As with many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore answered more than one question with more than one count of the Justices. In answer to the question of the constitutionality of the non-existant standards during Florida's re-re-recounts, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush. In answer to the question of deadlines for conducting the count, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush. The 7-2 vote in particular was anything but partisan, considering that two traditionally leftist justices joined the court's two moderates and three conservatives.
Read the decison and think about it. There was clearly a violation of the equal protection clause in the method selected by the Florida Supreme Court in recounts. Furthermore the method for recount changed the election rules as they were set up before the election there by violating federal statute. You can go ahead and keep living in your fantasy world or promoting political propganda or whatever you are doing but you are wrong if you think the US Supreme Court did not do their job.
In the meantime, the sight of politicians posturing and demagoguing at televised Congressional hearings cheapens our government, without doing anything to get at the facts or to prevent things like this from happening again. Worse yet, many of these same politicians have for years been doing what Enron is accused of doing -- hiding debts off the books with accounting tricks.
We already have a way to vote uniformally but we don't use it! Open your wallet, grab your driver's license, and flip it over. Note the bar code and magnetic stripe. Anybody ever use that? It would make voter registration (which you do when you renew anyway) and vote casting easy and fair. You enter the candidates, scan your card, and it's good for 1 vote this election only.
Please write me in on the ballot this year, I have all these great money saving ideas.
A driver's license or State ID is required to be in your possesion. It would be easy. Two databases. You select the candidates, press the "yes I am sure I want these guys" button, the screen will "say swipe card to cast votes". One database records the votes, the other records the use of votes. Now you cannot cast another vote this election. We can even make the screen speak for those who can't read. We can even print a receipt for those "poor disenfranchised voters" so they can't change their votes after an election.
What's the bottom line on the Florida Election 2000 story?
If ALL of the ballots cast that night had been counted, Gore would have clearly won (according to the definitive media investigation that was the last of various reports released in the election's aftermath).
No one contests that Bush "won" on the basis of only SOME of those ballots being recounted. But since when are elections in which only part of the outcome is tallied and recorded...valid?
Now, perhaps the Democrats and Al himself made a mistake by focusing on recounts in just certain locales rather than in the whole state.
But the essential question isn't whether or not they acted unwisely and imprudently.
I very distinctly recall posting on the old PPWC board, shortly after the conundrum became evident, that ALL Florida ballots should be recounted. That was also the position of the disenfranchised groups protesting in the streets.
I personally felt, on election night, just from the brash certitude with which the Bush team dismissed initial press reports that Gore had won...that some sort of "fix" was involved. George knew Jeb had a victory cooked up.
Dubya has no more legitimate right to be occupying the White House than my next door neighbor.
I personally felt, on election night, just from the brash certitude with which the Bush team dismissed initial press reports that Gore had won...that some sort of "fix" was involved. George knew Jeb had a victory cooked up.
Again, I guarantee that, if things had gone the other way, there would be so many pissed-off conservatives we would never hear the end of it. Shit, you guys are still mad because Clinton's impeachment was a wash-out. If Gore had come out victorious in this thing, Jesse Helms would be dropping veiled hints that Gore better watch himself the next time he comes to North Carolina, and the militias in Idaho would be plotting how to overthrow the "commmin'ists."
What's the bottom line on the Florida Election 2000 story?
Bush won.
If ALL of the ballots cast that night had been counted, Gore would have clearly won (according to the definitive media investigation that was the last of various reports released in the election's aftermath).
If we included the votes that were not properly or legally cast and throw out the overseas votes that were legally sent and should have counted.
No one contests that Bush "won" on the basis of only SOME of those ballots being recounted. But since when are elections in which only part of the outcome is tallied and recorded...valid?
Total fabrication. The votes in Florida were counted on election night. Bush won Florida. The votes in Florida were recounted in every county. Bush won Florida. Manual recounts were done in several counties. Bush still won Florida. In some counties, the ballots underwent a 4th count. Bush still won Florida. The media recounted the votes. Bush still won Florida.
You find one recount that did not include the overseas votes that were illegally thrown out, but does include the votes that were not properly or legally cast and use that as proof that Gore won. Amazing.
Now, perhaps the Democrats and Al himself made a mistake by focusing on recounts in just certain locales rather than in the whole state.
No, that was a calculated move. They knew that they would get more votes in the areas that they chose and then claimed that they wanted all the votes to count (but only in these certain areas that went heavily for Gore)
But the essential question isn't whether or not they acted unwisely and imprudently.
That's because we know they did when they tried to twist the laws in their favor.
I very distinctly recall posting on the old PPWC board, shortly after the conundrum became evident, that ALL Florida ballots should be recounted.
Except for the overseas votes, of course.
That was also the position of the disenfranchised groups protesting in the streets.
Disenfranchised only because their guy lost.
I personally felt, on election night, just from the brash certitude with which the Bush team dismissed initial press reports that Gore had won...that some sort of "fix" was involved. George knew Jeb had a victory cooked up.
That Jeb sure is a tricky one. He recuses himself and then finds some way to get a Democrat canvassing board to declare Bush the winner.
Dubya has no more legitimate right to be occupying the White House than my next door neighbor.
Simply because you say so. The re-re-re-re-counts would tend to disagree with you.
We were victimized by a stealthy coup.
We were almost victimized by a stealthy coup committed by a man who could not carry Tennessee or Arkansas.
Oh, bullshit, we can argue this until the cows come home, but both sides know that there was so much funny business going on that it is pretty much impossible to figure it out for sure. The only thing that is indisutable, is that Bush's campaign figured out early on that Florida was going to be the lynchpin, and the fact that the Governer and the Secretary of State were loyal to the Bush campaign was a virtual guarantee to them that W. would win. It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for Conservatives to either claim A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results, B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy, or C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer. Let's just stop kidding each other, and move on.
A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results,
It sucks when your guy loses doesn't?
B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy.
Gore still lost, Get over it.
C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer.
Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't Jeb Bush recluse himself from the process?
Since you didn't actually address any of my points except the last one, Wolvie, I will take it that you conceded them. Now, on the the third. I don't know if Jeb "reclused" himelf, or even if he recused himself, or even what that would entail for a Governor, but it's fair to assume that, since he was not only in charge of the Executive Branch of the Florida State Government, but also head of the Florida Republican Party, that he has some influence, officially or not. Call me a "wacko, conspiracy nut" if you will, and I'm sure you will, because that would be about along the lines of your last comments, but I don't think it's a huge leap to think that strings may have been pulled behind the scenes to assure that, with just a few hairs' weight deciding which side the balance went down on, somebody was there to put his thumb on the scale.
That being said, Bush definitely got himself the Presidency. I mean, there's no doubt that he is the President and Al Gore is not.
That being said, we should no more "get over it" than we should "get over" any important moments in our nation's history. Our national election process screwed up royally a couple years ago. We should think on that for a long, long time.
I am rephrasing what Lance said by repeating what some pundit said, so this is not at all an original thought, but the bottom line is, the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory. I can't sit here and say that I KNOW that Gore really should be President now, and neither can Conservatives sit and say that they KNOW Bush should be. It's intellectually lazy to just say, "Get over it," and it's important, as Lance said, too, to at least learn something from it.
Wow, hard to dispute that logic. Guess I was totally wrong.
The only thing that is indisutable, is that Bush's campaign figured out early on that Florida was going to be the lynchpin, and the fact that the Governer and the Secretary of State were loyal to the Bush campaign was a virtual guarantee to them that W. would win.
How so? What specifically did they do wrong, unethical or illegal? How did/could they guarantee him a victory? It is easy to accuse, but much harder to back it up with facts.
A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results,
I would be dissatisfied if the guy I wanted in office lost, but that doesn't mean that you whine about it for the next how many years.
B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy, or
Probably because you guys bring it up every chance you get.
For the record, I think that something unethical-if not illegal-happened in Watergate and was very disappointed that Ford pardoned Nixon.
C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer. Let's just stop kidding each other, and move on.
And there was NO inherent advantage to having the Democrats make up the ballot and be in charge of the recounts.
Call me a "wacko, conspiracy nut" if you will, and I'm sure you will, because that would be about along the lines of your last comments, but I don't think it's a huge leap to think that strings may have been pulled behind the scenes to assure that, with just a few hairs' weight deciding which side the balance went down on, somebody was there to put his thumb on the scale.
Those Democrats in charge of counting the votes maybe?
Or perhaps those casting the votes. Voter fraud was widespread in Florida, and was committed overwhelmingly by Democrats in almost every single case. The Palm Beach Post study alone concluded that at least 68% of the 5,643 illegal felon voters were confirmed Democrats. The Florida Times-Union noted that their study in Duval County similarly suggested that the fraud was overwhelmingly Democrat. The Miami Herald's many investigations produced similar results. In one case, massive fraud was traced back to a precinct that voted 90% for Al Gore. Another Miami Herald study estimated that 75% of the illegal voters it found were Democrats.
Our national election process screwed up royally a couple years ago.
Based on what? That your guy lost? That it was a close election? Amazing. If Gore could have carried his home state, Florida would not have even been disputed.
Our national election process screwed up royally a couple years ago.
Based on what? That your guy lost?
"My guy" was Harry Browne, and I don't much blame our national election system as a whole for that. So, no, not based on that.
That it was a close election?
No, it wasn't the system's fault that it was close. I blame the voters for that. So, no, not based on that.
Amazing. If Gore could have carried his home state, Florida would not have even been disputed.
From what I understand, there were well over 1,000,000 votes that were cast and not counted for whatever reasons. That is plenty of basis to say the election process royally screwed up.
Also, our Supreme Court was involved in deciding the result of the election. There is no basis or precedent for that as far as I know. I think it's an obvious conflict of the separation of powers. Supreme Court justices are appointed by Presidents; they shouldn't have undue influence over the election of that office.
I've said it before-- I don't care which one of those two losers won the election. If I had any preference, I would have said (and did) that I'd rather have Bush in office because I think he'd screw things up more, and thus the revolution would come sooner. On the other hand, if Gore had won, the Democratic Party would probably blow itself apart sooner (or so I thought).
Either way, one loser from one dead, useless party, or the other loser from the other dead, useless party...honestly, it's six of one, half dozen of the other, in my opinion.
That being said, the election was definitely screwed up big time, and you pretty much have to be a major Bush fan, or wildly blind (in a reality sense), to not see that. It was a Republican Congress that ordered studies and commissions on how screwed up the election was, and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Now that the holiday season has passed, please look into your heart to help those in need. Enron executives in our very own country are living at or just below the seven-figure salary level... right here in the land of plenty.
And, as if that weren't bad enough, they will be deprived of it as a result of the bankruptcy and current SEC investigation.
But now, you can help! For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large screen projection TV) you can help an Enron executive remain economically viable during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the problem, as it barely covers their per diem, ...but it's a start!
Almost $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to an Enron exec it could mean the difference between a vacation spent sucking ass in DC, golfing in Florida or a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than rent, a car note or mortgage payments. Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable an Enron exec to buy that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio.
HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING?
Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the exec you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, 401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home. You'll also get information on how he plans to invest his golden parachute. Imagine the joy as you watch your executive's portfolio double or triple!
Plus, upon signing up for this program, you will receive a photo of the exec (unsigned - for a signed photo, please include an additional $50.00). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples' suffering.
HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING?
Your Enron exec will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who just wants to help in a time of need. Although the exec won't know your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator just in case additional funds are needed for unexpected expenses.
YES, I WANT TO HELP!
I would like to sponsor an Enron executive. My preference is checked below:
[ ] Mid-level Manager
[ ] Director
[ ] Vice President (Higher cost; please specify which department)
[ ] President (Even higher cost; please specify which department)
[ ] CEO (Contribution: Average Enron janitor monthly salary x 700)
[ ] Entire Company
[ ] I'll sponsor an Exec most in need. Please select one for me
Michael Moore was on CNN last night (plugging his new book,) and I had to laugh, when he did word association with Aaron Brown, and in response to "Enron" he said, "Makes me rethink my position on the death penalty."
Post #186 is right on Lance. I don't understand how people can be so blinded by party politics that they can't see or admit that there is a problem with the current voting system.
(edit: so you mean write out the character values, eh? Sounds like too much work. I never learned those characters and stuff. Brain too full for more info. :)
so its less work to set up the form and put the edit field in it? :)
I dunno, I'm debating. The form thing is just copy and paste the code and then put what I want in the form. The character thing means actually learning how to do a new thing. My head's pretty busy, so the copy/paste may suffice sometimes, and maybe I'll try out the character thingy now and then, since you spelled it out clearly.
<font color="white" >
(on edit: see, why didn't that work? That did take a little effort- I tried to do it without looking, to see if I knew it, and it didn't work. This is why the form is easier.)
(re-edit: woo hoo! it worked. I was thinking it was rt, for right. funny.)
because i gave you the wrong character, and actually noticed it in my previous post shortly after posting it. its gt (for greater than), not rt. i was thinking less/greater and typing left/right.
I thought it was "What's good for Jethrine is good for Bugtustle."
As with many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore answered more than one question with more than one count of the Justices. In answer to the question of the constitutionality of the non-existant standards during Florida's re-re-recounts, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush. In answer to the question of deadlines for conducting the count, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush. The 7-2 vote in particular was anything but partisan, considering that two traditionally leftist justices joined the court's two moderates and three conservatives.
Read the decison and think about it. There was clearly a violation of the equal protection clause in the method selected by the Florida Supreme Court in recounts. Furthermore the method for recount changed the election rules as they were set up before the election there by violating federal statute. You can go ahead and keep living in your fantasy world or promoting political propganda or whatever you are doing but you are wrong if you think the US Supreme Court did not do their job.
In the meantime, the sight of politicians posturing and demagoguing at televised Congressional hearings cheapens our government, without doing anything to get at the facts or to prevent things like this from happening again. Worse yet, many of these same politicians have for years been doing what Enron is accused of doing -- hiding debts off the books with accounting tricks.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20020219.shtml
We already have a way to vote uniformally but we don't use it! Open your wallet, grab your driver's license, and flip it over. Note the bar code and magnetic stripe. Anybody ever use that? It would make voter registration (which you do when you renew anyway) and vote casting easy and fair. You enter the candidates, scan your card, and it's good for 1 vote this election only.
Please write me in on the ballot this year, I have all these great money saving ideas.
Oh, and don't forget, the license is tied to your felony record. That will eliminate those that aren't entitled to vote as well.
Don't forget, your driver's license info will also be tracked. So much for an anonymous vote...
Not to mention that only people with driver's licenses will be able to vote.
Such as non-citizens.
Or citizens who don't have driver's licenses.
Not to mention that only people with driver's licenses will be able to vote.
There are State issued ID's for those that don't drive. At least in Minnesota there are.
A driver's license or State ID is required to be in your possesion. It would be easy. Two databases. You select the candidates, press the "yes I am sure I want these guys" button, the screen will "say swipe card to cast votes". One database records the votes, the other records the use of votes. Now you cannot cast another vote this election. We can even make the screen speak for those who can't read. We can even print a receipt for those "poor disenfranchised voters" so they can't change their votes after an election.
We can even print a receipt for those "poor disenfranchised voters" so they can't change their votes after an election.
LOL!
I think we should call Richard Daley now and get him on this.
What's the bottom line on the Florida Election 2000 story?
If ALL of the ballots cast that night had been counted, Gore would have clearly won (according to the definitive media investigation that was the last of various reports released in the election's aftermath).
No one contests that Bush "won" on the basis of only SOME
of those ballots being recounted. But since when are elections in which only part of the outcome is tallied and recorded...valid?
Now, perhaps the Democrats and Al himself made a mistake by focusing on recounts in just certain locales rather than in the whole state.
But the essential question isn't whether or not they acted unwisely and imprudently.
I very distinctly recall posting on the old PPWC board, shortly after the conundrum became evident, that ALL Florida ballots should be recounted. That was also the position of the disenfranchised groups protesting in the streets.
I personally felt, on election night, just from the brash certitude with which the Bush team dismissed initial press reports that Gore had won...that some sort of "fix" was involved. George knew Jeb had a victory cooked up.
Dubya has no more legitimate right to be occupying the White House than my next door neighbor.
We were victimized by a stealthy coup.
Word.
What's the bottom line on the Florida Election 2000 story?
Bush won, get over it. That's the bottom line "because Stone Cold said so!"
Again, I guarantee that, if things had gone the other way, there would be so many pissed-off conservatives we would never hear the end of it. Shit, you guys are still mad because Clinton's impeachment was a wash-out. If Gore had come out victorious in this thing, Jesse Helms would be dropping veiled hints that Gore better watch himself the next time he comes to North Carolina, and the militias in Idaho would be plotting how to overthrow the "commmin'ists."
What's the bottom line on the Florida Election 2000 story?
Bush won.
If ALL of the ballots cast that night had been counted, Gore would have clearly won (according to the definitive media investigation that was the last of various reports released in the election's aftermath).
If we included the votes that were not properly or legally cast and throw out the overseas votes that were legally sent and should have counted.
No one contests that Bush "won" on the basis of only SOME of those ballots being recounted. But since when are elections in which only part of the outcome is tallied and recorded...valid?
Total fabrication. The votes in Florida were counted on election night. Bush won Florida. The votes in Florida were recounted in every county. Bush won Florida. Manual recounts were done in several counties. Bush still won Florida. In some counties, the ballots underwent a 4th count. Bush still won Florida. The media recounted the votes. Bush still won Florida.
You find one recount that did not include the overseas votes that were illegally thrown out, but does include the votes that were not properly or legally cast and use that as proof that Gore won. Amazing.
Now, perhaps the Democrats and Al himself made a mistake by focusing on recounts in just certain locales rather than in the whole state.
No, that was a calculated move. They knew that they would get more votes in the areas that they chose and then claimed that they wanted all the votes to count (but only in these certain areas that went heavily for Gore)
But the essential question isn't whether or not they acted unwisely and imprudently.
That's because we know they did when they tried to twist the laws in their favor.
I very distinctly recall posting on the old PPWC board, shortly after the conundrum became evident, that ALL Florida ballots should be recounted.
Except for the overseas votes, of course.
That was also the position of the disenfranchised groups protesting in the streets.
Disenfranchised only because their guy lost.
I personally felt, on election night, just from the brash certitude with which the Bush team dismissed initial press reports that Gore had won...that some sort of "fix" was involved. George knew Jeb had a victory cooked up.
That Jeb sure is a tricky one. He recuses himself and then finds some way to get a Democrat canvassing board to declare Bush the winner.
Dubya has no more legitimate right to be occupying the White House than my next door neighbor.
Simply because you say so. The re-re-re-re-counts would tend to disagree with you.
We were victimized by a stealthy coup.
We were almost victimized by a stealthy coup committed by a man who could not carry Tennessee or Arkansas.
Oh, bullshit, we can argue this until the cows come home, but both sides know that there was so much funny business going on that it is pretty much impossible to figure it out for sure. The only thing that is indisutable, is that Bush's campaign figured out early on that Florida was going to be the lynchpin, and the fact that the Governer and the Secretary of State were loyal to the Bush campaign was a virtual guarantee to them that W. would win. It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for Conservatives to either claim A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results, B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy, or C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer. Let's just stop kidding each other, and move on.
OT: Ken Lay is still a scumbag.
A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results,
It sucks when your guy loses doesn't?
B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy.
Gore still lost, Get over it.
C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer.
Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't Jeb Bush recluse himself from the process?
Since you didn't actually address any of my points except the last one, Wolvie, I will take it that you conceded them. Now, on the the third. I don't know if Jeb "reclused" himelf, or even if he recused himself, or even what that would entail for a Governor, but it's fair to assume that, since he was not only in charge of the Executive Branch of the Florida State Government, but also head of the Florida Republican Party, that he has some influence, officially or not. Call me a "wacko, conspiracy nut" if you will, and I'm sure you will, because that would be about along the lines of your last comments, but I don't think it's a huge leap to think that strings may have been pulled behind the scenes to assure that, with just a few hairs' weight deciding which side the balance went down on, somebody was there to put his thumb on the scale.
That being said, Bush definitely got himself the Presidency. I mean, there's no doubt that he is the President and Al Gore is not.
That being said, we should no more "get over it" than we should "get over" any important moments in our nation's history. Our national election process screwed up royally a couple years ago. We should think on that for a long, long time.
OT: Ken Lay, and Enron, still suck.
I am rephrasing what Lance said by repeating what some pundit said, so this is not at all an original thought, but the bottom line is, the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory. I can't sit here and say that I KNOW that Gore really should be President now, and neither can Conservatives sit and say that they KNOW Bush should be. It's intellectually lazy to just say, "Get over it," and it's important, as Lance said, too, to at least learn something from it.
Oh, bullshit
Wow, hard to dispute that logic. Guess I was totally wrong.
The only thing that is indisutable, is that Bush's campaign figured out early on that Florida was going to be the lynchpin, and the fact that the Governer and the Secretary of State were loyal to the Bush campaign was a virtual guarantee to them that W. would win.
How so? What specifically did they do wrong, unethical or illegal? How did/could they guarantee him a victory? It is easy to accuse, but much harder to back it up with facts.
A) that there is no reason for Democrats to be dissatisfied with the election results,
I would be dissatisfied if the guy I wanted in office lost, but that doesn't mean that you whine about it for the next how many years.
B) that we should GET OVER IT, because we all know that Republicans still haven't GOTTEN OVER Watergate, which many Conservatives STILL see as a left-wing conspiracy, or
Probably because you guys bring it up every chance you get.
For the record, I think that something unethical-if not illegal-happened in Watergate and was very disappointed that Ford pardoned Nixon.
C) that there was NO inherent advantage to the Bush campaign from the fact that the state which swung the election just happened to have the brother of the their candidate as governer. Let's just stop kidding each other, and move on.
And there was NO inherent advantage to having the Democrats make up the ballot and be in charge of the recounts.
Call me a "wacko, conspiracy nut" if you will, and I'm sure you will, because that would be about along the lines of your last comments, but I don't think it's a huge leap to think that strings may have been pulled behind the scenes to assure that, with just a few hairs' weight deciding which side the balance went down on, somebody was there to put his thumb on the scale.
Those Democrats in charge of counting the votes maybe?
Or perhaps those casting the votes. Voter fraud was widespread in Florida, and was committed overwhelmingly by Democrats in almost every single case. The Palm Beach Post study alone concluded that at least 68% of the 5,643 illegal felon voters were confirmed Democrats. The Florida Times-Union noted that their study in Duval County similarly suggested that the fraud was overwhelmingly Democrat. The Miami Herald's many investigations produced similar results. In one case, massive fraud was traced back to a precinct that voted 90% for Al Gore. Another Miami Herald study estimated that 75% of the illegal voters it found were Democrats.
Our national election process screwed up royally a couple years ago.
Based on what? That your guy lost? That it was a close election? Amazing. If Gore could have carried his home state, Florida would not have even been disputed.
OT: Hillary and Bill still suck.
"My guy" was Harry Browne, and I don't much blame our national election system as a whole for that. So, no, not based on that.
No, it wasn't the system's fault that it was close. I blame the voters for that. So, no, not based on that.
From what I understand, there were well over 1,000,000 votes that were cast and not counted for whatever reasons. That is plenty of basis to say the election process royally screwed up.
Also, our Supreme Court was involved in deciding the result of the election. There is no basis or precedent for that as far as I know. I think it's an obvious conflict of the separation of powers. Supreme Court justices are appointed by Presidents; they shouldn't have undue influence over the election of that office.
I've said it before-- I don't care which one of those two losers won the election. If I had any preference, I would have said (and did) that I'd rather have Bush in office because I think he'd screw things up more, and thus the revolution would come sooner. On the other hand, if Gore had won, the Democratic Party would probably blow itself apart sooner (or so I thought).
Either way, one loser from one dead, useless party, or the other loser from the other dead, useless party...honestly, it's six of one, half dozen of the other, in my opinion.
That being said, the election was definitely screwed up big time, and you pretty much have to be a major Bush fan, or wildly blind (in a reality sense), to not see that. It was a Republican Congress that ordered studies and commissions on how screwed up the election was, and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/5790/sixties/woodstockarch.gif
Peace on Earth!
Now that the holiday season has passed, please look
into your heart to help those in need. Enron executives in our very
own country are living at or just below the seven-figure salary
level...
right here in the land of plenty.
And, as if that weren't bad enough, they will be deprived of it
as a result of the bankruptcy and current SEC investigation.
But now, you can help! For only $20,835 a month, about
$694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large screen projection
TV) you can help an Enron executive remain economically viable
during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the
problem, as it barely covers their per diem, ...but it's a start!
Almost $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to
an Enron exec it could mean the difference between a vacation spent
sucking ass in DC, golfing in Florida or a Mediterranean cruise. For
you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than rent, a car note or
mortgage payments. Your commitment of less than $700 a day will
enable an Enron exec to buy that home entertainment center, trade in
the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio.
HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING?
Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the
exec you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds,
401(k),
real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home.
You'll also get information on how he plans to invest his golden
parachute. Imagine the joy as you watch your executive's portfolio
double or triple!
Plus, upon signing up for this program, you will receive a photo of
the exec (unsigned - for a signed photo, please include an additional
$50.00).
Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples'
suffering.
HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING?
Your Enron exec will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who
just wants to help in a time of need. Although the exec won't know
your
name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special
operator just in case additional funds are needed for unexpected
expenses.
YES, I WANT TO HELP!
I would like to sponsor an Enron executive. My preference is checked
below:
[ ] Mid-level Manager
[ ] Director
[ ] Vice President (Higher cost; please specify which department)
[ ] President (Even higher cost; please specify which department)
[ ] CEO (Contribution: Average Enron janitor monthly salary x 700)
[ ] Entire Company
[ ] I'll sponsor an Exec most in need. Please select one for me
Have a great day!
Please visit our web site. Thank you!
http://www.exec-in-need.nut
Michael Moore was on CNN last night (plugging his new book,) and I had to laugh, when he did word association with Aaron Brown, and in response to "Enron" he said, "Makes me rethink my position on the death penalty."
There is a nice summary of the whole Enron thing here.
Naz, how do you do that -- post a link but just use a word like "here?"
Post #186 is right on Lance. I don't understand how people can be so blinded by party politics that they can't see or admit that there is a problem with the current voting system.
Use this format:
trying to do this, lance? :)
<a href="http://yourlinkhere.com/thispage.htm">The text of your link here
</a>
The voting system is fine, the problem is the voter.
You mean the million or million-and-a-half voters? The screw-ups?
you've got to escape the characters in there lance. < ;a href........> ;.
omit the spaces before the semicolons.
(edit: so you mean write out the character values, eh? Sounds like too much work. I never learned those characters and stuff. Brain too full for more info. :)
instead of using the "
<" character and the ">" character, use < and > immediately followed by a ;
on edit:
so its less work to set up the form and put the edit field in it? :)
You mean the million or million-and-a-half voters? The screw-ups?
Yes.
I dunno, I'm debating. The form thing is just copy and paste the code and then put what I want in the form. The character thing means actually learning how to do a new thing. My head's pretty busy, so the copy/paste may suffice sometimes, and maybe I'll try out the character thingy now and then, since you spelled it out clearly.
<font color="white" >
(on edit: see, why didn't that work? That did take a little effort- I tried to do it without looking, to see if I knew it, and it didn't work. This is why the form is easier.)
(re-edit: woo hoo! it worked. I was thinking it was rt, for right. funny.)
because i gave you the wrong character, and actually noticed it in my previous post shortly after posting it. its gt (for greater than), not rt. i was thinking less/greater and typing left/right.
Thanks, Lance and Ares. I'll try it.
Look
WHEE!! It worked! Cool.
I bought that book and never read it. Maybe I'll have to dig it out and give it another try.
That book has influenced me more than any other book I've read. By a long shot.
Same here, Lance. I re-read it every two or three years.
J.T., I know it can be hard slogging at times when she states philosophical principles, but stay with it -- it's a corking good story!