Cato wrote:

What about all the agreements Iraq broke? Among others.. they
were kicking out international nuke inspectors.... not allowing them
to go places they wished to inspect...as if they had something big to
hide.... what a buch of stupid assholes to do that if they had
nothing to hide... The international community warned them and warned
them to no avail...

That is factually inaccurate propaganda. Iraq complied with almost
every ultimatum. Mr. Bush was Hell-bent on war with Iraq; even before
he was appointed by the Supreme Court. You don't know a coup d`etat
when you see one.

dave wrote:

Cato wrote:

What about all the agreements Iraq broke? Among others.. they
were kicking out international nuke inspectors.... not allowing them
to go places they wished to inspect...as if they had something big to
hide.... what a buch of stupid assholes to do that if they had
nothing to hide... The international community warned them and warned
them to no avail...

That is factually inaccurate propaganda. Iraq complied with almost
every ultimatum. Mr. Bush was Hell-bent on war with Iraq; even before
he was appointed by the Supreme Court. You don't know a coup d`etat
when you see one.

You don't know Jack, Rickets!

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

Cato wrote:

What about all the agreements Iraq broke? Among others.. they
were kicking out international nuke inspectors.... not allowing them
to go places they wished to inspect...as if they had something big to
hide.... what a buch of stupid assholes to do that if they had
nothing to hide... The international community warned them and warned
them to no avail...
That is factually inaccurate propaganda. Iraq complied with almost
every ultimatum. Mr. Bush was Hell-bent on war with Iraq; even before
he was appointed by the Supreme Court. You don't know a coup d`etat
when you see one.

You don't know Jack, Rickets!


http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/mediawise_jan01.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html


In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over
it." Only "Gore partisans" – as both the Washington Post and the New
York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies –
would insist on looking at the fine print.

The Actual Findings

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s
still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual
results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10,
showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out
on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA
Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed
ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots
– punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two
standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard
was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in.
Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore
won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107
votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won
by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171
votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot
recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and
the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted
hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that
the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even
ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him
thousands of ballots.

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

Cato wrote:

What about all the agreements Iraq broke? Among others.. they
were kicking out international nuke inspectors.... not allowing them
to go places they wished to inspect...as if they had something big to
hide.... what a buch of stupid assholes to do that if they had
nothing to hide... The international community warned them and warned
them to no avail...
That is factually inaccurate propaganda. Iraq complied with almost
every ultimatum. Mr. Bush was Hell-bent on war with Iraq; even before
he was appointed by the Supreme Court. You don't know a coup d`etat
when you see one.

You don't know Jack, Rickets!


http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/mediawise_jan01.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over
it." Only "Gore partisans" – as both the Washington Post and the New
York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies –
would insist on looking at the fine print.

The Actual Findings

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s
still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual
results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10,
showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out
on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA
Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed
ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots
– punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two
standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard
was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in.
Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore
won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107
votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won
by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171
votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot
recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and
the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted
hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that
the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even
ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him
thousands of ballots.

As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.

dxAce wrote:

As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


As in wander off the subject, Steve.

"...this isn't an argument...it's just contradiction."

dxAce wrote:


As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


Should you ever decide to venture outside the Bubble, I suggest you get
your feet wet he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelines.jsp

The truth shall set you free.

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:


As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


Should you ever decide to venture outside the Bubble, I suggest you get
your feet wet he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelines.jsp

The truth shall set you free.

Seems as though the "truth" has screwed you up beyond belief!

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


Should you ever decide to venture outside the Bubble, I suggest you get
your feet wet he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelines.jsp

The truth shall set you free.

Seems as though the "truth" has screwed you up beyond belief!


Yet you believe what you hear on WLS.

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


Should you ever decide to venture outside the Bubble, I suggest you get
your feet wet he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelines.jsp

The truth shall set you free.

Seems as though the "truth" has screwed you up beyond belief!


Yet you believe what you hear on WLS.

Of course! They just said that you're a drug addled 'tard boy, and that's the truth!

dxAce wrote:

dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:
dave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

As I stated earlier: You don't know Jack, Rickets. So you, and your drug addled
brain ought to just wander off.


Should you ever decide to venture outside the Bubble, I suggest you get
your feet wet he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelines.jsp

The truth shall set you free.
Seems as though the "truth" has screwed you up beyond belief!


Yet you believe what you hear on WLS.

Of course! They just said that you're a drug addled 'tard boy, and that's the truth!


You're hallucinating again...