Re: I Hate bush like any real man would

[ClarkeZapp]

what a lot of ****

[Mark Test]

"h" > wrote in message
...
> Michael P. Reed > wrote:
>
> > Al, you lost the election. Get over it already.
> >
> > <g>
>
> But all didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won the
> popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president, right?
>
> Good thing we aren't a real democracy.

We're a Republic and no, the popular vote doesn't carry the win,
the Electoral vote does...get over it.

Mark

[B2431]

>From: (h)
>Date: 12/16/2003 5:49 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Michael P. Reed > wrote:
>
>> Al, you lost the election. Get over it already.
>>
>> <g>
>
>But all didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won the
>popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president, right?
>
>Good thing we aren't a real democracy.
>
>--
>h
>awol at rcn.com
>REMEMBER 9/11
>

Geeze, let it go already. If you want Bush out of office vote him out in 2004.
The battle of 2003 is over.

While you are waiting look up the term "electoral college."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(B2431) writes:
>>From: (h)
>>Date: 12/16/2003 5:49 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Michael P. Reed > wrote:
>>
>>> Al, you lost the election. Get over it already.
>>>
>>> <g>
>>
>>But all didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won the
>>popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president, right?
>>
>>Good thing we aren't a real democracy.
>>
>>--
>>h
>>awol at rcn.com
>>REMEMBER 9/11
>>
>
> Geeze, let it go already. If you want Bush out of office vote him out in 2004.
> The battle of 2003 is over.

He can't Johnnie Wizard manages (No surprose) to fail on two main
counts:
1.) Outside of Liberia, 14 year olds can't vote. (Inside Liberia,
Nobody votes)
2.) As a Canadian, he's not able to vote in U.S. elections.

It must really chap his ass to know that his strident screeds will
have casued him to be investicated by the RCMP. with the aid of the
Us. Secret Service, and other such folks, and he's been found to be of
such little influence that he hasn't even garnered a ticket for Douple
Parking on the Information Highway.

> While you are waiting look up the term "electoral college."

He never managed to pass Electoral High School.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[miso]

Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
Democracy Money can Buy."


"Mark Test" > wrote in message >...
> "h" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Michael P. Reed > wrote:
> >
> > > Al, you lost the election. Get over it already.
> > >
> > > <g>
> >
> > But all didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won the
> > popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president, right?
> >
> > Good thing we aren't a real democracy.
>
> We're a Republic and no, the popular vote doesn't carry the win,
> the Electoral vote does...get over it.
>
> Mark

[B2431]

>From: (miso)
>Date: 12/17/2003 12:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
>Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
>Democracy Money can Buy."
>
>
Get over it already.

Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after recount
until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three counties be
counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have supported.

All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning. The
widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (ZZBunker)
>Date: 12/17/2003 2:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Michael P. Reed) wrote in message
>...
>> (h) wrote in message
>...
>>
>> > But all [sic] didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won the
>> > popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president, right?
>>
>> The Supreme Court was irrelevant, because Gore never had the votes (in
>> any recount) to overcome Bush at any rate.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "the popular vote" as there is no federal
>> election (only a Federally mandated election date).
>
>> > Good thing we aren't a real democracy.
>>
>> First, you will have to define "democracy." A "real democracy" (or
>> pure democracy) cannot even be made to work in my hometown of 521
>> persons. What makes you think it would work in a disparate nation of
>> fifty seperate states and 290,000,000+?
>
> We don't have to.
> Democracy has always been defined as an out-court-settlement
> of the US Republican Party vs The People on Earth with brains.
> So it's actually a quite trivial win-win situation
> when you have literate people vs Betchel morons.
>
> And it's even more trivial when you have Nuclear Reactors
> vs Alaska morons.
>
> Or as Nixon would say:
>
> There's commies everywhere Checkers, they got me surrounded.
> Call Charleton Heston quick, we need
> retarded Supreme Court Lawyers and Moses on the scene.
>
If you can't argue intelligently don't do it at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jimbo]

Wrong...The monkey business was duh Algore's and we voters of the
section of Florida who are divorced from the numbskulls who can't
punch holes made sure of that. Harris merely counted what we did.
Get used to it too.

--



PcolaPhil


Remove SPAMNOT. for email


Pay Americans First; Repeal foreign aid!!!



"miso" > wrote in message
om...
| Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business
by
| Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The
Best
| Democracy Money can Buy."
|
|
| "Mark Test" > wrote in message
>...
| > "h" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > > Michael P. Reed > wrote:
| > >
| > > > Al, you lost the election. Get over it already.
| > > >
| > > > <g>
| > >
| > > But all didn't lose. It was stolen by the Supreme Court. Al won
the
| > > popular vote, and in a real democracy, would be president,
right?
| > >
| > > Good thing we aren't a real democracy.
| >
| > We're a Republic and no, the popular vote doesn't carry the win,
| > the Electoral vote does...get over it.
| >
| > Mark

[Mary Shafer]

On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

> >Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
> >Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
> >Democracy Money can Buy."
> >
> >
> Get over it already.
>
> Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after recount
> until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three counties be
> counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have supported.
>
> All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning. The
> widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.

The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.

While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
responsive.

I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.

Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
event.

People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
republic.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> > >Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
> > >Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
> > >Democracy Money can Buy."
> > >
> > >
> > Get over it already.
> >
> > Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after
recount
> > until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three counties
be
> > counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have supported.
> >
> > All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning.
The
> > widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
>
> The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
> roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
> found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
> even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
> of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
>
> While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
> targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
> have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
> categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
> responsive.
>
> I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
> indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
> the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
>
> Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
> earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
> interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
> event.
>
> People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> republic.

You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity of
the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

Brooks

>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> > >Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
> > >Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
> > >Democracy Money can Buy."
> > >
> > >
> > Get over it already.
> >
> > Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after
recount
> > until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three counties
be
> > counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have supported.
> >
> > All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning.
The
> > widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
>
> The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
> roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
> found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
> even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
> of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
>
> While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
> targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
> have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
> categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
> responsive.
>
> I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
> indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
> the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
>
> Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
> earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
> interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
> event.
>
> People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> republic.

You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity of
the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

Brooks

>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >
> > > >Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
> > > >Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
> > > >Democracy Money can Buy."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Get over it already.
> > >
> > > Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after
> recount
> > > until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three counties
> be
> > > counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have supported.
> > >
> > > All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning.
> The
> > > widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
> >
> > The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
> > roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
> > found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
> > even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
> > of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
> >
> > While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
> > targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
> > have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
> > categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
> > responsive.
> >
> > I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
> > indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
> > the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
> >
> > Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
> > earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
> > interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
> > event.
> >
> > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> > republic.
>
> You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity of
> the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself quite
clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other events or
subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite articulate and
doesn't need that kind of help.

You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to address
the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves to give the
appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her views.

George Z.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:51:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


> > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> > republic.
>
> You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity of
> the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

No, I don't.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Fred J. McCall]

(miso) wrote:

:Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
:Harris

You mean her trying to actually follow what the law said, despite the
Gore camp's attempts to steal the election via the Florida Supreme
Court? Yeah, shame on her for that.

:and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
:Democracy Money can Buy."

Why? Most of us were around for the election and don't need someone
to propagandize us into 'their truth'.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:51:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> > > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> > > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> > > republic.
> >
> > You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity
of
> > the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
>
> No, I don't.

Glad we cleared that up--stripping the vote from those likely to be dems is
apparently a travesty, while doing the same to those who serve overseas is
A-OK, huh?

Brooks

>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business
by
> > > > >Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The
Best
> > > > >Democracy Money can Buy."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Get over it already.
> > > >
> > > > Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount
after
> > recount
> > > > until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three
counties
> > be
> > > > counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have
supported.
> > > >
> > > > All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush
winning.
> > The
> > > > widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
> > >
> > > The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
> > > roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
> > > found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
> > > even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
> > > of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
> > >
> > > While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
> > > targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
> > > have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
> > > categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
> > > responsive.
> > >
> > > I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
> > > indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
> > > the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
> > >
> > > Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
> > > earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
> > > interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
> > > event.
> > >
> > > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> > > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> > > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> > > republic.
> >
> > You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity
of
> > the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
>
> It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself
quite
> clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other
events or
> subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite articulate
and
> doesn't need that kind of help.
>
> You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
address
> the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves to give the
> appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her views.

George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past accusations
towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not true,
come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
about your own posts, OK? Here is that link again that clarifies that he did
indeed volunteer:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm

Brooks

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
>>>>>> Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The Best
>>>>>> Democracy Money can Buy."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Get over it already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount after
>>>>> recount until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that three
>>>>> counties be counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would have
>>>>> supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush winning. The
>>>>> widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
>>>>
>>>> The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the electoral
>>>> roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
>>>> found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
>>>> even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor and
>>>> of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
>>>>
>>>> While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
>>>> targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
>>>> have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
>>>> categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
>>>> responsive.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
>>>> indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
>>>> the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
>>>>
>>>> Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
>>>> earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
>>>> interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an unfortunate
>>>> event.
>>>>
>>>> People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
>>>> vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
>>>> our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
>>>> republic.
>>>
>>> You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity of
>>> the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
>>
>> It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself quite
>> clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other events
>> or subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite articulate
>> and doesn't need that kind of help.
>>
>> You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
>> address the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves to
>> give the appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her
>> views.
>
> George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past accusations
> towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not true,
> come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
> about your own posts, OK?

In the first place, this isn't about my past accusations about
anything......it's about your failure to respond to Mary Shafer's comments
regarding certain election activities that occurred in Florida during the last
presidential election without trying to change the subject to something else so
that you wouldn't have to respond. I guess your silence on that score is an
admission of sorts that she's got it right.

Don't try to change this into anything involving what I might have said or not
said about anything......just get back to addressing Mary's points about the
election in Florida without another demonstration of your skill at the Texas two
step. It's not about me and my views; it's about her and hers. Try to stick to
the point.

George Z.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:30:01 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:51:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> > > > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> > > > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of the
> > > > republic.
> > >
> > > You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the validity
> of
> > > the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
> >
> > No, I don't.
>
> Glad we cleared that up--stripping the vote from those likely to be dems is
> apparently a travesty, while doing the same to those who serve overseas is
> A-OK, huh?

If the rules say your absentee vote has to be postmarked before a
given date, it's not stripping your vote from you if you don't get it
done in time. The same is true for folks serving in the US as well,
by the way, just like it is for civilians voting absentee.

Come to think of it, how could they tell the ballots were from
overseas military, not civilians overseas or folks stationed outside
Florida but within the US?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>>
> >>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business
by
> >>>>>> Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The
Best
> >>>>>> Democracy Money can Buy."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Get over it already.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount
after
> >>>>> recount until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that
three
> >>>>> counties be counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would
have
> >>>>> supported.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush
winning. The
> >>>>> widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the
electoral
> >>>> roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
> >>>> found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
> >>>> even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor
and
> >>>> of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
> >>>>
> >>>> While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
> >>>> targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
> >>>> have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
> >>>> categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
> >>>> responsive.
> >>>>
> >>>> I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
> >>>> indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
> >>>> the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
> >>>> earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
> >>>> interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an
unfortunate
> >>>> event.
> >>>>
> >>>> People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
> >>>> vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
> >>>> our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of
the
> >>>> republic.
> >>>
> >>> You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the
validity of
> >>> the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself
quite
> >> clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other
events
> >> or subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite
articulate
> >> and doesn't need that kind of help.
> >>
> >> You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having
to
> >> address the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves
to
> >> give the appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her
> >> views.
> >
> > George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past
accusations
> > towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not
true,
> > come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
> > about your own posts, OK?
>
> In the first place, this isn't about my past accusations about
> anything......it's about your failure to respond to Mary Shafer's comments
> regarding certain election activities that occurred in Florida during the
last
> presidential election without trying to change the subject to something
else so
> that you wouldn't have to respond. I guess your silence on that score is
an
> admission of sorts that she's got it right.

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

<snip further bellyaching>

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>
>>>>>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business
>
> by
>
>>>>>>>>Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The
>
> Best
>
>>>>>>>>Democracy Money can Buy."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Get over it already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount
>
> after
>
>>>>>>>recount until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that
>
> three
>
>>>>>>>counties be counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would
>
> have
>
>>>>>>>supported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush
>
> winning. The
>
>>>>>>>widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the
>
> electoral
>
>>>>>>roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
>>>>>>found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
>>>>>>even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor
>
> and
>
>>>>>>of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
>>>>>>targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
>>>>>>have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
>>>>>>categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
>>>>>>responsive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
>>>>>>indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
>>>>>>the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
>>>>>>earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
>>>>>>interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an
>
> unfortunate
>
>>>>>>event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
>>>>>>vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
>>>>>>our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of
>
> the
>
>>>>>>republic.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the
>
> validity of
>
>>>>>the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
>>>>
>>>>It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself
>
> quite
>
>>>>clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other
>
> events
>
>>>>or subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite
>
> articulate
>
>>>>and doesn't need that kind of help.
>>>>
>>>>You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having
>
> to
>
>>>>address the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves
>
> to
>
>>>>give the appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her
>>>>views.
>>>
>>>George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past
>
> accusations
>
>>>towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not
>
> true,
>
>>>come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
>>>about your own posts, OK?
>>
>>In the first place, this isn't about my past accusations about
>>anything......it's about your failure to respond to Mary Shafer's comments
>>regarding certain election activities that occurred in Florida during the
>
> last
>
>>presidential election without trying to change the subject to something
>
> else so
>
>>that you wouldn't have to respond. I guess your silence on that score is
>
> an
>
>>admission of sorts that she's got it right.
>
>
> When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
> earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
> working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
> whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
> likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
> case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
>
> Brooks
>
> <snip further bellyaching>
>
>

That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...

John

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:30:01 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:51:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of
their
> > > > > vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people,
direct
> > > > > our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of
the
> > > > > republic.
> > > >
> > > > You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the
validity
> > of
> > > > the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?
> > >
> > > No, I don't.
> >
> > Glad we cleared that up--stripping the vote from those likely to be dems
is
> > apparently a travesty, while doing the same to those who serve overseas
is
> > A-OK, huh?
>
> If the rules say your absentee vote has to be postmarked before a
> given date, it's not stripping your vote from you if you don't get it
> done in time. The same is true for folks serving in the US as well,
> by the way, just like it is for civilians voting absentee.

Your concern was expressed as being regarding "...voters being stripped of
their vote for no valid reason." I'd think you would want to investigate
what constitutes "valid" and apply it equally across the board, to include
those absentee ballots that were almost tossed out because the democrats
feared their likely pro-republican count (justifiably, IIRC). The argument
was NOT over when they were submitted, but over the validity of the source
for the ballots being sent out (done by the local republican committee
chair--gee, I wonder why the democratic chair did not do likewise?), and a
technicality regarding who had listed the voter ID number on the envelope.
Even the Florida State Supreme Court, which demonstrated a rather
significant bias towards the Gore camp, in the end could not stomach this
kind of disenfranchisement effort on the part of Gore's supporters, and
affirmed the lower court's ruling to let them be counted. I'd think the
above definitely falls into your "no valid reason" category, don't you?

>
> Come to think of it, how could they tell the ballots were from
> overseas military, not civilians overseas or folks stationed outside
> Florida but within the US?

The challenges from the Gore camp were curiously directed at two
predominantly republican counties, and the majority of absentee ballots
filed usually come from military sources. The courts found in both cases
that there were no grounds for tossing out the ballots. Interestingly, there
were no legal challenges by the republicans to have any absentee ballots
tossed out, even in predominantly democratic counties (and IIRC there was
some well based speculation that absentee ballots in Miami-Dade would likely
be leaning towards the Gore side). If you are truly concerned over alleged
disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 election, then I'd assume you
would be equally insensed at the efforts by the democrats in those two
counties to have those absentee ballots tossed out on the basis of minor
technicalities like who wrote down the individuals voter ID number as you
are over the allegations against Ms. Harris--if not, then you are letting
your sentiments get in the way of being fairminded, something you have in a
round about manner accused Ms. Harris of doing.

Brooks

>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[RobbelothE]

As a Florida resident, I offer these observations:

1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.
2. The punch card ballots were approved by the local county Democrat party.
3. The supervisors of elections in those counties were Democrat.
4. The Democrat approved punch card ballots didn't seem to be a problem in
previous elections.\
5. The same people who had trouble dealing with punch card ballots qualified
for drivers' licenses and seem to be able to drive a car without much problem.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Makes you go 'hmmmmmmm.'"


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[George Z. Bush]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

> > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
> > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
> > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
> > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
> > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
> > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > <snip further bellyaching>
> >
> >
>
> That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
> being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...
>
> John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

George Z.

>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> (Unnecessary background snipped)
>
> > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that
your
> > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can
start
> > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
> > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to
the
> > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was
the
> > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
> > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...
> >
> > John
>
> By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
> wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
he's
> trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said
about
> other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and
force
> him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I
won't
> be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it
suits
> me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he
keeps
> on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
from the
> can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
won't
> work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.

Brooks
>
> George Z.
>
> >
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
...
> As a Florida resident, I offer these observations:
>
> 1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.

Seminole and Martin, the two counties whose absentee ballots were contested
by the Gore camp, voted Republican in 2000.

Brooks

> 2. The punch card ballots were approved by the local county Democrat
party.
> 3. The supervisors of elections in those counties were Democrat.
> 4. The Democrat approved punch card ballots didn't seem to be a problem in
> previous elections.\
> 5. The same people who had trouble dealing with punch card ballots
qualified
> for drivers' licenses and seem to be able to drive a car without much
problem.
>
> As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Makes you go 'hmmmmmmm.'"
>
>
> Ed
> "The French couldn't hate us any
> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
> --Will Rogers
>
>
>
> (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Mark Test]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (miso) wrote:
>
> :Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business by
> :Harris
>
> You mean her trying to actually follow what the law said, despite the
> Gore camp's attempts to steal the election via the Florida Supreme
> Court? Yeah, shame on her for that.

Additionally, why did Florida (and Gore) dis-allow any of the military
absentee ballots????

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> >
> > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> >
> > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that
> your
> > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can
> start
> > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> questioning
> > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to
> the
> > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was
> the
> > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
> > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...
> > >
> > > John
> >
> > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
> > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
> he's
> > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said
> about
> > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and
> force
> > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I
> won't
> > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it
> suits
> > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he
> keeps
> > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
> from the
> > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
> won't
> > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
>
> You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't agree
> with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
>
> Brooks

And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get high
marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > >
> > > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> > >
> > > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize
that
> > your
> > > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you
can
> > start
> > > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> > questioning
> > > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation
to
> > the
> > > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed
was
> > the
> > > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
> > > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
wonderful...
> > > >
> > > > John
> > >
> > > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would
know,
> > > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
> > he's
> > > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
said
> > about
> > > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire
and
> > force
> > > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer.
I
> > won't
> > > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as
it
> > suits
> > > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
because he
> > keeps
> > > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
> > from the
> > > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
> > won't
> > > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
> >
> > You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
agree
> > with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get
high
> marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.

You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of holes--namely,
the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities, and
the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so to
servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side is
apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my bringing
this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to your
earlier comment? Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in Florida
during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
original post since at least it entered the military side into the equation
in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for overseas
service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
that one?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> > > >
> > > > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize
> that
> > > your
> > > > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you
> can
> > > start
> > > > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> > > questioning
> > > > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed
> was
> > > the
> > > > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
> > > > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
> wonderful...
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > >
> > > > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would
> know,
> > > > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
> > > he's
> > > > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
> said
> > > about
> > > > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire
> and
> > > force
> > > > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer.
> I
> > > won't
> > > > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as
> it
> > > suits
> > > > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
> because he
> > > keeps
> > > > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
> > > from the
> > > > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
> > > won't
> > > > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
> > >
> > > You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
> agree
> > > with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> > And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get
> high
> > marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.
>
> You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
> this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
> ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of holes--namely,
> the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities, and
> the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
> respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
> don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
> disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so to
> servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side is
> apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my bringing
> this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to your
> earlier comment?.....

You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in your
discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it was
only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.

> ......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
> with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in Florida
> during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
> original post since at least it entered the military side into the equation
> in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
> admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for overseas
> service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
> that one?

It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in the
past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded at
their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that subject
from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot that
you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your chimes.....it
makes no never-mind to me.

Have a nice Holiday Season.

George Z.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > George Z.
> >
> >
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > t...
> > > >
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in
message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you
recognize
> > that
> > > > your
> > > > > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it),
you
> > can
> > > > start
> > > > > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> > > > questioning
> > > > > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in
relation
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that
indeed
> > was
> > > > the
> > > > > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I
suppose
> > > > > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
> > wonderful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I
would
> > know,
> > > > > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how
hard
> > > > he's
> > > > > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
> > said
> > > > about
> > > > > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the
fire
> > and
> > > > force
> > > > > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary
Shafer.
> > I
> > > > won't
> > > > > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time
as
> > it
> > > > suits
> > > > > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
> > because he
> > > > keeps
> > > > > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk
away
> > > > from the
> > > > > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them.
It
> > > > won't
> > > > > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
> > > >
> > > > You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
> > agree
> > > > with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > > And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You
get
> > high
> > > marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.
> >
> > You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
> > this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
> > ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of
holes--namely,
> > the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities,
and
> > the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
> > respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
> > don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
> > disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so
to
> > servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side
is
> > apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my
bringing
> > this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to
your
> > earlier comment?.....
>
> You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
> discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in
your
> discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it
was
> only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.

No, your first post, in response to my FIRST post in the thread, included:
"You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
address the points she made." Odd, in that my first post was merely to point
out that the alleged disenfranchisement effort attributed to Ms. Harris was
not the only such effort during that election in Florida. I did not attack
her claims--merely wanted to see how evenhanded she was in accessing the
situation. Her subsequent responses indicate that, like you, even-handedness
is not a priority.

>
> > ......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
> > with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in
Florida
> > during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
> > original post since at least it entered the military side into the
equation
> > in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
> > admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for
overseas
> > service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
> > that one?
>
> It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
> You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in
the
> past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded
at
> their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that
subject
> from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot
that
> you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your
chimes.....it
> makes no never-mind to me.

No, the issue in that discussion was your bold faced claim that Bush never
volunteered for overseas duty, period. Which was not the case, as he
reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert. You can't even bring yourself to
admit that, can you?

>
> Have a nice Holiday Season.

Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am currently
enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing death
upon our temporary foes).

Brooks
>
> George Z.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > George Z.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > t...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you
> recognize
> > > that
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it),
> you
> > > can
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> > > > > questioning
> > > > > > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in
> relation
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that
> indeed
> > > was
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I
> suppose
> > > > > > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
> > > wonderful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I
> would
> > > know,
> > > > > > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how
> hard
> > > > > he's
> > > > > > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
> > > said
> > > > > about
> > > > > > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the
> fire
> > > and
> > > > > force
> > > > > > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary
> Shafer.
> > > I
> > > > > won't
> > > > > > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time
> as
> > > it
> > > > > suits
> > > > > > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
> > > because he
> > > > > keeps
> > > > > > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk
> away
> > > > > from the
> > > > > > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them.
> It
> > > > > won't
> > > > > > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
> > > > >
> > > > > You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
> > > agree
> > > > > with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You
> get
> > > high
> > > > marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.
> > >
> > > You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
> > > this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
> > > ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of
> holes--namely,
> > > the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities,
> and
> > > the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
> > > respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
> > > don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
> > > disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so
> to
> > > servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side
> is
> > > apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my
> bringing
> > > this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to
> your
> > > earlier comment?.....
> >
> > You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
> > discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in
> your
> > discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it
> was
> > only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.
>
> No, your first post, in response to my FIRST post in the thread, included:
> "You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
> address the points she made." Odd, in that my first post was merely to point
> out that the alleged disenfranchisement effort attributed to Ms. Harris was
> not the only such effort during that election in Florida. I did not attack
> her claims--merely wanted to see how evenhanded she was in accessing the
> situation. Her subsequent responses indicate that, like you, even-handedness
> is not a priority.
>
> >
> > > ......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
> > > with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in
> Florida
> > > during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
> > > original post since at least it entered the military side into the
> equation
> > > in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
> > > admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for
> overseas
> > > service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
> > > that one?
> >
> > It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
> > You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in
> the
> > past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded
> at
> > their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that
> subject
> > from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot
> that
> > you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your
> chimes.....it
> > makes no never-mind to me.
>
> No, the issue in that discussion was your bold faced claim that Bush never
> volunteered for overseas duty, period. Which was not the case, as he
> reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert. You can't even bring yourself to
> admit that, can you?
>
> >
> > Have a nice Holiday Season.
>
> Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am currently
> enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
> heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing death
> upon our temporary foes).

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > t...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > > > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Unnecessary background snipped)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you
> recognize
> > > that
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it),
> you
> > > can
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > > working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
> > > > > questioning
> > > > > > > > whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in
> relation
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that
> indeed
> > > was
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip further bellyaching>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I
> suppose
> > > > > > > being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
> > > wonderful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I
> would
> > > know,
> > > > > > wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how
> hard
> > > > > he's
> > > > > > trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
> > > said
> > > > > about
> > > > > > other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the
> fire
> > > and
> > > > > force
> > > > > > him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary
> Shafer.
> > > I
> > > > > won't
> > > > > > be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time
> as
> > > it
> > > > > suits
> > > > > > me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
> > > because he
> > > > > keeps
> > > > > > on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk
> away
> > > > > from the
> > > > > > can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them.
> It
> > > > > won't
> > > > > > work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
> > > > >
> > > > > You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
> > > agree
> > > > > with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You
> get
> > > high
> > > > marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.
> > >
> > > You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
> > > this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
> > > ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of
> holes--namely,
> > > the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities,
> and
> > > the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
> > > respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
> > > don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
> > > disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so
> to
> > > servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side
> is
> > > apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my
> bringing
> > > this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to
> your
> > > earlier comment?.....
> >
> > You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
> > discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in
> your
> > discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it
> was
> > only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.
>
> No, your first post, in response to my FIRST post in the thread, included:
> "You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
> address the points she made." Odd, in that my first post was merely to point
> out that the alleged disenfranchisement effort attributed to Ms. Harris was
> not the only such effort during that election in Florida. I did not attack
> her claims--merely wanted to see how evenhanded she was in accessing the
> situation. Her subsequent responses indicate that, like you, even-handedness
> is not a priority.
>
> >
> > > ......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
> > > with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in
> Florida
> > > during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
> > > original post since at least it entered the military side into the
> equation
> > > in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
> > > admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for
> overseas
> > > service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
> > > that one?
> >
> > It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
> > You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in
> the
> > past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded
> at
> > their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that
> subject
> > from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot
> that
> > you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your
> chimes.....it
> > makes no never-mind to me.
>
> No, the issue in that discussion was your bold faced claim that Bush never
> volunteered for overseas duty, period. Which was not the case, as he
> reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert. You can't even bring yourself to
> admit that, can you?

As I recall, I think I said something to the effect that when he had the
opportunity to volunteer for a combat assignment, he chose to go the other way.
Palace Alert notwithstanding, I still think I had it right. BTW, I must admit
that I had never heard of that program, whatever it was. I imagine that, if it
was that important, a chronology of when some of his F-102 squadron mates
started volunteering and leaving for transition into combat model aircraft
and/or Far East assignments, when he volunteered for Palace Alert (whatever that
was), and when he allowed his flight physical to expire and failed to get it
renewed, might get it all sorted out.

Personally, I don't really care enough about it to invest my time and effort
into the project, but if it suits you, feel free.
>
> >
> > Have a nice Holiday Season.
>
> Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am currently
> enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
> heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing death
> upon our temporary foes).

Fortunately, I got my flu shot early in the season and have managed to avoid it
up to now. I hope you get over your miseries pretty quick so that you'll be
able to enjoy what's left of the Holiday Season. As for Tarver, he's what I
consider to be a prize schmuck and is a charter member of my killfile. Needless
to say, I don't put any stock in his opinions or statements, and we haven't
spoken in years.....it does wonders for my blood pressure. You might consider
doing the same.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
<snip stuf we will never agree on>

> > > Have a nice Holiday Season.
> >
> > Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am
currently
> > enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
> > heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing
death
> > upon our temporary foes).
>
> Fortunately, I got my flu shot early in the season and have managed to
avoid it
> up to now. I hope you get over your miseries pretty quick so that you'll
be
> able to enjoy what's left of the Holiday Season. As for Tarver, he's what
I
> consider to be a prize schmuck and is a charter member of my killfile.
Needless
> to say, I don't put any stock in his opinions or statements, and we
haven't
> spoken in years.....it does wonders for my blood pressure. You might
consider
> doing the same.

My wife got the shot and so far (knock on my little wooden head) it has kept
her safe, even after having to put up with my distress over the past five
days. So despite the hype about the shot not being for the exactly correct
strain, it seems to be of some use and you may not have a lot to worry
about. It has forced changes to the Christmas plans--both our respective
parents are getting on in years and don't need to be exposed to it, even
though they all also had the shots. As to Tarver...sometimes he is comical,
in a sad way I guess, but now that I am posting with OE as opposed to using
Google, I can at long last plonk his butt. Maybe I'll make that my Christmas
present to myself.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[RobbelothE]

>> 1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.
>
>Seminole and Martin, the two counties whose absentee ballots were contested
>by the Gore camp, voted Republican in 2000.
>
>Brooks

I was referring only to the problems at the actual polls. I should have been
more specific.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
RobbelothE > wrote:
>As a Florida resident, I offer these observations:

....with a bias quite evident by your language misuse...
>
>1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.
>2. The punch card ballots were approved by the local county Democrat party.
>3. The supervisors of elections in those counties were Democrat.
>4. The Democrat approved punch card ballots didn't seem to be a problem in
>previous elections.\
>5. The same people who had trouble dealing with punch card ballots qualified
>for drivers' licenses and seem to be able to drive a car without much problem.

Ummm...what is this "Democrat" party? I'm not familiar with them. I do know
of a "Democratic" party.

....makes me go "hmmm...this guy is not being very subtle about his biases..."

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/