outfoxed

["Sixhits"]

Got that article?

No.  Once they realized who actually won the election, they wouldn't publish it because it would make Bush look good.  And we can't have that, now can we?  Talk about your "non-biased" media all you want.  They are all a bunch of bullshit artists who want nothing more than to feed you what they want you to hear.

ok.  SO.

The NYTimes published an article saying Bush won on Florida, because you've read it or heard about it. But, they didn't publish it because it would make Bush look good.

Which is true?

Whatever.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

The NYTimes published an article saying Bush won on Florida, because you've read it or heard about it. But, they didn't publish it because it would make Bush look good.

My source lives in New York and Florida and is a talk show host.  You figure it out.

[spike]

Wait, they published an article...that they then did not publish. Interesting...

oops, asked and answered, sorry....

[BTs_FahQ2]

Stories from a liberal and non liberal source.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story

data on a statistical analysis:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/vote/vote.html

the bbc on a NY times article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1440130.stm

read on please

More statistical analysis for the vote factoring in the ballot design and buchanon votes:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~mruben/florida.htm

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Stories from a liberal and non liberal source.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story

data on a statistical analysis:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/vote/vote.html

the bbc on a NY times article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1440130.stm

read on please

Well there you have it.  Sorry guys, but I really don't have the time to research every one of my statements on here....I do have a job you know.  But thank goodness I have Fah around for such occasions!  

[BTs_FahQ2]

Wacky berkeley site with more data than one person should care for:
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/past/electoralcollege.html

[*DAMN Bondo]

Actually, the New York Times et. al. recount showed that Gore would have won if there would have been as STATEWIDE recount of EVERY vote. They just put that Bush would have still won in the headlines because that was based on the partial recount that Gore was pushing for.

This doesn't include the hundreds of illegal votes counted from absentee ballots that did not arrive in time. That doesn't include the tens of thousands of votes illegally pursed from the voter roles due to the ex-felon pursing scam (the company that did it has admitted the problem.

All these issues are discussed in a different documentary, Unprecedented.

As for Outfoxed...it wasn't a spectacular documentary but it was interesting. Was no surprise that Fox was conservative biased (and yes, they are that GS.)

As for the Electoral College...it is time the rule about needing 270 votes is elimintated, we shouldn't need a majority to declare a winner. Canada just had the liberal party voted in as a plurality government, down from its majority status. We need to make this change so electoral reform like Colorado is facing this November can happen where electoral votes are not decided winner takes all. We need more third parties to have involvement. Probably easiest though would just do popular election of the President. The electoral college does no better in preventing a crazy majority or whatever from taking over...in fact it has allowed a crazy minority to take over as we speak.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

As for the Electoral College...it is time the rule about needing 270 votes is elimintated, we shouldn't need a majority to declare a winner. We need to make this change so electoral reform like Colorado is facing this November can happen where electoral votes are not decided winner takes all. We need more third parties to have involvement. Probably easiest though would just do popular election of the President.

Oh damn.  Bondo (or Bucc?) and I agree.  Now isn't that fuckin scary?!  

[BTs_FahQ2]

Ahh, but how can you claim it to be a crazy minority when all polling no matter who does it is calling so close of an election?  According to your theory of atrocities and general knowledge of the election, the people should be outraged and revolting against the established leadership.  I can only see that the current mood of the country contradicts what you are claiming.  Unless you declare the masses of the U.S. an uneducated mass that knows nothing better in which the side you support has so sadly failed to inform.

I cannot see the correlation.

["Sixhits"]

Ahh, but how can you claim it to be a crazy minority when all polling no matter who does it is calling so close of an election?  According to your theory of atrocities and general knowledge of the election, the people should be outraged and revolting against the established leadership.  I can only see that the current mood of the country contradicts what you are claiming.  Unless you declare the masses of the U.S. an uneducated mass that knows nothing better in which the side you support has so sadly failed to inform.

I cannot see the correlation.

Good point.  

For a time the 2000 election will be a rallying cry for the left. I my opinion it should be the rallying cry of every person who's commited to an honest Democracy. But it won't matter so much to everyone else in the end. Here's my break down on why.

(1) A significant minority of the population is pissed about the 2000 election and feel it was flawed and fraudulant.

(2) A significant portion of the population feels the election was fair, if flawed, but thems the breaks.

(3) A significant portion of the population really doesn't care to understand -- whether it was fraud or legit, it's over.

The correlation? Not a correlation so much as a realization. A good portion of the population doesn't care and another portion cares, but is glad they won.

The people that represent pop 2 tried to suppress votes for their opponent and count more votes for their choice. The people who represent pop 1 dropped the ball and allowed themselves to be outmanouvered.  Pop 3, which has no representation but gets much of it's information from public and private media sources is not informed well. Certainly, they do not know all the details. As an aditional factor, they get conflicting arguments and analysis -- this serves both sides who represent pops 1 and 2.  

What do you mean by crazy minority?

What matters to me is that the representatives of pop 2 (Republicans and their supported) acted to supress votes, marginalize minorities, and commit fraud. In essence, their crimes are crimes of Commision -- they did wrong. They are in my view of the moral net sum morally evil, in regards to this event. The representatives of pop 1 (Democrats and their supporters [me included]) did not act to protect the rights of the people. Ours was a crime of Omission. We failed to protect Democracy, and in my view of the moral net sum we were morally evil.

So who's worse? Those that commit a crime or those that let it be commited?  

More to the point, who's worse now? Pop 1 is still trying to commit crimes against Democracy.  But, Pop 2 is now actively fighting to stop them.

In my view of the moral net sum the Dems are morally good.  You can imagine what I think of the right.

[*DAMN Bondo]

FahQ, I don't blame the uninformed masses, I blame the media whose  job it is to inform them for dropping the ball. Majority opinion is a logical falacy after all, so just because a majority don't consider Florida a problem or don't know what happened, that doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem.

Oh, and I wanted to add on the topic of nonpartisan media. PBS (stateside) and BBC News are two of the best apolitical news reports. Although the News Hour on PBS does get into opinion later on, the first half and all of the BBC News World Report is just hard news report.

[BTs_FahQ2]

You see, this is where I think things are funny.  Being a communications major and working in the field, I well know the sole pupose of every program on tv is to get ratings.  NO matter what they way tell you about bipartisan, partisan, selling both sides of the story, they tell the people what they want to hear as long as they want to hear it.  As soon as they don't, they move on.

This is why you hear about murders more then accomplishments.  It has been studied and well known that people are more attentive to tragedy and sob stories then they are to the actual line to line truth.  Only PBS in american is close to this and I agree on your view with them. The BBC may be second, but I don't consider them even close.  There are numerous reports they give slighted for the popular opinion.  I could state tons of stories, but I guess I don't care to research and post at this time.  Just take my word for it for now.

Sad fact is, the people aren't too willing to filter the information provided by this TV "news".  I guess I read the paper, let's me filter content more subjectively.

But tv news.....far from facts and closer to show.