Dixie Chicks revenge is sweet. Depression is rampant in the rightard community.

[Guest kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Feb 15, 12:21 pm, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> The problem in 2004 wasn't the message of the Democratic Party, but rather

> the gullibility of the American public. When high-ranking members of the

> administration travel around the country (at taxpayer expense) spreading

> messages like only reelecting Bush will save them from the terrorists, and

> giving gays the same rights as straights will destroy their own marriages,

> there is a certain element in the nation that will believe the lies. But

> why am I bothering to explain this to you? After all, it appears that

> you're among that element.

 

Appearances, especially those you've based on next to no evidence, can

be deceiving. And while some may buy into Republican scare tactics or

Republican bigotry, I assume that is the smaller portion of the

Republican party. Republicans tend to have a better education and be

wealthier, on the whole, than Democrats, no?

> > > There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major

> contributing

> > > factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't

> have

> > > been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader not

> > > drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore.

>

> > 1) Wrong; several independent analyses confirmed he won FL.

>

> And several other independent analyses dispute that claim, based on the

> number of ballots that had been thrown out and never included in any

> analysis.

 

I am citing the Miami Herald team that actually went and looked at the

ballots. If ballots were thrown out, it was because their indication

of voting was indistinct. What independent analyses disputed that

Bush won based on ballots that were indeterminate?

> > Furthermore, the nature of the objections was absolutely ludicrous. I

> > lived in Palm Beach County and was able to understand the infamous

> > butterfly ballot on a field trip in 3rd grade.

>

> Really? So you're only in the 10th grade now? You write fairly well, for a

> high school student.

 

Haha! It is interesting that you've drawn the inference that the Bush/

Gore electoral squabble was the first time that Palm Beach County used

the butterfly ballot. You happen to be wrong.

> > If you're literally

> > too dumb to be sure you cast your ballot as intended before you drop

> > your ballot into the box, you deserve to lose your vote.

>

> Do those who were unlucky enough to have an extra "chad" start to come loose

> on their ballots as the sheets are handled and mishandled also deserve to

> lose their vote?

 

Voters were instructed, back when I was in the third grade even, to

make sure no chads were loose. The FL Supreme Court's decision to

flout our electoral laws regarding number of recounts and attempts to

divine voter intent from improperly cast ballots were shameful.

> How about the folks who never make it to the polls because

> of a police checkpoint set up between their homes and their polling place

> stalling traffic in black neighborhoods until after the polls close?

 

Where was this?

> How

> about those who are intimidated by large men, sitting in lawnchairs set up

> in the beds of their Bush-bumper-stickered pickup trucks, holding baseball

> bats? Do those folks deserve to be disenfranchised, as well?

 

Where was this?

> > 2) Ralph Nader did run, so what is your point? It wasn't illegal.

>

> True enough. It wasn't illegal. Stupid on the part of Nader and his

> supporters, but not illegal. But I can guarantee you that had Nader not

> been in the race, and had Gore won by less than 2,000 votes, and had

> Buchanan taken 100,000 votes away from Bush, Republicans in Florida would

> have been scrambling to try to institute some sort of retroactive "instant

> runoff" system to give Buchanan's votes and the state to Bush anyway.

 

Well then good that Nader chose to run; he accurately represented a

faction of the Democrats Gore didn't represent.

> > >Plus, of course, there are the

> > > allegations of voter suppression in predominantly black districts. That

> > > election will always have an asterisk next to it in the history books.

>

> > Placed there by propagandists such as yourself who spout baseless

> > accusations as if they gain accuracy through repetition and anonymity.

>

> No, placed there by historians who will look at all the facts surrounding

> the election, including the unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court that

> allowing existing state laws to prevail in an election that is technically a

> state election somehow violates the "equal protection" clause of the

> Constitution.

>

> Kerry is likeable enough. I've met the man. Have you?

 

Well if you want duelling anecdotes I know a girl who waited his table

and thought he was rude, uncivil and didn't know which fork to use at

a formal dinner, but so what? The public didn't find him likeable.

 

And by "blatantly

> hypocritical", I can only assume that you're refering to Kerry's comment

> that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

> Kerry did a poor job of explaining that the first vote was for a bill that

> actually provided for a means of raising that $87 billion (reversing tax

> cuts), and that the second vote was against the bill with the means of

> raising the money removed, giving Bush carte blanche to spend money he

> didn't have. You may view that as being "blatantly hypocritical". I view

> it as being "fiscally responsible", something this administration and its

> supporters have no concept of. But, of course, the Bush/Cheney campaign

> team spun that into a "flip-flop", and used it to deceive a gullible public.

>

>

>

> > > All of that said, the bottom line is that it was not fear of what you

> call

> > > "barely concealed socialism" that drove American voters to Bush. It was

> the

> > > fact that the "average" American voter pays virtually no attention to

> what's

> > > really going on in the country or in the world, and is easily duped by

> > > crafty campaign managers.

>

> > You're right; all those red states love welfare statism. I can hear

> > their clamoring for midnight basketball even as I type. How did

> > Reagan capture the 'Reagan Democrats'? The left is intellectually

> > bankrupt; your only hope is that some muck-racking scandal drags down

> > whoever the Repubs field.

>

> The right only wins when an uninformed public believes their lies and spin.

> Reagan captured the "Reagan Democrats" by promising tax cuts, coupled with

> reduced spending.

 

Then your point is that the Republicans win on ideology but fail to

deliver on their promises. I'd agree; go Libertarians!

 

He delivered on the first part, but reneged on the second

> part. He won them a second time by pointing out that he gave them tax cuts

> and blaming Congress for an increase in spending instead of reduced

> spending, even though most of the spending increases were in pieces of

> legislation that he demanded from Congress. Intellectual and moral

> bankruptcy are hallmarks of the GOP. The ideas coming from the left are

> sound and logical, but the right will continue to distort the position of

> the left in attempts to regain their power, which is desired only to amass

> more wealth for their corporate masters. Democrats won't need any scandals

> to drag down the Republican candidate. Giuliani and McCain will "Swift

> Boat" each other during the primaries for them.

>

>

>

> > The good news is that they've gotten smarter, as

> > > evidenced in the 2006 elections. Moderates won't run from Hillary.

> She's

> > > pretty much a moderate herself. It will be the closet chauvinists that

> may

> > > well be her downfall, just as the closet racists will not give Obama the

> > > support a white candidate with the same views would have.

>

> > He's a leftist. He wouldn't get much support for that, regardless of

> > his skin.

>

> Even with the color of his skin, he's already got twice the support of any

> of the Republican candidates. I won't be supporting either him or Hillary

> in the primaries, but if either of them wins the nomination they'll win the

> White House. The GOP has nothing and nobody with which to beat them.

 

I predict otherwise. Time will tell.

> > What will be

> > > REALLY interesting to see is how much support Giuliani will get from the

> > > conservative religious-right-wing "family values" crowd, with his

> multiple

> > > divorces, constant affairs and living for a time in the home of two gay

> > > friends.

>

> > Screw Guiliani; I'm voting libertarian.

>

> You were in 3rd grade in 2000 and plan on voting in 2008? How many times

> did you get left back? But, if you're old enough to vote, please DO vote

> libertarian. That will essentially be another vote for the Democrat.

 

I think the common wisdom about vote wasting is stupid. If enough

people get disgusted with Republican failure to deliver and vote

Libertarian maybe the party will get the message.

[Guest WF Peifer]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171581387.976378.323510@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>

> Appearances, especially those you've based on next to no evidence, can

> be deceiving. And while some may buy into Republican scare tactics or

> Republican bigotry, I assume that is the smaller portion of the

> Republican party.

 

I believe you assume wrong. Every Republican that I talked to who planned

to vote for Bush in '04 gave such reasons as "He'll keep us safe, but

Kerry's on the side of the terrorists" or "Kerry wants us all to turn

queer". If you dig into Usenet archives, you'll find similar sentiments

expressed in writing by many pro-Bush posters on these groups.

> Republicans tend to have a better education and be

> wealthier, on the whole, than Democrats, no?

 

No. Both parties have their fair share of rich and poor, educated and

near-illiterate.

Examples:

 

EDUCATION: Most university professors, and most K-12 teachers are

Democrats. Most PhD's are Democrats. Most CEO's and other well-educated

corporate officers and managers are Republicans. Most MBA's are

Republicans. Conversely, a black inner-city high school dropout is likely

to be a Democrat, while a white country boy who dropped out of school to

work on the family farm, and a "good ole boy" trailer park denizen who can

barely write his own name on his bar tab are both likely to vote Republican.

 

WEALTH: Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and 3/4 of the

Hollywood crowd are all very wealthy Democrats. The entire Bush family,

Donald Trump, Wally O'Dell, Rush Limbaugh and the remaining 1/4 of the

Hollywood crowd are all very wealthy Republicans.

 

Neither education nor wealth seem to be much of a deciding factor when it

comes to political affiliation. Location is a stronger indicator. Urban

people tend to lean Democratic, while rural folk are predominantly

Republican.

> > > > There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major

> > contributing

> > > > factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't

> > have

> > > > been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader

not

> > > > drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore.

> >

> > > 1) Wrong; several independent analyses confirmed he won FL.

> >

> > And several other independent analyses dispute that claim, based on the

> > number of ballots that had been thrown out and never included in any

> > analysis.

>

> I am citing the Miami Herald team that actually went and looked at the

> ballots. If ballots were thrown out, it was because their indication

> of voting was indistinct. What independent analyses disputed that

> Bush won based on ballots that were indeterminate?

 

Along with the Miami Herald, the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor,

the Associated Press and MSNBC were all part of the "Media Consortium" team

who conducted that review of the ballots to which you refer. However,

unlike the Herald, all three of the above made mention of the fact that

nearly 3,000 "undervotes" and "overvotes", where the indication of the

voter's intention was not at all "indistinct", were withheld from the tally

at insistence of Katherine Harris.

 

Eric Alterman of MSNBC wrote "Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and

he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you count 'hanging chads'

and he won if you counted a 'dimpled chad.' He won if you counted a dimpled

chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot - the

so-called 'Palm Beach' standard. He even won if you counted only a

fully-punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled oval on an

optical scan and he won if you counted only a fully-filled optical scan. He

won if you fairly counted the absentee ballots. No matter how you count it,

if everyone who legally voted in Florida had had a chance to see their vote

matter, Al Gore would be sitting in the Oval Office today."

 

The AP article didn't say it quite so clearly, but stated "A full, statewide

recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's 537-vote

victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes,

depending on how valid votes are defined."

 

It will probably NEVER be really clear who actually won the 2000 election,

but it became a moot point when Gore conceded "for the good of the nation"

to "let the healing begin". Of course, we can all easily see how well the

country "healed" with George W. "I'm a uniter; not a divider" Bush at the

helm of the ship of state, with his "my way or the highway, 'cause I'M the

Decider" approach to everything.

> > > Furthermore, the nature of the objections was absolutely ludicrous. I

> > > lived in Palm Beach County and was able to understand the infamous

> > > butterfly ballot on a field trip in 3rd grade.

> >

> > Really? So you're only in the 10th grade now? You write fairly well,

for a

> > high school student.

>

> Haha! It is interesting that you've drawn the inference that the Bush/

> Gore electoral squabble was the first time that Palm Beach County used

> the butterfly ballot. You happen to be wrong.

 

You indicated that you were able to understand THAT particular ballot on a

field trip in the 3rd grade. Not similar, previous versions, but THAT

ballot. One can only assume that in order to understand a particular ballot

that wasn't printed up until 2000 one would either have to have been a 3rd

grader in 2000, or have had some pretty amazing precognitive abilities when

they were a young child. Personally, I don't put much stock in

precognition, so I was left with one logical conclusion. The thought that

you were referring to butterfly ballots, in general, when you mentioned "the

infamous butterfly ballot" never crossed my mind, because I've found that

you usually express yourself far less ambiguously than that.

> > > If you're literally

> > > too dumb to be sure you cast your ballot as intended before you drop

> > > your ballot into the box, you deserve to lose your vote.

> >

> > Do those who were unlucky enough to have an extra "chad" start to come

loose

> > on their ballots as the sheets are handled and mishandled also deserve

to

> > lose their vote?

>

> Voters were instructed, back when I was in the third grade even, to

> make sure no chads were loose. The FL Supreme Court's decision to

> flout our electoral laws regarding number of recounts and attempts to

> divine voter intent from improperly cast ballots were shameful.

 

Agreed. There should have been only one recount. One COMPLETE recount, of

the entire state, which was the Gore campaign's original proposal, which the

Bush campaign didn't want to allow.

> > How about the folks who never make it to the polls because

> > of a police checkpoint set up between their homes and their polling

place

> > stalling traffic in black neighborhoods until after the polls close?

>

> Where was this?

 

There were several such incidents reported on election night, but most of

them were in or around Jacksonville, if I recall the story correctly.

> > How

> > about those who are intimidated by large men, sitting in lawnchairs set

up

> > in the beds of their Bush-bumper-stickered pickup trucks, holding

baseball

> > bats? Do those folks deserve to be disenfranchised, as well?

>

> Where was this?

 

Pensacola and Panama City

> >

> 2) Ralph Nader did run, so what is your point? It wasn't illegal.

> >

> > True enough. It wasn't illegal. Stupid on the part of Nader and his

> > supporters, but not illegal. But I can guarantee you that had Nader not

> > been in the race, and had Gore won by less than 2,000 votes, and had

> > Buchanan taken 100,000 votes away from Bush, Republicans in Florida

would

> > have been scrambling to try to institute some sort of retroactive

"instant

> > runoff" system to give Buchanan's votes and the state to Bush anyway.

>

> Well then good that Nader chose to run; he accurately represented a

> faction of the Democrats Gore didn't represent.

 

Good for Bush. Bad for America.

> > > >Plus, of course, there are the

> > > > allegations of voter suppression in predominantly black districts.

That

> > > > election will always have an asterisk next to it in the history

books.

> >

> > > Placed there by propagandists such as yourself who spout baseless

> > > accusations as if they gain accuracy through repetition and anonymity.

> >

> > No, placed there by historians who will look at all the facts

surrounding

> > the election, including the unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court

that

> > allowing existing state laws to prevail in an election that is

technically a

> > state election somehow violates the "equal protection" clause of the

> > Constitution.

> >

> > Kerry is likeable enough. I've met the man. Have you?

>

> Well if you want duelling anecdotes I know a girl who waited his table

> and thought he was rude, uncivil and didn't know which fork to use at

> a formal dinner, but so what? The public didn't find him likeable.

 

49+% found him likable enough to vote for him, despite the brutal character

assasination performed on him by Team Bush and their Swift Boat partners.

> And by "blatantly

> > hypocritical", I can only assume that you're refering to Kerry's comment

> > that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against

it."

> > Kerry did a poor job of explaining that the first vote was for a bill

that

> > actually provided for a means of raising that $87 billion (reversing tax

> > cuts), and that the second vote was against the bill with the means of

> > raising the money removed, giving Bush carte blanche to spend money he

> > didn't have. You may view that as being "blatantly hypocritical". I

view

> > it as being "fiscally responsible", something this administration and

its

> > supporters have no concept of. But, of course, the Bush/Cheney campaign

> > team spun that into a "flip-flop", and used it to deceive a gullible

public.

> >

> >

> >

> > > > All of that said, the bottom line is that it was not fear of what

you

> > call

> > > > "barely concealed socialism" that drove American voters to Bush. It

was

> > the

> > > > fact that the "average" American voter pays virtually no attention

to

> > what's

> > > > really going on in the country or in the world, and is easily duped

by

> > > > crafty campaign managers.

> >

> > > You're right; all those red states love welfare statism. I can hear

> > > their clamoring for midnight basketball even as I type. How did

> > > Reagan capture the 'Reagan Democrats'? The left is intellectually

> > > bankrupt; your only hope is that some muck-racking scandal drags down

> > > whoever the Repubs field.

> >

> > The right only wins when an uninformed public believes their lies and

spin.

> > Reagan captured the "Reagan Democrats" by promising tax cuts, coupled

with

> > reduced spending.

>

> Then your point is that the Republicans win on ideology but fail to

> deliver on their promises. I'd agree; go Libertarians!

 

I'm OK with Libertarians . . . in fact I much prefer them to the Greens . .

.. but there aren't enough of either group for them ever to make a

significant difference except as spoilers, hurting the major party that

comes closest to their views.

> He delivered on the first part, but reneged on the second

> > part. He won them a second time by pointing out that he gave them tax

cuts

> > and blaming Congress for an increase in spending instead of reduced

> > spending, even though most of the spending increases were in pieces of

> > legislation that he demanded from Congress. Intellectual and moral

> > bankruptcy are hallmarks of the GOP. The ideas coming from the left are

> > sound and logical, but the right will continue to distort the position

of

> > the left in attempts to regain their power, which is desired only to

amass

> > more wealth for their corporate masters. Democrats won't need any

scandals

> > to drag down the Republican candidate. Giuliani and McCain will "Swift

> > Boat" each other during the primaries for them.

> >

> >

> >

> > > The good news is that they've gotten smarter, as

> > > > evidenced in the 2006 elections. Moderates won't run from Hillary.

> > She's

> > > > pretty much a moderate herself. It will be the closet chauvinists

that

> > may

> > > > well be her downfall, just as the closet racists will not give Obama

the

> > > > support a white candidate with the same views would have.

> >

> > > He's a leftist. He wouldn't get much support for that, regardless of

> > > his skin.

> >

> > Even with the color of his skin, he's already got twice the support of

any

> > of the Republican candidates. I won't be supporting either him or

Hillary

> > in the primaries, but if either of them wins the nomination they'll win

the

> > White House. The GOP has nothing and nobody with which to beat them.

>

> I predict otherwise. Time will tell.

 

That it will. But I'd be interested in your "otherwise" prediction. Mine

is Richardson coming from behind to get the Dem nomination and Giuliani

maintaining his slim lead over McCain to get the GOP nod. If that plays

out, the "family values" wing of the Republican Party will stay home on

election day. No way they'll come out for a pro-choice adultrous

philanderer who stays with gay friends when he's on the "outs" with his

estranged wife. Add to that the dirt that'll be coming out on the Bush

Administration now that the Democrats have the power to launch

investigations and hold hearings, and the middle will abandon the GOP as

well, especially if the Dems have a fiscally conservative moderate like

Richardson at the top of the ticket.

> > > What will be

> > > > REALLY interesting to see is how much support Giuliani will get from

the

> > > > conservative religious-right-wing "family values" crowd, with his

> > multiple

> > > > divorces, constant affairs and living for a time in the home of two

gay

> > > > friends.

> >

> > > Screw Guiliani; I'm voting libertarian.

> >

> > You were in 3rd grade in 2000 and plan on voting in 2008? How many

times

> > did you get left back? But, if you're old enough to vote, please DO

vote

> > libertarian. That will essentially be another vote for the Democrat.

>

> I think the common wisdom about vote wasting is stupid. If enough

> people get disgusted with Republican failure to deliver and vote

> Libertarian maybe the party will get the message.

 

That's doubtful. The Republican Party didn't get the message the voters

sent in November. But, from my perspective, that's a good thing. I'd love

to see the Libertarians replace the GOP as the #2 party in the country. It

makes for clearer choices.

[Guest kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Feb 16, 12:12 am, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Feb 16, 12:12 am, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> I believe you assume wrong. Every Republican that I talked to who planned

> to vote for Bush in '04 gave such reasons as "He'll keep us safe, but

> Kerry's on the side of the terrorists" or "Kerry wants us all to turn

> queer". If you dig into Usenet archives, you'll find similar sentiments

> expressed in writing by many pro-Bush posters on these groups.

 

It's anecdotal. You clearly talk to different Republicans than I do.

> > Republicans tend to have a better education and be

> > wealthier, on the whole, than Democrats, no?

>

> No. Both parties have their fair share of rich and poor, educated and

> near-illiterate.

> Examples:

>

> EDUCATION: Most university professors, and most K-12 teachers are

> Democrats. Most PhD's are Democrats. Most CEO's and other well-educated

> corporate officers and managers are Republicans. Most MBA's are

> Republicans. Conversely, a black inner-city high school dropout is likely

> to be a Democrat, while a white country boy who dropped out of school to

> work on the family farm, and a "good ole boy" trailer park denizen who can

> barely write his own name on his bar tab are both likely to vote Republican.

 

What are you quoting this from? Yes I am sure most unionized public

school teachers are Democrats; I don't need that proven, nor that most

most university professors are.

 

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=124

 

The two parties draw from different wells, however. Republicans enjoy

a clear affiliation edge in many of the demographic categories that

make up the traditional core or center of the American electorate.

More whites consider themselves Republicans rather than Democrats.

Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those

from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as

Republican. This reflects the Republican party's "main street"

advantage. In contrast, the Democratic party is more attractive to

less wealthy and minority segments of the electorate. African

Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats, as are a plurality of

Hispanics, city dwellers, union workers, whites who earn less than

$30,000 per year, singles, widows and divorced people, and single

moms.

> WEALTH: Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and 3/4 of the

> Hollywood crowd are all very wealthy Democrats. The entire Bush family,

> Donald Trump, Wally O'Dell, Rush Limbaugh and the remaining 1/4 of the

> Hollywood crowd are all very wealthy Republicans.

>

> Neither education nor wealth seem to be much of a deciding factor when it

> comes to political affiliation. Location is a stronger indicator. Urban

> people tend to lean Democratic, while rural folk are predominantly

> Republican.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > > > > There's little doubt that a friendly Supreme Court was a major

> > > contributing

> > > > > factor to Bush's "win" in 2000, but the election in Florida wouldn't

> > > have

> > > > > been close enough to get the Supreme Court involved had Ralph Nader

> not

> > > > > drawn nearly 100,000 votes away from Gore.

>

> > > > 1) Wrong; several independent analyses confirmed he won FL.

>

> > > And several other independent analyses dispute that claim, based on the

> > > number of ballots that had been thrown out and never included in any

> > > analysis.

>

> > I am citing the Miami Herald team that actually went and looked at the

> > ballots. If ballots were thrown out, it was because their indication

> > of voting was indistinct. What independent analyses disputed that

> > Bush won based on ballots that were indeterminate?

>

> Along with the Miami Herald, the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor,

> the Associated Press and MSNBC were all part of the "Media Consortium" team

> who conducted that review of the ballots to which you refer. However,

> unlike the Herald, all three of the above made mention of the fact that

> nearly 3,000 "undervotes" and "overvotes", where the indication of the

> voter's intention was not at all "indistinct", were withheld from the tally

> at insistence of Katherine Harris.

 

You're absolutely wrong about the Herald and the undervotes.

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/miami.herald.recount/

 

And define overvote for me.

> Eric Alterman of MSNBC wrote "Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and

> he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you count 'hanging chads'

> and he won if you counted a 'dimpled chad.' He won if you counted a dimpled

> chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot - the

> so-called 'Palm Beach' standard. He even won if you counted only a

> fully-punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled oval on an

> optical scan and he won if you counted only a fully-filled optical scan. He

> won if you fairly counted the absentee ballots. No matter how you count it,

> if everyone who legally voted in Florida had had a chance to see their vote

> matter, Al Gore would be sitting in the Oval Office today."

 

Who cares what Eric Alterman wrote? What data is he citing?

> The AP article didn't say it quite so clearly, but stated "A full, statewide

> recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's 537-vote

> victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes,

> depending on how valid votes are defined."

 

It COULD have depending on how valid votes are defined. IOW, if we

left improperly cast ballots up to the whims of whoever was

interpreting they may have come up with a different result. True, and

absolutely meaningless.

> It will probably NEVER be really clear who actually won the 2000

election,

> but it became a moot point when Gore conceded "for the good of the nation"

> to "let the healing begin". Of course, we can all easily see how well the

> country "healed" with George W. "I'm a uniter; not a divider" Bush at the

> helm of the ship of state, with his "my way or the highway, 'cause I'M the

> Decider" approach to everything.

 

HAHAHA! Gore contested the election in the first place AFTER

conceding! Clearly he was all about promoting national healing

[saving face] as soon as the SCOTUS slapped down all of his legal

objections.

> > > > Furthermore, the nature of the objections was absolutely ludicrous. I

> > > > lived in Palm Beach County and was able to understand the infamous

> > > > butterfly ballot on a field trip in 3rd grade.

>

> > > Really? So you're only in the 10th grade now? You write fairly well,

> for a

> > > high school student.

>

> > Haha! It is interesting that you've drawn the inference that the Bush/

> > Gore electoral squabble was the first time that Palm Beach County used

> > the butterfly ballot. You happen to be wrong.

>

> You indicated that you were able to understand THAT particular ballot on a

> field trip in the 3rd grade. [snip rationalizing]

 

Palm Beach used the butterfly ballot for decades before a cantankerous

bunch suddenly decided they thought they might have miscast their

ballots. It was not a hard ballot to figure out.

> > Voters were instructed, back when I was in the third grade even, to

> > make sure no chads were loose. The FL Supreme Court's decision to

> > flout our electoral laws regarding number of recounts and attempts to

> > divine voter intent from improperly cast ballots were shameful.

>

> Agreed. There should have been only one recount. One COMPLETE recount, of

> the entire state, which was the Gore campaign's original proposal, which the

> Bush campaign didn't want to allow.

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

 

"Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in

heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia

counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some

additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-

vote margin statewide."

> > > How about the folks who never make it to the polls because

> > > of a police checkpoint set up between their homes and their polling

> place

> > > stalling traffic in black neighborhoods until after the polls close?

>

> > Where was this?

>

> There were several such incidents reported on election night, but most of

> them were in or around Jacksonville, if I recall the story correctly.

 

I can't find a single verified source for this claim.

> > > How

> > > about those who are intimidated by large men, sitting in lawnchairs set

> up

> > > in the beds of their Bush-bumper-stickered pickup trucks, holding

> baseball

> > > bats? Do those folks deserve to be disenfranchised, as well?

>

> > Where was this?

>

> Pensacola and Panama City

 

Nor this. Links please.

> > Well then good that Nader chose to run; he accurately represented a

> > faction of the Democrats Gore didn't represent.

>

> Good for Bush. Bad for America.

 

I don't get the whole wasted vote mentality.

> > > The right only wins when an uninformed public believes their lies and

> spin.

> > > Reagan captured the "Reagan Democrats" by promising tax cuts, coupled

> with

> > > reduced spending.

>

> > Then your point is that the Republicans win on ideology but fail to

> > deliver on their promises. I'd agree; go Libertarians!

>

> I'm OK with Libertarians . . . in fact I much prefer them to the Greens . .

> . but there aren't enough of either group for them ever to make a

> significant difference except as spoilers, hurting the major party that

> comes closest to their views.

 

Bah; enough elections get 'spoiled' and the major party will wake up

and smell the coffee.

> > I predict otherwise. Time will tell.

>

> That it will. But I'd be interested in your "otherwise" prediction. Mine

> is Richardson coming from behind to get the Dem nomination and Giuliani

> maintaining his slim lead over McCain to get the GOP nod. If that plays

> out, the "family values" wing of the Republican Party will stay home on

> election day. No way they'll come out for a pro-choice adultrous

> philanderer who stays with gay friends when he's on the "outs" with his

> estranged wife. Add to that the dirt that'll be coming out on the Bush

> Administration now that the Democrats have the power to launch

> investigations and hold hearings, and the middle will abandon the GOP as

> well, especially if the Dems have a fiscally conservative moderate like

> Richardson at the top of the ticket.

 

I haven't tapped into the zeitgeist as you have. All I know is I'll

vote Libertarian unless the Republicans put Forbes up again.

[Guest r wiley]

"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:er13n5$tiv$1@news.albasani.net...

>

> "fargo116" <fargo116@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1171517987.976256.266480@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> On Feb 13, 9:15 pm, "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>> <President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)> wrote

>>> in messagenews:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

>>>

>>> > "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>

>>> >>"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>> >>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>> >>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but her

>>> >>> political prescience as well.

>>> >>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>>>

>>> > <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>>> > that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>>>

>>> because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use this to

>>> fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

>>

>> LMAO! Sylvia claims not to care about the grammys and the Dixie Chicks

>> while posting eight times in a thread about that very subject. LOL!

>

> Don't know who this Sylvia person is, but it's not the fact that I care if they won. It's the fact that you see it as a

> watershed moment in history. It isn't, all it is about is the music industry being political and passing over talent for a

> political message.

>

 

You may be as much as half right for a change. The music industry clearly

made a political statement acknowledging that the Dixie Chicks were ahead

of the curve in seeing through George W. Bush's WMD Bushit That said,

who displayed more talent than the Chicks? The Busheviks loved Dixie Chicks

music until the Chicks started telling the truth about George W. Bush.

 

rw

 

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in

order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".

 

George W. Bush

 

"I had other priorities."

 

Dick Cheney

[Guest SHb]

""The Busheviks loved Dixie Chicks

music until the Chicks started telling the truth about George W. Bush."""

 

So Logic follows from that statement..

The School teacher pedophile was revered by his friends and family until he

was caught fucking his students!

You somehow fault the freinds and family!

 

"r wiley" <rawiley@att.net> wrote in message

news:DYdCh.92926$2m6.9990@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>

> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:er13n5$tiv$1@news.albasani.net...

>>

>> "fargo116" <fargo116@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:1171517987.976256.266480@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>>> On Feb 13, 9:15 pm, "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>> <President Obama. Get used to it. (President Obama. Get used to it.)>

>>>> wrote

>>>> in messagenews:12t4v232fuqnp7e@corp.supernews.com...

>>>>

>>>> > "SyVyN11" <syvy...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> >>"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

>>>> >>news:58v3t2pdfupk356f6jhfedvua1na692s1i@4ax.com...

>>>> >>> Here's to not just Maines' incredible artistic achievements, but

>>>> >>> her

>>>> >>> political prescience as well.

>>>> >>Don't know of any Dicksee Chunks fueled depression in the right wing.

>>>>

>>>> > <smile> I can see you're badly upset by this, rightard. I'm happy

>>>> > that you're ginding your teeth and turning red.

>>>>

>>>> because this is your top issue right now. you are desperate to use

>>>> this to

>>>> fuel your deluison that all americans side with you.

>>>

>>> LMAO! Sylvia claims not to care about the grammys and the Dixie Chicks

>>> while posting eight times in a thread about that very subject. LOL!

>>

>> Don't know who this Sylvia person is, but it's not the fact that I care

>> if they won. It's the fact that you see it as a watershed moment in

>> history. It isn't, all it is about is the music industry being political

>> and passing over talent for a political message.

>>

>

> You may be as much as half right for a change. The music industry clearly

> made a political statement acknowledging that the Dixie Chicks were ahead

> of the curve in seeing through George W. Bush's WMD Bushit That said,

> who displayed more talent than the Chicks? The Busheviks loved Dixie

> Chicks

> music until the Chicks started telling the truth about George W. Bush.

>

> rw

>

> "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in

> order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".

>

> George W. Bush

>

> "I had other priorities."

>

> Dick Cheney

>

>

>

[Guest r wiley]

"SHb" <sherb@iNO_SPAMntergate.com> wrote in message news:12tjoa3k25qpbcf@corp.supernews.com...

> ""The Busheviks loved Dixie Chicks

> music until the Chicks started telling the truth about George W. Bush."""

>

> So Logic follows from that statement..

> The School teacher pedophile was revered by his friends and family until he was caught fucking his students!

> You somehow fault the freinds and family!

>

 

 

Telling the truth about George W. Bush = child molesttion?

 

That's a wild leap even for a Bushevik.

 

 

rw

 

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in

order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".

 

George W. Bush

 

"I had other priorities."

 

Dick Cheney