Environment and the Energy Plan

[olgakurt]

EPA Directives
C Multi-pollutant legislation - EPA is directed to propose legislation and work with Congress to establish mandatory reduction targets for sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury. The legislation should include a reasonable phase in period, regulatory certainty for utilities, and market based incentives.
C Energy Star - The Energy Star program should be expanded to include schools, retail buildings, health care facilities, and homes.
C Combined Heat and Power (CHP) - EPA should work with local and state governments to promote the use of well-designed CHP and other clean power generation at brownfield sites and to clarify any liability issues that may be raised. In addition, guidance should be drafted to shorten the time needed to obtain CHP permits and provide certainty to industry through consistent implementation. CHP should be promoted through flexibility in environmental permitting.
C Energy Efficiency - EPA is directed to develop and implement a strategy to increase public awareness of the sizable savings that energy efficiency offers to homeowners.
C Renewable Energy Partnership Program - EPA is directed to develop a new renewable energy partnership program to help companies and consumers more easily buy renewable energy, and companies receive recognition for their contributions to the environment.
EPA Partnership Directives in the National Energy Policy Report
C New Source Review (NSR) - EPA shall conduct a 90-day study, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE) and other agencies, of the impact of NSR regulations on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.
C Streamlining of Refinery Permitting - EPA and DOE are directed to work together to ensure that America has adequate refining capacity by streamlining the permitting process where possible, adopting comprehensive regulations, and considering the rules= cumulative impacts and benefits, without compromising environmental protection.
C Boutique Fuels - EPA is directed to study opportunities, in consultation with DOE and other agencies, to maintain or improve the environmental benefits of state and local "boutique" fuels program while exploring ways to increase the flexibility of the fuels distribution infrastructure, improve fungibility, and provide added gasoline market liquidity.
C Truck Idling - EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are directed to work with the trucking industry to establish a program to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from long-haul trucks at truck stops by implementing alternatives to idling, such as electrification and auxiliary power units at truck stops along interstate highways.
C Nuclear Energy - To support nuclear energy as a major component of our national energy policy, the best science should be used to provide a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste and EPA and DOE are directed to work together to assess the potential of nuclear energy to improve air quality.
General Directives in the National Energy Policy Report
C Statements in Regulatory Actions - The President should issue an Executive Order to direct all federal agencies to include in any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, a detailed statement on the energy impact of the proposed action, any unavoidable adverse energy effects of implementation, and alternatives to the proposed action.
C Energy Production Permitting - The President should issue an Executive Order directing federal agencies to expedite permits and other federal actions necessary for energy-related project approvals on a national basis. The President is directing the Council on Environmental Quality to establish a task force to coordinate federal agencies actions.
C Energy Conservation - The heads of executive departments and agencies are directed to take appropriate actions to maximize the conservation of energy use at their facilities, particularly during peak demand for facilities in regions where electricity shortages are possible. Agencies should report to the President, through the Secretary of Energy, within 30 days on the conservation actions taken.
C Technological Advances - All agencies are directed to use technological advances to better protect our environment. Specifically, the Administration remains committed to investing in Intelligent Transportation Systems and remains committed to DOT=s fuel-cell-powered transit bus program and the Clean Buses program.
C Global Climate Change - All agencies are directed to support continued research into global climate change. Agencies should work domestically and in cooperation with allies to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of global climate change.
Areas of Interest Not Related to EPA
C Department of Justice (DOJ) NSR Review - DOJ is directed to conduct a review on existing enforcement actions regarding NSR to ensure that the enforcement actions are consistent with the Clean Air Act and its regulations.
C Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards - DOT is to provide recommendations on establishing CAFÉ standards taking into consideration the National Academy of Sciences study due out in July.
C Energy Efficiency Goal - DOE is directed to establish a national energy priority goal for improving energy efficiency.
C Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Department of Interior is to work with Congress to authorize exploration and, if resources are discovered, development of the coastal plain originally contemplated by Congress for such exploration and development.
C Renewable Energy - DOE is to conduct a review of current funding and historic performance of renewable energy and alternative energy research and development programs in light of the recommendations of the report.
C Tax Credits - Treasury is directed to work with Congress to implement tax credits for hybrid cars, CHP, and landfill methane projects.

[superfly]

I appreciate your posting this. Its the administrations token nod towards the well meaning but inactive "concerned public." He intermixes status quo conservation with an archaic nostalgia for the industrial revolution and the technology it was based on. This list is simply a declaration of total support for the fossil fuel industry. He wants to spend big $$ in expanding domestic fossil fuel sources, build more shoddy refineries, and make nuclear energy "a major component of our national energy policy". Thank goodness he is concerned about truck idling and making sure federal buildings lights are off when not in use.....

Bush and his fascist playmates are like dogs in obedience class, ever eager to please their handlers...(BIG OIL)

-superfly

[Joez]

Who are the "fascist" playmates?

Do you know what the word means?

What are YOUR accomplishments in life that make you such a learned critic?

[olgakurt]

The list is an email I received from EPA administrator Whitman; represents her interpretation of the Bush energy plan and is her directive to EPA employees.

[hartman]

Superfly,

I guess the public is not concerned if they get power or not. Maybe you can do your part and turn your computer off :)

Unfortunately today there is NO green solution that can produce the needed energy for our country. The solution is not to go back to that day before electricity but to generate the cleanest power we can. Nuclear power is currently the best available and totally environmentally friendly. With today improvement in reactors and reprocessing technologies of the core materials it produces almost no waste.

To bad the greens can even see beyond their knee jerk reactions and think about how to improve the situation. For example no matter how hard they b~itch power consumption will not go away. So based on that what should be done? Work to replace all Coal power plants with nuclear, this will cut CO2 output by millions of ton, no more mining for coal, Nuclear produced electric is far more efficiently produced and cheaper. Then after coal has been removed work to get those nukes to start making Hydrogen gas and then replace all gas cars ands trucks with Hydrogen tech. Now your have clean electricity and clean cars and trucks.

Then work on pushing Hydrogen via the gas lines to house and then each house will have a fuel cell, which will make electricity at the house. With this in place all transmission lines can be removed. So the end result will be NO CO2 produced in the US from power plants, cars, trucks, houses, increase efficiently so that we will need to produce less than before.


Your statement "Bush and his fascist playmates are like dogs in obedience class, ever eager to please their handlers...(BIG OIL)" is an actually a statement of how you are the "dog in class". This is the standard line of people who have no solution but to call others names and attack their character. Pres. Bush was never a BIG Oil; you should get your facts right. He owned a small Texas based Oil Company that had about 12 people working for it and about 4 small Texas based "hobby horse" wells. They never produced enough oil to stay profitable and went out of business after only a few years.

Look at what the environmentalists suggest for solutions. Solar power, sorry no luck there. To produce the power of 1 nuclear plant you would need about 10-15 square miles of collectors with the SUN on 24/7/365. Wind, bummer there again cover the whole US with towers and still not enough, and the enviros now don't like wind cause it kills birds. Hydro, bummer kills fish. So basically they have nothing but to say how everything is bad.

Without some breakthrough of cold fusion Nuclear power is the best solution. Look at France and Japan who get over 85% from Nuclear. Before you say about all the radiation and waste lets cover the facts. Three Mile Island was a human error due to a down right criminal design of a nuclear reactor and not due to the reactor itself. Russia problem in Cherynobal was that the Soviets designed the reactor with no safety backups or concern for it peoples. They use carbon to shield the core and water to stop a melt down. Only one small problem carbon burns hotter than water turns to steam. So when the reactor start to meltdown the carbon started to burn and when they flooded the core the water turned to steam and the core meltdown could not be stopped. We never used carbon.

Today plants create 1 mill-rads (spelling) of radiation on sites that directly border the plant. The average human receives about 300-325 mill-rads (spelling) of totally natural radiation from the environment and in high elevation area even more. The waste from plants is easily contained and even if left in a sealed container in the open will not pollute water tables, cause cancer, etc. Stored properly underground in a large stable rock formation is so safe that only people with uniformed understanding would see any danger. What environmentalist should be doing is forcing use to use nuclear and then keeping a vigilante watch to insure all rules and regulation are properly in place and being adhered to.

Hartman

[Kat]

THE VANCOUVER SUN, MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001

TEAM TRIES TO GET ENERGY FROM ICE

Research in Canada's Arctic could revolutionize the energy industry as the U.S. pushes demand higher

- By ED STRUZIK

---------------------------------------------------

EDMONTON - An international team of scientists will fly to the Canadian Arctic just before Christmas to conduct a $10-million experiment that could revolutionize the energy industry and someday solve the gas shortage that has U.S. President George W. Bush pushing the panic button.

As bizzare as it might sound, the scientists will be trying to produce fire from ice.

The fire in this case is methane, a form of natural gas. Enormous volumes of it are contained in deep sea environments all over the world and beneath the permafrost of the Canadian tundra.

Known as methane hydrates, they are the byproduct of sub-surface microbes eating away at organic material. The methane produced by these microbes rises to the surface and combines with water molecules under high pressure conditions and cold temperatures to form an icy solid.

Scientists have known about these natural formations for years.

But research into their properties did not begin in earnest until it was suggested that they could have implications for climate change and for the long-term future of the world's energy supplies.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that, pound for pound, has far more potential to warm the Earth than carbon dioxide. Some climatoligists believe natural releases of methane may have contributed to dramatic periods of warming in the Earth's history.

No one knows just how much methane hydrate there is in the world, but conservative estimates suggest there is more energy to be derived from them than from all of the hydrocarbon resources in the world today.

Exploiting those reserves as a potential source of energy would not have been possible a decade ago when technology was not advanced enough to drill deep into the sea and permafrost. Besides, there was enough cheap natural gas around the world to meet demands. But that has all changed now that many parts of the world are starving for fuel. Hoping to cash in on this enormous resource, the U.S. department of energy, Japan, and a number of other countries have recently set up national research programs into methane hydrate research.

The Japanese were one of the first off the mark in the winter of 1999-2000 when they set out a drill platform into the Nankai Trough, 60 kilometres off Japan's Pacific coast, with plans to drill into the methane hydrate formation below.

Scott Dallimore, a scientist with Natural Resources Canada, says the project was such a success that Japan recently decided to significantly invest in gas hydrate research with an eye to harnessing its energy potential in the next 15 years. He was the only foreign scientist invited to help out with the research on the drill platform.

It was Dallimore and his associates at the Geological Survey of Canada who worked with the Japanese and other partners to drill a test well in the Mackenzie Delta of Canada in 1998 before they drilled in the Pacific.

Now Dallimore and a strong contingent of Canadian scientists and engineers are working with the Japanese, the U.S. department of energy, Germany, India and possibly other research agencis to study the production properties of gas hydrate from the well site in the Arctic next winter.

"I'm very optimistic," says Dallimore. "We are assembling a strong international team of scientists and engineers who will be in the field for nearly three months. The present plan calls for drilling of a main production well about 1,200 meters down and two observation wells. If we're successful, we'll be the first in the world to carry out modern production testing of a gas hydrate deposit."

Even though Canada has a considerable conventional supply of natural gas left in store, Dallimore believes the country is now well poised to take advantage of gas hydrates as a compliment or add-on to our energy supply picture if they can establish economical techniques for recovery.

"At this point my job is to help advance the science," he said. "The real solutions will come by groups like the current operators risking hundreds of millions of dollars exploring for natural gas in the Mackenzie Delta over the next five years."

[hartman]

Kat,

That sound cool reminds me of an article I read about using bacteria in the arctic to consume something like CO2 to make energy. Can't totally remember the facts. I think it would consume ozone depleting, if memory serves.

Hartman

[superfly]

Joez,
no need to get upset and start with the snappy remarks. There is a difference between challenging someone's ideology and attacking them personally. As for

"What are YOUR accomplishments in life that make you such a learned critic?"

Lets see....1)skipped the 3rd grade,3) student body vice president, 3) ummmmm taxpaying citizen. Do those three things qualify me to criticize an "elected" official. he he

Hartman,

I definitely see where you're comming from as far as nuclear energy is concerned. On paper it appears to be the best source of energy currently available in terms of short term environmental costs. However, your assertion that nuclear power "produces almost no waste" it incorrect. While it does not produce waste on the vast scale of the fossil fuel industry, the waste it does produce is so toxic that there is currently no foolproof way to dispose of it. Also, although the technology is there to run these things safely, the fact that human error has been a factor in the last three major nuclear screwups simply shows that this technology is and will remain unsafe.

I do agree that a hydrogen based energy infrastructure(as is being implemented in iceland) is probably the best alternative to fossil fuels. Perhaps we will be able to power our fuel cells with the methane hydrates that kat mentioned. It wouldn't be completely "green" though it would be a significant improvement. At the very least, the outdated "grid" could be done away with.
-superfly

[hartman]

superbly,

We are both right, it produces very small amount in size but that is very "hot". This can be stored very safely and is easy to monitor. But even if the storage system is no perfect a Nuke/Hydrogen system is far cleaner than the current oil/gas/coal system we have now.

Also current reactor are super safe to operate. Design changes over the last 20 years have made them almost fool proof. The 3-Mile was before usability engineers were included in the designs. They currently have multi fail-over systems, backup systems, and humans to watch them.
Improved design and even better core meltdown prevention systems.

Hartman


[Edited by hartman on 05-22-2001 at 03:12 PM]

[Aquaman]

Hartman wrote:Unfortunately today there is NO green solution that can produce the needed energy for our country.

LMAO Thats what the governments want you to think.

They consider all the following to be DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY disruptive to economic policy that is!!

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm
Thomas E. Bearden
Ph.D., nuclear engineer, retired Lieutenant Colonel (U.S. Army), is pretty much the who's who of physics! and has published a few papers on whats wrong with modern physics and the math involved.

http://www.rense.com/general9/unveil.htm

Patent here (http://www.delphion.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/WO00028656A1)

http://www.geocities.com/stclairtech/

This last link is from a person I know and I also know someone else that lives here in FLA that has a working device like the above link but he has no website.

[hartman]

Aquaman, with all do respect

Now I'm LMAO,

Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG), So can this replaces a 400MegaWatt power plants? I don't think so.

New Magnetic-Electric Device Can Power Home From Near Free Energy Source, To bad you can't even buy one and can they product a hundred million in the next year to help us meet demand?

St.Clair Technologies, Single guy working on a little device. Please order 5 billion units to equal one 1MW power plant. Please this POS is made of tinfoil and old marbles.

Yes these are cool TECHNOLGIES and could in the FUTURE help us but we need power now.

Hartman


[Edited by hartman on 05-22-2001 at 07:40 PM]

[Kahuna Tuna]

The problem as far as I can see is that the image of nuclear power the majority of people in this country have is the one they get from movies like the China syndrome and the hysterical rantings of anti nuke activists. As Hartman so aptly pointed out nuclear power is currently the best option, certainly not perfect, for providing power for the masses. The technologies that Kat and Aquaman speak of may ultimately be a superior form of power but in the here and now nuclear energy, despite its drawbacks is the cleanest and most cost effective alternative we have. When somebody finally invents a better power source not even the dreaded "big oil" is going to be able to prevent its being utilized. Superfly, of course you are able to criticize elected officials, its just that when you make ridiculous statements people dont give much creedence to what you have to say despite your "impressive" credentials.

[Joez]

Who are the "fascist" playmates?

Name them so they will be exposed. If there are such people in this government, I want to know so they can be exposed and weeded out!

Who are the "fascist" playmates?

Let's stop this insurgency!

You have every right to criticize, but your statement, if true, shows a certain insight that is very acute. You must have a special qualification such as personal knowledge of these people, or a way of gleening the information. You make an alarming revelation.

Who are the "fascist" playmates?

Is the President a fascist?
Is the Vice President a fascist?

Who in the Administration is one?

Some labels are so extreme that we should question them. These days I sometimes hear people refer to other people as "Nazis", "fascists", or "white supremecists" without even a shred of evidence that these terms apply. Such terms get thrown around so easily, but their meanings are huge.

Maybe you used a term like that instead of referring to them as "people who's views I do not hold"?

[Aquaman]

Hartman:

why build 400megawatt powerplants when the possability exists to have something thats much smaller and can sit in your back yard. Kind of like buying a small generator but to run the house!

The last link was just to show that the technology is within the grasp of your average person! The guy I mentioned here in Fla built a similar device but large enough to almost run his whole house! the first three he built exploded in his garage but now has a working device.

Remember Apple started out in a garage with a device that by todays standard is laughable.

These technologys could be on the market next year if it was important enough or enough money could be made! The cost of a single 400megawatt powerplant would be more than enough money to get a manufacturing plant built to produce the MEG in quantity.

This is the problem with our government and citizans today! the almighty dollar is what drives the economy! The power brokers and corrupt leaders will do what ever it can to squash a technology that would take money away from them. And the citizans don't care as long as we can keep our SUV on the road!

If you don't believe that! answer the following!

Do you know who invented Alternating Current? how about who invented the radio, Who invented Direct Current?

If you answered Thomas Edison for any of them your wrong!

take a look at how a person who litterly electrified the world with his inventions got squashed by another inventor who had money and powerful people to back him.
http://www.concentric.net/~jwwagner/

[hartman]

Aquaman,

I also agree with you about small house based generators, I just want real solutions now like companies like this

<a href=<"http://www.hpower.com/homepage.html">Home Fuel Cells</a>

Hartman

[Joez]

I'm getting a broken link on that Hartman. Please check.

Thanks!

[Aquaman]

Joez, copy the link and take paste it then look at the link, its got a VBcode error stuck in it.


Hartman: Cool stuff! Like I said their are other technologys beside digging more Oil, Coal, or using Nuke plants. By the time company's could dig and pump oil or build a nuke plant the MEG or others could be in full production and if power companies could see beyond the end of their noise they could even buy into these technologies by buying back excess power like they do from people that have wind generators.

To me its kind of like setting up a reef tank, I can buy cheap equipment and then in a year or two buy the equipment that I should have sunk my money into in the first place! Or I can save my money and invest it into the right equipment the first time around.

These inventors will never get support of the Oil barons but your power companies that depend on oil, coal, or buying power from other plants might see the advantages and money that these alternatives provide.

[hartman]

Aquaman,

Your theory of the Oil and Coal barons is flawed. Since you believe that greed is the only motivator for these companies and not supplying our country with a service we need to maintain our currently style of life then alternate fuel would be huge profit.

For example bad "Big Oil" company builds a few nukes and use "free" water the crack into hydrogen gas. Then that gas with no loss can be directly to the comsumers house for consumption. This system would be just what greedy companies want. They get super high ratio of efficiency from nuke into hydrogen gas. Then all 100% of the output is going to get to the consume unlike today where most power plants convert into electricity at about 15% and then they lose and additional 70% due to distance. The new model would allow them meet and increase supply without having to add tons of plants. Then add into the mix the huge amount spent finding and shipping all the oil and coal.

I really wish that people would get a life on these BS about big oil. Why is it that the computer industry is not attacked like them or other large corps that supply what we need and want. People who work in these industries are just like you and me and are not driven only by raping and pillaging our world. This is just a rouse of people unwilling to embrace the future and who have no real sollution so they resort to demonizing the industry. I would suggest to take you own advise and not believe every these people say as gospel.

The reason these guys don't get their money is not because the big oil wants to stop them it is cause their stuff is not economically viable. At best is just plain "gee this would be really cool, to bad we would need 20 Billion dollars to make one plant that might run" Most of stuff you point out other than the first one are people in their backyard playing with magnets and crap. This right now an in the next 20 year will do nothing for us today for supplying us with the needed energy.

Quote Aquaman "LMAO That's what the governments want you to think."

Hartman


[Edited by hartman on 05-22-2001 at 10:21 PM]

[hartman]

PS I just get a little bothered about the bashing of oil/coal/gas, so if I sound a little curt sorry

Hartman

[superfly]

joez,
please accept my apologies for not having adequately answered your previous post. Fascism is a difficult thing to define. When I use the term, its usually to describe an individual or a group that shares a number of characteristics that, when combined, label them as fascists. Now before I go any further, please note that I am not "bashing" any person (except GWB------>wink) or party, as this is a bipartisan trend in this country. I call him a fascist for these reasons:
He is elitist, he and his party project a religiosity that does not belong in government, and he is desperately looking for an enemy. There are more but let me start with these three.

Doesn't it seem odd that out of the millions of people living in this country that George Bush seniors son GW, ends up president, and his brother is a governor, and that GWB won the election with the slimest margin in US history in his brother's state?

I don't have to work in a fish store to know that stinks.

As for religion, one just needs to look at the world today to see why there is no place for it in government. This post is going to get way too long.......I'm not a stalinist, but look at the balkans. Compare the region today to when it was under tito and co.

Now I see GW pushing for another bogus national missile defense system and I just have to take a deep breath. Its been proven time and time again to be unfeasable, but hey, it makes big news and gets people thinking about those crafty north koreans.

I know I said I'd go on, but to be honest, I'm a little bored. I'm going back to the reef board for a while.....

-superfly

[Joez]

As expected, no substance.

You're right about it being boring.

I need a break; I think I'll go hang outside a Starbucks, hand out "Free Mumiya" leaflets, and bum quarters.

[Kat]

So, Joez, "What are YOUR accomplishments in life that make you such a learned critic?"

Besides which, anyone who would willingly hand out "Free Mumiya" pamphlets deserves at the very least to pay the absurd $$$ Starbucks charges for a coffee... ;)

Peace to your reef!!

[Kat]

Joez: "As expected, no substance."

:D

[signu459]

You guys need to learn how to take a joke!

Thanks Joe, you keep me laughing, almost as much as the liberals do.

Originally posted by superfly
joez,
Fascism is a difficult thing to define. When I use the term, its usually to describe an individual or a group that shares a number of characteristics that, when combined, label them as fascists.

No it really is not that difficult to define at all. If you had taken the time as I did you could have found the real meaning of Fascism, instead of making your own up. Since you did not make such an effort I have, see below.

From Cambrige International Dictionary of English

fascism noun
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed
Mussolini played a key role in the rise of fascism in Italy in the 1920s.

From Dictionary.com

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.

Often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

From WWWebsters Dictionary

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.


By your definition everyone who shares the same ideology is Fascist, so I guess all Liberals are fascist and all Environmentalists are Fascist, and I guess we reefer are all Fascist. Of course I am a HUGE fasist becuase I am a right wing nut, not to mentions that fact that I regulary get to gether with friends to cycle, I also like to eat and breath and I know a lot of people who like that.

What a JOKE

As you can see from the real difintions Fascism is a VERY strong word. Also as you can see from the definitions you have used it totaly out of context and inncorectly.

Bush is not a dictator.
Bush allows his oppostion to speak and act freely.
Bush is not oppressing his opposition forcably.
Bush is not reigning through terror or censorship
Bush is not a Racist
Bush is not enforcing stringent socioeconomic controls

No one in his adim is doing any of the above either.

You wonder why people react to your statements? Well mostly because they are a line of BS. then you expect to be taken seriously.

Now that is substance


[Edited by signu459 on 05-24-2001 at 09:46 AM]

[Kat]

Ooh, fun with dictionaries. Can I play? ;)

...from the Oxford Reference dictionary

Fascism: an extreme right-wing totalitarian political system or such views, originally as prevailling in Italy (1922-43) where it was founded by Mussolini. It spread to other European countries (Hitler developed a more racialist brand of authoritarianism is Germany) and to South America.

Hey, even I agree Bush isn't a fascist, he doesn't quite fit those dictionary definitions, the main reason being that the USA apparently isn't a totalitarian state.

However... (again from the Oxford Reference dictionary)

rig: to manage or conduct fraudulently.

fraud: 1. criminal deception. 2. a dishonest artifice or trick, an impostor.

dictator: a ruler (often a usurper) with unrestricted authority; a person with supreme authority in any sphere; a domineering person.

However, Bush does fit the definition of a dictator and a fraud, and his electoral 'tactics' and eventualy 'victory' hinged upon the presidential election being rigged. Or such is the international opinion on the subject.

Why? Well, let's think together for a while. Even though more people nationwide voted for Gore, Bush won by a very questionable recount in his brother's state and only because a technicality forced an outdated electoral college to lend Bush the winning vote. Even Russia, which is not a pillar of democratic rule, said, 'Wait-a-second, something's not right here...'

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Amercian. I'm anti-Bush, for what I believe to be very good reasons. BIG difference.

democracy: 1. government by all the people, direct or representative; a State having this. 2. a form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.

Well, we all already know that a majority of the people didn't vote for your current president - one black mark against democracy. Also, the Bush family has had one head of the CIA (who later became president), and his of his two sons, one became a state govenor and the other the president, by questionable means - another black mark against democracy, considering their hereditary class distinction isn't - and wasn't - exactly ignored, now was it?? Minority views, especially of those of aboriginals and environmentalists, are ignored - even treaty obligations have fell to the wayside as Bush pursues his own personal policies and goals - another black mark.

Oh, I do believe that all the defining principles of a democracy have been cancelled out by Bush's actions. Americans don't live in a democracy today. If you disagree with me, that's well and fine. Perhaps we should wait 25 years and see what the historians write.

Or, perhaps, you should use your amazing dictionary skills to look up the word denial.

[Joez]

Kat, Kat, Kat.

My accomplishments are too numerous to list here. If you would like to be mentored by me, via e-mail, I can reveal to you all of my splendor; you must only promise to submit to my teachings.

Anyway, I was trying to give that poster a chance to refine the diatribe, but he/she didn't want to come around.

I enjoy some bombast, obviously. You do too (I'm still waiting for you to ammend referring to me as sounding like a white supremecist, btw :rolleyes: that really does hurt, if I may be serious for a moment on this board). But are you serious in calling GW a dictator? You risk your substantial credibility! Do you believe that Democracy has been lost in the U.S.? You know, of course, how our election of President is set up with the Electoral College, etc. Stating that the opponent apparently got more popular votes is true, but of no significance. Do you mean to say the CIA connection fixed the election? Do you think JFK is still alive on a tropical island?

[hartman]

Kat,

Sorry but your wrong again.

Bush did not win by "very questionable recount" in "his bothers state". Please it was GORE who only wanted recounts in counties they would come out in his favor rather than a statewide count. Most of the recent unofficial recounts show that BUSH won. Yes it was very close and within the margin of error, and yes their voting system sucks but that system is used around the US. It is almost laughable the excuse that Jeb Bush rigged that election, he has no control over that.

"Outdated Electoral College", Kat you need to learn a little more about how our systems works. The Electoral College is one of the best ways of insuring everyone voice is heard. It was design and rightly by our founding fathers to stop the consolidation of power in either urban or the country. Bush won 2,434 counties and Gore only won 677. Without this system you only need to campaign in California, New York, Florida, Michigan, and Texas, this would basicly leave 40 plus states out of our system. But with our "Outdated Electoral College" every state is important. To bad Gore did not see this and had won his home state then he would be President (thank god for small favors). Without the "Outdated Electoral College" we would still be recounting the entire US.

And also the recounts actual were UN constitutional since Gore was trying to count votes that under Florida Law and printed on the ballets were NOT valid votes. By counting these as votes diminished all the votes cast all round the US. Do you know that votes disqualified around the country were over 3 million? Which is well over the popular margin that Gore won by. So if these votes in Florida get to be counted why not the rest of the country? In the constitution is states all votes must be counted equal and having 4 people using standards not allowed by law and implement after the election with magnifying glass guessing what some voter might be thinking is not equal.

Also on your statement "Even Russia, which is not a pillar of democratic rule, said, 'Wait-a-second, something's not right here..." Who cares what they think? When they can pull their country out of the crapper, stop Mafia and Communist dictators from running the country stop killing people in areas that want independence and then actual have a real representative democracy maybe we should listen to them. But until then when ever Russia has any advice on how we should run our country the correct response should be "Shut the hell up".

"Democracy" We don't live in a democracy and we never did! We live in a Representatives democracy while this is a very small detail it is very import. While we let representative minorities (senators and house reps not actual people) views be heard they are not the representative majority and therefore cannot run the government.

You also claim that the Bushes somehow have created a ruling class with his father and brother underhandedly. The people elected all of them; GWB in Texas was re-elected by over 70%. Would you also apply this to the Kennedy family? It is common knowledge that JFK's father actual bought the 1960 election for JFK and that he did not win honestly. Even if you don't believe that then it is the same closeness of the Bush/Gore election, so are you calling JFK and the Kennedy family also illegitimate?

"Majority of the people didn't vote for your current president - one black mark against democracy"
Well let's see a majority of people voted against Bill Clinton every time. So then he was also a black mark against democracy

"Even treaty obligations have fell to the wayside as Bush pursues his own personal policies and goals - another black mark."
Can I assume your talking about Koyoto? Please the Senate votes 95-0 against it. The house and Senate never ratified Clinton the non-majority and illegitimate President (according to your view of unless it is a majority) signed it his last 30 days and it.

Well I hope this gives you a better understanding of our system.

Hartman

[SohalTang]

Some facts :)

It was Bush who refused to accept state wide recount offered by Gore.

"Electoral College" was not invented to "insuring everyone voice is heard". It was invented to because founding fathers did not trust the people enought to allow them elect their leaders outright, same concept with the Senate. "Leveling playing field for states" is more or less a byproduct. Put it in proper context, there was no small state in the original 13 states. For the reason of its invention alone, "electorial college" is outdated. Its by product however makes it useful.

:)

[signu459]

Kat,

You really are funny!!

Where do you get the stuff you write here? Do you read it or do you make it up? Because if you make it up you should go on tour as a stand up comedian. really i would pay to see the show, your imigination certainly is active.

Beyond your humor I just can get past your underlying dislike if not hatered toward The USA. Are you jealous of our power, or freedom or lack of a socialist government. Or have you forgoten that it was your friends to the south that saved you from speaking German or even Russian, maybe even Japanese. Do you not value all the wonderful inventions and technology that is produced in the US? For what about all the trade, especially grain and food items.

[hartman]

SohalTang,

No a full machine count was required by law and that was done 2 times and Bush won. Then Gore called for a 4 county hand recount in his large win areas only. To bad Flordia law states hand counts are only allow when it is proven that the machines are broken and not propery count valid ballets. Just becuse some idiot can't punch a paper ballet or read directions does not allow election offials to start guessing what they voter might be thinking.

Only after he saw that he could not win with those recounts did Gore suggest a full recount of all under/over votes. Too bad he has no right to do that via state law that that is why Bush said no thanks. Just because Gore could ask for a full recount after the machine counts does not make it legal.

Only a total moron in a close election would ask for even more recounts after he won 4 out of them and Gore had all his lawyers in court to lower the standard every time. And contrary to popular belief Pres. Bush is not a moron.

Hartman

[Edited by hartman on 05-24-2001 at 05:41 PM]

[Kat]

Joez: Again, "..as expected, no substance." You're so full of hot air it's a wonder you don't lift off, zepplin-like...

I'm still waiting for you to ammend referring to me as sounding like a white supremecist

No apologies or ammendments forthcoming. The guy I heard on the radio was bemoaning the fact that 'bleeding-heart liberals' prevented him from his constitutional right to free speech by labelling what he was saying as 'hate speech.' No matter that in the next breath he advocated the wholescale slaughter of 'non-aryans,' etc. ... You were saying exactly the same thing (about 'hate speech' that is), so, you sounded exactly like that white supremacist in that regard. Take your time to think about that, if you will...

But are you serious in calling GW a dictator?

Uh, kinda, yeah...

You risk your substantial credibility!

WOW, I have credibility?!?!? :D

Do you believe that Democracy has been lost in the U.S.?

I do believe I did write that, yes.

You know, of course, how our election of President is set up with the Electoral College, etc. Stating that the opponent apparently got more popular votes is true, but of no significance.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before... So you think there's no significance that Gore got more of the popular vote? Hmm, it's just one of the main principles of the democratic process. Try thinking about that some more too.

Do you mean to say the CIA connection fixed the election?

I never said anything of the sort. Why, are you implying some sort of connection?

Do you think JFK is still alive on a tropical island?

What an odd thing to say. No, why, do you????

--------------------------------------------

hartman: Bush did not win by "very questionable recount" in "his bothers state".

Really. I guess all that hoo-dah was all for nothing, then? LOL

It is almost laughable the excuse that Jeb Bush rigged that election, he has no control over that.

Gee, I guess all those police roadblocks that prevented a lot of black voters from reaching the polls had NOTHING to do with anything, did it? Get real.

"Outdated Electoral College", Kat you need to learn a little more about how our systems works.

I know more than enough about it, thank you. Apparently you need to learn a little more yourself. Even the politicans and American media conceeded the electoral college was outdated and badly in need of reform. Enlighten me if I am confused about that...

Gore was trying to count votes that under Florida Law and printed on the ballets were NOT valid votes.

Gee, I wonder who decided that issue. Wait, wasn't it a Bush stooge? Oh yeah, it was!!!! LOL

Do you know that votes disqualified around the country were over 3 million?

If not more.

Which is well over the popular margin that Gore won by.

So are you trying to tell me that your amazing psychic abilities have told you that all these disqualified votes were for Bush?? LMAO Get real, the votes were most likely representative of the overal voting pattern, and most likely would have come out in favour of Gore. You notice my emphasis on "most likely" as I am unsure, and am not going to present statements as fact (like you do) unless I'm 100% sure of the veracity. Anything I write that you disagree with, feel free to do a search on this wonderful tool we call the Internet and prove for yourself just how wrong - or right - I am...

So if these votes in Florida get to be counted why not the rest of the country?

I don't know. Why don't you use your amazing psychic powers and tell me?

In the constitution is states all votes must be counted equal and having 4 people using standards not allowed by law and implement after the election with magnifying glass guessing what some voter might be thinking is not equal.

Wow, and to think here in Canada we've had two major elections recently (federal and provincial) w/o any major glitches. Hmmm... What might that imply to you?

Who cares what they think?

I guess this is why the USA hasn't paid any of its UN dues in what, forever, and has accordingly lost international respect and influence.

When they can pull their country out of the crapper

ROTFLMAO ...When the USA can stop the endless and fruitless 'War on Drugs,' pull a dismayingly huge % of its populace out of poverty and dependancy on welfare, pay its internal debt not to mention its external debt, etc., etc., etc., then perhaps you can feel confident telling other countries and peoples to 'shut the hell up.' As it is, the not-so-almighty US of A should tend to its own problems before pointing out and critiquing the problems of others. As a wise person once said, 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' SO QUIT THROWING STONES.

"Democracy" We don't live in a democracy and we never did!

Glad to see your eyes are at least partially open.

We live in a Representatives democracy while this is a very small detail it is very import.

Allow me to refer you back to one oh-so wonderful dictionary definition once again. democracy: 1. government by all the people, direct or representative; a State having this. Sound familiar??

Even if you don't believe that then it is the same closeness of the Bush/Gore election, so are you calling JFK and the Kennedy family also illegitimate?

Well, yes, I would. :) A fraud is a fraud is a fraud...

-----------------------------------------

signu459: Where do you get the stuff you write here? Do you read it or do you make it up?

I could very well ask you the same thing.

I just can get past your underlying dislike if not hatered toward The USA.

WHOAH, stop right there!!!!!! I am not anti-American, I'm anti-Bush. Like I said before, BIG difference. Just because I disagree with you, and just because I'm not slobbering all over myself with boundlessly enthusiastic love for your current president like you apparently are, doesn't mean I hate Mary and Joe American, because I don't hate them. In fact, I don't think I hate anybody... Labelling people as "hateful" or "anti-[whatever]" is a rather pathetic rejoinder when you yourself are incapable of replying, or debating, in an intelligent manner. Grow up.

Are you jealous of our power, or freedom or lack of a socialist government.

ROTFLMAO... And you said that I should be a comedian? - You're way more hilarious than I ever could be... Oh, wait a second... ROTFLMAO (again) In response, HELL NO!!! :D

Or have you forgoten that it was your friends to the south that saved you from speaking German or even Russian, maybe even Japanese.

Hmm... Well, isn't it convenient that the USA jumped in at the end of every World War to be able to claim that they 'saved the day.' AS IF!!!! I thank the Canadian and all the other allied soldiers that sacrificed their lives for these victories, not just the Americans. How disgustingly, incredibly arrogant and ignorant of you to claim otherwise!!!!

But how could I ever expect something different from a person who probably believes that U571 was completely factual? When in fact it was the BRITISH who managed to steal the German encryption device, NOT the Americans... It speaks greatly of the arrogance and ignorance of Americans that they attempt to rewrite all of history to glorify the USA for things they never even accomplished!

Do you not value all the wonderful inventions and technology that is produced in the US?

Hey, Canadians invented basketball! Give us some credit! ;) Besides, what do you think, Americans are the only people out there that ever invented anything? Get real...

For what about all the trade, especially grain and food items.

Right back at you. I do believe (?) that Canada and the USA are each others' biggest trading partners, correct me if I'm wrong. If you're trying to imply in some twisted way that Canada somehow relies upon US imports of grain and food for subsistence, you're very, very wrong, and woefully mis- (or un-) informed.

Why is it that any time that anybody ever critizes anything to do with the USA they are instantly labelled as "anti-American?" Can't you learn to say anything else? Or, more correctly, can't you learn to say anything more intelligent? Write back when you can think of something to say without slapping some dittohead Limbaugh labels all over it...

[Joez]

Wow Kat, you are really bitter!

That you stand by linking my name and reputation (such as it is on a BB) to white supremecists is deplorable. I imagine there are new people to the board who have read your posts, and in their minds there is a link between Joez and white supremecists.

I've twice given you the chance to let your humanity overcome your bile and take back that linkage.

I expressed myself very honestly that your words hurt me and damage me, and you actually write that you stand by them?

Like you, I sometimes overstate my case here in the Lounge, and I often get sort-of a perverse laugh out of needling someone to get a reaction. But, I never mean to hurt anyone. A couple of times I have insulted a poster, and I've apologized for doing that.

Previously, I've figured you are a clever person with certain views, and you are good at expressing them, but I've never attached a malicious intent to your words. I am quickly becoming disabused of that view.

For anyone reading, new or experienced, I'd like to state (though I am troubled to have occassion to say so) that none of my words, thoughts, or actions have ever been in support of any racist views. I truly deplore the unfair treatment of people based on their race or other natural attributes.

I've contributed two and one-half years of my life and comfort to teaching underpriviledged people in southern Africa. One of my children (whom I am very proud of as she graduates HS and is a very artistic person) is half "my race" and half African. My other two children are half Asian, and my family has had a new addition: a niece from the Philippines who happens to be half Asian and half African-American. You should see our family portrait! Maybe to some people like Kat, this would be evidence of my subjugation of other races. Judge for yourself. I am a Catholic Christian, and a patriot, and as hard as it CAN be, I forgive you Kat, and I'm not going to mention this again.

[Kat]

Joez, you are incredibly manipulative.

At issue is what you wrote, and how I replied. I NEVER, EVER called you a white supremacist. Remember you wrote:

If an individual or a group wants to silence speech that disagrees with their thinking or agenda, it is a simple thing to just call it mean-spirited, cruel, racist, or the Mother of All Silencers: Hate Speech. It is a powerful weapon.

I was listening to the radio and I heard a white supremacist say almost EXACTLY the same thing. Of course, the freak was moaning about how he couldn't incite hate crimes because knee-jerk bleeding-heart liberals silenced his constitutional right to free speech by labelling it 'hate speech.'

You gotta admit, it sounds remarkably like what you wrote. Again, I NEVER, EVER said you were a white supremacist, only that what you wrote sounded exactly like what one card-carrying member of the aryan nation said on the radio.

If you're insulted, well you should be!! Don't you think it's shameful that your thoughts run parallel to those of a white supremacist? I certainly do, and I still stand by what I wrote. Do you?!?!?

Perhaps it should be you who is rethinking what you said. I'm sorry if you can't see what I meant, and I'm even sorrier at your attempts to manipulate and twist what I wrote for whatever purposes you decided to do so for... After all, I'm not the person defending 'hate speech' - you are. Perhaps you would care to explain your statement further so there is no confusion????

Peace to your reef.

[jimhobbs]

Now behave;)
Before the "QTC" comes an visits{quick thread closer}:D

Have fun, talk serious, but PLAY NICE!;)

'Big brother' jim
is watchin you...:D
http://www.gifs.net/animate/ghoul5.gif

[hartman]

Kat,

Here is my tit for tad.


<b><i>1) "Gee, I guess all those police roadblocks that prevented a lot of black voters from reaching the polls had NOTHING to do
With anything, did it? Get real."</i></b>

I guess you mean the ONE roadblock 3 miles away from the nearest polling both where 18 total people we stopped and 12 of them were white. The U.S civil rights commission looked into this and found the big fat nothing.

<b><i>2) "Gore was trying to count votes that under Florida Law and printed on the ballets were NOT valid votes.
Gee, I wonder who decided that issue. Wait, wasn't it a Bush stooge? Oh yeah, it was!!!! LOL"</b></i>

Actual the dually elected Florida State Senate and House of Representatives set the laws governing the election process not Jeb Bush. He never changed any standards before, during or after the election.

<b><i>3) So are you trying to tell me that your amazing psychic abilities have told you that all these disqualified votes were for Bush? LMAO Get real, the votes were most likely representative of the overall voting pattern, and most likely would have come out in favor of Gore. You notice my emphasis on "most likely" as I am unsure, and am not going to present statements as fact (like you do) unless I'm 100% sure of the veracity. Anything I write that you disagree with, feel free to do a search on this wonderful tool we call the Internet and prove for yourself just how wrong - or right - I am.</b></i>

I never stated anything about who the "disqualified votes" voted for basic reason that they are not valid votes. I don't care whom they voted Bush or Gore, if the voter can't take the time and learn how to cast a simple valid ballet then they don't deserve to have their vote counted. Many news organization have even done a full recount of the 180,000 votes and only under the most liberal definitions of what is a vote did Gore actual come out ahead.

<b><i>4) Wow, and to think here in Canada we've had two major elections recently (federal and provincial) w/o any major glitches. Hmmm... What might that imply to you?</b></i>

It implies nothing but that Canada does have a far better process that the US. You use the best technoogy and can do recount in less than 8 hours of the entire country.

<b><i>5) So if these votes in Florida get to be counted why not the rest of the country? I don't know. Why don't you use your amazing psychic powers and tell me?</b></i>

Because we in America accept a small margin of error in the system it was only a problem because this election was so close. We were lazy and we paid the price of a poorly run system that needs huge improvement

<b><i>6) Even if you don't believe that then it is the same closeness of the Bush/Gore election, so are you calling JFK and the Kennedy family also illegitimate? Well, yes, I would. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud..</b></i>

Well at least we can agree on the Kennedy's J

<b><i>7) I know more than enough about it, thank you. Apparently you need to learn a little more yourself. Even the politicians and American media conceded the Electoral College was outdated and badly in need of reform. Enlighten me if I am confused about that...</b></i>

So you're basing you opinion that the Electoral College is useless on what a few politicians and new media believe. Just because Hillary Clinton and the elitist new media have an opinion about why it is bad does not make it fact. Please list all these wise politicians and American media who think this way and what are their qualifications, do they have Ph.D. in constitutional law? You have to remember that ALL politicians are self-serving and only the very rare think of the country before themselves. I will grant you that I am not truly qualified either but I read lots of book and articles and will trust that the founding fathers have it right.

<b><i>8) ROTFLMAO ...When the USA can stop the endless and fruitless 'War on Drugs,' pull a dismayingly huge % of its populace out of poverty and dependency on welfare, pay its internal debt not to mention its external debt, etc., etc., etc., then perhaps you can feel confident telling other countries and peoples to 'shut the hell up.' As it is, the not so almighty USA should tend to its own problems before pointing out and critiquing the problems of others. As a wise person once said, 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' SO QUIT THROWING STONES.</b></i>

I never said we are perfect, far from it but 10,000 times better than the former Soviet Union. Seems that the USA is not allowed the "throw stones" but this does not seam to stop you or all these other countries calling us names and belittling what we hold dear.


And Kat, I don't hate Canada I really like you guys up there. And I don't think people who criticize us are all anti-American at all. Also I don't hate liberals either. I am an ultra conservative and will never compromise my beliefs to get along with anyone. While I might disagree with many liberals I know that in a free country you must allow all views. What I require is that they truly believe in what they claim. On the other hand I think Nader was a nut job but he never compromised what he believed in and for that I hold him in high respect.

The greatest problems we face to today are politicians who are not here to move the country forward but move themselves instead. At the current rate I believe the US will soon fad into oblivion within my lifetime unless this changes.

Well this is all for me for now :)

Hartman

[Kat]

hartman:

ONE roadblock

That's not what I heard, or read in the media reports. If the reports were wrong, or biased, that's not my problem or fault, I'm just repeating what was reported. On CNN, the BBC, and other news agencies. Besides which, if it were one roadblock or a thousand, it still was unquestionably (at least IMHO) an act of unconscionable interference.

Jeb Bush never changed any standards before, during or after the election.

I never wrote that Jeb did that, it was that woman... Darn if I can't remember her name, but she was widely known as a rabid Bush supporter and advocate. Hardly an unbiased person to set the standards by which the vote recounts were judged.

Many news organization have even done a full recount of the 180,000 votes and only under the most liberal definitions of what is a vote did Gore actual come out ahead.

Wow, it must have hurt to admit that Gore may have won. However, doesn't it bother you that there is doubt about the veracity of the election? In murder trials, even killers get set free if there is reasonable doubt... I'm sure you get my drift.

You use the best technoogy and can do recount in less than 8 hours of the entire country.

Actually, I worked the last (provincial) election. All votes are counted out manually, no technology to screw it up, and all ballots are either clearly marked in the big circle directly beside each candidate's name, or they don't count. The KISS method, if you will. ;)

I can't understand how you can write this:

we paid the price of a poorly run system that needs huge improvement.

...and then write this:

So you're basing you opinion that the Electoral College is useless on what a few politicians and new media believe.

Apparently, you believe it too! Where's your consistency? Do you believe the system is in need of reform, or not? Your conflicting statements have me quite confused as to what exactly you do - or don't - believe.

I will grant you that I am not truly qualified either but I read lots of book and articles and will trust that the founding fathers have it right.

The 'founding fathers' didn't outlaw slavery. Yet somehow Americans managed to, later on, recognize how abhorrent slavery was, and thankfully outlawed the despicable practice. Also, the 'founding fathers' didn't allow women the right to vote. Yet somehow - well, hopefully you get my drift... Or do you disagree with the later ammendments that prohibited slavery and allowed women the right to vote?

Seems that the USA is not allowed the "throw stones" but this does not seam to stop you or all these other countries calling us names and belittling what we hold dear.

I don't recall personally calling you any names. Or even as particularly labelling your entire nation. I once again bring up the film U571: do you have any idea how insulted the British were (and justifiably so!) at the arrogance it took to distort (more like rewrite!) history to wrongfully portray Americans as the courageous persons who stole the German encryption device and helped shift the course of the entire war? If that wasn't an overtly belittling act on a grand scale, I don't know what is...

And Kat, I don't hate Canada I really like you guys up there.

:) And vice-versa... Even after that whole 'South Park' movie which portrayed the USA attempting to obliterate Canada for a decidedly rude movie (God forbid such a thing would happen in reality, or you'd have the whole world trying to wipe out the USA), you didn't see us Canadians griping - we were too busy laughing our butts off. :D

The greatest problems we face to today are politicians who are not here to move the country forward but move themselves instead. At the current rate I believe the US will soon fad into oblivion within my lifetime unless this changes.

Heck, I agree with you. 100%!!!! ...and I do believe that was the entire point of my portion of the discussion all along...

I feel a group hug coming on... :) Peace & happiness.

[hartman]

Kat,

<b><i>we paid the price of a poorly run system that needs huge improvement. ...And then write this: So you're basing you opinion that the Electoral College is useless on what a few politicians and new media believe.</b></i>

I am talking about the way votes are cast i.e. punch cards need to be replace! Nothing more.

<b><i>ONE roadblock that's not what I heard, or read in the media reports. If the reports were wrong, or biased, that's not my problem or fault, I'm just repeating what was reported. On CNN, the BBC, and other news agencies. Besides which, if it were one roadblock or a thousand, it still was unquestionably (at least IMHO) an act of unconscionable interference. </b></i>

Actually they reported what activist said but not actually the truth. These are standard roadblock plan 3 months in advance to help fight crime in that area.

<b><i>Darn if I can't remember her name, but she was widely known as a rabid Bush supporter and advocate. Hardly an unbiased person to set the standards by which the vote recounts were judged. </b></i>

It was Katherine Harris, Who did nothing more then follow state law regarding recounts. Please show me what laws she changed, how she did not obey the F.S.C, or any wrong doing on her part. She had over 10 lawyer also within the election office that supported her. Florida Supreme Court gave her orders and she followed them to the letter.


</b></i>Wow, it must have hurt to admit that Gore may have won. However, doesn't it bother you that there is doubt about the veracity of the election? In murder trials, even killers get set free if there is reasonable doubt... I'm sure you get my drift. </b></i>

Kat, Since GWB won all the legal recounts, sure I admit that if you used non legal counting methods Gore would win, and that is the only way he would win Florida. So when do the never ending recounts stop in your book? Until your guy wins? Funny thing all I care about is was the law is followed not who won. The law was followed and not all the crying, lying, and down right dishonest tactics of the Gore campaign could over ride the rule of law.

Since I need to sleep

Hartman


[Edited by hartman on 05-25-2001 at 01:20 AM]

[hartman]

Kat,

<i><b>I once again bring up the film U571: do you have any idea how insulted the British</i></b>

What do you expect it is Hollywood for Pete sake, they are a bunch of morons to put it nicely.

Hartman