Us presidential election 2004

[theavonlady 2]

Listen to the experienced ones.

To use your own language: Jahwol!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]How patronizing

Quite rightly so, America is living in the past.

Tsk. Such a backwards country the US is.

This is not just an European view. If you wish to hear what one of the leading neo-conservatives, Robert Kagan says on the subject, I highly recommend his by now famous essay:

Power and Weakness [Policy Review]

It's a very long essay, but well worth the read. I may not agree with everything he says, but I think the basic premisis he lays out are correct:

Quote[/b] ]

It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.†The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory — the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways.

...

...

And here is another very pro-American article, by Robert Cooper, a member of the Blair administration and a very strong advocate of the Iraq war:

The new liberal imperialism [The Observer]

Both articles were written before the Iraq war and they assumed at the time that America would be capable of handling the situation there. While that has not been the case, the general argument is still interesting.

Basically what they both say that WW2 completely changed Europe while America was not affected.

(One comment here for you Avon - I know you mostly associate WW2 with the killings of more than 6 million Jews, but keep in mind that over 28 million Europeans died as well, plus the whole continent was more or less in ruins. )

Europe turned away from its traditional nation-state machtpolitik and started the creation of a postmodern cosmopolitan society. The US on the other hand remained in the nationalistic strong nationstate mode.

Now what both authors are saying is that for the European postmodern society to exist, it needs American brute force for protection as it is a very nasty world out there. I don't necessarily agree with that point, but both articles are certainly worth reading.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Register to Vote!

Remember you can only effect the US leaders by Registering to Vote.

Get your official national Voter registration forms from this link here:

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

That is the form that allows you to decide who will be the next president and vice president of the USA. In a democracy it is your only real power. Use it.

Please Note the Following Exceptions:

* New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own mail-in absentee voter registration form.

* North Dakota does not have voter registration.

* Wyoming cannot accept this form under State law.

Here is where you can rgister to vote

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/where_can_i_register_to_vote02.htm

Quote[/b] ]Registration applications may be obtained from either the local election official in your county or city, or through registration outreach programs sponsored by such groups as the League of Women Voters.  In addition, you can also register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or identity card at State DMV or driver's licensing offices, State offices providing public assistance, State offices providing State-funded programs for the disabled, and at armed forces recruitment offices.

Many States also offer registration opportunities at public libraries, post offices, unemployment offices, and at public high schools and universities. Colleges, universities, and trade schools participating in federal student loan programs also offer voter registration applications to enrolled students prior to general elections.

FAQs about using the National Voter Registration form

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/faqs_about_national_mail_form02.htm

Time is getting short.

The deadlines for registration in some states are fast aproaching Register to Vote now

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/state_voter_reg_deadlines02.htm

Kind Regards Walker

[Schoeler 0]

Right now the US holds 12,400 prisoners that have not been given any legal counsel and have not been charged with a crime. Doesn't have that minty-fresh smell of a modern fair society.

This is a bit of a half-truth considering the Supreme Court just ruled against the Bush Administration's policies and required that the prisoners have representation and a speedy trial.  TBA is now scrambling to get these guys lawyers and maybe even to bring them into the U.S.

Hardly a stalinistic court arrangement, but this comparison of yours between the U.S. and the Soviets is about as fairminded and accurate as your continual insistence on comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying that America is like the Soviet Union. America is largely still a fairly solid western-style democracy, and it's citizens, press etc have plenty of rights. There are worrying tendencies with the Bush government though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Cute lawyers trick Denoir, toss out the comparison, say what you want to get across and then as soon as the objections come retract it, except the jury doesn't forget do they?  It's the same rhetorical tactic.

[Akira 0]

President Trivia

Interesting part:

Quote[/b] ]Presidents who lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote

* Rutherford Hayes - Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, and probably the electoral college vote, but the results were fixed to give Hayes the majority.

* Benjamin Harrison - incumbent president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote

* George W. Bush - Al Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college vote was thrown into doubt by peculiarities in Florida's election, and the election was decided by the Supreme Court.

Presidents who won neither the popular vote nor the electoral college vote, but still ended up as president

* John Quincy Adams - Andrew Jackson had more votes in both categories.

Presidents who were chosen by the House of Representatives because no one had a majority

* Thomas Jefferson (1st term)

* John Quincy Adams

So there is precedent for it.

Quote[/b] ] Pure democracy is mob rule. In a pure democracy the majority rules. It's simple there is 9 of us and 1 of you we are in control. So what stops a referendum such as "all in favor of Akira giving us all his money?" and then you and 9 other people vote. They all vote yes you vote no. Say good bye to your money the majority has spoken. That's pure democracy baby.

A constitutional democracy is set up so the minority is protected from the majority. That's where the electoral college comes in. If we went by mob rules popular vote California, New York and Texas would decide every election. There is way more people in those three states, so you might as well forget about voting if you live any where else. With the electoral college each state is divided up into sections. Each section is worth a point. So some little county in the sticks is worth just as much as a big city. See that way the little guy in a rural area gets his voice heard, not just the cities.

Is it really that hard to understand? Personally I think it could be improved. For example I think each state should be worth one point total. That way every state is totally equal no more population centers deciding the course for the election.

So in the above case, instead of mob rule you have the will of the majority being held hostage by the minority. The majority of the people wanted Gore(in a republic and a democracy majority rules does it not?), but we still got Bush. How is that the basis of good government when the will of the people doesn't matter to what the out-dated and ineffective electoral college decides? Then why even bother voting since what you want doesn't matter?

Instead of California and Texas and New York deciding an election, you have Florida deciding the outcome by itself! And once again, the majority of the people wanted Gore, the electoral college said No you get Bush.

Mob rule? The constitution protects individuals rights, so your example is a non-arguement as it wouldn't happen. You seem to think its impossible to have a democracy and a constitution, since what you advocate is a republic (as we have now) and not a true democracy.

And yes it is hard to understand. When the majority of the people in the United States say they want Al Gore, and the electoral college says no you get Bush, there is something fundamentally wrong with that system. It basically says that whatever the people want, ONE state can decide an entire election, and even go against what the people want. That is wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Please quote where I advocated an "authoritative dictatorship".

Was sarcasm based on A) your statement of following only the constitution (referncing the changes I sited) and B) your cavalier attitude towards the voice of thousands of voters being ignored.

Quote[/b] ]All I've advocated is keeping foreign nations out of our electoral process. Something I know for a fact the founding fathers would approve of.

You know nothing of the founding fathers.

Foreign nations? It's a foreign group. A group that is obviously needed if elections can be won so easily with such blatant corruption.

If you think the founding fathers would want corruption in elections, an election decided by the Courts, and the dis-enfranchisment of thousands of voters, then you obviously need to goback to history class.

So don't dare tell me I don't know the Founding Fathers.

Quote[/b] ] On a final note: people you really should learn to read a post point by point and decide if you agree or disagree with each point. You all seem to look at a post and just decide before hand " I hate this guy" and then go in trying to figure out how to disprove each point.

First off I never said I hate you. Hell I don't even know you.

But your ideas do indeed irk the hell out of me, as they advocate the returning of isolationism and rejection of internationalism.

The UN would not come into meddle nor to decide an election. They would be here to ensure a fair election, which is obviously needed considering 2000 (and I am not talking about popular vote vs electoral vote. That is a different discussion) I'm talking about the widespread corruption and irregularities widely published. Gee. Thousands of voters ballots are discarded who just happen to be Democratic voters. A candidate is elected by this process in his brothers state and by a Republican overseeing the ballot counting (and discarding). Does that in the least bit sound fishy??

Quote[/b] ]Further more you know nothing of authoritative dictatorships. Dictatorships don't have term limits Einstein.

No kidding ass monkey. I was unaware of that. *sarcasm*

Maybe you should open your eyes and look around this country. Apparently you are incapable of critically thinking about the state of this country.

Patriot Act anyone? Corrupt elections anyone? Illegally holding foreign nationals anyone?

If "term limits" is the best you can come up with then we are in trouble. There will be one after Bush, and one after that, and one after that.

You don't have to have one ruler in a modern day dictatorship. You can just as easily be held hostage by a party.

Quote[/b] ]I'm a little confused. How is advocating being loyal to your flag and not the UN's going against the constitution? Is there some part I over looked that says " All citizens are UN members first, Americans second"?

I wasn't advocating loyalty to the UN's flag, but I wasn't dismissing it just because it was "foreign" either.

I was referencing again your desire to silence thousands of voters, a clear violation of the constitution as it stands today.

Quote[/b] ] A: Actually it's way to soon to say if we are losing.

Al Queda still loose, Osama Bin Laden still loose (the actual perpetrator of 9/11), Afghanistan a mess with daily attacks, a completely unrelated war in Iraq (pushed by the administration with a promise of Al Queda links and WMD....all so far proven false)bogging us down and daily killing of soldiers and civilians, terror attacks across the world on the rise as are the casualties, and former allies and other countries now staunchly against us.

If I missed a victory let me know.

Quote[/b] ]B: I seriously doubt they hate us because a few people in the US despise the UN. They majority of the world hates us for all kinds of reasons, to try to tie it all to my resistance to the UN is giving me way to much credit.

In an era where the world is embracing internationalism, you are advocating isolationism straight out of 1920.

That is what I based it on.

Quote[/b] ]Though prohibition was a constitutional amendment also.

Of course by your constitutionalism is wouldn't have become on in the first place.

Quote[/b] ]As for those with no property not being able to vote I actually can see good in that one... sort of. I'd rather explain my point of view on that one in another thread I'm thinking about starting, Just not tonight because I'm going to bed after this post.

I await your topic then.

Quote[/b] ] I still can't believe I posted here, I try to keep out of politics on the net.

It becomes an addiction...

Quote[/b] ]It's so cute the way you talk about your old and dusty constitution. Too bad you didn't get better along with the Soviets, you are so much alike.

Trivia: Do you know the words "under God" were added because the original was nearly identical to the Soviet pledge?

Interesting.

Though I don't see what the Constitution has to do with the "Pledge Of Allegiance."

Course also you don't have to recite the pledge in America. Something I doubt in the Soviet Union (unless you wanted an all paid vacation to Siberia).

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying that America is like the Soviet Union.

As shown above, actually you did exactly that.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, "Svoboda" and "Pravda" in Russian and part of the Soviet pledge of allegiance.

So? As you quite capable of knowing, they may have been similiar but quite different in actual practice. As in you actually had liberty and justice in America.

Quote[/b] ]I think you'll find it justifiable patronization as America has existed for what? Less than 230 years? The European countries have a history of more than 2,300 years. Been there, done that. Listen to the experienced ones.

Interesting. But considering many European countries exist in their modern form for quite less then the US, a non-arguement.

Thats all for now. Move along.

Gotta go celebrate the birth of my nation (which some may think as radical ) by getting plastered and watching things explode.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying that America is like the Soviet Union. America is largely still a fairly solid western-style democracy, and it's citizens, press etc have plenty of rights. There are worrying tendencies with the Bush government though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Cute lawyers trick Denoir, toss out the comparison, say what you want to get across and then as soon as the objections come retract it, except the jury doesn't forget do they?  It's the same rhetorical tactic.

Ok, I'll try to explain it again. I thought that I was fairly clear on what I meant, and Ex-Ronin explained it too.

I'm talking about style and form. America's style today is the equivalent of Europe's in the 1930's, specifically of authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Stalinism and Nazism.

I'm not saying that America is an authoritarian regime, but I say that it has clear similarities in style and form. And it's across the political spectrum. I'll give you a few examples:

Worship of the state:

America: the constitution, the republic

Soviet: the socialist republic

Nazi-Germany: ein volk, ein land...

Indoctrination of children:

America: Pledge of allegiance

Soviet: Pledge of allegiance (unlike America, it was voluntary for the "pioneers")

Nazi-Germany:  Pledge of allegiance (unlike America, it was voluntary for the "Hitler Jugend")

Worship of the founders:

America: founding fathers

Soviet: Lenin & the Bolsheviks

Nazi-Germany: Hitler

Worship of the leaders:

America: President - (hail to the chief, air force one, "the prez" etc - related to the office rather than the person

Soviet: Stalin and Lenin, but afterwards not really

Nazi-Germany: Der Führer

Blatant nationalism:

America: excessive flag waving, singing the anthem at just about any event etc

Soviet: same as above

Nazi-Germany: Same as above

Militarism:

America: Everything from the unison "we support our troops" to the various holidays devoted to expressing "gratitude" to veterans of past wars to the integration of the defence industry into almost every part of the industrial core of the country. Plus air shows, movies etc etc etc

Soviet: Military parades, military integrated into the industrial core of the country

Nazi-Germany: all of the above

Validation by absolutes:

America: God

Soviet: The proletariat/the workers

Nazi-Germany: the arian race

Intolerance to any criticism of the things listed above:

America: Accusing people, both domestic and foreign of being "anti-American" or "un-American"

Soviet: anti-Soviet or "against the People of the Soviet Union"

Germany: "undeutsch"

===========================================

Do you understand now what I'm talking about? I'm not saying that USA is about to open Gulags and concentration camps. What I'm saying is that America is drawing its rethorics, style and form from the principles of the "strong nation state" model as was popular starting in the 19th century until the end of WW2. It caused a shitload of trouble in Europe and as a consequence the world.

Two world wars were started because of that kind of shit. In the two wars Europe saw the apocalyptic consequences of having that kind of states; America did not. A second turning point was IMO in the late 60's, early 70's with the big social revolutions around the world. The "hippies" never won anywhere really, but in Europe they made an impact, while in America the conservative forces prevailed.

Perhaps with Bush, Americans will come to see things differently. He is a perfect example of a nationalistic facade without any substance. His popularity comes not from what he achieves, but in how much he waves a flag and tells how great America is. And through the nationalism, facilitated by an external attacks, he slices away the constitutional rights that your people claim to hold so dear (Gitmo, Patriot Act etc), without anybody really objecting.

Akira:

Quote[/b] ]

Interesting. But considering many European countries exist in their modern form for quite less then the US, a non-arguement.

Not sure what you are refering to. Most European countries have existed in the same form for many centuries. We have changed constitutions and forms of government, but it is a straight legal procedure and a complete continuation. Sweden got its first written constitution in the 14th century. Our latest version is from 1974. It's the same country though with a clear legal succession. On averge we write a new constitution every 150 years to reflect the social changes in the country, change of ideals etc For instance the latest constitution transformed the parliament into a one-chamber system instead of the previous two-chamber etc

[SpongeBob 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....id=1617

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ](unlike America, it was voluntary for the "pioneers")

I know what you mean....my teacher use to have a gun to my back and force me to say it. The pledge got real repetitive has I got older and so I stop saying but still stand (to respect the people who died for this country not to seig heil). Is that indoctrination...

Quote[/b] ]

Validation by absolutes:

America: God

Soviet: The proletariat/the workers

Nazi-Germany: the arian race

God enter the pledge to basically say that the soviets were godless. Before the 50s, god was not in it.

Quote[/b] ]

America: Everything from the unison "we support our troops" to the various holidays devoted to expressing "gratitude" to veterans of past wars to the integration of the defence industry into almost every part of the industrial core of the country. Plus air shows, movies etc etc etc

Soviet: Military parades, military integrated into the industrial core of the country

Nazi-Germany: all of the above

So, your country does not have any days to honor your veterans or air shows or war movies....

.......................bah..............this topic is the about the presidential election...................

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not sure what you are refering to. Most European countries have existed in the same form for many centuries. We have changed constitutions and forms of government, but it is a straight legal procedure and a complete continuation. Sweden got its first written constitution in the 14th century. Our latest version is from 1974. It's the same country though with a clear legal succession. On averge we write a new constitution every 150 years to reflect the social changes in the country, change of ideals etc For instance the latest constitution transformed the parliament into a one-chamber system instead of the previous two-chamber etc

Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but two obvious choices are Germany and Italy. And most of the former Warsaw Pact governments. France as well, not counting WW2, considering they had Napolean and La Revolution (who screwed around with the British enough to help us win the Second War Of Independance aka War of 1812).

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ](unlike America, it was voluntary for the "pioneers")

I know what you mean....my teacher use to have a gun to my back and force me to say it. The pledge got real repetitive has I got older and so I stop saying but still stand (to respect the people who died for this country not to seig heil). Is that indoctrination...

It's indoctrination when children get a political message repeated over and over again. Because of their young age they get it as a fundament of their definition of society. It doesn't matter if you personally have to say it or not - swearing loyatly to the state is an every-day routine. It becomes so common, so fundamental that you don't question it.

Quote[/b] ]God enter the pledge to basically say that the soviets were godless. Before the 50s, god was not in it.

I'm not talking about the pledge. I'm talking about justifying your actions by referencing some higer abstract values - in this case God. It's very often used by your politicians.

Quote[/b] ]So, your country does not have any days to honor your veterans or air shows or war movies....

We had our last war 200 years ago, so no, not really  

That's not my point however. I'm talking about the pro-forma symbolsim. The parades are not for the benefit of the veterans, it is for the benefit of the state. It is about glorifying the concept of war to ensure getting a steady supply of recruits. It is about validating your own beliefs and what your state faught for.

If you want to do something for the veterans, ensure that they have social security. There are thousands of homeless veterans who I'm sure would appreciate some financial help rather than that you throw them a parade. Instead of babbling about "their great sacrifice for their country", don't lower their veteran's pay. Give them a pension that they can survive on.

Akira:

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but two obvious choices are Germany and Italy. And most of the former Warsaw Pact governments. France as well, not counting WW2, considering they had Napolean and La Revolution (who screwed around with the British enough to help us win the Second War Of Independance aka War of 1812).

Germany and Italy yes. As for the Eastern-European countries, a bunch of them were post-WW2 creations (some after WW1). They're however mostly back to their original form. Also you must consider the fact that the big blob called Austria-Hungary contained a bunch of them - but it was a more or less federal system - the countries that you see on the map today did indeed have own parliaments and governements while they were under the umbrella of the A-H empire.

As for the French.. well.. in their system a revolution is more or less a legitimate way of changing a government. Think popular elections but with guillotines

[Scrub 0]

Denoir's Excerpt:

Quote[/b] ] Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.â€

Hmm. a bit of a different setting, and also, admittedly, context of legislature bodies, and it isn't all that different from the STATES of the union? Is it? 'Ceptin we all here speak the same language 'cross borders, don'tcha know.

Ninpo Ikkan Denoir

[korax 4]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040703/i/r836235276.jpg

Am I the only one that finds this picture... humorous?  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Am I the only one that finds this picture... humorous?

[Akira 0]

"I don't like this film being reduced to Bush vs. Kerry"

Quote[/b] ]New York -- “I don’t like this film being reduced to Bush vs. Kerry,†Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore tells TIME’s Richard Corliss in this week’s cover story. Moore tells TIME, “When Clinton was president I went after him. And if Kerry’s president, on Day Two I’ll be on him.â€

Another interesting part:

Quote[/b] ]The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which books films to be shown on military bases around the world, has contacted Fahrenheit’s distributor to book the film, TIME reports.

[billybob2002 0]

Akira,

can you help me find the interviews that Michael Moore did in Europe that you will be mad at (what he says about America and etc.)? I cannot find any links but they do exist...

[theavonlady 2]

Worship of the state:

I do not know any fellow American's that "worship" the state.

Quote[/b] ]Indoctrination of children:

I do not know any fellow American's who have "indoctrinated" their children or whose children have been "indoctrinated".

Quote[/b] ]Worship of the founders:

I do not know any Americans who "worship" the founding fathers.

Quote[/b] ]Worship of the leaders:

I do not know any Americans who "worship" its leaders.

Quote[/b] ]Blatant nationalism:

I have seen Americans who are "very" nationalistic and there are those that are "blatantly" nationalistic.

Quote[/b] ]Militarism:

In times of war and crisis, I see nothing wrong with supporting our troops, which you oddly define as "militarism". Expressing gratitude is an elementary human trait of kindness and decency, maybe lacking in people like you. And in case you don't know it, the vast majority of Americans are beaching and picknicking on Memorial Day. The holdiay's purpose and meaning is mostly lost, thought it has regained some of that in the last few years because of the current conflicts.

Quote[/b] ]Validation by absolutes:

God will be an absolute to anyone who is a believer, whether in America, Sweden or North Korea. You're an absolute secularist, comrade. Much closer to the Soviets, IMO.

Quote[/b] ]Intolerance to any criticism of the things listed above:

Any critcism? Silly. BTW, you are anti-American or do you forbid me from saying that.

Quote[/b] ]Do you understand now what I'm talking about?

Yes. Like a ridiculous piece of Soviet era anti-American propaganda piece to the masses, you use exagerations and vitriol to fabricate a portrait of the US that paints an absurdly false picture, equating it to no less than Nazi Germany.

You sound more the indoctrinated brainwashed drone out of a relic communist country than I could imagine would exist in a "free" and "open-minded" Europe. Maybe bad European habits die hard:

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." - Adolph Hitler

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I want to see this movie so bad....

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I want to see this movie so bad....

ROFLMAO....kinda wish denoirw ould point out that by watching the movie those guys added 10 bucks to revenue.

you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

[theavonlady 2]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I want to see this movie so bad....

If you see the movie, you might come out of the theater indoctrinated to blatanty worship Moore.

[theavonlady 2]

you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

I don't know where you come from (California? The faulty state? ) but a flaw is a flaw, no matter where its from.

[billybob2002 0]

Found some links.....

http://www.sacticket.com/calendar/story/7683167p-8623055c.html

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1432_A_1035379_1_A,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1441_A_1006907_1_A,00.html

I wish I can find some clips...there are clips...

edit: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news....ge.html -love this

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

Quote[/b] ]Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.†The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

Quote[/b] ]Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.†The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

"You can fool all of the people." - Abraham Lincoln

[ralphwiggum 6]

you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

I don't know where you come from (California?   The faulty state? ) but a flaw is a flaw, no matter where its from.

yet GOP failed to acknowledge theirs, and claim that it's only on Dem's side.

Quote[/b] ]Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.†The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

taking out of context. GOP used it too. but I seldom see 'patriotic' americans throuwing same fit as they do when Dems do it.

Quote[/b] ]

if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

yeah and idiocy of pre 9-11 americans did not help it either. which political party proposed not getting involved in world affairs?

[theavonlady 2]

you really gotta love it when GOP makes something and 'liberals' point flaws, it's called nitpicking or being pedantic, but when GOP point flaws, it's called 'correction'

I don't know where you come from (California?   The faulty state? ) but a flaw is a flaw, no matter where its from.

yet GOP failed to acknowledge theirs, and claim that it's only on Dem's side.

And vice versa. That's my point.

But Michael Moore isn't a Republican or Democratic politician that's tossed out a one liner fib on some 30 second news spot.