Why you should vote for Bush...

[Solid Lifters]

I was referring to the people who were taken off the register because they had the same/similar name as convicted felons. The people in Florida as I did mention earlier.

If you mentioned it, it was a long time ago, and I never read it.

There could be people taken off the list to vote because of some circumstances. So, these people should make sure they aren't taken off the list of legitimate voters. Again, failing to prove you have the right to vote is entirely the fault of the individual voter.

 

[okoj]

If you mentioned it, it was a long time ago, and I never read it.

There could be people taken off the list to vote because of some circumstances. So, these people should make sure they aren't taken off the list of legitimate voters. Again, failing to prove you have the right to vote is entirely the fault of the individual voter.

So you're saying the state can remove you from the electoral roll and it's you're prerogative to find this out? Did you check your status before voting?

 

[Solid Lifters]

Of course I do. I want my vote to count, don't I?

 

[///M-Spec]

As for Abu-Ghraib the information was witheld for several months by the US government whilst they tried to cover it up. It only came to light when information was leaked to international press. The people who repress this kind of information are not the kind of people who need to worry about laws, if it is deemed 'in the interest of national security' anything can be justified apparently.

Hmm... So the press broke a story that damages US military credibility while the military was actively trying to cover it up? Meanwhile, actual photos -which by far are the most damaging information to surface --were leaked to CBS (who broke the story) by whistleblowers within the army's own ranks.

Doesn't sound very draconian to me at all. So where are the laws you talked about? Where are the books? I'd like to know if they exist.


M

 

[okoj]

Hmm... So the press broke a story that damages US military credibility while the military was actively trying to cover it up? Meanwhile, actual photos -which by far are the most damaging information to surface --were leaked to CBS (who broke the story) by whistleblowers within the army's own ranks.

Doesn't sound very draconian to me at all. So where are the laws you talked about? Where are the books? I'd like to know if they exist.


M

Whistleblowers - are people that deem something too important to be covered up and take action to get the information out, they do not do it with the consent of their superiors.

There are several laws, such as 'shutter control' to name but one, and other more 'machiavellian' methods, such as pressuring networks.

 

[///M-Spec]

There are several laws, such as 'shutter control' to name but one, and other more 'machiavellian' methods, such as pressuring networks.

Please name the others. You said they were laws. Laws have to be on the books. Meaning they are a matter of public record.... I'd like to look them up.

Has the US government excerised these supposed laws on CBS? I don't see how since they televised the photos all over network TV.

What about The Lancet, for reporting on the number or civilian deaths in Iraq since the coalition took control? Why didn't the US military stop them from conducting the survey? Why didn't the US military simply confiscate the results and publish bogus results of their own? 100,000 is a pretty damaging number, yet I managed to hear about it, as I am sure you have as well.

How about the 377 tons of missing explosives? How did I manage to hear about that?

I've never heard of draconian censorship laws that were so ineffective. Its almost as if they don't really exist.


M

 

[okoj]

Please name the others. You said they were laws. Laws have to be on the books. Meaning they are a matter of public record.... I'd like to look them up.

Has the US government excerised these supposed laws on CBS? I don't see how since they televised the photos all over network TV.

What about The Lancet, for reporting on the number or civilian deaths in Iraq since the coalition took control? Why didn't the US military stop them from conducting the survey? Why didn't the US military simply confiscate the results and publish bogus results of their own? 100,000 is a pretty damaging number, yet I managed to hear about it, as I am sure you have as well.

How about the 377 tons of missing explosives? How did I manage to hear about that?

I've never heard of draconian censorship laws that were so ineffective. Its almost as if they don't really exist.


M

Did all these facts come to light at the time of them happening or did it take time and effort to get the facts out? Do you think these are the only negative things to have happened in Iraq since the invasion?
If you want to know more about freedom of the press in America do a google search there are far too many sites to list here.

 

[milefile]

There are several laws, such as 'shutter control' to name but one, and other more 'machiavellian' methods, such as pressuring networks.

Oh yeah... you must mean like how Kerry's army of lawyers pressured networks to not air the Swiftboat ads, or maybe how they pressured publishing companies to not release books damaging to his image under threat of legal action.

You need to learn how and when to use the term Machiavellian. For starters, try reading The Prince.

 

[okoj]

Oh yeah... you must mean like how Kerry's army of lawyers pressured networks to not air the Swiftboat ads, or maybe how they pressured publishing companies to not release books damaging to his image under threat of legal action.

...and how the Bush campaign tried to repress Farenheit 911? I never said Kerry was some poor innocent, I'm just suprised that people really think they are getting the big picture from mainstream press.

Oh, and machiavellian means deceitful and cunning, does it not?

 

[///M-Spec]

Did all these facts come to light at the time of them happening or did it take time and effort to get the facts out?

What does that have to do with the laws? I just want to know where they are.

Do you think these are the only negative things to have happened in Iraq since the invasion?

Nope. But not having information and someone preventing you from aquiring information isn't the same thing.

I don't know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, but that doesn't mean there's a government conspiracy preventing me from finding out.

If you want to know more about freedom of the press in America do a google search there are far too many sites to list here.

You can also do a search for "alien crop circles" on Google and get 47,700 hits. What can I conclude from that?


M

 

[okoj]

What does that have to do with the laws? I just want to know where they are.



Nope. But not having information and someone preventing you from aquiring information isn't the same thing.

I don't know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, but that doesn't mean there's a government conspiracy preventing me from finding out.




You can also do a search for "alien crop circles" on Google and get 47,700 hits. What can I conclude from that?


M

???
That's just childish. My answers from my previous post still stand.

 

[Danoff]

That's just childish. My answers from my previous post still stand.

Actually, I think ///M successfully refuted them.

 

[///M-Spec]

???
That's just childish.

Childish? You offer a google search as credible evidence that something exists. I illustrate you can generate copious hit returns on something marginally believable. What's childish about that?

I get 190,000 hits for "loch ness monster" and 991,000 hits for "bigfoot", btw.

My answers from my previous post still stand.

They don't stand for much. I've been asking you to prove these laws you describe exist. You can't. But you won't admit you can't, so instead you've been giving me the run around for several posts.

Prove they exist, admit they don't or withdraw from the debate. Pick one; its just that simple.


M

 

[Carl.]

... and 991,000 hits for "bigfoot", btw.

Yes. But you still forgot to remove the ones that are for this:

ha!


Still on a lighter tone, as I always say, you Americans should follow the example of Canadians, for their political campaigns. This is an actual ad, straight from the Liberals (yes, our P.M. Paul Martin's party):

(Sorry for the size, haven't found any bigger picture of it on the net. it says "show yourself" litteraly translated, but it rather means express yourself)

Well, that's great isn't it? If we're to get empty messages that doean't mean much from our political leaders, well...

Gee, I want to vote for Paul Martin now!

 

[Pako]

Oh yeah... you must mean like how Kerry's army of lawyers pressured networks to not air the Swiftboat ads, or maybe how they pressured publishing companies to not release books damaging to his image under threat of legal action.

...and how the Bush campaign tried to repress Farenheit 911? I never said Kerry was some poor innocent, I'm just suprised that people really think they are getting the big picture from mainstream press.

Oh, and machiavellian means deceitful and cunning, does it not?

Maybe this is why Bush's campaign would try to repress this, what was believed to be, a documentary:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Just a thought.....

 

[Arwin]

Maybe this is why Bush's campaign would try to repress this, what was believed to be, a documentary:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Just a thought.....

When it comes to repressing freedom of speech, I thought there was no good why ...

Honestly, my impression was that Disney just was too chicken to bring it out, and that was the sole reason why the rest of the world saw it before the U.S., and that in the end it was a nice piece of 'creative' work nicely contributing to the modern interpretation of the 'documentary' genre (i.e. creative, sloppy, full of conjecture and lousy journalism). Did I miss something?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

When it comes to repressing freedom of speech, I thought there was no good why ...

Not many good reasons, but if the speech is inciting racial hatred or violence, your right of free speech can be revoked. Or a more loose interpretation could include journalistic films that undermine government. We have slander laws over here, so if there are lies being portrayed as facts, an injunction can be enforced.

I can understand why the US government would want to suppress this film, as there are a lot of people that quote from it, as if it were a factual documentary. And they may solely base their political opinion on soundbites and films of that nature.

btw Arwin are you having a shot at journalists, I thought that was your profession

 

[Arwin]

Not many good reasons, but if the speech is inciting racial hatred or violence, your right of free speech can be revoked. Or a more loose interpretation could include journalistic films that undermine government. We have slander laws over here, so if there are lies being portrayed as facts, an injunction can be enforced.

I can understand why the US government would want to suppress this film, as there are a lot of people that quote from it, as if it were a factual documentary. And they may solely base their political opinion on soundbites and films of that nature.

My comment was slightly sarcastic, but I suppose you were away when I discussed freedom with certain other members.

Anyway, in this case I do have to agree. Repressing this documentary was a bad idea. All it did was make sure everybody just *had* to see it. For the record, I'm one of the few who didn't bother.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Oh..I didn't see the rest of the posts

 

[///M-Spec]

Still on a lighter tone, as I always say, you Americans should follow the example of Canadians, for their political campaigns. This is an actual ad, straight from the Liberals (yes, our P.M. Paul Martin's party):

Well damn. Makes me wanna get dual citizenship just so I can vote for this guy.

POST HIGH RES PIC OR BAN!!

(kidding, of course)


M

 

[Danoff]

Still on a lighter tone, as I always say, you Americans should follow the example of Canadians, for their political campaigns. This is an actual ad, straight from the Liberals (yes, our P.M. Paul Martin's party):

Now that's a campaign!!! Why can't Bush and Kerry advertise like that?

 

[Carl.]

Well damn. Makes me wanna get dual citizenship just so I can vote for this guy.

POST HIGH RES PIC OR BAN!!

(kidding, of course)


M

No hi-res.

To put that in context, this ad was aimed at younger voters, strategically placed in some of Montreal bars, mostly in restrooms to be precise... the guy responsible for the design is 19 years old (!). May be nice to look at, but I'm obviously puzzled as what the association of two naked lesbians about to get naughty has to do with a polical party.

Oh well, what do I know. Who is Danoff? *shrugs*

 

[Danoff]

Oh well, what do I know. Who is Danoff? *shrugs*

 

[///M-Spec]

^ I like the new avatar danoff. Suits you.


M

 

[Danoff]

^ I like the new avatar danoff. Suits you.

Thanks. TheCracker helped me with it. I knew what I wanted I was just having trouble finding it.

 

[ledhed]

An allusion to Atlas shrugged no doubt ? 💡 From your post that I have read I would never have imagined....

 

[High-Test]

It seems so different... Nice:tup:

 

[Danoff]

From your post that I have read I would never have imagined....

At least now there's certain not to be any mistake.

 

[K_Speed]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=3&u=/041029/480/nyet27010291345

lol