Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funked on November 10, 2000, 04:42:00 PM
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Read the Consitution people.
Get a grip.
If Bush wins the recount... game over.
Gore had better concede then, or he's going down in history. And it won't be for inventing the Internet.
-
Erhm.... so whats THIS thread about?
-
Frustration at the Democrats, I'm sure (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ya think? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Am positive (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
What Funked sez is correct. Al Gore's time is rapidly dwindling where he can lose gracefully.
I always knew Gore to be a desperate man who do anything in his quest for power, including destroying the US Constitution. Of course, he had a great teacher in Bill Clinton.
It's time for Gore to go away.
Cabby
-
Cabby,
With all due respect, the vote in Florida is being recounted due to no action of Gore - it happens to be that pesky Rule of Law thing y'all seem to get yer shirts in a knot about.
Now - we have about a 300 vote difference. Yet there are plenty of uncounted overseas votes out there. Easily enough votes to swing this either way. You want to dismiss those voters and null their right to participate in this election?
In essence, what you guys are telling me is that despite Gore's popular vote victory (so far), and his lead in the Electoral College, and this slimmest of margins in Florida, that you think he oughta just walk away from an election process that IS STILL UNDER WAY.
I find that position absolutely arrogant.
Funked, Cabby, etc - I think maybe YOU guys ought to take a look at the Constitution thank you very much.
-
I'm not a big fan of Bush or Gore. But I have to say my opinion of Gore went down the toilet. That's a go place to find out what his word is worth BTW. He conceded the election. I don't much care what his reasons for doing so were. If it was a screw up, so be it. A man does not go back on his word.
-
easymo that's a major point no seems to want to publicize too much. You certainly won't hear the pro-Gore media hyping Gore's concession they way they're hyping the mistakes and inability to read or not taking thier right/duty as seriously as they should down in PBC. Gore conceeded. Period. End of election. 10minutes before he was to make his concession speach he renegs. As Curly Bill Brocious probably would've said, Gore crawfished and then drilled the country in the arse. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The recount in FL is done. Hasn't been made official, but it's done. The AP polled the election supervisors and Bush came out 327 ahead. Granted that's not much, but Bush won. And Gore is nuts if he thinks his salvation is going to arrive in the form of the absentee ballots, which will be added to the total next Friday.
Gore blew his chance to bow out gracefully. FL law triggered the recount, and Gore jumped on it high and hard, going back on his word in the process (nothing new there).
Nash most of those absentee ballots you're saying are enough to swing things either way are gonna be military votes. General consensus I've gotten from talking to people around here (I live at SuBase NLON) is that most military folk think Bush is the man for the job. The lead in the electoral college means nothing. There are 25 votes hanging in the balance with the delay in FL. Whoever gets FL gets the presidency, plain and simple.
And as far as it goes, Bush won the recount, and the absentee ballots will just widen the gap.
-
Nash:
You are wrong. The votes HAVE been recounted. The OFFICIAL count is +900 for Bush. And now begins a HAND recount. Which is an OPEN invitation to fraud. I guess we recount until the Dems get the numbers they want??? And who is threatening dozens of lawsuits??? Who is throwing their weight around down in Fla.??? Who is acting like a bully dictator???
There will be discrepancies in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in the USA. Nothing new in that fact. Shall we re-run the election??? And what about the egregious action of the Media in calling Florida for Gore when the Polls were STILL OPEN in Fla. with only 1% of the vote counted??? Did the scurrilous Dems have any hand in that OUTRAGEOUS action??
The fact is Gore lost, but his tremendous ego, and disregard for the good of the Country, threaten to destroy the very foundation this Nation is built upon. In my mind, Al Gore is rapidly on his way to proving himself a coward and a traitor.
Al Gore is a disgrace.
Cabby
-
Sheesh Cabby, don't get all weird on me. Egregiousness! Scurrilousness! A traitor in our midst! Oh the OUTRAGE!
Y'all can say what ya want, but mostly your emotional outbursts/reactions to this whole mess are completely void of any obective examination of reality. And your points are getting burried in these little spats. Your not children; if you've got something to express, by all means express it, but please make an effort to divorce yourself from the tendancy to sound like snot-nosed little brats.
Hehe that felt good (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyways.
Cave, I agree with you on something. The off-shore ballots probably *will* go to Bush, and the recount of the ballots probably *will* maintain his lead in Florida. And after this becomes appearant, I beleive Gore will concede. Take a deep breath here - Bush will probably end up in the White House.
Ok?
What most of you fail to realize, it seems, is that this is an historic election of the magnitude never seen in the history of the entire United States. You simply have GOT to allow the election to run its course. In fact you have no choice in the matter... so quit yer belly achin' and let the election run its course.
By some WILD fortune, it turns out that in Florida some 350 odd votes are seperating the loser from the leader of the free world. 350 votes! Un-diddlying real.
So y'all are trying to tell me that, for example, the off-shore ballots (and I don't give a rat's bellybutton WHO they've historically gone to) should, despite the natural election process, be TERMINATED? You blame a recount process that is also mandated by voting law. And you want to dismiss these things out of hand when there is a 350 vote difference? That's right... who gives a toejam... "Gore get the hell outta the way will ya? Yer complicating things. Yer making me angry." And yet the complaint I hear is that the *democrats* are the ones who want to change the rules.
Allow me to offer you a tissue.
This aint a damn poker game. This aint "I saw her first so she's mine". The point that Gore informed Bush that he will concede based on information from sources that y'all have chastised over and over again, is to reduce this election, and democracy itself, to triviality.
Incredible.
If you have any sense of responsibilty, you will at least try to seperate yourself from the venom that has been brewing for the last 8 years. You will at least try to respect voting law. You will appreciate the process of Democracy that is the inspiration to people all over the world.
There are a few people whove tossed in their two cents here that I *know* have better sense than that. I understand the anxiety here, but still, shame on you.
-
cabby the +900 is 65 of 67 counties reporting I think. The AP called each county to get the "unoffical" results, and the final tally had it for Bush by 327 votes.
I'm personally against the hand counts, and think they shouldna be allowed to change the outcome, because of simple things like human error and people fudging the numbers a little. Gore supporters may include 50 votes here, 25 there, 75 over here, while Bush supportors counting ballots may do the exact same thing. At least the computer dinnae fudge like that.
Nash, I full realize historical importence of this election. It also does a mighty fine job of demonstrating just how important every single vote is and why we have the electoral college (Gore has 19 states, Bush has 29, but Gore has the popular vote by 200k). This election also shows that voting is not a whimsical, fly by night game. It's a very serious endeavour to be treated with reverence and thought about very carefully. This includes taking an extra minute to carefully read the ballot, seek out your candidate, and ask for help if you need it.
As far as I'm concerned it's past historical importence and gone way too deep into ripping this nation in two. Gore conceeded the race, then 5-10min before making his concession speech he calls Bush and retracts the concession, effectively going back on his word. That's wrong IMO, plain and simple. You can not re-enter a race after you quit, especially at the finish line.
The recount results are in, and Bush won by 327 votes, even if it's not offical yet. Gore grasps for another straw by asking (demanding??) a manual recount, which is ALOT more error prone than the computer recount (see my remarks above). Instead of simply leaving the automatic recount alone he starts slinging crap. I can see each side sending a delegation to FL to watch, but I can't understand the campaining the democrats are still doing in FL. Like they can change the vote or something. I firmly believe they're going to try and force a re-vote, which is biased before it can happen because of all the media exposure. IMO Gore's only face saving move is to tell his campain people to stop and conceed the race (which he already did once). To continue this farce will only further divide this great nation and make him out to be the egotistical stunninghunk that he is, only caring for himself and not the good of nation.
-
Where do I start Cave?
"It also does a mighty fine job of demonstrating just how important every single vote is and why we have the electoral college (Gore has 19 states, Bush has 29, but Gore has the popular vote by 200k)"
Here again you demonstrate your (and excuse me) ignorance of the election process in your own country. I'm sure others here will be happy to enlighten you on this if you choose not to do any research on how the "Electoral College" actually works.
You certainly won't hear the pro-Gore media hyping Gore's concession they way they're hyping the mistakes and inability to read or not taking thier right/duty as seriously as they should down in PBC
The New York Times (as just ONE example), who in fact put their support behind Gore, has come out repeatedly stating that this was a gross miscalculation. Who is this "pro-Gore" media I often hear reffered to? I'd actually like to know where some of you are getting YOUR information. (honestly - please point me to your neutral sources - I'm interested).
As Curly Bill Brocious probably would've said, Gore crawfished and then drilled the country in the arse.
What?
The recount in FL is done. Hasn't been made official, but it's done. The AP polled the election supervisors and Bush came out 327 ahead. Granted that's not much, but Bush won.
I guess this leads back to my question of where some of you people are getting your information. It is NOT done. All the ballots aren't in, and arent required to be in for another week. And this election hasn't been certified yet, not even close. Cave, it's either ignorance or you are guilty of trying to mislead us. Which one is it?
Nash most of those absentee ballots you're saying are enough to swing things either way are gonna be military votes. General consensus I've gotten from talking to people around here (I live at SuBase NLON) is that most military folk think Bush is the man for the job.
Wow.... Hey listen Cave - can you pick my Lotto numbers next week? Yer obviously able to see into the future. At least your trying to say that you, Cave, are able to singlehandedly render the votes of many of yer countrymates null and void based on these extraordinary powers of yours. Shut up and let their votes be heard ok? Is that acceptable to you, oh great swami.
-
And Funked, getting back to the topic of this thread, "Fuzzy Logic", I beg you to call me on any "fuzzy logic" you think I've put forth.
I'll repeat what I said at the top... I have no idea what what you were getting at when you posted this. Fuzzy thread, I reckon.
"Read the Constitution" - ok yah, done that (and it's a *huge* document).
"Get a grip" - don't know what you are trying to say here.
"If Bush wins the recount... game over" - Not untill everyone in that State has had the opportunity to have their votes at least *registered*.
"Gore had better concede then, or he's going down in history. And it won't be for inventing the Internet." - I agree.
-
Nash,
you may not understand just how high passions are about this. When I was in your country this summer, I did ask questions about your political stuff (the gun ruling had just come down) but I didn't offer opinions about it. I guess what I’m getting at, is maybe you should leave the US folks to “discuss” this and if you feel the need to add to it offer some humor here and there to lighten things up.
PC
-
PC,
I fully understand just how high passions are about this. Further, I understand WHY passions are so high about this. Speaking on a purely BBS kind of ROE - I have every right to add my comment. That simple.
But speaking as a person who's immediate family is American, and as a person who has himself got his education in America, and... to be honest here... is just mightily enamoured of the American political system as well as U.S. history throughout his entire life, I ALSO figure I have every right to speak my mind.
Don't wory, I wont force the Floridians to order a re-vote (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Nash. If a man tells YOU that he is going to do something. What do you expect to happen?
If a spoiled child tells you that he is going to do something. What do you expect then.
Ima kinda big on this "word" thing. I know that im from another time, and it docent mean much to younger people. But in the long run, I cant stress its value enough.
From personal experience I've been in tough spots also. I once got myself involved in a nasty little war. There I found that we were killing some of the very people we were told that we were being sent to protect. It was enough to make you puke, and I've had to live with it every since. But the bottom line was, I took an oath. I gave my word and had to live up to it. However you might feel about the uglier side of warfare. If troops start deciding which wars they will fight. And which ones they wont. We become another banana republic, in no time. Sometimes you just have to do what is best for the country in the long run.
-
Nash, I forgot about the absentee ballots. Please read my statement as: "If Bush has the most votes when all votes has been counted... Game Over."
By fuzzy logic I mean the idiots who are discussing the popular vote or proposing a "re-vote".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-11-2000).]
-
easymo - while I understand yer point of view.... I would.... er, let me put it this way.
Gore spent over 30 years of his life to get to this point. The majority of Americans agreed with his direction. Some offered vast amounts of money to support him. Many others gave up their jobs to help him succeed. And then the majority of Americans went down to the polling stations this past Tuesday and cast their vote for him.
I reckon that this majority of Americans would be right PISSED OFF at Gore if he felt compelled to throw in the towel based on a phone call to Bush driven by some erroneous forecast on ABC news.
That was stupid of him. But it doesn't take away the fact that he has an obligation to those people who voted for him.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-11-2000).]
-
Nash:
Gore was a coward and a traitor BEFORE this election. His actions since the vote have only reinforced that fact. And i won't bother pointing out the irony of Daley, etc. leading the charge in Fla. over "voter fraud".
BTW, your posts read much like the "Snot-nosed" Al Gore with his "Debate Number One Personality" in full glory. Only YOU have a grasp on the "reality" of the situation, right??
Cabby
-
Screw it, I'm on a roll here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Quoteth Cabby:
I always knew Gore to be a desperate man who do anything in his quest for power, including destroying the US Constitution
You dummy. Care to actually back that statement up? Or do you think that you can spoon feed the same crap to me that has obviously been spoon fed to you?
I practically dare you to substantiate this bit of.... of... horseshit.
-
Gore was a coward and a traitor BEFORE this election. His actions since the vote have only reinforced that fact.
Sluuuuuuurp. MMmmm... Thanks. Damn, ya learn something new every day. Whatever...
And i won't bother pointing out the irony of Daley, etc. leading the charge in Fla. over "voter fraud".
Well it may come as a bit of a suprise... but you just DID bother pointing it out. And I suppose there's no irony in James Baker decending upon the county of West Palm Beach to fend this off, eh? And you claim he's leading the charge over "voter fraud".... even putting those words in between quotation marks as if that would help make your statement seem somewhat true. Which it most certainly is not.
BTW, your posts read much like the "Snot-nosed" Al Gore with his "Debate Number One Personality" in full glory. Only YOU have a grasp on the "reality" of the situation, right??
Ooh..is that a claw I see? Hsssssss..... growwww!
Btw, that "Debate Number One Personality" phrase you concocted is kind of charming, in an absurd kind of way. Hell, if only Gore found a way to work something like that into his campaign, well.... we might not even be having this conversation right now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-11-2000).]
-
Nash, Daley comes from a family with a history of being involved in questionable elections in Chicago. I'm not sure of the specifics, but his brother and father were involved. For a citizen of another country, you sure have a strong opinion of our election system (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Hehe, I was gonna chime in here to help balance the knee-jerk right-wing froth that folks like Cabby have been spewing....but Nash is doing such a great job, I'll let him handle it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh btw Funked, last time I checked, this was still a free country, and I'm free to focus on the popular vote if I want to. You Reps focus on the electoral college, because that's the only reason Bush won. I focus on the popular vote, because that's the true indication of who the people want to be their president.
You guys are just pissed because you're supporting a new president that won the election without the majority of people backing him, and unless he's the next Lincoln, he isn't going to be very effective.
-
And the only candidate who so far has filed a legal action to alter the electoral process in Flordia is George W. Bush.
-
Yes I agree banana you are free to be an idiot!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
PS I'm not a Republican. And the focus on the electoral college is because... that's how presidential elections are decided. It's kind of like focusing on the scoreboard at a football game. Call me crazy but that's what I look at, not first downs or passing yards.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-11-2000).]
-
Nash:
Your last post shows me you haven't the faintest idea of what your are talking about. Your ignorance of Daley/Chicago just dropped you from any further discussion. But then, you are from another country and can be excused. Somewhat.
I find it revealing you admired the spoiled-brat/annoying know-it-all performance of Cry-Baby Al in the first Presidential Debate.
BTW, James Baker is 10 times the man Daley, or Cry-Baby Al, ever hope to be.
banana:
In the United States we live by the "Rule Of Law", aka The Constitution. At least we USED to, until the Clinton/Gore Administration infected our society. In any case, your "popular vote count" BS is just that: BS.
Whether Cry-Baby Al likes it or not, the Electoral College will determine the election. THIS time anyway. All the ambulance-chasers in the world won't alter that fact.
Cabby
-
In the United States we live by the "Rule Of Law", aka The Constitution. At least we USED to, until the Clinton/Gore Administration infected our society.
Looking in from the outside, alot of people seem to banging on about how Clinton/Gore/Democrats have ruined/will ruin America and that before Clinton gained office, the upper echelons of American politics were a picture of honesty and decency.
History says otherwise...
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-11-2000).]
-
Cabby,
Your last post shows me you haven't the faintest idea of what your are talking about. Your ignorance of Daley/Chicago just dropped you from any further discussion.
Are you reffering specifically to the 1960 election Cabby? If so I am fully aware of it. The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.
In Illinois specifically, for which Richard Daley was Mayor, the final recount showed that Nixon's votes had been undercounted by 943 -- yet, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, it turned out that Nixon's vote had been overcounted.
I'm not aware of any charges of fraud or other wrong doings either now or in the past with regard to William Daley, the person who I thought we were discussing. Feel free to fill me in on this if you know anything I don't. Don't get me wrong though, I'm with the full expectation that this challenge, if met at all, will contain even more unsubstatiated drivel.
Is it OK if I now rejoin the discussion?
I find it revealing you admired the spoiled-brat/annoying know-it-all performance of Cry-Baby Al in the first Presidential Debate.
Did I say that? I *did* watch all three... but havent commented about them on this board. But this is fully expected. It's become obvious to me that your comprehension skills are woefully lacking.
BTW, James Baker is 10 times the man Daley, or Cry-Baby Al, ever hope to be.
Meaningless biased dreck containing nothing.
-
It's funny you guys are screaming about the vote isn't over yet because of absentee ballots are not all in but you are the same guys that keep saying that Bore already won the majority vote.
At last count Bore was only up by around 222k
Which is it? Is the whole thing still up for grabs or do we have a clear winner?
The answer of course is YES it's still up for grabs and NO we don't have a winner yet.
And banana the reason we worry more about the Electorial vote is because until they change things in the end it's the only thing that really matters.
You can yell and scream all you want about winning the Majority vote(which you haven't yet..all votes are not in) but it still will not change the outcome of the election.
-
Quote:
"Btw, that "Debate Number One Personality" phrase you concocted is kind of charming, in an absurd kind of way. Hell, if only Gore found a way to work something like that into his campaign, well.... we might not even be having this conversation right now "
Then please translate this from the Canadien....
You are the only person i have ever heard of (outside the DNC} that ever claimed that Daley didn't steal the election for Kennedy. Your ignorance of Democratic Party political operatives is breathtaking. As a former Democrat, i have personal experience with their well-known ballot-box shenanigans.
But hell, you know better, don't ya...
Cabby
-
Funked, how many times do I have to say it? I realize that the electoral college is how we elect the president. I'm not even saying that I disagree with it. Okay?
But, the truth is that more voters want Gore to be President. Not electoral votes, I said real live, honest to goodness VOTERS. You can dance around that fact any way you want, but it's still the truth.
And I really don't care if you're a Republican or not. You have an opinion, and I respect your right to express it. I also reserve the right to tell you how wrong you are. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cabby, what's up with all the hostility? Can't you learn to debate without going ballistic? Try it, just once. And calling people names just makes you look even more reactionary than you already are.
-
Mighty1,
I agree with you, but there are not enough absentee ballots to swing the popular vote in Bush's favor. No matter what happens, history will record that Bush won the presidency with the electoral vote, and Gore lost the presidency while winning the popular vote.
I did find it amusing that you so casually regard Gore's 220,000 vote lead as inconsequential, and yet you find Bush's lead of 300-1000 votes in Florida as hugely significant.
And please. Are we going to start a name calling contest? Bore? Are we going to reduce what could be a meaningful discussion into me calling you "Flighty1" and you calling me "Spanker"? I hope not.
-
banana:
Understand this:
I am not "debating". There is nothing to debate. Cry-Baby Al and his thugs are attempting to hijack an election and destroy the US Constitution in the process. To many, many American's of this, there is no question.
I have been in contact with my Republican Congresswoman and have written/emailed/and spoken with people in the Republican National Committee in DC. These people tell me they are being swamped by thousands of citizen emails, phonecalls, etc. insisting, in a nutshell, that the Republican Party do this:
DONT BACK DOWN.
One more thing: I stand by my evaluation of Al Gore, Jr. He is a lying, traitorous, coward. And no one knows this better than the people of Tennessee, Gore's home state.
Cabby
-
Cabby, OUTSTANDING!
I wonder what my man Bob Barr thinks about this?
PC
-
banana I love you man!
-
Oh my... "My Man Bob Barr"?
Yikes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Cabby, you are like a cartoon.
You dismissed my rebuttle to some odd bit of crap you intended to make us believe... and when I backed it up with <shudder> a rational reply.... you instead completely ignored that and dug up for the second time a reference to one of the strangest quotes I've ever seen, even coming from you.
You seriously want to make an issue of "Debate Number One Personality"?
(me) "Btw, that "Debate Number One Personality" phrase you concocted is kind of charming, in an absurd kind of way. Hell, if only Gore found a way to work something like that into his campaign, well.... we might not even be having this conversation right now "
(you) Then please translate this from the Canadien....
Number one, I have no idea what you mean by "please translate this from Canadien "(sp).
Number two - What in the world are you trying to say with that? What is your point?
Number three - You charged Bill Daley with...er... *something*. I asked you to back it up... yet I get your "Debate Number One Personality" phrase yet again instead. Care to actually substantiate your original claim?
Number four - Have you got *anything* relevant to say when you hit the reply button? At all? Not that I don't enjoy the comedy of it or anything. That is some *good* stuff Cabby. Real good material.
But in all seriousness here... Please listen closely.
Cabby, crack is a serious addiction. Sure, it may seem all fuzzy and warm initially. But as time goes on, you will find yourself bankrupt, homeless, without friends, and posting complete nonsense on BBS's.
Seek help.
-
But OK... at the risk of gettin' all factual and, erhm...reality based, lets take a look at this:
You are the only person i have ever heard of (outside the DNC} that ever claimed that Daley didn't steal the election for Kennedy.
So? I can't help it if, say, you hang out with ignorant shrecks. That's not MY problem. I can discuss this with you if you like. Hell - I even backed up my position with data that you have so casually ignored.
If your point is that I'm the ony person who hasn't claimed that Daley stole the election, well.... neato... so what? I'm not to blame for your circle of friends nor your reading habits.
If your point is that Daley actually DID steal the election for Kennedy... well, if you've got anything to back that up, you know where to find me. I'm most capable of refuting it, and I think you know that. Gimme your best shot at it, if you feel so inclined.
Your ignorance of Democratic Party political operatives is breathtaking. As a former Democrat, i have personal experience with their well-known ballot-box shenanigans.
Uhm... yah OK (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'm listening Cabby... Spill the beans.
Something tells me that your gonna conveniently plead the 5th here.
And by the way... your term "Democratic Party political operatives" is very enlightening... in much the same way as discovering that toejam actually stinks is enlightening.
Dig deep Cabby... you're about three posts away from *me* deciding to "drop you from any further discussion".
-
Quote:
"crack is a serious addiction. Sure, it may seem all fuzzy and warm initially. But as time goes on, you will find yourself bankrupt, homeless, without friends, and posting complete nonsense on BBS's.
Seek help."
Funny, i was thinking the same thing about you. That is, except for the "fuzzy and warm" part, as i have no first hand experience with "crack". I do have first-hand experience with the Liberal-Left Wing of the Democratic Party though.
I attended college in the 1960's in California. San Francisco native. Joined several student-radical groups. Demonstrated. Lived in Berkeley, CA. Lived on a commune in Mendocino County, Ca. Been there done that. I know very well the politics, tactics, and ultimate goal of the Neo-Socialists/New Left. You may choose to believe me or not. I couldn't care less.
Once again, i am not "debating" you or anyone else. I no longer listen to Liberal/Leftist BS and i don't bother with line-by-line BBS discussions/refutations with Liberal/Leftist proselytizers/apologists. I'm a busy professional with little time and little patience for it. So go ahead and post your so-called "facts" and opinion until your blue-in-the-face. It won't change my opinion one whit.
So permit me to re-phrase some of your rhetoric: In regards to the actions of Cry-Baby Al and the Dems in Floriduh(and your lame excuses for same), i can only say: "If it smells like toejam, looks like toejam, and feels like toejam, it must be toejam".
BTW, perhaps you could elaborate further on the physiological effects of "crack", or have you just read or watched a TV show about it???
Here's a link to an article in today's Washington Post(Liberal paper, so you should not have any qualms about reading it)by George Will. He uses basically the same strong language i use in describing the despicable Cry-Baby Al and his Democratic thugs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64817-2000Nov11.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64817-2000Nov11.html)
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 11-12-2000).]
-
Actually Nash, both parties have played with the ballot box in the past. However, the democrats have a much more documented history of it. And as soon as I can find the links to where I read all this wonderful information I'll be happy to post it for you.
And with some of the leftist types I've met, "Democratic Party political operatives" is a very apt description.
-
The Washington Post *can* be viewed as a "Liberal", if it pleases you. George Will is most certainly *not* (are you familiar with his work?). This article, like much of what's been posted on this board, contains much more of the common opinionated, unsubstantiated, ...erhm I could go on.
Consider this sentence: "Liberalism's fondness for judicial fiat rather than democratic decision-making explains the entwinement of the Democratic Party and trial lawyers."
Folks, this aint journalsim, it's editorialism. Either you don't know the difference, or your being disengenous when you offer up the the fact that this was printed in the Washington Post; as if this in and of itself lends some kind of "it must be true" credence to this article.
At the very least, no matter *what* your views on the Washington Post's political bent, it shows it can allow for other opinions... which is much more than I can say for some of you.
-
So, what is your opinion on our country? What is your vote? And why should I care?
I mean really... I'm beginning to think this is just fun-and-games for you. There are people here who are seriously pissed about what is happening (I am one of them). You seem to be siding with the liberal side, and if so, I am vehemently against you on this issue, no offense intended of course.
This DNC is blasting the Republicans for trying to get an injunction, stating that it is terrible they started the litigation process- ignoring the fact that the DNC encouraged and is financially supporting the 8 lawsuits filed this week against the state of Florida.
Republicans are unable to do a manual recount in Florida because the deadline is passed; it passed because they didn't want to play the Democrat game and extend this process out. The Democrats are going to exploit that error and win Florida. This is not fair, as it will certainly be a biased recount.
The Republicans will be forced to contest every close state in order to take away some of the electoral votes from Gore. This will mean recounts, re-recounts, hand counts, etc. in at least four different states, if not more. This will not be finished overnight, and all the time the American public will twist in the breeze. Tell me how I have this wrong if you understand our political system so much better than I do.
Bush can take the office without the serious backlash Gore will have because the Republicans have allowed recounts to this point. It is obvious to many by this point that no recount will be accepted by the Democrats until Gore is the winner. A Gore victory means the Democrats have stolen the election.
In America, we broke away from Britain for a very similar reason; our lack of voice in our government. There is no way a Gore administration will be considered legitimate under the current conditions.
-
"So, what is your opinion on our country? What is your vote? And why should I care?"
I think it's a great country, I didn't vote, and I'm not asking you to care.
"I mean really... I'm beginning to think this is just fun-and-games for you."
I'm beginning to think that anyone who holds a differing opinion than you must be only trying to be antagonistic, or insencere.
It would be a pretty pathetic situation if this board's inhabitants were able (or even desire)to quash any discussion that runs counter to their own beleifs.
You really oughta come to the realization that not everyone thinks alike. In my opinion, that's a damn good thing.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-12-2000).]
-
Quote:
"Folks, this aint journalsim, it's editorialism. "
However you choose to describe Will's column, it's the truth. And the Conservative side get's precious little of that commodity in the Media these days.
A column is by definition an editorial. It's not a news report. We, of course, know that the Media always presents a fair and unbiased news report written by fair and unbiased reporters. And if you believe that......
Nash, i'm going to leave you with this quote:
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-Daniel Webster
Cabby
-
You wanted opinions, I gave you mine. I am not stopping you from posting. That is debate.
I disagree with you. I think Gore is a criminal. I don't want him in office. I think he will do anything and everything in his bid for power. I feel this with every fibre of my being.
Clinton/Gore committed nothing short of treason with their acceptance of money from the Chinese during their '96 campaign, and the subsequent discovery that missile secrets have been spirited away to the Chinese seems like something we ought to be concerned about. I believe the two events are connected. I believe Gore is intrinsically intertwined with Clinton on this and many other issues. Gore broke federal campaign finance law by soliciting funds on federal property.
You know the primary purpose of the office of president? To make sure laws are carried out. How can Gore effectively carry out the law when he won't follow it himself? He's lied right to our faces just like Clinton has. He just isn't creditible IMHO.
-
Kieren, you seemed to imply that my posts were without merit as I'm an "outsider". You said I seem to just want to poke and jab. You implied that I was joking about politics.
You also are seeming to take my position personally, which is unfortunate.
I didn't "solicit" your opinions, but I appreciate them, in any form. And I'm happy to hear that you are not stopping me from posting.
"You know the primary purpose of the office of president? To make sure laws are carried out."
Exactly. Any attempt to scuttle the process in Florida runs counter to that.
Cabby - excellent quote.
-
Nash, just which process do you count? The first count, the second count or the third, fourth? Just where will you give your Canadian opinion that's it's all over and just???
PC
-
Exactly, PC.
What do we do when, in the future, the inevitable challenges arise again?
The precedent is now set. The credibility of the entire system has been called into question and we can never go back. Nixon, for all his many faults, was at least smart enough to realize that in 1960.
So, if candidate A wins the first machine ballot by 1,000, wins the second machine recount by 850, wins the third machine recount by 750, wins the fourth HAND recount by 50 and loses the last HAND recount by 1 vote......
Then we give it to Candidate B, correct?
I believe the correct way to do this would have been to count ALL votes first...including the absentee....then do the recounts if necessary.
The machine counts were implemented for speed and to remove "bias." Now, apparently Hand count is less susceptible to bias.
Sort of like a week ago when the popular vote was deemed less important than the Electoral College vote. Now suddenly the popular vote is way more important than the Electoral College vote.
I've never had principles that bend in the breeze, so I'm not sure how that stuff works.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I count the process that the fine people of Florida are granted and have the full right to, under law. I also count the voice that the American people are granted via the absentee vote, which they also have the right to, under law.
-
"Nixon, for all his many faults, was at least smart enough to realize that in 1960".
A common misperception.
"The machine counts were implemented for speed and to remove "bias." Now, apparently Hand count is less susceptible to bias."
Kinda runs counter to his passing a law in Texas, stating that hand counts are the best way of confirming votes under certain circumstances.
-
Nash,
I'm partly basing that comment on what Nixon told Earl Mazo of the New York Herald Tribune. Mazo was the 1st Nixon biographer and he also did a series on fraud in that particular election. Nixon told him "The country can't afford the agony of a constitutional crisis, and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become president or anything else."
The other part I base on a meeting Kennedy and Nixon had at the Key Biscayne Hotel on November 14. Kennedy apparently opened with "Well it's hard to tell who won the election." Nixon told Kennedy he would not challenge the offical results then and there. This from Richard Reeves, author of "President Kennedy: Profile of Power."
Please direct me to your information that would indicate that Nixon did attempt to challenge the results in a widely publicized fashion such as the Democrats have used this time. Thanks!
Kinda runs counter to his passing a law in Texas, stating that hand counts are the best way of confirming votes under certain circumstances.
I wasn't aware of this and would like to learn more, particularly about the certain circumstances. Can you point me to a link?
Lastly, how many and what type (machine/hand) of recounts is going to be considered "enough"? Inquiring minds want to know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Nothing is perfect. It would not suprise me a bit if they got a slightly different count every single time they did it, machine OR hand. So when do we stop?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-12-2000).]
-
Toad,
As for the voting law that Bush signed:
New York Times, Novermber 12th.
"Then there is the Texas bill that Mr. Bush signed into law in 1997: it states that when Texas elections are recounted, "a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount."
I have heard this from a bunch of other sources as well (it's no real mystery).
As for Nixon's "graceful" exit:
You cite Earl Mazo as a source. Mazo was a conservate journalist for the New York Herald Tribune, as well as a close personal friend of Nixon, who launched a press frenzy over possible election fraud. Biased, perhaps? In any event, he's hardly a dispassionated nor uninterested party, and you can hardly expect to get the full story from him.
Your other source, Richard Reeves, had no way of knowing what Nixons actions or intentions were prior to conceding. Perhaps he did. I don't know. But all he was reporting here was what Nixon told Kennedy. Other than the fact that Nixon *did* indeed concede in relative short order, it doesn't really shed any light on this issue.
What we CAN assertain is what is on record. While Nixon was careful to not put a public
face on the massive Republican effort to challenge the election result, he not only authorized it but actively encouraged it. Publicly, Republican senators like Thruston Morton asked for recounts (yes, *recounts*) in 11 states just three days after the election. Privately, Nixon aides Bob Finch and Len Hall personally did field checks of votes in almost a dozen states. They did indeed obtain recounts, they involved US attorneys and the FBI, and impaneled grand juries. A slew of lawsuits were filed over alleged voting fraud, and appeals to state election commissions followed, albeit unsuccessfuly.
And I guess more germane to the election at hand here, with this furror over the recount, was the turn of events in 1960 Illinois. Unhappy with the results of the recount there, Republicans went to federal court, where their case was dismissed. They then appealed to the State Board of Elections, which also rejected their claims. It was not until Dec. 19 - over a month after the election - that the national Republican Party backed off its Illinois claims.
Similar results, and extended fights, took place in Texas and New Jersey among other states. In Hawaii, Republican efforts had the unintended result of reversing the state's electoral votes from Nixon to Kennedy.
That Nixon was clever enough to allow his aides and political friends to do the work on his behalf - while officially seeming to remove himself from the fray - should not let Americans have amnesia about what really happened in the wake of the 1960 vote.
-----edit-----
I think this important. In that 1960 election, some states - like California - initially fell into Kennedy's electoral count, but were reversed almost two weeks later *after absentee ballots were counted*.
Runs counter to this notion that some of you have that we oughtta just tank the election right here and now, before every vote has had a chance to be counted.
The precedent is now set. The credibility of the entire system has been called into question and we can never go back
Don't worry Toad, we've been here before. We survived it then and we'll survive this one now.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-12-2000).]
-
"It doesn't matter who votes. What really matters is who counts the votes."
Joe Stalin
-
Nash Bush DID pass that law but it was for a different type of ballot system so it really doesn't apply to Florida.
-
Jesus H. Christ jumped up fiddling on a pogo stick Nash. I've seen this question asked of you several times, yet you have not bothered to answer it once. And though I'm wasting keystrokes, I'll ask it again:
How many recounts is enough?
Bush won the first count. Bush won the second count. As far as I'm concerned the only thing left to count are the absentee ballots.
But you seem to agree with Goron and his boys that the ballots need to be counter again and again and again and again and again and again ad nauseum, until the results they desire are achieved.
Just because a person was in too big of a hurry to take an extra 60 seconds and double check before punching thier ballot DOES NOT mean they are entitled to revote. What it does mean is they should learn that lesson from thier mistake for the next time they can excercise thier most solemn right, the right to vote. The butterfly ballot used in PBC was neither confusing nor illegal, the residents there just dinnae take the time to read it. They also dinnae bother to voice any objections when the ballot was run in the newspapers and mailed to voters either. They have no grounds to claim the ballot was confusing, yet you sit there and spout the DNC party line about confusing ballots and revotes.
-
Nash,
As far as the "Texas recount law" the ABC news just reported that one major difference is that it does not allow for single county or single precinct manual recounts.
It is a STATEWIDE recount, if what was on ABC is correct.
That is, "hand count one, you must hand count all." Further, like you, they implied that only in certain particular circumstances is a manual recount allowed. No elaboration on that however.
Now it is my understanding that the Dems DO NOT want a statewide manual recount in FL and in fact oppose that option. This from a recent CNN blurb. (It's getting hard to keep track of all the crap going on.)
Seems to make it a different issue if the Dems only want to recount "certain" counties. Just a guess, but I'd think they'd recount in places they believe favorable to them, unfavorable to the other side.
Do you have further clarification on this?
With respect to Nixon, he repeatedly explained his stance in that same way to all who asked. Mazo is the first published source, I believe.
While Nixon was careful to not put a public face on the massive Republican effort to challenge the election result, he not only authorized it but actively encouraged it.
That Nixon was clever enough to allow his aides and political friends to do the work on his behalf - while officially seeming to remove himself from the fray
I assume you have some proof that the surrogates were acting under Nixon's direct orders/supervision?
No? Then you will forgive those on this board who believe Gore is acting in exactly the same way that you attribute (as yet unsubstantiated) to Nixon?
Additionally, your text regarding Nixon seems IMHO to be in a somewhat condemnatory tone. That is, there are undertones of disapproval of Nixon's actions. Since Gore's actions (through surrogates like Christopher) are exactly similar to those you attribute to Nixon, may we assume you also disapprove of Gore's response to the election?
More importantly, the election was November 8, 1960. Reeves reports that Kennedy and Nixon met in Key Biscayne on the 14th, six days later. You agree that at that time Nixon stated to Kennedy that he would no longer contest the election?
Here we are now, six days after the 2000 election. It sure doesn't look like the election is going to be uncontested.
I am more than willing to wait until ALL the ballots are counted, including ABSENTEE ballots, once.
I am willing to wait longer while a machine recount is done. I'll restate that machines were viewed as an IMPROVEMENT in the voting process because they are 1) faster and 2) thought to be more unbiased than a junior party functionary doing a manual count.
My question to you is how many counts have to be done? When will the "last" recount be "official"?
If Bush wins the original count, wins the first machine recount, wins after the absentee ballots are counted....will that be enough?
How many times after the Absentee ballots are counted does he have to "win" Florida to "get" Florida?
Clearly, there exists the perception that the Democractic party officials in FL have assumed the "we'll just keep recounting until we finally win" mode.
Further, some of the "talking heads" have discussed "ballot fatigue". The more you run these ballots through machines and handle them in a manual recount, the more chance some of them become "illegal". The "chags" from other holes become loose and fall out. So some guy that voted for ONE candidate for President has his ballot now discarded because another "chag" became loose or fell out of a different hole.
Does this not then disenfranchise that voter who actually did everything right the first time?
So, Nash...how many recounts is finally enough? Absentee ballots aside here. Those will be counted for the last time on the due date.
How many times should we recount the "normal" ballots until then?
-
Just read in today's Atlanta Constitution that a THIRD mechanical tally of Palm Beach County's vots shows Bush ahead by 288. (Counties Sweating Over Recounts, by Alan Judd).
<Absentee Ballots Aside for the following discussion>
Ok, now we have the inital tally, a machine recount and ANOTHER machine recount. All show Bush ahead.
How many does Bush need, Nash?
If the manual recount shows Bush ahead, would that be enough to end the PBC turmoil?
Or do we have to recount until Gore wins ONE?
So if we recount 37 times and Bush wins and we recount ONE MORE TIME and Gore wins...then Gore has it, right?
-
Funny how the democrats are crying foul now that a FL judge (republican) has followed the law and stated all manual counts have to be in 7 days after the election - tomorrow. They fail to mention the fact that the rest of the legal wrangling has been overseen by democrats....
Just heard the judge (democrat) ruled that the manual count should continue, a defeat for bush but it does not affect tomorrows deadline... not yet anyway.
Eagler
-
Texas has the manual recount law because all but 13 counties use hand written ballots.
udie
-
My question is this.....if the State of Florida's entire Electoral votes are still unclear, then why isn't a hand recount be doing on a Statewide Basis?
Doesn't it seem that in the interest to get a "full, fair, and accurate count of the vote" you would have to hand count the entire states ballots? This, to me, is the fairest way of ensuring that the ENTIRE States votes are treated equally.
Having said that....I also think that a count and a recount are enough, but who am I, just a guy who took his voting seriously enough to take my time in the voting booth to fully understand the ballot and the ballot questions I was voting on.
Cobra
-
It's very simple, Bore does not want to hand count the whole state because he would lose.
The only chance he has is to hand count the counties that are Democrat and use them to try and win the state.
Unless the absentee votes go in favor of Bore (which no one really thinks they will)then there have been enough re-counts to decide the true winner.
Tomorrow at 5 pm should be the end of all re-counts and the only thing that should matter are the absentee ballots.
As far as I'm concerned the election in Florida is over and Bush won.
-
Toad,
Great questions, and I of course don't have all the answers. I'm by no means an expert on any of this crap. I do sympathize with your sentiment here - it IS a mess. But I've taken special care with your posts as you've avoided the tendency to couch your points with trite characteriztions like "Gorons" and instead, raise what I think are legitimate issues.
As far as the "Texas recount law" the ABC news just reported that one major difference is that it does not allow for single county or single precinct manual recounts.
Yeah... I don't know. I've tried to find this law specifically, beyond just reports on this law. Is there anywhere to get the exact law for Texas? Like "texas.gov" or anything... anyone know?
Further, like you, they implied that only in certain particular circumstances is a manual recount allowed. No elaboration on that however.
By "particular (or I beleive they used the term 'certain') circumstances" I would assume that would mean irregularities, not unlike that in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. Using vague language like that is common - and wise - as many situations could arise where interpretations would be allowed in cases that the legislators hadn't foreseen. I don't read much into that phrase.
Now it is my understanding that the Dems DO NOT want a statewide manual recount in FL and in fact oppose that option. This from a recent CNN blurb. (It's getting hard to keep track of all the crap going on.)
I haven't heard anywhere that they "oppose" recounting the votes statewide. At least *officially*.
Seems to make it a different issue if the Dems only want to recount "certain" counties. Just a guess, but I'd think they'd recount in places they believe favorable to them, unfavorable to the other side.
I think you're 100% right about this. The Democrats are availing themselves of the law, just as the Republicans have every right to do *and* are doing. If they think voting was screwed in certain counties, they have the right to ask for a recount there, beneficial to them or not.
Don't think for a second that the Bush team is just sitting on their hands.
We already know about the Bush team's attempt to block the recount process provided for under Florida law.
In Iowa The Bush campaign has sent representatives to assess a possible challenge to Al Gore's 4,949-vote lead. Eric Woolson, Bush's Iowa spokesman, said the campaign would monitor the canvassing and then decide whether to request a recount... and currently, state Republican officials are lining up Bush supporters in each of the 99 counties to represent Bush on county recount boards should they be convened.
In New Mexico where Bush holds a 17 point lead, there is still the matter of the 'in-lieu-of' ballots that need to be counted. Republicans requested that ballots be impounded and police seized them (nothing sinister here - they just want them to be secure)in six counties under orders from two state District Court judges.
It must be noted that Bush campaign officials have had no harsh words for the decision of New Mexico election officials to recount some 379 ballots there by hand after they were rejected by electronic voting machines on Tuesday. Also, they did not criticize Republicans in Seminole County, Florida, who joined with Democrats to count many ballots by hand after they were spit out of voting machines without being tabulated.
In Oregon, Gore holds a 5,756 vote lead. However, only 99% of the votes have been counted. Dan Lavey, Bush's Oregon spokesman, said Sunday that the Bush campaign is waiting to see the final count before deciding whether a recount would be sought. How convenient (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And the Bush campaign has not ruled out a recount in Wisconsin, where Gore led Bush by 6,099 votes. All 72 counties must turn in certified tallies before any action can be taken. Additionally, The state Republican Party has asked the Milwaukee County district attorney to look into allegations of some voting irregularities there.
I don't want to belabour the point here. I'll just say that this situation surely is not black and white. It's fine to slam the process in Florida, but you run the risk of being hypocritical if you defend similar Bush manueverings.
With respect to Nixon, he repeatedly explained his stance in that same way to all who asked. Mazo is the first published source, I believe.
I assume you have some proof that the surrogates were acting under Nixon's direct orders/supervision?
No? Then you will forgive those on this board who believe Gore is acting in exactly the same way that you attribute (as yet unsubstantiated) to Nixon?
That Nixon sent out his own personal aides to do field checks in a dozen states; that Nixon could have simply come out publicly and state his opposition to the myriad of investigations and legal motions underway to overturn the election resluts but did not, is indication of *something*, no? Don't think for a second that Nixon wasn't well aware that any election isn't official until the Electoral College comes together in mid-Decemeber and formally pledges their votes to one of the candidates. If these investigations had been favorable to Nixon, a reasonable person would could conclude that Nixon wouldn't just sit on his arse, given his personal effort to challenge the results.
What you submit, that Nixon repeatedly explained his stance, is rather simplistic and doesn't really mean didly, does it? To be flippant, I'll say consider the source.
Look, I don't feel like digging through vast amounts of archives to dig up a record of Nixon's motives or intentions. It is only central to our dicussion with regards to THIS election.
So:
Additionally, your text regarding Nixon seems IMHO to be in a somewhat condemnatory tone. That is, there are undertones of disapproval of Nixon's actions. Since Gore's actions (through surrogates like Christopher) are exactly similar to those you attribute to Nixon, may we assume you also disapprove of Gore's response to the election?
You may not, because your original assumption is incorrect. I did *not* take a condemnatory tone. That is the mistake I see again and again on these boards by anyone reading something that is in opposition to their own views. I fully understand it, and am just as guilty.
To make it clear. I do NOT disaprove of Nixon's actions, and do not disaprove of Gore's. Note: Besides the PR jostling, the only action from the Gore camp has been to block an action initiated by Bush's team. Other than that, he has simply allowed the election run its course). That's not to say he wont take any action in the future, but that hasn't happened yet.
The cornerstone of democracy is the rule of law. To disregard the law is to turn your back on democracy itself. The election of a President is just a bit more serious than litigating the temperature of McDonald's coffee. The candidates have EVERY RIGHT to avail themselves of the law. The election process has EVERY RIGHT to proceed as mandated under law.
Here we are now, six days after the 2000 election. It sure doesn't look like the election is going to be uncontested.
Yeah, but so be it. It's an absolutely surreal thing that is happening here. The only election in the entire history of the States that was closer was the one in 1960. Then, as now, there were allegations, legal action, mistrust, the whole nine yards.
The reason why this is so shocking is that it is so rare and we are unused it. But that doesn't mean that we should start talk of treason and begin stockpiling weapons. I'm sorry, but people's unfamiliarity with a situation does not mean we should disregard the election process.
Like Dooley said "Politics aint bean bag".
I'm gonna skip over a couple of points you made as I'm getting exhausted here (my typing sucks). In essence you stated what you were willing and unwilling to accept. That is your perogative and I wont debate that.
My question to you is how many counts have to be done? When will the "last" recount be "official"?
This idea that votes magically appear or disapear when they are recounted is a fallacy. Also a fallacy is this idea that Gore can request and request again ad nausium a recount. The recount is happening under due process under law, through no action of Gore. So....When will the last count be official? When it is made official under law.
I'll repeat, somewhat out of context, what I said in an earlier post:
"I count the process that the fine people of Florida are granted and have the full right to, under law. I also count the voice that the American people are granted via the absentee vote, which they also have the right to, under law."
I find it interesting that Bush wants to take power away from the Federal Government and give it back to the individual states. Yet, he is trying to circumvent a process not only allowed but mandated under Florida law, and is trying to have a civil suit(that ballot thing)transferred to a Federal court.
Ack! I gotta take a break. Hopefully I've given you enough ammo to play AHA! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
Orignally posted by Nash:
We already know about the Bush team's attempt to block the recount process provided for under Florida law.
Nash I'm glad you find this so entertaining.
Gore asked for a manual recount in those counties 4 counties because they are democratic strongholds, and for no other reason. He's expecting to use only those 4 counties to "find" enough votes to pass Bush's lead.
And maybe I'm just dense, but I seem to have missed your answer to the question about how many recounts are enough. Cinch up your sack and draw a line mate. 10? 20? What's wrong with the original count, then the FL law triggered recount, then waiting on the absentee ballots to finish arriving and be counted?
Whoops, let me answer that one for you:
Gore can not win if he lets it stand at only the first count, the law triggered recount, and then waits for the absentee votes.
Nash you can try and say all you're doing is objective debate about this, but there's nothing object in your diatribes. You clearly side with the bleeding heart liberals and appear to do anything/everything you can on these boards to justify thier actions. As for New Mexico and Oregon, I hate to say it, but if/when FL is decided it makes those 2 states moot points. With FL either candidate has enough electoral votes to win. W/O FL niether has enough, unless the FL electorate votes aren't cast, which drops the total needed to 237 (or somewhere close to that). Then NM and OR become relevant again.
-
Caveman, sir, you are simply not worth the effort. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Is there anywhere to get the exact law for Texas? Like "texas.gov" or anything... anyone know?
Easy. Probably somewhere on the State of Texas Web site (http://www.state.tx.us/Government/). (That's http://www.state.tx.us/Government/) (http://www.state.tx.us/Government/)
All US states domains I've seen follow the same pattern: state.[XX].us (where [XX] is the two-letter code for the state)
Fascinating thread.
------------------
DrSoya
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
Part of the Northolt Wing (http://www.raf303.org/northolt) (First Polish Fighter Wing)
[This message has been edited by DrSoya (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
Nash,
You seem to be a big proponent on the rule of law.....I agree, and the rule of law in FLA. is that all counties votes must be certified and submitted to the FLA Sec. of State by 5:00pm Nov. 14th or those counties will not be included in the state's final tally.
Now, given that this is the rule of law, why would Gore himself sue to bypass the rule of law?
Secondly, if you are to be consistent, wouldn't you agree that this rule of law must be adhered to, irrespective of the progress of the hand count, which is the THIRD re-count?
If you are consistent, and agree that the rule of law must be adhered to, and with the hand count which cannot be completed in that time frame, then it would seem that BY THE RULE OF LAW, Gov. Bush has indeed won the State of Florida and its electoral votes.
Now if the law is interpeted as not good, fine...change it for the next go round, but as it stands today that is the law of the land.
And if Gore (or Bush) hope to save what pieces of credibility each of them have left (if any) and hope to Govern this land by the rule of law, they both had better start respecting those laws.
Cobra
-
Cobra,
Under the rule of law, they are within their rights to challenge that law (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Lol sorry. I know... this stuff is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth.
-
Nash,
I believe a key factor in the "Texas recount" law is that (in whatever circumstances it is implemented) it requires a STATEWIDE recount. All counties, all precincts. (we'll come back to this)
As to the Dems opposing the statewide FL recount, IIRC I heard that one on CNN..but it's getting to be a blur of claim and counterclaim. In any event, if one were to believe the Dems desire for a "full and fair" count...they'd go statewide, wouldn't they?
As far as the Reps eyeing "potential recounts" in some states, as far as I know, they have been talking (once again) statewide recounts. I see this as a big difference in the integrity of the two sides' requests for recount. One side appears willing to recount the full state...the other side wants only potentially favorable recounts. What does that say about integrity to you?
I'll let Nixon rest, although I do see it differently than you. Key in this is the fact that 6 days later Nixon TOLD Kennedy he would not oppose the results. We've ended day 6 with only Warren Christopher's implied promise that if they don't win the recount they will sue. Again, I see a large difference between Nixon and Gore here. Should the recount (+ absentee) go against Gore, they imply further strife. Nixon looks a lot better in that light, at least to me.
As far as votes magically appearing and disappearing....we haven't got a single vote count so far that did not differ from the one before it. I'd say some are "appearing and disappearing".
So, you'll agree that the FL Sec of State is following the rule of law by requiring certified county counts by 1700 on Tuesday? That will be the "official" count? It's the law in FL. Or shall we continue this farce in search of the one count that allows Gore to win?
You realize Gore is suing to overturn that state law right now, correct? So, "offical" isn't "official" if you've got enough good lawyers?
Who now is trying to "circumvent a process not only allowed but mandated under Florida law,?"
This whole thing stinks. We've had 3 machine counts of Palm Beach County. Bush won every one of them. PBC should be a "done deal".
The difference between people like me and people like them is that I would have been satisfied after the first recount.
Honor. Integrity. Responsibility. Accountability.
What is man without these?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Nash,
Honor. Integrity. Responsibility. Accountability.
What is man without these?
Thats an easy one....A Politician.
Doesn't matter which country you're talking about, they all sleep in the same bed.
-
Actually Nash,
I wasn't speaking of their right to challenge, I was however speaking of their ability to be consistent (and yours) when it comes to speaking about following the rule of law.
You know as well as I do that both sides are pushing their own agendas and twisting the laws to meet that agenda (including court challenges).
No bitter taste here, but it looks like Gore may have one. It appears Broward County is not going to do a hand re-count. So the Gore Campaign is going to challenge that decision in court. So much for the "will of the people". Hmmm...a democratic county run by a democratic canvassing board votes not to hand re-count.
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "the will of the people" is. He is actually going to court to challenge the will of the people, how ironic.
Cobra
[This message has been edited by Cobra (edited 11-14-2000).]