Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: easymo on August 27, 2002, 12:01:40 PM
-
As part of the 'war on terrorism, Ashcroft & Co. have indited an attorney defending an muslim clergyman, on the grounds that answering questions from the press constituted communicating terrorist information (and virtually guaranteeing that the next hundred defendants, foreign or domestic, accused to terrorism or other anti-government activities will be unable to secure competent defense counsel). They have demanded the "right" to bug all communications between (certain) defendants and their attorneys. They have broken into offices and searched them, with no notice, under "secret" warrants.
I took the liberty of moveing this to OT.
If clinton had tried this, I and a lot of other conservatives would have went ballistic. Patrick Henry did not say "Give me security. No matter what." Like Pat. I am more inclined to risk my life, then my liberty. I belive most Americans feel the same. Jr. has got to go, come election time.
-
Let us just hope that there is a choice between something besides the lesser of two evils this next time.
Bush has been pretty much what I expected. I didn't expect much.
I based my choice on who'd pick the "better" Supreme Court nominees and I still think I made the right choice there.
Of course, I get to use my own definition of "better".
You're right about Ashcroft though... he needs to sit down and do a little reading of the Constitution and the papers of the Founding Fathers.
-
the problem with politics:
No one to choose from !!!
they're all crooks/liars/cheats/hypocrites
oh yeah.. that's the definition of a politician.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let us just hope that there is a choice between something besides the lesser of two evils this next time.
Bush has been pretty much what I expected. I didn't expect much.
I based my choice on who'd pick the "better" Supreme Court nominees and I still think I made the right choice there.
Of course, I get to use my own definition of "better".
You're right about Ashcroft though... he needs to sit down and do a little reading of the Constitution and the papers of the Founding Fathers.
Agreed! I held my nose at election time, though the lesser of two evils (you can do post research on this) and I too believe Ashcroft is failing miserably.
-
"Let us just hope that there is a choice between something besides the lesser of two evils this next time"
Toad. There already was.
The best con the politicians ever pulled on us, was the "wasted vote" con. FWIW I wrote Sen. McCaine name in. How can people say I wasted my vote, when I voted my conscience?
This is not a commercial for McCaine. The Dem's should do the same thing. We can take our political system back, by the simple act of ignoring the wasted vote BS. Write in the name of the candidate you think will do the best job.
-
I believe Bush has had a plan all along, be it altered by 9/11, he has performed well as the President.
Examine his entire political career....he has always been underestimated, only to pull through and deliver to everyones suprise.
It amuses me to watch how so many of you simplify the current geopolitical climate, the challenges which face us domestically and the overall political machine here at home.
If it were only as easy as some of you make it out to be.
I believe the old "a house divided against itself cannot stand" referenced in the Bible holds true. IMHO, anyone elected as president will have limited success due to corrupt and ill placed motives on the part of his adversaries.
It is what it is and it will never change. Having said that, I choose to stand behind my president until he does something I can no longer respect.
Again, all of this is simply my opinion.:)
-
edited to show the Nazi effect (what would the world say if that was a jewish clergyman)
::edited::As part of the 'war on terrorism', Ashcroft & Co. have indited an attorney defending an jewish clergyman, on the grounds that answering questions from the press constituted communicating terrorist information (and virtually guaranteeing that the next hundred defendants, foreign or domestic, accused to terrorism or other anti-government activities will be unable to secure competent defense counsel)::edited::
Can't we arrest these guys for brecking the constitution?
-
Examine his entire political career
What career. I am a Texan. I have lived under Jr. for his "entire career". The Governor here, does not have the power, or responsibility that Governors have in other states. Its not an outright figure head position, but close. Before that he had a baseball team. Hardly, good training to be the most powerful man in the world. IMO no one would have ever heard of Jr. if not for Sr.
But I am willing to be educated. Please post your evidence.
-
I based my choice on who'd pick the "better" Supreme Court nominees and I still think I made the right choice there.
Of course, I get to use my own definition of "better".
Toad, that was the exact reason for my vote. As you say, I get to use my own definition of better :)
I would have voted for McCain, if given the choice. I disagree with some of his positions, but bought into his anti-Washington status quo approach. Hopefully he was/is sincere. I really wonder how successful any Washington reformer could be, since he or she would have virtually no support from either party.
Charon
-
McCain was probably no worse and probably no better than the other two. He's still a politician. I'd have voted for him had he won the nomination.
Felt it was more important to back my choice for "Supreme Court Judge Nominator" than to register a protest vote for McCain... although here in Kansas I probably didn't need to worry about Bush winning. Remember that map of the county by county choices?
Blue is Bush. Shoulda relaxed, I guess. The Land of Ahhhs!
(http://shiraz.caliper.com/Maptitude/2000Election/map.asp?command=zmout&width=0&table=&scope=-98236214%7C38255678%7C195.936982%7C130.298093&mapimage.x=308&mapimage.y=197)
-
Originally posted by easymo
Examine his entire political career
What career. I am a Texan. I have lived under Jr. for his "entire career". The Governor here, does not have the power, or responsibility that Governors have in other states. Its not an outright figure head position, but close. Before that he had a baseball team. Hardly, good training to be the most powerful man in the world. IMO no one would have ever heard of Jr. if not for Sr.
But I am willing to be educated. Please post your evidence.
I was referring to his ability to bring folks together and get things accomplished....I too lived in Texas when GW was the gov.
In response to your remark about owning a baseball team not jelling with being the president? I would rather have someone who has practical experience in the business world running this country than a lifelong politician....the skills of the latter were showcased the last two terms.
It's just my opinion....nothing more.
-
Supreme Court Judges have a way of blowing up in the face of the Prez that put them in there. You know what I am talking about.:) We cant do anything about that. We can do something about who the Prez is.
-
easymo, do you have a link to that story? It sounds kinda Snopesish to me.
-
Ashcroft started off nicely by affirming 2nd Amendment rights but since 9/11 it's been all downhill for him. He's gonna go down in history right next to Janet Reno, the butcher of Waco.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Ashcroft started off nicely by affirming 2nd Amendment rights but since 9/11 it's been all downhill for him. He's gonna go down in history right next to Janet Reno, the butcher of Waco.
-
I was referring to his ability to bring folks together and get things accomplished
Jr. is fond of looking steely eyed, into the camera and saying "I am results oriented. That what I care about". Apparently this is a phrase that someone made him memorize. I am results oriented also. Two thirds of the al-kaida cadre excaped Afghanistan. Due IMO, to the long warning period that Jr. gave them. He is doing the same thing now with Iraq. Them results suck, Jr.
-
Easymo,
Would you have preferred that the U.S. jumped into Afghanistan without being fully prepared or having a base of operations, like Pakistan, from which to strike?
Ashcroft is between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't use every means at his disposal to thwart future terrorist attacks, and Al-Qaeda manages to successfully strike us again, his career as a public servant will be over. If he uses questionable means to thwart these attacks and is successful in doing so, some American citizens will demand his resignation for abusing the powers of his office.
Why should a suspected terrorist or his lawyer/spokesman have free access to the press? If they had it, they would use it to preen and boast and, possibly, send information about his interrogators and their methods to his compatriots. The Constitution does not guarantee him unlimited access to the media, only a fair and speedy trial by a jury.
Regards, Shuckins
-
If clinton had tried this, I and a lot of other conservatives would have went ballistic
[/b]
Your my hero Easymo!
Bush has been pretty much what I expected. I didn't expect much.
[/b]
The era of lowered expectations Toad.
they're all crooks/liars/cheats/hypocrites
Not true Wlfgng but this is the spin the Global Corporations want you to believe. So why bother to vote?
If it were only as easy as some of you make it out to be.
A little easier Rude if we had picked someone smarter.. like say John McCain. Or even the guy that won the election.
It is what it is and it will never change. Having said that, I choose to stand behind my president until he does something I can no longer respect.
Like what start ww3? Oh that’s right that would be Clinton’s fault.. Rude you would support this president if he personally pulled out a shotgun an blew somebody's head off.
I was referring to his ability to bring folks together and get things accomplished....I too lived in Texas when GW was the gov.[/b]
“Ahm ah uniter not a divider” ... Well ain’t that the truth.. He’s united the world against us.
“Ahm gonna change the direction of this country!” Boy o’ boy! no lie there.
In response to your remark about owning a baseball team not jelling with being the president? I would rather have someone who has practical experience in the business world running this country than a lifelong politician
I to would like somebody with PRACTICAL business experience.. not a complete business failure.. The only reason he’s not a porn movie fluffer is because of his family name. Was it really necessary to condemn the private property the stadium sits on then charge the good people of Arlington EXTRA TAX for the privilege only to have him sell the team a few months later?.. That’s swell Dubya thanks alot.
PS- please note my non presents on that other thread..
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Or even the guy that won the election.
We've GOT the guy that won the election sitting in the White House now. :D
.... and before you start in with all the excuse making, "unfair-unfair" and coulda/shoulda/woulda....
Ask yourself this and be honest.......
If the election situation was EXACTLY reversed and all the things that happened to Bush happend to Gore and all the things that happened to Gore happened to Bush and Gore was now the President.......
I can honestly say were it reversed and Gore was sitting in the White House my postion would be the same on the events... I'd say Gore won, just as I say Bush won now.
Would you still be saying BUSH won the election if it all were reversed?
I'm thinking you would not.
Well?
-
A little easier Rude if we had picked someone smarter.. like say John McCain.
Didn't the dems re-registered to Rep for the primaries just to defeat McCain in a Republican primaries, because thay thought the Goron can take Bush, but not necessarily McCain?
-
The scurvy lil monkey is gay.
Next time I'm voting for these guys...
(http://duryea.org/pinky/emporerBrain.gif)
-
"If he doesn't use every means at his disposal to thwart future terrorist attacks"
That means every means at HIS disposal. NOT the bill of rights. That,s not his to dispose of. That's ours
-
If the election situation was EXACTLY reversed and all the things that happened to Bush happend to Gore and all the things that happened to Gore happened to Bush and Gore was now the President.......[/b]
You mean if Bush had won by over 500,000 votes but the partisan left wing Supreme court called a stop to counting all the votes, the left leaning military were allowed to send in votes postmarked after the election, conservatives in the suburbs found their names mystery taken off the voter list, ballots with Bush as the fifth candidate but you have to look closely he’s really the third candidate?... hehehh
Toad.... like another poster told you.. there’d be armed insurrection.
Didn't the dems re-registered to Rep for the primaries just to defeat McCain in a Republican primaries, because thay thought the Goron can take Bush, but not necessarily McCain?[/b]
Mietla, got any documentation? I remember this. It’s brought to by the same people that claimed McCain was mentally unstable. The large corporations don’t like.. didn’t like John McCain because he don’t dance to their fiddle.. You know this right? He was gaining too much in the polls so they brought out the BIG slime machine and let it spew. During the South Carolina primary they even started making subtle suggestions regarding his step daughter. Now even you have to admit that was pretty low.
Here’s something for Toad to chew on. Had Gore been allowed to serve as President, there’s a good chance he would have followed the advice of Clinton and quietly gone after Bin Ladin using special forces. He would have accepted the Hart/Rudman report and their recommendations. He would’ve continued the Clinton economic policies that proved to have worked for 8 years. The result?.. No 911 no recession. No ripping off the firefighters who need new equipment, no ripping off veterans for their VA health benefits. It’s a good chance that older Americans who earned it would be receiving a subsidized prescription drug benefit. And the most important thing of all.. He wouldn’t be ripping to shreds our Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Hey Toad try and make it into the CT this week their doing Burma it’s fun...
Oh here’s a Babe that Yankee would approve of :)
http://www.brookeburke.com/
-
Yet another admirable exhibition of the "side-step" 10B. Those are some truly nimble feet you have there.
Item 1. As I recall, you support the Second Amendment in another thread and in this last reply you pay homage to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Allow me to digress a moment and point out the origins of the Electoral College.
The first design of the Electoral College was described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made
probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment to the Constitution requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president.
Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College.
So, we can see that the Electoral College and how it works is created by and delineated in the Constitution.
So, 10B, how is it? You either support the Constitution or you don't. Clearly, the Electoral College system is part of the Constitution.
Just as clearly, Gore won the popular vote by a thin margin... you might even say well within the margin of error given the ballot problems that appear to be endemic throughout the entire system.
Even more clear, however, is the fact that Constitutionally[/u] winning the popular vote has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WINNING THE PRESIDENCY.
Winning the ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE determines who wins the Presidency.
And one does not necessarily have to win the popular vote to win the Electoral College vote. It's deliberately set up that way, in fact.
Constitutionally speaking, of course. I'm sure you agree? Being a staunch supporter of the Constitution?
Now that we've got that little bit of history out of the way, let's address the issue you once again clearly side-stepped:
Would you be saying that BUSH won the election if Gore was now in the White House, gaining it under the exact same circumstances that put Bush there now?
Show us the honesty of your belief; tell us that you'd be now be bitterly telling the world how "Bush got cheated" if Gore was President under the same circumstances.
Yeah, right. :D In a pig's eye you would. You're only crying now because "your guy" didn't get in. You wouldn't care HOW he got there, just that he got there.
Lastly, here's something for you to chew on:
"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
Want to what if your scenario?
What if Gore's "quiet special forces" had failed to get Bin Laden in time to stop 9/11?
What if Clinton was wrong and we really didn't defeat the business cycle?
What if the same crooked CEO's were running the same companies that have imploded due to accounting scandals and flat out lying and stealing during the Clinton Administration (and many of them were)?
What if all the crooked accounting and inflated profit reports, stock prices and wealth were responsible for a lot of the "prosperity" during the Clinton years and thus it was all a chimera? What if the bill for all that lying, cheating, stealing and lack of ethics is just now coming due?
What if you could "what if" every single decision ever made and "what if" every happening in life?
I suspect you'd spend a lot of time "what-iffing" and not getting anything done.
That reminds me, I've got some real work to do!
So, 10B, would you be crying that somebody "stole the election" from Bush? You Constitutionalist, you! :D
-
LOL Toad, I’ve got to admit, who ever taught you debating skills sure knew what they were doing I have to give you credit for that. We weren't talking about the electoral collage. You pick something that we fully agree on then move the discussion from there. That’s good.. I like that heheheh. Believe me I don’t need an education on the electoral collage, I understand the reasons for it fully and don’t have a problem with it.
What I DO have a problem with is the Supreme court stepping on the state Supreme court to have ALL the votes manually counted. I have a problem with thousands of voters who thought they were registered being turned away from the polls. Military votes turned in after election day, Giant corporations pouring in millions of dollars making sure the manual recount was stopped... on and on. But to stop your first paragraphs in it’s tracks.. those 23 electoral votes would’ve gone to Gore had all the legal votes been counted...
Would you be saying that BUSH won the election if Gore was now in the White House, gaining it under the exact same circumstances that put Bush there now?
Show us the honesty of your belief; tell us that you'd be now be bitterly telling the world how "Bush got cheated" if Gore was President under the same circumstances.[/b]
Your right.. your right I would’ve sat back eating popcorn and watched the circus on TV. I would’ve thanked God and lord sweet Jesus we didn’t get some frat boy inexperienced recovering alcoholic as our president. I would’ve scratched my head in utter amazement that wise men like Bob Dole and James Baker would support this guy in the first place. After all, it’s their country too. BUT[/i] Rush and G. Gordie would have blasted the airwaves 24/7 Free Republic would have gotten so many posts it would slow the entire internet. Lucanne Goldberg might have had a stroke. Lil;’ Anne Fanny might have gotten a butch haircut. Militias would mobilize.. Mass riots by well heeled GOP staffers in the streets.. Are you kidding?
Sigh.. my side gone are the tough guys-- gone are the Tip O'Neal's, the Bill Fullbrights, the Gene McCarthy's of the country.. What we have now are the yes men.. oh yes anything you want Mr. Bush.. anything you want signed Mr Ashcroft. What a world..
-
I didn't change the topic one bit. We were talking about who won the election.
You keep posting incredible baloney like
Or even the guy that won the election.
[/b]
as if Gore won. Clearly, for the discussion to continue rationally, a mutual understanding of the Electoral College was necessary.
So, since you DON'T need an education on the Electoral College, does that mean you'll finally give up on the
Or even the guy that won the election.
[/b]
BS?
Because, since you understand the Electoral College and agree with it, you MUST realize that Gore LOST the election by the Constitutional rules that apply... the only rules that count.
So, are you ready to give up on it yet? :D
Now, let me help you with one of your other "problems":
What I DO have a problem with is the Supreme court stepping on the state Supreme court to have ALL the votes manually counted.
[/b]
Well, that IS the Supreme Courts job.. to decide in these cases. And they did. Now you may not agree with the decision and that's your privilege and opinion. But the case was brought, they agreed to hear it and that IS their job.. to decide.
So there you go. No need to have a problem because Bush would have won if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount to go ahead. Now you can relax and love the Supremes again!
(From CNN) April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)
"MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- 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."
*******
And now to your biggest problem:
those 23 electoral votes would’ve gone to Gore had all the legal votes been counted...
[/b]
Sorry, you're simply wrong. And it's been deeply researched already. So, this is just more baloney.
(From USA Today 05/15/2001 - Updated 05:18 PM ET )
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory. The vote totals vary depending on the standard used:
Lenient standard. This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad — the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote — as evidence of a voter's intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore's hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.
Palm Beach standard. Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples also were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard — attacked by Republicans as arbitrary — also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.
Two-corner standard. Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.
Strict standard. This "clean punch" standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes.
Because of the possibility of mistakes in the study, a three-vote margin is too small to conclude that Gore might have prevailed in an official count using this standard.
**********
So now you can relax some more. Because in 3 out of the 4 ways to count... INCLUDING THE METHOD FAVORED BY GORE... BUSH WON.
And in the other method it's basically too close to call by the admission of those doing the research.
I have a problem with thousands of voters who thought they were registered being turned away from the polls.
[/b]
At every polling place I've ever been too, my registration was checked against the book of registered voters. When ever there was a dispute, there were both Democrats and Republicans called in to verify the voter. As far as I know, this is the way Florida works too. So who do you have a problem with? The Democratic workers at the polling places?
And Military ballots can be turned in after election day, IIRC. They go by the postmark, do they not?
And, lastly...
Your right.. your right I would’ve sat back eating popcorn and watched the circus on TV. I would’ve thanked God and lord sweet Jesus
[/b]
So, if your man had gotten in by the same means as Bush, by the same means you have decried in numerous threads, by the same means that you continue to endlessly complain about as unfair/illegal...
You'd be perfectly satisfied and wouldn't say a word except perhaps to "thank God".
Hmmmmm... sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
-
just cant wait for the next election.
and would like to point out i supported armed insurrection from the start.
-
In this case, I wouldn't have supported armed insurrection no matter who won.
The fact that it was decided in the courts and not in the streets is a very positive thing, IMO.
-
"a little revolution every now and again is a good thing..." --Thomas Jefferson
-
Easymo, I would like to buy you a beer. Ride yer sickle up to God's Country(though it is a Liberal nest), here in Austin, and your money is no good.
512.431.0870
-
careful what you ask for :). My son lives in a small town just north of there. I ride up there often.
-
lol dont start a war ....guys
-
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'.... :p
-
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...
-
Balony you say? .... heh I better hurry up before brother Nash steals my fish!!
So Bush Did Steal the White House (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html
)
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 (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html)
“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 (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/071601a.html)
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 (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/040601a.html)
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.
-
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
-
WTC Episode 1?
U.S.S. Cole?
Embassy Bombings?
I can think of someone that stupid...
-
LOL. Me 2.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm)
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/)
"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 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html)
"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' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1190222.stm)
"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?
-
What kind of mandate do you think that gives Bush. Having won the election, but having loss the popular vote?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16459)
*********
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!
-
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?[/b]
sigh Toad... And the bottom line is----
As part of the 'war on terrorism, Ashcroft & Co. have indited an attorney defending an muslim clergyman, on the grounds that answering questions from the press constituted communicating terrorist information (and virtually guaranteeing that the next hundred defendants, foreign or domestic, accused to terrorism or other anti-government activities will be unable to secure competent defense counsel). They have demanded the "right" to bug all communications between (certain) defendants and their attorneys. They have broken into offices and searched them, with no notice, under "secret" warrants.
It is now time to fly.. and that is all I have to say
-
All I can tell you guys is that next time I'm voting against Hillary, and I don't care who the opposition is.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
All I can tell you guys is that next time I'm voting against Hillary, and I don't care who the opposition is.
What if the opposition was Bill?
-
Can't happen. Bill can't pass as a Republican or Libertarian, and Hillary will probably get the ticket for the Democrats. Indeed it would be a nightmarish scenario, enough to make me vote "Nader".
-
Originally posted by Nash
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.
Two points here, I think.
First of all, none of these justices were appointed by George Jr.
Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon.
Stevens by Ford
O'Connor, Scalia, & Kennedy by Reagan
Souter and Thomas by Bush Sr.
Ginsberg and Breyer by Clinton.
So, remember that of the 9, 7 were appointed by Republicans.
Now:
U.S. Supreme Court rules manual vote recounts unconstitutional (http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/13/scotus.election.05/)
"Seven justices of this Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court," according to a 7-2 "per curiam," or unsigned, opinion in Bush v. Gore. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy."
"...Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stevens wrote dissents to parts of or the entire unsigned opinion, forming the four-justice minority."
We might carefully assume that the dissent on the 7-2 opinion was by Breyer (he actually wrote the dissent so he's a given) and probably Ginsburg. Both Clinton appointees.
If one were to take the "They just voted their party line" comment as an indictment, then aren't the Democrat-nominated Justices just as guilty of voting the "party line" as the Republicans?
What difference would there be? Would it be honorable for the Dems to vote "party line" but dishonorable for Reps to do so?
However, I don't believe "party line" was the case. Obviously, in the 5-4 decision, two Republican appointed Justices voted with two Democrat appointed Justices to form the minority.
I choose to believe that the Supreme Court is reliable, is trustworthy and will decide on merit before the law rather than politics.
I realize that there are those that will disagree with me and think me crazy.
However, if it isn't like that, all is indeed lost and those of you calling for an armed revolution might as well get started.
Ya gotta believe in something. I don't believe in Congress. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron. There aren't any "honest politicians" in Congress.. they're on weekly sale to the highest bidder. IMO, of course.
I don't believe in the Presidents. For the same reason.. they won't stay bought.
I do choose to believe that the 9 Justices nominated by Presidents and examined and confirmed by the Congresses are my best hope at living out my life under the Constitution as the Framer's intended life in this country to be.
YMMV.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
sigh Toad... And the bottom line is----
LOL! Now a sidestep to Ashcroft?
Ashcroft will be dealt with and most probably by the Supreme Court. That's EXACTLY why they're there and that's exactly what they're supposed to do.
But, THAT'S not the bottom line at all.
The bottom line is this:
In my opinion, you don't give a hoot about HOW your guys wins just as long as YOUR GUY wins.
In my opinion, you don't give a hoot about what lies he tells or what dishonesty he's involved in as long as he's YOUR GUY.
You've pretty much said this stuff over and over again in various threads.
If Bush wagged his finger at me on TV and tried to give us all a new definition of "is" I'd be calling for his head just as I called for Clinton's.
If Gore had won the election following the exact same route that put Bush in the White House, I'd still be saying "Gore won the Electoral" and "the Supreme Court ruled in his favor". "It's done. It's done as well as the system could do it. I'm over it."
THAT is the bottom line; that's the DIFFERENCE. IMO.
-
man you are the king of circular reasoning . you present your argument as the opositions (wich it is not) and then say they are no better than you and the system that is perverted by political appointees voting their party affiliation. the same system will reign in political nuts that were appointed by the guy who was put in office by corrupted political appointees in the first place.yea shure
you are well spoken but dead wrong they stole the highest office in the country aginst the will of the majority of the people in the us and the state of florida. wrong is wrong. saying the other guy could and should do the same is a jail house argument at best.
-
10Bears.....
If you believe that GW has turned the world against us, then you are more naive than I first thought.....our allies have always loved us haven't they?:)
The fact of this matter is that no one man will solve any of these issues....what we all should be tiring of is the fact that our government can't work towards the good of the American people, but rather play politics at our expense.
I understand the pleasure you derive from blaming Bush for all of our woes...it's a simple, comfortable and easy place from which to throw stones.
Have fun.
-
Sorry Towd. Can't really decipher that first part.
If you are saying that I think the Supreme Court simply voted by political affilation in the Bush/Gore case, you misinterpreted it.
Obviously, they did not because two of the Republican appointees were in the dissent.
OTOH, if they did vote by political affliation (which I don't believe) then only Democrats voted as a "bloc"; the Republicans split 5-2. So if voting by party affiliation is evil, then who is the "evilest"? :) I like to think they all voted on the merits of the case as they saw it.
Basically, I feel/felt Bush is more likely to appoint "strict constructionist" Judges that don't try to read more into the Constitution than is there. It's written in pretty simple language, not that hard to understand.
I prefer the "strict constructionist" approach. I also, perhaps foolishly, believe that Supreme Court Judges are our best hope of living our lives under the Constitution as the Founding Father's actually intended. The various Congresses and the various Presidents don't impress me much.
I think those Founding Father guys were pretty smart and created a fine system. I don't really want a lot of tinkering by inventive/creative Judges.
Don't know if I addressed what you were saying there...
***
Steal the office?
No, I don't think so. You may, but that's your opinion.
Popular vote means nothing. See the Electoral College. Popular vote is just "sour grapes". Continued "popular vote" complaints displays either an inability to accept the facts or an inability to understand the US Electoral College.
The Florida vote was a mess. That's the entire source of the dispute. However, look at the root cause. That mess started with the infamous Palm Beach Ballot. Who was the Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach? There was no secret conspiracy or plot; there was a screw-up.
It ended up being a totally Fubar situation; not suprising it ended up in the Courts. BOTH sides were appealing to courts, as you will recall.
The courts settled it. Best way, IMO. You may not like the result but at least there was no bloodshed.
Beyond that and despite the recent spin, the Herald/USAToday reviews of ballots still showed Bush the winner.
Time to get over it, I'd say.
As you pointed out, 2002 isn't that far off. In fact, we'll all probably be sick of the campaigning before you know it.
I hope all you folks channel that anger. Go volunteer to work for the candidate of your choice. :D