Author Topic: Give me (Read 1263 times)

easymo · « **Reply #30 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:40:48 PM »

careful what you ask for

. My son lives in a small town just north of there. I ride up there often.

airquest · « **Reply #31 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:42:19 PM »

lol dont start a war ....guys

Nash · « **Reply #32 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:02:23 PM »

Toad - you voted for the president based solely on who the prez would likely nominate for the Supreme Court (I can't say I'd blame you if there were just a little back peddaling going on here ). Anyways... you want guys in the Supreme Court who think like the president. Who think like Bush. Then ya hold up this Republican dominated Supreme Court's decision that placed said President in office... as if the courts were acting objectively or impartialy... as if it were a simple matter of law that placed Bush in the white house.

"He won, the courts said so".

True enough... but it doesn't make it any less of a farce. I don't think it's exactly the strongest part of your debate with 10B...

Just sayin'....

Kieran · « **Reply #33 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:16:56 PM »

If Gore had won, we would have sent cruise missiles in and called it a day, if that much...

Bush sent troops in, and we are still there, and are looking into Iraq...

If McCain had won, we'd be stomping into the Saudi's backyard right now...

10Bears · « **Reply #34 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:22:42 PM »

Balony you say? .... heh I better hurry up before brother Nash steals my fish!!

So Bush Did Steal the White House

A recently uncovered memo shows that the Florida judge in charge of last year's presidential recount was moving toward counting the "overvotes" that heavily favored Al Gore when George W. Bush got five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to save the day. November 22, 2001.

Gore Victory
“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.
Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.
The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.
This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

The Media Is A Mess
Those overseas ballots lacked required postmarks, were postmarked after Election Day, were mailed inside the United States, were cast by voters who had already voted, were missing signatures or contained other irregularities. Meanwhile, hundreds of ballots with similar flaws in pro-Gore counties were thrown away.
So Gore Really Won
In a new story in Thursday's editions, the Herald acknowledged what we also pointed out: that a careful examination of the Herald's own data would have led to a conclusion that Al Gore was the choice of Florida voters under a reasonable standard judging the "clear intent of the voters."
The Herald's data revealed that by looking at the so-called "undervotes" in all 67 counties and counting various markings for president, Gore would have won Florida and thus the presidency.
The Herald's second-day story said Gore would have achieved net gains of 1,475 votes in Palm Beach County and 1,081 votes in Broward County if the various marks for president recorded on the ballots were counted.

Thrawn · « **Reply #35 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:24:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
If Gore had won, we would have sent cruise missiles in and called it a day, if that much...

Do you seriously think that would have been the extent of Gore's response to Sept. 11?

I don't think ANY president would have had the balls to do so little. The public out cry would have been deafening. Cripes, I don't think anyone would have been so stupid, as to do so little

Kieran · « **Reply #36 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:06:23 PM »

WTC Episode 1?

U.S.S. Cole?

Embassy Bombings?

I can think of someone that stupid...

easymo · « **Reply #37 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:08:22 PM »

LOL. Me 2.

Thrawn · « **Reply #38 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:08:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
WTC Episode 1?

U.S.S. Cole?

Embassy Bombings?

I can think of someone that stupid...

The puplic out cry was much greater, by many orders of magnitude, than any of those incidents.

Kieran · « **Reply #39 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:12:36 PM »

10Bears-

No matter who you choose to believe won, this fact is irrefutable; neither party wanted to do the count they should have, that is, count all the ballots over. The Dems started with a selective recount of the counties they believed to be heavily in their favor, the Repubs attempted to block any recount. If the process was screwed up, it was because both parties screwed it up. Fact is, it should never have gone before the Supreme Court, and wouldn't have if both parties had agreed on the equitable thing to do in the first place.

Oh, and don't tell me how the Dems wanted a full recount; they only asked for this AFTER it became apparent a selective recount wouldn't deliver a victory. I would also like to point out your selective memory on the point of how the Democratic definition of a vote for Gore kept shifting to a more... generous... set of qualifications.

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:13:24 PM »

Wow, dueling newsources!

Your Consortium.com source says the Miami Herald found Gore had won.

CNN, USAToday, MacNiel/PBS and the BBC say the Miami Herald found Bush had won.

Wonder who the Miami Herald actually says won?

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

From USA Today

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

"George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald[/u]/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election. "

Fom CNN:

Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount

"If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month. "

From McNeil News Hour/PBS

MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION

"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue..."

From the BBC:

Bush was 'true winner'

"George W Bush would probably have won the disputed US presidential election, even if the federal Supreme Court had allowed a recount of votes in the state of Florida, a US newspaper has concluded.

The Miami Herald, which has carried out its own review of uncounted ballots in Miami Dade"

*******

But to the point... you do or don't feel like hypocrite given that you'd cheerfully accept the results if Gore won in exactly the opposite circumstances?

Thrawn · « **Reply #41 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:19:51 PM »

What kind of mandate do you think that gives Bush. Having won the election, but having loss the popular vote?

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:20:55 PM »

Quote

A recently uncovered memo shows that the Florida judge in charge of last year's presidential recount was moving toward counting the "overvotes" that heavily favored Al Gore when George W. Bush got five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to save the day. November 22, 2001.

This blows me away to this very day. How in the world can you take a tainted ballot and say it is a vote for one person when there are marks that indicate a person possibly meant to vote another way? Say what you like, but the Repubs were right on this one- there is no way to divine the thinking of the voter. The votes had to be disqualified.

Blame it on the Florida election board, spend money on new voting machines and learn from your mistakes.

Kieran · « **Reply #43 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:21:56 PM »

Thrawn-

A statistical dead heat gives a mandate to no one.

Edit: I might add, Clinton won his first term on 38% of the vote- hardly a mandate.

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:26:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

Toad - you voted for the president based solely on who the prez would likely nominate for the Supreme Court (I can't say I'd blame you if there were just a little back peddaling going on here ).

Just for you Nash... be sure and check the date:

The 2nd Amendment

*********

So, the topic for today, and why I started this whole thread.....

We US citizens will vote for a President very shortly. What actually will affect us the most?

This deals directly with the three arms of government, Executive, Legislative & Judicial. Intended as checks and balances, one against the other, what really is the current situation?

[IMHO]

The Congress really doesn't do much any more. We are so divided and antagonistic that our Congressmen no longer weigh issues on their merit or value to the nation/society. Special interests groups ($), party lines, etc., etc. take precedence. No real change, no major issue overhauls come out of Congress anymore because on the truly BIG stuff no one will agree and there are enough dollars floating around to delay real change indefinitely.

The Presidency is almost to a figurehead stage. Leadership? Hah! "That vision thing?" Hah! The Presidency is now an office that reacts to fickle public opinion polls rather than an office that can define a dream/goal for this nation and begin to move us forward.

So where does the real power presently lie? I believe it's in the Judicial arm, particularly the Supreme Court. These 9, appointed for LIFE can in one day, one opinion, change the very fabric of American life. Their interpretation of laws past <the Constitution> or laws present <recently passed legislation> can immediately alter our society.

Now, who appoints these 9 wise folks?

The President, of course. THAT is the one reason current Presidential elections are important.

So, I ask all of you to review the societal issues that are near and dear to your heart...the 2nd Amendment, Capital Punishment, Abortion, Income Tax <there is a challenge building here, one that claims it was never ratified by enough states>, whatever issues you feel are of most importance to the future of our society. I don't care what side you are on in any of these debates. Just think them over.

Then, when you vote for a President, I suggest you mainly consider what type of Supreme Court Justices this man will appoint in his term.

This issue, I believe, is where the real power to alter the US lies. Make sure you know what your candidate intends to do here. Ask questions, press their campaigns for information. Bother your local news agencies and make them aware of the interest in this area.

Idealistic? Yep, I am. I admit it.

But I do feel that the future of this democracy lies mainly in the 9 folks on that bench.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-12-2000).]

*************

That was 12 August 2000, Nash.

Backpeddling? I don't think so!