From: Jay_Thomas@putnaminv.com
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 10:09:42 PST
For some reason, of 3 messages to fork@xent.com, 2 haven't made it back
out, or into archives. Maybe this'll work.
----- Forwarded by Jay Thomas/AND/PutnamInv on 11/28/00 01:07 PM -----
Jay Thomas
To: Fork
11/28/00 08:25 cc:
AM Subject: Re: confederacy of dunces*(Document link: Jay Thomas)
>I've read many different sources describing the election, but none have
>shown any evidence that the Democrats have tried to invalidate a bunch
>of military ballots. None. The only thing that is known is that the
>Bush campaign wishes the canvassing boards to include 1500 or so mailed
>ballots that were received without a postmark, theoretically because
>they might have been sent by military mail without a proper postmark
>[which seems odd to me, since the military uses U.S. postal service marks
>as standard practice, and they can be rather strict about procedures].
>Those ballots were invalidated by the election rules established prior to
>the voting, for obvious reasons. Bush's legal challenge has been
>against the canvassing boards, not against the Democrats.
You obviously don't read the same "Sources" I do. You obviously missed the
5 page memo from Mark Herron to the Democrat lawyers on how to invalidate
military ballots. The same Mark Herron, BTW, who spent the pre-primary
season fighting to get Buchannan on the Florida ballot (Hmmm....) Check out
http://drudgereport.com/names.htm for a list of military ballots which were
discarded. Unlike your precious senile Dems in PBC, whose "intent" couldn't
be psychically divined by troops of lawyers, these ballots actually had
names on them:
Aders, J. Courtney -- PSC 804
Aders, Joan E. -- PSC 804
Allen, Shawn D. -- CMR 454
Alvarez, Damian M. -- PSC 816
Ashton, Gena L. -- CMR 467
Asjes, David C. -- H Q North PSC 68
Barragan, Raul -- VP 10 Unit 60165
Barrow, Tom Lee II -- Virginia Beach, VA
Basden, Donald Andrew -- CVW-5 Unit 25117
Bates, Jason A. -- PSC 1
These are people who risk their lives, so these idiot lawyers can remain
free to destroy our system, being systematically "disenfranchised"
(Hmm..Wheres Rev Jesse when ya need him?) by the man who wants to be their
C-in-C. As for the postmark issue, Gee, it's mighty hard to find a US Post
Office onboard a ship in the Persian Gulf. Many of those "invalidated" for
lack of postmark, were *witnessed, signed* (valid by US law), and shipped
to Jacksonville, to be distributed.
>The stupid thing about the recount was that it was only done in the
>heavily Democratic counties. Anyone who understands statistics will
>realize that such an order would imbalance the results. However, the
I find this soooo funny ... The party of the intellectual elite (Hey lets
trot out Vint again to remind everyone what Alpha-Al really meant), who
keep reminding us that Al's a genius (Shh..don't mention his C avg in Hvd,
or dropping out of divinity school, or flunking out of law school), and
that W's a dunce (I guess completing a Hvd MBA is much easier than Vandy
Div or Law), who keep reminding us that GOP voters are all inbred yokels
who only vote if they can tear themselves away from their sheep and whiskey
stills, find themselves fighting to win an election on the premise...."Our
voters are too dumb to figure out a ballot that didn't confuse third
graders in Louisianna". What they also never seem to mention is that these
three counties, are almost entirely made up of northern transplants and
foreigners.
>reason that the hand recount wasn't performed for the entire state is
>because all of the other county canvassing boards followed the direction
>of the state canvassing board (and the Bush campaign) in refusing
>to perform a manual recount. Is it right to blame that on the Democrats?
He won. An automatic recount, again, gave him the win. Why on earth would
the winner of an election ask for a recount? In football, coaches who run
up the score get a bad reputation. GW won, obviously graciously, and called
it a day. It's up to the loser to request a recount. The only thing that
would spark a full manual recount in FL would be allegations of Republican
fraud. Notice not one Gore operative has made a claim of fraud?? This may
be the first time in the Clinton Era where they haven't smeared us with
fraud accusations. They don't want a full manual recount.
>The only canvassing board that was not selected for impartiality is
>the state elections board, consisting of the Sec. of State (a volunteer
>in the Bush campaign), Jeb Bush (who recused himself after election
>day, replaced with a Democrat who supported the Bush campaign), and
>the state elections supervisor (a Republican appointee). I think
>Florida lost any credibility as a state on the day that this group
>was placed in charge of the election results.
I am getting so sick of hearing about "Republican Katherine Harris"! She
was elected by the people, to do what? Follow the law created by the state
legislature, who were also elected by the people. The legislature is mostly
Republican, as is Ms. Harris. You still want to discuss the "will of the
people"?? Bush recused himself for obvious reasons. Attny Genrl
Butterworth, Gores FL campaign chief didn't. You still want to talk about
conflict of interest? The only place FL has lost credibility due to this,
is with partisan hacks, union thugs, and the major media (or was that
redundant?)
>Any manual recount takes time to complete, especially when one side
>or another is actively interfering with the counting effort. The
>Sec. of State set an initial deadline that was impossible to meet,
>a fact that she knew quite well. The second deadline, set by one
Whoa! back the train up! "Set an initial deadline"?? The state legislature
wrote that into law. It was the rules. Do you enjoy playing chess with
someone who unilaterally decides halfway through that his knight can now
move like a bishop? Since when is it fair to change the rules when it suits
you? Would you have still considered it her deadline, if following the law
favored Gore? The law gives her discretion to extend the deadline, in case
of natural disaster, like hurricane (Gore losing is not a disaster, despite
what the media tells us), or in case of fraud or machine breakdown (neither
of which happened). The law also *ORDERS* her to ignore impartial or
missing counts. No grey area there.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20001127.shtml
>of the courts, was also nearly impossible to meet given the Thanksgiving
>holiday and all of the court challenges by the Bush campaign that
>halted counting. Even so, the Sec. of State could have accepted the
results
>on Monday instead of on Sunday (that option was given by the same court),
>but she insisted on opening the office on Sunday. The result was that
>Palm Beach County missed the deadline by two hours, and Miami-Dade
>simply gave up because they did not have enough time to finish.
So, the counter couldn't do their counting because of Thanksgiving, but
they would've stayed up all night, counting ballots from 5 p.m. last night
until 9 this morning? And that would've won it for Gore? How many chads
could a Dem counter possibly punch out and swallow in so few hours?
>So, the next time you hear some ditto-head claim that the Florida
>recount was controlled by Democrats, ask them what it feels like to
>be devoid of critical thought.
So freeing, so liberating. Hmm, I've just stolen an election, ignored the
will of the people, disenfranchised a whole bunch of minorities, my days
complete. I think I'll go listen to Rush, while watching Dr. Laura. We
stereotypes are a busy bunch.
>Personally, I wish they'd just flipped a coin -- the candidates are
>the same, so I just voted for the group of handlers that were less
>repellant. Given all the ways in which the state interfered with the
>counting efforts, I'm not surprised that the Gore campaign is continuing
>with the legal challenges.
The candidates were distinctly *NOT* the same. If they were you wouldn't
see this much rancor and bitterness. I wouldn't have voted for Gore with a
gun to my head (although there just may be one there if he manages to steal
this thing!)If the candidates were no different in your mind, why do you
care who wins? Why all the angst? I mean, GW will be just as good at
creating new entitlements, putting us deeper in debt, increasing racial
animosity, eroding civil liberties in the name of safety, and crushing our
privacy as Al would, right?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 10:16:40 PST