Gore Conceded.

Well... I thought it worth posting... applesauce boy. ;p

 

anyway back to the point.


Gore lost Gore lost ahahahahahahahaha

 

(cough/Partisan blindness/cough)

Excuse me.

Where did you dig up that steaming pile of cow dung?

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 !**

Okay first off, yes these ballots are open to the press and public, and guess what, partisan people will be looking at them with different standards. How many people have claimed dibs on counting these? Each will come up with different results with different standards. Sorry but Jesse Jackson is not an impartial judge. After recent events I cannot accept anything brought forth from this partisianly disapointing Democrat lap dog. To sum up, its the same problem with the original recount and why it was declared unconstitutional. But go ahead and count. The democrats who count it will find Gore the winner, while the republicans who do the same count will find GWB the winner. Do you not see personal and political agenda here?

**- 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". **

Again the law is on Bush's side. When was the last time a person who won asked for a recount? Never. Obviously 3 democratic counties is not a "Full and Fair Recount" please explain where you derive this wonderful logic. As for appealing the Florida SC, they had no basis where they drew their decisions on it. Basically democrats are calling foul because they acted, but didn't want GWB to do the same while they reemed him every which way.

**- 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.**

How blindly partisan can you be? Every action gets an equal and opposite reaction. Everything done by Bush has been a reaction. Again democrats are crying because Bush sunk to their level. It's a shame really.

**- 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.**

Try studing the US and it's laws before you start debating on them. I wish I had enough time to explain the EC, but it's pretty well covered in this and other threads. Loose your partisan blindness and learn.

** - 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.**

Wow, where do you get your crystal ball. I want one. Here's link:
http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1299545&replies=34

Read

**- 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). **

Too true congress is important, and how the president works with them is too. Which is why GWB is a better choice. Gore is uncompromising, a quality of sorts, but in this situation, compromise is the name of the game.

 

Like I said Darth ATAT wrote it at another site.

I never even finished reading it.

 

pogo stick are you trying to stir up trouble?

 

The bits i did read looked interesting, and i hate typing long posts so... lo and behold. :\

 

I hate typing too. I do enough 10 key to wear out my hand as it is.

 

This is from a few pages ago, but I believe it was directed at me.

?Ass, there were thousands of votes that weren't counted where there was nothing wrong with them. Pay attention to the news before you rant. Otherwise, you sound stupid. ?

I pay attention to the facts, not the liberal ranting that went on. There were no ballots that were never counted as Gore and his cronies would have you believe. There were ballots that went through the machines that did not register a vote for President. No one has proved that ballots were cast CORRECTLY yet were not counted by the machines. I clearly spoke of this in my post that resulting in the name calling. If you can point out where this was PROVEN, I will admit my error. The question was about ballots that were cast INCORRECTLY (ie. dimpled and hanging chads, even though instructions said to clearly punch the ballot, and CHECK IT BEFORE YOU TURN IT IN). Gore wanted to have these ballots that were not correctly cast count as votes for him.

 

Pozzi, your arguments are purely laughable, and based in some alternate reality, seriously. Take your blinders off and think.

Bush wasn't asking to stop a "full and fair recount", he was trying to stop what *Democrats* were *calling* a full and fair recount, but, in fact, it was neither FULL nor FAIR.

7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that the recount standards (or lack thereof) were NOT FAIR, and THAT is what Bush was trying to stop - an UNFAIR recount.

Toss around "full" and "fair" all you want, but understand one thing: what Al Gore and the other Democrats were trying to do was hardly "full" or "fair", no matter what they claimed. The Supreme Court agreed with Bush in that the recount was not fair, and violated the equal protection right.

Vertical

 

Not my arguement Vert. ;p

 

Al Gore wanted to count all the votes.

George Bush: did not want to count all the votes, and did everything in his power to stop the count.

Who has the moral highground here?

 

No he didn't. Counting all the votes was a last ditch effort to stay in the game. They were only interested in getting Dem. votes. There was no moral high ground on either side. Deal with it

 

Here's Darth ATATs answer in two letters.
********************************************

LOL....I hope you let them know who I am!
Thanks for notifying me of this, I'll read it and mail you a reply soon.
Alls best
DAA

******************************************

The answer came 20 minutes later.

******************************************
OK, here's my reply...

=========================================
> Your nader bashing holds no water, the fact is Gore failed to reach out to
the people who supported Nader.
Utterly irrelevant. My point was that the environment will be much worse off
because Nader stood.
> Gores failure to win by a large margin rests soley n his inability to grab
those votes.
Again, irrelevant.
BTW may I wish farraday luck in his running for admin, which I expect will
be just as biased and invalid as some of the things that have happened in
the Presidential events. After all, PB banned me for daring to make
suggestions on how to get rid of that sort of thing which pervades the JC.
> Tenor Jedi wrote:
>
> (cough/Partisan blindness/cough)
>
> Excuse me.
>
> Where did you dig up that steaming pile of cow dung?
LOL!
>
> 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 !**
>
> Okay first off, yes these ballots are open to the press and public, and
guess what, partisan people will be looking at them with different
standards. How many people have claimed dibs on counting these? Each will
come up with different results with different standards. Sorry but Jesse
Jackson is not an impartial judge. After recent events I cannot accept
anything brought forth from this partisianly disapointing Democrat lap dog.
To sum up, its the same problem with the original recount and why it was
declared unconstitutional. But go ahead and count. The democrats who count
it will find Gore the winner, while the republicans who do the same count
will find GWB the winner. Do you not see personal and political agenda here?
Please give me a justification for this. Are you saying that no vote
counting can be legitimate? May I draw to your attention Ireland, where they
use the complicated (although actually VERY fair and effective) Single
Transferable Vote system. Even with voters numbering candidates in
preference, they don't have a problem there.
Over in Britain we count the ballots in a night. We have a simple "X", they
are all hand counted with an impartial counter and representatives from most
sides. All disputes are easily sorted.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that any vote counting is
invalid.
>
> **- 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". **
>
> Again the law is on Bush's side. When was the last time a person who won
asked for a recount? Never.
Please explain why a clause of a law is invalid because it has never been
used before.
> Obviously 3 democratic counties is not a "Full and Fair Recount" please
explain where you derive this wonderful logic.
Gore wanted a recount in the whole of Florida. It was to eliminate any
voting errors and see who was the TRUE winner.
> **- 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.**
>
> How blindly partisan can you be? Every action gets an equal and opposite
reaction. Everything done by Bush has been a reaction.
Yet another load of steaming, irrelevant chicken crap. It was indeed a
reaction, as you say, but it has nothing to do with my point.
>Again democrats are crying because Bush sunk to their level. It's a shame
really.
Dunno what you mean by this.
> **- Gore won the popular vote... Bush does not have the support of the
people's will. And also, as mentione

 

Disowning your very own argument now, Pozzi? Here's a quote from your post above:

********************************************
- 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.
********************************************

Oops, I guess you *did* argue that point. Care to rephrase?

Vertical

 

Vert dude listen very carefully.

Darth ATAT made the post at another site!!!!!
I did not make it.
he did.

Phew.

 

http://pub24.ezboard.com/bwrightyandjoncesboard

Look in banter I think.

<passes out for the night>

 

I saw no convincing arguments, merly partisan chatter. Sorry I'm not able to keep this elightening conversation going but it's the 15th and taxes are due today. (Lest I get fired) I must focus on work; I'll be back on the 20th to continue to correct you're faulty logic. Till then I yield to others to open your eyes to the truth.

 

Ah, well, forgive me for not catching the reference to "The Forgotten Place", which I have never heard of. You never clarified in your original post that those were not your arguments.

You may excuse yourself now.

Vertical

 

Whew** got my work done, with time to post. A miracle and a half.

(I'm going to attempt to keep this shorter than post past)

On the counting after Bush takes office:
First of all, you're talking about other countries with different laws and a much smaller population.
Now to the matter at hand: This isn't like your system. Great that you can count it all by hand in a night and that votes are clear. My hat off to you, but these are ballots where judgement calls are being made. You want Rush Limbaugh making judgement calls on who an undervote is for? Same with Jesse Jackson and others. (What would be the English equivilent? Arguing if it's Graphite or dirt?) These counts have no authority or accountablity, and therefore void. That goes for EITHER SIDE.

*************************************
Gore wanted a recount in the whole of Florida. It was to eliminate any
voting errors and see who was the TRUE winner.
**************************************

Not true. The recount of the entire state was a last ditch effort by Gore to stay in the running. There was no legal way to do this. The US supreme court, by a ruling of 7-2 agrees with me. Anarchy is not an acceptable way to conduct an election. Laws must be honored and upheld. Gore's not a saint; he wanted to win, not hear the "will of the people"

****************************************
Yet another load of steaming, irrelevant chicken crap. It was indeed a
reaction, as you say, but it has nothing to do with my point.
****************************************

It's totally relevant. You say it's somehow Bush's fault that the mess happend. How so if the instigator is, was, and always will be Gore? How is defending your rights and the law, a bad thing? Being sued and not seeking defence is suicide. What was he supposed to do? Stand by while the democrats find partisan judges and appeal till they get the ruling they want, so laws and standards could be changed? What are you people on? Seriously, should democrats get to sue and appeal and appeal till they get the 7 Democrat Florida SC to allow them to do whatever they want? How is that equality?

Crap, more work. To be continued later.........

 

Ooops. Does "pissed" count as a swear word? I didn't realize. Anyone one who has followed my posts knows that I refrain from using strong language... I don't agree with it in general. Certainly not on a "family friendly" board such as this. I honesty thought the "p-word" was in a category of harmless cuss words, like gee whiz, and heck. If the powers that be declare it to be an inappropriate word for use on these boards, I will gladly submit to a 48 hour ban in the spirit of partisan "healing" on the JC.

Respectfully, Lagniappe

 

Pissed isn't a swear word. I use it all the time. It's a reference to urination, if my vocabulary skills succeed me.

 

Seeing as how I was never actually told I wasn't allowed to re-register, I thought I'd drop by on you guys and argue with you direct rather than through Pozzi. I'm Darth ATAT BTW (not Beal ).

Firstly Vertical, I think your reading comprehension skills are rather poor. It is ME who wrote that post and the reply, NOT Pozzi, he was only reproducing it! The Forgotten Place is one of the boards I regularly post on...

"On the counting after Bush takes office:
First of all, you're talking about other countries with different laws and a much smaller population."

We're talking about Florida here, which IIRC is considerably smaller than the UK (population is irrelevant anyway, as the number of counters/counting halls etc will go up in proportion to population). The different laws are irrelevant, I was talking about the validity of hand counts, saying that they work perfectly well over here, so they would work perfectly well if they happened over there.

"Now to the matter at hand: This isn't like your system. Great that you can count it all by hand in a night and that votes are clear. My hat off to you..."

Uh, I can't take credit for my country's voting system, indeed I don't like my country's FPTP voting system, but I was using it as evidence for the validity of hand recounts.

"...but these are ballots where judgement calls are being made. You want Rush Limbaugh making judgement calls on who an undervote is for? Same with Jesse Jackson and others."

You do a hand count just like over here, with a representative for the Republicans and the Democrats overseeing each table. Therefore, there can be no vote twisting. Arguments should be quite easily resolved.

"(What would be the English equivilent? Arguing if it's Graphite or dirt?)"

I dunno where you're getting with this but the stereotyping is funny...

"These counts have no authority or accountablity, and therefore void. That goes for EITHER SIDE."

Ahem, why not?

"Not true. The recount of the entire state was a last ditch effort by Gore to stay in the running."

Indeed it was, because it was not certain that he was legitimately ruled out of the running and the election therefore given to Bush.

"There was no legal way to do this."

According to the Florida Supreme Court, whose function is to interpret the Florida law, and who almost certainly know Florida law better than the Supreme Court judges, a full and fair recount was perfectly legal.

"The US supreme court, by a ruling of 7-2 agrees with me."

Wonderful. I'm very happy for you.

"Anarchy is not an acceptable way to conduct an election."

Indeed it is not, but that's an irrelevant point.

"Laws must be honored and upheld. Gore's not a saint; he wanted to win, not hear the will of the people..."

Yes, but Gore got the popular vote in the US and so the will of the overall people is that Gore should win. As for wanting to win, that could be said for ANY politician.

I find this point VERY ironic actually, because Bush tried to stop the recounts which would have shown the will of the Florida people, because he wanted to win... HAHAHAHAHAHA you've stuck yourself in a corner...

"It's totally relevant. You say it's somehow Bush's fault that the mess happened."

I'm saying it's his fault it was so drawn out, if it wasn't for him we could have had a legitimate recount ages ago and the proper true winner would have been known.

"How so if the instigator is, was, and always will be Gore?"

It's not like that, as explained above...

"How is defending your rights and the law, a bad thing? Being sued and not seeking defence is suicide. What was he supposed to do? Stand by while the democrats find partisan judges and appeal till they get the ruling they want, so laws and standards could be changed? What are you people on? Seriously, should democrats get to sue and appeal and appeal till they get the 7 Democrat Florida SC to allow them to do whatever they want? How is that equality?"

We're talking about a fair recount...here we go again...if the Floridan Supre

 

My comprehension skills? At what point should I realize that 'The Forgotten Place' is another board, if I've never heard of it? And aren't you banned here?

Vertical

 

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

i am sick of this conservative BS. Anyone that I know that voted for nader would have voted for gore if nader wasn't there. this arguement is completely retarded. I'm sure 90% of the nader voters would have done the same thing if he wasn't there.

My ideal end to the election 2000 would be to have gore win, and have nader get 5%.

If i had to choose one or the other, it would be gore winning.

I would like to leave you with some daily show quotes.
--------------
GWB: I ask you to pray for this great nation,

Stewart: We're way ahead of you.
--------------
GWB: I was elected president.

Stewart: No you weren't.
--------------

 

Vertical, JK Pozzi specifically stated that I wrote it. That's why your comprehension skills are poor, because you thought Pozzi wrote it.

Yes, indeed, I was banned here but I this is an inappropriate place for my defence. Suffice to say PB never stated "You must not return under another name".

And IF I read BenKanobe's post correctly then I agree with him.