Conservative talk radio in hysteria over Fahrenheit 9/11

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd bet that you haven't even seen the film. Most of the panicked far right are screaming don't listen to the man behind the curtain. You are a good example.

[/ QUOTE ]

<Sigh> No I haven't seen this film, and won't. Why should I? I can't stand liver. If I already know I hate it, and I head out to a new restaurant for dinner, does this mean I should spend my hard earned money to confirm I still hate liver? Michael Moore has made himself a very rich man by exploiting the capitalism he claims to hate (He is on record stating high earners should pay at least 70% in marginal tax rates). Good for him. But don't overestimate his clout - remember Wesley Clark?

[elwoodblues]

<sigh> There is a difference between hating capitalism and hating socially irresponsible corporations/business owners. That's why Limbaugh's constant harrangue about Moore living in a mansion or taking a limo is moronic.

[SlyR]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush should be judged by his own actions. He is a fascist. Replace the scapegoat group of Jews by Muslim fundamentalists and we have an eerily similar situation.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, when you consider that it is Congress, not just Bush, which passed the Patriot act. This is different than Nazi Germany in the sense that we have a parliamentary government, one in which there are checks and balances. The office of the Presidency is a bit overblown in the arena of public opinion.

[Utah]

Wait - just so I understand your logic:

1) Gore asked for a recount
2) The supreme court didnt allow that recount
3) The recount would have still given Bush the election
4) The supreme court stole the election for Bush

Thats simply brilliant. I am stunned how you are able to easily apply those 22 years of impressive eduction. Most people who spend so much time in acedamia often find themselves bound by the rules of logic. Its good to see that you have transcended such trivial constraints.

Still waiting for that link. Wait. Here. Let me help you with some info to pad those 22 years of impressive education - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/me...count_4-3.html

Here is a little passage from PBS (hardly a bastion of conservatism):

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.

Dont like PBS? How about the LA Times, they are about as liberal as you can get http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story

From the LA Times: Bush Still had votes to win recount.




Of coiurse the fact that Florida was sued by the NAACP will be sleazily ta ta'd by you. You lose.You owe me money.
Huh, what planet are you actually on right now?

[Utah]

ssshhhhhh.....dont confuse him with facts. It upsets him

I bet he doesnt even know yet that it was muslims that crashed those planes, that a large group of muslims have declared war on the U.S., and that those muslims enjoy widespread support among the muslim population.

shhh.......

[jokerswild]

Now you can't read. I knew you were also a welcher. Read the Tallahassee link about the NAACP suit.

Below is a synopsis of events followed by any informed person of either party four years ago. I see you did learn to do searches on search engines. It's sad that I had to explain it to you.
1.Gore asked for a recount of 4 counties
2.Bush sued to stop it.
3.Gore won in the Florida Supreme Court to count those 4 counties
4. Bush sued to the US Supreme Court
5.The US Supreme Court vaacated the Florida decision and demanded an immediate recount of all counties.
6. That immediate recount was not feasible
7. Bush won by default.
8. When the 4 counties Gore sued for recounted:Bush won
9. When all the state recounted: Gore won.

These are undisputed facts. The disputed facts revolve around other activities in the campaigns.

I know explaining these things to someone that thinks that the Standford-Binet is some school in California is hard. Nevertheless, you are a welcher. You should change your handle to just that: Welcher.

[Utah]

elow is a synopsis of events followed by any informed person of either party four years ago
Here is a little passage for you from the LA Times. Boy those boys at the LA Times are really uninformed. Odd, considering they are a major news source. Oh, well.

"If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes. The reason: Nine counties were including overvotes, but 58 were not. (The Times' analysis of this scenario recorded each ballot according to the standard each county said it was using or planned to use at the time.)"

My offer still stands. You have not provided data from any credible news organization that shows that Gore would have won the recount if the supreme court had not stopped the election.

And now you are just embarrassing yourself. Go read the Tallahassee article again. It says nothing of the recount results. But hey, at least this time you didnt post results that refute your own argument. I guess thats a step in the right direction for ya.

Oh....I also guess that the LA Times (as well as the NYT, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, Washington post, CBS, and USA Today) would dispute your undisputable facts. But heck, these are really just fringe newpapers and I guess they dont really count. Just out of curiousity, what main stream news source supports your assertion - I mean, since its undisputed you must have some some news source. All you have to do is point out the organization and their recount results. How hard can that be. Obviously it is - so instead you spout off about nothing.

Give it to me a form like: XYZ Newspaper, Recount Study XXX, 200X. Results:

Is that too hard for you? Yeah, I know it is and you will fail to do it.


Feel free to think Im a welcher. I offer a challenge, you dont meet the challenge, and then think you won. But, given your thinking on the election, who should be surprised.

[elwoodblues]

Your bet wasn't whether he could prove that Gore would win only that he provide "a link to a credible news organization that shows Gore would have won..." The fact that the LA Times disagrees is irrelevant to the bet (I still don't think he earned the money, but your refutation is irrelevant.

[jokerswild]

I've provided you proof of the law suit for African-American disenfranchisement (the state of Florida settled that out of court:acknowledging major irregularities). I've provided proof that Bush's win is still in dispute in the State of Florida, and that many credible sources have Gore winning. You conveniantly choose to ignore the post from "a good start." If you go to that site for a list of links, then you will find it very well documented. You won't ever go there, though, because it's a Democratic Party site. You are not only a welcher; you cheat. Well, Bush Republicans do cheat and break the law. They then expect Daddy to buy their way out of any trouble.

[Utah]

Perfectly agreed. He still has not provided that.

He said the facts were not in dispute to anyone who was informed. I simply pointed out that he is completely wrong on that argument and that the LA Times and all the other news organization I listed completely disagree with him.

I think it is impossible to win for him as I believe I am aware of every major study and they all say the same thing. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. If a credible organization had found that Gore would have won then it would have be a HUGE story that would persist until today. This obviously didnt happen.

He keeps talking but he never adresses the argument. Its all so very simple to make me pay (and I will). It doesnt take paragraph after paragraph talking about nothing. He simply needs to say for example: NBC NEWs recount, October 2001, Gore wins by 500. heres the link.

I am starting to think he is..well...a little bit "off" and thus I am not going to respond to him unless he posts the link. His arguments have become non sensical (and I dont mean this as a shot towards him).