The truth about voter fraud and intimidation in the 2004 election

[Hoot]

In effect they did in thier first ruling and rescinded the FSC decission and demanded they explain why they were doing what they were doing and under what authority. The FSC simply ignored them and ordered the manual recounts in those select counties restarted, SCOTUS then issued the second ruling in effect saying the FSC STILL had not complied and even if they could there is not time to set standards under which to hold such recounts.

Not time? Where do you get the idea that there wasn't time? If the counting of undervotes had not been stopped, it would've been completed in time for the fictitious Dec, 12 deadline. And let's suppose the vote does not get certified by the fictitious Dec 12 deadline...thus giving 'safe harbor.'

Big deal! Do you really believe a republican congress would challenge the electors certified after Dec 12?! In 1960, Congress accepted a slate of electors from Hawaii that wasn't appointed until Jan 4, 1961!

There is NO date in any courtroom in the country that cannot be waived or delayed or postponed.

As far as your comments about SCOTUS above...I could give a long drawn out explanation and prove to you the error of your thinking, but you won't believe it, so I'll just say that the FL Supreme Court did nothing wrong and indeed, followed the letter of the law enacted by the FL legislature. Allow me to also say, that you do not steal an election by wanting all valid votes to count.

If you believe the FL Supreme Court was wrong, then tell me EXACTLY what they did that you believe was wrong? Or do you just take the word of SCOTUS? Is that all you need to prove your point? Because SCOTUS said so? If you remember, SCOTUS did not even accuse the FLSC of being wrong...they just wanted the same standards of vote counting to not vary from county to county...I've already expalined what a bogus and cheap argument that is as far as 'Equal Protection.'

As far as your buddy Saul...it was proven that he didn't even look at the evidence. So here we have a judge that doesn't even know the law. Sauls did not even know the burden of proof that had to be satisfied by Gore in order to prevail?! Sauls cited an old 1982 FL Appeals Court case not knowing that in 1999 the FL legislature enacted Section 102.168 (3) (c) considerably lowering the burden of proof. It basically reads that a contestant merely has to show that there was a rejection of a number of legal votes to place in doubt the result of the election.

Now, if you know anything at all about the votmatic machines used down in FL you surely know that a hanging chad may not be registered as a vote if the chad is still attached, but upon examination...the voters intent couldn't be more obvious! What is so damned wrong with making sure that legal vote is counted?!

Please...tell me...I'm dying to know?

It's a statewide election and the protection of for the VOTER not the candidate.[/QOUTE]

Ahah! At last you admit that since Bush was NOT a resident of FL, and cast no vote in FL, but rather in his home state of Texas, then he had no legal basis for claiming anything uner the 'Equal Protection' clause. LOL Thanks!

It's about the voter and as was apparent at the time the ballots were spoiled the citizens right to have thier vote counted properly was being violated.

Oh brother....ROTFL!!! No comment.

No they said was the FSC had no authority to order such a recount and even if one were order it had to be held according to predertimined standards. Don't you think a person vote should be protected from political manipulations?

What political manipulations? You mean..."I'm for the people" Bush not wanting every valid vote to be counted?
Sheesh...they had both a Dem and a Repub observor along with election judges, and the media, and of course those screaming banshees who were bused in outside the door watching every single move the ballot inspectors made!

And there is no way to do that with spoiled ballots. Where did all those chads come from they were sweeping up off the floor? What is more egregious someone screws up their ballot by not taking the time and care to make sure their selection is clear or someone making thier selection clear and having someone else decided it otherwise and change thier vote?

Please explain your definition of a 'spoiled ballot.'
Omigawd...not the chads on the floor again! Run for your life!
You can't change a vote on a ballot like these...it's either punched for a candidate or not...the trouble is...alot of precincts do not empty out their voting machines from past elections and those chads build up under the voting tray...making it next to impossible to cleanly punch the chad out, but if you examine the ballot, you may be able to clearly see the voters intent...of course, right wingers don't care about whether votes are counted or not or whether the voters intent can clearly be seen.

No he had some of the best lawyers in the country.

No, he had idiots for lawyers. Even the best lawyer can have a bad day and not be able to think outside the box....just look at some of the decisions by our very own SCOTUS. They over-rule previous decisions all the time..in effect saying..."we screwed up the first time, this is what we should've said."

No they didn't. If the person did not cast thier vote properly it does not deserve to be counted.

No argument here, but again you do not steal an election by wanting every valid vote to count...and the votmatic machines do not always register votes...especially if the chad hasn't been punched out cleanly...and you can say 'tough luck', but I believe every valid vote should be counted...especially in an election that was this close. Bush and SCOTUS and republicans do not believe this and looked for a cheap way to hand the election to Bush...something that isn't even within the power of the judicial branch...it's the legislatures job to determine electors in the state, not SCOTUS. Just another blurring of the lines between the separation of powers...much to the dismay of freedom loving Americans.

In conclusion...I don't give a damn what any particular recount shows after the fact. The fact is, SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal counting of undervotes BEFORE the results were known...this should scare the hell out of any freedom loving and clear thinking and unbiased American.

I know you won't believe this, but if the roles were reversed and Gore gained office this way, I would be just as upset. I'd want the valid votes to be counted, thus affirming his presidency...alas...the republicans were too afraid of what the truth might show.

 

[cnredd]

Not time? Where do you get the idea that there wasn't time? If the counting of undervotes had not been stopped, it would've been completed in time for the fictitious Dec, 12 deadline. And let's suppose the vote does not get certified by the fictitious Dec 12 deadline...thus giving 'safe harbor.'

The Court further held, by a 5 to 4 majority, that Federal election law specified a December 12 deadline for states to certify their winners, and that accordingly it was too late to allow any statewide recount remedy to proceed, even if the recount proceeded under the original standard.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-2000.htm

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
In effect they did in thier first ruling and rescinded the FSC decission and demanded they explain why they were doing what they were doing and under what authority. The FSC simply ignored them and ordered the manual recounts in those select counties restarted, SCOTUS then issued the second ruling in effect saying the FSC STILL had not complied and even if they could there is not time to set standards under which to hold such recounts.

Not time? Where do you get the idea that there wasn't time? If the counting of undervotes had not been stopped, it would've been completed in time for the fictitious Dec, 12 deadline. And let's suppose the vote does not get certified by the fictitious Dec 12 deadline...thus giving 'safe harbor.'

It is mandated by federal law. You are now simply making things up.

There is NO date in any courtroom in the country that cannot be waived or delayed or postponed.

Sorry not true, the courts are not dictators, they have to follow the law too.

As far as your comments about SCOTUS above...I could give a long drawn out explanation and prove to you the error of your thinking, but you won't believe it,

So far you have been unable to do so and in fact qouted the wrong law.

so I'll just say that the FL Supreme Court did nothing wrong and indeed,

And you will remain wrong, the law at the time did not state what you claimed and you have not shown it did.

If you believe the FL Supreme Court was wrong, then tell me EXACTLY what they did that you believe was wrong?

I already have. They had no authority to overstep the SoS and the proper certification of the election. It was her discretion and hers alone, that they did not like the result did not give the power or authority to usurp her authority in the matter. There were no tabulation errors proven and under existing law that was require to mandate a manual recount of all the ballots.

Or do you just take the word of SCOTUS?

I take the word of the law as written and yes SCOTUS is the higher court. Unless you believe in anarchy then they have authority in federal matters over the FSC.

Is that all you need to prove your point? Because SCOTUS said so? If you remember, SCOTUS did not even accuse the FLSC of being wrong...they just wanted the same standards of vote counting to not vary from county to county...I've already expalined what a bogus and cheap argument that is as far as 'Equal Protection.'

Not true they were wrong to step into the matter and SCOTUS asked them why they were doing so in a federal matter. The FSC ignored them and asserted authority they did not have again. SCOTUS stopped it.

As far as your buddy Saul...it was proven that he didn't even look at the evidence.

No it was not and the whole case was broadcast so we all got to look at it. His ruling was quite good and well founded. That's why the FSC didn't overule it they just didn't like the outcome so they stepped in to change it and change the law as written.

Now, if you know anything at all about the votmatic machines used down in FL you surely know that a hanging chad may not be registered as a vote if the chad is still attached, but upon examination...the voters intent couldn't be more obvious! What is so damned wrong with making sure that legal vote is counted?!

If the voter left a chad hanging so that his vote did not register then it is not a legal vote ( at the time the law was written)

It's a statewide election and the protection of for the VOTER not the candidate.[/QOUTE]

Ahah! At last you admit that since Bush was NOT a resident of FL,

Since I have never denied it how could it possible be that "at last I admit" it?

What political manipulations?

Popping chads out of ballots, devining votes, votomatic machines in the trunks of Democrat operatives.

Sheesh...they had both a Dem and a Repub observor along with election judges, and the media,

And we still ended up with chads on the floor, and spoiled ballots which no longer reflect the will of the people.

and of course those screaming banshees who were bused in outside the door watching every single move the ballot inspectors made!

You mean the reporters who complained when the Democrat operatives tried to board themselves up in a room with the ballots.

Please explain your definition of a 'spoiled ballot.'

One that no longer reflects the vote of the person who cast it. Each one of those chads was a vote that wasn't there before.

Omigawd...not the chads on the floor again! Run for your life!

Yes chads that were on the ballot and now were not creating a spoiled ballot.

You can't change a vote on a ballot like these...it's either punched for a candidate or not.

ROFL YOU are the one claiming otherwise, that chads hang and have to been interpreted. But yes chads can be popped out.

..the trouble is...alot of precincts do not empty out their voting machines from past elections and those chads build up under the voting tray..making it next to impossible to cleanly punch the chad out,

.

Oh geez you aren't really going to try and used that totally debunked theory. OK tell me exactly how that would happen. Explain how when the votomatic machine is picked up and moved around the stacks of chads you claim are under the holes remain there undisturbed. And how that many could accumulate there anyway it would take hundreds of them to perfectly stack up under the hole and then stay there through all the handling the machine goes through. That was totally rejected by the court. It is do right silly.

but if you examine the ballot, you may be able to clearly see the voters intent...of course, right wingers don't care about whether votes are counted or not or whether the voters intent can clearly be seen.

Nope, but then even when they tried to do so Bush still won.

No, he had idiots for lawyers.

Sorry that is simply not true, they are some of the best in the country, they simply had a bad case.

No argument here, but again you do not steal an election by wanting every valid vote to count...

Yes you do and then you count the invalid ones as Gore wanted to do.

and the votmatic machines do not always register votes.

If the voter votes properly they, they had no more problems than the electronic machines.

..especially if the chad hasn't been punched out cleanly...and you can say 'tough luck', but I believe every valid vote should be counted..

I do to, but I don't believe the invalid ones should you do.

In conclusion...I don't give a damn what any particular recount shows after the fact.

But that is exactly what you wanted, recounts after the fact.

The fact is, SCOTUS stopped the valid and legal counting

alreadly been proven otherwise. Without the proof of tabulation errors the manual recounts were not valid or legal.

I know you won't believe this, but if the roles were reversed and Gore gained office this way, I would be just as upset.

Then what about the states where the count was even closer?

I'd want the valid votes to be counted,

No you want invalid votes counted.

 

[cnredd]

In conclusion...I don't give a damn what any particular recount shows after the fact.

But that is exactly what you wanted, recounts after the fact.

That's the best right there sting...Hoot just outright conceded the whole thrust of the 2000 election debate. I would've said to Hoot, "If you don't give a damn about any recount, then why are you still yapping?"

 

[Hoot]

That's the best right there sting...Hoot just outright conceded the whole thrust of the 2000 election debate. I would've said to Hoot, "If you don't give a damn about any recount, then why are you still yapping?"

I'm still yapping because you two wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside the head, but I was hoping you could see the light.

What I said was....I don't care if recounts...after SCOTUS handed the White House to Bush...show that Bush would've won anyway...therefore, in your dim views...stopping the recount did no harm, because Bush would've won anyway.

Isn't that your basic premise and argument, right there?

As far as Stinger's last post...I'll get back to you...it's Saturday night, and as a part-time (ahem) professional musician I have better things to do then argue with two individuals who fail to recognize crime by the highest court in the land.

But, I will return, and present arguments neither of you can refute.

 

[Stinger]

I'm still yapping because you two wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside the head, but I was hoping you could see the light.

Funny how I had to point it out to you, remember when you quoted the wrong law. As I already pointed out, the law that was in effect stated that manual recounts of all the ballots could ordered if tabualtion errors by the machines were proven. They were not. The SoS properly certified the election under her lawful authority.

So under what law, under what authority did the FSC over-rule her?

The state legislature set the time for the cerification in the law. Under what authority did the FSC just change that law?

What I said was....I don't care if recounts...after SCOTUS handed the White House to Bush...show that Bush would've won anyway

Not "if" they did.

...therefore, in your dim views...stopping the recount did no harm, because Bush would've won anyway.

And allowing them to continue would have, several Democrat counties were desperating trying to come up with a counting system that would have given the vote to Gore. So desperate that they stopped the counting and issued new orders to their hacks and started it up again. One reason SCOTUS cite the equal protection clause and lack of predetermined standards. And as I have already proven the ballots were getting spoiled, damgaged, they no longer reflected the vote.

As far as Stinger's last post...I'll get back to you...it's Saturday night, and as a part-time (ahem) professional musician I have better things to do then argue with two individuals who fail to recognize crime by the highest court in the land.

Your better things to do seems to be spouting out hyperbole instead of reasoned debate.


Oh well my Stratocaster awaits me.

 

[Hoot]

Funny how I had to point it out to you, remember when you quoted the wrong law. As I already pointed out, the law that was in effect stated that manual recounts of all the ballots could ordered if tabualtion errors by the machines were proven. They were not. The SoS properly certified the election under her lawful authority.

I haven't quoted any wrong law...every law I've cited was in effect at the time of the FL election fiasco. The tabulation errors were not proven because that old 'southern gentleman' (sarcasm) Judge Saul refused to look at the evidence.

Over 1 million ballots from Palm Beach and Miami Dade counties ( only 14,000 undervotes that Gore was protesting) were trucked up to the Leon county courthouse in Tallahassee, and Gore's lawyer begged Sauls to examine a few of the ballots to prove that valid votes were among the ballots that clearly showed the intent of the voter. As I explained earlier...those Votmatic machines do not pick up votes where the chad may still be attached, yet the voters intent can clearly be seen by hand examination. This is authorized by 101.5614(5) of the FL election code. Yet, Sauls refused to look at even one undervote...in essense saying the best way to determine whether evidence is valid is to not look at the evidence.

So under what law, under what authority did the FSC over-rule her?

Don't even get me started on that witch Katherine Harris, who gets her makeup tips from Tammy Baker...LOL. Harris and what she did down in FL, when she is supposed to be representing all the people of FL, and not just republicans was contemptible and disgusting. ( On a side note, I hear Harris is running for the FL senate in 2006....it will be my distinct pleasure to see that lying witch not even gain her own party's nomination)
The Florida Supreme Court has the authority to delay certification of the election by the SOS, as does every state SC in every state in this nation... especially when an election is being contested. Do I really have to spell the law out for you?

The state legislature set the time for the cerification in the law. Under what authority did the FSC just change that law?

Where do you get this stuff?! I'm just curious?

Section 2 of Title 3 says "the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislatures of each state may direct."

Let me add this...L. Kinvin Wroth, dean of the Vermont Law School and an expert on the Electoral College said that "a recount could have gone on right up to the last day of Congress' Joint Session" on January 6, when the votes of the 'College' are counted in congress.

Finally...I remind you again, that there is NO date set in stone in law. If you do not believe this, then I can only assume you're getting extremely bad and biased information to base your opinions.

And allowing them to continue would have, several Democrat counties were desperating trying to come up with a counting system that would have given the vote to Gore. So desperate that they stopped the counting and issued new orders to their hacks and started it up again. One reason SCOTUS cite the equal protection clause and lack of predetermined standards. And as I have already proven the ballots were getting spoiled, damgaged, they no longer reflected the vote.

Absolute nonsense. these ballots were under lock and key and were under the constant supervision of bi-partisan election officials and the media watch-dogs and reps from both Dem and Repub camps...this statement by you is pure conjecture with no basis in fact with no means of offering any substantial proof.

I've already disproven the "equal Protection" crap many times over in this debate. In fact, 41 of our 50 states have differing methods from determining valid votes...therefore, in your esteemed view....we have never had a valid election in the history of our nation, since none of these states, or the counties within the states, have the same methods for determining the will of the people. See how bogus that argument sounds? ( Of course not, you're a republican) California counts dimpled chads, Texas does not...should we throw out the votes of those two states in future elections? According to you and the prejudiced decsion by SCOTUS we should.

Your better things to do seems to be spouting out hyperbole instead of reasoned debate.

On the contrary...Bush was never meant to be President...Gore got apprx 539,000 more votes than Bush did, and if not for a confusing ballot in FL (yeah yeah, I know...it was designed by a Dem, so tough luck...great attitude to have when one is trying to determine the will of the people)

Again...and this is something you do not get yet, SCOTUS found in its per curiam majority ruling that the FL Supreme court DID NOT violate Art. II, Sec 1, cl @ or Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Sec 5...they merely wanted FL to establish a uniform standard of counting the undervotes.

the whole problem is, people form opinions without thinking...which pretty much describes the republican reaction to what happened down in FL. Republicans heaped scorn and abuse on the ballot counting, mandated by FL Election Code...they did not want the truth...sad day for America...because continuing the ballot counting may have affirmed the Bush presidency. And I'm not even talking about all the votes that Buchanan got that were meant for Gore...if the count had continued..and if Bush maintained a lead, then he would not be the bastard son that stole the White House by fighting against allowing the will of the people to be determined.

Makes you proud, doesn't it?

Oh well my Stratocaster awaits me.

I've been playing guitar for over 40 years now....and ukulele for 8 months...LOL. If we have a battle of the guitars, and I win, will you admit you're wrong? LOL

Take care...practice those pentatonics....and remember..you have to be a good rhythm player before you can be a good lead player...regards, Hoot

 

[Stinger]

I haven't quoted any wrong law...every law I've cited was in effect at the time of the FL election fiasco.

No you quoted laws that weren't in effect at the time therefore had no bearing.

The tabulation errors were not proven

Gore never proved any tabulation errors which were required to have his way.

because that old 'southern gentleman' (sarcasm) Judge Saul refused to look at the evidence.

No because there weren't any. The machines were calibrated and tested before and after the vote and not machine errors or tabulation errors were shown nor later proven.

Over 1 million ballots from Palm Beach and Miami Dade counties ( only 14,000 undervotes that Gore was protesting) were trucked up to the Leon county courthouse in Tallahassee, and Gore's lawyer begged Sauls to examine

He had not need to examine any ballots it was not his job to interpret ballots but to interpret the law. Once again you and the liberals want to throw out the law and just do what you want to do.

As I explained earlier...those Votmatic machines do not pick up votes where the chad may still be attached, yet the voters intent can clearly be seen by hand examination.

Nope, if the voter properly cast their vote it was picked up, if they did not they have not right to have thier ballot get special consideration. And as proven in court if the ballot is properly punched with the stylis the chad will be removed and it is virtually impossible to "dimple" a chad. And I am still waiting for you explaination of you assertion that the chads "stacked up" under the hole and that was the reason the next voter could not completely punch out thier chad, what is you detailed explaination of how this happens?

This is authorized by 101.5614(5) of the FL election code. Yet, Sauls refused to look at even one undervote...in essense saying the best way to determine whether evidence is valid is to not look at the evidence.

He didn't need to.

Don't even get me started on that witch Katherine Harris

,

Once again showing that due to the weakness of your arguement you must engage in childish name calling and invectives. She was the SoS and carried out her duties according to the law. She was elected by the people to do just that. The FSC had no right or authority to usurp her rightful authority.

The Florida Supreme Court has the authority to delay certification of the election by the SOS, as does every state SC in every state in this nation... especially when an election is being contested. Do I really have to spell the law out for you?

No it did not and the election wasn't rightfullyu contested which was one of Gore's problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
The state legislature set the time for the cerification in the law. Under what authority did the FSC just change that law?


Where do you get this stuff?! I'm just curious?

Where do I get what stuff? I asked you a direct question try to answer.

Section 2 of Title 3 says "the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislatures of each state may direct."

Yes if they, the legislature decide the manner in which electors will be elected and if they so decide will appoint them, you have no "right" to vote for the presiential electors. This has nothing to do with what I asked you, where did the FSC derive it's authority to throw out election law and dictate the manner in which the election would be held?

Let me add this...L. Kinvin Wroth, dean of the Vermont Law School and an expert on the Electoral College said that "a recount could have gone on right up to the last day of Congress' Joint Session" on January 6, when the votes of the 'College' are counted in congress.

And every court disagreed with him.

Finally...I remind you again, that there is NO date set in stone in law. If you do not believe this, then I can only assume you're getting extremely bad and biased information to base your opinions.

On what authority did the FSC attempt to change the law?

Absolute nonsense. these ballots were under lock and key and were under the constant supervision of bi-partisan election officials and the media watch-dogs and reps from both Dem and Repub camps...this statement by you is pure conjecture with no basis in fact with no means of offering any substantial proof.

And they were stepped on, and knocked over, and prodded, and poked and chads where all over the floor. Already posted the proof of that your continued denial is abasolute nonsense. The ballots were spoiled and no longer reflect the will of the people.

I've already disproven the "equal Protection" crap many times over in this debate. In fact, 41 of our 50 states have differing methods from determining valid votes...

And they are estblished beforehand, but the state leglislature (as the constitution REQUIRES) and not after the fact by a court.

therefore, in your esteemed view....we have never had a valid election in the history of our nation, since none of these states, or the counties within the states, have the same methods for determining the will of the people.

Where do you get that nonsense, it is within the state.

See how bogus that argument sounds?

So far it's holding up much better than yours.

( Of course not, you're a republican)

Why do you make that assumption? I am not.

California counts dimpled chads, Texas does not...should we throw out the votes of those two states in future elections? According to you and the prejudiced decsion by SCOTUS we should.

That's up to them but it is up to the legislature to decide BEFORE the election and to issue statewide standards.

On the contrary...Bush was never meant to be President...Gore got apprx 539,000 more votes than Bush did,

If you are talking of the tally of all the votes from all the states then your arguement is specious. The president is elected in the electorial college by the States, the people do not elect the president.

and if not for a confusing ballot in FL

Another phoney assertion.

Again...and this is something you do not get yet, SCOTUS found in its per curiam majority ruling that the FL Supreme court DID NOT violate Art. II, Sec 1, cl @ or Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Sec 5...they merely wanted FL to establish a uniform standard of counting the undervotes.

Which is required, by the consitution, to be estabished by the state legislature.

the whole problem is, people form opinions without thinking...which pretty much describes the republican reaction to what happened down in FL. Republicans heaped scorn and abuse on the ballot counting, mandated by FL Election Code...

The mandatory recounts of the law at the time did not make the case for any further counting. Gore was still upset he did not win so the got the PREVIOUSLY targeted counties to insitute manual recounts which were not allowed under the law. He went to court to try to get them instutued by lost his case. THAT ended it. The FSC had no business ordering anything.

I've been playing guitar for over 40 years now....and ukulele for 8 months...LOL. If we have a battle of the guitars, and I win, will you admit you're wrong? LOL

One has nothng to do with the other but then liberals do then to confuse the issues. Oh and 45 years playing guitar with 4 years studing piano and 2 years classical bass. <G>

Take care...practice those pentatonics....

Still stuck in the pentatonic scale? You really need to broaden your playing, suggest you try to master modes. I personally like the mixolydian.

and remember..you have to be a good rhythm player before you can be a good lead player...regards, Hoot

Well you need to get your scales down first so that you can undestand harmonic theory and then you will know the basis of your chords, then you can apply your scales to the chords and not be such a boring player stuck in the pentatonic boxes.

Practice everyday and study and you'll get there. <G>

 

[Hoot]

As much as I've enjoyed the discussion, there is no way you're ever going to convince me that the decision down in FL was correct...I have already outlined how Sauls wasn't even aware of the current FL law when he made his decision...but I'm tired of this...to be honest...I couldn't even read your whole last post...it's so chock full of inaccuracies it would take me 1-2 hours to prove you wrong once again, and to what avail?

You won't believe it anyway.

So, if it makes you feel good, or gives you an orgasm, or whatever...LOL...go ahead and declare victory..I won't lose one second of sleep over it...because I know I'm right...and any bi-partisan person with no preconcieved notions could read our posts and give me the edge.

As far as guitar...I have absolute confidence that I could blow you out of the water. In fact, I'd bet my next paycheck. Learn some Danny Gatton and Hellecaster licks and get back to me...learn some first finger pedal steel bends....don't get so hung up on theory....the ear is the best tool. I only mentioned pentatonics because I was rightly assuming my years of playing far exceed yours.

 

[Navy Pride]

The facts about the 2000 presidential elections in Florida.

1. George Bush won every count and recount......Even non biased organizations that audited the election said so.

2. The disputed butterfly ballot was in a democratic county, prepared by democrats, a copy of which was published in the local newspaper 2 weeks prior to the election without one complaint of its make up.

3. Adults that could read 16 bingo cards at one time could not figure out how to read the ballot but 3rd graders were given the same ballot and 90 percent of them figured out how to read it....

4. The first person to file a law suit was Gore...

5. The Florida Supreme Court all partisan democrats ruled the recount could go on using 59 different standards in jusdging intent by the voter in 59 different counties.........

6. The SCOTUS ruled by a 7-2 vote that because of the 59 different standards the Florida Supreme Court wanted to use the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment was violated and stopped the recount...

7. Independent non biased organizations found there was no intentional intent to supress voters..........

Now I started this thread on violations by democrats in the 2004 presidential elections..............can we please get back on topic? Thanks..........

 

[Fantasea]

The facts about the 2000 presidential elections in Florida.

1. George Bush won every count and recount......Even non biased organizations that audited the election said so.

2. The disputed butterfly ballot was in a democratic county, prepared by democrats, a copy of which was published in the local newspaper 2 weeks prior to the election without one complaint of its make up.

3. Adults that could read 16 bingo cards at one time could not figure out how to read the ballot but 3rd graders were given the same ballot and 90 percent of them figured out how to read it....

4. The first person to file a law suit was Gore...

5. The Florida Supreme Court all partisan democrats ruled the recount could go on using 59 different standards in jusdging intent by the voter in 59 different counties.........

6. The SCOTUS ruled by a 7-2 vote that because of the 59 different standards the Florida Supreme Court wanted to use the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment was violated and stopped the recount...

7. Independent non biased organizations found there was no intentional intent to supress voters..........

Now I started this thread on violations by democrats in the 2004 presidential elections..............can we please get back on topic? Thanks..........

What makes you think that, although you are 100% correct, the diehard Bush haters will ever cave in?

They'll still be squabbling over the 2000 election results when the next three Republican presidents have finished their second terms.

 

[Hoot]

Oh brother...now everyone's getting into the act. LOL

As far as you Stinger, I want to apologize for my last comments about the guitar. Guitar players are a dime a dozen, but I'm sure you're a fine player.

Regards, Hoot

P.S. For Fantasea and Navy Pride...go back and read the posts I made with Stinger to have most of your questions answered....cheers...I'm done. It's been 5 years and I've long since given up trying to convince republicans of the wrongs committed by the SCOTUS decision. But ask yourselves honestly, If Gore had been handed the election this way, before the results were known, if you'd still be so supportive of the decision?

 

[Fantasea]

P.S. For Fantasea and Navy Pride...go back and read the posts I made with Stinger to have most of your questions answered....cheers...I'm done. It's been 5 years and I've long since given up trying to convince republicans of the wrongs committed by the SCOTUS decision. But ask yourselves honestly, If Gore had been handed the election this way, before the results were known, if you'd still be so supportive of the decision?

When someone says he will never change his mind, that, to me, is a sign that the person is not reasonable. When he continues to fight a decision that has been moot for more than five years, that's a sign of intransigence.

With respect to Gore; I endured four years of Carter and eight years of Clinton. I could have endured four years of Gore, too, all the while watching him repeatedly shoot himself in the foot, as his Democratic presidential predecessors did.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

I think the truth is in the voting polls. The exit polls showed that bush lost. They have never been wrong before... Take that back they have in a senate election where a well liked democrat was voted out. But in EVERY state that had the diebolt machines the polls where flipflopped. Lets add that with the owner of diebold saying diebold would deliver the election to bush. I can get that on video if you dont believe me. How about voter supression... bs right. Hrmm how about hte machines that registerd 90,000 people for bush when only 2,000 lived in precinct. or a machine showing -25 million votes. All the problems where in democratic areas. There is mathematical proof BUSH STOLE the election. Period. If It was more sure by probobality than a good dna match admiossable by court.

 

[ludahai]

Talk about conspiracy theories!

I think the truth is in the voting polls. The exit polls showed that bush lost.

The only poll that counts is the ballot box. From my understanding, the exit polls were within the margin of error, thus no call should have been made in the first place on Florida. The fact that a call was made before all of the polls in Florida were even closed (those still open were in predominantly Republican areas) certainly depressed Republican votes. Furthermore, absentee votes (which would NOT have been included in exit polls) invariably turn Republican.

They have never been wrong before... Take that back they have in a senate election where a well liked democrat was voted out. But in EVERY state that had the diebolt machines the polls where flipflopped. Lets add that with the owner of diebold saying diebold would deliver the election to bush.

Source?

I can get that on video if you dont believe me. How about voter supression... bs right. Hrmm how about hte machines that registerd 90,000 people for bush when only 2,000 lived in precinct. or a machine showing -25 million votes.

Sources?

All the problems where in democratic areas. There is mathematical proof BUSH STOLE the election. Period. If It was more sure by probobality than a good dna match admiossable by court.

The biggest problem was in a Republican area, that being that the media reported that ALL polls in Florida closed at 7PM EST when a significant portion of Florida lies in the Central Time Zone and the polls were still open. Interesting that the only major media outlet that got that right was Fox News. There was a depressing effect on the vote. That is the biggest voter supression that occurred in Florida, not the allegations of voter supression elsewhere.

 

[Keepstar1331]

I just think that how they want to use automated machines that leave no paper trail is alittle fishy... Noone is that honest. Especially politicians

 

[ludahai]

I just think that how they want to use automated machines that leave no paper trail is alittle fishy... Noone is that honest. Especially politicians

I am also concerned about the lack of a paper trail. I would like to see an automatic system that leaves some sort of hard copy that can be used to check the tally.

However, I haven't seen any evidence from these whining democrats that somehow the election was stolen by Diebold company.

 

[Buzzramjet]

I have more faith in this report than one done by an obviously GOP sponsored and controlled site like the one done in the beginning of this thread.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

It is an obviously liberal site, BUT it CAN verify what it says.

AND what is this crud about not being signed in? I was signed in; did a post; then was working on a fairly well researched reply to this thread and when I hit submit it said I wasn't signed in and the entire post disappeared.

Just frustrating as all hell.

OH well I'll learn. Must be a GOP site? (THAT'S A JOKE FOLKS!)

 

[ludahai]

I have more faith in this report than one done by an obviously GOP sponsored and controlled site like the one done in the beginning of this thread.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

It is an obviously liberal site, BUT it CAN verify what it says.

AND what is this crud about not being signed in? I was signed in; did a post; then was working on a fairly well researched reply to this thread and when I hit submit it said I wasn't signed in and the entire post disappeared.

Just frustrating as all hell.

OH well I'll learn. Must be a GOP site? (THAT'S A JOKE FOLKS!)

It is a liberal site, and I will follow up on the information on it (hopefully sometime tomorrow).

It is dinner time now. Time to pray that the typhoon doesn't hit us (three in one summer is enough.) Also, don't forget the people in the US Gulf Coast either.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

In Australia we have an actual election comission. We have standardised voting ballets for every town, city and state.

Funyily enough we mark our ballots are marked with humble pencil, and voting is compulsory.

Maybe the U.S should investigate the Australian voting system?:2dancing:

 

[ludahai]

In Australia we have an actual election comission. We have standardised voting ballets for every town, city and state.

Funyily enough we mark our ballots are marked with humble pencil, and voting is compulsory.

Maybe the U.S should investigate the Australian voting system?:2dancing:

I would definately be against compulsory. Part of freedom is the freedom NOT to vote if you so choose.

In Taiwan, each race/question is on a separate ballot with each being placed in separate ballot boxes. The names on the checklist are counted and then the ballots are counted one by one with everyone present able to see how the ballot is marked and the tally is kept in view. Ballots can be challenged by anyone at anytime and a decision is made immediately if there is a challenge to the counting of a ballot. There are clear rules and regulations on what a proper ballot is, and if the rules are not followed, the ballot is considered spoiled, even if the intent of the voter can be divined from something less than tea leaves or Madame Trelawney's chrystal ball.

Not a perfect system, but results are typically known by 8pm of election (polls close at 4pm) and are remarkably transparent.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

In Australia we have an actual election comission. We have standardised voting ballets for every town, city and state.

Funyily enough we mark our ballots are marked with humble pencil, and voting is compulsory.

Maybe the U.S should investigate the Australian voting system?:2dancing:

Perhaps not..... We are hearing that there was a stolen election there to.
Funny how other countries take the U.S. lead. Been lots of throw elections since bush has been in office.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

I am also concerned about the lack of a paper trail. I would like to see an automatic system that leaves some sort of hard copy that can be used to check the tally.

However, I haven't seen any evidence from these whining democrats that somehow the election was stolen by Diebold company.

You obviously cant be to worried about it. Floridas constitution prohibits not having one and the repugnicans broke the law and that is what the floridians got. The program/bill that did it was funded by arms dealers. Same buissuiness daddy genius is in.

 

[ludahai]

You obviously cant be to worried about it. Floridas constitution prohibits not having one and the repugnicans broke the law and that is what the floridians got. The program/bill that did it was funded by arms dealers. Same buissuiness daddy genius is in.

Do you have a source for this? Other than a radical Left wing website that is.

 

[ludahai]

Perhaps not..... We are hearing that there was a stolen election there to.
Funny how other countries take the U.S. lead. Been lots of throw elections since bush has been in office.

A stolen election in Australia? I didn't hear about it, but I am sure you will find a way to trace it to President Bush.