We'll never know. Maybe, maybe not. All your "liberal court" did was order a *recount.* It could have gone either way. The Supreme **** stepped in and stopped it, handing the country to the Peter Principle poster boy.

And puhleese don't tell me about the recounts that were staged later. They were bogus.

And Katherine whateverhername is...what a ****.

That's about the worst insult I've ever read on this board!

depends. I dont know what the state law is on allowing felons to vote.
It was also silly that the media called the election in florida for Gore before the polls had even closed, cuasing a great many folks in the panhandle area to head home. That area typically votes republican.

It was also silly that folks in wisconsin were buying votes from homeless people with cigarrets.
heh. this sort of thing could go on and on.

No, I dont believe this is accurate. They had already had at least one recount, and were trying to do another when they ran out of time and Katherine Harris said "no, your time is up" the liberal supreme court said "screw the rules,, let them do thier recount. again."

didnt they do like 3 official recounts before someoen finaly said "enough"?

ad hominem is pointless.


A candidate almost always carries his home state. Even his folks back home didnt want him.

You're right, that is silly, probably useless as well, unlike the prevention of legal voters from excersizing their right by claiming they are felons. That was definitely not silly.


Yet more than half the country's population voted for him.

Nick Batzdorf wrote:
Hey Nick:

Did you read the article? My guess is that a CNN journalist might have a little more information than you. If you did read it, you would have noticed the following paragraph:

"The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq."

Here is the CDC's definition of Sarin:

"Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. They are similar to certain kinds of pesticides (insect killers) called organophosphates in terms of how they work and what kind of harmful effects they cause. However, nerve agents are much more potent than organophosphate pesticides."

Would you be comfortable writing it off to "some wanker with a tiny bomb" if Sarin was found in your neighborhood? Somehow I doubt it. Your post is ignorant, and clearly your ability to reconcile important facts is questionable. Er, your likely explanation is that it's either a) a set-up by the coalition or b) an irresponsible or uninformed journalist. Prove me wrong.

Bite me, Nick!!!!!


No. It says "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,...

That means he may ask for the opinion. He may require it, of them. It is not the President's requirement. It is a requirement that he MAY place on the executive officers.

Get it?

No. He doesn't need other approval.

It's simple. He MAY require others to give him opinions. There is NOTHING in there about needing approval, or anything like that.

You can "call me" on the fact that I looked up the speciic text of Article II of the Constitution to C&P in here. That I don't just have in my head (although I do recall key words). Other than that, I really do kind of know this stuff cold.

Like I said, previously:

Again, you posited a direct challenge and you were directly proven wrong.

The President has ALWAYS BEEN the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, since the inception of the Constitution.

Have you taken my advice and looked into the "war powers" debate? It doesn't seem you have.

What has changed a bit over the years, however - beginning with Lincoln's commmiting troops and navy ships to southern ports without a formal declaration of war - has been to what extent the President has the power/authority to commit troops without seeking the "advice and consent" of Congress in a formal declaration of war.

Again, I suggest you look into that SPECIFIC debate before pronouncing something like:

Again, that is INCORRECT.

The President has ALWAYS BEEN the Commander in Chief. There has been no change in that.

Actually, Fiery, I did read the article. That's how I can tell you're desperate to justify your pro-war position.

This one spells it out clearly:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040517_1180.html

"It was unclear if the sarin shell was from chemical rounds that the United Nations had tagged and marked for destruction before the U.S. invasion.

Prior to the war, U.N. inspectors had compiled a short list of proscribed items found during hundreds of surprise inspections: fewer than 20 old, empty chemical warheads for battlefield rockets, and a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas. The shells had been tagged by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s but somehow not destroyed by them.

Kay, who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons, said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam was supposed to destroy or turn over to the United Nations. In many cases, he said, Iraq did comply.

"It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile," Kay said. "I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."

While Saturday's explosion does demonstrate that Saddam hadn't complied fully with U.N. resolutions, Kay also said, "It doesn't strike me as a big deal."

And I wouldn't even want a bb gun going off in my neighborhood, never mind a bomb rigged with sarin. How does that justify a war that should never have happened?

At the time I actually did believe he had WMDs. Why would our government lie? I was still completely opposed to this war, for several reasons (starting with the very concept of a pre-emptive war being *insane*).

As far as WMDs, though, let's say Saddam had had them. What was preventing him from using them on us? Answer: the threat of overwhelming retaliation. But he was getting the retaliation anyway! That kind of takes away the motivation.

Fortunately that didn't happen, but it still won't change anything when they mysteriously dig up a bunch chemicals in late October.

Count me out.
This just might become a nicer place to live if Hillary was President....

Nick , you need to start your own forum, seems like you live for this type endless debate thread which has nothing to do whis website.

Do yall really read these posts? Must be the kind of people who actually watch survivor and vote on it, also the type that paint the large rocks on their front yard silver. Yeah Elvis is still alive, saw him in a sauser not long ago... :p