Congress followed the People's Mandate

[Chizzang]

Who cares.. that sh!tty president is gone
Now replaced by this sh!tty president

Oh the sh!tties - we've got 'em - our pants need changing

[GannonFan]

Darn that electoral system, eh? And darn all those newspaper investigations after the SCOTUS action that still found that Bush won Florida, and hence the election.

People still thinking that Gore won the election - they're like the Democratic version of the Birthers on the Republican side - both parties have their share of loons, apparently.

Noone will ever know who would have won Florida had a full recount been performed.

It's erroneous to say Gore would have won it. And it's erroneous to say that Bush would have won it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... orida.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What isn't erroneous, though, is saying that any recount that was either underway or proposed at the time would've resulted in a Bush victory. The post election analysis done by the NORC found this, as did the media based review. So claiming that the SCOTUS decided the election is just plain false - the recount they stopped still would've resulted in Bush's election. Pretending that this analysis didn't happen or that the electoral college doesn't exist, is just silly and argumentative and often is a way for people not happy with the result to continue to moan and groan. Just like the wacky Birther people.

[Skjellyfetti]

What isn't erroneous, though, is saying that any recount that was either underway or proposed at the time would've resulted in a Bush victory.

Wow. You are misinformed.

A recount in ALL Florida precincts was UNDERWAY by order of the Florida Supreme Court. That's the order that the US Supreme Court overturned. It's not the recount Bush or Gore requested... it's the recount the Florida Supreme Court decided on.

The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can you say it would have resulted in a Bush victory? None of the studies by newspapers covered that. No study ever could cover that.

Again, I'm not saying that Gore won and Bush lost. I'm saying that we'll never know one way or the other.

[GannonFan]

What isn't erroneous, though, is saying that any recount that was either underway or proposed at the time would've resulted in a Bush victory.

Wow. You are misinformed.

A recount in ALL Florida precincts was UNDERWAY by order of the Florida Supreme Court. That's the order that the US Supreme Court overturned. It's not the recount Bush or Gore requested... it's the recount the Florida Supreme Court decided on.

How can you say it would have resulted in a Bush victory? None of the studies by newspapers covered that. No study ever could cover that.

Again, I'm not saying that Gore won and Bush lost. I'm saying that we'll never know one way or the other.

No, that's not what the Florida Supreme Court decided on. Yes, the recount was to be statewide, but it was not on all ballots, only on undervotes. That's what the SCOTUS ended up stopping and reviews after the fact show that that recount still would've likely been a Bush win, but 600 votes or so. The only scenario where Gore could've won was on a full recount of all votes in Florida, but no one pushed that at the time and that's what we really will never know. But again, saying that the SCOTUS decided the election by stopping the Fla Supreme Court ordered recount, the statewide undervote one, is not substantiated by futher examinations after the fact.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, that's not what the Florida Supreme Court decided on. Yes, the recount was to be statewide, but it was not on all ballots, only on undervotes. That's what the SCOTUS ended up stopping and reviews after the fact show that that recount still would've likely been a Bush win, but 600 votes or so. The only scenario where Gore could've won was on a full recount of all votes in Florida, but no one pushed that at the time and that's what we really will never know. But again, saying that the SCOTUS decided the election by stopping the Fla Supreme Court ordered recount, the statewide undervote one, is not substantiated by futher examinations after the fact.

I never argued that. Someone else did.

I'm arguing that we'll never know who would have won the 2000 Presidential Election if we counted all the votes.

Again, this is my original post that you objected to:

Noone will ever know who would have won Florida had a full recount been performed.

It's erroneous to say Gore would have won it. And it's erroneous to say that Bush would have won it.

Now you agree with it:

The only scenario where Gore could've won was on a full recount of all votes in Florida, but no one pushed that at the time and that's what we really will never know.

My work here is done.

[GannonFan]

No, that's not what the Florida Supreme Court decided on. Yes, the recount was to be statewide, but it was not on all ballots, only on undervotes. That's what the SCOTUS ended up stopping and reviews after the fact show that that recount still would've likely been a Bush win, but 600 votes or so. The only scenario where Gore could've won was on a full recount of all votes in Florida, but no one pushed that at the time and that's what we really will never know. But again, saying that the SCOTUS decided the election by stopping the Fla Supreme Court ordered recount, the statewide undervote one, is not substantiated by futher examinations after the fact.

I never argued that. Someone else did.

I'm arguing that we'll never know who would have won the 2000 Presidential Election if we counted all the votes.

Again, this is my original post that you objected to:

Noone will ever know who would have won Florida had a full recount been performed.

It's erroneous to say Gore would have won it. And it's erroneous to say that Bush would have won it.

Now you agree with it:

The only scenario where Gore could've won was on a full recount of all votes in Florida, but no one pushed that at the time and that's what we really will never know.

My work here is done.

Uh, dude, you came into it halfway - it started with houndawg saying that the SCOTUS "appointed" Bush President and that he was never elected.

[Appaholic]

Welcome to California.

Been living under that system for auto insurance for over a decade...

...the state has an office and call center in Thousand Oaks / Raleigh that employs 1,700 +/-...

...linked with the insurers...

...who notify them of lapses in coverage...

...so the state can immediately suspend the vehicle registration...

...which triggers a fine and fee to reinstate registration...

...after paying a penalty to the insurer to reinstate coverage...

...from insurers who have to be licensed by the state...

...and pay a percentage of net to the beholden.



On the east coast, it's called "pizzo".

I didn't realize you had moved to NC Tman...whereabouts? We should get together.....

[dbackjon]

Welcome to California.

Been living under that system for auto insurance for over a decade...

...the state has an office and call center in Thousand Oaks / Raleigh that employs 1,700 +/-...

...linked with the insurers...

...who notify them of lapses in coverage...

...so the state can immediately suspend the vehicle registration...

...which triggers a fine and fee to reinstate registration...

...after paying a penalty to the insurer to reinstate coverage...

...from insurers who have to be licensed by the state...

...and pay a percentage of net to the beholden.



On the east coast, it's called "pizzo".

I didn't realize you had moved to NC Tman...whereabouts? We should get together.....

Nah, he's in Arizona.

[Appaholic]

Most states have that for autos. However, if I don't want to pay, at least I can choose not to buy a car. However, under this plan, I breathe, therefore I must purchase health insurance (not health care).

Why must a person choose whether to live with or without a car to facilitate the govt. and insurers conspiracy to extort from the public? The state has mandatory minimum coverage, and the so-called "high risk" pool that was supposed to be co-underwritten with state funds has been co-opted into a low-income insurance pool. The high risk premiums were so expensive, nobody could afford them (an example...under age 25, one injury accident + one point = $5,000 annual premium liability only).

And since California consumers cannot shop with non-CA licensed insurers, and the licensing fees are intentionally steep to stifle competition (i.e., basically 10 insurers holding 98% of market), there's little that can be done.

Now, my question is...

...was govt.'s involvement beneficial to the people, or the industry and govt. itself?

I know this one!...I know this one!....

[Appaholic]

I would actually INCREASE immigration, but it would be orderly, legal, and we would weed out jackasses who don't want to be Americans first and learn to speak English IN ADDITION to their native tongue. We would not have to deny them entitlements because before we open immigration there would be no unearned entitlements for anyone.

Well, that's where your plans fall all to hell.

Deny entitlements.


That's some funny shit.

Whooaa....Native...Stop It!... ..you're killing me!....