I’d just like to point out that there are exactly two hits on that search link. Inertebrate appears once in each document. But guess what? They made the same typo. 
A search at google for “definately” turned up 227,000 hits, but it’s still not a word either.
Oddly enough, the inventor has also said that he believes that “dimpled/pregnant” chads should be counted as votes, too.
Once again, I think for the third time, I am surprised by people expressing shock over this thread.
considering the title, what did you expect???
Once again, third time as well, I am not using this and have not used this to argue how great Bush is. All I’m saying is that yesterday’s actions classified Gore as an inertebrate.
It doesn’t mean Bush is great. It doesn’t mean hanging chads are or aren’t votes. All it means is what was said.
If you thought yesterday’s performance was the height of political integrity, bully for you.
Fair or unfair, I see no way he can win this election, and no way he can continue constructively down this course of action.
Being a martyr for the good of the country right now would enable him to come back in '04 on a high and righteous horse.
Sqwueezing every last drop that he can get in a vain effort to change the results of an election that it seems he’s lost more than once, will just take any credibility away from any future efforts he might make.
Take the high road, and he may be loved and admired for it.
Do this, and he will just become an annoying triviality.
It’s a bad move, and he’s a putz for doing it.
I agree that Bush is a horrible public speaker. He stutters and mixes up words. (He reminds me of Bugs Bunny - BeeDee BeeDee BeeDee That’s all Folks!) Whether that is a sign of a weak leader remains to be seen.
I do, however, disagree that Gore is a much better speaker. In the past few weeks he has made a few speeches and his intonation reminds me of a kindergarten teacher instructing her students. One plus one…(pause) equals TWO. (I wish we could include sound bytes because I can illustrate what I’m saying better in person than in written word. Mods, work on that, would ya?) Whether he means to or not, he sounds as if he’s talking down to people. I couldn’t imagine him having a dialogue with someone like Yassar Arafat, where he’d have to hold his tongue and practice a little diplomacy.
Of course, Reagan and Clinton were much better speakers. Neither Bush nor Gore even come close to them.
Porky Pig, not Bugs Bunny. (I know, they are SO easy to confuse! :D)
FWIW, he did. He called to concede defeat that very first or second day, but then he retracted it when he heard that Florida had to recount based on their state laws.
Don’t forget that millions of dollars have been spent on the campaign and we’re talking about a lot of political power at stake. No one is going to just give up easily.
Mea culpa, Scylla. Now that you point it out to me, it is abundantly clear that you have no partisan view here, it was entirely a matter of my fuzzy-thinking viewpoint. I should join you in rejoicing and looking forward to the day when our entire country will be as well governed as Texas, the universally admired paragon of civic virtue.
Those codes, you know, bold and italic, etc. Is there one for hurl?
I am so thankful that the light of reason has prevailed over your fuzzy-thinking viewpoint :). However, in keeping with the current state of litegous confrontation in place today, while I agree that you SHOULD…heh, heh…is there any consideration on your part to change that to WOULD? 
I OTOH am simply finding that this election and the clearly illegal shenanigans(SP?) associated with it are merely restoring the fun to dysfunctional. And to the point that have been made elsewhere that the republicans would do the same, I refer to the recent concession in the Missouri election where the republican had legally constitutional reasons to protest losing to a DEAD guy, yet took the honorable road in conceding (to the widow). Maybe it would be a good thread to discuss…agh…I’ll leave it be.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Phil_15 *
I do NOT believe:
[list]
[li]That the standards for one part of the country should be different than any another.[/li][/quote]
So you are advocating the federalization of all election laws? Hmm, do you conservative types always want the feds to step in, or just when it serves you purposes?
[quote]
[li]That election rules/laws should be changed or set aside AFTER an election is held.[/li][/quote]
The election rules were not changed after the election was held; they were merely interpretted by the judiciary after the election was held because they were ambiguous and self-contradictory. And, now they will be interpretted once again by the highest court in the land. Is this concept so difficult to understand?
[quote]
[li]That misunderstanding, confusion, lack of following direction, or senility removes personal responsibility in insuring that a vote be counted.[/li][/quote]
Well, laws in several states including Florida and Texas are written to hold the intent of the voter paramount. If you disagree with this, then you ought to propose different laws. (And then are you going to go around personally testing all these punch equipment to make sure it isn’t partly a deficiency in the equipment that is preventing the chad from being completely punched?)
[quote]
[li]That hand counting is more accurate because impartiality and concise standards of judgement in determining “the mind of the voter” are most certainly in question.[/li][/quote]
Well, fine, again, go campaign for reform of the election laws to say that machine counts are always preferable. It is your right to do so.
[quote]
[li]That the Gore supporters have wanted the voices of our men and woman in the overseas military to be heard and in fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case (This is disingenuous to the utmost).[/li][/quote]
Both sides have been working their darndest to insure that votes for them that are legal are counted and those that are not legal for the other guy are not. However, one side has seemed even more intent on this than the other…rejecting out-of-hand possibilities like doing a statewide hand count.
[quote]
[li]That Gore won Florida’s 25 electorial votes.[/li][/quote]
Well, I think on the basis of the criterion of what voters intentions were when they walked into the voting booths in Florida, Gore probably won. Because of various unfortunate circumstances, whether he actually won by the election laws in the state of Florida is what is currently being hashed out. Admittedly, it is the election laws that count. But, Gore has every right to argue in the courts for the laws to be interpretted in the way he thinks is right (which will admittedly be mainly the way that benefits him) and the courts have every right to either rule in his favor or against him. As you said, this is a republic and, as such, the rule of law is supreme.
Well, Phil should changes to would under the following controlling legal authority, i.e.
We survived Reagan. We survived Nixon.
We’ll somehow get through George “Landslide” Bush.
If Gore prevails in court and recount, Bush and Bro will be forced to steal the election right out in broad daylight in the Forida legislature. And he will, don’t you doubt it for a minute.
What the hell. Come the revolution, they both go to the wall anyway.
“Inertebrate” is a wonderful word to describe our Vice-President (and would-be President-By-Intent).
Inertebrate: Biologically and politically inert, as well as spineless = Al Gore.
Should Dubya’s lead hold up, one politician will be overjoyed. Weakened Pres. Bush + discredited Gore + inevitable economic slump = '04 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Wonder if the Republicans have thought that through.