they haven't finished interviewing eric rudolph to figure out how someone could hide from us under their own power within our borders (hell, within NORTH CAROLINA'S borders) for seven years.
once they figure that out, they'll be able to figure out how to catch two figures half a world away with legions of people protecting and hiding them.
Not even comparable.
I suggest you dive into some good research on post 9/11 al-qaeda
Bottom line: if Clark is nominated he will win. Bush has zero chance against a General, Democrat at that, in a era of War on Terror. I'd rather see Kerry or Dean win but hey, Clark is still worlds better than Bush, despite all these idiot Green Party people calling Democrats and Republicans the "same." Nothing irks me more than idiot 3rd party members saying the GOP and Dems are the same, Clark would clean up a lot of Bush's crap. And maybe General Boykin as well. Anyone who isn't familiar with that story should look up William Boykin. His quotes are so insane they don't even need to make fun of him on the Daily Show.
I agree, but the truly sad part is that he WILL NOT be nominated. We'll get a Dean nomination running with a no-name mate. If Dean was smart, he would add Clark to the ticket...but he's not. He's a politician. Numbers will decide his running mate, not integrity. And when Dean gets nominated....blame the Democrats.
See what I mean, republicans can't seem to find anything to attack Clark's character. Also, for some reason even though he has decidedly democratic positions on the issues, the evil "liberal" label doesn seem to stick.
When a clean cut general says, "If your kids were gay wouldn't you want them to have the same opportunities as everyone else?" suddenly gays in the military seems almost conservative for some reason.
The guy exudes leadership. It really is funny to see pubs even try to compare Bush to Clark. Rhode scholar? Ummm no... Distinguished military career? Well, he uh defended Texas from the vietnamese.
This is true, but regardless of the outcome Florida was just wrong. Every election will have problems, but what happened in Florida was abbynormal.
True but thanks to the Supreme Court it won't happen again. Thank god we will never have the votes treated unequally in different counties even when ordered to do so by the Democratic Supreme Court.
Remember the motto kiddies, count every vote, unless if from one of service men or women from overseas and likely for my opponent! Likewise count every vote, but only in certain heavily Democratic districts with me lobbying the Democratic councils in each county as to what constitutes voter intent. (Come on one corner, that one is mine!)
True but thanks to the Supreme Court it won't happen again. Thank god we will never have the votes treated unequally in different counties even when ordered to do so by the Democratic Supreme Court.
Remember the motto kiddies, count every vote, unless if from one of service men or women from overseas and likely for my opponent! Likewise count every vote, but only in certain heavily Democratic districts with me lobbying the Democratic councils in each county as to what constitutes voter intent. (Come on one corner, that one is mine!)
Nick
You mean...thank god we don't follow the law anymore? That's an odd thing to hope for, especially in an election.
You mean...thank god we don't follow the law anymore? That's an odd thing to hope for, especially in an election.
Yep that nice law that says to treat all the votes unequally, I'm very glad we don't follow that law.
You remember that nice 7-2 Federal Supreme Court ruling that affirmed all votes must be treated equally, don't you? I know that the Democrats like to harp on the 5-4 decision about if there was enough time left to recount and certify the votes for the whole state. However those of us with less selective memories remember the 7-2 vote that said "Hey Gore you shouldn't have wasted a month trying to get votes only counted in three counties instead of the whole state." It wasn't a partisan vote and it showed that you cannot treat Democratic voters better than Republican voters. Democratic voters getting hand recounts to check their "intent" while Republican leaning servicemen have their votes tossed and Republican leaning counties don't get any sort of non-machine recount is not equal no matter how you define the word. Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all. So he slit his own throat on that matter.
And actually on topic, I think too many Democrats are suspicious of Clark to elect him. A military man who praises Bush just doesn't heat up the loins of the Democrats.
Yep that nice law that says to treat all the votes unequally, I'm very glad we don't follow that law.
You remember that nice 7-2 Federal Supreme Court ruling that affirmed all votes must be treated equally, don't you? I know that the Democrats like to harp on the 5-4 decision about if there was enough time left to recount and certify the votes for the whole state. However those of us with less selective memories remember the 7-2 vote that said "Hey Gore you shouldn't have wasted a month trying to get votes only counted in three counties instead of the whole state." It wasn't a partisan vote and it showed that you cannot treat Democratic voters better than Republican voters. Democratic voters getting hand recounts to check their "intent" while Republican leaning servicemen have their votes tossed and Republican leaning counties don't get any sort of non-machine recount is not equal no matter how you define the word. Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all. So he slit his own throat on that matter.
And actually on topic, I think too many Democrats are suspicious of Clark to elect him. A military man who praises Bush just doesn't heat up the loins of the Democrats.
Nick
The law actually does say that votes are recounted on a county-by-county basis. There's nothing about "state-wide recounts" in the Florida law. But despite that, Gore actually did offer as a solution a state-wide recount, and that was before the Supreme Court decision.
But it is interesting that the conservatives all of a sudden thought that
1. the Supreme Court ought to get involved in a state issue & a political one at that, when all of their writing prior to that case said that they shouldn't do that kind of thing, and
2. they all of a sudden believed so strongly in the 14th amendment (you know it well, trumptman, that evil bastion of the privacy right) that they would apply it in a way that it's never been applied before and that contradicts the entire country's method of voting - that it's decided on a county-by-county basis.
And that decision was completely partisan - the Republican appointees voted for Bush, the Democratic appointees for Gore. It's just that there are a lot more Republican appointees on the Supreme Court.
Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all.
The state law required a reason to go through a recount. No one could just trigger a state wide recount out of the goodness of their heart. The law was written so a troubled county could be fixed.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
doesn't help that your military is in the middle of Iraq...
It's like fishing for shark in lake michigan.
I like that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
except Bush won 29 states...including Gore's home state
Did Bush win Washington D.C.? Gore's home for the past 20+ years? Wow! That would be something!
Originally posted by DanMacMan
He also let Bin Laden go when he was offered him on a silver platter...
Yeah, Bush did really screw up the operation in Tora Bora. Oh well, better luck next time?
Originally posted by rok
they haven't finished interviewing eric rudolph to figure out how someone could hide from us under their own power within our borders (hell, within NORTH CAROLINA'S borders) for seven years.
once they figure that out, they'll be able to figure out how to catch two figures half a world away with legions of people protecting and hiding them.
Not even comparable.
I suggest you dive into some good research on post 9/11 al-qaeda
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, Bush did really screw up the operation in Tora Bora.
Yup
Originally posted by bunge
Did Bush win Washington D.C.? Gore's home for the past 20+ years? Wow! That would be something!
i'm afraid i agree with the brain-dead zealots on this one. gore screwed the pooch in 2000, turning his back on clinton among other things.
also if you can't win the state you and your father sat in the senate for, you don't deserve to be president.
i'm still real pissed at gore.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Bottom line: if Clark is nominated he will win.
I agree, but the truly sad part is that he WILL NOT be nominated. We'll get a Dean nomination running with a no-name mate. If Dean was smart, he would add Clark to the ticket...but he's not. He's a politician. Numbers will decide his running mate, not integrity. And when Dean gets nominated....blame the Democrats.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
See what I mean, republicans can't seem to find anything to attack Clark's character. Also, for some reason even though he has decidedly democratic positions on the issues, the evil "liberal" label doesn seem to stick.
When a clean cut general says, "If your kids were gay wouldn't you want them to have the same opportunities as everyone else?" suddenly gays in the military seems almost conservative for some reason.
The guy exudes leadership. It really is funny to see pubs even try to compare Bush to Clark. Rhode scholar? Ummm no... Distinguished military career? Well, he uh defended Texas from the vietnamese.
Yes Clark would win over Bush in a serious way.
And I agree with your review of Clark above.
VOTE FOR CLARK!!!!!!
Fellows
Before Clark announced Dean was talking to Clark.
Maybe as a possible full ticket before the primaries.
They do like each other.
I'd vote for Clark as the next guy to run the country, and for whatever ceremonial head-of-state figurehead the Dems end up running him with
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i'm still real pissed at gore.
Me too.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'm still pissed a Florida. And the free ride the press gave Bush.
he wins tennessee, florida is moot.
bill clinton probably just shook his head after the whole thing was over.
"how could you not beat THAT GUY"
everyone looks at florida as if that cost him the election. it didn't, (it just didn't give it to him.
his crappy campaigning cost him the election.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
his crappy campaigning cost him the election.
This is true, but regardless of the outcome Florida was just wrong. Every election will have problems, but what happened in Florida was abbynormal.
Originally posted by bunge
This is true, but regardless of the outcome Florida was just wrong. Every election will have problems, but what happened in Florida was abbynormal.
True but thanks to the Supreme Court it won't happen again. Thank god we will never have the votes treated unequally in different counties even when ordered to do so by the Democratic Supreme Court.
Remember the motto kiddies, count every vote, unless if from one of service men or women from overseas and likely for my opponent! Likewise count every vote, but only in certain heavily Democratic districts with me lobbying the Democratic councils in each county as to what constitutes voter intent. (Come on one corner, that one is mine!)
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
True but thanks to the Supreme Court it won't happen again. Thank god we will never have the votes treated unequally in different counties even when ordered to do so by the Democratic Supreme Court.
Remember the motto kiddies, count every vote, unless if from one of service men or women from overseas and likely for my opponent! Likewise count every vote, but only in certain heavily Democratic districts with me lobbying the Democratic councils in each county as to what constitutes voter intent. (Come on one corner, that one is mine!)
Nick
You mean...thank god we don't follow the law anymore? That's an odd thing to hope for, especially in an election.
Originally posted by bunge
You mean...thank god we don't follow the law anymore? That's an odd thing to hope for, especially in an election.
Yep that nice law that says to treat all the votes unequally, I'm very glad we don't follow that law.
You remember that nice 7-2 Federal Supreme Court ruling that affirmed all votes must be treated equally, don't you? I know that the Democrats like to harp on the 5-4 decision about if there was enough time left to recount and certify the votes for the whole state. However those of us with less selective memories remember the 7-2 vote that said "Hey Gore you shouldn't have wasted a month trying to get votes only counted in three counties instead of the whole state." It wasn't a partisan vote and it showed that you cannot treat Democratic voters better than Republican voters. Democratic voters getting hand recounts to check their "intent" while Republican leaning servicemen have their votes tossed and Republican leaning counties don't get any sort of non-machine recount is not equal no matter how you define the word. Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all. So he slit his own throat on that matter.
And actually on topic, I think too many Democrats are suspicious of Clark to elect him. A military man who praises Bush just doesn't heat up the loins of the Democrats.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep that nice law that says to treat all the votes unequally, I'm very glad we don't follow that law.
You remember that nice 7-2 Federal Supreme Court ruling that affirmed all votes must be treated equally, don't you? I know that the Democrats like to harp on the 5-4 decision about if there was enough time left to recount and certify the votes for the whole state. However those of us with less selective memories remember the 7-2 vote that said "Hey Gore you shouldn't have wasted a month trying to get votes only counted in three counties instead of the whole state." It wasn't a partisan vote and it showed that you cannot treat Democratic voters better than Republican voters. Democratic voters getting hand recounts to check their "intent" while Republican leaning servicemen have their votes tossed and Republican leaning counties don't get any sort of non-machine recount is not equal no matter how you define the word. Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all. So he slit his own throat on that matter.
And actually on topic, I think too many Democrats are suspicious of Clark to elect him. A military man who praises Bush just doesn't heat up the loins of the Democrats.
Nick
The law actually does say that votes are recounted on a county-by-county basis. There's nothing about "state-wide recounts" in the Florida law. But despite that, Gore actually did offer as a solution a state-wide recount, and that was before the Supreme Court decision.
But it is interesting that the conservatives all of a sudden thought that
1. the Supreme Court ought to get involved in a state issue & a political one at that, when all of their writing prior to that case said that they shouldn't do that kind of thing, and
2. they all of a sudden believed so strongly in the 14th amendment (you know it well, trumptman, that evil bastion of the privacy right) that they would apply it in a way that it's never been applied before and that contradicts the entire country's method of voting - that it's decided on a county-by-county basis.
And that decision was completely partisan - the Republican appointees voted for Bush, the Democratic appointees for Gore. It's just that there are a lot more Republican appointees on the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by trumptman
Gore could have requested a statewide hand recount from the get go, but he didn't because he was not interested in every vote being counted or really in equality at all.
The state law required a reason to go through a recount. No one could just trigger a state wide recount out of the goodness of their heart. The law was written so a troubled county could be fixed.
EDIT: just noticed BRussell's post.