Originally posted by Silver Ghost:

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.

Of course he did. He won the first, second, third and every other recount that was certified by a dual-partisan group of observers and the Secretary of State, who was watched like a hawk...

I'll put up the time-honored definition of stupidity here:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result"

I wonder which 2000 election capaign this could apply to?

When you get into the "dimpled chad" argument and take into consideration the "nature" of complaints that were generated out of Palm Beach, and the FACT that there were RECOUNTS all over Florida from the day after the election until mid-December (just over a month, IIRC), your argument again gets torpedoed. The Democrats filed appeal after appeal as well as a suit on absentee ballots, so what precisely is your point? There was legal wrangling on both sides, as was to be expected; you make it sound like Bush was the only one doing this. In short, the process was watched every step of the way; both parties KNEW this would be the case.

By the way, when absentee ballots and the overseas service ballots came in, the tally kept going up on Bush's favor...

...I wonder why the Gore campaign whined so hard to the court to keep those out of the tally?

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
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.

Of course it's about who won! Why hold elections if a result can't be determined?

Finally, "full and fair" to who? The ACTUAL process, or Al Gore and his campaign? Some of the excuses and gripes that were put forth and how the "voting" process in certain counties discriminated against minorities and the elderly almost had me ready to puke they were of such a lame stature.


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
What, the President lying to his citizens on matters of state is ok in general?



At the risk of repeating myself yet again, get specific. "Matters of state" can range from FCC licensing issues all the way to waging war on another country. I'm guessing here, but I'll wager you have a few SPECIFIC weeds up your a$$. Pick one and lay it on the table.


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
The 'gateway' argument has been dead for awhile, I don't think you can find a legitimate study to prop up its corpse.

I guess an article by the Journal of American Medical Association covering a 4-year study of the effects of cannibus doesn't meet your high standards of legitimacy.

That took all of 2 minutes of searching to pull up, too. There are others out there as well. I'm no expert on the subject, only someone who has "been there and done that" and can tell you from firsthand experience and watching others flush their souls down the drain that your perception of marijuana is rather suspect...

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
So there is no justification for keeping a safer 'drug' illegal. And it is happening state by state, the laws will catch up with society, which is putting its money where its mouth is, literally. It is similar to when the highway speed limits were increased to match the reality of people's driving habits. It is silly to put people in jail for smoking pot.



Don't hold your breath on it's passage anytime soon...


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
The drug war doesn't make the cost of doing business higher??

So it IS having a positive effect and US dollars going towards the "war" haven't been wasted after all!?


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
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.



Different world, different situation and different aims at that time. We had MUCH bigger fish to fry (the USSR, for starters).

I'll TOTALLY agree with you that the '93 bombing should have served as a SEVERE wake-up call, though a certain liberal in the White House at the time gutted HumInt overseas and crippled the CIA budget, so we were effectively "hobbled" in this effort. The bombing certainly wasn't any administration's fault; the lack of better intelligence and preparation MOST certainly is, though, and I'll give you 3 guesses on which President the lion's share of the blame lies...

Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
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."

I'm speechless. I can't even come up with a coherent rebuttal as the generalizations and bare-faced assumptions on your part here are so naieve as to cause nasea...


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Exploding drug use in the face of all the wasted money on the "drug war," seems like a failed policy to me.

The war on production we will probably never win unless the US is willing to give the DEA certain leeways. It's down to educating people what this crap can ultimately lead to. I'd guess you'd also claim the "war on AIDS" a failed policy as well and one not worth pursuing. Same goes for the "war on cancer" or "war on terrorism", for that fact.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away; nor does LEGALIZING a problem...



Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
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?

The statistics are all over the place and point decidedly towards tobacco and alcohol as being a far more deadly substance than any illedal drug, in terms of a gross total.

That's what happens when DANGEROUS substances are deemed legal and are readily available. Why add to this? The threat becomes much more apparent when something like this is legalized, as it's use will DRAMATICALLY go up over time; so will the abuses of it and so will the move towards harder substances...


Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
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.



Only in the broadest and most uninformed sense can I even make any comparison between the two. There is a utilitarian aspect of the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" in US domestic policy (with some caveats), though that isn't always mirrored in our foreign policy, as it's usually more along the lines of "US first; all others second". What we dictate overseas and on foreign soil sometimes definitely wouldn't be good for the civilian population of the US in a similar situation in terms of domestic policy...

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe