Is Bush neuro-impaired?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 9 of 10
Well, I'll be attending a single malt whiskey tasting soon. Anything you'd like me to try for you? A sea-wrack and peat, or a sherry-casked whiskey?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIGH.
First you accuse me of posting things that DON'T support my views, now you accuse me of only posting things that I agree with. Which is it?
And, for the record, what I did with my analysis was 1) pick out all the direct quotes as the most likely areas of truth, 2) delete items that were contradicted by those direct quotes 3) delete items identified by the individual news report as NOT from the UN report (from, for example Israeli intelligence) 4) delete items not directly related to the UN report (general editorializing about the state of Iraq, the UN, the world etc) and 5) delete items contradicted by the majority of the other unique news reports.
You should go thru this some day. You might learn something.
Out of curiosity, do you have any SUBSTANTIVE points to make?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SIGH.
First you accuse me of posting things that DON'T support my views, now you accuse me of only posting things that I agree with. Which is it?
And, for the record, what I did with my analysis was 1) pick out all the direct quotes as the most likely areas of truth, 2) delete items that were contradicted by those direct quotes 3) delete items identified by the individual news report as NOT from the UN report (from, for example Israeli intelligence) 4) delete items not directly related to the UN report (general editorializing about the state of Iraq, the UN, the world etc) and 5) delete items contradicted by the majority of the other unique news reports.
You should go thru this some day. You might learn something.
Out of curiosity, do you have any SUBSTANTIVE points to make?
Only that our brains apparently work too differently for us to comunicate. What I considered a request for clarification you obviously considered as an attack. This may be because my request was in a flip tone, or that you consider any question from me an argument. It may be something else. I don't know.
If you want to use the Vanguard article as a cite, go right ahead. It seemed peculiar to me, which is why I asked. If you've determined that it supports your point in some way not clear to me, that's fine. I'll continue to be puzzled, since I don't think that we'll ever agree on it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.
What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B. on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Hey, I think we all know that Bush and Kerry lie equally. As did all presidential candidates that came before them. I think there are two main reasons we notice it more now than we did before: 1) During the Clinton era we saw just how deeply an administrations lie can go. Perhaps no one had been caught so "red-handedly" before. 2) Honestly, the calibur of candidates seems to be less & less each cycle. I would imagine that by about the year 2032, our candidates will be monkeys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I'll be attending a single malt whiskey tasting soon. Anything you'd like me to try for you? A sea-wrack and peat, or a sherry-casked whiskey?
We've been liking the Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish as a staple here. Not so hot as some others. After years of procrasatination, I finally got a soda siphon, and now have Dewer's & soda a couple of evenings a week.
For sipping we sort of got away from single-malts and into brandies lately. I've taken to Asbach Uralt, a German brandy, and Madame has been sipping Laird's Old Apple Brandy, from the good old USA.
As for cocktails, we disagree on martinis, as Madame can't stand gin (Hendrick's for me) and I don't care much for vodka (Glacier or Level for her).
Most Friday nights we make up a thermos of something and a tray of finger food and chill with a movie or some music. Fogeydom personified.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
I would imagine that by about the year 2032, our candidates will be monkeys.
This, Sir, is an insult to monkeys everywhere!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe there is hope for those who feel neither Bush or Kerry should win the election:
http://techcentralstation.com/101404A.html
Tie Goes to the...
Interested in becoming president this year? If so, hope for an electoral college tie. With an unlikely, but plausible, perfect tie -- 269 electoral votes for both George W. Bush and John Kerry -- anyone meeting the Constitutional qualifications for president could end up president. Here's how.
Most people know the electoral college, and not popular vote, decides presidential elections. Many people also know that if no one gets a majority of electoral college votes the Constitution directs the House of Representatives to choose the President. This has happened twice (not counting 1876, a technically different situation) -- in the strange tie of 1800 and the 4-way election of 1824. The contemporary prospects for a House election are slim. Only an electoral tie -- or a third party winning electors -- could produce it. However, a tie is plausible this year: if all states vote the same as 2000 except New Hampshire and Nevada, the electoral vote would be 269 to 269.
An electoral college tie would produce overwhelming media attention on the possibility of "faithless electors", who disregard the vote return in his/her state and pick whichever candidate he/she wishes. In 2000, such a move by three electors would have produced a Gore victory. Earlier this month, a Republican elector, Richie Rob, made rumblings that he might not elect Bush if the President wins West Virginia.
A more intriguing, and potentially more consequential, possibility is an elector "shedding" a vote to a 3rd candidate. In an election thrown to the House, the 12th amendment specifies to choose from the top three electoral vote recipients. In a tie, only Bush and Kerry will have electoral votes, Unless some elector decides to shed his vote, making the outcome 269-268-1. Why would an elector do this?
It's simple. Shedding a vote would still send the election to the House. Currently, the Republicans would handily win a vote between Bush and Kerry. Democratic electors thus have an incentive to get a third candidate on the House ballot -- particularly a centrist who could draw moderate Republicans into a coalition with the House Democrats to defeat Bush. To succeed, it would have to be a prominent moderate Republican, and it would have to be someone willing to attempt a revolt in the Republican party. It would almost have to be John McCain.
While McCain might reject this and throw his support behind Bush, he might seize the opportunity, much like Aaron Burr did in 1800. It would be his chance to reshape the GOP. He has never personally liked Bush. And lest we forget, it could make him president. Certainly there are House GOP members who would prefer a moderate Republican to Bush.
Bush Republicans would obviously try to prevent such a revolt. However, few GOP defectors would be needed. The 12th amendment also specifies that the House vote is by state delegations, not simple majority. To win, you must get the vote of 26 state delegations. Along strict partisan lines, there are 30 GOP delegations, 16 Democratic delegations (including Vermont's independent but left leaning Bernie Sanders), and 4 deadlocked delegations.
Imagine a three-way House choice between Bush, Kerry, and McCain. McCain could prevent Bush from gaining the required 26 states by deadlocking 5 states. Assuming full Democratic support for McCain, defection of less than a dozen key GOP members could deny Bush victory. After a first ballot impasse, it's anybody's game, but McCain, as the moderate of the three, would be a favorite to win a politically brokered deal.
But Republicans might act even earlier. Think back to the original "shedding" of an elector to McCain. Although a tie vote would be known in early November, the electors do not meet until December, giving them time to consider their options. The obvious Republican counter-attack would be to encourage multiple Republican ele
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
I would imagine that by about the year 2032, our candidates will be monkeys.
This, Sir, is an insult to monkeys everywhere!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Indeed. But I hear there are some terrifying space monkeys that are really quite amiable as long as you don't try to pin them down on any real political issues.
"Honestly folks, I think my brain is broken." John Stewart
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Hunh. OK. I just thought you liked pissing matches, and were happy to continue as long as I was. I was actually going to mention that I would be happy to enter another one at some point. Game? Or not so much?
But speaking of pissing, though there are some tasty single malt scotches (an arena I'm still exploring), Laphroaig, which has been called a lovely Islay, tastes to me like male-cat piss smells. IMHO. Though if someone can point out its virtues, I'd be happy to give it another try, keeping the good accounting in mind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
could be a medical condition ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME