Kerry pulls ahead of Bush (Newsweek)
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
While you're at it, why don't you explain some of these allegations from the 2000 election that weren't brought up in the media due to the fact that there guy won in these instances.
Did George Bush Steal the 2000 Election?
by Bruce Bethke
©2001 All Rights Reserved
March 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are times when a measured and reasoned response is required, and times when only an incoherent scream of rage will do. After four months of listening to incessant Democratic whining about the results of the 2000 Presidential Election -- and after coming to the sad realization that this is *not* going to stop any time soon, they're *not* going to deal with it like adults and move on, and we're probably looking at at least four more years of puerile political pouting -- I've reached the point where, if I were my Dad, I would be taking off my belt and saying, "You want something to cry about? I'll give you something to cry about."
But since a certain percentage of the Democratic constituency would enjoy a good spanking and any attempt to bend Nadler or Kennedy over my knee would just give me torn ligaments and severe back strain, I believe the time has come instead to give up on the patient and gentlemanly responses, start pounding my metaphorical fist on the virtual table, switch to Incoherent Scream font, and say:
YOU WANT AN INVESTIGATION? YOU WANT ANOTHER RECOUNT? YES, BY ALL MEANS, LET'S DO THAT!
BRING IT ON!!!
Only this time, instead of looking at just Dade and Broward counties in Florida, let's get *really* down and dirty. Let's look at:
Philadelphia, where there were more votes cast than there are adults living in the city, and where some precincts reported an incredible 100-percent voter turnout, with those same voters going an astonishing 100-percent for Gore.
Iowa, where there were widespread claims of rampant fraudulent voting, and which Gore won by a whopping 4,144 votes.
New Mexico, where there were reports that Democratic party operatives were seen bringing entire busloads of Mexicans across the border to vote, and which Gore won by 366 votes.
Wisconsin, where there were published newspaper reports that UW-Madison, UW-Milwaukee, and Marquette University students were voting five and six times, and which Gore won by 5,708 votes.
Oregon, where there were claims of unfairly and illegally rejected military absentee ballots, and which Gore won by 6,765 votes.
Illinois, which went strongly for Bush except in Cook County, that well-known bastion of clean politics and home of Gore's national campaign manager, Richard Daley.
Minnesota, which went strongly for Bush except in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, where Democratic party operatives were seen going into group and nursing homes and bringing entire busloads of senile and mentally retarded adults to the polls, then accompanying these people into the polling booths to "help them understand" the ballot.
I could go on and on -- and on, and on some more -- but then people might mistake me for a Democrat. Instead, I want to conclude by restating my original thesis: do you whining loser partisans really want to start kicking over the rocks and seeing what kind of vermin crawls out?
If so, then I say, bring it on.
by Bruce Bethke
©2001 All Rights Reserved
March 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are times when a measured and reasoned response is required, and times when only an incoherent scream of rage will do. After four months of listening to incessant Democratic whining about the results of the 2000 Presidential Election -- and after coming to the sad realization that this is *not* going to stop any time soon, they're *not* going to deal with it like adults and move on, and we're probably looking at at least four more years of puerile political pouting -- I've reached the point where, if I were my Dad, I would be taking off my belt and saying, "You want something to cry about? I'll give you something to cry about."
But since a certain percentage of the Democratic constituency would enjoy a good spanking and any attempt to bend Nadler or Kennedy over my knee would just give me torn ligaments and severe back strain, I believe the time has come instead to give up on the patient and gentlemanly responses, start pounding my metaphorical fist on the virtual table, switch to Incoherent Scream font, and say:
YOU WANT AN INVESTIGATION? YOU WANT ANOTHER RECOUNT? YES, BY ALL MEANS, LET'S DO THAT!
BRING IT ON!!!
Only this time, instead of looking at just Dade and Broward counties in Florida, let's get *really* down and dirty. Let's look at:
Philadelphia, where there were more votes cast than there are adults living in the city, and where some precincts reported an incredible 100-percent voter turnout, with those same voters going an astonishing 100-percent for Gore.
Iowa, where there were widespread claims of rampant fraudulent voting, and which Gore won by a whopping 4,144 votes.
New Mexico, where there were reports that Democratic party operatives were seen bringing entire busloads of Mexicans across the border to vote, and which Gore won by 366 votes.
Wisconsin, where there were published newspaper reports that UW-Madison, UW-Milwaukee, and Marquette University students were voting five and six times, and which Gore won by 5,708 votes.
Oregon, where there were claims of unfairly and illegally rejected military absentee ballots, and which Gore won by 6,765 votes.
Illinois, which went strongly for Bush except in Cook County, that well-known bastion of clean politics and home of Gore's national campaign manager, Richard Daley.
Minnesota, which went strongly for Bush except in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, where Democratic party operatives were seen going into group and nursing homes and bringing entire busloads of senile and mentally retarded adults to the polls, then accompanying these people into the polling booths to "help them understand" the ballot.
I could go on and on -- and on, and on some more -- but then people might mistake me for a Democrat. Instead, I want to conclude by restating my original thesis: do you whining loser partisans really want to start kicking over the rocks and seeing what kind of vermin crawls out?
If so, then I say, bring it on.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
While you're at it, why don't you explain some of these allegations from the 2000 election that weren't brought up in the media due to the fact that there guy won in these instances.
While you're at it, why don't you explain some of these allegations from the 2000 election that weren't brought up in the media due to the fact that there guy won in these instances.
an ex-surfer, ex-rock musician, ex-teacher, and ex-sausage maker, Bruce Bethke now lives a life of quiet bourgeois complacency in suburban Minnesota, where he works in software development for a really, really nice multibillion-dollar multinational company.
Bethke has written numerous short stories, which have appeared in such magazines as Amazing, Asimov's, Weird Tales, and Easyriders,
Bethke has written numerous short stories, which have appeared in such magazines as Amazing, Asimov's, Weird Tales, and Easyriders,
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
Facts are facts. Prove 'em wrong pip-squeek.
Facts are facts. Prove 'em wrong pip-squeek.
Religious right reporting in a far right news site aren't facts.
How about this from Rutgers:
The Final Florida Recount
A year after the presidential election of 2000, the nation could finally close the electoral count. A spate of commentary1 and multiple revisions of the vote culminated in an authoritative study sponsored by eight news organizations, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. 2
The final count showed that George W. Bush would remain as the winner of Florida's electoral vote, and therefore the presidency, under one limited set of rules - those prescribed by the Florida Supreme Court in December of 2000, and blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Bush v. Gore decision. Under these rules, Bush's margin would be diminished to 493 votes, but he would still be entitled to his office.3
Bush's title, however, rests on narrow legalistic grounds. The Florida vote was tainted by a series of errors and political interpretations. Under a full accounting, Gore most likely would be president. Distortions existed both in the votes that were counted, those that were not tallied, and those that were not cast. In the first group, votes included under court guidelines in the official tally, there are two difficulties.
The Recount Tally. The final tally of December 2000 did not actually recount all of the state's ballots. There were the now-famous disputes over chads, hanging chads, and dimples, with different judgments among counties and counters. If these disputes had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the NORC study show, the electoral result would have been reversed, but by the thinnest of margins. If there had been a constant statewide recount, Gore would have won, but by merely one hundred votes, approximately. For example, if ballots were counted only if holes went completely through punch cards, Gore would win by 115. If even "dimples" were permitted, Gore would have won by 107: 4
The NORC recount is the best achievable analysis. However, the ballots are still subject to different interpretations. The NORC coders, even though impartial, might have introduced subjective factors to their judgments. Moreover, there were some discrepancies between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots provided by the county election boards, potentially enough (2,288) to change the result. Under the rules of the time, then, the Florida election result was a statistical tie and a political judgment.
Absentee Ballots. The official and NORC results include some questionable absentee ballots. Largely from military personnel abroad, these votes overwhelmingly favored Bush. State law required that the absentee votes be signed and postmarked by the day of the election. However, 680 ballots were counted in violation of these clear provisions, particularly in counties favoring Bush, adding 292 votes to his margin.5
Greater distortions in the Florida election came from ballots that were cast but not counted in any manner. The revised count operated under the restricted court rules, which dealt with "undervotes" - where no presidential preference had been included in the official state report by Secretary of State Harris and Governor Bush. The legally prescribed recount did not look at "overvotes" - where more than one candidate was selected. The overvotes' potential impact was far greater than all of the other considerations. If included, Bush would gain up to 35,631 votes, the ballots that included him as one of the multiple choices, but Gore would gain 80,775, and Gore would be the new President. There were two major problems associated with these overvotes.
Ballot Design. The 113,000 "overvotes" were cast predominantly on Palm Beach county's "butterfly" ballot and Duval county's two-page ballot. Legally, these ballots could not be counted, because they did not, on the face, show a preference for only one candidate. Still, some judgments could be made. For example, a ballot in which Gore's name was written in, as well as punched, would be counted as a vote for the Democratic candidate. More generally, a common sense political analysis would indicate that these ballots should be credited to the major party candidate who received support. If this reasonable interpretation were in force, although not in keeping with legal standards, Gore would have been the clear statewide winner.
Electoral Machinery. Older voting machines, particularly those employing punch cards, were harder to operate and more likely to mangle ballots or record the vote erroneously. An estimated 120,000 votes were lost due to these machine errors, concentrated in areas where voters were poorer, black, or elderly Jews - all groups likely to support Gore.6
Even more modern machinery, optical scanners, sometimes worked to Gore's disadvantage. "In those 'optical-scan' counties that transport ballots to the county seat to be tallied, black voters were almost four times as likely as whites to cast uncounted "overvotes." In those counties where optical scanners alerted voters of an erroneous second vote, the racial disparity was sharply lower.7
Disenfranchisement. The final influence on the vote was from non-voters, or more precisely the persons who were not allowed to vote. This loss of the franchise disadvantaged Gore. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that 180,000 voters had been denied their right to vote. Of this number, 54 percent were African Americans, who would surely favor Gore overwhelmingly.8
A considerable proportion of those denied the ballot were ex-felons, who had been scrubbed from the voting rolls by a vigorous, but often inaccurate, effort of Secretary of State Harris. Persons were excluded from the rolls on the basis of incomplete identification, and even when their alleged felonies were recorded as occurring in the future. At least 3,000 were ex-felons from other states, whose voting rights had been restored by their original states - an action constitutionally binding on Florida officials. Half of these disappearing voters were black men, again likely to vote for Gore.9
In the end, there is no single statistical "reality" to the Florida vote, and the consequent presidential election. Shaped by politics as much as arithmetic, the recount results abound in irony. If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the recount to proceed, its evident preference for Bush would have been fulfilled, without bringing disdain upon the Court.10 If Gore's attempt to limit the recount to four presumably friendly counties had succeeded, he would have lost his effort at vindication. If the vice-president were willing to challenge the late military ballots, he would have gained considerably. If Bush's lawyers had won their demand for a state-wide recount, they would have lost the election. The Republicans might even have been better off if they had not pursued the court case and left the ultimate decision to the constitutional process, decision by the incoming House of Representatives. There, they would have still elected Bush as president, but he would have achieved a more consensual title to his office.
After the Florida recount, there have been some improvements in the electoral process. The state has thoroughly revised its election law, providing for uniform standards, the elimination of punch card machines, faster recounts, and more impartial administration of the polls. Other states have made similar changes, and legislation to promote federal standards are under consideration.11 More politics is the cure for the ills of politics.
After the September 11th attacks on the United States, there is no disposition in the United States to question the legitimacy of the Bush administration. The election of 2000 has ended, but unfortunately it ended with skepticism about the quality of the American electoral process and doubts over the rightful exercise of power in the United States. George W. Bush governs, but without the clear consent of the governed.
You see Junior, that is a balanced view from all sides of the issue, not some Christian right nut job loving shrub because of his stance on abortion.
If you had any interest in truth, you could have found this in 2 minutes as well.
Roger and out.
Last edited by loudist; Oct 3, 2004 at 07:08 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by loudist
How about this from Rutgers:
The Final Florida Recount
A year after the presidential election of 2000, the nation could finally close the electoral count. A spate of commentary1 and multiple revisions of the vote culminated in an authoritative study sponsored by eight news organizations, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. 2
The final count showed that George W. Bush would remain as the winner of Florida's electoral vote, and therefore the presidency, under one limited set of rules - those prescribed by the Florida Supreme Court in December of 2000, and blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Bush v. Gore decision. Under these rules, Bush's margin would be diminished to 493 votes, but he would still be entitled to his office.3
Bush's title, however, rests on narrow legalistic grounds. The Florida vote was tainted by a series of errors and political interpretations. Under a full accounting, Gore most likely would be president. Distortions existed both in the votes that were counted, those that were not tallied, and those that were not cast. In the first group, votes included under court guidelines in the official tally, there are two difficulties.
The Recount Tally. The final tally of December 2000 did not actually recount all of the state's ballots. There were the now-famous disputes over chads, hanging chads, and dimples, with different judgments among counties and counters. If these disputes had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the NORC study show, the electoral result would have been reversed, but by the thinnest of margins. If there had been a constant statewide recount, Gore would have won, but by merely one hundred votes, approximately. For example, if ballots were counted only if holes went completely through punch cards, Gore would win by 115. If even "dimples" were permitted, Gore would have won by 107: 4
The NORC recount is the best achievable analysis. However, the ballots are still subject to different interpretations. The NORC coders, even though impartial, might have introduced subjective factors to their judgments. Moreover, there were some discrepancies between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots provided by the county election boards, potentially enough (2,288) to change the result. Under the rules of the time, then, the Florida election result was a statistical tie and a political judgment.
Absentee Ballots. The official and NORC results include some questionable absentee ballots. Largely from military personnel abroad, these votes overwhelmingly favored Bush. State law required that the absentee votes be signed and postmarked by the day of the election. However, 680 ballots were counted in violation of these clear provisions, particularly in counties favoring Bush, adding 292 votes to his margin.5
Greater distortions in the Florida election came from ballots that were cast but not counted in any manner. The revised count operated under the restricted court rules, which dealt with "undervotes" - where no presidential preference had been included in the official state report by Secretary of State Harris and Governor Bush. The legally prescribed recount did not look at "overvotes" - where more than one candidate was selected. The overvotes' potential impact was far greater than all of the other considerations. If included, Bush would gain up to 35,631 votes, the ballots that included him as one of the multiple choices, but Gore would gain 80,775, and Gore would be the new President. There were two major problems associated with these overvotes.
Ballot Design. The 113,000 "overvotes" were cast predominantly on Palm Beach county's "butterfly" ballot and Duval county's two-page ballot. Legally, these ballots could not be counted, because they did not, on the face, show a preference for only one candidate. Still, some judgments could be made. For example, a ballot in which Gore's name was written in, as well as punched, would be counted as a vote for the Democratic candidate. More generally, a common sense political analysis would indicate that these ballots should be credited to the major party candidate who received support. If this reasonable interpretation were in force, although not in keeping with legal standards, Gore would have been the clear statewide winner.
Electoral Machinery. Older voting machines, particularly those employing punch cards, were harder to operate and more likely to mangle ballots or record the vote erroneously. An estimated 120,000 votes were lost due to these machine errors, concentrated in areas where voters were poorer, black, or elderly Jews - all groups likely to support Gore.6
Even more modern machinery, optical scanners, sometimes worked to Gore's disadvantage. "In those 'optical-scan' counties that transport ballots to the county seat to be tallied, black voters were almost four times as likely as whites to cast uncounted "overvotes." In those counties where optical scanners alerted voters of an erroneous second vote, the racial disparity was sharply lower.7
Disenfranchisement. The final influence on the vote was from non-voters, or more precisely the persons who were not allowed to vote. This loss of the franchise disadvantaged Gore. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that 180,000 voters had been denied their right to vote. Of this number, 54 percent were African Americans, who would surely favor Gore overwhelmingly.8
A considerable proportion of those denied the ballot were ex-felons, who had been scrubbed from the voting rolls by a vigorous, but often inaccurate, effort of Secretary of State Harris. Persons were excluded from the rolls on the basis of incomplete identification, and even when their alleged felonies were recorded as occurring in the future. At least 3,000 were ex-felons from other states, whose voting rights had been restored by their original states - an action constitutionally binding on Florida officials. Half of these disappearing voters were black men, again likely to vote for Gore.9
In the end, there is no single statistical "reality" to the Florida vote, and the consequent presidential election. Shaped by politics as much as arithmetic, the recount results abound in irony. If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the recount to proceed, its evident preference for Bush would have been fulfilled, without bringing disdain upon the Court.10 If Gore's attempt to limit the recount to four presumably friendly counties had succeeded, he would have lost his effort at vindication. If the vice-president were willing to challenge the late military ballots, he would have gained considerably. If Bush's lawyers had won their demand for a state-wide recount, they would have lost the election. The Republicans might even have been better off if they had not pursued the court case and left the ultimate decision to the constitutional process, decision by the incoming House of Representatives. There, they would have still elected Bush as president, but he would have achieved a more consensual title to his office.
After the Florida recount, there have been some improvements in the electoral process. The state has thoroughly revised its election law, providing for uniform standards, the elimination of punch card machines, faster recounts, and more impartial administration of the polls. Other states have made similar changes, and legislation to promote federal standards are under consideration.11 More politics is the cure for the ills of politics.
After the September 11th attacks on the United States, there is no disposition in the United States to question the legitimacy of the Bush administration. The election of 2000 has ended, but unfortunately it ended with skepticism about the quality of the American electoral process and doubts over the rightful exercise of power in the United States. George W. Bush governs, but without the clear consent of the governed.
How about this from Rutgers:
The Final Florida Recount
A year after the presidential election of 2000, the nation could finally close the electoral count. A spate of commentary1 and multiple revisions of the vote culminated in an authoritative study sponsored by eight news organizations, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. 2
The final count showed that George W. Bush would remain as the winner of Florida's electoral vote, and therefore the presidency, under one limited set of rules - those prescribed by the Florida Supreme Court in December of 2000, and blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Bush v. Gore decision. Under these rules, Bush's margin would be diminished to 493 votes, but he would still be entitled to his office.3
Bush's title, however, rests on narrow legalistic grounds. The Florida vote was tainted by a series of errors and political interpretations. Under a full accounting, Gore most likely would be president. Distortions existed both in the votes that were counted, those that were not tallied, and those that were not cast. In the first group, votes included under court guidelines in the official tally, there are two difficulties.
The Recount Tally. The final tally of December 2000 did not actually recount all of the state's ballots. There were the now-famous disputes over chads, hanging chads, and dimples, with different judgments among counties and counters. If these disputes had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the NORC study show, the electoral result would have been reversed, but by the thinnest of margins. If there had been a constant statewide recount, Gore would have won, but by merely one hundred votes, approximately. For example, if ballots were counted only if holes went completely through punch cards, Gore would win by 115. If even "dimples" were permitted, Gore would have won by 107: 4
The NORC recount is the best achievable analysis. However, the ballots are still subject to different interpretations. The NORC coders, even though impartial, might have introduced subjective factors to their judgments. Moreover, there were some discrepancies between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots provided by the county election boards, potentially enough (2,288) to change the result. Under the rules of the time, then, the Florida election result was a statistical tie and a political judgment.
Absentee Ballots. The official and NORC results include some questionable absentee ballots. Largely from military personnel abroad, these votes overwhelmingly favored Bush. State law required that the absentee votes be signed and postmarked by the day of the election. However, 680 ballots were counted in violation of these clear provisions, particularly in counties favoring Bush, adding 292 votes to his margin.5
Greater distortions in the Florida election came from ballots that were cast but not counted in any manner. The revised count operated under the restricted court rules, which dealt with "undervotes" - where no presidential preference had been included in the official state report by Secretary of State Harris and Governor Bush. The legally prescribed recount did not look at "overvotes" - where more than one candidate was selected. The overvotes' potential impact was far greater than all of the other considerations. If included, Bush would gain up to 35,631 votes, the ballots that included him as one of the multiple choices, but Gore would gain 80,775, and Gore would be the new President. There were two major problems associated with these overvotes.
Ballot Design. The 113,000 "overvotes" were cast predominantly on Palm Beach county's "butterfly" ballot and Duval county's two-page ballot. Legally, these ballots could not be counted, because they did not, on the face, show a preference for only one candidate. Still, some judgments could be made. For example, a ballot in which Gore's name was written in, as well as punched, would be counted as a vote for the Democratic candidate. More generally, a common sense political analysis would indicate that these ballots should be credited to the major party candidate who received support. If this reasonable interpretation were in force, although not in keeping with legal standards, Gore would have been the clear statewide winner.
Electoral Machinery. Older voting machines, particularly those employing punch cards, were harder to operate and more likely to mangle ballots or record the vote erroneously. An estimated 120,000 votes were lost due to these machine errors, concentrated in areas where voters were poorer, black, or elderly Jews - all groups likely to support Gore.6
Even more modern machinery, optical scanners, sometimes worked to Gore's disadvantage. "In those 'optical-scan' counties that transport ballots to the county seat to be tallied, black voters were almost four times as likely as whites to cast uncounted "overvotes." In those counties where optical scanners alerted voters of an erroneous second vote, the racial disparity was sharply lower.7
Disenfranchisement. The final influence on the vote was from non-voters, or more precisely the persons who were not allowed to vote. This loss of the franchise disadvantaged Gore. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that 180,000 voters had been denied their right to vote. Of this number, 54 percent were African Americans, who would surely favor Gore overwhelmingly.8
A considerable proportion of those denied the ballot were ex-felons, who had been scrubbed from the voting rolls by a vigorous, but often inaccurate, effort of Secretary of State Harris. Persons were excluded from the rolls on the basis of incomplete identification, and even when their alleged felonies were recorded as occurring in the future. At least 3,000 were ex-felons from other states, whose voting rights had been restored by their original states - an action constitutionally binding on Florida officials. Half of these disappearing voters were black men, again likely to vote for Gore.9
In the end, there is no single statistical "reality" to the Florida vote, and the consequent presidential election. Shaped by politics as much as arithmetic, the recount results abound in irony. If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the recount to proceed, its evident preference for Bush would have been fulfilled, without bringing disdain upon the Court.10 If Gore's attempt to limit the recount to four presumably friendly counties had succeeded, he would have lost his effort at vindication. If the vice-president were willing to challenge the late military ballots, he would have gained considerably. If Bush's lawyers had won their demand for a state-wide recount, they would have lost the election. The Republicans might even have been better off if they had not pursued the court case and left the ultimate decision to the constitutional process, decision by the incoming House of Representatives. There, they would have still elected Bush as president, but he would have achieved a more consensual title to his office.
After the Florida recount, there have been some improvements in the electoral process. The state has thoroughly revised its election law, providing for uniform standards, the elimination of punch card machines, faster recounts, and more impartial administration of the polls. Other states have made similar changes, and legislation to promote federal standards are under consideration.11 More politics is the cure for the ills of politics.
After the September 11th attacks on the United States, there is no disposition in the United States to question the legitimacy of the Bush administration. The election of 2000 has ended, but unfortunately it ended with skepticism about the quality of the American electoral process and doubts over the rightful exercise of power in the United States. George W. Bush governs, but without the clear consent of the governed.
You are missing the point entirely Einstein. I admit it's a subtle one; so, I'll explain it to you. I'm matching your lefty ramblings with a few righty sources. It's called balance. At least I realize where my sources stand on the issues in this thread. You have no clue what a lefty you are, let alone how far left your sources lean. Any source that doesn't agree with the propaganda riddled brain-fart you call 'your opinion', is going to be a right wing lie. You are completely oblivious. I hope you're not old enough that you should know better.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
Two paragraphs of fact (the first 2) and the rest is speculation, editorializing, and excuses to confuse the people they know don't want to see the truth and keep the lie alive. Bush is legitimate. Cry about it all you want.
You are missing the point entirely Einstein. I admit it's a subtle one; so, I'll explain it to you. I'm matching your lefty ramblings with a few righty sources. It's called balance. At least I realize where my sources stand on the issues in this thread. You have no clue what a lefty you are, let alone how far left your sources lean. Any source that doesn't agree with the propaganda riddled brain-fart you call 'your opinion', is going to be a right wing lie. You are completely oblivious. I hope you're not old enough that you should know better.
Two paragraphs of fact (the first 2) and the rest is speculation, editorializing, and excuses to confuse the people they know don't want to see the truth and keep the lie alive. Bush is legitimate. Cry about it all you want.
You are missing the point entirely Einstein. I admit it's a subtle one; so, I'll explain it to you. I'm matching your lefty ramblings with a few righty sources. It's called balance. At least I realize where my sources stand on the issues in this thread. You have no clue what a lefty you are, let alone how far left your sources lean. Any source that doesn't agree with the propaganda riddled brain-fart you call 'your opinion', is going to be a right wing lie. You are completely oblivious. I hope you're not old enough that you should know better.
Just like they do in the middle east.
If you actually bothered to read it, they ran down all of the ways that were in contention for recounting, and what the results would have been.
Instead you cherry picked information and rejected the other scenarios and if you found this first you would have only posted the first two paragreaphs.
Just as shrub did with the intel about Iraq, he didn't show the Congress all of the intel especially the bulk stating that Saddam didn't have WMD's and was getting weaker not stronger.
You must make shrub proud! *sniff*
4 more Months!!
Last edited by loudist; Oct 3, 2004 at 09:46 PM.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
U.S./Iraq History:
A timeline
When the United States routed Saddam's occupying army from Kuwait in March 1991, most aides - including Cheney - approved of the senior Bush's decision to not push forward to Baghdad and oust Saddam.
Cheney asked at a May 1992 briefing: "How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."
Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.
The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.
But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.
"They wanted revenge - they felt humiliated," said Penn's Lustick. He recalled the now infamous 1983 picture of Rumsfeld as an American envoy shaking hands with Saddam, at a time when U.S. officials had thought the secular dictator to be a "moderating" force in the Arab world.
At the same time, the heady years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the notion that the removal of Saddam and the establishment of an Arab-run, pro-American democracy might have a kind of "domino effect" in the Middle East, influencing neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Syria.
At the United Nations last November, Bush said that if Iraqis are liberated, "they can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."
'Remove Saddam'
The neo-conservative ideas about Iraq began to come together around the time that PNAC was formed, in spring 1997. Although the group's overriding goal was expanding the U.S. military and American influence around the globe, the group placed a strong early emphasis on Iraq.
In addition to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, early backers of the group included Jeb Bush, the president's brother; Richard Armitage, now deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, now U.S. trade commissioner; I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's top aide; and Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's special envoy to Afghanistan.
In addition to Clinton, the group lobbied GOP leaders in Congress to push for Saddam's removal - by force if necessary.
"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power," the group wrote to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998.
Many of the best-known supporters have ties to the oil industry - most notably Cheney, who at the time was CEO of Halliburton, which makes oil-field equipment and would likely profit from the need to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. Lustick, while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.
"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."
Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel - an idea he scoffs at.
Both supporters and opponents of a war in Iraq agree on one thing: That the events of Sept. 11 were the trigger that finally put the theory in action.
"That pulled the shades off the president's eyes very quickly," said Schmitt, who'd been unhappy with Bush's initial policies. "He came to the conclusion that the meaning of 9/11 was broader than a particular group of terrorists striking a particular group of cities."
The fact that many U.S. allies, particularly in western Europe, and millions of American citizens haven't reached the same conclusion seems to matter little as the war plan pushes forward.
A frustrated Lustick sees the war plan as the triumph of a simple ideology over the messy realities of global politics.
"This is not a war on fanatics," he said. "This is a war of fanatics - our fanatics."
Damn right.
Fanatics right here too.
A timeline
When the United States routed Saddam's occupying army from Kuwait in March 1991, most aides - including Cheney - approved of the senior Bush's decision to not push forward to Baghdad and oust Saddam.
Cheney asked at a May 1992 briefing: "How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."
Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.
The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.
But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.
"They wanted revenge - they felt humiliated," said Penn's Lustick. He recalled the now infamous 1983 picture of Rumsfeld as an American envoy shaking hands with Saddam, at a time when U.S. officials had thought the secular dictator to be a "moderating" force in the Arab world.
At the same time, the heady years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the notion that the removal of Saddam and the establishment of an Arab-run, pro-American democracy might have a kind of "domino effect" in the Middle East, influencing neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Syria.
At the United Nations last November, Bush said that if Iraqis are liberated, "they can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."
'Remove Saddam'
The neo-conservative ideas about Iraq began to come together around the time that PNAC was formed, in spring 1997. Although the group's overriding goal was expanding the U.S. military and American influence around the globe, the group placed a strong early emphasis on Iraq.
In addition to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, early backers of the group included Jeb Bush, the president's brother; Richard Armitage, now deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, now U.S. trade commissioner; I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's top aide; and Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's special envoy to Afghanistan.
In addition to Clinton, the group lobbied GOP leaders in Congress to push for Saddam's removal - by force if necessary.
"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power," the group wrote to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998.
Many of the best-known supporters have ties to the oil industry - most notably Cheney, who at the time was CEO of Halliburton, which makes oil-field equipment and would likely profit from the need to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. Lustick, while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.
"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."
Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel - an idea he scoffs at.
Both supporters and opponents of a war in Iraq agree on one thing: That the events of Sept. 11 were the trigger that finally put the theory in action.
"That pulled the shades off the president's eyes very quickly," said Schmitt, who'd been unhappy with Bush's initial policies. "He came to the conclusion that the meaning of 9/11 was broader than a particular group of terrorists striking a particular group of cities."
The fact that many U.S. allies, particularly in western Europe, and millions of American citizens haven't reached the same conclusion seems to matter little as the war plan pushes forward.
A frustrated Lustick sees the war plan as the triumph of a simple ideology over the messy realities of global politics.
"This is not a war on fanatics," he said. "This is a war of fanatics - our fanatics."
Damn right.
Fanatics right here too.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally posted by loudist
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district.
Whats that Spork?... your ignorance is showing (again).
Horne blower, you just can't get anything right, can you?
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district.
Whats that Spork?... your ignorance is showing (again).
Horne blower, you just can't get anything right, can you?
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
For those of you that want to know the whole story about the Electoral College, check out the how stuff works site. There should be a link to this information right on the home page. There will also be a link to the Federal Elections Commission web site, where it appears loudist has pasted his infomation from.
Last edited by wittom; Oct 4, 2004 at 07:45 AM.
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Austin
Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
You are missing the point entirely Einstein. I admit it's a subtle one; so, I'll explain it to you. I'm matching your lefty ramblings with a few righty sources. It's called balance. At least I realize where my sources stand on the issues in this thread. You have no clue what a lefty you are, let alone how far left your sources lean. Any source that doesn't agree with the propaganda riddled brain-fart you call 'your opinion', is going to be a right wing lie. You are completely oblivious. I hope you're not old enough that you should know better.
You are missing the point entirely Einstein. I admit it's a subtle one; so, I'll explain it to you. I'm matching your lefty ramblings with a few righty sources. It's called balance. At least I realize where my sources stand on the issues in this thread. You have no clue what a lefty you are, let alone how far left your sources lean. Any source that doesn't agree with the propaganda riddled brain-fart you call 'your opinion', is going to be a right wing lie. You are completely oblivious. I hope you're not old enough that you should know better.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by wittom
However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
So it looks like you are now hoping that the Electoral College will vote contrary to poular vote.
I guess you saw the debate.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally posted by loudist
This seems to be the only different bit of information, other than the calculation of how many electoral college votes each state gets.
So it looks like you are now hoping that the Electoral College will vote contrary to poular vote.
I guess you saw the debate.
This seems to be the only different bit of information, other than the calculation of how many electoral college votes each state gets.
So it looks like you are now hoping that the Electoral College will vote contrary to poular vote.
I guess you saw the debate.
To me, this is something important to think about in an election year. When people are so strongly influenced by a movie like the one by Michael Moore, it gives me the impression that there is a large percentage of people who misinterpret it. I have only heard about the movie but it seems that there are a lot of things said in it that are missing some important information. From what I hear the movie lacks objectivity. It's not just the movie either. The way a presidential campaign is "played" totally lacks objectivity. Sound bytes here, sound bytes there. When you think about it, it kind of makes us, the populace, look like a bunch of simpletons. Most of us are educated by bits and pieces of the whole story. I guess it's just the way it goes but it seems really flawed to me.
I did watch the entire debate :o and I didn't come to the same conclusion as what the media is reporting. I watched the debate on PBS. After I watched the commentary. I agreed with what they were saying; there wasn't a winner. I didn't think one did better than the other. I didn't think either did all that well. They pretty much said things they have been saying all along. Bush trying to justify his admistrations actions and Kerry saying that he can do it better. I thought Bush's justifications were shallow and that Kerry said what he would do different but not, more importantly, how.
To be honest, who is president makes little difference to my meager existance. I have voted in past elections and have not voted Democrat or Republican. I am an opponent of the two party system. I'm certianly not a Bush a$$ kisser. Kerry has worked in my home state for years. He has done (and not done) a lot of things that people around me have criticized over the years. I have met several people who have interacted in some capacity with him and all have said in so many words that the guy is a selfish jerk. Our local cable news channel ran a piece on him around the time of the DNC, which I guess was supposed to prop him up. The thing that I kept hearing is the things he'd done to advance his "ambitious political career" not about good things he'd done for our state. I don't think he can do a good job, or even a better job than W, for this country. I would rather see W get the next four years to get things on track than give Kerry a chance to advance his ambitious career.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by loudist
DING DING DING... Odins wrath has just exhibited single track ideological thinking, Only acknowledge the parts that fit your belief system.
Just like they do in the middle east.
If you actually bothered to read it, they ran down all of the ways that were in contention for recounting, and what the results would have been.
Instead you cherry picked information and rejected the other scenarios and if you found this first you would have only posted the first two paragreaphs.
Just as shrub did with the intel about Iraq, he didn't show the Congress all of the intel especially the bulk stating that Saddam didn't have WMD's and was getting weaker not stronger.
You must make shrub proud! *sniff*
4 more Months!!
DING DING DING... Odins wrath has just exhibited single track ideological thinking, Only acknowledge the parts that fit your belief system.
Just like they do in the middle east.
If you actually bothered to read it, they ran down all of the ways that were in contention for recounting, and what the results would have been.
Instead you cherry picked information and rejected the other scenarios and if you found this first you would have only posted the first two paragreaphs.
Just as shrub did with the intel about Iraq, he didn't show the Congress all of the intel especially the bulk stating that Saddam didn't have WMD's and was getting weaker not stronger.
You must make shrub proud! *sniff*
4 more Months!!
I just went back and read some of my more recent posts. Not pretty. I realize that I have contributed to the bad blood between us, rather healthily. I apologize to you, and the rest of the board, for not being more of a gentleman. Calling you names, while being quite entertaining at times, really doesn't accomplish anything useful. Of course debating you seriously is a waste of time as well. If I had a point to make, I guess that's it.
Thread Starter
|
Bighersh Alter-Ego
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: 33.02N / 96.66W
Man, I wonder how credible the info you guys get is as well. I mean, if you're not getting it from some source, where is it coming from? Sure there is always a question, but to my astonishment, I was contacted by the Gallop poll after the debate. I don't know which one leans in what direction- and I don't care. I always vote for who I think is the best candidate- be they Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Moderate or Extreme. Since some of you don't like Newsweek, here's CNN:
If Kerry keeps spanking GWB on these debates, we may see a repeat of the 1992 election. Remember- GHWB was leading William until the debates started..... Is this history repeating? I'm still leaning Kerry, but there are 2-4 more debates that I'll listen to before punching that bollot.
-------------------------------------------------
2nd Source
(CNN) -- President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, are about even among likely and registered voters in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released Sunday.
The poll showed Kerry and Bush tied at 49 percent each among likely voters interviewed. Among registered voters Bush had 49 percent and Kerry 47 percent. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was favored by 1 percent in each group.
The margin of error in each case was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
By contrast, Bush was ahead of Kerry among likely voters 52 percent to 44 percent in the Gallup poll conducted September 24-26.
--------------------------------------------------
3rd source
USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...todaypolls.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Now, I don't know if they're relayign info from the same polling source or not; but in three seperate places: Yahoo, CNN and USAToday, they show almost a statistical dea-heat. Remember before the first debate the Prez had about an 11% lead in some polls- that gap closed rather quickly after oen debate... There are at least two debates remaining..... That's all I'm saying.
Take it for what it's worth... It's just an opinion based upon history and what we all saw last week. This will be a photo-finish.
If Kerry keeps spanking GWB on these debates, we may see a repeat of the 1992 election. Remember- GHWB was leading William until the debates started..... Is this history repeating? I'm still leaning Kerry, but there are 2-4 more debates that I'll listen to before punching that bollot.
-------------------------------------------------
2nd Source
(CNN) -- President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, are about even among likely and registered voters in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released Sunday.
The poll showed Kerry and Bush tied at 49 percent each among likely voters interviewed. Among registered voters Bush had 49 percent and Kerry 47 percent. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was favored by 1 percent in each group.
The margin of error in each case was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
By contrast, Bush was ahead of Kerry among likely voters 52 percent to 44 percent in the Gallup poll conducted September 24-26.
--------------------------------------------------
3rd source
USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...todaypolls.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Now, I don't know if they're relayign info from the same polling source or not; but in three seperate places: Yahoo, CNN and USAToday, they show almost a statistical dea-heat. Remember before the first debate the Prez had about an 11% lead in some polls- that gap closed rather quickly after oen debate... There are at least two debates remaining..... That's all I'm saying.
Take it for what it's worth... It's just an opinion based upon history and what we all saw last week. This will be a photo-finish.
Last edited by cia-agent; Oct 4, 2004 at 07:14 PM.