Printable View
Clinton won the electoral vote and the popular vote, but he didn't win a majority vote. (43% Clinton, 37% Bush, 20% other).
G-Dub won the electoral vote, but didn't win the popular vote, and of course he didn't have a majority. So, there's a difference.
Nonetheless, yeah, I guess you can argue that there's already lessened legitimacy once neither candidate wins a majority.
Stone!
6MS: Check.
Thanks man.
Pa
Except they haven't, and there is no reason to believe they would, since those ethnic groups have lived there in reasonable peace for centuries. You can cite the Kurds, but they were gassed because they committed treason and tried to overthrow the government.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Then say they choose a government that's in favor of ethnic clensing...no worries, right? I mean, it's not our place to prevent it; the majority chose that kind of government willingly, and all.
Nobody's arguing (I hope) that the Iraqis won't be better off under Dubya than Saddam. But you have to be careful here; your reasoning is dangerously close to the 19th century arguments for colonialization - saving the savages from themselves and all that.
Not that I have any desire to side with them, but there's no denying that they have gotten the shaft - they lost their families' homes and businesses, not the Isrealis. And I don't think you have to be a raving anti-semite to say that launching helicopter missiles into crowded streets and killing women and babies (check this week's headlines) is dead wrong.Quote:
Yet he waves the banner of 'hey, Palestinians get the shaft! I'm just here to show you the truth,'
Okay, stop it. You're just making yourself look incredibly stupid. EVERYBODY knows that Gore got more votes than Bush did. It was on the news for weeks. It was on the front covers of newspapers. There was a government inquiry. Leno and Letterman cracked jokes about it for a month. It's just the way the US electoral college is set up, it's not some granola-lunatic rumour.Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
I'm not denying his facts. I'm asking for them. If this isn't some baseless lunatic bullshit, then he should be able to bring me his source easily. God forbid somebody do some accurate research before bickering...
Honestly, if you don't know that, you should be the one doing the research, and whole lot more. And don't try to argue politics until you have. Carrying an uninformed opinion is irresponsible.
I think it was exacerbated by other factors -the fact that it was the closest election in US history, and the somewhat dodgy way in which the results were handled. Namely, the florida recount and the republican comittee that was appointed by Jeb Bush to oversee it.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
I still don't get the arguing in that regard:
Clinton won the electoral but not the popular vote when he ran against Bush Sr., and there was no uproar over that.
Same coin; Democrat or Republican, if you believe popular vote is all that matters, you ought to be pissed about both outcomes, regardless of what you think of each individual (ie. liking Clinton and letting it slide, hating Bush and holding a grudge - or vice versa for the opposites).
But it really is much ado about nothing. I think a system of populatory representation is more fair, but an electoral college is a good way to prevent regional disparity - for instance, in Canada the provinces of Quebec and Ontario basically decide every federal election because they have the bulk of the population, which leaves other places feeling left out. Especially on the west coast, where the election is often won before their polls even open.
But both systems have their good and bad points.
Well, that wasn't really what I was getting at. I was saying that if US intelligence really was that wrong on WMDs, and they weren't lying, then how can they hope to prevent terrorism? My point being you should probably hope they were lying, and not just incompetent.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
You really think a Terrorist is going to say "Yassir, I was sort of having second thoughts on this whole killing-innocent-people thing, but the Americans didn't find any WMDs! Resume bomb making!"
Of course, I was just being facetious. I'm quite sure the CIA and NSA and Project Future Photominator and whoever else is on the terrorism thing is up to the task. My own personal feeling is that they were offering money for information, which not suprisingly led to Iraqi sources coming up with "information", which pressure from above prompted them to accept as fact which they may have double checked or not taken at face value otherwise.
Because as it stands, even if there are still WMDs hidden, at the very least intel wasn't even close on their locations, which should be cause for concern.
Damn, beat me to it.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Almaci shouldn't have to "source" common knowledge any more than I should, or anyone else ought to. You give sources when the fact demands it - only an idiot would require a source to prove or back up the claim that Gore won the popular vote. If we were having a discussion of physics, we don't need to quote a proof of gravity to discuss aerodynamics, something like that. It'd be a waste of our time to have to quote sources for things everyone ought to know.
...
Basically, if you (personally) are not 100% sure of something as well-known as this Gore/Bush popular vote thing, then you just shouldn't be participating in discussions like this. That's all.
I don't understand what the big deal was, anyway, since Almaci said "You go to google and type the following: Elections 2000 popular vote". If you're reading TNL, you can open a new browser window, type "www.google.com" and then "Elections 2000 popular vote" and hit "Search". This isn't tough. It's not like he said, "Oh yeah? You want proof? It's in an obscure Burmese magazine that you can't find online and can only order for three times the price by mail. Find it yourself, jerkoff!" He's not telling you to write a program in COBOL or something equally difficult.
They've got to be there. If they're not, there's only one other place they could be - in the hands of terrorists. I would much rather any illicit weapons be buried, however deep, below the surface of Iraq as opposed to being in the hands of Al Qaeda or some other extremist group.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
Because as it stands, even if there are still WMDs hidden, at the very least intel wasn't even close on their locations, which should be cause for concern.
But yes, it is very disturbing to think that our intelligence could be off like this. :confused:
Either that or there arent any at all.
Oh and Yoshi I take offense at youre post(Stone´s example post no matter how wrong a light it puts on me at least can be done of as an example)yourse however is inexcuseable.
Being against ocupation of an entire region by a country who is not recognised as having a claim to that land by ANYONE else in the world, being against the policies of a country that assasinates(murder you know)suspects, destroys homes and infrastructers, forbid people to use roads on their own land, collectively punishes millions of people outside of its own borders even etcetera(hey these are all common knoledge) does not equel being anti Jew.
Hey im not even anti Zionist, its some of them I have a problem with.
No, I just believe sources should be given, like any proper debate. Perhaps I did pick the wrong issue, but it shouldn't be such an uproar just to ask for a fucking reference. My point wasn't about specific details.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Andrew, do you know how long it would take if we had to find sources for every commonly known fact? If we had to look up a link that shows the US Constitution to prove that the US has a constitution, if we had to come up with info to prove that Bush is actually the president right now.
If we had to prove Hans Blix was a real person, so on.
It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Almaci shouldn't have to "source" common knowledge any more than I should, or anyone else ought to. You give sources when the fact demands it - only an idiot would require a source to prove or back up the claim that Gore won the popular vote. If we were having a discussion of physics, we don't need to quote a proof of gravity to discuss aerodynamics, something like that. It'd be a waste of our time to have to quote sources for things everyone ought to know.
IE.
Almaci: "Israelis kill 100,000 Palestinian babies a year"
Me: "Give us a source, you jackass"
vs.
Almaci: "There is a country named Israel. There was a conflict called the Six-Day War that occurred in 1967."
Me: "Duh."
See, a difference.
Basically, if you (personally) are not 100% sure of something as well-known as this Gore/Bush popular vote thing, then you just shouldn't be participating in discussions like this. That's all.
I didn't even get a reference from him for his basis, Jeremy had to baby him and do it.
That is the biggest pile of b.s. I've seen posted in awhile. I'm uninformed because I ask for his reference? No, it's called making sure he's not talking out of his ass, like any debate does.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo Okay, stop it. You're just making yourself look incredibly stupid. EVERYBODY knows that Gore got more votes than Bush did. It was on the news for weeks. It was on the front covers of newspapers. There was a government inquiry. Leno and Letterman cracked jokes about it for a month. It's just the way the US electoral college is set up, it's not some granola-lunatic rumour.
Honestly, if you don't know that, you should be the one doing the research, and whole lot more. And don't try to argue politics until you have. Carrying an uninformed opinion is irresponsible.
Why are you arguing? What is the point if you're not going to have a set of standard rules?
There wouldn't have been "an uproar" if you had asked for a reference regarding something that wasn't COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Yes, dumbass, you did pick the wrong issue - had you picked out some statement, that, I don't know, actually required a reference, then no one would have jumped on you.Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
No, I just believe sources should be given, like any proper debate. Perhaps I did pick the wrong issue, but it shouldn't be such an uproar just to ask for a fucking reference. My point wasn't about specific details.
I didn't even get a reference from him for his basis, Jeremy had to baby him and do it.
Again, if you didn't know Gore won the popular vote, then you've got no business participating in these threads.
You're as deluded as Almaci is. These threads would be even more interminably long if we had to source everything just to make sure that ignorant people like you could keep up.Quote:
I'm uninformed because I ask for his reference? No, it's called making sure he's not talking out of his ass, like any debate does.
"Making sure he's not talking out of his ass" requires knowing the difference between factual reality and a debatable statement - someone who doesn't know anything can't do that.
You have no basis for your claims here. If something is such 'common knowledge' then you shouldn't have ANY trouble getting your source. The above is an example of that.
Until you reach that point, all of the above posts are pretty much poppy-cock. (yes, I had to bring out the big gun for this: poppy-cock)
That's the biggest fucking shit faced lie I've ever seen. Asking for a reference is COMMON PLACE when debating politics. Otherwise you just sit there going: "Uhh.. uhhh... shaddap!"Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
There wouldn't have been "an uproar" if you had asked for a reference regarding something that wasn't COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Yes, dumbass, you did pick the wrong issue - had you picked out some statement, that, I don't know, actually required a reference, then no one would have jumped on you.
Again, if you didn't know Gore won the popular vote, then you've got no business participating in these threads.
Like 3 people thus far have done to me. Obviously you'd rather react like children then make any sort of real debate.
How the hell am I somehow ignorant when you are the one who is ignoring citing something like a reference. You have no business TALKING if you don't have the balls to back it up.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
You're as deluded as Almaci is. These threads would be even more interminably long if we had to source everything just to make sure that ignorant people like you could keep up.
"Making sure he's not talking out of his ass" requires knowing the difference between factual reality and a debatable statement - someone who doesn't know anything can't do that.
You, of course, are ignoring the issue I am stating at hand. It has become apparent that you, Alcami and whoever else get some sort of gratification arguing pointless and facts without basis (hence, a reference).
This would DRAMATICALLY reduce the bullshit you claim Alcami posts if he had to give references. But then again I'm sure you're all fine and dandy simply spewing hear-say.
Why the fuck would anyone owe you the 5 seconds necessary to get a source, when it's something that you ought to know already?Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
You have no basis for your claims here. If something is such 'common knowledge' then you shouldn't have ANY trouble getting your source. The above is an example of that.
Everyone participating in this thread other than you knew Gore won the popular vote. It's ridiculous to think that Almaci should waste even a millisecond trying to quote a source when no one needs it other than you.
Look. I make the statement:
"President Bush's new tax plan is going to reduce the dividend tax"
By your rationale, I should provide links proving:
1.) Who President Bush is.
2.) What a President is.
3.) Who Bush is the president of.
4.) That Bush does in fact have a tax plan.
5.) What dividends are.
6.) That the US had a dividend tax.
7.) That Bush's plan will definitely reduce the tax.
and so on.
No, asking for a reference is commonplace when a statement based on not-widely-known facts is made in the midst of a political discussion. You don't understand what debate is.Quote:
That's the biggest fucking shit faced lie I've ever seen. Asking for a reference is COMMON PLACE when debating politics. Otherwise you just sit there going: "Uhh.. uhhh... shaddap!"
Like 3 people thus far have done to me. Obviously you'd rather react like children then make any sort of real debate.
Actually, you clearly do not and have proven you would rather condone talking out of your ass without researching the subject through. Asking for a reference for a point you bring across (such as Gore > Bush in pop vote) is COMMON. You clearly have no grasp.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Why the fuck would anyone owe you the 5 seconds necessary to get a source, when it's something that you ought to know already?
Everyone participating in this thread other than you knew Gore won the popular vote. It's ridiculous to think that Almaci should waste even a millisecond trying to quote a source when no one needs it other than you.
Look. I make the statement:
"President Bush's new tax plan is going to reduce the dividend tax"
By your rationale, I should provide links proving:
1.) Who President Bush is.
2.) What a President is.
3.) Who Bush is the president of.
4.) That Bush does in fact have a tax plan.
5.) What dividends are.
6.) That the US had a dividend tax.
7.) That Bush's plan will definitely reduce the tax.
and so on.
No, asking for a reference is commonplace when a statement based on not-widely-known facts is made in the midst of a political discussion. You don't understand what debate is.
Why do they owe 'me'? How about they owe the arguement. Otherwise, again (maybe you choose to ignore it, ignorantly), you have no grounds to open your mouth in an arguement.
Now, again, you're talking out of your ass.
Something like Who the President is, or what a president is, IS common place. That's something everybody who could participate in a political debate would know. I did not ask for this, as you claim.
For your reference, you would only have to provide basis for the claim of "President Bush's new tax plan is going to reduce the dividend tax" thus making it no longer a claim, but rather a fact. Of course, this is limited to only whether or not a rebuttle is made and/or the opposing party appeals.