• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Michael Moores letter to the President

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Then let me CLARIFY, I don't dispute illegal activites in the state of Illinois and I don't condome them in any instance. there is your answer, where is mine?
Click to expand...

Let's see - it depends on what your question was.

Was it:
Perhaps the anger comes from the court not allowing the time available to be put to proper use, what was the rush?
Click to expand...

My answer to that - the Supreme Court chose the response that any common person would. How many recounts had already taken place? How many more were going to take place? (Answer - as many as it took until Gore won) If Gore was so interested in the interest of the people, why didn't he want recounts in states that he (very) narrowly won (see New Mexico)? He wasn't interested in anything other than winning the election.

Was your question:
You are comparing the actions of political parties to those of the Supreme court, can you not even see the difference?????
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court's decision had been the opposite (i.e., go ahead and recount only the counties you want recounted), would you have the same amount of vitriol for them? I'd bet you wouldn't. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying "all or nothing". In other words, there was no illegal activity.

I think that answers all of your questions. Let me know if I missed any, ok?
Click to expand...


The supreme court hardly followed common sense. Gore's interest was obvious as would anyones have been in that situation, of course he war more concerned with winning. Do I think Bush had legitimate claims about other states, yes, was he denied any chance to chellenge those? no. I ersonally feel if they had allowed a recount it should have been statewide and included ALL military ballots cast overseas. If they had only agreed to certain counties, yes , I would have equally appalled.

That supreme courts decision hardly means there was no illegal activity that took place within the state of Florida, can you please explain your logic in this statement?

 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
so your reasoning becomes it has been done before to my party, so it was our turn and justified?
Click to expand...

Was this directed to me? I believe I made a clear distinction between the two.

Besides, what is "my party"? The only party I belong to is the PCS - Party of Common Sense.
 
We know he has WMD
Click to expand...

How do we know? So far the weapons inspectors and gov't intelligence won't conclusively say, and I'm sure if they did have conclusive evidence the Bush administration would be more than eager to broadcast it. I am not opposed to a war when it comes to defending America. Bush's eagerness to go to war without waiting for a smoking gun to show up is not defending America. It is irrational.
 
I never saw any of Moore's movies, and only saw him once (on The Daily Show, I think) prior to reading this thread. In other words, I had no opinion on the guy.

After reading his letter, I've decided that he is an a$$hat. There are valid reasons for disputing the imminent war with Iraq. He used none of them, or at least used facts and reasoning that a kindergartener would be ashamed to use.

On a subtopic in this thread: The economy - the internet bubble burst and then 9-11 happened. Greenspan has cut interest rates to insignificant levels. How is this Bush's fault?

On a subtopic in this thread: Presidential election results - IIRC the difference in general votes was statistically insignificant.

And now that you mention it, Moonbeam's avatar DOES bear a startling resemblance to Moore...
 
Originally posted by: yellowperil
We know he has WMD
Click to expand...

How do we know? So far the weapons inspectors and gov't intelligence won't conclusively say, and I'm sure if they did have conclusive evidence the Bush administration would be more than eager to broadcast it. I am not opposed to a war when it comes to defending America. Bush's eagerness to go to war without waiting for a smoking gun to show up is not defending America. It is irrational.
Click to expand...

<banging head against a wall>

It's a known fact that stores of Anthrax and VX gas are unaccounted for from the known stockpiles that Saddam had. Have you not read Blix's report??
 
Originally posted by: yellowperil
Bush's eagerness to go to war without waiting for a smoking gun to show up is not defending America. It is irrational.
Click to expand...

What was our reason for going to war with Germany?
 
conjur, you seem to be willing to look up a few things, tell the rest of us when ALaska finally submitted their vote counts in the KEnnedy elction, I'll bet it was after the deadline you linked.
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
That supreme courts decision hardly means there was no illegal activity that took place within the state of Florida, can you please explain your logic in this statement?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you call "illegal". According to the Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court order to recount votes could be construed as illegal:

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.
Click to expand...

(Man, I wish I had Acrobat at work. It's a pain retyping long passages.)

 
Originally posted by: tk149
I never saw any of Moore's movies, and only saw him once (on The Daily Show, I think) prior to reading this thread. In other words, I had no opinion on the guy.

After reading his letter, I've decided that he is an a$$hat. There are valid reasons for disputing the imminent war with Iraq. He used none of them, or at least used facts and reasoning that a kindergartener would be ashamed to use.

On a subtopic in this thread: The economy - the internet bubble burst and then 9-11 happened. Greenspan has cut interest rates to insignificant levels. How is this Bush's fault?

On a subtopic in this thread: Presidential election results - IIRC the difference in general votes was statistically insignificant.

And now that you mention it, Moonbeam's avatar DOES bear a startling resemblance to Moore...
Click to expand...


So the Dot Com blowup readjusted the market to true levels, but if they are only realistic today the whole market value is still over double than when Clinton took office...
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
conjur, you seem to be willing to look up a few things, tell the rest of us when ALaska finally submitted their vote counts in the KEnnedy elction, I'll bet it was after the deadline you linked.
Click to expand...

Haven't found anything yet...looking 😉
 
COULD be or WERE illegal, there isa dramatic difference. Look if you canbt vaildate what you say or think, dont post it, you were the one who inferred the SUpreme Courts decision was proof no illegal activity took place. One must then assume because there was no Supreme Court decison that stated illegal activity took place in the Kennedy election, therefore it didn't...?

"If the Supreme Court's decision had been the opposite (i.e., go ahead and recount only the counties you want recounted), would you have the same amount of vitriol for them? I'd bet you wouldn't. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying "all or nothing". In other words, there was no illegal activity."

This is your FULL statement I am objecting to, the supreme court said all or nothing, therefore no voters rights were infringed at the polls, no one was "mistakenly" not given a chance to vote when there was no legal reason they should have been denied their RIGHT. How did the Supreme Courts decision make these civil crimes legal?
 
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
Originally posted by: yellowperil
Bush's eagerness to go to war without waiting for a smoking gun to show up is not defending America. It is irrational.
Click to expand...

What was our reason for going to war with Germany?
Click to expand...

Because we were attacked by Japan and Germany was part of the Axis Powers. However, if you are trying to compare that situation with this one, we can't prove that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Alistar7
conjur, you seem to be willing to look up a few things, tell the rest of us when ALaska finally submitted their vote counts in the KEnnedy elction, I'll bet it was after the deadline you linked.
Click to expand...

Haven't found anything yet...looking 😉
Click to expand...

Gracias, have to step out for awhile, keep the debate hot for me, lol, if you like when I come back I will argue fervently on behalf of the GOP, usually a little easier given their rather simplistic positions....
 
Also, if Saddam is such an iminent threat, why didn't Bush make that his number one priority when campaigning for president? You'd think in the face of such a crisis he wouldn't wait until 2 years into his presidency when the economy was tanking to bring it up then.
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7

Gracias, have to step out for awhile, keep the debate hot for me, lol, if you like when I come back I will argue fervently on behalf of the GOP, usually a little easier given their rather simplistic positions....
Click to expand...

😛
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
How did the Supreme Courts decision make these civil crimes legal?
Click to expand...

How would you rectify the situation? Allow certain counties to be recounted? Allow the whole state to be recounted? What guidelines would you set forth for determining the "intent of the voter"? The Supreme Court has limitations on what they can and can't do. They trusted the first recount of the (recounted) votes in Florida. Why would any further recounts vary? The Supreme Court argued that there was no consistency in the manner used to recount votes, even in the same polling place.

Considering these were Floridians, counting votes of other Floridians, and they couldn't consistently recount votes, who is the onus to be placed upon?
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Gracias, have to step out for awhile, keep the debate hot for me, lol, if you like when I come back I will argue fervently on behalf of the GOP, usually a little easier given their rather simplistic positions....
Click to expand...

Common sense is simple, isn't it?
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
conjur, you seem to be willing to look up a few things, tell the rest of us when ALaska finally submitted their vote counts in the KEnnedy elction, I'll bet it was after the deadline you linked.
Click to expand...

I cannot find anything showing Alaska's electoral votes were submitted at the end of December, 1960. Alaska's statutes state:

Sec. 15.30.070. Place and time of meeting. The electors shall meet at the office of the director or other place designated by the director at 11:00 o?clock in the morning on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election. If Congress fixes a different day for the meeting, the electors shall meet on the day designated by the Act of Congress. (Sec. 6.07 ch 83 SLA 1960; am sec. 146 ch 100 SLA 1980)

The same as the US Code.

Now, Alaska and Hawaii submitted electoral votes for the 1st time in 1960 so maybe that had something to do with delayed results? But I've searched all over the NARA (electoral college) site and all over Google and haven't found anything.

But the 1960 elections don't change what happened in 2000 and, as I posted above, the SCOTUS decided that the recounts currently underway were unconstitutional and that the recounts could not be completed by the deadline set by the US Code and still allow recourse in the courts, as required.
 
Or so we have been led to believe.. Apparently not in this forum
Click to expand...
Er, wrong. Getting bashed for having a loonie's opinion is not harming your ability to have an opinion. You're being as bad as Moore.
If the mods were to remove your post for having the said opinion, *then* you would not have the ability to have and express your own opinion.
 
We love france? Shouldn't this guy be bowling or something...
Click to expand...
Moore loves France, "we" don't love France.

Moore loves France because they love him. He goes over there and does his speil like 'The USA - my country - sucks! Its corrupt, racist, blood-lusting, rightwing neo-nazi capitalist, and the rest of my fellow Americans are too apathetic or brainwashed to realize it'.

They start to swoon and bubble and coo over Moore when he does that. U.S. bashing has always been fashionable in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top