Progress

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #21
Look... Clarke is allowed to have and express his viewpoints regarding what he saw with the Bush regime. Having some people have a dissenting view to the establishment is an overall positive. It provides a level of checks and balance. When everyone blindly goes along, then that allows room for corrupt activities by the group in power (whatever administration it happens to be).

Sorry, but lying under oath is never allowed. its illegal. You libs deffended Clinton and now Clarke for it and wonder why no one takes you seriously when you yell and scream about Bush being a liar with nothing to back it up.

Also, there is no Regime in America. Your attempts to equate the Legally elected President of the United States with that of a third world totalitarian is offensive to most intelligent Americans and alot of unintelligent ones as well. If you continue to do so dont complain when people say you are unpatriotic.
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Of course Bush was elected. The vote was 5-4.


actually it was 271-266, it called the electoral college. It's how we elect presidents. And the SC did not ellect bush. They stoped a recount debacal in Florida that the Dems started and the courts had to stop. Bush won man I'm sorry get over it!!!!!! Start to work through you're phobia of great leaders cause we're going to have the same one for another four years.
 
Originally posted by kcmcdonald
actually it was 271-266, it called the electoral college. It's how we elect presidents. And the SC did not ellect bush. They stoped a recount debacal in Florida that the Dems started and the courts had to stop. Bush won man I'm sorry get over it!!!!!! Start to work through you're phobia of great leaders cause we're going to have the same one for another four years.

Socialists (liberals) like people to think we are a democracy, and directly affect our elections for president by our popular vote, when this is entirely false.

We are a Constitutional Republic with chosen electoral college REPRESENTATIVES who make that decision for us. This is why we have no relevant say in the matter, and are required to give the populace power over government through impeachment power, juries, and the bill of rights including the right to bear arms in last ditch effort to subvert total take over of power by the elected officials.

When people do not understand this, they let the government subvert the power structure and allow judges to become activists, rights to be infringed upon, and government to get more powerful than the citizens through restriction of arms.

Anyone who debates this can happily refer to any of a batch of formal original works such as the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and many other founding papers. If assistance is required, I will link you to them.
 
yep if Gore could have carried his own state we'ld not even be discussing florida.
 
more than lickly, or probally having summits with UBL and AQ on what portions of america we can give them if they stop blowing us up.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Whatever, deal with reality, Gore lost. Don't make statements if you don't like people blowing them clear out of the water.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Really that is a moot issue.

The one thing that's for sure is that the 2000 Presidential election was a major debacle in Florida, which exposed many inaccuracies and flaws with our current voting system in America. Many of those flaws have been present throughout history, but usually isn't significant due to the margin of victory. As a result of the "too close to call" election, every one of those flaws became relevant to the accurate determination of the validly selected President. The degree of error was larger than the margin of victory.

Partisan politics aside, the major issue for Democratic elections in America is to be able to accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters. Ultimately it's not that complicated a process to achieve as long as we set aside partisan politics.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
There's no "maybe" here. He lost.

I agree with the rest of what you said.

Heh heh.... You believe that, even though the margin of error is larger that the margin of victory....

The real issue with regard to our voting process is that it doesn't look like we've really addressed solving the problem. The computer voting systems may be more accurate than those butterfly punch systems in many cases. But, we also have to be sure that we're not exposing ourselves to other potential problems. For example, computer malfunctions that could wind up shutting down voting districts. Or computer tampering...

We just need to be sure that we have a check, double check, and maybe even a triple check if necessary. The process needs to be defined and agreed upon by both sides, such that if any future election is "too close", then we can follow that process for an accurate result.
 
You believe that, even though the margin of error is larger that the margin of victory....

JEEEEEZUS. The votes were recounted by private firms after the election and it was proven that Bush won the election.

Get over it already!
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Heh heh.... You believe that, even though the margin of error is larger that the margin of victory....

Election over. Recounts completed. Gore lost. Move on with your life, if you can.
 
Originally posted by lilcountriegal
JEEEEEZUS. The votes were recounted by private firms after the election and it was proven that Bush won the election.

Get over it already!

All I said was that the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory between the Bush/Gore 2000 election.

Ever heard the phrase, "thou defendeth too much"!

It looks like you need to get over it!
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
All I said was that the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory between the Bush/Gore 2000 election.

Ever heard the phrase, "thou defendeth too much"!

It looks like you need to get over it!

What exactly was the margin of error for recounted elections in Florida? Can you show me your sources stating the exact margin of error?
 
BY JIM: There's no "maybe" here. He lost.

BY LONE: Heh heh.... You believe that, even though the margin of error is larger that the margin of victory....

Lone.. dont try and play mind games with me, because your are foolishly unarmed.

You know what your post was implying, just like everyone else reading this thread does.

If you cant handle the fact that Bush beat Gore legally, morally, and without doubt in 2000, then you better pack your bags, cuz its fixin to be a long four more years for you.
 
Look... if you look around you can find numerous reports that state that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida. You can find some reports as well, that state that Bush had more votes under certain circumstances. As, I've said it's a moot point.
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Look... if you look around you can find numerous reports that state that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida. You can find some reports as well, that state that Bush had more votes under certain circumstances. As, I've said it's a moot point.

Where's the source I asked you for?
 
Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Lone.. dont try and play mind games with me

You know what your post was implying, just like everyone else reading this thread does.

If you cant handle the fact that Bush beat Gore legally, morally, and without doubt in 2000,

You must be unarmed....

If you look through all of my posts in this thread, who won or lost the 2000 presidential election "too close to call" in Florida was never even the main issue or point.

Hence, your protests really emphasize that quote "thou defendeth too much".
 

Forum List

Back
Top