Republican or Democrat?

Are you a Republican or Democrat?


  • Total voters
    101
D

deleted15807

Guest
The main issue with Republicans is they have been in power way to long.

[SIZE=+2]Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely[/SIZE] An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

And they have had absolute power and used it to their own advantage in simply breathtaking ways.
 

prepstudinsc

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
17,050
Media
440
Likes
21,697
Points
468
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm a registered Republican, although I haven't voted straight party in a long time. I have been voting a mixed ticket based purely on the people.
The Republicans don't represent my line of thinking, nor do the Democrats. I'm pretty much right down the middle and am supporting Obama right now.
In the last election, I voted Libertarian.
 

Jeffin90620

Sexy Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Posts
234
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
248
Location
Southern California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
... I saw George W. Bush "elected" (if that is a fair word for the subterfuge by which he became President)

I truly do not understand how people can still believe this. The New York Times conducted two separate recounts of the ballots (one allowing "dimpled chads" to be counted and the other abiding by the law that said chads had to be separated by at least two corners) and Bush had the most votes in each recount.

Also, it was the Florida Supreme Court (most of which were appointed by a Democratic governor) that tried the "subterfuge" by issuing rulings that were contradictory to state law (and would be beneficial to Gore). The United States Supreme Court (with its two most Liberal members dissenting) voted to overrule the abuse of power.


saw him set to undermining the rule of law...
And how has he done this? There were interpretations of law that were later overruled by the Supreme Court and the Bush Administration abided by those rulings. What this means is that the legal advice he got didn't withstand review; it does not mean he was trying to subvert the rule of law.
 

B_IanTheTall

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Posts
2,528
Media
0
Likes
1,016
Points
208
Location
NE Ohio, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What is the difference between a politician and a thief?

A thief takes your stuff and leaves.

A politician takes your stuff, eats your food and lectures you into a coma about why you be happy about it.
 

Ponyboy18

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Posts
45
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Oklahoma
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I have more traditional republican beliefs and would vote Rep. if they actually followed them, but as we all know politicians are about as likable as the anti-christ. anyways i would still tend to vote Rep. as opposed to Dem. but thats just me.
MATT,
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I truly do not understand how people can still believe this. The New York Times conducted two separate recounts of the ballots (one allowing "dimpled chads" to be counted and the other abiding by the law that said chads had to be separated by at least two corners) and Bush had the most votes in each recount.

Fact-check!

First of all, the New York Times did not conduct the recount (they did provide partial financial backing to the University of Chicago, who did conduct it.)

Second of all, there was no "law" that said chads had to be separated by at least two corners -- the lack of such a law was one of the sticking points in the case.

Third of all, there were more than "two separate recounts"; there were recounts of just the four counties (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, and Volusia) where recount efforts were halted by the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, and also recounts of all 67 counties in Florida, including counties where the local canvassing board refused to even begin a recount in the first place.

In all four counties in the first set of recounts, Gore would have gained more votes that the machine tally missed than Bush would have, even using the more-restrictive two-corner standard. However, it is true that Gore would have gained only some of the 537 votes needed to overcome the difference.

On the other hand, if all 67 counties had verified their ballots by hand, Gore would have won regardless of the standard applied: dimples, one-corner, two-corners, or even fully punched chads that were not tabulated by machine.

(source)
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Ah, mindseye, there you go again with those pesky facts. Don't you know that half-truths, innuendos, lies, insinuations, diversions, and propaganda are more effective, easier, and more in vogue?
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I truly do not understand how people can still believe this. The New York Times conducted two separate recounts of the ballots (one allowing "dimpled chads" to be counted and the other abiding by the law that said chads had to be separated by at least two corners) and Bush had the most votes in each recount..

You mean the irrelevent media-curiosity tallies that occurred long after the recounts that actually mattered were stopped by the Supreme Court?

Why do Republicans fear recounts so much?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You mean the irrelevent media-curiosity tallies that occurred long after the recounts that actually mattered were stopped by the Supreme Court?

Why do Republicans fear recounts so much?
Perhaps I am ignorant in a few areas, but I thought there were laws that specifically prohibited the US Supreme Court from interfering in a state's handling of that sort of thing.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Perhaps I am ignorant in a few areas, but I thought there were laws that specifically prohibited the US Supreme Court from interfering in a state's handling of that sort of thing.

I thought so too, but I recall the Florida Supreme Court either refused to rule or ducked the topic in 2000. The actions of the US Supreme Court were what put an immediate stop to the recounts making GWB the de facto winner. A faker ended up in office before the votes in a close election were completely and objectively tallied.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
To me the recounting and more recounting and more recounting seemed highly ridiculous. Asking why Republicans fear recounts is a completely asinine question. A better question is why are Democrats such poor losers? Of course they wanted recounts. It was a close election. and they wanted to count the votes every possible way until they could eke out some kind of victory. They had just as many lawyers trying just as many dirty tricks as the Republicans did. Acting all noble after the fact as if they were only pursuing truth and justice is total horseshit. They just wanted to win. But in the official count as well as in the majority of all the many recounts they did, Bush still won. I don't believe, regardless of what someone wrote on wikipedia, that there was ever substantial evidence that Gore could have won in Florida or there would have been another court case about it. I remember people close to the Gore camp in 2000 saying that they were going to concede the election and accept the ruling publicly while preparing a case privately... which they ultimately never presented because there was no case. Unless they are still gathering evidence seven years after the fact. The Supreme Court made a good call.

What does this have to do with Mayans? Oh wait, I clicked on the wrong thread.
 

burns1de

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Posts
1,766
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
To me the recounting and more recounting and more recounting seemed highly ridiculous. Asking why Republicans fear recounts is a completely asinine question. A better question is why are Democrats such poor losers? Of course they wanted recounts. It was a close election. and they wanted to count the votes every possible way until they could eke out some kind of victory. They had just as many lawyers trying just as many dirty tricks as the Republicans did. Acting all noble after the fact as if they were only pursuing truth and justice is total horseshit. They just wanted to win. But in the official count as well as in the majority of all the many recounts they did, Bush still won. I don't believe, regardless of what someone wrote on wikipedia, that there was ever substantial evidence that Gore could have won in Florida or there would have been another court case about it. I remember people close to the Gore camp in 2000 saying that they were going to concede the election and accept the ruling publicly while preparing a case privately... which they ultimately never presented because there was no case. Unless they are still gathering evidence seven years after the fact. The Supreme Court made a good call.

What does this have to do with Mayans? Oh wait, I clicked on the wrong thread.

It was foretold in the Mayan Book Of The Suck.