky and just does stuff for attention because he believes
>all CT's should be right wingers like himself...or he really IS a CIA
>agent and got a little careless, and you know how they deny, deny,
>deny, stuff.
Kook, aren't you?
>Shhhh... Even Allen Dulles said they would lie rather
>than give straight Info to the enemy. Now to me Benny is either a
>liar or a CIA agent like he said. I don't buy the uncovering Me
>thing viable because nobody else is trying to uncover me. Now I know
>he's on the run
And yet, strangely enough, it's *CUTSY* who's running and snipping and ducking.
Why is that Cutsy? Can't support your OWN WORDS???
You know what we call someone who can't support their own words, right?
Yep... Liar.
>because he knows he is backed into a corner, and now
>wants to divert by calling me a Bush-hater.
Oh, I strongly suspect that you are one.
Most far left-wing people are. As well as true believers in a Moon "hoax" and
the government bombing the twin towers...
>I said well, I don't
>hate, because the Christians might come after me for doing all that
>hating instead of loving the enemy thing....Now he actually could be
>wacky because he wants to debate the first century Church
>infrastructure where they had all these divine plans for the future of
>the world that included war strategies and industrial-corporation
>right-wing epiphanies and such.....Shhhh.
Of course, when you have to lie, the only point you've made is that you're a
liar.
I don't blame you for being ignorant of Christian history, not many people are
aware of it. But you should seriously consider eliminating your ignorance.
>tip-toe vewwy vewwy kwietly
>around Benny. I think he is going to form a new idea on JFK that we
>might not be used to....Shhhhhh....Don't invite him into any CIA, or
>BoP arguments either...he is vewwy vewwy sensitive these days if you
>know what I mean. And don't mention Jesse Ventura and a Bush in the
>same sentence either. His imagination is a little 'spikey' if ya know
>what I mean...
>
>CJ
I realize that you understand that you simply lied about what I'd said, and
realize that you can't quote me saying it.
It would have been honest to simply retract... but instead, you run and hide.
Embarrassing too, that you now seem to be on the same side as "Sam Brown"...
curtjester1
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >SHhhh.. I am having a conversation with my LNT contact. Benjamin is
> >using clandestine strategies now. Testing the killifile, testing.
> >Listen closer. Benji thinks that he can smoke people out (uncover
> >their being a mole) by pretending he is a CIA agent. He uses the ruse
> >that since LHO did it, he did it. Now that 'we' have bought into it
> >hook-line-and-sinker....I had to 'call' him on it. Now he says it's a
> >'ruse' and not a 'lie.' Shhhhhh. Me thinks 'Gentle' Ben is either
> >totally wacky and just does stuff for attention because he believes
> >all CT's should be right wingers like himself...or he really IS a CIA
> >agent and got a little careless, and you know how they deny, deny,
> >deny, stuff.
>
> Kook, aren't you?
>
- 25 Ways of A DisInfo Agent thing by name calling? You are either a
liar, or you wanted to use a ploy for God knows what reason? You
haven't said what it is. Or is it that you are a truth-telling CIA
agent like you said you were? You are hiding something and if you
aren't your seriously mis-guided in your thinking.
> >Shhhh... Even Allen Dulles said they would lie rather
> >than give straight Info to the enemy. Now to me Benny is either a
> >liar or a CIA agent like he said. I don't buy the uncovering Me
> >thing viable because nobody else is trying to uncover me. Now I know
> >he's on the run
>
> And yet, strangely enough, it's *CUTSY* who's running and snipping and ducking.
>
And yet I am not, and you are, when you have to 'uncover' something
about me. What are you trying to expose? You seem to always be
'exposing' people, and using the same phrases and words in posts after
posts.
> Why is that Cutsy? Can't support your OWN WORDS???
>
> You know what we call someone who can't support their own words, right?
>
> Yep... Liar.
>
> >because he knows he is backed into a corner, and now
> >wants to divert by calling me a Bush-hater.
>
> Oh, I strongly suspect that you are one.
>
And I have told you that is not the case and backed it up. You choose
not to acknowledge that or care about what your inference is. There
has to be some reason why you got off on first century Christianity,
isn't there?
> Most far left-wing people are. As well as true believers in a Moon "hoax" and
> the government bombing the twin towers...
>
How would a 'wing' have to do anything with a Moon hoax? Weren't
most people that went along with the illegal manuevers in Cuba,
violating the Neutrality Act, right-wingers? Didn't right wingers
eventually do all the murder planning and the cover-up for the JFK
assassination? Why do you seem to stand behind that, and yet make it
appear that you are exposing their wrong doing's?
> >I said well, I don't
> >hate, because the Christians might come after me for doing all that
> >hating instead of loving the enemy thing....Now he actually could be
> >wacky because he wants to debate the first century Church
> >infrastructure where they had all these divine plans for the future of
> >the world that included war strategies and industrial-corporation
> >right-wing epiphanies and such.....Shhhh.
>
> Of course, when you have to lie, the only point you've made is that you're a
> liar.
>
You didn't introduce and invite debate into first century
Christianity? Are you not trying to support that with what
mainstream and many facets of Christianity would call heritical with
non-Biblical books with the characters in the Bible? Really this is
nothing knew, and you want to espouse your 'higher knowledge' for God
knows what reason, to what many people would call books inspired by
another source that a God-inspired holy book like the Bible?
> I don't blame you for being ignorant of Christian history, not many people are
> aware of it. But you should seriously consider eliminating your ignorance.
>
Of course, and follow another offshoot of being a Moonie, The New
Church Of The Benny?
> >tip-toe vewwy vewwy kwietly
> >around Benny. I think he is going to form a new idea on JFK that we
> >might not be used to....Shhhhhh....Don't invite him into any CIA, or
> >BoP arguments either...he is vewwy vewwy sensitive these days if you
> >know what I mean. And don't mention Jesse Ventura and a Bush in the
> >same sentence either. His imagination is a little 'spikey' if ya know
> >what I mean...
>
> >CJ
>
> I realize that you understand that you simply lied about what I'd said, and
> realize that you can't quote me saying it.
>
I said exactly what you said. You tried to 'retract' that, but well
who knows when you lie and when you don't? You admitted the ruse so
you could derail me somehow. We don't exactly cater to your kind
here. (Notice your not getting much of a following here these
days?) Perhaps your strong-willed right wing thinking is getting in
the way of you trying to solve the JFK case, with all the right-wing
people that you have to muddle through? Of course most level-headed
people don't even care about side's in JFK, because they just want the
good people to be able to sovle the case and the bad people to be
exposed.
> It would have been honest to simply retract... but instead, you run and hide.
>
> Embarrassing too, that you now seem to be on the same side as "Sam Brown"...- Hide quoted text -
>
Oh, I have a few more 'contacts' you don't know about. I was to meet
LHO in the theater and give him a ride.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>> >SHhhh.. I am having a conversation with my LNT contact. =A0 Benjamin is
>> >using clandestine strategies now. =A0Testing the killifile, testing.
>> >Listen closer. =A0 Benji thinks that he can smoke people out (uncover
>> >their being a mole) by pretending he is a CIA agent. =A0He uses the ruse
>> >that since LHO did it, he did it. =A0 Now that 'we' have bought into it
>> >hook-line-and-sinker....I had to 'call' him on it. =A0Now he says it's a
>> >'ruse' and not a 'lie.' =A0 Shhhhhh. =A0Me thinks 'Gentle' Ben is either
>> >totally wacky and just does stuff for attention because he believes
>> >all CT's should be right wingers like himself...or he really IS a CIA
>> >agent and got a little careless, and you know how they deny, deny,
>> >deny, stuff.
>>
>> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>You can't decide which category you belong to, so you do a David Healy
>- 25 Ways of A DisInfo Agent thing by name calling? You are either a
>liar, or you wanted to use a ploy for God knows what reason? You
>haven't said what it is.
Actually, I already did. It just embarrassed you too much to realize that I was
checking to see just how much of a kook you are.
You fell right in...
>Or is it that you are a truth-telling CIA
>agent like you said you were? You are hiding something and if you
>aren't your seriously mis-guided in your thinking.
To be a right-winger is to "hide something?" How silly!
As for being "seriously mis-guided", you'll just have to live with the fact that
a very large percentage of America is "seriously mis-guided".
>> >Shhhh... Even Allen Dulles said they would lie rather
>> >than give straight Info to the enemy. =A0 Now to me Benny is either a
>> >liar or a CIA agent like he said. =A0 I don't buy the uncovering Me
>> >thing viable because nobody else is trying to uncover me. =A0 Now I know
>> >he's on the run
>>
>> And yet, strangely enough, it's *CUTSY* who's running and snipping
>> and ducking.
>>
>And yet I am not,
Of course you are. You've gutlessly snipped the last half-dozen posts.
You've been too dishonest to provide citations of me saying what you *asserted*
I'd said.
Nor will you retract... you just duck and run.
>and you are, when you have to 'uncover' something
>about me. What are you trying to expose? You seem to always be
>'exposing' people, and using the same phrases and words in posts after
>posts.
Can you support your own words? That's all I ever ask of anyone.
>> Why is that Cutsy? Can't support your OWN WORDS???
>>
>> You know what we call someone who can't support their own words, right?
>>
>> Yep... Liar.
>>
>> >because he knows he is backed into a corner, and now
>> >wants to divert by calling me a Bush-hater.
>>
>> Oh, I strongly suspect that you are one.
>>
>And I have told you that is not the case and backed it up. You choose
>not to acknowledge that or care about what your inference is. There
>has to be some reason why you got off on first century Christianity,
>isn't there?
You brought the topic up - I merely demonstrated just who has a deeper knowledge
of the topic. Don't whine about it now...
>> Most far left-wing people are. As well as true believers in a Moon "hoax"
>> and the government bombing the twin towers...
>>
>How would a 'wing' have to do anything with a Moon hoax?
Quite simple, there are few, if any, *conservatives* who believe such nonsense.
While there are certainly stupid things that conservatives will tend to believe,
the Moon "Hoax" and the government bombing the twin towers seem to be uniquely
liberal nonsense.
>Weren't
>most people that went along with the illegal manuevers in Cuba,
>violating the Neutrality Act, right-wingers? Didn't right wingers
>eventually do all the murder planning and the cover-up for the JFK
>assassination? Why do you seem to stand behind that, and yet make it
>appear that you are exposing their wrong doing's?
I've already answered this topic, and you ran from the answers... in fact, you
snipped and never responded.
So tell me, how many slaves do you own? You *are* a white man, right? So let
us in on how many slaves you own.
>> >I said well, I don't
>> >hate, because the Christians might come after me for doing all that
>> >hating instead of loving the enemy thing....Now he actually could be
>> >wacky because he wants to debate the first century Church
>> >infrastructure where they had all these divine plans for the future of
>> >the world that included war strategies and industrial-corporation
>> >right-wing epiphanies and such.....Shhhh.
>>
>> Of course, when you have to lie, the only point you've made is that
>> you're a liar.
>>
>You didn't introduce and invite debate into first century
>Christianity?
Nope... you brought Christianity into the mix... I merely demonstrated a deeper
knowledge of it than you have.
What I did *NOT* bring up were "divine plans for the future of the world that
included war stratagies..."
Nor can you quote any such thing from me.
>Are you not trying to support that with what
>mainstream and many facets of Christianity would call heritical with
>non-Biblical books with the characters in the Bible?
Of course not. I've not even *mentioned* any non-biblical sources. The fact
that James led the 'Christian' church is found in the Bible. By all means, read
Acts and discover the early history of the Church.
>Really this is
>nothing knew,
And yet, you know nothing of it - as we found out.
>and you want to espouse your 'higher knowledge' for God
>knows what reason,
You brought it up - don't whine when I respond.
>to what many people would call books inspired by
>another source that a God-inspired holy book like the Bible?
Your literacy needs a little work...
>> I don't blame you for being ignorant of Christian history, not many
>> people are aware of it. But you should seriously consider eliminating
>> your ignorance.
>>
>Of course, and follow another offshoot of being a Moonie, The New
>Church Of The Benny?
Why bother to lie, Cutsy? I quoted nothing that isn't in the Bible. King James
edition, even.
>> >tip-toe vewwy vewwy kwietly
>> >around Benny. =A0 I think he is going to form a new idea on JFK that we
>> >might not be used to....Shhhhhh....Don't invite him into any CIA, or
>> >BoP arguments either...he is vewwy vewwy sensitive these days if you
>> >know what I mean. =A0 And don't mention Jesse Ventura and a Bush in the
>> >same sentence either. =A0His imagination is a little 'spikey' if ya know
>> >what I mean...
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> I realize that you understand that you simply lied about what I'd said,
>> and realize that you can't quote me saying it.
>>
>I said exactly what you said.
No liar, you didn't. Which is why you were unable to QUOTE me saying what you'd
asserted.
>You tried to 'retract' that,
No need to "retract" anything...
>but well
>who knows when you lie and when you don't? You admitted the ruse so
>you could derail me somehow. We don't exactly cater to your kind
>here.
Oh, I'm well aware that the majority of CT'ers on this forum are left-wing, it's
not hard to figure out. What you don't seem to be able to figure out is that
with up to 90% of America believing that there was a conspiracy - there's quite
a large number of CONSERVATIVES that understand history.
>(Notice your not getting much of a following here these
>days?) Perhaps your strong-willed right wing thinking is getting in
>the way of you trying to solve the JFK case,
That's strange - you've never had any problems with my posts on the
assassination up until now. Feel free to debate ANY issue of the assassination
that I bring up.
>with all the right-wing
>people that you have to muddle through? Of course most level-headed
>people don't even care about side's in JFK, because they just want the
>good people to be able to sovle the case and the bad people to be
>exposed.
>
>> It would have been honest to simply retract... but instead, you run
>> and hide.
>>
>> Embarrassing too, that you now seem to be on the same side as "Sam Brown"...
>
>Oh, I have a few more 'contacts' you don't know about. I was to meet
>LHO in the theater and give him a ride.
>
>CJ
Your friends define you.
Sam Brown
Oh diddums has his panties in a wad because I pointed out what a
hypocritical liar you are Dwarf.
>
curtjester1
> In article <37f4fafb-47f5-4b1f-8f36-28fe91261...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >SHhhh.. I am having a conversation with my LNT contact. =A0 Benjamin is
> >> >using clandestine strategies now. =A0Testing the killifile, testing.
> >> >Listen closer. =A0 Benji thinks that he can smoke people out (uncover
> >> >their being a mole) by pretending he is a CIA agent. =A0He uses the ruse
> >> >that since LHO did it, he did it. =A0 Now that 'we' have bought into it
> >> >hook-line-and-sinker....I had to 'call' him on it. =A0Now he says it's a
> >> >'ruse' and not a 'lie.' =A0 Shhhhhh. =A0Me thinks 'Gentle' Ben is either
> >> >totally wacky and just does stuff for attention because he believes
> >> >all CT's should be right wingers like himself...or he really IS a CIA
> >> >agent and got a little careless, and you know how they deny, deny,
> >> >deny, stuff.
>
> >> Kook, aren't you?
>
> >You can't decide which category you belong to, so you do a David Healy
> >- 25 Ways of A DisInfo Agent thing by name calling? You are either a
> >liar, or you wanted to use a ploy for God knows what reason? You
> >haven't said what it is.
>
> Actually, I already did. It just embarrassed you too much to realize that I was
> checking to see just how much of a kook you are.
>
> You fell right in...
>
you 'know' something. I merely went along with what you said that
you were a CIA agent. You either must think your clairvoyant or you
were reading the Lie Detector results. What is wrong with your
fantasy here, is that you really think we care if you are a CIA agent
or not. We all know you could be, as anyone could. It doesn't take
a good education to be one, basically you just sign up. So again,
either you are just role playing, or you are one, Which is it? We
don't care. We don't understand why you would want to draw anyone
in. It seems rather childish and ill-conceived. We want you to tell
us your reason if you can?
> >Or is it that you are a truth-telling CIA
> >agent like you said you were? You are hiding something and if you
> >aren't your seriously mis-guided in your thinking.
>
> To be a right-winger is to "hide something?" How silly!
>
Some don't even care, I'm sure. I am sure some are even glad that JFK
got assassinated. Some think it's just the right for a select few to
rule and to make everything a profit or loss issue. I am sure there
are a lot of right wingers in the assassination that have made lying a
way of life in covering up, and pulling strings to their own belief
system while it makes other's suffer. That's just the way they
believe and think it's perfectly well for them to believe that way.
Some people have no scrupples and have no shame or conscious in doing
so. We know that foreclosures are at an all time high, and yet for
the right wing...that may be just too bad. Build some more rockets,
invest in new weaponry. Who cares about those you have to have
shelter. Right wingers as well as other's believe that way a lot.
> As for being "seriously mis-guided", you'll just have to live with the fact that
> a very large percentage of America is "seriously mis-guided".
>
Of course they are because they are under a system of slavery they
barely understand while they spend their time eking out a living.
The don't understand that bank rules are not fair and have been
instituted in small print language and are enslaved to thiry year
mortgages and credit card systems that are doomed to fail. They
don't have the wherewithal that the right wing at it's echelon are
pro's at making people believe in ideas that don't work, while they
separate themselves and work in self-interest groups to keep things
cozy them and unfair for the majority..
> >> >Shhhh... Even Allen Dulles said they would lie rather
> >> >than give straight Info to the enemy. =A0 Now to me Benny is either a
> >> >liar or a CIA agent like he said. =A0 I don't buy the uncovering Me
> >> >thing viable because nobody else is trying to uncover me. =A0 Now I know
> >> >he's on the run
>
> >> And yet, strangely enough, it's *CUTSY* who's running and snipping
> >> and ducking.
>
> >And yet I am not,
>
> Of course you are. You've gutlessly snipped the last half-dozen posts.
>
You basically thinking we should glean on everyword you say. You
actually think you make so much sense that you pretend to be the ruler
of your post. It's actually sad to see such behavior in a human
being. I blame the right wing for a little of that.
> You've been too dishonest to provide citations of me saying what you *asserted*
> I'd said.
>
I just repeat them, and you going into a cite thing. Just have to
peruse through the posts if one would be interested which no one would
be in light years.
> Nor will you retract... you just duck and run.
>
> >and you are, when you have to 'uncover' something
> >about me. What are you trying to expose? You seem to always be
> >'exposing' people, and using the same phrases and words in posts after
> >posts.
>
> Can you support your own words? That's all I ever ask of anyone.
>
You ask like a marine corp instructor doing a drill. It's all anyone
ever replies to you...impossible boundaries made by an unreasonable
person...
> >> Why is that Cutsy? Can't support your OWN WORDS???
>
> >> You know what we call someone who can't support their own words, right?
>
> >> Yep... Liar.
>
> >> >because he knows he is backed into a corner, and now
> >> >wants to divert by calling me a Bush-hater.
>
> >> Oh, I strongly suspect that you are one.
>
> >And I have told you that is not the case and backed it up. You choose
> >not to acknowledge that or care about what your inference is. There
> >has to be some reason why you got off on first century Christianity,
> >isn't there?
>
> You brought the topic up - I merely demonstrated just who has a deeper knowledge
> of the topic. Don't whine about it now...
>
No I didn't. I repeat I made a statement why I refuse to hate. You
wanted to debate Christianity. You have demonstrated you want to
debate something that is irrelevant to the JFK assassination. Why is
that?
> >> Most far left-wing people are. As well as true believers in a Moon "hoax"
> >> and the government bombing the twin towers...
>
> >How would a 'wing' have to do anything with a Moon hoax?
>
> Quite simple, there are few, if any, *conservatives* who believe such nonsense.
> While there are certainly stupid things that conservatives will tend to believe,
> the Moon "Hoax" and the government bombing the twin towers seem to be uniquely
> liberal nonsense.
>
How would you know? Has there bee a poll on political preferences
that you are aware of? Or is it your own demented think that makes
you say that? I am sure most people say that it's liberal nonesense
about the JFk assassination. Do you think high goverment
conspiracies are impossible? Why would you say that 9/11 is
impossible when the Bushes and Bin Laden's are well-connected? You
are trying to portray the liberal side as odd for even thinking that.
See how demented that is on the outset? (I have no real interest on
the issue)
> >Weren't
> >most people that went along with the illegal manuevers in Cuba,
> >violating the Neutrality Act, right-wingers? Didn't right wingers
> >eventually do all the murder planning and the cover-up for the JFK
> >assassination? Why do you seem to stand behind that, and yet make it
> >appear that you are exposing their wrong doing's?
>
> I've already answered this topic, and you ran from the answers... in fact, you
> snipped and never responded.
>
Tell us when the shenanigans stopped then, if they ever did? Can't
we see right wing conspiracy's beyond JFK to your beloved wing?
> So tell me, how many slaves do you own? You *are* a white man, right? So let
> us in on how many slaves you own.
>
They way I see, it I am a slave, and not the enslaver. Perhaps you
can demonstrate why your question would even begin to makes sense?
> >> >I said well, I don't
> >> >hate, because the Christians might come after me for doing all that
> >> >hating instead of loving the enemy thing....Now he actually could be
> >> >wacky because he wants to debate the first century Church
> >> >infrastructure where they had all these divine plans for the future of
> >> >the world that included war strategies and industrial-corporation
> >> >right-wing epiphanies and such.....Shhhh.
>
> >> Of course, when you have to lie, the only point you've made is that
> >> you're a liar.
>
> >You didn't introduce and invite debate into first century
> >Christianity?
>
> Nope... you brought Christianity into the mix... I merely demonstrated a deeper
> knowledge of it than you have.
>
So you were right with all that diatribe with one phrase about "loving
one's enemies", attribute to the Christ? How is that relevant? Do
you like to brag about what you think you know?
> What I did *NOT* bring up were "divine plans for the future of the world that
> included war stratagies..."
>
I was absolutely sure you thought that Christians were influenced by
James to go at it with the Romans. Sorry if you didn't say that.
> Nor can you quote any such thing from me.
>
I am trying to figure out why all this industrialization and James
rallying cry are relevant to the group that you are introducing.
Sometimes I have a way of drawing out. In your case you are just
trying to justify that what you are bringing up is relevant and
correct.
> >Are you not trying to support that with what
> >mainstream and many facets of Christianity would call heritical with
> >non-Biblical books with the characters in the Bible?
>
> Of course not. I've not even *mentioned* any non-biblical sources. The fact
> that James led the 'Christian' church is found in the Bible. By all means, read
> Acts and discover the early history of the Church.
>
But you said that because he died, the Christians were to go have the
impetus to go at it with the Romans. I wanted to know where you are
getting your information.
And I told you I am not a politcal activist, and I don't look at
'them' in that light. You said you wanted to show what kind of
person I really was. Were you mistaken and thinking you were taking
on other people worthy of uncovering, other CT leftists? BTW I do
believe that most people that are LNT'ers are conservative, right-wing
Republicans. I could be wrong. But if I am right, don't you think
it would be worth your while to try to talk some sense into them? It
hardly makes any sense to say they understand history when they are
believers and abettors in the gov't/WC right-wing version of history,
does it?
> >(Notice your not getting much of a following here these
> >days?) Perhaps your strong-willed right wing thinking is getting in
> >the way of you trying to solve the JFK case,
>
> That's strange - you've never had any problems with my posts on the
> assassination up until now. Feel free to debate ANY issue of the assassination
> that I bring up.
>
No offense, but I only casually look at them, because of the language
it presents. Like I said, there are some issues I think you have an
excellent knowledge of.
> >with all the right-wing
> >people that you have to muddle through? Of course most level-headed
> >people don't even care about side's in JFK, because they just want the
> >good people to be able to sovle the case and the bad people to be
> >exposed.
>
> >> It would have been honest to simply retract... but instead, you run
> >> and hide.
>
> >> Embarrassing too, that you now seem to be on the same side as "Sam Brown"...
>
> >Oh, I have a few more 'contacts' you don't know about. I was to meet
> >LHO in the theater and give him a ride.
>
> >CJ
>
> Your friends define you.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well I'll take that as a complement. Perhaps you could get more
people to warm up to you in the group. It's might be embarrasing that
the CT side usually keeps a little distance.
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > In article
> > <4d02ce63-8fe2-46de-a04f-336989e53...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
my goodness, Missy perv (also, a hypocritical liar) rises from the
ashes, again.... your middle name must be Phoenix
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8435833-05b9-4b43...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Why thankyou Junkie. I'll take that as a compliment. Now be a good chap and
go attempt to annoy someone else.
Loser.
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[...]
my favorite of the four elephants is back... how ya do'in tuna?
Sam Brown
Still fantastically well thanks junkie. Loser. ROTFLMAO!