Gore Conceded.

Oh, And Gustav. Bush was legitamitely elected. or atleast he will be when the electors meet. You lack a basic knowledge of the electoral system. Our state legislatures don't even *need* to let us vote on the president. It is there job to select electors.

 

It is funny that Bush said in his speach something about how D.C. needs to quit fighting at each other and whatnot. Well, all of that fighting was the Republicans giving Clinton hell for his personal issues. The Republicans don't want to take what they dished out.

If they Republicans didn't want drawn out processes, then why did they waste all that time impeaching Clinton? If the Democrats wanted Al Gore to be President so bad, why didn't let let Clinton get impeached? And why does Ralph Nader's eye twitch?

 

What, saying "pissed" isn't swearing anymore?

Seriously, your banning of InsaneAnakin seems very suspicious and unfair. He was making a legitimate point, not flaming or trolling. A warning would have sufficed. Your banning seems biased and retaliatory against InsaneAnakin.

And, I know plenty about the electoral college system, Ludicrious. That's a great way to argue; insult people's intelligence. Bush is illegitimate. Millions of Americans (70% of Americans, according to a recent poll) believe that if the votes were fairly counted, Gore, not Bush, would be President. Bush is illegitimate because he was voted in by his pals Scalia, OConnor, THomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy. Do you know what democracy means Ludicrous? You and other right wingers seem to have a warped sense of democracy, where *horrors* you don't want votes counted so you can actually figure out who the people voted for!!!

 

Clinton purjered himself to a grand jury and lied bold face to the American People. Impeachment was the only right thing to do at the time.

 

Well, I see one reason why being an admin blows. You can't voice a contrary opinion to someone and still be able to discipline them without newbies or aliases raising hell over it.

Someone needs to edit IA's post though.

 

We don't live in a democracy Gustav. And maybe if folks had followed directions and *legally* cast those votes by making their ballots fully punched and fully legible, but no, they didn't. And because of that we have this mess.

Bush is legally and legitimately the president because he was legally and legitimately approved by the legislature. And in fact even before that under the laws passed by the legislature.

 

Ludicrous, I guess you're not going to unban InsaneAnakin. And you're not going to admit to being arbitrary and capricious in your (ab)use of power, and that you silenced someone just because of their strong dissenting point of view. And you're a supporter of Bush's illegitimate regime-to-be. And you dismiss democracy. You scare me, Ludicrous.

As for the issue of legitimacy: legitimacy is based on the will of the people. Technically, Bush may have "legally" won the Presidency, but, if millions of people don't believe Bush is legitimate, then he is illegitimate, period, in those people's eyes. Is this view reasonable? Yes. (And way more reasonable than the views of Clinton hating fanatics who were obsessed with getting rid of him).

I repeat: 70% of Americans believe that if the VOTES WERE FAIRLY COUNTED, GORE, not bush, would be the President (this is according to a Reuters poll released today). Meaning 70% of Americans believe that bush is President by virtue of votes being UNFAIRLY counted (or uncounted). That is the firm, solid, and reasonable basis for saying bush is an illegitimate president. bush stole the election, due to the actions of five lawless (in)justices of the Supreme Court. bush is an illegitimate president-elect.

 

Impeachment was the only thing to do at the time Ludicrous? That is an insane statement.

Clinton wouldn't have been in an impeachment trial if the Republicans wouldn't have forced an asinine issue that had nothing to do with the Constitution. The only thing Clinton was guilty of was sexual promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity is not in the Job Description for the Presidency. He did not commit crimes against the Constitution. The only people he has to answer to for this is his wife and his God.

Although, I can think of another ex-President who committed worse crimes agianst the US and the Constitution (Nixon). Trying to impeach Clinton was just a witch hunt, that's all. Plenty of these Republicans in Washington have no room to talk when it comes to Infidelity. I can name a few.

Bush will be a one term President and will be voted out of office by a land slide. He is nothing without his father. Martin Sheen in the Dead Zone comes to mind when I think of "Dubya."

 

Here's another interesting poll released today. The poll asked Americans who they would vote for now (they asked this question after Gore conceded and bush officially became President-elect). Results:

50% said they'd vote for Gore
45% said they'd vote for bush

That poll result speaks volumes.

 

Polls don't mean crap.

 

Yea and every pole during the election mess said that almost 60% of respondents wanted Algore to concede. How much weight did you give that pole?

Hmm?

I haven't been here in a long time and this place is as lively as ever.

A couple of points

For all of you that are steamed about the Supreme Court decision and say the election was stolen from Algore. Please show me where the Supreme Court incorrectly applied the law. You can't because the facts are against you. All you have on your side is slogans and focus group tested sound bites that you picked up from the leading liberal talking heads. Try some original thought on for size. You'll be amazed at what you've been missing. Are we going to hear this ?stolen election" mantra crap regurgitated repeatedly for the next four years?

The problem is that the Democrats need power. They've held some sort of power in the national government for most of their lives and they just can?t handle being the minority party. They believe they have a divine right to rule, and that means that mere rules and common decency don?t apply when it comes to holding or gaining their power.

The "votes"

And this is an indisputable fact. The democrats demanded that "votes" be counted for Algore that have never been counted for any candidate in any election in the history of Floriduh. Weather there was a law specifically stating the dimpled chads couldn't be counted or not is irrelevant. It had never been done before, in Floriduh. Please try to prove me wrong on this point. The only way Algore could have won Floriduh was by making new rules for him and him only. The supreme court simply told him, and the Floriduh supreme court, that they could not change the rules. That's all.

And for all those people droning on and on about the popular vote.

NEWS FLASH!

ALGORE WAS NOT TRYING TO WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!

You read that right. Read it again if it helps it sink in.

Every move, campaign add, state visit and every strategy laid out and every penny spent was aimed at one thing. Wining the EC vote. That's what the contest was for, the EC votes. Both men knew the rules. Both men planned their strategies according to those rules. Algore failed in that attempt. You cannot with any certainty say what would have happened if both candidates were trying to win the popular vote. It's an entirely different campaign and very little would have been the same.

In addition, as I pointed out before, the popular vote count was NEVER COMPLEETED (refer to my earlier post for why) This is a little tidbit that the major media refuses to tell you. So unless your going to spearhead an effort to count ALL VEGALLY CAST VOTES IN THE COUNTRY you have nothing legitimate to say about it. How can you claim the popular vote was won by anyone if all the legally cast votes weren't counted? Please answer that.

These are facts, and not opinions. They cannot be disputed.
Please, if you respond, stay away from mantras and stick to facts.

 

Hey Jotmo: You think I want to listen to someone who can't even spell FLORIDA right? Or was that spelling intended for all the "Dubya" fans in here?

 

I supported GWB in the election, but polls are not always the most accurate conveyer of public sentiment.

 

Perhaps I should have spelled it like this

Flori-Duh

Now do you get it?

 

LOL Just joking Jotmo!

 

Is anyone else amused by being lectured about mantras and original thought by someone who apparently thinks it's the height of wit to ape Rush Limbaugh at every opportunity? "Algore." Ha! "Floriduh." Ha! Where do you come up with this stuff, you comedic genius?

 

Norman, really, that's getting quite pathetic. You sound so damn bitter, man. "hmm... I can't think of any way to prove my point, so I'll insult their HUMOR!" ... Good work.

Here's a snipet from the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, that you guys might want to read (you too, Norman):

********************************************
All of this matters because it exposes the Florida Supreme Court's opinion as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection" under the law. That is, by mandating the anything-goes standard, the Florida Supreme Court is treating some votes more equally than others.

In particular, it is treating Broward County's decision to count dimples as more valuable in choosing a President than Palm Beach's decision not to count them. Mr. Boies's motive for doing this is obvious: He gets more Gore votes. Broward County gave Mr. Gore 567 net additional votes out of about 2,500 "questionable" votes counted, or about 23%. Palm Beach County gave Mr. Gore 174, or only about 4% of the so-called Presidential undervote.

All of this also points out the folly, and unfairness, of changing vote-counting rules after the election is over. It is simply impossible to know, after the fact, how voters who incorrectly marked their ballots really intended to vote. The process is inherently arbitrary and subject to political and legal chicanery.

That is why, in close elections such as this one, the only fair way to "count all the votes" is to use the standard that prevailed on Election Day. At least everybody knew in advance what those rules were. They were even printed on the ballot and around polling places.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it yesterday, "Why isn't the standard the one that voters are instructed to follow" when they cast the vote? "I mean, it couldn't be clearer. I mean, why don't we go to that standard?" Good question.
********************************************

Vertical

 

Vert, I wasn't commenting on the humor at all. I don't think either of them were that funny, but that's not what I was saying. My point was to ask how someone can feel he has the right to tell others to think for themselves when he uses already overused, talk radio buzzwords like that.

Like I've said before, Vertical, take a break. I may be pathetic and bitter (how kind of you), but at least I'm pathetic and bitter in all the same ways I was two months ago.

 

So am I.

And yes, I did miss your point before. Apologies.

Vertical

 

If the Supreme Court were so concerned about the law, then why did they say that this ruling was confined to this particular case only?

Jotmo, I read the ruling myself. I came to my own conclusions. Did you read through the ruling yourself? Did you understand what was being talked about? Did you come to a decision regarding the ruling by yourself, or are you just regurgitating the GOP, Rush mantras?

The decision to send it back on Equal Protection grounds had merit. The decision that there was nothing else left to do was entirely politically motivated. The safe harbor provision only says that the Congress cannot contest the electors put in place before December 18. In fact, at least 2 Justices cited the 1960 election where Hawaii submitted a second slate of electors on December 30, and the Congress accepted them.

To tenorjedi: actually, I think the FL Supreme Court acted in a less partisan manner than SCOTUS. By all accounts according to the GOP spinmeisters, the FL SC was made up of 7 activist liberal justices. Yet, 3 of them dissented in their second ruling. Look at SCOTUS now, two liberal and moderate justices joined the 7-2 decision, but the other 5-4 decision was split right down party lines.

Quoting from Stevens' dissent:
What must underlie petitioners's entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the imparitality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions in the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their postion is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner in this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as imparitial guardian of the rule of law.

 

Still going strong?

I don't see how this is so complicated unless your partisanship has made you blind. Of course half of the democrats here are arguing on OPINION rather than fact. It is only your opinion that Bush isn't legit. According to law and EVERY election, he is. No one is arguing that you have to like the guy. I never liked Clinton. (Although he was entertaining)

(On a sidenote; tell me one job where a person wouldn't have his job in danger for dipping the company ink in the assistant pool.)

 

From `The Forgotten Place.'

Al Gore conceded after the Supreme Court overturned the Floridan Supreme Court's decision to have a proper and full recount. I am sure that JEDI master Beal and in particular, lordtomv, will be rather pleased.

But there are a few points to remember:
- Under total freedom of information, the press can have the ballots recounted anyway. If they give Gore a majority, Bush, well !
- If Bush was so confident of winning, and that he is the legitimate president, why did he try to stop a full and fair recount? It is a blatant statement of "I should be elected President on mechanical vote counting errors".
- It's Bush who caused this whole debacle, if he hadn't tried to prevent a FAIR, LEGITIMATE recount this would all be tied up weeks ago and it wouldn't have been as nearly drawn out as it has been.
- Gore won the popular vote... Bush does not have the support of the people's will. And also, as mentioned above, he probably hasn't even won the electoral college.
- If it wasn't for Nader, who is supposed to stand for the environmental aspect of things, Gore would easily have won. But now we have Bush, who will allow CO2 emissions to continue unchecked and who will allow oil exploitation in Alaska, which will be an environmental CALAMITY. So Nader, by taking Gore's vote, is INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the damage that will be done to the world.
- There will be a backlash almost certainly against Bush's stupidity, policies etc in the Congressional elections in two years time. Congress is what really matters, despite the undue attention the Presidential election gets, and the Democrats could take over the House of Representatives (and they could take the Senate too if it wasn't for the third-at-a-time rotation).

 

Your nader bashing holds no water, the fact is Gore failed to reach out to the people who supported Nader.

Gores failure to win by a large margin rests soley n his inability to grab those votes.

 

Speaking to me farraday ol' chap.

Or Darth ATAT who wrote that! >

 

I'm speaking to whoever believes that.


And Pogo stick go back to Australia p

//is embaressed