Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:

And how many more times were the votes going to be recounted using how many different factors? Every trick in the book was pulled to scrap enough votes up for Gore. They would have kept counting until they GOT the result they wanted, not the one that was PRODUCED via the election...



Just the opposite occured, the Bush team threw up roadblocks at every turn to stop any and all recounts because they preferred the initial count, which was within the margin of error for the voting machines. Recounts were mandated by Florida law, which was interpreted by a Bush political ally appointed by his brother. Yet, Bush was the one who filed suit to stop the recounts.

This is not about who won, but about how they did it, hence the remaining questionable legitimacy of the election. Again, I can't see how any unbiased person wouldn't want a full and fair counting of all votes, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped just that.




Post up a news report that proves this.

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:

Originally posted by JaTo:

Get specific. Which issue? Blanket statements don't tell anyone much of anything.



What, the President lying to his citizens on matters of state is ok in general?




Its impossible to defeat your bogus claim unless you give specific examples. Tearing that HUGE statement down could take hours.

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:


Originally posted by JaTo:

ABSOLUTELY. The US pays attention to known issues that are most pressing and most impactful. NO ONE 20 years ago (10?maybe to an extent) could have predicted the dollar amount, impact and scale of terrorist operations, so it doesn't matter what you or I contend on this point. Deal with the facts; not if's, could's and should's.



1983 was the Beirut embassy and marine barracks bombings. That should have gotten people's attention, we've been at war since then but our side didn't know it. 1993 was the first attempt on the WTC. Al-Qaeda should have been on everyone's mind since then.

We pay people full-time, night and day, 24/7 to keep informed about, and counter, threats to the U.S. They dropped the ball prior to 9-11 by not informing the public of the real threat of terrorism, I would say, in part because of the wasteful focus on the so-called "drug war."





They stopped crying wolf because the public wasnt interested , the public didnt want to think about it or believe it. Its about what the people want to hear.

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:

Originally posted by JaTo:

Perhaps because drugs have claimed more lives than Al-Qaeda has BY FAR and the fact that no major US incursions had taken place by then. The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease.



I'd like to see the statistics of death by alcohol and tobacco compared to all illict drugs. I think the former would greatly outweigh the latter. So then where is the threat you mention?





First you have to consider the HUGE amount of people that use alcohol and tobacco compared to illicit drugs. That would certainly narrow the gap. Plus you have to include deaths from drug dealers and cartels , including from the production countries (Columbia). Gap narrowing..

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:

Originally posted by JaTo:

Really? So, tell me what immense natural resourse the US is interested about in Columbia, apart from the cocoa trade? Their oil production is in decline and the coffe industry is getting it's head turned up on end because of the cheap crap coming out of SE Asia (Vietnam of all places). Pray tell what "foreign policy" we are pursuing in Columbia, if it's not trying to cripple the drug trade....



U.S. foreign policy is really an extension of its domestic policy: "What's good for GM is good for America." Exchange 'country X' for 'America' and there you go.



This just made no sense..