Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Karl Rove and Satan
12345
Karl Rove and Satan
2004-10-10, 8:37 PM #41
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
Well, there were the four or so people that immediately piled on Tenshu.

That would be because he called everyone who supports Bush, both in the U.S. and across the globe, sheep. And he basically ordered everyone not to vote for Bush, simply because he thinks Karl Rove (Karl Rove of all people!) is controlling Bush. And then he said everyone who votes for Bush is voting wrong, as if the election was some kind of test question. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the insulting posts, which would probably encompass my first post as well, but he was practically begging for abuse.

And for the love of God, will someone please explain how Bush was not voted into office?
2004-10-10, 8:57 PM #42
Quote:
Originally posted by JediHunter_X
And for the love of God, will someone please explain how Bush was not voted into office?


It's a popular misconception that, since he lost the national popular vote, he did not legally win the election.
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2004-10-10, 9:03 PM #43
News flash: if something is both a) popular and b) subjective, then it's not a misconception.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-10, 9:09 PM #44
People are still trying to use the "popular vote" card? I figured by now they'd have given that up.
2004-10-10, 9:11 PM #45
I'll get back to the other stuff later, but the thing about Bush being appointed has nothing to do with the popular vote vs electoral colleges. That's just a strawman that Bush supporters like to tear down.

I went into more detail in this thread. I missed all of the posts after mine, so I didn't answer all of the responses to what I said.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love
2004-10-10, 9:19 PM #46
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
Bush wasn't voted in, he was appointed.


Did you even read the Supreme Court decision?


Quote:
Well, there were the four or so people that immediately piled on Tenshu.


He very nature of this thread insults me because it insults anyone who is not a liberal. I am not a liberal and I am not a mindless drone. I actually take the time to look at both sides and come to a decision independant of what the parties and other people are saying
Pissed Off?
2004-10-10, 9:36 PM #47
Quote:
Did you even read the Supreme Court decision?

Yes. What's your point?

Quote:
He very nature of this thread insults me because it insults anyone who is not a liberal.

Perhaps. I wouldn't call everyone who's for Bush uncritical sheep, but I would consider supporting Bush to be due to either an error in reasoning or malice. The latter doesn't describe anybody here.
I mean, if you want a totally dishonest president that supports bigotry and doesn't care about the have-nots, then voting for Bush is the right decision.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love
2004-10-10, 9:49 PM #48
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
I mean, if you want a totally dishonest president that supports bigotry and doesn't care about the have-nots, then voting for Bush is the right decision.

So in essence you called anyone who supports President Bush a bigot.

Am I a bigot?
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2004-10-10, 10:07 PM #49
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
I mean, if you want a totally dishonest president that supports bigotry and doesn't care about the have-nots, then voting for Bush is the right decision.
And it's that kind of tunnel vision on politics that degenerates the topic into senseless bickering and in some cases violence.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2004-10-10, 10:18 PM #50
Quote:
Originally posted by JediGandalf
So in essence you called anyone who supports President Bush a bigot.

Am I a bigot?

I don't know you, so I can't say. I'll assume you're not, however. Bush is though.

Quote:
And it's that kind of tunnel vision on politics that degenerates the topic into senseless bickering and in some cases violence.

You're probably right. It's just that the more and more I get disgusted with the current administration and the Religious Right, the harder it is for me to understand how someone who is honest and decent (which most of you are) can support him without being deluded or misguided.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love
2004-10-10, 10:35 PM #51
We're evading the real issue here!

:

what's eating Sinebert Grape!
"Those ****ing amateurs... You left your dog, you idiots!"
2004-10-10, 10:46 PM #52
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
You're probably right. It's just that the more and more I get disgusted with the current administration and the Religious Right, the harder it is for me to understand how someone who is honest and decent (which most of you are) can support him without being deluded or misguided.


The coin is easily flipped, you realize
Pissed Off?
2004-10-10, 10:46 PM #53
I agree!
Except that would be too much of an easy out for me, so I technically disagree.
I don't want to dodge the arguing when my back's more or less against the wall.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love
2004-10-10, 10:49 PM #54
Quote:
Originally posted by Avenger
The coin is easily flipped, you realize

Of course. But there aren't any liberals in power, and none of them have been doing things as objectively bad as Bush when they were in power. Like Bush's stand against gay rights.
It's not the side effects of cocaine, so then I'm thinking that it must be love
2004-10-10, 10:52 PM #55
Again, that's your opinion. There's about half of the country who feels otherwise. There are plenty of things on the liberal media that I could argue that don't add up or are not doing good things for people
Pissed Off?
2004-10-11, 7:22 AM #56
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
News flash: if something is both a) popular and b) subjective, then it's not a misconception.


Uh...when it's done completely according to the legal process, it's legal. And when people say that it's not, that's a misconception. Popularity is irrelevant, and it's not a subjective statement. He did win it legally, whether you like it or not.
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2004-10-11, 8:01 AM #57
Quote:
Originally posted by dry gear the frog
Bush wasn't voted in, he was appointed.

...

Well, there were the four or so people that immediately piled on Tenshu.


edit - oops. Helps if I type something. hehehe

Bush was appointed to what? The Presidency? You know, I have to admit, it is somewhat fun to keep fanatics like you around who can't accept that Gore actually lost not only the election but his legal pursuit for the office. So if Gore would have won you'd be right there saying he sued his way into office, right? Didn't think so.

Tenshu insulted many people here be implication. Still, I think we should be tolerant of his opinion. Funny, I was just thinking that he could be right in that there can be wrong voting such as in Australia where it is mandatory. But someone making an educated informed decision and voting their opinion is never wrong.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 8:05 AM #58
Let's put it this way: the laws surrounding how we choose our president are bound to change, and very soon. I was surprised that the 2000 election did nothing to make progress in this area, but one more fopah from the EC and I'm nearly positive it will be abolished.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-11, 8:15 AM #59
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
Let's put it this way: the laws surrounding how we choose our president are bound to change, and very soon. I was surprised that the 2000 election did nothing to make progress in this area, but one more fopah from the EC and I'm nearly positive it will be abolished.


That would be a horrible mistake but I have to admit that, although I would hope that he gets over 50% of the vote, I would think it great fun if Bush won again in a similar fashion to the last one. Just so I can hear the whiners go at it. I don't see why you think it would so easily be abolished. Seeing as how the vast majority of the people by county and state voted for Bush, I doubt there's nearly as many people upset with the system as you think. Have you seen the county by county map of the last election? Red for Bush, Blue for Gore. It's virtually all Red. But some of you would rather the select blue areas pick our President? Amazing.

[http://webpages.charter.net/wookie06/images/electmap.jpg]
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 9:15 AM #60
Wow that map is completely stupid. Let me re-work it for you

See, this is relevant. The area the voted for bush is much greater, but the population difference is only about the population of Canada. So there.
2004-10-11, 9:30 AM #61
Which is greater than the population of the Gore counties. Your analysis is flawed.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 9:33 AM #62
BUSH WON MORE COUNTIES
AL GORE WON FEWER COUNTIES
AL GORE WON HIGH POPULATION COUNTIES
BUSH WON HIGH POPULATION COUNTIES
AL GORE WON MANY VOTES DESPITE WINNING LESS COUNTIES AS SHOWN BY THE POPULATION GRAPH
LAND MASS MEANS NOTHING
YOUR MAP IS FLAWED
2004-10-11, 9:38 AM #63
Actually it's a USA today map and it's not flawed. It's a county by county depiction of election results. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them flawed.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 9:46 AM #64
The map doesn't mean anything. It shows how much land mass voted for people, WHO CARES. The population difference is MUCH smaller than the acre difference.

Population density makes the map obsolete, GG your map.
2004-10-11, 9:48 AM #65
... Uh, look, the way Bush became president *was* constitutional, but regardless, you really do not seem to know how to read a map. The fact that most of the land is red means nothing if more than half the population of the US lives in a blue county.
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy.

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

art
2004-10-11, 9:50 AM #66
Quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomen
The fact that most of the land is red means nothing if more than half the population of the US lives in a blue county.


This was my point.
2004-10-11, 9:51 AM #67
I don't know what the hell GG is but the map demonstrates exactly what I intended it to. That most of the country got the guy they voted for and that any attempt to undo the electoral college any time soon would fail because most of the country voted for Bush.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 9:52 AM #68
Quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomen
The fact that most of the land is red means nothing if more than half the population of the US lives in a blue county.


But the map clearly shows that the population of Bush counties is greater than Gore counties. Your statement is flawed.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 9:58 AM #69
Yes, Bush won with more people, but the face that most of the map is red means nothing, because the population difference between the red and blue is tiny.

We're not saying Al Gore won, or got more votes, we're saying that the number of people who voted for each is very close, and that despite winning MANY more counties, Bush only won a few more votes.
2004-10-11, 10:01 AM #70
Quote:
But the map clearly shows that the population of Bush counties is greater than Gore counties. Your statement is flawed.


No, the statement is not flawed. Put your thinking cap on for a second. It's obvious that the counties that Bush *did* win were weaker victories than the counties Gore won. How do I know this? In order for Gore to win the popular vote, there were a higher percentage of people who voted for Gore in Bush-won counties than there were people who voted for Bush in Gore-won counties. Simple, no?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-11, 10:11 AM #71
Yes, his statement was flawed. He said blue counties had higher population than red which was wrong.

I believe your statement is flawed but only because you are taking it further than necessary. My opinion is that Gore won much of the vote in extremely densely populated areas and that he needed less votes from Bush counties to virtually tie the popular vote. Also, the population of the counties is far diferent from both eligible voters and actual voters. Less people voted in the election than the population of just the Gore counties.

Again, I already stated why I posted the map and it makes my point regarding getting rid of the electoral college, don't you think?
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 10:15 AM #72
No, I don't think so. I haven't seen one of you electorate college supporters explain yet what arbitrary boundaries have to do with anything. Or better yet, why they should have anything to do with anything at all.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-11, 10:18 AM #73
You don't understand why 50 seperate entities should each have a say in their leader? The USA is a union of 50 seperate states. At least people get to vote for the president here unlike the European Union.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 10:20 AM #74
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
No, I don't think so. I haven't seen one of you electorate college supporters explain yet what arbitrary boundaries have to do with anything. Or better yet, why they should have anything to do with anything at all.


Something about states' rights and how those tend to hold a little bit of importance...checks and balance or something. Crazy eh?
omnia mea mecum porto
2004-10-11, 10:24 AM #75
The tired "50 separate entities" argument is every bit as valid its opposing "all-or-nothing" argument, which is why we will get nowhere arguing this. However, I have one final thought for you. Why should 49% of a state's votes be completely thrown out in favor of 51%? Should the 49% not be counted in favor of the opposing candidate, in case some other state of similar population casts 52% of the votes in favor of the former candidate? It's a shame that nearly ever state in the nation uses the all-or-nothing approach to choosing their votes, based on people with ideas like you.

Kudos to Colorado, for doing what should be done with a state's sovereignty over its EC procedures. They will not be using the all-or-nothing approach to split up their votes. To tell you the truth, I would still have problem with this if it was implemented nationwide, but much less so than the all-or-nothing approach.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-11, 10:31 AM #76
Quote:
Originally posted by Roach
Something about states' rights and how those tend to hold a little bit of importance...checks and balance or something. Crazy eh?


I understand your point, but our difference of opinion lies in priority. I believe that the national collective will of the people (otherwise known as the popular vote) should take precedence over affirmative action for minority states (otherwise known as states' rights, EC, yadda yadda) for electing a national leader.

Crazy, eh?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-11, 10:40 AM #77
I don't disagree with that point, but you said you didn't understand why those boundries mattered at all, not just for elections.
omnia mea mecum porto
2004-10-11, 10:41 AM #78
Quote:
Originally posted by Wookie06
My opinion is that Gore won much of the vote in extremely densely populated areas and that he needed less votes from Bush counties to virtually tie the popular vote.


This is exactly what I've been saying. And since he won more of the vote in extremely densely populated areas, showing the counties won is pointless and misleading.
2004-10-11, 10:46 AM #79
Freelancer, it's a tired argument to you because a) you don't like that it's true and b) you want it changed. I also find it amazing that you say kudos to Colorado but then say you'd be opposed to it nation wide. I am opposed to it being instituted selectively by three states. I have a link to an interesting read about the EC but it appears to be down. I'll post it if it comes back up soon.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-11, 10:48 AM #80
Quote:
Originally posted by Mikus
This is exactly what I've been saying. And since he won more of the vote in extremely densely populated areas, showing the counties won is pointless and misleading.


How is it pointless and misleading? I think it's very illustrative of the political demographics of the country.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

12345

↑ Up to the top!