|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 13:53:50 GMT -5
I didn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:01:22 GMT -5
No, you didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 17, 2004 14:03:05 GMT -5
Just do it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 14:05:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 14:06:34 GMT -5
You'll notice I've already pasted those links.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:12:29 GMT -5
Help me to understand how "failing to give more precise guidelines" is equivilent to "ordering the abuses", yet the language that the swift boat dudes are using are nothing but blatant lies.
And on your voting equipment defense -- please review the testimony given by the voting equipment expert during Bush v. Gore -- you'll see that the expert testimony said that the only way to produce the dimpled chads would be through human mis-use of the equipment ... not faulty equipment as MoveOn is claiming. Further, if you review the error rates of all the voting methods used (this includes touch screen) you'll find that the punch card ballot is actually the most accurate system we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:13:35 GMT -5
You'll notice I've already pasted those links. Yes you did. You posted the links as I was stating that you had not addressed them ... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 14:15:32 GMT -5
I'm not getting into a "was he REALLY elected" discussion...
The electoral votes went to Bush no matter which way you cut, the electral college actually elects the president...yadda yadda yadda...these votes should, in threory, reflect the popular vote. This time they didn't. Is it the result fo tampering? Could be. Wouldn't suprise me. There are shady voting "incidents" on both sides in every election. I'm conserned with this election.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:19:08 GMT -5
I'm not getting into a "was he REALLY elected" discussion... The electoral votes went to Bush no matter which way you cut, the electral college actually elects the president...yadda yadda yadda...these votes should, in threory, reflect the popular vote. This time they didn't. Is it the result fo tampering? Could be. Wouldn't suprise me. There are shady voting "incidents" on both sides in every election. I'm conserned with this election. DED, snap back to the point ... MoveOn is not claiming that the 2000 election did not reflect the popular vote, or that there incidents. They are claiming that Bush was elected BECAUSE of faulty voting equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 14:21:27 GMT -5
Sure, I'll help you to understand: 1) Rumsfeld "handpicked" these guys "from members of his own Defense Policy Board". And we all know that guys handpicked from Rumsfeld's DPB are going to have the integrity to release what occured at Abu Ghraib. And speaking of integrity, 2) read the second link.
I'd imagine that a voting system that lends itself to such "human misuse" is kinda faulty. You think?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:25:41 GMT -5
Thank you for proving my point today Shin ... you don't apply the same standards of proof to all rhetoric ... you give more weight to that which puts the guy you don't like in a bad light. It's one thing for me to state it. But it really strengthens the argument when you're willing to illustrate it by acting it out so well. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 14:28:24 GMT -5
When punch card are clearly marked and easy to read I imagine they are the best way...but when they are small, confusing and designed stupid they probably lend themselves to quite abit of "misuse".
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 14:31:46 GMT -5
... you don't apply the same standards of proof to all rhetoric ... you give more weight to that which puts the guy you don't like in a bad light. Pot, kettle, black and all that... |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 14:56:25 GMT -5
Thank you for proving my point today Shin ... you don't apply the same standards of proof to all rhetoric ... you give more weight to that which puts the guy you don't like in a bad light. It's one thing for me to state it. But it really strengthens the argument when you're willing to illustrate it by acting it out so well. Thanks! This is of course assuming that the words of established smear artists have the same weight as those of established (and very famous and respected) journalists. But then again I'd imagine that to some, if not you specifically, they *do* have the same weight, no? John Kerry's military record: has been examined, scrutinized and reported on for years. Misrepresented in smear job. Schlesinger's report: not yet made public (?). Developing story. Implicates Rumsfeld directly, though to what degree is not yet confirmed. I'm sorry, these do not compare regardless of the availability of the facts. I don't believe I even have to explain this. But what's more, those were the accusations of MoveOn, not mine. The point of what I was trying to say is that MoveOn's accusations are nowhere near the smear of SBVfT. You act like what MoveOn is saying is so far out there that it's beyond the pale. Sorry, it's all based in truth if not truth in itself. Virtually every charge SBVfT have made has been shown to be false. Outright false, not he said/she said false. False. Some of the SBVfT have even RECANTED their statements in shame. The statements that MoveOn have made have more merit in truth than the SBVfT, yet you have no problem labeling THAT "crap". No he said/she said defense for THEM. That you don't recognize this to me shows that you're the one who doesn't apply the same standards to these things. Thank YOU for proving your OWN point. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 14:59:56 GMT -5
The point of what I was trying to say is that MoveOn's accusations are nowhere near the smear of SBVfT. I know that this is the point you wer trying to make. That is exactly why I said that you've proven my point. |
|
