"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[jahcs]

On a side note about chemistry, chemical burns are overrated.  I've spilled some 6 molar strong bases and acids on myself a lot of times and nothing happens, maybe a thin layer of skin peels a little but that barely happens and it's less than what sunburn does.  I still wouldn't try to spills stuff, and I'd watch out for cuts and eyes and swallowing is still out, but random spills are no big deal. 

Back to topic.  Chemicals like sulfur and clorine don't necessarily mean anything, but the organic ones if they found them at the same time seem to give it away.

Off Topic:

My chemistry class in High School used some 14 molar hydrochloric acid in a few experiments. It etched our stone countertops in seconds.

Also, my chem teacher has a picture of her arm after spilling a small amount of 50% peroxide solution. Her skin had blistered and begun to peel in large sheets.

Watch out for chemical burns from powdered acid. The moisture on your skin is enough to force a reaction. Do not flush with water. It makes it worse (check your MSDS for first aid of course).

[Minionman]

I still don't mess around with the chemicals, but the weaker stuff is a lot weaker. The powdered acid bit makes a lot of since after mixing high molarity acids and water, wow it gets hot.

Anyway, we all say, don't fool around and still be careful.

Now we can talk about experiences with chemicals and forget the politics.

[D-Dave]

First of all sorry for the late reply but am rather busy in RL. This however does not mean that I do not enjoy a worthy exchange of arguments as this seems to be.
So, let's continue :)

You store the precursors and mix them up just before you use them. I believe most of those chemicals were trucked to Syria in the weeks prior to the war in an attempt to thwart Hans Blix's team.

While it is true that some chemical Weapons are "assambeled" just prior to use, most of them not as it requires more then just a pair of gloves and a gas-mask. In other words most chemical and nearly all biological are mixed and stored right after production as a mix "on the Battlefield" is simply impossible.
About the "trucked to Syria" argument I'd like to repeat that the US Forces had incredible amounts of intel and that's the reason why I do not believe in that theory. Well, this seems to be a question of believe so we may have to agree to disagree on this bit.
On the other hand this does not rebute the fact that Mr. Bush claimed "we know they have them and we know were they are" which was obviously not true.

People in the US have been calling for more law and order for decades, and in response we have more people incarcerated that any nation on the planet. We also have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves with guns if we like. But, you entirely side-stepped my argument that the problem was drug use, and not firearm use.

I gues we misunderstood each other on that one. The guns issue arose to me from the line in the "bowling for columbine" movie and I did not mean to state this as an argument for the US having more gun murders then other countrys. I just stated that the (maybe due to governments inability to create a safe environment even understandable) attitude of "the federal government is not going to take care of it so I do it myself" sounds very dangerous to me within a democratic society.

By the way, the Second Amendment you refer to states:

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment was created in a time when the US felt an immediate threat from being reintegrated into the British commonwealth and not having the means to defend the country by a standing army. To me the Second ammendment is simply a relict from that time but that is a different issue which has been argued over for decades so I doubt I could bring up any new arguments on this. So we better leave that issue untouched :)

To clarify my "sidestepping" your argument of different drug culture I'd like to say that I simply misinterpreted you there. I thought you were argueing that there is more drugabuse and thus more drug related crime in the US to which I do not agree. (sorry, I guess things like that happen when one is taking part in a conversation that is not in his first language) Now I understand that you were refering to a different drug culture as of using different types of drugs. To this I have to admit that I simply do not have any facts about what different behaviours are amplified by certain types of drugs so it would be presumptuous to argue about that.

The Supreme Courts argument for stopping the recount was that selective recounts in only 4 democrat counties violated the "equal protection" clause. Either the entire state needed to be recounted, or none. It was obvious that any legal recount would result in a slim Bush victory.

Well, first of all it appears to me that we are talking about different courts here. The verdict you quote is from Florida's Supreme Court while I was reffering to the Supreme Court of the United States but concerning the "obviousness" of the result I'd like to quote from said document:

...results showed a 537-vote margin in favor of Bush...

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we find that the trial court erred as a matter of law in not including (1) the 215 net votes for Gore identified by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board6 and (2) in not including the 168 net votes for
Gore identified in a partial recount by the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board.

Now that leaves us with a margin of 154 in favor of Bush...lets look a bit further, shall we?

Lastly, we find the trial court erred as a matter of law in (5) refusing to examine the approximately 9000 additional Miami-Dade ballots placed in evidence, which have never been examined manually.

Hm, a margin of 154 versus 9000 votes that were not counted and never examined manually? Suddenly Mr. Bush does not appear to be an obvious winner but nothing seems to be obvious.

Now to the connection of this Florida Ruling to what I was talking about:

B. Must all the Ballots be Counted Statewide?
Appellees contend that even if a count of the undervotes in Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000), requires a count of all votes in Miami-Dade County and the entire state as opposed to a selected number of votes challenged. However, the plain language of section 102.168 refutes Appellees' argument.
...
Logic dictates that to bring a challenge based upon the rejection of a specific number of legal votes under section 102.168(3)©, the
contestant must establish the "number of legal votes" which the county canvassing board failed to count. This number, therefore, under the plain language of the statute, is limited to the votes identified and challenged under section 102.168(3)©, rather than the entire county. Moreover, counting uncontested votes in a contest would be irrelevant to a determination of whether certain uncounted votes constitute legal votes that have been rejected.
On the other hand, a consideration of “legal votes” contained in the category of “undervotes” identified statewide may be properly considered as evidence in the contest proceedings and, more importantly, in fashioning any relief. We do agree, however, that it is absolutely essential in this proceeding and to any final decision, that a manual recount be conducted for all legal votes in this
State, not only in Miami-Dade County, but in all Florida counties where there was an undervote, and, hence a concern that not every citizen’s vote was counted. This election should be determined by a careful examination of the votes of Florida’s
citizens and not by strategies extraneous to the voting process.

So far this means the Courts ruling was not declaring Bush winner but stating that an awefull lot of things obviously went wrong and that a statewide recount should be done.
Well and I am talking about the recount that was to be started based on this ruling, which was stopped by Bush via challenging this ruling at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is the full text of the court's ruling.
What I was earlyer and still am reffering to is the

V. CONCLUSION
Under these circumstances, the effect of a failure to grant a stay could well be to
deny Applicants fully effective relief in this case and to inflict material harm on the
electoral process. A stay is further justified by the extraordinary importance of the
outcome of this case and the extremely time-sensitive nature of relief. Applicants are
threatened with irreparable injury, and the equities clearly favor granting a stay, because
a stay is the only means of protecting the integrity of the federal electoral process while
ensuring proper and orderly access to the judicial system.

In other words the outcome of this case is so important that we do not think it should be according to the vote of the people but instead accpording to the results that the Florida Supreme Court stated to be "questionable".

I'll close this argument by quoting the Florida Supreme Court again as I can not put it in better words:

This essential principle, that the outcome of elections be determined by the will of the voters, forms the foundation of the election code enacted by the Florida Legislature and has been consistently applied by this Court in resolving elections disputes.
We are dealing with the essence of the structure of our democratic society.

9/11 Commission Report - Page 329

Ah, one of my favorite Pages of the report.
Here are a few things that did feel a bit awkward:

Clark added: " I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House"

While being under oath he was obviously not lying but to me this sounds a bit too forgetful.

The Prsident and the Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media.

Funny that one of the Bin Laden Family was at a meeting of the Carlyle Group on September 11 that was also attended By Goeorge W's father. But hey they probably did not talk about such unimportant issues.

we found no evidence of political intervention [to let Saudis leave the country]

No evidence? Well at least Senator Byron Dorgan (Member of the Senate subcommitee on Aviation) remembers the authorization "at the highest levels" of some flights taking Bin Laden Family members out of the country...funny his name does not show up in the report at all.

Now to one of the realy astonishing lines (it is on page 330 actualy):

...the passengersbe identified and checked against various databases...Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights

While "no known links to terrorism" may be true but still there were family members of the prime suspect among them. Besides, "indentify" is not exactly asking questions is it?

Many of the detainee's in Abu Garib and Guantanamo are not POW's, so in a strict legal sense the GC does not apply. They should be treated humanely, but I disagree that they should not be aggressively interrogated.

So, how are many of the detainee's not POW's? Let's assume they are not, what jurisdiction would the US have? If you stick to a "strict legal sense" taking people into custody, shipping them into another country without those people being POW's and without a contract of extradition between the country of origin and the acting country under international law it is simply one thing: hostage taking!
Just another note: Even if they are not POW's and one should consider the imprisonment legal they would still be protected by the International Bill of Human Rights which was signed by the USA.

On your disagreement with not interrogate "them" aggressively it appears to me that you have fallen into the trap of good guy / bad guy stereotyping. How can it be that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy for torturing people and George W Bush is a good guy but sis also torturing people?

We are not fighting the Boy Scouts here, many of these people are ruthless terrorists. I would prefer we could all act civilized, but we need to realistically look at who we are dealing with here.

While I do not doubt that some of those people are "ruthless terrorists" what's it with those "others". Do you think to find out who is a terrorist and who is not it is ok to also torture those who are not? I mean there were hundreds of people send home and condsidered innocent after being "interrogated" for periods as long as a year and longer.
That sounds a lot like the famous "You are either with us or with the terrorists" prattle of Mr. George W Bush. The whole concept of good vs. evil is erroneous in itself (well maybe apart from God vs. Satan) as being good or evil is a matter of how one acts and not of who one is.

And, yet it is obvious to me that you did not read the 9/11 commission report. So from where do you get your facts?

I did actualy read most of the report but came to one conclusion: There are no real answers in it that I could take serious.
Personaly I tend to be sceptical if most of the document reads like "we found no evidence" or "I have no recollection" and the like. To me this is much to vague. Additionaly Mr. Bush refused to be formaly questioned and sworn in in front of the commisiion but instead agreed only to a non-public, informal meeting in his office. This little fact tends to increase my scepticism regarding the 9/11 commission report.
I prefer sources of Information like the daily press, news agencies like reuters, international media like the BBC or even CNN and obviously the Internet.


Now, as we are already at such a general discussion, let me add two more question (well it they realy are questions of believe but non the less interesting ones):
First:
Mr. Townsend (Homeland Security) stated that the data on which the recent Terrorist Warnings / Alerts were issued is dated from 2000/2001 and last updated in January 2004. That seems a bit old doesn't it? Now the question is, is the Bush Administration so slow to react on Terrorist threats or did it just come in handy to raise the alarm to shift the focus of the election towards peoples fear? (ok, this is realy to tease you, but I'd realy like to know what you think about this)

Second:
Do you think "War on Terrorism" can be won by military means (as the current Administration is trying to)?
While I do obviously not know if they will eventualy "win" this war [regarding this phrase one should realy check with local blockbuster video and rent "Wargames"] I look back in history and doubt it.
During WW2 France was occupied by the Nazi-Regime which had absolute superiority in Numbers and equipment but still could not defeat the french resistance (and I'd like to add that I am glad about this) and they did not even bother a bit with human rights back then.
Israel is fighting palestinian Terrorists without second thought for decades by all military means available and even by advisedly asassinating suspected terror leaders. Still they have not improved their security one bit.
Maybe it is the fact that with every terrorist killed there are two new ones being enflamed with the hate and maybe it would be wiser to focus on getting get rid of the reasons why average people suddenly support terrorists then dropping bombs on those people that one inevitably needs to root out those real whackos... ah well, it's a thought.

Looking forward to your reply :)
Greetings Dave

[Minionman]

for the first question: there might have been plans found earlierto do something in 2004, in which case now that the color system is added they pushed the level up. I don't know anyoone who really pays attention to the system, so from that my guess is that it isn't a fear strategy since it wouldn't really increase fear. I a lot of people do pay attention, than that might be part of the plan but still has some actual warning in there because the fear bit wouldn't work nearly as well as releasing an actual finding.

second question: No , the military can't by itself "win the war on terror", for the same general reasons you describe. Win is in quotation marks because there will probably always be terrorists out there, so really winning means cutting down the threat by a lot. The military might be useful for going in and capturing some terorists if people know where they are, but it also needs extra security that works for cutting dow npossible bombs, etc., and a good foreign policy that has other people's views in it's planning and is partially designed not to give any extra reasons for hate. The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from. Some europian areas will be a lot harder because they're closer to the arab terrorists, and more types are in europe, like the Northern Ireland crap going on. Israle will have to worry about these terrorists for a long time coming, since it's right there andthe fact it takes up land that otherwise would have been arab is one of the main issues for them. Whatever peole do should be planned out will.

I wish they hadn't deleted that thread from the amazon basin where me and someone else were arguing about this. Oh well.

[Assur]

Hi

You got wiped from the AB :blink:

In which forum was that thread?

good karma

[Jester]

"I a lot of people do pay attention, than that might be part of the plan but still has some actual warning in there because the fear bit wouldn't work nearly as well as releasing an actual finding."

Ah, yes, but a warning designed *only* to induce fear when necessary for a political purpose (that's shockingly close to the definition of terrorism...) must be non-specific. Were it to contain actual findings, it might be subject to serious public scrutiny. If it turned out to be false, the president could be hurt politically for having put out spurious information to boost his own ratings.

But if the warning is insubstantial, that risk is minimized. People get scared, but not about any specific problem, which might induce unnecessary and unwanted questions.

"The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from."

Yeah. Planet earth.

Jester

[eppie]

Did they show the lastest Bush-having-problems-to-correctly-utter-a-sentence-example also on US television??

I don't know al the details and the exact text but I will try.

So he was giving this speech for what seemed high military offcials or something and said the following.

"our people and our country are under attack"

"Our enemies are inventive and resourcefull....and so are we",

"Our enemies wont shun any means of destroying our people and our country....and neither will we"


I say let Bush first finish his secondary school untill he is allowed to run for president again. :D

[Nystul]

Am I missing something? I don't know the context of these sentences and I'm wondering if we've been invaded by Canada!

Aside from your punctuation errors, all of those are complete, grammatically correct sentences. The first two are perfectly fine. The last one is poorly constructed since taken literally it means he won't shun any means of destroying his people and his country (assuming this was an exact quote), but you know what he means. They are simple and straightforward, but that is essential for public political speaking. I'm not quite sure what you are finding fault with.

[Thecla]

It was from a speech at a signing of a defence spending bill (which included additional emergency funds of $25b for Iraq and Afghanistan). Here's the exact quote (according to the Associated Press):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

As amusing -- and obviously unintended -- as the quote is, it does point to the disasterous costs and consequences of the Iraq war for the US (something which is hardly being addressed by either major party in the US elections at the moment, or by most of the media for that matter).

[eppie]

Yes I'm sorry I tried to quote him, so I wrote down what I more or less remembered. (shun, I found in the dictionary because I forgot the word he used.

But you are right: in the last sentence (and I repeat it is not the exact quote) he said that he wouldn't shun destroying his people and his country......and that was of course the funny thing.

He obviously meant it the other way around but the use of neither and so is not his strongest point.

It is of course just a mistake he made...but for the so-manied time it made him look like an fool.

But I was wondering if they showed this in the US as well. It happened more or less a week ago if I'm correct. So If any of you saw this I would like to know (and maybe you can also give the exact quote than)

[Minionman]

Yes, they show these goof ups.

[kandrathe]

While it is true that some chemical Weapons are "assambeled" just prior to use, most of them not as it requires more then just a pair of gloves and a gas-mask. In other words most chemical and nearly all biological are mixed and stored right after production as a mix "on the Battlefield" is simply impossible.

I agree they wouldn't be mixed on the battlefield, and I also think it would be done at some assembly plant. For more than ten years Iraq had been focused on avoiding UN inspectors, and so I do not think anything would be in a state that would be readily discovered, or identified as a part of Iraq's WMD programs. You say that had good intelligence, but I don't think so. Certainly no reliable human sources.

This amendment was created in a time when the US felt an immediate threat from being reintegrated into the British commonwealth and not having the means to defend the country by a standing army. To me the Second ammendment is simply a relict from that time but that is a different issue which has been argued over for decades so I doubt I could bring up any new arguments on this.

There is no difference between the tyrant of 1700 and the tyrant of 2005, only the technology. I would like to believe that the hearts and minds of people can grow and evolve from barbarism, but then I remember that it was my father and uncles that fought in WWII. I look at the millions that are dying in central Africa, or the level of injustice tolerated by civilized nations, and I despair.

I'll close this argument by quoting the Florida Supreme Court again as I can not put it in better words: 
"This essential principle, that the outcome of elections be determined by the will of the voters, forms the foundation of the election code enacted by the Florida Legislature and has been consistently applied by this Court in resolving elections disputes. We are dealing with the essence of the structure of our democratic society."

Although, the Supreme Court rebuked them for superseding the legislatures timetable for having all the voting accomplished and the results declared to Harris. The democrats tried numerous times to recount the votes so that it would come out in Gores favor, and in the end the Supreme Court stopped them from spending more time and dragging the recounts out another 2-3 weeks. Another factor in the Florida election was that the panhandle precincts were still voting, when the networks declared a Gore victory in Florida. This resulted in many people not voting in these precincts which are overwhelmingly Republican.

Disinfopedia - The Bin Laden Group
How many of Mohammed Bin Laden's 52 children do you want to punish for the actions of Osama?

This Senator?

I think President Bush and his administration are doing an excellent job in the War On Terrorism. We stand with him and support his policies to rid the world of this evil. And we salute the men and women in the military who risk their lives for our country. The world must know: America is united in this mission.

Senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota: Radio Address 1/5/2002 :)

How can it be that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy for torturing people and George W Bush is a good guy but sis also torturing people?

I think we know they are not hostages. They are classified as enemy combatants, and there status has been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. There is a difference between interrogation and torture. I abhor torture and terrorism.

First:
Mr. Townsend (Homeland Security) stated that the data on which the recent Terrorist Warnings / Alerts were issued is dated from 2000/2001 and last updated in January 2004. That seems a bit old doesn't it? Now the question is, is the Bush Administration so slow to react on Terrorist threats or did it just come in handy to raise the alarm to shift the focus of the election towards peoples fear? (ok, this is realy to tease you, but I'd realy like to know what you think about this)

Hence, orange and not red. I chalk it up to the "better to be safe" category. They discovered some new intel that indicated some new targets, and they did not know if any plan was in play. They raised the alert to orange and released the details, and I expect they will investigate and determine whether it is old intel or something actionable. McNeil Lehrer News: NEWSMAKER: FRANCES TOWNSEND 8-2-2004 I wouldn't be too certain of your source BTW, when they do not know Frances is a Ms.

Second:
Do you think "War on Terrorism" can be won by military means (as the current Administration is trying to)?  While I do obviously not know if they will eventualy "win" this war [regarding this phrase one should realy check with local blockbuster video and rent "Wargames"] I look back in history and doubt it.

It is erroneous to assume that the war on terrorism is only being fought by the military. Terrorism is a means of challenging the legitimacy of any government by placing the government on the horns of a dilemma. If the people feel the reduction of civil liberties, or their rights being trampled to capture terrorists, then the terrorists win, or if the government fails to prevent a terrorist action then the government looks weak and ineffective. In either case, the terrorists win. There are then three categories of opinion, those who believe the government is acting too harshly, those who think it is not enough, and those who think the government is acting appropriately. The only way to win against terrorism is to find that middle ground and sustain it until the terrorists understand their tactics will not achieve the referendum they desire. Your WWII scenario is in an occupied France, and while it might be a legitimate comparison to the former occupied Iraq, as US troops pull back and are replaced with Iraqi's the insurgency appears to be more the undercurrent of a civil war between Shiite's and Sunni's for control. Terrorism on US soil will be 100 fold more difficult since 9/11. The people here are much more alert now, and any non-citizen is watched with an eye of suspicion. The DHS, and every industry is transforming itself to make terrorism here more difficult.

Here is an link to an article I agree with written by a friend of mine.
Fight Terrorism With Relentless Doses of Hope and Compassion

[jahcs]

Here is an link to an article I agree with written by a friend of mine.
Fight Terrorism With Relentless Doses of Hope and Compassion

Many of our soldiers in the Middle East have undertaken and completed missions such as those outlined in the article.

A small anecdote:
The 671 Engineer Company was in the first wave of troops to enter Iraq. They are a bridging company. (They were laughed at for hauling boats across the desert by our troops.) A bridge was destroyed by Iraqi troops in the early days of the war and one of their first missions was to build a new one. They hired local villagers to help construct the bridge and worked closely with the village council who organized a celebration when the bridge was finished. They took extra effort to ensure the villagers knew it was the village's bridge, not the Army's.

An argument against this little story is that if we hadn't gone into Iraq the bridge may not have been destroyed. There are many other examples to be found of projects started not because something was destroyed, but because we do care about helping the people of Iraq.

[eppie]

How many of Mohammed Bin Laden's 52 children do you want to punish for the actions of Osama?

So it is okay to put innocent people in Guantanamo bay (most of them are innocent I guess), it is okay to have everybody (including me) that wants to travel to the US stand in a que for hours and have them take of their shoes and be searched. It is okay that now every arab looking person is treated like a criminal by police.
And at the same time this family of Bin Laden (who of course are not guilty for the crimes of their evil family member, but also no innocence has been proven, and the chance that they financialy support muslim extrimists is quite high) can just go away without being asked questions.
I'm not asking to put them in jail directly, but the chance is very big that they are at least "more guilty" than most of those in guantanamo bay. By sending them away directly it was tried to cover up something

This point is a clear example of how the Bush clan thinks, they don't care about you and me, they only care about their money. If that means doing business with saudi's (and we all know that human rights are violated there on a large scale) so be it. (it is of course outrageous that a president of the US is involved in this, he starts looking more and more like his friend berlusconi with all this mixing up of interests)

Terrorist are bad, but if you can make some money of them, it suddenly is not so bad any more. :D
(this could be a Bush quote)

[kandrathe]

So it is okay to put innocent people in Guantanamo bay (most of them are innocent I guess),

Not entirely innocent. If you want to put label on them it would be "jihadists". The people at Guantanamo are either non-Afghans, or the core of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan after battles with US forces. I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in being prejudiced against a group of wealthy Saudi's because they happen to share direct lineage with a terrorist murderer. I think contrary to your beliefs, the US government does not just lock people away whenever they want, and they do rely on evidence.

Terrorist are bad, but if you can make some money of them, it suddenly is not so bad any more.

But, since the Carlyse Group is a private financial organization, you and I will never know how much money is made by them, or who they really are. As long as they don't break the law, I don't care how they make their money. You and I can have a poor opinion of the "war industry", but currently it is the "jihadists" and the politicians who make the war. The suppliers are there like vultures to profit on it.

[eppie]

QUOTE 
Terrorist are bad, but if you can make some money of them, it suddenly is not so bad any more. 
But, since the Carlyse Group is a private financial organization, you and I will never know how much money is made by them, or who they really are. As long as they don't break the law, I don't care how they make their money. You and I can have a poor opinion of the "war industry", but currently it is the "jihadists" and the politicians who make the war. The suppliers are there like vultures to profit on it.

But if the politicians have very clear links with these same priviate organisations that is called a conflict of interest or not?
I believe that if you want to be a congressman or even president you have to sell your share in companies or not, just to prevent this conflict.

I mean take the case of Italy (clear example) most of the things Berlusconi does are not against the law. But the fact that he owns most of the Italian media, and changes laws and makes decissions based on his own personal interest is something that should not be allowed. (I know that most politicians don't even try to block him when he found a new scam)

That Bush, or Cheney or whoever, don't own any companies now anymore does of course not mean that they don't profit from it anymore.

So if you would not even look at the facty if they make decission for their own personal benefit on purpose or not, there should in the first place not be a single reason to think the might.

So or you want to be a politician, or you want to be a business man but not both at the same time. (I know that most politicans are going wrong here, not just Bush)

[kandrathe]

Bush the Elder and many other former politicians are supposedly involved with Carlyse, but I haven't seen an linkage to Bush Jr. Unfortunatly, it has become accepted that millionaires seek a job that pays a fraction of their former wages, and the voters do not question their motives. Gone from the political landscape are the selfless public servants who dedicates themselves to representation of thier constituents. But, we can grouse about it if you like. The system is what we allow it to be.

[D-Dave]

I better make my replies short this time to make it more clearly what I am realy pointing at.

You say that had good intelligence, but I don't think so. Certainly no reliable human sources.

Sorry but if you are right about bad intel, then my point of Bush not knowing "that they have them and where they are"(which he claimed) is absolutely correct, is it not?

This amendment was created in a time when the US felt an immediate threat from being reintegrated into the British commonwealth and not having the means to defend the country by a standing army. To me the Second ammendment is simply a relict from that time but that is a different issue which has been argued over for decades so I doubt I could bring up any new arguments on this.

There is no difference between the tyrant of 1700 and the tyrant of 2005, only the technology.

Hm, let's see: "tyrant of 1700" had one of the largest regular military forces in the world while the US had only a handfull of regiments, creating the need to outfit the civilian population with weapons to aid the regular forces in case of invasion;
"tyrant of 2005" unless you are talking about the combined forces of europe, russia and china (suddenly going bonkers and thinking: "Why not invade the US") there is no military force that can match the US Forces on the Battlefield. Resulting from this the danger of Invasionon the US is practically zero. So the "tyrant of 2005" must be them terrorists.

My point is that the circumstances that led to the Second Amendment no longer exist.
This does not however mean that you can not stick with the "Guns for all" attitude but I think it is foolish to base this on the second ammendment instead of the current situation.

The democrats tried numerous times to recount the votes so that it would come out in Gores favor, and in the end the Supreme Court stopped them from spending more time and dragging the recounts out another 2-3 weeks. Another factor in the Florida election was that the panhandle precincts were still voting, when the networks declared a Gore victory in Florida. This resulted in many people not voting in these precincts which are overwhelmingly Republican.

Exactly my point, it was attempted numerous times to times to verify the votes. This was done by the Democrates and was stopped each time by the Republicans. This leaves the pure fact that not all votes were verified thus the result remains questionable.
The difference with those Republicans not voting because some Network declared a Democrat the winner is that they chose not to vote, which they had the right to, but that does not make the votes of those that did vote any less important to be counted correctly.

How many of Mohammed Bin Laden's 52 children do you want to punish for the actions of Osama?

That statement is a bit polemic don't you think? Anyway I don't want to punish anyone, I just think that the relatives of a prime suspect should at least be questioned if they know the whereabouts of that person.
The funny thing is that you defend sending those people home on the other hand you think it is ok to imprison those that may be linked to the same person.

This Senator?

I think President Bush and his administration are doing an excellent job in the War On Terrorism. We stand with him and support his policies to rid the world of this evil. And we salute the men and women in the military who risk their lives for our country. The world must know: America is united in this mission.

Yes, that's him. But in what way does the above statement rebute the earlier statement of the same person?

They are classified as enemy combatants, and there status has been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. There is a difference between interrogation and torture. I abhor torture and terrorism.

"Enemy combatants" is no legal "status". It is just the political correct term for someone being imprisoned without a trial and without the need for any evidence and no human rights. Ah, the wonderful invention of political correctness. Call innocent victims of bombings "collateral damage", or for this administration call the cut of school funding "No child left behind act"...
Nevermind, please with all due respect, would you please explain the difference between the way those prisoners in Gitmo are "interrogated" and torture?
Just as a sidenote, the old fashioned way of torture by beating someone up has long been abandoned for psychological torture simply because it puts the subject under more pressure and stress and thus is more "effective".

On the Terrorist alert issue you completely miss my point. I am not stating that the hightened alertness in those areas itself is a politcal hoax. But as far as I know those areas have had hightened protection for more then a year (as far as NY financial district is concerned since 9/11). What I think is a hoax is the way this "Alert" was presented to the public; as a result of new information and a present danger.
BTW, I am pretty certain about my source but not about me as the Reuters News Service provided only the last name in it's News Ticker so there was no gender information. My fault.

Here is an link to an article I agree with written by a friend of mine.
Fight Terrorism With Relentless Doses of Hope and Compassion

Now that is an article I can agree with completely.

[Nystul]

Hm, let's see: "tyrant of 1700" had one of the largest regular military forces in the world while the US had only a handfull of regiments, creating the need to outfit the civilian population with weapons to aid the regular forces in case of invasion;
"tyrant of 2005" unless you are talking about the combined forces of europe, russia and china (suddenly going bonkers and thinking: "Why not invade the US") there is no military force that can match the US Forces on the Battlefield. Resulting from this the danger of Invasionon the US is practically zero. So the "tyrant of 2005" must be them terrorists.

My point is that the circumstances that led to the Second Amendment no longer exist.
This does not however mean that you can not stick with the "Guns for all" attitude but I think it is foolish to base this on the second ammendment instead of the current situation.

Without the right to bear arms, all other guaranteed rights are just words on paper. The age of firearms is what brought these powers to the people in the first place, and I don't see that they can be maintained without them. Unless the citizen population itself has the ability to enforce these ideals through force if necessary, it is like a city code without any police department.

Exactly my point, it was attempted numerous times to times to verify the votes. This was done by the Democrates and was stopped each time by the Republicans. This leaves the pure fact that not all votes were verified thus the result remains questionable.


All votes in Florida *were* recounted by the standard procedures. That decision was made by the (Republican) Florida board of elections, because it is what Florida law said should be done (such a novel concept, actually following the election laws). Bush had more votes in that recount, just as he did in the original count. It should have ended there. Gore then petitioned for manual recounts only in the 3 most urban Democratic-concentrated areas of the state of Florida. For all the talk about wanting to make sure every vote counts, he apparently only wanted every liberal urban vote to count. (My memory fails me a bit here, but didn't Gore also try to get some of the military vote-by-mail in Florida thrown out on technicalities? Does that sound like someone who wanted every vote to count?) The court cases that followed got progressively more ridiculous each time. The bottom line is that Gore never proved there was an error in the voting system (as far as I can tell, he never really tried), he did not meet criteria to obtain additional recounts, and if the United States Supreme Court had allowed additional recounts to take place, the results would have been less accurate and less representative of the actual vote in Florida than the very first count or the official recount.

[kandrathe]

Sorry but if you are right about bad intel, then my point of Bush not knowing "that they have them and where they are"(which he claimed) is absolutely correct, is it not?

You are attempting to have this both ways. You are saying he was either wrong, or he lied. To me it is obvious that they "thought" they had some good intelligence before the war, but during the foggy after math it was not so clear they had it. In fact, as it turns out they didn't. We are in the realm of politics where the veracity of statements is based on intent, rather than fact. As in "Read my lips, no new taxes." There is a third possibility which is that the intelligence was right at one point, but wrong by the time they got to those places.

My point is that the circumstances that led to the Second Amendment no longer exist. This does not however mean that you can not stick with the "Guns for all" attitude but I think it is foolish to base this on the second ammendment instead of the current situation.

I think you miss the point of the intent of the founders of America. They believe that the people en masse are sovereign over the State, as in "Of the People, by the People, for the People". The 2nd amendments intent is to make the statement that "The People" are in charge. In my interpretation, each citizen is responsible for defending the nation and the integrity of the Republic. The tyrant of 2005 could be Bush or Kerry for all I know. The point I'm trying to make is that if you disarm the populace, then it is easier for the State to enforce its will upon the People.

Exactly my point, it was attempted numerous times to times to verify the votes. This was done by the Democrates and was stopped each time by the Republicans. This leaves the pure fact that not all votes were verified thus the result remains questionable.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Any analysis of post election voting shows that depending on the equipment there is alway a small percentage of votes that do not get accurately counted, everywhere in the entire US. These people in a few democratic counties were down to looking at each errant voting card (under votes and over votes), and trying to deduce who the voter might have intended to vote for. Then you must trust that the voting judge read the tea leaves correctly. Why should 4 primarily democratic counties in only Florida be the only places where "ALL" votes cast are attempted to be counted. Everywhere else in the US, under votes and over votes were just tossed. To me, this was a blatant attempt to skew the outcome to one sides favor.

It is just the political correct term for someone being imprisoned without a trial and without the need for any evidence and no human rights.

I'm sorry but I disagree. We went to war against Afghanistan and the Taliban. Most the the people locked up are either non-Afghani fighters from that conflict, or Taliban leaders.

Nevermind, please with all due respect, would you please explain the difference between the way those prisoners in Gitmo are "interrogated" and torture?

I work with a guy who was in military intelligence during the Vietnam war. One story he told was of a South Vietnamese "Interrogator" was that this guy kept a number of straight pins under his lapel. He would ask all the Americans to leave the room, and then he would insert the pins under the fingernails of the victim. He would ask a question, and if he did not get an answer, or the wrong answer he would merely tap one of the pins with his pen. That is torture. In Singapore, and I've heard of this being done in Saudi Arabia if I recall correctly, the victim is placed kneeling with a rod behind their knees, then pushed back and bound such that slowly over time their knees become disjointed. That is torture. There are many more I've heard of that are even more sadistic and gruesome. Being forced to endure without sleep or stand with a hood on naked for hours is unkind, and humiliating and should not be condoned. But it is a far cry from torture. I'm not talking about the abuse which is being prosecuted, just the approved stuff.

What I think is a hoax is the way this "Alert" was presented to the public; as a result of new information and a present danger.

Lets think of it this way. I am a police officer and I discover a plot to murder you, but the information is a few years old. The suspects location is unknown. Do you want to know that information? Would I not be negligent if you were then murdered and it was discovered that I knew about the plot, but did nothing to alert you or protect you?