The Truth Hurts
alternatex
Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
read after the Nov. 7 election.
Results of a new hand count released Friday by Orange County election
officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
margin in Florida.
The results underscore the blow dealt to Gore's campaign by the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that halted a statewide count of all ballots on
which machines detected no votes. Orange County's canvassing board had
examined about 15 percent of those ballots before the ruling.
Orange County voters mark paper ballots with special pens. Ballots are
fed into counting machines at each precinct, which immediately reject
ballots with errors and give voters a chance to correct them. Because of
that system, which Gov. Jeb Bush wants all counties to use by the 2002
elections, Orange County had one of the lowest rates of rejected ballots
in the state.
The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
voting booth.
A Sentinel review of about 10 percent of the uncounted ballots,
focusing on 16 small counties that use mostly paper ballots, suggests
that hand recounts would have helped Gore far more than Bush, even
though most of the counties are predominantly Republican. With the
findings in Orange County, Sentinel research indicates hand counts in
those 16 counties might have given Gore a net gain of 569 votes – 32
votes more than Bush's certified margin of victory statewide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
Robert Christman
>
>
>
> The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
> was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
> voting booth.
>
> A Sentinel review of about 10 percent of the uncounted ballots,
> focusing on 16 small counties that use mostly paper ballots, suggests
> that hand recounts would have helped Gore far more than Bush, even
> though most of the counties are predominantly Republican.
What you are saying is that the majority of the "uncounted" votes were
for Gore, exemplifying the claims that Gore voters are too ignorant or
unintelligent to follow directions.
--
Bob C. NRA Patron USN (Ret)
jamesw
alternatex wrote in message <3A870A9B...@austintx.net>...
>Ballot Review Shows Gore Stood To Gain
>Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
>
>Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
And what, pray tell, makes this "the truth"? I note the article makes great
issue of the SCOTUS decision, but has nothing to say about Al's buddies in
the SCofFLA.
A little bias, perhaps?
Thank goodness for the electoral college.
Jim
Tom Keowen
"Robert Christman" <rchr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A8712D8...@ix.netcom.com...
> alternatex wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
> > was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
> > voting booth.
<SNIP>
> What you are saying is that the majority of the "uncounted" votes were
> for Gore, exemplifying the claims that Gore voters are too ignorant or
> unintelligent to follow directions.
>
> --
> Bob C. NRA Patron USN (Ret)
Wow, I guess the truth DOES hurt.
TiredofSpam
as are all the conservatives and Republicans.
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:56:43 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
> Gore lost and may I suggest you move to Berkeley and leave Austin.
> There by helping both states.
>
> ******************************************
>
> That public men publish falsehoods
> Is nothing new. That America must accept
> Like the historical republics corruption and empire
> Has been known for years.
> "Be Angry at the Sun"
> Robinson Jeffers
David Voth
<snip>
> The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
>all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
>would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
>votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
>margin in Florida.
Still not enough to give Gore a win. The count will therefore
continue until one goes Gore's way.
<snip>
--
"I know more about guns than you ever will. You seem to think that
fully-automatic rifles are vastly different from semi-automatic ones.
In fact the fully automatics are just slightly faster."
- "Linda Gonzalez" in talk.politics.guns
alternatex
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:56:43 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
> >all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
> >would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
> >votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
> >margin in Florida.
>
> Still not enough to give Gore a win. The count will therefore
> continue until one goes Gore's way.
>
> <snip>
>
in its entirety instead of snipped out of context.
Ballot Review Shows Gore Stood To Gain
Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
read after the Nov. 7 election.
Results of a new hand count released Friday by Orange County election
officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
margin in Florida.
The results underscore the blow dealt to Gore's campaign by the U.S.
alternatex
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:56:43 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
> Gore lost and may I suggest you move to Berkeley and leave Austin.
> There by helping both states.
>
Native born Texan here, bubba. Ain't goin' anywhere.
Bill Bonde
Red Dog wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Once again you've proven that Goron Voters are complete total fucking
> idiots. But we knew that, otherwise why would they vote for Goron?
>
Good point.
NASCAR
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
Note "might have given". In other words they don't know. And besides
why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
David Voth
enough to write:
<snip>
>Note "might have given". In other words they don't know. And besides
>why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
>to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
>counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
David Voth
<alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
<snip>
>...suggests... <snip>
>...might... <snip>
Oh, I understand it all right.
>...Bush's certified margin of victory statewide.
<snip>
--
"Suppress dissent. Happy birthday Adolph :-)"
- Jim Moore
Panhead
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:17:07 GMT, nasc...@yahoo.com (NASCAR) was kind
> enough to write:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Note "might have given". In other words they don't know. And besides
> >why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
> >to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
> >counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
>
> They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
> have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
Then what?
Add those into a possible 2004 vote count?
alternatex
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
NASCAR wrote:
>
> Note "might have given". In other words they don't know. And besides
> why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
> to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
> counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
Perhaps you should re-read the article. What precincts the Democratic
Party may or may not have hand picked are not relevant to this article.
The statistics relate to 16 counties with paper ballots(no punchcards,
no chad), and, as stated in the piece, 'most of the counties are
predominantly Republican.' Additionally, they only deal with the paper
ballots that were rejected by the machines. These were never counted,
not once.
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
> The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
>was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
>voting booth.
DAMM! Don'cha just hate it when that happens? IF ONLY Algore had
spent some of the BILLIONS he and KKKlintoon wasted on world travel on
voter education. IF ONLY Algore had used the Buddist Temple slush
fund to explain why voters needed to use the right pencil. IF ONLY
the Florida welfare dept had sent out "how to vote" flyers with the
last welfare checks and had those checks delivered by someone that
could read.
Well, come on, regale us some more on how Algore "really won". You've
got almost EIGHT YEARS till the next democRAT chance to win the White
House.
Poor GoreWhore.
Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!!!
There, I knew you could.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra
> votes if Orange County had conducted a hand recount
> of all of its ballots that machines could not read after the
> Nov. 7 election.
>>>>
Perhaps all of the senile Gorons with high blood pressure
will now pop a vessel....Heh.
====================================
The-Trainers
of the USA Constitution and selective violations of Florida laws.
We simply said Bush won by the rules.
If Gore-whores don't like the rules, go try to change them for next time.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, alternatex wrote:
> Ballot Review Shows Gore Stood To Gain
> Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
>
> Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
>
> ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
NASCAR
wrote:
There's a thought, recount all the votes and save them for Hillary in
2004.
TiredofSpam
David Voth wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:17:07 GMT, nasc...@yahoo.com (NASCAR) was kind
> enough to write:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Note "might have given". In other words they don't know. And besides
> >why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
> >to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
> >counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
>
> They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
> have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
>
Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes is a
single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and conservative
Republican are two words not easily found together, are they?
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes is a
>single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and conservative
>Republican are two words not easily found together, are they?
Awww, Poor GoreWhore.
Can you say PRESIDENT BUSH!
There I knew you could.
alternatex
Ballot Review Shows Gore Stood To Gain
Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
>
>
> Can you say RESIDENT BUSH!
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> David Voth wrote:
> > They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
> > have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
> Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes is a
> single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and conservative
> Republican are two words not easily found together, are they?
>>>>
And I sincerely hope that even if true this fact gnaws at your
entrails for four l-o-n-g, t-e-d-i-o-u-s years. And then you
might have an inkling what it was like for honest people during
the past eight years of trailer trash time at the White House.
=================================
David Voth
<alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
<same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
Phil Martin
Glenw...@xteleport.com> =====
>And I sincerely hope that even if true this fact gnaws at your
>entrails for four l-o-n-g, t-e-d-i-o-u-s years. And then you
>might have an inkling what it was like for honest people during
>the past eight years of trailer trash time at the White House.
"Honest people"?
Honest people look at issues from both sides. Honest Democrats, for
example,
admit that there is something unsettling about the Rich pardon, and that
granting the President that type of omnibus power may be wrong.
Honest Republicans would admit that a case of "pardons for bucks", as is
alleged, has errie parallels to "pardons for silence", when Bush the First
pardoned a number of Iran-Contra figures possibly to save himself from the
consequences of their testimony.
Some honest Democrats are looking at the Clinton's raking in the loot when
leaving the White House, and ask it these gifts aren't some form of
influence
peddling.
Honest Republicans would look back to the gift by friends of a 2.5 million
dollar estate to Reagan in 1987, and ask the same question.
Honest Democrats look at the current finance laws and consider the need for
reform to reduce the power of money in our political system.
Honest Republicans do the same. The problem is, the honest Republicans
don't
get nominated by their party.
Problem is, honesty goes out the window quickly when partisan issues are at
stake. And the current Republicans have too many things they can't sell to
the American people if they're honest about them.
Phil
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Edwards
Putting something (DID) in caps doesn't make it true.
the slave
"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
news:3a8be93c.79551106@news...
| On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex
| <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
|
| <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
|
| The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
apparently, law under the US Supreme Court doesn't allow elections to be decided
by vote-counting either. what we have here folks is really just lawlessness. if
you want your vote to count, then go pay off Congress with some million-dollar
contributions. if you can't fork over the money for that then you might as well
shut the fuck up.
not only that, they were willing to let their usual "states-rights" blathering
collapse when the state of Florida Supreme Court was coming to a decision that
didn't benefit their own conservative agenda. when they stopped the recounting
days before their final decision, it was apparent to me what their final
decision was. they had made their decision at that point. the written opinions
were just an afterthought, a bit of icing on a cake they had already baked.
the Supreme Court just plain sucks dick. that's the bottom line. GW Bush isn't
the legitimate president. you can wail and moan and piss about it all you want.
you can get the Supreme Court to say it. you can get the NYT & NBC to proclaim
it to the hills and valleys. hell, you can get yer god to say it. but the fact
is the votes didn't get counted. who even really knows what the hell the count
was for sure?
and why all the hullabaloo over deadlines and shit? voting isn't a timed test.
why not count the votes? and if there were no absolutes about the process, why
not let the local state authorities decide as they do in all other states? where
were the Constitutional literalists and states-rights crap crowd at? they were
voting to overturn Florida's Supreme Court...that's where they were at.
but that's no suprise. the "constitutional literalist" philosophy is about as
full of shit as a French bidet. they like "states rights" when it means they can
undermine local labor or environmental laws. but they love the federal powers
when they can be used to support the powers of the elites to make unbridled
financial contributions or bind states to huge trade agreements like WTO or
FTAA. that's because they don't really have any Constitutional philosophies
other than to fuck the poor and get what they can for themselves. politics 101.
the decision that the Supreme Court came up with never suprised me one bit. from
the moment they became involved, it was clear where we were headed. and all the
lawyer talk was just hot air blowing up the public's ass.
too bad most of you conservatives and Republicans are too stupid to see the
eternal laws of the rich fucking the poor. all you have to do is open a goddamn
history book. it's not like a complicated algebraic formula or something. jeez.
laterz.
--
. [|=-=slave=-=|]
. Free Radio Austin 97.1 http://pirateradio.org/fra
.
. Fortune 500 Protest http://o13.org
. Austin Independent Media Center: http://austin.indymedia.org
-- Bertrand Russell
Robert Frenchu
>
>"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
>news:3a8be93c.79551106@news...
>| On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex
>| <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
>|
>| <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
>|
>| The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
>
>apparently, law under the US Supreme Court doesn't allow elections to be decided
>by vote-counting either.
Sure it does. That's exactly what happened. Votes were counted, George
won. Gore wanted to count spoiled ballots, but those aren't votes.
They're spoiled votes.
>what we have here folks is really just lawlessness.
You may be right. I have some information which suggests that these
ballots were spoiled on purpose. This is voter fraud, and there are
sever penalties to this heinous act. As it happens, in this case,
voter fraud and stupidity are very difficult to tell apart, so there
are Democrats tonight who are home with tie families instead of being
in FUCKING JAIL where they belong.
Ahem. The People's Investigation will continue.
--
It feels GOOD to give up a little freedom for a LOT of safety! (TM)
Somewhere, a child is being injured because of unlicensed tools!
Support M.I.L.T. - Mothers Insisting on Licensed Tools!
Visit our licensed on-line store or I'll use more exclamation points!!
http://beam.to/MILT
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>apparently, law under the US Supreme Court doesn't allow elections to be decided
>by vote-counting either. what we have here folks is really just lawlessness.
Awww, poor GoreWhore. Mad cuz your boy wasn't allowed to CREATE
enough votes to win Florida???
So bad, so sad. Why don't you hold your breath until a democRAT is
elected President?
Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!
alternatex
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
the democRATS had been allowed to MANUFACTURE VOTES!
Poor GoreWhore.
Now, say PRESIDENT BUSH!
alternatex
Neal Atkins misread:
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
>
> the democRATS had been allowed to MANUFACTURE VOTES!
Your quote is inaccurate. The article actually reads as follows:
The Truth Hurts.
> Poor GOPWhore.
>
> Now, say RESIDENT BUSH!
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> The Truth Hurts
No, it merely makes Gorons have heartburn and high blood
pressure. Tough noodles.
> Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange
> County had conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines
> could not read after the Nov. 7 election.
Repeatedly posting the same article changes....nothing.
Sour grapes make for a lot of whine.
======================================
wavoka
alternatex wrote in message <3A8C9CEB...@austintx.net>...
>The Truth Hurts
>
>Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
>
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
>conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
>read after the Nov. 7 election.
>
That still means BUSh picked up 95 more votes than Gore. And mis-marked
ballots were legally doscounted 95 more times than those for Gore.
Kinda kills that old condpiracy theory, don't it?
-*MORT*-
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
>Neal Atkins misread:
>
>>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
>>
>> the democRATS had been allowed to MANUFACTURE VOTES!
>
>
>Your quote is inaccurate. The article actually reads as follows:
>
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
Aww, I see you are one of the "reading challenged" that made it thru
the government schools ( I guess). Has Algore sent you a check
lately?
>> Poor GOreWhore
TiredofSpam
Henry Glenworthy wrote:
Yes, I understand that you elitist snobs really didn't like having a popularly
elected President who wasn't from one of your blue blood families in office.
Now, of course, the "Right" people are in Washington screwing stuff up like bush
screwed up education, health care and the Prison/Justice system in Texas.
It really must be tedious to have the lesser classes get out of their place.
I'll bet you still worry that it might happen again.
As you should.
the slave
news:3a8c803f...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
actually i DIDN'T vote for Gore. i voted for Nader. so the Democrats probably
hate me more than you spiteful Republicans. fact is we probably DID play a hand
in Bush getting the vote. but Bushites who think they have a mandate for their
assholish and boorish policies had better think twice:
1)Gore definitely won the popular vote.
2)If you stacked together the votes for Democrats and Greens then Gore would
have won by a mile. The nation has definitely spoken as a majority and the
majority says we are liberal.
3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is questionable
doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the white
house.
4)The nation is moving away from the rhetoric of the right...DESPITE their
ownership of the mass media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Cato
Institute and Heritage Foundation.
5)The Democrats will win the white house next election and the Republicans will
not regain it again for a very long time.
Neal, I am quite happy in some ways that Bush won. the fact that Democrats would
have won, had they listened to their traditional left that was defecting to the
Greens, they might have won the campaign. the Democrats may come back and win
next election. if they do so, they will have to do something pivotal in terms of
moving leftward or I will still vote Green.
your banal rant that didn't even address any of the issues in my previous post
show to what depths of intellect the Republican party has sunk. basically, it's
a party full of assholes who can't work with more than one idea at a time. their
idea of multitasking is to walk and chew gum at the same time.
btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen a
real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is. you
listen to losers like Limbaugh call people liberals and you think you know what
one is. Limbaugh calls anyone left of a John Bircher a liberal. but believe me,
if Gore REALLY was a liberal and represented the party then they wouldn't have
so many people defecting to the Green Party. as in most things within the sphere
of politics, Republicans still don't have a fucking clue as to what they are
talking about or what is going on in the world around them. their candidate Bush
pretty much exemplifies that.
finally, GW isn't a Texan. i want to clarify that for all you little sissy
carpet-baggers and transplants out there. real Texas men don't join Yale
yachting clubs. and anyone who claims different...well, you're just proving
you're not a Texan.
the slave
news:hp2j6.22590$9u3.2...@news1.onlynews.com...
|
| alternatex wrote in message <3A8C9CEB...@austintx.net>...
| >The Truth Hurts
| >
| >Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
| >
| >conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
| >read after the Nov. 7 election.
| >
|
| That still means BUSh picked up 95 more votes than Gore. And mis-marked
| ballots were legally doscounted 95 more times than those for Gore.
|
| Kinda kills that old condpiracy theory, don't it?
|
| -*MORT*-
goddamn you Republicans really are fucking more stupid than even my own rants
ususally ascribe to you.
look, Mort, here's what the article summarized:
>The findings show that - had Orange County's canvassing board examined
>all its ballots - George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
>would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
>votes - equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
>margin in Florida.
now, do you Republicans know how to fucking read the goddamn thing? it's in
ENGLISH so that's you're first clue. it says that Bush would have picked up 298
votes. it says that Gore would have picked up 501 votes. now you subtract what
Bush what have gotten from what Gore would have gotten:
501 Gore
- 298 Bush
----------
= 203 Total Gain for Gore
Gore would have gained 203 votes in the overall state-wide tally in this one
county alone.
now, if you had stuggled on further reading all those big words that hurt your
heads, you would have noticed some interesting tidbits. first, this was a
recount of ballots done in pencil that for one reason or another the machines
miscounted...which is common. this was NOT an issue of dangling chads and such
and the voter's intent is almost impossible to misconstrue. second, this was in
a REPUBLICAN county, which means that if similar recounts were done in
traditionally Democratic counties, then Gore could have stood to make
significant gains.
but since most Republicans are now guilty of the same sort of crookedness and
hypocracy they claimed of Clinton for the last 8 years, they are living their
lives in denial and dishonesty. now they must explain away the bullshit
intervention of the Supreme Court for the next four years. now they must gloss
over quite straightforward and mundane articles that speak for themselves as
they engage in phantasmagorical rationalizations.
rather than confront the facts, you walk down your dark hallways like Lady
MacBeth trying to wash that stain of blood off your hands. but you can't. the
damage to Democracy has already been done.
face it. Bush isn't a president. he's a court-appointed Dictator.
alternatex
wavoka wrote:
>
> alternatex wrote in message <3A8C9CEB...@austintx.net>...
> >The Truth Hurts
> >
> >Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> >
> >ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
> >conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
> >read after the Nov. 7 election.
> >
>
> That still means BUSh picked up 95 more votes than Gore. And mis-marked
> ballots were legally doscounted 95 more times than those for Gore.
After rereading the article below, I still cannot see where you might
have picked up that '95' number. Perhaps you should read it again too.
Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
read after the Nov. 7 election.
(203 vote gain for Gore in just one county if SCOTUS had not stopped a
hand count)
Results of a new hand count released Friday by Orange County election
officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
(799 uncounted ballots with clear presidential votes)
The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
margin in Florida.
(+501 Gore +298 Bush Net gain for Gore in only one county +203)
The results underscore the blow dealt to Gore's campaign by the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that halted a statewide count of all ballots on
which machines detected no votes. Orange County's canvassing board had
examined about 15 percent of those ballots before the ruling.
(Without SCOTUS intervention, Bush loses without a doubt)
Orange County voters mark paper ballots with special pens. Ballots are
fed into counting machines at each precinct, which immediately reject
ballots with errors and give voters a chance to correct them. Because of
that system, which Gov. Jeb Bush wants all counties to use by the 2002
elections, Orange County had one of the lowest rates of rejected ballots
in the state.
(counting machines at the poll sites are supposed to reject ballots with
errors instantly so that voters can make necessary corrections, but the
machines don't work as planned, apparently)
The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
voting booth.
(again, the machines should not have accepted the mis-marked ballots,
but they did)
A Sentinel review of about 10 percent of the uncounted ballots,
focusing on 16 small counties that use mostly paper ballots, suggests
that hand recounts would have helped Gore far more than Bush, even
though most of the counties are predominantly Republican. With the
findings in Orange County, Sentinel research indicates hand counts in
those 16 counties might have given Gore a net gain of 569 votes – 32
votes more than Bush's certified margin of victory statewide.
(A different review of ballots in 16 small predominantly Republican
counties)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
alternatex
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
It is not clear how you can devine my educational background from the
article above. Would it make you feel better if I had a private
education? If so, why? And why on earth would Al Gore send me a check,
anyway?
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
and felt compelled to scribble:
> Henry Glenworthy wrote:
> > And I sincerely hope that even if true this fact gnaws at your
> > entrails for four l-o-n-g, t-e-d-i-o-u-s years. And then you
> > might have an inkling what it was like for honest people during
> > the past eight years of trailer trash time at the White House.
> Yes, I understand that you elitist snobs really didn't like having a
popularly
> elected President who wasn't from one of your blue blood families in
office.
Yeah, one of your own - i.e. the criminal underclass who lack morals,
a respect for the law and haven't a clue about the Constitution. Hey,
did you get a pardon too?
> Now, of course, the "Right" people are in Washington screwing stuff up
> like bush screwed up education, health care and the Prison/Justice system
> in Texas.
Only in your parallel Fantasy Island universe.
> It really must be tedious to have the lesser classes get out of their
place.
> I'll bet you still worry that it might happen again.
So that's why Swilly had such wide appeal, he represented the dumber
than mud faction. There are millions still alive who worship Juan & Evita,
Ferdinand & Imelda - now you've got two more sacks of Buddy waste
to slobber over, Swilly & Billiary.
> As you should.
Shit floats.
--
"I wouldn't restrict myself to having just half the Cabinet
be women, I might want more."
W.J.Clinton - 02-29-93
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> face it. Bush isn't a president. he's a court-appointed Dictator.
>>>>
If that's actually the case, you better start shitting in your pants,
bucky, because there'll be a knock on your door at about 2:00
AM....
====================================
NASCAR
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>The Truth Hurts
>
>Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
>
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
>conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
>read after the Nov. 7 election.
>
> Results of a new hand count released Friday by Orange County election
>officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
>found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
>machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
>
> The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
>all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
>would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
>votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
>margin in Florida.
OK, Bush wins after FOUR counts of the votes, now what?
Sam A. Kersh
>
>actually i DIDN'T vote for Gore. i voted for Nader. so the Democrats probably
>hate me more than you spiteful Republicans. fact is we probably DID play a hand
>in Bush getting the vote. but Bushites who think they have a mandate for their
>assholish and boorish policies had better think twice:
>
Oooooh, sticks and stones....
>1)Gore definitely won the popular vote.
>
Your point? The the Constitution doesn't matter?
>2)If you stacked together the votes for Democrats and Greens then Gore would
>have won by a mile. The nation has definitely spoken as a majority and the
>majority says we are liberal.
>
>3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is questionable
>doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
>normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the white
>house.
>
>4)The nation is moving away from the rhetoric of the right...DESPITE their
>ownership of the mass media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Cato
>Institute and Heritage Foundation.
>
That's funny! The media on the right politically? ROTHFLMSS
>........boorish, banal rant deleted.................
>your banal rant ...
Whose banal rant?...
Your choice of handles says that subconsciously you recognize your place
in society as a Green cum Democrap. The *slave* indeed....
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Endowment
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., Life Member
JPFO, GoA
Ducks, Unlimited
David Voth
<alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
<snip>
>It is not clear how you can devine my educational background from the
>article above....
<snicker>
>...Would it make you feel better if I had a private
>education?...
That would be, uh, devine! :D
>...If so, why? And why on earth would Al Gore send me a check, anyway?
If you don't understand, there's no point in trying to explain it to
you.
David Voth
enough to write:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:19 -0600, alternatex
><alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
>>The Truth Hurts
<snip>
>> The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
>>all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
>>would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
>>votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
>>margin in Florida.
>
>OK, Bush wins after FOUR counts of the votes, now what?
<snip>
Obviously we must KEEP COUNTING until Gore wins!
--
Spirituality cannot compensate for Stupidity.
David Voth
was kind enough to write:
<snip>
>actually i DIDN'T vote for Gore. i voted for Nader. so the Democrats probably
>hate me more than you spiteful Republicans. fact is we probably DID play a hand
>in Bush getting the vote....
I'm not a Republican and I don't hate you. I'm glad you are spending
so much time looking for votes for Gore. It keeps you out of trouble.
>...but Bushites who think they have a mandate for their
>assholish and boorish policies had better think twice:
>
>1)Gore definitely won the popular vote.
True, but popular vote does not decide the Presidency. I'm sure you
know that by now.
>2)If you stacked together the votes for Democrats and Greens then Gore would
>have won by a mile. The nation has definitely spoken as a majority and the
>majority says we are liberal.
There are far more Libertarians than there are Greens. And Greens are
not necessary "liberal". Greens are pro-environment. Gore is just as
pro-big oil as Bush, so it makes little sense for a Green to have
voted for Gore. IMHO Nader was the most logical choice for a Green
voter.
>3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is questionable
>doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
>normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the white
>house.
The counting had to stop some time.
<snip>
>btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen a
>real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is....
I agree that Gore is not a true liberal. He's a suit.
<snip>
>finally, GW isn't a Texan. i want to clarify that for all you little sissy
>carpet-baggers and transplants out there. real Texas men don't join Yale
>yachting clubs. and anyone who claims different...well, you're just proving
>you're not a Texan.
GWB is more of a Texan than Hillary Clinton is a New Yorker.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>It is not clear how you can devine my educational
>background from the article above....
>>>>
Sure I can, you never learned how to spell simple
English words like "divine".
===========================
Phil Martin
Glenw...@xteleport.com>
>> Yes, I understand that you elitist snobs really didn't like having a
>popularly
>> elected President who wasn't from one of your blue blood families in
>office.
>
>Yeah, one of your own - i.e. the criminal underclass who lack morals,
>a respect for the law and haven't a clue about the Constitution. Hey,
>did you get a pardon too?
Let's see - Bush's oil stock transactions are probably worse than anything
the
Clinton's did in the past. The Bush family connections with deals costing
investors and the government billions in S&L scandals are well documented.
And while Clinton was pilloried for "selling off the White House", Bush was
simultaneously entertaining "Pioneers" for nights in the Gov's Mansion in
Austin - the "Pioneers" who obtained such status by raising $100K each for
his
campaign.
>> Now, of course, the "Right" people are in Washington screwing stuff up
>> like bush screwed up education, health care and the Prison/Justice system
>> in Texas.
>
>Only in your parallel Fantasy Island universe.
How about these "Successes" of Bush's term? Current rank for Texas among
states:
(Indicator, followed by Texas' National Rank)
Social Spending
Park spending, 49
Teacher/private sector pay ratio, 50
High school graduates, 45
Spending on public libraries, 46
Child immunizations, 47-48
Poor kids lacking health insurance, 2
Teen birth rate, 2
People without health insurance, 1
State public health spending, 44-45
State mental health spending, 41-42
Economics
Income distribution disparity, 7
Kids in poverty, 5-7
Per capita state spending, 50
Tax progressivity, 43
% of state taxes from sales taxes, 2
Public Safety
Total adults in criminal justice system, 1
Rate of adults in criminal justice system, 1
Total number of prisoners, 2
Incarceration rate, 2
Average prison time served, 7
Recidivism rate, 9
Democracy
Voter registration, 46
Voter turnout, 47
>So that's why Swilly had such wide appeal, he represented the dumber
>than mud faction. There are millions still alive who worship Juan & Evita,
>Ferdinand & Imelda - now you've got two more sacks of Buddy waste
>to slobber over, Swilly & Billiary.
Oh right - I'm just betting that all the NASCAR watching, cheap beer
swilling,
"Nuke 'Em All" T-Shirt wearing, Bubbas out there were voting for Gore.
Bush's true genius was Carl Rove, who realized that Bush Senior's flaw was
in
seeming too intelligent - the Limbaughites out there don't trust anyone who
don't believe in a policy you can't fully articulate on a bumper sticker.
But the fact remains, if George Bush were named George Bushinski, or for
that
matter John McCain, he would never have received the incredible financial
backing he got. The blue-bloods wanted one of their own, they just needed
to
find someone who had demonstrated such a remarkable lack of ambition
throughout life that the Bubbas could associate with him.
Phil Martin
><alter...@austintx.net> blurped:
>
> >It is not clear how you can devine my educational
>>background from the article above....
>
>Sure I can, you never learned how to spell simple
>English words like "divine".
So let me guess - ability to do things like spell correctly - or to be able
to
pronounce words the way that 99% of the English-speaking population
pronounce
them - or to even use words in a context where they make any sense
whatsoever
- is an important indicator of someone's ability -
*WHEN THAT PERSON DISAGREES WITH YOU*.
Phil
Jan. 29, 2001...A president's right to grant...pardons is "inviolate, as far
as I'm concerned," he said. "It's an important part of the office. I am
mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but my
predecessors as well." --NYT, 1/29/01
Jan. 14, 2001..."Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to
keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to
be
an assignment." --NYT, 1/14/01
Jan. 11, 2001...He said he wanted his administration to be remembered for
making America "a more literate country and a hopefuller country."
--Reuters,
Bush Chooses Trade Rep
9/27... At a town hall-style event in Redwood City, Calif., Tuesday morning,
Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush was asked by an audience
member
if he would have an “even-handed” policy when dealing with the Middle East.
Bush reassured the potential voter, “I will have a foreign-handed policy.”
—John Berman, ABCNEWS
7/19... George W. Bush's new Web site, www.georgewbush.com, states that the
No. 3 priority of the campaign is "Putting Education First." --Al Kamen,
Washington Post
Neal Atkins
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
"Phil Martin" <Philm...@MailAndNews.com> blurped:
> <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote:
> >So that's why Swilly had such wide appeal, he represented the dumber
> >than mud faction. There are millions still alive who worship Juan &
Evita,
> >Ferdinand & Imelda - now you've got two more sacks of Buddy waste
> >to slobber over, Swilly & Billiary.
> But the fact remains, if George Bush were named George Bushinski, or for
> that matter John McCain, he would never have received the incredible
financial
> backing he got. The blue-bloods wanted one of their own, they just needed
> to find someone who had demonstrated such a remarkable lack of ambition
> throughout life that the Bubbas could associate with him.
>>>>
Sour grapes make for a lot of whine.
====================================
Phil Martin
>>> The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
>>>all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
>>>would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
>>>votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
>>>margin in Florida.
>>
>>OK, Bush wins after FOUR counts of the votes, now what?
Now I see why you guys like Bush. Whenever there is something you don't
like,
you intentionally misunderstand it. Those were the results from just one
counties hand count of the undercounts - just a partial result.
Just like the certified election results.
><snip>
>Obviously we must KEEP COUNTING until Gore wins!
It's useful to keep counting until we know the truth. Hell, if the
Republicans could authorize $50 million in spending to know whether the
Clintons were culpable for some kind of Whitewater scandal, it doesn't hurt
to
spend a few weeks and bucks to find out whether the most extreme Republican
fraction of the Supreme Court conducted a massive subversion of democracy.
Phil
alternatex
Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>
> <alter...@austintx.net> blurped:
>
> >It is not clear how you can devine my educational
> >background from the article above....
>
> >>>>
>
> Sure I can, you never learned how to spell simple
> English words like "divine".
Typo. Thanks for pointing it out.
alternatex
David Voth wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:16:08 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
>
> <snip>
>
> >It is not clear how you can devine my educational background from the
> >article above....
>
> >...Would it make you feel better if I had a private
> >education?...
>
> That would be, uh, devine! :D
Yes, I misspelled divine, thank you for pointing it out.
> >...If so, why? And why on earth would Al Gore send me a check, anyway?
>
> If you don't understand, there's no point in trying to explain it to
> you.
>
How's that?
Paul Mitchum
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:56:43 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
> >Ballot Review Shows Gore Stood To Gain
> >Rejected Votes in Florida Yield Findings
> >
> >Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> >
[..]
> > A Sentinel review of about 10 percent of the uncounted ballots, focusing
> >on 16 small counties that use mostly paper ballots, suggests that hand
> >recounts would have helped Gore far more than Bush, even though most of
> >the counties are predominantly Republican. With the findings in Orange
> >County, Sentinel research indicates hand counts in those 16 counties
> >might have given Gore a net gain of 569 votes – 32 votes more than Bush's
> >certified margin of victory statewide.
>
> Note "might have given". In other words they don't know.
...and neither do you. Neither does Katherine Harris, the Florida State
Supreme Court, the electors from Florida, nor the US Supreme Court.
--
"In a world full of lies / which tug at the truth
I'm taking no sides... now I recognize you." -DS
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
The "Psychic Friends Network" had been allowed to "intuit" how people
thought they may have intended to vote if they hadn't been to stupid
to fill out the ballots correctly.
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
The United States Supreme Court had not stopped the obvious democRAT
attempt to steal the election by inventing and creating votes.
Neal Atkins
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <3a8d2963...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
>nasc...@yahoo.com (NASCAR) wrote:
>
>> OK, Bush wins after FOUR counts of the votes,
>
>Er no. There hasn't ever been a full count yet.
Er, YES, there have been FOUR FULL RE-COUNTS and if you'll watch
evening news tonite, you'll hear references to PRESIDENT BUSH.
It's over. But I suggest you hold your breath until a democRAT is
back in the White House as President, not tour guide.
James S. Cochrane
Roger Fulton wrote:
> In article <MpEh6.3187$4521.3...@news.randori.com>, "jamesw" <jam...@argolink.nospam.net> wrote:
> }Thank goodness for the electoral college.
>
> Amen, brother.
>
> Let's all be thankful for the system that values acres of dirt
> over human beings.
>
Actually, the grapes taste rather sweet, now that you
mention it.
Julie
>
> --
> Roger Fulton
> ro...@vdsco.com
Neal Atkins
>}Thank goodness for the electoral college.
>
>Amen, brother.
>
>Let's all be thankful for the system that values acres of dirt
>over human beings.
AWWW, poor GoreWhore. And remember, with redistricting going on,
states Bush won will have SIX MORE ELECTORAL VOTES in 2004. So
whatever socialist clown the DumbocRATS run will be have an even
harder time than Algoron.
Scout
"the slave" <kei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96hnll$j2i$1...@news.jump.net...
>
> "David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
> news:3a8be93c.79551106@news...
> | On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex> | <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
> |
> | The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
>
> apparently, law under the US Supreme Court doesn't allow elections to be
decided
> by vote-counting either.
No it does. What it does not allow is for State Courts to ignore and rewrite
election laws to suit themselves....
Scout
"Neal Atkins" <nat...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3a8ca366...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:19 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
> >ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
>
> the democRATS had been allowed to MANUFACTURE VOTES!
>
>
> Now, say PRESIDENT BUSH!
>
> There, I knew you could.
Sorry, but Bush won by more that 203 votes. Thus he has not been shown to be
the loser, even if that mattered at this point in time.
President Bush....
James S. Cochrane
Phil Martin wrote:
>
>
> But the fact remains, if George Bush were named George Bushinski, or for
> that
> matter John McCain, he would never have received the incredible financial
> backing he got. The blue-bloods wanted one of their own, they just needed
> to
> find someone who had demonstrated such a remarkable lack of ambition
> throughout life that the Bubbas could associate with him.
>
It always amazes me the degree of racial and ethnic bigotry
hard-left liberals are willing to display, in public, with their
bare faces hanging out.
Julie
Neal Atkins
>|
>| Awww, poor GoreWhore. Mad cuz your boy wasn't allowed to CREATE
>| enough votes to win Florida???
>|
>| So bad, so sad. Why don't you hold your breath until a democRAT is
>| elected President?
>|
>| Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!
>|
>| There, I knew you could.
>
>actually i DIDN'T vote for Gore. i voted for Nader.
Gee thanks.
so the Democrats probably
>hate me more than you spiteful Republicans. fact is we probably DID play a hand
>in Bush getting the vote. but Bushites who think they have a mandate for their
>assholish and boorish policies had better think twice:
>
>1)Gore definitely won the popular vote.
So what?
>
>2)If you stacked together the votes for Democrats and Greens then Gore would
>have won by a mile. The nation has definitely spoken as a majority and the
>majority says we are liberal.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Then why are a majority of Govenors and state Legislatures run by
CONSERVATIVES???
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
>3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is questionable
>doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
>normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the white
>house.
Gee, maybe Algoron can SUE!
>
>4)The nation is moving away from the rhetoric of the right...DESPITE their
>ownership of the mass media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Cato
>Institute and Heritage Foundation.
"Vast right wing conspiracy", huh? LOL
>
>5)The Democrats will win the white house next election and the Republicans will
>not regain it again for a very long time.
Well, unless Algoron's suit to "regain" the lost White House is
successful, we won't be infected by a democRAT there for at least 8
years.
>
>Neal, I am quite happy in some ways that Bush won. the fact that Democrats would
>have won, had they listened to their traditional left that was defecting to the
>Greens, they might have won the campaign. the Democrats may come back and win
>next election. if they do so, they will have to do something pivotal in terms of
>moving leftward or I will still vote Green.
You mean "watermelon" don't you??? You know, "green on the outside,
RED on the inside".
And since most greenies were voting for the personality cult of Nader
they are unlikely to vote for a "real" green.
>
>your banal rant that didn't even address any of the issues in my previous post
>show to what depths of intellect the Republican party has sunk. basically, it's
>a party full of assholes who can't work with more than one idea at a time. their
>idea of multitasking is to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Yeah, and Bush is a moron. Of course his
TAX CUT
EDUCATION REFORM
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
BALANCED BUDGET
are all going to pass. Before it's over the "democrats" on Capital
Hill will probably propose a BIGGER TAX CUT than Bush.
>
>btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen a
>real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is.
Yeah, Stalin has been dead a long time.
you
>listen to losers like Limbaugh call people liberals and you think you know what
>one is. Limbaugh calls anyone left of a John Bircher a liberal. but believe me,
>if Gore REALLY was a liberal and represented the party then they wouldn't have
>so many people defecting to the Green Party.
Yeah almost TWO PERCENT of the votes cast. What a landslide.
>s in most things within the sphere
>of politics, Republicans still don't have a fucking clue as to what they are
>talking about or what is going on in the world around them. their candidate Bush
>pretty much exemplifies that.
>
>finally, GW isn't a Texan. i want to clarify that for all you little sissy
>carpet-baggers and transplants out there. real Texas men don't join Yale
>yachting clubs. and anyone who claims different...well, you're just proving
>you're not a Texan.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
POOR GOREWHORE!
Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>>btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen a
>>real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is....
>
>I agree that Gore is not a true liberal. He's a suit.
As neither was Clinton. Clinton isn't a liberal; he's a rabid
authoritarian.
Clinton probably would have made a damned good president of
Guatemala....
--
If the election was fraudulent, and Black voters were disenfranchised,
how come not a SINGLE Senate Democrat seconded the Congressional Black
Caucus's challenge of the Electoral College vote certification...?
Scout
"alternatex" <alter...@austintx.net> wrote in message
news:3A8D8219...@austintx.net...
> The Truth Hurts
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
> Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
>
> conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
> read after the Nov. 7 election.
<Snip>
Result - Gore still lost.
Deal with it.
Scout
> "wavoka" <wav...@deja.com> wrote in message
> news:hp2j6.22590$9u3.2...@news1.onlynews.com...
> |
> | alternatex wrote in message <3A8C9CEB...@austintx.net>...
> | >The Truth Hurts
> | >
> | >Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> | >
> | >ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County
had
> | >conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
> | >read after the Nov. 7 election.
> | >
> |
> | ballots were legally doscounted 95 more times than those for Gore.
> |
> | Kinda kills that old condpiracy theory, don't it?
> |
> | -*MORT*-
>
> goddamn you Republicans really are fucking more stupid than even my own
rants
> ususally ascribe to you.
>
> look, Mort, here's what the article summarized:
>
> >The findings show that - had Orange County's canvassing board examined
> >all its ballots - George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
> >would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
> >votes - equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
> >margin in Florida.
>
> now, do you Republicans know how to fucking read the goddamn thing? it's
in
> ENGLISH so that's you're first clue. it says that Bush would have picked
up 298
> votes. it says that Gore would have picked up 501 votes. now you subtract
what
> Bush what have gotten from what Gore would have gotten:
>
> 501 Gore
> - 298 Bush
> ----------
> = 203 Total Gain for Gore
Which means Gore still lost.
Seems you have a problem with him having lost.
Scout
"NASCAR" <nasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a8d2963...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
> >
> >ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
> >conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
> >read after the Nov. 7 election.
> >
> >officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
> >found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
> >machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
> >
> >all its ballots - George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
> >would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
> >votes - equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
> >margin in Florida.
>
Gore demands a recount?
Scout
"TiredofSpam" <Ave...@world.com> wrote in message
news:3A8CC0FE...@world.com...
>
>
> Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>
> > "TiredofSpam" <Ave...@world.com> wrote:
> > > David Voth wrote:
> >
> > > > They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
> > > > have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
> >
> > > Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes
is a
> > > single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and
conservative
> > > Republican are two words not easily found together, are they?
> >
> > >>>>
> >
> > And I sincerely hope that even if true this fact gnaws at your
> > entrails for four l-o-n-g, t-e-d-i-o-u-s years. And then you
> > might have an inkling what it was like for honest people during
> > the past eight years of trailer trash time at the White House.
> >
>
> Yes, I understand that you elitist snobs really didn't like having a
popularly
> elected President who wasn't from one of your blue blood families in
office.
Well since we don't know who won the popular vote, I can't say, since I
don't know who you are talking about. After all more votes than difference
between the candidates went uncounted. So who can say who won the popular
vote. Nor does the popular vote matter. If it did Clinton would have lost
both times.....
Scout
> | On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:19:38 -0600, "the slave" <kei...@yahoo.com>
> | wrote:
> |
> |
> | >apparently, law under the US Supreme Court doesn't allow elections to
be
> decided
lawlessness.
> |
> | Awww, poor GoreWhore. Mad cuz your boy wasn't allowed to CREATE
> | enough votes to win Florida???
> |
> | So bad, so sad. Why don't you hold your breath until a democRAT is
> | elected President?
> |
> | Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!
> |
> | There, I knew you could.
>
probably
> hate me more than you spiteful Republicans. fact is we probably DID play a
hand
> in Bush getting the vote. but Bushites who think they have a mandate for
their
> assholish and boorish policies had better think twice:
>
> 1)Gore definitely won the popular vote.
Unproven. More votes were not counted than the difference in the popular
vote. Absentee ballots in those states were the results were not in
contention were not counted, they were simply thrown away, since they could
not alter the state wide result. Thus to claim that Gore won the popular
vote is unsupportable by any proof whatsoever. If EVERY vote were counted
who can say which person won the popular vote? However, they weren't and the
number not counted exceeds the difference.
> 2)If you stacked together the votes for Democrats and Greens then Gore
would
> have won by a mile. The nation has definitely spoken as a majority and the
> majority says we are liberal.
Fine then Clinton shouldn't have served 2 terms.
> 3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is
questionable
> doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
> normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the
white
> house.
On the contrary, statistically it would take a major breaking of the odds
for Bush to lose the popular vote. Only by selectively recounting can Gore
supporters possibly hope to generate more votes for Gore than they do for
Bush. Thus why they are counting ONLY in heavily Democratic areas with
overwhelming support for Gore. Statistically they are more likely to pick up
Gore votes. However, given the statistical sample of the existing state wide
count, the confidence factor of the results are well off the end of the
charter so much so you are more likely to win the state lottery than see a
Gore win in the popular vote.
> 4)The nation is moving away from the rhetoric of the right...DESPITE their
> ownership of the mass media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Cato
> Institute and Heritage Foundation.
You mean all that media that supported Clinton is controlled by the right
wing?
I think you better check again, because overall the media shows a bias in
favor of the left wing.
> 5)The Democrats will win the white house next election and the Republicans
will
> not regain it again for a very long time.
Care to make a bet?
Many soft Democrats have expressed their disapproval of Gore's and the
Democratic parties handling of the Florida issue. I suspect the Democrats
have lost a lot of support from the more moderate elements.
Steve Hix
(Roger Fulton) wrote:
> In article <3a87e18a...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, nasc...@yahoo.com
> (NASCAR) wrote:
> }Why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
> }to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
> }counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22350-2001Feb3.html
>
> Did Gore err in not asking for a statewide recount?
No, his team did the best job that they could, tactically.
They are on record as carefully choosing which counties they
wanted to recount; they were certain that a full state count
would leave them firmly in deficit territory.
the slave
news:545j6.4163$Ia7.2...@nntp1.onemain.com...
| Aptly named: "the slave" <kei...@yahoo.com> blurped:
|
| > face it. Bush isn't a president. he's a court-appointed Dictator.
|
| >>>>
|
| If that's actually the case, you better start shitting in your pants,
| bucky, because there'll be a knock on your door at about 2:00
| AM....
|
| ====================================
well, it IS the case. he is a court-appointed dictator. however, i am not overly
concerned. having grown up in E. Texas and having been a Texan all my life, i am
quite familiar in dealing with the overall fascist mentality of my fellow
citizens. they follow politics like football: they hoooorahh for the local team
(Bush) because he's from Texas without giving a thought in the world to what his
actual policies are or what their impacts.
Texans are funny creature. you can kick them in the face and they'll come back
to you later and lick your hand. they're a lot like dogs in this respect. no
matter how many times you kick them, they just come back for more. having lived
here my whole life...i'll never understand that.
not that it's wholly unexpected. every major city in Texas now has only one,
single daily newspaper. all of them belong to large media conglomerates. the
same is true of mass media television and radio. the largest radio conglomerate
in the nation is based out of San Antonio, Clear Channel Communications. Clear
Channel just merged with AMFM, another huge conglomerate.
the level of media indoctrination and control is at an all time high in this
nation, but particularly in Texas. something like 70% of Texas voters went for
Bush. now either Bush has some amazingly good policies...or there is an amazing
control of the public's perceptions. anyone who has looked at Bush's policies
though would have serious doubts about them....across the board. the level of
thought control is immense considering that the standard of living and
prosperity and income distribution in Texas are some of the worst in the US.
that Bush might win by a majority in Texas isn't suprising. but that he would
get SEVENTY percent is highly unusual. that's not the sort of rate of support
one usually sees from any presidential candidate's home state.
consider Austin as an example. it's widely known as the most liberal city in the
state. yet it has one daily newspaper, the Austin American Statesman, whose
editor Rich Opel is completely out of touch with the average citizen. it's
something of a joke in Austin. most people call it the ReaEStatesman. it almost
entirely editorializes in the favor of corporate interests and such, but yet the
City Council in Austin has been stacked with environmental friendly council
memebers for over a decade. there is a severe mismatch between the editorial
policies of the Statesman and the people in the streets. they continually remain
critical of development policies that negatively impact the aquifers and
environment as a whole. but the Statesman continually refuses to listen to the
people and runs editorials that favor interests like Freeport MacMoran, Stratus
Properties and the LongHorn Pipeline Partners (ExxonMobile and other big oil
companies). this is because the Statesman reflects the interests of the elites
and wealthy that own it. (i think it is owned by KnightRidder but have
forgotten).
consider the radio media. Clear Channel Communications owns something like SIX
stations in Austin alone!
KASE-FM - 100.7
Format: Country
Metro: Austin, TX
KFMK-FM - 105.9
Format: Jammin Oldies
Metro: Austin, TX
KHFI-FM - 96.7
Format: CHR
Metro: Austin, TX
KPEZ-FM - 102.3
Format: Classic Rock
Metro: Austin, TX
KVET-AM - 1300
Format: Sports
Metro: Austin, TX
KVET-FM - 98.1
Format: Country
Metro: Austin, TX
to see how many stations Clear Channel Communications owns in YOUR area, just
use their handy lookup tool at http://www.clearchannel.com/radio/back.html.
despite this obvious media consolidation under massive corporate media
conglomerates, radio talk show hosts across the state continue to get on their
little soapbozes and bitch and moan about the "Liberal Media". but when the
media is overwhelming owned and controlled by a handfull of such conglomerates
as CCC, how could anyone make such ludicrous claims about a "liberal media"
seems to beyond common sense to me. beyond this, these very same talk show hosts
who work for the media *must* be aware of the media consolidation...after all,
they work for these companies. so why do they continue to make such outlandish
claims? well, because those who have contrary views aren't hired. it's that
simple. those who are willing to tow the line and repeat the message are the
ones who get the jobs. executives at these media conglomerates don't hire folks
who criticize their ownership. that's not even conspiracy theory. that's just
the way things work. for these guys, it's just a case of business-as-ususal.
the message of the media reflects the interests of elites. these interests
include the interests of the advertisers who support the media. so the media
avoids confrontations or issues that deal with large corporate interests. for
instance, on November 30th 1999, they day of the Seattle protest against the
WTO, FOX channel 7 didn't cover the story at all. Consider that some 50,000
protesters on American streets were being attacked with rubber bullets, tear gas
and pepper-spray, but the leading story on Fox News at 5 was a story about a
young girl that got lost for a few hours on the local bus system. i think that
pretty much tells the story about media in Austin and state-wide. we had a local
solidarity protest here in Austin of about 500 people and they didn't cover that
either.
but let's look at that Bastion of Liberalism called PBS. the claim is that they
are so liberal they should lose funding. but nothing could be further from the
truth. first, the level of corporate-funding for programming is astronomical.
shows like Masterpiece Theatre are now called ExxonMobile Masterpiece Theatre.
most shows are syndicated and purchased, not locally produced, meaning the costs
are exorbitant and local PBS affiliates must seek corporate funding. now, take a
look at the acutal programming. most PBS affiliates carry programming like Wall
Street Week in Review, the McLauglin Group, To The Contrary, Firing Line w/
Buckley, Nightly Business Report and News Hour with Jim Lehrer. none of these
shows is controversial in the least. and most are pro-corporate. certainly none
are liberal. so where are the liberal shows on PBS? the only one that i can
think of is the Front Line series. but it is geared towards investigative issues
and doesn't necessarily carry a liberal agenda with it at all. so where are the
liberal shows? can someone name a liberal show on PBS? would someone PLEASE,
PLEASE, PLEASE name a liberal show on PBS?
the fact is, that none of you will because none of you can. there are no weekly
shows on PBS dedicated to worker issues/organizing, to environmental pollutions
issues, or other such things. there are no shows about Socialism or Anarchism,
but they DO carry Small Business 2000. there are now shows dedicated to
alternative energy or technologies, but there IS the Computer Chronicles. anyone
who is even half-way honest with themselves will admit that these things are the
FACTS. anyone who has access to a TV Guide can look for shows about radical
environmentalism, anarchism, socialism, radical feminism, or radical anything
elseism.
add to this the fact that PBS now does commercials. the always blurry line
between corporate underwriting annoucements and full-blown commercials has
pretty much been wiped away. PBS is now commerical televeision. there's just no
way around it to anyone who watches it. they now do full-length commercials for
companies between shows. this is no different than the BBC method of allowing
advertisements.
to come back full circle to the issue of Texas and Bush. as i've said, being
fully aware of the media and how it works to control how we perceive reality and
politics, it is not suprising to me at all that Bush got 70% of the vote. if you
are honest and consider the amount of media control, how could Bush have NOT
gotten overwhelming support?
unlike other liberals, i never thought Gore stood even a chance. i always
thought Bush would win. he had the money and he had the media. the fact that the
election was so close (and in fact, Bush may have really lost Florida if a full
vote recount were ever done) was a very big suprise to me. i suspect that more
and more people are becoming disenchanted with the media as a whole and are
starting to think for themselves.
nonetheless, i predict the media to continue consolidation under the new FCC
chairmanship of Michael Powell. the limits of debate and participation will
contine to dwindle. the Conservative agenda of weaking worker rights, the
environment and increased militarization will only intensify national and global
issues. policies that reflect the conservative and corporate consensus will only
deepen the problems of our nation and exacerbate growing global problems. i
suspect more protests in the streets. i suspect more young people going to
jails. i suspect deeping divides between the haves and have-nots that
conservatives refuse to address. things will only get worse before they get
better.
on the other side of the coin, global NGOs who exist outside of the nation-state
identity will continue to grow on a global level. the new global
internationalism at a grassroots level will slowly rise to ascendency to counter
the control of nation states by elites and corporations. a recent illustration
is the Dakar Summit in Africa on IMF/WB debt in the Third World (or Global South
if you prefer). the Dakar gathering of activists on a global scale came to a
radical consensus that they must work within their own nations to all
simultaneously refuse to make their debt payments. they will work on the issue
locally for about 2 years, come back to another Dakar summit, then agree on a
timeframe to refuse to pay the debts.
the ascendancy of global NGOs, citizens groups, community activists and the such
will continue to be a growing trend. this is because we as citizens on a global
level must organize.
--
. [|=-=slave=-=|]
. Free Radio Austin 97.1 http://pirateradio.org/fra
.
. Fortune 500 Protest http://o13.org
. Austin Independent Media Center: http://austin.indymedia.org
Scout
"Roger Fulton" <ro...@vdsco.com> wrote in message
news:96k6df$ifb$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> }Thank goodness for the electoral college.
>
> Amen, brother.
>
> Let's all be thankful for the system that values acres of dirt
> over human beings.
If that were the case, RI wouldn't have 3 electoral votes.
Scout
> In article <3a87e18a...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, nasc...@yahoo.com
(NASCAR) wrote:
> }Why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
> }to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
> }counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22350-2001Feb3.html
>
> Did Gore err in not asking for a statewide recount?
>
> independent analysts for his decision to seek recounts in only
> four counties that were heavily Democratic. His critics charged
> that he was trying to win the presidency with selective recounts.
>
> In practical terms, he had no alternative. There was no simple
> mechanism to trigger a statewide recount. State law required
> requests in 67 counties, with county canvassing boards given the
> power to determine whether to grant or reject a recount.
> Politically, Gore's team believed that such a move, which would
> have come within 72 hours after the election, would have been a
> public relations disaster, interpreted by opponents and even
> neutral observers as an effort to prolong the election
> unnecessarily. In fact, Gore proposed a statewide recount in his
> Nov. 15 television appearance, calling on Bush to join him in a
> request to state officials to order one.
>
> "The only mechanism was for both candidates to ask for a
> statewide recount," said Ron Klain, who led Gore's legal team in
> Florida. "Neither could do it alone. You had to go to 67
> counties. We would have been turned down in a lot of them."
1) Statistical sample size would indicate the Gore would lose anyway, and
that thus the cost not justifiable to the taxpayers
2) Gore did not ask for revote in contested counties were a recount may have
produced some statistical evidence to suggest the need for a statewide
recount
3) Gore did ask for recounts in those areas which he had already won with
overwhelming support, clearly showing he was fishing for votes, not seeking
to find out the true results.
My conclusion, Gore attempted to steal the election, and was unable to do
so. The right man won the electoral college votes, and thus the election.
Christopher Morton
>In article <3a87e18a...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, nasc...@yahoo.com (NASCAR) wrote:
>}Why does anyone think it's fair to have allowed the Democratic Party
>}to hand pick what precints they want to recount. Bush won after three
>}counts of the votes. How many times do you want to count?
>
>http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22350-2001Feb3.html
>
>Did Gore err in not asking for a statewide recount?
Of COURSE he did. But to ask for a vote in which Bush MIGHT have won,
just wasn't in Gore's nature.
He preferred to waste precious time on a scheme to cherrypick JUST
enough votes to win, which Republicans would never have sat still for.
Certainly were the roles reversed, Democrats wouldn't have.
Had Gore just been willing to play it straight, he might be president
now. But then playing straight just isn't in Gore's nature, and
that's why it's a good thing he ISN'T president.
Gore shot himself in the foot with a Vickers gun. And never was such
a massive self-inflicted wound so well deserved.
Scout
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B6B367219...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <m_hj6.17294$Sl.7...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,> No. There was a coup before the votes were counted.
No the votes were counted, recounted, sample counted and hand counted. How
many counts do you want?
The results show Bush won, this count does NOTHING to alter that.
the slave
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
news:JEij6.17302$Sl.7...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
well, you must be as mathematically-challenged as the rest of your conservative
wing-nuts. apparently no matter how many times we point out the basic math here,
you continue to refuse to address the issues.
the article CLEARLY points out that in the SINGLE COUNTY OF ORANGE ALONE, Gore
would have picked up an extra 203 votes total, meaning he would have eaten into
Bush's lead by a third.
ya know, is there something you don't understand about this? or are you just
stupid? i don't even like Gore. this is the guy who claimed to be an
environmentalist but owns millions of dollars of stock in Occidental Petroleum,
who are drilling for oil on indegenous lands in Columbia. the guys talks a sweet
game to environmentalists but is a fucking liar. i despise the Democratic
demagouges. that's why i voted Green not only this election, but the last one.
but Scout, i know how to fucking do math. i can understand what this article is
saying. and i can be honest about the numbers. apparently, Republicans are just
looking to justify and rationalize away this wound to Democrcy with a few quips.
but you can quip away and ignore the real issues all you want...that doesn't
mean they fly away and disappear. you can ignore cancer Scout, but it will just
eat away at you and kill you.
the fact is that a full recount should have been done. one should have been
ordered by the Supreme Court along with non-partisan monitors to watch over the
whole thing. the Supreme Court should have been more concerned with making
Democracy work correctly than following their petty agenda. the fact is that the
Supreme Court split on it's vote with at least one Republican Justice writing
that the decision was and undermining of the authority and legitimacy of the
court.
that lone Republican Justice dissenting with dire warnings pretty much tells the
story here.
votes don't count or get counted. it's who you know on the Supreme Court that
counts. all in all, a sad decision. had i been on the Supreme Court i would have
said just recount the votes, every last damn one, tried to get both parties to
agree on some ground rules about how the voting is done, sent in some vote
monitors from non-partisan sources, then lived by the final decision...no matter
who got it.
look, i lived with that asshole Reagan and "trickle-down economics" for 8 years.
i think i can handle an idiot like Bush for 4. it's really not that big of a
deal. and if i were really all that concerned, i wouldn't have voted Green. in
fact, i'm kind of happy in a way because it forces the Democrats to listen to
their traditional base on the left. so, i think the Left will stand to gain in
the long-run when they start listening to us again. that's kind of empowering
when you look down the road as a real liberal and not a mealy-mouth like Gore. i
really never saw the difference between Clinton/Gore and Bush anyway. i know
that you conservative Republicans think you see some differences. but that's
because most of you are just blank-eyed, media-fed, hyperbolic Republicrats. all
you have to do to figure out where both parties stand is to follow the flow of
corporate contributions to the slush funds of the DNC and the RNC to see where
they stand. politics isn't a complicated mess really when you get down to it.
it's always been the same since time began. the rich try to figure out how to
fuck the poor. that's Politics in a Nutshell. i'm just waiting for the first
O'Reilly book on it.
The-Trainers
> In article <m_hj6.17294$Sl.7...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but Bush won by more that 203 votes.
>
> No. There was a coup before the votes were counted.
Well, yes, the SCOFLAW TRIED to help Gore steal it by not only violating
the Constitution and the laws of Florida, but even over-ruling it's
own DEMOCRAT lower courts decisions.
The Daley coup for Gore was a failure this time, unlike his father
Mayor Daley, who did manage to steal the 1960 election for Kennedy.
I guess the son was just not as good as the father at spear-heading
a coup.
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
Scout
Which means according to the votes counted.....GORE LOST.
Hypothetical votes don't count.
Gore Lost, your article simply continues to confirm that fact.
Paul Mitchum
> > Er, YES, there have been FOUR FULL RE-COUNTS
>
> Nope. At no stage were all the votes counted. They still haven't been.
> Instead, there was a coup which stopped the votes being counted.
Do you know what the word 'coup' really means?
Paul Mitchum
> TiredofSpam wrote:
> >
> > David Voth wrote:
[..]
> > Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes is
> > a single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and
> > conservative Republican are two words not easily found together, are
> > they?
>
> Putting something (DID) in caps doesn't make it true.
A ruling by the US Supreme Court doesn't make it UNtrue.
Paul Mitchum
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex
> <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
>
> <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
>
> The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
Then Bush is illegitimate.
Robert Frenchu
>David Voth <davi...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex
>> <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
>>
>> <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
>>
>> The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
>
>Then Bush is illegitimate.
That may be, but when you count valid votes, he won the Presidency.
P.S. I'm pretty sure his mom and dad were married when he was born,
though.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
the slave
because most states have relatively weaker laws on election funding,
contribution limits and such. most media is also owned by wealthy elites and the
information and perspectives on that media reflect their interests. Texas for
instance has spending caps on personal or corporate contributions and little in
the way of disclosure laws. the Texas State Legislature only pays folks about
$7,000 a year as well, meaning that you already have to have be wealthy to take
the job. or you have to have an employer willing to let you take off half the
year to do what you do...which isn't very likely....or you have to live with a
friend. Rep Barrientos for instance is one of those people who actually lives in
a friend's house in order to afford to work on the Texas State Lege. and if you
think that $7000 is laughable, then remember that it was only about $700 a
session 10 years ago. but most Texans aren't aware of this at all. don't believe
me? just do a survey of 100 people in Texas if you live here. sit at a table and
offer snickers bars for people to answer one question:
How much do you think your local Texas Legislative representatives make per
year?
1)$700
2)$7000
2)$70,000
4)$700,000
be sure and tell the newsgroup what the results were. i think we already know.
| >3)Bush may not have even won the popular vote in Florida. there is
questionable
| >doubt. rather than recount the votes and allow Florida to do so as states
| >normally do, the Supreme Court intervened and made sure their boy got the
white
| >house.
|
| Gee, maybe Algoron can SUE!
typical Republican banter. pretty much exemplifies where the party stands as a
whole these days.
| >
| >4)The nation is moving away from the rhetoric of the right...DESPITE their
| >ownership of the mass media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Cato
| >Institute and Heritage Foundation.
|
| "Vast right wing conspiracy", huh? LOL
conspiracy? not at all. this is what's called an institutional analysis. a
conspiratorial theory would make outlandish claims, but not provide critical
evidence. an institutional analysis intends to identify institutions and how
they function from a sociological perspective. the fact is that media
conglomerates are massive. about 90% of media is now conglomerated in the hands
of about 6 media corporations. we would expect that these media conglomerates
would act in their own self-interests. after all, they ARE businesses whose goal
is to make money, not do social good. in fact, an institutional analysis of the
policies they pursue and and their political contributions reveals that they do
operate in their own self-interests. for instance, the NAB (National Association
of Broadcasters) fought the new LPFM licensing scheme created by the FCC and
went over the head of this regulatory body and bought-off Congress to kill LPFM.
that's part of their protecting their self-interests. would you expect them to
do anything less? would you expect them NOT to be worried about their profits or
bottom-lines? the disturbing thing though is that they wield such economic power
that they can essentially override the FCC, which a body that is supposed to be
regualting them. does this sound like a Democracy to you? come one, man, get
serious here. these issues are important. we're talking about whether we want a
Democracy where we all have equal voice or we want a Plutocracy where the only
voice that counts is the one with big-money backing.
far from being a conspiracy theory, this is a rather mundane analysis of the
"you get yours, and i'll get mine" type. there's nothing overly complicated
about this.
| >
| >5)The Democrats will win the white house next election and the Republicans
will
| >not regain it again for a very long time.
|
| Well, unless Algoron's suit to "regain" the lost White House is
| successful, we won't be infected by a democRAT there for at least 8
| years.
i have always thought that Bush would win, but i thought he would win by a large
margin...not this complicated mess. regardless, i've always held that he would
have a very unhappy time in office and that the political climate is changing
towards a more liberal one. in fact, i forsee radical political change soon as
fundamental pressures over the environment, human rights, corporate power,
globalization and Democracy continue to gather and strengthen. the problem with
the conservative view is that is akin to the ostritch (sp?) burying it's head in
the sand. ignoring problems or denying them doesn't make them go away no matter
how hard you try. living a life of denyal over income disparities,
deforestation, species extinction, global warming, economic sustainability,
human rights and a host of other issues doesn't make them go away. it only makes
those problems grow and intensify. culture reacts to sustain and keep itself
viable. it reacts though the political and cultural process. sometimes it
explodes violently. though it all culture will attempt to ensure it's survival
or it dies. so the issues that the elites would like to postpone are just not
going to go away. oddly enough, for a group willing to dismiss liberals as a
bunch of Utopians, it appears that it is the conservatives who are attempting to
build castles of sand.
the real question is whether we seek to address issues in an evolutionary way
with cooperation, or do we choose route based on revolutionary tactics and
competition?
| >
| >Neal, I am quite happy in some ways that Bush won. the fact that Democrats
would
| >have won, had they listened to their traditional left that was defecting to
the
| >Greens, they might have won the campaign. the Democrats may come back and win
| >next election. if they do so, they will have to do something pivotal in terms
of
| >moving leftward or I will still vote Green.
|
| You mean "watermelon" don't you??? You know, "green on the outside,
| RED on the inside".
|
| And since most greenies were voting for the personality cult of Nader
| they are unlikely to vote for a "real" green.
are you trying to red-bait here? in fact, i am willing to discuss socialism as a
viable economic system for some peoples at some times. i am not a communist by
any means. i do not accept the ideal of a "revolutionary vanguard" or
totalitarian socialism. i believe there may be a place for some democratic
socialism in highly industrialized areas. i DO NOT offer it or any other theory
as a comprehensive answer to everything or for everyone. for instance,
democratic socialism is so steeped in industrailization that it has little to
say about traditional, indigenous cultures.
likewise, there is much that democratic socialism and democratic capitalism have
in COMMON that are not so great. either can tend towards hierarchy and
centralization, no matter what rhetoric their proponents spout. both believe in
the idea of "progress" from primitive to modern industrialization, often despite
what indegenous cultures might think about it. both tend to overlook
environmental issues in the all out push for growth and economic expansion.
neither theories offer much analysis of issues from a cultural, ecological or
feminist perspective.
all in all, i would be something closer to an anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian
socialist. on the other hand, i believe that local and autonmous regions should
have the flexibility to decide the best ways to adapt culturally for themselves.
i don't offer comprehensive one-size-fits-all theories. finally, in the end, i
choose to bow to no one and remain forever an "individualist anarchist".
| >
| >your banal rant that didn't even address any of the issues in my previous
post
| >show to what depths of intellect the Republican party has sunk. basically,
it's
| >a party full of assholes who can't work with more than one idea at a time.
their
| >idea of multitasking is to walk and chew gum at the same time.
|
| Yeah, and Bush is a moron. Of course his
| TAX CUT
| EDUCATION REFORM
| SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
| BALANCED BUDGET
| are all going to pass. Before it's over the "democrats" on Capital
| Hill will probably propose a BIGGER TAX CUT than Bush.
i haven't speculated on these yet. i suspect they stand a good chance
considering that there are no major philosphical differences between the
parties, despite dunder-dolts like yourself who really think there are.
| >
| >btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen
a
| >real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is.
|
| Yeah, Stalin has been dead a long time.
what in the fuck has Stalin got to do with anything? do you label anyone who
doesn't agree with laize-faire, unbridaled capitalist markets, or who simply
disagrees with you on anything as a "Stalinist"? man, you are like living way in
the past with that red-baiting malarkey.
| you
| >listen to losers like Limbaugh call people liberals and you think you know
what
| >one is. Limbaugh calls anyone left of a John Bircher a liberal. but believe
me,
| >if Gore REALLY was a liberal and represented the party then they wouldn't
have
| >so many people defecting to the Green Party.
|
| Yeah almost TWO PERCENT of the votes cast. What a landslide.
|
| >s in most things within the sphere
| >of politics, Republicans still don't have a fucking clue as to what they are
| >talking about or what is going on in the world around them. their candidate
Bush
| >pretty much exemplifies that.
| >
| >finally, GW isn't a Texan. i want to clarify that for all you little sissy
| >carpet-baggers and transplants out there. real Texas men don't join Yale
| >yachting clubs. and anyone who claims different...well, you're just proving
| >you're not a Texan.
|
| HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
|
| POOR GOREWHORE!
|
| Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!
|
| There, I knew you could.
come on, Neal, say it: "Real Texas men don't join Yale yachting clubs". either
say it or we will know you are not a Texan.
--
. [|=-=slave=-=|]
. Free Radio Austin 97.1 http://pirateradio.org/fra
.
. Fortune 500 Protest http://o13.org
. Austin Independent Media Center: http://austin.indymedia.org
.
Scout
"Paul Mitchum" <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1eoxhd6.7sajyn1pzkn47N%mil...@usa.net...
> David Voth <davi...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:09:52 -0600, alternatex
> > <alter...@austintx.net> was kind enough to write:
> >
> > <same thing alternatex has posted numerous times snipped>
> >
> > The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
>
> Then Bush is illegitimate.
On the contrary, Bush won every count conducted. Gore is the one that
attempted to claim victory by "extrapolation".
Scout
> Mark Edwards <mark.e...@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> > TiredofSpam wrote:
> > >
> > > David Voth wrote:
> [..]
> > > Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes
is
> > > a single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and
> > > conservative Republican are two words not easily found together, are
> > > they?
> >
> > Putting something (DID) in caps doesn't make it true.
>
> A ruling by the US Supreme Court doesn't make it UNtrue.
No but the results of the canvassing boards certainly do......
Oh, but then the actual returns don't matter to you, do they?
or are you attempting to extrapolate a victory based on a biased sample?
alternatex
Orlando Sentinel Sunday, February 11, 2001
ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if Orange County had
conducted a hand recount of all of its ballots that machines could not
read after the Nov. 7 election.
Results of a new hand count released Friday by Orange County election
officials, and an Orlando Sentinel examination of rejected ballots,
found clear presidential votes on 799 ballots for which counting
machines had detected no vote or votes for multiple candidates.
The findings show that – had Orange County's canvassing board examined
all its ballots – George W. Bush would have gained 298 votes and Gore
would have picked up 501. That would have given Gore a net gain of 203
votes – equivalent to more than a third of Bush's 537-vote winning
margin in Florida.
The results underscore the blow dealt to Gore's campaign by the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that halted a statewide count of all ballots on
which machines detected no votes. Orange County's canvassing board had
examined about 15 percent of those ballots before the ruling.
Orange County voters mark paper ballots with special pens. Ballots are
fed into counting machines at each precinct, which immediately reject
ballots with errors and give voters a chance to correct them. Because of
that system, which Gov. Jeb Bush wants all counties to use by the 2002
elections, Orange County had one of the lowest rates of rejected ballots
in the state.
The most common reason for rejection, the Sentinel's examination found,
was because voters apparently used pens other than those provided in the
voting booth.
A Sentinel review of about 10 percent of the uncounted ballots,
focusing on 16 small counties that use mostly paper ballots, suggests
that hand recounts would have helped Gore far more than Bush, even
though most of the counties are predominantly Republican. With the
findings in Orange County, Sentinel research indicates hand counts in
those 16 counties might have given Gore a net gain of 569 votes – 32
votes more than Bush's certified margin of victory statewide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54542-2001Feb10.html
alternatex
the entire article
Scout wrote:
>
> "Neal Atkins" <nat...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3a8ca366...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:19 -0600, alternatex
> > <alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
> >
> > >ORLANDO - Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
> >
> > the democRATS had been allowed to MANUFACTURE VOTES!
> >
> > Poor GoreWhore.
> >
> > Now, say RESIDENT BUSH!
> >
> > There, I knew you could.
>
> Sorry, but Bush won by more that 203 votes. Thus he has not been shown to be
> the loser, even if that mattered at this point in time.
>
> Resident Bush....
pyotr filipivich
<trai...@best.com> was inspired to write:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 66...@hack.powernet wrote:
>
>> In article <m_hj6.17294$Sl.7...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>> "Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry, but Bush won by more that 203 votes.
>>
>> No. There was a coup before the votes were counted.
>
>Well, yes, the SCOFLAW TRIED to help Gore steal it by not only violating
>the Constitution and the laws of Florida, but even over-ruling it's
>own DEMOCRAT lower courts decisions.
>
>The Daley coup for Gore was a failure this time, unlike his father
>Mayor Daley, who did manage to steal the 1960 election for Kennedy.
Ah, but you missed the important detail. In 1960, the Democrats were
competent enough to steal the election _before_ the counts were released. In
2000, they couldn't get their act together enough to repeat the trick, and thus
were forced to scramble in a vain attempt to retroactively find enough votes
for Gore - and they just never could seem to pull it off.
(And in 1960, the Democrat was not the incumbent, either.)
>I guess the son was just not as good as the father at spear-heading
>a coup.
>
>Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
>Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
>NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
>ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
pyotr filipivich
"In this day and age, what used to go without saying because it was
obvious must be said, because so many wish to remain oblivious."
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>>
>> The law does not allow for elections to be decided by extrapolation.
>
>Then Bush is illegitimate.
No, His mother and father were married. How about yours? Or do you
know your parents?
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>friend. Rep Barrientos for instance is one of those people who actually lives in
>a friend's house in order to afford to work on the Texas State Lege. and if
Are you simple or just stooopid? Barrientos is the Senator from
AUSTIN. He LIVES here. He's an ATTORNEY. He works for himself and
probably makes plenty money. He's been a Senator for about TWENTY
YEARS. AND his "retirement" package will rival those of U.S.
Congressmen.
Now he may have shacked up with someone, I don't know. But your
"information" proves you to be one of the above.
>| "Vast right wing conspiracy", huh? LOL
>
>conspiracy? not at all. this is what's called an institutional analysis. a
DELETED various catch phrases I guess you found in a book somewhere.
>how hard you try. living a life of denyal over income disparities,
>deforestation, species extinction, global warming, economic sustainability,
>human rights and a host of other issues doesn't make them go away. it only
guess your parents couldn't afford the phonics spelling program.
DE'NILE is a river in Egypt. I don't know what "denyal" is. And the
junk science bullshit you spout doesn't interest me.
>
>the real question is whether we seek to address issues in an evolutionary way
>with cooperation, or do we choose route based on revolutionary tactics and
>competition?
Well, since you anti-gunners won't be able to attack with anything
bigger than your DICKS in your hand, I doubt if your "revolution" is
going to get very far. Tell me, did you get any ASS when you went to
the "rally" in Austin? If you did I hope you had steel belted
rubbers. There were some REALLY, REALLY good examples of human trash
at that event.
>| You mean "watermelon" don't you??? You know, "green on the outside,
>| RED on the inside".
>|
>| And since most greenies were voting for the personality cult of Nader
>| they are unlikely to vote for a "real" green.
>
>are you trying to red-bait here? in fact, i am willing to discuss socialism as a
>viable economic system for some peoples at some times. i am not a communist by
>any means. i do not accept the ideal of a "revolutionary vanguard" or
>totalitarian socialism.
YADA, YADA, YADA. Spouting "revolutionary" BS doesn't mean you
UNDERSTAND any of it. You obviously don't. Since the green wienie
party is going to fold, why don't you emigrate to Europe? They
actually have enough votes to fuck it up big time. I'll contribute to
a bus ticket for you.
>| >btw., i despise Gore for not being a liberal. you conservatives haven't seen
>a
>| >real fucking liberal in so long you've forgotten what in the hell one is.
>|
>| Yeah, Stalin has been dead a long time.
>
>what in the fuck has Stalin got to do with anything? do you label anyone who
>doesn't agree with laize-faire, unbridaled capitalist markets, or who simply
>disagrees with you on anything as a "Stalinist"? man, you are like living way in
>the past with that red-baiting malarkey.
What's the matter? Don't like it when someone calls your hand? Had to
sell your little RED book to pay for gas? "Power flows from the
barrel of a gun". Or don't you recall that little beauty?
>| POOR GOREWHORE!
>|
>| Now say PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!
>|
>| There, I knew you could.
>
>come on, Neal, say it: "Real Texas men don't join Yale yachting clubs". either
>say it or we will know you are not a Texan.
Why? Are you a HARVARD grad?
>. [|=-=slave=-=|]
>. Free Radio Austin 97.1 http://pirateradio.org/fra
FCC sent you any love notes lately?
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>Perhaps you should reread all of the article.
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
he could have gotten monkeys to fly out of his butt on national TV.
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>Instead of reading just the first sentence, perhaps you should reread
>the entire article
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
he got Tipper to give him a blow job on national TV, with "Me So
Horney " playing in the background.
Paul Mitchum
No, Gore attempted to claim victory by counting the actual votes. Bush
'won' because an incorrect vote was assumed to be correct after the USSC
made their final ruling, simply because it was the total on hand.
Paul Mitchum
> It was on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:13:26 -0800 that The-Trainers
> <trai...@best.com> was inspired to write:
[..]
> >Well, yes, the SCOFLAW TRIED to help Gore steal it by not only violating
> >the Constitution and the laws of Florida, but even over-ruling it's own
> >DEMOCRAT lower courts decisions.
> >
> >The Daley coup for Gore was a failure this time, unlike his father Mayor
> >Daley, who did manage to steal the 1960 election for Kennedy.
>
> Ah, but you missed the important detail. In 1960, the Democrats
> were competent enough to steal the election _before_ the counts were
> released. In 2000, they couldn't get their act together enough to repeat
> the trick, and thus were forced to scramble in a vain attempt to
> retroactively find enough votes for Gore - and they just never could seem
> to pull it off. (And in 1960, the Democrat was not the incumbent, either.)
Hmm. It looks to me like you're admonishing the Democrats for not
cheating. How pro-democracy of you.
alternatex
Neal Atkins wrote:
>
>
> >ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
>
> he could have gotten monkeys to fly out of his butt on national TV.
You apparently misread the article. It actually reads as follow:
The Truth Hurts
alternatex
That is not what is indicated in the article below.
wavoka
TiredofSpam wrote in message <3A8CC0FE...@world.com>...
>
>
>Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>
>> "TiredofSpam" <Ave...@world.com> wrote:
>> > David Voth wrote:
>>
>> > > They're going to keep counting and counting and counting until they
>> > > have a result that shows that Gore would have received more votes.
>>
>> > Since Gore DID receive more votes in Florida than bush, all it takes is
a
>> > single, honest and complete vote count. but then, honesty and
conservative
>> > Republican are two words not easily found together, are they?
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> entrails for four l-o-n-g, t-e-d-i-o-u-s years. And then you
>> might have an inkling what it was like for honest people during
>> the past eight years of trailer trash time at the White House.
>>
>
>Yes, I understand that you elitist snobs really didn't like having a
popularly
>elected President who wasn't from one of your blue blood families in
office.
>Now, of course, the "Right" people are in Washington screwing stuff up like
bush
>screwed up education, health care and the Prison/Justice system in Texas.
>
>It really must be tedious to have the lesser classes get out of their
place.
>I'll bet you still worry that it might happen again.
>
>As you should.
>
We do not have "classes" if we did, however, I would place you in the least
of all.
-*MORT*-
Neal Atkins
<alter...@austintx.net> wrote:
>
>Neal Atkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> >ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
>>
>> he could have gotten monkeys to fly out of his butt on national TV.
>
>You apparently misread the article. It actually reads as follow:
>
>
>ORLANDO – Al Gore would have gained 203 extra votes if
He had french kissed Lieberman at the DemocRAT National Convention
instead of Tipper.
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>> On the contrary, Bush won every count conducted. Gore is the one that
>> attempted to claim victory by "extrapolation".
>
>No, Gore attempted to claim victory by counting the actual votes. Bush
>'won' because an incorrect vote was assumed to be correct after the USSC
>made their final ruling, simply because it was the total on hand.
Actually Gore "attempted" to CONCEDE because he knew he had lost.
Then the big money lawyers saw a way to squeeze more money out of the
DNC while "fighting" for Algoron.
But, if you watch TV, you'll see mention of PRESIDENT BUSH tonite and
this is a useless exercize.
I suggest you hold your breath until a democRAT is President again.