-2 Reply report Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:45 pm I don't think Joe the Jag ever read the New York Times--He certainly missed this article:
The New York Times( certainly not a right wing source) reported on the findings of a consortium that went to Florida and did exhaustive work on the count for the presidential election of 2000.
Jag from Chicago does not know about this.
Note:
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.
More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.
Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at ? a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.
The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.
For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.
But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.
Cyclops wrote:
Additionally, I think a great deal of the behavior of myself and others on A2K can be adequately understood by asking the question: what is the purpose of posting here?
Especially when it comes to political discussion. What is the point at the end of the day? The other side never admits that you are right. I've personally seen you deconstruct Fox or McG's or Ican's arguments time and time again, in this thread and others. And I mean really destroy them (just like occasionally you or GeorgeOB or Setanta will really bust up one of mine). And have they ever admitted it? Does anyone say 'gee, guess you're right?' No. There's no real productive movement over time.
Because of this, in the end A2K has to be a personal mental exercise. One has to be able to enjoy the discussion irregardless of whatever outcome there is from the other side. And as I am a passionate guy, A2K has become both a mental and an emotional outlet for my self-expression. I gain great satisfaction out of posting here, which is why I've kept it up.
I simply don't lie to myself about my reasons and motivations, or censor myself. I can totally understand why my output may not always be pleasant for you or others to read; but that really isn't the purpose of posting here, now is it?
*****************************************************************
self-expression is fine. emotional outlet-ditto.
What the ultra liberal ding dong from Berkeley does not understand is that one can express one's self and gain emotional satisfaction but STILL BE FACTUALLY DEAD WRONG.
SO, go ahead, Cyclops- emote--express--but lacking evidence or documentation, other than your own twisted illogical posts--you are not on target most of the time.
You post but do not give links. So, you emote and express but you are mainly WRONG.
You emote and discuss but do not have the mental capacity or the skills necessary to find documentation or evidence to add TRUTH TELLING to emotion and/or expression.
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
McGentrix tore into Cyclop yesterday for instance. Cyclop is one of the most offensive members on A2K but I still cringed at the language McG used to describe him. I can't condone it. But I have forgiven Cyclop at times for his frequent obnoxious stupidity and hatefulness because I have concluded he is incapable of helping himself--yes, that is an ad hominem conclusion--and I forgive McG from long experience of who he is, how he thinks, and the basic goodness of his heart that I know is there. McG is not prone to go out of his way to hurt or be unkind to people. Some A2K members do that. I would be proud to have McG at my dinner table. I would be very leery of those who think it is fun to hurt or be unkind to people.
Not incapable, Ma'am, but unwilling and unsure of what the point would be. Would it improve my A2K experience in any way? I haven't seen any real evidence that it does. Repeated experiments in tolerance and self-censorship on my part have consistently led to disappointment, as the quality of the conversation does not improve and it hardly leads to so-called better behavior on the parts of others.
I honestly believe that some here misunderstand the basic purpose of an internet message board, and the underlying thing that we all gain from participating here: self-enjoyment and self-expression. Is there any real attempt to build an over-arcing A2K community? Not really.
So what is the point of self-censorship? It makes me feel fake, it doesn't increase my enjoyment, and it doesn't seem to limit my conversational ability here on A2K when I do speak my mind.
Cycloptichorn
@ican711nm,
Henceforth, I exclude from
liberalism all those alleging to be liberals who do not conform to the definition of liberalism that follows:
icann711nm wrote:How about that? In the sense of this definition of liberalism, I am a liberal!!!!
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=liberalism&x=30&y=5
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
...
Function: noun
...
2 :
...
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard ...
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed ...
By the way, I have now asked several different individuals on the Left to answer this question, and, unless I missed the post, I don't believe a single one has done so:
Sonia Sotomayer said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?
This sort of fits in with the 'who do we accept' discussion. Why are those on the Left ducking it?
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Henceforth, I exclude from
liberalism all those alleging to be liberals who do not conform to the definition of liberalism that follows:
icann711nm wrote:How about that? In the sense of this definition of liberalism, I am a liberal!!!!
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=liberalism&x=30&y=5
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
...
Function: noun
...
2 :
...
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard ...
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed ...
Okay agreed, they aren't really liberal. Can we still call them MALs though? I mean Modern American Conservatism doesn't really fit with the definition of 'conservative' they want to attach to us either, but MAC (classical liberalism) is a long lived and valid concept.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
By the way, I have now asked several different individuals on the Left to answer this question, and, unless I overlooked the post, I don't believe a single one has done so:
Sonia Sotomayer said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?
This sort of fits in with the 'who do we accept' discussion. Why are those on the Left ducking it?
I don't think that statement disqualifies her for appointment as a SC justice. I happen to believe her statement is perfectly true: that a person who has had a rich and full life, complete with struggles, poverty, and oppression, is better equipped to reach conclusions about many of our modern issues than a privileged person who has not.
The use of 'Latina/White' is immaterial to me, though I can understand why it gets people's hackles up.
Cycloptichorn
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:Could you point out a red herring to which you refer? [..] Please point out anything that I have said that I have refused to accept accountability for.
Then let's look at the parallel discussion that unfolded in response to Joe's question, when Old Europe
brought up your hearty invite to CJHSA after he called Obama supporters enemies of the United States and traitors. How many ways did you try to duck and deflect that criticism?
- You argued that the other side had done the same thing. So there.
- You argued that the other side had called Bush worse things; that CJ should be free to express "an opinion regarding elected government leaders"; and that you personally don't see Obama as a traitor, but weren't sure that CJ really meant to either. All of which is a red herring because what was at issue was not calling the President names, but declaring his supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies to their country.
- You argued that it wasn't actually clear that Cjhsa meant to call all Obama supporters enemies to the United States when he wrote, "Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States."
- You argued that what CJ posted "was not an attack, ad hominem or anything else, on any A2K member". Which is a red herring, because the criticism wasn't about him attacking A2K members and you heartily inviting him over in response. It was about him declaring supporters of the other side collectively traitors and enemies to their country, and you heartily inviting him over in response.
- You expounded how you "take our First Amendment very seriously," and "being a very strong First Amendment advocate," you don't judge people for expressing their opinion, "no matter how stupid or ignorant it is."
This is a red herring because, first off - of course - the First Amendment has nothing to do with what individuals should or should not do; it's about the government not being allowed to suppress people's expressions of political opinions. Secondly, because the First Amendment is about not stopping anyone from expressing an opinion - which is not what you were being asked about. Nobody suggested you shouldn't have allowed CJ to call Obama supporters traitors, or shouldn't allow any rightwing conspiracy nut to proclaim his theories in a conservative group, in the case of Joe's questions - you don't have the means to disallow it anyway. The question was whether you'd invite and welcome such people, rather than ignore or rebuke them. No First Amendment value implies you should actively invite people saying hateful or nutty things into your movement or thread.
Finally, of course, you appear to have no problem judging liberals for expressing what you consider stupid or ignorant opinions, and have no problem rebuking them on this forum if they do so.
- You argued that "if you can't call [what Obama did] treason or whatever else it is, you can't criticize it at all." Which is an absurd deflection - as if there aren't many ways to harshly criticize stuff without accusing half the country of treason.
OK, i got tired - there were probably more...
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
By the way, I have now asked several different individuals on the Left to answer this question, and, unless I overlooked the post, I don't believe a single one has done so:
Sonia Sotomayer said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?
This sort of fits in with the 'who do we accept' discussion. Why are those on the Left ducking it?
I don't think that statement disqualifies her for appointment as a SC justice. I happen to believe her statement is perfectly true: that a person who has had a rich and full life, complete with struggles, poverty, and oppression, is better equipped to reach conclusions about many of our modern issues than a privileged person who has not.
The use of 'Latina/White' is immaterial to me, though I can understand why it gets people's hackles up.
Cycloptichorn
Fox - Can you post the entire conversation this came from and what question, if any she was asked? I'm struggling to form an opinion without the context known.
T
K
O
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:Is there any real attempt to build an over-arcing A2K community? Not really.
I'm gonna disagree with you there ...
@Cycloptichorn,
In response to Fox's question, I'm going to be lazy and borrow Cyclo's response -- what he said.
@nimh,
I don't expect anybody to agree with me Nimh, but I can't imagine taking the time to pull so many lines out of so many posts and label your comments as 'red herrings' when they clearly were not as I explained in my previous post. Perhaps in the circles you inhabit, you focus on a single line and milk it for all it's worth with only a single interpretation allowed. I must see far more nuances, exceptions, and factors involved in a philosophy or theory than you do. As yet, despite my posting CJs comment in its entirety, for instance, and expressing how it could be interpreted differently than the way it was interpeted, not a single person of you on the Left who are making a big deal out of that have acknowledged or commented on the possibility that I might, and in fact probably am right about that.
So please forgive me if I am not as willing to be as much of a 'thought policeman' as many on the Left claim authority and right to be. And forgive me for not expressing myself in a manner acceptable to you. And forgive me if I don't think it constructive or honest to pull a line out of somebody's post and present it without the qualifications that exist when the line is left in context.
I have forgiven you for ignoring my responses to you that I took quite some time to type out. I was obviously mistaken that you were inviting discussion.
But I can't imagine having the chutzpah or arrogance to criticize a member and presume a judgment about that member for inviting another member to a thread.
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
Quote:Is there any real attempt to build an over-arcing A2K community? Not really.
I'm gonna disagree with you there ...
Yeah, I've met two A2Kers now, and in a month a few more. I think there is a real community here.
T
K
O
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:Okay agreed, they aren't really liberal. Can we still call them MALs though? I mean Modern American Conservatism doesn't really fit with the definition of 'conservative' they want to attach to us either, but MAC (classical liberalism) is a long lived and valid concept.
I prefer MAL to mean Malicious American Liberal.
I prefer CAL to mean Classical American Liberal.
Some MACs are actually CALs and some aren't.
A community exists at this site. I don't know that anyone consciously built it--to a great extent, it was simply transferred from Abuzz and the Raven's Realm. It has prospered, and it has been very much not a clique or group of cliques, and has therefore absorbed and added many, many members over the years.
The people who form that community just don't include the politics fanatics--not that they'd be intentionally excluded, and not that members of the community don't participate in the political threads. It's just that politics here is a thing apart, and in large measure because of the animus which exists there. Many of the people whom one encounters in political threads engage in many other topics outside politics--Joe, for example, is obvious very fond of and well-informed about motion pictures, while C.I. contributes to and authors a great many travel threads. But there are some people here who never stir from politics or religion, and like such people at a party, they are tedious, and are probably not even aware that there is a community here of which they are not a part.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:Okay agreed, they aren't really liberal. Can we still call them MALs though? I mean Modern American Conservatism doesn't really fit with the definition of 'conservative' they want to attach to us either, but MAC (classical liberalism) is a long lived and valid concept.
I prefer MAL to mean Malicious American Liberal.
I prefer CAL to mean Classical American Liberal.
Some MACs are actually CALs and some aren't.
Okay lets post the definition (borrowed from Wiki) one more time (not necessarily the last time though):
Quote:Modern American Conservatism or Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government.
This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.
As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state.
I was listening to Barry Goldwater Jr. I think on Glenn Beck yesterday expressing his version of MAC which involves strong defense and borders, small efficient effective government, individual liberty, personal responsibility and accountablity, and free markets.
He further expressed that the fringe isssues such as abortion, gay marriage, subsidized health care, etc. should be dealt with at the state and local level and should not be included in the national agenda and the conservative movement has hurt itself by not holding to that principle. I agree with him on that.
So when do you see MACs as not being CALs?
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
nimh wrote:
Quote:Is there any real attempt to build an over-arcing A2K community? Not really.
I'm gonna disagree with you there ...
Yeah, I've met two A2Kers now, and in a month a few more. I think there is a real community here.
T
K
O
You will note that I wrote 'there is no real attempt to build an over-arcing A2K community.' To me this is different than individuals who choose to meet one another.
I too have met many of the posters here on A2K and enjoyed it greatly; but there does not seem to be any coordinated attempt to do so, nor does it seem to me that my self-expression limits the ability of members to form whatever community groups they like.
For example, the fact that CJ and I tangle on a wide variety of issues prevents me in no way from engaging in community activity; the fact that Set frequently gets into arguments over minutiae doesn't either, the fact that Fox engages in her behavior doesn't prevent this either. We are a group of individuals who all post for individual reasons, and while a certain amount of communal behavior arises from this, it is not a coordinated or directed thing.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:. . . the fact that Set frequently gets into arguments over minutiae . . .
Facts are, apparently, in the eye of the beholder. The circumstance that people who don't like to be contradicted may make slighting remarks about the contributions of those who have contradicted them certainly doesn't skin my nose.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Quote:. . . the fact that Set frequently gets into arguments over minutiae . . .
Facts are, apparently, in the eye of the beholder. The circumstance that people who don't like to be contradicted may make slighting remarks about the contributions of those who have contradicted them certainly doesn't skin my nose.
I agree completely, and what more, anticipated this post when I wrote that
Please don't believe I intended some sort of criticism of you; on the contrary, I celebrate and applaud said behavior, for I find it to be both informative and greatly entertaining. However, it would be quite fair to say that some people do seem to get angered by it from time to time and some of the ensuing conversations have been legendary!
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:. . . I celebrate and applaud said behavior . . .
You simply have failed to establish that it is a fact.
