Re: So, What IS a Fascist, anyway?

-- 
"In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the
sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law & order."

- Idi Dada Amin

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of
Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in
midstream. .and would have incurred incalculable human and political
costs. .We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule
Iraq. .There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see. .Going in and
occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate,
would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression
that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United
States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile
land. It would have been a dramatically  different -- and perhaps barren -- 
outcome."

- Elected President Bush

"Gunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:06:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fredric L.
> Rice) wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >>> usual suspect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
> >>>>>But, in fact, that is very much what he is, although he doesn't see
it
> >>>>>himself (as you say, "fascist" has become a dirty word).  He took
> >>>>>power by legal means, but without winning an election.
> >>>>He won the election.
> >>> In the same way any third world dictatorship "wins elections."
> >
> >>No.  He won the election according to the process laid
> >>out in the Constitution.
> >
> >You'll need to quote exactly where in the U. S. Constitution it decrees
> >that elections may be halted when Democrats are proven to hold the
majority
> >of the popular vote.
> >
> >Right.  You lose again.
> >
>
> Snicker..YOU lose again...snicker
>
> http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

Ah, but Florida's electors were not chosen in the manner prescribed by
Florida law
(i.e., NOT per the Constitution), as ensured by the SCOTUS 5 Judge decision,
so that page does not apply in the argument at hand.
The concurring Justices understood this (and the dissenting Justices
explicitly
stated as much) and ensured that the decision would have no lasting
precedential
effects.

We have been paying for the shortsightedness of 5 guys in dresses ever
since.

Dan