|
31 Mar 04 - 09:52 AM (#1150942) Subject: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST,John Mitchell NEW YORK 12.45 breaking news: – President George W Bush today provoked new controversy about the legitimacy of his government, with the following comments: "Our party watched as we were all reminded on a daily basis of the importance of each and every vote. We were reminded of the strength of our networks -- that while our party is not always perfect, it is fundamentally strong and more effective than any other administration in gaining power. While I am aware that not every voter got a chance to vote, I accept that the ones who count were able to lodge their vote, and those who are dangerous and a security risk to our country had no right to vote anyway. I will do everything within my power to ensure that the moral majority in America continue to exercise their democratic rights." President George W Bush's comments have caused a storm of protest, amidst calls for him to stand down. President Bush also acknowledged the fact that nearly 175,000 votes went uncounted in Florida and that as many as 90,000 potential voters were dumped from the rolls because they were considered felons not eligible to vote. President George W Bush has agreed to allow the International Commission of Jurists to monitor the next American election, on condition that members of the Commission sign a confidentiality agreement about their role in the election, and about the outcomes of the election. President Bush said that the presence of international monitors will ensure an outcome which supports stability and security in the United States. The US Civil Rights Commission has praised the move, although they have questioned the need for the confidentiality provisions. The New York Times |
|
31 Mar 04 - 09:55 AM (#1150947) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST,TIA Where, and in fromt of whom did he say this? If it is true, it is OUTRAGEOUS! References please if you've got 'em. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:04 AM (#1150958) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: wysiwyg Thanks, John; how's Martha? :~) ~Susan |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:06 AM (#1150961) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: artbrooks Does not appear in "nytimes.com", and a search since 1996 comes up empty. A troll, I think. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:20 AM (#1150969) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST What time is it in NY at the minute? Is it after 12.45? |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:31 AM (#1150978) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: MC Fat When you have a totally media driven electio like you do in the US it's not surprising that you have cock ups like you have had. Reign in the media , the people who announce the winner on on side of the country before the other side has even had a chance to vote. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:32 AM (#1150980) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Stilly River Sage To quote Click and Clack, Bogus! |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM (#1150988) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: M.Ted It should be dated tomorrow--and next time, John Mitchell, remember that in the US we would demand that he "step down", not "stand down"-- |
|
31 Mar 04 - 10:52 AM (#1150998) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Little Hawk I mildly disapprove of throwing gasoline on a fire in order to put it out. Then too, I mildly disapprove of an electoral system based on innuendo and character assassination. Here's how it works: 1. You arbitrarily invent 2 (and only 2) bureaucratic entities called "political parties", and you set them up in permanent opposition to one another. (Why anyone would do something so divisive is hard to figure, unless they were looking to...hmmm...divide and conquer, maybe?) 2. You periodically offer people the unsavory opportunity to choose between these two artificially contrived alternatives. (Ha! Ha!) 3. As time goes by, the people get used to doing it. They begin to think it's normal, intelligent, and useful to do it. They call it "democracy". 4. The competitive nature of this contrived system is such that... 4.a) The 2 parties develop a hatred and contempt for one another that is soon passed on to the general population, generation after generation. This results in a schizoprhenic society filled with hatred. 4.b) Every effort is made to make the other party look like a bunch of crooks and scoundrels (which they probably are...but so is your party). 4.c) Even if the other party gets something right, you still attack them for it anyway. 4.d) The 2 parties need massive funding at a level which can only be secured from large corporations and very rich people...therefore they make sure to do things which only benefit large corporations and very rich people...despite this, it is the votes of many ordinary people which must be gotten to rubberstamp the bastards into power! 4.e)The 2 parties each pick a figurehead to run for "Presidink". He's mainly a marketable face. They each attempt to convince the public that their Presindinkal candidate is a great guy, but the other Presidinkal candidate is a wimp, a jerk, a liar, a fraud, and every other bad thing imaginable!!! 4.f) The personal attacks on the 2 Presidinkal "faces" are so unremitting that they have both had their credibility (such as it was) utterly destroyed by the time voting day comes...except in the eyes of their most purblind followers, who would vote for THEIR party even if it ran a skunk for Presidink. And now...the funniest part of all! 5. The day after the great vote (assuming the result is clear) EVERYONE is encouraged to UNITE...da! da! dum!...BIND UP THE WOUNDS (self-inflicted)...and STAND BEHIND THE NEW PRESIDINK!!! LOL! Theatre of the absurd. Believe me, this is the sort of cultural phenomenon that a future civilization looks at in its history books and laughs about. Only people born into such a system could ever take it seriously. And then, hopefully, only when they were rather young and naive. - LH |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM (#1151004) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST,Teribus M Ted - maybe John was just practicing for tomorrow |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:14 AM (#1151017) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: freda underhill well, this is a case of northern hemiscentric thinking if you ask me. time, while a made up concept, is moving faster than you think. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:15 AM (#1151019) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Avril Betts I knew a Japanese guy who had "Election Iregularities" - Viagra sorted him out. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:18 AM (#1151024) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: M.Ted My point exactly, Terribus--now if we can just figure out what Little Hawk is practicing for-- |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:24 AM (#1151035) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: freda underhill if Mr Bush is irregular, i suggest he try a few weeks in Guantanamo Bay, Ive heard there's a queue for the loos there.. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM (#1151055) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: DougR References, freda, refrences? As to JM's post: horse pucky. DougR |
|
31 Mar 04 - 12:00 PM (#1151062) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST,heric Hello? He's practicing for the arrival of the Space Brothers of the Inner Planes (i.e. from interdimensional consciousness.) You should too. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM (#1151070) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Little Hawk Life, M.Ted. I'm practicing for life. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 12:11 PM (#1151073) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: GUEST,heric Dang. I was close maybe. ;) |
|
31 Mar 04 - 12:27 PM (#1151086) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: maire-aine Hog-wash! |
|
31 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM (#1151110) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: kendall See Doug? we don't swallow such crap, only the truth. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 01:17 PM (#1151112) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Big Mick Folks ..... especially Doug ..... you should have gotten this gag, especially when Susan gave you a hint by referencing "Martha". John Mitchell .... Nixon cabinet member ..... get it?????? Damn .... how soon we forget. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM (#1151117) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Peace I am inclined to agree with the substance of the initial post, but I knew it was a troll because of the title of the thread. Bush would never 'admit' anything. His keepers would see to that. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 06:37 PM (#1151386) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Bobert I agrre, brucie... Bush wouldn't cop to jay-walkin'... Should he loose the selection, inspite of Diebold's promise to to get him reselected, it may be because he and his folks refuse to ever admit to screwing up anything but jump right in with lies. Credibility should be the centerpeice of Kerry's camapign... Bobert |
|
31 Mar 04 - 06:40 PM (#1151389) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: freda underhill i hear that the White House has issued a contradictory statement, saying that the President strongly supports democracy, and does not see any need for monitoring of the next election. from his minders, a denial is as good as an admission. or, in irregularity terms, adnoidal is good as an emission.. bring on the International Commssion of Jurists. and Dubya, election irregularities are a sign of performance anxiety. can be easuily treated by a good, long.. holiday. |
|
31 Mar 04 - 07:36 PM (#1151426) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: Jim Dixon The US president doesn't have the constitutional power to promise any organization that they can monitor any election. In the US, all election laws and procedures are determined and administered by the various states. It would be up to the officials of each state to decide whether they wanted their elections monitored. If someone believed that an election had been held in violation of constitutional principles, such as "equal protection of the laws" they could seek redress, after the fact, in a Federal court, but that's about the extent to which the Feds can get involved. (That's more or less what happened in the Florida election of 2000. And many people believe the US Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority by even claiming jurisdiction in that case.) In short, I agree the story is bogus. I can't blame anyone for trying, however. Bogus news stories often make great satire. See The Onion, for example. But this story isn't outrageous enough to be funny. |
|
01 Apr 04 - 01:17 AM (#1151606) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: NH Dave Remarkable how much this seems like Watergate, to one who remembers it and commented about the situation then, "All he had to do was admit that the burglary took place, and that the miscreants were some over eager staffers. We have slapped them in private personal places and they swear they will never do it again. We're sorry that it did happen and promise not to let it happen again." A "Mea Culpa" like this back at the start of that brouhaha would have nipped it in the bud and we would not have considered impeaching Nixon, and he wouldn't have had to resign. Surely it is not coincidence that the same party stands accused of Pooching the process again. Dave |
|
01 Apr 04 - 08:23 PM (#1152414) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Admits Election irregularities From: paddymac A good chuckle. The tip-off is apparent in the level of thought and language in the post. I don't think anyone who has followed the trail of W would ever think those words came from him. Now, Rumsfeld is a talented wordsmith. Maybe , well -- |