Liberals Fuck You If You Don't Vote Conservative

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 14:57
Its not my fault that your a Republic and not a Democracy

As to the electoral college....when you come back with a Review of Florida that shows the Republicans won taking into account the illegally disenfranchised and illegally disqualified "Over Votes" then i'll accept that Gore lost there, and those Electoral College votes were legal.... 

We are a Representative Republic, Rat.

Get it right.

I've said it before:

Bush won the pure vote count in Florida (the ones that "weren't counted"); this count wasn't completed until about six months after Bush took office, but it was conducted under non-partisan auspices.

I read about the results in USA Today, which can in no way be characterized as a Republican/Conservative source.

And no, I'm not going to google it again.

You, however, may feel free.

You should also note the recount did not include a large batch of absentee (military) ballots that would have overwhelmingly favored Bush.

One other point that is continually ignored when discussing Florida:

The big three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) put Florida in Gore's column about 1 1/2-2 hours before the polls closed; Many Bush voters reported not voting, therefore, as they assumed Bush had lost the state.

Polling places throughout the Florida panhandle reported drastic drops in voter traffic after the nets made their call.

As a sidenote, Florida was expected to be the key "early indicator" in the election returns, and it has been estimated that the attendent "Oh, skip it" phenomenon reduced the overall number of voters in westward time zones by as many as 2-3 million.

[vidcc]

So what would be a fairer way to elect a president.

by individual state or by the total number of votes nationwide?

[Darth Sushi]

I predict Bush will invade Iran or N. Korea before the elections.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 15:41
So what would be a fairer way to elect a president.

by individual state or by the total number of votes nationwide?

The way we do it now is just fine; I don't think a case could be made there is a fairer system than the Electoral College.

2000 wasn't the first instance of differing popular and electoral results.

Actually, I think to play games with the system these days might be to risk civil war all over again, and it's a safe bet no one wants that again.

In any case, if the votes were tallied by individual state, the Dems would never win another election.

[Rat Faced]

I remember the USA Today report...

Famous for what it didnt say, as much as what it did.

It found Gore would have won in 2 out of the 4 standards, and that the "Official" results in some counties were incorrect by a large enough margin to change the result of the election....

This is without taking the "disenfranchised" voters into account, or any of the other "funny business" that went on there.

The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:58
I remember the USA Today report...

Famous for what it didnt say, as much as what it did.

It found Gore would have won in 2 out of the 4 standards, and that the "Official" results in some counties were incorrect by a large enough margin to change the result of the election....

This is without taking the "disenfranchised" voters into account, or any of the other "funny business" that went on there.

The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."

AIM and MRC do the same type of work FAIR does, Rat.

Neither of them found any evidence of malfeasance in the recount, which, as I remember, was not conducted by USA Today, but by what were described by several papers (the info also appeared in both Detroit papers and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that I read) as independent and bipartisan.

If there were anything to the story you found, it would not have been left by, believe me.

The stories about disenfranchisement were also found to be without foundation, although there exists pictorial and video evidence of busloads of "disenfranchised" voters (black and otherwise) who were given rides from polling place to polling place to bang on about not being "allowed" to vote, when they were found to have indeed voted before boarding the buses to be trucked about to appear on camera hither and yon to protest.

They were sustained by doughnuts and coffee served throughout the day to keep them happy while cameras recorded the miracle of the same people being "turned away" at several different polling places during the day (you are only allowed to vote once, you see?); the conflict, obvious on the videotape, was somehow lost on the Dems and likewise the media, which failed to report the story.

I don't wonder why some prefer to believe the Democrats innocent of such things, when the media refuse to report it.

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:05

Sean Hanity put it best when he called this the re-invention convention. It’s kind of like a giant version of extreme makeover show. Everyone does a 180 degree turn and try to act like they’re middle of the road and not so liberal on most issues. It’s not the real deal that we’re getting anyway.

And I suppose the irony of this totally escapes you, doesn't it, Hank?

Bush is busy morphing into the "Peace President" and with two months left to his reign has suddenly decided to turn his attention to domestic matters.
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).

What does Sean Hanity have to say about that?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).

Now that's just silly.

Empty election-year rhetoric; like attending a gunfight with a rubber knife.

[clocker]

I notice that you can't dispute any of the statements, so I guess in this case a rubber knive is all it took.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 July 2004 - 13:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 30 July 2004 - 13:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).

Now that&#39;s just silly.

Empty election-year rhetoric; like attending a gunfight with a rubber knife. [/b][/quote]
well i have to say i disagree with sprocket here and agree with J2










99% is just a made up figure....







I can&#39;t argue against the rest of what sprocket posted though