The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'm curious to know what right wing blogs are going crazy trying to get left wingers killed and what not. I read about 20 blogs a day with the little RSS feeds and the only time I see any of them mention left wingers is Markos and his folks doing something stupid or a newpaper blogger. Can you really say that they are crossing a line when they post the newspapers comment and editorial information to the net and ask their readers to mail in to the paper asking what they think of their professional bloggers statements?
Would you say they cross a line when they post the address, phone number, and place of business of someone with whom they disagree? Malkin did that a handful of times IIRC and I would doubt that she's alone in doing this. I tend to stick to less partisan places, though, so I only hear about it when something truly egregrious (how's that for spellcheck, will) pops up.
I try to keep up with her blog. Her style is not my preferred but she does bring some things to light that I don't catch elsewhere. The times I've seen her post the address, phone number and place of business of someone with which she disagrees has almost always been a newspaper. She's not posting personal home addresses, she's been on the receiving end of that and reserves a certain type of hatred for those who do.
If someone is posting a blog as a paid blogger for a newspaper, wouldn't you agree that if they say something disagreeable, the rest of us have a right to ask the editorial staff of the paper with which they work, if they agree to this, if it's the official position of the paper and to let them know you think they're wrong?
I'm not talking about a newspaper's editor's e-mail address, I'm talking about an individuals personal information to let her readers harrass and threaten them. The Santa Cruz protest of military recruitment on school grounds, for instance.
I don't have a problem with the militia. If they keep our government nervous of it's people then god bless imo.
Sonos on
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited June 2007
Why would we expect right-wing freelance nutjobs to be able to orchestrate anything more significant than blowing up a midwestern administration building or two?
I don't have a problem with the militia. If they keep our government nervous of it's people then god bless imo.
Yes, if only there were more people like David Koresh out there the world would be a better place.
read second post. i dont support dangerous cults or racist entities but if a group wants to arm themselves to the teeth in case they feel the federal govenment gets too big for their britches, then godspeed. its the reason for and wisdom of the 2nd amendment and perfectly within their legal rights.
Regarding the Republican activists behaving themselves, I read it in a book a few years ago, I used to read a book every couple of weeks and so I can't be 100% on the book name but I think it was Deadlock by the Washington Post reporters.
I can, however, understand why the election officials would want security with them. You get that much attention and people around and it only takes a lone nut to kill you. I'd probably request security too.
With Michelle Malkin and the Santa Cruz anti war protestors, that's a weak charge to get on her for. She posted a scan of the press release they issued with their address on it and she took it down when they requested her to. I remember when that happened because she also gave some backstory into her own cases when she had to move because someone shared her home address. Her answer to their charge that she tried to encourage people to harm them was "You made the press release, you sent it out. You published your contact information on it." She said she deals with dozens of press releases a day and how was she supposed to know that this one was published by complete idiots who used their home address.
I'm curious to know what right wing blogs are going crazy trying to get left wingers killed and what not. I read about 20 blogs a day with the little RSS feeds and the only time I see any of them mention left wingers is Markos and his folks doing something stupid or a newpaper blogger. Can you really say that they are crossing a line when they post the newspapers comment and editorial information to the net and ask their readers to mail in to the paper asking what they think of their professional bloggers statements?
Would you say they cross a line when they post the address, phone number, and place of business of someone with whom they disagree? Malkin did that a handful of times IIRC and I would doubt that she's alone in doing this. I tend to stick to less partisan places, though, so I only hear about it when something truly egregrious (how's that for spellcheck, will) pops up.
I try to keep up with her blog. Her style is not my preferred but she does bring some things to light that I don't catch elsewhere. The times I've seen her post the address, phone number and place of business of someone with which she disagrees has almost always been a newspaper. She's not posting personal home addresses, she's been on the receiving end of that and reserves a certain type of hatred for those who do.
If someone is posting a blog as a paid blogger for a newspaper, wouldn't you agree that if they say something disagreeable, the rest of us have a right to ask the editorial staff of the paper with which they work, if they agree to this, if it's the official position of the paper and to let them know you think they're wrong?
I'm not talking about a newspaper's editor's e-mail address, I'm talking about an individuals personal information to let her readers harrass and threaten them. The Santa Cruz protest of military recruitment on school grounds, for instance.
afaik the information she published was publically available on their webpage and she just mirrored it. After she did that, they removed it and claimed it was never there to begin with.
there is no difference between republicans and democrats anyway. they are the exact same party it's a sham.
What? No. Do you have television, newspapers, or access to the internets? Or are you just getting fed pamphlets from Ralph Nader and Pat Buchannan?
no whats the internet?
anyway, name any big difference and I'll toss in an obvious counterclaim.
Separation of church and state.
Compared to our not so distant past I don't see this as particularly present sans Bush having nightly one on one conversations with The Almighty. You can argue some of their policy decisions are wholly decided by their particular religion but I can just as easily argue that it is not.
Which is how it should be imo, tricky subjects like Abortion need a philisophical stalemate so neither side gets too nuts.
With Michelle Malkin and the Santa Cruz anti war protestors, that's a weak charge to get on her for.
I don't particularly care about it that much to get a strong charge for this. I have better things to do with my time than to bother with the extreme partisan hacks that blog out there, this was just one of them that I could think of.
She posted a scan of the press release they issued with their address on it and she took it down when they requested her to. I remember when that happened because she also gave some backstory into her own cases when she had to move because someone shared her home address. Her answer to their charge that she tried to encourage people to harm them was "You made the press release, you sent it out. You published your contact information on it." She said she deals with dozens of press releases a day and how was she supposed to know that this one was published by complete idiots who used their home address.
Most people send press releases to the press, she isn't part of the press so I doubt they sent one to her. Even if that was the case, she published their numbers on her blog after they took it off of their website and still has them on there. So much for taking it down after they requested it because her readers were sending out death threats.
moniker, you sure you know what a press release is? it was publically available and it encouraged people to contact the leaders of the organization. Malkin wasnt even the only one to have mirrored that information. The minute you put that stuff on a PRESS RELEASE marked "for immediate release", you have waived any say in the use of the information contained. Those kids were retards to have done that to begin with and imo they were entirely in the wrong when they decided to retaliate and post malkin's street address which was not publically available and they did explicitly condone death threats.
That's true, Democrats are basically socialists. Which is working out just so well for large industrialized nations without significant oil wealth.
Eh, France's main problem is its refusal to integrate their immigrant community and basically just leaving them to rot in housing projects (which they aren't too keen on) and the inability for employers to fire somebody for anything. Beyond that things aren't all that terrible. Same with a lot of other Western European countries.
Well, in his defense, even most Democrats don't seem too quick to support Gay Marriage. There are a lot of very conservatively religious Dem's and a lot of Dem's who are afraid of alienating voters.
That's true, Democrats are basically socialists. Which is working out just so well for large industrialized nations without significant oil wealth.
Yeah - how dare they suggest we go back the taxation and stagflation of the '90s. It practically makes us France!
Get real Sal. Democrats are conflicted about pushing for a British/Canadian model, let alone continental European model.
The politicians are "conflicted" in the "pushing for this will alienate the 65% of the country that isn't our base and get us tossed out on our asses" sort of way, and even that is tenuous - the big names have been pushing for a Canada-esque system for at least the last ten years. The base isn't conflicted at all.
Regarding the Republican activists behaving themselves, I read it in a book a few years ago, I used to read a book every couple of weeks and so I can't be 100% on the book name but I think it was Deadlock by the Washington Post reporters.
I can, however, understand why the election officials would want security with them. You get that much attention and people around and it only takes a lone nut to kill you. I'd probably request security too.
With Michelle Malkin and the Santa Cruz anti war protestors, that's a weak charge to get on her for. She posted a scan of the press release they issued with their address on it and she took it down when they requested her to. I remember when that happened because she also gave some backstory into her own cases when she had to move because someone shared her home address. Her answer to their charge that she tried to encourage people to harm them was "You made the press release, you sent it out. You published your contact information on it." She said she deals with dozens of press releases a day and how was she supposed to know that this one was published by complete idiots who used their home address.
Almost every computer is equipped with a simple paint program.
All simple paint programs have an option to create black bars of variable height and width.
It's not at all difficult to cover someones address.
Well, in his defense, even most Democrats don't seem too quick to support Gay Marriage. There are a lot of very conservatively religious Dem's and a lot of Dem's who are afraid of alienating voters.
But is that "I don't agree, but I don't want to hurt my Democrat votes"?
Or is that "I agree but people will start a witch hunt and call me a Faglover if I so much as mutter that I'm not opposed to killing gay people."
Let's be honest. No matter their political standing, homophobes are generally not bright OR big on thinking.
I seriously doubt there will be much violence coming out of the extreme right in the US aside from maybe a few random nutjobs if one of the dems get elected.
But really, the far left is the one that is involved in most of the violence in the streets with protesting in the US. Perhaps not the dems proper, but what I've seen of west coast anarchists is that they can cause some damage if agitated. With the latest Washington governor election, there is a high probability that the dem outright stole the election (she got pushed over on the third and final count), but there wasn't rioting or anything like that.
Regarding the Republican activists behaving themselves, I read it in a book a few years ago, I used to read a book every couple of weeks and so I can't be 100% on the book name but I think it was Deadlock by the Washington Post reporters.
I can, however, understand why the election officials would want security with them. You get that much attention and people around and it only takes a lone nut to kill you. I'd probably request security too.
With Michelle Malkin and the Santa Cruz anti war protestors, that's a weak charge to get on her for. She posted a scan of the press release they issued with their address on it and she took it down when they requested her to. I remember when that happened because she also gave some backstory into her own cases when she had to move because someone shared her home address. Her answer to their charge that she tried to encourage people to harm them was "You made the press release, you sent it out. You published your contact information on it." She said she deals with dozens of press releases a day and how was she supposed to know that this one was published by complete idiots who used their home address.
Almost every computer is equipped with a simple paint program.
All simple paint programs have an option to create black bars of variable height and width.
It's not at all difficult to cover someones address.
Michelle Malkin subscribes to the PR network, same thing all news outlets recieve PR's from. It's sorta like the AP only people and companies pay to have their stuff spread on it. Now if you recieved a PR release from these guys and you wanted to post it, would your first thougth be "gee this address that they just put on their press release asking to be contacted be a home address and need blocking out?" For that matter she posted a link to their website with the same PR and they didn't redact the address from their own copy.
Is she supposed to contact everyone who issues a press release and ask if they stuff they just spread out as contact information is actually the way they want to be contacted?
If she screwed up somewhere then she screwed up. I'm not on her payroll so I don't have to apologize for her, but if you're going to tell me the right wing blogs I read are trying to get people killed, and I ask for an example of some kind, at least give me an example that isn't of the lefty being a retard and spreading their own address around. If Malkin had dug up some unpublished addresses and posted those, it'd be harassment, but since they published their information to be shared, it was more like advertisement.
allen1234 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
As I recall, all of these issues have been reviewed a million times and the answer is always that the recount continued after it was no longer legal, and that Bush was always the legitimate winner regardless.
It's technically true that Bush v. Gore ended the recount, and that since SCOTUS decisions are the law, the law was on Bush's side. However, it's also true that the decision was a complete joke. Take, for example, the conlusion of justice Steven's dissent, where he himself points out the extent of the sham:
Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
You will never, ever be able to bring up this decision without filling me with rage. The decision is available everywhere online, and the legal reasoning is quite accessible. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look that the four dissenting justices are completely in the right, and that decision represents a huge failing of the legal system.
The 4 dissenters were right? I suspect Justice Stevens could have easily been talking about the Florida judges who kept shifting the rules and laws. Things that had to be done by certain dates by law were shifted and skipped. The chads were allowed to be counted one way then another then another without the already looked at ballots being included in the new rules. The state supreme court said that a ballot count of 576(I think) was the right number when neither lawyer arguing had stated a number higher than 300 for the sample pricints. The SCOTUS told florida to figure out what their statewide standard was going to be and the florida elections people told the county people to do it and the county people let the pricint workers do it meaning the rules differed by recount board, which the SCOTUS had told them not to do.
If it had gone on much longer Florida would have had to call special session for the legistlature and vote there on who to send electors for. Since Florida was a majority Repub state they probably would have sent Bush electors then to. If they had failed to do so we'd have had an actual Constitutional Crisis when the electors meet in DC. Since modern electors are sent for party loyalty neither side would have picked up enough to be declared a winner.
Then what do ya do?
allen1234 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I suspect Justice Stevens could have easily been talking about the Florida judges who kept shifting the rules and laws.
He was saying the only way to justify the majority position was upon the supposition that the judges in Florida were all ruthless partisans and total incompetents. Hence, SCOTUS was implicity endorsing that line of thought, which, needless to say, would do a blow to the nation's confidence in its judicial system.
As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one’s vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature’s uniform general standard to be established.
In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent–and are therefore legal votes under state law–but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996).5 Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, “[a] desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.” Ante, at 10.
what about the ever shifting standard for what counted as a signaled intent to vote? Miami Dade changed it 4 times, didn't bother reexamining the already examined votes under the new standards and then when they thought it was going to be hard to finish up, they took a long weekend for Thanksgiving.
What about the judges straight up screwing up? When the FL Supremes rule that X votes are in when X is greater than the votes either side was arguing should be included, something weird was going on, not necessarily conspiracy but definatly stupidity.
allen1234 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Nor are petitioners correct in asserting that the failure of the Florida Supreme Court to specify in detail the precise manner in which the “intent of the voter,†Fla. Stat. §101.5614(5) (Supp. 2001), is to be determined rises to the level of a constitutional violation.2 We found such a violation when individual votes within the same State were weighted unequally, see, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964), but we have never before called into question the substantive standard by which a State determines that a vote has been legally cast. And there is no reason to think that the guidance provided to the factfinders, specifically the various canvassing boards, by the “intent of the voter†standard is any less sufficient–or will lead to results any less uniform–than, for example, the “beyond a reasonable doubt†standard employed everyday by ordinary citizens in courtrooms across this country.3
Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns. Those concerns are alleviated–if not eliminated–by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process. Of course, as a general matter, “[t]he interpretation of constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints.†Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501 (1931) (Holmes, J.). If it were otherwise, Florida’s decision to leave to each county the determination of what balloting system to employ–despite enormous differences in accuracy4–might run afoul of equal protection. So, too, might the similar decisions of the vast majority of state legislatures to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems and ballot design.
Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority’s disposition of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one’s vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature’s uniform general standard to be established.
This seems vaguely OT. The main reason I responded was to not let Yar off with his assertion that Bush's victory was legitimate.
Spoilerize that shit! I don't want to blow up his brain.
I guess I should have said in practice. Listen to the rhetoric they spew while campaigning then watch as they deflate once in office. i.e. healthcare, taxation, environmentalism and a little war in the middle east.
That's true, Democrats are basically socialists. Which is working out just so well for large industrialized nations without significant oil wealth.
Yeah - how dare they suggest we go back the taxation and stagflation of the '90s. It practically makes us France!
Get real Sal. Democrats are conflicted about pushing for a British/Canadian model, let alone continental European model.
The politicians are "conflicted" in the "pushing for this will alienate the 65% of the country that isn't our base and get us tossed out on our asses" sort of way, and even that is tenuous - the big names have been pushing for a Canada-esque system for at least the last ten years. The base isn't conflicted at all.
O, well if you want to talk 30% core base unmoderated by centrists then the politics in this country boil down to moderate Socialists vs. the xenophobic Jesus Taliban.
Democrats are pretty market friendly these days though. Seriously.
Spoilerize that shit! I don't want to blow up his brain.
I guess I should have said in practice. Listen to the rhetoric they spew while campaigning then watch as they deflate once in office. i.e. healthcare, taxation, environmentalism and a little war in the middle east.
So you feel that Bill Clinton and George Bush, and the Democratic Congress and the Republican Congress have basically pursued the same policies.
Posts
The right-wing militia movement is alive and well, especially along the Mexican border.
I'm not talking about a newspaper's editor's e-mail address, I'm talking about an individuals personal information to let her readers harrass and threaten them. The Santa Cruz protest of military recruitment on school grounds, for instance.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Yes, if only there were more people like David Koresh out there the world would be a better place.
read second post. i dont support dangerous cults or racist entities but if a group wants to arm themselves to the teeth in case they feel the federal govenment gets too big for their britches, then godspeed. its the reason for and wisdom of the 2nd amendment and perfectly within their legal rights.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
I can, however, understand why the election officials would want security with them. You get that much attention and people around and it only takes a lone nut to kill you. I'd probably request security too.
With Michelle Malkin and the Santa Cruz anti war protestors, that's a weak charge to get on her for. She posted a scan of the press release they issued with their address on it and she took it down when they requested her to. I remember when that happened because she also gave some backstory into her own cases when she had to move because someone shared her home address. Her answer to their charge that she tried to encourage people to harm them was "You made the press release, you sent it out. You published your contact information on it." She said she deals with dozens of press releases a day and how was she supposed to know that this one was published by complete idiots who used their home address.
afaik the information she published was publically available on their webpage and she just mirrored it. After she did that, they removed it and claimed it was never there to begin with.
What? No. Do you have television, newspapers, or access to the internets? Or are you just getting fed pamphlets from Ralph Nader and Pat Buchannan?
no whats the internet?
anyway, name any big difference and I'll toss in an obvious counterclaim.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Separation of church and state.
Compared to our not so distant past I don't see this as particularly present sans Bush having nightly one on one conversations with The Almighty. You can argue some of their policy decisions are wholly decided by their particular religion but I can just as easily argue that it is not.
Which is how it should be imo, tricky subjects like Abortion need a philisophical stalemate so neither side gets too nuts.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Taxation.
Environmentalism.
I don't particularly care about it that much to get a strong charge for this. I have better things to do with my time than to bother with the extreme partisan hacks that blog out there, this was just one of them that I could think of.
Most people send press releases to the press, she isn't part of the press so I doubt they sent one to her. Even if that was the case, she published their numbers on her blog after they took it off of their website and still has them on there. So much for taking it down after they requested it because her readers were sending out death threats.
Immigration.
Spoilerize that shit! I don't want to blow up his brain.
Eh, France's main problem is its refusal to integrate their immigrant community and basically just leaving them to rot in housing projects (which they aren't too keen on) and the inability for employers to fire somebody for anything. Beyond that things aren't all that terrible. Same with a lot of other Western European countries.
Yeah - how dare they suggest we go back the taxation and stagflation of the '90s. It practically makes us France!
Get real Sal. Democrats are conflicted about pushing for a British/Canadian model, let alone continental European model.
Almost every computer is equipped with a simple paint program.
All simple paint programs have an option to create black bars of variable height and width.
It's not at all difficult to cover someones address.
But is that "I don't agree, but I don't want to hurt my Democrat votes"?
Or is that "I agree but people will start a witch hunt and call me a Faglover if I so much as mutter that I'm not opposed to killing gay people."
Let's be honest. No matter their political standing, homophobes are generally not bright OR big on thinking.
But really, the far left is the one that is involved in most of the violence in the streets with protesting in the US. Perhaps not the dems proper, but what I've seen of west coast anarchists is that they can cause some damage if agitated. With the latest Washington governor election, there is a high probability that the dem outright stole the election (she got pushed over on the third and final count), but there wasn't rioting or anything like that.
Michelle Malkin subscribes to the PR network, same thing all news outlets recieve PR's from. It's sorta like the AP only people and companies pay to have their stuff spread on it. Now if you recieved a PR release from these guys and you wanted to post it, would your first thougth be "gee this address that they just put on their press release asking to be contacted be a home address and need blocking out?" For that matter she posted a link to their website with the same PR and they didn't redact the address from their own copy.
Is she supposed to contact everyone who issues a press release and ask if they stuff they just spread out as contact information is actually the way they want to be contacted?
If she screwed up somewhere then she screwed up. I'm not on her payroll so I don't have to apologize for her, but if you're going to tell me the right wing blogs I read are trying to get people killed, and I ask for an example of some kind, at least give me an example that isn't of the lefty being a retard and spreading their own address around. If Malkin had dug up some unpublished addresses and posted those, it'd be harassment, but since they published their information to be shared, it was more like advertisement.
It's technically true that Bush v. Gore ended the recount, and that since SCOTUS decisions are the law, the law was on Bush's side. However, it's also true that the decision was a complete joke. Take, for example, the conlusion of justice Steven's dissent, where he himself points out the extent of the sham:
You will never, ever be able to bring up this decision without filling me with rage. The decision is available everywhere online, and the legal reasoning is quite accessible. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look that the four dissenting justices are completely in the right, and that decision represents a huge failing of the legal system.
If it had gone on much longer Florida would have had to call special session for the legistlature and vote there on who to send electors for. Since Florida was a majority Repub state they probably would have sent Bush electors then to. If they had failed to do so we'd have had an actual Constitutional Crisis when the electors meet in DC. Since modern electors are sent for party loyalty neither side would have picked up enough to be declared a winner.
Then what do ya do?
He was saying the only way to justify the majority position was upon the supposition that the judges in Florida were all ruthless partisans and total incompetents. Hence, SCOTUS was implicity endorsing that line of thought, which, needless to say, would do a blow to the nation's confidence in its judicial system.
Furthermore, the title 3 deadline was a fantasy:
What about the judges straight up screwing up? When the FL Supremes rule that X votes are in when X is greater than the votes either side was arguing should be included, something weird was going on, not necessarily conspiracy but definatly stupidity.
This seems vaguely OT. The main reason I responded was to not let Yar off with his assertion that Bush's victory was legitimate.
My memory was that Gore won by 20,000 votes or something like that.
I guess I should have said in practice. Listen to the rhetoric they spew while campaigning then watch as they deflate once in office. i.e. healthcare, taxation, environmentalism and a little war in the middle east.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
O, well if you want to talk 30% core base unmoderated by centrists then the politics in this country boil down to moderate Socialists vs. the xenophobic Jesus Taliban.
Democrats are pretty market friendly these days though. Seriously.
So you feel that Bill Clinton and George Bush, and the Democratic Congress and the Republican Congress have basically pursued the same policies.