On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:15:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election, and
did not succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/NoneD...ItTreason.html

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:15:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election,
and
did not succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/NoneD...ItTreason.html


So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change the
rules in the middle of the election. You would have been happy if the rules
had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes counted
for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the Democrat?

On Tue, 18 May 2004 05:16:12 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change
the rules in the middle of the election. You would have been happy if the
rules had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes
counted for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the
Democrat?

First, that's not what the Courts stated. Second, while since Iraq, I am
definitely anti-Bush, at the time of the election, I had no strong
feelings for either candidate. In fact, I was more intent on the process
than the outcome. I was quite proud of my country, as it's citizens
struggled to count every vote. Some made jokes about the dimpled or
pregnant chads, but I saw citizens struggling to count every vote knowing
the Presidency of this country depended on in. They were wrong. There
were only nine votes that mattered.

Oh, and Bugliosi isn't the only lawyer of the opinion the Supreme Court
short-circuited the process.

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archi...statement.html

Calif Bill wrote:
So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change the
rules in the middle of the election.

???

Please show where they said that. There was nothing at all about
changing the rules. The law applied was the "equal protection" clause of
the 14th amendment. Quite frankly I don't see how it makes any sense at all.


... You would have been happy if the rules
had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes counted
for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the Democrat?

???

Where do you get this? There was no rule changing. There was only an
effort to count all the votes. This effort was thrown out by the Supreme
Court. Is counting the votes "changing the rules?"

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as
the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change
the
rules in the middle of the election.

???

Please show where they said that. There was nothing at all about
changing the rules. The law applied was the "equal protection" clause of
the 14th amendment. Quite frankly I don't see how it makes any sense at
all.


... You would have been happy if the rules
had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes
counted
for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the
Democrat?

???

Where do you get this? There was no rule changing. There was only an
effort to count all the votes. This effort was thrown out by the Supreme
Court. Is counting the votes "changing the rules?"

DSK


Look up the rules in recounts of votes in Florida. Gores people wanted to
change the rules, to allow a selective recount.

Calif Bill wrote:
Look up the rules in recounts of votes in Florida. Gores people wanted to
change the rules, to allow a selective recount.

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense. AFAIK neither side wanted a
"selective recount" only to either complete the recount, or failing
that, allow the votes recounted before the deadline to stand (is what
the law prescribed).

The Florida Supremem Court moved first to stop the recount; then ruled
that the recount could go ahead but had to be complete by the deadline
or all recounted votes would not stand; the Supreme Court stopped the
recount again. Can you point to any references about which rules the
Dems wanted to change?

In any event, how do you feel about the Republicans throwing away
Democrat absentee ballots wholesale? Happened in a few counties. How
about dropping registered voters from the rolls because they were 1-
Democrats and 2- had the same last name as a felon? That happened in a
bunch of places around the state, with the complicity of Gov. Bush and
Kathleen Harris. I guess since your side "won" you think it's OK?

The 2000 election, *especially* in Florida, was a tremendous defeat for
democracy in America.

DSK

The felon names, were supposed to be checked by the local election board.
Some did, some did not. The biggest screw up was in the Democrat controlled
areas with demo controlled election boards. The Dem's wanted to throw out
absentee ballots from the military as they did not have date stamps on the
envelopes. APO's may not date stamp. And I happen to be a registered
Democrat, and have been appalled by the choices of candidates we have had
for the last few elections. John Kerry? An ultra limousine liberal, that
has not shown any leadership in 17 years in the Senate. Bill Clinton, known
as a coke head and crook in Arkansas. Friends in Arkansas were happy to get
rid of him in the state house. Unfortunately we had to deal with her and
him on a national stage. At least Bush follows in the footsteps of one of
the great presidents. Abe Lincoln. Failed in several businesses, mental
breakdown, etc.
Bill

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
Look up the rules in recounts of votes in Florida. Gores people wanted
to
change the rules, to allow a selective recount.

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense. AFAIK neither side wanted a
"selective recount" only to either complete the recount, or failing
that, allow the votes recounted before the deadline to stand (is what
the law prescribed).

The Florida Supremem Court moved first to stop the recount; then ruled
that the recount could go ahead but had to be complete by the deadline
or all recounted votes would not stand; the Supreme Court stopped the
recount again. Can you point to any references about which rules the
Dems wanted to change?

In any event, how do you feel about the Republicans throwing away
Democrat absentee ballots wholesale? Happened in a few counties. How
about dropping registered voters from the rolls because they were 1-
Democrats and 2- had the same last name as a felon? That happened in a
bunch of places around the state, with the complicity of Gov. Bush and
Kathleen Harris. I guess since your side "won" you think it's OK?

The 2000 election, *especially* in Florida, was a tremendous defeat for
democracy in America.

DSK

Calif Bill wrote:
The felon names, were supposed to be checked by the local election board.
Some did, some did not.

My understanding was that this bit of chicanery was finessed from the
top, including Jeb Bush and Kathleen Harris. Local election boards are
supposed to be either non partisan or balanced among all parties (the
surest way to ensure screw-ups). The funny thing to me is that our
"liberal biased media" did not show any interest in the story at all, it
came from the BBC.


... The biggest screw up was in the Democrat controlled
areas with demo controlled election boards. The Dem's wanted to throw out
absentee ballots from the military as they did not have date stamps on the
envelopes. APO's may not date stamp.

I heard about this, but not that it was a Democrat problem. Anyway there
were several counties where Republican volunteers were given access to
the absentee ballot files, they did not throw away actual ballots but
instead threw away all requests for absentee ballots from registered
Democrats. This obviously included a lot of military personnel. The
funny thing here is that one of the supervisors claimed it was "fair"
because the Democrats could have done the same thing...

... And I happen to be a registered
Democrat, and have been appalled by the choices of candidates we have had
for the last few elections. John Kerry? An ultra limousine liberal, that
has not shown any leadership in 17 years in the Senate. Bill Clinton, known
as a coke head and crook in Arkansas. Friends in Arkansas were happy to get
rid of him in the state house.

Umm, right. You often make sense talking boats, but in talking politics
you sound like a ditto head. Why is "liberal" a dirty word to a
registered Democrat? Kerry has an OK record in the Senate if you
actually look at facts, as opposed to getting your info from Bush's
smear campaign which you seem to.



... At least Bush follows in the footsteps of one of
the great presidents. Abe Lincoln. Failed in several businesses, mental
breakdown, etc.

Lincoln never had a mental breakdown, but his wife did.

And George Bush Jr did not "fail in several businesses" he either used
his political connections or quasi-legal skullduggery to screw his
investors and turn a buck for himself.

I suppose you would recommned that your own retirement fund invest
heavily in Harken Energy, or maybe Enron, and be pleased with the result.

DSK

DSK wrote in message .. .

The Florida Supremem Court moved first to stop the recount; then ruled
that the recount could go ahead but had to be complete by the deadline
or all recounted votes would not stand; the Supreme Court stopped the
recount again. Can you point to any references about which rules the
Dems wanted to change?

Only Volusia County was able to comply with the recount "deadline" as
set forth in the law prior to the election. Palm Beach, Dade, and
Broward could not. The original "deadline" for recounts was changed
for that reason.

That is called "changing the rules". One county followed them, the
"three stooges" could not. Like severely retarded young children, they
required much more "time" to complete a routine, simple task.

Things were so hopeless in SE FL the Fl House of Rep's assembled and
were preparing, in essence, to vote to determine whom the electorial
votes of FL would be cast for as the predictable chaos, mayhem, and
confusion down in democratic controlled SE FL threatened another
"deadline" that was set forth in law prior to the election and the
State's electorial votes would have been disregarded.

Doug, who do you suppose they would have voted for?

In any event, how do you feel about the Republicans throwing away
Democrat absentee ballots wholesale? Happened in a few counties.

Got a cite for that one? I am in Cen FL and I missed that one.

Btw, speaking of trying to "throw away absentee ballots" here is what
your "choir boys" tried to pull.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...44835-2000Dec8

Yap all you want about how your "Champions of Democracy" got
"cheated".

Pathetic. Kinda like the Gambino crime family complaining to the NYPD
because Gotti's mobsters "roughed 'em up".

The 2000 election, *especially* in Florida, was a tremendous defeat for
democracy in America.

No, it just showed what we in the rest of FL already knew. SE FL has
repeatedly demonstrated the very same "disturbances" effecting local
elections in the past. But, noboby outside of there really gives a
**** about which local hoodlums are elected. POTUS is a whole other
matter.

Now, the whole wide world knows local government in SE FL is "third
world class" corrupt and incompetant.Not just in the local elections
office, either. School Boards, County commissions, Port Authority's,
you name it and its in a "Twilight Zone" of depravity.

Congratulations on this crowning achievement.

I have no doubt another shocking display is in store for '04.
--
SJM

Scott McFadden wrote:
Only Volusia County was able to comply with the recount "deadline" as
set forth in the law prior to the election. Palm Beach, Dade, and
Broward could not. The original "deadline" for recounts was changed
for that reason.

AFAIK the deadline was not changed until the court started interfering.
When the court stops the recount before the deadline, then restarts it,
what does that say about 1- the partisanship of the court and 2- the
claim that "they changed the rules"?



Things were so hopeless in SE FL the Fl House of Rep's assembled and
were preparing, in essence, to vote to determine whom the electorial
votes of FL would be cast for..

Doug, who do you suppose they would have voted for?

No doubt the end result would have been the same. That would have been a
more legitimate process than what actually occured.



In any event, how do you feel about the Republicans throwing away
Democrat absentee ballots wholesale? Happened in a few counties.


Got a cite for that one? I am in Cen FL and I missed that one.

Sure, it was all over the news. Funny thing, when I went to search for
it I must have it a typo, because it came back asking "Did you mean
'throwing away ballots Florida election 200'?"


Btw, speaking of trying to "throw away absentee ballots" here is what
your "choir boys" tried to pull.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...44835-2000Dec8


That's actually part of what I was talking about.

Yap all you want about how your "Champions of Democracy" got
"cheated".

So you're saying it's OK to let partisan operatives tamper with ballots,
as long as your side wins? That's exactly what happened here, and what
the suit was trying to remedy.


Pathetic. Kinda like the Gambino crime family complaining to the NYPD
because Gotti's mobsters "roughed 'em up".

Umm, no. It's more like the police letting the Gambino family into
police files so they can throw away all prior arrest records, then
letting them go because they had no prior arrests.

Without blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court, none of this would
have stood.



The 2000 election, *especially* in Florida, was a tremendous defeat for
democracy in America.


No, it just showed what we in the rest of FL already knew. SE FL has
repeatedly demonstrated the very same "disturbances" effecting local
elections in the past. But, noboby outside of there really gives a
**** about which local hoodlums are elected. POTUS is a whole other
matter.

Now, the whole wide world knows local government in SE FL is "third
world class" corrupt and incompetant.Not just in the local elections
office, either. School Boards, County commissions, Port Authority's,
you name it and its in a "Twilight Zone" of depravity.

Congratulations on this crowning achievement.

I have no doubt another shocking display is in store for '04.

And this display of cynicism is supposed to convince everyone that
you're one of the good guys? Frankly, I know of corruption issues here
in NC that would probably raise a few SE Fla eyebrows... but that
doesn't mean we're proud of it or try to tell others that it's OK
because our guy won. And AFAIK the election boards are mostly non partisan.

Regards
Doug King