John Kerry will officially announce it at 9:00 A.M. eastern standard time, but according to a Washington D.C. insider its no-doubt John Edwards.

Yep, it's fine with me.

It was just on the Today show, Edwards, it is.  Yes, I'm happy with Edwards, although, I would prefer the ticket to be reversed ;)


Same here.

Beauty and the beast.....perfect....

Beauty and the beast.....perfect....

(which is which?)
;)

Am I happy with it?  Yes indeedy!

Thrilled! 

Yes, I'm happy with Edwards, although, I would prefer the ticket to be reversed ;)


Don't we all. ;)

I now definitely feel better about my decision to vote for Kerry, come November.

For Kerry, Edwards is probably just what the doctor ordered. 8)

Yes, I'm happy about it. I think it was a very smart move on Kerry's part. Like a few have already said, it would be better if the ticket were reversed and it does make me feel a bit better voting the dem ticket come Nov.



Cat

It was just on the Today show, Edwards, it is.  Yes, I'm happy with Edwards, although, I would prefer the ticket to be reversed ;)
I too would rather see the ticket reversed but I think under the circumstances this is the strongest thing the Democrats could have going for them and they will give Bush a real run for his money this November.

I think its great!!! An olds line northern liberal and a young sothern populist, a ballanced ticket and a real contrast to pro-corporate, pro oil interest cheats and liars in there now.

I too would have prefered  a reverse order.

John Kerry will officially announce it at 9:00 A.M. eastern standard time, but according to a Washington D.C. insider its no-doubt John Edwards.


I am still trying to figure out how having somebody who talks with dead people can help Kerry become President.

8)

I am still trying to figure out how having somebody who talks with dead people can help Kerry become President.

8)


I'm still trying to figure out what this is about.

I'm still trying to figure out what this is about.


There is a TV show popular with the "Trailer Park - Jerry Springer" crowd called "Crossing Over", hosted by "John Edward".  In this show, he gets people who want to talk to their dead family, and he channels them into himself.

http://www.johnedward.net/

I am still trying to figure out how having somebody who talks with dead people can help Kerry become President.

8)


If Kerry had picked him I would be wondering too, but they are 2 different guys.  Lets stay focused, and not do the "American Spectator" kind of slander - I think both Edward and Edwards would think it so.

If Kerry had picked him I would be wondering too, but they are 2 different guys.  Lets stay focused, and not do the "American Spectator" kind of slander - I think both Edward and Edwards would think it so.


I think he was just making a joke, not trying to slander John Edwards.

Now all that John Kerry needs to figure out is how to keep from looking like a snobby tombstone standing beside the affable and personable John Edwards.

Edwards, on the other hand, is going to have a problem selling his "I was born a poor black child" story that he is just a common man, when he made his living suing the crap out of people for millions of dollars... evry player in this election (Dem and Repub) is filthy rich.

Will their campaign slogan be "Lick Bush in 2004?"

LB

     (Banjo music plays in background)

                                          SAVER

                      Duh, I thought Kerry picked Gephardt!

                                     MESSAGEBOARD

                      No, he picked Edwards. Why would you say Gephardt?


                                          SAVER

                      'Cuz I read it in the NEW YORK POST and
                      theyz a newzpaper in the Big City!
                      It's right dar on de cover!
                                           
                                         MESSAGEBOARD

                      You can't believe EVERYTHING you read or see!
                      You'd be ignorant if you did that.

                                         SAVER

                      Did I tell you I saw Fahrenheit 911?


                                         MESSAGEBOARD

                      Case closed!


                                                               (FADE: Banjo music out) ::)

Will their campaign slogan be "Lick Bush in 2004?"

LB



LMAO!!!!



Cat

The NY Post really made a major blunder this time. Talk about not checking sources before printing.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20040707/ap_on_el_pr/post_gephardt_gaffe




Cat

Exactly! Remember the old "Dewey Beats Truman"?!

Exactly! Remember the old "Dewey Beats Truman"?!



That was my first thought when I heard about it.



Cat

I am still trying to figure out how having somebody who talks with dead people can help Kerry become President.

8)

Ask the good people of Missouri, the preferred a dead guy, Mel Carnahan, to John Ashcroft!

I think he was just making a joke, not trying to slander John Edwards.


You may be right, I guess I did'nt see the humor.  Sorry, call me a fuddy duddy. ;)

You may be right, I guess I did'nt see the humor.  Sorry, call me a fuddy duddy. ;)


Ok, you're a fuddy duddy.  ;)  (But, I love you anyway.  :-* :-*)



Cat

Kerry's campaign got a 4 point bump.  BUT THATS BAD!

Kerry getting a bump from picking Edwards as his vice president was inevitable, but its nothing like people, democrats and republicans thought.  Republicans expected a 15 point bump (on average since 1976 vice president choices have given 15.4% bumps!) and democrats expected a 12 point bump.  In 2000 when Gore picked Lieberman he got a 17 point bump, and it gets better when Clinton picked Gore in 1992 he got a 19 point bump!  Most experts i've heard from both Fox News and CNN have said anything below a 15-20 point bump is bad, HE ONLY GOT A 4 POINT BUMP!!!! HAHAHAHAHA, its unreal.

The most liberal ticket of all time, in U.S. history.  The most liberal senator and the 4th most liberal senator, more to the left then a Kennedy-Clinton ticket.  You may like that but it won't win.  Kerry got a 92 (on a scale on 0-100) in liberal and an 81 for Edwards, and they both got an ''F'' from the NRA.  Cheney got an ''A'' from the NRA and Bush got a ''B'' from the NRA.

Also to all you people who think the republicans are rich, lets see their funds:

Kerry- 1 billion
Edwards- 70 million
Cheney- 18 million
Bush- 15 million

Edwards is richer then Bush and Cheney combined, and Kerry is richer then all three almost times 10.

HOW CAN KERRY RUN!?  According to our constitution, 3rd section 14th amendment:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Kerry's campaign got a 4 point bump.  BUT THATS BAD!

Kerry getting a bump from picking Edwards as his vice president was inevitable, but its nothing like people, democrats and republicans thought.  Republicans expected a 15 point bump (on average since 1976 vice president choices have given 15.4% bumps!) and democrats expected a 12 point bump.  In 2000 when Gore picked Lieberman he got a 17 point bump, and it gets better when Clinton picked Gore in 1992 he got a 19 point bump!  Most experts i've heard from both Fox News and CNN have said anything below a 15-20 point bump is bad, HE ONLY GOT A 4 POINT BUMP!!!! HAHAHAHAHA, its unreal.
I think a lot of this "analysis" is just plain silly.  A lot of these experts work for partisan business interests and will say anything to shake confidence in Kerry/Edwards.  Points and bumps, give me a break.

The most liberal ticket of all time, in U.S. history.  The most liberal senator and the 4th most liberal senator, more to the left then a Kennedy-Clinton ticket.  You may like that but it won't win.  Kerry got a 92 (on a scale on 0-100) in liberal and an 81 for Edwards, and they both got an ''F'' from the NRA.  Cheney got an ''A'' from the NRA and Bush got a ''B'' from the NRA.   More trifling flapdoodle.  Except for the wasteful defense spending Kerry voted against, the people who cite these foolish numbers don't like to talk in specifics.  They don't talk about the criteria for these ratings either.  That's because Kerry is quite moderate in positions.  His recent support for the militaristic aggression of Israel (especially the so-called security fence) makes me want to vote Nader or Green.


Also to all you people who think the republicans are rich, lets see their funds:

Kerry- 1 billion
Edwards- 70 million
Cheney- 18 million
Bush- 15 million

Edwards is richer then Bush and Cheney combined, and Kerry is richer then all three almost times 10.

I think these figures are bogus.  I have don't have contradicting figures at the moment.  However, most of Kerry's billion isn't Kerry's at all.  I'm guessing it's the gross total of all Heinz family assets.  Furthermore, I'll wager Bush's 15 million is only his personal share of the pie, and not the wealth of the Bush family in aggregate.
Even if Kerry had a billion at his finger tips, and Bush had only a beggarly 15 mil., so what?  I still hate it.  It's still plutocratic.  Go for Nader, he's only got 4 million, and no car!

HOW CAN KERRY RUN!?  According to our constitution, 3rd section 14th amendment:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Are you suggesting that Kerry is somehow in violation?  If this applies to any of the canidates, I would say it desqualifies both GW and Jeb.  But I guess I shouldn't be picky about multiple violations of laws from a to z.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly put the Kerry~Edwards liberal thing better:

THE MOST LIBERAL TICKET EVER

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly.  Thank you for watching us tonight. 

The Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ever.  That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."  According to the liberal lobbying group, Americans for Democratic Action (search), John Kerry has a lifetime liberal rating of 92 percent and John Edwards stands at 81 percent.  These ratings are based upon their voting records in the Senate.

By contrast, Al Gore's liberal rating was just 65 percent.  Thus, the Kerry-Edwards ticket becomes the most liberal in American history, passing Mondale-Ferraro (search) in 1984.

The Gallup (search) poll people recently studied ideology in the USA and found out that only 19 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal.  By contrast, 41 percent say they're conservative. Thus, the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign seems to be at a disadvantage.  But maybe not.

Increasingly, Americans are veering away from party lines and voting for candidates on merit.  But if Kerry and Edwards do decide to run left, they will have a problem mainly in the social area.

All the polls show that most Americans don't want a secular society, don't want gay marriage, don't want partial-birth abortion, and despise pressure groups like the ACLU and activist judges.


Kerry and Edwards cannot be seen embracing the likes of Michael Moore (search) and other extremists.  And they cannot be linked up with the George Soros (search) view of the world.  If Americans believe that Kerry and Edwards will put the security of the USA in the hands of the United Nations, for example, they will reject their candidacy.

On paper, President Bush should win this race easily, as most Americans, again according to Gallup, feel more comfortable with his traditional views. But as we all know, the Bush administration has had a very tough time in Iraq.  And the media is heavily weighted against them.  Also, the image of the USA overseas troubles many Americans.  And so, this is one tight horse race.

Kerry and Edwards should realize that the liberal philosophy, once a positive force in civil rights and labor, has been hijacked by fanatics. Just this week, Moore told a French newspaper that he considers capitalism "a diabolical system that benefits the elite."

Moore isn't a liberal; he's a socialist. Make no mistake about it. But many high-profile American liberals have embraced Moore and his loony philosophy.  And that makes some Americans suspicious of all liberals.  So, do the math here.  John Kerry and John Edwards have a lot of work ahead of them.

And that's "The Memo."

Maybe Bill O'Reilly put the Kerry~Edwards liberal thing better:

THE MOST LIBERAL TICKET EVER

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly.  Thank you for watching us tonight. 

The Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ever. 
Good.

Good.


Good huh?  Is that why most liberals HATE being called that?  Only 19% say they are liberal (besides for the lying moderates and hidden liberals like progressives)?  You call a conservative a conservative he LOVES it.  You call a liberal a liberal and their like ''That doesn't mean anything, its a label how dare you.''  Kerry is trying so hard to PRETEND he is a moderate, but he just can't escape his record.

By the way, you may like that, but the majority doesn't.

Good huh?  Is that why most liberals HATE being called that?  Only 19% say they are liberal (besides for the lying moderates and hidden liberals like progressives)?  You call a conservative a conservative he LOVES it.  You call a liberal a liberal and their like ''That doesn't mean anything, its a label how dare you.''  Kerry is trying so hard to PRETEND he is a moderate, but he just can't escape his record.

By the way, you may like that, but the majority doesn't.

It depends how the 19% figure was attained.  All polls skew questions to get certain results.  If you ask people what liberals stand for WITHOUT using the word liberal, they approve overwhelmingly.  The word "liberal" bears the stigma of 25 years of propaganda against it.  Since the '92 elections, the rise of Limbaugh as a national phenomenon, and the success of FOX News, the propaganda campaign has enjoyed the success John Birchers only dreamed of.  Yet Americans still hold liberal values as their own when separated from the word itself.

My apologies to the Bush hataz in the crowd tonight, but Dubya (wouldja believe it) scored what will probably be the line of the election.  In case you missed it:

Reporter:  "John Edwards has been descirbed as charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy.  How does he stack up against D!ck Cheney?"
Dubya:  "D!ck Cheney can be president.  (pause)  Next?"

OOOHHHHHHHHHHH.  BURN.

Yes, it was probably planned and written many weeks ago by speechwriters, and it's also probably an unfair comment to make.  But still... DISS.  Oh SNAP.




/edit Okay, censoring the word D-I-C-K is silly beyond belief.

My apologies to the Bush hataz in the crowd tonight, but Dubya (wouldja believe it) scored what will probably be the line of the election.  In case you missed it:

Reporter:  "John Edwards has been descirbed as charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy.  How does he stack up against D!ck Cheney?"
Dubya:  "D!ck Cheney can be president.  (pause)  Next?"

OOOHHHHHHHHHHH.  BURN.

Yes, it was probably planned and written many weeks ago by speechwriters, and it's also probably an unfair comment to make.  But still... DISS.  Oh SNAP.




/edit Okay, censoring the word D-I-C-K is silly beyond belief.

And you're talking about the one D-I-C-K who needs to be censored! 
I'll see your "line of the election" and raise you a slow-witted arrogant President who has no grasp on the issues!
"D-i-c-k Cheney can be President...."  Duh.

By the way, you may like that, but the majority doesn't.


I started to say "We'll see come November" ;D.........until I remembered that the current *ahem* leader of this country wasn't the choice of the majority in 2000. :-\\

BTW, I'm pickled tink with Kerry's choice.

I started to say "We'll see come November" ;D.........until I remembered that the current *ahem* leader of this country wasn't the choice of the majority in 2000. :-\\

BTW, I'm pickled tink with Kerry's choice.


Maybe he was?  Thousands of white republicans were denied the vote in 2000.  He won the majority of the electoral vote, WHICH YOU MUST HAVE TO WIN.  We have had 3 presidents win without the popular vote BUT never a president win without the majority of the electoral.

Oh why oh why didn't the democrats want those military ballots counted?

Maybe he was?  Thousands of white republicans were denied the vote in 2000.  He won the majority of the electoral vote, WHICH YOU MUST HAVE TO WIN.  We have had 3 presidents win without the popular vote BUT never a president win without the majority of the electoral.

Oh why oh why didn't the democrats want those military ballots counted?

Oh de po' white Republicans!
Oh why oh why didn't the Republicans want a statewide Florida ballot recount?  Al Gore and his legal team really blew it by not demanding one, not just a few counties, the entire state.
Why do voting machines in southern black precincts breakdown so often?

Oh de po' white Republicans!
Oh why oh why didn't the Republicans want a statewide Florida ballot recount?  Al Gore and his legal team really blew it by not demanding one, not just a few counties, the entire state.
Why do voting machines in southern black precincts breakdown so often?


Another question is why were voting machines tampered with? Some counties in Florida used voting machines that could be programed to reject spoiled ballots for correction, like overvotes.  GUess what?  In black majority counties that feature was TURNED OFF, but not in white ones.  Here's a rundown of a few:
                                    Black Counties
                    % Black                                      Votes not counted

Gadsden            52%                                              12%
Madison              42%                                                7%
Hamilton              39%                                              9%
Jackson              26%                                                7%

                                    White Counties

Citrus                    2%                                                1%
Pasco                    2%                                                3%
Santa Rosa            4%                                                1%
Sarasota                4%                                                2%

And, of course, this includes only those blacks who were ALLOWED to vote, not those purged from the lists because they were "felons".  And by the way, Florida courts twice decided that felons from other states, that restore voting rights to released felons, could not be denied the right to vote in Florida and didn't need to ask for clemancy to get the vote back.  This was BEFORE the 2000 election.  Nevertheless,  THOUSANDS were.

Something (to paraphrase Hamlet) is rotten in the state of Florida.

Maybe he was?  Thousands of white republicans were denied the vote in 2000.  He won the majority of the electoral vote, WHICH YOU MUST HAVE TO WIN.  We have had 3 presidents win without the popular vote BUT never a president win without the majority of the electoral.

Oh why oh why didn't the democrats want those military ballots counted?


Lots of absentee ballots were spoiled, unsigned, not postmarked, late, overvoted etc. and were appropriately not counted, except in Florida, where those from military bases WERE counted regardless, at the direction of Ms Harris.  Why do republicans want to count dubious ballots when they are sure they are for them?  Ah duhhhh

Another question is why were voting machines tampered with? Some counties in Florida used voting machines that could be programed to reject spoiled ballots for correction, like overvotes.  GUess what?  In black majority counties that feature was TURNED OFF, but not in white ones.  Here's a rundown of a few:

Right on, DC!  And even when blacks voted, who says all the ballots even got counted?

I see we have an argument here as to which party or candidates "have more money".  So I did a web search and found the attached link.  Check it out, it has references to the data sources.

http://home.comcast.net/~tbev-comments/republicans.htm#Party_of_the_rich

I see we have an argument here as to which party or candidates "have more money".  So I did a web search and found the attached link.  Check it out, it has references to the data sources.

http://home.comcast.net/~tbev-comments/republicans.htm#Party_of_the_rich

I've seen these statistics before, and my question is, so what?

I've seen these statistics before, and my question is, so what?


So what?  Well the Democrats would like you to think that the Republicans are all a bunch of fat-cats who run their campaigns from deep-pocketed contributors who try to buy the political process.

Fair enough.  But if you look at the stats, the same complaint may be made about the Dems too.

.  Why do republicans want to count dubious ballots when they are sure they are for them?  Ah duhhhh


Couldn't I say why do democrats want to count dubious ballots when they are sure they are for them?  Black people people overall commit more crimes then white people (factor in they are only 13% of the population) and you can't vote for a period of time if you are a felon.

Why do democrats want to complain about an unfair ballot those ''confused'' people (funny how the idiots that were confused by a ballot wanted to vote for democrats.....) vote for Bucanhan.  THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO MADE AND APPROVED THE BALLOT.  YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO WHINE OR MOAN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID!!!

Black people people overall commit more crimes then white peopleThat is one of the most uninformed, racist statements I've heard in a long time! African Americans are ARRESTED WAY more often than whites and, because of the disproportionate financial status (therefore, a disproportionate number of cases with inadequate legal representation), are CONVICTED of more crimes and given harsher SENTENCES, but you'll NEVER get me to believe that African Americans "COMMIT" more crimes, per capita, that whites.

That is one of the most uninformed, racist statements I've heard in a long time! African Americans are ARRESTED WAY more often than whites and, because of the disproportionate financial status (therefore, a disproportionate number of cases with inadequate legal representation), are CONVICTED of more crimes and given harsher SENTENCES, but you'll NEVER get me to believe that African Americans "COMMIT" more crimes, per capita, that whites.


My statement was uninformed?  You basically admitted that blacks are arrested more on average.  That is a fact.  Saying that those arrest are based on race or whatever isn't a fact, but a groundless theory.  Wise up sir.

I was going to respond to GW, but I am speechless. I was raised in
a straight ticket republican household.  Although I was lucky to have
had parents who were opended minded, there were members of my family
who espressed the vitriol that he exudes, although the racism was
directed toward other ethnic groups, mainly the Irish. I was raised to
believe that the Irish were the cause of all the problems, they committed
most of the crimes, they didn't value education, they were lazy, they lived
off of welfare.  It was racism, it was ignorance, it was ugly, and it was
wrong, and you GW have a lot need to educate yourself in the ways of
the world.  Ever hear of Machiavelli?

My statement was uninformed?  You basically admitted that blacks are arrested more on average.  That is a fact.  Saying that those arrest are based on race or whatever isn't a fact, but a groundless theory.  Wise up sir.

Uh, hullo!
African Americans are disproportianately poor.  Poverty breeds despair, despair breeds crime--and drug abuse, which is a crime.  In fact, drug crimes account for a huge portion of felonies in the U.S.  In a lot of places, drug dealing becomes the only viable alternative to minimum wage.  If blacks are disproportionately poor, and disproportionately urban, it follows they'll be the ones selling drugs in neighborhoods where cops go looking for drug dealers.
Far more white people of means do drugs than the establishment likes to acknowledge, and that includes crack and heroin.  However, if you are poor, you are more likely to obtain your drug money in criminal ways--burglary, armed robbery, prostitution, or selling drugs yourself.  Again, since blacks are disproportionately poor, they are the ones more likely to do these things.  Not that whites don't do all these things plenty themselves.
Then we get to something the Dude was alluding to.  Since blacks are more likely to be poor, thus more likely to do crimes poor people do, which are crimes for which one is more likely to be caught, you DO have a higher arrest rate.  This higher arrest rate IS a result of vile economic injustice, which isn't something right-wingers will even acknowledge exists.  But it does!
African Americans fortunate enough to get a healthy start in life in a secure family, get educated, and go on to a decent career are not likely to hold up the 7-11 for dope money. 
An arrest doesn't make a felony, a conviction does.  If you have good legal defense, you are less likely to get convicted.  However, good legal defense costs big bucks.  Court-appointed defenders are almost always too overworked to give adaquate attention to a particular case.  These defenders are often indifferent, incompetent, or both.  Thus, with bad legal representation, the disproportionately poor blacks are much more likely to get convicted.

One more thing, the raw data ChoicePoint provided to Katherine Harris's office in Florida indicated the race for everyname.  Harris's office was looking deliberately to disenfranchise names marked as black.

So what?  Well the Democrats would like you to think that the Republicans are all a bunch of fat-cats who run their campaigns from deep-pocketed contributors who try to buy the political process.

Fair enough.  But if you look at the stats, the same complaint may be made about the Dems too.


If you look at corporate and big donar stats you will see that most of that $$$ goes to republicans, in fact, overwhelmingly.  While democrats do get some of it, a much larger proportion comes from small donars, like my $25 to Dean, than another $25 to Kerry.  Ignore them and rant on, but those are the facts.

Couldn't I say why do democrats want to count dubious ballots when they are sure they are for them?  Black people people overall commit more crimes then white people (factor in they are only 13% of the population) and you can't vote for a period of time if you are a felon.

Why do democrats want to complain about an unfair ballot those ''confused'' people (funny how the idiots that were confused by a ballot wanted to vote for democrats.....) vote for Bucanhan.  THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO MADE AND APPROVED THE BALLOT.  YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO WHINE OR MOAN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID!!!


Blacks are profiled by cops in just about every state in the union.  In the thread on race, I think, I reported on a recent case right here in Vermont.  So naturally they get arrested alot.  And since they tend to face white juries, and can't afford decent defense lawyers, they get convicted.  But you ignore both points I made.  The first had to do with the way voting machines were manipulated in Florida.  There is no way to tell how many spoiled ballots were kicked back in those white counties that enabled the machines to do that, but the question was, why was that feature DISabled in large population black counties?

Second, I didn't mention the "Jews for Buchanan", you did.  And it turns out that that the supposed "democrat" who designed the "butterfly ballot" which again you brought up, wasn't a democrat at all.  I can't find her named at the moment (again, my books are in the office), but she was really a republican, and so, on that county commission, it was 2 r's to 1 d.

Nor did I mention anything about counting dubious ballots.  My point, which you did not address (for ideological reasons?) was that legally entitled voters in several categories were denied the vote, and they were overwhelming likely Gore voters.  At what point will you focus on what I argue and stop putting words in my mouth my insinuation?  It IS getting tiresome.

Nor did I mention anything about counting dubious ballots.  My point, which you did not address (for ideological reasons?) was that legally entitled voters in several categories were denied the vote, and they were overwhelming likely Gore voters.  At what point will you focus on what I argue and stop putting words in my mouth my insinuation?  It IS getting tiresome.

That's because partisan Republicans can never admit to themselves that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris would do what they done did!
;)
I do agree.  By the time a recount was in question the Florida election had been tampered with, meddled with, and sabotaged in so many places, and in so many ways, that a truly fair count was probably impossible.

That's because partisan Republicans can never admit to themselves that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris would do what they done did!
;)
I do agree.  By the time a recount was in question the Florida election had been tampered with, meddled with, and sabotaged in so many places, and in so many ways, that a truly fair count was probably impossible.


And that, of course, was the point.  Hay GWB, why so quiet?

My statement was uninformed?  You basically admitted that blacks are arrested more on average.  That is a fact.  Saying that those arrest are based on race or whatever isn't a fact, but a groundless theory.  Wise up sir.
YOU BET is was uninformed and (you forgot) racist! The ignorant statement I replied to was "Black people people overall commit more crimes then white people.........".  Big difference between "arrested" and "commit". Me wise up? ::)

IMO, they should have redone the voting in the FL counties where they were doing the recounts.  That's the only way this controversy will EVER be resolved.

I don't know what the laws are governing an election repeat, but it's the very LAST thing the Republicans wanted.  If Florida got to do it over again, all the NADER voters would have voted GORE and that would be the end of BUSH!

Well, it seems like history might repeat itself. Florida is STILL having problems with voting machines. Was that done on purpose? Hmmmmm.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5417439/




Cat

Well, it seems like history might repeat itself. Florida is STILL having problems with voting machines. Was that done on purpose? Hmmmmm.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5417439/




Cat


Ah Duh.

Now they want to use machines that will make a recount impossible.  Do ya think?

Look for the dirtiest presidential election in U.S. history.  I hope the reason the Supremes, several of who have wanted to retire - conservative ones - and haven't, have come to recognize the fraud they were involved with and don't want to give Lil' Georgie the opportunity to stack the court.  This country, to quote Alice, "get curiouser and curiouser.

I'm sorry, but I have a SERIOUS problem with a strictly computer-based voting system in ANY state.  Can anyone say "hackers"?  If they can get into the Pentagon, I've no problem believing they can get into these...


Sure, hackers could be a problem, but worse, the computers could be programed to count every 5th vote for K to count  for B, and who would know? 1984 anyone?