US Presidential Election 2004 VII

Rascal:

Maybe Tigerman is “lying” and therefore will be in good company on this forum. Do YOU suddenly have a problem with people “lying?” I thought it was par for the course. I mean Bush “lied” and by extension, therefore, Clinton “lied” and Robin Cook “lied” and perhaps even a certain poster “lied” but cannot be named lest this post find itself in the Flouder Forum faster than you can whistle Dixie. What do you think? Is proof suddenly required that the Democrats are making these calls? Isn’t it just enough for someone who “believes” that someone “lied” to make the “assertion” to make it a “true fact?” Why the sudden interest in proof?

[quote=“fred smith”]Rascal:

Why the sudden interest in proof?[/quote]

It’s a pre-911 flashback. I get those myself whenever I run low on Kool-Aid.

Rascal, this technique works to stave them off until the next shipment arrives. Sit down, take a deep breath and repeat the following until the feelings pass:

“Syria and Iran and bears, oh my! Syria and Iran and bears, oh my!”

Try it. It works!

Following maposquid’s line of thinking, perhaps it was a bored IRS bureaucrat who told people that Schwartzkopf endorses Kerry.

WTF are you babbling about? You recently posted that Bush will “steal” the election. Where is your fucking proof? We already know where your standards are. :unamused:

Schwarzkopf lives in Florida. He has an anti-Democrat stance from 2000, and he has often condemned propaganda.

[quote]Gulf war commander, Gen Norman Schwarzkopf now lives in Florida. He led Republican condemnation of the five-page document which advised Democrat operatives how to raise objections to the postal votes.
Gen.Schwarzkopf said “It’s a very sad day in our country when the men and women of the armed forces are serving abroad and facing danger of a daily basis . . . and are denied the right to vote for the president of the United States who will be their commander in chief.”[/quote]

The DNC itself says it was a fake phone call. The Republicans don’t care, they just urge the DNC to stop making the phone calls that it isn’t making. The Republicans know how to use this kind of story. Here’s an actual news story from Florida, Nov. 1, 04: Miami Herald

Tigerman, Rascal can have opinions if he wants to have opinions. Opining that Bush will “steal” the election before the election occurs is a “prediction”. Run off to your dictionary now and look that word up.

Now, with regards to who made the phone calls, it’s probably not going to be the DNC itself. My prediction is that in this advanced day of *69 features and other caller-ID functions, the caller may be found unless he’s/she’s savvy about how to block those features. My other prediction is that it may be found that the allegations re: Schwartzkopf may be completely baseless – i.e., there actually were no calls made and this is yet another clumsy smear by Bush supporters. Either way, we can’t precisely know.

In the meanwhile, I look forward to hearing back from Tigerman what convoluted dictionary definitions he may come up with from an online Websters 1913 edition. Perhaps “prediction” will be defined as “a statement of present day fact”, but I hope not for the sake of the English language.

Wriiten by a democrat, but if it was kerry it would be exacty the same.

Why Bush will restart the draft if re-elected
A major terrorist attack could easily serve as the pretext for setting the draft in motion.
By Sen. Tom Harkin

mndaily.com/articles/2004/10/29/10950

I don’t know, never claimed so myself, and hence I don’t care.

Nice attempt to dodge the issue though it’s really embarassing that you cite a statement of mine from a thread about predictions and pick on a word that was set in double-quotation marks (for obvious reasons). That’s worth :unamused: :unamused:

Where’s your proof they didn’t?

Well, it’s interesting to see what way the oil industry sees things headed. Things must be very bad for Bush, indeed.

money.cnn.com/2004/11/01/markets … tm?cnn=yes

Oil falls as speculators favor Kerry

Light crude drops more than 3% as traders bet on a win for Senator Kerry; Brent falls nearly 4%.
November 1, 2004: 4:50 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Oil prices traded sharply lower Monday, briefly taking light crude below $50 on speculation that a U.S. election win for Sen. John Kerry could ease the geopolitical friction that helped fuel this year’s record-breaking rally.

Where’s your proof they didn’t?[/quote]

Proof? I already posted the news story in the Miami Herald. I think you just want to take out your frustration that Bush isn’t doing as well as you’d like at this point just before the election.

Where’s your proof they didn’t?[/quote]

Proof? I already posted the news story in the Miami Herald. I think you just want to take out your frustration that Bush isn’t doing as well as you’d like at this point just before the election.[/quote]

I asked for proof not some wimpy-assed denial! I want lawyers! Special prosecutors! Inquisitors! Thumb screws! Truth serum! Tequila!

(pant pant pant!)

Damn it! I’d kill for a beer.

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

Proof: “DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera said Republicans spliced an ad taped by Gen. Merrill McPeak to make it sound as if Schwarzkopf was speaking so they could accuse Democrats of dirty tricks.”

I wouldn’t say this was proof, but all the same, it isn’t a denial, it’s an accusation. I hope there’s some extra-constitutional committee that has the right to seize the DNC phone records to prove, once and for all, whether the DNC atually made a phone call to that man at the time.

[quote=“twocs”]Proof: “DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera said Republicans spliced an ad taped by Gen. Merrill McPeak to make it sound as if Schwarzkopf was speaking so they could accuse Democrats of dirty tricks.”
[/quote]

Well, just sit Mr. Jano Cabrera down and wrap him up with some duct tape. Judicious use of a blowtorch to various parts of his body should help get at the truth once and for all.

I thought you were going to suggest we should ship him to Cuba. There’s a secret US military base there. I’m not certain how they can get their equipment and supplies there despite an embargo, but I’m sure that the Republicans could circumvent the embargo for this special case.

A “secret military base”? Wow! You must mean Guantanamo. Shhhhhhh! Don’t tell anyone! IT’S A S-E-C-R-E-T!

movieweb.com/dvd/dvd.php?043396278998
nsgtmo.navy.mil/

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

HUH…? Gitmo is a ‘secret’?

LOL…man…there went [b]ANY[/b] creds you may have had in the bank!

"In 1903, the new Republic of Cuba leased to the United States the Naval Reservation on which the Naval Station was to be located. The lease was negotiated to implement an act of Congress of the United States approved 2 March 1901, and an appendix to the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba promulgated 20 May 1902.

The first lease agreement, copy appended for reference, was signed by President Estrada Palma on 16 February 1903, and by President Theodore Roosevelt on 23 February 1903. By this instrument Cuba leased to the United States certain areas of land and water in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda for the purpose of “coaling and naval stations”. (Bahia Honda was abandoned after nine years of occupation). Concerning Guantanamo, the agreement describes the leased “areas of land and water” as follows:"
The History of Guantanamo Bay

The extra-judicial proceedings at Guantanamo are secret. The documents are secret. Which prisoners are held there has been a secret. According to secret memorandums were written, lawyers for the White House, the Pentagon and the justice department had agreed that the prisoners had no rights under federal law or the Geneva convention. There’s a lot about that military base that is secret.

Would you prefer I had said “There’s a military base there of a highly secretive nature”?

I’d go beyond saying Gitmo is secretive, I’d say it’s weird, right up there with France retaining St. Pierre and Miquelon right off the Canadian coast. How the hell did the Brits miss those in the middle of the Seven Years War?

Did not miss them. France was allowed to keep them as stations for fishing vessels and such. The Great Banks and all that. It was a kind gesture on the part of the Brits along with letting the French keep Guadeloupe and Martinique. Part of the same Treaty of 1763. Signed in Utrecht I believe? Anyone?