 | | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You aren't listening! We didn't vote him in in the first place. Surely in his current position, he will be able to rig the vote using even more convincing tactics. We'll have him for _at least_ another four years. (I wonder how much republican (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Depends how he handles Desert Storm II; the first propaganda exercise didn't win a re-election for Dad (though the rest of his cabinet was reinstated in 2000, of course). Here's a puzzle for the Constitutionally-aware among us: Since W was (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Whoa, calm your jets there Chris--my whole post was rather in a humourous vein and was light hearted... I know your issues for your fractured voting system. I seem to recall that after the Florida fiasco, that someone went back and recounted, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) You zany understator! Ignoring for a moment the question of the polling machines (ie, modern, well-maintained machines in largely republican districts and archaic, run-down machines in largely democratic districts) I don't have the info in (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) "no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more that two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more that once." (...) I guess that's (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Me too. Chris (did I forget the smiley?) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) It's a trick of equivocation, I admit. I was making a joke at the expense of "our" "duly" "elected" "President!" (...) A big one, IMO! I'd love to see someone try to exploit it, but that would be as good as forfeiting the race, since it would (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) There--in case we ferget in the future, we can fall back on one of these... Dave K. (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) I'll forward it off to one of my WW newsgroups! By the way, wasn't that 2 hours last night great?? Toby, Josh and Donna lost, trying to get back to DC... Whoever said that WW uses (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Oh for crying out loud. The "popular majority" that Gore supposedly won by was a smaller percentage than Bush won in florida, and well within the margin of error. Seriously, does anyone think Gore would be doing much different than Bush right (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) was (...) I don't see how it matters. I suspect he would have done largely the same stuff in Afghanistan, but not be threatening Iraq. But really, who can know? It doesn't need to be that Gore would be doing anything different for us to think (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) But you're accepting Bush's victory, even though it, too, was well within the margin of error. Are you familiar with the notion of "special pleading?" (...) As "first stones" go, I find this phrase particularly offensive. For quite a while you (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I can't say that I think it was even close. The election was stolen pure and simple. We are no longer the country we think we are, and we probably haven't been for quite some time. I know -- I keep trying to be optimistic that things (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) That's actually my stance as well, but I didn't all my facts straight before posting, so I figured I'd simply address the logical problems of Mike's assertion. Michael Moore, who admittedly sometimes clings too dearly to erroneous information, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) was (...) Yes it was, but I am rather tired of hearing the Democratic propaganda that Gore won the popular vote. Shouldn't we be worring about the Republican propaganda that Bush was legitimately elected? See there is a paradox if I ever saw (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) So, I seem to have missed the explanation of what exactly angered you about the subject? I thought it was a good pointer. Chris (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
|
(...) the (...) The fact that someone had their fundamental rights of; freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to peacefully protest, and there was no public outcry. There was no major news coverage. It is just disgusting. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
