Bush vs. Kerry

[deus713]

Every Sunday my friends and I play poker. Two weeks ago a political debate broke out that chose not to partake in because I felt that it was neither the time, nor the place. Instead I wrote this letter and sent it to my friends…

Comments

Im sensing a little aggrivation building,,,

[anonymous]

1. You missed the reference completely(obviously we both can navigate our favorite search engines to find political ammo ;). I completely agree with what the constitution states about electoral votes, there is no denying that. However, there are laws (in the constitution that you hold so dearly, unlike my book-burning commie self jk) against voter fraud. In 1999, Katherine Harris (GW's campaign cochairwoman and Florida Secretary of State in charge of elections, paid Database Technologies 4 million to go through Floridas voter rolls and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon(Florida law states ex-felons cannot vote in florida). She instructed the firm to include people with even "simular" names. They insisted Database check people with the same birth-dates as known felons, or similar Social Security numbers; "an 80 percent match fo relevent information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list". An email from Marlene Thorogood(Database project manager)to Emmet Mitchell, a lawyer for Katherine Harris's election division, warned that "UNfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives".Overall 173,000 voters were PERMANENTLY wiped off the voter rolls. ALl this occured under who? Jeb Bush.
2. (These are not my own words)For one, Article 51 of the Charter, which recognises the right of member-states to retaliate against an armed attack by another country, only applies in the case of an "actual armed attack". Neither the U.S. nor the U.K., which has not been attacked by Iraq, can claim refuge under this section of the Charter. Moreover, the very notion of "anticipatory self-defence" is beyond the pale of the Charter because it goes against the fundamental tenet of the Charter, which prohibits the use of force by nations in resolving disputes.
Bush - rather than advocate for "preemptive war" against an immediate threat - developed a doctrine of "preventive war" for a country supposedly considered a long term term threat. The concept of "preventive war" is illegal under Section 51, according to Weston.

The second article justifying water under the U.N. Charter is Article 39, that provides the three circumstances for the use of force: (1) a threat to peace, (2) a breach of peace and (3) an act of aggression.

"Bush kept insisting on Article 39, that there would be serious consequences against Iraq if they didn't comply with the Security Council's wishes, but most of the Council didn't buy into it," said Weston.

U.N. Resolution 1441 didn't authorize the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. "The war wasn't authorized by Article 39, so it was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair," said Weston.

Under the standards of the Nuremberg trials, the war in Iraq is considered a crime against peace. "If the regime engages in war crimes, the architects of the war are considered war criminals. Therefore Bush and his entourage are war criminals under international law," concluded Weston.

B)"Hate the constitution"?, alright McCarthy, turn off Fox news and turn down Bill O' Reilly.

dont mind all the typos

[anonymous]

Im not going through this with a comb for typos so be patient, (Im even foregoing spell check)