No, Kas. Spoiled ballots are ballots that are simply not counted - provisional ballots are an entirely different matter. That's why he argues that between spoiled ballots and provisional ballots, Kerry would have won.
Wow, Kas. Way to evade the point entirely! Unless your employer is obligated to give you time off with pay to go and vote, many people cannot afford to take that time, whether it's available or not. These are people who live paycheck to paycheck, and missing a shift would mean the power isn't going to be on when they get home.
Not to mention the number of people disenfranchised and forced to cast provisional ballots, which didn't end up being counted (though they should have, given how close Ohio was). Those provisional ballots should have been regular ballots - but they were in essence denied their right to vote.
Fair?
I'm hardly arguing that Bush lost - I'm just saying that you're ignoring the author's points entirely, and they might just be valid. For the record, I believe that as of right now, I believe that Bush did win on the basis of votes alone. I haven't seen enough evidence of this spoilage to be assured that Kerry won. But it took months for independent investigations to show that Gore would have won Florida, and maybe similar investigations will rise and find more information.
Right now? This is to soon to be anything more than a sore loser. It's impossible to have done the investigation neccessary to prove beyond a doubt (as the author believes) that Kerry was the true winner in the time since the election.
But he raises some interesting points - none of which have been refuted at all. It would be interesting to see a real debate based on his argument.
What debates where you watching? Kerry stated time and time again he had a plan for Iraq - and that was not imminent withdrawal. Which basically makes what you said moot, because the basis for it is false.
Again, since the basis of your argument is false, this has no merit. Thanks for trying, though.
That's the situation, yes...
And no one is arguing that! Or was, I'll get back to that. The biggest outcry over the war was that it was started under false pretenses. If Bush has said "We're going to go after Iraq to remove a brutal dictator. Then we're gonna stop doing business with the Suadis. Then we're going to liberate North Korea." he might have had some support. Instead, he lied. He started a war on false pretenses, and so of course he has no support for it. Certainly, Saddam was a tyrant - but there are dozens of other countries ruled by tyrants the USA has no problem with, even doing business with. Not to mention that while Saddam was doing his worst - gassing his own people, for instance - the USA supported him. They didn't condemn his gassing for a decade.
As for the world being a better place with him in prison... that depends. Is the world a better place with 100 000 more Iraqis dead? Is it a better place with terrorist recruitment up? Is it a better place with a trillion dollar defecit and 1100 dead soldiers?
When Bush straps on a combat suite and an AK47 and goes into the Red Zone, you can say that. Bush went AWOL from his ANG unit, a position to take to escape Vietnam. Compared to Kerry, who volunteered and won a variety of medals and ribbons, the only coward is Bush.
Having the "balls" to send thousands of young men and woman to their deaths isn't courage. Courage is fighting an overwhelming force and knowing that it means your country is likely to get bombed and possibly invaded for its trouble.
Winston Churchill was not a coward.
George Bush most definately is.
Wow, Kas. Way to evade the point entirely! Unless your employer is obligated to give you time off with pay to go and vote, many people cannot afford to take that time, whether it's available or not. These are people who live paycheck to paycheck, and missing a shift would mean the power isn't going to be on when they get home.
Not to mention the number of people disenfranchised and forced to cast provisional ballots, which didn't end up being counted (though they should have, given how close Ohio was). Those provisional ballots should have been regular ballots - but they were in essence denied their right to vote.
Fair?
I'm hardly arguing that Bush lost - I'm just saying that you're ignoring the author's points entirely, and they might just be valid. For the record, I believe that as of right now, I believe that Bush did win on the basis of votes alone. I haven't seen enough evidence of this spoilage to be assured that Kerry won. But it took months for independent investigations to show that Gore would have won Florida, and maybe similar investigations will rise and find more information.
Right now? This is to soon to be anything more than a sore loser. It's impossible to have done the investigation neccessary to prove beyond a doubt (as the author believes) that Kerry was the true winner in the time since the election.
But he raises some interesting points - none of which have been refuted at all. It would be interesting to see a real debate based on his argument.
What debates where you watching? Kerry stated time and time again he had a plan for Iraq - and that was not imminent withdrawal. Which basically makes what you said moot, because the basis for it is false.
Again, since the basis of your argument is false, this has no merit. Thanks for trying, though.
That's the situation, yes...
And no one is arguing that! Or was, I'll get back to that. The biggest outcry over the war was that it was started under false pretenses. If Bush has said "We're going to go after Iraq to remove a brutal dictator. Then we're gonna stop doing business with the Suadis. Then we're going to liberate North Korea." he might have had some support. Instead, he lied. He started a war on false pretenses, and so of course he has no support for it. Certainly, Saddam was a tyrant - but there are dozens of other countries ruled by tyrants the USA has no problem with, even doing business with. Not to mention that while Saddam was doing his worst - gassing his own people, for instance - the USA supported him. They didn't condemn his gassing for a decade.
As for the world being a better place with him in prison... that depends. Is the world a better place with 100 000 more Iraqis dead? Is it a better place with terrorist recruitment up? Is it a better place with a trillion dollar defecit and 1100 dead soldiers?
When Bush straps on a combat suite and an AK47 and goes into the Red Zone, you can say that. Bush went AWOL from his ANG unit, a position to take to escape Vietnam. Compared to Kerry, who volunteered and won a variety of medals and ribbons, the only coward is Bush.
Having the "balls" to send thousands of young men and woman to their deaths isn't courage. Courage is fighting an overwhelming force and knowing that it means your country is likely to get bombed and possibly invaded for its trouble.
Winston Churchill was not a coward.
George Bush most definately is.