Bush Didn't WIN Florida
Barry Volkman
disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
Barry
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Justifi
He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
Barry
Since when is it bloodless? I've been digging my fingernails into my palms
since this thing started!
patty
LiseMcC
each? I think that's fair.
JEW
"Barry Volkman" <ggge...@bc.seflin.org> wrote in message
news:9064a2$c...@nntp.seflin.org...
> He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
> disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
>
> Barry
>
>
> Barry Volkman
> ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
>
Oh you poor Americans, and oh you poor world if Bush gets to be President ,
and by cheating too
BLIND 321
Oh you poor Americans, and oh you poor world if Bush gets to be President ,
and by cheating too >>
Well, we'll still be the strongest nation in the world. That's some
consolation.
KS
Bill Burgess
Barry Volkman wrote:
> He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
> disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
Psssst--Barry: Dec. 6, Henry Jacobs v. Seminole
County Supervisor of Elections. Keep your fingers crossed.
Bill Burgess
Bill Burgess wrote:
Uh...Harry. HARRY Jacobs.
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
>
> What if they just split the Florida electoral votes down the middle, 12 1/2
> each? I think that's fair.
LOL. NBC tonight did a piece on "fair" and how neither Gore nor Bush can
see the forest for the trees, or they're both right.
The theory is they are using different definitions of the word fair. NBC
said Gore was using the definition "impartial" and Bush was using the
definition "follows the established rules". I think it makes sense.
However the "established rules" are the laws, rules and regulations that
gave Bush the win.
And I will point out the silliness of a statement
"He didn't win he only got more votes" whatever came after is not
relevant to the this part under the established rules of "fair".
Carol
Mindelec
>Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000 2:04 PM
>Message-id: <20001130150404...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>
>What if they just split the Florida electoral votes down the middle, 12
>1/2
>each? I think that's fair.
why don't they just give florida to nader :-)
robert
(when the final vote comes in we'll find out he shoulda won ;-))
Bill Burgess
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson wrote:
> The theory is they are using different definitions of the word fair. NBC
> said Gore was using the definition "impartial" and Bush was using the
> definition "follows the established rules". I think it makes sense.
>
> However the "established rules" are the laws, rules and regulations that
> gave Bush the win.
>
> And I will point out the silliness of a statement
> "He didn't win he only got more votes" whatever came after is not
> relevant to the this part under the established rules of "fair".
"that were counted," I think it was. And it's
relevant as all get out, since Gore is challenging
the count. Which is, of course, his right under
the laws, rules, and regulations. But god forbid
those 11,000 Miami-Dade ballots should ever be
viewed by human eyes, huh? Because they might
wipe out your boy's lead, and that wouldn't
be "fair."
JaneHadd
>relevant as all get out, since Gore is challenging
>the count. Which is, of course, his right under
>the laws, rules, and regulations. But god forbid
>those 11,000 Miami-Dade ballots should ever be
>viewed by human eyes, huh? Because they might
>wipe out your boy's lead, and that wouldn't
>be "fair."
I think my question at this point is this: were there rules ALREADY IN
PLACE about dimpled chads BEFORE the election?
Because what seems to me to be happening at the moment is that Bush wants
to follow the rules that were already in place about the dimpled chads but to
change the ones that were already in place about the absentee ballots--
And Gore wants to follow the rules that were already in place about the
absentee ballots but change the ones that were already in place about the
dimpled chads.
Every time anybody asks about the rules pertaining to dimpled chads,
though, they're met with "the law says you have to count dimpled chads in
Texas," but this isn't happening in Texas.
And it bothers me that everything is so fluid--Broward county established
a rule that said it would count dimpled chads for president if at least some of
the other races also had dimpled chads, but not if ONLY the race for president
had a dimpled chad, and then it turned around and changed that rule several
days later.
To my mind, you play by the rules you started with. If you decide that
they result in unfairness, you change the rules the NEXT time you play.
Jane Haddam
Bill Burgess
JaneHadd wrote:
> I think my question at this point is this: were there rules ALREADY IN
> PLACE about dimpled chads BEFORE the election?
> Because what seems to me to be happening at the moment is that Bush wants
> to follow the rules that were already in place about the dimpled chads but to
> change the ones that were already in place about the absentee ballots--
> And Gore wants to follow the rules that were already in place about the
> absentee ballots but change the ones that were already in place about the
> dimpled chads.
> Every time anybody asks about the rules pertaining to dimpled chads,
> though, they're met with "the law says you have to count dimpled chads in
> Texas," but this isn't happening in Texas.
I'm not sure, but I don't think there were any rules
in place, it was left up to the individual county canvassers
doing the counts. Maybe because of the differences in
equipment from county to county and since there's never
been such a close call. Which doesn't help the confusion at all.
I hope that if the court rules in Gore's favor, it'll provide some
very specific guidelines for this dimpled chad business.
> And it bothers me that everything is so fluid--Broward county established
> a rule that said it would count dimpled chads for president if at least some of
> the other races also had dimpled chads, but not if ONLY the race for president
> had a dimpled chad, and then it turned around and changed that rule several
> days later.
I think that was wrong. But the Bush lawyers requested
a recount for Broward if the Miami-Dade recount is allowed, so
hopefully (with court-induced guidelines) it could be rectified.
> To my mind, you play by the rules you started with. If you decide that
> they result in unfairness, you change the rules the NEXT time you play.
Sure, I agree. So if the court provides specific dimpled-chad guidelines
where there were none before, would that be changing the rules?
ell...@webtv.net
though, they're met with "the law says you have to count dimpled chads
in Texas," but this isn't happening in Texas.>>
Though of course you're correct, and a state has to abide by its own
state laws, I think what a lot of people are trying to point out is that
in one instance, Bush agreed that manual counts were more accurate than
machine counts, while in the case that affects him personally, his team
is maintaining that machine counts are more accurate than human counts.
This appears to be hypocritical and self-serving.
Ellen
Bill Burgess
Bill Burgess wrote:
> Carol Schwaderer Dickinson wrote:
>
> > The theory is they are using different definitions of the word fair. NBC
> > said Gore was using the definition "impartial" and Bush was using the
> > definition "follows the established rules". I think it makes sense.
> >
> > However the "established rules" are the laws, rules and regulations that
> > gave Bush the win.
> >
> > And I will point out the silliness of a statement
> > "He didn't win he only got more votes" whatever came after is not
> > relevant to the this part under the established rules of "fair".
>
> "that were counted," I think it was. And it's
> relevant as all get out, since Gore is challenging
> the count. Which is, of course, his right under
> the laws, rules, and regulations. But god forbid
> those 11,000 Miami-Dade ballots should ever be
> viewed by human eyes, huh? Because they might
> wipe out your boy's lead, and that wouldn't
> be "fair."
Sorry, Carol, I got carried
away--I apologize for being snotty.
Rollin Baker
Now there's where you're wrong. According to the second definition
of "fair" above, and allowing for the venue we're discussing this in,
I believe "follows the established pattern for RAM political postings"
describes both those statements, above. :)
Couldn't resist, sorry.
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
>
> Bill Burgess wrote:
>
> > Carol Schwaderer Dickinson wrote:
> >
> > > The theory is they are using different definitions of the word fair. NBC
> > > said Gore was using the definition "impartial" and Bush was using the
> > > definition "follows the established rules". I think it makes sense.
> > >
> > > However the "established rules" are the laws, rules and regulations that
> > > gave Bush the win.
> > >
> > > And I will point out the silliness of a statement
> > > "He didn't win he only got more votes" whatever came after is not
> > > relevant to the this part under the established rules of "fair".
> >
> > "that were counted," I think it was. And it's
> > relevant as all get out, since Gore is challenging
> > the count. Which is, of course, his right under
> > the laws, rules, and regulations. But god forbid
> > those 11,000 Miami-Dade ballots should ever be
> > viewed by human eyes, huh? Because they might
> > wipe out your boy's lead, and that wouldn't
> > be "fair."
>
> away--I apologize for being snotty.
OK. :D But I'll say again ALL the votes were counted. The 10,000 Gore
is complaining about were counted as voting for nobody.
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
> they result in unfairness, you change the rules the NEXT time you play.
>
Thats how its supposed to work all right. Might be a good place to
mention that somebody asked me what my opinion was about Bush's position
on the military absentees without postmarks. I said I felt he was wrong
because without postmarks they don't get counted anywhere.
After I posted that I remembered that while that is true, I remember on
some occasions in other elections when I served on the board, the
supervisor had the authority to take into account special circumstances.
So I have to assume the same could be true in Florida and therefore a
court ruling might indeed be appropriate. Sorry I have to agree with
Bush on this on second thought.
Carol
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
>
> robert
>
> (when the final vote comes in we'll find out he shoulda won ;-))
I think this would be highly entertaining. However wouldn't that force
that darn Consitutional crisis issue?
Carol
JaneHadd
It's now official.
Cantwell unseated Gorton in Washington state.
That's an 18-year incumbent Republican conservative gone--
And Washington state with two democratic and female senators--
And a senate that's now officially 50-50.
Jane Haddam
Barry Volkman
Barry
Justifi (jus...@aol.com) wrote:
: Subject: Bush Didn't WIN Florida
: He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
: disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
: Barry
: Since when is it bloodless? I've been digging my fingernails into my palms
: since this thing started!
: patty
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
Same thing as if they throw out Florida altogether. Gore is short but
wins on majority left.
barry
LiseMcC (lis...@aol.com) wrote:
: What if they just split the Florida electoral votes down the middle, 12 1/2
: each? I think that's fair.
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
: <<
: Oh you poor Americans, and oh you poor world if Bush gets to be President ,
: and by cheating too >>
: KS
What does that mean, we can still beat up everyone?
Barry Volkman
: Barry Volkman wrote:
: > He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
: > disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
: Psssst--Barry: Dec. 6, Henry Jacobs v. Seminole
: County Supervisor of Elections. Keep your fingers crossed.
OK.
The courts have gone against individual voters so far.
Barry Volkman
: LiseMcC wrote:
: >
: > What if they just split the Florida electoral votes down the middle, 12 1/2
: > each? I think that's fair.
: LOL. NBC tonight did a piece on "fair" and how neither Gore nor Bush can
: see the forest for the trees, or they're both right.
: The theory is they are using different definitions of the word fair. NBC
: said Gore was using the definition "impartial" and Bush was using the
: definition "follows the established rules". I think it makes sense.
: However the "established rules" are the laws, rules and regulations that
: gave Bush the win.
: And I will point out the silliness of a statement
: "He didn't win he only got more votes" whatever came after is not
: relevant to the this part under the established rules of "fair".
: Carol
"....he only got more votes." "...that were counted" is irrelevant? If
you were disenfranchised for one reason or another let's see how cavalier
you would be.
Barry Volkman
Barry
Mindelec (mind...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: lis...@aol.com (LiseMcC)
: >Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000 2:04 PM
: >Message-id: <20001130150404...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
: >
: >What if they just split the Florida electoral votes down the middle, 12
: >1/2
: >each? I think that's fair.
: why don't they just give florida to nader :-)
: robert
: (when the final vote comes in we'll find out he shoulda won ;-))
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
officially replaced by someone. We have no constitutional crisis. We
are well provided for. It just means a delay in transition and that is
not a crisis, just an inconvenience. Unless, of course someone has a
nefarious agenda he has to get to...like getting his hands on the surplus.
barry
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson (dd...@alaska.net) wrote:
: > why don't they just give florida to nader :-)
: >
: > robert
: >
: > (when the final vote comes in we'll find out he shoulda won ;-))
: I think this would be highly entertaining. However wouldn't that force
: that darn Consitutional crisis issue?
: Carol
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Barry Volkman
in NY and Missouri, we're going to have some pretty powerful women in the
senate. Verrrry interesting.
barry
JaneHadd (jane...@aol.com) wrote:
: Oh--on the who's winning, conservatives or liberals, a note--
: It's now official.
: Jane Haddam
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
JaneHadd
>in NY and Missouri, we're going to have some pretty powerful women in the
>senate. Verrrry interesting.
>
>barry
Isn't there at least one in Maine?
Also one in Texas.
It's women we're talking about, not just Democrats, right?
Jane Haddam
Greenbanks
>: consolation.
>: KS
>What does that mean, we can still beat up everyone?
>Barry
Yep -- but only by hand.
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson
Again I'll say. ALL the votes were counted. SOME of them showed the
voter chose NONE OF THE ABOVE. Gore has asked for several counts of
those again. THAT's the issue. How many times to count ballots that show
NO VOTES for the Presidential race.
Carol
BLIND 321
It's women we're talking about, not just Democrats, right?
Jane Haddam >>
A woman voting republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
(seen in the bathroom at the Tara Theater in Atlanta)
KS
BLIND 321
You're wrong.
All the votes were NOT counted.
Do you get the same CNN that we get here?
KS
JaneHadd
>>
>>(seen in the bathroom at the Tara Theater in Atlanta)
>
Yeah, but it's also really not too fair. For one thing, MOST people who
describe themselves as pro-life are female, which would be one reason women
would vote republican.
Another is that there are now a fair number of female business owners, and
like all owners of small and midsized businesses, they tend to be anti-tax and
anti-regulation.
There are an awful lot of women Republicans out there.
Jane Haddam
BLIND 321
There are an awful lot of women Republicans out there.
Jane Haddam
>>
Gee, Jane, can you suck any MORE fun out of it?
KS
MarinerC
(JaneHadd) writes:
> Yeah, but it's also really not too fair. For one thing, MOST people who
>describe themselves as pro-life are female, which would be one reason women
>would vote republican.
>
Gosh, is that so? I'm really surprised. I know you don't put forward
statements like that without some back-up, Jane, so I'm not challenging you,
but I'd like some more info. My experience (friends and acquaintences, and
thus anecdotal) is the opposite. but what is "most" here -- a big majority or
just a slim lead?
Ann in Ottawa
JaneHadd
>>statements like that without some back-up, Jane, so I'm not challenging you,
>>but I'd like some more info. My experience (friends and acquaintences, and
>>thus anecdotal) is the opposite. but what is "most" here -- a big majority
>or
>>just a slim lead?
>>
>pro-choice, and the women are by far the more conservative.
>
>Mique
Well--note what I said.
I DIDN'T say most women were pro-life.
I said that most pro-life people were women.
There are actually dozens of polls showing this, and any survey of the
major pro-life organizations will show you the same thing. There are often men
in the power positions--although there are pro-life orgs with women in the
power positions, too, like CWA and The American Life League--but the rank and
file is overwhelmingly female.
Jane Haddam
Bill Burgess
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson wrote:
> But I'll say again ALL the votes were counted. The 10,000 Gore
> is complaining about were counted as voting for nobody.
Oh, well. I don't think a hanging chad or a swinging
chad should be counted as a non-vote.
Bill Burgess
Carol Schwaderer Dickinson wrote:
> > To my mind, you play by the rules you started with. If you decide that
> > they result in unfairness, you change the rules the NEXT time you play.
> >
> > Jane Haddam
>
> Thats how its supposed to work all right. Might be a good place to
> mention that somebody asked me what my opinion was about Bush's position
> on the military absentees without postmarks. I said I felt he was wrong
> because without postmarks they don't get counted anywhere.
>
> After I posted that I remembered that while that is true, I remember on
> some occasions in other elections when I served on the board, the
> supervisor had the authority to take into account special circumstances.
So did Katherine Harris.
> So I have to assume the same could be true in Florida and therefore a
> court ruling might indeed be appropriate.
Pretty sure it is true in Florida--if I've got my facts
straight, most of the counties allowed the military ballots
without the postmarks. Of the five counties in the lawsuit,
I believe three voluntarily went back and re-examined, and
Bush picked up about 10 votes
.
Bill Burgess
Barry Volkman wrote:
> Bill Burgess (bur...@csit.fsu.edu) wrote:
>
> : Barry Volkman wrote:
>
> : > He just got more of the votes that were counted. Tens of thousands were
> : > disenfranchised. That's no win. That's a bloodless coup.
>
> : Psssst--Barry: Dec. 6, Henry Jacobs v. Seminole
> : County Supervisor of Elections. Keep your fingers crossed.
>
> OK.
> The courts have gone against individual voters so far.
Well, if you're interested:
http://www.campaignwatch.org/update.htm
Mystmoush
been pointed out by numerous people - under the Freedom of Information Act -
sooner or later someone will. Maybe January 22. Won't that be fun?
Eileeen from OH
Pam K
>
> Oh--on the who's winning, conservatives or liberals, a note--
>
> It's now official.
>
> Cantwell unseated Gorton in Washington state.
>
> That's an 18-year incumbent Republican conservative gone--
>
> And Washington state with two democratic and female senators--
>
> And a senate that's now officially 50-50.
>
> Jane Haddam
My girls were so happy that Maria Cantwell won - apparently who one's
parents voted for was quite the topic of conversation amongst 2nd and
4th graders. They'd been out-numbered by the Dubya/Gorton voters.
Her victory really, really disturbed the more right-leaning folks around
work. The vote counts and recounts were handled professionally & with
the utmost integrity. Kudos go to our (outgoing) Republican Secretary of
State, Ralph Munro for overseeing the job. Mr Munro has the distinction
of being my "token Republican" in our general elections. (I even voted
for his chosen successor - also republican).
Pam K.
Bill Burgess
vickij wrote:
> while wading through a long list of posts, vj found this in
> rec.arts.mystery, from Bill Burgess <bur...@csit.fsu.edu> :
>
> ]
> ]Well, if you're interested:
> ]http://www.campaignwatch.org/update.htm
>
> WOW!
Do we know how to screw up an election or WHAT?
BoxHill
>>in NY and Missouri, we're going to have some pretty powerful women in the
>>senate. Verrrry interesting.
>>
>>barry
>
> Isn't there at least one in Maine?
Belatedly noticing this....BOTH of Maine's senators are women.
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
JaneHadd
A friend of mine sent me an e-mail today to tell me that there is a St.
Chad, Bishop of Lichfield in 669-672.
And this is his official prayer in the Church:
>>>"Almighty God, whose servant Chad, for the peace of the Church, relinquished
cheerfully the hoours that had been thrust upon him: Keep us, we pray, from
thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think, and ready at all
times
to step aside for others."<<<
Jane Haddam
Mary
Did your friend say whether St. Chad was dimpled, pregnant or hanging?
Mary
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
JaneHadd
>Did your friend say whether St. Chad was dimpled, pregnant or hanging?
>
>Mary
>
Mmmm, no.
But since he was a he, I think we could probably rule out pregnant.
Jane Haddam
ssome
"BoxHill" <box...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001212121536...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
Barry Volkman
was good enough for 4 years in the White House.
barry
--
Barry Volkman
ggge...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
BoxHill
>
> Jane Haddam
>
If God could make a virgin pregnant, why not a man?
(BTW, ever read that very amusing Phillip Roth short story about the issue of
the virgin birth?)
JaneHadd
>the virgin birth?)
>Janet
>
No--what's it called?
Jane Haddam
M.E.Tonkin
Mike Burke wrote:
>
> box...@aol.com (BoxHill) wrote:
>
> >> But since he was a he, I think we could probably rule out pregnant.
> >>
> >> Jane Haddam
> >>
> >
> >If God could make a virgin pregnant, why not a man?
> >
> >(BTW, ever read that very amusing Phillip Roth short story about the issue of
> >the virgin birth?)
> >Janet
>
> And many, many years ago there was an hilarious book called
> 'Turnabout'. Author's name eludes me.
Thorne Smith, who also wrote *Topper*.
MET