Sarah Palin

[sr71plt]

And to think that all this could have been avoided had Al Gore just said the following words, "I still oppose gun control." 5 words could have saved the country all of this.

That or McCain running as an independent in 2000.

I think Gore could have avoided it all with five different words: "I ask for a recount."

 

[ottohauser1977]

I think Gore could have avoided it all with five different words: "I ask for a recount."

Thought that he did ask for one. It just didn't get completed in time. Funny how different people concluded different things about that election and the one in Minnesota. Because only Democrats steal elections, right?

 

[sr71plt]

Thought that he did ask for one. It just didn't get completed in time. Funny how different people concluded different things about that election and the one in Minnesota. Because only Democrats steal elections, right?

I thought they were still bumbling around with a recount process in Florida when Gore conceded to save the country the grief and uncertainty.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I thought they were still bumbling around with a recount process in Florida when Gore conceded to save the country the grief and uncertainty.

I thought that he conceded because the Supreme Court picked Bush. Wonder if the idea of their successors on the Court affected their decision?

 

[ottohauser1977]

Incidentally, I think that Gore had this right about this election being old vs. young. The part about Obama getting a landslide for the youth vote was telling. McCain, on the other hand, got the over 55 bloc. The past vs. the future. And the future won, which is reassuring in a way.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I thought that he conceded because the Supreme Court picked Bush. Wonder if the idea of their successors on the Court affected their decision?

I don't think he ever did concede. In the middle of December, the SCOTUS overruled the Florida Supreme Court and told the state to go with the votes they had. To do otherwise would have effectively disenfranchised the whole state, because their electoral votes would not have been counted. This is what the Dems, including the majority of the state supremes, wanted because it would have given them the election.

When the recount was finally complete Bush was the winner anyhow, by a narrow margin, so SCOTUS PREVENTED the theft of the election.

I don't know if the Dems are more crooked than the Reps or not, but the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Minn., where so much chicanery went on or is still going on, are Dems. Most, maybe all, big city machines are Dems also.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I don't know if the Dems are more crooked than the Reps or not, but the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Minn., where so much chicanery went on or is still going on, are Dems. Most, maybe all, big city machines are Dems also.[/QUOTE]

True, but the Secretary of State of Florida was a Republican at the time, wasn't she?

On a side note, arguing with you might be fun, because I get to see your avatar more often. How can such a delectable woman be a Republican? Oh, I would say that God works in mysterious ways, but then I remember that I am an atheist.

 

[sr71plt]

I thought that he conceded because the Supreme Court picked Bush. Wonder if the idea of their successors on the Court affected their decision?

Yes, you're right. Where Gore screwed up on the recount is that Bush's campaign proposed that they only take undervoting (what the machines clearly accepted) in Florida and Gore's campaign insisted on including the overvotes (this all before the Supreme Court got involved). If Gore had agreed to the undervote counting only, he would have won the recount.

 

[Guest]

I don't know if the Dems are more crooked than the Reps or not, but the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Minn., where so much chicanery went on or is still going on, are Dems. Most, maybe all, big city machines are Dems also.

True, but the Secretary of State of Florida was a Republican at the time, wasn't she?

And Jeb Bush was Florida's governor.

 

[sr71plt]

II don't know if the Dems are more crooked than the Reps or not, but the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Minn., where so much chicanery went on or is still going on, are Dems. Most, maybe all, big city machines are Dems also.

Ah, well, if they are Dems, that's all you need to know, right?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I don't know if the Dems are more crooked than the Reps or not, but the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Minn., where so much chicanery went on or is still going on, are Dems. Most, maybe all, big city machines are Dems also.

True, but the Secretary of State of Florida was a Republican at the time, wasn't she?

On a side note, arguing with you might be fun, because I get to see your avatar more often. How can such a delectable woman be a Republican? Oh, I would say that God works in mysterious ways, but then I remember that I am an atheist.[/QUOTE]

She was, but there was no chicanery, as the recount showed. However, misdeeds commited by the SOS of Minn and Ohio have come to light, both before and after the election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/ele...-secretary-state-hotly-contested-senate-race/

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1214037102320080.xml&coll=2

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435744,00.html

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Ah, well, if they are Dems, that's all you need to know, right?

Machines are usually there to insure that the candidate they support is a winner, and they have no compunction against breaking the law to do it.

 

[DeeZire]

S P A - if you Google "voting problems 2004" you'll find all kinds of Republicans up to no good. I'm under the impression that during that voting cycle, they had the upper hand in underhandedness.

 

[sr71plt]

S P A - if you Google "voting problems 2004" you'll find all kinds of Republicans up to no good. I'm under the impression that during that voting cycle, they had the upper hand in underhandedness.

You're no fun if you're going to insist on objective analysis.

 

[ottohauser1977]

As a country, however, I should note that the VP vetting process should have been the first clear warning of the corruption part. The man picked to choose the VP ended up as the VP. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Ever wonder how that conversation went?

Dick: Hey, Gov, I found your running mate.
Dubya: Yeah, who? Don't tease me, I still have to play 8 holes down at the club.
Dick: He was the minority leader in the House and the Secretary of Defense.
Dubya: I told ya, Dick, just come out with it. Don't beat the Bush around with it.
Dick: Okay, it's me.
Dubya: Wow, that was easy! So, who should help us pick my cabinet?

Herr Max, that is fucking hilarious.

Btw, who is this Lysander Spooner guy that you have been quoting lately? He seems quite intriguing.

 

[rgraham666]

She was, but there was no chicanery, as the recount showed. However, misdeeds commited by the SOS of Minn and Ohio have come to light, both before and after the election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/ele...-secretary-state-hotly-contested-senate-race/

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1214037102320080.xml&coll=2

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435744,00.html

You're treating The Ministry of Truth, I mean Fox News, as an unbiased source? Funny. And the Plain Dealer link is to an opinion piece, not a news article.

Oh. Now I remember you. You're the one who proved that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda by linking to The Weekly Standard.

Anyway. Your links are about this year's election and every body else was talking about the 2000 election.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

You're treating The Ministry of Truth, I mean Fox News, as an unbiased source? Funny. And the Plain Dealer link is to an opinion piece, not a news article.

Oh. Now I remember you. You're the one who proved that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda by linking to The Weekly Standard.

Anyway. Your links are about this year's election and every body else was talking about the 2000 election.

I was comparing the relative crookedness of Republicans and Democrats. I think they are all as dishonest as they can get away with, which is the nature of politics. I also think the Democrats are generally more dishonest than the Republicans because of the nature of big city machines.

I am citing Fox News and The Cleveland Plain Dealer, but they are basing their opinions on known facts and statements by the Ohio Supreme Court. Why do you never criticize those who cite known liars such as The Huffington Post and the New York Times and others of that ilk? Just because you agree with them doesn't mean they are telling the truth.\

Among those known facts are the way ACORN attempted voter fraud, apparently with the connivance of the SOS of Minn. and Fla. Supposedly, ACORN was neutral in registering new voters, but they concentrated their efforts on places that were mostly habituated by those who would vote Democrat, and they paid for registrations without making any effort to verify them.

 

[sr71plt]

I was comparing the relative crookedness of Republicans and Democrats. I think they are all as dishonest as they can get away with, which is the nature of politics.

Certainly glad I'm not this sour on life.

 

[DeeZire]

... Just because you agree with them doesn't mean they are telling the truth....

S P A - by your own admission, your sources are unreliable because they have an agenda. In other words, your soap box has no legs. Try pulling facts from Factcheck.org and see what you come up with. At least if you start with facts, you can then see how they change as the spin machines from either side twist them to suit their ideologies.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrettyAss
I was comparing the relative crookedness of Republicans and Democrats. I think they are all as dishonest as they can get away with, which is the nature of politics.

Certainly glad I'm not this sour on life.

I'm not sour on life, just on crooked politics, which is a redundancy.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

S P A - by your own admission, your sources are unreliable because they have an agenda. In other words, your soap box has no legs. Try pulling facts from Factcheck.org and see what you come up with. At least if you start with facts, you can then see how they change as the spin machines from either side twist them to suit their ideologies.

I'm not sure just how reliable they are, but the quotations and statistics they include are easily verifiable. Even if they weren't, Fox and most other sources would be paragons of honesty and virtue, compared with the Huffington Post and similar sources that some people on this forum seem to almost worship.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm not sure just how reliable they are, but the quotations and statistics they include are easily verifiable. Even if they weren't, Fox and most other sources would be paragons of honesty and virtue, compared with the Huffington Post and similar sources that some people on this forum seem to almost worship.

Whatever you say, Doll. I'm just curious how you reach this internet site from your parallel universe where Fox is a paragon of honesty and virtue.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Herr Max, that is fucking hilarious.

Btw, who is this Lysander Spooner guy that you have been quoting lately? He seems quite intriguing.

Thanks.

Spooner was a great 19th philosopher who truly thought about the implications and meaning of freedom and dignity in ways that most people simply don't. Some of his ideas were flawed, but on balance he was right on. Especially about civil liberties and the power of government to legislate them away, even representative governments.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrettyAss
I'm not sure just how reliable they are, but the quotations and statistics they include are easily verifiable. Even if they weren't, Fox and most other sources would be paragons of honesty and virtue, compared with the Huffington Post and similar sources that some people on this forum seem to almost worship.

Whatever you say, Doll. I'm just curious how you reach this internet site from your parallel universe where Fox is a paragon of honesty and virtue.

If you look at my recent post, you will see that I preface it by saying "I'm not sure just how reliavble they are..." Now, will you kindly tell me how you can believe that you can believe even a word of what the Huffington Post says?

 

[DeeZire]

If you look at my recent post, you will see that I preface it by saying "I'm not sure just how reliavble they are..." Now, will you kindly tell me how you can believe that you can believe even a word of what the Huffington Post says?

I see what Factcheck.org says, and compare that to whatever source interests me. I would highly recommend you trying the same thing. It is very interesting to see how the same facts can lead to different conclusions, depending on the ideology of the spin being applied to those facts.

Have you seen any of the documentaries exposing the editorial slant of Fox News? It might be helpful in your search for the truth, unless you aren't searching for the truth, but only looking for a source to validate your preconceived notions. We all do that - the idea is to recognize we're doing it so that we can reference the truth and make better decisions.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed with some of the spin the Dems were throwing out there, but it's understandable. Fox News and talk radio are very good at what they do, and there are times when the only way to balance lies is with other lies. But in the long run, I think you will find more crap coming from the Right than the Left, at least if you compare the crap with the facts.

Even here we have a different definition of Right and Left. If you include every loony tune from the extreme of either side, you're going to hear some pretty bizarre stuff. To attach that stuff to the Dems or Reps when they don't buy it is disengenious. But if you look at what's accepted by the Right - Fox, Right Wing talk radio - and compare that to what's accepted by the left - Huff, Air America - I think you'll see a striking difference in the quality of information, especially if you compare that information to the actual facts.

Good luck in your search for the facts. And nice AV, by the way.