Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/14/04 10:39 am:
One more point:

There is no question in my mind that Kerry is the better debater, hands down. But then again, when you get as much practice as he does, supporting both sides of every issue the way Kerry does, your debating skills would almost have to improve, wouldn't they.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/14/04 10:40 am:
Bobby,

Please, from one Cowboy fan to another, don't turn the tables on me. My record will show that more often than not I present plenty of context in my quotes or link to the context. Regardless, in this case more context won't change anything...unlike the immediate press release last night of Bush's 'not concerned' about bin Laden by the Kerry campaign.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 10/14/04 11:23 am:
''More than half of American voters chose Gore last election...it is VERY possible your wrong again.'' While the vote total in 2000 for Gore was higher than that of Bush, it was less than half. Can't you liberals stick to the facts, however inconvenient you find them? And that was as the votes were counted. Any objective person knows that having failed to steal enough votes in the election, Gore went on stealing after the election. It is 100% certain you are wrong in your comment on my answer.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/14/04 4:29 pm:
how bout dem Giants?

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/14/04 5:12 pm:
Re:the 2000 vote

Gore got a plurality not a majority. That is a nit picking point Gore got the most votes . If we chose a president in a plurality system then he would've won ;but we don't ;we have an electoral college that determines the outcome of American elections .

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:" [Article 2 Sec.1 U.S Constitution.]


There is alot of sound logic to have such a system in a federal system that has been discussed before. But agree or not;that is the system we vote under.


The Florida legislature as is their constitutional responsibilty seated the electors . The Democrats brought suit in the Fla. Supreme Court ,and the court decided against the State. The Republicans appealed in the U.S. Supreme Court and they reversed the State Supreme court decision .

The system as described above was designed not to have the courts determine the outcome. But where was the judicial fiat :at the State or at the Supreme Court? I contend that there was no grounds for the State Court to overturn the decision. The State was following established guidelines when the vote recount was terminated .

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) did a comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida .Their conclusion was that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. So really it was a mute point.The only charge left is the rediculous unsubstantiated claims of voter suppression .Unfortunately the strategy in 2004 is to repeat this scenario. Drudge reported today that :The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists.......A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 10/14/04 9:16 pm:
Elliot-

Bless your heart. Not to long ago you were telling the board what a good debater Bush had been against Gore and Ann Richards...and I disagreed. Kerry punched Bush silly in the first debate, jabbed him in the second, and use good footwork to out maneuver in the third. I'll coincede Cheney and Edwards was closer to a draw.


Steve-

The quote brought up in your post yesterday was not a complete context. In fact ironically it was brought up in a conversation on tv, after the debates. As a fellow Cowboy fan I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, it must had been your evil twin. If your searching for anti-Kerry material you'll get parts of the story a lot. Same happens with anti-Bush sites. Although I don't always come out and say it many of my posts rely on my personal experiences. I'm careful not become the next robot.



Excon-

More civil unrest on the way if things don't change. From the looks of this nation the country is more divided than ever. You da'man...right on brother!


Labman-

Are you in a crack lab? I said the ones who did vote (the voters) had more than half of the votes for Gore...not everyone that's registered to vote. So YES I do have my facts correct and you can stop with the pre-programed "Bushisms" like throwing the word "liberal" around. I'm proud and most happy to have a liberal stand on some issues and there is nothing so high and mighty about being conservative...come down off your throne and join humanity.


Tom-

Plurality bs...I don't care if it's 50.01% that's still more than half. I'll answer about the Giants around week 16 :)





Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 10/15/04 10:53 am:
This is heartening, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20041015/pl_nm/campaign_poll_friday_dc

I still can't believe so many people support that empty suit and hair do.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 10/15/04 8:46 pm:
That link didn't work. I went to yahoo news and didn't see anything so different from the regular election daily grind. I'm not sure which story you found heartening...after the last four years I'm hoping for good news.


Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 10/16/04 8:12 pm:
Can you document that Gore recieved over 50% of the popular vote as counted? I don't care to take the time to look it up.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 10/16/04 9:04 pm:
Yes! I guess you were not old enough to vote in 2000. Between BUSH and GORE (pay attention to the issue)...GORE received approximatley 500k more popular votes. Do you believe Bush received more popular votes than Gore? If so than document that Bush received more than half the votes between himself and Gore.


Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/18/04 6:32 am:
here is the vote tally :

Bush :50,456,002 47.87% of the vote

Gore :50,999,897 48.38% of the vote

Nader :2,882,955 2.74% of the vote

No one got over 50% of the vote. That is why it is not a majority but a plurality . Semantics ;yes ,but the facts .

There should be no debate over who got the most votes;Gore did .But getting the most votes is not the deciding factor in the U.S. system ;and I doubt that will ever change .If reform of the electoral college system did not happen after the 2000 election ,I doubt it ever will.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 10/18/04 8:58 pm:
Gore received more than half the votes between himself and Bush...little more than 500k votes for Gore. I'm sorry if Nader fans feel left out but the issue was never about them. Now if you want to make plurality the subject then again Tom even those figures you posted are are not accurate because of other write-in votes to be calculated as well.


Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/19/04 8:07 am:
yes ;apx. 1 % went to clowns like Pat Buchanan

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 10/19/04 11:40 am:
I agree. Pat Buchanan is a clown and one that I would never vote into the Big Top.

Bobby