Ashcroft Resigns
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Take off the tin-foil jacket!</div> <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446454/?GT1=5809' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446454/?GT1=5809</a>
Well you Democrats can be happy about one thing I guess; I won't really miss this guy ether.
I'm not sure what he means by "victory over crime and terror" but then again I'm sure he knows allot of things we don't.
Anyway discuss.
Well you Democrats can be happy about one thing I guess; I won't really miss this guy ether.
I'm not sure what he means by "victory over crime and terror" but then again I'm sure he knows allot of things we don't.
Anyway discuss.
Comments
lol, nice.
I wasn't a big fan of him either.
Sigh. I was hoping the position would go to Giuliani . . .
Hopefully this was a move to clear the way for Giuliani . . . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From the linked article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had also been on some lists of possible replacements, but he issued a statement saying he “remains committed to sustaining the ongoing success of Giuliani Partners,” his consulting group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's probably wisest not to get your hopes up.
Wait a minute - you don't get an edit notice whenever you edit your posts, BM? Otherwise, that's some mighty fine ninja editing. :/
Guliani has some sense. Above all other qualities, that's the one I look for first in leadership. I've heard more conjecture that he'd be running for president in 2008 than for anything else, and it's not like people wouldn't vote for him. Who knows?
Most likely one of the Decepticons. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
We already drank a couple bottles of beer to celebrate. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Most likely one of the Decepticons. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I had something else in mind:
Yeah, I'm glad Ashcroft is gone. He was focused on all of the things that he shouldn't be doing. This guy was worried about porn when he should be worrying about the erosion of our civil rights and prosecuting criminals. Frankly, he won't be missed by just about anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most likely one of the Decepticons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure that Larry Thompson will be the first pick. He might not be Shockwave, but he's more like a minority Pokemon. With Powell and Rice still on staff, Bush will be a true Pokemon master when he catches Attornerix Generalazia.
Hopefully this was a move to clear the way for Giuliani . . . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From the linked article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had also been on some lists of possible replacements, but he issued a statement saying he “remains committed to sustaining the ongoing success of Giuliani Partners,” his consulting group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's probably wisest not to get your hopes up.
Wait a minute - you don't get an edit notice whenever you edit your posts, BM? Otherwise, that's some mighty fine ninja editing. :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, there's no edit message because apparently I ended up with mod privs somewhere along the way (though I don't use them, because I'm not technically a mod, and then I wouldn't get to enjoy partaking in any more juvenile arguments).
At any rate, I only skimmed the first paragraph, posted, and then realized that they might have some comments about possible successors, rechecked, got my hopes flattened, and edited before people pointed out . . . . exactly what you pointed out <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And here I edit it again to add a thought:
Ashcroft was Bush's sop to Ralph Reed for helping him win SC. From a cynical perspective, his one major qualification was that he was transparently religious. As an incumbent senator in his home state, he couldn't even beat <i>a dead man</i>. The only thing I'll miss are all the Onion articles about him . . .
*inserts evil laugh*
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>MUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA</span>
Couldn't resist... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hey look at the bright side, some supreme court justices go more to the left after appointment... maybe it will happen to ashcroft?
Ashcroft was Bush's sop to Ralph Reed for helping him win SC. From a cynical perspective, his one major qualification was that he was transparently religious. As an incumbent senator in his home state, he couldn't even beat <i>a dead man</i>. The only thing I'll miss are all the Onion articles about him . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why you just gotta stop watching Micheal Moore <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Ashcroft
Deceit 35
Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died three weeks earlier. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Moore says, delivering one of the film?s biggest laugh lines.
It?s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan?s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
When Mel Carnahan was alive, polls showed him to be tied with Ashcroft.
[Moore response: Provides a newspaper quote: "Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Does not address the fact that voters knew that if they voted the late Mel Carnahan, his widow Mrs. Jean Carnahan would become their Senator.]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I admire your attempt to defend MM, I saw it as a heroic attempt to stop the tide with a fork, but dont quote him on stuff like that, its embarrasing.
Then I did my <i>own</i> research, and sure enough it's true.
<a href='http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/24/missouri.senate/' target='_blank'>Read:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Missouri's new governor announced Tuesday that he would appoint the widow of Mel Carnahan to the Senate if the late governor receives more votes than Republican incumbent John Ashcroft in the November 7 election.
"Should Mel Carnahan receive the largest number of votes in the election coming up, it is my intention to ask Jean Carnahan if she will fill that term, that two-year term," Gov. Roger Wilson told reporters. "It's important that we do this today ... There is responsibility in a democracy to let voters know what their choices are."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I talked to her this morning," Wilson said. "She thanked me for letting her know, she indicated that that was certainly a decision that she was not yet ready to make at this time and I respect that." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She only accepted <i>days</i> before the election, but even before she accepted, it was <i>still</i> expected to be a <a href='http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3774de75.a26,.html' target='_blank'>tight race.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But Coker also pointed out that the race remained exactly that -- a race -- despite Carnahan's death. Some political analysts predicted after last week's tragedy that Ashcroft would walk away with the election.
"If people thought Ashcroft was a shoo-in, they're wrong," Coker said. "There's still a very real possibility that more people will vote for him (Carnahan) than anybody else."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.lmtonline.com/news/archive/102800/pagea10.pdf' target='_blank'>Also:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sue Weber supported Mel Carnahan for Senate. She still does, even after his death in a plane crash nearly two weeks ago. “He was a great man,” said Weber, whose commitment to vote for the late Democratic governor drew a smile and shake of the head Friday from Larry Weber, her husband of 35 years.
“Why people would go ahead and vote for someone deceased is beyond me,” said her husband, who has been backing Carnahan’s opponent all along. The candidate is dead, but the Carnahan campaign is still very much alive.
Not only is his name still on the Nov. 7 ballot —it was too late to remove it — but polls taken after his burial show Carnahan still locked in a too-close-to-call race against Republican Sen.John Ashcroft.
Nationally, at least two people have won election to the House posthumously, but it appears no senator has ever been elected after death.
Carnahan, 66, his 44-year-old son Roger and a campaign adviser died in the Oct. 16 crash of a small plane Roger Carnahan was flying to a campaign rally.
Since then, Missouri Democrats have issued bumper stickers and buttons with the slogan “Still for Mel!” and put out the word that a vote for Carnahan is a way to honor the memory of the popular governor and is tantamount to putting his widow, Jean, in the Senate.
Mrs. Carnahan, 66, who has never run for office, said she will talk to her family this week-end and announce Monday — eight days before the election — whether she will accept Gov.Roger Wilson’s offer to appoint her to the Senate if her late husband outpolls Ashcroft.
“I still believe deeply in the cause for which my husband lived and died,” she said. “These shared values are a permanent part of my being.
”Mrs. Carnahan would serve until the next general election, in November 2002.
Many voters weren’t waiting for her decision to declare their loyalty to her husband of 46 years.“Any Democrat who fills the seat is better,” said John Rogers, 34, a lawyer in St. Louis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So first off, <i>technically</i> they <b>were</b> voting for a dead guy either way-- his wife would be <i>appointed</i>.
But aside from all that, you're just missing the point entirely-- as an <i>incumbent</i>, he lost to the memory of a dead man. Voting for a dead challenger's inexperienced <i>wife</i> is a vote of no confidence in a sitting officeholder. It shows a preference, respect, and honor for the late candidate. It's <i>embarrassing</i> (correct spelling, fyi). That's the crux of the matter, and the underlying oddity to which the punchline applies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Carnahan, 66, has never held public office or run for office, though she has campaigned for her husband. She has a degree in business and public administration from George Washington University. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, to summarize:
Obviously, people expected a living, breathing person to serve in place of the rotting corpse. They chose to roll the dice and elect the dead man's legacy (His wife's only true qualification), rather than the living, breathing John Ashcroft.
So this 'deceit' of yours points out that people <i>were</i> aware that they weren't actually going to be installing a dead, festering corpse in office.
Wow. Bravo!
I mean, I wasn't sure that anyone would actually need a memo on that one-- most sentient organisms would probably correctly conclude that the office <i>would</i> be filled by something with a pulse even if the stiff won, but obviously the audience of your 'deceits' author needs a <i>touch</i> more hand-holding to cross the finish line on that one.
"Waaaaiiiiiit a second . . . so they wasn't actually nominatin' a cadaver to serve a term in office??!? Why, I done been deceited!"
So, while it's really adorable that you go over Michael Moore's films with a fine toothed comb, yet accept odd, technicality based criticisms of his work at face value (as if they actually address anything other than the punchline-- because, lest we forget, we're talking about a one line, throw away joke, here), you really have to let this Michael Moore fixation go. This had <i>nothing</i> to do with him. Just because he references something, it doesn't mean that he's the sole source of that information, nor does it automatically mean it's wrong.
I mean, it's cute that your Michael Moore related anger can be assuaged with such meaningless, cursory criticisms, but you <i>really</i> have to stop invoking his name and clinging to that list-- it's <i>embarrassing</i>.
Poor guy. I'm sure he wanted to spend more than a day in retirement. It was like the senate was the only thing keeping him alive.
Ashcroft, Reno. Both reviled. I can keep going back but it's the job of this person to enforce laws. And no one cheers for the police when they receive a traffic ticket.
Well, at least it he didn't pick someone controversial . . . <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ashcroft, Reno. Both reviled. I can keep going back but it's the job of this person to enforce laws. And no one cheers for the police when they receive a traffic ticket. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good AG understands that 1) just because something is law, doesn't automatically mean that it is right 2) Law enforcement, in all its forms, is a limited resource, and therefore needs to be applied in the way that best benefits the people.
Ashcroft's mindset on the first is debatable, but I wouldn't come close to giving him credit on the second.
For that matter, those same guidelines apply to legislators as well...
1) The sympathy vote. Dying sucks, and the typical voter will feel sorry for the cadaver; not only that, but the opponent is under pressure to speak nicely of the dearly departed.
2) A dead candidate is news. He's got a good chance of grabbing the headlines, and therefore, getting more coverage than the other guy.
3) Dead men tell no tales. Living politicians, however, are bound to slip up sooner or later and say something that can be used against them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dead men tell no tales. Living politicians, however, are bound to slip up sooner or later and say something that can be used against them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Three weeks. Twenty one days. That's a pretty small window for this one to matter. It's not as if the ticket contained a person who died three <i>years</i> ago.
And, of course: most recently, these circumstances certainly didn't hurt Norm Coleman (granted, he actually ran against a replacement candidate, but emotion certainly still could have been a factor).
As they say, an election is a referendum on the incumbent. I <i>sincerely</i> doubt many voters said, "Sure, Ashcroft's done a <b>tremendous</b> job and all, but I feel sorry for the guy who died in that plane crash, so I'm going to throw reason to the wind and vote for him." The central issue here is how the loss relates to his popularity in his home state, as well as public confidence in his demonstrated ability as a Senator.
<a href='http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/24/missouri.senate/' target='_blank'>Read:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Missouri's new governor announced Tuesday that he would appoint the widow of Mel Carnahan to the Senate if the late governor receives more votes than Republican incumbent John Ashcroft in the November 7 election.
"Should Mel Carnahan receive the largest number of votes in the election coming up, it is my intention to ask Jean Carnahan if she will fill that term, that two-year term," Gov. Roger Wilson told reporters. "It's important that we do this today ... There is responsibility in a democracy to let voters know what their choices are."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I talked to her this morning," Wilson said. "She thanked me for letting her know, she indicated that that was certainly a decision that she was not yet ready to make at this time and I respect that." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My congratulations on doing your <b>own</b> research - you showed exactly what kopel said. Exactly:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I talked to her this morning," Wilson said. "She thanked me for letting her know, she indicated that that was certainly a decision that she was not yet ready to make at this time and I respect that."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was several days out from the election, and she wasnt sure if she was going to run - she then went on to make that decision - <b>and accept the appointment should her husband win</b>. So what did the voters know? They knew that if they voted in the "dead guy", his wife would accept the appointment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She only accepted <i>days</i> before the election, but even before she accepted, it was <i>still</i> expected to be a <a href='http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3774de75.a26,.html' target='_blank'>tight race.</a>
So first off, <i>technically</i> they <b>were</b> voting for a dead guy either way-- his wife would be <i>appointed</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is exactly what <b>you</b> go on to say here. Rarely have I seen anyone completely destroy their own argument in the first two odd paragraphs and then go on the offensive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But aside from all that, you're just missing the point entirely-- as an <i>incumbent</i>, he lost to the memory of a dead man. Voting for a dead challenger's inexperienced <i>wife</i> is a vote of no confidence in a sitting officeholder. It shows a preference, respect, and honor for the late candidate. It's <i>embarrassing</i> (correct spelling, fyi). That's the crux of the matter, and the underlying oddity to which the punchline applies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jean Carnahan, 66, has never held public office or run for office, though she has campaigned for her husband. She has a degree in business and public administration from George Washington University. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here we have it, the sign of a man on the back foot - the spelling corrections. I bow to your superior English skills. But I guessed this a while back, when you wrote a massive post responding to a cut/past quote and two lines of text, a post which agreed with everything I said, but was largely dedicated to ridicule. I cant accept the "not experienced" crock. Fresh new faces in politics happen all the time - and when that fresh new face has been married into politics for a while, and has a degree in public administration and business, I consider her unique qualified to start like no one else. Running against the incumbent is of course hard, but she definately had the sympathy vote - and hell, the people might have been fed up with Ashcroft. That's not the point. The voters were voting for her either because they didnt like Ashcroft, or out of sympathy for her plight and as a sign of respect for her husband. Ashcroft "beaten" by a dead man - trash.
From <b>your</b> magical research:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, told reporters in Washington that he's "very, very enthusiastic" about the possibility of Mrs. Carnahan taking her husband's place.
"Many of us ... think Mrs. Carnahan would do an extraordinary job. <b>She's got the experience, she's been a stalwart defender and supporter of her husband's positions.</b> I think she would make a remarkable United States senator," Daschle said.
Daschle also said that Mrs. Carnahan's potential candidacy gives Democrats renewed hope of reclaiming a Senate majority, and he would personally campaign for her "in a heartbeat."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, to summarize:
Obviously, people expected a living, breathing person to serve in place of the rotting corpse. They chose to roll the dice and elect the dead man's legacy (His wife's only true qualification), rather than the living, breathing John Ashcroft.
So this 'deceit' of yours points out that people <i>were</i> aware that they weren't actually going to be installing a dead, festering corpse in office.
Wow. Bravo!
I mean, I wasn't sure that anyone would actually need a memo on that one-- most sentient organisms would probably correctly conclude that the office <i>would</i> be filled by something with a pulse even if the stiff won, but obviously the audience of your 'deceits' author needs a <i>touch</i> more hand-holding to cross the finish line on that one.
"Waaaaiiiiiit a second . . . so they wasn't actually nominatin' a cadaver to serve a term in office??!? Why, I done been deceited!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just said he couldnt even beat a dead guy. The same bs was spun, for a cheap shot, just like you made, because it was "technically correct" - he wasnt running against a dead man, he was running against his wife.
"Lol Ashcroft couldnt even beat a dead guys wife!" I'm sure there have been widows in politics before <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> The complete truth is nothing like your "technically correct" version.
Marine01: "did you see bathroom monkey fall over at the start of the marathon, causing everyone else behind him to trip over him - what a tool!"
BM: "you did see that guy that came running over and crash tackled me right - you do realise that's why I fell?"
Marine01: "no no I'm technically correct, you did fall, so I'm going to make jokes about how you suck that make you look like an idiot when it was just a freak occurance"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, while it's really adorable that you go over Michael Moore's films with a fine toothed comb, yet accept odd, technicality based criticisms of his work at face value (as if they actually address anything other than the punchline-- because, lest we forget, we're talking about a one line, throw away joke, here), you really have to let this Michael Moore fixation go. This had <i>nothing</i> to do with him. Just because he references something, it doesn't mean that he's the sole source of that information, nor does it automatically mean it's wrong.
I mean, it's cute that your Michael Moore related anger can be assuaged with such meaningless, cursory criticisms, but you <i>really</i> have to stop invoking his name and clinging to that list-- it's <i>embarrassing</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, that was one criticism in a long, long list and you know it. Some points on that list were stronger than others, some even suffered from MM style "convienently ignoring facts to enhance our arguement". But it wasnt a one off.
You claim you've done your own research, which for all I know could have been 2 minutes before hitting the reply button, make an almost direct quote from Farenheit 9/11, having done research that shows your "technically correct" version is "technically damn misleading and a cheap shot". But still you refuse to back down.
A lot of what you have posted before has given me stuff to think about - but if you are taking this "technically correct" approach with all your posts just say so and I'll never read another thing you type.
He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
Seriously Bush, how can you call yourself American when you hate the constitution so much?
First off, you were being snarky, so I was being snarky back. Are you saying you didn't mean to be insulting in your opening bid? You made a misspelling <b>in</b> an insult, which I think makes it fair game.
I stand by my points:
1) Voters were <i>literally</i> voting for the dead man-- but this is a technicality, and a silly one at that.
2) Voters were <i>symbolically</i> voting for the dead man, because they felt that his wife was best suited to carry on his values.
Show me one poll where Ashcroft made serious gains in the electorate <i>until</i> it was announced that the wife would run. I have yet to find one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and hell, the people might have been fed up with Ashcroft. That's not the point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That <b>IS</b> the point. As I said later on:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As they say, an election is a referendum on the incumbent. I sincerely doubt many voters said, "Sure, Ashcroft's done a tremendous job and all, but I feel sorry for the guy who died in that plane crash, so I'm going to throw reason to the wind and vote for him." The central issue here is how the loss relates to his popularity in his home state, as well as public confidence in his demonstrated ability as a Senator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Losing to a dead man's legacy, to an inexperienced widow whose chief qualification was being married to the dead man is a direct comment on how voters in his home state felt about his performance.
That, as I said, is the <b>underlying</b> meaning to the joke. <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=david+cross+john+ashcroft' target='_blank'>Other</a> people have made that joke (in fact, Cross's album came out several years before F 9/11).
I believe you're allowing your hatred of Michael Moore to cloud this one.
I was being sarcastic; however, on reflection, I realise it doesn't look like that way. My mistake.
At any rate, I was thinking about this driving him from work, and the following thought occurred to me:
We're having the most tangential, innane argument right now.
So here's my solution:
Marine, I'll concede that all factors considered, no, John Ashcroft did not, in fact, lose to a dead man. It's a dishonest and over simplified way of summarizing the election.
You concede that joking about it is a shorthand way of expressing a legitimate criticism-- that John Ashcroft's re-election bid falling short against such uncertainty is <i>not</i> exactly a ringing endorsement of his performance from his home state.
Deal?
At any rate, I was thinking about this driving him from work, and the following thought occurred to me:
We're having the most tangential, innane argument right now.
So here's my solution:
Marine, I'll concede that all factors considered, no, John Ashcroft did not, in fact, lose to a dead man. It's a dishonest and over simplified way of summarizing the election.
You concede that joking about it is a shorthand way of expressing a legitimate criticism-- that John Ashcroft's re-election bid falling short against such uncertainty is <i>not</i> exactly a ringing endorsement of his performance from his home state.
Deal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Civility reigns in the NS forums once again . . .