Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Here's another question: whither Karl Rove? Is he soon to be tossed onto the ash heap of hist'ry?

To be fair, even a genius can fail.  If he had won this election, he would have pretty much done the impossible, no ?

MrJ in OZ wrote:

resedit wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

A steady stream of investigations is likely  http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Waxma … _1030.html

If there is a steady stream of investigations, it may look like a vindictive act on the part of the dems - who have already opened their mouths and promised to be non partisan and work with republicans.

vindictive partisan motivated investigations would show the voters that like many of the republicans that got ousted, they say one thing to get elected yet do another once elected.

You mean like the vindictive partisan motivated investigations Bill Clinton had to endure?

I forget, who won in 2000 and 2004?

Bush won in 2000 because Gore blew it - Gore should have won in 2000, he just ran an incredibly bad campaign.

Pariah wrote:

There is a pretty fair amount of economic models that show how raising the minimum wage is one of the best ways to imbue the economy with energy. It places cash directly into the hands of people who will immediately spend it on consumables.

which helps out China's economy just fine (Wallmart), but doesn't create US jobs.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-09 12:11 pm)

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

There is a pretty fair amount of economic models that show how raising the minimum wage is one of the best ways to imbue the economy with energy. It places cash directly into the hands of people who will immediately spend it on consumables.

which helps out China's economy just fine (Wallmart), but doesn't create US jobs.

I'll ask a second time:  Why do you believe that so many economists have petitioned Congress to raise the minimum wage?

Because there are a lot of economists, some of whom (but not all of whom) think it is a good idea?

I bet you'll find that wether an economist thinks it is a good idea or not largely depends upon their political leanings, an indication that perhaps their analysis isn't unbiased.

Personally - I think it needs to be dealt with at the state level. California, for example, needs (and has) a higher minimum wage than many states. Let the states decide, economics are different from state to state, and what you can live off of is vastly different from state to state.

resedit wrote:

I bet you'll find that wether an economist thinks it is a good idea or not largely depends upon their political leanings, an indication that perhaps their analysis isn't unbiased.

I'm tempted to ignore your analyses, because I know you have political leanings. Surely, anything you say on this forum, whether it's about snakes, or linux, or national politics, is irredeemably suspect, because it's biased by your politics-- which remain constant, unchanged by personal experience, research, or retrospection.

But then, I wouldn't be human.

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Bush won in 2000 because Gore blew it - Gore should have won in 2000, he just ran an incredibly bad campaign.

Wait.  Bush's campaign was superior?  Lost the popular vote... *hello*

Where you get votes is often more important than how many you get. That's the way the electoral college works.

For example - many of the senate seats lost were close elections. Had the republicans simply conceded some of the seats and put more effort into others, they may have had less republican votes than they did, but not have lost the senate.

Yes - Bush ran a better campaign than Gore. He got votes where they counted, and that's all that matters.

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Bush won in 2000 because Gore blew it - Gore should have won in 2000, he just ran an incredibly bad campaign.

Wait.  Bush's campaign was superior?  Lost the popular vote... *hello*

Where you get votes is often more important than how many you get. That's the way the electoral college works.


Yes - Bush ran a better campaign than Gore. He got votes where they counted, and that's all that matters.

Sorry, but the ONLY reason Bush "won" in 2000 was because of  catastrphic ballot errors (resulting in an 8,000 ballot undercount - ballots thrown out).

Had the Florida State constitution been adhered to - and an entire state hand recount had been undertaken (as done by a consortium of news outlets did do), Gore won the Florida vote- no question about it.

Add to this the votes taken by Nader, and one can see clearly that the majority of voted in 2000 were for the "liberal" candidate.


Bush was put in office by an activist Supreme Court who were willing to set aside states rights in favor of their political bias.

So much for Rove as some infallible boy genius.

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Bush won in 2000 because Gore blew it - Gore should have won in 2000, he just ran an incredibly bad campaign.

Wait.  Bush's campaign was superior?  Lost the popular vote... *hello*

Where you get votes is often more important than how many you get. That's the way the electoral college works.

Ah, so Rove in fact PLANNED to win only by 500 votes garnered by Jews for Buchanan.  Gotcha... yes, he's simply a brilliant tactician.

iSeamas wrote:

Had the Florida State constitution been adhered to - and an entire state hand recount had been undertaken (as done by a consortium of news outlets did do), Gore won the Florida vote- no question about it.

In your opinion.
Oddly enough the Gore camp didn't want an entire state recount, only selected Dem strongholds.

Farmerkev wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Had the Florida State constitution been adhered to - and an entire state hand recount had been undertaken (as done by a consortium of news outlets did do), Gore won the Florida vote- no question about it.

In your opinion.
Oddly enough the Gore camp didn't want an entire state recount, only selected Dem strongholds.

...and Bush's team didn't want any recounts at all.



Thank god for that butterfly ballot, I guess.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Had the Florida State constitution been adhered to - and an entire state hand recount had been undertaken (as done by a consortium of news outlets did do), Gore won the Florida vote- no question about it.

In your opinion.
Oddly enough the Gore camp didn't want an entire state recount, only selected Dem strongholds.

...and Bush's team didn't want any recounts at all.

Winning party never wants a recount.
Notice how the democratic governor of Virginia was speaking out against a recall BEFORE one had been requested, BEFORE the count was official, etc.

Do you think he would spoken out against a recall had the numbers been transposed, and his guy was 7k votes short?

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-09 2:40 pm)

I did notice that all the cries of voter fraud died and there aren't Reps running around screaming for a recount.

Farmerkev wrote:

I did notice that all the cries of voter fraud died and there aren't Reps running around screaming for a recount.

There are still several House seats that haven't been decided yet.  There aren't any recounts going on there?  Burns couldn't call for a recount under Montana law.  Allen was 7,000 votes behind.

Surely you're not suggesting that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to demand recounts because of a presidential race that came within a thousand votes in one state?