You can play all you want but you can't have your own facts. And the facts are that Gore got more votes than Bush not just nationally but in Florida as well.
In the same manner you can easily say Clinton was at war with drugs.
No, actually you can't. "The War on Drugs" is just a marketing name for Prohibition 2.0, since everyone knows that banning alcohol did not stop the problems it was supposed to prevent and created a host of new ones, and might make the connection between those failures and banning cocaine, heroin, and pot.
War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.
America's involvement in Kosovo was neither prolonged nor large scale. We went in as part of an international force and got out quickly, with no loss of life on our part. If this qualifies as a war for you, did the U.S. go to war in Panama when it removed Noreiga from power? Bombed Grenada? Lost troops in Somalia?
Why was that death and destruction good and approved
Because it stopped a civil war and ended the Serbian genocide.
but in Iraq it is not?
Because the invasion of Iraq started a civil war. Any more obvious questions?
If it is really 'yours' rather than something you've paid a license fee to use with the understanding that you don't have the rights to re-distribute
Unless you've signed a contract, there is no license, and you own a copy of the software/album/movie in question. And as EULA's are not valid contracts, they aren't valid licenses either.
As for your "they got what they deserve" argument, too damn bad. When someone conspires to commit murder, they aren't charged with actual murder, they are charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Don't like it, lobby your representative to pass a law creating conspiracy to commit copyright infringement as a crime.
Wrong again. During the trial, there was quibbling over the definitions of words, particularly "sexual relations". Starr wanted to use a definition so broad that merely bushing past someone on a narrow bus or airplane aisle could be considered sexual relations. Clinton rightfully complained that this was way too broad, and the judge agreed. Under the restricted definition, Clinton and his lawyer interpreted it to mean either penis in vagina or him giving oral sex to someone else. Since he wasn't cleaning Monica's carpet, and since blow jobs are not penis in vagina, he did not in fact have "sexual relations" with Monica. In fact, since he didn't fuck her, saying he did have "sexual relations" with her would have been a lie. Obviously this is all hair splitting on the part of both the defense and the prosecution, but splitting hairs is not lying.
In any case, on the legal front, he could have lied about having ever knowing Monica, and it wouldn't have been perjury, because the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury. For example, if prosecutors had asked Martha Stewart what her weight was during her trial, she could have lied and said she weighed 120 when she knew she weighed 150, because that question would have been irrelevant to the charges of insider trading.
In any case, on the moral front, when someone asks you a question that is noneoftheirfuckingbusiness, they have no right to an honest answer. Bill's infidelity was an issue for his family and Monica. Anyone else, and it was noneoftheirfuckingbusiness.
If there was any real justice, Starr and the Republicans in Congress would have served nice jail terms for malicious prosecution.
Incorrect usage of the word Fascism. Stop this shit, Its completely insulting to real fascists.
Hardly. Look up definitions of fascism and it's like reading a checklist for this administration:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism. Racism is not a requirement of Fascism.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire being first. It is a very big problem that they are always first. You are defending the indefensible. And when you defend the indefensible, your arguments tend to be pretty pathetic, like the people who excuse Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment by saying "he didn't want to scare the children", as if he couldn't have quietly directed one of his aids to get on the phone to Rumsfield, Cheney or NORAD.
Size matters. In this case small, geographically and demographically, is better.
Cars and planes have been around for over 100 years. And they get used pretty frequently. There's also these little things called radio and local television stations.
The ability for the people to actually meet and press the candidates on the issues could never happen in a state the size of TX.
Ah, yes, because Texas's constitution forbids voters from asking candidates questions at open forums.
Location, location, location. Most presidential candidates are tethered to DC in one way or another.
Airplanes, airplanes, airplanes.
The many trips back and forth to any state too far west becomes impractical and too expensive very quickly.
Pfft. Air fairs are going to be vastly cheaper from DC to California or Texas than to Iowa. Secondly, the top candidates all have warchests in the millions, and can easily afford plane tickets for themselves and their staff. Hell, even Ron Paul can raise $75,000 in one day.
First, immediate points off to anyone who puts the words elitism and New Hampshire in the same paragraph. Scrappy, independent, frugal, industrious, maybe.
This coming from a person who laughs at the idea of small state elitism and then talks about how "scrappy, independent, frugal, industrious" they are. I haven't seen this much backflipping since Fred Thompson (who voted to remove Clinton from office) gave a speech where he called passionately for the rule of law while equally passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby.
Practice, practice, practice. IA and NH have been at this for a long time.
More elitism.
Campaigns need experienced operatives and volunteers on the ground to get a campaign, particularly for candidates who are initial long shots, off the ground. Any state can learn to do this over time but it will be a mess for the first few cycles and rotating primaries would just guarantee an ongoing cluster fuck.
Dude. Every state in the union is practiced at having elections, since they happen all the time. Mayors, city council members, governors, state legislators, federal representatives, judges, state AG's, etc etc etc.
Turning to the racist nonsense about NH and IA being "too white", so what?
Since when is pointing out reality racist? This nation is constantly becoming more and more diverse, yet the primary voting block in the primary is older white farmers. Your argument is like one from a psychotic ex-girlfriend who makes her problems some one else's fault.
There are many other reasons but these are enough for now.
Do you have any that aren't ludicrous?
Lastly, the stuff about the financial rewards of the primary is just drivel. Most NH residents don't own hotels or tv stations so they never see a dime but even if they did it would come out to about $100/person/year. Whoop di do, party on!
Nope, still ludicrous. Millions are spent on advertising, traveling, and hotels by both the candidates, their staff and the press. How many millions? $250, according to this article, and that's just for New Hampshire.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed.
Stop lying. What the press reported was that if selective recounts had been completed, yes Bush would have still won the election. What was hidden away in the shitty media's reporting of the story was the fact that Gore won a statewide recount under every possible scenario. Gore won Florida. Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
No. What they reported was that if selective recounts had been done, is that Bush would have still won. If you keep reading, however, you'll see that under no scenario would Gore have lost a statewide recount.
How is this "the republicans gaming the elections"? I mean shouldn't Florida have the right to have it's issues on the plate when selecting the presidential candidates or the president himself?
Why don't you slow down, let your brain catch up to your fingers, and think about why stripping Florida of it's Democratic delegates to the convention and giving the DNC a ton of bad press might spell some difficulties for the Democrats next year. Same with the California GOP pushing to have that's states electoral votes split proportionally instead of by winner take all, and giving the Republican nominee 20+ electoral votes.
If it is anything, it is the DNC punishing democrats that have no chance of changing things in order to blame the republicans for their failures. They don't want Florida's concerns to be an issue in the primaries. They want the good old days when a candidate spent money in three or four states and those states decided everything.
Hello? Do you know who's in charge at the DNC? Who went from being front runner to loser in short order because of the lock two tiny states have on the nomination process?
If anyone or anything is being subverted, it is the democrats by the DNC. Tell me, Why is it that the rules cannot be changed?
Why is it that they should not have to live up to agreements they've made?
The attacks on the traditional primary line up and the whining of other (larger) states is largely misguided and the current trend of trying to jump the line is going to be a disaster if allowed to continue. The early primary states are not a problem, they are a national treasure.
What I replied to the parent:
Small state elitism. There is no reason why Texas or Washington or Hawaii wouldn't take the early nomination process if given a chance. What those two states really take seriously is the money the nomination process brings in through candidates and staff and the press coming to the state, and ads run on the local media. Having Iowa and New Hampshire have the first nominations in an election is okay. That these two 90%+ white states have it every election is indefensible.
Iowa and New Hampshire residents do differ in one major aspect than others: they really pay attention to the candidates prior to the primary.
Small state elitism. There is no reason why Texas or Washington or Hawaii wouldn't take the early nomination process if given a chance. What those two states really take seriously is the money the nomination process brings in through candidates and staff and the press coming to the state, and ads run on the local media. Having Iowa and New Hampshire have the first nominations in an election is okay. That these two 90%+ white states have it every election is indefensible.
Multiple parties are a red herring. People who complain about the "two party system" talk is if you are limited to two choices, which is far from the case. You have theocons, neocons, corporatecons, paleocons, Blue Dogs, DLC Democrats and progressives to choose from, and there have been dozens of serious presidential candidates in the last few elections.
Having two big parties doesn't mean that smaller groups are ignored, it means they are in one of the big parties, like the Blue Dogs.
I didn't like him, but I disliked him less than Kerry/Edwards - and I still think I made the less incorrect choice.
Really? What would Kerry/Edwards have done that was worse than the surge, torture, Gonzales, NSA wiretapping, Katrina, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Any voter still musing that it was better to vote for Bush is like Miramax wondering if it was a bad idea to pass up on Lord of the Rings after the movies and merchandise made Time Warner a few billion dollars.
he 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government.
The 90's were great because Clinton stood up the Republicans on bs like the bankruptcy bill and slashing the budget to give tax cuts to the rich. The main issue that the Republican's stood up to Clinton and won was defeating universal health care, which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for crappy care. Thanks, GOP! Once they had the White House and Congress all bets were off.
It's also worth mentioning that Clinton was a conservative president: pro death penalty, pro law enfocement, NAFTA, deregulation, COPA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He only looks liberal next to today's fascist republicans. To get real political balance you would need to appoint Castro and Chavez and a few family members to the Supreme Court.
He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.
With the electoral college system, living in a state that gets a low amount of votes (like Rhode Island) lowers the power of your own vote.
With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee.
For every ethics violation and illegal act done by Republicans, Democrats have matched them.
Bull fucking shit. Bill got a blow job, Jefferson was found with money in his freezer. Contrast that to My Pet Goat, waterboarding, NSA wiretapping, Tom Delay, , vote suppression, Abramoff, the Bridge to Nowhere, indefinite detention, Gonzalez, Hasert, Iraq, and that's a fraction of the summary on the jacket of the book of modern Republican incompetence and corruption. And Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignments by House Democrats when he faced indictment, as opposed to House Republicans who changed ethics rules so Tom Delay could keep his leadership position when he faced indictment.
Democrats have a great deal to improve on, but not only are they not on the same footing as Republican's when it comes to criminal incompetence, they aren't even on the same fucking planet. Seriously, your statement is the most asininely stupid thing I've read since Nader claimed there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
Lol.. that is what I was talking about. The DNC is doing all the negetive actions.
No, the negative actions are automatic penalties on an agreement that Florida wouldn't have it's primary before the 5th of Feb. This is just another example of Republicans gaming elections to ensure victory rather having an honest process.
What should be done is end the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the start of the nomination process.
Florida didn't do anything to the DNC (specifically) - they just moved the date of the presidential primary up to January 29th.
My understanding is that Florida signed an agreement that they wouldn't have their primary before Feb 5th, with automatic penalties kicking in if they reneged. So yes it does seem to be a GOP attack on the 2008 election, like the California GOP trying to have that states electoral votes split up proportionally instead of by winner take all. No, I don't feel like looking this up right now.
What should be done is end the Iowa-New Hampshire monopoly on the presidential primary process. There is no reason whatsoever that these two states should have a near lock on selecting nominees.
If he does this, and he is stopped from doing anything, at the next election, the republicans can point to the dems as being obstructionists to progress.
The Republicans were very fond of the "up or down vote" when they were in the majority, but now that they are in the minority, they filibuster anything and everything. We all know the media has let them get away with this hypocrisy, let's see of the Democrats have pulled their heads out and have stopped hiring professional election losers like Al From, and hire staff that will go out and challenge the right's bs.
Clinton was wagging the dog, then he failed to fight Al Queda, now he's bombing a civilian factory. Can you guys stick to a single bullshit frame for five minutes?
On Waco: Janet Reno had barely started her job when the FBI told her that children were being molested in the Branch Dividian compound. Having a prosecutor's typically high opinion of child molestation, she signed off on the operation. She was also the one to appoint an independant investigator to look into the FBI's actions at Waco. But don't let facts get in the way of your hatorade.
As for Elian, the only thing the FBI did wrong was in not taking action sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
You can play all you want but you can't have your own facts. And the facts are that Gore got more votes than Bush not just nationally but in Florida as well.
I find it comical to call it military action and not a war.
Then you are very easily amused.
In the same manner you can easily say Clinton was at war with drugs.
No, actually you can't. "The War on Drugs" is just a marketing name for Prohibition 2.0, since everyone knows that banning alcohol did not stop the problems it was supposed to prevent and created a host of new ones, and might make the connection between those failures and banning cocaine, heroin, and pot.
Nope.
America's involvement in Kosovo was neither prolonged nor large scale. We went in as part of an international force and got out quickly, with no loss of life on our part. If this qualifies as a war for you, did the U.S. go to war in Panama when it removed Noreiga from power? Bombed Grenada? Lost troops in Somalia?
Why was that death and destruction good and approved
Because it stopped a civil war and ended the Serbian genocide.
but in Iraq it is not?
Because the invasion of Iraq started a civil war. Any more obvious questions?
If it is really 'yours' rather than something you've paid a license fee to use with the understanding that you don't have the rights to re-distribute
Unless you've signed a contract, there is no license, and you own a copy of the software/album/movie in question. And as EULA's are not valid contracts, they aren't valid licenses either.
As for your "they got what they deserve" argument, too damn bad. When someone conspires to commit murder, they aren't charged with actual murder, they are charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Don't like it, lobby your representative to pass a law creating conspiracy to commit copyright infringement as a crime.
Clinton still lied no matter how you slice it.
Wrong again. During the trial, there was quibbling over the definitions of words, particularly "sexual relations". Starr wanted to use a definition so broad that merely bushing past someone on a narrow bus or airplane aisle could be considered sexual relations. Clinton rightfully complained that this was way too broad, and the judge agreed. Under the restricted definition, Clinton and his lawyer interpreted it to mean either penis in vagina or him giving oral sex to someone else. Since he wasn't cleaning Monica's carpet, and since blow jobs are not penis in vagina, he did not in fact have "sexual relations" with Monica. In fact, since he didn't fuck her, saying he did have "sexual relations" with her would have been a lie. Obviously this is all hair splitting on the part of both the defense and the prosecution, but splitting hairs is not lying.
In any case, on the legal front, he could have lied about having ever knowing Monica, and it wouldn't have been perjury, because the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury. For example, if prosecutors had asked Martha Stewart what her weight was during her trial, she could have lied and said she weighed 120 when she knew she weighed 150, because that question would have been irrelevant to the charges of insider trading.
In any case, on the moral front, when someone asks you a question that is noneoftheirfuckingbusiness, they have no right to an honest answer. Bill's infidelity was an issue for his family and Monica. Anyone else, and it was noneoftheirfuckingbusiness.
If there was any real justice, Starr and the Republicans in Congress would have served nice jail terms for malicious prosecution.
Hardly. Look up definitions of fascism and it's like reading a checklist for this administration:
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire being first. It is a very big problem that they are always first. You are defending the indefensible. And when you defend the indefensible, your arguments tend to be pretty pathetic, like the people who excuse Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment by saying "he didn't want to scare the children", as if he couldn't have quietly directed one of his aids to get on the phone to Rumsfield, Cheney or NORAD.
Size matters. In this case small, geographically and demographically, is better.
Cars and planes have been around for over 100 years. And they get used pretty frequently. There's also these little things called radio and local television stations.
The ability for the people to actually meet and press the candidates on the issues could never happen in a state the size of TX.
Ah, yes, because Texas's constitution forbids voters from asking candidates questions at open forums.
Location, location, location. Most presidential candidates are tethered to DC in one way or another.
Airplanes, airplanes, airplanes.
The many trips back and forth to any state too far west becomes impractical and too expensive very quickly.
Pfft. Air fairs are going to be vastly cheaper from DC to California or Texas than to Iowa. Secondly, the top candidates all have warchests in the millions, and can easily afford plane tickets for themselves and their staff. Hell, even Ron Paul can raise $75,000 in one day.
First, immediate points off to anyone who puts the words elitism and New Hampshire in the same paragraph. Scrappy, independent, frugal, industrious, maybe.
This coming from a person who laughs at the idea of small state elitism and then talks about how "scrappy, independent, frugal, industrious" they are. I haven't seen this much backflipping since Fred Thompson (who voted to remove Clinton from office) gave a speech where he called passionately for the rule of law while equally passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby.
Practice, practice, practice. IA and NH have been at this for a long time.
More elitism.
Campaigns need experienced operatives and volunteers on the ground to get a campaign, particularly for candidates who are initial long shots, off the ground. Any state can learn to do this over time but it will be a mess for the first few cycles and rotating primaries would just guarantee an ongoing cluster fuck.
Dude. Every state in the union is practiced at having elections, since they happen all the time. Mayors, city council members, governors, state legislators, federal representatives, judges, state AG's, etc etc etc.
Turning to the racist nonsense about NH and IA being "too white", so what?
Since when is pointing out reality racist? This nation is constantly becoming more and more diverse, yet the primary voting block in the primary is older white farmers. Your argument is like one from a psychotic ex-girlfriend who makes her problems some one else's fault.
There are many other reasons but these are enough for now.
Do you have any that aren't ludicrous?
Lastly, the stuff about the financial rewards of the primary is just drivel. Most NH residents don't own hotels or tv stations so they never see a dime but even if they did it would come out to about $100/person/year. Whoop di do, party on!
Nope, still ludicrous. Millions are spent on advertising, traveling, and hotels by both the candidates, their staff and the press. How many millions? $250, according to this article, and that's just for New Hampshire.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed.
Stop lying. What the press reported was that if selective recounts had been completed, yes Bush would have still won the election. What was hidden away in the shitty media's reporting of the story was the fact that Gore won a statewide recount under every possible scenario. Gore won Florida. Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
No he wouldn't have.
Yes, he would have.
The Dems of Florida recounted it three times
No, they did not.
The New York Times itself reported this.
No. What they reported was that if selective recounts had been done, is that Bush would have still won. If you keep reading, however, you'll see that under no scenario would Gore have lost a statewide recount.
Sorry, Bush DIDN'T steal the election.
Yes, he DID. Deal with it.
How is this "the republicans gaming the elections"? I mean shouldn't Florida have the right to have it's issues on the plate when selecting the presidential candidates or the president himself?
Why don't you slow down, let your brain catch up to your fingers, and think about why stripping Florida of it's Democratic delegates to the convention and giving the DNC a ton of bad press might spell some difficulties for the Democrats next year. Same with the California GOP pushing to have that's states electoral votes split proportionally instead of by winner take all, and giving the Republican nominee 20+ electoral votes.
If it is anything, it is the DNC punishing democrats that have no chance of changing things in order to blame the republicans for their failures. They don't want Florida's concerns to be an issue in the primaries. They want the good old days when a candidate spent money in three or four states and those states decided everything.
Hello? Do you know who's in charge at the DNC? Who went from being front runner to loser in short order because of the lock two tiny states have on the nomination process?
If anyone or anything is being subverted, it is the democrats by the DNC. Tell me, Why is it that the rules cannot be changed?
Why is it that they should not have to live up to agreements they've made?
The attacks on the traditional primary line up and the whining of other (larger) states is largely misguided and the current trend of trying to jump the line is going to be a disaster if allowed to continue. The early primary states are not a problem, they are a national treasure.
What I replied to the parent:
Small state elitism. There is no reason why Texas or Washington or Hawaii wouldn't take the early nomination process if given a chance. What those two states really take seriously is the money the nomination process brings in through candidates and staff and the press coming to the state, and ads run on the local media. Having Iowa and New Hampshire have the first nominations in an election is okay. That these two 90%+ white states have it every election is indefensible.
Iowa and New Hampshire residents do differ in one major aspect than others: they really pay attention to the candidates prior to the primary.
Small state elitism. There is no reason why Texas or Washington or Hawaii wouldn't take the early nomination process if given a chance. What those two states really take seriously is the money the nomination process brings in through candidates and staff and the press coming to the state, and ads run on the local media. Having Iowa and New Hampshire have the first nominations in an election is okay. That these two 90%+ white states have it every election is indefensible.
Multiple parties are a red herring. People who complain about the "two party system" talk is if you are limited to two choices, which is far from the case. You have theocons, neocons, corporatecons, paleocons, Blue Dogs, DLC Democrats and progressives to choose from, and there have been dozens of serious presidential candidates in the last few elections.
Having two big parties doesn't mean that smaller groups are ignored, it means they are in one of the big parties, like the Blue Dogs.
I didn't like him, but I disliked him less than Kerry/Edwards - and I still think I made the less incorrect choice.
Really? What would Kerry/Edwards have done that was worse than the surge, torture, Gonzales, NSA wiretapping, Katrina, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Any voter still musing that it was better to vote for Bush is like Miramax wondering if it was a bad idea to pass up on Lord of the Rings after the movies and merchandise made Time Warner a few billion dollars.
he 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government.
The 90's were great because Clinton stood up the Republicans on bs like the bankruptcy bill and slashing the budget to give tax cuts to the rich. The main issue that the Republican's stood up to Clinton and won was defeating universal health care, which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for crappy care. Thanks, GOP! Once they had the White House and Congress all bets were off.
It's also worth mentioning that Clinton was a conservative president: pro death penalty, pro law enfocement, NAFTA, deregulation, COPA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He only looks liberal next to today's fascist republicans. To get real political balance you would need to appoint Castro and Chavez and a few family members to the Supreme Court.
Were you around during the Clinton presidency?
Were you?
No war?
Military action, yes, war, no.
And as for terrorism, the WTC bombing in '93, the USS Cole, US embassies in Africa? Where hundreds died?
Still not war. And it's a drop in the Bush incompetence bucket of 911, Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, where thousands died.
Go tell the citizens of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo, and even Iraq that there was "no war" in the Clinton years. You might get quite an earful.
Yes: "wtf didn't you assholes come in 5 years ago?"
, and a republican win in 08 is nearly assured.
Hardly, given the crop of craptacular Republican candidates. What a Hillary nomination will do, is hurt their down ticket races in Republican states.
Remember, Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.
With the electoral college system, living in a state that gets a low amount of votes (like Rhode Island) lowers the power of your own vote.
With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee.
For every ethics violation and illegal act done by Republicans, Democrats have matched them.
Bull fucking shit. Bill got a blow job, Jefferson was found with money in his freezer. Contrast that to My Pet Goat, waterboarding, NSA wiretapping, Tom Delay, , vote suppression, Abramoff, the Bridge to Nowhere, indefinite detention, Gonzalez, Hasert, Iraq, and that's a fraction of the summary on the jacket of the book of modern Republican incompetence and corruption. And Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignments by House Democrats when he faced indictment, as opposed to House Republicans who changed ethics rules so Tom Delay could keep his leadership position when he faced indictment.
Democrats have a great deal to improve on, but not only are they not on the same footing as Republican's when it comes to criminal incompetence, they aren't even on the same fucking planet. Seriously, your statement is the most asininely stupid thing I've read since Nader claimed there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
Lol.. that is what I was talking about. The DNC is doing all the negetive actions.
No, the negative actions are automatic penalties on an agreement that Florida wouldn't have it's primary before the 5th of Feb. This is just another example of Republicans gaming elections to ensure victory rather having an honest process.
What should be done is end the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the start of the nomination process.
Florida didn't do anything to the DNC (specifically) - they just moved the date of the presidential primary up to January 29th.
My understanding is that Florida signed an agreement that they wouldn't have their primary before Feb 5th, with automatic penalties kicking in if they reneged. So yes it does seem to be a GOP attack on the 2008 election, like the California GOP trying to have that states electoral votes split up proportionally instead of by winner take all. No, I don't feel like looking this up right now.
What should be done is end the Iowa-New Hampshire monopoly on the presidential primary process. There is no reason whatsoever that these two states should have a near lock on selecting nominees.
The parties just might be in cahoots, my friend:
Why. What Democrats are on the same fascist planet as the GOP, much less the same page?
Ask also, why didn't Gore toss his hat into the ring again this year?
Because he doesn't want the Gore hating media to put his guts through a wood chipper again, that's why.
If he does this, and he is stopped from doing anything, at the next election, the republicans can point to the dems as being obstructionists to progress.
The Republicans were very fond of the "up or down vote" when they were in the majority, but now that they are in the minority, they filibuster anything and everything. We all know the media has let them get away with this hypocrisy, let's see of the Democrats have pulled their heads out and have stopped hiring professional election losers like Al From, and hire staff that will go out and challenge the right's bs.
Wow, I didn't know someone could be so full of shit in so few words.
After all, he didn't commit perjury
Neither did Clinton.
destroy a civilian factory
Clinton was wagging the dog, then he failed to fight Al Queda, now he's bombing a civilian factory. Can you guys stick to a single bullshit frame for five minutes?
or fire all 93 U.S. attorneys.
Only 71 of them.
On Waco: Janet Reno had barely started her job when the FBI told her that children were being molested in the Branch Dividian compound. Having a prosecutor's typically high opinion of child molestation, she signed off on the operation. She was also the one to appoint an independant investigator to look into the FBI's actions at Waco. But don't let facts get in the way of your hatorade.
As for Elian, the only thing the FBI did wrong was in not taking action sooner.