Machjo

Here'sthe Bush vs Gore article: Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore DECEMBER 9, 2008 | ISSUE 44•50 WASHINGTON—In an unexpected judicial turnaround, the Supreme Court this week reversed its 2000 ruling in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, stripping George W. Bush of his earlier political victory, and declaring Albert Arnold Gore the 43rd president of the United States of America. President Gore, retroactively determined by the Supreme Court to be the winner of the 2000 election, is sworn in for his six-week term. The court, which called its original decision to halt manual recounts in Florida "a ruling made in haste," voted unanimously on Wednesday in favor of the 2000 Democratic nominee. Gore will serve as commander in chief from Dec. 10 to Jan. 20. "Allowing this flaw in judgment to stand would set an unworkable precedent for future elections and cause irreparable harm to the impartiality of this court," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his majority opinion. "Furthermore, let me be the first to personally congratulate President Gore on his remarkable come-from-behind victory. May he guide us wisely into this new millennium." Former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush gets some much-needed rest Monday after his 2000 presidential campaign loss to rival Al Gore. Added Roberts, "The system works." Moments after the court's noontime announcement, Gore was flown to Washington, D.C. aboard Air Force One, sworn in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and immediately escorted to a brief victory rally at the National Mall. By 4:30 p.m., his 15 cabinet appointees had been vetted, contacted, and brought to Washington, where they were all simultaneously approved by a majority vote in the Senate. Gore then delivered the first of seven consecutive State of the Union addresses. Shortly after being notified of the court's historic decision, a gracious George W. Bush appeared at a press conference with four hastily packed suitcases to congratulate his 2000 opponent on the decisive victory. "Al Gore has fought a strong and patient campaign, and he has prevailed," said the former Republican candidate and Texas governor. "I wish him nothing but the best, and hope that his leadership will help see this nation through a catastrophic recession, an unending war in Iraq, and the single largest housing crisis in history. Congratulations, Mr. President." In his first and last 42 days as president, Gore will reportedly visit U.S. troops overseas, meet with dignitaries from France, Great Britain, China, Azerbaijan, Japan, and Eastern Europe, formalize a plan to bail out the struggling airline and automotive industries, sign the Kyoto Protocol, take a photo of himself and wife Tipper in front of the White House Christmas tree, and ensure a smooth transition between his own administration to that of incoming president-elect Barack Obama. "Great humility, honor, I'm President," Gore said to a crowd of tourists hastily shuffled into a White House corridor to hear the president deliver his acceptance speech. "Thanks, bye." According to political analysts, the road ahead for President Gore is not an easy one. During his first conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, NATO, OPEC, and the United Nations, Gore admitted that making good on his campaign promises in the next six to eight weeks might be difficult. The president noted his pledge to provide affordable health care to every single child in the U.S. by 2004 as "specifically in need of possible amending." Gore also withdrew his intentions to pay off the national debt by 2012. Although the president has already instituted a number of impressive environmental initiatives, he has drawn criticism from Republicans who claim that he is completely unprepared to deal with the current national climate. "Throughout the entirety of his 2000 campaign, never once did Gore mention the tragedy of 9/11, or our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said. "Does he not care about our national security? Does Al Gore plan to ignore the needs of our brave men and women on the ground? What kind of world does Al Gore think we still live in?" President Gore will not be the only new arrival in the White House to face criticism, however. Joseph Lieberman—the former independent senator from Connecticut who in just two months has gone from the short list of possible Republican running mates to nearly being ousted from the Democratic Caucus to becoming the first Jewish Vice President—will also have much to answer for. "Uhh," Lieberman said in his first official address Wednesday. "Umm…yeah."

But I truly am disappointed at people relying on the Star and Enquirer as their news source. Every intelligent person knows that if you want the truth, you have to go to the Onion.

Oops. Still not working. Just go to: http://www.theonion.com/ And use it's search engine to look up Gore an Tipper. From the best news source in America.

Sorry. Here they are: http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-bush-v-gore,2620/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/gores-enjoying-best-sex-of-their-lives,107/

And as it turned out, Gore will in fact be counted as the 43rd president and Bush will be deleted from the presidential records: http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-bush-v-gore,2620/

Now according to the Onion, things were going great for the Gores just a few years ago: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gores-enjoying-best-sex-of-their-lives,107/

While we're referencing such quality publications here, may I suggest the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/ It's good to see that our fellow forumites rely on such quality journalism. That explains a lot of things around here.

The Enquirer? Star, the Enquirer? What's with all the tabloid rags? Do people in this forum actually read that smut?

Come on, he referenced a cheap tabloid.

You read Star?

Who forced you to participate?

The G8 consists of: Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United Kingdom United States All democracies, granted, but how does the G8 build bridges with all the other democracies not represented by the G8 if we get rid of the UN? Or are you proposing that we simply isolate ourselves from all other democracies? Then of course we have the G20, which includes: Saudi Arabia China So is the G20 corrupt or saner?

Now that the security bill alone for the G8 and G20 summits this year has reached 1 billion Canadian dollars in response to the regular disruptions of these summits every year around the world, and considering that the existence of the UN really makes these summits redundant anyway, should Canada resign from the G8 and G20?

Also, when we consider that the US funded the Taliban, and that many Muslims have always been opposed to the Taliban and would never have dreamed of funding it, then we must say that the rise of Muslim fundamentalism is no longer the fault of the Muslims alone, yet our anger at building the mosque near the WTC site seems to be putting all the blame for this on the shoulders of Muslims alone. So, would you be offended at putting a US flag up near the WTC site seeing that the US government funded the Taliban? If the answer is 'no' to that, then certainly a mosque can go up there too. After all, how many US troops have died at the hands of the Taliban, a creation of the US' itself? And if we are opposed to the building of a mosque near the WTC site because of what some professed 'Muslims' had done, then certainly we ought to be opposed to the putting up of a US flag near there too seeing how many US troops have died at the hands of the taliban, created by the US, now defending Bin Lade, then one who planned this attack. To be fair, it' either one or the other. Either no US flag and no mosque, or US flags and mosques. So I take it you acknowledge then that CAIR was right in criticizing terrorism on both sides equally? Oh, yes. I forgot to go further with the Taliban issue. In the past year, the "Taliban' was responsible for the deaths of many children, yet the "Taliban" denied responsibility. ON the news yesterday it was explained that the anomaly here comes from the fact that there are now at least 6 separate Taliban factions. So like anything else, we need to blame the appropriate Taliban group for its actions and not blame it for the actions of another Taliban group. Like anything else in life.

There is a difference between Western self-reflection on the one hand, and having to be ashamed of being a Westerner, or having to accept collective blame, on the other. We ought to acknowledge the past wrongs of our governments and try to rectify the errors of our forefathers, but that's not the same as us having to apologize on someone else's behalf. Let's take the First Nations' treaties as an example. They were treaties signed in good faith. And yes, we ought to uphold those treaties today as we had signed them, in good faith. But yes we should express our opposition to those who chose to violate these agreements. But that does not mean we should apologize for wheat we are not responsible for. In fact, apologizing and then doing nothing is worse than not apologizing and doing the right thing. I don't want an apology from John for what Bill has done. I'd rather John stand up to Bill. This is what Muslims are doing. They are not apologizing on behalf of the terrorists, but rather standing up to the terrorists. The US should not apologize for having funded the Taliban and allied itself to Hussain; instead it ought to stand up to those who have done so.

Well, seeing that Saddam Hussain was once a US ally, and that the US funded the Taliban (and even that can be confusing now seeing that there are now six separate Taliban groups, but I'll get to that later in this post) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, would you not say then that at least to some degree CARI is right? Let's just look to the historical facts. Had the US never allied itself with Saddam Hussain and had it never funded the Taliban, would those groups be as powerful today? Why must criticism be always of 'them' but never 'us'. By acknowledging historical fact, CARI is just being honest. What, you object to their acknowledging the US alliance with Saddam Hussain and its fundin of the Taliban as possible contributors to this problem? To some degree at least, we can say that Hussain and the taliban were US creations, either via US protection as in the case of Hussain, or US funding as in the case of the Taliban. So yes, the US invested in the development of the Taliban. Will you deny that? And so on that front, Muslims have an equal right to be angry not only at the damage Hussain and the Taliban have done, but also at the support the US gave them, no?

That was a confusing an dizzying video. First off, he confounds the partnership between governments and companies wanting to build a building on the WTC site, and then falsely states that a mosque will be built there, when in fact the mosque will be built near, not on, the site, not to mention that it's a separate unrelated project funded by a separate organization. Even this video in all its fallacies never claims that the source of funding for the two is the same. Then he goes on to confound Middle-Eastern companies and governments with Al-Qaeda. Sure many in al-Qaeda are Saudis just as the KKK is American. That does not mean that all Saudis are with Al-Qaeda any more than all Americans are with the KKK. And sure these companies are owned by governments that violate international laws, especially with respect to freedom of religion. But there is no indication that US laws would be exempted from the WTC site, so what's the worry there. And again, even this video, in spite of the fallacy that the mosque will be built on the site rather than near the site, never claims any relationship between the mosque issue and this other issue other than... one is Arab, the other Muslim, and since Is;am started in the Middle East, let's lump them all together.

Adultery has social consequences, which can involve STDs, divorce, emotional hardship to the spouse and others, harm to friendships, and of course children stuck in the middle, along with economic consequences for the families concerned. We have a responsibility to enforce laws to protect society from such, and making adultery a fineable offense I think would help discourage it. Quite honestly, I'm not against prostitution per se, since it's no more nor less harmful than any other form of adultery.

I'm not homosexual myself, so I can't really say what homosexuals really do amongst themselves behind closed doors. But I have a very hard time believing that they eat each others' feces. Who knows, maybe a small sick portion of them do, but then again you might have an eqaully small sick portion of heterosexuals who'd do the same thing. Or maybe the guy in the video met a pair of homosexuals who did do this and so assumes they all do. But I really have a hard time believing this is common among homosexuals. That said,I admit that even thinking ever so briefly about sex with another man sends chills down my spine and nausea to my stomach, and that's bad enough, but I'm still not convinced that most homosexuals eat feces. I do however believe that legal marriage ought to be between a man and a woman only, and that extramarital sex ought to be a fineable offense. But still, we should not make up stories like that pastor is doing, as that merely makes him look ignorant and ridiculous.

Also, a convert to Islam is likely to be attracted to the teachings of the Qur'an and ahadith, and not to Middle eastern traditions that have nothing to do with Islam.

You can't negotiate with that.

And what about a NYC congregation comprising Muslims from the Middle East and some not from the Middle East? Is that congregation X% responsible? Should it say we are X% sorry for what some foreign governemnt may have done to you?

Even if they had nothing to do with the regime? Should I be held responsible for the actions of my government?

By the way, no American should apologize should ask for forgiveness from the broader Muslim community for what other Americans may have done to Muslims. The only Muslims who should ask forgiveness from the US are those who have done wrong. Bin Laden comes to mind as one person who should ask for forgiveness. And the only Americans who should ask forgiveness from Muslims are those who did in fact beat Muslims or firebomb mosques.

So if the local Muslim community denounces 9/11 as against the principles of Islam, we criticize them for not asking forgiveness. Yet if they asked for forgiveness for the perpetrators of 9/11, all hell would break loose. I think they did the right thing. What? Are you trying to give them a beating?