← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Chaucer
Thread ID: 14409 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2004-07-02
2004-07-02 18:29 | User Profile
[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088566594744[/url]
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who many Democrats blame for spoiling Al Gore's bid for the White House in 2000, has launched a scathing attack on the US-Israel alliance, describing the White House as being manipulated by Israel like a puppet.
"What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government," Nader said. "The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."
Nader spoke Tuesday in Washington at the release of a survey of American Muslim voter opinion, commissioned by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The survey of 1,161 voters this month showed that the majority of voters, 56 percent, supported the presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry, and 26% favored Nader, more than five times the percentage Nader has received in nationwide and statewide polls.
Strikingly, only 2% said they would vote for President George W. Bush, even though 55% of those polled said they had cast their vote for him in 2000. Fourteen percent remained undecided. CAIR said it had no estimate of the number of Muslim voters nationwide.
In a poll of voters in the key swing state of Florida released this week, Bush and Kerry were tied with 43%. Nader had the support of 5%, according to the survey by the Quinnipac University Polling Institute.
Without Nader in the race, Kerry led, 46% to 44%. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Nader, a frequent critic of Israel who has campaigned largely on the notion that the Bush administration has eroded civil liberties since September 11, is struggling to get on state ballots ahead of the November election after the Green Party, who backed him in 2000, decided he would not be their nominee. Nader made the puppet analogy in several other forums this month.
Nader said that the US government, "if it was really interested" in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, would work more closely with the Israeli peace movement.
And, he added, "It is time for the US government to recognize that this is not just a local conflict anymore. It is not just a regional conflict anymore. It is a conflict that is producing flashpoints throughout much of the world and endangering US citizens in those countries, US businesses in those countries, US workers in those countries, and endangering our own national security here. It is time for the US government to stand up and think for itself."
Speaking on Iraq, Nader also urged "a responsible withdrawal, both military and corporate," over the next six months. He called on Bush to produce a "full accounting" of the number of deaths, injuries, and psychological damage to US soldiers in the conflict
2004-07-02 18:32 | User Profile
I know Nader is on the far left, and he doesn't even touch my number one issue (immigration), but I will probably punch a ballot for him just to watch the Yids squeal and moan. Look for the Jew's media to attack soon!!!
Should be interesting!
2004-07-02 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Chaucer][url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088566594744[/url]
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who many Democrats blame for spoiling Al Gore's bid for the White House in 2000, has launched a scathing attack on the US-Israel alliance, describing the White House as being manipulated by Israel like a puppet.
"What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government," Nader said. "The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."
And, he added, "[I][COLOR=Red]It is time for the US government to recognize that this is not just a local conflict anymore. It is not just a regional conflict anymore. It is a conflict that is producing flashpoints throughout much of the world and endangering US citizens in those countries, US businesses in those countries, US workers in those countries, and endangering our own national security here. It is time for the US government to stand up and think for itse[/COLOR][/I]lf."
Speaking on Iraq, Nader also urged "a responsible withdrawal, both military and corporate," over the next six months. He called on Bush to produce a "full accounting" of the number of deaths, injuries, and psychological damage to US soldiers in the conflict[/QUOTE]Has this been printed in an American publication?
2004-07-02 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Has this been printed in an American publication?[/QUOTE]
Not when I did a search on google. Every thing was an Israel based outlet. I read about it on [url]www.adl.org[/url]
2004-07-02 20:54 | User Profile
He's the only candidate naming the jew. He gets my vote.
2004-07-02 21:07 | User Profile
ADL Objects To Ralph Nader's Characterization of U.S. Government As 'Puppet' to Israel
New York, NY, July 2, 2004 ââ¬Â¦ The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today objected to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's characterization of the White House and Congress as being "puppets" of the Israeli government and Israel lobby in the United States. In a letter to Mr. Nader, Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said:
We write to object to your characterization of the White House and Congress as "puppets" of the Israeli government. Reasonable people can and do disagree with American policy related to the Middle East, and specifically American support for Israel.
However, there is a line between thoughtful, reasoned, constructive disagreements and offensive hyperbole. Indeed, one may disagree with America's Middle East approach, but to assert that U.S. policy in such a complex and volatile region is the product of wholesale manipulation by a foreign government fails to take into account important U.S. interests that are involved. Moreover, the image of the Jewish State as a "puppeteer," controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse.
We would have hoped that you might have made a more positive contribution to this issue.
Read more online on our web site at [url]http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4527_62[/url]
Reasonable people can and do disagree with American policy related to the Middle East, and specifically American support for Israel.
Since when has the A.D.L. ever been "resonable" about anything?
However, there is a line between thoughtful, reasoned, constructive disagreements and offensive hyperbole.
That is whenever the A.D.L objects to something, which is anything they think doesn't put Israel first no matter how "resonable".
We would have hoped that you might have made a more positive contribution to this issue.
I thought that was a positive contribution. It is certainly truthful.
2004-07-02 21:22 | User Profile
Please, don't kiss Jew A$$...
Kerry backs Israeli views in planned policy paper Bryan Bender The Boston Globe
International Herald Tribune Friday, July 2, 2004
WASHINGTON Senator John Kerry strikes a decidedly stronger pro-Israel position in a new policy paper than he did a few months ago, as he attempts to enlist the support of Jewish voters who have been gravitating to President George W. Bush and away from their tradition of voting Democratic in presidential elections.
In the policy paper, which has not yet been made public, Kerry outlines clear, strongly worded positions on several issues important to the American Jewish community. He calls for more forceful action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, fully backs Israel's construction of a 680-kilometer, or 425-mile, barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories, and pledges to work to push for a new Palestinian political class to replace Yasser Arafat, who is called a "failed leader."
Earlier in the campaign, Kerry got off to a shaky start with some Jewish groups. Last October he called the barrier - composed mostly of electronic fencing with razor wire and a ditch along a tracking road, but with some stretches made of concrete wall - a "barrier to peace." The new paper calls it "a security fence" and says building it is "a legitimate right of self-defense" and "not a matter" to be taken up by the International Court of Justice, which has criticized the move.
On Wednesday, Israel's High Court of Justice, responding to Palestinian complaints, ruled that a planned 30-kilometer section of the barrier in the West Bank must be rerouted, because the current path creates hardships for thousands of Palestinians.
The Massachusetts senator earlier remarked that he might appoint James Baker 3rd, secretary of state in the first Bush administration, a special peace negotiator. Jewish groups quickly attacked the proposal and accused Baker of making anti-Israel statements. The new paper, drafted by policy and political advisers, does not say whom Kerry would pick for that role.
With the paper, titled "Strengthening Israel's Security and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship," Kerry is attempting to reintroduce himself to Jewish voters. "John Kerry has been at the forefront of the fight for Israel's security during his 19 years in the U.S. Senate," it says. "His pro-Israel voting record is second to none."
Republicans suggested some political desperation was behind the document. "There is a key battle for the Jewish vote under way," said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, based in Washington. "Democrats are particularly scared."
Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of Jewish voters have backed the Democratic nominee for the White House; in 2000, 19 percent went for Bush. The Bush-Cheney campaign is hoping to capitalize on the president's strong support for the Israeli government, the military removal of Saddam Hussein, and the pursuit of the war on Islamic terrorism to increase that support to 30 percent or more in November. In a closely contested election, those voters could prove critical in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Kerry has redoubled his efforts to reach out to Jewish groups. Senior members of his staff met in Washington with the American Jewish Committee on Wednesday.
The policy paper attempts to portray Kerry's pro-Israel credentials as being as strong as, if not stronger than, Bush's. The document says, for instance, "Israel's cause must be America's cause."
It chides the Bush administration for failing to take stronger action to prevent Iran, a primary supporter of anti-Israel terrorist groups, from developing nuclear weapons.
It also says that Kerry was a sponsor of the Syria Accountability Act, which banned certain American exports in an effort to punish the Arab nation for supporting anti-Israel terror groups.
2004-07-02 21:27 | User Profile
Before it passed an editorial board, Mr. Foxman's letter read thusly:
*We write to object to your characterization of the White House and Congress as "puppets" of the Israeli government. We prefer the word "stooges." Reasonable people can and do disagree with American policy particulars related to the Middle East, but never specifically American support for Israel.
However, there is a line between thoughtful, reasoned, constructive disagreements and offensive hyperbole. Indeed, when it comes to America's Middle East approach, only hyperbole in defense of Israel is acceptable. To assert that U.S. policy in such a complex and volatile region is the product of wholesale manipulation by a foreign government fails to take into account important U.S. interests, such as Israel's pre-eminence. Moreover, the image of the Jewish State as a "puppeteer," controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse, YOU FRICKIN' ANTI-SEMITE!
We would have hoped that you might have made a more orthodox contribution to this issue.*
2004-07-03 00:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Has this been printed in an American publication?[/QUOTE]
Yes, pretty much the same comment was made by Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan in an interview in The American Conservative, reported in full detail in a [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=85667#post85667]past thread here at Original Dissent[/url].
2004-07-03 09:19 | User Profile
Anti-Semitism, Pure and Simple By Abraham H. Foxman National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
This op-ed originally appeared in Jerusalem Report magazine on May 5, 2003.
The saying goes, "if it looks, like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck." So why is it when anti-Jewish statements are made they are not seen for what they are - expressions of anti-Semitism - but are explained away as merely offensive or ignorant?
That question has been particularly pertinent in recent weeks, during the run-up to and the early stages of war in Iraq. In America for the most part, those questioning US military action made thoughtful arguments against going to war. But not everyone has engaged in rational debate of the issues.
While there have always been the likes of the Pat Buchanans, the Joseph Sobrans, and anti-Semites, what is disturbing today is that those extremists are being joined by a voices in the antiwar movement and the media, on the left and the right, who are promoting a canard that America's going to war has little to do with disarming Saddam, but everything to do with Jews, the "Jewish lobby" and the hawkish Jewish members of the Bush Administration who, according to this chorus, will favor any war that benefits Israel and the Jews. The accusation about Jews and Jewish interests is being aired almost daily, on the airwaves, in the nation's editorial pages and from a range of pundits who want to pin the blame for this war on the Jews. The spread of this new lie is not surprising, because it is really not so new. In times of crisis, in times of uncertainty, at times nations face danger, Jews continue to be a convenient and tempting option for scapegoating.
This "Blame the Jews" phenomenon has now moved far beyond U.S. Rep. James Moran's notorious statement that, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Moran has since apologized - but by repeating an anti-Semitic canard that had previously been heard only on the margins of the debate, Moran moved blaming the Jews into the political and media mainstream. A whole chorus of accusations followed his.
Who are the purveyors of this anti-Semitic charge? In a recent interview, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," was asked what he believes is driving America's policy in Iraq. His response: "Well, the right-wing policy with regard to Israel - the people who don't want to deal with Arafat, who don't want a Palestinian state - the whole sort of right wing view is consistent with the view toward Iraq. It's the same policy and the same people." James O. Goldsborough, a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune, wrote on March 3 that the idea to go to Baghdad is "to serve Jerusalem," that Bush's war "has nothing to do with peace and security," but is the "brainchild of a handful of neo-conservatives ââ¬Â¦ who have argued that Iraq was the main threat to Israel." The neo-conservatives he mentions - Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, David Wurmser - are all Jews. No mention of the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys.
Robert Novak has called the conflict, "Sharon's war." Liberal writer Ian Burama cites "Jewish-American hysteria." And others, including Paul Schroeder in the American Conservative, Georgia Ann Geyer and Alexander Cockburn have referenced the canard of Jewish and Israeli influence.
Almost as disappointing are the writings of respected journalists such as Bill Keller (The New York Times) and Richard Cohen the (Washington Post), who in their attempt to show the absurdity of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories missed an opportunity to provide a teaching moment - to educate about the roots, the history and the impact of such charges against the Jewish people.
At the same time we have seen a proliferation of columns and articles by respected mainstream commentators who insist that all of this is not really anti-Semitism, but simply ill-informed statements. But to suggest that it is something other than anti-Semitism is a grave mistake. Even in America, where Jews are more at home and secure as equal citizens than anywhere else in 2,000 years, the unsettling fact is that fully one-third of Americans still accept the notion that Jews have "dual loyalties." This was apparent in the Anti-Defamation League's June 2002 survey of Anti-Semitism in America, which also found that 20 percent of the American public agrees that, "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today."
We have full faith that Americans, whether they are for or against the war, will reject this latest anti-Semitic conspiracy charge. Yet that charge reminds us that anti-Semitism has a life of its own when crisis and anxiety erupt -- and must be denounced and rejected for what it is.
é 2003 Anti-Defamation League
[url=http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/as_simple.asp]http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/as_simple.asp[/url]
I'm wrong again. With all the folks Abe has tossed out here I wonder who he considers to be resonable? I bet the number is less than the fingers on one hand, if that many.
2004-07-03 15:35 | User Profile
It's more complicated than this, I suppose. But given that Saudis own about 1 Trillion dollars of the US economy... (and Jewish Americans what-?-about 1 Trillion themselves at least...not most Jews, but like the Saudis, a few). And the annual gross national product is what-?- 3 Trillion... So, what are we seeing for the first time in history-?-as a nation, the USA as battle ground for foreign powers, i.e. Saudi Arabia & Israel? ... How insulting. Of course I'm "simple", maybe too simplistic, sometimes... I don't know. I don't want to get picked-up though, under the "Patriot" act... as a "terroritst".
2004-07-04 04:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]He's the only candidate naming the jew. He gets my vote.[/QUOTE]
Precisely.
2004-07-04 21:11 | User Profile
Bush Junior has been a puppet of the Jews since he stole the 2000 election. It was the Jewish Judges who sit on the USSC that put Bush into the White House. They voted to keep Bush after a deal was worked out with Bush and the Israeli government. Bush Junior is a Jewsih pawn.
2004-07-04 21:45 | User Profile
...and he has never renounced his dual citizenship as far as I know...
2004-07-05 03:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yukon]Bush Junior has been a puppet of the Jews since he stole the 2000 election. It was the Jewish Judges who sit on the USSC that put Bush into the White House. (*) They voted to keep Bush after a deal was worked out with Bush and the Israeli government. Bush Junior is a Jewsih pawn.[/QUOTE]
(*) No it wasn't. Catholic judge Antonin Scalia put Bush Jr. into the presidency. He goes to church (or did) with Louis Freeh, and Robert Phillip Hanssen, who work for the super-secret underground organizatin called "Opus Dei", who apparently cooperate with Jews to suck American blood.
2004-07-05 14:26 | User Profile
QUOTE=TexasAnarch No it wasn't. Catholic judge Antonin Scalia put Bush Jr. into the presidency. He goes to church (or did) with Louis Freeh, and Robert Phillip Hanssen, who work for the super-secret underground organizatin called "Opus Dei", who apparently cooperate with Jews to suck American blood.[/QUOTE]
I'm not exactly an expert on Opus Dei (I know that John Paul II's membership in it was considered a distinct minus by many cardinals at the time of his election as Pope), but isn't it an ultra-orthodox, far-right organization? I believe Francisco Franco was a member and I know that it was very much associated with both the Spanish and Lebanese Falange parties. Does that sound like a pro-Jewish group to you (although they may have worked with the Jews in Lebanon against the Muslims)? Does anyone know more about them? They've always struck me as an interesting group that its difficult to get info on....
In any event, the Supreme Court should have either permitted the Florida kangaroo Supreme Court to make whatever silly ruling they would have needed in order to permit Gore to steal the election Bush did, in fact, win by 537 votes (because that is what the Constitution requires; the state are supposed to control ther own elections, however eggregious the results of that may be, although as bad as a President as Bush has turned out to be, I wouldn't have minded giving Gore a whirl at this point). Contrarily, the Supreme Court could have stepped in by declaring the Florida election process invalid, due to massive, pervasive incompetence and possible fraud, thus nullifying Florida's Electoral College delegation. Whether that would have meant Gore would have won, as the winner to the majority of the Electoral votes cast, or whether Florida's rejected votes would still count as part of the total, and thus no candidate would have won a majority, throwing the election in the House (where Bush certainly would have been victorious, due to each state having only one vote from its entire delegation in that event and the smaller states leaning Republican), is something I'm not sure of. The one thing I AM sure of is that for the U.S. Supreme Court to have intervened in the Florida election like they did was patently unConstitutional.
2004-07-05 15:14 | User Profile
...was all over the place in the decisions relating to the 2000 Presidential election...if he was looking for a play for his jew homeland...he may have got one...don't forget this jew cat is into Talmudic law too...whatever the frig Talmudic law is...:angry:
2004-07-05 15:49 | User Profile
A jew is a Jew is a Jew,,,,,,,,,,,
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,,,Ponce
2004-07-05 17:18 | User Profile
I have always said, when challenged about it, life sucks, not love...
Love is a higher part of it, and, although it ALSO causes pain. All pain informs us. Pain is both a part of life, as well as not a part of life per se, like love. BOTH sadly and happily--(in this world, imbalanced Yet, toward sadly)--are a connection to the divine.
This may seem ridiculous, in good times... yet it's what we find in bad. Failure teaches, more than success. But SUCCESS can teach too, so visualise what you want. I have decided I WANT all Americans to be what they want, and if that includes successful, that too.
2004-07-05 22:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I'm not exactly an expert on Opus Dei (I know that John Paul II's membership in it was considered a distinct minus by many cardinals at the time of his election as Pope),
..would have needed in order to permit Gore to steal the election Bush did, in fact, win by 537 votes (because that is what the Constitution requires; the state are supposed to control ther own elections, however eggregious the results of that may be, although as bad as a President as Bush has turned out to be, I wouldn't have minded giving Gore a whirl at this point). Contrarily, the Supreme Court could have stepped in by declaring the Florida election process invalid, due to massive, pervasive incompetence and possible fraud, thus nullifying Florida's Electoral College delegation. Whether that would have meant Gore would have won, as the winner to the majority of the Electoral votes cast, or whether Florida's rejected votes would still count as part of the total, and thus no candidate would have won a majority, throwing the election in the House (where Bush certainly would have been victorious, due to each state having only one vote from its entire delegation in that event and the smaller states leaning Republican), is something I'm not sure of. The one thing I AM sure of is that for the U.S. Supreme Court to have intervened in the Florida election like they did was patently unConstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Have to agree, and express appreciation for the lucid presentation, which I shall try to use elsewhere.
I wouldn't have brought in the Catholic connection, except Scalia makes no bones about his identifications, so no on else is requried to, either.
You will be absolutely amazed if you punch up "Opus Dei" on google, and have an afternoon, or a lifetime, to spend. I use the incredibly well-researched "Their Kingdom Come" by Robert Hutchinson as source (June '99, St. Martin's, New York). He live with them 4 years. It says JP II was not Opus Dei himself, but very close, and vistied Jose Maria Escrava's burial site next to the Vatican as soon as appointed. Deep political ties went back to Poland, Solidarnosc, where I suspect political links with Polish Jews carpetbagging the holocaust were made. Then, in Central and South America, vast $$ links, connected even to the big Italian bank scandal that saw Roberto Calvi of Italy's Banco Ambrosiano wind up handing from a dock beam in a London river, throat slit and bricks stuffed in his pants. Then, South of the Border, the two forces blended together under Regan's tenure (Elliot Abrahams, Oliver North/William Casey). Lots of money is controlled through those Carribean banks.
He relates that the sect of "workers" following Escriva was declared a Personal Prelature of the Pope: "don Portillo (OD member) forwarded to Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, a fifteen page report on the advantages to the Church of making Opus Dei the first -- and only Personal Prelature. The document was a masterpiece of bureacratic reasoning, finely constructed and disciplined in style. For once, it gave statisticfs, including Opus Dei's exact sgtrength -- 72,375 members (in 1978), married or celebate, men and women, representing 87 nationalities, of which about 2 % were priests. In addition, it pointed out that Opus Dei was already a hierarchically structured as a floating diocese, with what amounted to its own Ordinary, presbyterium territory and congregation." OD members confess only to other OD members, and under the leader only requried to report to ther Pope every 5 years. Hutchinson projects that a deal has been cut to get an OD man from Peru appointed the next Pope, for financial and political outreach considerations. I wish I didn't have to fear a dark side. I am genuinely anti-Semitic, I think, but not anti-Catholic. My heart goes out to some of the most beautiful people I know around here who have been deeply shamed. I do not wish to increase that in any way, but they must not interfere with American elections.
2004-07-05 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]He's the only candidate naming the jew. He gets my vote.[/QUOTE]Mine too.
2004-07-06 03:38 | User Profile
Scalia is our BEST Supreme Court Judge. He's a good man. Wacko leftists say the Court stole the election and that is even worse than an utter LIE !! The people voted for GWB. HE WON FLORIDA. THe dangling chads because some were TOO STUPID to understand a ballot is what you can THROW IN THEIR FACE. ALSO- they tried to stop the voting of US army perrsonell overseas, and that is PROVEN ! They went into PRISONS to RECRUIT criminals !! Bush won the election, the Court did NOT give it to him. The Court simply ruled on the complaint it was given, which was a TOTAL PUBLICITY STUNT. I do not approve of the Bush Presidency, but that's the facts.
2004-07-06 05:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Scalia is our BEST Supreme Court Judge. He's a good man. Wacko leftists say the Court stole the election and that is even worse than an utter LIE !! The people voted for GWB. HE WON FLORIDA. THe dangling chads because some were TOO STUPID to understand a ballot is what you can THROW IN THEIR FACE. ALSO- they tried to stop the voting of US army perrsonell overseas, and that is PROVEN ! They went into PRISONS to RECRUIT criminals !! Bush won the election, the Court did NOT give it to him. The Court simply ruled on the complaint it was given, which was a TOTAL PUBLICITY STUNT. I do not approve of the Bush Presidency, but that's the facts.[/QUOTE]
None of that adds up, ED. Absolute string of lies.
2004-07-06 15:16 | User Profile
If the Cubans hadn't threatened to/started to riot, and shut down the vote recount, Al Gore would now be President!
As far as I'm concerned Castro is a very smart politician---he conquered south Florida for Cuba without firing a shot...Castro will die sooner or later...but, the Cubans will still control south Florida.
What part did Castro play in shutting down the recount---I don't think the Cubans in Cuba or south Florida will tell us white Americans...and the jews...does a jew know how to tell the truth...:flex:
2004-07-07 01:30 | User Profile
what are u smoking ? Geoirge Bush won Florida fair and square. You have to accept that as fact he won Florida. Why is that a problem for you? I remember all the overseas ballots from US conscripts that the Democrats did not count. Thats a fact Bro.. ANd its also a fact that the Democrat lobbyists WENT INTO FLORIDA PRISIONS and CIRCUMVENTED LAW to let them vote. You cannot hold a candle to these facts. Go hide in your hole before I embarrass you as the ignorant lliberal mind slave you are. To even converse with you on these terms is an insult to my intelligence. You are a victim of propaganda. Your statement about the Florida election is based upon nothing but a false dream , a dream in which all the stupid monkeys who couldn't figure out the ballot voted for Gore. Well Guess What. If you're too STUPID to punch a hole, then maybe you shouldn't have the right to vote anyway.
2004-07-07 02:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]what are u smoking ? Geoirge Bush won Florida fair and square. You have to accept that as fact he won Florida. Why is that a problem for you? I remember all the overseas ballots from US conscripts that the Democrats did not count. Thats a fact Bro.. ANd its also a fact that the Democrat lobbyists WENT INTO FLORIDA PRISIONS and CIRCUMVENTED LAW to let them vote. You cannot hold a candle to these facts. Go hide in your hole before I embarrass you as the ignorant lliberal mind slave you are. To even converse with you on these terms is an insult to my intelligence. You are a victim of propaganda. Your statement about the Florida election is based upon nothing but a false dream , a dream in which all the stupid monkeys who couldn't figure out the ballot voted for Gore. Well Guess What. If you're too STUPID to punch a hole, then maybe you shouldn't have the right to vote anyway.[/QUOTE]
Naw, those overseas GI ballots weren't legal, they just told right wing idiots that jazz, knowing they will believe anything. It was the blacks that got beat out of their vote, along with nice elderly Jewish ladies who were confused by the stupid ballots. Buchanan didn't want to to get votes not intended for him. Try to be like him. If everything had been on the up and up down Florida way, we wouldn't be in hell today. Even the sharks knew America had been cut up that summer.
2004-07-07 02:32 | User Profile
Bush should follow Saddam into the dock 07/04/2004 13:14 If Saddam Hussein is in court, why isn't Bush? Saddam Hussein is accused of a number of crimes committed during his Presidency of Iraq. An analysis of four years of government under the Bush regime reveals some shocking parallels.
Saddam Hussein is supposed to have sent people to their deaths as President of Iraq. George Bush sent people to their deaths as Governor of Texas.
Saddam Hussein is accused of being responsible for acts of torture committed during his presidency.
However, George Bush was President when the prison at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad was turned into a medieval torture chamber by US military personnel and George Bush is today President and the tortures continue at Guantanamo Bay.
Who would ever have thought that a President of the United States of America would have to defend himself against accusations of torture? And more than accusations, they are fact.
Saddam Hussein is accused of committing acts of mass murder. Would these mass murders be including the need to put down armed insurrection inside his own country after the United States had interfered, financed and armed the insurgents/terrorists? And is George W. Bush not responsible, as Commander in Chief of his country's Armed Forces, for the ten thousand civilian deaths during this illegal war, including one thousand children? Is George W. Bush not responsible for the mutilation of thirty-five thousand people, their legs and arms and faces and futures blown away by his Armed Forces? Is George W. Bush not responsible for the cluster bombs deployed in civilian areas or the Depleted Uranium munitions which left swathes of Iraqi territory radio-active?
Does George W. Bush think he can target civilian infra-structures with precision weaponry, destroy sewage and water and electricity supply systems, hand the contracts without tender to his friend Richard Cheney and walk free?
Are the United States and the international community not ultimately responsible for millions of deaths inside the Iraq that Saddam Hussein was trying to govern, his task made impossible just because he refused to allow the Americans access to control his economy?
Saddam Hussein is accused of attacking three neighbouring countries. However, how convenient it is to forget that Saudi Arabia was attacked in a very small incursion during the First Gulf War and Iran was attacked with the full blessing and support of Washington. Rumsfeld even went to Baghdad to pat Saddam on the back and shake his hand, although later he had difficulty in remembering what he had done.
And was the invasion of Kuwait not due to the Kuwaiti authorities performing acts of cross-drilling, stealing Iraq's oil? And was this invasion also not due to a need to defend Iraq's economy because Kuwait had been told by Washington (as a provocation) to reduce its oil prices? And was Kuwait not warned several times by Iraq that it was ruining Iraq's economy and that the only way out was war? Did the international community listen to Baghdad? No.
It did not. Washington had created the monster by arming Iraq to the teeth and decided to launch phase two, which was substituting Saudi Arabia by Iraq as its strategic base in its attempt to take a stranglehold of the resources in the Middle East and in Central Asia and sit on Iraq's vast oil wealth.
On the subject of illegal invasions, did George Bush not commit the same crime he accuses Saddam Hussein of, in attacking Iraq outside the UN Charter? This invasion was based on lies, bullying, blackmail, cajoling, forgery. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Did the Bush regime not show maquettes of models with satellite photos, complete with arrows and affirmations like "We know where they are"? So, where are they?
Saddam Hussein is accused of using chemical weapons against the Curds. Who sold them to him and what type were they? Did Washington say anything when gas was used to stop the Iranian army breaking through? Is Depleted Uranium not a form of chemical weapon? Is the act of dropping cluster bombs into housing estates any better?
Or is George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, nothing more than a barefaced liar, as well as a mass murderer and a war criminal?
In which case, why isn't he in the dock alongside his country's former buddy and comrade in arms, Saddam Hussein?
Or is George Bush above the law just because he was born in the US of A? Welcome to freedom and democracy, winning hearts and minds by blasting the legs off six-year-old kids playing in their back yard, in their city, in their country. And the crime goes unpunished?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey