According to a small article in yesterday's New York Daily News, the new show is supposedly going to portray the two Bush girls as "sexually curious- and possibly bisexual".
Sounds hilarious. I can't wait.
Family First
Dec 19, 2000, 10:02 PM ET132 posts by 21 posters
132 posts
I wonder what ol bushy'l have to say bout that.
and just so you know i thought yr election was immensly unfair and im not american so you cant claim im biased in any way. the only way to have a fair election is to count ALL the damn votes. especially when it was that close...
does anyone reading this board live in florida? just wondering? if so, what do you think bout yr votes not being counted. "Cheryl3b" wrote in message news:[email]...
show
and
they WERE all counted, in some cases several times and Bush won every fucking time.
thats not what WE heard...
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:Dn006.14432$[email]...
yes, i was to understand that there was still a significant number of votes not counted, and that is why gore refused to concede (hell, would YOU concede an election that had been getting CLOSER as more votes were counted). No, i heard that a number of county's refused to recount any votes as they didnt have the resources etc. "Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:jn106.26555$[email]...
"Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:Jq106.26563$[email]...
votes
Some votes weren't counted 'cause there were some people too dumb to punch the damn hole. Strangly enough, a similar number of ballots have been thrown out in previous years, but no one seemed to care until after this election.
In article , "spauldingae" writes:
That's because the difference in the number of votes for each candidates, somewhere in the thousands, is numerically insignificant. But yeah, AlGore was just being a Sore Loserman � about the whole thing.
then you heard wrong.
"Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:jn106.26555$[email]...
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:wI106.14444$[email]...
Ummm...4 major news networks AND CNN on cable can't be wrong at the same time can they?!?!
eh rolante, where u from? "Rolante" wrote in message news:NR106.26637$[email]...
Why do you ask?!
cause i wanna know
Sydney ok?
hehe cool
Where are you from?
i already said,
Sydney, Australia (the best city in the best country and dont you forget it)
Yeah I won't
Nothing funnier then listening to two aussies argue about our politics.
I'm glad we ammused you ;-) "Howard & Edie" wrote in message news:[email]...
at least our elections are quick and painless (until the next day for the next 4 years....)
they should have just kept bill in the states...goddam he was a good pres...the charisma "Rolante" wrote in message news:K_106.26666$[email]...
1000x times better than little johnny
i wonder if ASIO is watching me?
"Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:22206.26676$[email]...
the
They are! Better run while you can! "Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:T2206.26679$[email]...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:45:33 GMT, "Rolante" wrote:
Of course they can. But in this case, they weren't. One person (you) simply misquoted all four of them at the same time.
I laugh at you
our news is correct thats why the court had to deny any more recounts and end the election "Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:wI106.14444$[email]...
Amazing how some foreigners understand better what went on than some US citizens.
<<Amazing how some foreigners understand better what went on than some US citizens.>>
I agree. Perhaps it's because they have no stake in the outcome and no preconceived beliefs about these things.
Oh please, so you found some foreigners who agree with your idea of what happened. Also, foreigners are always trying to find a way to poke fun of the the U.S. Sometimes as revenge, sometimes as jealousy, sometimes because of resentment, sometimes for just the pure fun of it. They are not all universally so interested in U.S. politics. Sure, they have the news, and sometimes it's actually U.S. news, but they have their *own lives* and their own news and their own problems to deal with. Only a few are going to be so interested in U.S. politics to seek out the amount of election coverage that was thrown in the faces of actual U.S. people. They may have a heard a few headlines here or there, and it made them shake their heads a bit, etc., but most have only a superficial understanding of U.S. politics (which is absolutely to be expected and not to be condemned in any way). Disclaimer: I am absolutely not a Republican or W. Bush supporter. Nor am I a Gore or Nader supporter, or a Democrat or a Green. Just calling it as I see it.
In article , [email] (Cheryl3b) writes:
Oh please. You're only saying that because they agree with you.
You're in Australia --- you probably heard from a carrier pigeon or smoke signals or something.
Nah we heard from mmm, lets see, 2 non commercial tv stations, 3 commercial, numberous cable channels including CNN, 2 major newspapers and many minor ones etc. "Alex Cain" wrote in message news:[email]...
For your information Australia is not a backward-bush land with no modern facilities! Actually we heard about the US elections from....5 major free-to-air networks various cable news channels including your CNN, 3 major newspapers, internet sites (yes we DO have internet services) and other minor sources
"Rolante" wrote in message news:zBg06.27387$[email]...
newspapers,
God damn you're sensitive dude.
and im to understand that you voted Gore right? well, i dont really care if you have one Pres or the other but i think that you should at least have one that was elected by counting everyone's vote. "Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:Dn006.14432$[email]...
yes indeedy, he voted gore allright...hehehe
but anyway, i see not point in sustaining this conversation. my point is made "Caeci11ius" wrote in message news:Gr106.26566$[email]...
if
one
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:Dn006.14432$[email]...
Were they all counted? Over here in AUS we heard that there were quite a few that wern't and infact, the recount was stopped midway. Isn't the point of having elections to elect a person by a majority vote? If you don't count all of the votes that would defeat the purpose would it not?
And by the way, the manual recount was done because there were votes that could not be read by a machine.
That would mean not all of the votes were counted...which contradicts you in saying that all votes were counted
let me say this one last time: ALL VOTES WERE COUNTED. The big fuck-up happened when the media <God bless their wretched souls> called Florida waaaaaaay too early. Since the count was close, a recount was done and Bush won (again). Since the vote was still close, three heavily Democratic counties wanted a "hand recount". Then came the dispute of under & over votes, i.e.... there was no Presidential vote or there was more than one Presidential vote. The legitimacy of the ballots came into question next by the Democratic Party. These ballots have been used in many, many elections before and were designed and instituted by the Democratic Party themselves. Now they are complaining about them, i.e.... Boo hoo I meant to vote for Gore but voted Buchanan instead or boo hoo Gore's name was under Bush's not next to it. A copy of the ballot was posted in the newspaper ahead of time and no minorities or old farts (elderly) complained. Of note I have used these same ballots on many occasions and have never had a problem. During the hand recount the rules were changed as what constituted a vote, i.e.... was the hole punched out, how much was punched out, if it was dimpled does it count as a vote, etc., etc., etc. You have 67 different counties in Florida and 67 different ways to count the votes. The biggest complaints were on the under/over votes and dimpled ballots. How can you tell voter intent by a dimpled ballot? What if a voter went to vote for one candidate (and dimpled the ballot) but halted before punching it through, electing to "think on it" before completing the vote and continuing to vote for the other candidates. Now what if this person "thought" that he/she had made the vote but had not. Now you have a dimpled ballot indicating a candidate but yet a vote was not actually cast. Does it count or not? What was the voters intent? Actually there is no way you can tell unless you were God but yet these pepole were trying to do so. If measures for recounts were on the books then I have no problem but these measures WERE NOT in place at the time of the election. You can't change the counting methods mid-stream. Even after the hand recount BUSH STILL WON. The Florida Supreme Court elected to overrule the Florida Secretary of State regarding the time limit statute and change the rule of law. Like I said, "You can't change the counting methods mid-stream". The national Supreme Court asked twice and never got a reply as to why the rules were changed. It was concluded that they had oversteped their bounds. The votes that you hear that weren't recounted were "disputed ballots", i.e.... ones that had dimples and undervotes. But don't be disillusioned, ALL VOTES WERE COUNTED. Gore himself said "Every vote counts" but yet tried to have 25,000 votes disqualified. Nothing was wrong with the votes but the Democrats had a problem with the absentee ballot request form. The minorities and elderly claimed that they were "disenfranchised". This means that they were denied the right to vote. This is utter bullshit. NOBODY and I mean NOBODY was denied the right to vote. It was that some were to stupid to know how to vote. This is neither Gore's or Bush's fault. These same idiots wanted a "re-vote". Sorry... once the vote is cast, it's cast. It can't be helped whether you liked the outcome or not. If there is a problem with the system... you change it. You can't do it retroactively, you have to do it proactively. These morons didn't like the outcome and cried foul but there was no foul except their own stupidity. I could go on about this, but why should I??? At times I also thought there may be something underhanded going on but when I looked at the facts I saw the situation for what it was, losers crying over spilled milk.
"Rolante" wrote in message news:5J106.26614$[email]...
elections
in
Tell that to the 22,000+ Gore backers in Palm Beach who's double punched ballots were tossed. ie. Never counted.
The exit polls were accurate. If *all* of the votes were counted and included in the end, the original projection made on election night would have been correct. When asked who they voted for, even people who had difficulty with the poorly designed ballots were able to plainly state their intentions.
Gore had the legal right to ask for those recounts, just as Bish had the legal right to ask that the thousands of illegal GOP ballot applications in Leon county be counted.
Regardless, they violated Florida state laws governing ballots and never should have been approved. The 'butterfly' ballot used in Palm Beach was illegal and the person that approved it should be terminated from their position.
Boo hoo, Florida state election law *mandates* a "space to the right of each candidate's name" and Buchanan's space was to the left of his name. Boo hoo.
Shame you had to break away from cogent argument to throw worthless insults at Florida residents. It really detracts from your position. Silly insults aside, sample ballots *were* sent out to registered voters, but use your brain for a moment. What were sample ballots for? Practice? No. For the most part, people skipped right past page one (I *know* who I'm voting for for president, no need to waste time on page one) and spent time reading the propositions that concern their local politics. To assume they should have known because they received a sample is laughable. Even Bush's people refused to go down that avenue when they realized the truth.
Yes, I believe they mentioned that during the hearings. "But that guy from the SouthPark newsgroup never had a problem, this case is closed."
The rules were accepted by counters and observers from both parties.
The FSSC should have instituted a standard but they chose to allow each county to adopt their own. That was their first screw up.
Sure, it's possible. And a small percentage of the undervotes probably did go the way your scenario dictates, but by no means a significant number. If you look at a ballot with a dozen dimpled chads, all of which are for Democrat candidates, one of which is for Gore, you're going to tell me you can't determine voter intent? How about if you throw in the fact that many of the dimpled ballots were cast using the cheapest, least reliable voting machines which were used in the poorer precincts (ie. Where the black voters live) and some of these flawed machines didn't even allow for the stylus to go all the way through, in effect creating uncountable ballots even though these people were obviously voting for someone.
If there is a pattern of dimpled chads and not just a single instance, then yes, it absolutely should have counted. Unfortunately stall tactics, GOP mobs-for-hire and an impending deadline insured that it wasn't.
Right. And forensic scientists can't possibly determine how someone died, lest they be labelled gods.
Finally, you've gotten around to mentioning a *real* problem. Florida state election law is garbage. Too many previously unforeseen events were never addressed. Fortunately, this debacle will cause changes to be made so that "one man, one vote" can once again mean something.
The hand count was incomplete and had still dropped Bush's lead down to about 20% of what it had been before. It got down to a level where the GOP was so worried they sent a mob down here to disrupt the counting process and cause the Miami-Dade canvassers to simply stop counting. Mod rules, a little "whiff of fascism." is always nice during a national election.
If all Florida counties were recounted, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Gore would have carried the state. Not even a shred. And now that the ballots are public domain, I can't wait to see what the non-partisan think tank poly-sci groups make of the real results.
Would that be Sec'y of State Catherine "If Bush wins, I get to be Ambassador to France" Harris?
They never should have asked in the first place. The USSC is required to respect local judicial procedure, this was a state issue that the USSC should never have even looked at, and wouldn't have if not for George "I trust the people, but not to count votes" Bush's involvement. Justice Bader-Ginsberg in her dissenting opinion questioned the USSC's involvement in a state's rights issue in the first place.
You're the disillusioned one. There are *still* thousands of ballots that have never been counted a single time. Calling them something different is merely an exercise in semantics.
No, he didn't. He specifically distanced himself from the suit in Leon County, lest some Bush supporters try to drag him into it. I'm not saying he wasn[t interested in a specific outcome, I'm saying he had nothing whatsoever to do with that case.
The ones that were illegally tampered with? The ones where Rep. staffers altered thousands of illegal applications after the fact so that the votes brought in by those illegal applications could be counted?
Some were turned away, some had their polling places were relocated with no notice to the constituents, when you throw around absolutes like NOBODY, you're practically guaranteed to be wrong.
No, these people you so smugly label 'stupid' were victims just like Al Gore. They were told that Gore would be the 2nd name listed, Democratic supporters visited dozens of retirement communities and spoke with the residents, they made it so easy, it was pounded into their heads, "Vote for the 2nd person, if you want to vote for Gore, punch the 2nd hole. That's all you need to remember. #2." Then this illegal butterfly ballot shows up and what do you know? Buchanan (who himself admitted that there's no way in hell thoses votes were rightfully his) ends up with a ton of votes from elderly Jewish citizens, votes that were *obviously* meant for Gore. Unless you really think the man who said Hitler wasn't a bad guy was the sweetheart of Holocaust survivors?
"Stupid" Morons" "Idiots". Enough already. Your boy won but that's no reason to be so vicious and off base. These people are not stupid, any more than a victim of a con is stupid. It happens. You let your guard down, you assume that even though the world is a nasty deceitful place, you can *still* count on knowing an election process is free and clear of such shenanigans. Then you find out how wrong you were, and you get labelled 'stupid' by every Bush supporter with a keyboard and an opinion.
I'm not sure why you bothered in the first place. Did you want people to think lowly of you or was that a by-product?
If this is *truly* what you think, then I pity your profound lack of understanding.
Gore 50,996,064 48.39% Bush 50,456,167 47.88% Nader 2,864,810 2.72% All others 1.01%
So much for vox populi.
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...
If you double punch, you get a new ballot or your ballot is null and void. A person with 80 IQ points could do it.
If you don't like the ballot, you get a new one before election night, not at 12:01 am on November 8 'cause your guy is coming in 2nd.
Calling it at 5 minutes after the polls close has no semblence of accuracy.
If *all* of the votes were counted and
All the valid votes were counted.
the original projection made on election night
No one noticed a problem before November 7?
was
into
These ballots have been in use for 25 years, and a problem just now is noticed? Couldn't it have been taken care of......oh, 6 months ago, or whenever the ballots were approved?
Next time, bring this up before november 7.
What
not
GOP mob for hire? Is that anything like a Demo mob for hire?
no
election.
So if Jesse Jackson is out there, it's a demostration. If the GOP out there, it's a mob.
Would that also be Florida "We are 7 Democrats, at least one of which has ties to the Gore campaign" Supreme Court?
None of these people can read? Hell, even that isn't an excuse. Buchanan is 8 letters, Gore is 4 and the two look nothing alike.
Or did nobody bother to even look at the ballot?
Then this illegal butterfly
I'm not a Bucanahan supporter, nor do I like him, but Actually, what he said was something akin to that Hitler wasn't a threat to the Continental US. Doesn't make him a nazi, more of a bad historian.
looked
spilled
The Popular vote has no legal binding until the constitution is changed. Also, That is a very slim lead for Gore in the Popular totals. Less then 1%. Hardly a mandate.
Were the million or absentee ballots in California ever counted and included in that total above?
jeeze with a result that close i reckon you'd wanna recout it ANYWAY... "Bao H. Lammy (Pipeline)" wrote in message news:[email]...
1%.
"Bao H. Lammy (Pipeline)" wrote in message news:[email]...
Freaking hell! That's a minority government isn't it? Either way you have a minority governement. If the populatirty votes were counted and Gore won, he doesn't have the electorial votes to match Bush, and Bush now has a government which is not the most popular. sheesh! politics!
Also don't you have to sign up to elect? And what population of the US is eligable to vote(ie: they submitted their info)? 50%??? Less?!?!?
Democratic and undemocratic at the same time IMHO
Go ahead! flame me!
Dude unless I'm wrong the U.S. is a REPUBLIC. We've always went with the Electorial College not the popular vote. Popular is nowhere in the Constitution. Now choke on that slapnuts.
"Rolante" wrote in message news:8Og06.27397$[email]...
Dude, this is a different country. Larger, much more populous, and much more diverse. (btw, Clinton, for at least one of his terms, didn't achieve a majority either.) The much-maligned Electoral College is a blessing, imo (no, I hate Bush, as well as Gore), because it prevents politicians from only trying to get the most votes in the U.S. It gives them incentive to listen to non-mega-urban areas, because that's all you really need to win to get most of the votes. Check this out: http://baolammy.freeyellow.com/e2000map.jpg
Now, if all you basically have to do is win the blue areas to get the majority of votes, as Gore just proved, how are those people in the red areas ever going to get their voice heard? You see the same problem in very-diverse California and their state politics; southern California controls the state's politics due to population density, but northern California gets shafted. (For you foreigners who may not realize it, California is not all big beaches and Hollywood; the northern part of the state might as well be a different country almost.) Finally, as a note to those who don't know all the fine points about U.S. president elections, whomever collects the most votes in each state (50 states) gets *all* the Electoral College votes for that state. To me, this is a good compromise that helps to elect presidents who represent the entire country as well as possible, not just 10 big cities.
Yes, you have to register. Some states allow you to do that the moment you vote. Others don't. As for who can vote, any citizen 18 and over who isn't a convicted felon, I believe. I think the population here is around 300M, and I think voter turnout was around 50%, maybe lower? Anyway, using 50% turnout, that would mean (very rough #s) that about 2/3s of the country can vote. By 2/3s I mean that the other 1/3 are too young or ineligible due to being a convict.
In article , "Bao H. Lammy \(Pipeline\)" writes:
In addition, if this country's elections were held by popular votes, EVERY county in EVERY state would be doing what they did in Palm Beach. What a mess THAT would be!
In article , "Rolante" writes:
You might want to brush up on your civics lessons, Rolante.
The U.S. is NOT a Democracy.
Nice try, but several thousand voters complained in their lawsuit in West Palm Beach that they were refused a new ballot after they realized their error. That's called disenfranchisement.
A person with an 80 I.Q. wouldv'e known that...
Question for you: These people who were refused a new ballot after they relized their error -- when did they realize their error? If they had already submitted their ballots, TS, imo. Now, if they realized what they did and didn't turn in the ballot yet, I agree that they should get new ones.
"Bao H. Lammy (Pipeline)" wrote:
The general story behind the complaint was that the voters in question had NOT submitted the ballot. They had noticed their mistake in the voting booth. Several said that election officials told them it was illegal for them to issue another ballot, even if the original was destroyed in frot of them.
Weather said officials were Dems or Pubs was never stated.
I've voted in Miami-Dade and fucked a ballot. Guess what, I wasn't refused a new one.
"M C" wrote in message news:[email]...
NOT
Several
another
Mark Marklar wrote:
Well, good for you. If you had read my post, however, you would've seen that I was talking about West Palm Beach.
I've never fucked a ballot. Did you get to slap it's titties around?
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:3om06.15524$[email]...
refused
Needle dick, the ballot fucker! You must be the dude that impregnated Chad.
WOW, your wit astounds me. What rhetoric.
"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...
Chad.
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:QCu06.15967$[email]...
Hey, you were practically begging. Someone was bound to step up to the plate sooner or later.
look up the word "sarcasm".
"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:dYJ06.16297$[email]...
It's around the corner from "Perfect Setup�".
In article , "Mark Marklar" writes:
In addition, the news media conveniently forget to mention that infamous stack of 19,000 (?) ballots were ones which had been fucked up and corrected.
But they were counted...as invalid. Therefore, that vote will not count, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the ballot didn't.
Which did not reflect the actual vote, btw.
We cal that "hearsay". Besides, even in exits polls there was a + or - 3% accuracy rate. In this close election in Florida, polls can not be reliable, especially when the wire services that were reporting the results were themselves inaccurate. Futhermore this inaccuracy was compounded with the news services called the election early, further tainting the results. Conclusion: utter chaos.
Since the judge ruled that the absentee ballots were legal, then this point is moot. The argument was whether or not these votes should be disqualified, since the Republicans sent people to input the correct identification number after the ballots were turned in. If they didn't have that number, then those votes would not have count. But they were counted as legal votes anyway, thanks to the judge.
There's no evidence that the so-called "butterfly ballot" is illegal or not, since a) each county could choose their own ballots, and b) the state election board approved them for use. Were they unclear? Perhaps, but they were in play at the time of the election, and sample ballots were sent out beforehand. Based on Florida law, anyone could file a complaint inregards to the validity of the ballots. No one did complain, so that point is moot.
And yet this was approved. Go figure.
The truth is that ignorance is no excuse. I personally have a problem with this while "intent" business. Are we mind readers? The law does not assume intent, so the responsiblility of the voter is on the voter, once they recieve the proper information.
Not quite true. Otherwise, Bush wouldn't have sued over the whole "pregnant Chad" business. Besides, it was only when Gore's team could not statiscally raise his numbers that they wanted a more liberal interpretation of voter intent. That's where Bush won his argument, b/c there was no uniform standard of counting.
Which should have been taken care of before the actual election.
I could create a bunch of demple chads by simply using two or three ballots at the same time, and stuff them in a stylus. You actually think that there aren't people who would do this (in an election that had reportedly had illegal aliens voting)?
The GOP "mob-for-hire" had as much of a right to protest as Jesse Jackson's "rent-a-mob" (most of whom were bussed in from out of state). First, someone was violating Florida's "sunshine laws", by trying to manually count behind closed doors. Second, Dade County didn't even want to do a third recount in the first place (which was their right to do) and only did so after being threatened by a law suit by the Gore team. Third, Dade County canvassing board said that they did not stop because of the GOP. They did not want to count b/c they didn't think that they would be able to finish on time.
And you complain that insults should not have a place in an argument?
Get real. If Harris was a Democrat, she would have been a Gore supporter (ergo, this whole thing would have been in Gore's favor). It's naive to think that no one is partisan in any position of Florida's government, especially during an election year). You probably wouldn't have put down a Democratic Harris if the election was won by Gore.
And if that's the case, slavery would still be legal.
In a Federal election? I don't think so.
Just like thousands of more that still won't be counted in other parts of the nation.
A Gore supporter filed the suit. Ergo, he benefits by proxy, but he still benefits. Disingenious.
Which were deemed legal by the Courts. The only thing that was added were the identification numbers. I will say this though: I would counted those votes, but would jail the operatives, since the intent of the votes did not change. The only thing that was changed was the inclusion of the identification number on the ballots. Still, it does not bode well in this case.
Then why weren't there any complaints until two weeks after the election? I really need to know this.
The same man who hates George Bush for "stealing" the GOP nomination away from him? Do you trust his word?
(skipping everythin else)
Don't equate large populations with electorial votes. That not how the system is done. You could easily win the popular vote and still loose (it has happened before). A flaw in the system I guess.
"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from Highlander: The Series)
In article , [email] (Dswynne) writes:
It's really amazing how people who didn't vote for president were suddenly divined as having voted for Gore as the recounting process continued.
count
Oddly enough, when the recount wasn't generating the AlGore votes they expected, the Democrats suddenly decided to stop counting.
That's a load of crap.The alleged precinct in Tallahassee Jackson claimed to have cops turing away voters stopped 18 people, 12 of whom were white.
Funny how Jackson and crew have YET to produce a single person who was actually denied the chance to vote...
In article , [email] says...
No all the ballots were counted but not all the votes for president
I forgot to add to my reply above that the more that (butterfly) ballots are handled the margin of error increases exponentially. AND how many recounts of recounts of the recounts do you have to have before enough is enough? The bottom line is Bush won (legally and morally).
"Rolante" wrote in message news:5J106.26614$[email]...
elections
in
Why on earth were the butterfly ballots used? I mean a survey was done using a butterfly system and one dot had nothing against it and guess what? A large number voted for that nothing! Incidently that number of "stupidity votes" would have tipped the entire election one way or another!
In article , "Mark Marklar" wrote:
OK, first, the butterfly ballots have nothing to do with the chad issue (though they may or may not be the punch type). So assuming that you made an honest mistake, we'll let that drop. Now the punch type ballots MAY have a greater chance of a chad dislodging if they are handled multiple times. However, since this is based on random chance, the chances are JUST AS GOOD that it will create votes for ANY of the candidates.
Now, given that handling should give additional votes to all candidates equally, Bush, Gore, and Nadar will each receive some number of additional votes, and this should equal out. (Yes, based on small samples it is possible for the numbers to be skewed, but not very likely.)
Now, as to your assertion that the votes were recounted, SOME votes in SOME counties were recounted. Certain large counties (oh, say Dade county among them) were never recounted by hand. The punch-type ballots are the ones with by FAR the highest rate of machine read errors, and they were in use in a handful of locations, which happened to be heavily democratic. As the votes were counted by hand, there were rather significant net gains for Gore, and based on the vote distribution in the counties with the punch-type ballots, it is almost certain that Gore would have received enough votes to put him over the top had a full hand-count been completed.
In closing, the raw numbers don't lie. There were significant undercounts in counties that used the punch-type ballots. Hand counts were NOT completed in the most populous counties. Were it handling that caused chads to dislodge, all candidates would have recorded similar gains. It is quite clear that people in Florida can't count, now we can see that they know nothing of number theory or statistics either.
Jeremiah
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:39:31 GMT, "Mark Marklar" wrote:
Of course, the only reason you're saying this is that you're obviously a social and/or economic conservative who voted for Bush. If Bush had received 300,000 more votes than Gore, but Gore had ended up winning the presidency anyway, you'd be complaining that Gore had stolen the election...
of course I'm a conservative. Am I that obvious? And yes I did vote Bush but that doesn't mean I like him. I just hate Gore a lot more and want to be rid of the whole Clinton/Gore legacy (forever). There has never been a more corrupt administration in the history of the U.S. And just to let you know, those 300,000 votes don't mean doodley squat. The U.S. is a Republic, not a democracy. Popular vote is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Electoral is). Choke on that slapnuts. <sorry, I've been watching Jeff Jarrett too much>
"biohazard" wrote in message news:[email]...
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:3Dm06.15527$[email]...
you
Republic,
Not to mention if there's doubt Bush won Florida, I think it's safe to say Gore might not have won the national popular.
Oh, one story I've heard is that Democrats like to register illiterates, and show them how to vote...and that on the sample ballot they demostrated with in PB county the Gore hole was second. When asked who they voted for in exit polls, they had no idea.
why am I not surprised.
"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:3a425c88$[email]...
and
with
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:NFu06.15969$[email]...
Cuz democrats piss you off too? The really twisted thing here is even if it did somehow get brought out by the liberal media, it's highly likely it would be touted as a Wonderful Idea, helping all those people who would otherwise be unable to vote. I dunno, I think literacy should be at least *considered*. I mean hell, what's next...picture ballots? *shudder*
Maybe they should devise some test to figure out how good of a liar a candidate is. Whomever scores highest becomes president. Wait, that's what we have now...
goddam, how can u wanna be rid of clinton...he is the best president that the us has had this centuary, i mean goddam. "Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:3Dm06.15527$[email]...
you
Republic,
LOL!!!! Good joke, you DO have a sense of humor.
In article , [email] says...
Mark like low wages, High unemployment , High Crime , High Interest Rates , High Inflation , and most of all deficit spending.
In article , [email] says...
Mark you are very dilusioned. Do you belive all the bullshit you hear. The Clinton / Gore administration was the least corrupt in a very long time. Had Reagan been put to the same scrutiny as Clinton he would have been laughed out of office. Bush, if put through the same type of investigation would have been hung for treason. Do you really think that Clinton is the first politian to be unfaithful to his wife? Do you really think a BJ is worse than trading arms for hostages? Pull your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and take a look around.
sure thou jest? Nixon & Reagan don't even hold a candle to Slick Willie. This past administration is the most scandal plagued in recent history. A bj dosen't even come close to topping the chart of Willie's scandals. I could fill several paragraphs of Clinton's shit but I won't. The Iran/Contra scandal of Reagan pales in comparison to Clinton. I thought that Carter was a major fuck-up, but compared to Clinton he's a genius. You need to pull your head out of Tom Daschel's, Robert Reisch's and David Bonior's asses. Of further note Clinton SHOULD be tried for treason. China and the gutting of our military are two items that immediately pop into my mind. At least patriotism was at an all time high w/Reagan. Talk to our boys in uniform and ask them if they feel the same now.
"Sean" wrote in message news:[email]...
...and to the Republic for which it stands...
--- The Pledge of Allegiance
--- Willie Westwood
In article , [email] says...
Like the peoples republic of China ????
That depends on the application. Republics ain't intrinsically bad.
--- Willie Westwood
<<The bottom line is Bush won (legally and morally).>>
Methinks the Bushies protest too much.
When before in our lifetimes has a president or his supporters had to say this over and over and over and over...? As if saying it made it true.
Let's wait until the recounts are finished in Florida before the jury comes in on this, 'k? (Those recounts that Bush did everything he could to stop in their tracks.)
There has never been an election in our lifetimes this close. And if the tables were reversed, Democrats would be the ones fending off Republican doubts about Gore's legitimacy.
Well, who's doing this (final?) recount? Under what standard? Who's handling the ballots in the meantime? How will the ballots be handled during the recount? I don't want Bush as president any more than I want Gore, but the reality is that several poorly designed election laws (and rules based on those same laws) existed before the election took place. Some people (mainly liberals) think that those laws and rules should be thrown out in interest of the public good (their idea of it), while others (most others) accept that the rules were not perfect and many should be changed, but not retroactively, and accept that the U.S. Supreme Court is where the bickering ends.
Sure, the USSC may have a bias. But look at just about *any* decision they make -- it's extremely rare that they vote 9-0 on anything. It shows that even amongst the most sacred of decision makers in this country, you will usually find disagreement -- just like society at large. But, with the USSC, we are supposed to accept their decision and move on. If we don't like a decision of theirs, we move on and do what we can to see that it doesn't happen again.
What we shouldn't do, imo, is question the decision itself, as if you can change it or something. You can't reverse it. It's a waste of time. Disagree with it, hate it, whatever -- it's done and you can't do anything about *it* now.
"Bao H. Lammy (Pipeline)" wrote in message news:[email]...
The real difference is that the Republicans aren't as good at it as the Democrats. And better losers, look at Nixon in 1960, and that one *was* stolen by the Dems.
I think I saw one guy from the Miami Herald talking about that. He said it's not so much an actual count they want, as it is applying each standard to each set from each county to see just how much of a discrepancy there is between the "standards". That was one of the goals I heard stressed.
This really should have gone to Fla legislature *immedietly* following the second recount.
I think their major mistake was sending it back to the Fla *court*, and not the Fla legislature, which is where it really belonged.
Well, nothing other than fuck the country harder by turning Bush into a weak, illegitimate president who has to spend all his time fighting for respect instead of running the country. It wouldn't surprise me to see an impeachment attempt. God damn, democrats PISS ME OFF.
<<Well, who's doing this (final?) recount? Under what standard? Who's handling the ballots in the meantime? How will the ballots be handled during the recount?>>
Come on, dude, pick up a paper and start to inform yourself. I mean, seriously, this is very basic stuff.
To answer your questions, the ballots have been secured by the individual canvassing boards, a number of news organizations and a very conservative "watchdog" group are observing the counting, which is being done by the individual official election personnel. All that the news organizations are reporting is what the ballots look like, allowing the readers of their papers to draw their own conclusions. The conservative watchdog group has not published what standard it intends to use.
<< with the USSC, we are supposed to accept their decision and move on.>>
I'm sure that that kind of thinking was a great comfort to Dred Scott and his family.
<<You can't reverse it. It's a waste of time. Disagree with it, hate it, whatever -- it's done and you can't do anything about *it* now. >>
IMO, it's never a waste of time to know the truth.
Very basic stuff. Uh huh. I don't have to inform myself about this additional recount because I don't believe in it. Its details don't really concern me since they will have no bearing on the end result. The questions I posed were rhetorical and were posed to further the point that there is no way to guarantee that the ballots look like they did almost two months ago. When you're arguing over less than 150 votes, that's not that many that need to be mishandled to change the result the other way.
Nice snipping around my words to remove the full context. Here are the relevant parts again: ========================================= Sure, the USSC may have a bias. But look at just about *any* decision they make -- it's extremely rare that they vote 9-0 on anything. It shows that even amongst the most sacred of decision makers in this country, you will usually find disagreement -- just like society at large. But, with the USSC, we are supposed to accept their decision and move on. If we don't like a decision of theirs, we move on and do what we can to see that it doesn't happen again.
What we shouldn't do, imo, is question the decision itself, as if you can change it or something. You can't reverse it. It's a waste of time. Disagree with it, hate it, whatever -- it's done and you can't do anything about *it* now. =========================================
You must be a spin doctor at heart, the removing of the last sentence, Paragraph 1 of the frame above being a particularly good example.
The truth *is* irrelevant in this situation, because whatever this "final" recount reveals *will not* change the fact that W. will be president come late January. Whatever it turns up, each side will stay put and believe what it wants to believe. Any benefit from it has already been derived: just about everyone agrees that the Florida rules need to be sorted out/clarified/made consistent/etc., and every state should probably look at its rules for elections.
As for Dred Scott, again: "But, with the USSC, we are supposed to accept their decision and move on. If we don't like a decision of theirs, we move on and do what we can to see that it doesn't happen again." As far as I recall, no amount of bickering after the fact reversed that decision, either. People changed the things they didn't like about that decision by changing society itself, not by quibbling over decisions that *cannot* be reversed. I suggest that those angry with the election results do the same: change what needs to be changed and waste less time on matters that are genuinely not that relevant.
I happened to love the way the election turned out. It exposed both candidates and both parties to be a bunch of rule-twisting slimeballs that both deserved to lose.
<<As for Dred Scott, again: "But, with the USSC, we are supposed to accept their decision and move on. If we don't like a decision of theirs, we move on and do what we can to see that it doesn't happen again." As far as I recall, no amount of bickering after the fact reversed that decision, either.>>
Right. That's why we still have slavery in the US.
How silly of those of us who disagree with the Supreme Court decision to want to talk about it now. What could possibly be gained by it?
Again w/ the spin-doctering. This is the relevant information you have snipped that should also have been quoted after my words: ============================================ "People changed the things they didn't like about that decision by changing society itself, not by quibbling over decisions that *cannot* be reversed. I suggest that those angry with the election results do the same: change what needs to be changed and waste less time on matters that are genuinely not that relevant. ============================================
We don't still have slavery, of course -- *not* because people reversed the USSC Dred Scot decision -- they changed society by fighting slavery in various other ways, such as helping slaves escape to the North, protests, and ultimately -- war. They did not spend the bulk of their time bickering over the Dred Scot case, which they correctly realized was futile to fight itself.
Yes, good point. You are wasting valuable resources and time that could be spent on preventing a repeat of this fiasco in the future. Instead of petitioning local election boards and getting the rules changed that caused all of this, you just basically whine that you got screwed. If that's true, what good does it do to whine? Is it just personal therapy? No USSC member is going to be "fired" and the decision will stand. I encourage you to follow your principles, but ask yourself: Is this really the best tactic? I can tell you already that you're just turning off the rest of the country, and not just those who are diametrically opposed to you, but also those who are relatively impartial and have moved on. They see those who are still arguing about an irreversible USSC decision and an irreversible (thank God) election result as whiners and will just draw away from that sort of behavior. Be proactive and make real changes. That's what got rid of slavery in the end.
<< They see those who are still arguing about an irreversible USSC decision and an irreversible (thank God) election result as whiners and will just draw away from that sort of behavior. Be proactive and make real changes. That's what got rid of slavery in the end.>>
The Supreme Court is far from irreversible. It is also not infallible. Positions taken by the Court have always been reviewed, modified and outright overruled by subsequent courts, even sometimes by the same court. That is the nature of law in this country.
Discussion of these issues does promote change in the court, as our long legal tradition clearly has shown. Anyone who doesn't want to take part, or who doesn't appreciate the debate, is certainly free to opt out at any time, but the debate will continue, and the change, hopefully, will come, anyway.
And please stop accusing me of "spin doctoring" if I choose to respond to one point or another of the many points you make. I do so because that is the point that interests me. Implying motives instead of dealing with the issues diminishes what you say considerably, IMO.
I never said the U.S. Supreme Court is infallible. As for its decisions being reversed, please explain how "reversing" this particular decision will change the outcome of the election, seeing as how any reversal or modification of this particular decision will not happen any time soon, nor will it put Gore in the White House and take W. Bush out. Though I don't necessarily doubt you, provide a list of USSC decisions that have been reversed by subsequent courts or the same court along with the time elapsed between original decision and modification/reversal. I think you will find that the time elapsed is relatively great. This particular decision was a procedural one that sent the matter back to the Florida Supreme Court to re-decide w/ new parameters. Reverse it and what do you get? Nada. *The election is over.* Or do you really anticipate this exact situation arising again so that we can reference a reversal? There is no way that this situation will repeat exactly, and undoubtedly some election rules will have been changed in the meantime by people who are not whining but spearheading *real* change, so talk of reversing or modifying this particular decision is irrelevant. Now, reversing/modifying decisions like Roe v. Wade or the Dred Scot case are in a different league, because they represent decisions that drive massive change in society and its laws. This decision is nothing like that; it simply sent a case back to the Florida Supreme Court w/ concerns.
The "point[s] that interest you" are certain phrases from which you removed frames of reference. You snipped important contextual statements to make my words seem more extreme or absolute than they were. That's spin-doctering.
I *did* deal w/ the issues -- addressed every point you made. Framing my words in a negative reference point diminishes what *you* have have to say. IMO.
<<Though I don't necessarily doubt you, provide a list of USSC decisions that have been reversed by subsequent courts or the same court along with the time elapsed between original decision and modification/reversal.>>
Oh, I don't think so. That would encompass everything I learned during my three years of law school and what I've learned in the years that I've been in practice. Not really do-able here, even if I were so inclined to try to accomodate you.
Instead, you might want to pick up a copy of The Brethren for a rather basic discussion of the supreme court and how it functions, as well as how opinions have changed over time, if you're interested in this topic.
Or do a web search on one particular topic and read the articles and information about how the court's opinions regarding it have changed. The topics you might want to search include search and seizure, abortion, the right to bear arms. You should be able to discern how the law has changed each time the court has dealt with these issues- sometimes the same court, sometimes a subsequent one.
<<I think you will find that the time elapsed is relatively great.>>
Sometimes, sometimes not. But why is time an issue here?
<< so talk of reversing or modifying this particular decision is irrelevant.>>
I think that you are seriously missing the point here. Although the specific parties to any particular decision may not be affected by the court later revising, modifiying, overruling itself, etc., the issue is one of establishing precedent for the future, and how future parties will be dealt with. That is how the law works. The courts, especially the supreme court, make law that doesn't just bind the parties in front of it at that moment. They make laws that affect everyone, well into the future, until the laws change.
<<This particular decision was a procedural one that sent the matter back to the Florida Supreme Court to re-decide w/ new parameters>>
Sorry- I have no idea what you mean by this statement. The supreme court doesn't decide "procedural" matters- it establishes precedent on questions of federal and constitutional law. This case was decided on its merits, specifically relating to supposed issues of equal protection and due process. These are substantive issues, not "procedural" issues.
<<The "point[s] that interest you" are certain phrases from which you removed frames of reference. You snipped important contextual statements to make my words seem more extreme or absolute than they were. That's spin-doctering.>>
Important to you, perhaps, but not to me. And certainly not necessary, IMO, to my reply to your argument.
In any event, since you persist in hurling invective, although I have asked you not to, I consider our discussion over.
Thanks for the pointers.
Because the decision's only useful result is that the case was sent back to the Florida Supreme Court, and since they didn't have time to "fix" their first decision, it effectively made W. Bush President-elect. Seeing as how W. will take office in under a month, that's why time is of the essence if you're going to have the USSC decision modified or reversed.
I'm very aware of that, and that's *exactly* why I feel that this particular decision won't be that useful, because no one is going to let the situation arise again in order for it to be useful.
There is no need to play the semantic game here. The USSC decision referred to those "supposed" issues of equal protection and due process in its mandate to send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court. Are you saying that the tenets of equal protection and due process are going to be modified or reversed? I doubt it. So, what are you going to reverse or modify?! The USSC justices disagreed on whether those issues applied in this *specific* case of Gore v. Bush or whatever it was called. The decision referenced those concepts in deciding that specific recounts would compromise those concepts. In future elections, the issue is not going to come up because election officials are going to get it right this time. Campaigns are going to get it right as well; they're not going to ask for specific recounts, for example.
Whatever. You are convinced of your position of impartial quoting and I am convinced of the opposite. The record speaks obviously for itself.
Invective?! Really. There's another spin-doctering on your part. I re-read the entire thread just now and found nothing remotely close to invective on my part, save for criticism of your arguments. Are saying that you asked me to not disagree with you? All I saw was that I called you on your rather obvious attempts to put my words in bad light. And yes, I will persist in doing that as long as you insist on that type of behavior.
I see you now consider the discussion over. That's great, because then I won't have to keep setting the record straight by exposing your exaggerations and out-of-context quoting.
"Cheryl3b" wrote in message news:[email]...
been in
Democrats piss me off! And don't even get me goin' on lawyers. Gore tried to seize power thru the courts. It was an attempted legal coup. "You must know that there are two means of fighting, by means of law, and by means of force", Gore chose means of law in his attempt to gain the white house. There's very little difference between that and fighting in the street. Butcher's bill or lawyers. You do realize that at 4am on Nov 8 Gore's team was already crafting such phrases as "will of the people", and "won the popular vote". The latter of which is irrelevant. Bleh, they're both complete and utter assholes. It was a choice between dumb & dumber, and who could tell? That's why the election was so damn close. I did hear NASA's gonna be sending a robot to explore Pluto, so at least Al's got work ahead of him.
On 26 Dec 2000 04:28:05 GMT, [email] (Cheryl3b) wrote:
Nevermind that one case promoted slavery, while the other decided an election in a manner that disappointed a few partisans. Anyone low enough to compare the two is not worthy of a debate.
<<Nevermind that one case promoted slavery, while the other decided an election in a manner that disappointed a few partisans. Anyone low enough to compare the two is not worthy of a debate.??
I doubt that you'd know a "debate" if it bit you in the ass, Bush-boy.
I also doubt that you know enough TO debate.
Nice talking to you.
I have an idea, find something a bit more off topic to talk about. Oh, and why don't you suck my balls.
Take it to email.
"Cheryl3b" wrote in message news:[email]...
to
Gee, whine a little more. Like the back and forth Bao wasn't enough. Sore/Loserman is a really good label for people like you, still carrying on the campaign...after the election, after the final loss, and I'm sure after the inauguration.
In all seriousness, just what do you hope to accomplish? Dubya is going to be President come Jan 20th. No amount of arguing will change that. Do you propose they House immiedietly commence impeachment proceedings? Then shut the fuck about it, especially here. Oh yeah, and suck my balls ya hippy.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 05:43:43 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:
You seen the full text of this? It's funny as hell
<<Then shut the fuck about it, especially here. Oh yeah, and suck my balls ya hippy.>>
Oh, an intellectual.
Your mother must be so proud.
"Cheryl3b" wrote in message news:[email]...
She is. I'm not a lawyer.
<< I'm not a lawyer.>>
That's OK. Even Dubya couldn't be a lawyer although, God knows, he wanted to be.
Check out Molly Ivens' book, Shrub. She reprints his rejection letter from a Texas law school.
On 07 Jan 2001 18:32:01 GMT, [email] (Cheryl3b) wrote:
Not too badly, obviously. If he were that had wanted to be a lawyer too badly, he would have applied to a "safety" school, or at least more than one top twenty school.
Getting into "a Texas law school" may not be all that hard, but getting into the specific Texas law school you are referring to (University of Texas), is. I got my law degree from Boalt Hall (Berkeley), the fourth most selective law school in the country, but still got rejected by Texas. Vanderbilt, the law school Al Gore flunked/dropped out of, practically begged me to attend. In any event, there's no shame in not being admitted to a top 20 law school. They're all pretty hard to get into, and harder still to flunk out of.
<<Getting into "a Texas law school" may not be all that hard, but getting into the specific Texas law school you are referring to (University of Texas), is.>>
Some substantiation beyond your personal experience, please?
<<Vanderbilt, the law school Al Gore flunked/dropped out of>>
Cite, please.
<<In any event, there's no shame in not being admitted to a top 20 law school.>>
The issue of the discussion you joined was not the "shame" of not getting into law school. The issue was the "shame" of being a lawyer. Obviously, Dubya didn't think that it was a shameful occupation, whether or not he was able to attain it.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/gradrank/gdlawnf.htm U. of Texas is ranked as the 15th best law school in the country. Vanderbilt is ranked 18th. They have similar acceptance rates; about 1/3 get in. Not the lowest, such as Yale, but considered hard to get into nevertheless.
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=al+gore+vanderbilt+flunk&hc=0&hs=0
Thank you for the info about Al Gore flunking out of school. I checked out those references from the sites you suggested:
Are you kidding? Did you check those out yourself? I don't consider right wing websites, opinions in letters or The Enquirer to be authorities. I didn't see one legitimate news agency or site listed.
Whatever you may think, it doesn't make Dubya look smarter by trying to make Al Gore look stupid.
As for law school information, I haven't the time to check out the reference now, but, assuming that it is correct, that means that Dubya couldn't get into the 15th ranked law school in the country. I wouldn't consider that anything to rave about. (I believe that John Adams graduated from Harvard Law School.)
Though the biased websites may have an agenda to prove, I don't doubt that the information is basically correct, i.e., not slanderous. Now, whether that proves anything is up to you. I work, and have always intended to work in the computer field. However I attended college for a liberal arts education, not to further my career or get a receipt for attending. I quit school w/ a semester remaining to accept a computer job offer. I don't think that not graduating w/ a B.S. in Psychology (my major) reflects on my ability as a computer consultant at all. And I personally don't think that "flunking" out of a religious degree major reflects on Mr. Gore's potential ability to be a president, either. I provided the references not to prove anything about Mr. Gore, but to provide what you requested.
I agree. I never said that.
The data is current, so I don't know what rank it was when he tried to get in. Regardless, this data I provided was not provided to prove anything about Bush or Gore. I supplied the information, per your request, to show that U. Texas law school *is* difficult to get into, which is all you asked about.
<<I provided the references not to prove anything about Mr. Gore, but to provide what you requested.>>
Yes, I know. But don't you think it a little odd that not ONE legitimate news source has ever reported this supposed piece of information?
Thanks for the information. I take it for what I think that it's worth...
I don't know if what you suggest is true, but it it were, not really. One's academic records are confidential, so it's not likely that you'd find, say, Time magazine reporting on this. Besides, as I said, I don't really find it relevant to the election, so I don't think it's "news" -- a standard that most news publications require before reporting on something. That doesn't make it false, either -- just not newsworthy. Much like I didn't find it relevant that W. had a DWI 30 years ago or whatever. Lots of news organizations were aware of it, but didn't report it until some random person insisted on yelling about it. However, since that was a crime, that is public information, which is much harder to bury.
What I find to be pretty good evidence is that I find no left-wing sources that refute the allegations against Mr. Gore. I'm sure they're aware of them, and please -- no silly arguments about how they somehow all managed to collectively agree to not comment on the matter. The best I could find were excuses as to why Mr. Gore dropped out of school, (e.g., "He didn't drop out...he became a senator, etc.") These are fine arguments, but they don't refute the allegation that he did drop out. The other one about flunking out of the religious degree originated from a close acquaintence of Mr. Gore, who also alleges that he and Mr. Gore smoked a lot of pot in college right before Mr. Gore flunked out. Again, all irrelevant imo as to whether one can be a good president, but again -- no disputes w/ the claims from Mr. Gore or his supporters, and no slander suits against the source of the information.
<<don't you think it a little odd that not ONE legitimate news source has ever reported this supposed piece of information?>>
<<I don't know if what you suggest is true>>
Well, go check the sources you supplied for yourself.
<<One's academic records are confidential, so it's not likely that you'd find, say, Time magazine reporting on this.>>
Right. But every right wing website just happens to have this "confidential" info.
Uh huh.
<<What I find to be pretty good evidence is that I find no left-wing sources that refute the allegations against Mr. Gore. I'm sure they're aware of them>>
Interesting argument.
I never heard this story about Gore until I read it here a few days ago. I asked a number of politically active people about it, and no one I spoke to ever heard about it. I can find no evidence of it in any reputable source.
But the lack of a refutation of this unsupported allegation is evidence of its truth?
Well, OK. We all have our standards.
Jeez, take a logic class, will ya? Just because I provided some sources doesn't mean that those are all the sources out there. I did a search on Yahoo that redirected to Google. It took me about 5 seconds to do that search, and it was not meant to be an exhaustive list of all sources.
The confidential nature of one's academic records make it hard for say, you to call up Vanderbilt and ask what Mr. Gore got for a GPA a particular semester. I don't know how that applies to graduation, etc. I suspect that, for example, a potential employer could call up a college and ask if a particular person graduated or not, but they would not be able to get what GPA, probably. I haven't looked into this issue in detail, but I don't doubt that I could, if you want, destroy the image you probably have in your mind that Mr. Gore was a graduate of Vanderbilt, whether for a bachelor's degree and/or law school. I'm sure it would not be hard for anyone to find this kind of information about a major politician, a person who, by virtue of his occupation, opens up his academic past life to the world, if not exacting details like GPA, surely data such as college degrees earned (or lack thereof).
As I stated before, it's not "reported" on by "reputable" news sources because it's simply not news. I think it should be rather obvious that it would not be found on any Democrat websites. What's mainly left are Republican websites to document this allegation, since no one else finds it to their advantage (or newsworthy) to document.
Yes, it is rather valid, because it is one job of a political campaign to refute mistruths spread about its candidate. The lack of denials of a rather well-spread allegation is striking for someone w/ millions to spend on what is basically PR. And, these allegations are "unsupported" insofar as *I* have failed to provide more support than I already have. It does not mean that they are unsupported. Similarly, simply because *you* have not found support does not mean they are unsupported, either.
Since I'm bored right now, I found these links for you. (Are they reputable enough for you?!)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/gore/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/e98/bios/president/main.htm http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=15250 http://www.msnbc.com/news/445397.asp Above links show clearly that Mr. Gore attended Vanderbilt Divinity School from 1974-1976 and Vanderbilt Law School, also from 1974-1976. They clearly show that he did not earn a degree from either.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/e98/e1715.htm Above link states that Mr. Gore (as well as W. Bush) were very average students at Harvard and Yale, respectively.
Now, did he actually flunk anywhere? I highly doubt it myself. Why would someone w/ a Harvard degree allow that to happen, even if they were doing poorly? The logical thing to do is withdraw from school before F's are issued. Later on, that can be spun into "dabbled in divinity and law school." Not very hard considering the power these families wield. They can get their children "gentlemen" C's; it's not hard to imagine that they can pull some strings and get some bad grades hushed. Add to this that actual grades (and not necessarily graduation status) are confidential, and you have allegations that cannot be proven by the average person or even CNN. What we have left to go on are the words of contemporary colleagues. So far, those words indicate that Mr. Gore did very average work at Harvard and smoked a lot of pot (I can give you a Newsweek link for this if you want), didn't get good grades at Vanderbilt divinity law school, and decided to quit his college career, the latter being absolute fact.
Add to this that not one person I can find has stepped up to say the contrary to any of this, such as a peer at Harvard, Vanderbilt, etc.
<<They clearly show that he did not earn a degree from either.>>
Not completing a program is not evidence of flunking out, which is what the right wing loonies would have people believe.
The phrase that started this whole offshot thread was "flunked/dropped out." And drop out he did, as well as flunking a few courses. I've already stated that I doubted he actually flunked out of school, but no one flunks out of school except drugged-out morons. If you're flunking your classes, you just drop out before being forced out by the school administration.
<< If you're flunking your classes, you just drop out before being forced out by the school administration.>>
People drop out for a lot of reasons. Especially divinity school.
I've seen nothing that indicates that Gore was "flunking" any courses.
On 12 Jan 2001 00:40:22 GMT, [email] (Cheryl3b) wrote:
Last time I checked, it was pretty difficult to "complete" a program that you had flunked out of. So, employing that right wing loony tactic commonly known as "logic," it follows that not completing a program is certainly evidence - though not conclusive proof - that the person flunked out.
Such evidence can, of course, be rebutted by something else, which Gore has not even attempted to do. Some people drop out of academic programs because they can't afford to continue, but I seriously doubt that Gore had that problem. Others drop out because they decide it won't help them in their careers, which might help to explain why Gore did so poorly in divinity school and eventually dropped out. But what of his equally poor performance in law school? Dropping out of law school to become a Congressman makes about as much sense as dropping out of medical school to become a doctor.
The bottom line is, again, where is your evidence of any of this beyond the ravings of the right wing websites, talk show hosts, letter writers?
If you have some documentation, let's see it. I did a search and couldn't find anything. What do you have to substantiate your claims besides mere allegations?
By contrast, Molly Ivens reproduced the pertinent part of the letter from the law school that rejected Bush. If she was able to obtain that, surely someone was able to find and duplicate at least some proof about Gore. Where is it?
Jeff Bishop wrote:
Or dropping out of college to play in the NBA? You're talking nonsense, people drop out of school for lots of reasons, lack of interest is one. That would certainly be a showstopper at the level of law or medical school.
LiamD
Ding ding ding...jackpot:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_s_dubious_school_record+.shtml Above link is from The Boston Globe and *details* Mr. Gore's rather mediocre grades, referencing within itself The Washington Post article dated March 19, 2000, entitled "GORE'S GRADES BELIE IMAGE OF STUDIOUSNESS; HIS SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS ARE A LOT LIKE BUSH'S" -- the text of which follows. I would have posted a link (and I'm sure those "right-wing" websites would have also, but I can't due to the fact that the archives are not for free. I paid $1.50 to get this article. (It was worth it, definitely.) If you think I concocted this article myself just to prove a point, for free anyone can go to: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/
...and do a *Boolean* search for:
gore AND belie AND image
in the "A" section and that will give you the first part of the article.
============================================== GORE'S GRADES BELIE IMAGE OF STUDIOUSNESS; HIS SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS ARE A LOT LIKE BUSH'S
DAVID MARANISS; ELLEN NAKASHIMA WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITERS
Sunday, March 19, 2000 ; Page A01
If Al Gore is commonly thought of as a grind, the sort of fellow who during his school days would take notes in precise Roman numeral outline, strive mightily to ingratiate himself with teachers, and bring sterling report cards home to his demanding parents, his academic transcripts go some way toward subverting that notion.
Sorry, you also have to specify that the search execute over a time period that would include March 19, 2000. The default 6-month window is not enough, obviously.
<<Gore got some very poor grades in college>>
Let me refresh your recollection: the issue is, the right wingers say he flunked out. Nothing about that, is there, in these more reputable sources?
No, let me refresh *your* recollection. Here is the whole bit that sparked this whole thread-offshoot, complete w/ your distinctive quoting: =========================== <<Vanderbilt, the law school Al Gore flunked/dropped out of>>
Cite, please [<== Cheryl3b's words] =========================== Your "Cite, please" indicates disbelief in Mr. Bishop's statement. As I pretty much knew it was true, I provided some sources I obtained from a 5-second net search. As that was not sufficient for you, I provided you w/ more sources, this time from The Boston Globe and The Washington Post. These state clearly that Mr. Gore received five F's in a span of two semesters at Vanderbilt before enrolling in its law school (amazing how he was accepted w/ those five F's, imo), and then dropped out of law school.
You can mince words if you want...play the semantic game -- you show great potential to be a Democratic politician some day. Do I think Mr. Gore is a stupid person? No. Do I think he is more intelligent than W. Bush? In the IQ sense, almost undoubtedly. But that's not the point here...the point being that Mr. Gore *is* a law-school dropout, and that most people, looking on a transcript that shows five F's in two semesters followed by withdrawal from school for two years, would call that "flunking out." I mean really -- F's in grad school? They rarely give grades lower than a B-minus!
So the facts show that he dropped out of both Vanderbilt's divinity and law schools, and received numerous failing grades in the former. The allegation that Mr. Gore "flunked/ dropped out" is now supported.
<<Cite, please [<== Cheryl3b's words] =========================== Your "Cite, please" indicates disbelief in Mr. Bishop's statement.>>
It indicates "cite, please". Meaning, may I have some empirical evidence, please, instead of relying on your conclusion?
You wrote:
<< I provided you w/ more sources, this time from The Boston Globe and The Washington Post. These state clearly that Mr. Gore received five F's in a span of two semesters at Vanderbilt before enrolling in its law school >>
Checking the citations myself, I found this:
<<"In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of 'Inventing Al Gore,' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school," reported the Boston Globe Thursday. >>
The Globe was reporting what a writer said about Gore, it was not reporting something which it investigated and found to be true. I don't know who this Bill Turque is or if his information is any more trustworthy than, say, Rush Limbaugh's.
As for The Washington Post "story", it turns out that the reference was to a LETTER posted at the paper's website. I publish that letter here for your information:
<<Posted By: Anonymous Posted Date: October 30, 2000 (11:08 PM)
--------------------------------------------------- Message:
It is now reliably reported that the reason Gore dropped out of divinity school and law school was due to poor grades. And the Democrats are peddling the garbage that Bush is dumb-- Bush with a B.A. from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard. The Democrats are desperate. >>
Sad, really. But hardly hard news.
I still have seen no evidence that Gore ever flunked out of school. Sorry.
<<You can mince words if you want...play the semantic game -- you show great potential to be a Democratic politician some day>>
See, you always stoop to becoming insulting instead of dealing with issues. I've asked you before, in other discussions, not to do that, but you seem unable to comply with what I think is a rather simple request. So, as before, I withdraw from this discussion. Nor will I engage in any other discussions with you in the future. Twice is enough for me.
On or about 12 Jan 2001 04:31:02 GMT, Cheryl3b proceeded to say:
before,
Well, if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black...oooops, it isn't is it? Cuz the kettle ain't black at all.
Once again: DEMOCRATS PISS ME OFF! And most especially the Hillary denial of the individual's right to be Clinton type. It takes two parents to raise a child, not the state you want to control.
On 12 Jan 2001 04:31:02 GMT, [email] (Cheryl3b) wrote:
Meaning that you are too lazy to look them up yourself.
You can cover your ears and scream "la, la, la, I'm not hearing you" all you want, but it is well documented (and unrebutted by Gore himself, or for that matter, anyone else except you) that Gore did horrendously in law school. No one claimed that he literally flunked out in the strictest sense of the word. I said "dropped/flunked" because neither word alone would sufficiently describe what happened.
<<It indicates "cite, please". Meaning, may I have some empirical evidence, please, instead of relying on your conclusion?>>
<<Meaning that you are too lazy to look them up yourself.>>
Oh, dear, a lawyer unfamiliar with the requirement to provide a citation for an allegation that he's made. How odd. I wonder what your legal briefs look like. (And those are your only briefs that I'd be curious to see...)
I'm assuming that you haven't provided a reputable citation because you cannot.
<<You can cover your ears and scream "la, la, la, I'm not hearing you" all you want, but it is well documented (and unrebutted by Gore himself, or for that matter, anyone else except you) that Gore did horrendously in law school.>>
Rather than repeat myself, please take the trouble to read the exchanges over the past few days where this was covered in detail. It has been well established that the only "documentation" is the unsubstantiated ravings of right wing nuts.
As Bill Hicks would say, case fucking closed.
The Globe was also reporting based on information it got from The Washington Post. Bill Turque works for Newsweek, I believe.
So, you are a lawyer or in law school?! Your ability to look up references is shameful! The letter you posted above is not relevant. It is *not* the Washington Post source I mentioned; it is a *response* to the source I mentioned. The letter you dug up is dated October 30, 2000; the source I mentioned is dated March 19, 2000. Since you apparently had difficulty finding it even though I posted explicit instructions that a 10 year-old would have been able to follow, here is the part that states from where the information was obtained: ======================================== Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore." ========================================
"[A]lways" ???? -- I provided a virtual flood of sources and data!
Excellent!
"Bao H. Lammy (Pipeline)" wrote in message news:[email]...
|
Just fucking plonk the bitch already, I'm aboot to! She obviously doesn't listen to any sort of reason, in fact even attacks it, and you're never going to see any change. So why waste your valuable time? Shit, even if you're only making $5.25 at McD's your time ain't worth that putrid pile of elephant shit that calls itself Cheryl. And I hope she reads this too, the cum-burping skank.
"Cheryl3b" wrote in message news:[email]...
Do you do *anything* but attack credibilty? And demand more and more and more and MORE AND MORE AND MORE proof? FOAD already, please. Or keep this kinda shit outta a South Park group.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 05:43:43 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:
She wasn't whining, just proving me right.
When Shrubya supporters say the votes were counted three times, they mean the votes were spit out of the machines, uncounted, three times. There's a difference.
"Mark Marklar" wrote in message news:Dn006.14432$[email]...
Oh fuck no DUDE! This was my refuge from that shit...*sigh*.
Soz but who the hell started all this?!?!
"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...
i started it all "Rolante" wrote in message news:dRg06.27402$[email]...
agreed.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:18:51 GMT, "Caeci11ius" wrote:
Only Americans can be biased? Explain the logic behind that.
Which they did. They just didn't end up getting the results that certain people hoped they would.
In article , "Caeci11ius" writes:
All the votes were counted, at least twice, and Bush won, despite the attempts of the Democrats to steal the election.
I live in Florida, and my vote was counted. If you're too stupid to figure out how to cast a vote, you really have no business doing it in the first place. Maybe the Democrats will try to draw from a better grade of voters next time.
Ben Raines wrote:
Ben, give it a rest, okay? This isn't a political NG.
LiamD