"Emperor George"
- Thread starter ub4me
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Ok...I'll start posting stuff from Newsmax, how's that sound?
The Guardian is probably more slanted than them.
Tell ya what...I'll start posting war news from the Weekly World News. They are probably a bit more accurate.
The Guardian is probably more slanted than them.
Tell ya what...I'll start posting war news from the Weekly World News. They are probably a bit more accurate.
Ok....here we go...some more 'unbiased' news:
French sickos
Anti-War protestors border on treason
TWO-HEADED GERMAN POLITICIAN HOLDS DEBATE ON U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ -- WITH HIMSELF!
French sickos
Anti-War protestors border on treason
TWO-HEADED GERMAN POLITICIAN HOLDS DEBATE ON U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ -- WITH HIMSELF!
I needn't comment. If you can't tell the bias and opinion that the author states like it's fact, then you're an idiot.
Please, please, ub-4me, talk like this is not that comfortable in America just now; you see already how you will be denounced fairly swiftly as a Saddam apologist or a traitor. The limits of acceptable discussion have narrowed sharply, just as civil liberties have taken a hammering as part of the post-9/11 war on terror. You might fall foul of the Patriot Act, or even be denounced for insufficient love of country. There is something McCarthyite about the atmosphere which has spawned this war, making Democrats too fearful to be an opposition worthy of the name and closing down national debate. And things don't get much more un-American than that.
Thanks for proving much of the article's claims. It's facinating that the greatest patriots, so called, are Real America's greatest enemies.
It is very important, in this context also, to remember that Bush, while unAmerican, was not elected. He was selected and that fact is the only hope we have of removing his stain on our already somewhat tarnished history.
Thanks for proving much of the article's claims. It's facinating that the greatest patriots, so called, are Real America's greatest enemies.
It is very important, in this context also, to remember that Bush, while unAmerican, was not elected. He was selected and that fact is the only hope we have of removing his stain on our already somewhat tarnished history.
Hmm...don't see anyone calling ub4me a traitor. At least not in this thread.
And, moonbeam, you know very well that that article was quite biased and that paper, in general, is bordering on the ridiculous. How did this relatively unknown news agency come across a secret Bush administration plan for the reorganization of Iraq but none of the others have?
And that other article pointing to a reader's internet research as a source for its article? BWA HA!! Makes FOX News look like 60 Minutes going after someone.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
oh please - not this claptrap again
Moony - while some of your fears of our civil liberties being taken may not be unfounded but your blatant blindness to FACT about the election doesn't lend credibility to your expression of these "fears" but rather makes you look a fool. - just friendly advise from a supporter of "the great Satan"
CkG
Thanks, CKG...missed that brain fart of moonbeam's about Bush. But, hey, if he was as moonbeam likes to spout, then Bush can be elected in 2004 and 2008 and we'll have 12 years of Bush rule. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks, CKG...missed that brain fart of moonbeam's about Bush. But, hey, if he was as moonbeam likes to spout, then Bush can be elected in 2004 and 2008 and we'll have 12 years of Bush rule. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Hmm - I like that
Should we inform Bush of this since Moonbeam is an expert on these Election matters? FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
ACTION ALERT:
USA Today Conceals Key Information in Recount Story
April 11, 2001
On April 4, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote."
The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount.
But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes.
The paper examined ballots from all 67 counties in Florida, but it only *reported* the results from 60 counties where hand counts were unfinished (except on the paper's website, USAToday.com). The paper's decision to exclude its findings in seven counties was based on its strategy of trying to answer only one narrow question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and stopped the manual recounts in Florida?
The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."
In making this decision, USA Today failed to report some of the most newsworthy aspects of its own ballot review. The Miami Herald, which worked with USA Today on the study, also played down the fact that the re-examination showed that Gore got more votes than Bush under two of the four standards (4/4/01). But the Florida paper at least provided its readers some valuable information about the limitations of the official recounts from the seven counties.
The Herald explained in an April 5 follow-up story that canvassing boards in Broward and Palm Beach counties "could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote, a review of ballots in both counties shows. In Broward, where the official hand recount added 567 votes to Gore's county lead over Bush, a Herald-sponsored ballot review found that Gore's margin could have been 1,475, if every mark had been counted as a valid vote. In Palm Beach, where the official hand recount added a net gain of 174 votes to Gore's tally, the Herald-sponsored review found a potential Gore net gain of 1,081."
The Herald also reported on April 4 that the standards used in the original manual recount were not applied consistently: "The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes. Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today."
USA Today's investigation does indeed provide evidence that if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, George W. Bush might well still have been declared the winner of the Florida election, and could still have become president. This is a newsworthy finding, and it deserved to be reported.
But the larger question of the Florida election is who actually received more votes. The statewide totals USA Today chose not to report do much more to answer that question than the paper's more limited look at the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
USA Today justified not reporting its statewide results by saying that it "did not want to substitute its judgment for that of election officials." If that's the case, why recount the votes at all? After all, it was "election officials," including Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court majority, who decided that most ballots that needed to be manually recounted should be ignored. If, on the other hand, election officials are not infallible, then a news outlet should present as much information as it has about what actually went on during the election.
While the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision is an important question, the question of who actually got more votes in Florida is even more important. By not reporting vital information, USA Today has violated journalistic principles and further confused the public about a subject that surely needed no more confusion.
ACTION ALERT:
USA Today Conceals Key Information in Recount Story
April 11, 2001
On April 4, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote."
The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount.
But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes.
The paper examined ballots from all 67 counties in Florida, but it only *reported* the results from 60 counties where hand counts were unfinished (except on the paper's website, USAToday.com). The paper's decision to exclude its findings in seven counties was based on its strategy of trying to answer only one narrow question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and stopped the manual recounts in Florida?
The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."
In making this decision, USA Today failed to report some of the most newsworthy aspects of its own ballot review. The Miami Herald, which worked with USA Today on the study, also played down the fact that the re-examination showed that Gore got more votes than Bush under two of the four standards (4/4/01). But the Florida paper at least provided its readers some valuable information about the limitations of the official recounts from the seven counties.
The Herald explained in an April 5 follow-up story that canvassing boards in Broward and Palm Beach counties "could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote, a review of ballots in both counties shows. In Broward, where the official hand recount added 567 votes to Gore's county lead over Bush, a Herald-sponsored ballot review found that Gore's margin could have been 1,475, if every mark had been counted as a valid vote. In Palm Beach, where the official hand recount added a net gain of 174 votes to Gore's tally, the Herald-sponsored review found a potential Gore net gain of 1,081."
The Herald also reported on April 4 that the standards used in the original manual recount were not applied consistently: "The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes. Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today."
USA Today's investigation does indeed provide evidence that if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, George W. Bush might well still have been declared the winner of the Florida election, and could still have become president. This is a newsworthy finding, and it deserved to be reported.
But the larger question of the Florida election is who actually received more votes. The statewide totals USA Today chose not to report do much more to answer that question than the paper's more limited look at the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
USA Today justified not reporting its statewide results by saying that it "did not want to substitute its judgment for that of election officials." If that's the case, why recount the votes at all? After all, it was "election officials," including Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court majority, who decided that most ballots that needed to be manually recounted should be ignored. If, on the other hand, election officials are not infallible, then a news outlet should present as much information as it has about what actually went on during the election.
While the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court decision is an important question, the question of who actually got more votes in Florida is even more important. By not reporting vital information, USA Today has violated journalistic principles and further confused the public about a subject that surely needed no more confusion.
Hey if the Democrats can't figure out how to fully punch out a chad tough luck. And you always complain that half of the US wanted Gore, you do realize that it means half of the US wanted Bush?
Actually, Bush winning the election was a government conspiracy......by the government......wait how can the government conspire against itself.....maybe.......
Actually, Bush winning the election was a government conspiracy......by the government......wait how can the government conspire against itself.....maybe.......
The Herald explained in an April 5 follow-up story that canvassing boards in Broward and Palm Beach counties "could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote, a review of ballots in both counties shows
Yeah...let's just drop any semblance of a standard (the standard used the most being the hanging chad...two corners detached) in order to drum up more votes.
G E T...O V E R...I T ! ! !
Yeah...let's just drop any semblance of a standard (the standard used the most being the hanging chad...two corners detached) in order to drum up more votes.
G E T...O V E R...I T ! ! !
Nope, just legal votes according to the written laws of Florida at the time of the election. Gore got the most legal votes state wide. I know it's hurts, but it's the facts.
ub4me;
As you'll notice and as I've found Americans, at least Americans on this forum, have become a people who can't address issues as they are presented. They resort to attacking the messenger or the source when the facts are irrefutable.
Bush lost the popular election, was elected by the electoral college after the Supreme Court (packed with conservative Republican nominees) entered the election and stopped a sovereign state from conducting its own election process.
Since that time our new leader has run a government for, of and by the corporations. When presented with information about the likelihood of terrorists using airliners to attack major US cities the administration turned their backs and allowed the events of 9/11 to happen. If that's too farfetched for you the administration has at the very least used the events of that day to curtail personal freedom and begin an illegal war of imperialism against a sovereign state. Bush and Co. have used the events of 9/11 to shamelessly pursue their personal agenda.
Read the writings of Paul D. Wolfowitz. His 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. Read the ideas of The Project for a New American Century.
These people are radical imperialists. They are described well in the Guardian piece you site.
As you'll notice and as I've found Americans, at least Americans on this forum, have become a people who can't address issues as they are presented. They resort to attacking the messenger or the source when the facts are irrefutable.
Bush lost the popular election, was elected by the electoral college after the Supreme Court (packed with conservative Republican nominees) entered the election and stopped a sovereign state from conducting its own election process.
Since that time our new leader has run a government for, of and by the corporations. When presented with information about the likelihood of terrorists using airliners to attack major US cities the administration turned their backs and allowed the events of 9/11 to happen. If that's too farfetched for you the administration has at the very least used the events of that day to curtail personal freedom and begin an illegal war of imperialism against a sovereign state. Bush and Co. have used the events of 9/11 to shamelessly pursue their personal agenda.
Read the writings of Paul D. Wolfowitz. His 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. Read the ideas of The Project for a New American Century.
These people are radical imperialists. They are described well in the Guardian piece you site.
The laws stated a standard method to determine the voter's intent is to be used during a recount. It didn't state the particular method. However, the prevailing standard to determine the voter's intent was the hanging chad. Carol Roberts took it upon herself to change that standard TWICE during the ACTUAL recount process in Palm Beach County. Totally absurd.
So, by that statement, your assertions that Gore would have gained more votes are only based on tossing out that prevailing standard and using a much looser interpretation that borders on divination.
A generalization. There is plenty of good debate if you look past the rhetoric.
Hmm...more rhetoric and a heavily biased statement. BTW, the SCOTUS voted 7-2 to stop the recounts. Only two dissenters, mind you. The 5-4 vote was only on the remedy and the decision was that a full statewide recount could not be performed yet still allow time for recourse in the courts, as is required.
More rhetoric that borders on conspiracy theory.
Will have to look into that.
The people who write the Guardian are radical leftists.
See...generalizations work both ways.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter