Anyone else noticed these similarities....?

[Fljotsdale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
eventuations .

---

Eventuations?????????????

I have an instinctive reaction against such recently coined portmanteau words in the English language!....

Having said that, if a language doesn't grow it dies.
But 'eventuations'?

Presumably a blend of 'event' and 'situation' .... the words have differing tenses, just for starters....

Guess I'm just getting old! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yeah, I know its off-topic! Apologies to all!

[skywalker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:


Mark, get off his case. Leo is as entitled to his reactive opinion as the person posting. You can't post a strong opinion and not expect a counter opinion. Seems your calls for respect are only for those you agree with mate.

Debate his point, not the fact that should or shouldn't think what he does.

Cheers. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Yorick ]

---

The same goes for you as well!

You've treated my posts the same way.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
Terrorists: Leader was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election.

Western government..... you get the picture.......

---

I think Yorick correctly pointed out all the problems with the other comparisons, but as an American, this is one I would like to disprove personally.

The election may have looked "messy", but it was resolved per the Constitution, the greatest law of our land, by the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the judicial branch of our three tiered governmental system. The Supreme Court decides on the interpretation of the Constitution, and their word is final.

Since the very first presidental election, the president has never been decided by the popular vote on a national scale. We have a representative government, and even our presidental elections are handled through representatives. Those representatives are our members of the Electorial College. Each state, based on population, has a certain number of Electors (actually several sets, but I don't want to get too in depth if it isn't necessary).

This does not mean the popular vote doesn't count! The popular vote, on the state level, determines who that state's Electorial votes are cast for. It's an all or nothing system designed to "level the playing field". By this, I mean it's intent is to make all votes equally important whether rural or urban. The winner of the state, in popular votes, gets all of that state's Electorial votes.

This does allow, very rarely, for the winner of the popular vote in a very close national election to lose in the Electorial College. The 2000 election was the 4th time this has happened, and the second time that Florida was the deciding state. I've mentioned the others in a couple of posts, so I won't again here (unless someone wants me to blather on [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

All of that takes place in every single presidental election, and always has. There have been refinements over the years through Constitutional Ammendments. Originally, the Electorial College representatives cast two votes, and the person with the most Electorial votes became president, and the runner up became Vice-President.

There is nothing wrong with the current system and nothing unique (unusual, but not unique) about the 2000 presidental election.

If you are referring the claims of irregularity in Florida, that is a different story. The charges of voter fraud, impropriety, etc., in Florida were made by both sides against the other. There was also violence by Democrates and by Republicans during this time. There are those who would be dissatisfied no matter which way this election came out. Personally, I had resolved myself to Gore's winning after the Florida Supreme court's decisions. If the US Supreme Court had not felt it Constitutionally necessary to intervene, and things had gone for Gore, he would be my president. I would not oppose him because I didn't vote for him.

There was no Bush "conspiracy". Questions were asked, and decided by our laws, through the interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Internationally, it may have looked "bad", but it worked as legally as it is suppose to. Domestically, there are those Americans who didn't like Bush then, and those who will never like him, but right now they are in the minority.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
The election may have looked "messy", but it was resolved per the Constitution, the greatest law of our land, by the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the judicial branch of our three tiered governmental system. The Supreme Court decides on the interpretation of the Constitution, and their word is final.

---

That election was messy! A travesty to Democracy! Even if I had not voted, I'd have to be pretty ignorant of human nature and greed on both sides not to see what went on.
It was resolved by appointed judges, not elected judges and their majority favored Bush being in office. Just because their word is final does not mean that it is right.

This does not mean the popular vote doesn't count! The popular vote, on the state level, determines who that state's Electorial votes are cast for. It's an all or nothing system designed to "level the playing field". By this, I mean it's intent is to make all votes equally important whether rural or urban. The winner of the state, in popular votes, gets all of that state's Electorial votes.

We'll honestly never know if Florida was won by popular vote or force. I am inclined to believe it was taken by force after the actions of Republicans against vote counters, breaking down doors and taking ballots, threatening violence, etc. Sure the Democrats got violent! They wanted to make damn sure that Bush had "won" or not!

There is nothing wrong with the current system and nothing unique (unusual, but not unique) about the 2000 presidental election.

Excuse me? Even government officials will admit, the system needs updating and refined!
Where do you think the older most malfunctioning voting machines are placed? In minority districts. That's a fact, Jack!
Anyone with a high school education knows that the system is messed up because it is unfair to poorer districts and favors the richer ones! (Remember "The American Way"? )

Unusual? No, it was unique. Whenever in history did the FLorida vote come down to being counted or given up through violence, or any other state for that matter?

There was no Bush "conspiracy".

*cough*Katherine Harris*cough
soon to *cough*run*cough for Senate

Questions were asked, and decided by our laws, through the interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Internationally, it may have looked "bad", but it worked as legally as it is suppose to. Domestically, there are those Americans who didn't like Bush then, and those who will never like him, but right now they are in the minority.

I don't count myself or the majority of the popular vote as a minority! And as legally as it was supposed to could very well be "interrpreted" as "as legally as it cost" [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, here is an interesting link for all sides of the issue, not just the elections but voting machines and all:

URL's on the 2000 U.S. Presidential Elections

Prepare to stay busy if you are interested enough to look through the headlines and articles!

Edited to correct the code for your last paragraph being bold. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Moni ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moni:

We'll honestly never know if Florida was won by popular vote or force. I am inclined to believe it was taken by force after the actions of Republicans against vote counters, breaking down doors and taking ballots, threatening violence, etc. Sure the Democrats got violent! They wanted to make damn sure that Bush had "won" or not!

Violence was threatened on both sides, there was intimidation on both sides, and there was wrong doing on both sides. The Democrats were angry for the same reason as the Republicans, they thought the election was being stolen from their candidate. The Democrats were not satisfied with the count and the Republicans were not satisfied with the recount. Special treatment was cried by both sides. Both sides argued the same things about their opposition. Different sides of a coin? I think so.

Reporters counted the votes (in at least one of the suspect counties) after this was all over, and guess what? Both sides won! Depending on which reporter you listen to. [img]redface.gif[/img]

Excuse me? Even government officials will admit, the system needs updating and refined!
Where do you think the older most malfunctioning voting machines are placed? In minority districts. That's a fact, Jack!
Anyone with a high school education knows that the system is messed up because it is unfair to poorer districts and favors the richer ones! (Remember "The American Way"? )

Unusual? No, it was unique. Whenever in history did the FLorida vote come down to being counted or given up through violence, or any other state for that matter?

I was talking about the Electorial College, not voting machines, etc., being fine. There is no problem with a president losing the national election with the popular vote and winning through the Electorial College. It's a rarity, but not something that can't happen as proven four times.

There are many issues brought to light by the close election that should have been addressed years ago. They weren't addressed because, without a close election, no one cared! "Didn't understand the ballot", "Absentees not counted", etc. Suddenly, America was concerned about these voters, who hadn't been counted correctly for years by some of the news accounts I saw.

Nationwide, Democrats and Republicans could have cared less about voters rights in Florida until it affected them, and then suddenly, it was a travesty of justice? Not hardly, this was as political as anything else and only mattered because of the closeness of the election. I stand by my statement, there is nothing wrong with the election process, as defined by the constitution, but there is plenty we can do to screw it up.

I saw the protests but don't remember violence stopping the votes. Decisions were made with relation to political and legal regards. There was no right side when it came to this. Each side did as much to stop what they didn't want to happen as the other side did.

Unusual as to the aforementioned Electorial College issue, but even regarding your points, this is hardly unique. There are voter irregularities in every local, state, and national election. It's terrible, it needs to be fixed, it targets the poor, but it's not unique.

The American Dream is about fixing what's wrong, not being perfect. Remember I said it's a "work in process". If I didn't say that, I was thinking it, and it sounds really good

*cough*Katherine Harris*cough
soon to *cough*run*cough for Senate

*offers Moni a lozenge*

Look for the Democratic Attorney General of Florida to "work" his way up the political ladder, too.

Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. People worked for their side in this as far as their jobs and the law would allow. One side didn't do more/worse than the other.

There was no Bush conspiracy. His people worked as hard as they could for their candidate, just like Gore's people did. It could just as easily have gone the other way.


I don't count myself or the majority of the popular vote as a minority! And as legally as it was supposed to could very well be "interrpreted" as "as legally as it cost" [img]tongue.gif[/img]

"As legally as it cost" is a pretty good assessment, but Gore's lawyers were just as expensive (more so, I'd imagine being more high profile) as Bush's, and it was Gore that decided on the legal route, which was ok, but lets not say Bush bought the presidency. Both sides were willing to go all the way, no matter what.

It all boils down to politics. Neither man would have been able to run for president without the powers that be, both in and out of office, giving them the chance and using their "power" to help the different causes.


-Minor Point- Florida's Supreme Court Justices are elected officials (if I'm wrong don't hit me, but I swear I saw that during the election ), and they voted down party lines. Appointed officials are still appointed and approved by elected officials. Politics are politics.

As to the Supreme Court Justice's "for life" appointments, I like the idea. They may be of a political party to start with, and continue to carry the designation, but they don't have to worry about keeping "the party" happy after taking the oath. I think you see more honest decisions from them because of this. Of course, if party members didn't believe they were what they wanted, they wouldn't be nominated to start with. Checks and balances, to the "n-th" degree.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fljotsdale:


Eventuations?????????????

I have an instinctive reaction against such recently coined portmanteau words in the English language!....

Having said that, if a language doesn't grow it dies.
But 'eventuations'?

Presumably a blend of 'event' and 'situation' .... the words have differing tenses, just for starters....

Guess I'm just getting old! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yeah, I know its off-topic! Apologies to all!

---

Very off topic! It's called poetic license. If a word doesn't exist to accurately describe something, improvise. It's a logical extension of event, eventual, eventuate, eventuated, eventuating, eventuation.

Within the spirit of the language and understandable. Just a deviation on the tense of "eventuate" and "eventuating."


: even·tu·ate
Pronunciation: i-'ven-ch&-"wAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Date: 1789
: to come out finally : RESULT, COME ABOUT


Anyway, others have used this word.

Check out these for a start.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Violence was threatened on both sides, there was intimidation on both sides, and there was wrong doing on both sides. The Democrats were angry for the same reason as the Republicans, they thought the election was being stolen from their candidate. The Democrats were not satisfied with the count and the Republicans were not satisfied with the recount. Special treatment was cried by both sides. Both sides argued the same things about their opposition. Different sides of a coin? I think so.

I was strictly speaking of the initial violence that literally stopped the vote counting prior to litigation to determine the outcome...Republicans storming into the rooms where votes were being counted and stopping it from continuing with violence and threatened violence. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Reporters counted the votes (in at least one of the suspect counties) after this was all over, and guess what? Both sides won! Depending on which reporter you listen to. [img]redface.gif[/img]

Were all the ballots accounted for?

I was talking about the Electorial College, not voting machines, etc., being fine. There is no problem with a president losing the national election with the popular vote and winning through the Electorial College. It's a rarity, but not something that can't happen as proven four times.

It is the voting machines that end up determing what the electoral college is, right?

There are many issues brought to light by the close election that should have been addressed years ago. They weren't addressed because, without a close election, no one cared! "Didn't understand the ballot", "Absentees not counted", etc. Suddenly, America was concerned about these voters, who hadn't been counted correctly for years by some of the news accounts I saw.

Nationwide, Democrats and Republicans could have cared less about voters rights in Florida until it affected them, and then suddenly, it was a travesty of justice? Not hardly, this was as political as anything else and only mattered because of the closeness of the election. I stand by my statement, there is nothing wrong with the election process, as defined by the constitution, but there is plenty we can do to screw it up.

People in the poorer districts have been crying foul (fairly) since they were given the rights to vote..."no one" listened because the subject did not get as much national or international attention until the presidential election of 2000.
Did making the public more aware do anything to get the problems fixed? No. That's the saddest part of this democracy...the rich run it and "screw what the poor can't do about it".

I saw the protests but don't remember violence stopping the votes. Decisions were made with relation to political and legal regards. There was no right side when it came to this. Each side did as much to stop what they didn't want to happen as the other side did.

There was violence that ended the initial recounts in counties that could have made a difference in the outcome, had every voter's ballot been processed.

Unusual as to the aforementioned Electorial College issue, but even regarding your points, this is hardly unique. There are voter irregularities in every local, state, and national election. It's terrible, it needs to be fixed, it targets the poor, but it's not unique.

Not unique because it has been going on so long?

The American Dream is about fixing what's wrong, not being perfect. Remember I said it's a "work in process". If I didn't say that, I was thinking it, and it sounds really good

It might sound good to say so, but you and I both know, the only things that get fixed are the things that put more money into the richer folks bank accounts. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*offers Moni a lozenge*

LOL Thank you but I feel fine.

Look for the Democratic Attorney General of Florida to "work" his way up the political ladder, too.

I like the way you put "work" into parentheses. I think we know what we mean when I agree with that statement. ("cha ching!")

Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. People worked for their side in this as far as their jobs and the law would allow. One side didn't do more/worse than the other.

There was no Bush conspiracy. His people worked as hard as they could for their candidate, just like Gore's people did. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

If it had been done fairly and without violence, it would have.

"As legally as it cost" is a pretty good assessment, but Gore's lawyers were just as expensive (more so, I'd imagine being more high profile) as Bush's, and it was Gore that decided on the legal route, which was ok, but lets not say Bush bought the presidency. Both sides were willing to go all the way, no matter what.

I was referring to the cost of a judge, not a lawyer. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It all boils down to politics. Neither man would have been able to run for president without the powers that be, both in and out of office, giving them the chance and using their "power" to help the different causes.

Even you have to admit, that the powerful can get awfully ugly in enforcing their point of view, esp whenthe stakes are that high. [img]smile.gif[/img]


-Minor Point- Florida's Supreme Court Justices are elected officials (if I'm wrong don't hit me, but I swear I saw that during the election ), and they voted down party lines. Appointed officials are still appointed and approved by elected officials. Politics are politics.

As to the Supreme Court Justice's "for life" appointments, I like the idea. They may be of a political party to start with, and continue to carry the designation, but they don't have to worry about keeping "the party" happy after taking the oath. I think you see more honest decisions from them because of this. Of course, if party members didn't believe they were what they wanted, they wouldn't be nominated to start with. Checks and balances, to the "n-th" degree.

I was referring to The Supreme Court and no, not everyone thinks they should all still be there, nor, I am sure did everyone agree with their appointments into the positions as a good idea either.
Political judges can't be impartial. Politically impartial (EDIT: in regard to politically appointed judges) is an oxymoron.



[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Moni ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moni:

I was strictly speaking of the initial violence that literally stopped the vote counting prior to litigation to determine the outcome...Republicans storming into the rooms where votes were being counted and stopping it from continuing with violence and threatened violence. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I remember the incident. It was started after the Republican and Democratic "moniters" were told they would not be able moniter the vote count any longer. They protested loudly in the hall. The protest in question was about that particular count not being monitered, not the count itself. They stopped counting because they were afraid something might happened, not because the Republicans said they were going to storm the building. The idea of counting "behind closed doors" was thought improper by Republican's when Democratic boards wanted to do it and thought improper by Democrats when Republican boards would do the counting. I'm neither Republican or Democrat and believe it was improper in both cases.

Were all the ballots accounted for by the reporters who counted after the election?

Some said yes, some said no just like everyone else.

It is the voting machines that end up determing what the electoral college is, right?

I don't/haven't disagreed with the voting machine complaints. I was addressing a question on the Electorial College as a completely different issue.

People in the poorer districts have been crying foul (fairly) since they were given the rights to vote..."no one" listened because the subject did not get as much national or international attention until the presidential election of 2000.

Did making the public more aware do anything to get the problems fixed? No. That's the saddest part of this democracy...the rich run it and "screw what the poor can't do about it".

My point was that being Republican or Democrat, for Bush or for Gore, makes no difference in this argument.

There was violence that ended the initial recounts in counties that could have made a difference in the outcome, had every voter's ballot been processed.

They were processed and reprocessed, but neither side liked what they saw and did what they could to stop or continue based on their "side". Democrats didn't want Republican votes recounted, and Republicans didn't want Democratic votes recounted. Both sides tried to stop what was not in their favor.

Not unique because it has been going on so long?

Not unique because it has happened before as you mentioned earlier.

If it had been done fairly and without violence, it would have.

*cough* *gag* *Ronn chokes on the assumption*(OH NO! Ronn's out of lozenges ) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Even you have to admit, that the powerful can get awfully ugly in enforcing their point of view, especially when the stakes are that high. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I completely agree!

Political judges can't be impartial. Politically impartial (EDIT: in regard to politically appointed judges) is an oxymoron.

Unfortunately, this is true whether appointed or elected.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I don't/haven't disagreed with the voting machine complaints. I was addressing a question on the Electorial College as a completely different issue.

But can you say that the Electoral college is fair when not all votes are tallied properly? That was my only point. I understand the way it works and don't have a problem with the electoral college, just the way it can turn on candidates when the voting machines working properly or not can make all the difference in the outcome.

My point was that being Republican or Democrat, for Bush or for Gore, makes no difference in this argument.

A difference can be made if the process is carried out completely and fairly.

*cough* *gag* *Ronn chokes on the assumption*(OH NO! Ronn's out of lozenges ) [img]smile.gif[/img]

What happened to the one I let you keep?

(I won't keep rehashing the incidents in FL that stopped the vote count...it is pointless since "W" is in office and we are speaking of separate incidents, which gets us nowhere)


Did you check out any of the links from my first post?

[img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]
Til Next time, Ronn_Bman!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moni:
Did you check out any of the links from my first post?

[img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]
Til Next time, Ronn_Bman!

---

Yes, they were informative. [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img]