Who for president

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
LOL. Yea, let's start the Iraq thread up again. I know your stance on that waste of time. Just look at the polls. If the Bush/Gore race were run again today, not even King George's brother could find enough hanging chads to get him reelected.
I didn't mention Iraq... although Bill's policies regarding Iraq also well known; Bomb their "biological, chemical and nuclear" site and programs whenever news about Monica gets too heated...
As for the Florida comment, can you name ONE recount that showed Gore getting more votes in Florida?

 

[gillyweed]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
As for the Florida comment, can you name ONE recount that showed Gore getting more votes in Florida?
Actually yes, quite a few would have resulted in Gore winning. It is all a matter of what and how counts are done. Honestly speaking, the state is a toss up because there was no "right" way of performing recounts other than a full statewide, and that was never performed.
Bush won because recounts were only done and certified in two counties, both overwhelmingly republican. The supreme court ruling stopped the state from even having to consider a full recount.
Note the chart below; you'll see a full statewide recount using the lawfully set standards (as should have been done) would have ended with Gore winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
This is based only on one study, but I have seen others with similar results. It is not "scientific" admittedly, but then neither was the recount

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by phunckie
He wants to stop using our troops to police the world and start using them for their original purpose- to protect the United States.
.

Didn't we try this right around the late 1930's? Yes, I believe we did....Refresh my memory, I can't remember, but didn't some catastrophic attack happen to us in some place about pearls or something?

 

[1journeyman]

lol, ok granted... if you apply various means you can get various results. I should have said, "can you name one "official" count.
The two counties where a recount was certified were Broward and Volusia. Both counties that were requested by Gore. You said these were heavily Republican, can you verify that? All info I have seen show them both Democratic; Broward by a large amount.
You also said that Gore would have won had the "lawfully set standard" been used, yet the page you reference states: "The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested, including "overvotes" — spoiled ballots containing more than one vote for an office..."

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Gillyweed
Actually yes, quite a few would have resulted in Gore winning. It is all a matter of what and how counts are done. Honestly speaking, the state is a toss up because there was no "right" way of performing recounts other than a full statewide, and that was never performed.
Bush won because recounts were only done and certified in two counties, both overwhelmingly republican. The supreme court ruling stopped the state from even having to consider a full recount.
Note the chart below; you'll see a full statewide recount using the lawfully set standards (as should have been done) would have ended with Gore winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
This is based only on one study, but I have seen others with similar results. It is not "scientific" admittedly, but then neither was the recount

From your link...
"The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested, including "overvotes" — spoiled ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20% in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the US Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."[2]"

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Didn't we try this right around the late 1930's? Yes, I believe we did....Refresh my memory, I can't remember, but didn't some catastrophic attack happen to us in some place about pearls or something?
Not sure, that does ring a bell though,

but I do believe the outcome was over 100 million dead world-wide, including over 300,000 Americans.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
lol, I actually now like Al Gore after watching his documentary about the environment, but you need some charisma to be President I think, that's where Al is lacking IMO...plus I can't stand his wife....miss Charleston though Itom, and my conservative buddies at Wild Dunes

If it is a documentary how come it isn't allowed to be viewed in schools as educational? Please you have got to be kidding me....

 

[mfp1016]

Someone said "truly good forms of energy, solar, wind, etc"
thats nonsense. Making one solar cell is the same as driving a v10 truck for a year. Think about how many people it takes to make one of those wind propeller things, think about the gas they use to get to their work, the factories used to fabricate it, the energy used to make all of its components. None of those are good sources of energy, if they were, energy companies would have used them a long time ago. All of these new green technologies are products of R&D by oil companies in the 60s and 70s. ALL of them were shelved because they proved to not be cost beneficial. By the way, I'm not asserting this as opinion. Its true, well it was actually my job for about 15 years with Amoco Oil.
Gore is a crock of poop with his carbon payoffs. I doubt flying from city to city on a private jet does ANY good for the environment. Plus, where do you global-warming nuts on here get off preaching all this crap about the environment. You're here because you're into reef keeping, a hobby that does undeniable damage to the environment. Is it really necessary to power over a thousand watts of light all day so you can go home and look at a sessile invertebrate? Sounds like you all are trying to take some kind of moral high ground, but are denying the inherent flaw of the hobby that has brought them here in the first place.
Oh yeah, the topic at hand, Hiliary, no, Obama, no, LaRouche(im sure hes running) no, Ron Paul, no. I don't know, I'm really considering just withdrawing from contemporary society with a bow knife and living in the woods until liberals are eradicated.
Oh, lastly, yes Californians, so proud of their democrat heritage, etcetera. Are you also proud of your increasingly lousy public school system and inability to produce half-way intelligent youths? I personally hate being a conservative ghost in California, the state home to liberalism and fundamental democrat ideals where everyone, every immigrant and every person is empowered to reach their fullest potential and etc so long as you're not a conservative. Its really nice to see your vote lost to our conveniantly districted democrat areas. For example, orange county (republican!!!) is split in half, with each half belonging to an uber-democrat adjacent district, effectively making us orange county republicans essentially non-existant.

 

[gillyweed]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You also said that Gore would have won had the "lawfully set standard" been used, yet the page you reference states: "The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested, including "overvotes" — spoiled ballots containing more than one vote for an office..."
Very true, but ask what is the standard?

Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey = Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots = Gore by 115
The issue wasn't really the recount itself but the means it was done in. That was my poorly worded point... The recounts tossed out hundreds if not thousands of votes that were clearly marked and decipherable; and that met the state's own standard for voting.
FYI; I am neither Democrat nor Republican, and I personally despise Al Gore. I just despise Howdy Doody Bush even more...

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Who IS Ron Paul?
Sorry, but I've never heard of half of these candidates that are running. What hole did Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and the other unknowns crawl out of to run for president?
Ron Paul is a 10-term US Congressman from Texas. He has earned the nickname on Capital Hill of "Dr. No" for his unwillingness to vote for any bill he believes is not SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution. Oh, by the way, Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachussets. Every candidate who has ever run for President has at some point been an "unknown." Just ask Bill Clinton what his name recognition was like at this time in 2001......
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having new blood come into the mix of politics to shake things up. Unfortunately, 60% of the voting public make their vote on name alone. Most of them don't even look at all the issues, and what the candidate is for or against. They just pull the switch on the name they see the most in the headlines.
Which is exactly why this country is in the trouble it is in now.... no one takes seriously the enormous privelege and responsibility that we have to vote.
I don't agree with many of Hillary's policies, but if you look at all the Democratic polls, she's always on the top. Why? Because it's 'Hillary', wife of Bill, Mr. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." She gets all the publicity because her current campaign budget is over $25 MILLION. Winning the presidency isn't about issues any longer.
This is exactly what is leading the United States into Socialism!!!!!!!
It's about how much money you can raise and spend to make yourself known. Ron Paul may very well be the best candidate. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the name or the money it will take to win it.
Actually, it's not about that either.... Unfortunately, it is about who the Mainstream Media decides that is best for our country. You see, Ron Paul was among the top 3 Republican Candidates in fundraising in the 2nd & 3rd Quarters of this year, and has more money in the bank than the majority of the candidates. However, the mainstream media has determined who will be the frontrunners, and refuses to cover any of the other candidates. Thats why so few people know the names Ron Paul, Tancredo, Brownback, etc.
However, there is a fast growing grass roots movement in support of Ron Paul. He is consistently winning pre-primary straw polls (He just won the one in Birmingham, AL with almost 60% of the vote), and has consistently place 1st or 2nd in after-debate polls.
More and more people are hearing his message and responding..... You really should take a look.
Google Ron Paul.

 

[1journeyman]

As a Texan I think Ron Paul is a wacko.

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Didn't we try this right around the late 1930's? Yes, I believe we did....Refresh my memory, I can't remember, but didn't some catastrophic attack happen to us in some place about pearls or something?
And refresh my memory..... Our policy since then has been to stick our nose in anywhere in the world that it doesn't belong.
How many American lives have been lost in "combat" where we never should have been? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
When we were minding our business, we were attacked. We then TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS! And THAT was the last time we won a war.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by phunckie
Ron Paul is a 10-term US Congressman from Texas. He has earned the nickname on Capital Hill of "Dr. No" for his unwillingness to vote for any bill he believes is not SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution. Oh, by the way, Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachussets. Every candidate who has ever run for President has at some point been an "unknown." Just ask Bill Clinton what his name recognition was like at this time in 2001......
Which is exactly why this country is in the trouble it is in now.... no one takes seriously the enormous privelege and responsibility that we have to vote.
This is exactly what is leading the United States into Socialism!!!!!!!
Actually, it's not about that either.... Unfortunately, it is about who the Mainstream Media decides that is best for our country. You see, Ron Paul was among the top 3 Republican Candidates in fundraising in the 2nd & 3rd Quarters of this year, and has more money in the bank than the majority of the candidates. However, the mainstream media has determined who will be the frontrunners, and refuses to cover any of the other candidates. Thats why so few people know the names Ron Paul, Tancredo, Brownback, etc.
However, there is a fast growing grass roots movement in support of Ron Paul. He is consistently winning pre-primary straw polls (He just won the one in Birmingham, AL with almost 60% of the vote), and has consistently place 1st or 2nd in after-debate polls.
More and more people are hearing his message and responding..... You really should take a look.
Google Ron Paul.

Now that is hilarious. I'm a born and raised Texan, lived here for 49 years. I read the paper daily, and honestly have never heard of this guy. What district does he serve? He must be from either Houston or Dallas. Definitely not from the San Antonio area. If he's from Dallas, and has money, he must be one of Ross Perot's cronies (ya know what I sayin..).

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
If it is a documentary how come it isn't allowed to be viewed in schools as educational? Please you have got to be kidding me....
Because people like you would object...
That statement implies that if it were shown in schools you'd automatically agree with it, OR that the be-all-end-all of what is fact and fiction is the school board.
YOU have got to be kidding ME!

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Now that is hilarious. I'm a born and raised Texan, lived here for 49 years. I read the paper daily, and honestly have never heard of this guy. What district does he serve? He must be from either Houston or Dallas. Definitely not from the San Antonio area. If he's from Dallas, and has money, he must be one of Ross Perot's cronies (ya know what I sayin..).

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935), is a 10th-term Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, and a Republican candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. He has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and its 22nd district, from 1976 to 1977 and from 1979 to 1985. Paul placed third in the 1988 presidential election with 0.5% of the vote, running as the Libertarian Party nominee while remaining a registered Republican. After his 1961 graduation from Duke University School of Medicine and a residency in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn), he became an Air Force flight surgeon, serving outside the Vietnam War zone.
Paul has been called a conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, supports free trade but not NAFTA or the World Trade Organization, and opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Paul supports reducing government spending and states that he has never voted in Congress to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget.[2] Paul opposes the federal income tax[3] and wants to abolish most federal agencies.[4] He opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocating the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.[5]
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has placed above most of the candidates in Republican straw polls and in raising funds,[6] but has polled only as high as 5% in national phone surveys of Republican-leaning voters.[7] He has generated strong online support and is the top presidential candidate Internet search term as measured by Hitwise, Alexa, and Technorati; he has several times more YouTube subscribers than any other presidential candidate. Supporters "guard [his] image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media",[8][9] and cite his victories in 2008 GOP debate sponsors' online and phone text polls to argue he deserves more mainstream recognition.[10]
Funny how people are afraid of what they don't know..... why would you want to label Dr Paul as one of "Ross Perot's Cronies" when you don't even know anything about him?
It's a testament to your involvement in the political process that you don't even recognize the NAME of a 10-term Congressman from your state.

 

[mfp1016]

The statement regarding schools viewing of the Gore's mockumentary demonstrates how it is not wholly accepted, just like how it is in the scientific industry. I sincerely doubt that a unionized school board would go to great lengths to admonish a fellow democrat's film.

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
As a Texan I think Ron Paul is a wacko.
do you mind if I ask what makes you think that?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by itom37
That statement implies that if it were shown in schools you'd automatically agree with it, OR that the be-all-end-all of what is fact and fiction is the school board.
YOU have got to be kidding ME!
No, it implies it would be factual. You know, having facts that are solid and not inflamatory nor made up. Case in point. Gore states the ice caps melting in the next 100 years would cause sea level to raise 9 meters. However scientists conclude this would require a millenium to have happen and that is in a worse case scenario.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by phunckie
And refresh my memory..... Our policy since then has been to stick our nose in anywhere in the world that it doesn't belong.
How many American lives have been lost in "combat" where we never should have been? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
When we were minding our business, we were attacked. We then TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS! And THAT was the last time we won a war.
Didn't lose Korea...Didn't Lose Iraq, we removed Sadaam which was the objective along with his army. We lost Vietnam because our hands were tied as to how to fight that war. Since it wasn't a war we couldn't treat it as such, then with the media painting it in a poor light we had to pull out. However with the limited engagement capacity we could operate under we did do a damn fine job fighting the enemy. We have only lost one war. and that is open to debate.
Furthermore, how many american lives might have been saved had we been involved with WW2 from the start right when Hitler started gearinmg up for his war? If We had been paying attention how many lives would have been saved globally? How many Jews would have been alive to raise their family? Your statement and thought process isn't looking at the big picture

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by phunckie
And refresh my memory..... Our policy since then has been to stick our nose in anywhere in the world that it doesn't belong.
How many American lives have been lost in "combat" where we never should have been? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
When we were minding our business, we were attacked. We then TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS! And THAT was the last time we won a war.
I think your summation of history is a bit skewed.
*Korea was a UN mission.
*First Iraq was after an ally was wiped out and annexed (Kuwait).
*Second Iraq was after Saddam repeatedly broke the peace agreement of the first war.
In Vietnam we lost close to 60,000 troops. Korea close to 40,000. Iraq to date less than 4,000.
So, if you add up the totals, when we "stick our noses where they don't belong" we've lost 1/3 of the troops we lost in WW2 when we set back and let the world devolve into chaos...