BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: SeanM
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 03:38 PM

Oh dearest Guest...

If you place the name "Bush" instead of "Gore" in front of all your allegations, I'll personally guarantee that you'll find just as many accusations that can be backed up with "plenty of evidence". In California, Republicans were offering raffle drawings for computers in exchange for votes. Republicans were caught in nursing homes, filling out the ballots for the invalid. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on...

Face it. EVERYONE is dirty. Politics - it's not just a job. It's a career of felonies and crushing immoral concessions that you eventually get paid $300k a year to retire from.

M

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 03:48 PM

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH...

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Troll
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 03:50 PM

Petr, yes, I do believe it. Thats why we quit using them 50 years ago. 13 million might have gotten Florida counted, IF you could trust the ballots.
How do you know your election returns weren't fraudelent? You don't.
Of course a hacker could get in if the system were on open lines. It's a slightly more difficult task if the lines are dedicated. Unless, of course it was an inside job. But then you could have the same problem with paper ballots.
Ebbie, what a GREAT idea. Why don't you call your Congressman/woman/person and suggest it. Call the papers too and a couple of talk shows so if doesn't get shoved under the rug.
Alex. I agree.
Larry, you are quite right. Of course, it's not wrong when a Court that is packed the OTHER way approves of things that YOU like. Take the Warren Court as an example.
And, since you brought it up, I'd prefex a C-student alcoholic drug user to a two-time drop-out liar.
BTW, I understand that Bush has been clean for quite a few years.
When is Al Gore going to stop lieing?

With all due respect, counselor,

troll

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: InOBU
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 04:55 PM

Hey Troll ol' pal, the Warren court got up my nose enough times as well, however, what has marked the difference between the republican and democratic leaning judges, for the most part, in this past fight, which I believe to be at the core of the tone of Steven's discent, is the degree to which descions favoring Gore, where balenced with some give, Bush prevails on these points, Gore on these. On the other hand, as Bush's lead was so tenuous, judges ruled out of hand, no balence, and at the cost of their past judicial history. For example O'Conor, who has always defered to state court judges, gave not an inch. But hey, I have always said that courts only convert the change of power that occurs on the street into law, and if the American people are to fat and lazy and complacent to protect their democracy, it is not for the supreme court to do the job, and we deserve the little retard.
Have a great holiday season, and best wishes
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Troll
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 05:11 PM

Well, I hope he's a little smarter than THAT, Larry.
But a happy holiday to you, and keep those bellows dressed. This cold is hell on leather.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 07:28 PM

I can never understand why it is seen as an effective argument, when your own side is criticised for some dodgy behaviour, to turn round and start talking about the faults of the other side.

What's that got to do with it? If I go to a restaurant and the food is lousy, and I complaion, I wouldn't be too impressed to hear the manager saying that it's much werse at the restaurant next door.

The first responsibility of a loyal supporter is to clean up their own side. Once that has been done, it may be time to turn attention to the defects of the other side, but not till then. "Why do you go on about the mote in your brother's eye, instead of dealing with the plank in your own eye?"

To drift a little, does anyone know what kind of odds the bookies are giving as to who will actually turn out to have "won" when the sunshine law recounts are done (if they ever are done)? Those guys generally are a better guide to those kind of things than the pundits in the papers.

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: SeanM
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 07:33 PM

Well... as I may be the one aimed at above, I'll state that I'm NOT a 'loyal supporter' of one side or the other. My specific point was that for all that one side (whichever you pick) screams that "they're doing nasty things", the opposition always seems to be doing the same. As I said at the end... everyone's dirty. Noone is innocent.

M

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: InOBU
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 07:50 PM

Hi Kev:
Few people believe that Bush will "win" once the votes are counted, but as it will not be an official vote, well, it doesn't matter very much. As to the arguement over Gore being a liar, well, in point of fact, in law there are a number of words to avoid the L word, for example my wife in cross examining a cop one day, finaly turned to the judge and said, "I know we are not suposed to use the L word, your honnor, but I think it time you took judicial notice of the fact that the witness is more than avoiding the truth, he is in fact, lieing!" Now, in an industry which avoids the L word, so conspicuosly, we have a large number of other terms. Politics, being an out growth of law - as King George said, "A Republic, God help them, they are going to be ruled by lawyers!!!" So, in the case of Mr. Gore's statements which Mr. Troll takes umberage, I would use an industry term of art - puffery. His "lies" were - to my memory, slight exagerations of his role or his parties role in X,Yor Z. Now, that is not much of a fault in this nation of advertisers and spin doctors.
I am reminded of the bumber sticker that our Sisters and Brothers in other nations may not have been aware of, when a KKK member was running in Louisiana a few years ago, against a convicted crooked politician, The bumper sticker read, "vote for the crook".
I would rather have someone who is guilty of puffery with his (or her) finger on the button (if indeed anyone should have a finger on the button - EVEN ME, especialy brother Uncle Jaque - no offence mec,) I digress, better the liar than the idiot.
Cheers all,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Troll
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 12:13 AM

I guess this is your last hope guys.

> >Subject: GOD OVERRULES SUPREME COURT VERDICT > >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:42:12 -0500

BREAKING NEWS: GOD OVERRULES SUPREME COURT VERDICT

Bush to be smitten later today In a stunning development this morning, God invoked the "one nation, under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance to overrule last night's Supreme Court decision that handed the White House to George Bush.

"I'm not sure where the Supreme Court gets off," God said this morning on a rare Today Show appearance, "but I'm sure not going to lie back and let Bush get away with this."

"I've watched analysts argue for weeks now that the exact vote count in Florida 'will never be known.' Well, I'm God and I DO know exactly who voted for whom. Let's cut to the chase: Gore won Florida by exactly 20,219 votes."

Shocking political analysts and pundits, God's unexpected verdict overrules the official Electoral College tally and awards Florida to Al Gore, giving him a 289-246 victory. The Bush campaign is analyzing God's Word for possible grounds for appeal.

"God's ruling is a classic over-reach," argued Bush campaign strategist Jim Baker. "Clearly, a divine intervention in a U.S. Presidential Election is unprecedented, unjust, and goes against the constitution of the state of Florida."

"Jim Baker's a jackass," God responded. "He's got some surprises ahead of him, let me tell you. HOT ones, if you know what I mean."

God, who provided the exact vote counts for every Florida precinct, explained that bad balloting machinery and voter confusion were no grounds to give the White House to "a certified idiot."

"Look, only 612 people in Palm Beach County voted for Buchanan. Get real! The rest meant to vote for Gore. Don't believe me? I'll name them: Anderson, Pete; Anderson, Sam, Jr.; Arthur, James; Barnhardt, Ron...."

Our Lord then went on to note that he was displeased with George W. Bush's prideful ways and announced that he would officially smite him today. In an act of wrath unlike any reported since the Book of Job, God has taken all of Bush's goats and livestock, stripped him of his wealth and possessions, sold his family into slavery, forced the former presidential candidate into hard labor in a salt mine, and afflicted him with deep boils.

Dick Cheney will reportedly receive leprosy. __________________________________________________________

troll LOL

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Troll
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 09:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Skeptic
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 04:17 PM

Larry,

Sadly, I don't think Bush is an idiot. I know it just looks like the only time he opens his mouth is to change feet but to characterize him as stupid is to underestimate the enemy.

Bush has laid out his agenda fairly clearly. The tax cut (over which he's already at odds with Greenspan), vouchers for public schools that don't do well on standardized test (and no mention of how to deal with learning impaired children. Or without explaining just what jobs require the ability to pass standardized tests as an entry level skill), privatization of social security (which works really well in a growth economy, less so in a recession, but then the bankers and brokers make money either way which may be the point). He was very successful in getting these points across during the campaign, very successful in painting Gore as the villain in the vote count/recount fiasco and his firts two appointments were PR coups. Whether its because he's a puppet for special interests (who aren't at all stupid), its a role he's playing (well) and whether he is the real mastermind, or just knows how to hire competent staff doesn't matter. Dumb? Probably not. Dangerous? Probably so. (Depending on your values. As I've said, he stricts me as the sort of person who would endorse All Capp's satirical observation that "what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA". He either doesn't know or doesn't care that it might be bad for a whole lot of people who don't have a net value of 7 figures. I mean, the man thought the checkout scanner in the supermarket was a really cool new idea.

troll, if you're going to pick on the liberals with stuff I send you, I'm taking you off my distribution list.

And then there's this lengthy tidbit.

Lying Under Oath. Bush & Co. Squelch Investigation of Contributor's Funeral Homes In a (so far successful) attempt to stop a scandal, Bush perjured himself under oath, according to the sworn testimony of two of his political allies. The situation is amazingly similar to Clinton's Lewinsky problem: a potentially damaging lawuit arose (see below) that threatened to involve him. Just like Clinton, Bush swore an affidavit that he had no involvement in the case, which got him excused from testifying. And just like Clinton, the affidavit was proven false months later by new evidence. In this case, it's the recent sworn testimony of Robert MacNeil, a Bush appointee, that he had discussed the case with Bush at a fundraiser. This scandal isn't as sexy as Monica's, but perjury is perjury, and this scandal actually involves the governor's job, not his sex life. Texas' state commission on funeral homes (the TFSC) started an investigation of SCI, the world's largest funeral home company (with 3,442 homes, plus 433 cemeteries) after complaints that unlicensed apprenctices were embalming corpses at 2 SCI embalming centers. The commission visited a couple of these, and ended up fining SCI $450,000.

But SCI pulled strings with the commission and with Bush himself. Shortly thereafter, the investigation was shut down and the agency's investigator was fired. She sought to question Bush for her lawsuit, and that's when he swore his admittedly false affidavit. In fact, that affidavit has been proven false twice now.

DETAILS: SCI has long cultivated Bush and his allies. They gave governor Bush $35,000 in the last election and $10K in 1994, gave $100,000 to the George Bush, Sr. library, and hired the ex-president to give a speech last year for $70,000. They also spread money around the Texas legislature and the Texas Attorney General's office.

After the investigation got serious, SCI's boss, Robert Waltrip, called the funeral commission's chairman and told him to "back off." If not, Waltrip said, "I'm going to take this to the governor."

Still, the investigation continued. So Waltrip and his lawyer/lobbyist, Johnnie B. Rogers, went to the governor's office and dropped off a letter demanding a halt to the investigation. Rogers told Newsweek that he and Waltrip were ushered in to see Joe Allbaugh, Bush's chief of staff (who is now Bush's campaign manager.) Rogers goes on to say that Bush Jr. popped his head in and said to Waltrip, "Hey, Bobby, are those people still messing with you?" Waltrip said yeah. Then the governor turned to Rogers and said, "Hey, Johnnie B. Are you taking care of him?" Rogers said "I'm doing my best, Governor."

The problem for Bush is that he swore under oath, in a July 20th 1999 affidavit, that he "had no conversations with [SCI] officials, agents, or represenatives concerning the investigation or any dispute arising from it." If Rogers is telling the truth, than Bush Jr. lied directly under oath. He filed the affidavit in an attempt to avoid testifying in a whistleblower lawsuit concerning this investigation and it's alleged squashing by Bush's administration.

Back in August of 1999, Bush himself admitted that he spoke with Waltrip and Rogers -- in other words, that he lied under oath -- but used Clintonesque denials to claim that it was nothing substantial. Bush told the Associated Press that "It's a 20-second conversation. I had no substantive conversation with the guy. Twenty seconds. That's hardly enough time to even say hello, much less sit down and have a substantive discussion. All I know is it lasted no time. And that hardly constitutes a serious discussion. I did not have any knowledge at all of Waltrip's problem with this case."

Of course, nothing Bush says here contradicts what Rogers said. In fact, his careful explanation of why this is not perjury is incredibly similar to Bill Clinton's weaseling about what the meaning of "is" is. And now MacNeil's sworn statement further confirms Bush's lie.

Whatever Bush said out loud, Waltrip's complaints to the governor got quick results. Eliza May -- the investigator for the funeral services commission -- says that after Waltrip visited the governor, she received phone calls from three senior Bush aides asking if she could wrap up her proble quickly. She says she was also summoned to another meeting in Allbaugh's office, one month after the first one, and found Waltrip already there. The governor's top aide, she says, demanded that she turn over a list of all of the documents that she needed "to close the SCI investigation."

Since then, investigator Eliza May has been fired, 6 or 10 staff members on the commission have been fired or resigned and not been replaced, and the Texas legislature -- led by members receiving substantial contributions from SCI -- passed a bill to reorganize the agency and remove it's head. On August 16, 199, Bush ordered his Comptroller to take over the agency and run it. May -- who, it should be noted, is a Democrat and was even state Democratic Treasurer at one point -- has filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging she was fired because she persisted with the investigation.

Bush simply didn't show up for his scheduled deposition on July 1st, 1999 in the case. (He isn't a defendant in the case, because Governors are immune from lawsuits in Texas, but is being called as a material witness.) He filed his affidavit on July 20th to indicate that he had nothing to add.

Now Robert MacNeil -- who was the chairman of the Texas funeral commission at the time, a Bush appointee -- confirms that he also discussed the case with Bush, at a 1998 Texas fundraiser. In a sworn deposition, MacNeil says that Bush asked him: "Have you and Mr. Waltrip got your problems worked out?" Replied McNeil: "We're still trying to work on that, governor." Bush then said, "Do your job." Bush's campaign says that MacNeil's statement is false. But the language MacNeil says Bush used is almost identical to what he admits saying to Johnnie Rodgers in the governor's office. Sources

Regards and Good Luck John

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: InOBU
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 04:34 PM

Well done Sceptic: Funny, an old pal from Lousiana, who lives down the block from me, gets into voiciforus arguments often about Clinton, who he feels should be exicuted for perjury. I have tried to tell him that courts have always concidered there to be a lesser standard for lieing about things which should be private, you sex life for example, and finacial fraud, well, I supose Kim and I are going to get loud over mr. bush however, I expect Kim to expect us to cut Dubblya a break... My my my,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER part two
From: Troll
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 04:38 PM

Skeptic, serious stuff.We'll have to see how it plays out.
As for using information you sent me, I have often stated that I have no ideas of my own. I steal everything I say politically but I only steal from the best.
You, my charity case, are the exception.
But, as I have said before, even a blind pig will find an acorn if it roots long enough, and you found a VERY nice acorn.
For which I thank you.

troll