Election Irregularities

In today's news members of the Bush administration are quoted as saying:


. the election was marked by "numerous, profound irregularities." (Colin Powell)


. "(the candidate) can claim victory but not democratic legitimacy." (Colin Powell)


. "The electoral process from start to finish ignored the norms and standards which govern elections ... " (Walter Kansteiner, a United States Assistant Secretary of State)

yeah i think the electoral vote system is kinda whacky but the forefathers probably new something beneficial about it that I'm unaware of so it must not be all bad. Anyway if Gore won the popular vote (i think thats what happened right?) then it only seems logical that he should be in office, but I'm sure glad he isn't. I voted for Bush and I intend to vote for him next election also. My only major dissapointment with him so far has been his shitty decision he made regarding the stem cell research using embryo cells. Bad decision on his part all the way but hey every president makes dumb decisions.


Kris

you need to look up why we have electoral college.


also look up why amendment for direct election of senators was a bad thing. (originally state legislatures appointed senators, and could recall them and replace them at will.)


brad

I posted several months ago on this but it didn't generate a whole lot of response. I nominated the amendment that installed popular election of Senators as the worst Constitutional Amendment. People mistake our brilliant constitutional scheme for a democracy. The Founding Fathers knew democracies don't survive but tyrants or monarchies or whatever are not acceptable. So we came up with a constitutional republic that relies on democratic principles, yet nevertheless protects individual rights, and is finely balanced. Neither the President or Senators should be elected directly. The direct election of senators has allowed congress to abuse states' rights and budgets and has led to huge taxes and government. What we have now is two Houses of Representatives. It was foreseen that the House would be a spendthrift group and a bit on the unwashed side. One is enough.


And no dead people would have been elected to the Senate.

between you and me, i think you know that our country is being taken over by what some might term communists.


as an example, congress just gave away some of their authority to the world trade organization WTO, or something like that.


i could be wrong on the specifics, but thats the kind of stuff i mean when i say communist takeover.


brad

You guys know this right? The Cabinet officials were talking about the recent Zimbabwe elections (which, of course, we we all eagerly anticipating).


Chuck, are you one of those people still feeling bitter that Gore's lawyers weren't able to steal the Florida electoral vote?

"between you and me..." LOL given the public forum.


But no, I am not a takeover conspiracy guy. I do think some of the things we do are not consistent with what I think this country ought to be and are sometimes antithetical to what the Constitution says. I don't think our national sovereignty is threatened by every treaty or international organization, even if I don't always agree with the particular stuff in the treaty or whatever.


I just am not one of the conspiracy theory people. Part of the reason is that the more people and organizations I see, the more I just don't think people are up to pulling off a really good Art Bell type conspiracy. The communists couldn't manufacture enough toilet paper, how are they going to take us over with a trade organization?

'The communists couldn't manufacture enough toilet paper, how are they going to take us over with a trade organization? '


first of all i tried to show that when i say communism i dont really mean like the russians, but rather just in general the command and control authoritarian spirit of communism.


anyway, your argument is no good on the face of it. why? because look at the EU. it started out as a trade organization and now british merchants are being jailed for selling things in ounces instead of grams. if thats not the spirit of communism then i dont know what is.


brad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/14/wvit14.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/14/ixworld.html


'At the moment, any supplement can be sold in Britain unless it is shown to be harmful, a policy that reflects the legal tradition of English common law that allows people to do what they want unless specifically banned. By contrast, Europe's Napoleonic legal system starts from the premise that everything is banned until legally authorised.'


so now if you live in britain and are a vitamin freak, well, tough luck, youre now part of the EU.


no, its not a communist takeover. but no, you cant have your vitamins.


brad

yeah, i know whats going on in rhodesia.


brad

brad: " between you and me, i think you know that our country is being taken over by what some might term communists.


as an example, congress just gave away some of their authority to the world trade organization WTO"


HDPM: "The communists couldn't manufacture enough toilet paper, how are they going to take us over with a trade organization?"


brad's statement in particular is a total misunderstanding of what the WTO is/does. The WTO is as far from representing communism as you could imagine...unless you consider increasing the availability of markets to multinational companies as a communist thing.


Instead of communists, why can't you guys just say "them" if you want to identify an adversary. You'll confuse poor souls like me with misuse of labels.

..where the heck is there anything to do with communism in this one?


Maybe the dictionary's changed and a communist is now defined as someone who denies you something.


A couple of quotes from the article you identified:


"...Euro-MPs were accosted by activists handing out a propaganda video accusing five European commissioners of corruptly colluding with big pharmaceutical firms.:


"Only 50 or so vitamins and minerals are on the safe list in most EU countries, so rarer products such as Selenium compounds used to treat cancer can only be obtained through prescription drugs, generating a much higher profit for the big drug companies."


I'd suggest replacing "communist" with "capitalist" and then both your posts would make sense.


G (not trying to start anything, just aggravated by strange usage of terminology)

well, look at the communist manifesto.


anyway, the main point is that every single aspect of your life will be regulated, controlled, observed, taxed, etc.


by the way, when the fortune 500 had their meeting in china, the chinese leader was quoted as saying that there isnt any difference between big corporate capitalism and communism.


i know im pretty much rambling. heres a link the the WTO world bank thing. whats its like in the words of the chief economist of the world bank. its a short article.


http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/02/115110.php


brad

The Intelligence community took over the country (again) with the steal of the election.They also did nothing to stop 9-11. They new about the threat in advance. They are making big money now.Which two companies are now negotiating to build an oil pipeline straight through Afganistan?

Halliburton and Enron.

'They also did nothing to stop 9-11. They new about the threat in advance.'


ive heard the lawyer who impeached clinton (david schippers i think) make that claim. (which is an opinion).


for such a claim i think the standard of evidence is very high. post some links if you want.


brad

"by the way, when the fortune 500 had their meeting in china, the chinese leader was quoted as saying that there isnt any difference between big corporate capitalism and communism."


So, to avoid confusing the dolts like me, why not just call it big corporate capitalism instead of talking about communism. Apples are like pears, but it screws me up if you start calling the pear an apple.


Interesting nobody except Dynasty realised Chuck was making a pointed reference using quotes regarding the Zimbabwe elections. Actually, probably makes his point more resonant.

i realized it.


brad

what do you call it when environmental groups steal peoples land and then a couple years later a big corporation builds a hotel or something on it?


brad