John Kerry lost nine votes while President Bush gained one in Wednesday's recount of Butler County's presidential race.
Elections board director Robert Mosketti said the recount showed the Bush ticket getting 109,867 votes, or 65.86 percent.
Kerry got 56,243 votes, or 33.72 percent.
Results of other presidential contenders also changed little.
Libertarian Michael Badnarik stayed the same at 412 votes, or 0.25 percent. Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka lost two votes, getting 286 or 0.17 percent.
I am glad they recounted and spent taxpayer money doing so to prove that Bush won by a larger margin. Thanks whining liberal fucks.
Lynks wrote:This from the people who bitched about Clinton getting a BJ and spending millions to prove he did in fact get one.
Thank God the Ohio thing is over.
Not that I agree with the money thrown at that, but the big difference is that they were right about Clinton. /shrug
Not only were they right, it would have been much cheaper if Clinton hadn't been trying to deny it.
I didn't like all the money being thrown into it either, however, Clinton was the one who made it such a long drawn out process.
Instead of just owning up to it, he was trying everything he could to squirm out of the situation. All he had to do was admit to what he did and it would have been much less of a hassle to everyone, and been much less of a drain on the taxpayer.
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am glad they recounted and spent taxpayer money doing so to prove that Bush won by a larger margin. Thanks whining liberal fucks.
You should be glad that they are reinforcing peoples' faith in the voting system.
How much taxpayer money does it really take to count less than 6000 votes by hand? You need to hire three chimpanzees to count and a proctor to compare their results.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."- Barack Obama
uh sorry to burst your bubbles. But it isnt tax payer money, its money raised and charged to the "main" force wanting the recount. I think they charge 175k for it. That is the price that Ohio said it would cost to do a recount, and is charging the party for it. The money had to be paid upfront in order to do it.And thats excatly what happend.
Raistin wrote:uh sorry to burst your bubbles. But it isnt tax payer money, its money raised and charged to the "main" force wanting the recount. I think they charge 175k for it. That is the price that Ohio said it would cost to do a recount, and is charging the party for it. The money had to be paid upfront in order to do it.And thats excatly what happend.
Wrong. By Ohio law it requires ten dollars per precinct, that wasn't the "price Ohio said a recount would be."
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.
The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December.
Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said on Monday they raised more than $150,000 in four days, mostly in small contributions.
Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.
Badnarik and Cobb said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.
"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.
Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.
Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, said the actual cost to county election boards combined will be about $1.5 million.
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
Lynks wrote:This from the people who bitched about Clinton getting a BJ and spending millions to prove he did in fact get one.
Thank God the Ohio thing is over.
Not that I agree with the money thrown at that, but the big difference is that they were right about Clinton. /shrug
Not only were they right, it would have been much cheaper if Clinton hadn't been trying to deny it.
I didn't like all the money being thrown into it either, however, Clinton was the one who made it such a long drawn out process.
Instead of just owning up to it, he was trying everything he could to squirm out of the situation. All he had to do was admit to what he did and it would have been much less of a hassle to everyone, and been much less of a drain on the taxpayer.
Buuuulllshit. You are so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears. If you morons hadn't brought it up and made it a public case in the first place it never would have happened. You started it. You wasted a shitload of money. And at the end, you look like fucking morons.
Lynks wrote:This from the people who bitched about Clinton getting a BJ and spending millions to prove he did in fact get one.
Thank God the Ohio thing is over.
Not that I agree with the money thrown at that, but the big difference is that they were right about Clinton. /shrug
Not only were they right, it would have been much cheaper if Clinton hadn't been trying to deny it.
I didn't like all the money being thrown into it either, however, Clinton was the one who made it such a long drawn out process.
Instead of just owning up to it, he was trying everything he could to squirm out of the situation. All he had to do was admit to what he did and it would have been much less of a hassle to everyone, and been much less of a drain on the taxpayer.
Buuuulllshit. You are so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears. If you morons hadn't brought it up and made it a public case in the first place it never would have happened. You started it. You wasted a shitload of money. And at the end, you look like fucking morons.
Who is you? I watched it on television just like everyone else did, I am not a Republican or a Democrat.
Bottom line is what he did was not right, he got caught, and he tried to avoid the issue instead of owning up to it.
Again, his trying to avoid the issues made the costs go up. If he had just come out and admitted it, there never would have been that long process.
He made himself look bad by his actions. The actions of those trying to get the truth had nothing to do with him lying.
Aruman wrote:
Bottom line is what he did was not right, he got caught, and he tried to avoid the issue instead of owning up to it.
That's not the "bottom line", that's your thin justification for a massive waste of time and money in a partisan witch hunt. You and every other man in here would lie about it if you thought you could get away with it.
I don't even know how you can defend your president's personal life being an "ok" topic for questioning, so he should have had to lie about it.
It's a bit like the way Americans have rolled over like slapped bitches and given up all their goodies to their government because of some terrorism, but the very same assholes that are most fervent about the Patriot Act are the same ones that used to stamp their little feet at the thought of random breath testing because it impinged on your rights because there was no probable cause. Wankers.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Zaelath wrote:
I don't even know how you can defend your president's personal life being an "ok" topic for questioning, so he should have had to lie about it.
I agree that people's personal life should be their own affair. Its useful though to see exactly made the clinton case possible.
Media-savvy but legally unsophisticated liberal commentators, such as radio talk show host Tom Leykis, make a passionate, and fairly persuasive, argument about Clinton's presumed affair: It may be bad, but it's a private matter. It's between Bill, Hillary, and Monica. It's none of our business. It certainly doesn't belong in court. "Why are we asking questions about the president's sex life?" asks Leykis. "Why is that relevant to anything? Why should the president be put in a position of having to lie about something that's none of our business in the first place?"
Why indeed? The tempting answer is, Because you asked for it. Demanded it. Screamed and yelled and waxed indignant. You dedicated the 1992 Democratic National Convention to the cause. Remember "The Year of the Woman"? It was a media frenzy. And the number one agenda item was a ban on any hint of sexuality in the workplace.
Writing cheap symbolism into real law is a dangerous thing to do. But Congress did it in 1994. Ratifying the view that sexual harassment is too serious a matter to be governed by normal legal constraints, the very same Democratic Congress that reauthorized the Independent Counsel statute rewrote the rules of evidence. The new rules allow a defendant's sexual history--not just previous allegations of harassment--to be dragged into sexual harassment suits. (The plaintiff's history, however, was made inadmissable.)
So the president of the United States can be asked, under oath, about his sex life. It doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or even if the woman made the first move. It doesn't have to be harassment; indeed, no one claims anything of the kind in the Lewinsky case. But Congress chose to make every intimate detail fair game. And if, like many a cheating spouse, the president lies to cover up adultery, he is guilty of a serious crime--perjury, a potentially impeachable offense.
The Democrats wanted that sort of questioning to be fair game, they just complained when it was directed against their guy (for the record, the Democrats are certainly not the only ones prone to hypocrisy. The Republicans are more than capable of doing it as well when it is expedient).
The Democrats wanted that sort of questioning to be fair game, they just complained when it was directed against their guy (for the record, the Democrats are certainly not the only ones prone to hypocrisy. The Republicans are more than capable of doing it as well when it is expedient).
I certainly don't want that kind of questioning at all no matter which way.
Aruman wrote:Careful Chmee, Zaelath might call you a Wanker too... oh the shame!
No, Chmee might be over-optimistic about capitalism, but he's got about 50 IQ points on you.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Writing cheap symbolism into real law is a dangerous thing to do. But Congress did it in 1994. Ratifying the view that sexual harassment is too serious a matter to be governed by normal legal constraints, the very same Democratic Congress that reauthorized the Independent Counsel statute rewrote the rules of evidence. The new rules allow a defendant's sexual history--not just previous allegations of harassment--to be dragged into sexual harassment suits. (The plaintiff's history, however, was made inadmissable.)
So the president of the United States can be asked, under oath, about his sex life. It doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or even if the woman made the first move. It doesn't have to be harassment; indeed, no one claims anything of the kind in the Lewinsky case. But Congress chose to make every intimate detail fair game. And if, like many a cheating spouse, the president lies to cover up adultery, he is guilty of a serious crime--perjury, a potentially impeachable offense.
The Democrats wanted that sort of questioning to be fair game, they just complained when it was directed against their guy (for the record, the Democrats are certainly not the only ones prone to hypocrisy. The Republicans are more than capable of doing it as well when it is expedient).
It's an interesting application of a civil tort law, but there's also a bald faced contradiction in what the author says the law is and what it allows, without any explanation.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Aruman wrote:Careful Chmee, Zaelath might call you a Wanker too... oh the shame!
No, Chmee might be over-optimistic about capitalism, but he's got about 50 IQ points on you.
Yeah... and you know this how...
He quotes the law, which supports what I say, and yet you still want to make your childish posts.
You going to take your ball and go home too?
No, he quotes an opinion piece, which paraphrases a law, which supports his opinion. But at least he knows what he's doing, you're just an ass.
Your "bottom line" was what, any time a politician lies you should spend a few billion dollars and 4-5 years proving it? I don't see you terribly con-fucking-cerned about Bush lying to you about Iraq. Oh, but he was misled, he didn't know.. I'm willing to bet with Starr's resources and a single informant of the "class" of Tripp I could present you with a smoking gun as well.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Zaelath wrote:
Your "bottom line" was what, any time a politician lies you should spend a few billion dollars and 4-5 years proving it? I don't see you terribly con-fucking-cerned about Bush lying to you about Iraq. Oh, but he was misled, he didn't know.. I'm willing to bet with Starr's resources and a single informant of the "class" of Tripp I could present you with a smoking gun as well.
How about you learn to read...
I said he should have just owned up to what he did and saved the expense. Instead he chose to try to slink his way out of it and HE extended the costs because of HIS actions.
No, it's your failure to grasp human nature and the ethical problems with the government entering your personal life that's so hard to understand.
Perhaps you're actually God made flesh and have no sin, or perhaps you're just a screaming hypocrite when you say Clinton should have admitted straight off that he got a blow job from a plumper. Hell, at that point he might have even felt a little like he was protecting Monica, I know few women that would appreciate me holding a press conference to announce they blew me.
Merry Christmas.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Zaelath wrote:
Perhaps you're actually God made flesh and have no sin, or perhaps you're just a screaming hypocrite when you say Clinton should have admitted straight off that he got a blow job from a plumper. Hell, at that point he might have even felt a little like he was protecting Monica, I know few women that would appreciate me holding a press conference to announce they blew me.
Merry Christmas.
Good fucking lord you're full of excuses. A Class-A, excuse filled whining liberal.
Protecting Monica...lol.
CLINTON: Monica, swallow it all so there's no evidence. I'm trying to protect you in case the fact gets out that I'm banging interns. You know, they might think it's sexual harrassment since you work for me and all.
I blame Monica for this whole thing for letting cum drip out of her mouth onto her dress. Clinton did all he could to prevent it trying to protect her.
Zaelath wrote:
Perhaps you're actually God made flesh and have no sin, or perhaps you're just a screaming hypocrite when you say Clinton should have admitted straight off that he got a blow job from a plumper. Hell, at that point he might have even felt a little like he was protecting Monica, I know few women that would appreciate me holding a press conference to announce they blew me.
Merry Christmas.
Good fucking lord you're full of excuses. A Class-A, excuse filled whining liberal.
Protecting Monica...lol.
CLINTON: Monica, swallow it all so there's no evidence. I'm trying to protect you in case the fact gets out that I'm banging interns. You know, they might think it's sexual harrassment since you work for me and all.
I blame Monica for this whole thing for letting cum drip out of her mouth onto her dress. Clinton did all he could to prevent it trying to protect her.
You fucking moron. Merry X-Mas back at you.
No, shit stain. Accepting that it's perfectly natural for a man to lie about getting a sly blowjob, even if he was caught in the fucking act, is being a realist.
Unlike you tossers on the far left and right, I don't ignore human nature to make excuses about why it's Bill's fault you had to spend millions in this pointless witch hunt.
Similarly, I don't ignore human nature when the left says "rape is illegal so 15 year old girls should be able to walk the street at night dressed like sluts in safety"
I'm sure Bill was primarily protecting his own ass, all I was giving was an example of how you can internally rationalise such a thing into a breach of confidence. You should be *really* familiar with retrospective rationalisation of behaviour Winnow.
Now fuck off and troll someone else.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Zaelath wrote:
I'm sure Bill was primarily protecting his own ass, all I was giving was an example of how you can internally rationalise such a thing into a breach of confidence. You should be *really* familiar with retrospective rationalisation of behaviour Winnow.
Clinton would have rather had Monica be dead than protect her after the shit hit the fan. It doesn't matter that she blew Clinton, it legally matters that she was an intern at the time. I'm sure Hillary could give two shits that Bill was fucking around if he didn't get caught. She's only in the marriage for political reasons so the ethics in question are sexual harrassment in nature.
Who cares he likes to get head from ugly chicks. I just wish he had good taste like JFK.
My only problem was that he would lie under oath and use his power to crush and destroy Paula Jones case against him for sexual harrassment. The hiding of the Monica thing was a lie to discredit others in court or hiding of evidence of his type of behavior, so I guess to some of you its ok to lie in court to manipulate a case towards your side..and if your caught we just say, oh well who cares its a witch hunt !!!!! Im mainly upset of his obstruction of juctice towards the court case to discredit a woman who is just as much of a person and a citizen as he is.
It was a witch hunt which was sad for the USA, but still what he did was wrong and now hell always be known as a president who got impeached
Zaelath wrote:
Perhaps you're actually God made flesh and have no sin, or perhaps you're just a screaming hypocrite when you say Clinton should have admitted straight off that he got a blow job from a plumper. Hell, at that point he might have even felt a little like he was protecting Monica, I know few women that would appreciate me holding a press conference to announce they blew me.
Merry Christmas.
Now you are just being ridiculous.
It may be human nature, but that doesn't make it right.
Yes, I agree, it would be a little over the top if he had held a press conference and used your words, but the thing is, he didn't have to have a press conference to admit to anything. All he had to do was be straight with the people doing the investigation to begin with.
