Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion 11 Days Till Obama Reelection
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2012, 11:04 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen" <Finding.Rea...@Every.Opportunity.invalid>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:04:41 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sun, Oct 28 2012 11:04 am
Subject: Re: 11 Days Till Obama Reelection
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote on Sun 28 Oct 2012 05:23:36p

> In article <XnsA0FA315F7627DFREOinva...@88.198.244.100>,
>  "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
>  <Finding.Rea...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:

>> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote on Sun 28 Oct 2012 04:48:45a

>> > In article <f5co8851fc5u7um5fd5hmlgfkcn0o9h...@4ax.com>,
>> >  Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:48:55 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> >> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >Who do you imagine took the Florida Election of 2000 to court? The
>> >> >Republicans?

>> >> Yes.

>> >> The FLORIDA law that gave the RIGHT to a recount was done for proven
>> >> problems in the Precincts they sued under.

>> > The law gives the right for a recount. Statewide, of course.

>> > Why would anyone want a recount only in counties they'd already WON?

>> You really did not make that goddam dumb statement, did you????

> It wasn't a statement.

Yes, it was.  In question form, maybe.  But it asserted a belief.

>> > Does that make any sense whatsoever?

>> Yes it does, because presidential candidates don't win the STATE---in
>> order to get its electoral votes---by winning COUNTIES, but based on
>> EACH INDIVIDUAL VOTE!

>> If Gore-Lieberman had obtained 1000 extra votes in "counties they had
>> already won," they would overcome whatever difference Bush-Cheney had
>> overall in the state tally, and they win the state.

> You misunderstood the question.

> The Bush counter-filings would have had no legs if Gore had called for a
> statewide recount.

> Gore didn't WANT a statewide recount.

Gore actually put that in writing?  The fact is, Gore was okay with a full
recount because Gore differs in one way from Bush:  he wants the goddam
truth and will be happy with it.  In the end he was perfectly amenable to a
statewide recount, especially as the other campaign wanted it.

The fact is, Gore focused on those counties precisely because there were
voting technology irregularities in the counties Gore had "won."  The
butterfly ballots, among other scandalous disgraces...people voting for
another candidate (Ralph Nader? Pat Buchanan?) when they believed they were
voting for Gore.  Focusing on miscounted ballots was definitely a priority
there.

>> >> The problems have been proven.

>> > It's a can of worms to launch a lawsuit like that.

>> > Say what you want about Richard Nixon, but he was faced with the same
>> > decision: to litigate or not litigate a razor close election. He
>> > chose not to.

>> Recounts are automatic in such close margins.  The only thing Nixon
>> could have done

>> Bush-Cheney tried to directly interfere with the process of recounting,
>> fearing that the wrongly called initial count would be exposed as a
>> very wrong number.  Nixon knew that the recount probably would change
>> nothing with the technology in use at the time.  There was every reason
>> to believe that with all these voting technologies being used today,
>> that Jesus Christ would have been found to have the most votes.

> Nixon knew that discovery of blatant voter fraud in places like Cook
> County would have sullied the whole process.

> In time, it sullied the process of 1960, anyway. Partial truths about
> that election have since come out. But not because of him.

"Partial truths" is what is said when there is a strong odor of dirty-
dealing but not court-of-law-convicting proof of it.

Yeah, even a progressive like me believes there was dirt in the Daley
Democratic "machine," but whatcha gonna do without the really damning proof?

If Nixon had the goods on Daley to lock him away, despite the election being
out of his hands, he would made sure that at least those creeps were in a
federal penitentiary.

>> > Winning such suits, after your opponent was already declared the
>> > winner... well, that won't gain you a damned thing.

>> Why does the NFL have reviews of plays?

>> Because it has been shown TIME AND AGAIN that first calls are WRONG
>> calls.

> Is that supposed to be an analogy? How does it apply to the
> Constitution?

It applies to elections and their initial counts and their recounts.

The Bush "machine" made the automatic assumption---because the initial count
went their way not surprisingly---that a recount would have led to dirty
business and the count swinging to Gore, no matter what the ballots actually
showed.

Bush effectively called all the ballot counters "criminals" without having
an inkling of proof they would tarnish the process.

>> Who gives a God-damn that Bush's state campaign chief who is also the
>> Public Officeholder for Vote Counting is in a hurry to certify the win
>> for Bush???

>> You can be sure that after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney
>> administration, easily one of the worst TWO presidencies in US
>> history---and some argue the worst of all----the American people and
>> candidates like Gore will be far more aggressive in making sure that
>> counts are done right, and not with shaky technology.

> Yes, the can of worms is open.

And yet no reforms have been done to improve the voting technology used or
ensure the voting integrity of the very places where the cans were opened!!!

Part of that voting integrity is to make sure those who have the RIGHT to
vote are allowed to exercise that right, and we see that Poltergeist actor
who became the Florida governor throwing voters off the rolls who just
happen to be registered Democrats.

>> > Once you're willing to litigate the outcome, no one wins. You lose.
>> > Your opponent loses. And We the People lose.

>> You are right.  Bush was the first to take it to court to stop the
>> recounts, and the American people lost when he had the presidency.

> The first filings were Gore's, goofy. He'd already conceded. The
> election was over.

A concession is not a court filing, and it is arguable if it is even
anything official.  The state Secretary of State certifying the vote makes
it official.

The first lawsuit filed by EITHER the Bush or Gore campaigns as plaintiffs
was on 11 November 2000:

       Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit
       (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because
       of alleged equal protection and other constitutional
        violations.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

Feel free to check the Floria 2000 timeline.

> Forget the silly Republican-Democrat rubric for a minute.

> You've been officially declared the winner of Florida. Your opponent has
> called you on the phone to publicly concede.

> Then he retracts, and files for a recount,

He doesn't "file for a recount" where that recount is automatic.  What Gore
protested about the recount was that it was done using absolutely fault-
ridden and bad technology, so repeating the process of using that technology
to count the ballots would achieve what?

It was well known that manual recounting was more likely to get to the true
close number, and so Gore campaign requested it, but it was up to the
jurisdiction to decide what was best.

> but not a regular recount of
> the statewide election, but an irregular recount of three cherry-picked
> counties.

No, it was a MANUAL--"irregular"---recount of the counties with FAULTY
balloting technologies, where unbelievable irregularities had occurred
(which is probably what you are thinking of).  If the law allows for an
elections offical to do MANUAL recounts, then there is nothing "irregular"
about it.

In fact the FIRST LAWSUIT of Florida 2000 came from plaintiffs protesting
the butterfly ballot, and both campaigns were named as DEFENDANTS in that
lawsuit, inter alia.

> What would YOU do at that point?

You follow the law...you follow due process.  A concession has no legal
force...that has been established.

Candidates will learn to wait for the official certification to be made
before offering any concessions they might otherwise wish to rescind.  But
it does not make it official.

When a man proposes marriage to a woman, but one of them breaks it off, are
the two still obliged to go through with the marriage?

>> Of course the monster continues to feed itself.  Right-wing filth like
>> Dubyah, Dick, and Willard manage to keep the people dumb---no better
>> example than you----and then the dummies continue to vote and put these
>> people in power who continue programs to keep you uninformed and
>> stupid.

>> > Thanks to Gore's blind ambitions and unbridled conceit, we all lost.

>> Did you know that the United Nations will be monitoring the United
>> States election again?

> Heh. Yes, I knew that.

> Obviously, the lease of the UN headquarters building in New York should
> never be renewed again.

And I am sure that Willard and his foreign policy team of John Bolton will
see to that.

> Vacating the UN Charter may yet be out of the question, but there's no
> reason not to establish a parallel multi-national strategic alliance.

Perhaps you and others would like to urinate on Eleanor Roosevelt's grave
while you at the task of ripping up the treaty that makes the U.S. a
signatory to the Charter?

A "parallel multi-national strategic alliance," huh?  Something really along
the lines of an imperial "defense" pact  in which the U.S. government has
closely consulted with the military-industrial complex to make sure we
ALWAYS have an us-versus-them enemy, such that defense contracting dollars
continue to roll in, in perpetuity??

> Perhaps what's called for is an alliance of free nations: US, UK, Japan,
> Australia, Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, etc.

I am not sure a lot of those countries you name are totally sycophantic to
U.S. interests now, are you?  Some of those countries actually dare to
question the correctness of U.S. judgments.

--
The Enraged Apostate
  Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
  Made possible by Slackjaw

Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google