Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46 Posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
Ok...I just didn't want to pick at this emotional scab again, but after seeing a bumper sticker yesterday, I just can't help myself.
The sticker in question read: "Re-elect Gore in '04".
This sticker obviously has a number of meanings to it.
First, whoever believes that Gore should be "re-elected" is obviously living in denial because to the best of my knowledge, Gore didn't win any office that would be up for re-election in 2004.
Second, it's obviously a protest message from the 2000 election. Again, denial plays a huge role here. The fact that this sticker even exists tells me that there are still a number of people that simply refuse to accept the reality and finality of the 2000 election.
Third: See my first question below. It screams to me that these people have no regard for the laws of this country (again, I think there's an element of denial here too). They just will not let go of the fact that while Gore did get more popular votes, that is simply not the way the outcome of the election is decided.
So here are my two questions for all of you Gore followers:
1. Although Gore did win the popular vote (and there is no questioning that), the law of the land states that the winner is to be decided by the Electoral Vote. Gore did not win that, so how can you state that he won? If you don't like the election process, fine. Change it. AFTER THE FACT. You can't go around changing the rules retroactively because you weren't happy with the outcome. We all know the only reason Florida came under such scrutiny is because the entire election was hinged on it. If the race wasn't so close, the mess never would've happened.
2. The ongoing recounts. Many of you Gore proponents argued that had the recounts been allowed to continue (without the intervention of the Supreme Courts), that Gore "eventually" would've won. Apparently, the "momentum was with him"; each recount showed Gore gaining more and more votes.
So my question to you is: The laws of Florida (and all other states) state that all recounts and ballot disputes must be settled by a certain date. Both sides agreed to this beforehand. When the deadline passes, regardless of whether all votes are counted or not, whoever is ahead at that time shall be declared the winner. And we all know who that was.
Someone once told me a perfect analogy to this, which I can't wait to here you Gore-ites attempt to refute.
"Picture a horse race. If horse A "Lucky Gore" is behind of horse B "Bumbling George" by five lengths going into the final lap of the race, it does not matter that horse A narrows that gap to only two lengths by the time they cross the finish line. He still lost. Even though he may have been gaining, and had the race been allowed to continue for X amount of time, he might've eventually won. But the finish line is the finish line. It is predetermined before the race begins, and the bottom line is, whoever crosses it first, is the winner, plain and simple."
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1151 times:
A JOKE?! What an expensive, unnecessary waste of money then.
Perhaps you wont mind if I cite a couple of others of the conservatives' doing: 1)"Guck Fore"
2)"Honk if you voted for Gore. It's the big button in the middle of your steering wheel"
3)"Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I with my gun"
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5485 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1128 times:
During the race, gore supporters like me never had signs out saying"Bush sucks" or stuff like that, but the republicans had signs like "Sore Loserman" and the ones that Aer Lingus mentioned. Also, the date should be when all the votes are counted as one of Florida's chief election officials described it as a "slap in the face". In my mind, we should just use the popular vote because who ever wins that is the guy who the people really want.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
>>>First, whoever believes that Gore should be "re-elected" is obviously living in denial because to the best of my knowledge, Gore didn't win any office that would be up for re-election in 2004.<<< All votes were not counted. Bush was SELECTED to be the President.
>>>Second, it's obviously a protest message from the 2000 election. Again, denial plays a huge role here. The fact that this sticker even exists tells me that there are still a number of people that simply refuse to accept the reality and finality of the 2000 election<<< They have freedom of speech. If you don't like it, you can protest too.
>>>Third: See my first question below. It screams to me that these people have no regard for the laws of this country (again, I think there's an element of denial here too). They just will not let go of the fact that while Gore did get more popular votes, that is simply not the way the outcome of the election is decided.<<< And you're the saint? It's not like they're storming the White House, although they should.
Also, you will not convert anyone into supporting Dubya.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Apparently you need to re-read my post. 350,000 more votes doesn't mean schidt if it still means you lost the Electoral vote!!!! That is the point the the Gore folks just refuse to digest and accept. The number of Electoral votes is what decides the outcome of the election, not the number of popular votes (as they have been arguing fervently, but in vain).
If you don't like the Electoral College (I'm not a big fan of it either, and for the same reasons you probably don't like it), perhaps we can get it changed. In spite of those shortcomings, it was and is still the law of the land, and we need to abide by the rules thereto.
And in doing so, we do it, and apply the new rules in the NEXT election.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1094 times:
>Perhaps you wont mind if I cite a couple of others of the conservatives' doing...
Ok, maybe you didn't understand me. The post I responded to left the impression that the whole Gore thing was a big joke and we need to laugh about it.
Whats wrong with the Electoral College, Matt? It is a true republican form of electing our President, just as it should be. We're no democracy.
The same with electing US Senators. It shouldn't be a public vote. It should be just as it was outlined in the Constitution, a vote in the state legislature (Article I, Section 3) that selects the senator.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
I remember that after Bush won* the election, republicans were holding signs in front of the Vice President's House saying, "Get out of Cheney's house!" Even though it was still Gore's house for another month or so. Just shows true conservative impatience and ignorance.
Raddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
"The post I responded to left the impression that the whole Gore thing was a big joke and we need to laugh about it."
Well, apparently N400QX/N766AS, you're the only one with that impression. The sheer hysteria you conservatives work yourselves into is hilarious. You see a funny bumper sticker and all of a sudden you're screaming that "these people have no regard for the laws of this country" blah blah blah. It's cartoonish.
As for scrapping the direct election of senators because it's unconstitutional, I find you woefully ignorant. Remember the 17th Amendment? Or is the 2nd the only one worth keeping in your opinion? While you're scrapping the 17th Amendment, why not scrap everything else and deny women and minorities the vote, just like the original Constitution provided? Read the whole document, not just the parts you like.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1078 times:
>You see a funny bumper sticker and all of a sudden you're screaming that "these people have no regard for the laws of this country" blah blah blah
Yeah, ok... I wasn't even talking about bumper stickers.
>Remember the 17th Amendment?
Oh, of course. If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I said "...as outlined in the Constitution..." It is true that the better way to elect Senators is outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 3)? I say repeal the 17th Amendment.
>Or is the 2nd the only one worth keeping in your opinion?
No. The First through 15th Amendments should stay where they are. If you want to talk about getting rid of amendments, let's look at the 16th and 17th.
Your last paragraph sounded, to me, very ignorant. The original Constitution (the Seven Articles, that is) never barred any 'free Persons' from voting, including women and 'minorities'. Now, if you were a slave, thats a different story. Keep in mind, though, that not all blacks were slaves back then.
I suggest you read the whole document and not make up parts that don't exist to serve your agenda.
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1075 times:
I wouldn't get too worked up over the bumper sticker. Its an emotional issue; received wisdom and mythology that gore was "cheated". Note the scattergun approach and the logic:
1> the butterfly ballot.
2> the FLA AG
3> hanging chads
4> dimpled chads
5> roads to voter places blocked
6> don't count military ballots
6> Supreme Court unjust ...its politicized... [huh? no kidding]
7> "finish" "recount" in 3 counties.
8> no wait, that didn't work...maybe Gore would've won a recount of the entire State... yeah that's it! That works....thats what we meant to say... etc etc etc.
on and on it goes. ever shifting ground. a fishing expedition to find the right alignment that will ensure the desired outcome.
On a more innocent level the bumper sticker is just like the old sports line "Wait till next year".
just a political football now.
IF the little dog hadn't stopped to shit in the middle of the road it would not have been hit. so what? It did. It was. Sorry, no do-overs in this case.
Raddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
Nice try at covering your gaffe. "Of COURSE I knew about the 17th amendment...yeah." Apparently you have no clear idea why the 17th amendment is there. Perhaps you should read some history books, fella.
As for voting rights -- so you're saying the 15th and 19th Amendments are worthless? That women and minorities were guaranteed the right to vote prior to their adoption? I think you should go to school tomorrow and tell every woman you see that the women's suffrage amendment should be repealed. And even better say everything everything beyond the 15th should be repealed just because you say so. That should be a barrel of laughs.
What's especially funny is if I were to say "let's just repeal the 2nd amendment" with the same gusto as you say "repeal the 17th" you would get your panties in a bunch and accuse "damn libs" of tearing the Constitution to shreds. You may have changed your name, but you're still the same old hypocrite. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that you know nothing about constitutional law (or any law at all -- remember the UCMJ allegations?) -- perhaps you should wait until you manage to educate yourself before making any more extraordinary statements.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
>Nice try at covering your gaffe
Uhh... actually not. My copy of the Constitution (which I consult before every post to prevent an embaressing mistake) noted to check the 17th Amendment for changes to that clause, which I did. No 'gaffe'. You really don't give this Constitutional Conservative any credit, do you?
>As for voting rights -- so you're saying the 15th and 19th Amendments are worthless?
No, if you had read my last post in full, I stated that we should keep the First through 15th Amendments, as well as all others except the 16th and 17th.
I try to read other people's post fully everytime to avoid embarresment. You should do the same.
: >What's especially funny is if I were to say "let's just repeal the 2nd amendment" with the same gusto as you say "repeal the 17th" you would get your
26 We're Nuts
: Just trying to lighten the discussion Maybe the 17th does go against the Constitution... does that make it a bad idea? Even the best things in life ca
: Mmmhmmm -- so by your logic, the Constitutional clause that considers African-Americans to be 3/5 of a person is more valid than the 14th amendment si
: >Maybe the 17th does go against the Constitution... does that make it a bad idea? Yes, it does make it a bad idea. I'll explain. As you are quite awar
: "While I admit that minor changes can lawfully be made to the Constitution by Amendment, I will not accept major changes that are in direct conflict w
30 We're Nuts
: Help me understand, what about states with only one or 2 congressmen? Doesn't that kind of screw your system?
31 We're Nuts
: So all non-free's are black, but not all blacks are non-free. Still means that the majority of blacks were not people.
: >Help me understand, what about states with only one or 2 congressmen? Doesn't that kind of screw your system? No... I assume you are talking about US
33 We're Nuts
: Right, I get it, thanks. I guess I'm still exhausted from last week
: >Still means that the majority of blacks were not people. Of course... way back when, blacks were not free people. But the Constitution still stands-
35 We're Nuts
: But they knew that blacks were the only "non-free" people when it was written. They weren't anticipating for that to change.
: >But they knew that blacks were the only "non-free" people when it was written You seem to be stuck on a mindset that they were out to withhold rights
37 We're Nuts
: >Had the slaves been white, Asian, black, blue, green- no difference. They were slaves and, therefore, not free people. Of course we can never say tha
: "the Constitution itself, as claimed by Raddog2, doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, rather on status (free or not free)." So? Discrimination i
: Of course we can say that with certainty. They certainly weren't withholding Constitutional rights from the free blacks, now were they? You can't get
: >Oh yes, have you managed to rustle up any legal analysis for your take on Article I section 8 yet? Can you even get Rush Limbaugh to support you on t
: "The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exige
: The Electoral College is put in place so the large urban areas of America do not drown out the 'voices' of rural states. Ironically, the 'experts' pre
: >As for your contention that the 17th amendment is a violation of states' rights -- I once again suggest that you read the history books Quite the con
: Good post N400QX! Thanks for the well stated facts! I doubt those God Damn Liberals will pay any attention! An-225, you can talk all the B.S you want,
: I repeat N766AS, you should read the history books and closely examine why the 17th amendment was ratified. From the National Archives: “It is h
: First of all, Tupolev, I was simply letting off some steam because you liberals successfully had pushed my buttons. Happy? Second, 2)"Honk if you vote
: N312RC and N400QX This is another good reason you are both on my respected users list. You stick it to those God Damn liberals!
: Hairyass - whoa, at least you didn't mention God Damn Liberals in the first sentence of your delightfully intelligent post. That must be an improvemen
49 We're Nuts
: N312RC, you are an immature asshole, and any candidate would be embarrassed to have you support him. Bumper stick that.
: While I don't exactly share your sentiment, Adam, I must admit that your phrase 'Bumper stick that' is quite funny. /
: LMAO! Looks like the liberals that have responded already have their panties ruffled. An-225 and We're Nuts never cease to make me wonder just howww s
52 We're Nuts
: And it never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly you have been brainwashed. My compliments to your parents.