Slashdot Mirror

I suppose what amazes me is how he is seen now. What Bush has done is amazing for anyone even slightly versed in US political history. The ideas of checks and balances and the separation of powers, so essential to the mechanism by which our government is kept from encroaching upon us, do not even give Bush pause. We are discussing a man who called the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper. Remember the Oath of Office? The Constitution specifies that:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How will history remember him is a small consolation for those of us concerned about our liberty.

surely freeing millions of people from a brutal dictatorship counts for something? I'm sure that's what Bush thinks he's done. In the real world, however, all that's happened is he's removed one group from power (Sunnis) to replace them with another (Shias). We'll only really find out if they're any better or worse once the the troops are withdrawn and Bush is no longer trying to force his extreme right-wing democracy on them while donating all their money to Halliburton. The only way to achieve political reform is to educate and involve the people.

Like here.

When a grassroots political operative needed a transplant and the opposition party got Paypal to shut down the donations.

However, living in the 18th Century, they never would have actually used the word "privacy" out loud or in writing. A search, for example, of all 16,000 of Thomas Jefferson's letters and writings produces not a single use of the word "privacy." Nor does Adams use the word in his writings, so far as I can find.

The reason is simple: "privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. The chamberpots around the house, into which people relieved themselves during the evening and which were emptied in the morning, were referred to as "the privates," a phrase also used to describe genitals. Privacy, in short, was a word that wasn't generally used in political discourse or polite company during an era when women were expected to cover their arms and legs and discussion of bedroom behavior was unthinkable.

It wasn't until 1898 that Thomas Crapper began marketing the flush toilet and discussion of toilet functions became relatively acceptable. Prior to then, saying somebody had a "right to privacy" would have meant "a right to excrete." This was, of course, a right that was taken for granted and thus the Framers felt no need to specify it in the Constitution.

If the republicans "rigged" the election, as you propose, why in the hell would they give a third party candidate so many votes?

Simple: divert Democrat votes to this third party so less suspicion will be cast on the Republicans. As long as the % of votes for the major parties stayed within the error bounds of previous polls, hardly anyone would look for irregularities. This exact same pattern has been noted in other elections.

Using your logic, I'm suspicious of the Boston Red Sox miracle. I mean, everything went so perfectly.

Sure, your logic follows... except that the World Series took place in full view of a television audience of about 30 million nation-widewide . If it weren't for that small quibble, I'd say your logic was good...

American Democracy may be on its Deathbed. The exit Polls Worked in Non-Electronic Voting Sites. But in the sites where un-recountable electronic voting took place the exit polls were off and in Bush's favor. This is the smoking gun. This is the clear sign that the failure of the republicans in the house and senate to support paper ballot legislation was intended to enable the theft of the presidency and further congressional seats. This election has zero credibility and must be overturned.

http://www.opednews.com/kall_110404_outrage.htm

There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates.

Kerry was endorsed by 10 nobel prize winners in economics. )And 38 more in the other nobel disciplines.) It may be true that "a lot" of economists were against Kerry, what "most" of them did was another story.

The deeper you dig the more dirt piles up.

Mandate
this
lying
cheating
sinners.

For a detailed rebuttal of David Kopel's detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.

I don't think that it is possible to call something balanced objective when it was written by a columnist of National Review online, an Associate Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute, particularly when the subject matter is Fahrenheit 9/11. It's like asking Greenpeace to provide a balanced objective take on logging old growth, or the NRA to provied a balanced objective take on anti-gun legislation. Just the fact that you refer to it as a "list of deceipts" displays your own bias.

For a rebuttal of David Kopel's list, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

• http://www.dailykos.com/
• and
• http://www.opednews.com/

governor bush said something very similar recently

and it scares the shit out of me that the supposed leader of the free world would say something like that ....

Hey, Bush thinks the same thing about the presidential elections...

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

" Imagine that a rogue programmer gets access to a few networks of computers in the California special gubernatorial election. ..."

The Techno-Voting Nightmare; Digital Vote Corruption-- First California-- then the 2004 Elections.