Jimbo 0 #26 April 27, 2004 QuoteWhile we're on the subject who exactly are the delegates who cast the votes that count? A little bit of reading on the Electoral College. here here here. and of course, here - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #27 April 27, 2004 Quoteand of course, here Thank you, and point taken.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #28 April 27, 2004 QuoteAhhh, come on, we can discuss that, toss in some abortion and guns and...why the hell not, lets toss RSLs into the debate as well RSL's are bad"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #29 April 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe claim of not wanting to run this time kind of diminishes the claim of how bad he wanted it last time. That's all I'm sayin'. - Not really. If you had a career in congress and then presided over it for 8 years, campaigned hard for presidency and lost by getting screwed in the highest court in the land; would you go back for seconds? My point was, he claimed the people really wanted him. HE apparently really wanted to be president -- he fought tooth and nail to have it all decided in his favor. That behavior is at odds with his not running again. Admit it, to go from rabidly pursuing a decision in his favor, to having no interest in running, is an extreme change of heart. If he wanted it so bad, AND Bush has been making such a mess of things, AND if there's any truth to Democrat claims that the American people are tired of Bush and want him out, that should have cleared the way for the guy who supposedly came so close to winning last time to pretty much pick up his supporters right where they left off, add to their strength the support of those disenchanted now with Bush's supposed failures, and win the '04 election. I'm saying that the fact that he is not running is just about an admission that all they were saying in the past about how America wanted Gore as president was just so much inflated chest-pounding. QuoteProbably not. It's the same supreme court. What's to say it couldn't happen again? Most people who get fucked by the system give up on participating in it, that's all. Ken The Supreme Court, as I understand it, did not make a verdict and did not "select" Bush as president. It simply let stand lower court rulings against continuation of recounts in Florida. Florida law was clear about the time allowed for recounts. Deadlines had passed, and people were still clamoring for recounts which were at that point extra-legal. The point is, Gore would supposedly be so popular now that Bush has "screwed up so badly," that it wouldn't be nearly as close as it was last time -- the Supreme Court would never get drawn into it. That is, unless it's all bullshit what the Gore camp says about how he was the guy America wanted.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 April 28, 2004 QuoteThe Supreme Court, as I understand it, did not make a verdict and did not "select" Bush as president. It simply let stand lower court rulings against continuation of recounts in Florida. Florida law was clear about the time allowed for recounts. Deadlines had passed, and people were still clamoring for recounts which were at that point extra-legal. The point is, Gore would supposedly be so popular now that Bush has "screwed up so badly," that it wouldn't be nearly as close as it was last time -- the Supreme Court would never get drawn into it. That is, unless it's all bullshit what the Gore camp says about how he was the guy America wanted. ---Jeffrey I agree....If they claim that the people wanted him...where is he now?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #31 April 28, 2004 >Admit it, to go from rabidly pursuing a decision in his favor, to >having no interest in running, is an extreme change of heart. It's called acceptance. He lost. He came to accept that. Then he went on to other things. He's teaching at a few colleges now; perhaps he likes doing that. I know people who did everything they could, pulled every string, went to every tryout, to get on the Eloy record attempt. A few of them got cut. Some of those people had no interest in going to Thailand record. Bizarre behavior? I don't think so. >I'm saying that the fact that he is not running is just about an > admission that all they were saying in the past about how America > wanted Gore as president was just so much inflated chest-pounding. The numbers don't lie, as much as some would like them to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #32 April 28, 2004 Quote QuoteWhile we're on the subject who exactly are the delegates who cast the votes that count? A little bit of reading on the Electoral College. here here here. and of course, here - Jim Seems like a whitewashed version. If you read the Federalist Papers, it is pretty clear that the founding fathers didn't trust the great unwashed to make the "right" decisions, so they delegated the task to an elite group, the electoral college. Pretty anti-democratic if you ask me.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #33 April 28, 2004 Seeing how the "founding fathers" didn't really create a true democracy in the first place, but a democratic republic, then it really makes sense...ya know?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #34 April 28, 2004 Quote>Admit it, to go from rabidly pursuing a decision in his favor, to >having no interest in running, is an extreme change of heart. It's called acceptance. He lost. He came to accept that. Then he went on to other things. He's teaching at a few colleges now; perhaps he likes doing that. It would have been nice if he could have fucking "accepted it" before dragging the American people through fifty-some-odd days of the nastiest, most venomous dispute and internal strife it has seen since the civil rights era. This was nearly a country of "brother-against-brother," all because this prick had the hubris to not be willing to "accept" his loss until he had it smashed in his face. Quote>I'm saying that the fact that he is not running is just about an > admission that all they were saying in the past about how America > wanted Gore as president was just so much inflated chest-pounding. The numbers don't lie, as much as some would like them to. That's why it's so peculiar that a guy who supposedly wanted it so bad, supposedly had all the "numbers," did not come 'round again to try to win in '04. If it's all true about him "having the numbers," and it's all true about how "the American people" are so fed up with Bush, who's doing such a shit job, it should be a walk in the park to take the next election. And he's not there making the attempt. I am skeptical that someone who gave such a tantrum over losing the first time is not interested in winning again, and I think it suggests he doesn't even believe his own hype about how popular he supposedly was. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #35 April 28, 2004 The amusing thing about this thread is that the only people that actually CARE that Gore didn't run this year wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #36 April 28, 2004 QuoteThe amusing thing about this thread is that the only people that actually CARE that Gore didn't run this year wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Well, the reason we care so much is that if he were to run, we'd finally shut the mouths of those who won't stop their bitter insinuations and allegations that Bush's people somehow stole the election for him the first time, when he got his ass roundly kicked the second time. We'll never get to prove how full of shit they have been all this time. I love the bumper stickers that looked like the genuine campaign ones, but they said, "Sore / Loserman." LOL!! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #37 April 28, 2004 >It would have been nice if he could have fucking "accepted it" before > dragging the American people through fifty-some-odd days of the >nastiest, most venomous dispute and internal strife it has seen since > the civil rights era. Uh, he wanted Florida to determine the course of its own election. Bush pushed it up to the Supreme Court. Had he not done that, Florida would have decided on its own that Bush won the state and a lot of the "Supreme Court decides election" nonsense would never have happened. >This was nearly a country of "brother-against-brother," Quite literally it was "brother for brother." >I am skeptical that someone who gave such a tantrum over losing >the first time is not interested in winning again, and I think it > suggests he doesn't even believe his own hype about how popular > he supposedly was. Are you really managing to delude yourself into believing that Bush won the popular vote? Again, the numbers don't lie. More people voted for him than for Bush, a fact an amazing number of republicans cannot accept. It simply does not fit into their worldview of a mighty republican majority valiantly defending itself against a whiney democratic minorty. The facts, at least in that election, indicate the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #38 April 28, 2004 It is entirely possible he looked at the lay of the land and said, wait four more years and this will all be well behind me, no W to contend with. Then he and Hillary can duke it out for the Democrat nomination. Had Nader not taken a couple of small states the results would probably have been different too, with or without Florida. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #39 April 28, 2004 QuoteQuestion: What is the difference between a housewife and a prostitute? Umm.... I would guess that the prostitute engages in sexual activities quite a bit more than the housewife??? I'm pretty sure housewives are not known for having a lot of sex... Don't they generally sit around eating chocolates and watching soap operas all day??? Or maybe the housewife is having sex with the milkman while her husband is supposedly at work but actually out having sex with a prostitute??? Oh, I don't know... I'm so confused... Why don't you tell us what the difference is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #40 April 28, 2004 Quote Question: What is the difference between a housewife and a prostitute? One has headaches the other doesn't?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #41 April 28, 2004 QuoteHad Nader not taken a couple of small states the results would probably have been different too, with or without Florida. Umm, what states exactly did Nader win in 2000? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #42 April 28, 2004 According to this page, exactly none. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #43 April 28, 2004 I knew that. I was just wondering if Newsstand did. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #44 April 28, 2004 I kinda figured you did. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #45 April 28, 2004 In all fairness to newsstand, he might have meant the votes Nader syphered from Gore. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #46 April 28, 2004 I stand corrected on actually taking a state but had the Green Party voters in New Hampshire instead voted Gore, or even just a little over 1/3 voted Gore and the rest stayed home NH would have gone to Gore and that would have flipped the electoral college. Also as that page shows Gore did win the popular vote. Any way you split it it would have been so close that neither candidate could have claimed a mandate, although GWB and the rest of the Republican party seem to act like they have one. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #47 April 28, 2004 QuoteI stand corrected on actually taking a state but had the Green Party voters in New Hampshire instead voted Gore, or even just a little over 1/3 voted Gore and the rest stayed home NH would have gone to Gore and that would have flipped the electoral college. Great. And if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt. What's your point? QuoteAlso as that page shows Gore did win the popular vote. Nobody has ever disputed that fact. QuoteAny way you split it it would have been so close that neither candidate could have claimed a mandate, although GWB and the rest of the Republican party seem to act like they have one. They do. They have a mandate from the people of the United States to run the country in the way that they think is best, this statement isn't limited to the Rebublican party - it includes ALL elected officials. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #48 April 28, 2004 Quote QuoteI stand corrected on actually taking a state but had the Green Party voters in New Hampshire instead voted Gore, or even just a little over 1/3 voted Gore and the rest stayed home NH would have gone to Gore and that would have flipped the electoral college. Great. And if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt. What's your point? Well you need to trace back through the thread but the point is it was damned close and things besides Florida played into it. Quote QuoteAny way you split it it would have been so close that neither candidate could have claimed a mandate, although GWB and the rest of the Republican party seem to act like they have one. They do. They have a mandate from the people of the United States to run the country in the way that they think is best, this statement isn't limited to the Rebublican party - it includes ALL elected officials. - Jim man·date ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mndt) n. 1. An authoritative command or instruction. 2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative. There is nothing authoritative in loosing the popular vote and squeaking by in the electoral college. What GWB had here was a real need to live up to the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" statement he made. Yes I see definition two also but the popular use of the word is definition one. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #49 April 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuestion: What is the difference between a housewife and a prostitute? Umm.... I would guess that the prostitute engages in sexual activities quite a bit more than the housewife??? I'm pretty sure housewives are not known for having a lot of sex... Don't they generally sit around eating chocolates and watching soap operas all day??? Or maybe the housewife is having sex with the milkman while her husband is supposedly at work but actually out having sex with a prostitute??? Oh, I don't know... I'm so confused... Why don't you tell us what the difference is? You guys made the WROOOOONG choice as far as housewife, then..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 April 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuestion: What is the difference between a housewife and a prostitute? Umm.... I would guess that the prostitute engages in sexual activities quite a bit more than the housewife??? I'm pretty sure housewives are not known for having a lot of sex... Don't they generally sit around eating chocolates and watching soap operas all day??? Or maybe the housewife is having sex with the milkman while her husband is supposedly at work but actually out having sex with a prostitute??? Oh, I don't know... I'm so confused... Why don't you tell us what the difference is? I'm guessing you are divorced? The question was for BillVon. You wouldn't understand why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
