A Closer Look at the American Voting System

[Sheepeh]

I didn't write this myself, but it *is* quite compelling. =/

--

20 AMAZING FACTS ABOUT VOTING IN THE USA THAT YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW /WAS ANOTHER SILENT COUP D'ETAT STAGED IN THE USA ON 11-2-04?! READ ON AND YOU DECIDE! -
By Alicia,
Nightweed.com

DID YOU KNOW THAT,...

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies:
Diebold and ES&S.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evotin...2804landes.html (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold)

2. There is NO federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of
the U.S. voting machine industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evotin...2804landes.html (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html)

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S ARE BROTHERS.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht...te_company.html (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evotin...2804landes.html (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html)

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer
and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio
deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain632436.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml)

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 (http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886)

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became
Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

http://www.motherjones.com/commenta.../03/03_200.html (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evotin...04fitrakis.html (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html)

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family,
was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate
Ethics Committee.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modul...=article&sid=26 (http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26)

http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx (http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx)

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php (http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php)

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's
vice-presidential candidates.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm)

http://theindependent.com/stories/0...ew_hagel27.html (http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html)

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and
counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html (http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evotin...2804landes.html (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html)

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have NO PAPER TRAIL of any
votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming
out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by
voters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm)

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/04...es/pfindex.html (http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html)

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all
of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm)

http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm (http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm)

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.

http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm (http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm)

12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and
developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted
50% of the votes in 30 states.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml)

13. Jeff Dean, Diebold's Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on
Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony
theft in the first degree.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how (http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how)

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf)

14. Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting
back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication"
to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how (http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how)

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf)

15. NONE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS WERE ALLOWED IN THE POLLS IN OHIO.

http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html (http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html)

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/20...loc_elexoh.html (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html)

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security
was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be
hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it. (See the movie here:

http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov (http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov)

http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html (http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190)

17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen
voting machines with NO paper trail.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain632436.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml)

18. All - not some - of the voting machine errors detected and
reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html)

http://www.yuricareport.com/Electio...esBushIsOut.htm (http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm)

http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html (http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html)

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.p...le=article&sid= (http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=)
950

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm)

19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's
brother.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tall...cal/7628725.htm (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Oct29.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html)

20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again ALWAYS FAVORING BUSH
- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending
further investigation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Electio...esBushIsOut.htm (http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm)

http://www.computerworld.com/govern...1,97614,00.html (http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html)
(http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html)

[Roj]

I didn't write this myself, but it *is* quite compelling. =/
And we are surprized why?

I'm just waiting for someone to dismiss it all with the expression "oh, get over it".

[Toe]

What, no mention of the fact that the official charged with making sure the voting was fair & accurate for Florida in 2000 and for Ohio this year was also the co-chairman of the Bush campaign for that state?

Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

[jkrzok]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. - Thomas Jefferson

PORTION CENSORED BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

is a good idea.

[Sheepeh]

PORTION CENSORED BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

is a good idea.
...and in further news, Quinnware fell victim to a devastation denial of service attack from a master hacker, known only as Professor Liebstrom...

[chicubs]

:rolleyes:

[fatal error]

/me puts on alien suit and runs thru the forum muttering
"thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51there isnoarea51thereisnoarea51
thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51there isnoarea51....."

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's funny how USA and Europe demand fair and proper voting to happen in the Ukraine, while in the USA it would seem from Sheepeh's post the voting isn't at all properly done at home in the first place. :ermm:

[Mootang]

I believe Bush cronies also used dioxin to slowly poision Kerry into defeat...

But hey even if they did Bush still would have won and no one in America would revolt because they do not care anymore. Christmas season is too close to voting days, and everyone looooves mass consumerism... I mean Christmas Mass.

[cudelleirbag]

/me puts on alien suit and runs thru the forum muttering
"thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51there isnoarea51thereisnoarea51
thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51thereisnoarea51there isnoarea51....."

Just put on your tinfoil hat:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbtest.babyjam.jpg

:biggrin:

[Artie]

I guess we can now officially pronounce the Democratic party as dead. Or at least wounded beyond repair. Jesus . . . I've never seen such horseshit in my life.

The Republicans win an election, and the Dems absolutely go to pieces. Mental health centers have record attendance because you idiots are falling to pieces.

Can I point out one little thing, and sorry if this blows this idiotic "chicken-little" crap to kingdom come:

If any of this cockamamie crap was true, how is it that any Dem has ever won an election?

Do you people have any idea how big of a horses-ass you're making of yourselves? Any idea at all? I seriously doubt it. Thats why your party is officially dead. You heard it here first.

Addendum: It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere out there, there actually is a Democrat with a couple of working brain cells. This rant isn't directed toward you. (You may want to give your brothers a helping hand, however.) ;)

[madjo]

Artie, I understand that you voted Republican... That is your right, but don't call all Democrats morons.

Sheepeh merely collected a few articles which might shed some different light.
You may believe it, or not.. that is up to you.

I, for one, hoped really that Bush would lose.
I have no vote in the US, since I'm not a US citizen, but I do see how Bush is trying to destroy the earth, a nation at a time.

First by starting a small war (on terror) in Afghanistan, without helping them rebuild their country afterwards, and for what? They didn't find Osama bin Laden. They still haven't found him....

Now in Iraq, because of weapons of mass destruction, which weren't there. And with a sham of an election, just 3 quarters of all the Iraqis (if it wasn't even less) have been able to vote. That's not democracy, no matter how you put it!

A very large portion of the people outside the US really hoped that Bush would lose the election, if only for a safer world.

And it is in the nature of people, when they are disillusioned, that they start looking for complots and conspiracies...
and perhaps some of it is true

As a dutch saying goes: where smoke is, there is fire.
Or in other words, if a rumour is persistent, sometimes there's could be some truth to it.

[Artie]

I popped back here to delete that post, because I should've known better than to make political posts in a forum. I should've ignored it. Nothing good ever comes from any of this. But since you replied after me, I think its only fair to leave it, if only to maintain the continuity of the thread.

Its important to note that I wasn't calling all democrats morons. (Actually, I didn't call any democrats "morons".) I used the term "idiots",(a slightly softer moniker.) And, I was hoping, by my "addendum", (made at the time of the post - not an edit), to make it clear that I was only refering to the "sky-is-falling" conspiracists. You know who I mean. The ones that have been in the news. The ones that are going to group counseling because their "guy" lost. I can't help it. I believe those people are part of a lunatic fringe.

I have to take issue with a couple of points you make:

I have no vote in the US, since I'm not a US citizen, but I do see how Bush is trying to destroy the earth, a nation at a time.

I'm sorry. There's no way to soft-pedal this. That statement is idiotic. You aren't an idiot. The statement is. (I do it all the time.) Its almost impossible to respond to that statement with any more substance precisely because its so far out in left field. It doesn't even make any sense. American troups are not marching on the world. We freed one nation of its horrible despot. Now they are about to have elections. Albeit, far from perfect elections . . . but elections, all the same. It'll be better the next time around, and better still the next time. These things take time.

A very large portion of the people outside the US really hoped that Bush would lose the election, if only for a safer world.

It really dismays me when I see the degree to which people don't understand basic human history. Freedom is not the natural condition of man. It is always fought for, and won. Always! Without exception. In a way, its almost too bad that people won't ever get to know how truly horrible the world would have turned, had that putz Kerry won. Haven't you seen any of the news stories, (from even liberal stations), talking about how bad Kerry ran his campaign. He had all these people around him to advise him what to do, and he couldn't take their advise. He was calling people on the phone to ask them what to do. He had no direction, no plan, no trust for his own people. There was absolutely no Kerry leadership.

To be honest, I'm not going to bother even looking at any of those links. Whats the point? I've seen all this crap before. The bigger point is, I imagine that all the companies, CEO's and people involved, are the same ones that were in place when Clinton got elected . . . twice! Its kinda like that Haliburton thing. You know, how all the big Haliburton contracts, under Clinton, were above board and honest. And all the ones won under Bush/Cheney were because of "connections". Yeah, right. ;)

[Sheepeh]

I didn't write any of that, or collect links, I simply cut'n'pasted it from another forum post I read, in the interest of healthy debate. I'm not pretending it's all true, or it's all false, or anything in between.

One thing I *am* saying, is that the evidence would suggest something is slightly dubious. Also, I don't believe either Bush OR Kerry would be that great, but such is the way of America you guys only get two choices. Maybe American politics should stop being quite to "black and white" and allow for a few more points of view to be accepted?

Personally, I voted Lib Dem (I'm in England for those of you who don't recognise the flag...) but to be honest I doubt I'd want Charles Kennedy in the lone position of power or America either...but at least he's much less likely to get America and by proxy Britain targetted by terrorists!

Seems to be most Americans have this narrow idea of "Freedom". And it has to be the same as Americas.

I laughed out loud when I watched "Team America". Those guys *get it*.

[jkrzok]

American troups are not marching on the world. We freed one nation of its horrible despot. Now they are about to have elections. Albeit, far from perfect elections . . . but elections, all the same. It'll be better the next time around, and better still the next time. These things take time.

Freedom it is not. If Iraq is your idea of freedom then give me tyranny. Saddam is gone, yes. But the death and terror has not stopped. If anything it is worse now for the average Iraqi. And the war there will not stop until the US leaves. We are illegally occupying a nation whose citizens did not ask for us to wage war on them. Of course they will hate us and they will fight us until we are gone. Our intentions don't really matter here. Whatever we are doing there is percieved to be wrong by the Iraqi people. If Canada invaded the US tomorrow to restore democracy Artie and I would probably be amongst the first to raise up arms against the aggressor. This despite the fact that Canada's intentions are good and the fact that Canadians themselves are fine people. I know I've never met an evil Canadian. (Must be the beer)

Elections are meaningless unless there is a real choice. Can anyone say there will be such a choice this January? Is there a chance in hell that a politician Washington would find inimical to its own interests will be elected? The USSR held elections. They were meaningless. Elections are in themselves meaningless unless they offer the possibility of real change and that will not happen in Iraq this January. I don't think it will happen at all until all US forces are out of that soveriegn nation.

What troubles me is that by the 'standard of change' elections in the US are now pretty much meaningless. Meaningless when we have what amount to 'elected for life' Representatives and Senators. Unless one of these stalwarts is caught diddling an underage illegal alien housekeeper they will win reelection everytime thanks to gerrymandered districts and incumbants' access to campaign cash. Elections are meaningless when both of our major Presidential candidates are Skull and Bones members whose only policy differences tinker around the edges and don't go to the root of our problems.

As for US troops not 'marching on the world' the fact is US troops no longer really have to march anywhere. We're pretty much everywhere already.

[madjo]

Its important to note that I wasn't calling all democrats morons. (Actually, I didn't call any democrats "morons".) I used the term "idiots",(a slightly softer moniker.) And, I was hoping, by my "addendum", (made at the time of the post - not an edit), to make it clear that I was only refering to the "sky-is-falling" conspiracists. You know who I mean. The ones that have been in the news. The ones that are going to group counseling because their "guy" lost. I can't help it. I believe those people are part of a lunatic fringe.
I didn't know about them, but I think there would be as much people seeking counseling if Bush had lost... I think there are as much idiots on both sides :)

I'm sorry. There's no way to soft-pedal this. That statement is idiotic. You aren't an idiot. The statement is. (I do it all the time.) Its almost impossible to respond to that statement with any more substance precisely because its so far out in left field. It doesn't even make any sense. American troups are not marching on the world. We freed one nation of its horrible despot. Now they are about to have elections. Albeit, far from perfect elections . . . but elections, all the same. It'll be better the next time around, and better still the next time. These things take time.
There may be elections, but is there a choice? :)


It really dismays me when I see the degree to which people don't understand basic human history. Freedom is not the natural condition of man. It is always fought for, and won. Always! Without exception. In a way, its almost too bad that people won't ever get to know how truly horrible the world would have turned, had that putz Kerry won. Haven't you seen any of the news stories, (from even liberal stations), talking about how bad Kerry ran his campaign. He had all these people around him to advise him what to do, and he couldn't take their advise. He was calling people on the phone to ask them what to do. He had no direction, no plan, no trust for his own people. There was absolutely no Kerry leadership.
It may be that freedom has to be fought and won, but what right had president Bush to walsh into a country and force his views of freedom on them? :)

Indeed Kerry wasn't a good alternative either... but I believe he was the lesser evil of the two.

And almost 50% of all Americans seem to share that feeling.

[Qaz]

And almost 50% of all Americans seem to share that feeling.
But over 50% didn't, based on the election anyway.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

but the election was flawed...(referring back to sheepeh's 1st post)

I think we're going in circles here ha ha ha

[chicubs]

Artie, I understand that you voted Republican... That is your right, but don't call all Democrats morons.



Why not? All you liberals including the maker of this player called all republicans idiots/morons.

[madjo]

Why not? All you liberals including the maker of this player called all republicans idiots/morons.
when? I for one didn't do that.

[Artie]

Well, I hope this doesn't degrade to name-calling, and I probably shouldn't have refered to anyone as an "idiot", but I can't help it in reference to those who's lives are falling apart because a Rep won the election.


I didn't know about them, but I think there would be as much people seeking counseling if Bush had lost... I think there are as much idiots on both sides :)

Honestly, I think you're wrong. Republicans didn't make the news going to group counseling when Clinton one the first time, or the second. (By a much smaller margin than did Bush.)

There may be elections, but is there a choice? :)

Yes there is. There is a choice of all the candidates on the ballot. Not sure how you mean this. If folks don't get off their apathetic butts and vote, they don't get to choose.

It may be that freedom has to be fought and won, but what right had president Bush to walsh into a country and force his views of freedom on them? :)

He didn't "force" his view of freedom on anyone. He liberated them from tyranny. They still have a long way to go before things are stable.

Freedom it is not. If Iraq is your idea of freedom then give me tyranny.

Please don't take my words, and twist them around to suit your needs. Of course Iraq isn't "free" yet. The war isn't even over yet. This is going to be a long, hard process. No one ever said otherwise.

Saddam is gone, yes. But the death and terror has not stopped. If anything it is worse now for the average Iraqi. And the war there will not stop until the US leaves.

Uh . . . exactly. The war isn't over yet. If you view news sources other than CNN and CBS, et al., you'll see that the "average" Iraqi is very glad that we took out Saddam, and are optimistically looking to the future.

We are illegally occupying a nation whose citizens did not ask for us to wage war on them. Of course they will hate us and they will fight us until we are gone.

We aren't waging war on "them". We are waging war on the insugents coming in from surrounding areas. The Iraqi's don't hate us. Again, you need to find alternate news sources. ;)

What troubles me is that by the 'standard of change' elections in the US are now pretty much meaningless. Meaningless when we have what amount to 'elected for life' Representatives and Senators.

This gets back to the whole "term limits" nonsense. What you're describing only happens if people choose to let it happen by not getting out and voting. What criteria do you use to come to the conclusion that the people who get re-elected wasn't what the voters wanted? The impirical evidence is the election results. If the someone gets re-elected for life, it is, by definition, what the voters wanted.

As for US troops not 'marching on the world' the fact is US troops no longer really have to march anywhere. We're pretty much everywhere already.

This is an important point. We don't occupy any native soil where we aren't wanted and invited. Every place we are, American troops spend lots of American dollars . . . and the locals love it. :)

[chicubs]

The Iraqi's don't hate us.

Sorry man, they hate us. Actually must of the world hates the US even before the war the entire middle east hated us. Remember 9/11 and the Palestines cheering in the streets? Granted Palestinians are not Iraqis hate us now too, they feel we have been there too long. Last time, we were there not long enough, now weve been there too long....whatever, theyll hate us whatever we do.

Im mostly on your side, though, we are just about the only two none-liberals on this entire board....mainly cause the board is filled with canadians and europeans .

Just want to add something else....The elections werent rigged, the democrates are being real babies about it. There was no rigging, it was fair and square, ask John Kerry. This comes up everytime a Republican wins office and its just annoying. Remember, the entire Middle of the United States is usually red, there are other places than LA, New York and Chicago whose peoples have very different beliefs than the people from say Oklahoma or Kansas.

The Democrates did not run a strong candidate and thats the primary reason they lost. howard dean would have lost too because he is way too left wing and every single republican in the US would have voted against him. The only candidate I see who could have beaten Bush is Wesley Clark because he was a war general which gives him some political toughness that Kerry seemed to lack (despite his military record).

[Qaz]

Well, I hope this doesn't degrade to name-calling, and I probably shouldn't have refered to anyone as an "idiot", but I can't help it in reference to those who's lives are falling apart because a Rep won the election.
Keep in mind, here we come around the world, so the political party propably isn't the main point here.

He didn't "force" his view of freedom on anyone. He liberated them from tyranny. They still have a long way to go before things are stable.Did they asked for it? No. And it really isn't Bush's job to deal with tyrans abroad.

Please don't take my words, and twist them around to suit your needs. Of course Iraq isn't "free" yet. The war isn't even over yet. This is going to be a long, hard process. No one ever said otherwise.
So who exactly are fighting against? You said yourself that they were liberated from tyranny.

This is an important point. We don't occupy any native soil where we aren't wanted and invited. Every place we are, American troops spend lots of American dollars . . . and the locals love it. :)
So who exactly invited you to Iraq?

And how this conversation is about Iraq? :cheeky:

[madjo]

And how this conversation is about Iraq? :cheeky:
euhm, that would be my fault :) sorry
:cheeky:

[Qaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how the American system goes:

3 states, 10 voters each

state 1:
9 for candidate a
1 for candidate b

state 2:
4 for candidate a
6 for candidate b

state 3:
4 for candidate a
6 for candidate b

total
17 for candidate a
13 for candidate b

But still candidate b wins.

[Artie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how the American system goes:


Exactly. Precisely the system that allowed Clinton to win, not once, but twice by a vast minority of the vote. Funny thing is, no one complained when it was a Dem that won.

Wonder why that is? :cheeky:

[Roj]

Sorry man, they hate us. Actually must of the world hates the US even before the war the entire middle east hated us.When are you guys gonna smell the coffee, realize that there is a reason WHY you're not well liked on the planet and then look to fixing the issues?

It's not rocket science. We Canucks go everywhere and are generally welcomed. We CAN wear our flag on our backpacks without fearing for our lives. We generall HAVE to explain when we participate in a military exercise (those we deem just and thus necessary) that we're NOT American and then the difference in the way we're treated is quite marked and distinct.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. Ya think some self-examination is in order, maybe????

Just want to add something else....The elections werent riggedThe first one certainly was. Dead people voting was a dead giveaway (pun intended).

This one? The shenanigans in Ohio don't exactly inspire confidence.

This comes up everytime a Republican wins office and its just annoying.Rubbish.

No one bitched when George Senior won or Ronald Reagan for that matter. However, when it smells like rotten fish, looks like rotten fish and has a big 10x10 foot sign above it saying "Dead People Vote Here - We Have Rotten Fish"... :) Mind you, the two I mentioned were at least half-assed competent presidents.

The Democrates did not run a strong candidate and thats the primary reason they lost.That's very true - can't argue that. You guys had the very worst field of boobs, er, candidates that I've seen in any election in quite some time. It's no wonder the electorate was split. I had my doubts about our own boy but with every answer he gives George W. it looks more and more like we made the right choice.

For the record, I used to be Conservative. Then I grew up. :)

Oh and let's here it for Canadians and Europeans - somewhere on this planet there should actually be a voice of reason.

[Roj]

Exactly. Precisely the system that allowed Clinton to win, not once, but twice by a vast minority of the vote. Funny thing is, no one complained when it was a Dem that won.Seems to me your system is cacked. The whole concept of "by the people for the people" gets a major kick in the 'nads under such a design. Mind you, we have our own issues with electoral reform...

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's not only the war in Iraq that made me wish Bush wouldnt be elected again, but also his views on the environment, the Kyoto protocol, abortion, stem cell research, deforestation, oil, you name it! His whole ideology of first act, then think is rotten. His reasons to start a war in Iraq (cf WMD), his simple minded thinking that he can invade a country, get rid of the bad guy, and then thinking to leave again, leaving the country in a greater mess than before is madness. You see how America wont even make public photographs of US casualties? (there was a big hype about this, where there was a leak). Just imagine there are now over 1,000 US soldiers dead and violence is not stopping in Iraq. Yet, apparently more than 50% of US citizens vote for Bush again. My bet is that they are NOT getting the whole picture. In addition, i would believe that a certain number US citizens (dont take this personally!) are simply brainwashed by the media and are totally oblivious of the world around them. USA is the world to them. Again, it would seem the voting system in the US is not flawless.

[chicubs]

I love you roj :P

[Roj]

I love you roj :P
I wuv me 2! :)

[Artie]

It's not only the war in Iraq that made me wish Bush wouldnt be elected again, but also his views on the environment, the Kyoto protocol, abortion . . .

Anyone else find it interesting that the same people who proclaim anti-war sediments, don't seem to mind the genocide of millions of the most innocent of the innocent? (Feel free to rationalize your position by assuming they aren't human 'til they get their first breath of fresh air.)

You see how America wont even make public photographs of US casualties?

For what purpose? So that we know that war is "bad"? :cheeky:

Just imagine there are now over 1,000 US soldiers dead . . .

Yup. Just a little less than the number of people who died because they went to bed with a cigarrette in their mouth. (It is a war!)

In addition, i would believe that a certain number US citizens . . . are simply brainwashed by the media and are totally oblivious of the world around them.

Actually, the overwelming majority of the US media is blatantly liberal. Blatantly anti-Bush/pro-Kerry. Remember CBS, Dan Rather, Mickey Moron? You have to hunt high and low to find the unbiased, (or at least), conservative view.

As one who was born in Italy, attended high-school in Germany, and served in Southeast Asia, I feel reasonably aware of what goes on in the world. ;)

And, no offense taken. (Hope none is conveyed.) :)

[Roj]

Anyone else find it interesting that the same people who proclaim anti-war sediments, don't seem to mind the genocide of millions of the most innocent of the innocent?
And I suppose that gives you the right to invade Grenada? Iraq? The mess in Rwanda did require intervention but the others? No innocent children dying there...

Oh and somehow you managed to ignore Chechnya when the Russians decided to go in an murder a hundred thousand men, women and children.

Iraq was oil - plain and simple. There's no denying it, there's no rationale for it (although the attempts are invariably entertaining).

Chile, Iran, Panama and a host of other puppet governments don't have any rationale either (although again the attempts along those lines invariably prove entertaining).

Interesting how many of those came back to bite y'all in the ass too, no?

As Iraq invariably will.

[Artie]

And I suppose that gives you the right to invade Grenada? Iraq?

No, and I'm not sure I get your correlation here. I never equated the two.

Oh and somehow you managed to ignore Chechnya when the Russians decided to go in an murder a hundred thousand men, women and children.

This is just one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thangs. If we had, the same people critisizing for not, would critisize for doing it.

Iraq was oil - plain and simple. There's no denying it . . .

Sorry, but I do disagree. We didn't "take" Kuwait, we didn't "take" Iraq. We're trying desparately to help them become free to determine their own destiny. The Arabs have been happily supplying us with oil for decades. Its not a problem.

[Artie]

I need to toss one more little thing out here. One might conclude, from some of my posts, that I'm somehow "pro-war", or big Bush cheerleader. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just hate it when very complex issues, like the war, are spun in the context of a "Bush, as war-monger" mentality. The supposition being, that the Middle East was living in peace and harmony, and then Bush comes along as the great conqueror and starts his conquest of the world.

It is that "spin" that I'll argue against. It diverts us from the real issues.

[hedge]

Sorry, but I do disagree. We didn't "take" Kuwait, we didn't "take" Iraq. We're trying desparately to help them become free to determine their own destiny. The Arabs have been happily supplying us with oil for decades. Its not a problem.
Nope can't agree with that. When ya come into cities with tanks, planes and a HUGE military advantage and then proceed to occupy it, what would you call that? 'Freeing' them? BAH!!!

[Artie]

Hmmm . . . let me turn this around. When Iraq goes into Kuwait and with tanks and a huge military advantage, and occupies it, and then we come in and chase them out, and give the country back . . . well yes, I do call that "freeing them".

Not sure how you can view it any other way.

Btw - to keep this in perspective, we still "occupy" Germany and Japan. I believe they like us there.

[rorythedog]

Hmmm . . . let me turn this around. When Iraq goes into Kuwait and with tanks and a huge military advantage, and occupies it, and then we come in and chase them out, and give the country back . . . well yes, I do call that "freeing them".

Not sure how you can view it any other way.

Btw - to keep this in perspective, we still "occupy" Germany and Japan. I believe they like us there.

Kuwait was a Dictatorship before Iraq "invaded", and it's a Dictatorship now that the US has intervened. Congratulations. I'm sure the average Kuwaiti is most pleased.

When you mention the "real" issues, are you referring to ENRON by any chance. The way I read it, if it wasn't for the Iraq debacle, Bush and his henchmen would have been impeached long ago. The only thing that lot are any good at is media manipulation. Not something to be proud of. The people on here (including myself), who castigate Bush, don't do it out of any sense of duty to bash America. We're not experts on these matters. We offer opinions, that's all. I suspect you probably agree with most of what's being said. I certainly hope so. You do sound intelligent, but I could be wrong.

[chicubs]

Yah roj, lets go to war with russia, that will have a good ending :dead:

Besides, chechnya is sort of like the Palestine-Isreal thing. Chechnya has a large number of disgusting terrorists while Israel/Russia kill innocents using an actual military.

Its impossible to blame the US for the chechnya thing, like artie said damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[chicubs]

Kuwait was a Dictatorship before Iraq "invaded", and it's a Dictatorship now that the US has intervened. Congratulations. I'm sure the average Kuwaiti is most pleased.

When you mention the "real" issues, are you referring to ENRON by any chance. The way I read it, if it wasn't for the Iraq debacle, Bush and his henchmen would have been impeached long ago. The only thing that lot are any good at is media manipulation. Not something to be proud of. The people on here (including myself), who castigate Bush, don't do it out of any sense of duty to bash America. We're not experts on these matters. We offer opinions, that's all. I suspect you probably agree with most of what's being said. I certainly hope so. You do sound intelligent, but I could be wrong.

so kuwait was better off with sadam....lol, im sorry but thats funny. You lost of my respect for your political opinions from that remark.

[rorythedog]

Yah roj, lets go to war with russia, that will have a good ending :dead:

Besides, chechnya is sort of like the Palestine-Isreal thing. Chechnya has a large number of disgusting terrorists while Israel/Russia kill innocents using an actual military.

Its impossible to blame the US for the chechnya thing, like artie said damned if you do, damned if you dont.

And one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There are no terrorists in Chechnya.

[Artie]

Kuwait was a Dictatorship before Iraq "invaded", and it's a Dictatorship now that the US has intervened. Congratulations. I'm sure the average Kuwaiti is most pleased.

When you mention the "real" issues, are you referring to ENRON by any chance. The way I read it, if it wasn't for the Iraq debacle, Bush and his henchmen would have been impeached long ago. The only thing that lot are any good at is media manipulation. Not something to be proud of. The people on here (including myself), who castigate Bush, don't do it out of any sense of duty to bash America. We're not experts on these matters. We offer opinions, that's all. I suspect you probably agree with most of what's being said. I certainly hope so. You do sound intelligent, but I could be wrong.

From the bottom up, and at the risk of sounding patronizing, yes, I also believe that most everyone on this forum is intelligent. Which is why its all the more frustrating and confounding to me how you can make your first statements.

How do you equate Enron to Bush? Enron was a company that was commiting accounting fraud for decades before Bush came on the scene. In fact, the vast majority of their crimes took place during the Clinton years. Bush inherited their economic impact, and despite what the "sky-is-falling" media would have you believe, the economy has rebounded nicely.

What media are you refering to Bush manipulating? CBS, ABC, 60 Minutes, who? For crying out loud, doesn't everyone understand that the American media is extremely liberal?

I just don't get those statements. And, as for Kuwait, its one of the areas me and my co-workers service. Its not my personal territory, but my co-worker, and friend go there regularly. He's always treated like a king when he's there. And thats by the man on the street. The folks in the hotel, the restaurant, the clerk in the store. The average Kuwaiti is, in fact, most pleased.

[chicubs]

And one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There are no terrorists in Chechnya.

whatever....blowing up random people in random apartments, trains, stores, etc is not being terrorist. Thats messed up.

[rorythedog]

http://

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=938154

http://www.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/enron.html

Took all of 30 seconds to find this stuff.

[rorythedog]

http://www.progressive.org/pc0900.htm

Oops

[Artie]

Took all of 30 seconds to find this stuff.

Ah, yes. But did you actually read the articles? All three links are pretty good examples of what I'm talking about. They can't just report facts. They have to "spin" the information using half-truths, implied cause-and-effect, and innuendo.

I really don't have the time, or the inclination, to pick these apart piece by piece, so lets just hit some highlights.

The first link states, "Mr Bush, a former oilman whose election campaign was backed by Enron . . ." Note the use of the word "backed", implying that they somehow led, or controlled the campaign. The facts are, they were a contributor. The article fails to mention that they also contributed heavily to Democratic campaigns.

Its also interesting the to note that they refer to being investigated by the American Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. was headed up by Bush appointee John Ashcroft. We normally hear negative stories of Ashcroft as being in Bush's back pocket. Seems odd to me that if Ashcroft was in Bush's back pocket, and Bush in Enron's back pocket, that Bush would have them investigated.

This paragraph from deep down in the article is particularly interesting:

"The problem for Mr Bush is that even if all these contacts turn out to be completely proper, the Enron case still embodies many of the doubts that Americans have about him: that he is too close to Big Business (and the energy industry in particular); and that his concerns are not the concerns of ordinary Americans. This is the president whom last summer Democrats were skewering for his desire to open up Alaska's oil fields supposedly “for his friends in Houston” and for allegedly letting industrialists put arsenic into drinking water."

Note in the first sentence that they concede that there's no evidence of any foul play. Its all innuendo. The last sentence gives us even greater insight into the motivations of this articles authors. They state " . . . and for allegedly letting industrialists put arsenic into the drinking water." So, are these people too stupid to know the facts of this story? Or, might they just be lieing to us? The whole "arsenic in the water" thang was a fabrication by then Democrats. Some Democrat put forth a proposal to raise the "parts-per-million of arsenic levels" safety standard of water. It was shot down by Congress, (not the president), as being unnecessary. (It was.) This gave the Dems the ammo to now say that Republicans wanted to "poison the water". Note that Hospitals and emergency rooms haven't been filled with children dying of arsenic poisoning since then. (Or in all the time the standard existed previously.) It was a complete fabrication. A lie. The above article takes it to a new level by their characterization of the event.

The second article at least makes passing refernece to Enron's contributions to all political figures, past and present, but still the article chooses to focus on Bush. They do some of the same hat tricks as the first article. Siteing "favors" granted by Bush, while acknowledging that, in actuality, they simply hired lobbyists. They don't bother to point out that lobbyists appear before Congress, (not the President), and simply present their case. Which is then voted on by Dems and Reps alike. Don't get me wrong. I'm not so naive as to think there isn't any dirty work here. I'm just trying to point out that its far from being a Bush exclusive, as the articles are struggling to imply.

Anyone still with me? :biggrin:

I'll hit the last one briefly. They do the obligatory reference to Enron's campaign contributions, (again, leaving out the part about Democratic contributions), then go on to tell us about possible human rights violations by India's police. Hmmm . . .

I've got to emphasize, that I don't believe for one minute that Bush is squeeky clean. Or that dirty politics doesn't infect the Bush cabinet. I only want to point out that when those who critisize him do so with lies, innuendo, and half-truths, you cause your side more harm than good. You lose all credibility. If you want to bash Bush, fine, but please . . . just the facts maam.

I'm too old and cynical to be "spun". ;)

[rorythedog]

I'm not trying to spin anybody mate. Until Bush got in I didn't give a toss about your politics. But since then I've read enough to know that the man is dangerous. He is a fool, and he's in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet. I'm posting articles like that in an attempt to win over people like you Artie. However, you're obviously cleverer than that. So lead on. Tell us the real facts. It makes no difference to me whether Clinton's record is as bad as Bush's. That's past now. Bush is the here and now, and I believe he, and his supporters are dangerous. Not to you, to me. You perhaps think the same. Get somebody who's a bit less of a dickhead and I promise to forever butt out of your politics.

[jkrzok]

But since then I've read enough to know that the man is dangerous. He is a fool, and he's in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet. Bush is the here and now, and I believe he, and his supporters are dangerous. Not to you, to me. You perhaps think the same. Get somebody who's a bit less of a dickhead and I promise to forever butt out of your politics.

As an American it pains me to say I have to agree with rory when he says Bush is dangerous. But I don't agree when he says he's an idiot. You don't get an Ivy League education and the Presidency by being an idiot, even with family connections.

Bush is dangerous because he thinks he's been chosen by God to be President and to act out what he thinks is God's will. This leaves no room for discussion. It makes any admission of error an utter impossibility. Dissent to Bush's policy gets elevated to the level of a crime against God.

[chicubs]

Like him or not, hes going to be the president for the next 4 years. Complaining about him wont do any good unless you can complain directly to higher authority.

[jkrzok]

Like him or not, hes going to be the president for the next 4 years. Complaining about him wont do any good unless you can complain directly to higher authority.

Complaining about him can do a world of good. While he may act like an autocrat there are still two branches of government that can act as a brake on his ambitions. There are other nations that with the proper backbone can tell him what exactly is wrong with his foreign policy.

[hedge]

I'm too old and cynical to be "spun". ;)
Haha i think we've found ourselves another roj :P

[madjo]

Complaining about him can do a world of good. While he may act like an autocrat there are still two branches of government that can act as a brake on his ambitions. There are other nations that with the proper backbone can tell him what exactly is wrong with his foreign policy.
sadly, The Netherlands are not among those other nations :(

Besides all the nations in the world, it is the job of the American People to hold their President responsible for everything he does...
The President has to answer to the American people (the people who voted for and against him), and if they think he is doing a crummy job, he'd better clean up, and get his act together, otherwise he'll be out of job...
That's democracy for you

[jkrzok]

I'm wondering if anyone's thinking of indicting a sitting US President for war crimes?

[rorythedog]

I'm wondering if anyone's thinking of indicting a sitting US President for war crimes?

That would be me then.