-14, A NEW RECORD LOW
It's not that they have no shame, they are bolshevicks and are clasicly following the communist party tactic of making sure the documents say only what they want them to say.
The people in power worshiped lennon and his methods they are only doing what is natural order to them.
As for Murtha he is just but one of a list of politicians from my state that prove the radiation from 3 mile island fried the brains of 3/4 of the population in the state and Murtha an Specter must have been standing right on the island that day...
Murtha does seem to be brain dead. What a clown.
Boehner? The crybaby? A fighter? ROFLMAO!
I'll just repeat what I said on the other thread:
Elmo, you're an idiot!
Stalin once remarked about elections;"It doesn't matter who votes or how many vote it it only matters who counts the votes". 50 years of one party and heavy handed rule in congress has created an acrimonious atomosphere and the democrats have only themselves to blame. They have less than a year to get their policies into bills and voted on. After that they will be a permanent minority.
Jennifer typed:
50 years of one party and heavy handed rule in congress has created an acrimonious atomosphere and the democrats have only themselves to blame.
Ok I'll bite.
Jennifer, cryptically, typed '50 years of one party'.
Which one?
And which fifty years?
And where exactly?
And thanks again Mike for sticking only to the facts. Them Demos, liberals and commies get so carried away with their feelings they wouldn't have the wherewithall to just sit down, take a deep breath and post a photo of one of the 20th century's foremost mass murderers to illustrate their opponents.
Well done!
Well at least you admit Stalin is a mass murderer.
Some of your pals still worship him as a role model.
But no matter what, I see you're still defending the indefensible.
Typical Stalinist behavior.
Boehner is one of the leading, if not leading recipients of money form AIPAC. He's a bought-out strumpet,in other words and has lied about the status of the Iraq War countless times,hoping to save the investment Israel placed in him.
Do you really want to talk about stolen votes and stolen elections?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
891358.html
Don't worry about the Dems, Millerites-not unless Kucinich or Gravel seizes power against the ruling elite. The Haaretz story shows what it's all about-protecting Israel, and Hoyer and the mainstream traitor Dems will keep America in Iraq if Israel sez so.
Toadbat: Every newspaper, including the NY Treason counted, and recounted those Florida votes.
Only a fool believes Bush stole that election.
Which explains you.
Yup let's talk about stolen elections toadbat. First though I have to admonish arthur for his ignorance. arthur you are ignorant and your comments speak directly to it. The democrats controlled the US Congress for fifty years before Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America (watch the demobot comment inserted right after that Mike, they're too predictable)Anyway there was only a two year period that the republicans controlled the Senate in those fifty years because of the rules the democrats set in place to keep and maintain power. Newt had enough as the American people did and kicked the democrats to the curb even defeating the House Speaker Tom Foley, that was historical.
Now get your face gaurd on Toadbat because you'r going to need it. In 1960 when the race for President was too close call halfway through the night, a sudden surge of votes was recieved from Chicago Illinois that barely put John Fiztgerald Kennedy over the top to defeat Richard Milhous Nixon to go down in history as the first recorded stolen election in the history of the race for the presidency. It was later proven that organized labor (teamsters) and oraganized crime (La Costra Nostra) headed by Sam Giancana deliveered the west side wards to claim victory for Kennedy
Later in the Year 2000 democrats attempted to steal the election in Florida by falsifying the amount of votes cast and votes counted with so caled hanging chads on ballot cards. Later a consotium of major news organizations NORC went to Florida, paid for the all the costs associated with the project to study and evaluate the Florida voting system. They recounted the votes after determining for themselves the proper methodology and found the margin of victory even greater than was reported intially.
Ouch Toadbat, that must sting.
That margin of victory was overwhelmingly in the favor of George W Bush. I had to add that to counter the inevetible cynical remarks.
Jennifer: Toadbat, like so many of his ilk, choose to be willfully ignorant and simply repeat the loony left line about Bush stealing the election.
They do the same thing on nearly every issue where the party line gets dictated to them and they simply repeat it like a gaggle of demented parrots all squawking "HALLIBURTON, HALLIBURTON."
It's easier for them to do that than face the reality that they are being constantly manipulated by leaders who know that their followers will accept any lie, and the bigger the better, all for the sake of pursuing political power.
The practice of disseminating false information among Democrats has become so widespread that I believe it is the foundation for Bush Derangement Syndrome and a host of other pathologies which seem to trap many of these people in an endless state of anger, hatred, denial and delusion.
If the consequences of a Hillary presidency were not so grave, it would almost be fun to watch the leftie's heads explode as she not only leaves our troops in Iraq, but also hires Halliburton with no bid contracts to continue building bases there.
Well, Miller, you've got something there. But it's also fun to realize how frustrated and disconcerted you are and would continue to be, about the inevitable continuing bloody Iraq quagmire for our troops (we realize you care nothing about the innocent Iraqis the US kills) under a hypothetical Hillary presidency.
By the way, a story broke today concerning UK officer criticisms
of bloody, unnecessary overkill of Afghani civilians by US troops.
The Brits complaint alos being that
it is making their job much more difficult because a multitude of
Afghanis are being alienated against
the Brits too because of US barbarity.
I won't refight that battle. I only need to know one thing. When all the countable ballots got counted, Gore earned more votes in FL than Bush.
A whole lotta factors intentional & accidental conspired to change the results the voters intended. But buried in the "Bush won" media stories when the NORC results got released, is that fact that when all the votes got counted, Bush didn't really deserve to win. To me, "Every countable vote cast" is the only standard and scenario that matters...
Does it boil down to a case of "shit happens?"
Yeah, it does... ...& it has.
Took time to find the report from an unbiased source. This link goes to a pdf file of the actual Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project final report. (Can't get more unbiased than that...)
See Table 1 (8th page)
Al Gore conceded the election and filed no formal complaint of wrong doing.
Case Closed.
I was a supporter of Gore back then I thought he badly mismanaged the whole affair, but never stooped to the stolen election hysteria.
This was seven years ago. Geeeezzzz...
Repsac starts weekend crack smoking fest a tad early this week!
Good grief! Next you'll be telling us we're stealing Iraq's oil!
Mike typed:
Good grief! Next you'll be telling us we're stealing Iraq's oil!
Don't be absurd Mike. Everyone knows all those huge oil revenues are going directly into funding the reconstruction efforts there in Iraq.
That is, in large part, why things are going so beautifully.
Right?
" Repsac starts weekend crack smoking fest a tad early this week!"
Fun for you to say, no doubt...
But what are you actually refuting?
Do you not believe the numbers on the NORC report?
Do you not think every vote cast that expresses the will of a voter should count?
What exactly is the argument you're making?
Yes, FN Gore tossed in the towel. Election over, & case closed.
But that doesn't change the actual vote count.
It's the same as the Nixon/Kennedy election mentioned earlier. Regardless of who ended up in office, it doesn't change the facts about IL.
Like I said, shit happens. I'm over it, but still believe the actual vote count as shown in the report, anyway...
"Yes, FN Gore tossed in the towel. Election over, & case closed."
And yet it seems you just can't help but bring it all up again and take one more spin cycle around.
That's just typical time wasting bull shit.
Bush won Florida. He didn't steal the election.
Get over it.
I'm sorry, WHO brought it up?
Wasn't me, Mike...
As far as the rest, believe what you like. I'm going with the actual final vote count.
Yeah, Bush won!
repsac repeated the lie again and I won't let it go by...Gore earned more votes in FL than Bush.
For goodness sakes repsac I just got done telling you that is a total lie. The consortium of major news publications proved it with iron clad certainty, gosh you guys are really brainwashed. Gore did not get more votes in Florida and he lost the election period.
Jennifer, you're welcome to tell me anything you'd like. But I went to the source YOU gave, and found that what you're telling me differs from the truth.
This is a link to a pdf copy of the actual report the media consortium & NORC put out:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/
200405...eatingPaper.pdf
(I got it to create a clickable link yesterday (see 5:15pm comment), but I'm gettin' some glitch today.)
Go to the 8th page, and look at the top of Table 1, where they give the results for "Review of All Ballots Statewide," and then list the candidate who received the most votes. It ain't Bush.
You don't have to believe them if you don't wish to. But they do seem to've done the most thorough count of FL's votes... ...and they are the source you cited, originally.
Also from the report:
"Rather than dimples or not-dimples, the deciding factor in the recount was inclusion of all ballots or only a subset of ballots. And the deciding line was very simple – if all of the ballots were counted there were enough potential Al Gore votes to give him a victory, but any smaller subset of ballots would retain or even enlarge George W. Bush’s margin."
"if all of the ballots were counted..."
For me, that is the only acceptable election scenario, and the one I'll hang my hat on. Count every legitimate & countable vote.
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed)
Review Method Winner Margin of Victory
Gore request for recounts of all ballots in
Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and
Volusia counties
Bush 225 votes
Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes
statewide
Bush 430 votes
Florida Supreme Court as being implemented
by the counties, some of whom refused and
some counted overvotes as well as
undervotes
Bush 493 votes
Certified Result (Official Final Count)
Recounts included from Volusia and
Broward only Bush 537
Repsac: The fact that you continue to grasp at straws here is proof you haven't moved on. You're fixated on this.
This is why I mentioned vote stealing in my post on Democrat behavior in Congress. One would think that after whining for nearly 7 years about Florida, Democrats would be extremely careful in how they recorded votes in the U.S. House of Represenatatives.
Your comments suggest that they need not have that concern as they know they can count on whatever spin they put on the issue being parroted by willing accomplices like yourself.
Yes, Mike...
If you don't count all the votes, Bush wins. That is my point, too. If that's the way you believe elections should be decided, I think it's kinda sad. (& I also question who's grasping at straws to achieve the result they prefer.)
I understand why you mentioned it. To a certain extent, I even agree, particularly in that first case where the guy called the vote early... (You keep accusing me of spinning, even when I agree with you... I find that odd.)
But the facts about FL in 2000 remain. Under the scenarios where not every vote gets counted (including the very plan Gore advanced at the time), Bush received more votes of the ones not left aside. When EVERY vote is counted, Gore received more votes.
The facts don't change who's serving, nor do I think they should. But that doesn't mean it ain't folly to say "Bush got more votes... ...as long as you leave some votes out."
So now a "vote" is whatever you say it is. If you hold the ballot up to the light sideways and you think you see a slight crease next to Al Gore's name that's a vote.
But if it's clearly punched for Pat Buchanan, that's a mistake?
Have I got it now?
Nice try Repsac. Get over it.
"So now a "vote" is whatever you say it is."
No, it's whatever the National Opinion Research Center said it was. Did you go to the site your friend Jennifer linked to yesterday? (2000 Florida Ballots Project) Did you read the methodology of the study they did, and who was involved in the verious aspects of it?
This is the group that that consortium of newspapers paid to get to the truth. It is the group that Jennifer cited as proof.
Whatever you think about them, it wasn't me deciding anything, except to trust their study of the votes and the result they came to. As far as I am aware, it is the most difinative study of the facts of the situation. If you're offering an independent study you trust more, I'm willing to read it.
I cited from the link you supplied.
Guess what? It showed Bush winning.
Get over it.
This distraction technique of yours is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the clear erasing of official records Democrats in the House have engaged in lately.
Yes... as long as you don't count all the votes, Bush gets more of the ones you do count... I know.
It's obvious that the concept of "counting all the votes cast" is not an idea you're in favor of, because that kind of real democracy might hurt your candidate. The fact is, when they finally counted all of the votes that could be counted in FL, Gore received more of them.
Unless you're going to offer anything more substantive to the debate, I submit the sites I offered above, and leave it to whomever reads the final vote count to chose to believe whatever they will.
this is the tactic that they employed to try and say that algore won. they argue and argue no matter what the facts show. More votes werew cast for George Bush. You can illegitimate vottes whatever you care to but they are just that illegitmate and they din't caount and they don't count. We are right back where I quoted Joe Stalin;"It doesn't matter who votes or how many vote it it only matters who counts the votes". The Stalinists wanted to keep counting votes that did not count.
I'm sorry, Jennifer... But am I or am I not looking at the very NORC study that YOU cited?
Are you now saying we SHOULDN'T trust them, because their lying, or results are not what you thought they were?
Choose the history that most suits you, I guess... I'm going to stick with counting all the votes.
yeah and they clearly cite illigitamite ballots were not counted and they never counted for anything more than a recycle bin. One hole per per candidate per ballot if that was missing or wrong or tampered with the ballot was invalid and disqualified as it should be. Bush had more votes the others that did not qaulify did not count nor should they and that was determined nby all parties except for algore's disgruntled illegal vote counters.
It seems to me these non-partisan folks at NORC felt the ballots in question were valid... Besides, their standards were pretty reasonable:
When they did a "Review of All Ballots Statewide", and used each of the following scenarios:
Standard as set by each count Canvassing Board during their survey: Gore 171 votes
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots:
Gore 115 votes
Any dimples or optical mark:
Gore 107 votes
One corner of chad detached or optical mark:
Gore 60 votes
Clearly, these votes were not illegitamate. They were readable, and clearly showed countable votes. There was not more or less than one vote/ballot, or any tampering. (I suppose you'd count a vote for Gore as being a "wrong" vote, but these folks were looking for the actual result, not a particular political result.)
Dispite your claim to the contrary, it was not Al's people who came up with this result, but a research firm.
More game playing.
I notice you completely dodged any mention of Dems fudging records in the House of Representatives.
I'll take that as an implied support for the tactic.
Nice job of trying to sidetrack the issue.
If by "dodge" you mean not volunteering comment, you may be right... (Did anyone ask?)
I have no real opinion on it just yet... I'd like to see the rules that dictate what must, can, and cannot be added to the House record. I'd like to know who is in charge of compiling it, as well (Is it the party in charge, or a government employee, like the clerk or the parliamentarian?)
Show it was one or more Democrats that broke a rule (or even just a tradition) & I'll be suitably offended, and willingly say so, same as I have before...
Didn't try to sidetrack anything, Mike... I responded to the commentary of others... ...just like you did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2001Nov11.html
Your article says what the study says, only in paragraph form.
If you DON'T count all the votes:
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two LIMITED RECOUNTS -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations."
If you DO count all the votes:
"But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins."
Here in this country our election ideals include counting all the votes we can. Your persistence in claiming that Bush received more votes suggests you don't support that ideal.
I support counting all the legitimate votes. One person one vote. If you go into the voting booth a screw it up that's too fricken bad. They could onlt count the votes that count. Ones that they could detemine what the vote was. not what you believe it was meant to be, speculating what someone's intent was is the wrong way to approach the count and the courts agreed. You ONLY COUNT THE VOTES THAT COUNT!
"Voter intent" means being able to "detemine what the vote was," not some voodoo speculation about what the vote might be. Finding every legitimate vote & why they were not properly counted was the whole point of the review, Jennifer.
The courts stopped the counting at the request of Republicans. Maybe there was some legal or practical basis (though I wonder about any court ruling where they have to explicitly say "this sets no precident, and can never be cited in any other case."), but it certainly wasn't count every legitimate vote.
When they did a "Review of All Ballots Statewide," -- that is, ALL the votes -- and used the "Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey" -- the rules in place at the time, as set by the counties -- : Gore earned 171 votes more than Bush.
Still playing that game are you Rep?
You do realize of course that be redefining what a "vote" is and what it is not you are on a slipperly slope.
There's plenty of evidence that tens of thousands of voters in the panhandle of Florida turned away from the polls when the news reports announced Gore had won.
Their intention, as determined in past elections, would have been overwhelmingly to support the Republican candidate.
So, using your new formula of voter intention, Bush won in a landslide.
But again, I shouldn't indulge you in this matter as it's clear you would rather talk about that than the substance of this post.
To which I might add that since Democrats control the House of Represenatives and the Clerk's Office which is responsible for maintaining the records and voting systems, it is their responsibility to see that records and votes are accurate.
But I'm sure you'll find some way to weasel around that.
"You do realize of course that be redefining what a "vote" is and what it is not you are on a slipperly slope."
Redefining what a vote is? How am I doing any such thing?
"So, using your new formula of voter intention, Bush won in a landslide."
If their intent is determined from votes actually cast, I would agree. I don't believe we can determine via mindreading or past performance, though.
I'm only talking about counting actual votes.
"To which I might add that since Democrats control the House of Represenatives and the Clerk's Office which is responsible for maintaining the records and voting systems, it is their responsibility to see that records and votes are accurate."
From what I read, I think Hoyer's "Enough is enough." ought to be included in the record. I don't see anything that suggested he opened a debate by saying it, though. (At least, I can't find it... If you can, I'd be most interested.)
I already said I thought the Dems were wrong as concerned that vote. The more I read about it though, the less sure I am that anyone did anything maliciously... Like FL in 2000, I think the outcome is the result of fate, accident, and bad decision-making by parties on both sides. I'll be interested to see what the committee says.
I don't think it's Stalinesque or martial law, and I think you cheapen the experiences of those who lived under such things by making these exaggerated claims. (Yes, Democrats do it too... ...and they're also wrong.)
"Redefining what a vote is? How am I doing any such thing?"
Read the above.
"I'm only talking about counting actual votes."
But you're going to define that any way you like.
Why is it that I have to repeat myself here? You just seem hell bent on interpreting what is, or is not, a vote any way you like to suit yourself according to "intentions."
Yet, apparently you think you have an exclusive right to assign intentions, just as you would like to control the definitions and agenda of all discussion points.
Sorry, but it ain't going to work.
P.S. Clearly you don't understand the workings of the House of Representatives. Sorry I don't have a definitive source at my disposal to explain it, but something tells me that if, or when, I do you'll just shower me with another "yes, but."
Again, just another example of how you can't take a strong stand on anything except your preconceived notion that conservatives are to blame for all the world's problems.
Josef Stalin lives on.
That about sums it up Jennifer.
The definition of a "vote" & "voter intent" was determined by the county canvassing boards in the state of FL, not by me... Take it up with them. (Good try, though...)
"Clearly you don't understand the workings of the House of Representatives."
I said as much... That's why I'm looking for the facts... I found where the rules say what should & should not go into the House Record, but nothing about whether an exclamation about a resolution opens debate on it.
Sorry I don't have a definitive source at my disposal to explain it,"
So, you're claiming you have the clear understanding that I lack, but cannot point to anything to back you up.
That's not going to cut it, except perhaps with those who already agree with you.
"but something tells me that if, or when, I do you'll just shower me with another "yes, but."
You can use that excuse, if you like... Some folks'll buy it.
"Again, just another example of how you can't take a strong stand on anything except your preconceived notion that conservatives are to blame for all the world's problems."
You are welcome to go on deluding yourself in that regard... The fact that I do criticize folks in both parties as I deem they deserve it (including on this issue) should in no way stand the way of you pulling facts & opinions from thin air.
Take up the matter of voter intent with election boards controlled by Democrats?
Why should I? You've done an excellent job explaining that the rules can be changed to suit your political objectives and that this right is NOT EVER extended to Republicans.
And you prove that by your waffling on House rules that are being violated by your friends.
" Take up the matter of voter intent with election boards controlled by Democrats?"
If that's the law, & that's who's in charge, then yes. Or bitch to NORC & the media folks, if you prefer. Or, just whine to your fellow Cons on the internet.
I cannot do more than show you the facts of the case, from a source that one of your compatriots suggested. If you want to ignore what the report says, or bitch about how unfair it all is, you're on your own.
Same on the House Rules thing. Until I see actual evidence that you are correct, I'm not going to accept your interpretation of events. If you think that "proves" some bad ol' thing about me, you're welcome to shout your opinion from the rooftops of your make-believe cyber country, here...
" cannot do more than show you the facts of the case, "
And spin, spin spin faster than the washing machine downstairs.
I'd think you'd get dizzy after all that, but I see you have an infinite capacity to try and divert attention from the issue.
Perhaps you should check with House Leader Boehner, who was the source for my understanding of rules and precedent.
The links have always been there, but apparently you're too dizzy in your fantasy land where conservatives are blamed for everything to click them.
"...check with House Leader Boehner, who was the source for my understanding of rules and precedent.
Nope, nothin' on his site, either.
Let me know if you have something more substantive to say on any of these topics than all the baseless accusations and footstamping... (divert this, spin that... No actual proof in the bunch.)
Repsac: My usual rate for providing library services to people who are willfully ignorant is $100 per hour with a one hour minimum.
I'll contact you with the address to which you can mail the check for $100.00. Even though it only took thirty seconds to find this link on House Leader Boehner's page:
http://
republicanleader.house.go...ocumentID=70886
See last paragraph:
NOTE: After Boehner offered a privileged resolution yesterday on whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) brought dishonor and discredit to the House by misusing the powers of the chair over the Thursday night vote, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) rose to say “Enough is enough” – constituting debate which triggers a full hour of open debate to allow members to be heard on the measure. Yet those words have been EXPUNGED from the Congressional Record as if they never happened, purged from the public record without a trace. Do the leaders of the Democratic Party really believe the American people are this easily fooled?"
The least you could do is apologize for your smear above and admit you were wrong.
But I fully expect you to follow your typical pattern which is to move the goal posts or try and redefine the terms of the argument or change the subject altogether.
You are predictable, transparent AND WRONG! And it's about time you admit it!
Give me a break with the moralizing & holier-than-thouness... It's gettin' old...
I know what Boehner claims... It is the very thing you're parroting. I got that.
What I don't see is his basis for making the claim... What does the actual rule say?
Where can I find it & judge for myself, or read what other more learned folks have had to say on the subject?
Under what circumstances this rule has been broken before, and what happened in those cases?
I'm curoious as to why no one is citing the actual rule in question while bitching about this, and why few aside party partisans like yourself took Boehner's claims seriously...
Yeah, yeah, I know... Spin this, no practical, effective that... Skip it, please, and answer the queries if you know...
"Let me know if you have something more substantive to say on any of these topics than all the baseless accusations"
As you see, it's not a baseless claim after all.
Clearly House Members from both parties understood the matter, and if you bothered to watch the video you might have gotten a glimmer of insight along those lines.
Unless you have some SOLID, substantive documentation to prove Boehner's claim false, I suggest it is once again YOU who is spinning like a Maytag.
Do you think Boehner just made it up?
Get real!
You're becoming even more transparent than usual.
I never said Boehner was making a false claim--the baseless accusations line was about you and the "spinning" "hate all conservatives" "..." rhetoric you so enjoy tossing--but I would like to see the actual rule and how it's been enforced in the past before declaring anyone guilty of breaking it this time.
I had no problem saying that Hoyer's "Enough is enough" line ought to appear in the House record after reading the rule governing what should & should not appear...
A healthy does of skepticism is a good thing... Even folks you trust can try to mislead you, sometimes... If I were you, I wouldn't believe Boehner is giving you the whole truth just because the words issued from his lips. It's not like he hasn't any motive to stretch the truth about this rule...
" I wouldn't believe Boehner is giving you the whole truth"
Even though you have no information to counter the claim that Hoyer's "enough is enough" constituted one sided debate under House Rules.
If it wasn't a rule, YOU would have heard about it by now.
It should be abundantly clear that Hoyer's statement was removed from the record precisely to dull the charges of abuse of power. And of course Dems know they can count on your to look the other way.
So once again, you'll disbelieve anything a Republican or conservative says and yet accept, apparently with no further inspection required, the view held by Democrats and Al Queda.
You're starting to lose what little credibility you have left. And IF you value your intellectual integrity, you would engaging in these evasive tactics.
If you cannot ever accept that something is wrong, Democrats conduct clearly is here, than how can you possibly expect anyone, including Republicans whom you certainly hold to a higher standard, to take calls for accountability seriously?
Your one way fingerpointing is the best enabler to Democrats who trash the Constitution.
I hate to steer us off topic again, but I'm late to this thread.
Repsac: Something else to consider, as food for thought...
About 20% of votes gets thrown out for various reasons in every election and in every state already, right?
Well, Florida was indeed a very, very close race. That being acknowledged, did you know that 4 other states were also within less than half of one per cent in difference? I forget one of them, but three of them were Iowa (I'm pretty sure), Wisconsin, and New Mexico (only 300 votes differentiated Gore and Bush- in Florida it was something like 500 a 500 vote differential). And guess what else? Gore won these 4 other states, no different really than Florida; what if Bush wanted to pull the same stunt as Gore did over Florida? At a certain point, this only hurts us, and one can probably draw questions regarding many elections, tying us up forever.
Further to my point about those states which were close wins for Gore: Florida is worth only 25 electoral votes. These 4 other states were worth 30 each, from what I can recall.
Yes, votes get tossed in every election. As Americans, we should do all we can to keep the percentage down, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the election. (Some votes really are not valid for one reason or another; I know that we cannot count every one, and I'm not recommending our being as thorough in every state as these researchers were in FL.)
You are also correct about there being other states that were very close in 2000. I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they also had recounts of one kind or another. In some places, including FL, as I recall, a certain differential between candidates triggers an AUTOMATIC recount by law, regardless of what either candidate does or doesn't want to do. I don't even recall at this point where canvassing & recounting according to FL law ended and lawsuits by one candidate or the other, as to exactly what & how to count, began.
What I do know is, whatever this or that court ruled, and regardless of the fact that Mr. Bush entered the White House, a study of all the ballots determined that he did not earn the majority of the votes in FL, and thus really shouldn't've been there.
I don't want us to have every election be determined by marathon court battles, and I don't want us tied up for months after an election (though I'm not opposed to spending some time getting it right. Accuracy trumps speed, as far as I'm concerned). As I said above, I don't believe that we need a research firm to unravel the inner workings and real truth of every election. I've pretty much gotten over the various accidents & intentional actions that conspired to hand Mr. Bush the White House. If this recount hadn't taken place, I wouldn't be claiming that Mr. Bush did not win. Knowing he did not didn't cause me to call for his ouster, even to this day. Shit happens. That election's long over. The best we can do is learn from the problems that happened there, so that they do not repeat themselves.
The fact is though, the study of the ballots did take place, and there is a definative answer as to who actually received the most votes. I see no reason to dismiss that, particularly when some still vociferously claim the opposite result.
Lotta talk saying nothing, Mike...
You can believe and disbelieve anyone you want, for any reason you want. I'm going to continue to be skeptical until I have more information about the actual rule and how it's been applied.
You needn't agree, and can protest the way I think and toss your allegations as to why I do as I do all you like.
In the absence of more facts than I have or can find, I'm not going to guess at the guilt of anyone.
"Lotta talk saying nothing"
I see you are transfering again.
You have yet to provide ONE valid counter argument to the point of this post.
You have used, some would say abused, the comment stream here with a tiresome endless and transparent attempt to change the subject rather than demonstrate a scintilla of intellectual integrity.
If you had anything to counter Boehner's assertion regarding House Rules surely you would have displayed it by now.
The only conclusion that anyone reading this thread can be left with is that you are simply not serious about any of these issues. Instead, you're just playing a game.
And you've LOST!
Repsac3, in regards to voting; where does the government's responsibility end and the voter's responsibility begin? I believe the government has a responsibility to provide a voting process by which a vast majority of the voters can render a lawful vote. I also believe it is encumbant upon the government to institute measures to regulate voting and establish consequences for failure to comply with the laws governing voting. That means that the government should ensure a voter is a citizen who is elligible to vote, is properly registered and renders a vote that complies with the specified requirements. Failure on the part of a voter to render a lawful vote should not become a burden upon the government. To wit, failure to render a lawful vote bears the consequence of not having that vote counted. Every polling place I have ever entered has had election commission oversight and paid helpers to assist the voters in any manner possible to ensure their vote is indeed 'lawful.'
The report sited by Jennifer and linked directly to by you is extremely narrow in scope. First of all, only 175,000 votes were reviewed (3 percent of the 6 million legitimate votes cast). Obviously, those (the 175,000) were the votes rejected by the various precincts as not meeting the requirement to be lawful. I see no value whatsoever in resurrecting the hanging chad; no matter which county or precinct hung him! If a voter fails to render a lawful vote, and fails to enlist the assistance of paid helpers; then the consequence should be that their vote does not count.
So, if this excursion into FL voting was to be all encompassing, then all 6 million votes would have been reviewed; and every voter vetted.
Every lawful citizen that properly registers to vote should be given the opportunity to render a legitimate vote in appropriate elections; but it is encumbant upon the voter to ensure he/she produces a lawful vote.
Officially, Bush won FL in 2000. Unofficially - well, who really cares about votes that were not properly executed. I'd be much more concerned about the ability of the registrar to vet registrants versus less than 3 percent of the voters who are unable to comply with instructions.
OS: I agree with your whole first paragraph, from beginning to end.
Yes, the only votes that were reviewed were the ones that did not already register, but the purpose for reviewing them was to determine whether they did or did not meet the requirements to be lawful. And, the determination they made was there were many lawful votes under the rules of the precincts, as set before the election began.
Very few of the votes studied were the result of voter error, but were the result of problems with the tools provided by the state to take and count the vote.
(It's my understanding that it was the "butterfly ballot" that brought about the charges of voter error. Those votes were not a part of this study, because, counted as the voter intended or not, they did register a vote for a candidate.)
I see your point if the fault is with the voter--though there is a point where it becomes obvious that there's something wrong that goes beyond voter error when so many make the same "mistake"--but when it is the instruments of the vote that are causing an issue, and those instruments are supplied by the state, I think we need to make every reasonable effort to find and fix the problem.
In some respects, many more of those 6 million votes were checked. Machines were tested and canvassed at random. Vote totals were checked & double-checked. With the exception of the butterfly voters and the absentees, I don't believe anyone questioned votes aside from these over votes & under votes, so I wonder whether a full recount of all six million votes really was necessary.
As I said, Bush did take the crown. But when all the votes finally did get counted, it turns out that he did not earn the majority of votes.
I am concerned with all aspects of voter & election rights & responsibilities. These black box machines with no verifiable paper trail worry me a great deal. (I understand that there was a problem with two of the machines in the Iowa Straw poll this weekend.) Voters need to understand how to properly cast a legitimate vote, but they also need machines that will register and count them properly, as well. In FL in 2000, voters unable to comply with instructions were a very tiny part of a much larger problem.
Another "Yes...But"
And still a still transparent effort to avoid ANY accountability AT ALL by Democrats.
For shame!
More meaningless catch phrases...
Have you an actual argument, or just the ad hom?
In case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what I have been saying to you.
You apparently have NOTHING to counter the factual information in this post, yet you continue in a vain and transparent attempt to change the subject.
I'm sorry that you consider it an ad hominem attack to point out how this undermines what little political credibility and intellectual integrity you have but that's my conclusion regardless.
I would think instead you should appreciate that someone bothers to take the time to try and assist you in breaking free from this clearly evident stain on your ability to understand and discuss complex issues.
But then, I would think.
"You apparently have NOTHING to counter the factual information in this post..."
"...which is considered a commentary on the issue opening it for debate by the other side according to House Rules."
All I have done is question whether this is or is not factual information. I haven't said it isn't, because I don't know that it isn't.
You trust the guy who says it is factual, without question. I don't. I'm looking for the truth of the matter from a trustworthy source. No more and no less.
I have no proof, either way.
Seemingly, you don't either.
Should someone offer more on the subject than either of us have been able to find, I'll be glad to revisit the matter, and should the rule read as you & Boehner claim it does, I'll gladly say the point is proved. (I don't fear admitting when more liberal folks--including me--make mistakes or otherwise do bad things... I've done it here & elsewhere several times. You, on the other hand,...)
"...you continue in a vain and transparent attempt to change the subject."
That charge would make a whole lot more sense if I'd been the one to bring election 2000 up--which I didn't--or I was the only one discussing it--which I'm not. I am no more trying to change the subject than you, Jennifer, OS, & Wordsmith are when you & they comment on the same topic. It's dialogue, not a monologue.
Also, my avoidence of "the subject" has been pretty bad. I have at least mentioned what happened in the House in eight different comments in this thread (including a few where I commented on it, almost exclusively).
I'm replying to what others are talking about, Mike, not driving the conversation.
"I'm sorry that you consider it an ad hominem attack..."
Again with what I "think" (or in this case, consider) something means, as though I define the words we use.
ad hominem - Wiktionary:
"ad hominem (ad hominems)
1) a logical fallacy, arguing that an idea or concept is wrong because its proponent is flawed
2) an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself
3) a personal attack"
"Repsac starts weekend crack smoking fest a tad early this week!"
"parroted by willing accomplices like yourself."
"Again, just another example of how you can't take a strong stand on anything except your preconceived notion that conservatives are to blame for all the world's problems."
"but apparently you're too dizzy in your fantasy land where conservatives are blamed for everything"
"people who are willfully ignorant"
"You are predictable, transparent AND WRONG!"
"You're becoming even more transparent than usual."
"you'll disbelieve anything a Republican or conservative says "
"You're starting to lose what little credibility you have left."
"Your one way fingerpointing"
"I see you are transfering again."
"You have used, some woul
"You have used, some would say abused, the comment stream here with a tiresome endless and transparent attempt to change the subject rather than demonstrate a scintilla of intellectual integrity."
"The only conclusion that anyone reading this thread can be left with is that you are simply not serious about any of these issues. Instead, you're just playing a game."
"And still a still transparent effort to avoid ANY accountability AT ALL by Democrats."
Aside from all the personal attack, I note that these comments also do not pertain to the subject of your post... ...unless I am the subject of your post, that is.
Maybe you were just trying to change the subject...
"You apparently have NOTHING to counter the factual information in this post..."
Strike apparently from the above.
I don't have any reason to doubt House Leader Boehner. And I am certain that if his understanding of this rule was incorrect that House Democrats would have pointed it out.
I think that's pretty clear to just about everyone but you.
So again, we see that you'd rather try and weasel your way around this and try and change the subject rather than deal with the reality of the post which is that Democrats are running rough shod over House Rules.
It boggles my mind that you would choose to demonstrate not only your ignorance in these matters, but also your utter close minded stubborness to any reality you don't define or control.
And to go on the attack about ad hominem attacks just underscores your weak position.
You don't have A SCINTILLA of information to counter anything I have said.
Your arguments are pointless, groundless and BASELESS in the extreme.
Here, maybe it'll make you feel better if I say it (again.)
I have nothing to counter the (factual) information in the post.
I never said I did, so I'm not quite sure what you think you're proving.
But I am asking questions to establish whether all of the information in the post is factual or not.
The fact that no Democrat (& surprisingly few Republicans, for that matter) are discussing the issue at all makes it no more true or false than Bohner making the claim in the first place. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the fact that no one is saying he is wrong does not mean he is correct.
I've already said I am ignorant of the rule in question. That's why I'm seeking the facts. But my ignorance in these matters doesn't seem any worse than your own, Mike. You have shown no more evidence that you are able to prove your claims true or false than I have. Pot, meet kettle.
When it comes down to it, you don't have a scintilla of information to support your claim.
I'll not bother responding to the ad hom (or the ad hom about the ad hom)... It is obviously something you cannot help, like a weird form of Tourette syndrome, out of your conscieous control.
This isn't about making me feel better.
This is about your consistent contrarian point of view despite any information to make your case.
" Mike. You have shown no more evidence that you are able to prove your claims true or false than I have. Pot, meet kettle."
Oh REALLY?
I gave you the link, with excerpt from House Leader Boehner and you dismissed it immediately.
You attacked ME and claimed I was making "baseless" accusations, then claimed I was making ad hominems attacks on YOU.
That despite the following: "weird form of Tourette syndrome, out of your conscieous [sic] control."
Your tactics, as well as your point of view, are so transparently weak that I would think you might be wiser to back off what really are "BASELESS" assertions.
But yet, you persist.
I don't think we need any further input from you to prove this point. So perhaps, you'd be better to wait until I post the NEXT shoe to drop in this series, which is coming up shortly.
No doubt you'll be able to defend that trampling of Democracy as well.
"...any information to make your case."
I'm making no case.
Unlike you, I do not claim to know that Boehner is right or wrong. As far as I'm concerned, either might be true. Maybe the rule is just as he claims, but no one has even tried to invoke it in 100 years. Maybe the rule requires more than a three word exclamation. I don't know. I don't claim I know. But I won't say anyone is or isn't guilty of breaking it until I know.
To find out, I'm asking questions... ...which you seem as unable to answer as I.
I'm not saying Boehner didn't make the claim. He did. But his saying it (& your repeating it) doesn't make it so. The link proves he said it. The video also proves he said it. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Boehner said it. What I don't know is whether what he said is accurate and the whole truth of the matter.
He might well be telling the whole truth, and once I see evidence of that for myself, I'll be glad to say so. Until then, I won't.
I'm done with the whole ad hom thing, for now... If you feel wronged by all the nasty things I said about you, I'm sorry. Such things happen, I guess. I'll try to do better.
"I do not claim to know."
Really? I had no idea!
This was one of the most uninteresting comments I have seen. I really couldnt read very much of it without falling asleep.
Thanks for the memories...
Commenting by HaloScan
