Sad but true
-
It is sad but America is really like this http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635,fiore,74276,9.html[^]
Kyle?
-
Kyle?
-
A kid who likes to troll here from time to time by creating new user accounts and posting inane messages purporting to be from the far right/far left...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
A kid who likes to troll here from time to time by creating new user accounts and posting inane messages purporting to be from the far right/far left...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Hello, world! wrote:
What is his screen name?
Well, there's the rub, eh? You might as well ask for a portrait of The Trickster! What is his screen name today?
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Hello, world! wrote:
What is his screen name?
Well, there's the rub, eh? You might as well ask for a portrait of The Trickster! What is his screen name today?
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Shog9 wrote:
What is his screen name today?
Hello, world!
-
Hello, world! wrote:
What is his screen name?
Well, there's the rub, eh? You might as well ask for a portrait of The Trickster! What is his screen name today?
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Shog9 wrote:
What is his screen name today?
No, this is my screen name, and it has been for the last several months.
And we never know under which new alias you're going to rear your ugly head. - Tim Craig
-
It is sad but America is really like this http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635,fiore,74276,9.html[^]
Which America do you live in? Mine's not a bit like this.
"...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
-
ahz wrote:
No so. Every single study of the election by groups and newspapers on both sides of the political spectrum and of all of the contested ballots in Florida concluded that Bush won, hands down.
Untrue. The group of newspapers that did a recount found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios, Gore would have won. But none of that is actually relevant, since the Supreme court, aborted the election process and gave the presidency to Bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. The group of newspapers that did a recount found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios, Gore would have won.
You got a source for that?
dennisd45 wrote:
since the Supreme court, aborted the election process and gave the presidency to Bush.
Not true, the surpreme court said the way gore wanted to cherry-pick recount counties would be unfair, they had to recount the whole state.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. The group of newspapers that did a recount found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios, Gore would have won.
You got a source for that?
dennisd45 wrote:
since the Supreme court, aborted the election process and gave the presidency to Bush.
Not true, the surpreme court said the way gore wanted to cherry-pick recount counties would be unfair, they had to recount the whole state.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
You got a source for that?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095[^]
kgaddy wrote:
they had to recount the whole state.
But a recount did not take place. As I said the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to Bush.
kgaddy wrote:
the surpreme court said the way gore wanted to cherry-pick recount counties would be unfair
Not exactly what they said, in any case a very flawed decision, that will likely cause many problems in the future. -- modified at 12:14 Tuesday 29th August, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
kgaddy wrote:
You got a source for that?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095[^]
kgaddy wrote:
they had to recount the whole state.
But a recount did not take place. As I said the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to Bush.
kgaddy wrote:
the surpreme court said the way gore wanted to cherry-pick recount counties would be unfair
Not exactly what they said, in any case a very flawed decision, that will likely cause many problems in the future. -- modified at 12:14 Tuesday 29th August, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Oh, please! "The study's key result: When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote" That's the key part. Democrats wanted to change the law! They wanted to use different methods of counting votes (other than the ones specified by law) and pick the method that elected Gore. That's why the Supreme Court stepped in. The Democratic Party wanted to illegally alter the methods used in order to put Gore into the presidency. Every single recount that actually followed the law showed Bush a clear winner.
-
You do define. Unfortunately you do not observe. For you it is not a talent, but a curse.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
That sounds like you were trying to make a Haiku.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Oh, please! "The study's key result: When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote" That's the key part. Democrats wanted to change the law! They wanted to use different methods of counting votes (other than the ones specified by law) and pick the method that elected Gore. That's why the Supreme Court stepped in. The Democratic Party wanted to illegally alter the methods used in order to put Gore into the presidency. Every single recount that actually followed the law showed Bush a clear winner.
espeir wrote:
Oh, please!
Translation: This article makes statements that espeir disagrees with, therefore it must be leftist.
espeir wrote:
Democrats wanted to change the law!
Fabrication on your part. Provide a source for this statement.
espeir wrote:
wanted to use different methods of counting votes (other than the ones specified by law)
Really? How do you know that? Is there a nation or statewide legal standard? What is it? How does it differ from the methods chosen? What Democrats tried to do this?
espeir wrote:
That's why the Supreme Court stepped in.
Untrue.
espeir wrote:
The Democratic Party wanted to illegally alter the methods used in order to put Gore into the presidency.
Untrue. Gore ask for recounts in specific counties and that is allowed by Florida law.
espeir wrote:
Every single recount that actually followed the law showed Bush a clear winner.
Untrue. The 3 methods that showed bush winning were partial recounts, limited to specific counties. The six that showed Gore winning were state-wide.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
espeir wrote:
Oh, please!
Translation: This article makes statements that espeir disagrees with, therefore it must be leftist.
espeir wrote:
Democrats wanted to change the law!
Fabrication on your part. Provide a source for this statement.
espeir wrote:
wanted to use different methods of counting votes (other than the ones specified by law)
Really? How do you know that? Is there a nation or statewide legal standard? What is it? How does it differ from the methods chosen? What Democrats tried to do this?
espeir wrote:
That's why the Supreme Court stepped in.
Untrue.
espeir wrote:
The Democratic Party wanted to illegally alter the methods used in order to put Gore into the presidency.
Untrue. Gore ask for recounts in specific counties and that is allowed by Florida law.
espeir wrote:
Every single recount that actually followed the law showed Bush a clear winner.
Untrue. The 3 methods that showed bush winning were partial recounts, limited to specific counties. The six that showed Gore winning were state-wide.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Fabrication on your part. Provide a source for this statement.
Remember hanging chads? Even the link you provided showed that the "recounts" changed the rules. Talk about trying to undermine Democracy.
dennisd45 wrote:
Really? How do you know that? Is there a nation or statewide legal standard? What is it? How does it differ from the methods chosen? What Democrats tried to do this?
Elections are managed at the county-level. Democrats wanted to "reinterpret" votes in certain counties with "hanging chads". Remember how Democrats said that all votes for Buchanan should be transferred to Gore because the "butterfly ballot" was confusing and all those Palm Beach people really meant to vote for Gore? It was utter, illegal nonsense. I'm ashamed that such a large percentage of our country actually advocated the knowing falsification of an election like that. It's embarrassing.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue.
True.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. Gore ask for recounts in specific counties and that is allowed by Florida law.
True. They wanted to alter the methods used to count ballots.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. The 3 methods that showed bush winning were partial recounts, limited to specific counties. The six that showed Gore winning were state-wide.
Wrong! The 6 listed on that web site used "six different standards for what constituted a vote" (their words). All those that actually used the legal standard showed that Bush had won. That was the problem. The Democrats were trying to change the rules after the election to benefit their candidate and it had to be stopped. This isn't a Banana Republic, you know. It's absolutely atrocious behavior and is completely in line with my view of leftists as undemocratic favors of despotism.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Fabrication on your part. Provide a source for this statement.
Remember hanging chads? Even the link you provided showed that the "recounts" changed the rules. Talk about trying to undermine Democracy.
dennisd45 wrote:
Really? How do you know that? Is there a nation or statewide legal standard? What is it? How does it differ from the methods chosen? What Democrats tried to do this?
Elections are managed at the county-level. Democrats wanted to "reinterpret" votes in certain counties with "hanging chads". Remember how Democrats said that all votes for Buchanan should be transferred to Gore because the "butterfly ballot" was confusing and all those Palm Beach people really meant to vote for Gore? It was utter, illegal nonsense. I'm ashamed that such a large percentage of our country actually advocated the knowing falsification of an election like that. It's embarrassing.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue.
True.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. Gore ask for recounts in specific counties and that is allowed by Florida law.
True. They wanted to alter the methods used to count ballots.
dennisd45 wrote:
Untrue. The 3 methods that showed bush winning were partial recounts, limited to specific counties. The six that showed Gore winning were state-wide.
Wrong! The 6 listed on that web site used "six different standards for what constituted a vote" (their words). All those that actually used the legal standard showed that Bush had won. That was the problem. The Democrats were trying to change the rules after the election to benefit their candidate and it had to be stopped. This isn't a Banana Republic, you know. It's absolutely atrocious behavior and is completely in line with my view of leftists as undemocratic favors of despotism.
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that.
Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
dennisd45 wrote:
Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related.
What's the difference? I'm referring to the Democrats and the fact that every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner. Your link illustrated a focus on illegal recounts.
dennisd45 wrote:
Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that.
Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
dennisd45 wrote:
Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related.
What's the difference? I'm referring to the Democrats and the fact that every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner. Your link illustrated a focus on illegal recounts.
dennisd45 wrote:
Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. What's the difference?
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
espeir wrote:
every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner.
There were additional 2000 presidential elections?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong. Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. What's the difference?
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
espeir wrote:
every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner.
There were additional 2000 presidential elections?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong. Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
What, and find 6 year old news articles? How old are you? Can't you directly remember what went on?
dennisd45 wrote:
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
dennisd45 wrote:
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
So then you refuse to actually read the decision? The election was certified, the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes (which, at the time was impossible to discern) and the Supreme Court prevented it. It's all right there in the decision. Read it, or quit your yapping.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
What, and find 6 year old news articles? How old are you? Can't you directly remember what went on?
dennisd45 wrote:
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
dennisd45 wrote:
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
So then you refuse to actually read the decision? The election was certified, the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes (which, at the time was impossible to discern) and the Supreme Court prevented it. It's all right there in the decision. Read it, or quit your yapping.
espeir wrote:
Can't you directly remember what went on?
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
espeir wrote:
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
It does no such thing.
espeir wrote:
the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes
False. I stand by by original statements: 1. The newspaper consortium found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios Gore would have won. 2. The Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
espeir wrote:
Can't you directly remember what went on?
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
espeir wrote:
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
It does no such thing.
espeir wrote:
the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes
False. I stand by by original statements: 1. The newspaper consortium found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios Gore would have won. 2. The Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
How old are you?
dennisd45 wrote:
It does no such thing.
It says that used "six different standards for what constituted a vote". There is only one legal standard. Therefore the recount methods they used would be illegal if actually used. All the legal recounts showed Bush won.
dennisd45 wrote:
False
Yes they did. Read the supreme court decision. Democrats are slimy people and liars.