foul

This is something I found on youtube yesterday. I thought the guy seemed a little weird but all the same I felt compelled by his stand he is taking. Regardless of his stand and who it is for or against, although it is valid-

I think the more important thing is this is freedom of speech at the extreme. Which is raw honesty-how someone feels 'uncut' without censorship/filter(ing). And quite frankly he does seem a little upset which takes a little of the impact off-but he is more then a schmo, between his obvious angry felt words and cursing he has valid point-and seems a little more then somewhat educated on what he speaks of. He isn't just yelling 'I'm mad' he has reasons and is stating them.
I am not sure the effectiveness of the way he did it.
But I am not sure he was going for an effectiveness, it appears he just had a message to relay-and did so.

I thought I would share what I found, draw your own conclusions.

If you don't want to watch freedom of speech in raw form- don't watch this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oCh-mSCEw&feature=related

You argue a never ending arguement that has no base of fact.
Stating opinions does not make it so.

Look,-- I got candy

ok I found ads for you,
not sure if you found any yet, you can browse them all.. you're probably looking for something different. I have no idea- but,
this is the newest- they just sent it to me yesterday....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvyrLOjAP9o&NR=1

you're welcome

I left my heart in San Francisco,

I go back for it on occassion...

Who says who is better? Who is making the claim?

Because better to save face, and dwell less on the facts he is there.
He is not there by accident, he is there by 'purpose.'

Speeches are nice, but they are simply a speech without base of fact. You stating it is so, does not make it so.

Statistical/actual facts -more then opinionated reasoning goes much further with people that are educated.

I will share my stars with you...

no no kidding


Lovely

I'm going to start having nightmares over her, I can see it now.

ohzz wowsers...

ha

“Front row is like being in the center of your life. Be careful who or whom you invite to attend the show or exclusive episodes of your life. Better yet whom you give a reoccurring roleTake inventory of who is in your front row…………….

Life is like a theater, so invite your audiences carefully. Not everyone is holy enough and healthy enough to have a FRONT ROW seat in our lives. There are some people in your life that need to be loved from a distance. It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you let go, or at least minimize your time with draining, negative, incompatible, not-going-anywhere relationships, friendships, fellowships, and even family!!!
Observe the relationships around you. Pay attention to:
Which ones lift and which ones lean?
Which ones encourage and which ones discourage?
Which ones are on a path of growth uphill and which ones are just going downhill or just standing still???
When you leave certain people, do you feel better or feel worse?
Which ones always have drama or don’t really understand, know, and appreciate you and the gift that lies within you?
The more you seek things that are honorable, the more you seek growth, peace of mind, love and truth around you, the easier it will become for you to decide who gets to sit in the Front Row and who should be moved to the BALCONY of your life.
You cannot change the people around you…but you can change the people you are around

Everyone Can’t Be in Your Front Row. “~Unknown

girl what you doing with her pic. on your default???

The sunni's on board for what? You are saying what about the sunni's?

Thank you,

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle


It tends to be seen as simple----- 'mine is better than yours'

or 'conversion tactics' because this is where your loyalties should rest.

Take notice there are people who do not stand on one side or the other-

And using terms such as 'Libs' 'radical' 'neo' this or that, is baiting and confrontation tactics that are not productive to a geniune debate of educated thoughts.

It is strong arm- and noted as such.

Personally I am less impressed when it comes to a speech on why 'your party sux' and 'why we rule'
such as 'we are just great'--and you will lose and be a loser .. basically.

That falls on blind eye--- myself I scroll past 95 percent of posts that are plainly just intention of being offensive-

In contrast posts with content that seems supported in a respectable format I will follow, regardless if it is promoting dem or rep, etc...

Because I am interested in everything- except that attack based post(ing).

The public expresses more support for the Supreme Court than for the president or Congress. The public dislikes the disagreements and debates and the negotiations and compromises among governmental officials and it deplores the efforts of interest groups to influence governmental policies. These messy features of democratic government, which are visible in the executive and legislative branches, are not visible in the judicial branch. Many people conclude that they do not occur.
Indeed, many people assume that courts are nonpolitical and that judges are objective. People say we have 'a government of laws, not of men.' But this view is a myth. At any time in our history, 'it is individuals who make, enforce and interpret the law.' When judges interpret the law, they are political actors and the courts are political institutions.

Thus public support for the Supreme Court and the lower courts rests partly on false assumptions about the absence of politics in this branch.

The 2000 election will be remembered as the election won by the candidate, Bush, who got fewer votes than his rival, Gore, and the election decided by the United States Supreme Court. The division in the Electoral College WAS CLOSE, and the decision rested on the outcome in Florida where election mismanagement, partisan politics, and unavoidable human error came together to create chaos in a closely divided race.

Election Day exit polls of Florida voters showed Gore winning by a small margin. Then networks declared Bush the winner, then in early morning hours decided it was too close to call.
Confusion reigned in the days afterward.
Thousands of Gore votes were lost because of the strange 'butterfly' ballot configuration in Palm Beach County, a heavily Democratic Liberal county. The odd format, designed by the supervisor of elections in the county, made it difficult for some voters to determine which punch hole corresponded to which presidential candidate.
Even though it was recognized early on Election Day by some distraught voters leaving the polling places, there was no way that local election officials felt they could fix the problem then.

More than three thousand voters pushed the hole registering a vote for Patrick Buchanan, to the right of Gore's name on the ballot. This is particularly ironic because of the areas of Palm Beach County casting the most votes for Buchanan were those inhabited by mostly elderly Jewish voters, the least likely group to support Buchanan, who is thought to be anti-Semitic. As on elderly Jewish woman exclaimed after mistakenly voting for Buchanan, 'I would rather have had a colonoscopy than vote for that S O B Buchanan.
Nearly 3 thousand voted for Gore and the socialist candidate whose punch hole was underneath Gore, apparently thinking they voted for Lieberman, Gore's vice presidential running mate, whose name was under Gore's.

While some spoiled ballots are normal in every election, this erratic pattern in one county was a result of the badly designed ballot.

There was also a problem with the oversea ballots. Americans overseas have the right to vote. They must ask for a ballot before the election and mail it by the day of the election, but the ballot does not need to be received by local officials until ten days after the election. There are strict rules about how these ballots are to be certified to avoid vote fraud: for example, the ballots have to have legible overseas postmarks showing the ballot was cast on or before the election day and the voters had to have registered in advance. But hundreds of these ballots came in without postmarks or with U.S. postmarks, from voters who were not registered, or that lacked a witness.

After the election, Gore and the Democrats pursued a conservative strategy to deal with these problems that likely cost him the election. Nothing could be done about the butterfly ballot problem save a revote, and nothing in Florida law allowed that. To deal with tens of thousands of incompletely punched cards throughout the state, Gore asked only for a recount in four strongly Democratic counties. Later, after the Bush campaign sued to stop the recount, Gored did challenge Bush to have a recount in every county, but did not file suit to accomplish it. Finally, when the Florida Supreme Court mandated a recount in every county, so much time had elapsed that the U.S. Supreme Court threw up its hands and gave the election to Bush.

The biggest mistake of the Democrats was not to challenge the overseas votes, even the hundreds that were patently illegal under Florida laws. Indeed, 680 were flawed, including nearly 2 hundred with U.S. postmarks, indicating that they had been mailed from within the country rather than from overseas; 344 were late, illegible, or missing postmarks; and even 38 reflected double voting by 19 voters. Clearly the local election judges would have thrown these out had Democratic Party representatives challenged them. But they did not, out of a timid concern about not wanting to appear against voting rights of overseas armed forces personnel, even fraudulent ones.

As a consequence of the illegal military ballots alone, Gore lost Florida by 537 votes when his Election Day margin was 202 votes.

The Bush post election campaign was more skillful and more aggressive. At one point the Bush campaign even organized a demonstration to intimidate election officials in Miami-Dade County to stop conducting a recount they were in the middle of Demonstrators barged into the building, yelling and pounding on doors.

Photos from that event showed that many of the 'demonstrators' were staffers in conservative congressional Republican offices who had been sent to Florida to do this, though at the time the election officials recounting the ballot did not know that. The demonstration succeeded in getting the officials to halt the recount.

The Bush campaign was also more aggressive in persuading election officials how to treat overseas ballots. Repub. representatives urged election officials in Democratic-majority counties to follow the law in handling overseas ballots, so illegal ballots would not be counted;

In Repub. counties, they urged election officials to disregard the law, so illegal ballots would be counted.

In addition, the Bush campaign had strong political allies in Florida. Not only was Bush's brother the governor, but the secretary of state, who oversees the election system, was co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign. Making little effort to appear nonpartisan, every opportunity she ruled in favor of the Bush campaign and forced the Gore campaign to go to court to obtain recounts and redress.

Time also worked for the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign used delaying tactics to slow and stop recounts.

Two independent scholars argue that the probability is about 99 percent that Gore would have won if the invalid overseas ballots were handled properly and statewide recount was allowed under any reasonable standard for counting chads.

Quoted from; American Government-Political Science text.

Actually it was the U.S. Supreme Court that put him in office not Congress. They stopped the recount on the butterfly ballots. While Bush and his Campaign were banging on doors and windows of where the recounts were being done. Which is illegal. He got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop counting the votes. That is the truth of the matter in a nutshell. He would of not won if all the votes were recounted.
It is in the history books.

Well you did say federalist were first, that I wanted to make point more than anything. Not to draw out anything.

But thanks, yea I had researched that previously for another reason. So I had already known. I just pulled it up. That is why I asked you initially to see what you understood.

:D
I'm educated.
I respect and appreciate the cordial response.