Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan arrested outside White House

[irishgrl]

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001. See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Which is what I have been saying all along, although I remember you Jason, saying all newspapers agreed Bush won. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

What I dont understand is why the title of these articles says one thing while the content says something completely different??????

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Which is what I have been saying all along, although I remember you Jason, saying all newspapers agreed Bush won. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, initially I did, but I had not read all of the info., some of which I think came out later.

In any event, my main point was and is that Gore tried to be sneaky and only bothered to contest the counties he thought were favorable to him. Other counties traditionally less favorable to D's demonstrated some discrepancies and Gore could have used that to contest those counties as well, but he did not. Only after that and likely after some due dilligence, did Gore say - hey W let's recount the whole state, which W, after his due dilligence saw his lead dwindling and fast - refused. So, Gore has IMO egg of his face as well.

In the end, the Court made its decision and that is that as there can be no arguing with the finality of it - though I think the decision was incorrect mostly from a procedural perspective.

Interestingly, Florida law specifically allowed the vote to be valid if the intent of the voter was discernable, which is what opened the can of worms.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Replace "this woman" with yourself and "Michael Moore" with Coulter.

Hey now - if she were praising W and attacking the D's as traitors - she would be considered a genius

In the end, I think this poor woman speaks her mind and from her heart. I just also think she is broadening her message so that the personal loss of her son is no longer the sole focus, which is sad to me because that was her charm.

[irishgrl]

Well, initially I did, but I had not read all of the info., some of which I think came out later.

ok...I can see how that might have made a difference, but you sure were stubborn about it

In any event, my main point was and is that Gore tried to be sneaky and only bothered to contest the counties he thought were favorable to him.

Im not so sure it unfolded the way you say, but we will never know. MM article says different??

In the end, the Court made its decision and that is that as there can be no arguing with the finality of it - though I think the decision was incorrect mostly from a procedural perspective.

Well, I argue with it!! I'll NEVER EVER get past that travesty...

Interestingly, Florida law specifically allowed the vote to be valid if the intent of the voter was discernable, which is what opened the can of worms.

Well, what about the intent of the voters who were turned away? or falsely accused of being felons? based on color?
In the end, we either look at hanging chads or deal with tampered machines...what is this country coming to???

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . Im not so sure it unfolded the way you say, but we will never know. MM article says different??

No. Gore was the first person to dispute the results and he did so only in certain counties that were favorable to him. Florida law allowed him to dispute all counties if a discrepancy could be proved and it could in other counties less favorable to him. But, he did not really look there.

Here is a timeline
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Well, I argue with it!! I'll NEVER EVER get past that travesty...

You cannot argue with the finality of it, which was and is my point. In other words, they cannot reverse it Thus, you can only argue with the reasoning, etc. Well, actually, you can argue with anything you like, but arguing against the finality of it is a waste of time because it cannot be changed

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Well, what about the intent of the voters who were turned away? or falsely accused of being felons? based on color?
In the end, we either look at hanging chads or deal with tampered machines...what is this country coming to???

I am talking about intent manifested on the voting card - the law as I understand it allows no other intent to be considered. As for the people blocked - that was tragic though many if not all of the people refused access could have remedied that prior to then by making sure they were properly registered, which I do before every election

[irishgrl]

Gore was the first person to dispute the results and he did so only in certain counties that were favorable to him. Florida law allowed him to dispute all counties if a discrepancy could be proved and it could in other counties less favorable to him. But, he did not really look there.

According to the article, that was the only recourse he had open to him according to Florida Law. When he requested an entire state recount, Bush refused and there was no mechanism in place to do otherwise. What else do you want him to do?

You cannot argue with the finality of it, which was and is my point. In other words, they cannot reverse it Thus, you can only argue with the reasoning, etc. Well, actually, you can argue with anything you like, but arguing against the finality of it is a waste of time because it cannot be changed

Honey, I can argue with a corpse!!! I'll just say "HE AINT MY PRESIDENT".

I am talking about intent manifested on the voting card - the law as I understand it allows no other intent to be considered. As for the people blocked - that was tragic though many if not all of the people refused access could have remedied that prior to then by making sure they were properly registered, which I do before every election

yes, Im sure you do! In each of the States where you reside! Way to go!

btw: Jason my dear, I think you're Mellowing! Possibly its the thot of our impending air journey, but whatever, it suits you

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

According to the article, that was the only recourse he had open to him according to Florida Law. When he requested an entire state recount, Bush refused and there was no mechanism in place to do otherwise. What else do you want him to do?

I know that. I am talking about Gore's first request, which was for, I think, only four counties. He could have requested recounts in other counties if he had looked to see if there were errors there (which there were) - but he did not because they were less favorable to him.

Here is the timeline cited above (emphasis supplied) :

November 7: Election Day, as designated by Congress in Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 1.
November 8: About 3 a.m. EST, Vice President and Democratic Party candidate Al Gore telephones Texas Gov. and Republican Party candidate George W. Bush to concede. About an hour later, Gore retracts the concession because Bush's margin of victory in Florida is slim enough to trigger an automatic recount under 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code (the Florida Division of Elections reported that the Republican Party presidential ticket received 2,909,135 (48.8%) votes and the Democratic Party presidential ticket received 2,907,351 (48.8%) votes; other candidates on the presidential ballot in Florida received a total of 139,616 votes). The automatic recount further reduces the vote margin. The first lawsuit is filed challenging Palm Beach's "butterfly ballot."

November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties. JURIST begins expanded coverage of the Florida recount.

November 11: Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations.

November 12: Palm Beach County manual recount begins.

November 13: U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks rejects Bush's plea in Siegel for an order barring hand recounts of ballots. Volusia County sues to complete manual recount notwithstanding the November 14 "deadline" for county Canvassing Boards to file election returns (one week after general election) set in 102.112(1).

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Honey, I can argue with a corpse!!! I'll just say "HE AINT MY PRESIDENT".

No SHIITTE

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . btw: Jason my dear, I think you're Mellowing! Possibly its the thot of our impending air journey, but whatever, it suits you

Perhaps

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that. I am talking about Gore's first request, which was for, I think, only four counties. He could have requested recounts in other counties if he had looked to see if there were errors there (which there were) - but he did not because they were less favorable to him.

Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to suspect foul play in counties where you KNOW you have clear winners that are somehow NOT coming up clear winners. I cant fault Gore for that and Im surprised you do.

That whole thing was a fiasco from beginning to end. My mom's best friend had parents in Florida and she happened to be there during the vote/recount and she saw first hand what was going on. That state was hijacked the same way Ohio was. MM got it right. I think I will buy my own copy of F 9/11, pop some popcorn and sit down and have a "validation night" . after that, a stirring rendition of Danny Boy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to suspect foul play in counties where you KNOW you have clear winners that are somehow NOT coming up clear winners. I cant fault Gore for that and Im surprised you do.

Well, I fault him because only later did he care enough about the voters in the other counties to request a recall - and then it was not really about protecting the rights of the voters, it was about him winning. I think people think Gore was trying to champion the rights of the disenfranchised. I am too cynical for that

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, I fault him because only later did he care enough about the voters in the other counties to request a recall - and then it was not really about protecting the rights of the voters, it was about him winning. I think people think Gore was trying to champion the rights of the disenfranchised. I am too cynical for that

Im just guessing here, but I betcha he saw the pattern of foul play the deeper he dug, and thats when he asked for the other recounts. I dont know about you but I can imagine him being flabbergasted as to the extent of the manipulation of the process....I imagine its pretty overwhelming when you see the extent to which the other side is willing to hijack the results. If you yourself act with personal dignity and play by the rules, its a little hard to swallow when you discover the other side will stop at nothing to win....Again, I cant fault the man.

I dont recall Gore making any comments as to the rights of the disenfranchised, I thought that was more a Jesse Jackson mantra? I could be wrong.....

[lbelle1214]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

It gets Georges' attention too. That is why he created the "preemptive strike" doctrine which gives him the ability to go around and wage war whenever his delusions about other countries intentions (or his hankerin for their oil) gets to be too much to bear.

Give me a break--perceived threats Your son-in-law is brave and Im sure he has good intentions but pardon me, he's already bought into that whole cowboy mentality (lets get them before they get us) Utter CRAP. Im sure other nations could use that same logic on US. Then where would this world be?

Well, I just simply disagree....there's nothing to convince me otherwise. Do you lock your door for comfort?....or maybe it's your perception that someone could break in? Do you buy a big dog solely for companionship?....or do you buy that dog to help watch you watch over your home for possible perceived threats? Cowboy mentality? No need to get snitty....it's a survival mentality. Protect your own. My son-in-law bought into the reality that this country (can't speak for all) takes pride in freedom and democracy....otherwise we would not be here, speaking our minds, criticizing those officials we disagree with, complaining about the gov., etc. This world is going to be in worse shape, day by day, year by year, not by "getting them before they get us"....it'll be because people like us will disagree to the point where action without logic is taken that will turn "brother against brother", family against family....right in our own country. We'll get to watch it implode while the rest of the world watches....all because we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you can call it "cowboy mentality" and others will not take offense....it just ruffled my feathers. I respect your opinion, however, maybe it's because I was raised to "serve and protect". My dad served in the Korean war, my brother Vietnam, my son-in-law Kuwait, my family (most) carry guns (licensed, of course). My grandfather was in law enforcement...I'm a nurse. The mentality is based on survival and love of your family, your friends, your church, your country. I'm feeling pretty emotional now because of all that I've been through the past couple of days...I survived....my family survived....my whole community survived....because we took action to protect ourselves There were no looters....we took care of each other, of strangers and neighbors. But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN. While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to. JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

Well, I just simply disagree....there's nothing to convince me otherwise. Do you lock your door for comfort?....or maybe it's your perception that someone could break in? Do you buy a big dog solely for companionship?....or do you buy that dog to help watch you watch over your home for possible perceived threats? Cowboy mentality? No need to get snitty....it's a survival mentality. Protect your own. My son-in-law bought into the reality that this country (can't speak for all) takes pride in freedom and democracy....otherwise we would not be here, speaking our minds, criticizing those officials we disagree with, complaining about the gov., etc. This world is going to be in worse shape, day by day, year by year, not by "getting them before they get us"....it'll be because people like us will disagree to the point where action without logic is taken that will turn "brother against brother", family against family....right in our own country. We'll get to watch it implode while the rest of the world watches....all because we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you can call it "cowboy mentality" and others will not take offense....it just ruffled my feathers. I respect your opinion, however, maybe it's because I was raised to "serve and protect". My dad served in the Korean war, my brother Vietnam, my son-in-law Kuwait, my family (most) carry guns (licensed, of course). My grandfather was in law enforcement...I'm a nurse. The mentality is based on survival and love of your family, your friends, your church, your country. I'm feeling pretty emotional now because of all that I've been through the past couple of days...I survived....my family survived....my whole community survived....because we took action to protect ourselves There were no looters....we took care of each other, of strangers and neighbors. But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN. While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to. JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

Take care Laura. I hope the destruction isn't too severe.

First, I want to mention, that the war in Iraq was not about the terrorists when it began. The terrorists have been able to infiltrate and accumulate in Iraq due to the lawlessness there. If it were a direct retaliation against terrorists we would be behind it. We supported the invasion of Afganistan to get Osama bin Laden, which was abandoned for still unknown reasons.

Second, we are no less democratic or freedome-loving than you are. How are the Iraqis free when a foreign government has come in to force its will on them? How is our system a true democracy when there was such fraud in the elections?

Third, I disagree with your opinion that our leanings will lead to "brother against brother". I suggest the opposite is true. The dividers are on the right. They leave the poor out of their decision making because they don't matter to them. They don't want to deal with racial or any type of social injustice because it isn't important to them. They are allowing the middle class to go more and more broke. The differences in class and race have become more vivid since this administration took office.

With that said, I do respect your right to your opinion and the respectful way in which you delivered it. Again, I hope that the destruction at your home is not that bad and you remain safe.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN.

I'm a CNN junkie and I can assure you that stuff like that was caught on CNN. Just last night they had a story about a man from New Orleans named Geraldo Montgomery who lost everything and has depended on the kindness of strangers to help him afterwards, and once again after he had to evacuate from Texas due to Rita. There have been countless stories and coverage of people who have opened their homes to help those in need and countless stories about the sacrifices being made by first responders, police, firefighters, doctors, and the like to help others. The line that CNN and cable news (though I can't speak for Faux News because I don't watch the garbage) doesn't cover the decent acts of humanity being taken by strangers to help one another doesn't fly.

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to.

What's the standard that establishes a "perceived threat"? Iraq certainly wasn't one, especially considering they got 99% of their intel about the "threat" Iraq posed from Curve Ball, and he was about as reliable as Bush ten minutes after placing a bottle of Southern Comfort in front of him. I'm sorry to be so contrary, but logic has to play some part in all of this and I'm not hearing any.

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

My thoughts are with you and your family, and I hope all is well. No one should have to deal with something like that.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by lbelle1214

Please, ya'll save some gas for us....we don't have ANY!!!!!

Well, I work at home so...