BS: Osama say vote for Bush

Subject: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:24 AM

Thank You Osama.         

McCain: bin Laden video shows need to re-elect Bush
U.S. Sen. John McCain said the Osama bin Laden video flogging the country's foreign policies that aired Friday is a strong argument for the need to re-elect President George W. Bush."

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:42 AM

Osama bin Laden: Another bloody fundamentalist for Bush. Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 08:28 AM

Well, the media says that Osoma's tape hurts Kerry's campaign but, like who owns them?

It would make sense that with the long and lasting ties between the Bush and the bin Laden families that Osoma would rather have his couzin Georgee Porgy get re-selaected... Plus they are both dogmatic fundamentalists.

Hey, netc thing ya' know it Osoma will be forgiven by Bush and will be back on the payroll... Starnger things have happened. Look what they did to their buddy, Saddam...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:34 AM

Well, if OSama's supporting Bush, I'm agin it. I'm aginit anyway.

TOTAL ABSTINENCE on November 2: No Dick, No Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

That's right. If you love Osama, vote for Bush, because with Bush, you'll get four more years of Osama. Count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:04 PM

I think Osama just wants to be sure no one decides to HELP us look for him, and keeping Bush is the best way to guarantee that......

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:03 PM

LOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:45 PM

Osama only talk about Bush. He like Bush?

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM

Ahhhhh, like who kidnapped the Mudcat Bushites? They is layin' real low these days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 11:10 PM

It can be interpreted as a negative for Bush---remember one of the proposed "October surprises" was to produce bin Laden, in captivity, just before the election.   It is absurd to think that capturing bin Laden is positive for Bush, but not capturing him is also positive for him.

It appears in fact that the sheriff has not brought in the outlaw, dead or alive.

Let's try a different sheriff.

It's time to stop reading tea leaves---- and time to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Genie
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 12:39 AM

If I were Osama and I wanted Bush elected, the LAST thing I'd put out there is the idea that I WANTED him elected!



Bottom line:
1. How the heck do we know what OBL wants the outcome of our election to be?
2. What the heck do we CARE what he wants?

Forget Osama and vote for what/whom YOU want!

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Burger Meister
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:13 AM

Ron Davies:

"we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc
Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? "

"Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Amid the controversy over "Unfit for Command" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it's worth noting that John Kerry's surrogates continue to overstate their man's Vietnam record...
"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005516
BM

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 12:15 PM

The osama tape was 18 minutes long but we saw only a portion of that. Who are the censors?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 07:36 PM

Here's the Times of India's reading ofthis - using lots of cricketing metaphors - Bin Spin bowls Kerry, bats for Bush

Here's the gist of it: The unanswered question though is whether the Bin Spin was aimed at rallying or ruining Bush's re-election.

Most experts agree that a Bush second term suits bin Laden better because he can tap into the anger of Muslim youth against a war-mongering America. Recruitment becomes easier.

By railing against Bush, bin Laden has rallied many Americans behind the president and emerged as an unexpected Bush ally.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM

The New York TImes Dowd column puts this question into its best and most natural perspective.

That Dowd gal is notter than a Saturday night special.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:04 PM

Burgermeister--

As I indicated elsewhere, you may possibly run into sarcasm here---watch out.

Obviously the Journal editorial page is dominated by Neanderthals (Bushites).

However if you'd bother to read the rest of the paper, the news articles constantly point out flaws, misstatements, and self-contradictions by Bush.

Virtually all my information for criticism of Bush has come from those articles.

For instance, by reading the Journal articles (not the editorials, which might possibly be slightly biased--imagine that!---) , I learned that there was virtually no link between Saddam and Osama--------and they printed this long before the invasion.

If Bush had not been determined from Day 1 to invade Iraq, there was a huge amount of information available not just to him but to the general public, to indicate that his flimsy
excuses for invading were smoke and mirrors.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM

I think the UN needs to send observers in to make sure the US voting is run on the up-and-up. Seems to be a lot of preparation for lawyers to jump in and start suits protesting the outcome whichever way it goes.

Americans can actually vote directly FOR their president, so I am at a loss to understand why the process is so fucked-up down there. Why the electoral college horseshit? What's wrong with one voter = one vote?
What's wrong with every state using the same simple ballot: a slip of paper with names of the candidate and their party affiliation accompanied by a little box for their X? It works for every other country that holds elections.

And if fear of Osama is such a big factor in the minds of the US, why isn't there a larger US military presence in the country he's actually hiding in?

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:01 PM

By the way, I am not asking from a superior stance. Nobody has a more messed-up system of democracy than we Canadians have adapted from Mother Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:15 PM

We can't vote directly for the president, Cluin. The electoral college prevents us from doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:19 PM

That's my question, CarolC. Why the added complication? Theoretically you SHOULD be able to vote for the candidate you want to be your Commander-in-Chief. What is the benefit of the electoral college obfuscation? Why shouldn't the popular vote be allowed to decide the outcome?

Who benefits from the way it is set up now?

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:28 PM

The entrenched two-party political machine and the large powerful corporations and special interests that own it are the beneficiaries of the system as it is, Cluin. That's why it probably won't be changed any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 03:07 PM

In the most abstract and general sense, the reason for the electoral college was to offset the power of the populous states.   See, the US is not only a single country under a set of federal laws, but also a set of states with their own laws. The Constitution had to be ratified by people from 13 different states, some of which stood to be seriously outnumbered once the government was established. For this reason, the electoral college includes one member per congressional district (this is directly proportional to the state's population) and adds two members to represent the state's Senators. In this way, states with few people have their representation augmented proportionally much more than states with many people. If a state has only enough people for one congressional district, like Vermont, it gets 3 electors; 300% of the total based on population alone. If another state has enough for 100 congressional districts, it gets 102 electors, or 102% of the number based on population alone. Thus, the states with small populations get a bit of a boost.

To this day, the states are the beneficiaries of the college system, not the people. Actually, the beneficiaries are state legislatures, which exercise control of how the electoral college votes. While the constitution mandates the EXISTENCE of the college, the states control how it works. THIS is where the real distortion of the vote comes in. For most states the state's electoral votes ALL go to the person who "wins" the state, so if you get 51% of the Florida vote you get 100% of the state's electoral votes.

This benefits state legislatures in two ways:

1) If the state has a clear majority, and is not a "battleground" state, ie, if the majority of the people in a state lean a certain way politically, the legislature usually reflects that. So if 65% of people are likely to vote Republican (as in, say, Utah) then the legislature is probably domintated by Republicans, too. Thus, it is in their interest to have 100% of the electoral votes go to the Republican. Same goes for NY and the Democrats. It allows the majority, which controls the legislature, to amplify its lead in the final tally.

2) if the state has no clear majority, but is a "battleground" state, there would be no reason for a candidate to favor that state in any way. In other words, if in Ohio 52% is going to vote Republican and 48% Democrat, is it worth a candidate tailoring his agenda and platform to that state's citizens in order to change that margin to 52% Democrat, 48% Republican? Without the electoral college, probably not; that 4% of Ohio voters won't make a big difference nationally. But if the 4% of Ohio voters controls ALL of Ohio's electoral votes, it makes each candidate desperate to appeal to Ohio voters. This allows the issues important to the "battleground" states to dominate political agendas.

Thus, whether the state is a battleground state or a committed state, the natural tendency of the legislature will be to keep the all-or-nothing system of the electoral college.

This is a very difficult problem in American politics. Abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, no easy feat. Changing the way the college votes would require 48 individual legislatures to do something that is not in their own interest. That is not likely to happen either.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 03:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 03:21 PM

Sorry, I bumped the wrong key.
Canada and the USA could each do a lot to make the election system more democratic, but there is no incentive, because those in power want to remain in power, and don't give a shit about democracy.
What we do is elect a dictator for four or five years. In the case of Mulroony and Cretien we Canadians were collectively stupid enough to return them to office. I pray that you Yanks will be smarter.
   Even if the new broom is no better than the old at least you tried to change things.
We should know when to flush the toilet even when we expect that soon again it will be once more full of shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 03:36 PM

Thanks, Nerd, for the well-worded explanation of why the electoral college system exists as well as who benefits from it. It's pretty much how I figured (I vaguely thought it must have been implemented to benefit less-populated states in the beginning), but it still seems to be a "leaning bucket".... a perfect set-up for the kind of mess your presidential election ended up with in 2000. Memory of that one still raises an eyebrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:33 AM

Yes, Cluin, it certainly doesn't function as intended these days! The only consolation is that it almost always works out that the electoral college winner is also the popular vote winner. The electoral college almost always amplifies the lead of popular winner!

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:44 AM

Well at least now we know what happened to the missing 18 minutes of tape...


Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Wiley
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 07:01 PM

Why don't the whiney baby democrats intorduce a bill to do away with the electoral college if they don't like it?

Because it might benefit them this time.

That's the good thing about our laws, they can be changed.

WEC

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:06 AM

Nerd's post on the electoral college should be required reading in any high school civics or American Government class in the USA ...and students should have to pass a test on it in order to graduate. ......Or maybe they did and I was absent from school that day...

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: GUEST,Weezy
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:25 AM

Colorado voted down splitting thier Electoral votes.

Weezy

Subject: RE: BS: Osama say vote for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:49 AM

Changing the electoral system will require a constitutional amendment. It's a bit more complicated than just passing a law.