[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener *
Bush’s lackeys stopped the recount before we knew the result. His people were afraid he’d lose, so they took it to the Supreme Court before the actual result was known. It’s best to hedge your bets when possible, and when the course of action is up to your brother and your campaign manager, you’re hedged pretty well. Then think about how so many people were turned away from the polls because of bad lists and ignorant poll workers… honestly, if half the people in your neighborhood weren’t allowed to vote, wouldn’t you complain?
That’s ‘interesting’ but not what happened. The constitution provides for an election on election day, not afterword, so a ‘revote’ was out of the question, and rightly so. It was never about “counting all the votes” but rather attempting to count invalidated ballots as votes. Big difference.
I agree completely on this, too. Those bumper stickers were just as stupid then as the folks complaining about the election being “rigged” are now. Neither group changed who was in the White House by whining about it.
I am NOT going to rehash the election for the 900th time, but I will call bullshit every time I see it.
-
The election was Exhibit A for “The Way Our Government Works.” If problems arise in the electoral process, they are handled in the courts. The loser gracefully accepts his loss, disagree though he may, and the country moves on in the wake of the successful, if not pretty, democratic process. There is no rioting, the troops are not called out (neither to quell the populace nor to stage a coup), and no one gets shot.
-
The election was no more a “theft” than if CHANCE and I have a dispute over ownership of a piece of property and we take it to court and I am awarded it. That could as equally, and as erroneously, be considered a theft.
-
Supreme Court justices cannot be considered “lackeys” of Bush, and trying to construe them as such merely makes you look further out of touch with reality than you already are.
-
Comparisons of Bush to Stalin also are so over-blown and ridiculous as to make the position of anyone making such an outrageous statment seem all that more untenable.
-
It is as funny as it is sad and unsurprising that the reaction of a Gore apologist to the question of whether the subject should be laid to rest is to immediately attempt to rehash the matter AGAIN.
Oh, absolutely brilliant. Way to win friends and influence people. If you think the election of 2000 validly equates with the Pinochet coup or the theocracy in Iran (and if you think the Taliban started persecuting religious minorities just this year), you are in cloud coo-coo-land, and their ain’t much hope for you.
There are valid lessons to learn from the 2000 elections that shouldn’t be forgotten, but if you keep up this crap, those lessons will be lumped in with your wild ravings and easily ignored. Determine what is more important to you, whining about the past or advocating for needed reforms in the future. The two are mutually exclusive.
Sua
p.s. Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore 
Snicker.
Snicker. I guess I’ll be doin’ that for 3½ more years, too. Snicker.
Well, I for one think the election was a travesty.
I can’t get over the…
Oh, wait. I’m Canadian.
Never mind.
[Pathetic comeback]
Well…well… short, awkward pause Well you guys have weird bacon!
[/Pathetic comeback]
So, now you’re whining that people want you to stop whining? Not that I care who gets over what, but people tossing about little asides and insults at various politicians instead of addressing the issues reasonably and maturely do get a bit annoying. Whether it’s referring to Bush as “President” (in quotes), or Gore as algore, or whatever, it reflectcs badly on you that you can’t put aside knee-jerk reactions.
If you want to rehash the whole argument, go somewhere to do it. Stop putting little comments and remarks in every thread you participate in. It makes you look like fucking babies.
For the record, I have gotten over the Taliban’s actions. I don’t consider them right, and would be interested in trying to do something to help stop them, but I am not going to go crying all over the place about it, because that’s just stupid.
Here’s the deal: The election-rehashing can stop when the Bush apologists are able to confess the dishonorable, anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional, unprincipled, getting-our-guy-in-power-is-all-that-matters way he got into power.
Yes, fer chrissakes, he’s the President. No, he has no honor. No, those who smugly say “Our guy ‘won’, that’s all that matters; now get over it” have no more honor than he does. No, you can quit professing how he’s “restored honor and dignity to the White House” or else keep looking like deniers. As long as you keep smugly shutting out any inconvenient fact that might inhibit you from feeling good about the results, YOU will be the ones who are “not over it” - worse, you will be refusing the opportunity to learn from it.
Deal? You finally face reality and we can move on to working out how to keep this crap from happening again? Or do you still want to keep on looking supercilious? Doesn’t your conscience keep you coming into election threads?
Before you say “But, well, Clinton was …”, hey, Clinton is gone. Get over it. Yes, I know it’s hard, but you have to keep trying. It gets extremely tiresome to have to keep seeing the effects of your deep, hateful, neurotic obsessions. Get over it, I repeat.
PS: Several of you need to be reminded that this is the Pit. Normal rules of discourse do not apply. Don’t take anything you read here too seriously. pldennison, I’m talking to you.
Jodi and Tedster, you seriously need to review the facts of the case before jumping to the conclusion you want to reach. You’re embarrassing yourselves by this show of ignorance. It’s beyond sad how you’re inspired by that ringing statement of principle, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances”.
Manhattan, I’m sure you realize that a lot of “customers” (a strange word for people who aren’t paying SD a cent) ARE interested in threads about democracy and the function of government. But we have to keep skipping over the “Get over it, our guy is in, nyah nyah” threads, too. Logical fallacy.
All of you asking about the tax refund: How much do you think it will be worth when the federal budget goes back into deficit to pay for faith-based missile defense, and the government has to print more paper to pay for it, and inflation goes up? Keep your bribe now, and much good may it do you later. This has been gone into in depth in GD, and a quick search (you know how to do those, don’t you?) will help fight your ignorance quickly.
Ha! I need to review the facts of the case, huh? You’re right! I’ll get right one that! Seriously, this really amuses me, because disagree with me or not, no one else has ever imputed to me a lack of knowledge about the case – let alone someone with whom I am emphatically not been having a discussion of the facts of the case to begin with.
I’d suggest that you worry about how you embarrass yourself by appearing to be a one-note, no-life whiner. That’s the only thing here that’s beyond sad.
Pfff. Like you follow the normal rules of discourse in any other fora.
Hey, since I voted for Clinton in 1992, nobody in 1996, and Browne in 2000, can I still tell you to get over it?
Elvis what are you trying to accomplish?
“some of us care about democracy”? Geez. Even I’m insulted at that one. I may not agree (hell, I don’t agree) with all of the other posters here on all subjects, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about ‘democracy’. Demonizing the opposition weakens your position. Since I voted dem. in the last election, it’s also weakening my position, so it bugs the hell out of me. And, for the most part those who you’ve chosen to malign here, actually argue the points, facts and don’t get into the partisan knee jerking that’s so obnoxious.
In short, yes, most of us care about these issues. We disagree about the data and it’s interpretation. that doesn’t make the other side evil, nor our side all that’s good and holy. Painting the opposition with that tar and feather brush doesn’t prove anything except your own bias and makes folks question data more when it comes from you. In short - it does nothing positive and quite a bit that’s negative.
Why don’t you try contacting people who care about these concerns, rather than just whining to us? You want to talk about Bush having no honor, go do so. But don’t hijack every fucking mention of his name with this crap. It’s not like I’m suddenly going to be convinced by the sheer volume of your whining. And certainly, Bush isn’t going to admit diddly, no matter how incessant your pestering becomes here.
Another thing, ELVIS-- You’ve got balls of solid brass to say that those who disagree with you are people without honor. I’d say the dishonor in such a specious and insulting argument is self-evident. And normally that’s the kind of comment that would really piss me off, but fortunately I think so little of your opinion in general, or of me specifically, that I can’t seem to break a sweat over it. Shit, if you did think I was honorable I’d probably have to look at what I was doing wrong, since you apparently don’t have the first idea of what the word means to those of us for whom it does mean something.
Elvis:
Here’s how a reasonable person handles this situation:
Looking back at the election one must conclude that their were circumstances in both parties which occured that give one pause. Their were incidents on both sides which showed dishonor, and called into question the integrity of the election process.
There were also incidents where either party accused the other over rather innocuous incidents.
Finally, there were incidents of honor.
In a process this big, it would be disingenuous to pretend not to expect to see such a broad spectrum of human behavior.
Only a dipshit could look at what occured and conlude that their weren’t irregularities going both ways that skewed results.
When all was said and done it looked like Gore had won the popular vote and Bush the electoral. But, we’ll never know for sure. We’ll never know how many votes Bush lost by the preannouncement that Gore had won Fl. while the polls were still open. We’ll never know how many votes Gore lost because of poor ballot design, we’ll never know how many overseas ballots were unfairly discarded. We’ll never know how many votes Gore lost becuase of inferior balloting practices in poor areas. For all we know there’s a box of missing votes out there that nobody ever found, and they prove it conclusively once and for all that ______ won.
But we don’t fucking know. And, you don’t fucking know either.
So, we take the situation as it seems, and every count that was made gave the electoral victory to Bush.
Since there was never an actual fucking count of ballots that gave the victory to Gore, it’s kind of tough to offer another alternative.
Now Bush is President.
You can get over it, or you can continue to be a dipshit, and argue only one side of an argument when you know the full situation quite well. That’s being dishonest.
Or, do you really want to start talking about trading votes for cigarettes, and bussing the homeless if they promised to vote Democratic? Should we not get over the Nixon/Kennedy election where it seems that Kennedy won only because ballots were thrown away deliberately by partisans?
Or, like a 7 year old who realizes all the crying in the world isn’t going to bring back his favorite broken toy, Do you get over it?
“But, well, Clinton was not the popular vote in 1992. The illegitimate bastard! :mad: Arg! Grr! Harumph! :mad:”
This is why I’m happy I’m neither Republican or Democrat. I could use my time to do other things than to rehash hashed to death hash.
The republicans just don’t seem to get it. I have long since resigned myself to Jorge Bush being selected El Presidente. What pisses me off is HOW he did it, and I’m NOT going to forget. Jorge Bush, the SCOTUS 5 and Katherine Harris committed treason, they should all be hanging from the highest yardarm. I’m going to do everything I can to make sure nobody ever subverts an election like this ever happens again. Republicans should be ashamed at their candidate’s behavior.
I’m sure ashamed of something, Chas.E, but it’s not “my” candidate’s behavior.
Y’know… back when Clinton was elected, I was wondering (and this is as a Republican, mind you) if anything could be as out-and-out dumb as the Repubs who ran around talking about the “Clintonistas” or “Klinton”. Now, having read ChasE’s post, I know, those Republicans had just barely scratched the surface of moronic rhetoric.
Fenris
Treason? Gimme a fucking break.
Dear God the hyperbole is being thrown on rather thick here.