Bill Clinton throws Obama under the bus on raising TAXES on the wealthy

[Meister]

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights) and the count itself was dubious.

In any case..the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother and the Secretary of State in Florida, who "validated" the first vote was running George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Add in Scalia was close friends with Cheney and Scalia's son's law firm was working for Bush.

There's so much stink here it's overwhelming. Any ONE of these things should have kiboshed the whole lousy affair.

It took you a little time, Sallow, but you finally got to the point.


Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

Another denier chimes in.

Dude....the votes were counted and Bush still won. Step outside of your leftwing lunacy echo chamber.

 

[kaz]

QFMFT.

The Republicans got an ass kicking in the civil war?

No..but Conservatives did.

Big time.

I see, so when the Republican North beat the Democratic South, that was you winning. Gotcha...

 

[kaz]

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a **** about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the English language is painful. It's "ensures" not "insures." Didn't you learn nothing in school?

How about this.

Start an online english course and direct me to it.

Professor.

Pass. I'm satisfied just showing that when you try to pretend you're knowledgeable then you don't even know your own language.

 

[Sallow]

The Republicans got an ass kicking in the civil war?

No..but Conservatives did.

Big time.

I see, so when the Republican North beat the Democratic South, that was you winning. Gotcha...

Republicans were the "Liberal" version of the Whigs. That got more accute with the election of Lincoln..who was a lawyer..and a dyed in the wool liberal.

By the way..most of the North was Liberal and most of the South were Conservatives. Today..Conservative Republicans, have taken up almost all the causes of the Confederates.

 

[Meister]

No..but Conservatives did.

Big time.

I see, so when the Republican North beat the Democratic South, that was you winning. Gotcha...

Republicans were the "Liberal" version of the Whigs. That got more accute with the election of Lincoln..who was a lawyer..and a dyed in the wool liberal.

By the way..most of the North was Liberal and most of the South were Conservatives. Today..Conservative Republicans, have taken up almost all the causes of the Confederates.

Just shows you that you can't argue with stupidity...I give up.

 

[Sallow]

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the English language is painful. It's "ensures" not "insures." Didn't you learn nothing in school?

How about this.

Start an online english course and direct me to it.

Professor.

Pass. I'm satisfied just showing that when you try to pretend you're knowledgeable then you don't even know your own language.

Yep.

My english is so horrible that you probably don't understand what I am typing now..

As I type it.

Right here.

Right now.

 

[Kuros]

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights) and the count itself was dubious.

In any case..the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother and the Secretary of State in Florida, who "validated" the first vote was running George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Add in Scalia was close friends with Cheney and Scalia's son's law firm was working for Bush.

There's so much stink here it's overwhelming. Any ONE of these things should have kiboshed the whole lousy affair.

It took you a little time, Sallow, but you finally got to the point.


Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

Another denier chimes in.

Dude....the votes were counted and Bush still won. Step outside of your leftwing lunacy echo chamber.

Its frightfully clear GOP partisans don't know the definition of the word 'partisan.'

Also, Meister, just because you neg me, does not make what you assert fact.

Whether Gore or Bush would've won is an open question.

The overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again.

Those overvotes were rejected by machines, but some county officials examined those ballots on election night to reclaim the votes. Other counties, though, didn't check for those obvious votes. Gore had more than 500 of those votes in Lake County and more than 250 in Escambia, netting him gains of 172 and 157 votes against Bush in those counties.

The narrowest margin, according to the study, came under a scenario in which at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots -- the prevailing standard across the state of Florida at the time -- or any mark on the optical scan ballots showing clear voter intent. In that case, the study showed Gore with 60 votes more than Bush.

Gore's margin grows under three other scenarios. Under the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes), Gore had 107 more votes.

Gore's margin rose to 115 votes in the study under a tighter standard, calling for chads to be fully punched and a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots.

But this is one case where disagreements among the reviewers affected the outcome. Gore won under this scenario when two of the reviewers agree on the markings. Under a standard in which all three were required to agree, Bush won by 219 votes.

Gore's largest margin in a statewide recount involving all ballots comes under a scenario that sought to recreate the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts. In that case, Gore emerged with 171 more votes than Bush.

 

[DiamondDave]

Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.

Won't work. But you are welcome to try.

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.

This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.

You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.

All in the name of "protecting the minority".

You are living proof that brain cells are lost every day...

You simply either cannot understand how our 3 separate branches have 3 ways of selection and why, or you simply wish to ignore it for a stupid hyper-partisan talking point

And no, the electoral college does not ENSURE that it will happen once in a while... what it ensures is a differing way of selection and that the voices of the states (all of them... you know, those things that make up the country and that actually gave the federal government its power) are heard

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a **** about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Again... you imbecilic ****

It ENSURES no such thing.... And since it does not sell insurance, it also does not insure a damn thing

We know you don't give a **** about what others say... it appears you don't give a **** about anything but yourself...

Now... if we would take your argument and apply it to people who don't do very much for the country, your fellow low earning imbeciles at the Burger King for example, you would have a fit... because it simply fits your agenda....

You see... where your direct vote is represented, you have the same voting power as anyone... and the branch that utilizes that method for selection is the Legislative.... in a balance of power, the Judicial is not voted on at all but rather it is selection by appointment and confirmation by the Executive and Legislative (particularly the Senate) branches respectively.... and further in the balance of power, the selection of the Executive branch ensured the voices of all states (you know, those things that give the federal government its power) are heard by a popular vote for constitutionally approved electors within the state who then cast their lots for the office of the President and Vice President.... balance of power, a good thing to have...

Oh.. and your vote for electors in the Presidential election process... has just as much 'weight' or 'power' or whatever term you wish to use, as every other citizen who cast a vote for the electors within your state... and your state determines the laws which govern such electors when casting their ballots for the offices of President and Vice President... and remember, AGAIN, it is the states that give the power to the federal government, not the popular vote of the nationwide populous...

A little education can take you a long way... even out of that fry cook job

 

[freedombecki]

No..but Conservatives did.

Big time.

I see, so when the Republican North beat the Democratic South, that was you winning. Gotcha...

Republicans were the "Liberal" version of the Whigs. That got more accute with the election of Lincoln..who was a lawyer..and a dyed in the wool liberal.

By the way..most of the North was Liberal and most of the South were Conservatives. Today..Conservative Republicans, have taken up almost all the causes of the Confederates.

We are the anti-slavery party to this day. You cannot take that away from us. I joined the Republican Party on account of me seeing blacks being treated just like those characters who were sent to the electric chair this week for beheading and mutilating a black man who didn't do anything at all to them except be black. I saw a lot of that growing up, and they were guess what party I refused to join. I didn't like what they did, so I joined the Republican Party to make sure I would never have to ever think about meanness to black people again for the rest of my life.

Don't lump all of us in the same lump. We still stand on our principles of American equality and no slavery for any reason, particularly because of color, it isn't fitting.

 

[Full-Auto]

Whether Gore or Bush would've won is an open question.

The counts removed the question.


The only thing to speculate on is if he could have pulled off cheating only counting select districts.

 

[Sallow]

You are living proof that brain cells are lost every day...

You simply either cannot understand how our 3 separate branches have 3 ways of selection and why, or you simply wish to ignore it for a stupid hyper-partisan talking point

And no, the electoral college does not ENSURE that it will happen once in a while... what it ensures is a differing way of selection and that the voices of the states (all of them... you know, those things that make up the country and that actually gave the federal government its power) are heard

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a **** about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Again... you imbecilic ****

It ENSURES no such thing.... And since it does not sell insurance, it also does not insure a damn thing

We know you don't give a **** about what others say... it appears you don't give a **** about anything but yourself...

Now... if we would take your argument and apply it to people who don't do very much for the country, your fellow low earning imbeciles at the Burger King for example, you would have a fit... because it simply fits your agenda....

You see... where your direct vote is represented, you have the same voting power as anyone... and the branch that utilizes that method for selection is the Legislative.... in a balance of power, the Judicial is not voted on at all but rather it is selection by appointment and confirmation by the Executive and Legislative (particularly the Senate) branches respectively.... and further in the balance of power, the selection of the Executive branch ensured the voices of all states (you know, those things that give the federal government its power) are heard by a popular vote for constitutionally approved electors within the state who then cast their lots for the office of the President and Vice President.... balance of power, a good thing to have...

Oh.. and your vote for electors in the Presidential election process... has just as much 'weight' or 'power' or whatever term you wish to use, as every other citizen who cast a vote for the electors within your state... and your state determines the laws which govern such electors when casting their ballots for the offices of President and Vice President... and remember, AGAIN, it is the states that give the power to the federal government, not the popular vote of the nationwide populous...

A little education can take you a long way... even out of that fry cook job

Again.

You are completely wrong. There's really no need to dissect this post. It's blather, bile and ranting.

My vote has less weight then the guy in Montana..in my example. It's simple math.

 

[Meister]

It took you a little time, Sallow, but you finally got to the point.


Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

Another denier chimes in.

Dude....the votes were counted and Bush still won. Step outside of your leftwing lunacy echo chamber.

Its frightfully clear GOP partisans don't know the definition of the word 'partisan.'

Also, Meister, just because you neg me, does not make what you assert fact.

Whether Gore or Bush would've won is an open question.

The overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again.

Those overvotes were rejected by machines, but some county officials examined those ballots on election night to reclaim the votes. Other counties, though, didn't check for those obvious votes. Gore had more than 500 of those votes in Lake County and more than 250 in Escambia, netting him gains of 172 and 157 votes against Bush in those counties.

The narrowest margin, according to the study, came under a scenario in which at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots -- the prevailing standard across the state of Florida at the time -- or any mark on the optical scan ballots showing clear voter intent. In that case, the study showed Gore with 60 votes more than Bush.

Gore's margin grows under three other scenarios. Under the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes), Gore had 107 more votes.

Gore's margin rose to 115 votes in the study under a tighter standard, calling for chads to be fully punched and a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots.

But this is one case where disagreements among the reviewers affected the outcome. Gore won under this scenario when two of the reviewers agree on the markings. Under a standard in which all three were required to agree, Bush won by 219 votes.

Gore's largest margin in a statewide recount involving all ballots comes under a scenario that sought to recreate the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts. In that case, Gore emerged with 171 more votes than Bush.

If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,655 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.
Newspapers' recount of Florida 'undervotes' confirms Bush victory - CNN

That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN and AP. It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore’s request for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November 12, 2001 front page article, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,” by reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder:
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations....

Read more: Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts Conducted by the Media | NewsBusters.org

Call it what you want....but I do give negs to your stupidity.

 

[Kuros]

Whether Gore or Bush would've won is an open question.

The counts removed the question.


The only thing to speculate on is if he could have pulled off cheating only counting select districts.

Do you know what value Bush v. Gore holds as precedent? Zero. Do you know why? Because the majority said their reasoning applies in this case only. Do you know why they said that?

They don't want their partisan sophistry used against them in a future election.

So there is a 9-0 vote that Bush v. Gore can never be cited in a future case, either before the Supreme Court or before a lower court.

Bush v. Gore is really that bad a decision.

 

[kaz]

How about this.

Start an online english course and direct me to it.

Professor.

Pass. I'm satisfied just showing that when you try to pretend you're knowledgeable then you don't even know your own language.

Yep.

My english is so horrible that you probably don't understand what I am typing now..

As I type it.

Right here.

Right now.

So when I tell you the word you should have used, that means I am saying I don't understand you? Sure it does.

English? Nope

Logic? Nope

History: Republican winning wars is a Republicans getting their asses kicked. Nope.

What subject do you know?

BTW, both sides would be appalled at the Federal government's trampling of State rights today, you know nothing about History but how to pick a couple of factoids and spin them into Democratic party talking points.

 

[Full-Auto]

Whether Gore or Bush would've won is an open question.

The counts removed the question.


The only thing to speculate on is if he could have pulled off cheating only counting select districts.

Do you know what value Bush v. Gore holds as precedent? Zero. Do you know why? Because the majority said their reasoning applies in this case only. Do you know why they said that?

They don't want their partisan sophistry used against them in a future election.

So there is a 9-0 vote that Bush v. Gore can never be cited in a future case, either before the Supreme Court or before a lower court.

Bush v. Gore is really that bad a decision.

All they did was hold a state court in check during a federal election.

The only thing to speculate on is how could cheating effect outcome. By only choosing select counties we do know an attempt was made.

 

[Sallow]

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,655 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

That right there is some funny shit.

Katherine Harris' 'W' Files - CBS News

Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who also served as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign, had said repeatedly that she had erected "a firewall" during the election between her state office and the Republican Party.

 

[Sallow]

Pass. I'm satisfied just showing that when you try to pretend you're knowledgeable then you don't even know your own language.

Yep.

My english is so horrible that you probably don't understand what I am typing now..

As I type it.

Right here.

Right now.

So when I tell you the word you should have used, that means I am saying I don't understand you? Sure it does.

English? Nope

Logic? Nope

History: Republican winning wars is a Republicans getting their asses kicked. Nope.

What subject do you know?

BTW, both sides would be appalled at the Federal government's trampling of State rights today, you know nothing about History but how to pick a couple of factoids and spin them into Democratic party talking points.

Oh..I see.

You want to troll.

Good luck to ya.

 

[kaz]

The only thing to speculate on is how could cheating effect outcome. By only choosing select counties we do know an attempt was made.

Dude, it's only cheating when the Republicans do it...

Exactly, it was a Federal election. The Florida Supreme Politburo was going to overturn a Federal election by stepping in and ignoring State law and the Florida executive and legislative branches. I like how Sallow rationalizes that then complains someone in Montana's vote it bigger then his.

BTW, there is a way to change that, Sallow. I know you're not very knowledgeable about the law, but do you know what it is? Want a hint? 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4...

 

[kaz]

Yep.

My english is so horrible that you probably don't understand what I am typing now..

As I type it.

Right here.

Right now.

So when I tell you the word you should have used, that means I am saying I don't understand you? Sure it does.

English? Nope

Logic? Nope

History: Republican winning wars is a Republicans getting their asses kicked. Nope.

What subject do you know?

BTW, both sides would be appalled at the Federal government's trampling of State rights today, you know nothing about History but how to pick a couple of factoids and spin them into Democratic party talking points.

Oh..I see.

You want to troll.

Good luck to ya.

Liberal dictionary: Troll: someone who doesn't get liberalism no matter how many talking points you hit them with...

 

[DiamondDave]

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a **** about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Again... you imbecilic ****

It ENSURES no such thing.... And since it does not sell insurance, it also does not insure a damn thing

We know you don't give a **** about what others say... it appears you don't give a **** about anything but yourself...

Now... if we would take your argument and apply it to people who don't do very much for the country, your fellow low earning imbeciles at the Burger King for example, you would have a fit... because it simply fits your agenda....

You see... where your direct vote is represented, you have the same voting power as anyone... and the branch that utilizes that method for selection is the Legislative.... in a balance of power, the Judicial is not voted on at all but rather it is selection by appointment and confirmation by the Executive and Legislative (particularly the Senate) branches respectively.... and further in the balance of power, the selection of the Executive branch ensured the voices of all states (you know, those things that give the federal government its power) are heard by a popular vote for constitutionally approved electors within the state who then cast their lots for the office of the President and Vice President.... balance of power, a good thing to have...

Oh.. and your vote for electors in the Presidential election process... has just as much 'weight' or 'power' or whatever term you wish to use, as every other citizen who cast a vote for the electors within your state... and your state determines the laws which govern such electors when casting their ballots for the offices of President and Vice President... and remember, AGAIN, it is the states that give the power to the federal government, not the popular vote of the nationwide populous...

A little education can take you a long way... even out of that fry cook job

Again.

You are completely wrong. There's really no need to dissect this post. It's blather, bile and ranting.

My vote has less weight then the guy in Montana..in my example. It's simple math.

No.. a little education in civics would show I am completely right...

You are more of an idiot than previously thought