Discussion about usa politics

[Guest]

The only proper thing to do would have been to call for new elections. Obviously the small statistical fluctuations were an order of magnitude larger than the actual difference.

Why was there no new election? In just about every democratic country you have laws that dictate that if you are below a statistic confidence level then a new election must take place. It should have been preferably a country wide new election, but if not then at least in Florida.

Why wasn't this brouhgt up? Another lovely benifit of having a politically biased supreme court.

And then Bush has the stomach to preach to other countries about democracy  

Edit: Here is an interesting link:

Statistical Analysis of Palm Beach County

About the badly designed "butterfly" ballots:

And the result:

You can see that the standard deviation is at least 2,000 votes that Buchanan should not have.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why was there no new election? In just about every democratic country you have laws that dictate that if you are below a statistic confidence level then a new election must take place. It should have been preferably a country wide new election, but if not then at least in Florida.<span id='postcolor'>

Changing the rules in the middle (or the end) of the game is poor sportsmanship.

Anyway, Gore was a loser, he lost his home fucking state!!!! Plus Clinton's home state. And Tipper Gore is a bitch.

-=Die Alive=-

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,09:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regardless of what the outcome would have been, do you realize that your 'elected' president opposed further counting of votes.<span id='postcolor'>

no.  all votes were counted twice (original count and manual recount).  What was wanted was a count on undervotes and overvotes which are ballots which have no punchouts or multiple punchouts.  How does one determine what the voter actually wanted?  Clearly, these are completely subjective determinations which could be either choice.  That is why these so-called hand recounts are rife with error - they are subjective which is why they are discounted in the first place.  You can't count votes when the standards are all over the charts and subjective.  That's where the Supreme Court came in with reaffirming the standards for judging the ballots.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Forget about the legal technicalities that he used for motivation, the fact remains, he did not want the votes of the American people to be properly counted.<span id='postcolor'>

No.. all votes that were filled out properly were counted.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Due to your fucked up partisan supreme court system he got away with it, but it is still nothing less than a coup d'etat.<span id='postcolor'>

keep dreaming.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Due to your fucked up partisan supreme court system he got away with it, but it is still nothing less than a coup d'etat.<span id='postcolor'>

keep dreaming.<span id='postcolor'>

You're living in a non-democratic country, not me, so I think you are doing the dreaming part

I don't care. I'd say that about 70% of the US population today indeed deserve to have Bush as a president. They seem to think so too, so why should I object?

What? The dollar is down another 5 percent against the euro?? Oh well, I'm sure Bush knows what he is doing

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only proper thing to do would have been to call for new elections. Obviously the small statistical fluctuations were an order of magnitude larger than the actual difference.

Why was there no new election? In just about every democratic country you have laws that dictate that if you are below a statistic confidence level then a new election must take place. It should have been preferably a country wide new election, but if not then at least in Florida.<span id='postcolor'>

a new election just in those counties?  in Florida?  That would be unfair to all the other voters in the country.

The law in most states say that if there is difference of less than 1%, then a recount is automatic.  That happened and Bush actually picked up votes after that recount.

are you suggesting a new election for the entire country? I don't believe there is anything in election law regarding that.

Regarding the ballot, it's not that difficult. My state had a butterfly ballot and I didn't make a mistake filling it out. I can't help it if people can't determine a simple ballot. It's neither here nor there. Alot of places have already begun upgrading their old ballot systems.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The law in most states say that if there is difference of less than 1%, then a recount is automatic.  That happened and Bush actually picked up votes after that recount.

are you suggesting a new election for the entire country? I don't believe there is anything in election law regarding that.<span id='postcolor'>

A recount is (obviously) not enough when the difference is measured in parts per million, not percent. You could make 500 recounts and get completely different results. The margin of error is just too small.

A new election is the only practical solution. And as I said - preferably in the whole country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding the ballot, it's not that difficult. My state had a butterfly ballot and I didn't make a mistake filling it out. I can't help it if people can't determine a simple ballot. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree, but stupid people represent the population too and they have a right to cast their vote Obviously this was a problem since Buchanan got five times more votes than was statistically plausible.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A recount is (obviously) not enough when the difference is measured in parts per million, not percent. You could make 500 recounts and get completely different results. The margin of error is just too small.

A new election is the only practical solution. And as I said - preferably in the whole country.<span id='postcolor'>

Well.. this was the closest election ever.  They are never that close. That makes this an event of significance.  I have no idea if states have addressed their election laws or changed them since then.  I know several states upgraded their voting systems to reduce the possibility of error. You have to wonder what kind of systemic error there is in the election system.  If there is an error rate of 1%, thats almost 2 million votes nationwide that are miscounted. Either way it went, someone was going to be bitching.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,16:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reduced to off-subject whimpering?

<span id='postcolor'>

No, but I just don't care enough about the subject to dig deeper There were for instance many votes that weren't counted (they were reported on election night but they somhow disappeared when the recount should be made). I could dig up articles about it, but I really can't be bothered since I honestly don't give a damn about it

And obviously today all good patriotic Americans support their Füh.. eh, President I mean, so there is little to debate

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,10:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

No, but I just don't care enough about the subject to dig deeper <span id='postcolor'>

BS. You answered in the first place.  It's when I brought clarity to the situation that you found it less effective as a club to beat Americans with.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And obviously today all good patriotic Americans support their Füh.. eh, President I mean, so there is little to debate <span id='postcolor'>

aha.. just as I said above.

[Longinius 1]

"what do you expect from a site run by self-described far-left wing activists?"

That doesnt really matter. Of course everything they list on their website will serve their cause. That doesnt mean its not true though.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 07 May 2003,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That doesnt really matter. Of course everything they list on their website will serve their cause. That doesnt mean its not true though.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say it wasn't. However, they are likely to show what serves them best, which may be a part of the truth. Yes, Gore won in one recount. Of course, he lost in others too. In fact, different newspapers had all different results.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,16:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BS. You answered in the first place.  It's when I brought clarity to the situation that you found it less effective as a club to beat Americans with.<span id='postcolor'>

Brought clarity? Please, I disagree with you on just about every point! Not to mention that you've contradicted yourself a number of times.

I'm interested enough to casually discuss it in the forum but not enough to make any real research effort to prove you wrong. I know I have Schoeler and other reasonable people to do that. People who both know more and care more about it than I do.

[PitViper 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,110)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Brought clarity? Please, I disagree with you on just about every point! Not to mention that you've contradicted yourself a number of times.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd like you to show me where.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm interested enough to casually discuss it in the forum but not enough to make any real research effort to prove you wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

oh well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know I have Schoeler and other reasonable people to do that.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, considering that Schoeler believed that the Supreme Court came out of nowhere on the subject (when it clearly didn't with the original cases brought to court), he will need to brush up on it before he brings it up again. For you, he was "reasonable" even though he was clearly wrong to start with about the Supreme Court and its constitutional powers in this case.   (but he did address it later).

The whole irony of the "Supreme Court getting involved" complaint is that Gore brought the case to court in the first place. heh

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Talking about US politics, remember every American here swearing that the 'soft money' problem would be solved now.

Well, I guess not  <span id='postcolor'>

I saw that ruling too. Hopefully it will be overturned, as it's one of the more stupid rulings made by a US judge in our history.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 07 May 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Talking about US politics, remember every American here swearing that the 'soft money' problem would be solved now.

Well, I guess not  <span id='postcolor'>

I saw that ruling too. Hopefully it will be overturned, as it's one of the more stupid rulings made by a US judge in our history.<span id='postcolor'>

Its a three judge Court, they are notorious for making these types of decisions. The Court will most likely opt to hear it en banc and then it used to be that appeals from a 3 judge court autmaticaly are granted certiorari in the Supreme Court. I'd be interested to see how the Rehnquist Court handles this.

PitViper: It true that I was in error about the extent of the proceedings in Bush v. Gore, but I did point out that the Equal Protection clause connection used by the Supreme Court is at best flimsy. They used this weak connection to gain jurisdiction over what was really a state matter. If the Constitution can be bent and tweaked to do things like that, it makes me equally if not more worried than I would be if it couldbe simply ignored.

[Tamme 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 06 May 2003,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 06 May 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Democracy is the worst government type in the world, but the others are even worse.<span id='postcolor'>

'Worst' is a superlative- democracy cannot be the 'worst', and yet still have governments that are 'worse'.<span id='postcolor'>

I was trying to make a point. Which is that democracy may suck but its still the best choice.

[Tamme 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ 07 May 2003,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not personally a fan of the police<span id='postcolor'>

Why not? They keep the streets safe and definitely need more money.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 07 May 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PitViper:  It true that I was in error about the extent of the proceedings in Bush v. Gore, but I did point out that the Equal Protection clause connection used by the Supreme Court is at best flimsy.  <span id='postcolor'>

The equal protection clause is invoked because hand-counting three democratic counties with different and new standards (subjectively divining the vote's intent on obviously miscast ballots) would be obviously unfair to the rest of the voters in the state (and subsequently, the nation).  Hand-counts, according to the law, are authorized with clear cut cases of fraud which have been taken to court.  That's the legal threshold from what I've just read.  With such a close results in the tally, I think it was clear Gore was fishing for some votes.

[Badgerboy 0]

The entire farce would have been quite amusing, if it hadn't brought Bush into power.

Oh and FSPilot, as for your 'insulting the President insults all Americans' , you really do make me laugh sometimes. Bush doesn't symbolise your country (If you get to that stage your done for! ), so if his actions affect me in someway, I have the right to call him a ratfuck. No-one else, just him.

Noticed how no-one else get worked up when people insult their political leaders? Strange that, eh? Christ, they are only politicians, and their ALL bastards in one form or another!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

To all you Euros and other assorted furriners:

I don't care what you say about Dubya. Hell, I probably have a greater investment in him than any of his supporters on this forum, due to 6 degrees of seperation and 'Small Small World' syndrome that plagues us out here in West Texas. But that won't make me a giant killjoy just because other people like poking fun at a guy. Personally, I don't think he is either a great leader or a great Satan, he's just mediocre. Hell, I love a good Dubya joke, and the monkey comparisons are a great break after 4 straight years of oral sex and cigar references. Keep up the good work you damn pinko-commies, some (5 of us at last count) Americans can take a joke, especially when a good ol' boy like Dubya's the target.

Incidentally, what makes Clinton jokes so 'okay', while Bush jokes are off the reservation? Mmm, love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[Milkman 1]

Clinton was a democrat. I don't like democrats... Hence those jokes seem funnier. But he isn't president anymore, and there is something odd about making fun of the current commander in cheif to me... But whatever, Mr Bush isn't the smartest guy who was ever president, so I'm sure he will recieve some fire from that. And every Republican will have to admit he is isn't the smartest cookie in the Jar. He is kinda funny now that I think about it...

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 07 May 2003,09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you should accept that French ppl are Chirac. Chirac won election by a LANDSLIDE and enjoyed 89% approval ratings, much higher than Bush.<span id='postcolor'>

Although to be fair, he was running against a xenophobic quasi-fascist, and those approval ratings reflect more on his ability to not be a complete embarassment to France's reputation as a good liberal/socialist democracy, rather than any of his actual policies (which have led to France's economy becoming nearly as bad as Germany's)<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, but remove your "embarassement". I don't care of "embarassement", I care about not having a nationalist, racist and revisionnist party in charge of my country. I do not care of our "reputation" when Le Pen comes second in first tour, I care about seeing him immediatly taken down.

If you think that this 85% were a way to keep our reputation, you are really mislead, and moreover insulting (BTW insulting not our president, but our whole country).

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 08 May 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ladies and gentlemen, another FSPilot moment

look at my previous post.(and yours too). you said "You are stupid" was quoted from me.

and no, that was not my post, yet you posted it as if were mine. same thing for next one.<span id='postcolor'>

Folks, it appears ralphy hear has had a bit to drink.

Let me see if I can make this a little more easy to understand.

I did not misquote you.

I clicked the "quote" button on your post which puts the "Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,08:18)" tag at the top of my post, no matter what I do. I then copy/pasted SOMEONE ELSES text into my post, to quote THEM. Then I copy/pasted your text UNDER THEIRS to quote you.

Get it? Or have you been eating too much paste lately?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sure, so i can make fun of Reagan, Bush Jr. after he leaves teh Office. try telling Republicans that they should have not criticized Clinton during his 8 yrs in office. you'll get a long stare of astonishment. <span id='postcolor'>

There's a difference between makign fun of and criticizing. Impeaching someone because they lied to a grand jury is criticizm. Calling someone an idiot is making fun of them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you're basically saying that approval ratings mean how much a country is related with its leadership. <span id='postcolor'>

No, I didn't say that at all. I said our president represents the country, so when you make fun of the president you make fun of the country. Never said anything about the whole country being Bushes.<span id='postcolor'>

from your old post:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just remember that 71% of Americans like the president, so when you prance around calling him a bumbling fool you insult 71% of the United States, and dont be surprised when you get a hostile reaction.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Either way, I fail to see your point. If any.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Incidentally, what makes Clinton jokes so 'okay', while Bush jokes are off the reservation? Mmm, love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll assume you're talkign to me?

Anyway, finish reading my posts and your question will be answered.

Now, lets take this post as an example.

I copy/pasted all I wanted to say to ralphwiggum into my clipboard. Then I read Tex's post, and wanted to quote it too. So I clicked the "quote" button and did so. This put that tag at the top of my post that said I was quoting from Tex. Then I pasted all the stuff I said to ralphwiggum into this post, so it was included under that tag. Get it?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 08 May 2003,03:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 08 May 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ladies and gentlemen, another FSPilot moment  

look at my previous post.(and yours too). you said "You are stupid" was quoted from me.

and no, that was not my post, yet you posted it as if were mine. same thing for next one.<span id='postcolor'>

Folks, it appears ralphy hear has had a bit to drink.

Let me see if I can make this a little more easy to understand.

I did not misquote you.

I clicked the "quote" button on your post which puts the "Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,08:18)" tag at the top of my post, no matter what I do.  I then copy/pasted SOMEONE ELSES text into my post, to quote THEM.  Then I copy/pasted your text UNDER THEIRS to quote you.

Get it?  Or have you been eating too much paste lately?<span id='postcolor'>

You won't believe how drunkards act when I am the designated driver.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sure, so i can make fun of Reagan, Bush Jr. after he leaves teh Office. try telling Republicans that they should have not criticized Clinton during his 8 yrs in office. you'll get a long stare of astonishment. <span id='postcolor'>

There's a difference between makign fun of and criticizing. Impeaching someone because they lied to a grand jury is criticizm. Calling someone an idiot is making fun of them.

<span id='postcolor'>

Let's face it. Bush cannot say word "Subliminal" correctly, has a less than adequate public speaking capability to convince ppl about his argument, and not to mention some comments that were very confusing. "I believe in small business growth." is what Bush said in terms of importance in growth of small business. Read the quoted sentence carefully again, it is so confusing. Does he believe in small amount of business growth?

also, Africa is NOT a country/nation.(Bush, after election, on issue of AIDS epidemic in Africa said, "Africa is a nation that needs continuous support")

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from your old post:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just remember that 71% of Americans like the president, so when you prance around calling him a bumbling fool you insult 71% of the United States, and dont be surprised when you get a hostile reaction.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Either way, I fail to see your point. If any.<span id='postcolor'>

you said that when someone insults the president, you are insulting a proportion of population according to approval ratings. so when you insult Cretien or Chirac, you are insulting corresponding nationalities, based on approval ratings.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, lets take this post as an example.

I copy/pasted all I wanted to say to ralphwiggum into my clipboard. Then I read Tex's post, and wanted to quote it too. So I clicked the "quote" button and did so. This put that tag at the top of my post that said I was quoting from Tex. Then I pasted all the stuff I said to ralphwiggum into this post, so it was included under that tag. Get it?<span id='postcolor'>

yes in other words, there is a big problem with your communication/composition methos. you can't have numerous staements rolled into one place with no designation and try to have other ppl sort it out.

for example. say you have 3 classes with exams coming in a week.

you email one of the professors and put the other two professors's email in CC: section, and ask these following questions.

"Do i have to bring a scantron?"

"Do i need to being a calculator?"

"Is this test open book test?"

guess what kind of answer you'll get from this email.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 08 May 2003,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's face it. Bush cannot say word "Subliminal" correctly, has a less than adequate public speaking capability to convince ppl about his argument, and not to mention some comments that were very confusing. "I believe in small business growth." is what Bush said in terms of importance in growth of small business. Read the quoted sentence carefully again, it is so confusing. Does he believe in small amount of business growth? <span id='postcolor'>

And you made the mistake of thinking I quoted you. Does that mean you're a bad moderator?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you said that when someone insults the president, you are insulting a proportion of population according to approval ratings. so when you insult Cretien or Chirac, you are insulting corresponding nationalities, based on approval ratings.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes in other words, there is a big problem with your communication/composition methos. you can't have numerous staements rolled into one place with no designation and try to have other ppl sort it out.<span id='postcolor'>

I was assuming you'd know what you said.