Blah blah blah blah George Bush haters blah blah blah blah George Bush haters blah blah blah blah…
Meanwhile, people who care about fair elections, including Liberal’s sister, will continue to be deeply concerned about our democratic right to vote and have those votes be counted.
Clothahump, it’s good to know that if the 2000 election had gone the other way, if Bush had won the popular vote and Gore had won the electorial vote, and if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Gore, you’d be perfectly fine with that.
I do not see that you are willing to assume that Republicans feel the same. Hence this Pit thread.
I attacked you?
Who started this Pit thread? Make what assumptions you like, but spare me the hypocrisy.
My opinion of Carter’s abilities and motive leads you to call me a bad American, and impugn my integrity. If I refuse to believe in his opinion, expressed solely about a state his party narrowly lost, I am fomenting election fraud or something. :rolleyes:
I am in favor of a fair election. In every state, not only the ones that Gore lost.
Shodan:My opinion of Carter’s abilities and motive leads you to call me a bad American, and impugn my integrity.
No, your willingness to ignore important issues just because it was Carter who raised them is what led Poly to call you a bad American and impugn your integrity.
If President Bush went on television and said “My fellow Americans, I regret to inform you that there appears to be a large meteorite on a collision course with North America and we must take emergency measures”—
—and there were also several reputable astronomers who backed him up on the bad news—
—then if I said “Bush is a poopy-head and a liar and therefore I’m going to dismiss anything he says and ignore this mythical meteorite”----
—then what kind of American would I be? That’s right, a bad one. Not to mention a pretty stupid one.
In other words: Just because Jimmy Carter says something doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t true. If your only rebuttal to Carter’s assertions is to talk about your low opinion of Carter in general, and if you think that that’s an adequate substitute for looking at the issue of Florida election procedures on its merits, then you are being a bad American, as well as an idiot.
If, on the other hand, you have good reasons for thinking there’s no cause to worry about the possibility of serious procedural problems in Florida voting, then by all means get you back to the GD thread and explain them to us. We’ll be happy to hear them.
Shodan: Polycarp on the op pointed at a post where you put words in his mouth (and in the mouths of other Americans that just so happen to be democrats) about who is supposed to be a bad American (he only said poor American). I do consider that an attack.
IIRC, The sad part of it was that the supreme court actually ruled for Gore, but the shameful part was first for hearing the case (if we don’t interfere it would be “harmful” to bush) and then saying that yes, a recount could go on, but woops! We decided also there is no time left to do it! That left Florida and the Gore camp with only a few hours to make good on their “victory” at the courthouse.
Bush maybe had a slight advantage in votes in Florida, but republican shenanigans, and errors of the democratic voters prevented the actual will of the majority of Florida voters to be heard.
That, and the fact that this was the highest difference in history for votes in favor of a candidate that loses because of the electoral college, SHOULD have given the so called liberal media an incentive to criticize this president with even more harshest terms, or reminding the people constantly about what happened, but there were virtually no reminders, Liberal media my ass.
Another thing that is missed: what the supreme court really did IMO was not to prevent a recount, but to prevent the virtually inevitable compromise that would had occurred, like in the past, when the Florida vote was contested too: it essentially neutered the presidency of Rutherford B. Hays, and got from him the promise to be only a one term president, a promise that he kept.
That would really have been harmful to Bush and his agenda. So, The orgy bound conservative members :wally of the supreme court had to step in.
When a rational question is put forth, a rational answer will be given. When stupid crap and loaded questions are being plopped out, don’t expect me to take it seriously. If you honestly believe that anybody is afraid of fair elections, you are fucked beyond help.
There used to be an entity called a political boss, who would “fix” elections.
We got rid of them.
They had their supporters; anybody who understands politics knows why they were supported. (If you don’t, read Heinlein’s Take Back Your Government, which is non-fiction and an excellent primer to the political process ca. 1950 – he deals honestly with why people actually did support them.)
IMO, there are sound reasons why people might support Mr. Bush. I happen to disagree with them. I do not agree with Katherine Harris’s games with the Florida election process, and I take significant exception to the conclusion reached by the Bush v. Gore majority on SCOTUS – but I do see how they got there.
Yes, it’s a legitimate question, Brutus. So far you’ve managed to evade it, and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of various scurrilous things – or at least imply it. I said I’d support the re-election of Mr. Bush if he were fairly and honestly chosen by a majority of my fellow citizens (obvious subordinate clauses about electoral votes and absence of evidence suggesting voter fraud included). I’m doing that because, although I’ve become a Kerry partisan, more or less against my best judgment because there are elements of his positions I do disagree with, my key point in both the GD thread and this one is the sanctity of the democratic process. It would not strain you to say flat out the mirror image of what I’m saying, regarding Mr. Kerry – and that you do not want your candidate’s re-election tainted by vote fraud.
The problem with you isn’t that you’re afraid of fair elections, it’s that you just don’t give a damn as long as your favorite guy gets in office. You’d be screaming at the top of your conservative lungs if the positions were reversed in the 2000 elections, and you know it.
Can we all stop with the “you’re anti American you’re a traitor” bullshit? Can we all agree we all want an open and honest election? Equipoise pulled some cites that describe what is going on in Florida. It’s a little hard to ignore. Polycarp had a good post. We do not want any shenanigans, no matter which guy wins.
Wasn’t it Cheney who “warned” that if Kerry is elected, we’re all gonna die? Who is using the scare tactics??
So we are traitors. Standard rightwing bullshit. Anyone who doesn’t like the Pres. is a traitor.
Scalia made a comment that there is no right to sufferage (it isn’t specifically and exhaustively spelled out in agonizing detail in the constitution or in "his’ laws.
So then, why don’t you righties get off the high horse and come right out with it - Anyone who ls “not marching lock-step behind” the righties is The Enemy.
I’ve always considered myself more middle of the road, but it is attitudes like that which keep pushing me more and more toward the opposition every day
I agree with Shodan. Carter is transparently political in everything he does. What was wrong with having Kathleen Harris in charge? Surely Shodan would approve of her nonpartisan altruism?
Let’s go even further than that. Let’s put together a bipartisan committee, with some observers from other countries. After all, we do have open and honest elections, so there is nothing to worry about. Right?
(It passed over my head earlier too–read it in context, and bear in mind that Brutus ain’t Shodan. I’d put Brutui’s posts in the centishodan (sometimes veering off into the decishodan) range, using jshore’s scale. That’s probably where my own posts would fall, if I frequently engaged in debates where I was grossly outnumbered. :p)
Whoosh? Was Brutus’s comment satirical? If so I honestly missed that, slogging through all the posts, with all the quotes referencing other quotes. and the quotes referencing quotes referencing other quotes. If so, my apologies to Brutus. It would be so much easier to tell the intent if we could see who is laughing or making silly faces when they say something.
Pardon my intrusion, and admittedly I haven’t read through the thread so also pardon me if someone has already pointed this out, but I don’t believe the thing that brought Carter so much criticism regarding the Amy quote was his letting her set policy as it was the apparent dishonesty involved. Not too many 12 year old children would respond with “Nuclear proliferation, dadduh” when asked what the number one problem facing the world was. I believe this was the exact quote and I was rolling on the floor when he said it. I didn’t think he was letting her set policy, I thought he was lying out his ass, and doing a pretty pathetic and lame job of it at that…you know, pretty much like he did throughout his entire presidency.
Damn, I couldn’t stand that guy! Maybe he’s a good person now and maybe he truly accomplishes good works, or maybe it’s just for show like Amy’s alleged comment. But whether he is or not, he’s certainly the worst president we’ve had in my lifetime and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he were the worst and most inept of any president this country ever had.
