Manual recounts were never completed, except in one district. The rules were not followed. Bush's team saw to that, even if they had to drag it to a court that had NO jurisdiction.
Bush was appointed President...he did not win the election, and more than Gerald Ford ever won a presidential election.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:44:35 PM new
Sorry, but it is true. Dems just don't realize it *edited for content before posting*.
But we do agree on one thing, that we agree to disagree. I had to live with all the crap and immorality of Clinton for 8 years. Now we'll actually get stuff done.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:46:13 PM new
Um.... why do I need to repeat myself. Every count that was done, Bush still led. Why do votes that had already been counted and recounted need to be counted again? Was it so algore and his band of thugs could magically conjur up some votes?
posted on January 21, 2001 12:46:55 PM new
The funny thing is that nothing will get done. Congress is split right down the middle. The King can't get anything passed.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:47:32 PM new
Actually, gopadres, you are completely wrong. The recount required by Florida law was not completed, and once the votes were "cerified" the Gore has the facility, under the law, to challenge the result of the cerification. He couldn't do the latter until certification had taken place, and everything that he did was completely within the Florida election law.
Why is it that everyone here knows that except you? Have you been out of the country? Perhaps on a fishing trip, trolling for killer whales?
posted on January 21, 2001 12:47:48 PM new
The PRESIDENT will get stuff passed. House is +6 Republican. Senate is tied, yet Republicans hold tiebreaking vote.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:47:49 PM new
I know what ya mean Julsey. I was elated when I handed in that last paper! Are you going to continue towars your Masters? BTW...what are you going to be when you grow up...a teacher?
posted on January 21, 2001 12:48:08 PM new
True about the immorality. Recently in a local school two young girls (age 9 & 10) where caught drawing a picture of a woman giving a blow job. When asked about it, they replied that the President said it was ok. nuff said.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:50:33 PM new
The rules said that candidates had 72 hours (I believe, maybe 7 days) to request a recount. Gore did so. He requested 4 counties, and they follwed the laws set forth. Guess what? BUSH STILL LED! The vote was certified, and yes, Gore legally challenged, and lost the challenge. He then legally took it to the FLSC where the decision was overturned. Bush then legally took it to the USSC, and well, we all know what happened.
The sad thing is that Dems don't realize that after all the LEGAL rules were followed, Bush won.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:53:35 PM new
Well if he can't get it through the legislative branch he can always get the judicial branch to say it is law...even if it never was.
I mean, that constitution crap can sure get in the way. Other folk thinkin their as good as GWB and his friends...the nerve of them.
LMAO
I am having a discussion with someone who does not know what a fact is, has no idea of what the laws are, has absolutely no idea of what happened in the last election. God I must be bored today. Maybe my toilets need cleaning.
[ edited by grannyfox on Jan 21, 2001 12:55 PM ]
posted on January 21, 2001 12:54:37 PM newThe PRESIDENT will get stuff passed. House is +6 Republican. Senate is tied, yet Republicans hold tiebreaking vote.
Not at all.
It takes 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster, for starters. Anything the dems don't like they'll lock up for six months; won't even come to a vote. Secondly, you haven't taken into account that Senators regularly break party lines for a variety of reasons on votes. They often have to team up with other Senators from across the aisle in an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" situation; I'll support your bill for this and you'll support mine for that. Or, a Republican senator might have a large Democrat constituency at home that would crucify him if he votes with his party on a certain bill (or vice versa). A majority of one isn't enough of a majority to effectively pass any legislation that the opposition party doesn't want passed.
Also, in all likelihood (this is a prediction though), the flak from this election will cause the House to flip over to the democrats in two years, especially if we are indeed headed for recession.
This congress is a dead heat gridlock. The King couldn't pass a jaywalking law if he wanted to.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:56:44 PM new
I'll agree with you. The King couldn't pass anything. However, we're talking about President Bush, so you're comment is irrelevant.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:57:51 PM new
Please comment all you want. There is nothing to get personal about as we are not discussing anything personal. Stick to the issues and you'll be fine.
posted on January 21, 2001 12:58:24 PM new
GoPadres, still wrong.
Charlotte --
The UF History Dept. has a special program, called 3/2, which allows some classes to be taken for double credit, so I've been able to take some classes during my current senior year which count towards both my undergrad and Master's degrees. I am going to take some time off in May, and decide if I want to finish my Masters. I need a break!
Do I really have to grow up? I'm gonna keep ebaying for a bit, while I see what's out there.
posted on January 21, 2001 01:07:22 PM newI'll agree with you. The King couldn't pass anything. However, we're talking about President Bush, so you're comment is irrelevant.
Irrespective of all that, you know you can't refute the substance of my post. How will the President pass his agenda in a gridlocked Congress? I'm being serious now. How will this work? It's simply impossible. It's wishful thinking on your part.
posted on January 21, 2001 01:08:30 PM new
One last shot before I leave. Yes, generally speaking, all Dems. But, there are some Dems that have an inkling of common sense to realize that Bush won the election. Er.. wait... those Dems got upset at Gore and are now Republicans. My bad.
posted on January 21, 2001 01:10:25 PM new
The Bug writes:
I want these five Justices to know that this is America, not a banana republic, and in the United States of America, you simply cannot get away with things like this.
But you CAN get away with it, Vince. You know, I know it, we all know it. You were just as vocal and outraged in the wake of the O.J. case. Fat lot of good it did. Got you some publicity, some guest appearances on news commentary shows, but in the end all your angry rhetoric amounted to zip. The guy's still playing golf. Hell, maybe he can join Sandra Day O'Connor one of these days. But look at the bright side, Vince, your article in The Nation will probably win you a guest appearance on Rivera Live.
We live in an age of getting away with it. Neo-brinksmanship. See how far you can push the law without being punished -- as long as you're rich, famous, politically connected, or all of the above.
As for your disillusionment with the tepid reaction of your colleagues and news commentators, I believe someone coined the phrase "the death of outrage" after the Clinton scandal. I like Bill Clinton a lot, and I wouldn't mind if he remained President for years to come. But the fact is, he should have been removed from office for the Lewinsky fiasco. I didn't feel that way at the time, but in retrospect I have to concede that what he did was a sick, selfish abuse of the public trust, a disgrace to the honor bestowed upon him, and a deception perpetrated upon an entire nation. I didn't feel outraged at the time, nor did lots of other people. But you see, we had a stake in him remaining in office. I think that's why a little less than half the nation finds no fault in the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Bush. The end justifies the means.
I am very discouraged by Bush as President. I have studiously avoided all news coverage of the inauguration and intend to pay no attention for four years. But I am not angry about the whole situation. How can I be? How can I express outrage over the Supreme Court's abuse of power when I did not decry Clinton's abuse?
The most disheartening aspect of all of this is that we are becoming inured to public figures doing what just fifty years ago would be considered unthinkable.
Perhaps the absence of outrage is also partially due to the average person's feeling of impotence in these matters. We see injustice, but what recourse do we have? None. There is no way available to people to right the wrong, or to even try. You're doing exactly what we're doing -- expressing our frustration through writing. The only difference is, we do it AW, you do it on the pages of The Nation. And that difference is utterly eclipsed by a much larger and more discouraging similarity --- our complaints, regardless of how eloquently they are expressed, amount to nothing. Or as Clarence Thomas put it, "Zero."
posted on January 21, 2001 01:11:43 PM new
So let me see...
If we take people (Americans I presume), exclude Democrats (Ha Ha...I still count), then most of us that are left believe what you wrote. And where did you come up with this?
Yours are not facts...not Truths, merely your own truths...hang on tight to them, because they disapear under scrutiny.
posted on January 21, 2001 01:11:57 PM new
I have to go put a Lasagna together...
GoPadres, I will see if my 8 yr old has time, and can be taken away from her Barbie dolls, and she will come and explain the sequence of events here in Florida, in terms that you might possibly understand.
Hope you're doing well!
