Page 1 of 1
Algore syndrome strikes Mexico
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:31 pm
by Narrock
Mexican leftists push for vote recount By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 21 minutes ago
MEXICO CITY - A top adviser to the leftist candidate in Mexico's presidential vote said Monday the election should be annulled unless there is a full recount, arguing that conservative Felipe Calderon won't have a mandate strong enough to govern otherwise.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador sent a letter to Calderon urging him to support a re-count while his supporters continued their increasingly combative protests, blockading the entrance of the Mexican stock exchange before marching to the residence of President Vicente Fox. Stock trading was not affected.
The protests aim to pressure Mexico's Federal Electoral Tribunal to order a re-count of all 41 million ballots cast on July 2, and thereby resolve allegations of fraud involving the ballot box tally sheets. Those sheets — and not the votes inside the boxes — were tallied up in the official but still uncertified count that put Calderon ahead by less than 0.6 of a percentage point.
I wonder if the wacko leftists had hanging chads that they claim are their votes too. I'm pretty sure algore put em up to this... "Dee Chados were hanging!!! Dee Chados were hanging!!!"
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:55 pm
by Lyion
Al Gore actually had a real issue. The Mexican election is the way elections should be run. I wish ours was run half as well.
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:22 pm
by Narrock
lyion wrote:Al Gore actually had a real issue. The Mexican election is the way elections should be run. I wish ours was run half as well.
Yeah, the real issue algore faced was that he lost.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:46 am
by Yamori
Narrock wrote:lyion wrote:Al Gore actually had a real issue. The Mexican election is the way elections should be run. I wish ours was run half as well.
Yeah, the real issue algore faced was that he lost.
Except for that whole thing of winning the popular vote, and having the electoral college results narrowed down to a very small handful of counties in florida - with some questions of possible fraud / uncounted absentee votes, and all from a state whose governer just happens to be a Bush.
Ya, no reason to want a recount there, just take it like a man Gore.
Not that I particularly liked Gore either, but I do think there should have been more investigated about this. It was a totally legitimate issue.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:01 am
by Arlos
Not to mention the thousands or tens of thousands of votes (most of them minorities, which heavily went for Gore in that election) who were illegally and improperly scrubbed from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris, and who's votes were thus tossed out and not counted.
Honestly, I rather like Gore, I sincerely hope he runs again, as he's someone I could most definitely vote FOR, rather than be voting against someone. He certainly would be my preference over Hillary.
-Arlos
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:04 am
by Griever
Al Gore created the internet. If he was president he'd take over the world.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:57 pm
by numatu
There's not very many people I would be for. Bush, Gore, McCain, Hillary - they're basically all the same, just in a different package.
However I would definitely vote for this guy if he runs. Fast forward to about the 35min mark if you want to hear the entire speech, it's when McCain leaves and he comes to the podium. If you're lazy just watch the last 10 or 15 minutes. Regardless of your personal political bias I just enjoy listening to him throw out ideas instead of the same tired rhetoric we always hear, with a historical background that I personally enjoy also.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/rwh/rwh051406.rm
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:13 pm
by Dylan
Pinko commies, all of you.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:04 pm
by Darcler
Out of curiosity, why are we not seperating and capitalizing Al and Gore and cramming it into one small lower cased word instead, Mindia?
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:20 pm
by Narrock
Darcler wrote:Out of curiosity, why are we not seperating and capitalizing Al and Gore and cramming it into one small lower cased word instead, Mindia?
To be disrespectful towards him. He's a clown and deserves no respect.
algore algore algore algore algore algore algore
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:08 pm
by Gidan
I honestly beleive Al Gore would have made a decent president and still think he should have won the election over bush.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:57 pm
by Darcler
ok.....georgebush georgebush georgebush
edit:
I'm sure that Al Gore reads NT and is hurt everytime you type that.
Stop it, it makes you look like a child.
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:19 pm
by Narrock
Darcler wrote:ok.....georgebush georgebush georgebush
edit:
I'm sure that Al Gore reads NT and is hurt everytime you type that.
Stop it, it makes you look like a child.
algore algore algore
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:34 am
by Spazz
IM THUPER CEReal Is all i think of when i hear his name. Kinda bland dude but best presidentail candidate weve had ina 6 years or so.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:42 am
by Naethyn
In my 9th grade American History book it gave a list of the greatest and worst presidents. Which list do you think Bush will be on?
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:45 am
by Gidan
Naethyn wrote:In my 9th grade American History book it gave a list of the greatest and worst presidents. Which list do you think Bush will be on?
It will depend whether the book is written by a Dem or a Rep. The same thing would be true for Clinton.
IMO Bush should be somewhere in the middle, he is far from the best but is certainly not the worst.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:24 am
by Narrock
gidan wrote:Naethyn wrote:In my 9th grade American History book it gave a list of the greatest and worst presidents. Which list do you think Bush will be on?
It will depend whether the book is written by a Dem or a Rep. The same thing would be true for Clinton.
IMO Bush should be somewhere in the middle, he is far from the best but is certainly not the worst.
Very good analysis.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:29 am
by Lyion
gidan wrote:Naethyn wrote:In my 9th grade American History book it gave a list of the greatest and worst presidents. Which list do you think Bush will be on?
It will depend whether the book is written by a Dem or a Rep. The same thing would be true for Clinton.
IMO Bush should be somewhere in the middle, he is far from the best but is certainly not the worst.
More importantly, it'll depend on how Iraq turns out and if the changes he's enacted cause the type of cascade such as occured by Reagan winning the Cold War. The left underrates W's role in Libya and the changes enacted in Afghanistan, as well. They want immediate fixes and rail against every US death.
If Iraq ends up a strong democracy and it and Afghanistan stabilize the region W might be in the top 5, ever. The problem is the media is so antagonistically anti W, as can be seen by the misleading hyperbole about the economy and how good it really is doing.
Reagan was hated by the lefties and seen in a similar regard as W, but as more time goes by, the better his Presidency looks and only die hards liberals still rail against what he accomplished.
Heck, Bubba modelled his campaigning and much of his Presidency after the Gipper and was actually much closer to Reagans philosophies than either Bush I or II, sans his horrible gutting of the military and doveish foreign strategy.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:32 am
by Zanchief
lyion wrote:gidan wrote:Naethyn wrote:In my 9th grade American History book it gave a list of the greatest and worst presidents. Which list do you think Bush will be on?
It will depend whether the book is written by a Dem or a Rep. The same thing would be true for Clinton.
IMO Bush should be somewhere in the middle, he is far from the best but is certainly not the worst.
More importantly, it'll depend on how Iraq turns out and if the changes he's enacted cause the type of cascade such as occured by Reagan winning the Cold War. The left underrates W's role in Libya and the changes enacted in Afghanistan, as well. They want immediate fixes and rail against every US death.
If Iraq ends up a strong democracy and it and Afghanistan stabilize the region W might be in the top 5, ever. The problem is the media is so antagonistically anti W, as can be seen by the misleading hyperbole about the economy and how good it really is doing.
Reagan was hated by the lefties and seen in a similar regard as W, but as more time goes by, the better his Presidency looks and only die hards liberals still rail against what he accomplished.
Heck, Bubba modelled his campaigning and much of his Presidency after the Gipper and was actually much closer to Reagans philosophies than either Bush I or II, sans his horrible gutting of the military and doveish foreign strategy.
And plus if things went south you'd look like a fool for saying he would be known as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:40 am
by Lyion
Won't happen or matter for another 50 years, so it's all conjecture.
I do feel a bit of envy. Canada has a better conservative leader, and appreciates him less than we do W. He'll probably turn out to be in their top 5, too, as he fixes their welfare state and actually helps the world, versus being another internal blowhard without a clue of the big picture.
Too bad the CBC sheep don't see that, though.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:49 am
by Zanchief
lyion wrote:Won't happen or matter for another 50 years
I'm gonna bump this thread in 50 years.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:46 am
by Snero
stephen harper is a hypocrite and to even suggest that he would be top 5 in anything means you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to canadian politics. (course you're prob just saying that to get zan going)
btw I don't really see bush get slammed by the media for afganistan