Discussion:
"Florida investigation chills older black voters "
(demasiado antiguo para responder)
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-10-29 16:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Bob Herbert: Florida investigation chills older black voters

Related articles:

• Bob Herbert: Troopers' visits chill black vote in Florida
• Deroy Murdock: Cut voter fraud with foreign monitors
• Kerry visits black churchgoers
• Paul Krugman: Act now to avert election taint
• Bob Herbert: Florida strong-arms elderly black voters
Other articles by this author:

• Bob Herbert: Where is GOP's shame in sliming vets?
• Bob Herbert: Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids
• Bob Herbert: Iraq looms as Bush's Vietnam
• Bob Herbert: Vietnam echoes more loudly now in Iraq
• Bob Herbert: Paralyzed, a soldier asks why we're in Iraq
Bob Herbert

The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting
stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement
investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of
elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of
election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department
last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of
election fraud."

State officials have said the investigation, which has already
frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in
response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that
came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.

But the department considered that matter closed last spring,
according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's
commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who
would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.

The letter, dated May 13, said:

"We received your package related to the allegations of voter fraud
during the 2004 mayoral election.

"This dealt with the manner in which absentee ballots were either
handled or collected by campaign staffers for Mayor Buddy Dyer.

"Since this matter involved an elected official, the allegations were
forwarded to FDLE's Executive Investigations in Tallahassee, Fla.

"The documents were reviewed by FDLE, as well as the Florida Division
of Elections. It was determined that there was no basis to support the
allegations of election fraud concerning these absentee ballots.

"Since there is no evidence of criminal misconduct involving Dyer, the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement considers this matter closed."

Well, it's not closed. And department officials said Thursday the
letter sent out in May was never meant to indicate the "entire"
investigation was closed.

Since the letter went out, state troopers have gone into the homes of
40 or 50 black voters, most of them elderly, in what the department
describes as a criminal investigation.

Many longtime Florida observers have said the use of state troopers
for this kind of investigation is extremely unusual, and it has caused
a storm of controversy.

The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly black
voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who
tried to vote in the South in the 1950s and '60s, the sight of armed
police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about
voting is chilling indeed.

One woman, who is in her mid-70s and was visited by two officers in
June, said in an affidavit: "After entering my house, they asked me if
they could take their jackets off, to which I answered yes.

"When they removed their jackets, I noticed they were wearing side
arms. . . . And I noticed an ankle holster on one of them when they
sat down."

Though apprehensive, she answered all their questions. But for a lot
of voters, the emotional response to the investigation has gone beyond
apprehension to outright fear.

"These guys are using these intimidating methods to try to get these
folks to stay away from the polls in the future," said Eugene Poole,
president of the Florida Voters League, which tries to increase black
voter participation throughout the state.

"And you know what? It's working. One woman said, 'My God, they're
going to put us in jail for nothing.' I said, 'That's not true.' "

State officials deny their intent was to intimidate black voters.
Tunnell, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush to head the Department of
Law Enforcement, said in a statement Thursday.

"Instead of having them come to the FDLE office, which may seem quite
imposing, our agents felt it would be a more relaxed atmosphere if
they visited the witnesses at their homes."

When I asked a spokesman for Tunnell, Tom Berlinger, about the letter
in May indicating the allegations were without merit, he replied that
the intent of the letter had not been made clear by Joyce Dawley, a
regional director who drafted and signed the letter for Tunnell.

"The letter was poorly worded," said Berlinger. He said he spoke to
Dawley about the letter a few weeks ago, and she told him, "God, I
wish I would have made that more clear."

What Dawley meant to say, Berlinger said, was it did not appear Dyer
himself was criminally involved.

● Bob Herbert is a columnist for The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd
St., New York, NY 10036; e-mail: ***@nytimes.com.
Barceló
2004-10-29 20:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Y este crossposting? Para que Super-Nintendo tipo decidio hacerle la
competencia a Martori.


"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> Bob Herbert: Florida investigation chills older black voters
>
> Related articles:
>
> . Bob Herbert: Troopers' visits chill black vote in Florida
> . Deroy Murdock: Cut voter fraud with foreign monitors
> . Kerry visits black churchgoers
> . Paul Krugman: Act now to avert election taint
> . Bob Herbert: Florida strong-arms elderly black voters
> Other articles by this author:
>
> . Bob Herbert: Where is GOP's shame in sliming vets?
> . Bob Herbert: Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids
> . Bob Herbert: Iraq looms as Bush's Vietnam
> . Bob Herbert: Vietnam echoes more loudly now in Iraq
> . Bob Herbert: Paralyzed, a soldier asks why we're in Iraq
> Bob Herbert
>
> The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting
> stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement
> investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of
> elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of
> election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department
> last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of
> election fraud."
>
> State officials have said the investigation, which has already
> frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in
> response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that
> came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.
>
> But the department considered that matter closed last spring,
> according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's
> commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who
> would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.
>
> The letter, dated May 13, said:
>
> "We received your package related to the allegations of voter fraud
> during the 2004 mayoral election.
>
> "This dealt with the manner in which absentee ballots were either
> handled or collected by campaign staffers for Mayor Buddy Dyer.
>
> "Since this matter involved an elected official, the allegations were
> forwarded to FDLE's Executive Investigations in Tallahassee, Fla.
>
> "The documents were reviewed by FDLE, as well as the Florida Division
> of Elections. It was determined that there was no basis to support the
> allegations of election fraud concerning these absentee ballots.
>
> "Since there is no evidence of criminal misconduct involving Dyer, the
> Florida Department of Law Enforcement considers this matter closed."
>
> Well, it's not closed. And department officials said Thursday the
> letter sent out in May was never meant to indicate the "entire"
> investigation was closed.
>
> Since the letter went out, state troopers have gone into the homes of
> 40 or 50 black voters, most of them elderly, in what the department
> describes as a criminal investigation.
>
> Many longtime Florida observers have said the use of state troopers
> for this kind of investigation is extremely unusual, and it has caused
> a storm of controversy.
>
> The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly black
> voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who
> tried to vote in the South in the 1950s and '60s, the sight of armed
> police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about
> voting is chilling indeed.
>
> One woman, who is in her mid-70s and was visited by two officers in
> June, said in an affidavit: "After entering my house, they asked me if
> they could take their jackets off, to which I answered yes.
>
> "When they removed their jackets, I noticed they were wearing side
> arms. . . . And I noticed an ankle holster on one of them when they
> sat down."
>
> Though apprehensive, she answered all their questions. But for a lot
> of voters, the emotional response to the investigation has gone beyond
> apprehension to outright fear.
>
> "These guys are using these intimidating methods to try to get these
> folks to stay away from the polls in the future," said Eugene Poole,
> president of the Florida Voters League, which tries to increase black
> voter participation throughout the state.
>
> "And you know what? It's working. One woman said, 'My God, they're
> going to put us in jail for nothing.' I said, 'That's not true.' "
>
> State officials deny their intent was to intimidate black voters.
> Tunnell, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush to head the Department of
> Law Enforcement, said in a statement Thursday.
>
> "Instead of having them come to the FDLE office, which may seem quite
> imposing, our agents felt it would be a more relaxed atmosphere if
> they visited the witnesses at their homes."
>
> When I asked a spokesman for Tunnell, Tom Berlinger, about the letter
> in May indicating the allegations were without merit, he replied that
> the intent of the letter had not been made clear by Joyce Dawley, a
> regional director who drafted and signed the letter for Tunnell.
>
> "The letter was poorly worded," said Berlinger. He said he spoke to
> Dawley about the letter a few weeks ago, and she told him, "God, I
> wish I would have made that more clear."
>
> What Dawley meant to say, Berlinger said, was it did not appear Dyer
> himself was criminally involved.
>
> &#9679; Bob Herbert is a columnist for The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd
> St., New York, NY 10036; e-mail: ***@nytimes.com.
Cretinism Manifesto
2004-10-29 20:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Por eso se llama Super loser forever..

"Barceló" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uCxgd.19$***@trndny02...
>Y este crossposting? Para que Super-Nintendo tipo decidio hacerle la
>competencia a Martori.
>
>
> "Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
>> Bob Herbert: Florida investigation chills older black voters
>>
>> Related articles:
>>
>> . Bob Herbert: Troopers' visits chill black vote in Florida
>> . Deroy Murdock: Cut voter fraud with foreign monitors
>> . Kerry visits black churchgoers
>> . Paul Krugman: Act now to avert election taint
>> . Bob Herbert: Florida strong-arms elderly black voters
>> Other articles by this author:
>>
>> . Bob Herbert: Where is GOP's shame in sliming vets?
>> . Bob Herbert: Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids
>> . Bob Herbert: Iraq looms as Bush's Vietnam
>> . Bob Herbert: Vietnam echoes more loudly now in Iraq
>> . Bob Herbert: Paralyzed, a soldier asks why we're in Iraq
>> Bob Herbert
>>
>> The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting
>> stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement
>> investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of
>> elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of
>> election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department
>> last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of
>> election fraud."
>>
>> State officials have said the investigation, which has already
>> frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in
>> response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that
>> came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.
>>
>> But the department considered that matter closed last spring,
>> according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's
>> commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who
>> would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.
>>
>> The letter, dated May 13, said:
>>
>> "We received your package related to the allegations of voter fraud
>> during the 2004 mayoral election.
>>
>> "This dealt with the manner in which absentee ballots were either
>> handled or collected by campaign staffers for Mayor Buddy Dyer.
>>
>> "Since this matter involved an elected official, the allegations were
>> forwarded to FDLE's Executive Investigations in Tallahassee, Fla.
>>
>> "The documents were reviewed by FDLE, as well as the Florida Division
>> of Elections. It was determined that there was no basis to support the
>> allegations of election fraud concerning these absentee ballots.
>>
>> "Since there is no evidence of criminal misconduct involving Dyer, the
>> Florida Department of Law Enforcement considers this matter closed."
>>
>> Well, it's not closed. And department officials said Thursday the
>> letter sent out in May was never meant to indicate the "entire"
>> investigation was closed.
>>
>> Since the letter went out, state troopers have gone into the homes of
>> 40 or 50 black voters, most of them elderly, in what the department
>> describes as a criminal investigation.
>>
>> Many longtime Florida observers have said the use of state troopers
>> for this kind of investigation is extremely unusual, and it has caused
>> a storm of controversy.
>>
>> The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly black
>> voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who
>> tried to vote in the South in the 1950s and '60s, the sight of armed
>> police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about
>> voting is chilling indeed.
>>
>> One woman, who is in her mid-70s and was visited by two officers in
>> June, said in an affidavit: "After entering my house, they asked me if
>> they could take their jackets off, to which I answered yes.
>>
>> "When they removed their jackets, I noticed they were wearing side
>> arms. . . . And I noticed an ankle holster on one of them when they
>> sat down."
>>
>> Though apprehensive, she answered all their questions. But for a lot
>> of voters, the emotional response to the investigation has gone beyond
>> apprehension to outright fear.
>>
>> "These guys are using these intimidating methods to try to get these
>> folks to stay away from the polls in the future," said Eugene Poole,
>> president of the Florida Voters League, which tries to increase black
>> voter participation throughout the state.
>>
>> "And you know what? It's working. One woman said, 'My God, they're
>> going to put us in jail for nothing.' I said, 'That's not true.' "
>>
>> State officials deny their intent was to intimidate black voters.
>> Tunnell, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush to head the Department of
>> Law Enforcement, said in a statement Thursday.
>>
>> "Instead of having them come to the FDLE office, which may seem quite
>> imposing, our agents felt it would be a more relaxed atmosphere if
>> they visited the witnesses at their homes."
>>
>> When I asked a spokesman for Tunnell, Tom Berlinger, about the letter
>> in May indicating the allegations were without merit, he replied that
>> the intent of the letter had not been made clear by Joyce Dawley, a
>> regional director who drafted and signed the letter for Tunnell.
>>
>> "The letter was poorly worded," said Berlinger. He said he spoke to
>> Dawley about the letter a few weeks ago, and she told him, "God, I
>> wish I would have made that more clear."
>>
>> What Dawley meant to say, Berlinger said, was it did not appear Dyer
>> himself was criminally involved.
>>
>> &#9679; Bob Herbert is a columnist for The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd
>> St., New York, NY 10036; e-mail: ***@nytimes.com.
>
>
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-01 11:46:26 UTC
Permalink
"Cretinism Manifesto" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...

> Por eso se llama Super loser forever..
>
Porque te hago sentir como un loser?....

ELECTION 2004 SPECIAL

The United States: Bush's record

By Serge Halimi

http://mondediplo.com/2004/10/00bush

Despite the usual voter apathy of Americans, the turnout on 2 November
is expected to exceed European levels (1). Will that be because of
9/11 and George Bush's response to it - the provocative policies
coming out of the White House; the enthusiasm with which, on the
pretext of reacting to the attacks on New York and Washington, it
proposed a "preventive" war against Iraq? When the neoliberals
realised that there was nothing to fear about the coercing power of
the state - provided that they did the coercing - the political
process was validated further. The electoral waverers, the lukewarm,
the blasé, all quickly went to ground.

This is as much a referendum on the current administration as an
election. Bush has two rare, if not unique, distinctions: he was
elected even though he received fewer votes than his opponent and he
is the son of a former president. His enthronement was less democratic
than dynastic. The election result conferred no particular mandate on
him, and certainly no endorsement for a terrible leap to the right, an
imperial inflection of the international order or the militarisation
of American society and foreign policy.

The Democrats - for whose victory many European politicians and
commentators hope so that once again they can say "We are all
Americans" (2) - prefer to attribute this transformation of the
political landscape of the United States to some "vast rightwing
conspiracy" involving the media and the Supreme Court. But that
ignores the way that President Clinton left behind him a party in
disarray, without any clear plan and in a minority in the House of
Representatives, the Senate and in the states.

The Republicans have the security of knowing that they hold the White
House, Congress and the governorships of California, Texas, New York
and Florida. But they want more. They want it all and they want to
keep it for a long time. A few more reactionary judges in the Supreme
Court would allow them to secure their conservative revolution and
roll back forever what little remains of the progressive achievements
of the 20th century. Civil liberties would be an issue: the Supreme
Court - although it was responsible for Bush's election - felt obliged
to remind him this July that "a state of war is not a blank cheque for
the president" and that "history and common sense teach us that an
unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means
for oppression and abuse of others". The neoliberal and authoritarian
ambitions of the Republicans are transparent; but there was no
rightwing plot to force both John Kerry and John Edwards to vote in
favour of the USA Patriot Act and support the war in Iraq. Do either
of them have any regrets? They go on claiming they do not.

The first of the two major policy initiatives of the White House is
mired in a murderous military stalemate. The second has ruined the US
public finances. The Republicans claimed that massive federal tax cuts
would boost the economy and reduce unemployment. And when the right
decides to spend its way to recovery, it doesn't get hung up on
details. As Vice-President Dick Cheney remarked, "Reagan proved that
deficits don't matter" (3). Between 2001-04 the federal budget plunged
from a surplus of $100bn to a deficit of $415bn (3.6% of gross
national product). This, plus the likelihood of the balance of
payments deficit reaching $540bn in 2004 (5.1% of GNP), led Peter
Peterson, former Secretary for Commerce under President Nixon, to
conclude: "This administration and the Republican Congress have
presided over the biggest, most reckless deterioration of America's
finances in history" (4).

So for the first time since Herbert Hoover (1929-33) an outgoing US
president will leave behind him fewer jobs than existed at his
inauguration. The disaster of 9/11 cannot be blamed for everything. If
a leftwing government had dared handle the major macroeconomic
indicators with such nonchalance, financiers, leader-writers and the
markets would undoubtedly have ordered in a team of IMF doctors to
prescribe a course of structural adjustments from which the patient
would never have escaped. No such medicine was forced on Bush.

The Republicans' plan is crystal clear. They help the rich by lowering
federal taxes. This creates deficits which force them not only to
reduce public spending (apart from the army and "homeland security"),
but also to make people pay for things that used to be free and pay
more for everything else. In the last decade California has spent more
on prisons than on universities. But that is not enough. Some 40
states plan to charge inmates for their time in jail (5), while
students at public, and therefore significantly more affordable,
universities face increases in their already-high registration fees
(+13% in 2003, +10.5% this year).

That is how the Republican scheme works. First you cut taxes for the
most wealthy on the pretext that deficits don't matter; then - when it
turns out that they do matter somewhat - you increase taxes and
"voluntary" contributions such as health insurance, higher education
fees and childcare. In October 2003 Bush outlined his plan to
privatise pensions and professional training, which in future will, he
hopes, be funded by lifelong, tax-exempt accounts managed by each
individual. Then the president explained his premise: "There's an old
saying, 'No one ever washes a rental car.' You see, when you own
something, you care about it. When you own something you have a vital
stake in the future of our country." That's his idea of a social
policy - collective solidarity compared with a badly-maintained car.
That's some philosophical project... And other countries are currently
trying to emulate it.

Since the Reagan presidency, Republicans have been prepared to
acknowledge class struggle, but they view it one-sidedly. According to
a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, Bush's tax policies
mean that in 2004 the 1% of Americans who earn more than $1.2m a year
will be, on average, $78,460 better off. The 20% of Americans earning
a mere $16,620 a year will gain on average only $250 from tax cuts,
which will surely be promptly be eaten up by increases in indirect
taxation. Even in percentage terms the rich have done better. As for
the minimum wage, which, at $5.15 an hour, has not been increased
since 1996, its real value has fallen to a 1955 low.

While millions of people were still transfixed by the television
images of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, an
advisor to the United Kingdom transport minister sent a memo to senior
officials in her department telling them: "It is now a very good day
to get out anything we want to bury." The same idea evidently occurred
to others. Have Bush's constant reminders about the war on terror been
made with the intention of propping up his political position? The New
York Times listed 28 examples over the last two and a half years of
alarming or alarmist official warnings, usually coinciding with bad
economic or military news. Most of these alerts were unspecific about
the nature or location of the threat. The others referred only vaguely
to possible attacks on bridges in California, the Statue of Liberty, a
nuclear power station in Arizona, or financial centres in New York and
Washington ...

To be fair to the Bush administration, it has not allowed such
anxieties to distract it from priorities. Even when the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan were at their height, it found time to redirect
health, social and environmental policies to favour business. Take
measures to combat accidents in the workplace: since 2002 the US has
repealed five times more of these than it has initiated (6).

So calamitous is Bush's record that without the help of fear and the
war on terror, he would long since have faced an election defeat like
that of his father in 1992. But Kerry is less wily than Clinton, the
1992 winner, and the incoherence of his position on Iraq works against
him. After much wavering, he now describes the war as "a colossal
error of judgment" (7). He hopes that the recalcitrant allies of the
US will be willing, if asked, to make a military contribution to the
prolongation of this "colossal error". There, he may be overestimating
the seductive powers of a Democrat president...

If there is a Kerry victory, the Democrats have promised modest
domestic policy improvements (tax, health insurance, the minimum
wage), largely dependent upon the outcome of the Congressional
elections, also on 2 November. Bush's re-election can only benefit
those whom the last four years have already blessed. They would love
to quicken the pace of change further by giving the current president
the popular mandate that he failed to secure four years ago.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(1) The usual comparison between the turnout in the US and that in
Europe exaggerates the rate of abstention in the US, where current
figures compare the percentage of those who vote with the population
of voting age, rather than with registered voters, as is usual in
Europe. In November 2000 51.3% of Americans of voting age went to the
polls, but out of 67.5% of those registered.

(2) The title of Le Monde's editorial the day after the attacks.

(3) The remark was made during a conversation in November 2002,
according to Paul O'Neill,Treasury Secretary between 2001 and 2003.
See Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House,
and the Education of Paul O'Neill, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2004, p
291.

(4) Peter G Peterson, Running On Empty : How the Democratic and
Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can
Do About It, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, 2004.

(5) Some states have already begun. See Fox Butterfield, "Many Local
Officials Now Make Inmates Pay Their Own Way", The New York Times, 13
August 2004.

(6) Amy Goldstein and Sarah Cohen, "Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory
Thrust", The Washington Post, 15 August 2004.

(7) On the wisdom of the war in Iraq, the Democratic party platform
made this decisive pronouncement in July: "People of good will
disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq."
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-01 18:15:15 UTC
Permalink
"Cretinism Manifesto" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...

> Por eso se llama Super loser forever..
>

Exacto.... por esto..... ji-ji-ji-ji-ji-ji-ji.....


Op-Ed Columnist: Will Osama Help W.?

October 31, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON; Some people thought the October surprise
would be the president producing Osama.

Instead, it was Osama producing yet another video taunting
the president and lecturing America.

After bin Laden's pre-election commentary from his anchor
desk at a secure, undisclosed location, many TV chatterers
and Republicans postulated that the evildoer's campaign
intrusion would help the president.

O.B.L., they said, might re-elect W.

They follow the Bush
strategists' reasoning that since President Bush rates
higher than John Kerry on fighting terror, anytime
Americans get rattled about Iraq and Al Qaeda, it's a plus
for the president. And Republicans can keep claiming that
Al Qaeda wants the "weak" Democrat elected, even as some
intelligence experts suggest the terrorists prefer that the
belligerent Mr. Bush stay in power because he has been a
boon to jihadist recruiting, with his disastrous occupation
of Iraq and his true believer, us-versus-them,
my-Christian-God's-directing-my-foreign-policy vibe.

The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward
logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should
re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught
Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the
next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure
explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those
explosives aren't used against you.

You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and
ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush
administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda
to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq
- an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday
for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind
nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed
cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E.
Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton
explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its
no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed
slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .

Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11
attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New
Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda
leaders know "we are on their trail."

Maybe bin Laden hasn't gotten the word. Maybe W. should get
off the trail and get on Osama's tail.

W. was clinging to his inane mantra that if we fight the
terrorists over there, we don't have to fight them here,
even as bin Laden was back on TV threatening to come here.
The president still avoided using Osama's name on Friday,
part of the concerted effort to downgrade him and merge him
with Iraqi insurgents.

The White House reaction to the disclosures about the
vanished explosives in Iraq was typical. Though it's clear
the treasures and terrors of Iraq - from viruses to
ammunition to artifacts - were being looted and loaded into
donkey carts and pickups because we had insufficient troops
to secure the country, Bush officials devoted the vast
resources of the government to trying to undermine the
facts to protect the president.

The Pentagon mobilized to debunk the bunker story with a
tortured press conference and a satellite photo of trucks
that proved about as much as Colin Powell's prewar drawings
of two trailers that were supposed to be mobile biological
weapons labs.

Republicans insinuated that it was a plot by foreign
internationalists to help the foreigner-loving,
internationalist Kerry, a U.N. leak from the camp of
Mohamed ElBaradei to hurt the administration that had
scorned the U.N. as a weak sister.

In their ruthless determination to put Mr. Bush's political
future ahead of our future safety, the White House and
House Republicans last week thwarted the enactment of
recommendations of the 9/11 commission they never wanted in
the first place.

While pretending to be serious about getting a bill on
reorganizing intelligence agencies before the election, the
White House never forced Congressional Republicans to come
to an agreement. So the advice from the panel that spent 19
months studying how the government could shore up
intelligence so there wouldn't be another 9/11 may be
squandered, even though Dick Cheney's favorite warning to
scare voters away from Mr. Kerry is that we might someday
face terrorists "in the middle of one of our cities with
deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against
us," including a nuclear bomb.

Wow. I feel safer. Don't you?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opinion/31dowd.html?ex=1100330890&ei=1&en=2666d37bd1053809
OZ
2004-11-01 20:00:42 UTC
Permalink
You are ONE stupid fuck -
Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
bullshit.
International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
ISRAEL !

You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag

As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
he didn't do much harm after 1945.




"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "Cretinism Manifesto" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> Por eso se llama Super loser forever..
>>
>
> Exacto.... por esto..... ji-ji-ji-ji-ji-ji-ji.....
>
>
> Op-Ed Columnist: Will Osama Help W.?
>
> October 31, 2004
> By MAUREEN DOWD
>
>
> WASHINGTON; Some people thought the October surprise
> would be the president producing Osama.
>
> Instead, it was Osama producing yet another video taunting
> the president and lecturing America.
>
> After bin Laden's pre-election commentary from his anchor
> desk at a secure, undisclosed location, many TV chatterers
> and Republicans postulated that the evildoer's campaign
> intrusion would help the president.
>
> O.B.L., they said, might re-elect W.
>
> They follow the Bush
> strategists' reasoning that since President Bush rates
> higher than John Kerry on fighting terror, anytime
> Americans get rattled about Iraq and Al Qaeda, it's a plus
> for the president. And Republicans can keep claiming that
> Al Qaeda wants the "weak" Democrat elected, even as some
> intelligence experts suggest the terrorists prefer that the
> belligerent Mr. Bush stay in power because he has been a
> boon to jihadist recruiting, with his disastrous occupation
> of Iraq and his true believer, us-versus-them,
> my-Christian-God's-directing-my-foreign-policy vibe.
>
> The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward
> logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should
> re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught
> Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the
> next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure
> explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those
> explosives aren't used against you.
>
> You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and
> ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush
> administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda
> to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq
> - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday
> for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind
> nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed
> cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E.
> Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton
> explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its
> no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed
> slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .
>
> Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11
> attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New
> Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda
> leaders know "we are on their trail."
>
> Maybe bin Laden hasn't gotten the word. Maybe W. should get
> off the trail and get on Osama's tail.
>
> W. was clinging to his inane mantra that if we fight the
> terrorists over there, we don't have to fight them here,
> even as bin Laden was back on TV threatening to come here.
> The president still avoided using Osama's name on Friday,
> part of the concerted effort to downgrade him and merge him
> with Iraqi insurgents.
>
> The White House reaction to the disclosures about the
> vanished explosives in Iraq was typical. Though it's clear
> the treasures and terrors of Iraq - from viruses to
> ammunition to artifacts - were being looted and loaded into
> donkey carts and pickups because we had insufficient troops
> to secure the country, Bush officials devoted the vast
> resources of the government to trying to undermine the
> facts to protect the president.
>
> The Pentagon mobilized to debunk the bunker story with a
> tortured press conference and a satellite photo of trucks
> that proved about as much as Colin Powell's prewar drawings
> of two trailers that were supposed to be mobile biological
> weapons labs.
>
> Republicans insinuated that it was a plot by foreign
> internationalists to help the foreigner-loving,
> internationalist Kerry, a U.N. leak from the camp of
> Mohamed ElBaradei to hurt the administration that had
> scorned the U.N. as a weak sister.
>
> In their ruthless determination to put Mr. Bush's political
> future ahead of our future safety, the White House and
> House Republicans last week thwarted the enactment of
> recommendations of the 9/11 commission they never wanted in
> the first place.
>
> While pretending to be serious about getting a bill on
> reorganizing intelligence agencies before the election, the
> White House never forced Congressional Republicans to come
> to an agreement. So the advice from the panel that spent 19
> months studying how the government could shore up
> intelligence so there wouldn't be another 9/11 may be
> squandered, even though Dick Cheney's favorite warning to
> scare voters away from Mr. Kerry is that we might someday
> face terrorists "in the middle of one of our cities with
> deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against
> us," including a nuclear bomb.
>
> Wow. I feel safer. Don't you?
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opinion/31dowd.html?ex=1100330890&ei=1&en=2666d37bd1053809
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-02 16:31:47 UTC
Permalink
"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> You are ONE stupid fuck -
> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
> bullshit.
> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
> ISRAEL !
>
> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>
> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
> he didn't do much harm after 1945.

Predicted Final Results: Kerry 306 Bush 218

http://www.electoral-vote.com/pred/index.html
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-02 16:34:05 UTC
Permalink
"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> You are ONE stupid fuck -
> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
> bullshit.
> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
> ISRAEL !
>
> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>
> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
> he didn't do much harm after 1945.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_407.html

Was Bush Wired? Sure Looks Like It.

A photo of President Bush's back from the third presidential debate,
enhanced by NASA scientist Robert M. Nelson.

Click to see enhanced photos from all three debates


A NASA photo expert's analysis makes it clear: Bush is lying -- he
wore some kind of device in each of the three debates. So why won't
the media go near this story?

By Dave Lindorff

October 30, 2004


A leading NASA scientist who normally spends his days analyzing and
enhancing photo images sent across the depths of space by the Cassini
and other space probes has turned his expertise to images of the
president in his three debates. His conclusion: "George Bush is
obviously wearing something -- probably a receiver of some kind --
under his jacket for each debate."

Robert M. Nelson, who has worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
at the California Institute of Technology for some three decades,
provided a dramatic photo of the bulge under the jacket at the first
debate to Salon.com which posted it Oct. 29. Now -- working at home
and using his own computers -- he's done the same analysis for
MotherJones.com on images of Bush's back taken during the second two
debates. Nelson, a top-ranked senior research scientist at JPL and
past chair of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American
Astronomical Society, says that by enhancing the contrast and the edge
definition in digital photographs taken of video broadcasts of the
three debates, the object under the jacket can be clearly delineated.

Nelson told MotherJones.com, "In the first debate the bulges create
the impression of a letter T with a small feature which appears
similar to a wire under the jacket running upward from the right. In
the second and third debates the jacket has a generally padded shape
across a large part of the entire back which tapers inward toward the
spine in a downward direction. This is consistent with the hypothesis
that a pad was inserted to conceal the T-shaped device seen in the
first debate."

The new photos, together with the image from the first debate,
strikingly refute the series of contradictory explanations that have
come from the White House, from the Bush/Cheney campaign, and from the
president himself -- explanations that only addressed the obvious
bulge in his jacket that was noticed at the first debate. Bush and the
White House have not acknowledged -- nor has the mainstream press even
asked about -- the other two debates.

The White House position on the issue of the bulge has shifted over
time. When the bulge was first reported by this writer in Salon on
Oct. 8, the White House claimed that it didn't exist -- suggesting
that photos depicting a rectangular bulge had been doctored. When it
was explained that in fact the photos had been taken directly off of
broadcasts of the debate, and that the bulge could be clearly seen in
stop-frames of the Fox News pool broadcast, the White House fell back
on the claim that the bulge was a "pucker" in an ill-tailored suit --
the explanation given to the New York Times, which ran one news report
on the issue, on Oct. 9.



Photo of Bush in the second debate, enhanced by Robert M. Nelson.

More photos



While the mainstream media for the most part failed to press the
matter further, Charles Gibson of ABC's Good Morning America show, in
an interview with the president, did ask him for an explanation. Bush
replied that the bulge had been the result of a "poorly tailored
shirt." Gibson didn't press the matter, and didn't ask about the
bulges that were evident during the subsequent debates.

A call to the Bush campaign press office on Oct. 29 elicited the same
response: it was a badly tailored shirt.

The problem, of course, is that with photos showing that the bulge was
apparent at all three debates, this would mean that the president
either wore the same bad shirt on all three occasions (he changed
jackets and ties), or that he has a whole wardrobe of similarly
ill-fitting shirts.

Besides, it would be hard to imagine any shirt, however outsized,
making the prominent bulged-out shapes disclosed by Dr. Nelson's
investigation of the photos.


Nelson's work makes one thing abundantly clear: the White House, the
Bush campaign, and the president himself ­have been lying about the
bulge in his suit.

Nelson's photo analysis raises a number of questions, chief among
which is this: What was the president wearing?

Alex Darbut, technical and business development vice president at
Resistance Technology, Inc. of Arden Hills, MN, a company that makes
back-mounted transceivers that link to wireless earpieces hidden in
the ear canal, says he is certain the president was wearing such a
device. Darbut, whose company sells such a device to "the military and
to professionals," including actors and people in communications,
says, "There's no question about it. It's a pretty obvious one --
larger than most because it probably has descrambling capability."

If the president were wearing a wire, the second question would be:
was he cheating and getting help with his answers? His behavior during
all three debates left many viewers wondering. During the first
debate, there were those two uncomfortably long pauses after questions
were asked of him, when he just stared out at the camera with a blank
expression, saying nothing and looking for all the world like he was
waiting for an answer to be explained to him. There was also the
peculiar moment when, midway through a 90-second answer period (during
which no interruptions were allowed, and well before his warning light
would have been flashing), the president interrupted himself, blurting
out with an expression of annoyance, "Now let me finish!"

In debate number two, there were also odd pauses, and several
occasions when he would appear detached only to leap up and shout out
something -- on one occasion even interrupting the moderator.

In debate three, the president was much more reserved, but again there
were the long pauses in his speech, before and even during answers.



Vanessa Kerry cops a look at Bush's bulge after debate 3. See the
enhanced version of this photo at the top of this page.

More photos



Bloggers have been pretty much alone in dogging this story, and some
have suggested that the president may be hiding a medical device --
the prevailing theory is an external atrial defibrillator. But at
least one physician, Dr. Stephen Tarzynski of Pasadena, CA, says most
such devices are worn on the front of the body, closer to the heart.
Another suggestion is an electrical impulse machine that could be
designed to relieve chronic pain. In either case, the public has a
right to know the health condition of the man they are considering as
a candidate for the next four years -- particularly as the vice
president, Dick Cheney, himself suffering from a serious heart
condition, is far less popular among voters than the head of the
Bush/Cheney ticket.

(Remember, the U.S. media have been criticized in the past for
covering up President Franklin Roosevelt's leg braces and President
Kennedy's Addison's disease, as well as President Ronald Reagan's
Alzheimer's in office.)

A third big question is why the media -- and the Kerry campaign --
have stayed away from this story, refusing to press the president for
an explanation of the bulges in his three suit jackets. Several calls
to the Kerry campaign press office for a response to this and earlier
articles on the topic went unanswered.

Nelson says that for several weeks he has tried to interest the major
media outlets in photos he had worked on from the first debate, to no
avail.

He says he offered the photos at no charge to the Los Angeles Times,
which "sat on them for four days" and never returned his phone call.
He claims he also offered them to the New York Times, "and they
promised a story which was ready to go last Thursday when it was
yanked at the last minute by higher ups." Finally, he says he offered
his photos of the first debate to the Washington Post. Assistant
Managing Editor Bob Woodward, he says, called him personally. "He said
it would take too long for him to clear these images with his editors
and he encouraged me to go to Salon."

"I'm just really ticked that editors are saying they have to know what
it is before they'll ask the White House about it," says Nelson.
"That's way too high a threshold for pursuing this story."

Jeffrey Klein, a former Mother Jones editor, says, "The current fear
factor among American political reporters is greater than anything
I've ever witnessed. Having spoken with more than a dozen journalists,
I've heard a variety of excuses for why they won't or can't pursue
this story. The excuses range from 'Kerry isn't making an issue of
this so how can I?' (Time magazine) to 'The paper has clamped down on
anti-Bush stories. Nothing about the bulge is going to run here before
the election.' (The Wall Street Journal).

Klein adds, "Major media outlets are understandably reluctant to
influence an election, but in this instance, they have a certified
government expert willing to go on the record; there's absolutely no
excuse for their silence. All any journalist needs to do is report
this news."

Meanwhile, it becomes another form of bias for the media not to do
anything, once the evidence is put out there, as Nelson has done with
these photos.

It is no longer possible for the administration and the president
himself to laugh off the bulge in his jacket at all three debates as
bad tailoring, or as an Internet urban legend. Between Nelson's photos
and the onslaught in such comedic venues as The Daily Show and Gary
Trudeau's Doonesbury column, the question has to be asked: What was
the president wearing and why does he wear it?
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-02 16:38:17 UTC
Permalink
"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> You are ONE stupid fuck -
> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
> bullshit.
> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
> ISRAEL !
>
> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>
> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
> he didn't do much harm after 1945.

George "Cannot Tell a Lie" Washington vs. George "Cannot Tell the
Truth" Bush

By Kevin J. Shay
Online Journal Guest Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

June 1, 2004—I recently celebrated my 45th birthday on the same day
that John F. Kennedy presumably would have turned 87 had an assassin's
or assassins' bullets not tragically ended his life way too soon at
age 46.

My family left our toy-littered, roach-infested, two-bedroom,
$1,000-a-month castle—hey, we do have a scenic view from our balcony
of some pine trees that block the parking lot—in the Washington, D.C.,
area to spend my birthday at Berkeley Springs, W.Va. It's a relaxing,
artsy spa town not unlike Hot Springs, Ark., where George Washington
and others visited more than 200 years before.

Despite my attempts to clear my mind of things political for a day, it
did not work. There were actually fewer pro-Bush stickers and other
material displayed in this small West Virginia town than I expected.
Some vehicles even bore Kerry stickers. But when we came upon a small
natural spring hole designated as Washington's 18th century bathtub, I
had to remark to my son, "This was where a much better president than
our current one went to take a bath a long time ago. A loooonnnnggg
time ago."

"What's a president?" he asked, in the automatic questioning mode of
an inquisitive four-year-old.

I thought for a moment. "It's someone who leads the country and lives
in that big White House we saw in Washington."

He stared at the spring, obviously with other things on his mind than
presidents. "Can I take a bath here, too?"

As my son and his younger sister played in an adjacent larger spring,
I couldn't help but compare the "cannot-tell-a-lie" reputation of the
country's first president to the "cannot-tell-the-truth" philosophy of
the current one.

And I'm not alone in believing that Bush is the biggest liar who has
occupied the White House, if not all-time, then in modern times.

Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman, who was once a junior economics staffer in the Reagan
administration, is among the leading voices detailing the daily lies
of the Bush administration.

Here is one excerpt from a 2002 Krugman column: "The Bush
administration lies a lot . . . He is as slippery and evasive as any
politician in memory . . . The recent spate of articles about
administration dishonesty mainly reflects the campaign to sell war
with Iraq. But the habit itself goes all the way back to the 2000
campaign, and is manifest on a wide range of issues. High points would
include the plan for partial privatization of Social Security, with
its 2-1=4 arithmetic; the claim that a tax cut that delivers 40
percent or more of its benefits to the richest 1 percent was aimed at
the middle class; the claim that there were 60 lines of stem cells
available for research; the promise to include limits on carbon
dioxide in an environmental plan."

Krugman also noted that "Bush ran as a moderate, a 'uniter, not a
divider.' The Economist endorsed him back in 2000 because it saw him
as the candidate better able to transcend partisanship; now the
magazine describes him as the 'partisan-in-chief.'"

A 2003 Washington Monthly survey of conservative and progressive
pundits and journalists concluded that Bush is a bigger liar than
Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. Among Bush's lies they chose was
announcing the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in
May 2003; saying his tax cuts would give middle-class Americans more
than $1,000 each when the super wealthy's cuts were factored in to
that equation and average payers barely got $200; saying he'd "been to
war" when he used his family connections to get into the National
Guard during the Vietnam War and went AWOL for more than a year, and
promising to expand AmeriCorps in his 2002 State of the Union speech
before cutting that program's budget.

The Washington Post's political beat reporter, Dana Milbank, who takes
on Democratic politicians as voraciously as Republicans, wrote that
Bush's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy." To show you how
vindictive and petty the Bush clan is, Milbank became the target of a
White House smear campaign for that relatively light criticism.

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal reported that "senior [Bush]
officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence . . . that remains
largely unverified."

And Paul Sperry, Washington bureau chief for the more conservative
WorldNetDaily.com, wrote in 2003 that Bush lied about the threat of
Iraq before that invasion.

Politicians, including former Nixon aide John Dean and Sen. Harry
Reid, a Democrat from Nevada who has supported Bush on many issues,
have publicly called him a "liar." In Reid's case, he made the
statement in 2002 after Bush approved Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the
site for long-term disposal of tons of radioactive nuclear waste.
During the 2000 campaign, Bush, who shows little evidence of having
even a superficial interest in science, had said he would base such a
decision on "sound science, not politics." Other individuals and
groups—from celebrated writer E.L. Doctorow and The Nation's David
Corn to Bushlies.net and MoveOn.org—have documented many more lies.

The lies of Bush Jr. are so numerous they not only fill countless
articles and columns, but several books. I contributed to one, Big
Bush Lies, a 270-pp. collection of essays from academics, legal
experts, financial leaders, activists, and journalists. Published by
RiverWood Books of Ashland, Ore., and edited by BushWatch.com founder
Jerry "Politex" Barrett, Big Bush Lies is the most recent of such
books, reaching bookstores in June 2004. I believe it's also the most
complete and meticulously documented collection, covering Iraq,
foreign policy, national security, the environment, healthcare,
religion, education, women and minority policies, drunk driving, the
National Guard, and other topics in separate chapters. But then, I
have to admit to being a bit biased—at least I admit it, unlike Bush &
Co.

The book covers not just the aforementioned lies, but ones many people
seem to forget, ones that occurred before he took the White House amid
lies that he actually won that election and he and Dick Cheney
actually lived in different states. The lie that Bush won in 2000 has
been covered in many places; for the latter more obscure lie, on
Election Day 2000, Cheney still owned his home in the exclusive Dallas
suburb of Highland Park, had a Texas driver's license, listed himself
as a Texas resident on income-tax returns, and worked most recently as
CEO of oil company Halliburton's Dallas office.

Cheney got around the Constitution's 12th Amendment, which states that
the president and vice president have to reside from different states
or forfeit that state's electoral votes, merely by switching his voter
registration to Wyoming, where he once lived, in July 2000. He
continued to live in the Dallas area; I observed television news
reports recording Cheney coming out of his Texas home several times
after Nov. 7, 2000.

Furthermore, Cheney did not sell his $2.2 million, 4,700-square-foot
home until Nov. 30, 2000, well after the election, to Dianne T. Cash,
a wealthy Republican Party and high society donor, Dallas County
records showed. Cash owned another $2.4 million, 6,400-square-foot
home in Highland Park at the same time. From Sept. 2000 until Jan.
2001, Cash gave a whopping $204,433 to national Republican
organizations, in addition to buying Cheney's house, according to
federal records.

Another lie told by Bush that you probably haven't heard showed that
his falsehood record extended beyond his years in the White House.
Several family members of African American James Byrd, who was
murdered in 1998 by three white men who chained him to a truck and
dragged him to death in Jasper, Texas., said Bush lied when he told
Salon.com that he called family members to offer condolences as Texas
governor. Family members said none of them received a phone call from
Bush, that Bush declined to attend Byrd's funeral, and he only met
with one family member after much public pressure.

Such deceit goes beyond a few simple misstatements or stretching the
truth done by most politicians. With Bush and other administration
officials, lying has become a long-documented pattern, a policy as
sure as tax cuts for the rich, blood for oil, and world domination.

Conservatives like to harp on Clinton's "Big Lie" that he had sex with
a woman who was not his wife; beyond the fact that Republicans,
including many of the same ones who condemned Clinton—like impeachment
committee members Henry Hyde and Bob Barr—have lied about extramarital
affairs. Clinton's lie killed no one. The lies that Bush and others
told to con us into invading Iraq have resulted in thousands of deaths
and probably permanent damage to the country's international
reputation. Bush continues to lie to this day about the threat that
Iraq posed before our invasion, despite evidence to the contrary from
the CIA and other sources that Hussein was contained and did not have
weapons of mass destruction, as the U.S., Israel, and many other
countries have.

Americans today are bigger targets for the growing number of
terrorists because of the lies of Bush & Co. We are not safer because
of those lies.

If Clinton got impeached by the Republican-controlled U.S. House over
a lie that killed no one, Bush should get banished from the country
for life for his lies. But that won't happen because Republican
hypocrites control Congress. Such is among the many problems when
Americans allow one party to dominate our political functions.

I'm old enough to clearly remember the lies of Reagan and Bush Sr.,
many of which were more "honest" lies—if there is such a thing—than
the present filth emanating from the White House.

Reagan Iran-Contra player Oliver North was honest enough to admit he
lied to Congress during that scandal.

Today's Bush administration not only refuses to admit its lies but
spins them around as a positive course for our nation and world. John
Dean, White House counsel under Nixon, wrote in 2003 that Bush's lies
"are almost never justifiable . . . They are typically of the most
serious kind—lies that misinform the public in such a way as to
disrupt the proper functioning of the democratic process."

I lived through Nixon and Reagan and Bush Sr., and I'm sure I'll live
through Bush Jr., even if he steals another election.

But I refuse to observe the lies told by Bush and not raise my voice
against them. I refuse to go along with this policy. I will risk being
branded unpatriotic and worse by Bush-supporting liars and hypocrites.

The future of my kids playing in the tub where the president who
reportedly could not tell a lie bathed depends on it.

Kevin J. Shay is a Washington, D.C.-area journalist/writer. The latest
book to which he contributed, Big Bush Lies, is available from
RiverWood Books of Ashland, Ore.
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-05 13:49:36 UTC
Permalink
"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> You are ONE stupid fuck -
> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
> bullshit.
> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
> ISRAEL !
>
> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>
> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
> he didn't do much harm after 1945.


Well, Hitler too was democratically elected by the people.

His regime was the impersonation of the mob. Bush's regime
is the impersonation of the populace of the U.S. The way
you express yourself is proof enough: it sounds eerily
familiar to the language employed by the Nazis.

But you compare Hitler with Osama, of course... Also in
this point you have no idea of what you are talking about:

Maybe Hitler didn't do more damage after he killed himself,
but in 12 years he survived about of 50 assassination
attempts and he still was able to have 60 million people
killed...

Well, Osama has been only three years in underground and
the "mightiest" army of the world is not able to catch him....
And he pops up whenever he pleases… (Maybe just to annoy you!)

Remember:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

(Translation for you: Studying history is necessary to avoid
repeating past mistakes. This quote is from George Santayana,
a Spanish-born American author of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.)

Who said, "Mission accomplished" when nothing but a huge bloody
mess was accomplished?

Well, you can block out of your mind what is happening in Iraq
and the rest of the world, but it will soon be overtaking you,
because terror is the seed of yet more terror.

People like you believe this problem has to be resolved with
violence, but in the end the violence you perpetrate unto
others will generate more violence against YOU. Violence
begets violence.

As the U.S.-mob claims "victory!" in frenzy, I say: let's wait
a little bit, let them dream. Soon the "victory" feeling will
evaporate and the experience of Vietnam will be repeated again.
Your response is yet more violence and that too was the
mentality and the method of the Nazis...

I am aware that you aren't able to understand anything,
but you know exactly that I'm making fun of you.

That is enough…
Observador
2004-11-06 00:42:35 UTC
Permalink
That is a LIE, Hitler was NEVER Democratically elected by the Germans.
He was appointed Reichs-Chancellor by Hindenburgh

On 5 Nov 2004 05:49:36 -0800, ***@freenet.de (Super_User_For_Ever) wrote:

>"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
>> You are ONE stupid fuck -
>> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
>> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
>> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag of
>> bullshit.
>> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he has
>> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no "fatigues"
>> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
>> ISRAEL !
>>
>> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN is
>> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the Taliban
>> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>>
>> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler .... but
>> he didn't do much harm after 1945.
>
>
> Well, Hitler too was democratically elected by the people.
>
> His regime was the impersonation of the mob. Bush's regime
> is the impersonation of the populace of the U.S. The way
> you express yourself is proof enough: it sounds eerily
> familiar to the language employed by the Nazis.
>
> But you compare Hitler with Osama, of course... Also in
> this point you have no idea of what you are talking about:
>
> Maybe Hitler didn't do more damage after he killed himself,
> but in 12 years he survived about of 50 assassination
> attempts and he still was able to have 60 million people
> killed...
>
> Well, Osama has been only three years in underground and
> the "mightiest" army of the world is not able to catch him....
> And he pops up whenever he pleases… (Maybe just to annoy you!)
>
> Remember:
>
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>
> (Translation for you: Studying history is necessary to avoid
> repeating past mistakes. This quote is from George Santayana,
> a Spanish-born American author of the late nineteenth and
> early twentieth centuries.)
>
> Who said, "Mission accomplished" when nothing but a huge bloody
> mess was accomplished?
>
> Well, you can block out of your mind what is happening in Iraq
> and the rest of the world, but it will soon be overtaking you,
> because terror is the seed of yet more terror.
>
> People like you believe this problem has to be resolved with
> violence, but in the end the violence you perpetrate unto
> others will generate more violence against YOU. Violence
> begets violence.
>
> As the U.S.-mob claims "victory!" in frenzy, I say: let's wait
> a little bit, let them dream. Soon the "victory" feeling will
> evaporate and the experience of Vietnam will be repeated again.
> Your response is yet more violence and that too was the
> mentality and the method of the Nazis...
>
> I am aware that you aren't able to understand anything,
> but you know exactly that I'm making fun of you.
>
> That is enough…
Cifuentes Advado
2004-11-08 00:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Because the Nazi party won the majority of seats in the Reichstag and
Hindenburg had to compromise. Thats the name of the game.

And stop the crossposting mamabicho!


"Observador" <***@obsi.net> wrote in message
news:***@news.verizon.net...
>
> That is a LIE, Hitler was NEVER Democratically elected by the Germans.
> He was appointed Reichs-Chancellor by Hindenburgh
>
> On 5 Nov 2004 05:49:36 -0800, ***@freenet.de
> (Super_User_For_Ever) wrote:
>
>>"OZ" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<KBwhd.111154$***@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>>
>>> You are ONE stupid fuck -
>>> Osama Bin Ladin masterminded 9/11 cause noone was watching his ass - (
>>> someone like.. hmmmm let's say CLINTON!)
>>> At this point Bin Ladin is NOTHING but a pawn on John Kerry's little bag
>>> of
>>> bullshit.
>>> International terrorism is NOT being dictated by Osama Bin Ladin , he
>>> has
>>> been relegated to a pathetic iconic clown . Notice there was no
>>> "fatigues"
>>> in the video . Kind of conciliatory "religious" figure , bitching about
>>> ISRAEL !
>>>
>>> You left wing fanatics GOTTA get your heads outta your asses . BIN LADIN
>>> is
>>> FINISHED , he WAS finished after the USA pounded the shit outta the
>>> Taliban
>>> and THTAT is why we moved on to the next a BIGGEST scumbag
>>>
>>> As someone said yesterday on TV , we never even got CLOSE to Hitler ....
>>> but
>>> he didn't do much harm after 1945.
>>
>>
>> Well, Hitler too was democratically elected by the people.
>>
>> His regime was the impersonation of the mob. Bush's regime
>> is the impersonation of the populace of the U.S. The way
>> you express yourself is proof enough: it sounds eerily
>> familiar to the language employed by the Nazis.
>>
>> But you compare Hitler with Osama, of course... Also in
>> this point you have no idea of what you are talking about:
>>
>> Maybe Hitler didn't do more damage after he killed himself,
>> but in 12 years he survived about of 50 assassination
>> attempts and he still was able to have 60 million people
>> killed...
>>
>> Well, Osama has been only three years in underground and
>> the "mightiest" army of the world is not able to catch him....
>> And he pops up whenever he pleases. (Maybe just to annoy you!)
>>
>> Remember:
>>
>> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>>
>> (Translation for you: Studying history is necessary to avoid
>> repeating past mistakes. This quote is from George Santayana,
>> a Spanish-born American author of the late nineteenth and
>> early twentieth centuries.)
>>
>> Who said, "Mission accomplished" when nothing but a huge bloody
>> mess was accomplished?
>>
>> Well, you can block out of your mind what is happening in Iraq
>> and the rest of the world, but it will soon be overtaking you,
>> because terror is the seed of yet more terror.
>>
>> People like you believe this problem has to be resolved with
>> violence, but in the end the violence you perpetrate unto
>> others will generate more violence against YOU. Violence
>> begets violence.
>>
>> As the U.S.-mob claims "victory!" in frenzy, I say: let's wait
>> a little bit, let them dream. Soon the "victory" feeling will
>> evaporate and the experience of Vietnam will be repeated again.
>> Your response is yet more violence and that too was the
>> mentality and the method of the Nazis...
>>
>> I am aware that you aren't able to understand anything,
>> but you know exactly that I'm making fun of you.
>>
>> That is enough.
>
krp
2004-11-08 13:05:27 UTC
Permalink
"Cifuentes Advado" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_dzjd.386$***@fe39.usenetserver.com...

> Because the Nazi party won the majority of seats in the Reichstag and
> Hindenburg had to compromise. Thats the name of the game.

Actually the Nazis NEVER had a majority in the Reichstag until AFTER Hitler
was APPOINTED Chancellor. They were a large MINORITY until that time.
But they were nowhere near the MAJORITY. AT that time Germany had dozens of
political parties. The Nazis were larger than most but NOT the majority.
Miguel
2004-11-09 05:33:46 UTC
Permalink
KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.

"In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
as Chancellor but instability increased".


"krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<raKjd.1291$***@trnddc03>...
> "Cifuentes Advado" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_dzjd.386$***@fe39.usenetserver.com...
>
> > Because the Nazi party won the majority of seats in the Reichstag and
> > Hindenburg had to compromise. Thats the name of the game.
>
> Actually the Nazis NEVER had a majority in the Reichstag until AFTER Hitler
> was APPOINTED Chancellor. They were a large MINORITY until that time.
> But they were nowhere near the MAJORITY. AT that time Germany had dozens of
> political parties. The Nazis were larger than most but NOT the majority.
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-09 11:44:50 UTC
Permalink
***@msn.com (Miguel) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.
>
> "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
> for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
> party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
> vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
> Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
> as Chancellor but instability increased".

You do not understand what you are posting....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident

"the Reichspräsident was elected by popular vote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and intended to be a figurehead"


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chancellor%20of%20Germany

"The new constituion of the 1919 Weimar Republic said that
the Reichskanzler was elected by the Imperial President"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(The power has (nowadays too) the chancellor, not the president....)


http://www.nthuleen.com/teach/vocab/geschichtewiederantw.html

die NSDAP: The 'national socialist German workers' party' -- the Nazi
party. They were elected democratically in 1932 in a landslide
majority, and therefore had control of parliament. In 1933, the
chancellor Hindenburg voluntarily handed complete power to Hitler (the
party leader), thereby dissolving the Weimar Republik.
krp
2004-11-10 03:11:52 UTC
Permalink
"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> ***@msn.com (Miguel) wrote in message
> news:<***@posting.google.com>...
>> KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.
>>
>> "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
>> for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
>> party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
>> vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
>> Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
>> as Chancellor but instability increased".
>
> You do not understand what you are posting....
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident

From YOUR SOURCE what it REALLY says not your LIES:


..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of Hindenburg,
Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the Führer
of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of Nazi Germany from
1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of
government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a
profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most
significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he
fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at
its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.
..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been
appointed Reichskanzler

I can provide abourt 2,000 more sources on the history of the 3rd reich.
This idea of a "popularly elected Hitler is just BULLSHIT!
Miguel
2004-11-10 04:50:04 UTC
Permalink
***@freenet.de (Super_User_For_Ever) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> ***@msn.com (Miguel) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> > KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.
> >
> > "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
> > for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
> > party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
> > vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
> > Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
> > as Chancellor but instability increased".
>
> You do not understand what you are posting....
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident
>
> "the Reichspräsident was elected by popular vote
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and intended to be a figurehead"
>
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chancellor%20of%20Germany
>
> "The new constituion of the 1919 Weimar Republic said that
> the Reichskanzler was elected by the Imperial President"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> (The power has (nowadays too) the chancellor, not the president....)
>
>
> http://www.nthuleen.com/teach/vocab/geschichtewiederantw.html
>
> die NSDAP: The 'national socialist German workers' party' -- the Nazi
> party. They were elected democratically in 1932 in a landslide
> majority, and therefore had control of parliament.

The Nazis had a third of the vote. If you want to call that landslide, that's up
to you.


>In 1933, the
> chancellor Hindenburg voluntarily handed complete power to Hitler (the
> party leader), thereby dissolving the Weimar Republik.

It was a lot more complex than that.
JFK
2004-11-11 02:42:05 UTC
Permalink
But we are in 2004 ...
Did you just get the news on the Nazi party in 1932 ?


Jonathan -

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this
Government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and
sweat."
-Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, May 13, 1940
krp
2004-11-10 03:10:26 UTC
Permalink
"Miguel" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

> KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.

Tnanks - I knew I was right.

> "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
> for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
> party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
> vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
> Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
> as Chancellor but instability increased".

ALSO READ:

..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the Führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.
..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been appointed Reichskanzler

Hitler was NEVER elected to ANYTHING!!! PERIOD!
Miguel
2004-11-11 01:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Hitler had a lot in common with Castro. They never were elected for anything.


"krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<CEfkd.872$***@trnddc09>...
> "Miguel" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
>
> > KRP Once again you're right. These are the facts. The rest is fiction.
>
> Tnanks - I knew I was right.
>
> > "In the May 5 elections of 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler 53% to 37%
> > for the presidency, but there was no majority in the Reichstag for any
> > party; in the July31 elections the Nazis won 230 seats with 37% of the
> > vote and became the largest German party, but dropped to 33% in the
> > Nov. 6 elections; Dec. 1, Kurt von Schleicher replaced Franz von Papen
> > as Chancellor but instability increased".
>
> ALSO READ:
>
> ..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of
> Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945)
> was the F hrer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of
> Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of
> Germany, head of government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic
> orator possessed of a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as
> one of the most significant leaders of world history. The
> military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the
> post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the
> greater part of Europe.
> ..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been
> appointed Reichskanzler
>
> Hitler was NEVER elected to ANYTHING!!! PERIOD!
>
> --
krp
2004-11-11 03:35:27 UTC
Permalink
"Miguel" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...

> Hitler had a lot in common with Castro. They never were elected for
> anything.

Yes.
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-09 11:15:01 UTC
Permalink
"krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<raKjd.1291$***@trnddc03>...
> "Cifuentes Advado" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_dzjd.386$***@fe39.usenetserver.com...
>
> > Because the Nazi party won the majority of seats in the Reichstag and
> > Hindenburg had to compromise. Thats the name of the game.
>
> Actually the Nazis NEVER had a majority in the Reichstag until AFTER Hitler
> was APPOINTED Chancellor.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

"Within weeks, Hitler would be absolute dictator of Germany and would
set in motion a chain of events resulting in the second World War and
the eventual deaths of nearly 50 million humans through that war and
through deliberate extermination."

> They were a large MINORITY until that time.
> But they were nowhere near the MAJORITY. AT that time Germany had dozens of
> political parties. The Nazis were larger than most but NOT the majority.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

July, 1932:

"The July elections would provide that opportunity. The Nazis, sensing
total victory, campaigned with fanatical energy. Hitler was now
speaking to adoring German audiences of up to 100,000 at a time. The
phenomenon of large scale 'Führer worship' had begun. On July 31, the
people voted and gave the Nazis 13,745,000 votes, 37% of the total,
granting them 230 seats in the Reichstag. The Nazi party was now the
largest and most powerful in Germany."

January, 1933:

"Now, the man who had spent his entire political career denouncing and
attempting to destroy the republic, was its leader. Around noon on
January 30, Hitler was sworn in."
krp
2004-11-10 03:13:26 UTC
Permalink
"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
>> > Because the Nazi party won the majority of seats in the Reichstag and
>> > Hindenburg had to compromise. Thats the name of the game.
>>
>> Actually the Nazis NEVER had a majority in the Reichstag until AFTER
>> Hitler
>> was APPOINTED Chancellor.
>
> http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm
>
> "Within weeks, Hitler would be absolute dictator of Germany and would
> set in motion a chain of events resulting in the second World War and
> the eventual deaths of nearly 50 million humans through that war and
> through deliberate extermination."

You know, I think when you had your prefrontal lobotomy, they cut out a
little too much!

YOUR SOURCE:

..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of Hindenburg,
Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the Führer
of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of Nazi Germany from
1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of
government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a
profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most
significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he
fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at
its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.
..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been
appointed Reichskanzler
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-08 15:55:07 UTC
Permalink
***@obsi.net (Observador) wrote in message news:<***@news.verizon.net>...

> That is a LIE, Hitler was NEVER Democratically elected by the Germans.
> He was appointed Reichs-Chancellor by Hindenburgh
>
Another ignorant and peasant for bush....


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident

the Reichspräsident was elected by popular vote and intended to be a
figurehead
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chancellor%20of%20Germany

The new constituion of the 1919 Weimar Republic said that

the Reichskanzler was elected by the Imperial President,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The last of 15 Weimar chancellors was Adolf Hitler appointed
on January 30, 1933.



http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

"The July elections would provide that opportunity. The Nazis, sensing
total victory, campaigned with fanatical energy. Hitler was now
speaking to adoring German audiences of up to 100,000 at a time. The
phenomenon of large scale 'Führer worship' had begun. On July 31, the
people voted and gave the Nazis 13,745,000 votes, 37% of the total,
granting them 230 seats in the Reichstag. The Nazi party was now the
largest and most powerful in Germany."

(...)

Now, the man who had spent his entire political career denouncing and
attempting to destroy the republic, was its leader. Around noon on
January 30, Hitler was sworn in.

"I will employ my strength for the welfare of the German people,
protect the Constitution and laws of the German people,
conscientiously discharge the duties imposed on me, and conduct my
affairs of office impartially and with justice to everyone." - the
oath taken by Adolf Hitler.

But by this time, that oath had been repeatedly broken by previous
chancellors out of desperation and also out of personal ambition.
Chancellors Schleicher and Papen had seriously suggested to Hindenburg
the idea of replacing the republic itself with military dictatorship
to solve the crisis of political stagnation. He had turned them both
down.


(...)

Papen and many non-Nazis thought having Hitler as chancellor was to
their advantage. Conservative members of the former aristocratic
ruling class desired an end to the republic and a return to an
authoritarian government that would restore Germany to glory and bring
back their old privileges. They wanted to go back to the days of the
Kaiser. For them, putting Hitler in power was just the first step
toward achieving that goal. They knew it was likely he would wreck the
republic. Then once the republic was abolished, they could put in
someone of their own choosing, perhaps even a descendant of the
Kaiser.

Big bankers and industrialists, including Krupp and I. G. Farben, had
lobbied Hindenburg and schemed behind the scenes on behalf of Hitler
because they were convinced he would be good for business. He promised
to be for free enterprise and keep down Communism and the trade union
movements.

The military also placed its bet on Hitler, believing his repeated
promises to tear up the Treaty of Versailles and expand the Army and
bring back its former glory.

(...)

An old comrade of Hitler's sent a telegram to President Hindenburg
regarding his new chancellor. Former General Erich Ludendorff had once
supported Hitler and had even participated in the failed Beer Hall
Putsch in 1923.

"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our
sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all
time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the
abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future
generations will curse you in your grave for this action." - the
telegram to Hindenburg from Ludendorff stated.

Within weeks, Hitler would be absolute dictator of Germany and would
set in motion a chain of events resulting in the second World War and
the eventual deaths of nearly 50 million humans through that war and
through deliberate extermination.


They all had one thing in common - they underestimated Hitler.

----------------------


"Blut muss fliessen, Blut muss fliessen! Blut muss fliessen
Knuppelhageldick! Haut'se doch zusammen, haut'se doch zusammen! Diese
gotverdammte Juden Republik!" - the Nazi storm troopers sang.

(translation)

"Blood must flow, blood must flow! Blood must flow as cudgel thick as
hail! Let's smash it up, let's smash it up! That goddamned Jewish
republic!"


And now read this:

"But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.
And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world.
If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the
Lord."—Jerry Falwell, CNN Late Edition, October 24, 2004


Now you should be enlightened....
krp
2004-11-10 03:07:46 UTC
Permalink
"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
> ***@obsi.net (Observador) wrote in message news:<***@news.verizon.net>...
>
>> That is a LIE, Hitler was NEVER Democratically elected by the Germans.
>> He was appointed Reichs-Chancellor by Hindenburgh
>>
> Another ignorant and peasant for bush....
>
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident
>
> the Reichspräsident was elected by popular vote and intended to be a
> figurehead

Another LIAR for socialism. Here is what it ACTUALLY says:

..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the Führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.
..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been appointed Reichskanzler


Let's see UNLIKE your FALSE CLAIM that Hitler was "elected by popular vote" what we see is that Hitler was "APPOINTED" just as I said by Hindenburg.
Miguel
2004-11-11 15:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Oscar and Krp:

The Nazi party in 1932 was a perfect example of a totalitarian party
that was using the democratic process, to destroy democracy in
Germany.

The Nazis would not compromise. It was truly: My way or the highway.

Their job was to make sure democracy would nor work.

The ultimately burned the Reichtag and then blamed the opposition.
Their ultimate goal was to gain absolute power, which they did.

It would have never happened without the cooperation of others such as
Von Papen, who saw in Hitler: law and order. Von Papen thought he
could control what he perceived as the more negative aspects of Adolph
Hitler.

Wrong....! You can not appease a tyrant. You're not going to outsmart
him, especially after he has gained absolute control. (Lessons that
can be applied to Cuba as well)



"krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<6Cfkd.871$***@trnddc09>...
> "Super User For Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > ***@obsi.net (Observador) wrote in message
> news:<***@news.verizon.net>...
> >
> >> That is a LIE, Hitler was NEVER Democratically elected by the
> Germans.
> >> He was appointed Reichs-Chancellor by Hindenburgh
> >>
> > Another ignorant and peasant for bush....
> >
> >
> > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reichspr%E4sident
> >
> > the Reichspr sident was elected by popular vote and intended to be a
> > figurehead
>
> Another LIAR for socialism. Here is what it ACTUALLY says:
>
> ..... Click the link for more information. , after the death of
> Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945)
> was the F hrer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of
> Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of
> Germany, head of government, and head of state. A gifted, charismatic
> orator possessed of a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as
> one of the most significant leaders of world history. The
> military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the
> post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the
> greater part of Europe.
> ..... Click the link for more information. , who had previously been
> appointed Reichskanzler
>
>
> Let's see UNLIKE your FALSE CLAIM that Hitler was "elected by popular
> vote" what we see is that Hitler was "APPOINTED" just as I said by
> Hindenburg.
> --
krp
2004-11-11 15:26:02 UTC
Permalink
"Miguel" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...


> The Nazi party in 1932 was a perfect example of a totalitarian party
> that was using the democratic process, to destroy democracy in
> Germany.

In 1932 the NSDAP was totalitarian wannabes. They had almost NO
following yet. Much of what they had was illusion based on free Bratwurst
and beer!

> The Nazis would not compromise. It was truly: My way or the highway.

Gee kinds like some island we all know and love.

> Their job was to make sure democracy would nor work.
> The ultimately burned the Reichtag and then blamed the opposition.
> Their ultimate goal was to gain absolute power, which they did.

> It would have never happened without the cooperation of others such as
> Von Papen, who saw in Hitler: law and order. Von Papen thought he
> could control what he perceived as the more negative aspects of Adolph
> Hitler.

Hindenburg was old and feeble. Von Papen was a neo-Nazi.


> Wrong....! You can not appease a tyrant. You're not going to outsmart
> him, especially after he has gained absolute control. (Lessons that
> can be applied to Cuba as well)

Right you can never make a deal with the devil because the devil will
never keep his word. But he can be outsmarted. Sometimes the way to defeat
the tyrant is to give him exactly what he says he wants and strangle him on
it.
Super_User_For_Ever
2004-11-02 11:03:39 UTC
Permalink
ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY <***@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<***@130.133.1.4>...
> ***@freenet.de (Super_User_For_Ever) wrote:
>
>
> > Wow. I feel safer. Don't you?
>
> FOUR YEARS MORE!

Press Release Source: Upoc Networks

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041101/15663_1.html

Upoc Poll of Mobile Phone Users Shows Kerry as Favorite for Tuesday's
Presidential Election

Monday November 1, 10:24 am ET

More Than 16,000 Respondents (More Than 6% of the Total Sample) Give
Kerry 57% to Bush's 26%

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 1, 2004-- Mobile phone text users,
responding to a poll from Upoc Networks, and representing 98% of the
nation's wireless carriers, gave Senator John Kerry a 31% lead over
President George Bush for Tuesday's General Election.

Of more than a quarter million mobile text users contacted (258,046),
16,623 users responded, representing a response factor of 6.44%. The
national response average for random polls is typically between 2-3%.

Final results showed: Kerry with 57%, Bush with 26%, 14% not voting
and 3% "other."

The Upoc community is open to all carriers. Also, users can use their
phone to respond or they vote on the poll through the site. Carriers
include: Verizon, AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint, to name a few.

In making the announcement, David Friedensohn, president, Upoc
Networks, noted: "The mobile phone community has spoken. Text users
represent a wide cross section of America, cutting across all
socio-economic as well as geographic groups. The anonymity of the poll
reflects a wide range of varied views within established parties, as
well as Independents. It is important to note that typically, phone
polls only use land lines where the Upoc poll is exclusively wireless.
This corrects the under representation of mobile phone users in
ordinary polling techniques."

Upoc Networks is the most comprehensive mobile community solution for
carriers, consumers, media companies and marketers to communicate via
SMS (text messaging), WAP (wireless Internet), voice, MMS (multimedia
messaging), BREW, Java and more. Upoc Networks has created the
greatest network of community messaging in North America with direct
connections to wireless carriers servicing 98% of the cell phone
market. More information on Upoc can be found at
http://www.upocnetworks.com.
krp
2004-10-29 20:51:58 UTC
Permalink
"Super_User_For_Ever" <***@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...

> The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting
> stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement
> investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of
> elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of
> election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department
> last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of
> election fraud.

How many voters named "MARY POPPINS" do you think live in Orange county?
Continúe leyendo en narkive:
Loading...