RRC Archives

sorry about that - that would be Nick Nolte- I thought Bruce Lee killed Chuck Norris in Rome.

Yeah, I expect Leno will be comparing the pictures of Nolte & Saddam in his monologue tonight.

dirt------- I think Tom was refering to the popular vote count. The one you and I participate in. Gore won that one. He lost in hte electoral college which came down to the close popular vote in Fla. I think I still back the reasons for having an electoral college ,even though it sucked big time in 2000 .
That wasn't the firsst time that had happened,the people voting for someone other than who they ended up with.
kato-------I'm familiar with most of what Tom said, and it is out there,it just doesn't rate in hte day to day news.It's older stuff but still pops up at times. If tv dwelt on it they'd be labled liberal or something! You'll probably not catch it on the radio. Do your own research of what he said and see what you come up with. Maybe Yasmeen and overhung had informed themselves already to their satisfaction and Tom just articulated it. He seems to have a knack
I'm somewhere between a communist and a fascist

gulliver, What you must understand is this.... The candidates know that they are in an "electorial" system and they stratigize accordingly. That's why there is all the big ballyhoo about who carries which state. If we didn't use the electorial system then the candidates would have changed their strategies accordingly.......Don't be duped by the media touting"popular vote". In the United States we constitutionally utilize the electorial sytem.
Just one more point on this. Ask yourself this question. Why are the democrates not calling for a constitutional amendment that will do away with the Electorial system.Answer: It's because the next time that the score is inverted, it might be in their favor.
HOW DO YA LIKE DEM BEANS!!!!!!!!

too funny!

You're funny jh but hard to converse with. the conversation in your head keeps drowning out the words I'm typing! I don't even know how to type boldface on here. Your name is mudd? , That how you got dirt? no offense just curious if I hit it

Converse? I didn't know that we were conversing?

A wise man once said that the first side to denigrate to name-calling is clearly on the losing end,

dirt wrote:The one thing that I have noticed is that liberals who still have a sore ass over the Florida election scandal will cheer for a despot (Saddam and even in some cases OBL) to "spite" the current administration. Case in point, look at Sandys' post

Sandy wrote:in a way it's disappointing. This will help Dubya at the polls.

She thinks its a disappiontment that a murdering tyrant is going to have to answer for his crimes. Shame on you Sandy.

Regarding the voting in Florida, I do have a 'sore ass' over a few things: the state troopers' roadblocks in black neighborhoods on election day, the tens of thousands of black voters who were wrongly removed from the voting rolls, the mob of Republicans who attempted to interfere with boxes of cast ballots, the intentionally confusing ballots - including numerous incedents where people tried to get fresh ballots to correct errors and were illegaly denied them, and on and on. We all know that of the people who left their homes that Tuesday morning in Florida to vote for president, the majority tried to vote for Gore. It took a great deal of Republican dirty tricks to get the outcome they wanted. (Remember, I'm a politically active anti-machine guy from Chicago - I know a bit about how elections are stolen.) Don't get me started about the Bush v. Gore decision.

Regarding Sandy's comment - I'm pleasantly surprised that you actually used a fairly complete quote. If you worked for Fox, you would have cut out "in a way". She was saying that while it was good that Saddam was captured, it has some negative imapacts - particularly in how it will help W's campaign to actually win an election for president. As she said - it's partially disappointing.

As for anyone supporting ObL - let's see some links. There are probably quite a few instances of people pointing out the value of understanding what's going on in his head and the heads of his supporters, but I doubt that you'll find any serious people actually supporting him or his 'cause'. The lack of understanding (or ignoring Sun-Tzu's dictate to "know the enemy") is one of the biggest problems with the Bush II administration. To say that ObL "hates freedom" is wildly ignorant of Islam and useless in taking action against him.

All in all though, is Saddam really worse off receiving medical care in US custody than covered in lice squatting in a dirt 'spider hole'?

Why dont some of you supporters of bush try to counter some of tom's points rather than just spewing rhetoric, changing the subject, or attacking minute and pointless details of what he said?

Here are some of his salient points:

1)bush's administration used clinton's military

2)bush's administration used clinton's strategy on terrorism

3)bush's administration was thinking in a "cold war" frame of reference and trying to change the military and strategy until 9/11, when they realized that the clinton era military, strategy, and experts were the way to go.

thus tom concluded that having Gore as president might have been better than having Bush, regarding the current terrorist "problem."

now tom, give us some sources please.

So the task now is for people who think tom is wrong come up with some evidence, not hearsay, that he is not correct.

in this way we can have an educated discourse on these matters.