|
Grex > Agora41 > #20: Couple pardoned by Clinton paid Hillary's brother 1/4Mil$US. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 117 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 25 of 117:
| 
Mar 27 03:13 UTC 2002 |
Apparently it's okay to act like a child as long as you yell loud enough that
your side really is better than the other side.
|
russ
|
|
response 26 of 117:
|
Mar 27 04:32 UTC 2002 |
Re #21: But insurance companies have nothing to do with the SUPPLY
of medical services; they are middlemen only. Energy companies work
in every part of the chain. They may be glossing over their problems
of pollution, dependence on unreliable "allies" and more, but you
canNOT convincingly argue that they don't know their business.
Which is why I think that the criticisms of the Bush administration
are backwards. Everything is Enron this, Enron that. Dammit, Enron
was enormously important in the business at the time, and ought to
have been heard! The problem wasn't in who was there, but who *wasn't*.
Same as HillaryCare. Capisce?
|
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 117:
|
Mar 27 13:44 UTC 2002 |
I don't think anyone is debating that Enron should have been heard;
however, hearing out an interest, and accepting a great deal of funding and
repeatedly bowing to that interest, are completely different things.
|
tsty
|
|
response 28 of 117:
|
Mar 27 23:14 UTC 2002 |
repeatedly bowing ????? are you that much at home out there in left field?
just who adn how was that india energy plant 'bid out?' - and by whom?
....
oh, wiat, #27 *must* have been referring to clinton - my bad - oops, sorry.
|
jazz
|
|
response 29 of 117:
|
Mar 27 23:50 UTC 2002 |
Do you really need evidence of Bush's bowing to industry? It's
practically a campaign promise.
|
russ
|
|
response 30 of 117:
|
Mar 28 04:11 UTC 2002 |
Re #29: Bush made the same promise to Detroit, remember. He
pledged to insulate the auto industry from new mandates which
would upset everything and throw workers out of work, as well
as cutting off the SUV gravy train. The campaign amounted to
"Laissez les bon temps roulez!".
I happen to disagree with a lot of this (I think that we should
insist that Detroit roll out the products of the PNGV program,
like Honda is doing already), but you can't say it's *dishonest*
as you are implying. It is certainly not corrupt. Clinton was
corrupt; Bush campaigned on these issues, got elected on them,
and is keeping his promises so far. The problem is what the
public wants; it's just getting what it asked for.
|
remmers
|
|
response 31 of 117:
|
Mar 28 10:25 UTC 2002 |
Um, last I heard more people voted for Gore. Bush wasn't
exactly the choice of "the public".
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 117:
|
Mar 28 15:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:15 UTC 2002 |
Gore was the choice of the people that were counted. It is a long standing
principle in a democracy that if you don't vote, you don't count (literally
or figuratively). This can, of course, be painful, having to make a choice
between two poor candidates, but not voting is just letting others make
that poor choice, which is worse.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 35 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:24 UTC 2002 |
... and those electoral votes are expected to be based - and do not
deviate from - what?
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 37 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:32 UTC 2002 |
Finish your sentences. A correlation of one ... to ... ?
|
jp2
|
|
response 38 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:39 UTC 2002 |
Both #33 and #34 are true.
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 117:
|
Mar 28 16:44 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:07 UTC 2002 |
Golly Gee, and so did you!
|
brighn
|
|
response 42 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:30 UTC 2002 |
More Americans who voted for Gore than for Bush. More Floridians who voted
probably intended to vote for Gore than for Bush.
Regardless, because of the electoral system, and because of voters who didn't
take the time to make sure their ballots were completed correctly, Bush won
the election fairly.
I'm surprised that I have yet to see a Bush supporter point out the obvious:
Gore supporters, at least in Florida, are idiots who can't even manage a
ballot.
|
jazz
|
|
response 43 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:34 UTC 2002 |
There were also a fair number of "dirty pool" tactics in use; for
example, when Gore demanded a recount, Bush would then act to stop the
recount, and Gore to restart it. Then Bush would complain that the process
was taking too long - despite the fact that he was directly responsible for
a good portion of the fact that it was taking too long. The fact that a
completed recount has the result of Gore winning, proves that a recount was
an entirely reasonable request.
|
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:38 UTC 2002 |
Jamie, your mean-spirited pointless posting was old much before November 2000.
Take Midol or something. You're a much more pleasant poster when you're
actually saying something useful than when you get in these moods where you
have to insult everyone.
I've seen you actually contribute to a conversation, which is the only reason
I really read your posts. But your asinine "I'm so clever, you're all so
stupid" insults make me really wonder what chip you have on your shoulder.
|
jp2
|
|
response 47 of 117:
|
Mar 28 17:44 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 117:
|
Mar 28 18:25 UTC 2002 |
I used to work with the mentally ill and every once in a while we would
get someone who was kind of manic or had a personality disorder who was
really grandiose. jp2 reminds me of those people.
|
brighn
|
|
response 49 of 117:
|
Mar 28 18:46 UTC 2002 |
Jamie's right about the recount. While there wer a variety of "scenarios,"
Gore did lose the most reasonable of them.
What caused Gore to lose Florida, more than any other factor, was the
butterfly ballot. When that scenario was factored in, IIRC, Gore *did* win,
but that scenario is not a justifiable reason for changing the results. If
certain voters get confused by a ballot that is, while certainly not
traditional because of its second column, still intelligible, bush shouldn't
be penalized.
When just counting chads, Bush consistently won, albeit by narrow margins
(IIRC... there were different reports at different times).
|