On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:27:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Pick the dumbest and least defensible position and there
you'll find Gunner.

Oh, jeez. Then I hope he never finds out you're a closet Democrat. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Closet Democrat? Is that the new definition for Socialist Scum?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:03:01 -0600, "shu" wrote:


"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...


there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and


Impossible--the vast majority of "bloggers" had no "credibility" to
begin
with.

So do they have some now ???

Who gave it to them ???

--

SVL

The good ones can earn credibilty just as any journalist / media outlet/
whatever can, and they can lose it too.. just like any journalist/media
out
let/ etc can. (ie cbs news),

Ya right, agenda driven, start with a conclusion and work
backwards--cherrie
picking the "facts"........

I don't agree with that asseration, I would say the left does just that on a
daily basis.
for example.. you *know* george bush is "hitler".. you *know* george bush is
going to reinstitute the draft..
you *know* george bush is going to kill senior citizens with social security
reform, you *know* george bush wants to hurt poor people *somehow* by giving
tax breaks to the EVIL rich.., or george bush is going to take away old
people's medical.
so. you go around and look for evidence to support your claims, then when
you can't find any you lie about it .

snip
Your a paranoid schizophrenic is all, suggest get some help.........
SVL

translates "you disagree with me, therefore you are insane, and have no
crediablity"
predictiable...

*****
shu

Point set and match to Shu.

In trap shooting..she just ran a perfect 25

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:38:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"shu" wrote in message
. ..
snip

What a crok.
the truth is a lot more simple.
there *is* a large media establishment. it IS liberally biased.
and it Does NOT like competition,

Look out, shu. They've heard about you, and they're coming to get you.

there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and
interenet news sources in general. such as drudge

"News" sources such as Drudge? Haha! Now a lot of things are becoming
clearer...

snip

You prefer "news" sources like Dan Rather or Michael Moore. Correct?

Snicker.......

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:30:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Drudge is not a journalist, nor has he claimed to be. He's a rumor monger,
^^^^^^
like the little old ladies who used to write the society columns in
newspapers. He rarely checks his facts and his decisions to run something or
not has nothing to do with the credibility of his (usually) single source.
It all depends on how provocative or controversial it is.

You miss spelled Rather....

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"shu" wrote in message
...

I don't agree with that asseration, I would say the left does just that on
a
daily basis.
for example.. you *know* george bush is "hitler".. you *know* george bush
is
going to reinstitute the draft..
you *know* george bush is going to kill senior citizens with social
security
reform, you *know* george bush wants to hurt poor people *somehow* by
giving
tax breaks to the EVIL rich.., or george bush is going to take away old
people's medical.
so. you go around and look for evidence to support your claims, then when
you can't find any you lie about it .


Interesting......

So these must the qualifiers that define the "left" in your mind.......ya
got any more, or are you gonna just keep pulling em outa your ass as you go
along ???


snip
Your a paranoid schizophrenic is all, suggest get some help.........
SVL

translates "you disagree with me, therefore you are insane, and have no
crediablity"


I'm not making *any* claims pertaining to *my own* sanity.....

To do so is...well...crazy.....


predictiable...


Yup, quite the piece of troll bait you indeed are.

=====

....NOW...

How many ****ing times am I gonna have to tell you ???

DON'T feed the TROLLS !!!

--

SVL

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle.

Of the Left.

You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle
and who is on the fringe? You're out there where they hang on to the earth
by their fingernails. Republitarians, however, are hanging on to both edges
at once. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:30:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Drudge is not a journalist, nor has he claimed to be. He's a rumor
monger,
^^^^^^
like the little old ladies who used to write the society columns in
newspapers. He rarely checks his facts and his decisions to run something
or
not has nothing to do with the credibility of his (usually) single
source.
It all depends on how provocative or controversial it is.

You miss spelled Rather....

Gunner


lol

******
shu

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...

I don't agree with that asseration, I would say the left does just that
on
a
daily basis.
for example.. you *know* george bush is "hitler".. you *know* george
bush
is
going to reinstitute the draft..
you *know* george bush is going to kill senior citizens with social
security
reform, you *know* george bush wants to hurt poor people *somehow* by
giving
tax breaks to the EVIL rich.., or george bush is going to take away old
people's medical.
so. you go around and look for evidence to support your claims, then
when
you can't find any you lie about it .


Interesting......

So these must the qualifiers that define the "left" in your mind.......ya
got any more, or are you gonna just keep pulling em outa your ass as you
go
along ???


tell me then, what does the left think george bush is going to do?


snip
Your a paranoid schizophrenic is all, suggest get some help.........
SVL

translates "you disagree with me, therefore you are insane, and have
no
crediablity"


I'm not making *any* claims pertaining to *my own* sanity.....

To do so is...well...crazy.....

ok that was funny,


blah blah bridges blah blah snip

--
**********
shu

"shu" wrote in message
...

tell me then, what does the left think george bush is going to do?


Catch Osama Bin Laden, of course !!!

Oh, and rid the world of terrorists.......


I'm not making *any* claims pertaining to *my own* sanity.....

To do so is...well...crazy.....

ok that was funny,


blah blah bridges blah blah snip


Someday you might understand, so Ive not given up hope quite yet......

While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole
nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....(
hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the
streets with roses".......

--

SVL

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Wait a minute. One one hand, you're saying Lincoln had no authority to
do
these things, even during an insurrection by known combatants, while on
the
other hand, you're saying that George Bush does, even though he doesn't
know
who is the enemy and who is not.

Which is it that you believe?

--
You are of the mistaken belief that Bush has done what Lincoln spit
did. Of course, from your vantage point on the fringe..it may appear
so.

My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle. As for
Bush
doing what Lincoln did, it was somewhat worse. The case law on "war
powers"
allows them in time of "invasion or rebellion." Bush has neither invasion
nor rebellion to excuse himself. The "invaders" are already dead.


Btw...according to constitutional scholars..SCOTUS held the florida
courts feet to the fire...making them follow their OWN rules, rather
than letting them change the rules in the middle of the game.
Hardly making them do something that was improper.

You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you
out yourself occasionally.

How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal
law
practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its
authority.

And I didn't say Bush wasn't elected. It may well be that he won Florida.
But, since the Supreme Court intervened, we'll never really know the
answer
to that one, either.

A standardless, partial recount of disputed ballots, as ordered by the
Florida Supreme Court, was not going to settle the issue. Bush was already
certified, and because of the changes to Florida Code by the Florida Supreme
Court, Bush was going to have a second slate of electors. IF Gore managed to
get a slate of his own electors because of this flawed recount, he still had
to get past Bush's two slates of electors, AND keep Congress from throwing
his slate out for violations to 3 U.S.C. section 5.

Gore lost the election as soon as Bush was certified the winner of Florida
(11/26/2000). The courts could not take away Bush's electors, and Congress,
or at least the US House were not going to allow Gore to win because a
change in the election practices in Florida, i.e., dimpled chads had never
been considered legal votes in that State of Florida.



--
Ed Huntress

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...

tell me then, what does the left think george bush is going to do?


Catch Osama Bin Laden, of course !!!

Oh, and rid the world of terrorists.......

in another words.. you don't have an answer..



I'm not making *any* claims pertaining to *my own* sanity.....

To do so is...well...crazy.....

ok that was funny,


blah blah bridges blah blah snip


Someday you might understand, so Ive not given up hope quite yet......

While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a
whole
nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....(
hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the
streets with roses".......

--

SVL

Sure I know them,
they are people that disagree with you, Those darn Gun totting liberty
loving Overly patriotic, file error right wing christian loony stereotype #
37 not found "wingers".

********
shu

"shu" wrote in message
...


"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...

tell me then, what does the left think george bush is going to do?


Catch Osama Bin Laden, of course !!!

Oh, and rid the world of terrorists.......

in another words.. you don't have an answer..


Because I dont have such a tendency to shove folks into either left field /
right field perhaps ???

First we must define "left"..........




I'm not making *any* claims pertaining to *my own* sanity.....

To do so is...well...crazy.....

ok that was funny,


blah blah bridges blah blah snip


Someday you might understand, so Ive not given up hope quite yet......

While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a
whole
nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....(
hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in
the
streets with roses".......

--

SVL

Sure I know them,
they are people that disagree with you, Those darn Gun totting liberty
loving Overly patriotic, file error right wing christian loony stereotype
#
37 not found "wingers".


Nope....

People who disagree with me ( for whatever reason ) are still just simply
"people who disagree with me" is all....

--

SVL

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

A flying lawnmower :

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/lawnfly.html

--

SVL

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

A flying lawnmower :

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/lawnfly.html

--

SVL

I know someone that made one of those,
he also has a flying snoopy doghouse.
http://www.flyingthingz.com/flying_t...cutter_kit.htm

http://www.flyinglindy.homestead.com/Mower.html

********
shu

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
m...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Wait a minute. One one hand, you're saying Lincoln had no authority
to
do
these things, even during an insurrection by known combatants, while
on
the
other hand, you're saying that George Bush does, even though he
doesn't
know
who is the enemy and who is not.

Which is it that you believe?

--
You are of the mistaken belief that Bush has done what Lincoln spit
did. Of course, from your vantage point on the fringe..it may appear
so.

My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle. As for
Bush
doing what Lincoln did, it was somewhat worse. The case law on "war
powers"
allows them in time of "invasion or rebellion." Bush has neither
invasion
nor rebellion to excuse himself. The "invaders" are already dead.


Btw...according to constitutional scholars..SCOTUS held the florida
courts feet to the fire...making them follow their OWN rules, rather
than letting them change the rules in the middle of the game.
Hardly making them do something that was improper.

You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you
out yourself occasionally.

How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal
law
practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its
authority.

And I didn't say Bush wasn't elected. It may well be that he won
Florida.
But, since the Supreme Court intervened, we'll never really know the
answer
to that one, either.

A standardless, partial recount of disputed ballots, as ordered by the
Florida Supreme Court, was not going to settle the issue. Bush was already
certified, and because of the changes to Florida Code by the Florida
Supreme
Court, Bush was going to have a second slate of electors.

Not necessarily. The USSC said, in the Bush v. Gore decision, "The press of
time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not
a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." But then, later
in the decision, the Court based its conclusion partly upon the December
12th deadline mandated by state statute.

Furthermore, the Court did not challenge the Fla. Supreme Court's decision
to hold a recount. It decided against the recount on procedural grounds,
because the USSC said it didn't satisfy the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment, and, again, because no remedy was available that would meet
the statutory deadline.

If the USSC had found those procedures acceptable, the state legislature
would also face the decision by the USSC in Bush v. Palm Beach. The Court
had already decided in that case that the state legislature could not change
the law after the election was held -- and the state law was that the
electors would be chosen by popular vote. If the Court further decided that
a recount reflected the true popular vote, the legislature was screwed.

So the Court said that equal protection guarentees must be followed and that
the deadline must be met. But it did not suggest that allowing the vote as
originally counted was fair or that it met equal protection guarentees
itself. This is one of the several contradictions in the case that has led
Constitutional scholars to say this will go down as one of the most
controversial cases in Court history.

IF Gore managed to
get a slate of his own electors because of this flawed recount, he still
had
to get past Bush's two slates of electors, AND keep Congress from throwing
his slate out for violations to 3 U.S.C. section 5.

If the USSC had already decided in favor of a recount and if Gore had won,
Congress wouldn't have been able to challenge it. The Court would have
decided which slate was the valid one. The Court doubtless would have issued
a writ of mandamus to Fla. to withdraw the second slate. How's that for a
constitutional crisis? g


Gore lost the election as soon as Bush was certified the winner of Florida
(11/26/2000). The courts could not take away Bush's electors

That's not the basis on which Bush v. Gore was decided. The USSC accepted
the challenge to that certification when it decided to hear the case, and
the terms on which it made its decision -- equal protection in a recount --
by definition says that they were deciding whether the certified slate would
be allowed to stand. If the Court had actually entertained the idea of
allowing Gore to prevail, they would have put themselves in one hell of a
fix.

The final USSC decision was solely a technical one based on the
practicalities of meeting the due process and equal protection clauses of
the 14th Amendment, while ostensibly adhering to Florida election law. The
Opinion of the Court, because it was per curiam and because five different
Justices weighed in with concurring or dissenting opinions, is not a very
enlightening document in itself. However, the concurring Justices --
Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia -- all joined the per curiam decision. It's a
brief and superficially simple decision, but its implications will keep
scholars busy for a long time to come.

The Court said:

"The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with
the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each
voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of
a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities.

"The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the
exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing
elections. Instead, we are
presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure
uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural
safeguards."

Strictly speaking, the Court avoided the question of whether a recount would
have been constitutional if those minimums were met, which was a proper
thing for them to do. But the question hangs in the air, as it often does
with intentionally narrow decisions, and it gives rise to the more complex
and more controversial positions taken in the concurring and dissenting
opinions. Those are the opinions in which the question comes up about when
the federal courts can intervene. Interestingly, the conservative justices
said the USSC can intervene in such a case, and the more liberal ones said
they cannot. This, of course, is the opposite of the usual
conservative/liberal split on the Court.


..., and Congress,
or at least the US House were not going to allow Gore to win because a
change in the election practices in Florida, i.e., dimpled chads had never
been considered legal votes in that State of Florida.

Once the Court got into the issue of deciding what constituted proper
procedure in the recount, on constitutional grounds, Congress was out of the
picture. The constitutional issue would already have been decided.

This case presented the country with the potential for a major
constitutional crises. The one good thing about the Bush v. Gore decision
was that, although it was a flawed decision in the opinion of a large number
of experts, it probably minimized the constitutional crisis itself,
regardless of the merits of the decision.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle.

Of the Left.

You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle
and who is on the fringe? You're out there where they hang on to the earth
by their fingernails. Republitarians, however, are hanging on to both edges
at once. g

I know all about the public Ed..its you Lefties that we are discussing
at the moment.

Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:45 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole
nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....(
hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the
streets with roses".......

--

SVL

Like this one?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43010

Arab leader reverses
view of Iraq war
Now sees it as catalyst for democracy across Mideast
Posted: February 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The leader of the Lebanese opposition, a sharp critic of Washington
foreign policy, says he's changed his view of the U.S. war in Iraq,
seeing it now as a catalyst for democratic change across the Arab
world.

Druze Muslim leader Walid Jumblatt, who is calling for an uprising
against Lebanon's Syrian occupiers, is almost sounding like a
neoconservative, says Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who
interviewed him in Beirut Monday.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started
because of the American invasion of Iraq," Jumblatt told the Post
columnist.

"I was cynical about Iraq," Jumblatt said. "But when I saw the Iraqi
people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of
a new Arab world."

Jumblatt said this spark of democratic revolt is spreading.

"The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is
changing," he said. "The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

In an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily Monday, Jumblatt blamed
the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on Lebanese
security officials backed by Syria.

Jumblatt said Hariri told him in a meeting two weeks ago he felt they
both were in danger.

The Druze leader told WND he is calling for an "uprising for
independence" demanding Damascus withdraw its nearly 20,000 troops
from the country and urging the current pro-Syrian government to step
down.

"We ask all in Lebanon to claim independence from Syria peacefully and
democratically," said Jumblatt.

Jumblatt, in conjunction with other major figures of the anti-Syrian
movement, put out a statement Friday urging the "dismissal of the
government, which has no legitimacy, and the formation of a
transitional administration to protect the Lebanese people and ensure
the immediate withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon to pave the
way for holding free and honest legislative elections."


Or perhaps these??

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3056429

Feb. 24, 2005, 10:05PM
Saudis enthusiastic about historic elections
Even skeptics are hopping on the democracy bandwagon
By STEVE COLL
Washington Post

JIDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA - Ibrahim Quayid turned up just before midnight,
a snow-bearded campaign consultant at his arm. A dozen businessmen and
scholars waited eagerly in a Jiddah executive's private reception room
nestled amid shopping malls and Red Sea breezes.

Quayid had barely tasted a date before the men erupted with questions:
How had he built his voter databases? How much money had he raised for
his campaign, and how had he spent it? How had he organized his
campaign staff, and which consultants had he relied upon? Above all:
How did he win?

Quayid said his successful campaign for the Riyadh Municipal Council
this month in the kingdom's first elections since 1963 was no fluke.
"I have been working for the last almost 15 years to promote the cause
of democracy in Saudi Arabia," he said. "I have lectured and written —
I've been denied lots of things because of my position on democracy."

Now he's a luminary of Saudi Arabia's tentative, ambiguous political
opening.

First phase of experiment
Since Quayid and six other candidates bested 639 rivals to win seats
on Riyadh's council in the first phase of a 3-month-long, constrained
experiment with electoral democracy, a measured but palpable wave of
enthusiasm has spread across the kingdom.

In regions that have not yet cast ballots, activists and candidates
are reacting to the capital's historic vote.

Newspaper columnists previously skeptical about the elections have
publicly endorsed them. Voter registration remains slow in some areas,
but candidates are launching new sign-up campaigns, adapting the
targeted drives that proved successful in Riyadh.

And in informal meetings such as the one visited by Quayid, energized
participants are debating platforms and campaign strategy, renewed in
their belief that something important may be at stake in the municipal
elections, even though women have been barred from all involvement and
the councils will remain subordinate to royal rule, splitting local
power with appointed officials.

"These elected people will have powers beyond their mandate," said
Basim Alim, a lawyer in Jiddah who has represented jailed advocates of
reform. "They have a wonderful opportunity to be vocal and talk about
anything and everything, beyond trash collection and sewage. ... It
falls upon these people to demonstrate how important it is to have
elected officials."

Prosecution of activists
For some other democracy advocates in the kingdom, however, hope for
an early spring of political change has been chilled by the continuing
prosecutions in Riyadh of three imprisoned advocates of a written
constitution for the kingdom. The men have been charged with holding
unauthorized political meetings and distributing unauthorized
petitions, according to several people involved in their case.

In the same week that the Saudi government posted and celebrated the
results of the Riyadh area's municipal voting, it barred lawyers and
supporters from the accused activists' courtroom and threatened to
convict them without a formal trial because the men refused to present
a defense, according to several lawyers.

As oil prices settle well above $40 a barrel, igniting a new revenue
boom for the Saudi government, reformers predict a period of
retrenchment in which the royal family will dole out cascading new
wealth to forestall the challenges posed by democracy.

During his Riyadh campaign, Quayid said, voters often asked why he
wanted to be on a municipal council that was nothing but "a
decoration" put up under "American pressure."

His answer: "When I ran in the first place, I did not look at the
authority of the council. ... I thought about a constitutional
institution that is elected for the first time in Saudi Arabia, in my
age. I thought I wanted to be part of this process."

Or maybe these?

Middle East - AP
AP
Shiites, Kurds Winners in Iraq Election

Sun Feb 13, 5:35 PM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Middle East - AP

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Clergy-backed Shiites and independence-minded Kurds
swept to victory in Iraq (news - web sites)'s landmark elections,
propelling to power the groups that suffered the most under Saddam
Hussein (news - web sites) and forcing Sunni Arabs to the margins for
the first time in modern history, according to final results released
Sunday.

Photo
AP Photo

Reuters Photo
Reuters
Slideshow Slideshow: Iraq Elections

AP Video Shiites Win Nearly Half of Iraqi Votes
(AP Video)

Special Coverages
Latest headlines:
· 30 Die in Series of Attacks Across Iraq
AP - 19 minutes ago
· U.S. Marine Killed in Western Iraq Offensive
Reuters - 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
· German leader heads to Gulf for seven-nation tour
AFP - 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
Special Coverage



But the Shiites' 48 percent of the vote is far short of the two-thirds
majority needed to control the 275-member National Assembly. The
results threw immediate focus on Iraqi leaders' backdoor dealmaking to
create a new coalition government — possibly in an alliance with the
Kurds — and on efforts to lure Sunnis into the fold and away from a
bloody insurgency.

Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the secular Shiite chosen by the
United States to lead this country for the last eight turbulent
months, fared poorly — his ticket finishing a distant third behind the
religious Shiites and Kurds.

"This is a new birth for Iraq," election commission spokesman Farid
Ayar said, announcing results of the Jan. 30 polling, the first free
election in Iraq in more than 50 years and the first since Saddam
fell. Iraqi voters "became a legend in their confrontation with
terrorists."

Iraqi Kurds danced in the streets and waved Kurdish flags when results
were announced in the oil-rich, ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk.
Thousands more Kurds — a people who were gassed and forced from their
homes by Saddam's forces — turned out in Sulaimaniyah, firing weapons
in the air and carrying posters of their leaders.

"I feel that I am born again," said Bakhtiyar Mohammed, 42. "I am very
happy because we suffered a lot. Now I can say that I am an Iraqi Kurd
with pride."

President Bush (news - web sites) praised Iraqis and said America and
its allies should be proud for making the election possible. "I
congratulate the Iraqi people for defying terrorist threats and
setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom," he said
in a statement. "And I congratulate every candidate who stood for
election and those who will take office once the results are
certified."

The Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance ticket received 4,075,295
votes, or about 48 percent of the total cast, officials said.

The Kurdistan Alliance, a coalition of two main Kurdish parties,
finished second with 2,175,551 votes, or 26 percent. And the Iraqi
List headed by Allawi stood third with 1,168,943 votes, or nearly 14
percent.

Parties have three days to lodge complaints, after which the results
will be certified and seats in the new Assembly distributed. Seats
will generally be allocated according to the percentage of votes that
each ticket won. It appeared only 12 coalitions would take seats. The
Shiites stand to gain up to 140 seats with the Kurds could end up with
about 75.

"This is a great victory for the Iraqi people," said Ahmad Chalabi, a
former Pentagon (news - web sites) protege and member of the Shiite
ticket who is lobbying for the prime minister's post. "We will have an
assembly which is elected by the people and the government which is
completely legitimate and elected by the people."

Other leading contenders for the top post include fellow Shiites
Ibrahim Jaafari, a vice president; Finance Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi;
and former nuclear scientist Hussain al-Shahristani.

Abdul-Mahdi told al-Arabiya the next Iraqi government is burdened with
"difficult and complicated responsibilities that require national
unity and the wide support of the national assembly," and the
presidency. He said his alliance is "seeking to realize a wide
national harmony in choosing" for those positions.

The election results highlighted the sharp differences among Iraq's
ethnic, religious and cultural groups — many of whom fear domination
not just by the Shiites, estimated at 60 percent of the population,
but also by the Kurds, the most pro-American group with about 15
percent.

The results also draw attention to the close and longtime ties between
now-victorious Iraqi Shiite leaders and clerics in neighboring Iran.
The Shiite ticket owes its success to the support of Iraq's clerics,
including Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

In contrast, many Sunni Arabs, who make up an estimated 20 percent of
the population, stayed home on election day, either out of fear of
violence or to support a boycott call by radical clerics opposed to
the U.S. military.

Overall, national turnout was about 60 percent, the commission said —
but only 2 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots in Anbar
province, the Sunni insurgent stronghold that includes Ramadi and
Fallujah.



Turnout was also low in the Sunni Arab provinces of Ninevah and
Salaheddin, both insurgency centers. An American soldier was killed
and another wounded in Salaheddin as the results were being announced
in Baghdad.

After results came out Sunday, some Sunnis again rejected the whole
process.

"The elections were held to fight the Sunnis and were led by the
Americans with the Kurds and Shiites," said Ramadi mechanic Abdullah
al-Dulaimi. "The election results will lead to a sectarian war."

Mohammed Bashar of the anti-American Association of Muslim Scholars
said he questioned the figures because few international or U.N.
monitors were present in Iraq for the vote.

"Those who boycotted the elections are more than those who took part
in it," Bashar said on Al-Jazeera television.

No date has been set for convening the new assembly. Its first task
will be to elect a president and two vice presidents by a two-thirds
majority. So far the only declared presidential candidate is a Kurdish
leader Jalal Talabani. The three will choose a new prime minister
subject to assembly approval.

Mindful of such tensions, Shiite leaders went out of their way Sunday
to assure disaffected Sunnis, as well as Turkomen, Christians and
others, that they would have a place in the new Iraq and a role in
drafting the new constitution.

Abdul-Mahdi, the finance minister and possible prime minister,
insisted that Shiite leaders do not want "an Islamic government."

And the Shiite ticket's leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, told Iraqi
television: "We believe in the need for participation and will seek
harmony among all segments of the Iraqi people."

Al-Hakim, who lost 19 family members to Saddam's executioners, sat and
wept as he heard the results.

But finding credible Sunni leaders — who can speak for both average
Sunnis and also reach out to the insurgency — could prove difficult.

Although the Shiite ticket included some Sunnis, prominent Sunni Arab
politicians fared poorly due to the boycott: The list headed by
interim President Ghazi al-Yawer, a Sunni Arab, won only 150,680
votes. The ticket led by Sunni elder statesman Adnan Pachachi gained
only 12,728 votes.

Pachachi, who had pleaded with the Bush administration to delay the
election to allow time to win Sunni support, said it was now clear "a
big number of Iraqis" did not vote.

Because relatively few Sunnis will end up in the assembly, some Iraqi
politicians have suggested appointing Sunnis to advisory committees to
help draft the new constitution.

But the Association of Muslim Scholars, believed to have some ties to
the insurgency, has demanded tough conditions for accepting such a
role — including a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The
group also wants to end purges of members of Saddam's Baath party from
the government.

Many Shiites and Kurds — with bitter memories of Saddam's repression —
have opposed opening government ranks to former Baathists. And in
general, those groups also have said they want U.S. troops to stay for
now.

"The issue is about policies and strategies," Shiite politician
Mouwafak al-Rubaie told CNN's "Late Edition." "The issue is not about
appeasement policy, appeasing the old Baathists or old criminals who
have committed crimes against our own people."

Gods Blood but it has to suck to be a Liberal about now....chuckle...

http://piratescove.typepad.com/pirat...ery_quiet.html

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:45 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole
nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....(
hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the
streets with roses".......

--

SVL
http://piratescove.typepad.com/pirat...ery_quiet.html

February 02, 2005
Libs very quiet on the Iraqi elections

You remember, those elections that we were told would

1. Never happen
2. Be delayed
3. fail miserably
4. paint the streets red with blood

So far, 0-4. Persuing the Washington Times, we see that many of the
leading moonbats have had little to say. Nada from Soros, Fat Mike, or
Jimmy "worst president ever" Carter.

The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq
was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the
Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President
Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.

Woops. Bad choice.

Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was
confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not
believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ...
because there's no security there," he said.

Woops again. And Moore?

"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great
concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in
'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of
admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to
cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site
(moorewatch.com) said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people
when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."

Some get it, though:

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently
opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition
that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right,
and we were wrong?"


The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television
coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their
lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their
faces."

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.

One of the leading demoratic bloggers, the daily Kos, has had 2
articles since Sunday. One was a reference to elections in Vietnam.
Hmmmm. Don't want to discuss a stance that proved wrong, eh?"

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.

Snicker........

Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:19:07 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


Nope....

People who disagree with me ( for whatever reason ) are still just simply
"people who disagree with me" is all....

--

SVL
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to
require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.



Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you
out yourself occasionally.

How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal
law
practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its
authority.

Yes and?

And every one of them has forgotten more about federal law than you'll ever
know.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:27:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Pick the dumbest and least defensible position and there
you'll find Gunner.

Oh, jeez. Then I hope he never finds out you're a closet Democrat. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Closet Democrat? Is that the new definition for Socialist Scum?

So, you think that Guido is a scum? Have you washed that mouth of yours out
lately, fascista?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:38:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"shu" wrote in message
. ..
snip

What a crok.
the truth is a lot more simple.
there *is* a large media establishment. it IS liberally biased.
and it Does NOT like competition,

Look out, shu. They've heard about you, and they're coming to get you.

there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and
interenet news sources in general. such as drudge

"News" sources such as Drudge? Haha! Now a lot of things are becoming
clearer...

snip

You prefer "news" sources like Dan Rather or Michael Moore. Correct?

Mostly I read The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York
Times, in that order. But I read a few foreign papers online.

But comparing Matt Drudge to Michael Moore is very apt. They're two peas in
a pod.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle.

Of the Left.

You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the
middle
and who is on the fringe? You're out there where they hang on to the
earth
by their fingernails. Republitarians, however, are hanging on to both
edges
at once. g

I know all about the public Ed..its you Lefties that we are discussing
at the moment.

Not up to it, huh? Afraid you'll find out that you're so far off the edge
that we can't even find you on the scale? g

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle.

Of the Left.

You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle
and who is on the fringe? You're out there where they hang on to the earth
by their fingernails. Republitarians, however, are hanging on to both edges
at once. g

Pushing the envelope is always dangerous work. But has great rewards
G

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:38:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I do have my ducks in a row on the enemy combatants
issue.

Trying out your new metalstorm?
http://www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html

At a million rounds per minute how many minutes til you get all
of those nasty birds?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:38:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

When the contract between ALL the states in the union and the citizens
is the Constitution...the terms of the contract are not subject to
states rights issuses.

~13 of the States were here first.

Contract law? Did YOU read it before signing AND
get prior legal advice?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:38:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You can look at the writings of a dozen or more people and call it all
blogs

It was.

and book report

It was.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:26:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:35:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Hardly anybody's way, actually. The whole right-wing perspective on this is
a case of arguing one thing today, and the opposite thing tomorrow. If you
applied DiLorenzo's argument today, you'd be trying George W. Bush for
treason by this afternoon. He's imprisoned American citizens, too.

Only the criminals.

Good going, gummer.
You just claimed that all they have to do is claim (secretly) that
you are some sort of "criminal" and then they can torture
or kill or secretly imprison you or anything at all.

In fact, you approve of this. As long as you get to keep
your bunker & guns, right?

The same thing was done in Germany a bit over 50
years ago and you would have approved that as well
no doubt, had you been here at the time.

After all, it was the conservatives & wingers doing it ....
with a few of the superstitious mixed in ....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:26:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

overturning Florida's state-constitution-mandated judicial review in
order to win the 2000 election; etc., etc., etc....).

Oh geeze Ed..you are not one of those whining Selected not Elected
fools are you? As I recall, it was the Supreme Court of the United
States that spanked Floridas courts for their hanky panky with the
2000 election when the Florida court tried to change the rules.

You are a very confused idiot, gummer.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

overturning Florida's state-constitution-mandated judicial review in
order to win the 2000 election; etc., etc., etc....).

Oh geeze Ed..you are not one of those whining Selected not Elected
fools are you? As I recall, it was the Supreme Court of the United
States that spanked Floridas courts for their hanky panky with the
2000 election when the Florida court tried to change the rules.

That's because you've probably never read the case, nor the reviews of it by
leading constitutional scholars. The consensus is that the USSC had no
constitutional basis for contramanding Florida's own judicial review
procedure, which was created by its own legislature.

Poor gummer is CLEARLY against State's Rights.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

And he doesn't even have a civil war going on to justify it.

So WW4 doesnt count?

Wait a minute. One one hand, you're saying Lincoln had no authority to do
these things, even during an insurrection by known combatants, while on the
other hand, you're saying that George Bush does, even though he doesn't know
who is the enemy and who is not.

Have the neocons even managed to get WW-IV (or III)
started yet?
Do those acts of war against Iran count?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle
and who is on the fringe?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Nuttier than a fruitcake
[ ] Mostly illiterate
[ ] Wait til he gets out of the bunker to see
[ ] Other (specify) ______________________

BottleBob, Eat your heart out G.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:58:37 +0000, Guido wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:



Wait a minute. One one hand, you're saying Lincoln had no authority to do
these things, even during an insurrection by known combatants, while on the
other hand, you're saying that George Bush does, even though he doesn't know
who is the enemy and who is not.

Which is it that you believe?


Pick the dumbest and least defensible position and there
you'll find Gunner.

The perfect place for a winger though. They LIKE it
there.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:46:19 -0600, "shu" wrote:

here read this, by ann coulter

[
Here's a great quote from Ann Coulter

"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning
Iraq
around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their
40-year 'War on Poverty.' So far, fewer troops have been killed by
hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were
murdered in Washington, DC, last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to
262 murders in DC.)
]

Current numbers: Over 100,000 murderd in Iraq alone
so far by the neocons.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

As of today's numbers: 1659 invaders killed.
5757 wounded & maimed too badly to return.
5312 not so bad.

Why did YOU not volunteer, Shu? Gunner?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:46:19 -0600, "shu" wrote:

there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and
interenet news sources in general. such as drudge

Get caught telling enough blatent lies & they get "discredited"?

Wasn't it Drudge that reported that buried nuclear-armed rockets
had been found under about 9 yards of cement? All ready to fire
on the US were they?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:46:19 -0600, "shu" wrote:

I have never seen a group that so holy depends on the first amendment, bitch
about other people using the same...
have you seen any "accredited" journalists bitch about LEFT wing blogs?

Perhaps because only the wingers need to lie?

HTH
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:40:00 -0600, "shu" wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"shu" wrote in message
...


there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and


Impossible--the vast majority of "bloggers" had no "credibility" to begin
with.

So do they have some now ???

Who gave it to them ???

The good ones can earn credibilty just as any journalist / media outlet/
whatever can, and they can lose it too.. just like any journalist/media out
let/ etc can.

snicker

Ever hear of Faux "news"?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:45:26 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

They dont' want competition, but really they can't stop it

. take the left to see this as a Bad thing.

Your a paranoid schizophrenic is all, suggest get some help.........

Where's Rick when you need him?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:03:01 -0600, "shu" wrote:

you *know* george bush is going to kill senior citizens with social security
reform

There's to be no "reform".
Just a (up to) 46% cut in benefits it seems. They'll use
the taxes as part of their endless deficits .... while Shu
slavers for a Hummer ..... (perhaps with a tax credit).

http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/S...curity_WMD.pdf
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle
and who is on the fringe?



Gunner is .. Gunner , unique , just like everyone else .