Well, fear is certainly a strong word.
Gore didn’t win. That’s like saying the Braves got 10 hits and 1 run and beat a team that got 5 hits and 10 runs. The electoral college is one of the most brilliant things ever created by man. The ACLU, the New York Times, and every major liberal organization looked for evidence of just one “partisan shenanigan,” just one real instance of someone being denied their right to vote. They found… none. None, and more none. Bush won. Fairly, by the rules, Bush won.
The Heidelberg Appeal just wants scientists to be objective, and exist independently of politics. Wikipedia is “often deceptively crafted to mislead.” Not a reputable site for science. The Heidelberg Appeal does not reject global warming. It rejects bad and subjective science.
The world is always warming or cooling. It has always been warming or cooling. We simply don’t have enough data to know if we are causing it. The latest data shows the current climate changes may be due to changes in that big shiny hot thing in the sky.
Al may have a wonderful slide show. It simply isn’t science.

Well, fear is certainly a strong word.
>It sure is--especially when the signs of it are quite obvious, especially to all those Conservative media figures that are building up Hillary Clinton for the Dem. Pres. nomination as she would be an easier target for the Swiftboaters to demonize during the campaign.
I'm an Independent but am also liberal on social issues and will admit that bias. I didn't like Bill Clinton and I don't like Hillary Clinton. I do think we need to restore Checks and Balances
to our federal government for oversight and believe that
Gore/Edwards would be the best ticket for the Dems. I would FEAR
Hillary though, for numerous reasons I don't want to get too off-
topic discussing here.

Gore didn’t win. That’s like saying the Braves got 10 hits and 1 run and beat a team that got 5 hits and 10 runs. The electoral
college is one of the most brilliant things ever created by man.
> I'd probably feel the electoral college was brilliant too if my preferred candidate won because of it! I'm not attacking the electoral college at all. I'm much more concerned with voting irregularities in States where the voting procedures give a partisan edge to the Party that makes the rules--the gubernatorial
regime of those States. Allocating voting machines fairly and avoiding long waits to vote(Ohio), disqualifying qualified voters and usurping State courts authority over their election disputes (Florida) should be concerns to both Party members--if one Party can do it now , the other can do it later. Also, black box voting and hacking Diebold programs is still a problem. Why are so many GOP politicos so adamantly opposed to these aforementioned voting issues, as well as a paper ballot?

The ACLU, the New York Times, and every major liberal organization looked for evidence of just one “partisan shenanigan,” just one real instance of someone being denied their right to vote. They found… none. None, and more none. Bush won. Fairly, by the rules,
Bush won.
> Technically you are right. They did not find "just one real
instance"--they found hundreds. I guess that would also depend upon what your meaning of "real instance" is, since you like that phrase so much. Your use of the modifier makes your opinion merely subjective to your bias. There are too many studies to dispute yor conclusion that apparently you have not read. Selective reading and analysis can support virtually any opinion one can have. I read both conservative and liberal journals and newsblogs critically
before I make any judgments. You seem like a smart person--unless you are a blind partisan I really find it hard to believe you have not read any works that do not share your bias.
As for the ACLU--I am very familiar with them and have worked for their Voting Rights Project which investigated both the 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio Pres. elections. They found massive abuses
involving the disenfranchisement of registered voters and electronic voting irregularities. And since YOU cited the ACLU as not finding anything wrong, look at this recent court victory in Ohio:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/er/25250prs20060421.html
It's from the ACLU website--but you're the one that used the ACLU as a refernce to support your opinion!
Any comebacks?
And, concerning the NYT, they have come to be a major source of "lazy" journalism and have lost most of their best columnists and reporters. And despite, the RNC "talking points", the Times has been loaded with pro-Bush and pro-Iraqi War shills and apologists. Judy Miller got all the attention, but the list is very long. They always tend to have reporters that tow the line of the Party in power;perhaps for more access and insider information or any other number of reasons. This is fairly common in the media--and Clinton had his share of this treatment as well, though it disappeared fast after the Lewinsky feeding frenzy transformed his last years in office into a tabloid media circus.
I rarely read the NYT anymore aside from a few columnists and the sports section. It's lost a lot of credibility. I read the online UK Guardian to get the best political reporting of the US. Quite a few of the best investigative journalists from US newspapers, including some like Greg Palast from the Times--have been hired by The Guardian over the years as our own media has de-empasized investigative reporting the past few years--unless there's sex or a missing bottled blonde story.
That being said about my opinion of the Times, two of their most read political columnists -Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins -have had numerous articles reporting instances of voter disenfranchisement in the Bush elections. Quite a bit, as a matter of fact.
Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.
Given all these extremely subjective and intellectualy dishonest "facts" you cite, I really have little reason to take any of your statements seriously. At least give some sort of reply that doesn't betray your partisan bias so completely.

My opinion differs from yours, so it is “partisan bias?” And yours is… not?
Well, here is some more partisan bias for you- John O’Neal and the Swift Boaters told the truth.
Even more reason not to take me seriously.
Please give some actual examples of voting irregularities. All I find are unsubstantiated stories, from both sides. Perhaps I will change my opinion if you show some proof. I have searched for actual people prevented from voting. Are they hidden somewhere?
The ACLU ‘victory’ you cite is simply the change from punch card ballots. That isn’t abuse, unless voters have been abused for hundreds of years. Wow. I never actually felt abused. Perhaps I wouldn’t make a very good victim. I do like fiction, though.
Somehow that doesn’t seem like a ‘victory’ for voting rights. Bit of a stretch.
Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins? No partisan bias there, for sure. Perhaps you would think the same of Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity?
You obviously feel strongly about Al. (That was where this started, remember?)
I am so glad to see someone has overcome bias. It is really refreshing to know it is possible.
Congratulations to you.

My opinion differs from yours, so it is “partisan bias?” And yours is… not?
>You must have "selectively" read my comments as much as you selectively read the news. I fully stated my BIAS before addressing your talking points. And I went out of my way to announce my bias as an Independent who is liberal on social issues(I didn't state that I was an economic "conservative", however) and who loathed the Clintons but thought Al Gore would be a better Dem. nominee than Hillary. Did you even read anything I wrote? If not, there's no reason to bother with another reply. If you read my comments and overlooked my own self-admitted bias, please explain your accusation.
Unlike you, I stated a bias. You made no effort at all to reveal your bias while you cited "spin" that fit your agenda and pretended to be objective while using well know RNC talking points.
I could have tried to discredit you more by insulting you on a more personal level but prefer to let my words do the talking. If you disagree fine, but don't lie and say I am hiding a "bias" when I openly admitted any biases I had.
I'm used to taking looking at all angles of any issue-from the high school debate team to moot court in law school, and am accustomed to advocacy on both sides of any argument.
If I were to take your side on the issues here, I certainly would be a little more forthcoming than you have been--and more concerned with providing credible sources for your material rather than ad hominen attacks towards someone you don't know anything about.
>Well, here is some more partisan bias for you- John O’Neal and the Swift Boaters told the truth.
Even more reason not to take me seriously.
> Okay, so you're a comedian. Forgive my naivete! I'll refrain from discussing the Swiftboaters--they were "outed" long ago.
And I presume you mean JOHN O'NEILL? I'd need to know what comments you are referring to that he personally made. He surely was a feared man both by Bin-Laden and the Bush regime and his death on 9/11 leaves many unanswered questions. There are many conspiracy theories, of course. Needless to say, many folks were afraid of many truths he never had a chance to say. And one can use different statements he made to argue both sides of the relevant opinions I assume you speak of. Again, I can't answer and provide an opinion unless I know specifically what "truth" he told that you're reerring to. I'll add another "bias" of mine--I am not Kreskin!
Please give some actual examples of voting irregularities. All I find are unsubstantiated stories, from both sides. Perhaps I will change my opinion if you show some proof. I have searched for actual people prevented from voting. Are they hidden somewhere?
>If you are serious, just Google and enter the relevant keywords--there are literally hundreds for several States alone. Most of these "irregularities" were built into the system, and impacted large groups of people collectively, not just "individually".
Just recently James Tobin was convicted in a White House choreographed phone jamming scheme in New Hampshire during the 2004 election. Surely you now about that?! Google if not. And that was just the latest scandal--very mild compared to the Ohio problems, where most of the Republicans implicated are already under indictment for prior criminal acts(Ney, Taft, and a host of others). Not to mention Blackwell, the Katherine Harris of Ohio that did for Bush what Monica did for Clinton.
Again, don't take my word--look it up yourself and read less partisan news sources. When GOP corruption is prosecuted by a Republican judiciary, I think "bias" is not too much an issue.

I will give you a hand here for a chronology of voting machine problems. You would probably call this site biased, but many Republicans are also supporters of and contributors to it.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The other "irregularities", such as placement of voting machines in Ohio and the paucity of them, along with 8 hour waits outside in the cold and rain in the heavily Democratic districts, is not even a topic of debate anymore. It's been well documented. again--if you read selectively you will always just look at those opinions that coincide with your.
Given my background in Law, I go out of my way to look for views different than mine so I have a basis to know what my adversaries think and anticipate and plan my rebuttals.
You can do this as well, and it would behoove you to get a better idea of your opponent's(in this case me!)mindset.
I'm going on vacation Friday, so if you reply and I don't it's because I'm taking a well-deserved break from opining.
Cheers!

My opinion differs from yours, so it is “partisan bias?” And yours is… not?
Well, here is some more partisan bias for you- John O’Neal and the Swift Boaters told the truth.
Even more reason not to take me seriously.
Please give some actual examples of voting irregularities. All I find are unsubstantiated stories, from both sides. Perhaps I will change my opinion if you show some proof. I have searched for actual people prevented from voting. Are they hidden somewhere?
The ACLU ‘victory’ you cite is simply the change from punch card ballots. That isn’t abuse, unless voters have been abused for hundreds of years. Wow. I never actually felt abused. Perhaps I wouldn’t make a very good victim. I do like fiction, though.
Somehow that doesn’t seem like a ‘victory’ for voting rights. Bit of a stretch.
Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins? No partisan bias there, for sure. Perhaps you would think the same of Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity?
You obviously feel strongly about Al. (That was where this started, remember?)
I am so glad to see someone has overcome bias. It is really refreshing to know it is possible.
Congratulations to you.

Oh my goodness… I misspelled John O’Neill’s name… I feel shame. He is one of my personal heroes.
I was not being facetious. I do indeed think the Swift Boaters told the truth about Kerry.
Oh, well. At least they still cashed my checks.

I don’t think we define bias the same way, so I looked it up.

bias n.
1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
I don’t have impartial judgment, and am not prejudiced. Reasonable people can disagree even when given the same information. I do think, however, based on what I know of Al Gore, that he is exploiting ignorance on the subject of global warming for political gain. Science should have no “partisan bias.” That is what The Heidelberg Appeal is all about. Gore isn’t a scientist. He isn’t impartial.
You used the ACLU “victory” over the elimination of punch card ballots as an example of voter abuse, yet the above blackbox.com reference is to the lack of reliability of touch screen voting machines. Wonder how they’re going to work that out?
We also don’t seem to have a complete understanding of each other’s position on the voting abuse, or “irregularities,” topic. NASA hires thousands of engineers to examine each tiny detail into the function of the space shuttle, yet there are often unforeseen problems. People make mistakes. It isn’t evidence of abuse.
I think the voting problems you cite are mostly of that nature. The touch screen problems will be resolved, and picture ID cards will clear up most of the other problems.
You said, “again--if you read selectively you will always just look at those opinions that coincide with yours,” and “…as much as you selectively read the news.”
Well, at various times I have subscribed to National Review, Mother Jones, and everything in between. My opinions are the result of reading a diverse cross-section of opinions. My favorite site is realclearpolitics.com. Very diverse.
But this started with Al. So, back to him. He didn’t even win his home state. Who could know him best?
Hope you had a nice vacation.