A bunch of 9/11 "Truthers" infiltrated the Bill Maher show and started screaming from the audience crap like, "Don't tase me, bro" and "What about building 7?" Bill Maher calls for security and rushes into the audience to assist in kicking them out. It's pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes

I'm all for questioning 9/11 but there's a time and place.
Just inappropriate.
I like Bill.

What's to question?

And how long before this thread devolves into conspiritorial ramblings?

9/11 was caused by Aliens.

I was tazed by aliens. Lizardoid ones.

Then I saw the light, and joined their collective.

Now, I'm making $80K a year and have a sweet pad in Philly-stine! You, too, can become part of the Lizardoid revolution!

I'm all for questioning 9/11 but there's a time and place.
Just inappropriate.

That's interesting. I'm all for tazering Troofers. But there's a time and place. Like a Troofer hunt, say.

A bunch of 9/11 "Truthers" infiltrated the Bill Maher show and started screaming from the audience crap like, "Don't tase me, bro" and "What about building 7?" Bill Maher calls for security and rushes into the audience to assist in kicking them out. It's pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes

so the man who told the truth on politically incorrect & got fired by ABC for it, has joined the dark sde, sad, so much for freedom of speech, & what about soft-ball Chris Matthews? fake, lapdog of the Bushoid neo-convicts? listen to him & be lulled into childish fuzzing thinking

no one will investigate, because then the truth will be revealed, we are a banana republic, run by the oligarchs, the coup happened in 2000, Gore & Kerry really won, its just that they won't fight for it, being warned they would get the "Kennedy treatment", like JFK & RFK did,thats why the Dems are to scared to make real waves, they are the loyal opposition, afraid to go too far, lest they end up in Gitmo

Yes... yes. A coup happened in 2000. Look, it's crazy, but it can happen that the country can elect a president when the Electoral College has more votes than the actual democratic vote. I'm all for changing the system, but that's hardly a coup. It's a gaff that the Democrats haven't (sadly) been brave enough to try to change for future generations.

Also-- if you could please point out what American citizens have been sent to Gitmo for political protests, please do so.

~String

Yes... yes. A coup happened in 2000. Look, it's crazy, but it can happen that the country can elect a president when the Electoral College has more votes than the actual democratic vote. I'm all for changing the system, but that's hardly a coup. It's a gaff that the Democrats haven't (sadly) been brave enough to try to change for future generations.

Also-- if you could please point out what American citizens have been sent to Gitmo for political protests, please do so.

~String

Focusing on the Electoral College misses the point. I (like many, many others) suspect that Gore actually won the Electoral College (or would have if the Florida recounts had been finished).

From justice Stevens dissent:
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

How many Justices who have a LONG history of service to the nation, disagreed with Stephens? Do their decisions get any less notice or respect because they were in the majority, decided in favor of Bush and are Republicans?

~String

How many Justices who have a LONG history of service to the nation, disagreed with Stephens? Do their decisions get any less notice or respect because they were in the majority, decided in favor of Bush and are Republicans?

~String

The obvious answer is seven. Bush V Gore stinks to high heaven (and still would if the outcome had been the opposite). It should have been left to Florida to sort out on its own.

Actually, Gore lost most of the recounts. Wikipedia has a pretty good section detailing all the "full" counts. Gore won some of them, when extreme measures were applied, but I think most reasonable counts went to Bush.

As for you and the other "truthers" comments about 9/11, well, they are disgusting and stupid. 9/11 was the most scrutinized event in recent history. The sort of action and cover-up you allege not only runs in the face of the actual science of the event, it's also downright foolish.

You also seem to confuse the concept of freedom of speech with the practice of going to a public event and behaving like an ass. Let me be plain. The two have nothing to do with each other. In other words, freedom of speech does not equal disruption. In fact, disruption is in many places against the law. Get a clue.

Actually, Gore lost most of the recounts. Wikipedia has a pretty good section detailing all the "full" counts. Gore won some of them, when extreme measures were applied, but I think most reasonable counts went to Bush.

Wikipedia also has this: The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested, including "overvotes" — spoiled ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20% in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the US Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."[2]

That would have Gore winning, so I guess it does not count as "reasonable".

There might have been a great deal of discontent about the outcome if Florida had been left to sort it out for themselves. But I cannot believe it would have resulted in the long term distrust that having the SCOTUS step in and settle it for them has had.

Personally, I think the overvotes should have been counted. I can't see why that would discredit the vote. It's for the same guy.

First, that wasn't requested, as the entry explicitly states. How can the counters count what the Gore people didn't even want counted. Second, overvotes would never stand up in court, which is probably why they weren't requested in the first place. Those sorts of ballots are kicked out in every election. So yes, you found one unreasonable scenario where Gore won. Congrats.

A bunch of 9/11 "Truthers" infiltrated the Bill Maher show and started screaming from the audience crap like, "Don't tase me, bro" and "What about building 7?" Bill Maher calls for security and rushes into the audience to assist in kicking them out. It's pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes
And they're back with...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJJIYWMZlY

Personally, I think the overvotes should have been counted. I can't see why that would discredit the vote. It's for the same guy.
It's common practice to not count overvotes. I believe that's called a spoiled ballot. If you accidently vote twice, you're supposed to request another ballot and vote again.

PS I can't believe this is still being debated. Gore is an asshole for dragging out the election the way he did. Had he accepted the results, he would have been seen as a statesman putting the interests of the country above his own and could probably have come back and won the next time around or in 08.

That's what Nixon did. And he did come back and win a couple years later. Is it too much to ask for our modern politicians to at least meet the standards set by Richard Nixon?

It's not being debated. It's being whined about a handful of kook, conspiracy-theorists who can't square their lives with reality, so they think there's something wrong with reality and not their lives. This 9/11 "truth" business is merely the latest episode of dementia, though it's particularly disturbing/pathetic, in my opinion.

It's not being debated. It's being whined about a handful of kook, conspiracy-theorists who can't square their lives with reality, so they think there's something wrong with reality and not their lives. This 9/11 "truth" business is merely the latest episode of dementia, though it's particularly disturbing/pathetic, in my opinion.


Please present your best piece of visual evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. And I'll show you the meaning of Dementia. Better yet, please provide one video of the alleged Hi-jackers boarding the planes on 911. And please provide an official atutopsy that shows the Hi-jackers were on the plane. Yeah, lets talk dementia.

First, that wasn't requested, as the entry explicitly states. How can the counters count what the Gore people didn't even want counted. Second, overvotes would never stand up in court, which is probably why they weren't requested in the first place. Those sorts of ballots are kicked out in every election. So yes, you found one unreasonable scenario where Gore won. Congrats.

And it also states that the presiding Florida judge might have counted them. But he wasn't allowed, because the SCOTUS interfered. I'm glad your legal expertise supersedes that of the judge in question.

If someone has voted for the candidate of their choice, then written it in as well, disqualifying that vote seems wrong to me. There is no doubt of their intention.

It's common practice to not count overvotes. I believe that's called a spoiled ballot. If you accidently vote twice, you're supposed to request another ballot and vote again.

PS I can't believe this is still being debated. Gore is an asshole for dragging out the election the way he did. Had he accepted the results, he would have been seen as a statesman putting the interests of the country above his own and could probably have come back and won the next time around or in 08.

That's what Nixon did. And he did come back and win a couple years later. Is it too much to ask for our modern politicians to at least meet the standards set by Richard Nixon?

It is still being debated because it was an unnecessary intrusion of the SCOTUS into the internal affairs of a state.

Gore is an asshole for fighting to the bitter end for an extremely close election? Where a few hundred votes could have made the difference either way? In a state where is his opponent's brother was the governor?

After such an exhaustive effort to win the highest elected office in the nation, would you give up when it appears that you may very well have won? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to make sure that all of the votes were counted as accurately as possible?

I don't know. I might have worried more about the fact I lost my home state (Tennessee).

And this intrusion you speak of is nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court routinely handles cases that work their way up through the superior, state and appelate level. Nothing is out of the ordinary there. If they had ruled in Gore's favor, you'd probably been trumpeting the decision, as liberals often do when the court leans in their favor.

There was nothing routine about Bush V Gore.

If they had ruled in Gore's favor, you'd probably been trumpeting the decision, as liberals often do when the court leans in their favor.

Bush V Gore stinks to high heaven (and still would if the outcome had been the opposite). It should have been left to Florida to sort out on its own.

OK. Forgive me for forgetting your earlier remark. Now could you please elaborate on the whole "high heaven" motiff? Or why an issue of such importance shouldn't have been decided by the high court?

OK. Forgive me for forgetting your earlier remark. Now could you please elaborate on the whole "high heaven" motiff? Or why an issue of such importance shouldn't have been decided by the high court?
No issue of importance was decided by the Court - the final ruling was simply that the recount could not be completed in time.

Most of the delay was a consequence of organized Republican interference with the recount, including that brought about by a compromised US Supreme Court choosing for obscure reasons to hear a case that appeared to be simply a matter of State law.

So the Court ruled that the Republican Party and the Republican-associated Court had delayed the recount until too late to finish, therefore the results favoring the Republican Party should be certified despite their known invalidity.

Kind of a sad day, all around. It has been a truism for a while that the Supreme Court follows the election returns - but only recently has it been determining them.

Bill Maher is in on it too... that g-ddamned neocon!

Bush stole the election. No doubt about it. You brain-washed-dweebs who think he won this election fair and that 9/11 was the work of a guy in a cave really need to take the blue pill and wake the hell up.

Bill Maher is pretty cool until you mention Israel in a negative light. Then his lips pucker up and he starts kissing the star if david like it was his homo lovers anus.

Beaver: chill, especially on the suggestively homophobic stuff.

the nuts are quick to resort to homophobic slurs (and worse) when people don't agree with their conspiracy theories

As I initially suggested, the thread has apparently devolved into kook conspiracy-mongering. Isn't that nice...

the Pentagon was hit by 1 of our missiles, check it out

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

the Truth is out there,
they got to him, so Bill Maher sold out
he's so brave, knowing that he has those big burly security guards to help him, whats up with that, can't stand the truth, Bill?

I don't know. I might have worried more about the fact I lost my home state (Tennessee).

And this intrusion you speak of is nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court routinely handles cases that work their way up through the superior, state and appelate level. Nothing is out of the ordinary there. If they had ruled in Gore's favor, you'd probably been trumpeting the decision, as liberals often do when the court leans in their favor.

my problem with the court voting is not so much the numbers but the vote was straight down idealogical lines

If you watched the movie there is a REAL image (diregard the cheap music and eye candy) of a 747 type plane nearly entirely charcoal except for a tiny portion of the wing. THIS PLANE CRASHED INTO THE GROUND. Not slammed into concrete at max speed. What do you say happened to the actual plane if it did not hit the Pentagon?