| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 08:08:49 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:culpd2$hlc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:culgtt$843$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuk1d3$2pu$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
The point is that Albert Gore, Junior
never established any need for any further recounts.
He didn't need to, liar.
The point is that liars tell lies, and you have not indentified any
lie
told
yet. Scout has patient enough to quote the relevant Florida
Elections
statute.
That's one lie right there. He has failed completely in identifying
any law that Gore failed to abide by.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
And again you fail to identify any law that Gore failed to abide by.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
Candidates don't submit county returns, *****. The county election
officials do that.
Sure....
Then your claim was an obvious lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 08:10:32 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cumcrg$1a8$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:culpd2$hlc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:culgtt$843$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuk1d3$2pu$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
The point is that Albert Gore, Junior
never established any need for any further recounts.
He didn't need to, liar.
The point is that liars tell lies, and you have not indentified any
lie
told
yet. Scout has patient enough to quote the relevant Florida
Elections
statute.
That's one lie right there. He has failed completely in identifying
any law that Gore failed to abide by.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department
of
State.--
And again you fail to identify any law that Gore failed to abide by.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
Candidates don't submit county returns, *****. The county election
officials do that.
Sure....
Then your claim was an obvious lie.
Then only lie is yours where you snipped away my explanation of how Gore
didn't comply with this law and then lied about what I said.
Let me simply say that if Gore complied with the law then he LOST, and you
have NOTHING to complain about. So have it your way, but don't ***** that
they didn't count the votes because according to the law those votes didn't
matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
07 Feb 2005 04:30:04 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a recount.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
07 Feb 2005 09:21:23 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 04:03:55 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 09:30:34 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that he was
legally entitled.
Order to 2000 Florida elecction statute, if requests, a county will
manually count three precincts. If the test count is accurate, the machine
count stands.
If the count is not accurate, and the counting program can be fixed, the
program is made good and all ballots are again counted by machine.
Last, if the machine counting program can not be made good, all ballots in
the county are counted by hands
In review, Florida statute specifies that all ballots in the same county are
counted by the same method. That is all machine or all by hand. The
machine method is prefered. Florida election statute made no provision for
any mixed recounts, some by machine but others by hand.
The fact that the Florida Supreme Court was allowing, I'd say even
encouraging, local county elections boards to cherry pick which ballots to
hand count and which is the very essense the lack of equal protection
problem. Never did Gore ask, nor did the FSC propose, to treat all ballots
in an equal manner.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 08:40:39 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uW4Od.158$Eq6.39@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis.
Absolutely, he can also ask for the legislature to dance nude on live TV,
but that hardly means they have any obligation to provide it to him.
Gore asked for I believe four.
Yea.
Gore got all that he
was
legally entitled.
Yep, and considerably more since he had NO legal entitlement to the manual
recounts that were performed.
If you feel otherwise post for me the Florida statute that gives him a legal
entitlement to such manual recounts.
Order to 2000 Florida elecction statute, if requests, a county will
manually count three precincts. If the test count is accurate, the
machine
count stands.
Sorry, but such manual recounts are only allowed under certain
circumstances, which circumstances Gore did not establish or fulfil.
If the count is not accurate, and the counting program can be fixed, the
program is made good and all ballots are again counted by machine.
Last, if the machine counting program can not be made good, all ballots in
the county are counted by hands
Sure, but it was never established that there need to be such a recount.
In review, Florida statute specifies that all ballots in the same county
are
counted by the same method. That is all machine or all by hand. The
machine method is prefered. Florida election statute made no provision
for
any mixed recounts, some by machine but others by hand.
Yep, and the Florida statute also states that all returns shall be certified
by 5pm of the 11th day. It also says that only under certain circumstances
shall manual recounts be required.
The fact that the Florida Supreme Court was allowing, I'd say even
encouraging, local county elections boards to cherry pick which ballots to
hand count and which is the very essense the lack of equal protection
problem. Never did Gore ask, nor did the FSC propose, to treat all
ballots
in an equal manner.
Absolutely. Gore was ignoring the law in any number of ways.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 07:46:20 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uW4Od.158$Eq6.39@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis.
Sure, he can ask all he likes. However, legally they have no obligation to
honor his "request" and the law does state that the results shall be
certified and returned by 5pm on the 11th day. When those returns were not
certified and returned under the law Gore lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
09 Feb 2005 07:20:58 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:f_GdnVm0LLPv9pTfRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uW4Od.158$Eq6.39@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means
there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a
just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to
do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county
by
county basis.
Sure, he can ask all he likes. However, legally they have no obligation to
honor his "request" and the law does state that the results shall be
certified and returned by 5pm on the 11th day. When those returns were not
certified and returned under the law Gore lost.
The county election board's obligation is manually count three precincts, or
what fifteen percent. If the manual count is good, no further action is
required. If the machine count is bad, the first option is fix the
machine and recount the entire county by machine. Only if the machine count
can not be made good is a manual count authorized. Note that Florida
election statute requires that all ballots in the same county be counted by
the same method. There is provision for a cherry picking some ballots to
count by hand.
David
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 09:28:45 PM |
|
|
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that he was
legally entitled.
Except that the USSC stopped the recounts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
09 Feb 2005 07:25:15 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuc01c$u93$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means
there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a
just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to
do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that he
was
legally entitled.
Except that the USSC stopped the recounts.
You getting your cart in front of your horse. Before Albert Gore, Junior
could get yet another recount, he had to justify one. The point that is
being made very clear, and that you are clearly missing, is that Gore never
came close to justify the need for any recount. That is Gore never showed
what any county election board did which was illegal. No illegallity and
no need for any further recounts.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
09 Feb 2005 10:18:10 PM |
|
|
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuc01c$u93$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means
there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a
just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing to
do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that he
was
legally entitled.
Except that the USSC stopped the recounts.
You getting your cart in front of your horse. Before Albert Gore, Junior
could get yet another recount, he had to justify one.
Why?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 04:56:08 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuena1$dkm$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuc01c$u93$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means
there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for
a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating
what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to
quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law
which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a
just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing
to
do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote
has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a
recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to
certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county
by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that
he
was
legally entitled.
Except that the USSC stopped the recounts.
You getting your cart in front of your horse. Before Albert Gore,
Junior
could get yet another recount, he had to justify one.
Why?
Because George W. Bush was the certiffied winner of Florida's electorial
votes. Florida held an election and Bush won. Albert Gore, Junior was not
entitled to overturn the results of that election without showing that the
certification was illlegal. Gore utterly failed.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 09:15:31 PM |
|
|
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuena1$dkm$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuc01c$u93$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:s6mdnZPRtvYTE5XfRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu9b7j$r4c$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu6sb7$69v$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu66if$eir$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zqednSEwifP7wJvfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
They were recounted by machine
By definition, an "undervote" was never counted.
Yep, why count a vote that wasn't cast?
How do you know it wasn't cast?
It was an undervote. An undervote, by definition, means
there
were
votes which were not cast.
Wrong, *****. It refers to a ballot where no vote was
COUNTED.
Wrong. It refers to a ballot where no vote was counted for
a
particular
office.
You must be impressively stupid to think that restating
what I
wrote
proves that I was wrong. But if you're reduced to
quibbling
over
wording then I guess you must not be too bright.
PLONK!!!!
I'm just about to that point as well. He snips the law that I
present
then
turns around and demands the same proof he has just snipped.
You're lying again. It's all you do.
I demand proof for your claims. Instead you cite some law
which
has
no relevance at all.
You ask me which law shows that Gore lost.
Now you're lying again. I asked you to prove that Gore needed a
just
cause to ask for a recount. You cited a law which had nothing
to
do
with recounts.
You have to contest the election results to be able to call for a
recount.
You're lying again. There are no election RESULTS until the vote
has
been certified.
Ok, and until there are results, then there is no need for a
recount.
Cut it anyway you like, Gore didn't have cause to call for recounts.
Let us be clear. In the vote counting phase, prior to
certification,
Albert Gore, Junior had the right to ask for manual recounts on county
by
county basis. Gore asked for I believe four. Gore got all that
he
was
legally entitled.
Except that the USSC stopped the recounts.
You getting your cart in front of your horse. Before Albert Gore, Junior
could get yet another recount, he had to justify one.
Why?
Because George W. Bush was the certiffied winner of Florida's electorial
Try to stick the the subject, idiot.
Why should Gore need to justify a recount BEFORE Bush was certified?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 05:32:34 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuh80j$kss$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
Because George W. Bush was the certiffied winner of Florida's electorial
Try to stick the the subject, idiot.
Why should Gore need to justify a recount BEFORE Bush was certified?
To which phase of the election do you refer?
Prior to certification Albert Gore, Junior asked for what four reconts and
got them. After certification Gore was no longer entitled to any more
recounts.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 10:39:36 PM |
|
|
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because George W. Bush was the certiffied winner of Florida's electorial
Try to stick the the subject, idiot.
Why should Gore need to justify a recount BEFORE Bush was certified?
To which phase of the election do you refer?
The recounts, moron.
Prior to certification Albert Gore, Junior asked for what four reconts and
got them.
Then why did the US Supreme Court HALT the recounts?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:40:04 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuk1a7$2jj$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because George W. Bush was the certiffied winner of Florida's
electorial
Try to stick the the subject, idiot.
Why should Gore need to justify a recount BEFORE Bush was certified?
To which phase of the election do you refer?
The recounts, moron.
The two post election phases the the contest and the certification. There
is no phase of a Florida elecion titled recount. So do you refer to the
contest phase or the certification phase.
Answer this question, with a yes or no, do you refer Gore v. Harris?
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 03:59:28 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cuk1a7$2jj$1@bolt.sonic.net...
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
David Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
