Gore Conceded.

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

Wow, what a very kind and adminny thing of you to say, Vertical. I think that a lot of your arguments are bu... nevermind. But I don't outright insult your intelligence. And you wonder why a lot of people don't approve of admin decisions. Because it's hard to support your discipline of a member when you blatantly violate these same rules in equal or greater severity. I'll go and read the rest of this thread, and respond to the political aspects in a bit.

 

Topses.

 

I wish I had time to do a full response, however, it's not possible tonight.

Okay on the counting after Bush takes office:

One more time for those that don't live here and are quite ignorant to the law and common sense.
These are not official counts. It will not be done in the same manner as previous counts. It will be done by private groups with political affiliation, who deside their own standards and who do not have to adhere to ruling and standards particular states or counties. Not to mention that all the undervotes are subject to personal judgement calls. Like I said, Democrats wouldn't pay attention to any recount results done by embarrassingly partisan figure such as Rush Limbaugh. The same holds true to Jesse Jackson and his associates. How difficult is that to understand? It isn't official because they lack the authority, elected office, and jurisdiction. I refuse to belive that you are that stupid.

As for references to other contries:
When a ballot is filled in with an (x) a vote is very clear, and easily identified. (This is where the graphite comment goes in place, a stray lite mark as opposed to pregnant chad) Like I said there are personal judgement calls going on here. The entire state hangs on how a person makes that call, so the person doing the counting makes a big difference. How can this be any clearer.

**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**

If You knew american law you would know that Federal law overrides state law. Therefore you'd know that your argument holds no water; much like your whole position.

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

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

It IS relevant. Quit trying to tell me about my own country. You follow the laws and standards in place, you do not throw out the law, just because it's politically convenient.

**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 never said that Gore shouldn't want to win, I mean to say he's not a saint, or some champion of the people. Plain and simple. As for the popular vote, we don't elect a president that way. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand this, you just choose to ignore it because it's damaging to your case.

**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... **

A recount was done and Bush won. The will of the people was heard. You're talking about making judgement calls on undervotes. I'm confident that if you take all of Florida that Bush will still be the winner based on simple statistics. Bush wanted to stop the recounts in the 4 Democratic counties, because that wouldn't be a full and fair count of the "Will of the people" when the ruling came for a 100% count of Florida, the Supreme Court decided that there was no legal support for that decision. Gore disenfranchised himself by trying to do an "unfair and innaccurate count of the will of the people" TRUTH. Only the loser of an election asks for a recount. (for obvious reasons) When you only ask for heavily democratic counties it is unfair to heavily republican counties, and it is an innaccurate representation of the "will of the people".


Again, nice try "Thank you come again".

I refuse to believe you are so blinded by partisianship. If you want another response please try and argue without so much partisianship. I dislike half-truths.

 

tenorjedi said . . .
"Okay on the counting after Bush takes office:

One more time for those that don't live here and are quite ignorant to the law and common sense. These are not official counts. It will not be done in the same manner as previous counts. It will be done by private groups with political affiliation, who deside their own standards and who do not have to adhere to ruling and standards particular states or counties. Not to mention that all the undervotes are subject to personal judgement calls. Like I said, Democrats wouldn't pay attention to any recount results done by embarrassingly partisan figure such as Rush Limbaugh. The same holds true to Jesse Jackson and his associates. How difficult is that to understand? It isn't official because they lack the authority, elected office, and jurisdiction. I refuse to belive that you are that stupid."


I take it you believe the press is just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who have a liberal agenda in making sure that Gore gets more votes? I'd be willing to bet some university students might take this on as a project for their governmental studies class, constitutional law class or PhD history class. Do these universities have a political agenda too? Don't you be so stupid. First, whoever conducts these recounts after the election have to PAY for the county canvassing boards to count the votes since they are the only ones who are officially allowed to touch ballots. Second, whoever requests these recounts will start with a standard prior to any counting taking place, such as, adopting the Texas standard, that is, dimples count as votes. SCOTUS said a standard needed to be set before recounts. If they set a standard beforehand, people like you cannot attack them for searching for a way to show Gore got more votes. Third, the groups conducting these post election recount efforts will do their utmost to keep them from being partisian, so as to present the findings as legitimate. I'd bet that they'll even separate out the different ballot counts based on level. One count would be the fully punched. Next would be the hanging chad counts. A third count would be dimpled or pregnant chads. And the final group would be the double punched counts.

Sure, some groups might be blatantly partisian, but others will not. I look forward to these third party recount efforts.

 

Why is this still an issue? Why are we still debating the election?

 

Amazing, is it not Bullwinkle? The only debate seems to be here. I haven't heard the name of Al Gore since the night of the speeches. The rest of the country has moved on...a trend we should all pick up on.

 

AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE!!!!!!! Is that good enough Queenie?

Jades Fire is absolutley right. This count is being done for history purposes and for University studies. It needs to be done and if the Universities want to I think they should be allowed to. Now that there has been a standard set, the count should run smoothly.

And don't worry Bulwinkle, your man won the race and is the President for the next four years. It's just too bad for the next four years, we have an illegitimate President. In other words a B******d for a leader.

 

As opposed to... ?

I thought it was a requirement that a politician be a b******. They go to B****** School for the Ethically Retarded, correct?

Had Bush conceded, I'd have put it away. I don't like Gore, but I would have swallowed my pride and let it go. Then I'd start placing my bets on 2004.

Non-issue.

 

LOL for once I agree with you Bulwinkle!

Truce? LOL

 

We were never at war.

 

You think Bush has a chance in 2004? I pity you, fool.

 

Insane Anakin, what are you talking about? I haven't flamed anyone, I haven't broken any rules. Your crusade against admins is ridiculous. Simply because I critically dissect someone else's argument doesn't mean I have violated any rules.

And to the banned member who said that Pozzi's original post stated that the arguments were someone else's, I offer you, word for word, Pozzi's post to which I was responding:

*******************************************
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).
********************************************

Now, where in that post is it specifically state that YOU wrote that?

Vertical

 

Insane Anakin: who said I was betting on Bush? You assume too much.

 

First off, like most of you I am sick of debating this. I'm not here to try and convince you to like GW Bush.

I don't believe that the media has a liberal left wing agenda. Some broadcasters do show thier bias a little too much, but I don't blame them for calling Florida early. As with any story, speed is essential if you're going to stay on top. There's a question about accuracy, but the loss of reputation is punishment enough IMO.
As for voters that turned back because they heard the election had already been called: It's as weak an argument as the "disenfrancized voters" of Palm Beach. There are other things to vote on besides the presidential election. Usually your vote has an even greater voice in state and county elections. Your vote will always count, so if you turned back, don't complain.

I had a long rebuttal written out, but quite frankly, I'm tired of this. So I decided to keep it short. Let's see what happens with the EC.

 

Well it's 100% official now. The EC voted, and Bush won.

 

Admit it, you're starting to wish Nader had won

 

Heh. I bet you're right...

No, wait. I bet the Dems are wishing Nader never existed.

 

Up, so this doesn't get pruned.

 

Gore conceded????!?!?!?! ;-)

 

I WAS SCREWED I TELL YA!!!

CURSE THAT BUSH FAMILY!!!!

But on the good side, I look dang good with a beard huh?

 

You think Bush has a chance in 2004? I pity you, fool.

How times have changed.

 

I thought you shaved the beard . . .

 

Or so G Dubya would have you believe. Heck no I'm gonna join zztop on tour next month.

 

nader shoulda won!!!!!11

 

Quite right, citizen!