Excuse me I think I just threw up in my mouth. The Moron-In-Chief was a leader of men? His greatest accomplishment was probably stealing the Presidency in the first place. A disastrous economic policy, a war based on deception and lies(Iraq) and another incompetently prosecuted (Afganistan).
I have my criticisms of Obama but he and the Democrats have passed legislation on healthcare and financial reform and DADT despite a routine Republican practice of filibustering everything, even aid to 911 first responders, which is disgraceful.
How did Bush steal the Presidency? Let's see. Gore won the popular vote. Gore won Florida only to have it called back into the Bush column. Gore would have won Florida if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened with an unsound decision. Yeah, Bush stole it fair and square.
Sorry Gary, as much as I know you wish it were the case, Dan Rather saying something doesnt make it true. In fact the networks botched that call so badly they self policed themselves and no longer call elections while polls are still open.
The cold hard facts are that in none of the recounts (of which there many) did Al Gore recieve more votes than Bush in Florida. None.
The Supreme Court made the right decision and allowed the candidate with the most votes (Bush ) to win the state. Nothing controversial or unsound about that.
Let it go.
....and Im curious as to your criticisms of Obama? Does it involve his "disastrous economic policy, a war based on deception and lies(Iraq) and another incompetently prosecuted (Afganistan)."
When a group of news organizations conducted an unofficial recount of Florida’s disputed ballots in 2001, Gore came out narrowly on top regardless of what standards were applied to the famous chads – dimpled, hanging or punched-through.
Gore’s victory would have been assured by the so-called “over-votes” in which a voter both punched through a candidate’s name and wrote it in. Under Florida law, such “over-votes” are legal and they broke heavily in Gore’s favor. [See Consortiumnews.com's "So Bush Did Steal the White House" or our book, Neck Deep.]
In other words, the wrong candidate had been awarded the presidency. However, this startling fact became an unpleasant reality that the mainstream U.S. news media decided to obscure.
The tally wasn’t completed until after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prevailing view among senior news executives became that it would be harmful to the nation’s need for unity if the press reported that Gore was the rightful winner of Election 2000.
So, the major newspapers and TV networks hid their own scoop when the results were published on Nov. 12, 2001. Instead of stating clearly that Florida’s legally cast votes favored Gore, the mainstream media bent over backwards to concoct hypothetical situations in which Bush might still have won the presidency, such as if the recount were limited to only a few counties or if the legal “over-votes” were excluded.
The discovery of Gore’s rightful victory was buried deep in the stories or relegated to charts that accompanied the articles.
Once again you are wrong. I found the articles you linked to be so lacking in reality that I feel stupider having read them, and stupider still wasting further time commenting on them.
While on the site, I went ahead and read some other articles to get a better feel for what you consider a "real journalist" and thoroughly enjoyed the article "Reagan Was The Worst President Ever". Not since I read Tolkien's The Hobbit when I was 12, have I so thoroughly enjoyed a work of fiction.
Back to the 2000 election. You stick to your unofficial "media people's" recount a year after the fact, and I will abide by the half dozen official count and recounts that had Busg receiving more votes everytime. I will make one correction to the article that I think is worth noting, it was Al Gore who originally opposed a full recount and only supported it after he lost the first five recounts.
14 comments:
A leader of men (and women) would have been able to convince the speaker of the house OF HIS OWN PARTY to go along with his policy.
A leader of men would have been able to make HIS OWN PARTY understand the new reality
A leader of men would have been able to put a positive spin on a deal that he himself negotiated
Obama is smart enough to know that there is a new reality and he has to adjust to it but he's not a leader of men like George W Bush is.
But hes a great speaker (with teleprompter).
Excuse me I think I just threw up in my mouth. The Moron-In-Chief was a leader of men? His greatest accomplishment was probably stealing the Presidency in the first place. A disastrous economic policy, a war based on deception and lies(Iraq) and another incompetently prosecuted (Afganistan).
I have my criticisms of Obama but he and the Democrats have passed legislation on healthcare and financial reform and DADT despite a routine Republican practice of filibustering everything, even aid to 911 first responders, which is disgraceful.
And there it is.
Please explain exactly how Bush "stole a presidency"?
Finally, ten years later, Gary puts his cards on the table. His pussy got hurt and hes mad.
I think maybe we should clear something up for our friend gary. He seems to not understand what a super majority is and what that means.
60 votes means the minority party CAN'T FILIBUSTER....If Obama was a leader of men he would at least be able to get his own party on board...
How did Bush steal the Presidency? Let's see. Gore won the popular vote. Gore won Florida only to have it called back into the Bush column. Gore would have won Florida if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened with an unsound decision. Yeah, Bush stole it fair and square.
Sorry Gary, as much as I know you wish it were the case, Dan Rather saying something doesnt make it true. In fact the networks botched that call so badly they self policed themselves and no longer call elections while polls are still open.
The cold hard facts are that in none of the recounts (of which there many) did Al Gore recieve more votes than Bush in Florida. None.
The Supreme Court made the right decision and allowed the candidate with the most votes (Bush ) to win the state. Nothing controversial or unsound about that.
Let it go.
....and Im curious as to your criticisms of Obama? Does it involve his "disastrous economic policy, a war based on deception and lies(Iraq) and another incompetently prosecuted (Afganistan)."
Because they are identical to Bush's.....
For the TRUTH, from one of the few real journalists in America, Robert Parry:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/121210.html
When a group of news organizations conducted an unofficial recount of Florida’s disputed ballots in 2001, Gore came out narrowly on top regardless of what standards were applied to the famous chads – dimpled, hanging or punched-through.
Gore’s victory would have been assured by the so-called “over-votes” in which a voter both punched through a candidate’s name and wrote it in. Under Florida law, such “over-votes” are legal and they broke heavily in Gore’s favor. [See Consortiumnews.com's "So Bush Did Steal the White House" or our book, Neck Deep.]
In other words, the wrong candidate had been awarded the presidency. However, this startling fact became an unpleasant reality that the mainstream U.S. news media decided to obscure.
The tally wasn’t completed until after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prevailing view among senior news executives became that it would be harmful to the nation’s need for unity if the press reported that Gore was the rightful winner of Election 2000.
So, the major newspapers and TV networks hid their own scoop when the results were published on Nov. 12, 2001. Instead of stating clearly that Florida’s legally cast votes favored Gore, the mainstream media bent over backwards to concoct hypothetical situations in which Bush might still have won the presidency, such as if the recount were limited to only a few counties or if the legal “over-votes” were excluded.
The discovery of Gore’s rightful victory was buried deep in the stories or relegated to charts that accompanied the articles.
You need help.
Of course as usual you dismiss the facts without examination because of your ideology.
Seriously. Get help.
You and I both know you didn't even read my links. The country needs help. Educate yourself.
Once again you are wrong. I found the articles you linked to be so lacking in reality that I feel stupider having read them, and stupider still wasting further time commenting on them.
While on the site, I went ahead and read some other articles to get a better feel for what you consider a "real journalist" and thoroughly enjoyed the article "Reagan Was The Worst President Ever". Not since I read Tolkien's The Hobbit when I was 12, have I so thoroughly enjoyed a work of fiction.
Back to the 2000 election. You stick to your unofficial "media people's" recount a year after the fact, and I will abide by the half dozen official count and recounts that had Busg receiving more votes everytime. I will make one correction to the article that I think is worth noting, it was Al Gore who originally opposed a full recount and only supported it after he lost the first five recounts.
Post a Comment