quote:
Azizza scribbled:
Gore lost. Live with it.
The win for Bush was delivered by our friends at Diebold, whose computerized voting terminals reported -16,022 votes for Gore (yes, that's a negative number) in Volusia County. You'd think if Diebold was going to "help deliver electoral votes" to Bush as their CEO promised in a letter to the RNC by manipulating vote counts, they'd at least be smart enough about it not to manipulate Gore into having a negative vote count -- that just looks a tiny bit suspicious, no?
Too bad their machines don't keep an auditable paper trail (mainly because Diebold has lobbied strongly against it -- wonder why?) so we could find out what the real vote count in Florida was. [ 12-05-2003: Message edited by: Drysart ]
quote:
Drysart thought about the meaning of life:
The win for Bush was delivered by our friends at Diebold, whose computerized voting terminals reported -16,022 votes for Gore (yes, that's a negative number) in Volusia County. You'd think if Diebold was going to "help deliver electoral votes" to Bush as their CEO promised in a letter to the RNC by manipulating vote counts, they'd at least be smart enough about it not to manipulate Gore into having a negative vote count -- that just looks a tiny bit suspicious, no?Too bad their machines don't keep an auditable paper trail (mainly because Diebold has lobbied strongly against it -- wonder why?) so we could find out what the real vote count in Florida was.
Terrorist.
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Drak,WTF was that for? One of the few things I say that makes sense?
Bullshit.
Why don't you stop by next time you think I'm clueless, and explain to the world where I'm not making any sense.
I disagree in large part with your philosophical stances on many, many things. Your facts may be impeccable, but the conclusions you draw from them I personally disagree with. However, as my diagreement is simply my opinions, anything we'd debate would begin at an impasse, and thus it's pointless to debate them with you.
I was merely stating that, in this case, your opinions on the matter coincide with my own (no common feat, really). I figured I might as well phrase it in that sort of "friendly rivalry" terms that you use in reference to me, but apparently I should've included a " 
" to make that clear.
*Shrug.* Sorry for the offense. And trust me, I'm not going to be arguing opinions with you anytime soon. Finals-week is next week, and frankly I don't have the time to spare. Besides, it's a pointless endeavour. To state something that you and I have disagreed on a dozen times before: to me, any opinion on something such as human nature or what is "right" has its own value as an opinion. I have no more desire to question your opinions on "the way things are/ought to be" than I do for anyone else. Factual debates I'll put a word in for, but things which carry the weight of simple opinion are ludicrous to argue.
So, again, sorry for not phrasing my words in a more plainly playful tone. Not my intent to seem antagonistic. Now, back to paper-writing! Woo. 
[EDIT - Are. ARE. Blah, all this writing is messing with how I write. I think I've exhausted my inner-editor.] [ 12-05-2003: Message edited by: Drakkenmaw ]
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Naimah said:
The point is, even though he isn't the most prolific of speakers he is probably more intellegent then you or I. Unless you can claim undisputable supiriority you really shouldn't criticize since you are no expert in the fields that he has to deal with.
at this time id like to point out accourding to several internetsites (admittily anti bush) W had a C average in college and has been described as not all that swift.
It's true that your GPA is not neccacerly a indication of how smart you are. W nevertheless is popularly lampoon'd as a moron. There likly is a reason why.
quote:
Drakkenmaw had this to say about Robocop:
The losing side in that election wished to change the traditional rules, to create a greater chance that they would win. If you don't agree with the way the process is run, you change the process BEFORE or AFTER the election is held. You don't go "I'm losing this game, so now you have to bat blindfolded" in the middle of a baseball game, and you don't suddenly decide "pregnant chads" apply in the middle of an election. It is the mark of desperation to do so, and it does unfairly bend the rules..I agree.
Also... read up on the purpose of the electoral vs. popular vote sometime, before you go calling it stupid. The point of it is to GIVE a voice to everyone, on an only slightly-balanced weighting scale. A pure popular vote would mean it would be politically-expedient to just SKIP the Midwest, due to the lack of high-population centres there. Those states with low population would have no effective say in the governance of the country, because huge cities with millions of people would be the only effective way to win elections - thus effectively disenfranchising dozens of states without such massive groups of people..actualy the electoral college does the same the larger the state(by population) the more Electorial votes it has. thus its possible to win by electorial votes and not the popular vote, which is jsut what happened. Its true however that the elctorial votes can vote for the other canidate instead of following the popular vote in that state, but I am not aware of any time that has happened except maybe hayes?
I know, I know - it would be nice if your chosen candidate had won the last election based on his winning of the popular vote.
Gore wasnt my canidate I didnt like him nor Bush. I voted for Nader. Only concern I have is that I feel that the election was manipulated by both gore and bush and Bush managed to do a better job, to the extent that i was left feeling that he STOLE the election.
This is not to say that I support the electoral college in its present incarnation. I'd say it needs some reformation. But you certainly shouldn't just scrap the damn thing.
quote:
Somthor said this about your mom:
at this time id like to point out accourding to several internetsites (admittily anti bush) W had a C average in college and has been described as not all that swift.It's true that your GPA is not neccacerly a indication of how smart you are. W nevertheless is popularly lampoon'd as a moron. There likly is a reason why.
Wow, Somthor, this took some real balls. You know you are going to get hit hard for saying this by the grammar police.
Cue Parce and the others...123..
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Aquinas said:
Wow, Somthor, this took some real balls. You know you are going to get hit hard for saying this by the grammar police.Cue Parce and the others...123..
mmmm let me fix that. It should be better now.
At this time I'd like to point out according to several internet sites (admittedly anti bush) W had a C average in college and has been described as not all that swift.
It's true that your GPA is not necessarily a indication of how smart you are. W nevertheless is popularly lampoon'd as a moron. There likely is a reason why.
quote:
Somthor got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
It's true that your GPA is not necessarily a indication of how smart you are. W nevertheless is popularly lampoon'd as a moron. There likely is a reason why.
Every President ever elected has been popularly lampooned as a moron by the losing party. It's an American political tradition.
quote:
Snoota had this to say about Knight Rider:
Every President ever elected has been popularly lampooned as a moron by the losing party. It's an American political tradition.
Political tradition everywhere. Well, over here we ridicule all major parties more or less equally but still...
quote:
Drysart painfully thought these words up:
The win for Bush was delivered by our friends at Diebold, whose computerized voting terminals reported -16,022 votes for Gore (yes, that's a negative number) in Volusia County. You'd think if Diebold was going to "help deliver electoral votes" to Bush as their CEO promised in a letter to the RNC by manipulating vote counts, they'd at least be smart enough about it not to manipulate Gore into having a negative vote count -- that just looks a tiny bit suspicious, no?Too bad their machines don't keep an auditable paper trail (mainly because Diebold has lobbied strongly against it -- wonder why?) so we could find out what the real vote count in Florida was.
OK, that's a pretty serious accusation, and one I hadn't heard before (I fully admit, however, that I am not a "news junkie"). I gotta ask what the hell "Scoop" is, and why their claims on this issue are any more reliable than the Weekly World News or Time Cube or articles about Britney Spear's demise. If it's legit, I want to know, but I had never heard of that group before and I am automatically suspicious of anything posted on the Internet.....
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Niklas thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Political tradition everywhere. Well, over here we ridicule all major parties more or less equally but still...
Not everywhere.. We all know Honest Johnny Howard is a shrewd, highly intelligent and equally corrupt, deceitful, and vicious lying bastard.
quote:
Gydfather impressed everyone with:
OK, that's a pretty serious accusation, and one I hadn't heard before (I fully admit, however, that I am not a "news junkie"). I gotta ask what the hell "Scoop" is, and why their claims on this issue are any more reliable than the Weekly World News or Time Cube or articles about Britney Spear's demise. If it's legit, I want to know, but I had never heard of that group before and I am automatically suspicious of anything posted on the Internet.....
quote:
Blindy Claus stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm#appendix2
First, you didn't just cite me to the website I'm questioning to explain why I should find the website reliable, did you? If I did that with the Bible Karnaj would poop in my sock dra....oh, too late. 
Second, yes, I read the memos typed out in the Appendix, and I guess I'm supposed to assume they are legitimate. I've also searched down the chain to try to find the real memos, but have had little success. Every mirror (which in turn appears to be a mirror) has the memos in a format I can't use. I note that Diebold was issuing cease and desist letters, but while doing so they said they weren't conceding the memos were real. So I need to keep an open mind on that at this point until I have more information.
Third, even assuming legitimacy, does it show that there was a conspiracy or a mistake? I know some appear to make that jump, but a admittedly quick read of the memos seems to indicate that there was a problem and the Diebold claimed that a restart fixed it. CBS indicates that the reduction in Gore's vote total led them to call the state for Bush, but that the count was corrected that same night and they dropped it to too close to call, leading to the fracas with the votes, etc. But I did not see (and I admit I may have just missed it) any mention of a memo to the RNC promising a Bush victory, so I don't know the basis for that either at this point.
Finally, your cite does not answer my question. Who is Scoops, and why should I trust their reporting? Hell, I don't trust CNN on the Web because a significant portion of the time they are changing their Web stories ten minutes later because they had it all wrong....
I asked the question because Drysart is making a case for an alleged conspiracy to fix the election (rather than a series of errors which I am more likely to accept at this point because that seems clear to have happened, for Bush or against him, without any doubt), and I'd like to know the reliability of the sources for such a conspiracy theory (or conspiracy fact, what do I know).
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
same stuff. different source.
And i am as skeptical as you are that the election was actually fixed, but you asked to see their source so I'm providing it.
quote:
Only the presidential totals were incorrect. All the other races the sum of the votes + under votes + blank votes = sum of ballots cast.
The problem precinct had two memcory cards uploaded. The second one is the one I believe caused the problem. They were uploaded on the same port approx. 1 hour apart. As far as I know there should only have been one memory card uploaded. I asked you to check this out when the problem first occured but have not heard back as to whether this is true.
When the precinct was cleared and re-uploaded (only one memory card as far as I know) everything was fine.
Given that we transfer data in ascii form not binary and given the way the data was 'invalid' the error could not have occured during transmission. Therefore the error could only occur in one of four ways:
Corrupt memory card. This is the most likely explaination for the problem but since I know nothing about the 'second' memory card I have no ability to confirm the probability of this.
Invalid read from good memory card. This is unlikely since the candidates results for the race are not all read at the same time and the corruption was limited to a single race. There is a possiblilty that a section of the memory card was bad but since I do not know anything more about the 'second' memory card I cannot validate this.
Corruption of memory, whether on the host or Accu-Vote. Again this is unlikely due to the localization of the problem to a single race.
Invalid memory card (i.e. one that should not have been uploaded). There is always the possiblity that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload' came from an un-authorised source.
[ 12-05-2003: Message edited by: Blindy Claus ]
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Blindy Claus said this:
http://argote.ch/s/lists/support.w3archive/200101/index.html#00061same stuff. different source.
And i am as skeptical as you are that the election was actually fixed, but you asked to see their source so I'm providing it.
I know, just had to joke about the source of the source. Couldn't resist...
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Quoth Drakkenmaw:
I disagree in large part with your philosophical stances on many, many things. Your facts may be impeccable, but the conclusions you draw from them I personally disagree with. However, as my diagreement is simply my opinions, anything we'd debate would begin at an impasse, and thus it's pointless to debate them with you.I was merely stating that, in this case, your opinions on the matter coincide with my own (no common feat, really). I figured I might as well phrase it in that sort of "friendly rivalry" terms that you use in reference to me, but apparently I should've included a "
" to make that clear.
*Shrug.* Sorry for the offense. And trust me, I'm not going to be arguing opinions with you anytime soon. Finals-week is next week, and frankly I don't have the time to spare. Besides, it's a pointless endeavour. To state something that you and I have disagreed on a dozen times before: to me, any opinion on something such as human nature or what is "right" has its own value as an opinion. I have no more desire to question your opinions on "the way things are/ought to be" than I do for anyone else. Factual debates I'll put a word in for, but things which carry the weight of simple opinion are ludicrous to argue.
So, again, sorry for not phrasing my words in a more plainly playful tone. Not my intent to seem antagonistic. Now, back to paper-writing! Woo.
[EDIT - Are. ARE. Blah, all this writing is messing with how I write. I think I've exhausted my inner-editor.]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. 
I sometimes scan the boards before going into work, as I sip my cofee to wake up, and I haven't had much sleep this week. I've been accused of a lot of things, but not making sense isn't usually one of them, and the jab was so drolly done I didn't notice it as humor. My bad.
We can go back to disagreeing on basic principles, now.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Somthor:
mmmm let me fix that. It should be better now.At this time I'd like to point out according to several internet sites (admittedly anti bush) W had a C average in college and has been described as not all that swift.
It's true that your GPA is not necessarily a indication of how smart you are. W nevertheless is popularly lampoon'd as a moron. There likely is a reason why.
That's just dumb. On the one hand, you say he's stupid because he had a "C" average in college, but at the same time you shoot yourself in the foot by saying it's not indicative. 
As usual, you're just grasping at straws wanting to believe something viscerally, but unable to marshall any evidence.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
honestly, I don't think GWB is a genius.
While I don't KNOW whether he is, or not, I can tell you he's about 50/50 on the public speaker agenda. As far as I know, being president means you have to be able to give speeches; which is VERY difficult. I have no idea what his actual IQ is, but it doesn't matter. His intellegence had virtually nothing to do with him being elected; it was manner and effective speaking.
He is very good at delivering the speeches that are written for him. Very good. He has the sense of presence public figures HAVE TO HAVE. However; he messes up words, both in reading the teleprompter, and in un-prompted speeches.
It is arguable that a big aid in Bush getting into Yale (I think it was Yale) was his father and his name.
Just about every non political job George W. Bush had was given by his father.
His political career was greatly helped by his father and his father's friends, and when he became president he put several of them in high positions (Cheney, Rumsfeld).
Though who he was born to was not his fault, he is certainly not a man who had to rise through his own merits.
quote:
Quoth Gikk:
Ya'know...honestly, I don't think GWB is a genius.
While I don't KNOW whether he is, or not, I can tell you he's about 50/50 on the public speaker agenda. As far as I know, being president means you have to be able to give speeches; which is VERY difficult. I have no idea what his actual IQ is, but it doesn't matter. His intellegence had virtually nothing to do with him being elected; it was manner and effective speaking.
He is very good at delivering the speeches that are written for him. Very good. He has the sense of presence public figures HAVE TO HAVE. However; he messes up words, both in reading the teleprompter, and in un-prompted speeches.
So? You value form over substance?
What is your point? To many people, these same traits you mock come across as genuine sincerity and "average joe" appeal.
I'd say it depends more on one's preconceptions, and that it's more important to debate the content of a speech or policy. By focusing on unimportant window dressing, you undercut your position since, presumably, if you had something meaningful to discuss, you would.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Zair absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Well, if the low grades aren't because of intelligence then they are because of work ethic.It is arguable that a big aid in Bush getting into Yale (I think it was Yale) was his father and his name.
Just about every non political job George W. Bush had was given by his father.
His political career was greatly helped by his father and his father's friends, and when he became president he put several of them in high positions (Cheney, Rumsfeld).
Though who he was born to was not his fault, he is certainly not a man who had to rise through his own merits.
Everything you say is true of just about every important figure since Abe Lincoln. Jeebus. You think Kennedy worked his way up from Harlem?
And what does one's alleged "work ethic" when one is 18-21 have to do with anything three decades or more later, when one is President?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Everything you say is true of just about every important figure since Abe Lincoln.
I thought the log cabin thing was bullshit?
quote:
El Imán Grande! had this to say about Knight Rider:
I thought the log cabin thing was bullshit?
Yeah. He did chop down a cherry tree, though, and had a wooden ear.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Everything you say is true of just about every important figure since Abe Lincoln. Jeebus. You think Kennedy worked his way up from Harlem?
Seriously? Clinton and Carter didn't have powerful or influential parents, and they achieved what they did primarily through their own hard work and determination.
Bush was given an open door to success. Given the fact that he wasn't even that particularly good at handling that which was given to him on a silver platter (Yale and some of his early businesses), it is likly he would not have been a man who would have risen very high on his own. [ 12-05-2003: Message edited by: Zair ]
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
So? You value form over substance?What is your point? To many people, these same traits you mock come across as genuine sincerity and "average joe" appeal.
I'd say it depends more on one's preconceptions, and that it's more important to debate the content of a speech or policy. By focusing on unimportant window dressing, you undercut your position since, presumably, if you had something meaningful to discuss, you would.
I'm saying that his intelligence isn't the issue; that it's his very presence that got him elected. Hell, it's what gets EVERY politician elected. And his presence is so powerful that most people ignore his public speaking mistakes.
However; while his misspeaking (is that a word?) makes him as an "average joe" the people who actually KNOW about giving speeches groan and complain. The many misquotes, mispronunciations, and other issues are not acceptable to people who have a background in public speaking. He undermines himself. Unless it's some great plan I don't know about to make him more appealing to lower-class citizens (which is insulting in itself), it's embarrassing to have someone who doesn't just mispronounce one word, but does it frequently, as our president.
I'm not undermining my argument; Bush got elected because he has a large "self presence". However, since he's been elected, he makes himself SOUND like an idiot.
If you think I'm mocking him, or making fun of him because of his mispronunciations, you are mistaken. I'm not saying, "Bush sux! Haha he can't talk right!" When you are talking about how well someone speaks in public, which is what I was discussing, HOW they present themselves is far more important then the contents of the speech. Speechwriters write his speeches; the content of said speeches are not the issue, here. It's like you completely ignored what I said, and made up what you thought my "position" was. I'm not discussing his intelligence. I'm discussing his public speaking ability, since THAT'S what got him elected.
quote:
Gikk startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I'm saying that his intelligence isn't the issue; that it's his very presence that got him elected. Hell, it's what gets EVERY politician elected. And his presence is so powerful that most people ignore his public speaking mistakes.However; while his misspeaking (is that a word?) makes him as an "average joe" the people who actually KNOW about giving speeches groan and complain. The many misquotes, mispronunciations, and other issues are not acceptable to people who have a background in public speaking. He undermines himself. Unless it's some great plan I don't know about to make him more appealing to lower-class citizens (which is insulting in itself), it's embarrassing to have someone who doesn't just mispronounce one word, but does it frequently, as our president.
I'm not undermining my argument; Bush got elected because he has a large "self presence". However, since he's been elected, he makes himself SOUND like an idiot.
If you think I'm mocking him, or making fun of him because of his mispronunciations, you are mistaken. I'm not saying, "Bush sux! Haha he can't talk right!" When you are talking about how well someone speaks in public, which is what I was discussing, HOW they present themselves is far more important then the contents of the speech. Speechwriters write his speeches; the content of said speeches are not the issue, here. It's like you completely ignored what I said, and made up what you thought my "position" was. I'm not discussing his intelligence. I'm discussing his public speaking ability, since THAT'S what got him elected.
Actually, the only people I've heard groan and complain are those who haven't the first clue about public speaking. Bush trips over the occasional word, but he's a powerful speaker nonetheless.
Sorry, but you've just emphasized my earlier point: you are, indeed, putting form over substance in claiming irrelevance for what is said in favor of nitpicking delivery. Do you honestly think public figures have no hand whatsoever in their own speeches, that they are simply talking heads for whatever random people write for them?
Intelligent discussion revolves around the issues. <--period
If you want to discuss public speaking and speechwriting, we can do that, too. But it has nothing to do with what's at issue here.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Zair absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Seriously? Clinton and Carter didn't have powerful or influential parents, and they achieved what they did primarily through their own hard work and determination.Bush was given an open door to success. Given the fact that he wasn't even that particularly good at handling that which was given to him on a silver platter (Yale and some of his early businesses), it is likly he would not have been a man who would have risen very high on his own.
Please. Grow up and learn a little about life.
Do you know how many rich, affluent kids there are in America? Not many of them become President.
No one was handed the Presidency on a silver platter, as a result of some bizarre conspiracy. Get over it. Bush won in exactly the same way every other President did--there was just extra whining by the loser that required a court decision.
If you think it doesn't require hard work and determination, along with a healthy dose of intelligence and finely-honed management skill, you're dreaming.
Has no one the wit to discuss issues?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
Please. Grow up and learn a little about life.Do you know how many rich, affluent kids there are in America? Not many of them become President.
No one was handed the Presidency on a silver platter, as a result of some bizarre conspiracy. Get over it. Bush won in exactly the same way every other President did--there was just extra whining by the loser that required a court decision.
If you think it doesn't require hard work and determination, along with a healthy dose of intelligence and finely-honed management skill, you're dreaming.
Has no one the wit to discuss issues?
I never specified he was handed the President on a silver platter, I refered to his education and many many failed businesses.
I will admit that Bush is a charismatic person who can deliver powerful speeches, and that certainly helped launch him into the White House.
I think Bush has some intelligence and he is definatly shrewd, but I wouldn't ay he is especially smart.
Why do fiscal consevatives support Bush when federal spending soars under Bush's watch?
