More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!

[Kieran]

...let's not forget how the networks were calling the election as over an hour before the polls closed, sending tens of thousands of voters home. The election was a statistical tie, with Bush winning on the tie-breaker (electoral college).

[midnight Target]

Why is the southern tip of Florida still white on your pic? Still undecided?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Why is the southern tip of Florida still white on your pic? Still undecided?

My favourite were all the people claiming to have voted for the wrong guy. They wanted a re-vote or something. My thoughts  when I heard that were somewhere along the lines of:

If you are too dumb to follow a big black thick arrow from the name of your candidate to a small hole and push out a piece of paper, you probably should not vote at all.
and
"I punched the wrong candidate because I got confused over the fact that there were candidates on the left and the right side of the ballot." Are we supposed to just take your word for it?


ANYWAY midnight, please dont say that you actually feel that the election was stolen. I honestly thought you were smarter than that.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund


ANYWAY midnight, please dont say that you actually feel that the election was stolen. I honestly thought you were smarter than that.

The election was stolen. I guess you were wrong. I though you were smarter than that.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target


The election was stolen. I guess you were wrong. I though you were smarter than that.

Nah, thats just me always trying to see the best in all people


In what way was it stolen then? Or rather HOW? (hint: if something went according to the law, it would be wrong to call that "stolen", something that implies unlawful actions)

[midnight Target]

It would seem that a discussion of the election of 2000 cannot start without you defining the parameters of the debate.
Based on the above, I would have to prove that something was illegal to claim that it was "stolen". Do I have that right sir?

Are you saying that nothing can be legally stolen? Or must we define a second term for those things that are legal yet unfair or unjustifiable?

And BTW, whether I believe it was stolen or not, my last post was just a little tweak at the condecension of your last sentence (honestly thought you were smarter). You have a very bad habit of calling people stupid, uneducated, poorly read etc. That isn't a necesary component of a good debate.

[Hortlund]

Why, you are correct Sir, nothing can be "legally stolen" so we would have to come up with a new word for it.

So we are looking for a word describing a situation where something is legal but yet unfair or unjustifiable...hmm..."life"?

And to be honest midnight, I *have* stopped calling you names. At least I think so... but you know me, I always argue 100% or not at all.


From your post I get the impression that you feel that Bush won the Florida electors unfair or in an unjustifiable way? Or are you talking about the fact that Gore got more than 50% of the total votes cast in the US? (although he was not the first presidential candidate to lose the election despite having over 50%...right?)

[midnight Target]

OK, here is my take on the 2000 election.

1. Bush might have won, Gore might have won. We will never really know because....
2. The recount process was stymied by the Republican faithful in Florida.

I feel Catherine Harris took actions that were much too partisan for a national election.

And then there is the Supreme Courts decision regarding the disposition of the ballots in question:

 

The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing their remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision means that the Supreme Court, not the electorate, has determined the outcome of the presidential election.[/b] In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens writes, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”[/b]

Four out of nine Justices agreed with Stevens. At the very least this shows how gray this decision was and that there will always be some doubt about the election of 2000.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by midnight Target


The election was stolen.  

MT,
Wrong.

It was fumbled by a guy who could not even carry his own state, riding on the crest of an unprecedented economic expansion.

It should have never been close.

Bush didn't steal it......Gore flat out lost it.

Any further debate after that is just making excuses for the candidate's and the party's complete incompetance to bring it over the goal line.

Cobra

[10Bears]

Steve wrote:

Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle

In the end it was about blowjobs... What kind of gentleman snitches out another gentlemen about his mistress?  Americans look at snitches as lowest of the low.

the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address

I say we boycott the Supreme Court.. these are the folks that said Bush’s constitutional rights would be violated if he were to not be made president. This is the court that said a sitting president can be sued by a private party.  That’s a Bill of Attainder BTW.. you can’t make a law against one person. You can bet your 401K Bush and Cheney ain’t sitting down to answer any questions under oath. I guarantee their gonna reverse that law.

A. What's the difference between 700 confidential FBI files found in the Oval office and the Watergate break-ins?

Whats the difference between 700 confidential FBI files and 7,000,000 confidential FBI files found in the office of homeland security?

So if I have understood you correct here, the "crack epidemic" was the fault of the contras, who were funded by the CIA, who were under orders from Reagan...so therefore Reagan is responsible for the crack epidemic?

Yes, you understood Weazel correct. The contras didn’t want to deadhead back without a load, the CIA/DEA  looked the other way when the planes landed. This did two things, pay for more arms for the contras and stir up a drug war in mostly African American neighborhoods, one put the gangbangers in prison for life, two, put the dealers... along with their girlfriends in prison for 15 to 20.

How about the stupid bastards paying for the illegal crack and then consuming it to get high? Are they to blame at all?

Yes they are but this is one weird bellybutton drug, the high is you gotta get another hit RIGHT AWAY!.. never satisfied. I thought at the time there was something weird going on. What kind of nonsense instant addiction drug is this?  

so therefore Reagan is responsible for the crack epidemic?

Yes, that is correct, since it’s been proven that Reagan was NOT an airhead, he would've known about this operation.

wagin unlawful wars (Kosovo)

Steve, I know this is off topic but I’ve been meaning to ask you for awhile now if you were for or against Operation Allied Force. I’m assuming you were against.. That means you are for a National Socialist?  (real deal National Socialism they even said it on Yugoslavia web page.)

But getting back to Miss Colter, why do serious political talk shows even have her on? And this question for members of the REAL Grand Old Party: Do you think miss Colter makes the tent bigger?
on edit: opps didn't read page two... boy howdy I got comments for page two
did sombody say election 2000?
It was fair and square ... If you take away the tens of thousands of regerestered voters turned away at the polls..  If you take away the thousands of military vote postmarked AFTER the election.

[Nifty]

Both parties suck.  hell, both swallow and seem to enjoy it as far as I can tell.  

[Toad]

In the end it was about blowjobs...

To those who would have the rest of us forget what it was REALLY about, this line is perhaps useful. It is, after all, simple misdirection.

It wasn't about blowjobs. Not at all.

For those Americans that still retain a sense of what "character" and "integrity" mean and the important role they play in an honest person's life, the blowjobs were not the issue. They were merely symptoms or indicators.

What was it about?  It was about a man that would look directly into the camera while addressing the entire nation over public media and deliberately lie to save his own political "skin".

“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

That's what it was about.

Some instantly understand that. It's intuitive in many, if not most.

There are others that will never understand that. Their failure to understand speaks volumes about themselves.

[Hortlund]

10Bears

The Clinton debacle was not about a blowjob. It was about other things. Ultimately it was about character, morals, honor. It was about what kind of man the US president really was. The most powerful man on earth were lying, behaving like a complete amazinhunk. He brought more shame and disgrace to that office than anyone ever thought possible. In the end it was simply embarrasing because no one was taking him seriously. And the weirdest part about it is that he didnt care, he just wanted to cling on to his power. He was a sad pathetic creature. A man without honor, a man without morals.

If you think that the reason the Supreme court ruled the way they did was because of Bush's constitutional rights, I think you have missed alot of the legal reasoning behind that ruling. In fact, I dont think you are serious when you say that.

And to say that a sitting president can be sued is not to make law against one person. If they had said that Bill Clinton could be sued while in office, THAT would have been making a law against one person. There is a huge difference between the two, even though they have the same effect.

I'm not going to go into the crack-debate with you, simply because I think it is too absurd to try to place blame anywhere else but on the individuals buying the stuff to get high. No one forced them to become a drug addict.

Kosovo was an illegal war. The worst part about it was the timing. Take a look at a timeline of the Lewinsky debacle and the Kosovo war. It is very easy to get very cynical about the how's and why's about that war.

Simply put, no nation has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. There is no exception to that rule. Kosovo was a part of Serbia, an independent nation. There was a guerilla movement in Kosovo trying to create an independent Kosovo.

The US tried to broker a peace deal between the guerillas and the Serbian government, but the Serbians did not want to sign the deal because they felt it was illegal and wrong. They had every right to refuse to sign. The US put up an ultimatum "sign or we will bomb you into submission". The Serbs still refused to sign, and the US began bombing Serbia.

No matter how you twist or turn, what the US did in Kosovo was against international law. It was an illegal war. Here you can find the reason why the US will not accept the jurisdiction of the International court of Justice in the Hauge...because if they did, Clinton could very well be tried and convicted there, together with a whole bunch of US military personnel...bad PR I guess, as well as a bad precedent.  

As for the last part I dont understand. What do you mean am I for a "National Socialist"?

[Toad]

Oh, BTW 10Bears...

Can you explain the connection.... or lack thereof... between Bill admitting an affair with Lewinsky on Monday and 75 U.S. cruise missiles striking targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday?

This, of course, AFTER the twin embassy bombings on August 7 which were linked by that administration to Osama bin Laden. Of course, Bin Laden was not a target as administration officials insisted the attack was not aimed at him.

I'm sure you can shed some light on this as you've so... brilliantly... shown a light on the present administration.

What was that phrase you used in the other thread? "Wag the dog" was it?

Thanks in advance.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Tumor
I like it

This is why it's a bad thing:

The following shows you how much your vote is worth in presidential elections compared to the national average.  Because of the Electoral College, voters in certain states have more say in which candidates should be elected.  Find your state from the list below to see how much your vote is worth.
(How to use the table - If the vote value for your state is 1.70, then your vote is worth 1.70 times that of the national average.)

State Vote Value
Alabama 1.05
Alaska 2.67
Arizona 0.83
Arkansas 1.17
California 0.85
Colorado 0.97
Connecticut 1.21
Delaware 1.98
DC 2.55
Florida 0.79
Georgia 0.84
Hawaii 1.70
Idaho 1.68
Illinois 0.93
Indiana 1.04
Iowa 1.24
Kansas 1.18
Kentucky 1.02
Louisiana 1.08
Maine 1.60
Maryland 0.99
Massachusetts 0.96
Michigan 0.95
Minnesota 1.07
Mississippi 1.31
Missoiri 1.03
Montana 1.73
Nebraska 1.54
Nevada 1.05
New Hampshire 1.68
New Jersey 0.92
New Mexico 1.48
New York 0.90
North Carolina 0.89
North Dakota 2.42
Ohio 0.96
Oklahoma 1.22
Oregon 1.06
Pennsylvania 0.96
Rhode Island 1.94
South Carolina 1.04
South Dakota 2.11
Tennessee 1.00
Texas 0.83
Utah 1.28
Vermont 2.53
Virginia 0.95
Washington 0.98
West Virginia 1.38
Wisconsin 1.07
Wyoming 3.20