Run, run Republicans!!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Haven't you ever notices the way they use language?

I can only hope to have command of the language equal to slowwy. You owe him an apology.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kerry was not evangelical and he was nearly excommunicated. And you're not a real Catholic.

So what am I?

Anglican by birth, Evangelical by choice or Catholic by confirmation?

[DaShi]

An abomination! If God wanted you to be Catholic, he'd a born you that way!

[Ben Kenobi]

An abomination! If God wanted you to be Catholic, he'd a born you that way!

Thank you DaShi.

No you are right, I'll never be a true cradle Catholic. I'm just one of those converts who came in the back door.

[DaShi]

You will not survive the Purge! :wiglaf:

[Kidlicious]

I can only hope to have command of the language equal to slowwy. You owe him an apology.

Anyone who can make heads or tails of 2 Corinthians 10 is only playing a fool.

[chequita guevara]

Declaring ballots 'illegal' is the same as counting them? I suppose if I were a democrat I might employ the term 'disenfranchising'. That would mean that I believe in the principle that servicemen ought to be able to fully participate in election.

The ballots were illegal because they did not conform to the law. That law was overlooked and the ballots were counted as valid. No one knows whether those ballots were from military voters or were ballot stuffing attempts on the part of the GOP. Is it really so hard to understand this or are you so stupid that you must constantly think about breathing in order to keep from dying from lack of oxygen?

Secondly, you've completely ignored my query as to why you said that military ballots are the ones most prone to fraud? Where's the evidence of such?

I wrote nothing about military ballot, you colossal idiot. I wrote about absentee ballots. Can't you even ****ing read? Geezuz, you're so stupid people probably have to tilt your head down when it rains to stop you from drowning.

So it's just a co-incidence that they contain primarily Republican voters? Sure the ballots might not enable you to identify who cast them, but all you really need are the poll box numbers.

Absentee ballot fraud is rather common in the US. The only thing that can be determined about a voter's identity is his precinct. Again, this is about absentee ballots, not military voters. I know it's hard for you to follow facts and logic, but please try and stay on topic, idiot.

Which is why you mentioned only the colour of their skin? I didn't know you were a racist Che. Seems to me that their prior conviction was the source of the difficulties, not the colour of their skin.

Look you flying moron, what part of, the fifty thousand people were not convicted of any crime don't you understand. How is it possible you don't understand the words printed right in front of you? Do you even speak English? No prior conviction.

Why mention race, dumbass? Because in the U.S. Black people tend to vote Democratic by 4 to 1 margins. Therefore, if a process disproportionately targets Black people, in this case, by thrice their representation in the Florida population (50% of the illegal blocked voters were Black versus 16% of the Florida population being Black), then it is obvious that there is an attempt to disenfranchise Black voters and to consequently, throw the election.

Better stupid then racist. Only black people are prisoners in Florida?

But I'm not racist, moron.

So you believe that Daley's Chicago machine is as pure as the driven snow?

Do you understand the difference between believing something and proving it? You believe the 1960 election was stolen, but you can't prove it. I make no claims as to whether or not the election was stolen, because I cannot prove it. I don't say the election wasn't stolen, but I don't say it was, either. I can't prove it either way, but I have the integrity not to make a claim of truth regarding it, so I don't.

So you are insisting that Bush cheated and won two elections?

The evidence is clear in the case of Florida in 2000. Even the State of Florida admitted in court that it (without admitting wrong doing, i.e., that it had done so deliberately) that it had wrongfully disenfranchised 50,000 people. The NAACP was merely trying to get Florida to fix things before the 2004 election, but there is documentation that Florida knowingly broke the law.

In the case of Ohio in 2004, the evidence has slowly been uncovered over the last several years. I did not accept the claim that the Ohio 2004 election had been stolen until 2008. While I don't think it's a slam dunk, the preponderance of evidence shows massive election tampering.

Has there ever been an election won by a republican that wasn't stolen?

Reagan and Bush 41 didn't cheat. Nixon didn't cheat. Eisenhower didn't cheat.

There is no law that can compel service, Che.

You are the only one talking about compelling someone to take office.

This is a democracy.

Don't talk about my country as if you were part of it. You aren't, foreigner.

If Gore truly was worthy of his position, he would not have conceded prior to the end of the count. That he conceded indicated at that point he no longer wished to serve. Changing your mind when the count turns is indicative of his lack of conviction.

No, it's an indication he thought he'd lost and he was showing the good grace to concede. Once it became clear that the election in Florida wasn't as clear cut as it seemed, he rescinded his non-binding concession.

Right, and there is no coincidence that a dead democrat always beats a living republican.

Always? Bull****. Prove your assertion or admit you're a liar.

Elections based on nepotism are not democratic. I thought you were against the principles of an entrenched aristocracy.

The election wasn't based on nepotism. The people of Missouri decided they'd rather vote for a dead man than for Ashcroft. Under Missouri law, if a candidate dies before the election, but after the point when another candidate can be listed, it is up to the government of Missouri to appoint a replacement. When people voted for the dead guy, they knew that. It was in the news. They didn't have a different candidate foisted on them by illegal means.

Do I think they should have appointed the dead guy's wife? No. But it wasn't illegal. The people of Missouri who voted for her husband knew what would happen if the dead guy won, so democracy was still served.

I don't really see the difference. 8 years might as well be 60 for me. Accept your loss, and move on.

"My" loss is democracy's loss. It's the loss of everyone who has hope that the system represents them, that their votes actually mean something.

As for your assertion, I think you're a liar. I think you, like most people, are more upset by things that happened yesterday to you than things that happened decades ago to someone else. But I can't prove it.

For someone who didn't even support the democrats, you sure are upset.

Because an election was stolen. As a result of the election being stolen, a lot more people are dead in this world than should be. As a result of that election, my country's government is more authoritarian, more centralized, and I have less rights. I have good reason to be upset.

And you're still a ****ing moron.

[Ben Kenobi]

The ballots were illegal because they did not conform to the law.

Oh, you mean they arrived late? Well that is a problem when the ballots themselves are not issued at their proper time. Again, it's a slick trick to take voters out of the pool who are not likely to be democrats.

I wrote nothing about military ballot, you colossal idiot. I wrote about absentee ballots.

Of which you admitted yourself, the bulk of the late ones are military.

Absentee ballot fraud is rather common in the US. The only thing that can be determined about a voter's identity is his precinct. Again, this is about absentee ballots, not military voters.

I can see absentee fraud, but that has nothing to do with the military voters. One would think if there was an issue with fraud that they would ensure that one could only vote on election day. Obviously, given that absentee balloting has been greatly expanded, that fraud is not a serious issue.

Why mention race, dumbass? Because in the U.S. Black people tend to vote Democratic by 4 to 1 margins.

So what again, does the fact that the colour of their skin have anything to do at all with the fact that their ballots were tossed? Again, until I mentioned it you never confessed that it had anything to do at all with prior convictions. All you said is that it had to do that they were black and that was it, your words, that they were targetting black folks.

That's racist, I'm sorry Che. Had you said that the tossed ballots were people who had been convicted earlier, it would be an accurate assessment. Instead you throw out a ready stat saying 40+ percent of those tossed were black!

Now, as you confessed already, you could not tell someone's race from the ballot. You don't check a box to say, " I am an african-american".

As you also admitted the majority of those who were disenfranchised were actually white. Now if you are arguing that a disproportionate number were black, then I'd have to ask you why is it that 40 percent of those who falled in the category of previous conviction were black? Is it systematic racism?

Therefore, if a process disproportionately targets Black people, in this case, by thrice their representation in the Florida population (50% of the illegal blocked voters were Black versus 16% of the Florida population being Black), then it is obvious that there is an attempt to disenfranchise Black voters and to consequently, throw the election.

So what are you saying the ballots say, "I am a black person, throw me out?"

Didn't you just admit that the ballots are secret and you couldn't tell who were black and who were white?

But I'm not racist, moron.

Of course not, because you believe that the only pertinent fact that affected those ballots was the colour of the person's skin. I think the state has a legitimate interest to apply scrutiny to those with prior convictions, just to ensure that the prisoners have in fact been released. Now, I'd like you to acknowledge that tossing out ballots because they were former prisoners has nothing to do at all with the colour of that person's skin.

Do you understand the difference between believing something and proving it? You believe the 1960 election was stolen, but you can't prove it. I make no claims as to whether or not the election was stolen, because I cannot prove it. I don't say the election wasn't stolen, but I don't say it was, either. I can't prove it either way, but I have the integrity not to make a claim of truth regarding it, so I don't.

And you cannot prove that the election of Dubya was stolen either. Thank you, case closed.

Do you have evidence that those ballots were tossed on Bush's orders? Can you attribute their exclusion to the deliberate attempt to elect Bush and not incompetency on the part of the poll takers?

Did Bush plan it ahead of time, knowing that Florida was going to be the deciding state of the election?

If you are going to apply one standard of skepticism, then you must also apply the same skepticism to Bush, in the case where it is warranted. Florida has never been known for republican corruption, whereas Chicago is legendary.

I'm not convinced that the elections are fixed there, not after what happened in 2004, and 2008. I'm convinced that the election was very close there because of unique factors in 2000, that haven't repeated themselves. Illinois on the other hand? I see confirmation in every election as to how deep they are ensconced. I've never see Illinois flip whereas the states around them have not. Florida has done just that in this election.

The evidence is clear in the case of Florida in 2000. Even the State of Florida admitted in court that it (without admitting wrong doing, i.e., that it had done so deliberately)

So you can cheat inadvertantly? Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetance.

that it had wrongfully disenfranchised 50,000 people. The NAACP was merely trying to get Florida to fix things before the 2004 election, but there is documentation that Florida knowingly broke the law.

Which has since been fixed, see this election and in 2008, leading me to believe that it was never the intent to push Florida for Bush. The irony is sweet that Gore screwed himself over, in that had he asked for every vote to be counted again, but he did not. He only focussed on the pro-Gore counties that he figured he could swing because he feared that opening it up everywhere in Florida meant he would lose. IOW, he feared the democratic process.

In the case of Ohio in 2004, the evidence has slowly been uncovered over the last several years. I did not accept the claim that the Ohio 2004 election had been stolen until 2008. While I don't think it's a slam dunk, the preponderance of evidence shows massive election tampering.

I think in any election the tampering flows both ways. I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's one of the reasons I've lost faith in the democratic process from before.

My new philosophy is that if it ain't close, they can't cheat.

Reagan and Bush 41 didn't cheat. Nixon didn't cheat. Eisenhower didn't cheat.

Blowouts. Obviously, the will of the people was clear. Just reaffirms my statement. If it ain't close they can't cheat. If you are going to send a message make sure it comes through loud and clear.

Don't talk about my country as if you were part of it. You aren't, foreigner.

That's a statement of truth about America. Shouldn't matter who says it. America is a democracy, no?

No, it's an indication he thought he'd lost and he was showing the good grace to concede. Once it became clear that the election in Florida wasn't as clear cut as it seemed, he rescinded his non-binding concession.

Doesn't work that way.

Anyone with an ounce of class would have accepted the loss from the moment of the concession. You don't concede unless you are sure. If it's close there is no lack of honour in waiting for the results to come in. You can even say that, the will of the people is unclear. Gore would have gained respect if he did that. Instead, issuing the concession, and then rescinding it? What's the point of a concession if you are just going to call it back anyways?

If you aren't man enough to stick with your decision, then don't concede.

Always? Bull****. Prove your assertion or admit you're a liar.

I know what would have happened if the republican died. They would have nominated someone else, and had a runoff. That is the democratic way of doing things.

Appointing the wife? Excuse me, the people did not vote for her. I'm sure she's a nice lady, but if the person dies after he's in office, then the seat is up for grabs. I don't see how you can appoint someone who has not been elected to the seat.

The election wasn't based on nepotism. The people of Missouri decided they'd rather vote for a dead man than for Ashcroft.

Fair enough. Did the people decide that they would elect her over Ashcroft? Yes or no.

Under Missouri law, if a candidate dies before the election, but after the point when another candidate can be listed, it is up to the government of Missouri to appoint a replacement. When people voted for the dead guy, they knew that. It was in the news. They didn't have a different candidate foisted on them by illegal means.

Then have a runoff. Why is that so hard to do?

I don't see how you can vote for a dead person, or have a dead person on the ballot.

Do I think they should have appointed the dead guy's wife? No. But it wasn't illegal. The people of Missouri who voted for her husband knew what would happen if the dead guy won, so democracy was still served.

I don't see how you can even have a dead guy running. Have a runoff election, and allow the democrats to appoint a replacement.

"My" loss is democracy's loss. It's the loss of everyone who has hope that the system represents them, that their votes actually mean something.

In my opinion there should never be a 'recount' in an election where the will of the people is unclear. There should always be a runoff to settle the matter.

In the case of the presidential election, it would have meant a runoff in Florida, after all the other states had been decided. Not the greatest solution, but better then the endless recounts.

As for your assertion, I think you're a liar. I think you, like most people, are more upset by things that happened yesterday to you than things that happened decades ago to someone else. But I can't prove it.

I'm a historian. I'm one for a reason. If I didn't care about or enjoy history, I wouldn't have studied that subject. I'm not saying my views are the views of most, but that is how I feel.

I honestly don't see a difference between things that happened 8 years ago, and between things that happened 40 some.

I do see a difference between the things I experience personally. I can say how the election affected me personally when I was there in my dorm. I remember rooting for Gore, and being disgusted when he counted only the one section rather then all of Florida.

So in that sense, the election does mean more to me, then the one in 1960, which I did not witness, nor experience.

Because an election was stolen. As a result of the election being stolen, a lot more people are dead in this world than should be.

People die, Che. Some very good men, and some very bad ones. Can I say Gore would have made a different choice after 9-11? No. Can I say, looking back, that Bush would have made those decisions after 9-11? No.

I cannot say that the war on terror was a direct consequence of the election in 2000. I can say that it was a direct consequence of 9-11, and that I cannot blame Bush for the deaths associated with the war, I blame the terrorists who flew the plane into the world trade centre.

[Dinner]

Thank you DaShi.

No you are right, I'll never be a true cradle Catholic. I'm just one of those converts who came in the back door.

You heard it here first, folks. Ben likes it in the back door.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, no... Ben came in the back door. He never said if he liked it.

[chequita guevara]

Should I bother to continue trying when he so obviously is incapable of reading?

[Theben]

You're like the people of Missouri. You knew what you were getting into when you started.

We need a BenK smilie.

[DaShi]

Not before the Wiglaf smilie!!! :wiglaf:

[Verto]

Should I bother to continue trying when he so obviously is incapable of reading?

Only if you're really THAT bored.

[Kidlicious]

Should I bother to continue trying when he so obviously is incapable of reading?

But have you read 2 Corinthians 10:5?

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"

I thought not.