user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Look what Hitler was able to do and then ask yourself that question again. We're screwed.
unless a brave sould puts a bullet in his head, then yes. we'll have another 4.
I thought this was resolved years ago? Bush won the election, he is the legal president of the US.
herzog is a liar. Bush was appointed President. He did not win the election. herzog is a liar. As fucking usual.
That's rich, a brit giving an american a lecture on american politics and american electoral law. He was elected, he won 3 recounts in florida, and so he won enough electoral votes to take office. It's quite simple really.
Published in the January 18 - January 24, 2001 issue of Columbus Alive
The Unelected President
How George W. Bush Stole the White House from America's Voters
by Harvey Wasserman
It's official. The Banana Republicans now occupy the White House.
In direct--and predictable--contradiction to his campaign rhetoric of accommodation and compromise, George "Shrub" Bush begins his illegitimate regime like countless other coup figureheads--with cynicism and an iron hand. How firmly will the forces of democracy oppose him? Remember that Bush was allowed to take power precisely because the "New Democrats" lack the strength or character to stand up to the hard right. Predictably, their performance at the dawn of the Shrub years is already discouraging. Indeed, if the nation and its natural environment are to survive at all, clear and powerful resistance must come from where it always comes--the grassroots--but with far more conviction than we've seen in many a decade.
The clearest sign of the Bush hard line comes with his chief law enforcement officer. Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft is a carbon copy of countless martial strongmen installed in Third World countries by the father of the new president and the national security apparatus Bush Sr. once ran. The former Missouri Senator (who was beaten for re-election by a dead man) is the creation of the corporations and fundamentalist church groups that paid for his losing campaign--and for that of his new boss.
Ashcroft is pro-corporation (especially tobacco), pro-gun, pro-military, pro-death penalty, pro-welfare for religious schools, and an ardent fan of the Confederacy. He is anti-black, anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-speech, anti-poor, anti-green and anti-labor.
In short, he's a poster child for the Bush junta, a humorless gray cabal of old economy types whose primary agenda will be to further the Reaganite redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich while raping the natural planet along the way. They'll add billions in church and corporate welfare. In the name of "liberty," they'll erase as many individual rights and freedoms as their dominance of a bought Supreme Court can facilitate.
Star wars is only the most visible of the massive military and other scams this militant right-wing crew intends to foist on the public in the coming years, to the benefit of their corporate and fundamentalist sponsors. We can also expect an escalated drug war, new jungle bloodshed in Central America, heightened tensions with China and Russia, and a relentless assault on the natural environment and basic freedoms of speech and the press. All are sure to come.
What a slanderous sack of emotive, horseshit. There's nothing in that little C&P ditty that approaches addressing the legitimacy of the election. Just another ganja-fueled diatribe that reads like rock-n-roll, but contains no shred of objectivity or truth. Take off the white pancake foundation, remove the mascara and emerge from your hole. It might help you see the truth through your knee-jerk rage.
Did you just put knee-jerk?
Hold on a second. Since when to clearly biased editorials count as evidence of anything? It starts off by calling bush 'shrub' and a 'bannana republican'. Yeah, I'm really going to trust his objectivity on the subject. Please, you have nothing cretin, admit it. You're ignorant about american politcs, american law, and just about everything else.
Bush was appointed by Judges. Gore polled more votes. Bush was not elected. And that article, printed in 2001, turned out to be prophetic. And I know what you're going to say every post, herzog. I'm not going to admit things which aren't true. And the amazing thing is that in most other countries in the world the fact that Bush stole the election of 2000 is news rather than a "paranoid conspiracy theory". Most other countries know of the voters who were removed from the electoral role and all the other dodgy stuff connected with the election. So don't bother trying to deny the truth. Bush wasn't elected because he had to get Judges to stop the counting in Florida and appoint him president.
"Gore polled more votes."
Yet again you expose your willing ignorance of american politics. I suggest you look up the electoral college, and cross reference that with the US constitution. Gore had a few more votes nationally, all well within the expected error range and given democrats penchant for creative vote counting I don't really trust those numbers, but either way it was effectively a tie, no clear winner in total population. Which is of course irrelevent, bush won the majority of the electoral votes and so he won the election. Gore knew the rules beforehand just as bush did, gore tried to change the rules afterwards to suit his own interests, that would make him a cheater.
The judges didn't appoint bush, they merely stopped the 4th, let me repeat that '4th', recount in florida. Bush won the first vote, he wont the 3 subsequent recounts, he won the election. All the courts did was follow the law.
Educate yourself cretin, you know nothing about this country and everytime you post you expose more and more of your ignorance.
I'll take your silence to mean that you actually went and looked up the election rules for the US, and have thus realized that your argument is deeply flawed.
Apology accepted and good job on seeking to alleviate your crushing ignorance. Congrats.
There you go, imagining things that aren't real again, herzog. That election stank, and thanks to me living in Europe (where we aren't all rapidly becoming Nazis like you) we can read the faults with the process of the 2000 Presidential election. Why not imagine that you're really clever and everyone likes you as well. Go for it, loony.
That article is totaly rubbish, it's like relying on Michael Moore for accurate information!
I agree with herzog. First of all that excuse for and article cretin_slap posted is a worthless piece of biased venting. It boils down to a far-leftist that is pissed off his "baby" Gore didn't win.
As far as the election goes, bush may or may not have won the popular vote. But in the US we do have something called the electoral college, as herzog pointed out. You don't necessarily have to win the popular vote to become president of the United states. That being said, don't get angry at the current president for that. If you have a beef, it should be with the system in which our president is elected. And there are some good reasons why we have such an electoral college in place. It is a balencing factor to give places with a smaller population density more representation. You don't have to like this, but as far as the 2000 election goes, there was no foul by bush. He won fair and square under our current system. 271-266.
bitter, bitter democrats
if he does we need to riot in the streets and protest outside of his white house!
he stole the election, the people didn't want him. he is a TERRORIST. go see farenheit 9/11 and then tell me you still want him as your president. he is horrible. i will vote for anyone who is not bush.
he's a dirty weasel and you people who go on and on sticking up for him like stupid little piggies, you know it inside, he's a weasel. You don't even care that 50-some percent of the people who voted voted against him. You don't even care that he's using "God" on the stupid people, you don't even care about anything but following your leader and aggreeing with your fat parents.
by x__ on Tue Sep 07, 04 9:45pm
[+]
Herzog is a fool who cares little about democracy. Bush lost by 550,000 votes. It's a hairsbreadth, but it happened. Then came the legal rorting of the system, and votes were ignored.
Bush is on a roller coaster that he doesn't control. He's there for a ride, if it's his turn to get off, maybe he will, maybe he won't. He should be impeached and then imprisoned for lying to all of America and for criminal use of euphemisms.
There is a chance that Bush will declare martial law or possibly have Kerry assasinated according to various sources.
everytime they recounted the votes in Fla Bush was the winner,why is it so hard for the left to accept that? I believe your refusal to see the truth is one reason so many people turned out in Florida this time to vote for Bush, believe it or not your kicking yourselves in the backside everytime you try to push an idea that just isn't true
|
|
