Al Gore is actualy president

Colonel you are very ignoarnt to say or imply that all Republicans are racist. Some of you Democrats are racist too. Look at Senaotr Robery "KKK" Byrd. He's a Democrat and he was a Klansman.

The colonel spelled it out but you still ignore the truth.

The REPUBLICAN leadership in Florida threw out the Dem voting card and either reissued or redid the cards themselves, without the voters knowledge or consent.
For all they knew, the registered republicans may have voted for another candidate on purpose.

The screw job goes much deeper than you may imagine or wish to acknowledge. Read the reports online from the independant commision that reviewed the election results and shinanigans that were perpetrated by the BushCrimeFamily.

I happen to agree with that -- it's over and done, move on people there's nothing to see here -- mentality. But, for one to base their agrument against the 2000 presidential fix on whining black folk and then trace said whining back to the sixties is not only racist but uninformed, because if you are going to call demanding equal protection under the law whining then you would have to trace that all the way back to the birth of this nation. The issue here is were voters illegally denied the right to vote...it has nothing to do with the color of the voters skin. Any person that dismisses the issue solely on the basis of the color of the voters skin is being racist.

I have to agree with Colonel on this one Mr.Burns made a racist offensive statement no matter what party he supports. I don't agree that all republicans are racist but they are somewhat prone to have these outburst that make seem to have racist leanings.

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by Saphronia]

Originally posted by Saphronia

I don't agree that all republicans are racist but they are somewhat prone to have these outburst that make seem to have racist leanings.

For you, what is a racist leaning ?

a racist leaning:

I don't agree with affirmative action because WE'VE given black folk enough. THEY have had enough time since the civil rights act of 1964 to become totally independant of the governments help.

^^^
this separates black people out of the whole of the protected groups...which includes all women and all other people of color including immigrants. it also generalizes black folk as the only ones using government help when all people are represented on welfare rolls...recieve government grants for higher education.... government grants for research and development....community projects...ect. the person that sees this issue in this way is racist because they object on bases of the color of the persons skin that is recieveing the help. More often than not this person objected to the civil rights act of 1964.

The fact that blacks are not the only ones filling these slots, and affirmative action helps more white women than it helps people of color doesn't even occur to this racist. Beside that the fact, there are few people completely independant of the governments help--including congress who make their living off of government. The semi-social programs of the government are but a drop in the bucket and rarely effects folk on a personal basis but the racist sees this a directly effecting him or his childrens rights...less than 12% of the population getting in on some of the wealth.

Still poverty in most of the protected groups is staggering no social program will prevent that. This type of scapegoating is what keeps folk separated.

The things that were said were happening in Florida during the election, up to and including the attempts to thwart minority voting, is obviously nonsensical lies attempting to cloud the election. Had any of the allegations been true, the mainstream media would have doggedly pursued it. As far as the factual attempts to thwart conservative votes, both overseas and in the panhandle area, have been documented and are a non-issue as Bush maintained what he rightfully won.
The nauseating thing is that people overlook what really happened and cling to what did not, in order to stand by their party's corrupt attempts to steal the presidency.

As far as the Republicans' outbursts of racism, please show evidence. The republican platform contains no racist plank that I've seen, unless you consider everyone being given the same opportunity as the other and one's success is based on one's worth and work instead of one's color. If a party was bigoted, it is obviously the democratic party. Personally, I'd find it very condescending to be told that I need special merit for my color elsewise I could not compete with the "superior" white people. Wake up and recognize the racism where it is, and recognize the sickening vote pandering.

TC

I have enjoyed challenging your logic and media savvy in the past couple of days. You say, referring to election rigging accusations, that:

"Had any of the allegations been true, the mainstream media would have doggedly pursued it."

Why then did it take so long for the mainstream media to pursue the lies and bullsh*t perpetrated by the same corrupt administration, about WMDs in Iraq? They swallow the party line, until the evidence is overwhelming. Overseas, outside of the US, we don't swallow, we spit.

There are many reasons why the mainstream media haven't seen or chosen to publish the overwhelming evidence of election fraud yet. Many many distractions, bigger fish to fry... but it will all be out there. Guaranteed.

At the time of the elections, and many weeks afterward, there was no bigger fish to fry. Anything to take the light off the fact that the "Dummy" was out-politcking the democrats would have been a blessed thing to the liberal media that supports left-wing democrat politics. Passing on rumors of police interference with the voting of minorities is one thing, dogging the Republicans over such an allegation would be a huge backfire if it weren't true.

TC

I agree with you about the Democrats' tactics at the time.

The ducks are more in formation now, the line of sight is clear, no backfiring or accidental killing of one's own hunting party will occur.

But I wish I had more faith in the justice system.

Post-election, the level of suppression of information from/by all media was extraordinary. Suppression is a really interesting thing.

Information can be easily suppressed for years. There is now a flock of kids where I am, who only saw the 'lunar landing hoax' documentaries last week, who weren't born in 1969, who armed with their new info now know positively that Apollo 11 never touched moon dirt. Or so they think, with a passion.

The whole process of suppressing and spiking stories, and having people come out with them again months or years later in some sensationalistic package, is how conspiracy theories develop.

What's interesting in the 2000 election fraud is how recent it is, and how it's only now coming before the Courts, as a series of documented facts rather than a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as the Republicans' outbursts of racism, please show evidence. The republican platform contains no racist plank that I've seen, unless you consider everyone being given the same opportunity as the other and one's success is based on one's worth and work instead of one's color. If a party was bigoted, it is obviously the democratic party. Personally, I'd find it very condescending to be told that I need special merit for my color elsewise I could not compete with the "superior" white people. Wake up and recognize the racism where it is, and recognize the sickening vote pandering.

Well, of course the republican party won't say, "Look at me, I'm a racist." But you have to look at their actions. We all know about Trent Lott so I won't go over that. Next, we have John Ashcroft who had did a little extensive piece in the Southern Partisan, an openly white supremist magazine. Then, we have every republican who wants to be somebody speaking at Bob Jones University, a blatantly racist university. Then, of course, there is the race issue in Florida elections.

I dunno, these things don't give any real reason to have ANY love for republicans, cut them any slack, or give them the benefit of the doubt.

wow that is very interesting. i didn't now that. why isn't al gore running for 2004 presidential office

HE'S NOT!!! Well he should, I know a lot more people would vote for him this time(more than last time when he should have won).

a sad point Masked-A about what Orwell might have called the "memory hole". I fear however that the time-span necessary grows shorter by the year.
On the racist thing: we've done this stuff to death and it all depends on what one means by race ( and except in such relatively arbitrary cases as the Jews who are a "race" by religion, or obscure ethnic groups -it's almost meaningless) and all too often one should stop hiding and call a spade a spade (no pun intended) and talk about "colour".
But politicians will reflect or seem to reflect what they think the masses will vote for: no doubt there are Dems who keep a secret hoard of tar and feathers who are screaming "affirmative action" as I type. Just as there will be Reps who are closet queens and who are baying for restrictions on homosexuals.
By and large, they say what they think you want to hear.
A favourite device of the Middle Ages (when people were generally far better educated and more intelligent than now because they had to do their own thinking without the aid of mass media) was a fool's face with the words "Tu quoque": "you too" or "you're the same".
WE do well to ask ourselves who are fools? The villains and hypocrites we all too often unwittingly elect: or those who elected these people.
When the last person has stopped despising another because of his or her skin colour/ ethnic background, we'll have no more racist politics.

I find it hard (directed to USMC Harrier), that Colonel with his garbage reports and opinionated garabge, has proven that Al Gore is actually president.

Why has he failed? Because what happend was constitutional and there was no foul play, unlike others would like to believe, as I have pointed out.

It is the liberals in this thread who are confused, and illusioned.

Hell half of you didn't even know Al Gore wasn't running for 2004.

The Dems will no doubt wade in at the next farce with allegations, hints and aspersions about the �racist� Rep�s. Because the Dems are the friends of all? I doubt it. The blacks will seldom vote for the GOP; but �more importantly �they relatively seldom (for whatever reason) go out and vote for anybody ( it�s not entirely unlike the Klan and other �supremacists� who will vote Rep because there�s not really anyone else) so, if there�s a group that the Dems need it will be the blacks and other hyphenated Americans. To a considerable extent a Dem victory depends on getting non-voters to vote.
Are Al Gore and the other �southern Democrats� really Abe Lincoln (who, in fact, probably cared little about the issue other than in so far as it touched upon states� rights of secession)? The Dems, I take it, have NEVER had any power in Mississippi and Alabama? Is it a fiction that Texas Republicans have nominated more blacks in the past five years than Texas Democrats have since 1872?
Democrats changed the Georgia state flag in 1956. A Dem governor, Orville Faubus gained fame (or infamy) blocking a school door to bar blacks. Fullbright and Gore ( the father) voted against every civil rights bills.
It�s politics � and you get what you deserve

Originally posted by RobertBurns
I find it hard (directed to USMC Harrier), that Colonel with his garbage reports and opinionated garabge, has proven that Al Gore is actually president.

Why has he failed? Because what happend was constitutional and there was no foul play, unlike others would like to believe, as I have pointed out.

It is the liberals in this thread who are confused, and illusioned.

Hell half of you didn't even know Al Gore wasn't running for 2004.

I don't account for half the people, how is it that a number a people here have stated evidence of vote tampering. Al Gore was stated president before Bush, then they change their mind? No it doesn't work like that.

And we might add (a) it is a matter of fact that blacks who immigrate into the US do significantly better than the home-born sort (it's there in the statistics publications) and that (b) one of the big problems in Florida is the relatively large number of small Democrate counties (the results of Dem gerrymandering and rigging) and we might note that in the last census one of these counties returned an adult literacy rate of 57%!! Whose fault's that? They run the school boards etc.
Estragon is not an American and has no interest other than the historical, political and intellectual, in either party ( though I'll admit that, were I one of the citizenry of the second most populous of our former colonies, I'd vote GOP); but it's as plain as can be that relying upon the public words of partisan politicians is less than sane, and that the best place to start looking for "who to blame" is probably the mirror.

Originally posted by Estragon
Dems need it will be the blacks and other hyphenated Americans.

Exactly, hyphenated americans. The Democrats peddle this "African-American" "Mexican-American" garbage, so that they can gain "minority votes" by maintaining a minority.

Funny, in most nations around the world, there's no such thing as "black-xxx" and "hispanic-xxx" there's just "xxx".

All Democrats here should think long and hard on the effect of "racism" that hyphenation gives. In fact, racism breaths because of hyphenation.

Hyphenation is just another form of labeling like Ni.gg.er and Spic.

I hope you democrats are all proud.

Also Joshter I suggest you learn more about the Supreme Court, calling Gore president was not the "correct" statement, the Supreme Court then denied the Democrat's recount in a county that voted 90% democratic (gee I wonder why...a little unfair to the miscounted republican votes if you ask me...)

You have much learning to do, along with Colonel, and most others in defense of this topic.

Now go, and think long and hard on this entire post, not just part of it...

Originally posted by Saphronia
a racist leaning:

I don't agree with affirmative action because WE'VE given black folk enough. THEY have had enough time since the civil rights act of 1964 to become totally independant of the governments help.

I think when you give some specials rights to an ethnic group ( blacks, whites, yellows...pick up the color you want ), it's an advantage for this group, but in the same time, it's a disadvantage for the others groups who don't receive the same advantage.

So, it's a racist behavior. To favor a distinct group is not the solution.We have all to be equal. When " you " have a right that " I " don't have, " we " are not equal. The laws have to be the same for all for us.

I.e, I see the ethnics quotas as a racist behavior. Also, it's pretty evident, when a group have a special advantage that the other group has not, some problems and tensions will appear between these 2 groups. Equality is the key word. Special advantage doesn't fit with equality.

" Al Gore was stated president before Bush, then they change their mind? No it doesn't work like that."


Not sure when that ever happened but I know that Gore did concede the race and then took back his concession which is his right but I can't see how the media declaring Gore the victor actually becomes official because if that were the case, there would have been no reason to have the election to begin with. I'm not sure who "they" were unless you're refering to the Fla. supreme court who didn't declare Gore the winner, only handed down a verdict to suspend the state's law reguarding the the time limit in which recounts could take place as well as shorten the time military absentee aballots could count. That was later overturned by the Fed. supreme court because its basis was unfounded. See. Courts aren't supposed to make new laws just see that the laws made by legislature are upheld. A court has no right or power to make law just to interpret it and the Fla. law left no room for any other interpretation and the Fla. supreme court could not show a basis for their decision to the fed supreme court and I believe they were asked to eventually show how they reached their decision but I haven't heard if they ever did. They attempted to change law and make new law and that is not within their power. Now, if the majority wants laws changed to do away with it, then it has to be done in legislation and it has to be done before the election it applies to. We can't play the game and then make the rules to give us the winner we want. The rules were already in place and to assume that one side did all the cheating and the other was totally clean is a fool's lament.