There was nothing unconstitutional about the recounts. Do you know why they said it was unconstitutional? Because since not every county counted the votes the same way, it was racial discrimination. That sounds logical to me.

There wasn't any recount for Bush to win.


You weren't being ignorant about it at all. Just because it being unconstitutional was the contrived excuse to get Bush in, doesn't make it true. You should learn to ask for cites from now on.


Canadians can speak if they want, and Michael Moore never said he planned to move to Canada.


That's a nice generalization that's not based on any evidence whatsoever. The fact that you say it makes you incredibly closed-minded.


No one knows if he won it the first time or not. For evidence, just see the supreme court decision. They stopped the recounts of the thousands of uncounted ballots and just said that Bush can be president.


Saying America is arrogant is not the same as saying Americans are arrogant. Remember freedom fries?


It's not a generalization, it's true. Those states don't have as many targets and have a lower population of homosexuals.


Just because you want it to be doesn't mean it is. You can't even say why it's flawed.


It's their goddamn yard, they can do what they want.

Bah, I go to school and come back and you people are out of control. I thought we agreed that Canada was going to Britland for a beer, and America was going to sit all alone and gloat about how awesome it was.

Like fill it with radioactive waste causing you and your loved ones to mutate into hamster-like creatures.

Based on the original count, Bush won Florida (Before any of the recounting started). Gore wanted everything recounted.

There's a very large difference between 'not as many targets' and 'no targets', and 'lower rate of homosexuality' and 'lower population of homosexuals'. Of course we have fewer likely targets, most of the population is toward the coastal areas. But there are still cities, for example Wichita, that are very likely targets. And yes, we probably do have fewer homosexuals, but I would be willing to bet that there is very little difference in the percent of the population that is homosexaul.

No and no. The recount was deemed unconstitutional because no statewide standards were established and there was practically no oversight. For example, Palm Beach County modified its definition of a valid ballot four times after the recount started. Many counties had conflicting definitions even among districts.

Equal protection and due process, not "racial discrimination", were the relevant Constitutional issues. Seven justices agreed that the recount was Unconstitutional, so cut the partisan "contrived excuse" garbage.

Dry Gear, you need to quit blindly following whatever idiotic rhetoric you are listening to with regards to the Florida recount. What I am about to post is fact. Undisputed fact. I will not cite references. I don't care if anyone thinks it is a concession on my part. Any factual cites I make will be "debunked" by some Michael Moore-esqe reference anyway. As I said the following are FACTS (yes, capitals make it so):

1) The Florida election was extremely close.

2) Some counties chose to recount their ballots.

3) Upon completion of their recounts, chose to recount again.

4) Upon completion of the recount-recount, chose to recount again.

5) Bush won those recounts. (recount-recounts and recount-recount-recounts included)

6) Florida Secretary of State certified results, declaring Bush the winner.

7) Florida Supreme court "set asside" the declaration and ordered a statewide recount.

8) The Florida Supreme courts decision was contradictory to the laws on the books in the state. The election was required to be certified by the date the Florida Secretary of State did so.

9) Bush brings US Supreme Court challenge to the illegal activity of the Florida Supreme Court.

10) US Supreme Court agrees that Florida Supreme Court is not acting within the law leaving no other recourse but for the election to be certified.

11) After all was said and done, a media recount of all of the states ballots occured. (You may google Florida media recount, if you like) and in all but one instance, Bush won. Gore would have won by 57 votes (I believe) had the most liberal method of counting the ballots been used. IE determining the "intent" of the voter by dimpled, hanging, or otherwise disturbed chads on the ballots.

Okay, maybe not anything. As long as it doesn't directly harm the neighbors or something.


He wanted the thousands of uncounted votes to be counted.


Then what he said would be an exaggeration, not a generalization.


They based it on the equal protection amendment, which was designed specifically with racial rights in mind. There is no reason to invoke that just because of different voting standards between counties. Instead they threw out all of those votes.


Nice little ad-hominem you got going there. Since you'd rather throw out these pathetic BS arguments than debate in good faith, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.

As long as it doesn't DIRECTLY harm, oh how convenient

It's kinda funny that he'd use that argument against canada when americans are often the first to promote personal gain versus collective gain, and canadians are the exact opposite. Kinda like driving a huge car to compensate for your little man, not giving a crap about blocking traffic, or the damage to the environment other people will have to live with.

ARE YOU IMPLYING I HAVE A SMALL PENIS? STFU FLEXOR YOU AMERICAN PIGDOG

I have proof!

THE WATER WAS COLD DAMMIT!!

...and? The Supreme Court has also used the 14th Amendment to enjoin the states from abridging freedom of speech, religion, and several other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Using your criteria, Gitlow v. New York must also be based on racial discrimination.



How about the different and sometimes nonexistant voting standards even within counties? Invalid votes were being counted, valid votes were being discarded, and counters in some districts were given discretion to simply guess which candidate an ambiguous ballot was cast for.

Anyone with any sense realizes that the recount was a complete trainwreck. The commonly-debated issue is the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to not allow Florida to fix the problems and recount again. Florida law demands that all votes be counted by December 12, but four justices were willing to extend that deadline.

Ooooh, shrinkage!

No BS argument there. He actually lays it out pretty well. If you can't bring yourself to believe that Bush would have won hte electiion had the recount been allowed to stand then I feel sorry for you.

I was talking about the ad-hominem I quoted. I didn't read the rest of the post.
I have not seen any evidence that Bush would have won. It doesn't matter anyway, the votes still should have been counted.
And I quite frankly don't give a damn about what you think of me. You expect me to go along with what you say for no reason and say you feel sorry for me if I don't? I thought you were better than that. I feel sorry for someone who would believe that just because you tell them to.

The point is, this has nothing to do with preserving rights. It's just a disgusting cover.


Cite?


It was impossible to meet that deadline because they kept halting the recount.

Oh Jesus Christ we're back to the ****ing 2000 election again. I'm only going to say this once.

IT'S THE PAST!

What can ANYONE do about it? Nothing. What will debating about something ALL READY SAID AND DONE do? Nothing. Wookie06 laid out what happened exactly in Florida. I saw that same scenario described for myself too. That is what happened. The ****ing votes were bloody counted NUMEROUS TIMES! YOUR GUY LOST. Get over it.

Ahem. That's our government. Not us. Once again--the government does not accurately and completely represent the people. Get this through your freaking head.

It's just that you're bording on fanatical at times, and that's hard for anyone to want to even listen to. This debate is not new here and I just haven't seen any effort from you to get the facts on the matter before making statements about what happened. There is little or no logic to your argument in this case. I can understand you being upset about the results of the election and about what happened, but you're letting your emotions get involved with the debate, and that is never a good thing. You say you haven't seen anything that declared Bush the winner of florida is 2000, but I have serious doubts that you would even look, and if you found anything contrary to your beliefs, you'd sluff it off as invalid in some way or another.

Just for your information:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

There are lot's of "Gore won" sites, but none of them seemed reputable.



But who was the one that kept asking for new recounts so that hanging and dimpled chads be counted as well? That was Gore, dude.

The recounts were halted due to a lack of any standards for hand counting the disputed ballots. Here's the problem:

You have 3 counties. County one says only fully punched ballots will be counted as valid. County two says that they will accept "hanging chads" as valid votes but not "dimpled chads". County three says they will accept "hanging and dimpled chads" in the recount. In that scenario, some votes in county one and two would not be counted even though they can be considered valid in other counties. Hence the equal protection.

Furthermore, Presidential elections are carried out at the state level, not the county level. That being said, a state-wide standard for counting the votes is necessary. It did not exist at the time.

Pass me a cold one Mikus? (And no, not your wang)

This thread needs an official seal of stupidity.

No, the point is that you're full of **** and trying to avoid admitting it:

"Do you know why they said it was unconstitutional? Because since not every county counted the votes the same way, it was racial discrimination."

The decision was clearly not related to racial discrimination.

Perhaps you should consider reading the Bush v. Gore opinion before running your mouth again. Incidentally, the opinion also contains plenty of citations of ballot mismanagement. But those are certainly just another "disgusting coverup" or "contrived excuse" by those seven evil Bush-loving justices.

I have 2 words for you all: Who cares!

George Bush is an idiot.
John Kerry is an idiot.
Paul Martin is an idiot and a wuss.
I could run the country better than anyone.

They can't. After four years of delegitimizing his presidency, Michael Moore-esqe attacks, and insulting and demeaning the people who re-elected Bush they have still failed to learn their lesson. If they don't learn it, they will continue to lose. Personally, I hope they stay on the exact same course that they've been on.

You just couldn't let the thread die?

Not all liberals can't let go of the 2000 election, me being a perfect case of this.

That's why you'd never be elected.

hehehehehehe

Agreed with all but your last line.

My Canada includes beavers. 'Nuff said.

I like to eat beaver myself... it isn't bad once you get used to it.

Yes, but the most vocal ones can't, and that's why people still talk about it.

Umm, I only posted about an hour after the previous poster and quoted a one day old post. I don't really think you can accuse me of reviving a dead thread. And I never said anything about liberals. I simply responded to why people can't let the 2000 election go and then expounded abit. I'm certain that [probably] most liberals understand the facts as I laid out previously.

Too lazy to read the topic. But I'm going to just say this:

Canadians > Americans

We all have our faults, like how most American's are idiots (Don't take this into offense... you have to admit, there are a lot more murders and crimes in America than Canada) but how us Canadians don't have that much free will, and are losing our highly skilled workers because of our crappy systems.

But, the thing that brings Canadians above Americans... We have better beer and pountine. And a hockey team that strikes fear into the hearts of all at the winter olympics



I suggest you don't reply to this... just my penny or two, and I won't be reading it.

Proportionality, buck-o. Canada's 31,946,316 to America's 294,786,726.

You know, I don't have anything to say about anything else, but when I read this, I'm surprised people haven't quoted it yet. If it's true -- then isn't that quite sad?