The election results II

"live-free" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The results - Kerry loses and does not whine avout it! How unlike a
democrat! Not that all the dummycrats are bad, but when Al Gore caused
the whole big stink in 2000 that really turned me off of the party!
Kerry did the smart thing and conceeded the election quickly!

I think that the whole idea of political parties is crazy! Just vote
for the person that you agree with the most. I personally think some
of what Kerry had to say made sense, but I also agree with some of
what Bush says! And Nader is just a nutball!

The President has my support on the war on terrorism and homeland
security, but his economic policies and energy plans are insane! We
need an economic plan that encourages companies to keep jobs here in
our country, and energy policies that will help reduce our relience on
fossil fuels.

There are so many different sources of energy that can be used now it
is silly that we still rely on fuels that have been around for
hundreds of years. How about solar and wind? Or hydrodynamic?

Ken

I have a farm and my wife and I have tried to get into alternative energy
sources and to "get off the grid." Our conclusion is that the available
alternatives are just not developed yet to a point that they're practical
and affordable. They're ridiculously complicated and expensive. Of course,
there's been little incentive for their development. A 10 watt solar panel
still costs around $200 (on average ... retail). It'll barely run a small
greenhouse fan. And unless you have a constant breeze of 14 mph or so
(which I don't in my area), wind won't do anything for you. Again, that's
not to say those technologies couldn't be advanced, but they aren't
practical now. As for hydrodynamic ... well, there's a lot of hydroelectric
already. I think it's subject to physical limitations ... there aren't
enough rivers to dam.

But I hear you. If the incentives were there, the alternatives would be
developed.

Now that the winter months are at hand, if I could hook my rollers to some
sort of turbine, I'd probably be able to help out a few families.

Bob C.

If a politician was able to make an economic plan, we would call them
'businessman', 'entrepreneur', 'CEO' or similar. It is not within their
personalities to earn their own way, they are more of a leach class. Politicians
can certainly discourage business through taxation and regulation, but can do
very little to encourage business to do anything. When they try, it is called
'loopholes', special favors, or tax breaks for the rich.

Quoted message said:

There are so many different sources of energy that can be used now it
is silly that we still rely on fuels that have been around for
hundreds of years. How about solar and wind? Or hydrodynamic?

It is my understanding that both the Cheney and Bush private residences are
solar and off grid, and at least one has a vehicle that runs on some kind of non
traditional fuel.

I found that for about $30,000 I could take my house/business off grid. The
business is a copy shop with three computers and two large copy machines.
Unfortunately, with an energy bill of $130-$175 monthly, it was an investment
that won't pay off in a reasonable period of time, tax incentives don't help .

I would be interested in how building codes could be implemented in appropriate
areas that would require some kind of alternate energy implementation on new
construction/remodels. With increased usage, then the prices should drop, yada
yada yada

But this whole thing is, after all, OT to the bicycle group

(live-free) said:

The results - Kerry loses and does not whine avout it! How unlike a
democrat! Not that all the dummycrats are bad, but when Al Gore caused
the whole big stink in 2000 that really turned me off of the party!
Kerry did the smart thing and conceeded the election quickly!

I think that the whole idea of political parties is crazy! Just vote
for the person that you agree with the most. I personally think some
of what Kerry had to say made sense, but I also agree with some of
what Bush says! And Nader is just a nutball!

The President has my support on the war on terrorism and homeland
security, but his economic policies and energy plans are insane! We
need an economic plan that encourages companies to keep jobs here in
our country, and energy policies that will help reduce our relience on
fossil fuels.

There are so many different sources of energy that can be used now it
is silly that we still rely on fuels that have been around for
hundreds of years. How about solar and wind? Or hydrodynamic?

Ken

Biggest stock market winners the day after the election? Drug
companies, military companies, oil companies. Biggest loser?
Alternative energy.

Gee, I wonder why.

live-free said:

The results - Kerry loses and does not whine avout it! How unlike a
democrat! Not that all the dummycrats are bad, but when Al Gore caused the
whole big stink in 2000 that really turned me off of the party!

You're of the school that rape victims should shut the hell up too, eh?

Gore WAS gracious in 2000, but perhaps your memory's a bit foggy.

Supporting the war on terrorism? Smarter is to support the war on
individual terrorists, if we'd focused on that and not on waging war with
a technique, perhaps we wouldn't have to have seen the taunting video of
Osama recently in the news.

Gore was definately not a good loser, how many weeks of recounts did they do
4 weeks worth!

"maxo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

live-free said:

The results - Kerry loses and does not whine avout it! How unlike a
democrat! Not that all the dummycrats are bad, but when Al Gore caused

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whole big stink in 2000 that really turned me off of the party!

You're of the school that rape victims should shut the hell up too, eh?

Gore WAS gracious in 2000, but perhaps your memory's a bit foggy.

Supporting the war on terrorism? Smarter is to support the war on
individual terrorists, if we'd focused on that and not on waging war with
a technique, perhaps we wouldn't have to have seen the taunting video of
Osama recently in the news.

Ken Marcet said:

Gore was definately not a good loser, how many weeks of recounts did they do
4 weeks worth!

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

Steven M. Scharf said:

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

If he had run a halfway competent campaign he would have wiped the
floor with Shrub. If anyone won the last election for Shrub it was Al
Gore himself.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ken Marcet said:

Gore was definately not a good loser, how many weeks of recounts did they
do
4 weeks worth!

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

All the sources absolutely did NOT say that. What rubbish.

Bob C.

psycholist said:

All the sources absolutely did NOT say that. What rubbish.

See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts"

Enough said!

Steven M. Scharf said:

Ken Marcet said:

Gore was definately not a good loser, how many weeks of recounts did
they do
4 weeks worth!

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

I couldn't have said it better. This time I think Bush got in by lying his
ass off and the help of the corrupt Republicans he has on staff. The next
four years could find the country bankrupt, financially if not morally.
This is the first time in, well, forever, that I have seen a president
get something so meaningless on the ballot as a vote to amend the
Constitution to ban gay marriages. It looks like the Vatican is going
to run the White house and you know where that goes. No stem cell
research, no abortions, no advancement. Other countries that are not
held back by this [censored] will be taking the lead in sciences away
from us and we will wind up a second class nation after it shakes out.
[censored], we put people on the moon 35 years ago and what have we done since?
Blew up a few [censored], built a half assed space station, bankrupt the
Russian communists, left Castro alone, shake with fear at China's emerging
might and North Korea's atomic bomb and rocket program. Does Bush worry
about that, no, he just wants to keep the oil pipeline open.
I was so damned depressed I didn't even get out of bed yesterday, much
less go for a ride (raining anyway).
The [censored] has only begun, now that he no longer has to worry about getting
re-elected. Impeached maybe, but not likely, Tuesday just proved how
many stupid voters there are, and the democrats who didn't vote can
kick themselves in the ass for the next four years. Many more years
if Bush gets to replace Supreme court judges with his fanatical right
wing picks.
The future of this country is not looking good. People voting for Bush
because he will keep them safe from terrorist attacks??? Yeah, right,
like 9/11 could ever be repeated, and about 3,000 people die every day
from natural causes, that might be saved by stem cell research. So who
is Bush helping, big companies (oil comes to mind) or sick people who
need the research?
I still be that history shows him as one of the worst presidents in
our history.
Incompetence won, so deal with it for the next four years.
Bill Baka
Raining again today, just like yesterday. Maybe the Big guy upstairs
didn't like the election either.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Bill Baka said:

The [censored] has only begun, now that he no longer has to worry about getting
re-elected. Impeached maybe, but not likely, Tuesday just proved how
many stupid voters there are, and the democrats who didn't vote can
kick themselves in the ass for the next four years. Many more years
if Bush gets to replace Supreme court judges with his fanatical right
wing picks.

I'm more worried about a religious war. Many of those who voted for Bush
did so because they honestly believe he's God's chosen vessle on this
planet to carry out God's will. The Islamic extremists believe similarly.
So I think we can look forward to the "Left Behind" crowd in the
administration pushing for a further expansion of the war against Islam
until it becomes something of a "Crusade" as Bush once called it. We know
how well those went.

Quoted message said:

The future of this country is not looking good. People voting for Bush
because he will keep them safe from terrorist attacks??? Yeah, right,
like 9/11 could ever be repeated, and about 3,000 people die every day
from natural causes, that might be saved by stem cell research. So who
is Bush helping, big companies (oil comes to mind) or sick people who
need the research?

The most ironic thing is that (aside from smallpox being let loose or
something like that) the red states had little to fear from terrorists.
They bomb targets where they can cause high casualties or make a symbolic
statement. They aren't going to bomb "The Biggest Pancake in Nebraska". So
the red states were always safe. That's the irony of this.

Quoted message said:

I still be that history shows him as one of the worst presidents in
our history.
Incompetence won, so deal with it for the next four years.

I can't deal with it. The only way I'll be able to is just to check out.
Turn off the news. Stop talking about it (starting maybe tomorrow) and
just put my head in the sand. I did everything I could this year. I gave
money, I volunteered for months while I was unemployed. I did everything
I could and still it didn't matter in the end. So really I don't know what
to do from here other than go bike, watch lots of crappy reality TV and
just pretend like I have no idea what's going on in the world.

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka
Raining again today, just like yesterday. Maybe the Big guy upstairs
didn't like the election either.

Not according to his followers. Jerry Fallwell was on TV yesterday
gloating about how now God's work can be done on Earth and Christianity
can be spread throughought the planet. At gunpoint, no doubt.

Preston

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

All the sources absolutely did NOT say that. What rubbish.

See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts"

Enough said!

That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this
thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary.

Bob C.

Steven M. Scharf said:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

Recall that the Florida Supremes arbitrarily extended the deadline to
certify the results (to Nov 26). The Bush legal position was that 1)
they had no constitutional authority to do so 2) those action also
violate 3USC5 whereby you have to follow election standards in place
prior to election day (this was regarding the whole chad issue) and 3)
cherry picking only some localities and varying chad standard was a
violation of equal protection.

Contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY held on points 2
and 3. That is, that the standards for a legal vote and clear intent
of the voter were unconstititionally varying day to day as a result of
lower court legal decisions. (see slip op p 8).

Also contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court SEVEN (not 5) Justices
found that the Florida Supreme's action was unconstitutional ("Seven
Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy ... The only disagreement is as to the remedy." slip op. p12).

Also contrary to myth is that the decision "stopped the counting". In
fact, what they did was remand the case back to the Florida Supremes.
They said 'your solution violates the constitution and you grossly
overstepped your authority by making up ad hoc election rules, so
issue a new decision/solution.'

By not taking up the issue, the Florida Supremes ended the counting
(of course, there was no practical solution that could both comply
with pre-election day law and the Constitutional and still allow any
sort of legal recounting). Gore still lost with or without the 215
P-B and 168 Miami votes "found" in the process.

When the consortium of news media recounted, only with the gross
assumption that the overvote (2 pres candidates punched) was meant for
Gore did he win.

Steven M. Scharf said:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

No, Gore wanted to count and re-count only votes for the counties that
he thought would favor him. And he operated under the assumption that
any "voter" so feeble and stupid that s/he couldn't poke a hole all
the way through a thin sheet of cardboard must ipso facto have
intended to vote Gore.

Your bleat is SO last week. Find a new one.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:04:07 -0500, "psycholist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts"

Enough said!

That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this
thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary.

No, it's really typical.

Reality Check none@ said:

Steven M. Scharf said:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor?
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Reality Check none@ said:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida
election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method
of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been
challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld.

The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the
process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many
elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up.

In any case, that's ancient history now, and I agree that it's Gore's
own damn fault that the election was that close.

Todd Kuzma

Todd Kuzma said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Reality Check none@ said:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida
election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method
of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been
challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld.

Not entirely correct. Florida statute had long been that when the
results were close that recounts were automatic; in other cases that
close results (county by county) could be challenged and call for a
recount.

That's all well and good. But when those recounts did not result in
enough found votes they wanted yet another chance, and in some cases
with still different standards of voter intent. To quote from the
USSC slip op (p 8):

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that
three members of the county canvassing board applied
different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499
(Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at
least one county changed its evaluative standards during
the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example,
began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded
counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule
that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen
through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then
abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a
court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal.
This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal
treatment."

This completely contradicts the assertion that some set of orderly
standards were in use at all, let alone for 20 yrs. The changing
process described was a result of several court actions along the way
in which voter intent was constantly redefined.

The Florida Supreme Court you referring to sounds like the 2000 Gore v
Harris. The FSC did not in fact "uphold" anything, but in fact
conjured new ad hoc rules arbitratily extending the verification
deadline.

Quoted message said:

The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the
process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many
elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up.

The main thing the FSC did was to arbitrarily set a new certification
deadline. Florida almost certainly did not have a 20 year history of
doing that. The USSC said you have to use the rules and standards in
place prior to election day.

Bill Baka said:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:10 -0600, Reality Check <none@> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor?

You don't even have to WORK at being an idiot, do you Bill?

Bill "close contest between you and Blair" S.