posted on February 26, 2001 07:04:06 AM new
Morning Meya - Read that article and my thoughts are no matter what the re-counts show, they won't be accepted by 1/2 of our country for one reason or another. People are still arguing about the results of the count from the Kennedy/Nixon election in 1960. Don't think this election is going to be much different. For me, Bush is our president and we'll be going forward from here. Good or bad.
Wanted to share what I'd read in an ABC news article in Nov. 2000, when the recounts were going on and on.
[i]Why is counting votes so hard?
No Problem for Private Sector.
Compare this to how the private sector counts things, Stossel says. The NASDAQ trades billions of shares of stock a day, and they do it accurately.
That's compared to just 100 million votes cast in this year's presidential election. Can you imagine, Stossel asks, if NASDAQ said, "We'll have to do a recount to see what we owe you" or "Because our forms are confusing, 19,000 of you bought stocks that you didn't mean to."
Visa and MasterCard process approximately 3,000 transactions a second, instantly. Not perfectly — there are mistakes and some fraud — but they usually find out about it and usually fix it.[/i]
That gave me a chuckle, especially the part of "19,000 of you bought stocks that you didn't mean to".
Anyway and OT, I wanted to take this opportunity to share how much I admire the computer knowledge you have, and your willingness to help those who ask for help, both in the RT and the EO.
posted on February 26, 2001 08:40:24 AM new
You can bet that the convicted vote tamperer, second in charge of miami-dade polling, fellow named Saurez, cast his vote.
posted on February 26, 2001 09:10:17 AM new
Over the weekend Bush said that he wanted to move forward in "important" issues rather than on the Pardons. In my opinion in essence he doesn't want to be distracted by the pardons and the vote issue. Which I agree. He needs to move forward while others look into the Clintons' doings. That is called deligating.....
Even though I didn't vote for him -I voted for Gore- and I don't really care for him, but do agree with him on some things such as moving forward, he is "my" President -the nation's President.
The military taught me a few things and one of them is that no matter what rank a person has they are be respected regardless if they are an idiot or a great leader -no reflection of the current administration- and the color of the person was OD GREEN. Of course at the time (before equal opportunity standards) there was no mention of gender blindness and maybe one day there will be mention of sexual orientaton/sexual identity blindness.
When Clinton was in office I had the opinion that the servicemembers needed to treat him with respect no matter what his behavior was. I also held the opinion that if the servicemembers could be punished under the UCMJ for adultry (among other things) that Clinton should have "set the example" which is covered in the Field Manual of Leadership.
Saw that news of the count in my paper. I don't imagine some will ever accept the results. I don't know how much the paper spent on that recount but it didn't make much of a story, I don't think they got the results they hoped for.
posted on February 27, 2001 11:00:22 AM new
The last time I saw his show it was airing in the middle of the night... at least in this neck of the woods. I think it had the same fate as Dr Laura's show. Both shows were aired during the day (Rush's lasted long than Laura, though) but were placed in the early am hours and I haven't seen it since. This was several years ago.
I heard from the grapevine they didn't allow diverse audience because of attempts to challenge Rush. Of course, other people do this too.
posted on February 27, 2001 01:55:53 PM new
I attended a taping of Rush's show back in the early 90's and there were quite a few African-Americans in the audience. In fact, it was a pretty good mix of color, young & old, male & female. I remember that one of the rules was that men had to wear jackets and most of them wore ties as well.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:07:03 PM new
I was visiting a friend who really likes Limbaugh (sp?), and had the misfortune to hear a big chunk of his show. "Feminazis" did it for me. There were many more remarks of that sort, but that's the one I remember.
The man is an ass. Anything for a cheap laugh. Any legitimate points he may have are lost in the cutesy garbage he coughs up. I know it sells him to some markets, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:11:27 PM new
"As of today, Gore leads Bush in Florida by 1,017. This tally includes recounts conducted by the Miami Herald, the Palm Beach Post, the Orlando Sentinel, the Tampa Tribune, the Naples Daily News, and Democrats.com. It includes a gain of 682 votes for Gore in Palm Beach - which was more than enough to erase the 537 Bush lead certified by Katherine Harris. It also includes unexpected gains for Gore in Republican counties like Lake (130) Hillsborough (120), and Gadsden (40). Still, theserecounts vastly understate Gore's victory because they focus on undervotes, rather than overvotes. According to a study by the Washington Post, Gore would have
gained 28,510 votes if all of Florida's counties used an "instant-check" voting machine that detected overvotes and gave voters an opportunity to fix their ballots. These more expensive machines were used to a greater extent in Republican counties, a critical "equal protection" issue that was ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the
coming weeks, the recount of Florida's 67 counties will be completed. Then - and only then - will the American people know who really won Florida."
"Given Gore's current lead, we fully expect Gore to be declared the winner. And then Americans will have to confront the fundamental question: how did George W. Bush
steal the Presidency? When the Republican propaganda machine tells us to 'get over it," we quote Florida Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who said: "We will NEVER get over it. We will take this to our graves!'" --Bob Fertik, 2/27/01
posted on February 27, 2001 03:02:59 PM newWho is Bob Fertik? He's the co-founder of Democrats.com a web site that... that... hmmmmmm... let me put it this way, its the kind of place that krs would get his news from.
posted on February 27, 2001 05:39:06 PM new
Each reporting agency seems to be biased, some more than others, but lately I question if there are stories that we wouldn't even be hearing about if it weren't for independant news journalists or the rag magazines.
It was Matt Drudge (an almost unknown) who gave America the news on Monica's stained dress. Only then did the truth come out. The other news agencies were holding back that information from the general public. Journalism covering for a president they favored? Afraid of something, perhaps afraid of offending the wrong person in power?
Then The National Enquirer is the one who breaks the story of the $200,000.00 going to Clinton's B-I-L (Hugh Rodham) after one (of two) pardons he requested were granted.
A 'success fee' for being successful in obtaining the pardon.
I used to think one could not believe what was written by a 'rag' magazine. But lately the NE seems to be doing a better job of getting the facts, than are any of the news agencies. What happened? Aren't the left, right or center thinking news agencies capable of doing as good a job at investigating reporting because of their bias? Or is it just that their investigative reporters aren't as good as the independent journalists that aren't owned by one side or the other.
This reminds me of a weekly program that was being done on (if memory serves me) Primetime Thursday where Sam Donaldson was doing a weekly expose on government waste. The segments were to be on-going but lasted only a month, and then without explaination they stopped. No explaination as to why, but I'd guess someone (in high places) didn't like the country being made aware of this waste. So...I questioned who had the power to censor that information getting out to the American public.
Just like it's beginning to look to me like some news is being censored when it doesn't favor a particular opinion, of one side or the other.
If that is so, we are really in more trouble than we ever imagined.
posted on February 27, 2001 05:50:07 PM new
Ah, and as we sit and debate who should have won and who should have lost, do you think anything will be done to ensure this doesn't happen in future elections? It's a sad day when the world's super power has to rely upon the Pony Express to deliver it's votes for the most powerful man in the world.
We're in the 21st century, the great age of technology where we send people into space on an almost monthly basis. One would think that we could come up with a uniform voting process that would work! But of course, that would cost money - so here's an idea - Congress gives up its next pay raise and uses the money to give us a more reliable means to cast our votes.
posted on February 27, 2001 06:00:11 PM newLinda K...
A lot of the difference is merely that the rags don't have stringent standards to authenticate their sources...or their facts. Some have none. They can get the story out faster. Plus, some pay their stringers the big bucks.
The AP, for instance, has to have it all going in. Often takes longer for them to go to press than for someone like Drudge.
posted on February 27, 2001 06:42:06 PM new
Yeah. The worst part (to me, anyway) is that some of the rags have become mainstream. You hear them quoted on CNN, for godsake. It's affecting all of journalism.
If you checked out the Boston Globe, for instance, you'd see a lot of editorial content masquerading as news. Bleah.
