“Hi there, Mr. Pot!”
“Well, howdy-do, Mr. Kettle! My, aren’t we both looking black today?”
Really? how so?
I’m sure you’ll recall your own stances, quotes etc in these various threads. And, you may, indeed be able to quote some of mine as partisan. (although I’ve made a real attempt to not stoop to disrespectful language and unsubstantiated charges). The closest I’ve seen of Spiritus postings to be even nearly or almost or close to partisan, was a well thought out and presented arguement that Ms. Harris’ actions, while perhaps being within the letter of Florida law, at least left her open to challenges of partisanship, due to her dual positon both as Sec. of State and overseer of the election AND co-chair of the campaign to elect Gov. Bush. Hardly in the same vein as say “let the dems do their whining about this”…
So, Milo I’d really like to see what you percieve as being partisan on SM’s part.
Wow. Nice comment, Milossarian. How pithy. Is that an original?
[blatant but timely hijack]
Just in case nobody else wants to say it (although I suspect I won’t be alone here), let me express my awe at Spiritus Mundi’s restraint and eloquence during the past week of high emotion and polarization in this forum. I aspire to someday approach your level of fairness and objectivity.
And, lest I be accused of partisanship in my admiration (:rolleyes:), I’m also duly impressed by Sam Stone and waterj2.
[end hijack]
Thanks to all of you cool heads.
Care to back that up with some quotes, milo. I have accused a few people of losing objectivity in this debate, yourself among them. In each case I have backed up my statements with direct citations.
Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy.
Spiritus:
Look at Xenophon’s last comment.
This has gone to far.
I’m calling on you to do the right thing here.
You’ve been doing this all week, and now it’s time to tip the scales.
Let’s seem some ill-advised, indefensible, and generally offensive posts before you get nominated for sainthood, 'kay?
I am touched, guys, and all in the time it took me to compose, consider and delete my original response.
Thank you.
Your comments make sense.
If they had come from a source that was at all reliable rather than from a blatantly biased beligerant she-monster like you I might even give them credence.
Obviously you are simply trying to manipulate the GD system. Your self-serving provocations are pathetically obvious to those who are not brain-dead followers of um . . .what party do you belong to again?
Anyway, everybody know charybdis has all the class in your couple. Your kind are nothing but filter feeders.
Spiritus:
I base my pot-kettle statement on the fact that when you have stuck your neck out toward any candidate, in any statement in any thread regarding this issue, it has been toward the Gore side. You’ve given the appearance in several posts where you seem to be evaluating each side, but, when it comes down to showing favoritism to one side or another, you have been consistently in the left lane.
Nothing wrong with that! But admit that you are coming at all of this from a position not quite in the middle of the road. Nor am I. Don’t try to come off (or allow others to talk of you) in a way that makes you seem somehow “above all this partisan blindness and rhetoric.”
I have also noticed that the only posters you have deigned to chastise consistently for being blindly partisan, using rhetoric and vitriol, etc., seem to be Bush-supporters. That’s because we’re the only ones doing it, right? :rolleyes:
Find me a post of your’s that chastises a Gore-supporter. I’ll find you at least two to your every one that do the same to Bush-supporters.
Again: So what? That’s your right to do. But can the tsk-tsking, m’kay?
I’ll be the first to admit my posting style isn’t best suited for this particular forum. I tend to interject a little bit too much sarcasm. It’s the innate smartass in me.
But I also feel there has been a lot of content to my postings, refuting of statements made by the other side and challenges to which I would like responses as well.
I probably do interject a bit too much of my emotions into some of my posts, because what I feel is going on with these hand-counts is so wrong. But I do try to continue to address issues.
And speaking of issues … FoxNews is reporting that the Palm Beach County canvassars have changed their established rules for counting ballots that have stood for 10 years. As of tonight, with the resumption of the recount, they will not just count chads with two or more corners detached; they will count chads with any corners detached, and those infamous ‘pregnant chads.’
So, Gore-supporters. Your thoughts? This county is heavily for Gore, can we agree? Can we also agree that any action that results in more ballots being counted, because of this county’s voting makeup, will have the effect of increasing the vote count for Gore in particular?
So, If all of this is truly an exercise in using state law and local policy to get at the truth, and not to work toward a particular goal of getting a certain candidate elected, why a last-second rule change that so clearly benefits Gore?
I agree that the Secretary of State has a history of being a Bush supporter. But she has rules that she has to follow, that she can’t change. Here we have the county with a canvassar that has been accused of tampering with ballots, taking them out of the ‘questionable’ pile and trying to put them in the ‘additional votes for Gore’ pile, and who has told the media that she will do whatever she can to see that Gore gets elected. And now this rule change.
Tell me you can at least to some extent understand why tonight I am hearing more Republicans than ever, for the first time in all of this, flat-out using the words ‘attempting to steal an election’ in describing the tactics of Gore and his Florida crew.
As I’ve said a couple of times, I think this is ridiculous on its face, and it pisses me off because it makes the Gore cause look bad.
Since day one it’s been simple to me: 1 corner or more detached, it’s a vote. No corners detached, not a vote, no matter how pregnant it looks.
Actually, I’ve only heard that about Bush, because of Harris. Today is also the first day I’ve heard a significant shift of any number from one side to the other, and it’s been away from Bush and toward Gore. See Scylla’s post for backing on that, and it’s not the only evidence I’ve seen.
I said this in another thread. History likes things simple, and history begins soon. And history will boil this down to one guy trying to win by counting as many votes as possible, and another guy trying to stop votes from being counted.
Support him or not, Bush looks bad.
But I still agree with you about the pregnant chads. I hope they come up with a standard for all the counties, and I hope it is the one I cite above, because counting dimples as votes looks bad. (Although Gore cannot be blamed for that one. )
Stoid
Hmmmm. Shall we look all the way up to the top of this page?
*
The offer is a hollow ploy, as is the offer from the Bush camp. Neithe position represents a “compromise”. Each represents a candidate offer to “settle” for the procedure they feel will give them the Presidency.
A pox on both their houses.
*
How about?
*
I saw nothing new in either Gore’s proposal or Bush’s refusal. While I cannot know their motives, each act is easily explained in terms of bald self-interest. Neither candidate offered a compromise that represented a meaningful shift from their initial positions.
As to the “let’s meet and show the folks we are not enemies” part, I sincerely doubt even the American public is hullible enough to fall for that one. Both candidates have proven willing to escalate the confrontational rhetoric in this situation right to the brink of the public’s tolerance.
*
Or . . .
*
I have consistently and repeatedly said that I have no objection to the Bush campaign requesting hand counts in any county they wish. For that matter, so has the Gore campaign, loathe as I am to defend either side for a piece of political rhetoric.
*
Oh, that’s enough. Wasn’t I just saying something about burdens of proof being on the accuser?
I have never pretended that I lack opinions. I am amazed that anyone could read my posts with that impression. However, I try not to let my opinions sway me so strongly that I forget to look honestly at all sides of a question. I try to avoid substituting conviction for understanding. I try to avoid confusing passion and reason.
As to “coming off” as above anything: are you charging me with consciously refusing to participate in partisan rhetoric? Guilty. Proudly so, thank you very much. Do you see that as a cause for resentment?
Apparently, some people have appreciated my efforts. Do you see that as a cause for resentment?
Nope. But, believe it or not, I have not undertaken the task of policing the posting policies of everyone on the board. Like most of us, I respond to posts based upon a subjective evaluation of their interest/annoyance factor. Here’s an example: I have stated many times that I do not feel any action can be fairly taken to correct the bias caused by the Palm Beach County ballot. Some liberals disagree with me, but they do not pretend that my objections that new bias will be created by any attempt at correction are baseless. On the other hand, I have seen several people argue that there was no demonstrable bias in the ballot. This annoys me, so I respond.
Actually, also in regards to this, I am not at all certain whether Izzy supports Bush or Gore. It seems to me that he has been critical of both campaigns at times. If you look closely at our exchange, you will see that the question of objectivity concerns not partisan politics but evaluation of evidence.
In fact, if you look closely all of those times when I have chastised posters for lacking objectivity on this issue, I think you will find it has always been over their presentation of “facts” rather than their use of invective.
Frankly, that is far more explanation of my posts than your criticisms have deserved. If you wish to take me to task for my words – step up and take your swing. If you object to the subjects on which I choose to speak – get over it. (Or get to the PIT. The net effect will likely be the same.)
I think sarcasm fits just fine into GD. I have not criticized you for using sarcasm.
We all feel that way at times. For instance, I would have liked to see you respond to any of the posters who refuted your apples to oranges characterization of the Texas:Florida election laws.
If the facts are as you have stated then this is a clearly partisan move by the PBC canvassing board. It is unethical and they should be criticized for it. It does not seem to be illegal, since the latest judicial ruling that I saw reported gave teh canvassing board teh authority to draft its own rules for ballot recognition.
You see? Even now you phrase this in a way that misleads. The laws in question give Harris discretionary power in this matter. Yes, it is true that she cannot change teh law. No, it is not true that she has no choice but to deny certification to any returns ammended after the deadline.
Are you really ignorant of that fact, depite all of the attention that has been given to Harris and her actions?
The accusation, by itself, is meaningless. Have you a link to her statement to the media?
I’ve been lurking for a while now. And I just had to respond to this little tidbit.
The latest Judicial ruling not only gave the canvassing board the authority to draft rules for ballot recognition. It also specifically mentioned that ‘pregnant’ chad would signify clear intent of the voter (in the absense of any other punches that appear to be presidential votes, of course).
This is, in fact the controlling standard in Texas as well. As you can see from this excerpt from the Texas law governing manual recounts:
(Thanks for RTFirefly for the original citation)
So, while, yes. This change of standard DOES favor Gore. But it also seems to be the correct standard to apply. The canvassing board aparently erred by using a too-stringent standard the first time.
Which in turn suggests that allegations that the head of the Palm Beach canvassing board is cheating are really nothing more than a smear campaign.
tj
by the way, is it possible to link to a particular post, or only to a thread?
Two quick points:
– The Secretary of State’s level of discretionary authority is highly in question. Meaning, if she made some ruling that seems to go beyond what relevant statute appears to allow, whichever side did not benefit from that move would very quickly take it to court. Again.
Yes, a judge said she has discretionary authority, but she seems reluctant to move beyond what Florida election law 101.111 tells her to do. She did, however, agree to listen to the reasons counties gave for not having their recounts in on time. So I suppose that indicates some discretion.
What’s annoying is that some who support Gore in this want to demonize the woman for, after considering her options, deciding to follow applicable law.
The SoS was supported in her decision this morning by a Florida court that was asked by Gore to rule on whether she had to accept the ongoing hand-counts. According to the court, she does not.
(And I, as all of you should, recognize that if you see any court rulings in this whole process that come from a lower court, you can pretty much discount them immediately. Until every decision is made at the highest state or federal appelate level, it doesn’t amount to much.)
– Everybody immediately wants to go to Texas, whenever any issue is brought up about the Florida election. If Texas law allows for pregnant chads to be counted as votes, Texas law sucks, too.
At what point is it too much? These people couldn’t be diligent enough to put their stylus all the way through a perforated piece of paper? I’ve voted a few times. If you push the stylus in until it reaches the hilt, you can’t not punch the hole. If you are old and feeble and can’t do that on your own, help is available. If you are too distracted or disinterested to vote correctly, your votes shouldn’t count. Take your responsibility as a citizen more seriously next time, or don’t show up.
When I was at my voting station Nov. 7, I think I said the word, “Gore.” This just in. Florida canvassars now accept that as a vote for the vice president.
(P.S. Mundi; I don’t have the energy to get into a pissing match with you. And I despise threads with 20 cut-and-paste quotes in them. You have continually assailed a few Bush-supporters with accusations of being blindly partisan, using rhetoric and vitriol, not being balanced, etc. People are welcomed to read each of your posts in this thread alone, and determine whether you have been fair and balanced in which partisan side you reserve these criticisms for. Your few cuts-and-pastes in response notwithstanding, I stand by the statement that while you may use more dignified language, you are no less partisan than anyone in these discussions.)
Two quick corrections:
-
That’s Florida law 102.111
-
My above comments weren’t quick after all.
a democrat, by the way.
**
the reason we are all quoting from the Texas law is that Mr. Bush signed that law into effect in his home state, yet his position is exactly the opposite in his brother’s state. We seem to sense some inconsistency in this. How can one claim in Florida that a procedure (which is also LEGAL in FLorida) is “unfair” and inherenatly prone to errors, yet then make it the law you agree to live by in your own state?
Frankly I agree with you that “pregnant” chads should be discarded (as should have been the votes recounted in another county for Bush where the ballot was marked both for Bush and a write in for Bush as well). But it’s inconsistent for Mr. Bush to maintain that the standards in his state should be considered unfair in another, even though they are allowed by that state’s law.
and as for THIS:
although it isn’t addressed to me, you posted it on a public board. YOU, sir, made the accusation that Mundi was behaving here in a partisan manner. It is incumbant upon YOU to bring out your evidence to support your arguement. You were asked, and you’re REPEATING your accusation. I repeat my (and others) request to BACK up your opinion with statements showing a partisan bias on Mundi’s part. If you “don’t have the energy” to back it up, that don’t make (and repeat) the accusation.
Some people are doing so, it is true. Others are objecting to her failure to uphold the appearance of impartiality that her position should demand. Some of us, in fact, have argued both that her ruling should not be overturned AND that criticism of her behavior is justified.
Since you do not like cut & paste, I will simply thow a link to Pointed questions for Bush supporters.
Agreed. I do not agree with the PBC canvassing board’s decision to change their interpretation of these ballots.
re the postscript:
I have always expected to be judged on this board for the content and character of my posts. How else? The same goes for every poster here. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion of me. You are even welcome to make accusations about me. Those accusation, I find myself repeating, might carry more weight if you bothered to suport them with evidence.
I’m not much into pissing contests myself. I will be happy to move on and forget the matter of your accusations. However, calling a truce and then taking one last shot on your way out the door is an act of pettiness.
I’ll try again. This time I’ll put it in all-caps, bold and even italics, to see if it helps certain people any.
If people disagree, they disagree. I think Mundi’s posts in this thread indicate what I said they indicate. I’ve said I don’t feel it’s a particularly big deal; I only call into question when those with the same political inclination as him want to anoint him for sainthood, for somehow remaining above the rabble-rousers or something.
I believe I have supported them with evidence – well, with my opinion and interpretation of your remarks, particularly your remarks critical of obvious Bush-supporters, in this thread. Unhappy because I didn’t create a half-dozen links? I don’t particularly care.
One more time: Everyone to whom this matters is invited to go back to the beginning of this thread; read Mundi’s posts, paying particular attention to the political leanings of posters who he refers to as being blindly partisan and similar sentiments; and draw their own conclusions. It ain’t Gore supporters it’s being said to.
One last shot out the door? My accusations? What, that you are supportive of a particular candidate, and that it colors your interpretations of events in this historically controversial time, just like it does everybody else? What a cheap shot that is, huh?
That’s not an insult. Accusing someone of being petty, blind, etc. is.
In fact, let there be rejoicing in the streets, because I think I’ll be, for the most part, bowing out of these little political discussions from here on out.
It’s nothing more than an abortion debate. No one has any hope of changing anyone’s mind; every nuance of this is open to partisan interpretation (and always is).
And I am really fucking sick of repeating every bit of minutia over and over to people who can’t simply say, “I understand your argument, but I don’t feel it is valid, and here’s why,” and then we both move on.
I don’t want to assume the mantle of The SDMB’s George W. Bush Apologist. Perhaps I have. Frankly, I’m more of a John McCain, P.J. O’Rourke Republican/Conservative than I am a Bush Republican/Conservative.
But choosing between Bush’s policies and Gore’s, I find an easy decision. Choosing between each side’s interpretation of the fairness of how this count is being conducted (and re-conducted, and re-conducted, and re-conducted) in Florida, I also find an easy decision.
Maybe I’ll jump back in to annoy y’all when the post-mortem is being done on whatever final resolution is reached to this. (It’s hard to imagine there ever being one, isn’t it?)
Feel free to have the last word, and accuse me of anything you’d like, one and all.
:rolleyes: