|
|
 | | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:33:09 +1300 |
|
|
 | By Terry Gilliam:
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good
sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted
the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off
one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I
go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous.
The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to
charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and
quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all
the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible
things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since
I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
that's been a little difficult.
Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do
is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq
is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The
one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers
targeting the ! US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that
have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave
us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq
is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as
much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr
Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the
world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when
you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all
terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist
is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about
would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate,
since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have
already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a
future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective
until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate
Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe
thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the
same in my street.
Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are
dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite
frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until
I've wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using
the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her
up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give !
the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and
hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws
and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them
over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street
to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in
contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one
street.
--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:50:48 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:33:09 +1300, Tarla wrote:
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing it.
|
|
| | From: | morrisseybreen at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 01:43:22 -0800 |
|
|
| Mad fantasy statistician John ("Kooky") Cawston tries to be clever,
perhaps unwisely:
>
> Perhaps you should try facts instead of your fear. The fear
> factor came entirely from Bush's opposition. "Quagmire",
> "Vietnam", body bags, terrorists, making terrorists etc,
> they all screamed every minute for years.
Ha! Even Colin Powell, that notorious apologist for the U.S. army,
admits that the U.S. is in trouble in Iraq. Is Cawston trying to
suggest that if everybody ignores the mayhem and "thinks positive",
then there is no need to worry? (Answer: Yes, that's EXACTLY what
he's trying to suggest.)
>
> But 62 million
> Americans said "nuts" and voted Bush in.
Shouldn't that be: "went nuts"?
........
|
|
| | From: | JD | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:08:55 GMT |
|
|
| morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Shouldn't that be: "went nuts"?
> ........
The utter hypocrisy is astonishing.
|
|
| | From: | morrisseybreen at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 03:18:03 -0800 |
|
|
| Our good friend Deano Panti bestirred himself long enough to post the
following:
> morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't that be: "went nuts"?
> > ........
>
> The utter hypocrisy is astonishing.
Explain, if you will...
|
|
| | From: | JD | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:47:09 GMT |
|
|
| morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
> Our good friend Deano Panti bestirred himself long enough to post the
> following:
>>morrisseybreen@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Shouldn't that be: "went nuts"?
>>>........
>>
>>The utter hypocrisy is astonishing.
>
> Explain, if you will...
You using the term "usual character denigration and lies" to describe
someone else's post.
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300 |
|
|
| Tarla wrote:
> By Terry Gilliam:
>
> I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
> he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
> really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
> the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
> They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
> something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
> what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
> but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
62 million for!
Four more years!
JC
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:12:58 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston wrote:
> Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
> improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
> dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>
> 62 million for!
>
> Four more years!
I'd say in spite of. A lot of Americans didn't vote, a lot of those that
did were more concerned with domestic policies rather than foreign ones.
Then of course there was Karl Rove. Funny how Bush champions democracy, but
the way it works in his own coutry puts the result in the hands of a very
small group of people in two states.
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:13:37 +1300 |
|
|
| Warwick wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston wrote:
>
>
>>Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>
>>62 million for!
>>
>>Four more years!
>
>
> I'd say in spite of. A lot of Americans didn't vote,
True. It was only the highest turnout in decades.
a lot of those that
> did were more concerned with domestic policies rather than foreign ones.
OK. So millions more voted for Bush's domestic programme
than for Kerry.
>
> Then of course there was Karl Rove. Funny how Bush champions democracy, but
> the way it works in his own coutry puts the result in the hands of a very
> small group of people in two states.
And funny how 60% of the states had no problem with that and
voted the group in, and of the other 20 states, Bush
improved his margin over 2000 by 2.7%, including an
improvement in Hawaii (7.8%), Mass (4.5%), New Jersey 6.2%),
NY (5.3%), Rhode Is (7%).
Clearly yours is a minority opinion and best explored on
alt.conspiracy.
JC
|
|
| | From: | Warwick | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:09:21 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:13:37 +1300, John Cawston wrote:
> Clearly yours is a minority opinion and best explored on
> alt.conspiracy.
>
> JC
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_archive.php?issue=2004-11-20&id=5269
Part of the solution is a machine that squats in Conservative Central
Office in Victoria Street, the object of much homage, wonder and devotion.
No ancient Roman shrine ever attracted so much reverence. It would be wrong
to make too much of its merely mechanical qualities, prodigious though they
are said to be. The true importance of this machine, called Voter Vault, is
its status as the technological embodiment of the insights that guided the
Republicans to victory in this month¢s presidential election.
Karl Rove, supreme architect of George W. Bush¢s triumph and the
universally acknowledged high priest of modern campaign management, has
long understood that all voters are not equal in a modern democracy; indeed
the vast majority do not matter at all.
I wondered why you dropped out of our last debate. I am saddened you have
chosen condescension over argument. Most right wingers on this group prefer
blowarse abuse and outright dismissal over counter arguments. I had hoped
you were different.
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:45:29 +1300 |
|
|
| Warwick says
>
> I wondered why you dropped out of our last debate. I am saddened you have
> chosen condescension over argument. Most right wingers on this group prefer
> blowarse abuse and outright dismissal over counter arguments. I had hoped
> you were different.
>
Jesus H Christ on a bike you're unbelievable. I've been reading
the exchanges between yourself and John, and I'm fucked if I can
see where he gets the patience to deal with such a fucked in the
head pompous pretentious and ignorant drop kick as you. Ninety
five percent of what you write on any given issue is incoherent
disconnected left wing drivel.
You should be damn grateful Cawston or anybody took the time to
reply to such dull witted uninformed embarrassingly superficial
rubbish. I'm damned if I'd bother trying to reason with anyone
so pitifully fucked in the head as you.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke
|
|
| | From: | TomV | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:57:06 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>> By Terry Gilliam:
>>
>> I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
>> he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
>> really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
>> the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
>> They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
>> something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
>> what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
>> but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
>
>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>
>62 million for!
>
>Four more years!
I've come to the conclusion that the two term limit for US presidents
is to discourage them from remaining permanently at war to ensure
reelection.
....tom
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:57:17 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
wrote:
>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>
>62 million for!
59 million against!
--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory
|
|
| | From: | Gib Bogle | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:49:05 +1300 |
|
|
| Tarla wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
> wrote:
>
>
>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>
>>62 million for!
>
>
> 59 million against!
Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
The election gave GWB the power to do what he wants, but didn't give him
the power to make good decisions.
|
|
| | From: | JD | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:11:21 GMT |
|
|
| Gib Bogle wrote:
> Tarla wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush improved
>>> on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he dropped a
>>> percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>
>>> 62 million for!
>>
>> 59 million against!
Welcome to the flip side of democracy.
> Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
Brushing aside the spectre of Godwins for a second, just how do you
measure that?
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:49:30 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:11:21 GMT, JD <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote:
>Gib Bogle wrote:
>> Tarla wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush improved
>>>> on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he dropped a
>>>> percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>>
>>>> 62 million for!
>>>
>>> 59 million against!
>
>Welcome to the flip side of democracy.
>
>> Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
>
>Brushing aside the spectre of Godwins for a second, just how do you
>measure that?
Easy...Hitler was elected.
--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:16 +1300 |
|
|
| In article ,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:11:21 GMT, JD <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote:
> >Brushing aside the spectre of Godwins for a second, just how do you
> >measure that?
> Easy...Hitler was elected.
No, he wasn't. He was appointed Chancellor and had no seat in
parliament.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:27:17 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:16 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article ,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:11:21 GMT, JD <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote:
>
>> >Brushing aside the spectre of Godwins for a second, just how do you
>> >measure that?
>
>> Easy...Hitler was elected.
>
>No, he wasn't. He was appointed Chancellor and had no seat in
>parliament.
ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
--
Tarla
Peter stepped
right in it.
thanks, Pete.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:45:54 +1300 |
|
|
| In article <6j58v0dpq02dsk22jnaov4jkmn848dmevr@4ax.com>,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:16 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
> >In article ,
> >tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> >> Easy...Hitler was elected.
> >No, he wasn't. He was appointed Chancellor and had no seat in
> >parliament.
> ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
How so?
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:33:59 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:45:54 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article <6j58v0dpq02dsk22jnaov4jkmn848dmevr@4ax.com>,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:16 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>> wrote:
>
>> >In article ,
>> >tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>
>> >> Easy...Hitler was elected.
>
>> >No, he wasn't. He was appointed Chancellor and had no seat in
>> >parliament.
>
>> ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
>
>How so?
Bush was appointed as well.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:39:05 +1300 |
|
|
| In article ,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:45:54 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6j58v0dpq02dsk22jnaov4jkmn848dmevr@4ax.com>,
> >tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> >> ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
> >How so?
> Bush was appointed as well.
No, he wasn't. George Bush was elected by the Electoral
College because he had the most votes there. Adolf Hitler
was appointed Chancellor by the President as part of a
coalition deal. If you are going to make Hitler parallels,
it would help if you had the faintest idea what the fuck
you were talking about.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:03:31 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:39:05 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article ,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:45:54 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6j58v0dpq02dsk22jnaov4jkmn848dmevr@4ax.com>,
>> >tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>
>> >> ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
>
>> >How so?
>
>> Bush was appointed as well.
>
>No, he wasn't. George Bush was elected by the Electoral
>College because he had the most votes there.
No he didn't. He didn't win Florida. It was given to him.
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:42:24 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Tarla wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>... George Bush was elected by the Electoral
>>College because he had the most votes there.
>
>No he didn't. He didn't win Florida. It was given to him.
Typical brainless, divorced from reality, Tarla post. The truth of
this crybaby leftist allegation is amply laid out at
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3951&search=baehr
___________________
Peddling the myth of the stolen election
Richard Baehr
October 22nd, 2004
The Democrats are yet again peddling the myth that Florida was
"stolen" in the 2000 presidential election, as a means of encouraging
an anger-fuelled high turnout of their base. Black voters in
particular have been endlessly instructed that millions of them were
somehow "disenfranchised," despite a complete lack of evidence and a
contrary conclusion from the US Civil Rights Commission.
Elections in which vengeful anger is the strongest motivating force
for one or more sides, deviate from the American norm. Rhetoric,
tactics, strategy, judgment, and voter turnout are all affected, often
in surprising ways, and blunders, major and minor, become even more
common than usual.
While the ideological divide between the two sides often has been
quite sharp, the current level of personal bitterness is unusually
high, by recent historical standards. In this election cycle, the tone
of ugliness is being set on the left.
The emotional and political divide separating right and left in this
country has become obsessive. The left is obsessed with the evil that
is George Bush, and the need to get rid of him.
The right has had its own obsession in recent years, in its loathing
of Bill Clinton. But this time around, anger management is a need
mostly of the left.
Today, the right's enemies are the enemies of the United States,
whether they be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or even hiding
out in America. Certainly many Democrats also want America to be
successful in these efforts. But for the agenda- setting, activist
faction of the left, defeating George Bush takes precedence over
beating back al Qaeda.
The Democrats have been determined to keep the 2000 election "issue"
alive, even though it failed miserably as a rallying cry against Jeb
Bush, who won a resounding 56% to 43% re-election victory in the 2002
Florida Governor's race.
It is ironic that among the angriest of those who charge that Bush's
election was illegitimate, are many who did not even support Al Gore
for President. Michael Moore has made the "stolen election" a core
element of his books and speeches since 2000. Yet Moore was an
advocate for Ralph Nader, who won over 92,000 votes in Florida in
2000. Had Nader not run, or prominent leftists like Moore not
supported him, perhaps enough Nader voters would have trickled over to
the Gore column to enable him to win Florida. The anger over the
"stolen election" in many cases may be deflected guilt over some sense
of responsibility for allowing Bush to win.
Gary Wills, in his book on Thomas Jefferson and slavery, accused
Jefferson of winning the election of 1800 by capturing the votes of
states in which the slaves were counted as 3/5 persons, a device which
padded the Congressional and therefore Electoral College
representation of the slave states. He seems to find this comparable
in some way to Bush's "blitzkrieg of lawyers" who helped steal the
2000 election. Wills's language is not accidental. Just as critics of
Israel's policies love to diminish Israel, by analogizing Israel's
behavior to apartheid South Africa or the Nazis, Wills's use of the
word "blitzkrieg" is designed to suggest that Bush and his
fascist-like right wing hordes stole the recent election.
It is, I think, fair to claim that the election of 2000 was disputed.
It was fought over for 37 days, in a myriad of lawsuits filed in
individual Florida counties, in Florida state courts and in federal
courts. But the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the
lawsuits in Florida were initiated by Gore supporters, and not by Bush
supporters. Bush was the defendant in these cases, Gore the litigant.
Hundreds of Gore lawyers flew into Tallahassee on election night.
Thousands more were recruited over the internet, and eagerly joined
the fight. David Boies, considered by some to be America's toughest
litigator, was recruited by the Gore team. If there was a lawyer
blitzkrieg in the Florida election fight, it was a Democratic Party
assault force.
Certainly, the Bush team responded, and recruited first class legal
talent of its own. The Bush team sought relief in federal courts after
decisions by the Florida Supreme Court twice overruled lower Florida
courts that went against Gore.
Most significantly, the Bush team won every important decision by a
court in Florida, except for two decisions by the Florida Supreme
Court, a partisan Democrat court if there ever were one. All seven
members of this court had initially been appointed by a Democrat
governor. Ignoring both Florida law (e.g., the date when all counties
had to report their results to the Secretary of State) and the
decisions of the lower courts, the Florida Supreme Court used its
power to keep the election dispute alive, in the hope, presumably,
that some recount would eventually put Gore ahead.
The unspoken truth of the 2000 election dispute in Florida is always
ignored by the left: Gore never led; not on election night, not after
any statewide recount, not after adding the votes from county hand
recounts, and not even in the exhaustive statewide post- election
recounts conducted by the major state and national newspapers (in
almost all of which Bush wound up ahead when any consistent method of
counting was used.) Pick your method of counting chads, and it doesn't
matter. Bush won.
Another myth is that Gore simply wanted all the votes counted. This is
absolutely false. Gore lawyers and their supporters attempted to
disqualify votes of some military voters overseas, and of absentee
voters in several Florida counties. Both groups, not surprisingly,
strongly supported Bush.
On the other hand, they tried to create votes that the machines had
determined contained no vote for President (the "undervote"), but only
in four heavily Democratic counties: Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, and
Volusia. In each of these counties, Democratic Party officials would
control the hand count of the "undervote." So this was no exercise in
civic minded duty - the logic was to find votes for Gore, and cancel
votes for Bush.
The left likes to say that the United States Supreme Court gave the
election to Bush. They did no such thing. What they did was reverse
the Florida Supreme Court's effort to keep on counting until Gore won.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore may not have been a
model of jurisprudence, but the left also ignores the fact that the
decision to over-rule the Florida Supreme Court was not a 5-4 decision
dictated by the five conservative members of the Court, but a 7 to 2
decision. Even two liberals on the Court were offended by the
machinations of the Florida court and its creation of a chaotic vote
counting system for the "undervotes".
The system decreed by the Florida Supreme Court in its 4 to 3 ruling
(bitterly condemned by the Court's own Chief Justice as
"overreaching") would have allowed inconsistent rules for counting the
"undervotes" even within an individual county. For example, the
Florida Supreme Court decided to accept the results of a partially
completed hand recount performed in Dade County by a group of county
officials using one set of rules and then add to it the results of a
hand recount of the remainder of the county's "undervote" to be
performed by a different set of counters in Tallahassee, whose
counting rules were not established.
The Florida Supreme Court also decided to accept the results of hand
recounts completed in Broward, Volusia and Palm Beach Counties, though
each county had established very different standards for identifying
which partially punched ballots were to be considered actual votes.
(Broward had adopted the most liberal standard, and gave Gore his
biggest boost during the 37 day period: almost 600 net votes.)
No clear rules for how to count or not count the "undervote" in
Florida's other counties were established by the Florida Supreme
Court, and seven U.S. Supreme Court justices concluded this new
Florida counting system was so arbitrarily varied from county to
county that it denied some Florida voters the equal protection of the
law, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In retrospect, the U.S. Supreme
Court action probably prevented the theft of the election in Florida
from occurring.
Nationwide, Gore won a plurality (not a majority) of the reported
popular vote tally, leading Bush by approximately 540,000 votes, a
0.5% margin, while losing narrowly to Bush in the Electoral College
(271-266). This split between the popular and electoral College
results in the 2000 election has its historical parallels, which
diminish the contention that a deep historic injustice was done.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won 44% of the popular vote in a 4-man race,
and won the most Electoral College votes. John Quincy Adams won only
30% of the popular vote, and was second in the Electoral College vote.
But Adams was elected president by the House of Representatives, since
no candidate had won a majority of the Electoral College vote.
In both the 1876 and 1888 elections, the eventual Electoral College
and presidential winner was also the popular vote loser. In 1876, the
popular vote winner, Samuel Tilden, defeated Rutherford B. Hayes by 3%
in the popular vote, but a commission awarded all disputed electoral
votes to Hayes, giving him a one vote Electoral College victory. In
1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by just under 1%
over Benjamin Harrison, but lost the Electoral College vote to
Harrison decisively, and so the presidency.
Hence, in 1824, 1876, and 1888, the popular vote winners won broader
popular vote victories than Gore did in 2000, and all still lost the
election. What happened to Gore (winning a popular vote plurality by a
small margin, yet losing the Electoral College vote by a small margin)
was not earth-shattering nor precedent-setting. It had happened
before, and will likely happen again.
The US Supreme Court decision over-ruling the Florida Supreme Court
had two parts:
the first a 7 to 2 vote over-ruling the vote counting system
established by the Florida Supreme Court ; the second a 5 to 4 vote,
requiring the vote count to be concluded almost immediately so that
Florida could participate in the Electoral College process.
Had the second decision been 5 to 4 the other way, it is likely that
the Florida count would not have been concluded in time for the state
to determine a winner and select a slate of electors to the Electoral
College. In that case, one of two scenarios would have played out. One
is that the Florida legislature, Republican dominated, would have
selected the Bush electors to vote in the Electoral College.
Alternatively, no Florida electors would have been selected, and
neither Bush nor Gore would have won a majority of the Electoral
College vote. In that case, the US House of Representatives, voting by
states (as in 1824), would have picked Bush since the GOP controlled
more state delegations than the Democrats. So even if the 5-4 portion
of the U.S. Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, Bush would
still have become our President.
With the benefit of hindsight provided by the post-election newspaper
recounts, we now know that the charge that the U.S. Supreme Court
awarded the election to Bush by stopping the recount, cannot be
sustained, even assuming the Florida statewide recount could have been
completed in time. These newspaper recounts revealed that had the
hand recount of the "undervote" been allowed to be completed
statewide, Bush would have won anyway, using almost every consistently
applied standard that was considered by the newspapers. Do the
Democratic partisans mean to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court was
wrong in its 7 to 2 decision to over-rule the Florida Supreme Court?
Is it their contention that it should have allowed the enormous
inconsistency in the county by county and even individual by
individual standards applied to the hand recount that the Florida
Supreme Court decision permitted, so long as they produced their
desired result? This sounds like a preference for Cook County style
graveyard voting, so long as it puts a particular candidate over the
top.
It is also worth noting, that with the exception of Florida, every
other state that was decided by less than 1% in the 2000 election went
to Gore: New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon. These four states
combined had 30 Electoral College votes, 5 more than Florida. While
there were murky circumstances surrounding the Gore victories in every
one of them, the results were not contested by any Bush "lawyer
blitzkrieg" in any of them. In fact, the Democrats know more about
winning close federal elections than the Republicans, in recent years.
In the past five years, Democrats have won Senate elections in South
Dakota, Nevada and Washington State, by an average margin of 0.1% of
the total vote cast.
The charges of theft in Florida continue to be argued self-righteously
by Gore partisans because of his thin national popular vote victory.
But there are ample reasons to dispute the contentions, which they
weave together in a grand theme of Republican vote suppression:
1. Democrats charge that Florida Governor Jeb Bush suppressed the
black vote (which went over 90% for Gore), by using police roadblocks
on election day to inhibit voting by blacks, and by clearing the
voting rolls of felons- in an alleged attempt to remove black voters
from the voter lists months before the election. The roadblock charge,
loudly broadcast by race warriors Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, among
others, has found zero documentary evidence to support it, though it
is still repeated as if it were true in black churches and on
black-oriented radio stations.
As for felon votes, Florida law prohibited their voting. Had Jeb Bush
not taken the action he did before the election, many felons would
surely have been able to vote. It is certainly possible that some
names which were purged from the voter rolls were of individuals
mistakenly identified as felons. But in every election, there are
errors in the voting rolls, and some people wind up not voting, or
more often, have to prove their eligibility at the polls. If Jeb Bush
had been aiming to inhibit a large black turnout, he surely failed.
The percentage of all votes in Florida in 2000, which were cast by
black voters, was much higher than in previous elections, and the
black turnout percentage, fired up by vicious anti-Bush TV and radio
advertising, may have exceeded the white turnout percentage.
2. Democrats charge that the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County was
designed to confuse voters. This is nonsense. The ballot was designed
by a Palm Beach County official who was a loyal Democratic Party
member, aiming to make it easier for elderly voters to read the
ballot. Sometimes there are unintended consequences when you try to do
the right thing. Probably, very few elderly Jewish voters in the
county meant to vote for Pat Buchanan for President. But some of them
did, and other Palm Beach County voters apparently made a similar
mistake.
But the facts of life are that there are no election do-overs for
those who make errors
when they vote.
3. Democrats charge that many votes for Gore were not counted. Many
voters in Florida cast two votes for President (there were about two
double votes for each "undervote" in the state). In every state, a
vote for two candidates for President disqualifies your vote; and
Florida is no exception. So too, with the "undervotes:" if you don't
punch through your punch card ballot completely, the machine won't
read your vote. The machine is politically neutral in kicking out
unreadable ballots; the human counters, as was clear during the 37-day
process, were not.
It may well be that if no voters had made mistakes, either by voting
for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, or casting two votes for President,
Gore would have won in Florida. But the vote which counts is the vote
that is not spoiled, not the might-have-been count, had everyone
followed instructions.
4. Some Democrats charge that Fox News called Bush the winner, because
the network was in Bush's pocket. Other networks followed, and Bush
was therefore presumed to be the winner once the recount started,
giving him a public opinion advantage. This too is revisionist
history. All the networks initially called Gore the winner (Fox News
included), based on a faulty exit poll by the now-discredited and
disbanded Voter News Service, which had been owned collectively by the
major TV networks and AP wire service.
When Fox and the other networks changed their call and gave the state
to Bush, that was hours later, and lasted only an hour or so, before
the Florida popular vote tightened, and the state was reclassified by
all the networks as too close to call. Within an hour after that, the
Gore lawyers were en route to Tallahassee. If Bush had a public
opinion edge nationally during the recount, it was because he was the
winner in the popular vote count in the state on election night, as
well as after a statewide recount, after military ballots were added,
and in each subsequent hand recount in a particular county in the
state.
One almost completely ignored story is the fact that when all the
networks gave Florida to Gore soon after the polls closed in most of
the state (the counties in the Eastern time zone), the polls were
still open in the panhandle area of the state, which is in the Central
time zone. The panhandle was Bush's strongest area in the state: the
part of Florida that most resembles the rest of the South. He won by
about 2 to 1 in this region. Yet, there were about 20 minutes
remaining to vote in the Central time zone section of the state, when
the networks called the state for Gore, despite their pledge not to
call a winner in any state while its polls were still open. But even
more important is the fact that every major network began broadcasting
the "fact" that the polls were closed statewide in Florida, when there
was still an hour left to vote in its Central time zone counties.
A comparison of the county-by-county presidential vote in Florida in
1996 and 2000 shows that the percentage increase in turnout was
smaller in all the Central time zone counties, than the increase in
voter participation in the rest of the state. Could this have been
caused by the broadcasters' premature announcement that the polls were
already closed statewide, when an hour remained to vote in these
Republican leaning counties in the pandhandle? Might the wrong early
call that Gore won the state also have contributed to the
lower-than-expected panhandle turnout? Had voter participation rates
increased in the Florida panhandle to the same degree as the rest of
the state, Bush might have picked up a net 10,000 votes, if his 2/3
margin in the panhandle held among the missing late voters. This would
have vastly supplemented his final 537 vote margin. In other words,
Bush would have won the state by enough on election night that the 37
day war of the lawyers would never have occurred.
There is plenty of evidence from previous national elections that were
decided early in the evening (1964 for Johnson, 1972 for Nixon, 1984
for Reagan), that turnout on the West Coast was suppressed by the
networks' early call of the presidential race based on Eastern state
totals. Many voters in Florida and elsewhere vote at the end of the
voting day. Most voting stations allow anyone in line at the scheduled
poll closing time to cast their votes. If the polling places were
crowded at the end of the day in the panhandle counties, might some
voters have chosen to go home, rather than wait in line to vote, after
hearing that the presidential race was decided? Might many other
potential voters in the Central time zone counties have simply given
up on the idea of even going to the polling places, once the incorrect
information was broadcast that the polls in the state were already
closed?
Not a single network anchor qualified his comment about the polls
having closed in Florida, by indicating that they remained open in the
Central time zone section of the state. The statistical comparisons
of 1996 and 2000 suggest that turnout in the panhandle was
significantly suppressed by the false announcement that polls were
closed statewide, and by the early call by the networks that Gore had
won the state.
The conclusion from all this is pretty clear. Florida had a very close
election for President in 2000. It was so close that it was almost a
tie. But by every official count that was made at any time during the
37 day recount period, and using virtually every consistent method for
counting "undervotes" that was considered after the election, Bush won
Florida and the Presidency. I will say it again. Bush won Florida. He
did not steal it.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300 |
|
|
| In article ,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:39:05 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
> >No, he wasn't. George Bush was elected by the Electoral
> >College because he had the most votes there.
> No he didn't.
Yes, he did.
> He didn't win Florida.
Yes, he did.
> It was given to him.
The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:16:20 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article ,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:39:05 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>> wrote:
>
>> >No, he wasn't. George Bush was elected by the Electoral
>> >College because he had the most votes there.
>
>> No he didn't.
>
>Yes, he did.
>
>> He didn't win Florida.
>
>Yes, he did.
>
>> It was given to him.
>
>The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
>
Florida wasn't enough. The Supreme Court, Republican placemen to a
man, effectively gave him the presidency.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:44:07 +1300 |
|
|
| In article <41f45a36.4470281@news.actrix.co.nz>, slaybot@hotmail.com
says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
> >The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
> Florida wasn't enough. The Supreme Court, Republican placemen to a
> man, effectively gave him the presidency.
Wrong again. The key decision in the case was decided by
a 7-2 margin.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:08:22 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article ,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:39:05 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>> wrote:
>
>> >No, he wasn't. George Bush was elected by the Electoral
>> >College because he had the most votes there.
>
>> No he didn't.
>
>Yes, he did.
>
>> He didn't win Florida.
>
>Yes, he did.
>
>> It was given to him.
>
>The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
Yes they did.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:40:21 +1300 |
|
|
| In article <0m09v0tre0sll8u5tjjjp8era9iu44qs02@4ax.com>,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
> >The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
> Yes they did.
No, they didn't. Bush won Florida on election night
and on the following recount.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:02:42 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:40:21 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:
>In article <0m09v0tre0sll8u5tjjjp8era9iu44qs02@4ax.com>,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:08:45 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>> wrote:
>
>> >The Supreme Court did not give George Bush Florida.
>
>> Yes they did.
>
>No, they didn't. Bush won Florida on election night
>and on the following recount.
Believe what you want to believe, Peter. You'll never change my mind.
Gore should have been President.
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:42:05 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Tarla wrote:
>Believe what you want to believe, Peter. You'll never change my mind.
That's because zero can't be changed -- it's still zero.
>Gore should have been President.
Yes, Gore is perfect for Tarla. To see why, check out "Al Gore
Unglued", at www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/006277.html . Be sure
to look at the picture as well as read the text. Hilarious. As the
writer says, "I'm thankful this loon isn't in charge of our nuclear
arsenal.".
Tarla = Troll.
willy
|
|
| | From: | Peter Metcalfe | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:55:59 +1300 |
|
|
| In article ,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:40:21 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
> wrote:
> >No, they didn't. Bush won Florida on election night
> >and on the following recount.
> Believe what you want to believe, Peter. You'll never change my mind.
> Gore should have been President.
I'm amazed. A Master's in anthropology and you haven't learned
how to separate fact from belief?
--Peter Metcalfe
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:42:58 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Tarla wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:16 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
>>> >No, he wasn't. He was appointed Chancellor and had no seat in
>>> >parliament.
>>
>>> ooh, the parallels just keep on comin'!
>>
>>How so?
>
>Bush was appointed as well.
Typical brainless, divorced from reality, Tarla post.
willy
|
|
| | From: | JD | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:55:26 GMT |
|
|
| Tarla wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:11:21 GMT, JD <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote:
>>Gib Bogle wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
>>
>>Brushing aside the spectre of Godwins for a second, just how do you
>>measure that?
>
> Easy...Hitler was elected.
Unbelievable how ignorant some of you clowns are.
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:07 +1300 |
|
|
| Gib Bogle wrote:
> Tarla wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush improved
>>> on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he dropped a
>>> percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>
>>> 62 million for!
>>
>>
>>
>> 59 million against!
>
>
> Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
> The election gave GWB the power to do what he wants, but didn't give him
> the power to make good decisions.
True. But he's got the big ones right.
JC
|
|
| | From: | Tarla | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:28:18 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:07 +1300, John Cawston
wrote:
>Gib Bogle wrote:
>> Tarla wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush improved
>>>> on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he dropped a
>>>> percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>>
>>>> 62 million for!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 59 million against!
>>
>>
>> Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
>> The election gave GWB the power to do what he wants, but didn't give him
>> the power to make good decisions.
>
>True. But he's got the big ones right.
He hasn't got a goddamned thing right yet.
No WMD, No Bin Laden, No protecting his own people...he's a bumbling
ass.
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:07:10 +1300 |
|
|
| Tarla wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:07 +1300, John Cawston
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gib Bogle wrote:
>>
>>>Tarla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush improved
>>>>>on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he dropped a
>>>>>percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>>>
>>>>>62 million for!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>59 million against!
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
>>>The election gave GWB the power to do what he wants, but didn't give him
>>>the power to make good decisions.
>>
>>True. But he's got the big ones right.
>
>
> He hasn't got a goddamned thing right yet.
>
> No WMD,
And now no likelihood that Saddam will make them again, and
use them on his neighbours and countrymen.. again.
No Bin Laden,
True. Presumably this means you think he should have invaded
Pakistan, not Iraq.
No protecting his own people...
No more attacks on the US heartland as promised by OBL.
he's a bumbling
> ass.
Thats what they said about Churchill and Roosevelt too.
JC
|
|
| | From: | Sue Bilstein | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:51:19 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:49:05 +1300, Gib Bogle
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>
>>>62 million for!
>>
>>
>> 59 million against!
>
>Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
The got c. 33% of the vote in 1932 I believe, and then cut a deal with
the Christian Democrats. That's not quite the same as 51% of the
popular vote.
And then, Gib, you and your like minds don't tend to mention the
Republican majorities in Congress and the Senate. Looks like a pretty
convincing mandate to me.
>The election gave GWB the power to do what he wants, but didn't give him
>the power to make good decisions.
Probably didn't give him the power to make decisions you & your like
minds would approve of. The people who voted for him chose him for
that very reason.
|
|
| | From: | Apteryx | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:12 +1300 |
|
|
| "Sue Bilstein" wrote in message
news:pca8v015u4jfjf4jc1dggjf4jin9uj9g5l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:49:05 +1300, Gib Bogle
> wrote:
> >Tarla wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
> >>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
> >>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
> >>>
> >>>62 million for!
> >>
> >>
> >> 59 million against!
> >
> >Anyway, Hitler's National Socialists were quite popular at one stage.
>
> The got c. 33% of the vote in 1932 I believe, and then cut a deal with
> the Christian Democrats. That's not quite the same as 51% of the
> popular vote.
It wasn't a deal with the Christian Democrat Party (or even the Centre
Party, which is what they called themselves then). President Hindenberg
was persuaded by a renegade Centre Party member (von Pappen) to form a
government with Hitler as Chancellor, von Pappen as Vice Chancellor, and
support from the Nazi and Nationalist Parties. Because it was obvious
that such a government could not gain the support of the Reichstag
(since the Centre Party would not support it), Hindenberg dissolved the
Reichstag and called fresh elections. At those elections on 5 March
1933, the Nazis got 43.9% and their Nationalist allies 8.0%. That is
51% (or better) of the popular vote.
Their position was even stronger than that because the 3 biggest
opposition parties (Social Democrats 18.3%, Communists 12.3%, and Centre
Party 11.2%) were bitter opponents and incapable of working together.
Subsequently the Centre Party did give the Enabling Act respectability
by voting for it, but by that time their support was not mathmatically
necessary as Hitler had gained the necessary two thirds support by the
simple expedient of arresting all the Communist MPs and enough of the
Social Democrats to give the Nazis and Nationalists the necessary 67% of
the remaining members of the Reichstag.
--
Apteryx
Treat anger like gold. Spend it wisely or not at all.
|
|
| | From: | Sue Bilstein | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:33:06 +1300 |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:12 +1300, "Apteryx"
wrote:
>"Sue Bilstein" wrote in message
>news:pca8v015u4jfjf4jc1dggjf4jin9uj9g5l@4ax.com...
>>
>> The got c. 33% of the vote in 1932 I believe, and then cut a deal with
>> the Christian Democrats. That's not quite the same as 51% of the
>> popular vote.
>
>It wasn't a deal with the Christian Democrat Party (or even the Centre
>Party, which is what they called themselves then). President Hindenberg
>was persuaded by a renegade Centre Party member (von Pappen) to form a
>government with Hitler as Chancellor, von Pappen as Vice Chancellor, and
>support from the Nazi and Nationalist Parties. Because it was obvious
>that such a government could not gain the support of the Reichstag
>(since the Centre Party would not support it), Hindenberg dissolved the
>Reichstag and called fresh elections. At those elections on 5 March
>1933, the Nazis got 43.9% and their Nationalist allies 8.0%. That is
>51% (or better) of the popular vote.
>
>Their position was even stronger than that because the 3 biggest
>opposition parties (Social Democrats 18.3%, Communists 12.3%, and Centre
>Party 11.2%) were bitter opponents and incapable of working together.
>
>Subsequently the Centre Party did give the Enabling Act respectability
>by voting for it, but by that time their support was not mathmatically
>necessary as Hitler had gained the necessary two thirds support by the
>simple expedient of arresting all the Communist MPs and enough of the
>Social Democrats to give the Nazis and Nationalists the necessary 67% of
>the remaining members of the Reichstag.
Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are no parallels to US
elections, either 2000 or 2004.
|
|
| | From: | Apteryx | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:00 +1300 |
|
|
| "Sue Bilstein" wrote in message
news:mhn8v0h203eshu1c2vfivvvdl22jh2lesa@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:12 +1300, "Apteryx"
> wrote:
> >"Sue Bilstein" wrote in message
> >news:pca8v015u4jfjf4jc1dggjf4jin9uj9g5l@4ax.com...
>
> >>
> >> The got c. 33% of the vote in 1932 I believe, and then cut a deal
with
> >> the Christian Democrats. That's not quite the same as 51% of the
> >> popular vote.
> >
> >It wasn't a deal with the Christian Democrat Party (or even the
Centre
> >Party, which is what they called themselves then). President
Hindenberg
> >was persuaded by a renegade Centre Party member (von Pappen) to form
a
> >government with Hitler as Chancellor, von Pappen as Vice Chancellor,
and
> >support from the Nazi and Nationalist Parties. Because it was
obvious
> >that such a government could not gain the support of the Reichstag
> >(since the Centre Party would not support it), Hindenberg dissolved
the
> >Reichstag and called fresh elections. At those elections on 5 March
> >1933, the Nazis got 43.9% and their Nationalist allies 8.0%. That is
> >51% (or better) of the popular vote.
> >
> >Their position was even stronger than that because the 3 biggest
> >opposition parties (Social Democrats 18.3%, Communists 12.3%, and
Centre
> >Party 11.2%) were bitter opponents and incapable of working together.
> >
> >Subsequently the Centre Party did give the Enabling Act
respectability
> >by voting for it, but by that time their support was not
mathmatically
> >necessary as Hitler had gained the necessary two thirds support by
the
> >simple expedient of arresting all the Communist MPs and enough of the
> >Social Democrats to give the Nazis and Nationalists the necessary 67%
of
> >the remaining members of the Reichstag.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are no parallels to US
> elections, either 2000 or 2004.
Well if you exclude the majority for the winner, and some of the
policies followed subsequently, no.
--
Apteryx
Treat anger like gold. Spend it wisely or not at all.
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:21:34 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>> By Terry Gilliam:
>>
>> I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
>> he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
>> really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
>> the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
>> They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
>> something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
>> what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
>> but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
>
>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>
>62 million for!
Because the fear factor is now smoothly operating precisely as Bush
and his thugs want it.
Plus "Let's you and me keep 'em shit scared, George, that's my boy!"
bin Laden can't believe his luck.
>
>Four more years!
>
For a duped populace, yes, while Blair's UK constituency is now
rapidly retreating from supporting Bush. In any case, Bush is unlikely
to last the distance.
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:51:43 +1300 |
|
|
| Newsman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tarla wrote:
>>
>>>By Terry Gilliam:
>>>
>>>I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
>>>he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
>>>really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
>>>the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
>>>They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
>>>something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
>>>what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
>>>but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
>>
>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>
>>62 million for!
>
>
> Because the fear factor is now smoothly operating precisely as Bush
> and his thugs want it.
Perhaps you should try facts instead of your fear. The fear
factor came entirely from Bush's opposition. "Quagmire",
"Vietnam", body bags, terrorists, making terrorists etc,
they all screamed every minute for years. But 62 million
Americans said "nuts" and voted Bush in.
You and your mates have simply transferred your own
paralysing fears onto those who will have nothing of it.
But full marks to you for trying the Neville Chamberlain route.
>
> Plus "Let's you and me keep 'em shit scared, George, that's my boy!"
Bush has created vastly more fear with Europeans and others
because he has forced you to confront the idiocy of
unregulated immigration, a selfish greed that wont allow
children to dilute individual wealth, fear that multilateral
ism cant and wont work, fear that any mild objection to
Islamic excess will get you decapitated, fear that your
children will have to be escorted to school, fear that you
will be forced out of your house because you live close to
an Arab ghetto, fear that you are being outbred and will
become a minority in your own country, fear that your
authorities will legislate your Anglo-Christian heritage out
the door, fear that your wealth will be sued off you if you
object to your increasing subservience to Islamic political
correctness.
And the worst fear of all, the Muslims might not take away
the garbage, do the shit jobs and stay the underclass.
Your experiences of the Middle East have been of tremendous
friendship and cooperation developed under totalitarianism.
When the Protocols of Zion were discussed, you nodded
furiously, when the story of Jews sacrificing Muslim babies
for religious ceremonies was mentioned, you nodded wisely,
when the world's oldest terrorist was deified you praised
Arafat and hoped the Jews would moderate their behavior. In
fact, you did anything whatsoever to keep your head on your
shoulders and the strong sweet tea flowing and your bank
balance increasing in this brutal but childish world.
It shows.
> bin Laden can't believe his luck.
Bin Ladin is a schmuck.
A guy who got lucky and now lives in caves.
>
>>Four more years!
>>
>
> For a duped populace, yes, while Blair's UK constituency is now
> rapidly retreating from supporting Bush.
Of course. At the end of the day, the UK is part of Europe,
and desperate for a media approved oligarchy.
In any case, Bush is unlikely
> to last the distance.
Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
assassinate him?
JC
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:48:02 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:51:43 +1300, John Cawston
wrote:
>Newsman wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:46:05 +1300, John Cawston
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tarla wrote:
>>>
>>>>By Terry Gilliam:
>>>>
>>>>I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
>>>>he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
>>>>really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down
>>>>the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop.
>>>>They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
>>>>something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
>>>>what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
>>>>but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
>>>
>>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>
>>>62 million for!
>>
>>
>> Because the fear factor is now smoothly operating precisely as Bush
>> and his thugs want it.
>
>Perhaps you should try facts instead of your fear.
The world has more to fear from the Bush administration than any
terrorist threat, so perhaps you'd do better to advise Bush and his
mob that the invasion of a small and powerless muslim nation on the
basis of invented and false "intelligence" rather than *facts* is
precisely why his nation and you will ultimately answer to those whom
he abuses so arrogantly.
>(Self-defeating rhetoric snipped)
>> Plus "Let's you and me keep 'em shit scared, George, that's my boy!"
>
>(More droning rhetoric snipped)
>
>Your experiences of the Middle East have been of tremendous
>friendship and cooperation developed under totalitarianism.
>When the Protocols of Zion were discussed, you nodded
>furiously, when the story of Jews sacrificing Muslim babies
>for religious ceremonies was mentioned, you nodded wisely,
>when the world's oldest terrorist was deified you praised
>Arafat and hoped the Jews would moderate their behavior. In
>fact, you did anything whatsoever to keep your head on your
>shoulders and the strong sweet tea flowing and your bank
>balance increasing in this brutal but childish world.
>
>It shows.
Find yourself a pulpit, John. You need one.
>
>> bin Laden can't believe his luck.
>
>Bin Ladin is a schmuck.
So you say. But proven to be a infinitely smarter than you, so much so
that Bush was obliged to do a deal with Musharraf to keep bin Laden
out of harm's way. You must be the only one to have missed Bush's
patently wrong-footed prevarication and confusion when asked why he is
no longer pursuing bin Laden; and Bush's endless stonewalling over the
investigation of the WTC perpetrators.
>
>A guy who got lucky and now lives in caves.
So what? Irrelevant.
>>
>>>Four more years!
>>>
>> For a duped populace, yes, while Blair's UK constituency is now
>> rapidly retreating from supporting Bush.
>
>Of course. At the end of the day, the UK is part of Europe,
>and desperate for a media approved oligarchy.
While the USA is desperate to forestall its impeding economic nemesis,
the rise and rise of the Euro against the background of a US economy
mired in horrendous debt. The Chinese are already beating the Euro
drum and others likewise.
>
> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>> to last the distance.
>
>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>assassinate him?
>
You'll know within moments of it happening. Just stay tuned to al
Jazeera.
But who had mentioned assassination?
|
|
| | From: | John Cawston | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:59:48 +1300 |
|
|
| Newsman wrote:
>>>>Amazing. Yet in spite of this (or was it because of it) Bush
>>>>improved on his 2000 performance with nearly all sectors (he
>>>>dropped a percentage point with Gays) and in both Houses.
>>>>
>>>>62 million for!
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the fear factor is now smoothly operating precisely as Bush
>>>and his thugs want it.
>>
>>Perhaps you should try facts instead of your fear.
>
>
> The world has more to fear from the Bush administration than any
> terrorist threat,
Indeed. Democracy is a fearful threat.
so perhaps you'd do better to advise Bush and his
> mob that the invasion of a small and powerless muslim nation on the
> basis of invented and false "intelligence" rather than *facts* is
> precisely why his nation and you will ultimately answer to those whom
> he abuses so arrogantly.
You've seen over and over that all the major intelligence
networks believed Saddam had WMDs and was working on getting
more. This is simply unarguable.
So they were wrong, get over it and read the Resolution
passed by Congress and the Senate on why the President was
authorised to use force.
>
>
>
>>(Self-defeating rhetoric snipped)
>
>
>>>Plus "Let's you and me keep 'em shit scared, George, that's my boy!"
>>
>>(More droning rhetoric snipped)
>>
>>Your experiences of the Middle East have been of tremendous
>>friendship and cooperation developed under totalitarianism.
>>When the Protocols of Zion were discussed, you nodded
>>furiously, when the story of Jews sacrificing Muslim babies
>>for religious ceremonies was mentioned, you nodded wisely,
>>when the world's oldest terrorist was deified you praised
>>Arafat and hoped the Jews would moderate their behavior. In
>>fact, you did anything whatsoever to keep your head on your
>>shoulders and the strong sweet tea flowing and your bank
>>balance increasing in this brutal but childish world.
>>
>>It shows.
>
>
> Find yourself a pulpit, John. You need one.
I only borrowed yours for a while to rebut one of your usual
ill informed rants on the topic.
>
>>>bin Laden can't believe his luck.
>>
>>Bin Ladin is a schmuck.
>
>
> So you say. But proven to be a infinitely smarter than you, so much so
> that Bush was obliged to do a deal with Musharraf to keep bin Laden
> out of harm's way. You must be the only one to have missed Bush's
> patently wrong-footed prevarication and confusion when asked why he is
> no longer pursuing bin Laden; and Bush's endless stonewalling over the
> investigation of the WTC perpetrators.
Hmm. When Japan attacked the USA, did you criticise
Roosevelt for attacking Germany first?
In this war Afghanistan and OBL are peripheral to the main
objectives.
And how is OBL doing? How well is the great general going
since 9/11? He can modestly claim Bali and Madrid and then
what? Ah, that right, nothing except killing Moslems and the
odd US soldier.
Which Moslem countries have risen to his banner and
overthrown their Govts and established a fundamentalist state?
Has the US run away like he promised it would?
I dont underestimate the man, but he's bottled up where he
is and has lost most of his trained men.
>
>>A guy who got lucky and now lives in caves.
>
>
> So what? Irrelevant.
>
>>>>Four more years!
>>>>
>>>
>>>For a duped populace, yes, while Blair's UK constituency is now
>>>rapidly retreating from supporting Bush.
>>
>>Of course. At the end of the day, the UK is part of Europe,
>>and desperate for a media approved oligarchy.
>
>
> While the USA is desperate to forestall its impeding economic nemesis,
> the rise and rise of the Euro against the background of a US economy
> mired in horrendous debt. The Chinese are already beating the Euro
> drum and others likewise.
Somehow, I think the US will muddle through.
>
>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>
>>>to last the distance.
>>
>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>assassinate him?
>>
>
> You'll know within moments of it happening. Just stay tuned to al
> Jazeera.
>
> But who had mentioned assassination?
There's precious little evidence of anything else that would
stop him from going full term.
JC
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:52:42 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, John Cawston wrote:
>>Newsman wrote:
>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>> to last the distance.
>>
>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>assassinate him?
>
>who had mentioned assassination?
You did, asshole, above. What else could your attempt at a cryptic
statement be referring to?
willy
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:52:49 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:52:42 GMT, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka)
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, John Cawston wrote:
>>>Newsman wrote:
>>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>>> to last the distance.
>>>
>>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>>assassinate him?
>>
>>who had mentioned assassination?
>
>You did, asshole, above. What else could your attempt at a cryptic
>statement be referring to?
>
So the fear generated by Bush and bin Laden has you running scared as
well.
But who should be surprised? It's gullible people like you who give
aid and comfort to the likes of Bush and his ol' business and family
buddies, the bin Ladens.
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:05:45 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, John Cawston wrote:
>>>>Newsman wrote:
>>>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>>>> to last the distance.
>>>>
>>>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>>>assassinate him?
>>>
>>>who had mentioned assassination?
>>
>>You did, asshole, above. What else could your attempt at a cryptic
>>statement be referring to?
>>
>So the fear generated by Bush and bin Laden has you running scared as
>well.
>
>But who should be surprised? It's gullible people like you who give
>aid and comfort to the likes of Bush and his ol' business and family
>buddies, the bin Ladens.
First you raise the spectre of assassination, then you pretend to deny
it without actually denying it, now you try to evade it. Typical
leftwing shysterism. Disgusting.
willy
|
|
| | From: | Newsman | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:17:32 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:05:45 GMT, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka)
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, John Cawston wrote:
>>>>>Newsman wrote:
>>>>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>>>>> to last the distance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>>>>assassinate him?
>>>>
>>>>who had mentioned assassination?
>>>
>>>You did, asshole, above. What else could your attempt at a cryptic
>>>statement be referring to?
>>>
>>So the fear generated by Bush and bin Laden has you running scared as
>>well.
>>
>>But who should be surprised? It's gullible people like you who give
>>aid and comfort to the likes of Bush and his ol' business and family
>>buddies, the bin Ladens.
>
>First you raise the spectre of assassination.
No-one raised the spectre but you.
Paranoia speaks its very name. Bush has done a perfect job on you, you
suggestible fool.
|
|
| | From: | WeeWillyWonka | | Subject: | Re: Terry Gilliam adopts Bush's policies | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:12:11 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, www@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, abysmal@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, John Cawston wrote:
>>>>>>Newsman wrote:
>>>>>> In any case, Bush is unlikely
>>>>>>> to last the distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fair point. When does the group you finance intend to
>>>>>>assassinate him?
>>>>>
>>>>>who had mentioned assassination?
>>>>
>>>>You did, asshole, above. What else could your attempt at a cryptic
>>>>statement be referring to?
>>>>
>>>So the fear generated by Bush and bin Laden has you running scared as
>>>well.
>>
>>First you raise the spectre of assassinatio |
|
|