comment #1

JHRussell says ...

What is there to straighten out? They have every right to do this...and more power to them. This fact doesn't bother me in the least...doesn't concern me in the least...

Remember, it was Al Gore who sought to block the overseas military ballots in the Florida recount...

comment #2

Richardson says ...

"Remember, it was Al Gore who sought to block the overseas military ballots in the Florida recount..."

I think it's significantly more accurate to say that Al Gore sought to block the overseas ballots for which there was absolutely no proof that they had been filed on time.

Your blanket statement carries the implication that he was trying to block *all* overseas ballots, which is flat out untrue.

comment #3

JHRussell says ...

Richardson:

"I think it's significantly more accurate to say that Al Gore sought to block the overseas ballots for which there was absolutely no proof that they had been filed on time."

If that "clarification" really makes you feel better about the Dems betrayal of our men and women serving overseas, then you go right ahead...

The donations deal in this thread concerns something less than 200 total donors...if Wells wants to extrapolate this as one more reason Barry is the next President, then he should feel even better about this "much ado about nothing" article and report than you do about how Gore screwed the troops...

comment #4

Three says ...

This isn't surprising at all. There are a lot of stereotypes about military people being close-minded, Republican-leaning automotans that can't think for themselves. I think the truth of the matter is that most are simply too busy performing the mission to care about politics. Those that do pay attention have seen enough to realize the Republicans posture themselves as "tough on terror" but with little regard for the lives of those with boots on the ground. And these people are not stupid - they know they're getting shafted.

In my experience, the antipathy towards people who govern through cheap slogans such as "victory" (e.g., Bush, McCain) increases after these folks get out. Virtually all of the veterans I know - people who have been to war in their 30s and 40s - have been against the Iraq war from the start. They know a stupid war when they see one.

comment #5

Three says ...

"If that "clarification" really makes you feel better about the Dems betrayal of our men and women serving overseas, then you go right ahead..."

Wow, JHRussell, do you have tourettes or something? Or are you 13 years old? No hard feelings, but your posts don't make any sense.

comment #6

JHRussell says ...

Three:

How old were you in December 2000? I am guessing less than 12 or so, because you do not seem to have any knowledge of the attempts by Al Gore to disallow overseas mail in ballots during the Florida recount.

Go read up on it, dude. Not something any Dem should be proud of...

comment #7

George Prager says ...

(Asked by a Democratic lawmaker a while back why there weren't more Democrats in the military, General Petraeus smiled slyly and said "there are more than you think.")

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,567465,00.html

comment #8

Ghost072 says ...

"How old were you in December 2000? I am guessing less than 12 or so, because you do not seem to have any knowledge of the attempts by Al Gore to disallow overseas mail in ballots during the Florida recount."

You've already been corrected once in this thread, yet you continue to try and misrepresent what actually happened. Not that it surprises me, mind you, but you're deception is not unnoticed.

As Richardson correctly noted, Gore attempted to make sure that only ballots that were properly dated were counted - a rule that is there for a reason: because without it cheaters will cheat. The right-wing then tried to spin this absolutely correct and fair action into Gore trying to rob the military of their legitimate votes - a lie which you are still trying to pass as the truth.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

Dear soldiers of the U.S. Army,

I know he's a Navy man, but isn't 40 years long enough to forgive and forget?

Sincerely,

Mgmax

comment #10

Mgmax says ...

(Seriously, having railed against people who think soldiers are too stupid to know what they're doing and need to be reeducated by pampered stay-at-home computer jockeys, the last thing I'm about to do now is commit the same egregious sin.)

comment #11

JHRussell says ...

Zero deception in anything I posted.

If your man Gore had only won his home state of Tennessee, he would have been elected outright.

comment #12

Amazing Larry says ...

What's this "your man Gore" shit you're throwing on Ghost072, JHRussell? I don't see that Ghost endorsed Gore anywhere inside his post, unless you're saying that by quoting the facts, then he's GOT to be for Gore! He MUST be a librul! He MUST hate America! He MUST have been trained by DFH professors! And so on, and so on, and so on....

comment #13

Teacher's Pets says ...

Facts + Logic = JHRussel's enemy

comment #14

Richardson says ...

"If your man Gore had only won his home state of Tennessee, he would have been elected outright."

For the record, I didn't vote for Gore. I did, however, pay attention to the facts of the events as they were occurring. Your version of the story sounds like the extremely biased right-wing talk radio version of the truth -- ie, light on the facts and heavy on the innuendo.

The fact is, they were arguing over a state where every single vote "mattered" because of how close it was, and Gore argued that election laws should be followed and overseas votes which were postmarked after the deadline which did not have a legal date on them should be ineligible as per the law. Obviously, he was doing this because he had reason to believe that these illegal votes would favor Bush, just as Bush argued that questionable votes which he thought would favor Gore shouldn't be counted.

Frankly, Florida 2000 is neither party's finest hour, as far as arguing for the benefits of democracy. But, if you want to get down to it, Bush's was the side which argued that the counting should stop prematurely, as soon as he was ahead, while Gore's was the side that argued that the recount should be given enough time to actually complete the court ordered recount. So, in point of fact, and since *you* brought up the Florida recount up, I would say that Gore's argument comes off, to me, as more pro-democracy than Bush's, even though I wouldn't be proud of either one.

comment #15

JHRussell says ...

Dude, the overseas ballots in question did not have traditional postmarks on them. Gore blundered in this "political" judgment and it cost him and Kerry, too (Kerry stuck his foot in it in 2000, supporting the Gore position to deny these ballots, and veterans groups did not forget him for this in 2004).

I hope Wells is right and some of our service men and women abroad are reading this thread...they should never forget which party tried to disenfranchise them on a technicality (no postmarks)...

comment #16

EOTW says ...

Can someone explain to me how Obama walks on water, raises millions more than his rival and still isn't blowing him away in the polls. He can barely keep the small lead he has.

comment #17

Richardson says ...

"Dude, the overseas ballots in question did not have traditional postmarks on them."

Many of them did; these votes were accepted.

Many of them had traditional -- or, at least, legally acceptable -- postmarks that were too late, but were accepted because there was a corresponding signature affirming the vote had been cast earlier.

You make it sound as if this was the first time overseas ballots had ever been cast, and there was no procedure in place to follow.

You further make it sound as if Gore's attempt were limited to overseas military; it wasn't, it was *any* overseas ballot. The military ballots just have the additional possibiltiy for eligibility, the witness's signature.

"Gore blundered in this "political" judgment and it cost him and Kerry, too."

I do agree with you that it was extremely poor political judgement, though I disagree with you that it cost him anything, since that would carry with it the obvious implication that people were motivated to vote against him *after* he did that, which occurred well after legal voting ended.

But the reason it cost them political capital is because of the disengenuous non-factual version of the story which you still insist on pretending is anything more than a blatant lie.

"I hope Wells is right and some of our service men and women abroad are reading this thread...they should never forget which party tried to disenfranchise them on a technicality (no postmarks)..."

You'd better hope they vote based on a stupid lie like that, because if they vote for the person who has their best interest in mind, your side LOSES.

Seriously, I just hope that the overseas servicemen cast their votes in a timely manner so that there is nothing to dispute timing-wise. The best way to make sure your vote is counted tends to be following all of the laws that are required to make a vote legally matter. Friendly advice from a concerned liberal.

comment #18

Sweetbubba says ...

Um, did anyone bother to read the "report"? It's talking about the contributions of....150 people out of the 1 million in the U.S. army and reserves.It couldn't be less statistically relevant.

Like most every adult who works for a living, soldiers overwhelmingly vote Republican. By a more than 6:1 margin among enlisted, and more than 7:1 margin among the officer rank.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

Oh, and, if you want to talk disenfranchisement, Gore petitioned to not count illegally cast votes, that's true. But Bush was the one who successfully sued to stop the vote counting BEFORE those overseas votes were all counted.

So, if you give Democrats credit for *trying* to disenfranchise those votes, surely the Republicans deserve more credit for successfully doing so, right?

comment #20

SpinDozer says ...

'Like most every adult who works for a living...vote Republican."

Really!

What happened in 2006? Bushonomics put that many people outta work?

comment #21

VictorLazlo says ...

EOTW:"Can someone explain to me how Obama walks on water, raises millions more than his rival and still isn't blowing him away in the polls. He can barely keep the small lead he has. "

A 5% lead usually equals an electoral blowout, which the state to state polls currently show for Obama.

The days of a candidate getting over 50% are over, This is a deeply divided nation with only about 10% of voters up for grabs.

Add to that the 3 to 5% (number pulled directly out my ass) racist vote who will never ever vote for a black man (or negro as JHRussel likes to call us) and there you have it.

comment #22

Mjs says ...

"Like most every adult who works for a living, soldiers overwhelmingly vote Republican."

This is why so many people in this country don't just dislike, but hate, Republicans. I'm not even a Democrat, and I now hate Republicans.

You have nothing to be proud of. You twice elected a man that has destroyed two countries.

Well done, guys. Too bad your time is up.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

JHR: "If that "clarification" really makes you feel better about the Dems betrayal of our men and women serving overseas, then you go right ahead..."

Did Gore send them in without armor and lie to them about WMDs?

EOTW: Polls don't reflect the end game.

Bubba: Yes, and McCain only got 26 troops giving him money, so I'm not sure what that proves.

Victor: Don't worry. The anti-Obama contingent is just holding out, in hopes of the possibility that they can get one slim victory before becoming obsolete. If Obama wins, then they'll have to admit defeat or pray for their own Clinton.

comment #24

Movie Watcher says ...

McCain and all his rah-rah-rah bullshit isn't cutting it this time. The troops know what a mess this whole thing has been. Lazlo, there are a lot of people who will not vote for Obama because he's black. They will never admit it. Also, the stiuation in Georgia is going on because Russia is giving the finger to the USA. And there's nothing we are going to do about it. Send in troops? That ain't happening.

comment #25

Mgmax says ...

"You have nothing to be proud of. You twice elected a man that has destroyed two countries."

I'm trying to decide which idea is sillier, that the US is destroyed or that Saddam's Iraq was in good shape.

"The days of a candidate getting over 50% are over, This is a deeply divided nation with only about 10% of voters up for grabs."

Bush got 53%. And polls suggest an unusually high undecided group. This election not only isn't over, it really hasn't started for many people.

comment #26

Three says ...

"I'm trying to decide which idea is sillier, that the US is destroyed or that Saddam's Iraq was in good shape."

C'mon Mgmax, you can do better than trotting out fallacious Republican wives tales. This is the thing Republicans do: their cartoon-like view of the world left only two alternatives: either invade, or "do nothing." In fact, there were multiple options available that more seasoned foreign policy experts had advocated.

Your view of Iraq is equally as silly. No doubt, Hussein was an ogre. He sponsored the massacre of thousands in the 80s (when we sponsored him) and early 90s - a convenient oversight for those who point out his human rights record. But in fact, Hussein's Iraq was one of the most progressive, secular, "Westernized" government's in the region in 2003 - it's populace was well educated, it held a progressive stance towards women (yes, I know, Republicans aren't big on women's rights, but grant me this one) and was otherwise stable - if not ruled by a tyrant. Much, much more stable than the sectarian influenced, shi'a, aligned-with-Iran, embroiled in civil war, decimated infrastructure that exists now in Iraq. And if you don't think that the invasion "destroyed" Iraq's infrastructure, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

So please spare us all this hackneyed version of events of pre-war Iraq. I know you imagine yourself as being cute or clever, spending your days posting this nonsense on HE, but your half-truthed schtick is really getting old. Please break out some new material.

comment #27

bb says ...

But in fact, Hussein's Iraq was one of the most progressive, secular, "Westernized" government's in the region in 2003 - it's populace was well educated, it held a progressive stance towards women (yes, I know, Republicans aren't big on women's rights, but grant me this one) and was otherwise stable - if not ruled by a tyrant.

How can you type that with all the giggling? What alternative universe do you hail from? Since every word in the above is patently false I won't bore you (and me) with pointing each fallacy out.

Is there a short bus on this internet thing?

comment #28

Three says ...

bb, if you had researched or done any serious study of the Middle East, or had even lived in the Middle East, you would realize that these observations are common knowledge among people who know something about the region.

But having read some of your prior posts, this one doesn't surprise me. Wait - let me guess - I'll bet you think all Iranians are evil and "hate freedom" too, right?

Some people are simply too dense to be reached or to waste time on, and I suspect that you are one of them. Good luck with that.

comment #29

escort-models.com says ...

comment #30

Strathmore says ...

Turkiye'de sohbet sohbet etmenin kolayligini chat chat sitemizde farkedebilirsiniz. Chat sohbet sohbet odalari sohbet sitesi Sohbet chat mirc Sohbet forum Sohbet Chat sohbet sohbet izlesene Oyun guncel haber

-------------------------------------------
forexmali
Shbt
porno
sex
sikis
porno izle
sex izle
porno film
adult videolar
porno
porno izle
sex
sex izle
sex
sikis
porno izle
porno
gubidik

comment #31

nike shox r4 says ...

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money ; it lies in the joy of achievement , in the thrill of creative effort.nike shox r4