It was the plaintive cry of the Democratic party during the post-election hangover of 2000, while their candidate stubbornly refused to admit he had lost the election: "Every vote doesn't count until every vote is counted." Strangely, it was Florida that caused all the trouble then, too.

Kerry,

Lets be historically accurate here. The only thing that happened in Florida was the Supreme Court refusing to let a recount occur. We will never know what the final tally was because of that. End of story. Oh we do know one other thing. The Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection clause in a manner contrary to any way they have applied it before or since, and then of course instructed that the case could never be used as precedent for any other. Hmmm.

"Lets be historically accurate here."

An unusual request, coming from you, but I'll play. Yes, let's. Let's see if you surprise me.

"The only thing that happened in Florida was the Supreme Court refusing to let a recount occur."

Bzzt.

The Supreme Court did not REFUSE the recount. It reversed the errant judgment of the Florida Supreme Court which illegally mandated one.

The Florida Supreme Court's manual recount order would have included overvotes, which are patently illegal ballots. It is clear that the votes that were LEGAL were ALL counted.

"We will never know what the final tally was because of that."

Yes, we will. Because the ballots were actually counted. And Bush won.

"End of story."

Now it is, yes.

"Oh we do know one other thing. The Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection clause in a manner contrary to any way they have applied it before or since..."

And what way was that?

"and then of course instructed that the case could never be used as precedent for any other. Hmmm."

Where did they say that? I just read Bush v. Gore. I must have missed that.

No wonder the ingorant fools still hold onto 2000.

Sorry Chad....pregnant or not, if your vote does not count in all counties, it does not count in ANY county......and it certainly won't count in any one county if the FSC rules contrary to the law.

I see....if there is no precedent, then the USSC ruling is bogus. I'll file that in the "Sore/Loserman 2000" folder with the rest of the tripe.

Kerry,

This is the sentence, and its been interpreted the same way by both sides.

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

The right simply says this was included because of the limited amount of time available and the danger of apply the decision to broadly, and the left said it was put in because the court knew it had made an untenable decision.

The Supreme Court did not REFUSE the recount. It reversed the errant judgment of the Florida Supreme Court which illegally mandated one.

The Florida Supreme Court's manual recount order would have included overvotes, which are patently illegal ballots. It is clear that the votes that were LEGAL were ALL counted.

Your recollection is kind of like Scalia's. He said recently that the democrats should stop whining, after all, they are the ones that started the lawsuits. But history shows it was the Republicans who started legal action.

Kerry,

We should actually both watch the documentary recount that is coming out and continue the debate afterward. Its been given the nod by the head of both legal teams involved in the recall issue.

"We should actually both watch the documentary recount that is coming out and continue the debate afterward. Its been given the nod by the head of both legal teams involved in the recall issue."

Please PLEASE don't tell me that the Democrats have so perverted the film industry that the term "documentary" now applies to a made-for-television DRAMATIZATION. Here's a clue: DOCUMENTARIES don't use ACTORS.

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

No, this means that the circumstances represented by Bush v Gore are unlikely to ever happen again, but what happened here must be addressed. This case does not generally address every issue of equal protection (i.e., the electoral college), but only those posed by this case.

"Your recollection is kind of like Scalia's. He said recently that the democrats should stop whining, after all, they are the ones that started the lawsuits. But history shows it was the Republicans who started legal action."

And that has WHAT to do with the circumstances of the case as I present them above--which I got DIRECTLY from the case opinion?

I actually TiVoed "Recount" so I could show my lib-girlfriend how asinine Hollywood is when portraying "history as they see it." I'll be sure to point out the inaccuracies.

Sarge,

I suspect that if it were all that "inaccurate" James Baker wouldn't have organized a joint screening of the film with Jimmy Carter.

Of course maybe James Baker is a closet liberal these days.

OF COURSE Baker is a lib these days. That's why it's the BAKER-Hamilton Iraq "Surrender" Commission.

Baker's been a fellow-traveler for a long time. Catch up.

And anyone that would voluntarily do anything with Jimmy Carter would have to be crazy.

I getit....because someone YOU think is a non-lib viewed it, it's gotta be factual.

That means that, because I am going to watch it, it must be fatual.

Just like all the other crockumentaries out there?

OF COURSE Baker is a lib these days. That's why it's the BAKER-Hamilton Iraq "Surrender" Commission.

Just like John McCain does, you use the word "surrender" incorrectly to simplify a much more complex matter. I very much dislike divisive politicians and people who write in this way. These people simplify a situation, making it either, "win" or "surrender" those being the only two options. What's wrong with you people? do you read history and current events critically or just wait for the latest stereotyped comments to reach you so that you can spew them like the mindless zombie that you are?

I don't dislike conservatives, I like a clear and intelligent argument presented to me, no matter what the topic. I respect a conservative viewpoint if they take an actual situation seriously and not use words that move away from an intellectual conversation to a fear mongering "patriotic" hustle.

I saw "recount" I found it to be less skewed than I thought it would be but also found some of the portrayals very annoying but it did seem to be fairly accurate.

Sarge,

Its one thing for one of the primary republican lawyers involved in the case to have a laugh in his private house, its another thing to go out publically and hold a screening. These guys know what appearances look like, and he knows he's giving legitimacy to the film by his actions. So if it wasn't intentional, its either an acknowledgment to its accuracy, or his is a turn coat.

Kerry,

Expected nothing less than that answer from you. You couldn't possibly have another explanation. Any time a guy like Baker comes out and joins a panel or does something that generates a result you don't like, I can understand why you'd call him a liberal, rather than looking back at yourself and questioning whether your undying support for Bush is truly justified.

Scott McClellan is probably your latest neocon turned liberal. Since you can't accept what's in his book...whether its true or not.

Just like all the other crockumentaries out there?

Case and point: Expelled: No Itelligence Allowed.

I'd call it a divisive crock of shit full of lies lies lies.

Just because someone has a viewing of a movie, doesn't make it true......and even if the raw facts are valid, the manner presented may be skewed as well. I hear they don't portray Harris in a good light. PERCEPTION is always the key, perception is what's kept you moonbats stuck in Sore/Loserman mode thinking that AlGore was the duly elected President or that George W. Bush was not. I can see that you ARE stuck there and will be until you let go of the nonsense.

I had 5 people over watching Cloverfield the other night......MUST be true, eh? Looked real enough.....one of those people is an astronomer at MIT.....THAT must give the movie more factuality, eh?

Scott McClelland is selling a book. So, everyone selling a book that makes a claim.....you agree with as "factual", eh? I'm sure it has nothing to do with your moonbattery....or is everything ever said in every book by a former politician taken as the truth by you?

SSE....haven't seen Expelled and don't really plan on it. Recommended?

Sarge,

To be honest I haven't seen it either, and also don't plan on it. I've been keeping up with the release, read scene by scene reviews and know of the films deceitful content, ie: misleading and misquoting scientists, comparing Darwinists to Nazis, etc..

It's full and bullshit about evolution, geared to the general public who isn't so well versed in the subject. Many people look at documentaries and films based on history with a blind eye. I just wish people would open a few books instead of relying on what one group of people will tell them is the truth.

SSE,

No, it does not "compare Darwinists to Nazis." To be precise, the scientist in question states that Darwinism is not a "sufficient" condition for the development of Nazism, but it is a "necessary" one.

Like it or not, historically the Nazis fed off the Darwinist notions about human development. So did the eugenicists, who are treated (for a change) in Expelled as the foundation of Planned Parenthood that they were.

Like it or not, historically the Nazis fed off the Darwinist notions about human development.

If you think so, fair enough, I respect your opinion. Although I respect this opinion more:

The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very ungarbled understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did. My own view, frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially in the title chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

-Richard Dawkins, 'Lying for Jesus?' Lying for Jesus? by Richard Dawkins

Nazis like other morons of the day tried to take every measurement of the human body, particularly the human skull, as sign of their superiority over other races. This isn't Darwinism, and it isn't evolution. This is morons who don't have a clue trying to convince even bigger morons that something is true.

Same ploy as the Discover institute, which knows it can spew bullshit, because it has a captive audience that will swallow every piece of crap they dish out without doing any research beyond tearing through genesis a billion times looking for guidance.

Actually I didn't even read SSE Dawkin's quote before posting, but now that I have, its interesting he pretty much summed things the way I did...

Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools.

"Nazis like other morons of the day tried to take every measurement of the human body, particularly the human skull, as sign of their superiority over other races. This isn't Darwinism, and it isn't evolution."

But it IS eugenics, and it WAS Margaret Sangers raison d'etre. (Or, rather, her "raison" for certain other people not to "etre.") She and her ilk believed themselves superior not only to those whose physical and mental forms did not meet their "race of thoroughbred" standards--but also those whose theology, ideology, and thought patterns did not suit them.

Richard Dawkins is a zoologist, not a theologist. I would not expect him to be able to understand the complex psychological and theological effects of rejecting God. I am not at all surprised that ahmanrah finds in him a (you'll excuse the expression) kindred soul.

Mentioning Darminism and Nazis in the same sentence is just a lame tactic to alter the perception and thinking of idiots that don't understand either.

Sarge,

What is Darminism?

"What is Darminism?"

A cross between Garminism and Darwinism, by which you navigate this godless universe with a mechanical device designed to make you look like a monkey.

It didn't turn out to be as popular as hoped.

I'm going to go back to Kerry's original statement about Florida being back in the news of choosing the next presidential candidate. It now appears that all the delegates will be seated, but their votes will only count as half votes. Also, Michigan votes will be divided between the two candidates. What I was surprised to learn was that Obama's volunteers told voters to vote uncommitted, since he took his name off the ballot according to the agreement with the party. All along I've just heard that Hillary should get ALL the Michigan votes. Now the truth comes out...Too bad for her. Obama's still ahead.

It is amazing that the party who screamed and hollered about EVERY VOTE counting is now trying to suppress those votes. As one of the protesters said tonight, "not allowing our votes to count doesn't sound democratic to me!"

I just watched "Recount" and thought it was quite amusing. It portrayed Kathryn Harris and the Florida election officials as complete dolts. Funny how the Republicans came across as arrogant, smooth operators and the Democrats were portrayed as the "do gooders" who were greatly wronged, by those stinking Bushes. As it turned out, a recount (actually many recounts) were done after the election and if Baker had allowed the count to be completed as they wanted, Bush WON! If they were allowed to count overvotes (those illegal ones) Gore would have won. As far as I'm concerned, they should have put up a disclaimer in the movie stating this, then it might actually qualify as a docudramamentary!!!

I'm going to go back to Kerry's original statement about Florida being back in the news of choosing the next presidential candidate. It now appears that all the delegates will be seated, but their votes will only count as half votes. Also, Michigan votes will be divided between the two candidates. What I was surprised to learn was that Obama's volunteers told voters to vote uncommitted, since he took his name off the ballot according to the agreement with the party. All along I've just heard that Hillary should get ALL the Michigan votes. Now the truth comes out...Too bad for her. Obama's still ahead.

It is amazing that the party who screamed and hollered about EVERY VOTE counting is now trying to suppress those votes. As one of the protesters said tonight, "not allowing our votes to count doesn't sound democratic to me!"

I just watched "Recount" and thought it was quite amusing. It portrayed Kathryn Harris and the Florida election officials as complete dolts. Funny how the Republicans came across as arrogant, smooth operators and the Democrats were portrayed as the "do gooders" who were greatly wronged, by those stinking Bushes. As it turned out, a recount (actually many recounts) were done after the election and if Baker had allowed the count to be completed as they wanted, Bush WON! If they were allowed to count overvotes (those illegal ones) Gore would have won. As far as I'm concerned, they should have put up a disclaimer in the movie stating this, then it might actually qualify as a docudramamentary!!!