gibby08;415896 wrote:Gore was down 98 votes with 51 states left to count...

Howard Baker...who ran the recount for Bush said that had the recount been allowed to continue,with the projections he and his team were getting,Gore would have won by around 3,000 votes

Jeffery Toobin put it perfectly in regards to the 2000 election..."We do not know,nor will we ever know who won the 2000 Presidential Election"

The media went back 6 months after the fact and recounted every single disputed ballot, using every criteria possible. Gore lost. Again.

Take heart though, he'll go down as the only schmuck to lose the same election 4 farking times. :rolleyes:

gibby08;415896 wrote:
Jeffery Toobin put it perfectly in regards to the 2000 election..."We do not know,nor will we ever know who won the 2000 Presidential Election"

Seems pretty clear to me that the person who took the oath of office won. Handy sports concept - scoreboard.

Go back and do some-research...

We will never know who really won as there was way too much corruption

You all know Bush did not fairly win(if he really won at all)

gibby08;415896 wrote:Jeffery Toobin put it perfectly in regards to the 2000 election..."We do not know,nor will we ever know who won the 2000 Presidential Election"

LMAO...Toobin's a leftist hack.

gibby08;415896 wrote:Gore was down 98 votes with 51 states left to count...

Howard Baker...who ran the recount for Bush said that had the recount been allowed to continue,with the projections he and his team were getting,Gore would have won by around 3,000 votes

Jeffery Toobin put it perfectly in regards to the 2000 election..."We do not know,nor will we ever know who won the 2000 Presidential Election"

Here all this time I thought there were 57 states total; now you mean to tell me there are 51 states in the state of Florida?

jhay78;416179 wrote:Here all this time I thought there were 57 states total; now you mean to tell me there are 51 states in the state of Florida?

Only if the hanging chad is recounted at least 4 times!

gibby08;416138 wrote: You all know Bush did not fairly win(if he really won at all)

I know who took the oath on January 20. The rest is bullshit.

When you put radical leftists in charge this is what you get:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html


"...searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry."

The lunacy continues ..........................

Change we can believe in ..................................

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

“55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama”


Hopefully the majority has awakened in time.

Quaker...come on man...

What do you expect a conservative blog site to say??

gibby08;417980 wrote:Quaker...come on man...

What do you expect a conservative blog site to say??

The artcle says the poll was done by James Carville's firm.

QuakerOats;417972 wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

“55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama”


Hopefully the majority has awakened in time.

Most people in the US still think Socialist is some bad term synonymous with Communist/Russians/the bad guys. So any study is inherently flawed. Decades of propaganda will do that.

QuakerOats;416213 wrote:When you put radical leftists in charge this is what you get:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html


"...searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry."

The lunacy continues ..........................

Change we can believe in ..................................

The only true leftist president since I've been alive was Lyndon Johnson. All the rest were moderates. You can't really call Obama a leftist whenever he has increased military spending to unparalleled levels and has cut taxes in spite of a high national debt. And I won't even mention the fact that he escalated wars in 2 countries.

Another communist appointed:


http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-appoints-radical-communist-pal-to-head-medicare-medicaid-video/

But the messiah is not a leftist.

Change we can believe in .....................

I Wear Pants;418058 wrote:Most people in the US still think Socialist is some bad term synonymous with Communist/Russians/the bad guys. So any study is inherently flawed. Decades of propaganda will do that.

Do you think it (Socialist) is a bad term in and of itself?
What about expanding socialism?

Wow, you mean the rich won't be as rich, but will still be rich ?

He11, thats not right.

I don't see a problem with somebody being rich, super-rich or ultra-hyper-infinite rich.
And I don't see a problem with those rich people staying rich.

I don't give a damn. And I'm not even rich. (or close to it)

gibby08;415896 wrote:Gore was down 98 votes with 51 states left to count...

Howard Baker...who ran the recount for Bush said that had the recount been allowed to continue,with the projections he and his team were getting,Gore would have won by around 3,000 votes

Jeffery Toobin put it perfectly in regards to the 2000 election..."We do not know,nor will we ever know who won the 2000 Presidential Election"

51 states, is that you BHO?

CenterBHSFan;418175 wrote:Do you think it (Socialist) is a bad term in and of itself?
What about expanding socialism?

It isn't a bad term per se but it is considered one by most people in the United States.

I don't know what you mean by expanding socialism (I get the concept but not specifically what you're talking about being expanded).

Theoretically I'd like to have no socialistic policies because it'd be sweet if we could do everything as a pure free market. But that doesn't work. Where I disagree with most of the posters on this board is where and how much regulation is needed. But apparently most of you think I want a government take over of everything so...

I Wear Pants;418404 wrote:It isn't a bad term per se but it is considered one by most people in the United States.

I don't know what you mean by expanding socialism (I get the concept but not specifically what you're talking about being expanded).

Theoretically I'd like to have no socialistic policies because it'd be sweet if we could do everything as a pure free market. But that doesn't work. Where I disagree with most of the posters on this board is where and how much regulation is needed. But apparently most of you think I want a government take over of everything so...

We don't know what it's like in this country without things like socialized medicine, social security and other programs that come from somebody else's dollar - because it has been so long that we've had them. Sure there are a few old timers out there who remember what it's like, but they're the very slim minority. All we know from that time are what we read in books. But then history isn't always what happened, it is what was written down, eh? lol

I do think you know what kinds of things I'm meaning as far as expanding socialism. For instance - Obamacare.
(which, coincidently ties in with my next statement concerning regulations and/or government handling)

As far as regulations, I don't think anybody on here wants to do away with them altogether. I think the people on this board are pretty much saying that we, that means government, need to worry about practicing and enforcing the regulations that are already there, instead of piling on more. For some reason, anything that the government wants to control seems to get away from them rather easily. This goes for everything from BP to border protection to social security to medicaid/medicare and everything else in between. And instead of getting a grip on what is already there, they seem to think that the answer is to pile on yet more rules, regulations, social programs and power-grabs.

Why?
Why do we put up with it?
Why do we endorse it?
Why do we scoff at the people who are sick of it?
Why do we make fun of the people who are protesting it?
Why are we content with having what is obviously a learning disability?
Why are we complacent?
Why are there still people resisting these concepts every step of the way, including this message board?

Complacency = subjugation

^^^Spot on! Great post.

I agree with you on most of those points. There are many areas where I feel it would be better to either keep the same sort of rules and change how they are enforced or to perhaps scale back the rules. An area that I can use as an example is the policies we have towards the internet (DMCA, more recently ACTA, etc) that I believe not only overstep the bounds of what we should be doing but they aren't even effective at what they are supposed to be. Simplification in many areas would be nice. I don't understand why everything policy nowadays is like 700 pages.

Pants, I agree with the 700 pages or even 3,000 pages thing.

I just think that it is our job and our birthRIGHT to let our government know when they've gone too far or not gone far enough. Along with bitching, complaining and voting their asses out.

I can't disagree with you there. Which is why I send letters to my congressman fairly often.

CenterBHSFan;419512 wrote: Along with bitching, complaining and voting their asses out.

We already did that in 06 and 08.