| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John S. Dyson" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 04:33:19 PM |
| Object: |
Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid. This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.' Luckily, it was also a
technicality (the constitution) that kept Al Gore away from
the presidency.
John
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Went To Vietnam, While Bush Deserted His Unit |
03 Jan 2004 05:05:47 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever
mistake --
It wasn't limited to military absentee ballots. Stop pretending that
it was, you moron.
Only military absentee ballots had a grace period, yet the absentee
ballots were counted even if they were from civilians, and even
if they didn't conform with Florida law... in heavily Republican
districts.
The same rules did *Not* apply outside heavily Republican
districts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Al Gore took pictures (and had personal guards), while Bush flew planes |
04 Jan 2004 03:04:07 PM |
|
|
In article <H5mdncnbP_9q1GqiRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever
mistake --
It wasn't limited to military absentee ballots.
Remember: Gore TRYING TO EXCLUDE THE MILITARY BALLOTS was heinous.
He certainly showed VERY LITTLE respect to the military.
Are you trying to justify the exclusion of the votes from
our heros by saying that other groups also had troubles?
You are an incredibly dishonst person.
The specific courier mechanism (every bit as secure as the
post office) was the sophistry used to avoid counting
the ballots. It wasnt' a voter mistake. The voters
were Gore'd.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Served In The Military, Bush Deserted |
05 Jan 2004 03:50:37 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember:
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
I am not capable of forgetting how a 40 year struggle
for civil rights was dashed by one greedy family with
a lust for power.
I'll never forget the four little girls blown up in a church
in Birmingham Alabama, and how the Republicans, in
2000, turned their sacrifice into a meaningless tragedy.
500,000 thousand Americans died in the Second World
War alone, all to preserve our constitutional government.
I can't forget how Bush undid their sacrifice in 2000, how
"The right to vote" was just too inconvenient for the Bush
family, how even ***** Cheney was more important to the
Republicans than constitutional government.
I will always remember. Always. I will never forget.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, Bush honorably discharged |
05 Jan 2004 05:13:40 PM |
|
|
In article <0bOdnfIv-bnFRmSiRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> Blathered:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember: Gore TRYING TO EXCLUDE THE MILITARY BALLOTS was heinous.
He certainly showed VERY LITTLE respect to the military.
Are you trying to justify the exclusion of the votes from
our heros by saying that other groups also had troubles?
You are an incredibly dishonst person.
The specific courier mechanism (every bit as secure as the
post office) was the sophistry used to avoid counting
the ballots. It wasnt' a voter mistake. The voters
were Gore'd.
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
Yes, the Dems tried to perp a coup against the Constitution,
and the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) pushed back the
coup attempt.
Remember: The US is NOT a democracy, but has a constitution.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Reported For Duty, Bush Got High & Deserted |
05 Jan 2004 06:30:11 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
Yes,
It's like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination
all rolled into one. Florida is where a greedy family,
together with a group of mindless partisans, undid the
heroic sacrifices of every freedom-fighter in our history.
Think of the beaches of Normandy. Imagine the horror of
the loved ones lost on D-Day upon the news that Bush
took their sacrifice and reduced it to meaningless suffering.
The rights they thought they were preserving, the constitutional
government they were defending; all lost to one greedy family
and a small group of mindless partisan.
Curse them. Curse every last one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thom" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, Bush honorably discharged |
05 Jan 2004 08:46:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:13:40 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <0bOdnfIv-bnFRmSiRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> Blathered:
"John S. Dyson" < > wrote
Remember: Gore TRYING TO EXCLUDE THE MILITARY BALLOTS was heinous.
He certainly showed VERY LITTLE respect to the military.
Are you trying to justify the exclusion of the votes from
our heros by saying that other groups also had troubles?
You are an incredibly dishonst person.
The specific courier mechanism (every bit as secure as the
post office) was the sophistry used to avoid counting
the ballots. It wasnt' a voter mistake. The voters
were Gore'd.
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
Yes, the Dems tried to perp a coup against the Constitution,
and the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) pushed back the
coup attempt.
and speaking of that when is AWOL pretzel Boy going to do something
about all these unconstitutional gun laws he loves so much??
Remember: The US is NOT a democracy, but has a constitution.
yes, one that gives us the right to guns, gives us the right to be
free of JW's and faith based programs. Is that the one??
THOM
Viet Nam vet, unlike the Chimp in Charge
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, Bush honorably discharged |
05 Jan 2004 11:54:56 PM |
|
|
In article <3ffa2129.20502199@news.melbpc.org.au>,
thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom) writes:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:13:40 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <0bOdnfIv-bnFRmSiRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> Blathered:
"John S. Dyson" < > wrote
Remember: Gore TRYING TO EXCLUDE THE MILITARY BALLOTS was heinous.
He certainly showed VERY LITTLE respect to the military.
Are you trying to justify the exclusion of the votes from
our heros by saying that other groups also had troubles?
You are an incredibly dishonst person.
The specific courier mechanism (every bit as secure as the
post office) was the sophistry used to avoid counting
the ballots. It wasnt' a voter mistake. The voters
were Gore'd.
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
Yes, the Dems tried to perp a coup against the Constitution,
and the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) pushed back the
coup attempt.
On topic: remember, the Dems tried to perp a coup against the
constitution. Controlling guns isn't really an issue in a
Dean vs. Bush contest.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Reported For Duty, Bush Didn't |
06 Jan 2004 12:28:59 AM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
On topic: remember, the Dems tried to perp a coup against the
constitution.
No I don't. But I have read the 12th amendment to the U.S.
constitution, and Bush can't claim an electoral victory.
To candidates from the same state can't claim the Electoral
Votes from their state. Only one can. Both Bush & Cheney
were citizens of Texas. At least as recently as 2001, *****
Cheney was still registered to vote in Texas, and he was
still carrying a Texas driver's license. His home was also
located there. Still is. It hasn't moved.
So, in addition to losing the popular vote by more than
500,000 votes, Bush can't claim an Electoral victory either.
Not with ***** Cheney. The two together are a clear &
undeniable violation of the constitution.
There wasn't an "attempted" coup. You were wrong. The
coup was successful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thom" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Served In The Military, Bush Deserted |
05 Jan 2004 08:23:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:50:37 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember:
I'll never forget Florida in 2000. I can never forget
when Democracy died.
I am not capable of forgetting how a 40 year struggle
for civil rights was dashed by one greedy family with
a lust for power.
This dynasty thing has always bothered me. We broke away from the
custom of having sons follow fathers in office and then we turn around
and had 2 Adams. I didn't like the idea of Bobby Kennedy running, am
on the fence about the two Rooselvelts and HATE the two Bush's.
Don't have an answer to the problem
THOM
I'll never forget the four little girls blown up in a church
in Birmingham Alabama, and how the Republicans, in
2000, turned their sacrifice into a meaningless tragedy.
500,000 thousand Americans died in the Second World
War alone, all to preserve our constitutional government.
I can't forget how Bush undid their sacrifice in 2000, how
"The right to vote" was just too inconvenient for the Bush
family, how even ***** Cheney was more important to the
Republicans than constitutional government.
I will always remember. Always. I will never forget.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
03 Jan 2004 06:50:14 PM |
|
|
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid. This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
Sure, sure, a term of enlistment in the Army and going to war is a
breeze, everyone knows that.
But going to 'Nam and taking pictures was a good deal harder than
staying at home in Texas and getting drunk. Hell, even *Reagan did his
duty, altho that was making movies in Hollywood.
I really don't care that some frat boy made himself scarce. Most of my
friends in the 60s were hippies, and their motives were generally
self-serving. Although by buddy Tony's number came up, and *he went to
'Nam...
I just don't see why you pro-Iraqi war, pro-"duty to your country"
types see Dubya as anything but a kid who deserted his unit during wartime.
I can imagine what y'all would have been saying if the war records were
reversed.
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.'
As I recall, vote results were being contested all over the place that
year, by Gore and Bush and others, too.
Luckily, it was also a
technicality (the constitution) that kept Al Gore away from
the presidency.
Technically, it was 8,000 illegally tossed votes from Gadsen County,
over 53,000 voters incorrectly labeled "Felons", when what they were was
black, and a Supreme Court decision (and we know how you neo-cons love
the federal courts trumping state rights), plus counting late mail-in
votes, even the ones which weren't military (if they came from the right
counties).
John
--
Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dogbert" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
05 Jan 2004 09:54:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC), (John S. Dyson) :
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid. This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.'
As you are probably not a Floridian, and you clearly don't know much about
the election, you don't know that the first side to want strict adherence
to the law for overseas absentee ballots, including the military ones, was
the Republicans ( cf. former Secy of State Jim Smith's speech) Was it
heinous for the Republicans to want to do this until they realized that
these ballots would favor them?
Luckily, it was also a
technicality (the constitution) that kept Al Gore away from
the presidency.
No, it was 5 "justices" using this document as handy toilet paper that put
the pretender in the White House.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
05 Jan 2004 01:46:51 PM |
|
|
In article <5s1jvv09hohvn83j1935fp4k89dbklevp2@4ax.com>,
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> writes:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC), (John S. Dyson) :
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid. This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.'
As you are probably not a Floridian, and you clearly don't know much about
the Republicans
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Served In Vietnam, Bush Deserted |
05 Jan 2004 03:12:31 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats.
No, we can't "remember" because it never happened. The votes
were being counted by the county officials.
And, oh, be sure to scroll down on this page. We wouldn't want you
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit, never once having reported for
duty in more than a year:
http://www.awolbush.com
"AWOL" only applies to an absence of 30 days or less. After that it's
desertion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
05 Jan 2004 05:34:50 PM |
|
|
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit
Remember: there has been a bounty (yet unclaimed) that would
be paid if there is proof against Bush. Alas, no payment.
Refer to George Magazine for a fairly unbiased view of Bush's
honorable military endeavor. There are assertions from people
with much more credibility than you who claim:
1) Bush wasn't found to use drugs
2) There wasn't an AWOL.
Claiming Bush AWOL would be a lie. Perhaps the Dems would like
to vote on the truth, rather than be truthful? Of course...
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Went To Vietnam, Bush Got High & Deserted |
05 Jan 2004 06:31:56 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged
I don't need it. Not even you chicken shits, with all your
smears, can pretend that he wasn't.
However, Bush's military record remains sealed:
http://www.awolbush.com
What do you think he's hiding?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
05 Jan 2004 06:58:20 PM |
|
|
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:btcsaq$27o$10@news.iquest.net...
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit
Remember: there has been a bounty (yet unclaimed) that would
be paid if there is proof against Bush. Alas, no payment.
Refer to George Magazine for a fairly unbiased view of Bush's
honorable military endeavor. There are assertions from people
with much more credibility than you who claim:
1) Bush wasn't found to use drugs
2) There wasn't an AWOL.
Claiming Bush AWOL would be a lie. Perhaps the Dems would like
to vote on the truth, rather than be truthful? Of course...
John
It looks like, from reading various sites, that GW joined the National
Guard to avoid the combat situation. It further appears that either nothing
was required of him for 16 odd months, or the unit he was in was incredibly
lax on documentation or indeed training, and he took advantage of this fact.
He appears to have gotten special priveledges for being the son of a
Congressman, and although it looks like he took his service seriously enough
toward the beginning of it, he didn't take it very seriously by the end.
AWOL is probably too strong a word.
But then is COUP. Whoever heard of a coup that used the laws of the land.
One would think the point of a coup would be to completely leapfrog,
generally by violent means, the laws of the land in order to place someone
in power. He sought a loophole perhaps. He did not attempt a coup.
You can't claim disingenuousness on the side of your enemy, and then
practice it on your own side.
My kingdom for some non-partisan discussion. This dueling extremism is
getting me down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
06 Jan 2004 12:03:23 AM |
|
|
In article <3ffa07d3$1_3@newspeer2.tds.net>,
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> writes:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:btcsaq$27o$10@news.iquest.net...
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit
Remember: there has been a bounty (yet unclaimed) that would
be paid if there is proof against Bush. Alas, no payment.
Refer to George Magazine for a fairly unbiased view of Bush's
honorable military endeavor. There are assertions from people
with much more credibility than you who claim:
1) Bush wasn't found to use drugs
2) There wasn't an AWOL.
Claiming Bush AWOL would be a lie. Perhaps the Dems would like
to vote on the truth, rather than be truthful? Of course...
John
It looks like, from reading various sites, that GW joined the National
Guard to avoid the combat situation.
Al Gore got a sweetheart deal also, and Clinton was just despicable.
It was VERY WRONG to claim that he 'saw action'.
But then is COUP. Whoever heard of a coup that used the laws of the land.
(I admit that it wasn't as bad as decapitating the government, but
considering the USUAL respect for the constitutional process, Gore
fell FAR outside the norms of that USUAL respect. He put himself
forward as being MORE IMPORTANT and worthy than the constitutional
precedent.)
IN NO WAY would I claim that Gore tried to perp a coup against
Bush, or any other person (per se.) Gore violated the norms
associated with a presidential election. His violation was
FAR FAR beyond that of etiquitte.
Actually, the constitution (the ultimate law of the land) was subverted
directly by using a mechanism that didn't legally exist. Al Gore's
attempt to gain power without using the constitutional process does
really describe a kind of a coup. Note that the courts have
a kind of enforcement power that is based upon tradition, and if
they would have had to enforce the violation of the constitution,
then it would have been a kind of coup from within.
If anything, Gore tried to perp a kind of COUP--, but certainly wasn't
legal (considering the constitition as the legal basis for the election
of a president.)
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but notillustrious |
06 Jan 2004 09:30:23 AM |
|
|
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit
Remember: there has been a bounty (yet unclaimed) that would
be paid if there is proof against Bush. Alas, no payment.
Refer to George Magazine for a fairly unbiased view of Bush's
honorable military endeavor. There are assertions from people
with much more credibility than you who claim:
1) Bush wasn't found to use drugs
2) There wasn't an AWOL.
Claiming Bush AWOL would be a lie. Perhaps the Dems would like
Agreed. Bush deserted.
to vote on the truth, rather than be truthful? Of course...
John
--
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives. -- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thom" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
05 Jan 2004 08:52:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:34:50 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" < > wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
do yu have any proof Bushw as even in the military? Wheres his
DD-214?
to miss the scans of the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS testifying to the
fact that Bush had deserted his unit
Remember: there has been a bounty (yet unclaimed) that would
be paid if there is proof against Bush. Alas, no payment.
get the bounty and have an unfortunae accident???
Refer to George Magazine for a fairly unbiased view of Bush's
honorable military endeavor.
Is GEORGE published by Mad Magazine? or is it his own newspaper? From
what you just said it must be like Readers Digest, all fiction, sort
of like the fiction you write about combat photographers in Nam.
There are assertions from people
with much more credibility than you who claim:
1) Bush wasn't found to use drugs
Yah he refused to take the tests
2) There wasn't an AWOL.
No he was a deserter as defined by the UCMJ.
Claiming Bush AWOL would be a lie.
Just inaccurate, he was a deserter since he was gone more than 30
days.
Perhaps the Dems would like
to vote on the truth, rather than be truthful? Of course...
The truth? Yu mean like the WOMD scattered all around Iraq and could
be picked like flowers???
THOM
Viet Nam vet unlike the Chicken-in-charge
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Dyson" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
06 Jan 2004 12:54:41 AM |
|
|
In article <3ffa21ab.20632774@news.melbpc.org.au>,
thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom) writes:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:34:50 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" < > wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
do yu have any proof Bushw as even in the military? Wheres his
DD-214?
Do you truly dispute Bush being in the military? There
has been no dispute other than your own. However, there
have been more than several questions about Al Gore's
possible honorable discharge.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thom" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore took pictures, George Magazine: Bush honorable, but not illustrious |
13 Jan 2004 04:43:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 06:54:41 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <3ffa21ab.20632774@news.melbpc.org.au>,
thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom) writes:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:34:50 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
In article <pMyVCPH3T2SiRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> blathered:
"John S. Dyson" < > wrote
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
Do you have proof that Gore was honorably discharged for taking
newspaper pictures?
do yu have any proof Bushw as even in the military? Wheres his
DD-214?
Do you truly dispute Bush being in the military? There
has been no dispute other than your own. However, there
have been more than several questions about Al Gore's
possible honorable discharge.
Bush apologists keep asking for that when in fact he released it
during the election, Bush refused to release his. Where is his DD-214
and DD-256AF????? These will prove he was in the ANG (not the real
military) Why won't Bush release them? what is he hiding?
In fact all the veterans released their papers even McCain who is a
serious embarrassment to people like Bush.
THOM
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
05 Jan 2004 02:40:43 PM |
|
|
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <5s1jvv09hohvn83j1935fp4k89dbklevp2@4ax.com>,
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> writes:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC), (John S. Dyson) :
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid. This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.'
As you are probably not a Floridian, and you clearly don't know much about
the Republicans
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
John
The military votes weren't "error" votes -- they were ILLEGAL votes.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/071501/Worldandnation/Bush_focus__Get_in_ov.shtml
Bush focus: Get in overseas votes
Florida election officials, facing intense GOP pressure to accept military
votes, counted hundreds of such ballots that failed to comply with state laws.
By DAVID BARSTOW and DON VAN NATTA Jr., New York Times
© St. Petersburg Times,
published July 15, 2001
On the morning after Election Day, George W. Bush held an unofficial lead of
1,784 votes in Florida, but to his campaign strategists, the margin felt
perilously slim. They were right to worry. Within a week, recounts would erode
Bush's unofficial lead to just 300 votes.
With the presidency hanging on the outcome in Florida, the Bush team quickly
grasped that their best hope of ensuring victory was the trove of ballots still
arriving in the mail from Florida voters living abroad. Over the next 18 days,
the Republicans mounted a legal and public relations campaign to persuade
canvassing boards in Bush strongholds to waive the state's election laws when
counting overseas absentee ballots.
Their goal was simple: to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in
counties won by Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military
voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Vice
President Al Gore.
A six-month investigation by the New York Times of this chapter in the closest
presidential election in American history shows that the Republican effort had a
decided impact. Under intense pressure from the Republicans, Florida officials
accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state
election laws.
In an analysis of the 2,490 ballots from Americans living abroad that were
counted as legal votes after Election Day, the New York Times found 680
questionable votes. Although it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were
cast, four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Bush, the analysis
found. Bush's final margin in the official total was 537 votes.
The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after
the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and
cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice.
All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly
enforced.
The Republican push on absentee ballots became an effective counterweight to the
Gore campaign's push for manual recounts in mainly Democratic counties in
southern Florida.
In its investigation, the New York Times found that these overseas ballots --
the only votes that could legally be received and counted after Election Day --
were judged by markedly different standards, depending on where they were counted.
The unequal treatment of these ballots is at odds with statements by Bush
campaign leaders and by the Florida secretary of state, Katherine Harris, that
rules should be applied uniformly and certainly should not be changed in the
middle of a contested election. It also conflicts with the equal protection
guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court invoked in December when it halted a
statewide manual recount and effectively handed Florida to Bush.
After being told of the analysis' findings, Ari Fleischer, the White House
spokesman, said: "This election was decided by the voters of Florida a long time
ago. And the nation, the president and all but the most partisan Americans have
moved on."
The New York Times study found no evidence of vote fraud by either party. In
particular, while some voters admitted in interviews that they had cast illegal
ballots after Election Day, the investigation found no support for the
suspicions of Democrats that the Bush campaign had organized an effort to
solicit late votes.
Rather, the Republicans poured their energy into the speedy delivery and liberal
treatment of likely Bush ballots from abroad. In a Tallahassee "war room" within
the offices of Harris, veteran Republican political consultants helped shape the
post-election instructions to county canvassing boards. In Washington, senior
Bush campaign officials urged the Pentagon to accelerate the collection and
delivery of military ballots, and indeed ballots arrived more quickly than in
previous elections. Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee helped the
Bush campaign obtain private contact information for military voters.
Republicans provided their lawyers with a detailed playbook that included
instructions on how to challenge likely Gore votes while fighting for the
inclusion of likely Bush votes. In some counties where Gore was strong, Bush
lawyers stood by silently while Gore lawyers challenged all overseas ballots,
even likely Gore ballots.
The effectiveness of the Republican effort is demonstrated by striking
disparities in how different counties treated ballots with similar defects. For
instance, counties carried by Gore accepted 2 in 10 ballots that had no evidence
they were mailed on or before Election Day. Counties carried by Bush accepted 6
in 10 of the same kinds of ballots. The Bush counties were four times as likely
as the Gore counties to count ballots that lacked witness signatures and addresses.
In reconstructing the story of the absentee vote, the New York Times collected
copies of virtually all the overseas ballot envelopes that arrived after
Election Day and built a comprehensive database for statistical analysis. The
study also examined thousands of pages of election documents and canvassing
board meeting transcripts. More than 300 voters in 43 countries were interviewed.
Because the ballots themselves are separated from the envelopes containing voter
information, it is impossible to know whether the outcome of the election would
have been different had the flawed ballot envelopes been treated consistently.
The New York Times asked Gary King, a Harvard expert on voting patterns and
statistical models, what would have happened had the flawed ballots been
discarded. He replied that there was no way to declare a winner with
mathematical certainty under those circumstances. His best estimate, he said,
was that Bush's margin would have been reduced to 245 votes. King estimated that
there was only a slight chance that discarding the questionable ballots would
have made Gore the winner.
Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas envelopes had
multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of defective
ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:
344 ballots with no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day. They
had late, illegible or missing postmarks.
183 ballots with U.S. postmarks.
96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness.
169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the envelope
or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by federal law.
19 voters cast two ballots, both of which were counted.
Five ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline.
Canvassing board members struggled to strike a balance between counting as many
votes as possible and safeguarding against fraud. Decisions were difficult,
particularly with ballots that appeared to be from legitimate voters yet did not
comply with the rules. In some cases, board members said they had used common
sense and cited a Florida court decision that gave them some "latitude of
judgment." For example, the boards accepted 87 overseas ballots that arrived
without a postmark a day or two after Election Day, judging that they most
likely had been cast before Nov. 7.
Still, this benefit of the doubt was given to such ballots more than three times
as often in counties carried by Bush, according to the New York Times database.
Both parties quickly recognized the importance to Bush of the uncounted overseas
ballots, especially those from military installations. But the Democrats were
preoccupied elsewhere, particularly with their pursuit of manual recounts in
several heavily Democratic counties. And their strategy for the absentee
ballots, which consisted of challenging as many overseas ballots as possible,
backfired after they were accused of disenfranchising men and women in uniform.
The Republican effort on the absentees, by comparison, was methodical and
unrelenting.
Benjamin L. Ginsberg, national counsel to the Bush campaign, recalled those days
as being "as hardball a game as any of us had ever been involved in.
"For any given five-minute period, we were confident we were going to hold on to
the lead, and for any given five-minute period we were confident we were going
to lose it all."
The canvassing board members also have sharp memories of those days. Judge Anne
Kaylor, chairwoman of the Polk County board, said the combination of Republican
pressure and court rulings caused her board to count some ballots that would
probably have been considered illegal in past years.
"I think the rules were bent," said Kaylor, a Democrat. "Technically, they were
not supposed to be accepted. Any canvassing board that says they weren't under
pressure is being less than candid."
Ginsberg said, "We didn't ask anybody to do anything that wasn't in the law as
it existed on Election Day."
Florida's certified election results, listed on the Florida Department of
State's Web site, show that the Republicans' sense of urgency was justified.
Although Bush appeared to hold a fluctuating lead throughout the 36 days of
recounts, the Web site shows that without the overseas absentee ballots counted
after Election Day, Gore would have won Florida by 202 votes, and thus the White
House. But no one knew that until the 36 days were over; by then, it was a
historical footnote.
Strategy to protect a lead
By midday on Wednesday, Nov. 8, Bush's aides were already plotting strategy on
overseas ballots.
Florida is among a handful of states that give extra time for ballots to arrive
from around the world. Unlike domestic absentee votes, which must arrive by
Election Day, the deadline for overseas ballots was Nov. 17.
Ginsberg assembled a task force of political strategists and corporate lawyers
to focus exclusively on overseas voters. The task force sent lawyers and
campaign aides to election offices in all 67 counties.
There, lawyers gathered the names, foreign addresses and political affiliations
of every overseas voter. They tracked which ballots had been returned, and which
ones had yet to arrive.
As part of their work, the teams made a critical discovery: In county after
county, military ballots were arriving without postmarks.
Under a well-established legal standard in Florida, all overseas ballots must
bear clear evidence they were cast on or before Election Day and mailed from
outside the United States. State law required all overseas ballots to have
foreign postmarks. In addition, a state rule said that such ballots must have
been either "postmarked or signed and dated" by Election Day.
But most of the ballots did not have dated signatures because only one of
Florida's 67 counties even provided a spot on the ballot for a
oter to write a
date next to his or her signature. In past elections, with few exceptions, the
boards had routinely insisted on a postmark as proof of timeliness.
This seemingly obscure postmark standard was suddenly of crucial importance to
the Bush strategists. Hundreds of overseas ballots that they wanted counted met
neither requirement -- the envelopes had no postmarks, and the signatures had no
dates.
Rush to retrieve military ballots
Not only were ballots coming in without postmarks, the Bush team had also heard
scattered accounts of ballots sitting in mailbags on the decks of Navy ships.
Around the world, on Navy ships and military bases, in embassies and vacation
homes, Florida's overseas voters were transfixed by the unfolding drama. Most
could only watch and wait; by Election Day, they had already voted.
But after Nov. 7, some hurriedly mailed their ballots, unaware or unconcerned
that late voting is illegal.
The New York Times investigation found a substantial number of people who
knowingly cast their ballots after Election Day. Of the 91 voters interviewed
whose ballots had either missing or late postmarks, 30 acknowledged marking
ballots late. Only four were counted.
In the end, the vast majority of the ballots -- 97 percent -- arrived before the
Nov. 17 deadline. In previous elections, according to records and interviews, as
many as a third arrived after the 10-day window had closed.
But the investigation indicated that the push to get the ballots in quickly only
aggravated a problem that had concerned the Bush camp: 17 percent of military
ballots arrived without postmarks, despite military regulations that require all
mail to be postmarked. There is no evidence that the Pentagon knowingly
delivered ballots cast illegally after Election Day.
In interviews, Pentagon officials could not fully explain why so many ballots
were arriving without postmarks. They noted that a survey conducted after the
election found less than 1 percent of all overseas military mail arrived without
a postmark.
But a General Accounting Office study in May found a range of problems with how
the military handled the absentee ballot issue, including inadequate training
and supervision in its voting program.
The lack of postmarks made it impossible for canvassing boards to answer the
threshold questions that determined the validity of an overseas vote: Was the
ballot indeed mailed from a foreign country? And was it mailed on or before
Election Day?
Bush strategists realized that unless they could persuade some local election
officials to set aside the state's rules on postmarking, hundreds of ballots
from military personnel, a reliable voting bloc, would not be counted.
In a single phrase of federal law, they found the statutory tool by which they
would try to get around that problem. The phrase was contained in the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a 1986 federal law intended to make
overseas voting easier. One part of the law, a directive to postal officials,
states that overseas ballots "shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage."
Although the law said nothing about postmarks, in the view of David Aufhauser, a
Washington lawyer who was hired to manage the Bush team's legal strategy, those
eight words demonstrated that Congress never intended to require postmarks on
overseas military ballots.
As a backup, the lawyers zeroed in on a 1975 Florida Supreme Court ruling that
said as long as there were no signs of fraud, canvassing boards had some
discretion to accept ballots with minor flaws, like putting a signature in the
wrong place or omitting a witness' address.
Clouding the postmark matter
As secretary of state, Katherine Harris wields considerable influence over the
conduct of elections in Florida. Her office, which includes the Division of
Elections, writes election rules, issues binding interpretations of election law
and offers informal advice to election supervisors. But given her role as
co-chairwoman of the Bush campaign in Florida, her statements and legal
positions during the South Florida recount battles drew inevitable and scathing
criticism from Democrats.
On the day after the election, Division of Elections staff members drafted a
press release titled "Secretary Explains Overseas Ballot Procedures." It was
meant to be a simple reminder from Harris, similar to those her predecessors had
routinely sent out, that state election rules required overseas ballots to have
been "postmarked or signed and dated" by Election Day.
By early that evening, the draft statement had been sent to Harris' e-mail
basket for approval. It was never released.
Instead, Harris said nothing about the absentee ballots until Nov. 13, when she
touched on them at the end of a televised statement that focused mainly on
trying to bring an end to the South Florida recounts. In her statement, she said
that the overseas ballots had to be "executed" -- a vague word that could have
meant either signed or both signed and dated -- by Election Day and that they
had to bear a foreign postmark. Then she added, "They are not required, however,
to be postmarked on or prior to" Election Day.
Democratic strategists reacted with immediate suspicion, viewing that last line
as a gift from Harris to her fellow Republicans.
"In our opinion, it was an effort by Katherine Harris to blur the rules," said
Nick Baldick, a senior Gore strategist in Florida. "And confusion about the
rules would only help the Republicans get as many suspect ballots counted as
possible."
Two top Republican strategists, working as unpaid volunteers, were deeply
involved in drafting the Nov. 13 statement, as well as other major
pronouncements Harris made during the recounts.
One of the strategists, J.M. Stipanovich, a lawyer who had managed Jeb Bush's
failed campaign for governor in 1994, said in a recent interview that he served
as Harris' "personal attorney" in the three weeks after the election, guiding
her through major decisions.
Although Stipanovich declined to say whether he had had any contacts with the
Bush campaign, Ginsberg said he spoke with Stipanovich "three or four times"
during the recounts. "At the time it was never clear if he was asking me
something in his role as working for Katherine Harris, which was certainly well
known at the time, or just out of curiosity," Ginsberg said.
The other strategist assisting Harris was Adam Goodman, a media consultant who
had helped chart Harris' rapid ascension in the state Republican Party.
Typically, when it came to writing Harris' public statements, Stipanovich
recalled, Goodman would start by gathering information from Harris' chief aides,
like Clay Roberts, the director of the Division of Elections.
"Adam would knock off a draft, and I would comment on it," Stipanovich said.
"Clay would put in his 2 cents. Katherine would tell us what she thought. And we
would do it all over again."
Goodman added that their aim was always to "give it to people straight" and that
usually "every word was parsed over."
Most of this work was done on computers in a conference room just off Harris'
office. Her lawyers now say that many of the records from these computers have
been erased, a potential violation of Florida's public records laws, and they
refused a request from the New York Times to examine the computers' hard drives.
But they did release two versions of the Nov. 13 statement, which show that the
sentence that upset the Democrats -- and seemed to make it easier to accept
ballots with late postmarks -- was not inserted until the final draft.
A spokesman for Harris said she was unavailable for comment.
Stipanovich and Goodman said they could not recall how the wording on Florida's
overseas ballot rules was drafted, and both said there were never any
discussions in Harris' office about changing the rules. Roberts said the
statement was just an effort to paraphrase the traditional rules. "In
retrospect," he said, "sticking to the strict statutory language might have been
more clear."
Lawyers for Bush now say they too were unhappy with the statement. It had, after
all, said explicitly that postmarks were required, calling only their dating
into question. Aufhauser said he feared the statement would make it harder for
the Republicans to push their argument that under federal law, postmarks were
not required at all on military ballots.
Two-tier fight with no let up
To get as many of those ballots counted as possible, the Bush team created a
strategy memorandum, recently obtained by the New York Times, that set out
detailed instructions for challenging overseas ballots. The 52-page document
included all the information Bush lawyers might need to make their case before
the canvassing boards. Specifically, the Bush lawyers were told how to challenge
"illegal" civilian votes that they assumed would be for Gore and also how to
defend equally defective military ballots, the document shows.
In recent interviews, the Bush lawyers involved in overseas ballots insisted
that they had not approached the issue with a two-tier strategy. Their
overriding intent, they said, was to be rigorously consistent, even nonpartisan,
in their arguments.
"There was no such strategy to do something in Palm Beach that we did not do in
the Panhandle," Aufhauser said.
But a review of the transcripts, minutes and recordings of canvassing board
meetings shows otherwise. The records reveal example after example of Bush
lawyers' employing one set of arguments in counties where Gore was strong and
another in counties carried by Bush.
County by county, and sometimes ballot by ballot, they tailored their arguments
in ways that maximized Bush's support among overseas voters. They frequently
questioned civilian ballots, for example, while defending military ballots with
the same legal defects.
In Bush strongholds they pleaded with election officials to ignore Florida's
election rules. They ridiculed Gore lawyers for raising concerns about fraud,
while making eloquent speeches about the voting rights of men and women
defending the nation's interests in remote and dangerous locations.
"If they catch a bullet, or fragment from a terrorist bomb, that fragment does
not have any postmark or registration of any kind," Fred Tarrant, a Republican
City Council member from Naples told the board in Collier County.
Then, hours after the last overseas absentee ballot was counted, the Bush
campaign unleashed a full-scale legal and public relations offensive with a
single aim: persuading selected Bush counties to reconsider hundreds of overseas
military ballots rejected the night before.
The public relations campaign began when Gov. Marc Racicot of Montana, a Bush
supporter, said that Democratic lawyers had "gone to war" against military
voters. Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf called it "a very sad day in our country."
The candidate himself took up the theme, calling on election officials to count
more military ballots. Almost immediately, the Democrats were in full retreat.
On Sunday, Nov. 19, Gore's running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut,
appeared on the NBC program Meet the Press. Faced with a barrage of aggressive
questions, he called on Florida's canvassing boards to reconsider their
rejection of military ballots. The next day, Florida Attorney General Robert A.
Butterworth, a Democrat and Gore's state campaign chairman, said that local
officials should "immediately revisit this issue."
This extraordinary political reversal, combined that week with new Republican
lawsuits that asked 14 counties to reconsider rejected ballots, helped open the
door for Bush to win still more absentee votes. But the end was in sight.
The deadline for counties to submit official vote totals came at 5 p.m. on
Sunday, Nov. 26.
Even before Harris announced the final results, the Gore campaign had decided to
formally contest Bush's victory in a lawsuit. One important question, though,
was whether to challenge the overseas ballots. Campaign strategists tried to
persuade Gore to do just that, saying it would allow Democratic lawyers to argue
that the Republicans had benefited from the unequal treatment of absentee ballots.
There was another potential benefit. Under Florida law, if the number of
improper absentee ballots exceeds the margin of victory, a judge can, under some
circumstances, disqualify all absentee ballots arriving after the election and
base the results on only those ballots cast by Election Day. On the basis of the
final official tally, that would have had Gore winning by 202 votes.
Gore rejected his aides' advice.
Joe Sandler, who was the Democratic National Committee's general counsel,
recalled how Gore explained his decision. "I can give you his exact words: "If I
won this thing by a handful of military ballots, I would be hounded by
Republicans and the press every day of my presidency and it wouldn't be worth
having.' "
--
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives. -- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Cook" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore betrayed the Constitution and US Military |
05 Jan 2004 05:12:48 PM |
|
|
"Steveo" <steveo@end-war.com> wrote in message
news:btchs2$5lkvg$1@ID-210300.news.uni-berlin.de...
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <5s1jvv09hohvn83j1935fp4k89dbklevp2@4ax.com>,
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> writes:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC), (John S. Dyson)
:
In article <ue4cvvk8rjne13bce53ute40u9cd349tfc@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC), (John S.
Dyson) wrote:
<mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
According to the Palm Beach Post, Gore almost won the
election because of the illegal voting by felons in Florida.
Then we know for a fact that the Palm Beach Post was
printing GOP press releases, rather than reporting facts.
Remember the Democrat suppression and incompetent management
of the MILITARY VOTES.
The votes you are referring to are absentee votes both military and
Note that using the military courier mechanism made whatever mistake --
note also that votes are usually counted if there wasn't a significant
voter mistake. The voters were told that the mechanism was valid.
This
was an exception to the precedent that votes are counted unless it
is the voters fault, for the benefit of the Demoncrats. It is okay
to exclude the votes of our respected military -- because obviously,
the military isn't all that hard, right? I mean, taking pictures
wasn't
that hard for Al Jr, (it isn't like REALLY flying a plane.)
It was HEINOUS to try to exclude the military vote, especially when
there wasn't really a 'voter error.'
As you are probably not a Floridian, and you clearly don't know much
about
the Republicans
Remember -- the 'error' votes were aggressively being counted
by the Democrats. However, the MILITARY 'error' votes were
suppressed by the Democrats.
John
The military votes weren't "error" votes -- they were ILLEGAL votes.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/071501/Worldandnation/Bush_focus__Get_in_ov.shtm
l
Bush focus: Get in overseas votes
<snipped to save space. click on the link above to see the complete article>
The New York Times asked Gary King, a Harvard expert on voting patterns
and
statistical models, what would have happened had the flawed ballots been
discarded. He replied that there was no way to declare a winner with
mathematical certainty under those circumstances. His best estimate, he
said,
was that Bush's margin would have been reduced to 245 votes. King
estimated that
there was only a slight chance that discarding the questionable ballots
would
have made Gore the winner.
The article is not based in law.
Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas envelopes
had
multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of
defective
ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:
344 ballots with no evidence that they were cast on or before Election
Day. They
had late, illegible or missing postmarks.
The court found that both Florida Code and Federal Law do not require
postmarks.
see: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
Quote from the suit: "This appeal is about counting overseas absentee
ballots in a presidential election and an attack on paragraph 7 of Rule
1S-2.013 of the Florida Administrative Code. Plaintiff Appellants want us to
nullify paragraph 7. The pertinent part of the Rule reads this way:
"With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general
election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas
elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of
the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days for
the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is
otherwise proper."
Notice that the law says "postmarked OR signed and dated", but NOT both.
Also see: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf
From the suit: to disqualify a ballot "solely because the ballot envelope
does not have an APO, FPO, or foreign postmark;.......conflicts with Federal
Law."
183 ballots with U.S. postmarks.
see: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf
Quote: "Clearly, any state statue that requires a foreign postmark on a
federal write-in ballot conflicts with UOCAVA.
96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness.
Florida code and Federal law says postmarked OR signed and dated, but NOT
BOTH. The article does not say if these ballots were postmarked. Therefore,
no conclusion can be determined.
see: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
Quote from the suit: "This appeal is about counting overseas absentee
ballots in a presidential election and an attack on paragraph 7 of Rule
1S-2.013 of the Florida Administrative Code. Plaintiff Appellants want us to
nullify paragraph 7. The pertinent part of the Rule reads this way:
"With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general
election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas
elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of
the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days for
the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is
otherwise proper."
Notice that the law says "postmarked OR signed and dated", but NOT both.
169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the
envelope
or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by federal law.
The author of this article is wrong. The court said just the opposite.
See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf
Quote from the suit: "to disqualify ballots solely because the state has no
record of a ballot request is a violation of Federal Law."
19 voters cast two ballots, both of which were counted.
Illegal ballots
Five ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline.
Illegal ballots.
24 ballots was going to change the outcome of the election? Right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore Served His Country, Bush Looted It |
05 Jan 2004 06:13:56 PM |
|
|
"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote
[---treason snipped---]
Say, did Bush ever thank the Bin Laden family for
all that money they gave him?
That's how the bribe worked, didn't it? The Bin Laden
family could give it to his dad directly -- after the way
he had personally lobbied for the CIA to create Al
Qaida on Osama's behalf, so they had to give it to his
son.
This story was written *Before* 9/11:
Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former
business partner?
By James Hatfield
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-09
1901.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
