The sad thing is what happened, after the supreme court decision. Bush policies
that ruined our economy. Tax cuts that bankrupted us. What a disaster. If gore
had been handed the election, we would of continued the Clinton era tax rates,
and as projected would of had a surpluss, instead of mounting debt. Like i said
What a disaster.As far as today is concerned,, we need to let the disasterous
Bush tax cuts expire, like they should have a year ago. They didnt work. They
were a dissaster. Let them expire, not only on the rich , but on all of us. We
need to start paying up. Go back to the Clinton rates. Remember, when we were in
unprecidented peace and prosperity.
>Mike RichardsYou seem to have a strange malfunction on your computer.
For some reason, writing the word tax seems to activate your caps lock key. You
might want to get that looked at.Flaws in the Florida voter purge were
first noticed by Hillsborough County's election supervisor, Earl Lennard, a
Republican. He said the names being purged were mostly eligible voters.
Source: Miami Herald. Florida was purging eligible voters--them's the
facts.As far as the tax vs. penalty thing, for the solicitor general to
make an argument that the proposed penalty was a penalty not a tax is just a
normal part of a legal brief--you make a lot of arguments, and hope the court
likes one. Nobody called anybody a liar, and the mechanism for collecting it is
the same. So, fine, it's a tax. Big deal. I would have preferred to call
it a tax all along--we need to combat taxophobia whenever possible. We're
citizens--we pay taxes.
To "Ronald J. Hrebenar" put down the liberal coolaid. Gore lost the
election no matter how you look at it.From the NY Times we read
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding
Vote" in that article they found that "A close examination of the
ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr.
Gore".This was repeated in the Washington Post article
"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"The study that
multiple news organizations paid for found that if Florida went through the
recount according to Florida Law that Bush would have won. Gore only would have
won if you changed the rules.Yes, Michael Moore lied to you.
@Mike Richards"NO ONE is being purged from voter rolls who is eligible
to vote"Uh, one of the county elections chairmen (a Republican)
did not implement it in his area because over 95% of the names to be purged are
eligible US citizens. Then again, that would require you to google it, and
Republicans never factcheck anything, they'd rather just look it up in
Eric,NO ONE is being purged from voter rolls who is eligible to
vote. You made the assertion. If you believe differently, prove your point.
Obama can't prove his. A federal judge has overruled him. If your proof
is better than Obama's, then let that judge know.Contrary to
your opinion, Justice Roberts just made Obama eat his own dog-food. That term
is often used in the computer world, where I spend most of my time. It means
that when you have an idea or a theory, you prove it and then you use it from
that point onward. Obama told us that Obamacare was not a TAX. Justice Roberts
and the majority on the Court told us that Obama was lying; that Obamacare WAS a
tax. You might not like the fact that Obama was told that he was a liar, but
that doesn't change history. John Roberts not only told us that Obama was
a liar, but he also told us that elections have consequences, and he implied
that if we disagreed with Obamacare that we could easily correct it in the next
>joe5Wikipedia's article on the recount is comprehensive and
clear. Check Wikipedia "Florida Election Recount." As for
Chicago, I'm not sure I see the relevance. I'm from Indiana, and
growing up, we all knew about the corruption of Chicago politics. But that was
over 50 years ago. Has nothing to do with elections today. >Mike
Richards No one is trying to keep people who are here illegally on voter
roles. In Florida, attempts are being made to purge voter roles, and a lot of
the people purged have every right to vote. The Obama administration is trying
to ensure than everyone eligible to vote can. I get that conservatives are
trying to make something reasonable sound sinister, but the facts aren't on
your side. As for the Constitution hanging by a thread, I think Justice Roberts
just reversed that tendency.
When it is so easy to google things about history, why do the democrats insist
on rewriting history? Which party was trying to tell us that they could look at
a "pregnant chad" and determine that the voter really meant to vote for
Gore? The Democrats were trying to repeat in 2000 what they got
away with in 1960. This time, the country had had enough of their shenanigans
and they weren't able to steal an election.Already they're
showing that they will do anything that it takes to "take" the next
election. Obama is trying to keep tens of thousands of non-documented
"citizens" on the voter roles. What kind of President, who has taken an
oath to uphold the law and to execute the law, would try to keep illegal voters
on the voting rolls?The Constitution is hanging by a thread and
about half of the citizens seem to think that abandoning law is the way to do
the right thing.
Please provide the evidence that shows Gore winning even one recount. It just
ain't there. There was never a count in which Gore had the majority of
Florida votes.The Supreme Court ruled that Florida had to follow its
own constitution with regard to election rules, recounts, and their respective
time frames. What controversy is there in that decision?History
actually shows that voter fraud by Democrats is far more prevalent than voter
fraud by Republicans. Chicago is the running joke about dead people voting,
often more than once. The Daley machine of eelction fraud, honed in Chicago to a
fine art, became a mainline Democratic strategy that has since been used
nationally. Why do the Democrats not want voters to show IDs? Why do they oppose
verification of absentee ballots against death records? Why do they support
voting by non-citizens? Is visibility and transparency a problem for the
Democrats? Even under the administration of the President who promised complete
transparency and has delivery only secrecy (see Eric Holder)?Be
careful where you go with this argument. I could argue, probably even more
convincingly than this letter-writer, that Kennedy was fraudulently elected.
Excellent article. One small correction: if you read Gore's actual
remarks, he didn't overstate his role in the creation of the internet.
What he said was factually accurate.
Tilden had the same controversy. The author of this letter can he back his
claims up. Nader running didn't help. Buchanan almost gave the presidency
to Gore that Isolasionist. voters were legit there Bush won fair and square.
Why weren't all of the counties recounted multiple times? Not fair there.
Excellent letter. But Americans have very short attention spans and memories.
If it's not entertaining . . . . well forget it.
It is election fraud we need to worry about, not voter fraud.
At some point we'll forget that controversy ever happened. It's
already nearly gone from our collective attention. But I do wonder
what the country would be like now if the intelligent but dull guy on the right
of that photo were given the presidency instead of the interesting but clearly
below par guy on the left. I don't at all like what the interesting guy
did. Seems to me overstating one's role in the creation of the internet and
being hypocritical about carbon emissions is far better than fabricating a war
that cost thousands upon thousands of lives.