OK, I'm expecting an announcement about the formation of "NightWatch" any time now....
s p mcelroy
Return and Severed Dreams in the same week that the Supreme Court decided
that Bush would suffer irreparable harm if he didn't become President has
had the hair standing up on the back of my neck for a few days now....
But the latest really takes the cake: has anyone seen a reliable,
confirmed report that Bush's lawyers are in Florida trying to prevent the
New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald and others from looking
at the disputed (which they have every right to under Florida's Sunshine
Law) ballots? Is this just another Scurrilous E-Mail Rumor?
Sara
( suddenly remembering all those stories about JMS' reputed witchly powers
of prediction......)
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
No, that would have been the case if Clinton and Gore were scheduled to go
somewhere on Air Force One, Gore backed out at the last minute because of
having the flu, and Air Force One blew up.
Then, we'd have Nightwatch announced, and Hillary or Schumer would head it
up.
Mac
Jms at B5
>confirmed report that Bush's lawyers are in Florida trying to prevent the
>New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald and others from looking
>at the disputed (which they have every right to under Florida's Sunshine
>Law) ballots? Is this just another Scurrilous E-Mail Rumor?
>
No, it's quite true. The Miami Herald in fact is in the process of demanding
to review the set-aside, disputed ballots. The recount had put Bush at only 53
votes ahead when it was stopped by order of the Supreme Court, and some
estimates indicate that Gore may have had far, far more votes than anyone
anticipated.
There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of the Supreme Court
verdict which for the first time really explains the thing.
One of the more interesting elements is that they overturned the Florida
Supreme Court decision because the FSC did not create a standard for
determining the process by which the intent of the voter could be discerned --
which was all the Florida legislature had previously stipulated -- so that
uneven standards would apply to different counties. For that reason, it was
overturned.
But if the FSC *had* created a specific standard, then it WOULD have changed
the rules after the game had started, and it would ALSO have been overturned.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
John C. Anderson
Supreme Court decision because the FSC did not create a standard for
determining the process by which the intent of the voter could be discerned --
which was all the Florida legislature had previously stipulated -- so that
uneven standards would apply to different counties. For that reason, it was
overturned.
But if the FSC *had* created a specific standard, then it WOULD have changed
the rules after the game had started, and it would ALSO have been overturned.
jms >>
Yep, that is a mighty interesting ruling.
The other one that gets me is the idea that having different methods for
recounting the votes amounts to a violation of equal protection under the law.
I wonder if that means that the entire election is unconstitutional. I mean,
EVERY county in the NATION is free to use different polling and counting
methods as established by LOCAL election boards. If varying standards for
recounting are unconstitutional, then how can varying standards for the
original count be any less so?
The other "funny" part of the ruling, of course, is the idea that the count
woudn't "count" because it couldn't be done by midnight Tues...,
*pause*
...Which might not have been an issue if the recounts had proceeded when the
local FL courts found them to be appropriate OVER A MONTH AGO!
Remember folks, it wasn't the Dems that delayed the process for so long, it was
Republican court challenges and the intervention of Sec. Harris and then by the
conservative majority on the US Supreme Court. The count could have done within
a week or so of the election, regardless of wheather later court action upheld
its validity.
*stepping down from soap box*
"I hear billions of voices calling your name."
"My followers?"
"Your victims."
Kevin Munoz
Anderson <tala...@aol.com> wrote:
> The other one that gets me is the idea that having different methods for
> recounting the votes amounts to a violation of equal protection under the law.
> I wonder if that means that the entire election is unconstitutional. I mean,
> EVERY county in the NATION is free to use different polling and counting
> methods as established by LOCAL election boards. If varying standards for
> recounting are unconstitutional, then how can varying standards for the
> original count be any less so?
You're misinterpreting "equal protection." The equal protection
standards don't work that way. The equal protections are for
individuals whose activities fall under the same law: so if we both
live in Florida, we're both subject to the laws of Florida equally. And
we're subject to federal laws equally. But if you live in Florida and I
live in Alaska, then we are only subject equally to federal laws.
And the election laws in question are inherently state-based. There ARE
federal election laws, but they were not at issue here.
You want equal protection standards to cover DIFFERING laws, which they
don't. I agree that this should probably happen to some degree, but to
do it all over the place would basically eliminate all states' rights.
--
Kevin Munoz
Kevin Munoz
<josh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Good point. Weirdly enough, the court ruled that its decision didn't
> apply to any other case.
It doesn't - equal protection standards apply to single, individual
laws. Not to great swatches of legal theory.
>
> And I can't understand how the equal protection provision applies to
> the question of whether one counts dimpled chads and such, but not to
> ballots that were rejected by machines, given that punch card counties
> typically show a 3% higher undervote than OCR counties, or why the
> court set the 11th as a deadline, when recounts in past presidential
> elections have continued until the meeting of the electoral college,
> or why the court ruled that not granting a stay would cause
> "irreparable damage" to GW Bush, when it really caused irreparable
> damage to Gore.
The deadline was because of federal safe harbor regulations. Nothing
they could do about that, really.
You're right: equal protection should apply to all votes that fall
under a single law, and it does. That was the supreme court's point. If
you can't recount every vote the same way, you can't do it.
Gharlane of Eddore
s p mcelroy <smce...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'll admit that the showing of Messages from Earth, Point
> of No Return and Severed Dreams in the same week that the
> Supreme Court decided that Bush would suffer irreparable harm
> if he didn't become President has had the hair standing up on
> the back of my neck for a few days now....
>
> But the latest really takes the cake: has anyone seen a reliable,
> confirmed report that Bush's lawyers are in Florida trying to
> prevent the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald
> and others from looking at the disputed (which they have every
> right to under Florida's Sunshine Law) ballots? Is this just
> another Scurrilous E-Mail Rumor?
>
The problem, as I heard it, had to do with "unsupervised access"
rather than "looking at." Still waiting for a solid report on
just what's actually going on there.
I notice that none of our "news" organizations has printed a copy
of the handout the Gorefolk were circulating to poll workers, the
one that detailed procedures for invalidating absentee ballots,
with particular reference to active-duty military.
There's another one going on down there that intrigues me greatly...
Note that it's a felony to be in possession of a voting machine,
and that a Florida poll worker ( a "Democrat" ) was driving
around with one in the trunk of his car... and lied to
police investigators when they asked him if he had it.
( He later turned it in, with a comment like "I forgot I had it."
For some reason, he's not in jail. )
I'd suspect there will be a *lot* of procedural changes in Florida
voting before the next major election. *grin*
>
> Sara
> ( suddenly remembering all those stories about JMS' reputed
> witchly powers of prediction......)
>
You want to see a REALLY scary prediction? Get out your tape
of Mike Jittlov's "THE WIZARD OF SPEED AND TIME," and look at
the name of the theater near the end, the place that's running
"MUD WRESTLERS FROM MARS" and "THE WIZARD OF SPEED AND TIME."
*shudder*
Aubrey W. Adkins
them. Both are owned by big money interests lock, stock and barrel. I'd
have preferred McCain vs Bradley, at least they wouldn't have looked
like fraternal twins. If dimples count, I volunteer to go to Florida
next time and rent out the ones I have.
Aubrey
Brian Ladd
The supreme court objected with the extension of the Time limit of the
initial count. When the FL Sup Court extended the time limit that One
decision shot Gore in the foot. They legislated from the bench. There
is no real answer to it.
1 you cant change the date.
2 the law says that the laws on the books prior to an election is what
rules the election.
Gore should have known this, conspiracy theory would say that he did and
in changing the date he hoped to be in a better standing if he did in
fact get more counted votes. Then Bush would have to have contested the
election and had a much shorter time to contest the election. But Gore
never had more votes counted that would place him above the President
Elect Bush's FL lead. The ruling shot gore in the foot because the
contest period was now much shorter.
Plus. when the FL supreme court handed gore 150 votes from broward I
believe they did NOT do a full recount of ALL counties (another Illegal
act), its an ALL or None policy in FL's recount. They stopped just when
they supposedly moved to a highly populated cuban-american districts
(which overwhelmingly voted for Bush after the Elian debacle)
I really doubt that any elector is going to switch and if they did i am
sure they would be fired outright. I suggest to the liberal electors to
vote for Bush, so that even if the Repub. do loose an elector or two
than it would still go to bush. but that wont happen either
I feel it very sad that Michael Moore and JMS support the electors
changing their votes based on another supposed fact, that Gore won the
popular vote. I don't understand the simple fact that Gore won the
popular AND the FL vote. they claim that not every vote was counted.
But oh contrar the same is for Every state. not every vote is ever
counted in an election many absentee votes have not been counted in many
states. because the difference in the winner is much more than the
number of absentee votes. so there is doubt in libs mind that Gore won
FL and there will be actual doubt that Gore truly won the pop vote
only two cold hard facts.
Gore won the Machine counted popular vote.
Bush won the Machine counted FL vote.
--
Brian Ladd
ladd...@thechosen.com
"....."
Gharlane of Eddore
In <20001216181338...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's quite true. The Miami Herald in fact is in the process of
> demanding to review the set-aside, disputed ballots.
> The recount had put Bush at only 53 votes ahead when it was stopped by
> order of the Supreme Court, and some estimates indicate that Gore may
> have had far, far more votes than anyone anticipated.
>
> There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of the
> Supreme Court verdict which for the first time really explains the
> thing.
>
Oh, yeah, and Michael Moore is such an utter *saint* of Unbiased Journalism
that we should all take his word on stuff like this; no matter WHAT you find
at Moore's site, it will be slanted, and bolstered by cherry-picked data.
.... < two correctly reported aspects of the USSC decision, deleted >
What you need to ask yourself is, why is the Miami Herald not *also*
looking into the illegal possession and transport of a voting machine
in the trunk of a NON-authorized "Democrat" poll worker's car...
And why has no action been taken over the federally illegal "how to
reject absentee military ballots" pamphlet the Demos were sending
around in Florida....
And why is Al Gore throwing raucous parties in Dick Cheney's house?
"The people have a right to know!" --- ISN Blonde
Bryan H. Ackler
> > Sara
> > ( suddenly remembering all those stories about JMS' reputed witchly powers
> > of prediction......)
>
> No, that would have been the case if Clinton and Gore were scheduled to go
> somewhere on Air Force One, Gore backed out at the last minute because of
> having the flu, and Air Force One blew up.
>
> Then, we'd have Nightwatch announced, and Hillary or Schumer would head it
> up.
Unless the rules have changed in the USAF & the White House, the President and
Vice President NEVER fly on the same plane. If they did, then I really would
be looking for the afore mentioned chain of events.
Bryan
Brian Watson
> >But the latest really takes the cake: has anyone seen a reliable,
> >confirmed report that Bush's lawyers are in Florida trying to prevent the
> >New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald and others from looking
> >at the disputed (which they have every right to under Florida's Sunshine
> >Law) ballots? Is this just another Scurrilous E-Mail Rumor?
>
> No, it's quite true. The Miami Herald in fact is in the process of demanding
> to review the set-aside, disputed ballots. The recount had put Bush at only 53
> votes ahead when it was stopped by order of the Supreme Court, and some
> estimates indicate that Gore may have had far, far more votes than anyone
> anticipated.
Fact: Never before in any election have "undervotes" been counted. This process
was INVENTED by Democrats seeking to CREATE new votes for Al Gore.
Fact: There were differing standards on how to count these "undervotes," not just
from county to county, but often from TABLE TO TABLE in the election board
"recounts."
Fact: The FSC has ruled in the past that those who misvoted do NOT get a chance to
revote, as they did not provide adequate solemnity and care in the process of and
election.
Fact: The voting booth inside, the ballot, and the application all say in BOLD
letters that after you voted you CHECK YOUR BALLOT FOR ACCURACY AND GET A NEW ONE
IF THERE IS A MISTAKE, and REMOVE ANY HANGING (CHADS) THAT MIGHT REMAIN. (I dont
recall what term they used for the hanging portion that might remain)
Fact: The Highest Court in the land has RULED. The ruling of the Supreme Court is
FINAL. They "aren't final because they are right, they are right because they are
FINAL."
So, it doesn't matter WHAT they Miami Herald THINKS about these set aside ballots
if they should get them.
> There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of the Supreme Court
> verdict which for the first time really explains the thing.
So Michael Moore is a Constitutional Scholar as well as just an investigative (and
I use it loosely) reporter? Man, that guy does EVERYTHING!
> One of the more interesting elements is that they overturned the Florida
> Supreme Court decision because the FSC did not create a standard for
> determining the process by which the intent of the voter could be discerned --
> which was all the Florida legislature had previously stipulated -- so that
> uneven standards would apply to different counties. For that reason, it was
> overturned.
Yes, because differing standards are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a
State's Constitution, but the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
> But if the FSC *had* created a specific standard, then it WOULD have changed
> the rules after the game had started, and it would ALSO have been overturned.
Yes, because the FSC would have ruled with an UNCONSTITUTIONAL verdict. Hey, what
do you expect from a bunch of Liberals trying to protect the Whitehouse from the
fair handed, conservative, and Constitutionally mandated President Elect? The FSC
did nothing less than stomp on the Constitution twice, and as far as I'm concerned,
act in a treasonous manner. Something should be done about that.
Sean Ormond
news:smcelroy-151...@hnt30.art.utexas.edu...
> Yeah, I'll admit that the showing of Messages from Earth, Point of No
> Return and Severed Dreams in the same week that the Supreme Court decided
> that Bush would suffer irreparable harm if he didn't become President has
> had the hair standing up on the back of my neck for a few days now....
Sorry you're scared, but you have to understand you're simply another
casualty of the Dem propaganda war.
If you want to read something genuinely creepy (assuming you're not just
fishing for more rumors to convince you that Bush is the coming of Clark),
check out the headlines in Atlanta over the past couple of days (ajc.com
will work). Our newly-elected DeKalb County Sheriff, who won a nasty runoff
with a corrupt incumbent, was assassinated Friday night. He was to be sworn
in Monday.
This office isn't even close to the Presidency, of course, but a fairly
elected official was killed to prevent him from taking office. There were
no lawyers, no chads, no Jesse Jackson...no FIVE WEEKS of trying to eke out
an extra vote. The guy was simply shot dead by multiple assassins as he was
walking towards his house to see his wife and kids. This incident disturbs
me far greater than the farce that continues to go on down in Florida.
I suppose I should also point out that all parties involved (or allegedly
involved) in this assassination are Democrats, and if they voted, they
almost certainly voted for Gore.
John C. Anderson
standards don't work that way. The equal protections are for
individuals whose activities fall under the same law: so if we both
live in Florida, we're both subject to the laws of Florida equally. And
we're subject to federal laws equally. But if you live in Florida and I
live in Alaska, then we are only subject equally to federal laws.
And the election laws in question are inherently state-based. There ARE
federal election laws, but they were not at issue here.
You want equal protection standards to cover DIFFERING laws, which they
don't. I agree that this should probably happen to some degree, but to
do it all over the place would basically eliminate all states' rights.
--
Kevin Munoz >>
Actually, you're misinterpreting my point here. The roblem isn't that FL laws
are different from laws in different STATES on the polling procedures, but that
there is no one standard in FL law for the counting OR recounting of ballots.
It's left up to individual COUNTIES and their Election Boards. Therefore, no
one in FL had any guarantee of their vote being counted the same way from the
beginning, or recounted the same way if recounts occured.
If the Supreme Court is saying that having different LOCAL standards for vote
recounting is unconstitutional, then why are differing LOCAL standards okay for
the initial balloting and counting?
And BTW, I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating "State's Rights", more or less.
I've always thought that everyone in the US should have the same individual
rights, regardless of what State we live in:)
John C. Anderson
<< It doesn't - equal protection standards apply to single, individual
laws. Not to great swatches of legal theory. >>
Then again, that would mean that FL election law which counts votes differently
in each county would have to be thrown out. Just as votes in other states are
counted differently in each county. Thus meaning no state election returns are
valid because no one was given "equal protection" under their existing state
election system.
Kevin Munoz
Anderson <tala...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, you're misinterpreting my point here.
Okay, sorry. Your clarification makes sense to me now.
Kevin Munoz
Anderson <tala...@aol.com> wrote:
> << From: Kevin Munoz ke...@tesarta.com >>
>
>
> << It doesn't - equal protection standards apply to single, individual
> laws. Not to great swatches of legal theory. >>
>
>
> Then again, that would mean that FL election law which counts votes
> differently
> in each county would have to be thrown out. Just as votes in other states are
> counted differently in each county. Thus meaning no state election returns are
> valid because no one was given "equal protection" under their existing state
> election system.
The state laws allow different counting methods. You're missing the
point of equal protection. Equal protection only has to do with laws,
nothing else - equal protection under the law, not equal protection
generally. An individual law must be applied equally to all
individuals. If this particular law says counties can have their own
methods, then equal protection still worked. If, however, someone had
said, "Sorry, Broward county, you have to do exactly what Miami Dade
does," that would have been a violation of equal protection, because it
would have selectively applied the law which allowed separate counting
methodologies.
Kevin Munoz
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> Then again, that would mean that FL election law which counts votes differently
> in each county would have to be thrown out. Just as votes in other states are
> counted differently in each county. Thus meaning no state election returns are
> valid because no one was given "equal protection" under their existing state
> election system.
Not quite. The deal is that you have to lay down rules for how to count
which are deemed to be "equal" in fairness among the variety of systems.
The Supreme Court didn't think there was any problem with the rules for
the variety of machine recounts (though it is entirely unclear if their
ruling applies to them or merely ignores the subject). So, assuming they
were OK with the variety of machine count methods, you'd be OK if you
laid down rules for the various hand count methods.
Mind, you'd have to do this before the election because to do so later
would be to change the rules.
If this all seems clear as mud it might tell you why it took hours to
figure out what it all meant, sort of, kind of.
Best,
Alyson
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> I really doubt that any elector is going to switch and if they did i am
> sure they would be fired outright. I suggest to the liberal electors to
> vote for Bush, so that even if the Repub. do loose an elector or two
> than it would still go to bush. but that wont happen either
Electors are not hired. They are appointed. At least in California (I
don't know if this changes from State to State) each candidate or
elected (if the office is not up for reelection) Congressperson appoints
someone to be the Elector. Irrelevant if the candidate is successful or
not, if their party is successful in winning that State's majority of
votes, the Elector votes in the Electoral College.
As far as I know, there is no way to fire an Elector. The only question
is which Electors are certified in each State to vote.
> only two cold hard facts.
> Gore won the Machine counted popular vote.
> Bush won the Machine counted FL vote.
Actually, this isn't true. Take a look at the Florida State's web site.
Gore actually won the machine counted popular vote. What Gore "lost" was
the absentee ballot count. Absentee ballots are counted by hand. The
difference in absentee ballots was not exceeded in the machine count.
Best,
Alyson
Pål Are Nordal
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Brian Watson wrote:
>
> Fact: Never before in any election have "undervotes" been counted. This process
> was INVENTED by Democrats seeking to CREATE new votes for Al Gore.
AND WASN'T THE COMBINATION OF A STUPID BALLOT/COUTING SYSTEM AND A VERY
CLOSE RACE PRETTY UNIQUE TOO?
> So, it doesn't matter WHAT they Miami Herald THINKS about these set aside ballots
> if they should get them.
IT WON'T AFFECT THE RESULT, NO, BUT IT WILL SHED LIGHT OVER JUST HOW
MUCH A BAD VOTING SYSTEM CAN AFFECT AN ELECTION.
> > There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> > www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of the Supreme Court
> > verdict which for the first time really explains the thing.
>
> So Michael Moore is a Constitutional Scholar as well as just an investigative (and
> I use it loosely) reporter? Man, that guy does EVERYTHING!
YOU'RE VERY QUICK TO CRITICIZES SOMETHING YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T READ.
THE BREAKDOWN WAS IN FACT WRITTEN BY A LAWYER, NOT MOORE. AND THERE IS
INTERESTING STUFF THERE, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH MOORE'S "There
is no doubt that Gore won" TONE. THERE IS DOUBT, AND THAT'S WHAT'S TROUBLING.
Ps. I HOPE YOU DIDN'T BURST A BLOOD VESSEL WRITING THAT MESSAGE.
Pss. AREN'T CAPS FUN!
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>> Fact: Never before in any election have "undervotes" been counted. This process
> was INVENTED by Democrats seeking to CREATE new votes for Al Gore.
That's not true. In my State there are even laws about *how* to count
the various kinds of undervotes. These kinds of laws exist in many
states. There was even one enacted in Texas and signed into law by Bush,
Jr.
The Democrats didn't invent this. Neither did they invent close
elections. They happen.
> Fact: There were differing standards on how to count these "undervotes," not just
> from county to county, but often from TABLE TO TABLE in the election board
> "recounts."
I've heard this one as propaganda but I've never seen any explicit
evidence of difference standards from table to table.
> Fact: The FSC has ruled in the past that those who misvoted do NOT get a chance to
> revote, as they did not provide adequate solemnity and care in the process of and
> election.
It depends on why the misvote happened. For example, a relatively recent
race in Miami was ordered to be run again.
> Fact: The voting booth inside, the ballot, and the application all say in BOLD
> letters that after you voted you CHECK YOUR BALLOT FOR ACCURACY AND GET A NEW ONE
> IF THERE IS A MISTAKE, and REMOVE ANY HANGING (CHADS) THAT MIGHT REMAIN. (I dont
> recall what term they used for the hanging portion that might remain)
I haven't seen these statements on any facsimile of a Florida ballot
I've seen.
I think the reality is 99.9% of this nation (including myself) had never
heard of a chad until November. I voted (not in Florida) using a system
much like what was used in many of the chad-ridden counties. I didn't
remove the chad from my ballot. It never occurred to my college degreed
mind that I needed to do so. However, in my area the Board of Elections
removes all hanging chad before inserting the ballots into the machines.
It's SOP.
BTW, contrary to conservative Republican view, Democrat does not equal
liberal. Democrats (and, indeed, Republicans) come in a variety of
flavors from liberal to conservative. Most Democrats are fairly center
of the road, on the average.
Best,
Alyson
Brian Ladd
> > only two cold hard facts.
> > Gore won the Machine counted popular vote.
> > Bush won the Machine counted FL vote.
>
> Actually, this isn't true. Take a look at the Florida State's web site.
> Gore actually won the machine counted popular vote. What Gore "lost" was
> the absentee ballot count. Absentee ballots are counted by hand. The
> difference in absentee ballots was not exceeded in the machine count.
Uhm no the facts I stated are true. and if you believe they are not
then please show me where they are.
At no point was Gore ever ahead, in any count, ever. After the machine
count was done and the news took away FL from Bush, he was still ahead.
after the mandatory recount Bush was ahead.
after the absentee ballots Bush was ahead
after the hand recount Bush was ahead
after the Supreme court ruled Bush was ahead.
So where do you see Gore ever being ahead in FLs count? Please show me
I'd like to see this.
-Brian Ladd
To...@fred.net
: No, that would have been the case if Clinton and Gore were scheduled to go
: somewhere on Air Force One, Gore backed out at the last minute because of
: having the flu, and Air Force One blew up.
: Then, we'd have Nightwatch announced, and Hillary or Schumer would head it
: up.
If Janet Reno is what was envisioned to be Julie Musante.....
(...and Maggie Egan as Soledad O'Brien, ISN Reporter)
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
* "ARGH! You beat me to the Torgo joke!! And yours is even FUNNY!!"
- Eric "Nemo" Granger
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 - http://www.wackyvoices.com
Sean Ormond
news:20001216181338...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
>
> There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of
> the Supreme Court verdict which for the first time really explains
> the thing.
Ugh! Another personal hero (a fellow atheist, in fact) crashes and burns...
I always figured that Joe, as a free-thinking individual, would draw the
proper conclusions. I was wrong.
JMS, you really need to figure out who you support. I seem to recall you
giving a thumbs-up to McCain, but you now seem to come across as a
Liebercrat - a decent person who has been corrupted by Clinton/Gore.
Get some sleep, and I'm confident you can work it out!
Dan Riley
> The deadline was because of federal safe harbor regulations. Nothing
> they could do about that, really.
Whether a state wishes to take advantage of the safe harbor is a state
matter, not federal. The Fl Supreme Court made a determination that
the state legislature presumably intended to take advantage of the
safe harbor, but didn't make any determination as to whether that took
priority over the other provisions of state law. The US Supreme Court
clearly erred in turning December 12th into a hard deadline--it should
have remanded the question to the state court. The first deadline the
US SC could plausibly have insisted on is the 18th, when the electors
meet, and even that isn't so firm--there's precedent for certified
results being accepted as late as January 4.
> You're right: equal protection should apply to all votes that fall
> under a single law, and it does. That was the supreme court's point. If
> you can't recount every vote the same way, you can't do it.
What I find completely unconvincing is the Supreme Court's attempt to
narrow the scope of the equal protection argument so that it only
applies to the hand count and only applies to this election. If it
applies to the hand count, it also ought to apply to the gross
disparities in the original count, due to the differences in ballot
machines, ballot design, and tabulating procedures from county to
county within the state of Florida. If "if you can't recount every
vote the same way, you can't do it" holds, then so should "if you
can't count every vote the same way, you can't do it", and Florida
didn't count every vote the same way in *any* of the counts.
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan H. Ackler" <bac...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: OK, I'm expecting an announcement about the formation
of"NightWatch" any time now....
> Mac Breck wrote:
> > > Sara
> > > ( suddenly remembering all those stories about JMS' reputed witchly
powers
> > > of prediction......)
> >
> > No, that would have been the case if Clinton and Gore were scheduled to
go
> > somewhere on Air Force One, Gore backed out at the last minute because
of
> > having the flu, and Air Force One blew up.
> >
> > Then, we'd have Nightwatch announced, and Hillary or Schumer would head
it
> > up.
>
> Unless the rules have changed in the USAF & the White House, the President
and
> Vice President NEVER fly on the same plane.
Yeah, I suspected that was the case, but wasn't at all sure about it.
Mac
Pål Are Nordal
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Sean Ormond wrote:
>
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001216181338...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >
> > There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> > www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of
> > the Supreme Court verdict which for the first time really explains
> > the thing.
>
> Ugh! Another personal hero (a fellow atheist, in fact) crashes and burns...
> I always figured that Joe, as a free-thinking individual, would draw the
> proper conclusions. I was wrong.
Oh yes, because we all know you are the only person in the whole wide
world who can draw proper conclusions.
> JMS, you really need to figure out who you support. I seem to recall you
> giving a thumbs-up to McCain,
He said he thought McCain was the best candidate in the race. Since
then, the options have been reduced to Gore and Bush.
Jms does not like Bush.
I'll let you figure the rest out.
> but you now seem to come across as a
> Liebercrat - a decent person who has been corrupted by Clinton/Gore.
Is that because he references Michael "[Clinton] does nearly everything
a Republican would do -- and gets away with it" Moore's website?
> Get some sleep, and I'm confident you can work it out!
Even better, why don't you save him the trouble and post a list telling
him what to think!
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: <To...@Fred.Net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: OK, I'm expecting an announcement about the formation of
"NightWatch" any time now....
> This post on 16 Dec 2000 11:35:04 -0700 would probably sound more
commanding if Mac Breck wasn't wearing the Yummy Sushi Pajamas:
>
> : No, that would have been the case if Clinton and Gore were scheduled to
go
> : somewhere on Air Force One, Gore backed out at the last minute because
of
> : having the flu, and Air Force One blew up.
>
> : Then, we'd have Nightwatch announced, and Hillary or Schumer would head
it
> : up.
>
> If Janet Reno is what was envisioned to be Julie Musante.....
Curse you, I just got that image!
Argh!
Mac
Sean Ormond
news:3A3D97D3...@thechosen.com...
>
> So where do you see Gore ever being ahead in FLs count? Please show me
> I'd like to see this.
Check out either of the following:
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/Report.asp?Date=001107
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&RACE=PRE
If you ignore the absentee vote, this page seems to show Gore ahead. Of
course, there's no breakdown as to how they arrived at that total, and I'm
sure it includes the illegal sympathy votes the FL Supreme Court gave him
while they were reeling from Gore's repeated losses in lower courts.
Of course, the total shown on this page is completely irrelevant unless the
Dems are still clinging to their notion that the military - the people who
protect the liberals' right to perversion - have no right to vote.
Also, it's rather telling that a few numbers on this web page are the ONLY
indication I've ever seen that Gore has been ahead in ANYTHING, even though
it still shows him behind in the total! If this election were really as
close as the Dems would like you to believe, you'd think Gore would've
pulled ahead at least once...
He didn't. After five weeks of fighting, backed by the nastiest scum money
can buy, Gore was never able to get ahead - not even by one single vote!
Adam Michaud
Brian Ladd <ladd...@thechosen.com> wrote:
>"Alyson L. Abramowitz" wrote:
>> > only two cold hard facts.
>> > Gore won the Machine counted popular vote.
>> > Bush won the Machine counted FL vote.
>>
>> Actually, this isn't true. Take a look at the Florida State's web site.
>> Gore actually won the machine counted popular vote. What Gore "lost" was
>> the absentee ballot count. Absentee ballots are counted by hand. The
>> difference in absentee ballots was not exceeded in the machine count.
>
>Uhm no the facts I stated are true. and if you believe they are not
>then please show me where they are.
>At no point was Gore ever ahead, in any count, ever. After the machine
>count was done and the news took away FL from Bush, he was still ahead.
I think the point Alyson was making was that if you only count the
*machine* *counted* votes (as you indicated in your original post), Gore
did get more. Absentee votes, even those that came in before November 7,
are all counted by hand (and thus are not part of the "machine counted FL
vote"). Gore got more of the machine counted vote (by a very narrow
margin, I think), while Bush had a significantly larger lead in the
absentee vote. Result: Bush won. The reason Bush was ahead in all counts
is that some of the absentee ballots (those received by November 7, at the
discretion of each county) were already included in the first count.
Adam
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Be glad to. Look at the State of Florida's web site.
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/report.asp?Date=001107 and choose
President/Vice President on the left hand side.
You'll notice that Gore actually won the vote without the Federal
Absentee ballots. He lost on the Federal absentee ballots by about 2:1.
That was enough to cause him to loose the election with the current
methodology of counting.
Please check your facts next time.
Best,
Alyson
Kevin Munoz
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In article <sh1yv62...@lns130.lns.cornell.edu>, Dan Riley
<d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu> wrote:
> Kevin Munoz <ke...@tesarta.com> writes:
> > The deadline was because of federal safe harbor regulations. Nothing
> > they could do about that, really.
>
> Whether a state wishes to take advantage of the safe harbor is a state
> matter, not federal.
Thanks for the correction.
>> county within the state of Florida. If "if you can't recount every
> vote the same way, you can't do it" holds, then so should "if you
> can't count every vote the same way, you can't do it", and Florida
> didn't count every vote the same way in *any* of the counts.
Well, the thing is, the law allows the original balloting to be done
differently by county. It does not allow the recount to do this,
however (at least, not to my knowledge). Again, equal protection covers
equal protection under the LAW. Individual laws must be applied equally
to all who fall under the scope of the law; that's what equal
protection says. It has nothing to do with anything else, and certainly
has nothing to do with "equal representation." They are two different
things, falling under two entirely different legal theories. The fact
that the ballots could initially be counted differently is a flaw in
the law that governs the count, but it is not a flaw subject to equal
protection relief, because the law IS applied uniformly - it uniformly
allows counties to do whatever the hell they want.
There is one situation in which equal protection relief can be brought
to bear on a law which normally does have equal protection guarantees,
and this is in a case where that law breaks equal protection of another
law which directly bears upon it. So, therefore, a law which requires a
poll tax to be paid by everyone in a given state was considered
unconstitutional, in part because it broke the equal protection
guarantees which guaranteed the RIGHT to vote (not the "privilege",
which would have allowed poll taxes) embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
(If anyone with more background in this can confirm, deny or correct
me, please do so.)
Personally, I would have preferred Gore/Lieberman over Bush/Cheney; I'm
not arguing based on what I *wish* were true, because I wish it
weren't.
Kevin Munoz
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In article <002401c068f5$f8ec8420$12d2...@cobweb.net>, Mac Breck
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> >
> > Unless the rules have changed in the USAF & the White House, the President
> and
> > Vice President NEVER fly on the same plane.
>
> Yeah, I suspected that was the case, but wasn't at all sure about it.
>
>
This is correct. Air Force One is whatever plane the President is on,
and most definitely the president is never on the same plane as the VP.
That would just be silly.
Sean Ormond
news:3A3E65D4...@bigfoot.com...
> Oh yes, because we all know you are the only person in the whole wide
> world who can draw proper conclusions.
Next time I'll include an "IMHO" to help you avoid confusion.
> Jms does not like Bush.
A LOT of people don't like Bush. In fact, many of them believe he's a
dyslexic, coke-snorting alcoholic, who can't wait to get in the Whitehouse
and start shoveling minorities into ovens and executing innocent citizens at
random. Sara's fear of a Bush presidency (expressed in the original post)
is a perfect example of how effective the Democratic propaganda has been.
If I believed one-tenth of what most deluded Democrats "want" to believe
about Bush, I probably wouldn't like him either.
> I'll let you figure the rest out.
OK... I figure a guy who supported Clinton for eight years, then pulls for
a Republican, then goes back to the Dems has no concern about the issues.
He instead chooses to vote based on perceived personality, charisma, and
propaganda. That's wrong and it's disappointing...IMHO! At least the few
local Dems I've been unable to avoid associating with will admit they voted
for Gore because they're looking for hand-outs.
Sean
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Be glad to. Look at the State of Florida's web site.
John Lorentz
wrote:
>Brian Watson wrote:
>>> Fact: Never before in any election have "undervotes" been counted. This process
>> was INVENTED by Democrats seeking to CREATE new votes for Al Gore.
>
>That's not true. In my State there are even laws about *how* to count
>the various kinds of undervotes. These kinds of laws exist in many
>states. There was even one enacted in Texas and signed into law by Bush,
>Jr.
>
In fact, in Oregon the undervotes are hand counted
automatically--before the official results are released.
And any recounts are always done by hand.
--
John
To...@fred.net
:> If Janet Reno is what was envisioned to be Julie Musante.....
: Curse you, I just got that image!
: Argh!
"IVANOVA! You get youor Draal-enhanced Holo-butt back in here now!!!!"
"Oh Cap-tain..... I'm ready....."
"Dammit! Where's Morden when you REALLY need him!"
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Munoz" <ke...@tesarta.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: OK, I'm expecting an announcement about the formation
of"NightWatch" any time now....
...and Air Force Two is whatever plane the Vice President is on, right?
Mac
Brian Ladd
went to the polls. But that number is the certified vote tally of 537
difference. and the certified number included many hand recounted
votes. The number difference after the machine count was 930, which was
before any absentee ballot was ever even looked at.
So my facts are in fact true.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/FL/
"Alyson L. Abramowitz" wrote:
> Be glad to. Look at the State of Florida's web site.
> http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/report.asp?Date=001107 and choose
> President/Vice President on the left hand side.
>
> You'll notice that Gore actually won the vote without the Federal
> Absentee ballots. He lost on the Federal absentee ballots by about 2:1.
> That was enough to cause him to loose the election with the current
> methodology of counting.
>
> Please check your facts next time.
>
> Best,
> Alyson
--
Brian Ladd
ladd...@thechosen.com
"....."
Rob Perkins
news:20001216181338...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> There's some *really* good stuff on this at Michael Moore's site,
> www.michaelmoore.com including an astonishing breakdown of the Supreme
Court
> verdict which for the first time really explains the thing.
Youch. Going there is a lot like going to Limbaugh's site. All one-sided,
complete with invective. OK, maybe not exactly the same; there are no
montage photographs on Moore's site. That makes Moore's site slightly less
inflammatory. It's still over the top.
But that's OK! Wait... isn't Michael Moore Canadian?
> One of the more interesting elements is that they overturned the Florida
> Supreme Court decision because the FSC did not create a ...
>
> But if the FSC *had* created a specific standard, then it WOULD have
changed
> the rules after the game had started, and it would ALSO have been
overturned.
No two ways about it. The FSC was in a box that the FL legislature
unwittingly made for it.
One can only hope that this will, as Moore pointed out, finally result in a
national ballot format, if only for the federal elections. I wonder if those
smartguys at MIT and CalTech will come up with something before their grant
money wears out. I bet it resembles an SSL-encrypted browser link to web
pages, when they're done.
Rob
Adam Michaud
Sean Ormond <sor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>A LOT of people don't like Bush. In fact, many of them believe he's a
>dyslexic, coke-snorting alcoholic, who can't wait to get in the Whitehouse
>and start shoveling minorities into ovens and executing innocent citizens at
>random.
Oh, sure, *that* isn't a strawman.
It is true that a lot of people don't like Bush. FWIW, I'm one of them.
But I'd defy you to find five people in the entire country who actually
believe what you claim above. And in putting it the way you do, you
minimize the *real* problems that many of us have with him.
He's not terribly intelligent, at least not on the level that I'd expect
(or at least hope for) in someone who wants to lead the world's only
remaining superpower.
His *gleeful* support for the death penalty is a major turn-off; I can
respect that many reasonable people find reasons that they think are good
to support it, but his behavior during the debates seemed to border on
bloodlust. (At least, that was my reaction when I saw the debates.) He
may himself have well-supported reasons for supporting the death penalty,
but I *don't* have much respect for anyone (excepting perhaps the
families of the victims) who can be *that* happy that someone is about to
be put to death.
He seems to have a very deep-seated sense of entitlement (Gore is guilty
of this too); this was more obvious during the primaries. He seemed to
buy into the legend of his inevitability.
I'm quite sure that I wouldn't like Bush if I had just met him somewhere
completely absent of the context of politics or the presidential election;
why should I feel compelled to like him now?
For what it's worth, I don't like Gore (personally) much either, but I
find his political positions a damn sight more palatable.
>OK... I figure a guy who supported Clinton for eight years, then pulls for
>a Republican, then goes back to the Dems has no concern about the issues.
As someone in much the same position, I'll try to answer this; my reasons
may not be the same as JMS's, but there you are.
There are certain things that I think need to get done in Washington,
things that neither political party is likely to ever seriously champion.
Things like campaign finance reform. McCain represented the credible
possibility of getting some of these things done. I was willing to
overlook many of his other positions for the chance to get those things
done, as I knew that the chance might not come along again for a while. It
also helped that McCain seemed to be a man of greater honesty and
integrity than Bush or Gore, and I think that's something to be valued in
either party.
With McCain out of the running, Bush's GOP-politics-as-usual held no
attraction for me, so there was no reason not to vote for Gore.
>He instead chooses to vote based on perceived personality, charisma, and
>propaganda. That's wrong and it's disappointing...IMHO! At least the few
>local Dems I've been unable to avoid associating with will admit they voted
>for Gore because they're looking for hand-outs.
*shrug* If I were looking for handouts, I'd have voted for Bush -- I'd
benefit a lot more from my share of his $1.3 trillion tax cut than
anything Gore has proposed. I just can't abide GOP social positions, and
I don't think Bush will make a good president.
Adam
Kevin Munoz
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In article <003701c069c6$362e02c0$3ad2...@cobweb.net>, Mac Breck
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> > This is correct. Air Force One is whatever plane the President is on,
> > and most definitely the president is never on the same plane as the VP.
> > That would just be silly.
>
> ...and Air Force Two is whatever plane the Vice President is on, right?
>
I assume so, though I've never seen it stated anywhere. But yes,
probably.
s p mcelroy
>A LOT of people don't like Bush. In fact, many of them believe he's a
>dyslexic, coke-snorting alcoholic, who can't wait to get in the Whitehouse
>and start shoveling minorities into ovens and executing innocent citizens at
>random. Sara's fear of a Bush presidency (expressed in the original post)
>is a perfect example of how effective the Democratic propaganda has been.
>If I believed one-tenth of what most deluded Democrats "want" to believe
>about Bush, I probably wouldn't like him either.
>Sean
Actually, my "fear of Republicans" started way back, when Nixon and
Kissinger could have ended the Vietnam war in 1968 and chose not to, when
they dragged Cambodia into it (and we all know what happened after that),
when the Republican governor of Ohio called out the troops who shot 4 kids
not an hour away from where I was in school, then there was Watergate,
Iran-Contra, and a whole host more.....
My current favorite Republican paranoid fantasy goes like this:
-George Bush Snr was the head of the CIA back in the 70's, back when they
had stopped assasinating foreign leaders but were still fixing elections
overseas by the hundreds, even perhaps the thousands...
-25 years later, when those records are due to become public (that would
be, next year that is) his son decides to run for President. Wonder if
we'll ever see those now, or will PaperShredderExtraordinaire Ollie North
be called in to make those disappear?!
-His other son is Governor of a state they clearly expected to win
(witness GW flouncing out of an Austin restaurant when FL was called for
Gore, in a ferocious temper), the networks calling it for Gore first
(based on all those folks who thought they voted for him but couldn't
figure out their ballots), and thousands and thousands of discarded
ballots, questionable ballots, local Repub officials tinkering with
absentee ballots.....So when you connect those dots, who knows better how
to find people who know how to rig an election?
Except poor Jeb screwed up, didn't get it exactly right, disappointing
Poppy and GW, possibly costing himself the next election in his "home"
state and forcing the Supreme Court to bail them all out....
In the interests of fairness, there was Kennedy (when we spent our
childhoods ducking and covering under our desks in event of nuclear
annihilation), the Hillary Deathwatch, and my own personal favorite, LBJ,
but that would have to go under the "favorite paranoid Democratic
fantasies" heading........
Sara
Jon Niehof
> for a Republican, then goes back to the Dems has no concern about the
> issues.
Democrat
Republican
back to Democrat
In reality, we have:
Clinton
McCain
Gore because McCain isn't running
No inconsistency there.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the love of Truth shine clear
--Rush, Hemispheres: The Sphere