UN Secretary Bill Clinton?

“Strat: You are ignoring the bone of contention: the disagreement about what the Wall Street Journal group said they found. I showed you what they reported. They were clear, but not very loud. They didn't "sit on it" but all the major media I looked at spun it George Bush's way.

You are finessing the whole issue about whether or not I put out disinformation. This is getting to be a pattern. The newspapers and the television coverage shouted that George Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court had ruled differently. This was true. Then they muttered (or ignored) the fact that the report also said that Bush got more votes. You can accuse me of not thinking clearly - but what happened is there for anyone who looks to see it? Why is it so hard to take a clear look?

The findings of the consortium is is the thing that you accused me of disinformation about.

The election is over and there was a process. No one can know how the election would have gone if everything had been handled perfectly, in part because no one can agree on what perfect handling would be. I stepped in to correct a statement that I knew to be false, because I studied the report fairly carefully and was amazed at how it was spun.

On the disenfranchised military votes, it is my understanding that in the end the absentee military votes were given the benefit of the doubt in most cases - but if you show me that my sketchy and impressionistic understanding is wrong - I will be glad to acknowledge that.

If you can't own up to being wrong about what the Wall Street Journal's project concluded, then there ain't much sense in arguing with you. You are immune to evidence and I've been wasting my time. Your firm faith that God is on your side and that you own the truth will have been shown to be utterly impervious to facts. I think the remarks other people have made on this thread suggests that I am not the only one who is wondering.

I've said before that I have been wrong about lots of things and, I hope to live long enough to be wrong about a very many more things - but I am educable and I do try to keep some distinction between fact and opinion.”

“ok ped, i know you try to be honestly objective.
as far as you spreading disinformation, i didn't mean to imply that you would intentially do that(although i think there are several on here that would). i just see the spin going to the dem's in this case. i'll admit, i didn't go to all the links you posted, i don't have time. i read the report that you C/P and it's predicated on 10 different scenarios, which in and of itself shows that it's not based on the absolute rule of the law at the time. the rules were followed and bush won. that's the end of the story for me. i don't need to read anybodies spin to see that. i watched the whole thing, as i'm sure we all did. that is a fact that i'm not impervious to at all. 10 different "what if" scenarios can not all be facts.....right? only one is correct in reality, right?

perhaps sometime when i have time i will look up somehtin on overseas ballots....

like i said, this argument is futile and moot. it's over, and just as if gore had one, i have moved on. . only division will come from this, and i'm tired of division.


and since you mentioned it....it's really not so much a God issue for me. I'm not very religious at all. I go to chuurch about 1.5 times a month, and i go to an episcopal church, which in this case is VERY VERY VERY liberal. they are very involved with all kind of political issues here locally. so don't go thinkin i'm some babtist bible thumper, cuz i'm not. i do however believe that He exist and is in charge and that if He wanted gore to win, he would have won.


hamilton may have said otherwise, however.....


"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among
old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a
sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the
Divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal
power." --Alexander Hamilton”

“Again all I was arguing wsa that for the State of Florida done by "dozens of organizations" showed Gore winning. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the conclusions of the organizations. I just have a problem with them being misrepresented the way the media and the right spun it.

This is where the argument was:

"Court Appointed?The New York Times, and the Washington Post both did recounts in Florida, and both found that Gore lost."
jjmckernan
10:12:45 AM
02/24/03

"dozens of orgs tried that jjmkerman(your trailname doesn't flow very well).

stratdewd
10:19:56 AM
02/24/03



I replied:

Wtrong Strat and JJ
"Educate yourselves and get the facts straight!

"Court Appointed?The New York Times, and the Washington Post both did recounts in Florida, and both found that Gore lost" jjmck

Actually Strat and jjmck... that's wrong. The recount showed that Gore got more votes in Florida! Check it out for yourself. What the recounts showed was that the recounts that Gore was pushing for would not have pushed him over the top.

If you folks would only read the data for yourselves instead of superficially listening ot spin and hype you might learn the facts.

That said, the Supreme Court decision did not cost Gore the election. So, calling Bush "court appointed" is a bit of hype. The Supreme Court only speeded up the process of "electing" a president who won lost the popular and electoral vote. According to the complete independent recounts, the ballot counts Gore was contesting were not sufficient to put him over the top - only a state wide recount would have done that."”

“...I just have a problem with them being misrepresented the way the media and the right spun it....

pedxing
05:02:21 PM
03/05/03



What was the spin?”

“errr.... Bacpac, how much of my posts didja read?

The spin was that they said the media recounts showed that Bush won - that an analsysis of the Florida ballots by the media consortium showed that Bush definitely had more votes. That was not the conclusion of the consortium. They concluded that: 1) by any method of counting advocated by any party at the time, Gore would have won a statewide recount that involved human beings looking at each ballot, 2) using the recount method Bush advocated for the more limited recount (ordered by the Florida court) Gore would have won very narrowly.

Of course, the "Gore won" spinners ignore the fact that the recount clearly showed that the Supreme Court did not "steal" the election from Gore. According to the analysis, Gore would have needed a statewide recount to win, not the recount that the Florida court had ordered.”

“What the recounts showed was that the recounts that Gore was pushing for would not have pushed him over the top.

pedxing


ok ped, try to follow me here. it's my last time i'm gonna beat this horse.



here's where your (the results you're quoting) spin comes in.....this is what i have a problem with;

what you keep saying is....if gore got all the votes he wanted to get....if all the rules gore wanted were followed...he would have gotten more votes. that's spin. the votes gore wanted were not valid. they don't count. they are not votes. he wanted to cheat. he tried to change the rules. the rules were followed. the rules say bush won. the florida court ordered recount was not within the rules. only a statewide recount would have been within the rules.


my point; every recount(dozens of them) following the REAL rules, showed bush winning.”

“What about the god recount?”

“it's God....not god


don't care what Zeus thinks....”

“Any god'll do!”

“I've seen their trucks on the road, man!

G.O.D.
(Guaranteed Overnight Delivery)”

“I read that the ballots were recounted and Gore lost (again).

There were several other what-if scenarios. Are you saying that these speculative conclusions were more relevent?”

“Strat:

my point; every recount(dozens of them) following the REAL rules, showed bush winning."
stratdewd
09:02:57 AM


How can you remain so totally dead wrong!?!?!? So oblivious to the facts.

Every recount done by the journalists, except for the one Gore wanted, showed Gore winning! Every single one.

Bacpac: I'd love to have you show me the recount you read about. Unless you are talking about the limited count of part of the State of Florida (i.e. following the formula for a partial recount that Gore wanted) - you are mistaken.

Strat: just show me one of the recounts done after the Supreme Court decision(other than the limited one - that showed Bush winning). I dare you to look. This dare is open to anyone.”

“you doubledawg dare me?


i'm going to spend the next 30 days lookin towards the future. the past is gone.”

“And then what?”

“How does that saying go?:

"He who would like to dismember the past can pretend to repeal it."”

“How do you argue with someone who has such little interest in investigating the facts?”

“Nice quote. Mind if I steal it? <G>

If I ever meet Stratdewd, I know I'll be able to recognise him immediately -- he'll be the guy humming loudly with his hands over his ears, LOL”

“Actually that was my mangled versio”

“Actually that was my mangled versio”

“Actually that was my mangled version of a pogo line, which I just found via google:

"He who cannot remedy the past can pretend to repeal it."

(somehow that darned travelocity popup - or my attempt to clear it - ended up sending the post as I was writing it)”

“Mangle On!”

“"Gonna mangle on, sing my song
Gotta keep-a-searchin' for my baby...
Gonna work my way, round the world
I can't stop this feelin' in my heart
Gotta keep searchin' for my baby
I can't find my bluebird!
I'd listen to my bluebird sing but I can't find my blue bird
A-keep-a manglin' baby"

"Oh Mangle you game and you shaved without fakin' butt I scents you were fey oh Mangle."”

“I get the feeling that this is going to be a strange week.”

“Hey strat, I thought you took a vow of cyber-celibacy???”