looks at picture of Ernie Fletcher
laughs even harder
It’s just like Best Little Whorehouse In Texas. The governor blathers and slaps together a bunch of incoherent gibberish. All the people around him sask What did he say. The answer, Hell if I know.
Actually, I’ve heard/seen one of my senators, Barack Obama, answer actual questions a number of times.
I must admit that the one that surprised me the most was when someone asked him whether he was a Cubs or Sox fan. He immediately answered “Sox” (I heard this on the radio, so I know he didn’t try to politick his answer up). Heh.
Colorado -
Sen. Wayne Allard (R)- Bland, but reasonable
Sen. Ken Salazar (D)- reasonable
Rep. Bob Beaupez (R) - Water carrier for Republican leadership, but generally reasonable
Rep. Diana Degette (D) - See Beauprez comments, replace R with D
Rep. Joel Hefley (R) - Considering his district (Colorado Springs), more reasonable than you’d expect
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) - wingnut
Rep. John Salazar (D) - reasonable
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) - wingnut
Rep. Mark Udall (D) - See Hefley comments, replace R with D, replace Co. Springs with Boulder
Actually, the question is most likely why would you characterize Baldwin’s remark about the 2004 election results as “ignorant” without discussing his reasons for holding the opinion? I find it ignorant of anybody (particularly someone with the balls to proudly display membership in a so-called Science Advisory Board) with access to the internet to be unaware of the many valid reasons one might have for at least questioning the results of that election.
But I understand why “ignorant” is the meme some right wing shills would like to spread about such questioning.
Posted by Monty:
Posted by me:
Posted by Monty:
No; either you didn’t understand my question, or you’re being disingenuous, which means you’ve chosen to insult me without providing a logical basis for the insult. I meant, of course, why did you think my comment was ignorant? Answer that question with all despatch.
I should have mentioned the most recent faux pas by our esteemed Rep. Don Young, he of the bridge funding, when asked if he didn’t think Alaska should consider giving the money back, given the dire need of the hurricane victims. His response: “They can kiss my ear!” :rolleyes:
John Kerry did not “actually” win last November. For that reason, your comment was ignorant.
And of course, the next Governor of the State of Texas, Kinky Friedman.
I understood your question.
I am not a right wing shill.
Your assertion that Kerry didn’t actually win the election is ignorant.
Bush actually won the election.
Learn how the government of the United States is set up and perhaps you will refrain from future ignorant comments on the matter.
Read Bricker’s post if you need help with the big words.
From the moderate left, I agree with this statement. While there was some justified concern about the election in 2000 (anytime the final difference is less than the margin of error, there will be), the election of 2004 wasn’t close enough to justify any characterization of it as a Kerry victory.
You’re thinking of Dianne Feinstein.
The main politicians from New York are Hillary Clinton, George Pataki, and Chuck Schumer - a lot of people may disagree with one or more of them but nobody’s saying they’re stupid.
Sue Kelly, my Representative, on the other hand is widely regarded as a placeholder.
While he’s your standard “slicker than owl shit” in-person speaker, I majorly applauded my Congressman, Artur Davis, for being the only Alabama Congressman to vote against that stupid-ass flag-burning bill a few months ago. Unfortunately he’s currently one of the poorest (i.e. financially poor) reps in D.C., which is a major Achilles heel- either he won’t last long or he won’t be poor long I fear.
Monty and Bricker, equivocate much?
As you know, because you can read, Baldwin distinguished between “actually” and “officially”, indicating he understands how official election results drive actual assumption of office in our electoral system. I would wager that his argument (were you to actually ask for one before pronouncing his opinion ignorant) will be the more American voters placed votes for John Kerry than for Bush in the 2004 election. Your arguments assuming only one meaning of the word “actual” is appropriate to the poster’s statement are fundamentally dishonest attempts at misdirection.
Gosh, what are things coming to when conservative apologists make disingenuous arguments on the Straight Dope? Who could’ve predicted that?
I understood his argument. The fact of the matter is that more American voters placed votes for George Bush than for John Kerry.
60,693,281 for Bush; 57,355,978 for Kerry.
He may wish to claim that those votes were stolen, miscounted, or fraudlently cast. But the fact is that this is simply speculation on his part. If he had qualified his statement with, “And it’s possible that…” then of course there would be no argument. But he advanced it as true and unassailable. If such a speculative statement is permitted to go unchallenged when advanced as fact, then I cannot imagine what statement IS deserving of challenge.
Absolutely true. Referring to 2000, an “actually won” statement can pass with nothing more than a raised eyebrow, since Al Gore won more popular votes than George Bush did, and, as jayjay cogently observes, the margin of victory in Florida was razor-thin, well inside the margin of statistical error, and Florida tipped the balance: the winner of Florida won the election.
From an accuracy standpoint, the 2000 election would have been fairly decided by a coin flip.
I seem to remember talk of recounts in Ohio. Maybe that’s what Baldwin is referring to.
Well, there were demands for recounts for no apparent reason. Look folks, sadly, Bush won. Had Baldwin referred to 2000, then yes, a case could be made that Gore “actually” won the election. No such case can be made for Kerry.
Yeah, but it was a red herring. Even after the recounts (ordered by the Libertarian Party, no less) the results didn’t change.