In talk.abortion, james g. keegan jr.
<keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote
on Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:20:02 GMT
<Xns93A1B053A3E20keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.166>:
> DTJ <nospaming@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:3nd9fvcmid3c7ekv4prrgt1bv6t1dmsqja@4ax.com:
>
>> Even the nytimes count showed Bush won.
>
>
> please cite the times reference to bush winning the florida
> recount.
>
> if you cannot, i'll conclude you lied.
>
> the actual vote counts and recounts are contained here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/
>
> in the future, stop lying about things so easily checked else
> you'll become a complete bore.
>

It's a little late *now*, you guys -- Bush won in 2001, either
by means legitimate (he won the Florida count) or by means
illegitimate (the courts declared him the winner, handing
him the Presidency on a silver platter). The irregularities
were considerable but he's been in there for nearly 2 1/2 years. :-)

Perhaps we can instead argue about whether Bush will have enough
votes in *2004* to win the Presidency against a yet-to-be-determined
Democratic opponent -- or even, quite possibly, a third-party
opponent. :-)

And of course fix the process in Floriday so that the infamous
"butterfly ballots" don't confuse everyone. :-)

(I'll admit I'm not entirely certain whether electronic
"touchscreen" voting will solve these issues. Nor is
it clear whether we should impeach him (on what grounds?).
It didn't work for Clinton and it won't work for Bush, absent
far more obviously egregious criminal behavior than he's shown
thus far; being politically non-astute isn't illegal. :-) )

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ncefs-8si.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> In talk.abortion, james g. keegan jr.
> <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:20:02 GMT
> <Xns93A1B053A3E20keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.166>:
> > DTJ <nospaming@attbi.com> wrote in
> > news:3nd9fvcmid3c7ekv4prrgt1bv6t1dmsqja@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Even the nytimes count showed Bush won.
> >
> >
> > please cite the times reference to bush winning the florida
> > recount.
> >
> > if you cannot, i'll conclude you lied.
> >
> > the actual vote counts and recounts are contained here:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/
> >
> > in the future, stop lying about things so easily checked else
> > you'll become a complete bore.
> >
>
> It's a little late *now*, you guys -- Bush won in 2001, either
> by means legitimate (he won the Florida count) or by means
> illegitimate (the courts declared him the winner, handing
> him the Presidency on a silver platter). The irregularities
> were considerable but he's been in there for nearly 2 1/2 years. :-)
>
> Perhaps we can instead argue about whether Bush will have enough
> votes in *2004* to win the Presidency against a yet-to-be-determined
> Democratic opponent -- or even, quite possibly, a third-party
> opponent. :-)
>

We really need a strong third party opponet to shake things up. I
really feel that both parties are just so corrupt now, that we always
end up voting for the lesser of two evils.

The last true 3rd party candidate that we had that shook things up was
Ross Perot. And then he committed political suicide by dropping out
and then trying to come back in. I really think he had both parties
on the run there for a while, and I did like some of what he was
saying.

Will Bush win 2004? It is very possible he will.

Now on the economic side, yes I would like to see Bush do better.
However we can not blame Bush for the economy, it is simply just
idiotic and baseless.
There are too many factors involved that hurt the economy, and not due
to any actions by Bush.

a) The economy was sliding downward before Bush took office
b) 9/11 and the war on terrorism



> And of course fix the process in Floriday so that the infamous
> "butterfly ballots" don't confuse everyone. :-)


absolutely.

There is the root of the problem right their. Using a old system that
obviously is outdated and confused the voters.

The only winners in all of this were the lawyers on both sides. They
made out like bandits.

Yes, reports show that Bush still would have won. But you know what,
no one, and I mean no one will ever really know. I don't care if you
are a Gore supporter or a Bush supporter, no one can honestly claim
victory. It is just all hear say and frankly rediculous now to still
be arguing about.

>
> (I'll admit I'm not entirely certain whether electronic
> "touchscreen" voting will solve these issues. Nor is
> it clear whether we should impeach him (on what grounds?).

There are no grounds to impeach Bush on. That is just plain out
rediculous. What we have are some very bitter liberals out for
revenge. It is unfortunate.

Bush is not the best, I will not aruge that. However, he has a
excellent team and I think that over all, given the circumstances,
they are doing the best that can be done.




> It didn't work for Clinton and it won't work for Bush, absent
> far more obviously egregious criminal behavior than he's shown
> thus far; being politically non-astute isn't illegal. :-) )