Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Well, I looked at your avatar, BernardR. What can one see?
And that tells us, according to your own logic?

Bernard, arguing with plainoldme is like arguing with a butterfly. Once a point is clearly identified and you think now we will get somewhere with this, the butterfly magicly disappears and lands somewhere else, in other words the discussion becomes totally disconnected with one liners that have no relationship to the point being discussed. Thats why I gave up.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, I looked at your avatar, BernardR. What can one see?
And that tells us, according to your own logic?

The funny thing is he thought we were both men!

Again, rebut the New York Times Article or admit you know nothing about FLORIDA!!!!

Plain Ol Me thinks that Okie and I do not have the necessary "reading ability"??? This from a Kindergarten Teacher who reads Nora Roberts novels? She finds them "stimulating".

The last time she read Shakespeare was when she was in High School but she stopped on the second page of Macbeth because the language was "too hard" to understand!!!

quote]


OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Plainoldme
Haven't you learned yet that there are a group of posters that refuse to acknowledge any facts that disagree with their own version of history. I still read the posts but have quit posting replys because one cant educate a closed mind.

Okie- Plain Ol Me is clearly limited in her ability to argue. She said I will tell you and then gave one word--FLORIDA.

That was supposed to strike fear into the hearts of all of us. She apparently did not know that the New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers along with statistics experts formed a consortium and went down to Florida to study the election and its results.

They came up with the finding that even if the USSC had not interevened in the election, President 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 allowed to go forward.

It is clear, Okie, that either Plain Ol Me can't read or doesn't read!

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots - punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore's Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

The consortium actually found that under some counting methods Bush won and under other methods Gore won.

parados wrote:

The consortium actually found that under some counting methods Bush won and under other methods Gore won.

Are you talking about the methods that recounted only certain spots, namely Democratic precincts, not others where Bush would pick up votes, or where military votes were not counted?

Yes, Parados, we all remember that election, where Gore attempted to have only certain areas recounted,

and where they protested the counting of military votes but soon thought better of it.

That election where some Florida judges tried to get it done unconstitutionally. If you have a recount, it should be across the board. They tried to do it without doing it fair. Crooks anyway!

plainoldme, put me on record for loving oil companies. Without them, I would be unable to drive in comfort wherever I desire to go today. If all gas stations closed, talk about wreaking havoc! Not only would you not be able to get to work, but the food in the grocery stores would start disappearing pretty quickly. Remember when government shut down! Hardly anyone noticed out here. So which is more efficient and providing a larger service to all the citizens out here on a daily basis, oil companies or government? The answer should be obvious, so plainoldme, quit demagoguing oil companies please, or quit driving cars and buying food.