 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:23
|
|
quote:
However, to the extent I do recall, the overvotes could not be counted legally because they had too many votes for president |
The overvotes in question were legal under Florida law because they had two indications for the same candidate, eg. Gore hole was punched, his name was also circled. Yet, although legal, they were not counted. As the study shows, if the under- and over-votes were counted fairly for all counties, Gore won.
Don't know why the link won't work from Apolyton, but I just tested it, it's still there:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
Mindseye, I will check the link tonight. But, if what you say is correct, I stand corrected. However, I still recall the Gore did not ask for a recount of overvotes, or that it was not ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. I recall Bush's people talking about this issue. But as I said, all this is from memory. I will check the facts later.
Last edited by Ned on 21-11-2002 at 03:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even after his lurch to the left? |
I will admit, his new found ability to say what he thinks or feels, and not what the pollsters tell him to say, has raised my opinion of him (somewhat). However, given how low it was, that wasn't much of a feat.
The truth is, despite the fact that he's willing to stand up to this president in a way that risks his reputation doesn't mean that if he became President we could expect a rebuilding of regulation and the welfare state, preservation of public lands, and American stormtroopers to stop marching across the globe (note: that last bit was hyperbole ).
Gore is criticizing Bush not so much for his ultra-conservatisim but for his incompetence in leading the nation. Sure, Bush gets what he wants, but that's because he has hardly any opposition (though he did have to cave to France and Russia on the UNSC resolution).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
JW, In a thinkpiece analysis of US foreign policy published in 1999, the author identified US multilateralism as a significant weakness of US foreign policy. We had to form coalitions and obtain "world approval" in order to act. In order to form the coalition, we would have to moderate our goals to satisfy the most reluctant member. As well, the coalition was subject to being split by wiley strategems of opponents such as Saddam Hussein.
It is my understanding that Bush Sr. acted in the first place after the invasion of Kuwait at the insistence of Saudi Arabia. Ditto not setting Bagdad as an objective. Ditto pulling the plug on post-war support of Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions.
While many praise Bush Sr. for forming the coalition, in the end Iraq was only a partial success because of the coalition.
Bush Jr.'s willingness to act without a coalition and without Saudi support is a significant difference this time around. The threat of war to the finish is clear. Because of this, Saddam may decide not to play games because he knows he cannot get away with it.
Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
Is Bush a leader? That's a really good (albeit buried on this thread) question.
He seems to inspire some enthusiasm -- more than his dad naturally -- but nowhere near what Reagan or Clinton did.
He leads (usually in the wrong direction) by example. There's no ambiguity that he wants to roll back the division of church and state in millenialist Fundamentalist terms, that he fears and opposes the broadening of real opportunity to types of people he doesn't like, that he believes America is always right and always has the divine edict to enforce its morality, provided that morality is properly orthodox.
He also practices what he preachesa. The first speech to Congress after 9/11 was a bad Western script, but it laid out what we were going to do -- target Ossama, target those who gave him shelter (Taliban), target those who support more general terrorism (Iraq). Also, it divided the world into that comfortingly childish duality that leaders (authoritarians) everywhere thrive on: good vs evil, us vs them, either you're part of the solution or part of the problem.
Yeah, he counts as a leader. He has very, very simple ideas about where to lead, but often that helps relieve ambiguity and leads to constant action. Can you name a truly great leader who was certifiably brilliant, since Napolean? Clinton would clearly have benefitted from a measured reduction in intelligence (and libido). The price of intelligence is often ambivalence, and that's death for a leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
I would hardly call the UN resolution a united stance against tyranny... its more like, cutting up the Iraqi oil pig... Russia and France are afraid to lose their oil contracts in the probable event of a regime change, and so the only solution is to make provisions for a new agreement when the American-imposed regime is put into place...
Perhaps I wouldn't find the notion of America taking a stand against tyranny so laughable if it weren't for the fact that we sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the early eighties, which were then used to massacre the Kurds. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry we gave to slaughter Iranians. We had no problem with Saddam the Butcher when he was our man in the Middle East. Once he started to look out for his own interests rather than ours, we gave him the boot.
Saddam's pretext for invading Kuwait in 1990 was that A) Kuwait had, at one time, been a part of Iraq, but more importantly, just before, Kuwait broke its agreement with OPEC and dramatically increased oil output thus dropping the prices rendering Iraq's oil production 1/3 the value of what it had been! Good for USA, bad for Iraq... that's what precipitated the war... Of course, it is convenient to note that when Saddam started his sabre rattling, the US didn't have much to say about it. After the invasion we acted as if we were all shocked and surprised even though our military had been training for the invasion of Kuwait six months before it actually happened.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I would hardly call the UN resolution a united stance against tyranny... its more like, cutting up the Iraqi oil pig... Russia and France are afraid to lose their oil contracts in the probable event of a regime change, and so the only solution is to make provisions for a new agreement when the American-imposed regime is put into place...
Perhaps I wouldn't find the notion of America taking a stand against tyranny so laughable if it weren't for the fact that we sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the early eighties, which were then used to massacre the Kurds. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry we gave to slaughter Iranians. We had no problem with Saddam the Butcher when he was our man in the Middle East. Once he started to look out for his own interests rather than ours, we gave him the boot.
Saddam's pretext for invading Kuwait in 1990 was that A) Kuwait had, at one time, been a part of Iraq, but more importantly, just before, Kuwait broke its agreement with OPEC and dramatically increased oil output thus dropping the prices rendering Iraq's oil production 1/3 the value of what it had been! Good for USA, bad for Iraq... that's what precipitated the war... Of course, it is convenient to note that when Saddam started his sabre rattling, the US didn't have much to say about it. After the invasion we acted as if we were all shocked and surprised even though our military had been training for the invasion of Kuwait six months before it actually happened. |
Dom Pedro, when I read something like this all I can think of is that you Brazilians also believe the Americans did not land on the moon but fillmed the events in Hollywood.
We supported Saddam because of Iran just like we at one time supported Stalin because of Hitler. We changed our position on Saddam after he invaded Kuwait - but only when he massed 11 divisions on the Saudi border and the Saudi's gave us a call and called in their chips. The current concern about Saddam is because we are truly concerned about his WoMD programs. We have allies in the region. Secondly, we cannot have our planes flying over Iraq 'til Kingdom come. We need a way out.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2002 02:19
|