-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Answers

Thanks, Bob, perfect lead in to a question I've been wanting to ask.

AFAIK, the Supreme Court is still going to hear the case that Bush brought up about the Florida court, hearing tomorrow.

Could be in support of the Florida court, could go against them, could go beyond them.

Whatever they decide, I'm willing to say the Supreme Court has the final word.

Suppose they invoke Federal law, or Constitutional principles, and say the entire state must be counted in a manner that reduces the error in the counting process below the margin between the candidates.

Will you support the court? Or will we hear another round of talk about liberal courts, rewriting the law, impeaching judges or what?

For that matter, a second question.

Suppose Florida seats its electors, they are properly sworn in, and some one of Bush's electors defects, maybe one from another state? It has happened before. Are you guys going to unseat the Electoral College? What, again?

I'm just a little curious as to how far you all are willing to go to install Bush in the White House.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Uncle Bob,

These dudes/dudettes haven't sung yet.

____________________________________________

Good questions, Paul.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Paul Davis

To be honest, between Bush and Gore, I prefer Bush because Gore (and his boss) are very unethical and borderline treasonous (ref: China). There is no evidence that Gore would not discontinue the sellout of the US to foreign interests. At the end of the day I think it’s a moot point anyway. We are on the fast track to globalization economically, which will basically end national borders and national sovereignty. I really don't know that globalization will be bad or good; I just think it’s inevitable. Summary, we have no true choices for president at the end of the day...

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

IF Bush ends up with Florida's Electoral votes, it would only take TWO Renegades from the Electoral College to flip sides and then the Electoral College is tied too! Now THAT would be an interesting turn of events, to say the least!

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Bob, the Bush family record is pretty shabby.

Just look at the Christmas pardons, back in 92, and read Walsh's summary report. Search on diary when you get there.

Groan. Unproven claims of selling secrets to the Chinese are used to tar and feather Clinton constantly, but Bush Sr. was actually involved in selling actual arms to the enemy (Iran), and he gets a free ride, and his co-conspirators get radio talk shows. Moreover, his son, who was greatly involved in the later Bush administration gets a free ride, too.

This double standard business is beginning to wear on me greatly.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000

Quite frankly, I think Bush Jr. would be more eager to deal with China. Bush Sr. loved the country, and was an ambassador to China. Bush Sr. continually vetoed moves to revoke China's MFN status.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Gotta laugh. Paul Davis has no problem citing all the underhanded things Republicans have done, and *never mentions* anything devious done by democrats. But when someone fills that particular gap, here's Paul claiming *double standard*!

Paul, they're all crooks and blackguards. If they weren't they wouldn't be interested in power in the first place. You're welcome to believe your crooks do less damage than mine if you like. But there's no double standard, just preferences.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Flint:

I think what's more humorous [at least to ME] is your presumed bipartisanship in this election. Both you and Stephen claim to see things from both sides, yet I've seen YOU [in particular] claim that a vote for Gore was WRONG. You didn't include anything about "in my opinion, it's WRONG". You flat out stated that a vote for Gore was WRONG.

In addition, I've seen you make claims that the democrats encouraged welfare [or something to that extent]. Are you unaware that welfare reform occurred under the last administration for the first time since its inception? Larger government, people claim, yet the U.S. government has been dramatically reduced in size during the last administration and the debt has ALSO been reduced.

Paul and I, both, have confessed that we'd prefer Bush to win at this point. I'm sure we both have reservations about the man's ability to keep his mouth shut when dealing with foreign dignitaries, but short of provoking war, I think we agree that AT THIS POINT, it matters not who wins the presidency regarding domestic policies.

Personally, I've been watching the testimony produced in Leon County regarding the voting devices, and find the whole thing fascinating. I'd be interested in seeing a hand recount [purely to see the results obtained.]

Regarding your preference for the direction of the Republican PARTY versus your preference for Bush, I find it difficult to differentiate the association with the Christian Coalition [with whom you appear to disagree].

It appears that the Leon County proceedings are proceeding, so I must go now, but I don't think you realize how your own partisanship comes through in your posts.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Anita:

I favor Bush. I'm partisan. I thought this was obvious, and my intention is to BE partisan. I'm an advocate for the republicans, whom I consider marginally better.

I am not impressed with either candidate, and the parties aren't white knights either. The republicans have the religious albatross around their necks, while the democrats actually *argue* for bigger government (though both parties expand it every chance they get). I just think my crooks are better than yours at the end of the day.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Anita,

I *do* see things from both sides. You obviously don't know me well (how can you? All you can judge me by is what I write online). My wife is often exasperated with my "devil's advocate" stance on things. I'll deliberately argue a side I don't agree with just to keep the conversation fair and interesting. :)

I don't really know Flint, either (even though he's a fellow Alabaman[g]), but I get the feeling that he tends to be the same way. Hence the comment about "kicking anthills" that got him banned from The Sleazyboard.

And generally, I've noticed that you try to be fair and balanced as well. You certainly have your beliefs (as I have mine), but I'll grant that you normally listen to opposing views. I don't always agree with you, but that's to be expected.

Whether you believe it or not, I am trying to look at this election result objectively. T'was *I* who pointed out, for example, that if the Florida legislature passed a resolution giving the electors to Bush, THEY could possibly be guilty of "changing the rule of law" after an election. (Would such a resolution be considered a "law?" MORE legal semantics, *sigh.*)

But back to the tied result of this election. Flint scored a home run with his comments in another thread about trees and forests. (You thought I didn't see that one, did ya, Flint?[g]) Each side could EASILY dig for enough bogus votes to throw out, or enough "undercounted" votes to add in, to help their candidate. At some point, you have to say, "enough" and declare a winner.

The fact that Republicans control the machinery in Florida to declare Bush the winner is just too bad. The people of Florida elected Republicans; they should have thought of that before they did it.

And I assure you -- if the opposite was true, and there were Democrats in Florida with the power to give the election to Gore -- I would be saying, "Hail President Gore." Period.

The Founding Fathers *knew* that there would be ties. In this case, the answer is that the legislative, and NOT the judiciary, gets the final determination. The legistature in Florida, by law, has vested the power to certify an election in its Secretary of State. If I support her right to declare Bush the winner, I'm being totally consistent with what I believe.

And again: I assure you, if you could contrive a circumstance where Gore would be the beneficiary of my even handedness[heh], he would get it instantly. What you can't seem to see is that there IS no such circumstance in which you could do that WITHOUT breaking the principle of the rule of law.

Popular opinion doesn't trump the rule of law.

In fact, I feel so strongly about that, if electing Gore would mean a return to the rule of law, I'd dump Bush in a heartbeat. Shoot, I'd take Nader or Browne in trade for that, because the long-term benefit to the country would FAR outweigh any damage they could do in the short run.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Flint: I'd assumed that because you were accusing others of not seeing the forest for the trees that you considered yourself beyond partisanship. I stand corrected in this regard. Personally, I haven't yet found a party that represents ME. The Democrats are a little too far to the right for me, yet the Socialist party is way further left than I.

Stephen: I understand how you see yourself. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I don't see you in the same way. Even while I was in extreme study mode, I read your posts on this forum and uncensored. That's a function of 4am wakeups, combined with a temporary lack of a sex partner [grin]. Anyway, I HAVE followed your political comments, as well as the commentaries of both the Republicans and Democrats on this one, and your posts have parroted the Republican mantra. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but it's amusing to me that you don't see this in yourself. If I ever start parroting the mantra of Democrats, please let me know. In fact, if you see me parroting ANYONE's mantra, I'd like to know.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Anita,

What makes that so funny is that -- truthfully -- I often come up with these "mantras" by myself. In other words, I don't run to rushlimbaugh.com or worldnetdaily.com and read what's there, then come back here to parrot it. I say it here first, THEN become amused when I see the same essential points being made elsewhere.

I take it as proof of great minds thinking alike. :)

Don't miss the point, too, that two people who are being as objective about an issue as is humanly possible may still disagree on that issue. A lot of people make that mistake.

My favorite example occurs in religious debates: someone will inevitably use the argument that if one is truly "objective," he/she cannot believe in a Supreme Being.

Ah, to have a Jesuit handy to argue these fine distinctions. :)

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Anita wrote, "welfare reform occurred under the last administration for the first time since its inception" This to substantiate that Dems didn't "encouraged welfare" Just a few corrections. Reagan signed in welfare reform also, however, Clintons' was bigger. Clinton did this only after it went to him three (count them again, 3) times as proposed by the repub Congress. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Bill finally signed it but his signing doesn't correlate to democratic views on welfare. They (the dems) still encourage welfare, as part of the party platform.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Maria:

Actually, there were MANY welfare reform propositions, and I believe Clinton vetoed four of them before finally agreeing on the last one. This is not to suggest that he [or the Democrats for that matter] were opposed to welfare reform. It only suggests that he [they] objected to the particular bills proposed, or even the "package" of bills that are oftentimes clumped together in an all-or-nothing proposition.

Welfare Reform Bills

I haven't seen welfare listed on the Democratic Party platform. Could you point me to your information on this?

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Anita:

Nobody is disinterested, but that doesn't necessarily render us all totally blind. Some of us remain capable of recognizing that there's something to say for both sides, and that we do NOT have a case of angels on one side and devils on the other. The party platforms do not diverge to any great degree, and even Paul Davis looks thoughtful when contrasted with Cherri's reflexive personal hatred, none of which is backed by anything. (Just say "Bush" (or now "Cheney") and you get an automatic content-free personal tirade.)

When I say that whoever controls which votes are counted (and how they're counted) controls who wins, why do you find that particularly partisan? This is most curious. The Gore "official article of faith" that some mythical "objective" count would find him the winner regardless of all observation is partisan but not particularly persuasive unless you are already a member of that faith. *Especially* when this "objective" count is *defined* as one that Gore wins, since (remember the faith) Gore has more "real" votes if only we looked at them right! It's not partisan to observe the tight circularity of this argument, is it?

If I were to say, "Bush has more votes. Just let ME count them and I'll PROVE it", would you see the point a bit more clearly?

I doubt there's a party anywhere that represents anyone precisely. I think we'd all like to pick and choose from the platforms of a variety of parties, and then add some of our own stuff, to create our own ideals. But such a custom Chinese-menu platform wouldn't be inclusive enough to win any elections, so we vote for what we really like at the cost of ALSO voting for some things we really detest, no matter WHO we vote for. Or else we don't vote, and accept whoever everyone else picks. As Paul Simon wrote, "Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose / anyway you look at it you lose."

Stephen:

Yes, a clever argument. Objectivity has nothing to do with belief in a Supreme Being, since we have absolutely no evidence that a Supreme Being does not exist. We all (should have) learned a lot about proving a negative during y2k. We can correctly point out that we have no evidence in *favor* of such a Being either, or that we know of nothing that cannot be explained without such a Being, but these are a different matter. We can be just as objective despite a devout belief in the Great Green Greasy Grob by this same argument, and with equal justification.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

I haven't seen welfare listed on the Democratic Party platform. Hmmm, then is it on the republican party platform? You mean those black voters have voted for the wrong party?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Ah...the old "blacks on welfare" myth resurfaces.

Myth

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

According to your link, of the total number of welfare recipients, 37.2% are black. Where is the myth of "blacks on welfare"? There are blacks on welfare. True there are other minorities as well as whites on welfare. But 37.2% doesn't dispel the myth; on the contrary it supports the fact that black are on welfare.

FWIW, I have known both white and black people on welfare. I grew up in a very poor area, known as the projects, low income housing where the majority were black *and* on welfare.

Now back to my comment... If this doesn't "suggest that he [or the Democrats for that matter] were opposed to welfare reform", does it mean that they are for (they have to be for or against and not sitting on the fence) welfare reform and the blacks voted the wrong party?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Maria:

There are a number of reasons why the black community tends to vote Democratic. If you'll go back to the Welfare Reform link I presented, you'll notice that part of Clinton's platform in 1992 was welfare reform. This didn't stop blacks from predominately voting for Clinton. I wouldn't go so far as to say that welfare reform isn't an issue with a small percentage of the black population, but I would certainly suggest that welfare isn't a predominant issue in the voting black community.

Like you, I grew up in poor neighborhoods and was myself a minority group in a mostly black community. I knew of NO ONE in those days who were on the dole. It was a community of working poor.

The only people I met personally who ever took advantage of welfare were my niece [who used it for two years to help support her young son after her husband was institutionalized] and a neighbor [who used it for two years to complete her high-school degree and obtain some office skills.] Both were white, and I'd bet if you asked them they'd suggest that blacks are the only people on welfare.

Amongst the more educated black population, affirmative action is still an issue [more often supported by Democrats] and support in general for minority groups [including women]. The Republican party's association with groups who hold racist views are not overlooked by the black community. Neither are the continued attempts to prevent blacks from voting.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

This is taken from your "myth" site, a vertiable goldmine of misinformation.

[Blacks comprise only 12 percent of the nation, but, according to the above figures, they comprise 37 percent of the welfare rolls.]

Now, this is an interesting tidbit. The charts they print are very careful to present the racial compositiion of the welfare roles ONLY. Here near the footnotes we discover that while a few more whites than blacks are on welfare, there are 8 times as many whites as blacks in the country. This means black people are about 8 times more likely to be on welfare, the KEY statistic which this reference is VERY careful not to display. Neat trick.

[...discussions of race and welfare must turn on different issues.]

The actual observation that blacks are 8 times as likely to be on welfare is VERY uncomfortable, so let's redirect away from the observation itself (look over there!) and change the subject.

[The most prevalent question is why there are so many blacks in poverty.]

A good question, but not the one that was asked, dodged with a statistical trick, and then called a "myth". Now, why are blacks overrepresented among the poor? Well...

[Liberals argue that it is the result of continuing racism and discrimination, especially at hiring time. Conservatives have argued a variety of other causes: moral shortcomings, poor work ethic, even intellectual inferiority.]

Now THERE is a good, objective, balanced summary as anyone could ask for! It would embarrass Pravda. Liberals are good hearted people who recognize reality, while conservatives are racist idiots with weak excuses for their xenophobia. Uh huh.

Anita, do you genuinely feel that this kind of propaganda serves any useful purpose? We aren't going to solve real problems so long as we try to divide the country into those who are trying to find solutions and those who are trying to make the problem worse or deny it exists! Blacks really ARE 8 times as likely to be on welfare. They really ARE voting for the party most likely to maintain this system. Not so coincidentally, they really ARE about several times more likely to vote Democratic than whites.

Calling this a "myth" isn't going to make it magically go away, nor are games with numbers.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Flint:

A number of studies have been done on why welfare can't just be shut off in a short period of time without producing devastating effects on the population. Whether you like this or not, it's backed up by evidence. Blacks are still a minority in this country. It's true that if one looks at the percentage of blacks versus the percentage of whites, there is a greater percentage of blacks on the welfare rolls versus whites, but overall whites obtain more welfare benefits than blacks.

So, we're placed in a position where we have [purely for hypothetical purposes] a population consisting of 100,000 whites and 25,000 blacks. This would correspond to a 25% ratio of blacks and a 75% ratio of whites. Who benefits from welfare? I forgot the percentages now, but wasn't it 38% of whites and 37% blacks? If so, and let's again speak hypothetically here, that would mean that 38,000 white people benefited from welfare. If so, that would mean that 9,250 black people benefited from welfare.

We can correct the percentages of population figures later, but it's already been proven that more white folks benefit from welfare than black folks. If welfare is the big draw to the Democratic party, why aren't all these poor white folks voting Democratic? [Actually, I don't know that they aren't, but the premise here seems to be that it's a big draw for the black community.]

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

I totally misrepresented the information in the above post. I misread my own link, and I apologize both to Flint and Maria for so doing.

You can correct my math, if I'm incorrect, but it looks like the white population has 3% on welfare, while the black population has 5% on welfare.

total population

percentage of population on welfare

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

uh Anita, go back a redo the math. You have to find of your 125,000, how many are on welfare before you apply the 38 and 37 percentages. The 38 and 37 apply to the total on welfare not the total population.

Say, 100,000 on welfare implies 38,000 of them are white and 37,000 of them are black. What's the total population sample?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Oops posted at the same time, now I'll go back and look at the numbers.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Maria:

Here's what I did [and I'm still not convinced it's correct.]

I took the total population of 275,843,000. I determined from the graph in the second link that 2.5% of the entire population is on welfare. [It looked like that to me.] I then used the 37% and 38% from the previous link [which actually is data a few years older than this] and the figures from the first link in my last post, stating that 82.2 of the total population is white, and 12.8% of the total population is black.

.82% of the total population was about 226,742,946 people. I took 38% of the welfare recipient total and determined that it was roughly 3% of the 226,742,946 number. I did the same with the black figures.

I'm open to ANY/ALL corrections, as I'm not at all confident after posting that first blunder.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

How'd we get into this numbers game :)

Based on the percentages, there are approx 226,742,946 whites and 35,307904 blacks.

Approximately 2,620,508 whites are on welfare while 2,551,548 blacks.

So... (Was this where it was going?) approx. 1.16% (.025x.38 / .822) of whites are on welfare and 7.23% (.025x.37 / .128) of blacks on welfare. And that looks like it correlates to the 1/8 versus 7/8 of the population. Of course it would since "equal % was on welfare".

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Maria:

How'd we get into this numbers game :)

I'm not really sure, but I appreciate your help on this one. [grin]

I think it was in response to Flint's concerns that blacks are 8 TIMES more likely to be on welfare, and the arguments he used to suggest that liberals and conservatives differed dramatically on why this is true. Let's see...we have 35,307,904 blacks in the U.S. I guess per your numbers, that would put 2,552,761 having some concern about welfare issues. We have 226,742,946 whites in the U.S. Per your numbers, that would put about 3,627,887 whites having some concern about welfare issues. Need I point out here that we're still left with about 1 million more white folks who have an interest in welfare issues? [or did I make another mistake in math?]

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Ooops! I used 1.6 instead of 1.116. There are actually only 77,457 more white people than black people in the U.S. that would have an interest in continuing welfare benefits.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

It wasn't that hard. The percentage of total welfare recipients between blacks and whites was roughtly equal (38 and 37 are pretty close, know what I mean). So about the same NUMBER of each race is on welfare.

Now, 12% are black, which is roughly 1/8 of the total populaton. So I just said if you have the same number among 1/8 as among the rest, this is about 8 times as frequent. Actually, it's about 7 times, because Maria is correct, "the rest" is only 7 times as large to add up to 1. But 7 and 8 are also pretty close, and both are a LOT bigger than 1:1 as your fake statistics tried to claim.

Yes, you can't pull the plug on the system all at once without causing all kinds of unnecessary and undesirable structural problems. You've got to wean yourself off this system, which we are now successfully doing (despte Clinton's foot-dragging as you attested yourself).

OK, I'm willing to give Clinton credit for what a Republican Congress jammed down his throat (and after 3 vetoes) because it WORKS! I just like to see things work.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

your fake statistics tried to claim.

Where EXACTLY were the fake statistics? There was no implication that the statistics given represented percentages of racial populations. In fact, the link specifically mentioned [at the bottom] that the percentages of the populations varied by race.

If 77,457 more whites are receiving welfare than blacks, does it really matter what percentage of their racial population this represents? Does it decrease your tax dollars?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Flint:

"and ANOTHER thing..." [as my mother always liked to say...]

These bills were NOT identical, nor did anyone force anything down Clinton's throat. SOME bills were introduced by Republicans, some by Democrats, and some were introduced in a bipartisan way. Any way you slice it, the final bill did NOT reflect the first three bills introduced. You're resourceful enough to check out all the bills and discern the differences.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

The "myth" is a matter of emphasis. Your (highly slanted) link was trying hard to claim welfare was not primarily a black phenomenon, and took advantage of blacks' minority status to create a misleading impression. OK, not fake, but misleading in the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" category. I think 7 times more likely to be a welfare recipient (or "overrepresented by a factor of seven" as a statistician would say) is significant.

As for the cost, I agree it doesn't matter. And if policies to get people off welfare and back on their feet works equally well irrespective of race, then the racial makeup of the welfare rolls becomes irrelevant.

And we DO seem to have a very good welfare policy, the latest reforms seem highly successful. I would not say that the Democrats were the champions of the reforms we got, but as I wrote above, I'll gladly give Clinton credit if he wants it. I like to see things work.

"And another thing..." I really haven't sensed this hatred of Clinton you say is being transferred to Gore. We don't seem (in my view) to have any higher percentage hating Clinton than tends to hate ANY sitting President. In the polls, Clinton remains very popular, and I always felt he was a competent President who did us quite a bit of good and no real harm. He has a weakness for women, but it doesn't seem to make him a bad President, which is what counts.

If Clinton could run against Gore and Bush in a 3-way race this year, I'd vote Clinton again and be happy with it. So maybe my appreciation for the job he's done has blinded me to this hatred you see. Are you a Clinton hater, that you're attuned to this so much better than I?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Are you a Clinton hater, that you're attuned to this so much better than I?

You haven't been following the fora much, Flint. Maria [in particular] hates both Bill and Hillary with great passion. This is also true of the poster Ain't on the Uncensored forum. In fact, so many of the anti-Gore folks reference Clinton in their remarks that Patricia [for many months] felt compelled to point out that he wasn't running. You'll frequently see references like "Gore and his boss". This is a tip-off to folks who see Gore as a Clinton clone.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Welfare reform in action

The link will take you to a wonderful place,(<--shameless self promotion) and when you are finished reading the article there is a link to the original source at the end.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

I read that on your WWW forum, Unk, and had considered posting it here. Thanks for doing it for me. It was a great article, IMO.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000