DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic, you calling me an intellectual coward and then come up with this question based on pure bullshit.
No one was disenfranchised in 2000 Libbie. Even the liberal media doesn't believe in your conspiracy theory.
Supreme Court
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
No one was disenfranchised in 2000 Libbie. Even the liberal media doesn't believe in your conspiracy theory.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And once again the Southern Man displays his gross and willful ignorance regarding recently history. He just lies stubbornly or is truly ignorant of the events that surround him.
It has been acknowledged in EVERY reputable news magazine, paper, TV and radio show that over 57,000 Floridians were INCORRECTLY removed from the voter list via a flawed "scrub list" submitted to and enforced by Katherine Harris. After an investigation, it was determined that there was gross incompetance but NO malice. A simple goole search confirms this.
The Southern man is once again proven to be a braying jackass. Worse, he's an intellectual coward for avoiding a simple question. But let's just watch him lie and squirm, bluff and bluster as the Southern Man does so often.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If that were true it still would not have changed the outcome.And once again the Southern Man displays his gross and willful ignorance regarding recently history. He just lies stubbornly or is truly ignorant of the events that surround him.
It has been acknowledged in EVERY reputable news magazine, paper, TV and radio show that over 57,000 Floridians were INCORRECTLY removed from the voter list via a flawed "scrub list" submitted to and enforced by Katherine Harris. After an investigation, it was determined that there was gross incompetance but NO malice. A simple goole search confirms this.
The Southern man is once again proven to be a braying jackass. Worse, he's an intellectual coward for avoiding a simple question. But let's just watch him lie and squirm, bluff and bluster as the Southern Man does so often.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Oh stop acting like a petulant Southern Child, Southern Man! You don't have the GUTS to acknowledge that the disenfranchisement of the 2000 election Floridian voters to the tune of 57,000 people DID happen....documented by EVERY REPUTABLE NEWS SERVICE FORMAT, the State of Florida, etc.....easily accesible on google. What the hell do you think the Commission review that found Harris innocent of criminal intent was about, you blithering idiot?
And the question still remains, if it was YOU disenfranchised and Gore won, would you be so accepting?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
How about registered Dems stay the fuck off of felons lists. Novel idea?
Speaking of blithering idiots, the commission wasn't about Harris, she wasn't found innocent, she wasn't on trial....she followed the law....The State of Florida's Division of Elections was required to contract with a private entity to purge its voter file by chapter 98.0975 of the Florida statutes.
Got that, blithering idiot ???
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Obviously not.
I don't see you complaining about the MSM calling the Florida election before the polls in the pan handle portion of the State, heavily GOP, were closed. Or re-counts only in heavily Democrat counties.
Or this:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...ls-military-ballots-controversy#ixzz0ooKiNUXM
Apparently the type of disenfranchisement that focuses on voters likely to vote Republican is OK with you.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Wrong again, you willfully ignorant neocon parrot! The Floridia disenfranchisement took place in traditionally and heavily registered black and democratic sectors of Florida. Do some honest research beyond just treating your mental flatulence as fact, and you'd know this.
I don't see you complaining about the MSM calling the Florida election before the polls in the pan handle portion of the State, heavily GOP, were closed. Or re-counts only in heavily Democrat counties.
the MSM has a history of "calling" elections for BOTH SIDES of the political fence...and getting it WRONG at times. But that has NOTHING to do with the FACT that over 57,000 Floridians were disenfranchised from the 2000 vote under Katherine Harris and the Jeb Bush run system.Or this:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz0ooKiNUXM
Apparently the type of disenfranchisement that focuses on voters likely to vote Republican is OK with you.
Apparently, allegations by a right wingnut bloggers are treated as gospel by you....pity that the USCCR commission DID NOT find a shred of evidence to support the bilge you hold so dear. Typical neocon parrot ploy....when faced with facts that discredit them, they counter with false accusations, distortions, half-truths and sheer conjecture, repeated ad nauseum. And PLEASE Southy, don't be stupid enough to think that printing, "thats' what you do" is an adequate response, as the information I provide and you refuse to acknowledge just makes your childish retorts all the more pathetic ( IRONIC that you think otherwise).
First you said it didn't happen, then without acknowledging your error, you comment on the very Commission that was sent to REVIEW the situation that you claim didn't happen.
And for your education, Harris was AN INTEGRAL PART of the situation, as she was the one who approved the flawed scrub list, among other things. But don't take my word for it, Read the USCCR decision:
Despite these explicit statutory powers, Secretary of State Katherine Harris testified that the Florida Constitution created an election system founded upon local control.[18] She testified, “[N]either I nor my staff are authorized to direct the conduct of these supervisors of elections.”[19]
Secretary Harris, detailing her official responsibilities, stated that within the framework provided by the Florida Constitution and the laws of the state, “the Department of State is responsible for the qualification of candidates for state and federal office and for district offices where the district comprises more than one county; for campaign finance reporting for candidates who qualify with the division; and for maintaining a central voter file.”[20] Secretary Harris characterized her authority over the administration of elections as “ministerial” and stated, “[W]e attempt to achieve uniformity in the interpretation of the election code, but we are without authority to direct the conduct of county supervisors of elections.”[21]
It is obvious that the county supervisors do not have unilateral authority over the administration of elections and that the secretary of state has substantial authority over the process. For example, the secretary of state is required to adopt rules establishing standards for voting systems, but the county supervisors are to establish written procedures to ensure the accuracy and security of voting systems and procedures used in their county.[22] The voting systems must be certified by the secretary of state, but decisions about which system to use are made by the supervisors of elections.
The secretary of state’s testimony before the Commission describing her authority over election matters as “ministerial” and, therefore, limited, is in sharp contrast to the position she took before the Supreme Court. The secretary of state’s view of her role as limited in election matters also seems to be in conflict with the legal power given to her and as enunciated by the Supreme Court. Finally, her views expressed at the Commission hearing contrast with the power she wielded over election matters when she chose to exercise her authority.
In Bush v. Gore,[23] the secretary of state, in arguing against further manual recounts, rather than downplaying her authority over election matters as limited or merely ministerial, maintained that it was her office’s Division of Elections that was “charged with interpreting and enforcing the Florida Election Code.”[24] In effect, the secretary of state argued that because the legislature gave the secretary of state such broad authority over election matters, her office’s interpretations of the Florida election law should be given deference.
The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized in Bush v. Gore that the secretary of state has tremendous authority over Florida election matters. “Importantly, the legislature has delegated the authority to run the elections and to oversee election disputes to the Secretary of State.”[25] “The legislature has designated the secretary of state as the ‘chief election officer,’ with the responsibility to ‘[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the elections law.’ ”[26] The Supreme Court agreed, finding the secretary of state is the “state official charged by the legislature with ‘the responsibility to’ . . . obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws. . . .”[27]
There is no doubt that the secretary of state has power over election matters. Indeed, the secretary of state’s actions over the past election demonstrate this authority. Her office issued binding mandates as to when vote totals were to be submitted, whether they could be amended after submission, and what would constitute “[a]n error in the vote tabulation” that could trigger a manual recount of the votes.[28]
The Florida Election Code gives the secretary of state broad authority over election matters. However, the secretary of state has the discretion to exercise this authority. Jim Smith, co-chairperson of the Governor’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and former attorney general and secretary of state for Florida, provided examples of acting in a proactive manner to attempt to ensure that all citizens of the state could be in a position to vote. His number one priority as secretary of state was election reform.[29] While in office, he pushed for initiatives on voter education and voter registration, e.g., same day registration.[30]
There is no evidence that in preparation for the November 2000 election the secretary of state focused on similar initiatives. Rather, the evidence leads to the disturbing conclusion the secretary of state chose to exercise authority to ensure the vote count was discontinued and the vote was canvassed after the election, but did little to ensure that eligible Floridians were able to access the polls, be permitted to vote, or have their votes counted.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch3.htm
Once again, folks....you have clear evidence of how ignorant (willful or otherwise) Southy and Bravo are about the topics he pontificates on, and how they substitute their opinions, suppositions and conjectures for facts and the logic derived from them. Their reliance upon the painfully obvious right wing bias of such sites as "newsbusters" just adds to their folly.
And to date, NEITHER of the them have answered a simple question: If the same circumstances disenfranchised their vote and Gore had won, would they be so ardent about forgetting it and moving on?
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. Again, were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Obviously not, whitish means that you just lied.
The rest of your lengthy rant is a spin to avoid answering the other issues that I raised:
2. I don't see you complaining about the MSM calling the Florida election before the polls in the pan handle portion of the State, heavily GOP, were closed.
3. Or re-counts only in heavily Democrat counties.
4. Or: "there may have been a preemptive attempt before the election to prevent members of the US military stationed overseas from voting, along with possible delays in getting completed ballots delivered properly."
5. And: "Then, after the election, there was an undeniably systematic attempt by Gore operatives in every Florida county to disqualify those whose ballots did arrive."
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. Again, were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Obviously not, whitish means that you just lied.
The rest of your lengthy rant is a spin to avoid answering the other issues that I raised:
2. I don't see you complaining about the MSM calling the Florida election before the polls in the pan handle portion of the State, heavily GOP, were closed.
3. Or re-counts only in heavily Democrat counties.
4. Or: "there may have been a preemptive attempt before the election to prevent members of the US military stationed overseas from voting, along with possible delays in getting completed ballots delivered properly."
5. And: "Then, after the election, there was an undeniably systematic attempt by Gore operatives in every Florida county to disqualify those whose ballots did arrive."
As the chronology of the posts shows, your just lying again. Post #108 is a quote from the USCCR, NOT my opinion. No spin required, because Bravo stated no investigation took place, and YOU don't even know WTF went on regarding details. NOW you try to bluff your way out by posting new "questions" designed for (once again) me to do your homework while you ignore what information is documented before you.2. I already addressed your BS about election being prematurely called...this dodge of yours is inane in and of itself. But hey, since FOX News and it's brethern also were part of the erroneous reporting on polls closing and projected winners, maybe you'd like to include them into your allegation? I doubt it, because that would have you agreeing with what I previously stated on the matter, and your head would explode before conceding to that.
3. Why would there be a complaint about recounts in areas THAT WAS DOCUMENTED TO WRONGLY DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORDS? That's what recounts are for, you nit! Maybe you should research about the GOP staff workers flown in to pretend they were locals as to disrupt some of the recounts. But like the intellectual coward you are, once your dodges and bluffs are called, suddenly the subject YOU opened up becomes irrelevent.
4. Another neocon lie about what actually transpired. Do your homework: a poll worker starts "filling in the blanks" on God knows how many military mail ins, and a shitload of others were WITHOUT POSTMARKS. Bottom line: ballots invalid based on missing data or an inability to validate their actually going through the US Postal system. Liberman said "let's give them the benefit of the doubt". Yeah right, another instance of neocon double standard. The Dems were well within their logical and fact based LEGAL rights to challenge the flawed ballots that did not meet the required criteria. Deal with it.
5. See number 4, as your distorted version leaves out certain pertinent details (as usual).
SO HAVING DECONSTRUCTED AND DISPROVED YOUR BULLSHIT YET AGAIN, THE QUESTION REMAINS: If it were YOUR vote that was wrongfully disenfranchised, and Gore won, would you be so accepting of the result and NEVER complain?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
2. I already addressed your BS about election being prematurely called...this dodge of yours is inane in and of itself. But hey, since FOX News and it's brethern also were part of the erroneous reporting on polls closing and projected winners, maybe you'd like to include them into your allegation? I doubt it, because that would have you agreeing with what I previously stated on the matter, and your head would explode before conceding to that.
3. Why would there be a complaint about recounts in areas THAT WAS DOCUMENTED TO WRONGLY DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORDS? That's what recounts are for, you nit! Maybe you should research about the GOP staff workers flown in to pretend they were locals as to disrupt some of the recounts. But like the intellectual coward you are, once your dodges and bluffs are called, suddenly the subject YOU opened up becomes irrelevent.
4. Another neocon lie about what actually transpired. Do your homework: a poll worker starts "filling in the blanks" on God knows how many military mail ins, and a shitload of others were WITHOUT POSTMARKS. Bottom line: ballots invalid based on missing data or an inability to validate their actually going through the US Postal system. Liberman said "let's give them the benefit of the doubt". Yeah right, another instance of neocon double standard. The Dems were well within their logical and fact based LEGAL rights to challenge the flawed ballots that did not meet the required criteria. Deal with it.
5. See number 4, as your distorted version leaves out certain pertinent details (as usual).
SO HAVING DECONSTRUCTED AND DISPROVED YOUR BULLSHIT YET AGAIN, THE QUESTION REMAINS: If it were YOUR vote that was wrongfully disenfranchised, and Gore won, would you be so accepting of the result and NEVER complain?
1. Again, were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Now you're being racist, assuming that all blacks vote Liberal Democrat.
2. What does FNC have to do with the fact that many folks in the predominantly conservative panhandle didn't vote because the media already called the race for the liberal?
3. Why can't you address the issue raised? Recounts were in four predominantly Democrat counties.
4. Its up to the union postal workers (predominantly Democrats) to postmark the mail, Libbie.
5. Again, Gore's attempt to disenfranchise military votes is "undeniable".
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. Again, were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Now you're being racist, assuming that all blacks vote Liberal Democrat.
2. What does FNC have to do with the fact that many folks in the predominantly conservative panhandle didn't vote because the media already called the race for the liberal?
And the proof of this claim of yours? And while you're scrambling to BS around your burden of proof, you should understand that my point was that Fox News (along with Clear Channel affiliates), the bastion of neocon news punditry and bias, was INCORRECTLY calling election results along with the MSM that you revile so much. So if you have people not voting because they believe the media BEFORE the polls close, you can blame BOTH sides of the political fence, as I do.
3. Why can't you address the issue raised? Recounts were in four predominantly Democrat counties. I did address the issue, and I simply point out that since the predominantly Democrat counties were the ones were the disenfranchisement took place, it stands to reason those would be the ones in contention....why you refuse to accept the simple logic of this is either due to your insipid stubborn streak, willful ignorance or genuine inability to comprehend what you read. But then again, you either don't deal with or don't know about the GOP staff workers flown in to disrupt the recount, so I'm not surprised.
4. Its up to the union postal workers (predominantly Democrats) to postmark the mail, Libbie. Notice folks, that when faced with the FACTS the deconstruct his allegations and insinuations, Southy merely throws out (yet another) absurd conspiracy theory. Once again, Southy displays his insipid stubborness to avoid facts and substitute them with his opinion, supposititon and conjecture. In short, he's just another willfully ignorant neocon lying to himself and anyone who'll engage him.
5. Again, Gore's attempt to disenfranchise military votes is "undeniable".
Again, the same laws and regulations that the GOP abides by were used by the Dems, and the military votes were discounted based on the facts of tampering and non validation of vote integrity (i.e., no postal markings)....to use your own convoluted logic, were those military votes predominantly Republican? How do you know for sure beyond polls and traditional past records? But remember, the land based disenfranchisement has RECORDS to back the information..YOU are just speculating. Your conspiracy theory has NO facts, while the USCCR documents my statements....but that won't stop your stubborn regurgitation of your invalid beliefs.
IN THE MEANTIME, STOP BEING A WUSSY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION: If it were YOUR vote that was wrongfully disenfranchised, and Gore won, would you be so accepting of the result and NEVER complain?
Last edited by a moderator:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
LOL You're the one with the conspiracy theory Libbie, not I.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. Again, were they Democrat voters exclusively Libbie? Now you're being racist, assuming that all blacks vote Liberal Democrat.
Well I tried...maybe you'll understand this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
No one "assumed" that all blacks only vote democratic, the FACTS show that black democrats were the vast majority of voters screwed over Florida of 2000. If you have any evidence of different number involving Republicans and/or white voters being disenfranchised in Florida that contradicts the Commission's report, then please produce it instead of wasting time with your oft repeated supposition and conjecture.
2. What does FNC have to do with the fact that many folks in the predominantly conservative panhandle didn't vote because the media already called the race for the liberal?
3. Why can't you address the issue raised? Recounts were in four predominantly Democrat counties.
I did address the issue, YOU just don't like the FACTS that were presented.
Again, why would there be a complaint about recounts in areas THAT WAS DOCUMENTED TO WRONGLY DISENFRANCHISE LEGAL VOTERS WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORDS? That's what recounts are for, you nit! Maybe you should research about the GOP staff workers flown in to pretend they were locals as to disrupt some of the recounts. But like the intellectual coward you are, once your dodges and bluffs are called, suddenly the subject YOU opened up becomes irrelevent.
4. Its up to the union postal workers (predominantly Democrats) to postmark the mail, Libbie.
Actually, it's up to the Southern Man to stop repeating things that he can't prove,....only a complete ass would try to pass off the postulated insanity that democratic postal workers sabotaging military votes as fact when they have no supporting documented facts. What I posted previously on #4 stands valid, and the Southern Man is just pissing in the wind.
5. Again, Gore's attempt to disenfranchise military votes is "undeniable".
Again, you make all the speculation, assertions, supposition and conjecture you want...but as the chronology of the posts shows, YOU can't prove a damned thing, where as I can.
But do continue to stubbornly deny all and repeat your BS ad nauseum, Southy...I expect nothing less from you.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And there you have it folks, The Southern Man confirms that he's nothing more than a intellectual neocon coward...the The Southern Man cannot logically or factually deal with or refute my posting or answer a straight question, so he just bluffs. Pity the Southern Man refusses to acknowledge that the chronology of the posts shows his folly.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, you make all the speculation, assertions, supposition and conjecture you want...but as the chronology of the posts shows, YOU can't prove a damned thing, where as I can.
But do continue to stubbornly deny all and repeat your BS ad nauseum, Southy...I expect nothing less from you.
All you've proved is that you're a fool, Libbie.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The last volley of our intellectually spent Southern Man!
Say goodnight, gracie! See ya next time!
Despite these explicit statutory powers, Secretary of State Katherine Harris testified that the Florida Constitution created an election system founded upon local control.[18] She testified, “[N]either I nor my staff are authorized to direct the conduct of these supervisors of elections.”[19]
Secretary Harris, detailing her official responsibilities, stated that within the framework provided by the Florida Constitution and the laws of the state, “the Department of State is responsible for the qualification of candidates for state and federal office and for district offices where the district comprises more than one county; for campaign finance reporting for candidates who qualify with the division; and for maintaining a central voter file.”[20] Secretary Harris characterized her authority over the administration of elections as “ministerial” and stated, “[W]e attempt to achieve uniformity in the interpretation of the election code, but we are without authority to direct the conduct of county supervisors of elections.”[21]
It is obvious that the county supervisors do not have unilateral authority over the administration of elections and that the secretary of state has substantial authority over the process. For example, the secretary of state is required to adopt rules establishing standards for voting systems, but the county supervisors are to establish written procedures to ensure the accuracy and security of voting systems and procedures used in their county.[22] The voting systems must be certified by the secretary of state, but decisions about which system to use are made by the supervisors of elections.
The secretary of state’s testimony before the Commission describing her authority over election matters as “ministerial” and, therefore, limited, is in sharp contrast to the position she took before the Supreme Court. The secretary of state’s view of her role as limited in election matters also seems to be in conflict with the legal power given to her and as enunciated by the Supreme Court. Finally, her views expressed at the Commission hearing contrast with the power she wielded over election matters when she chose to exercise her authority.
In Bush v. Gore,[23] the secretary of state, in arguing against further manual recounts, rather than downplaying her authority over election matters as limited or merely ministerial, maintained that it was her office’s Division of Elections that was “charged with interpreting and enforcing the Florida Election Code.”[24] In effect, the secretary of state argued that because the legislature gave the secretary of state such broad authority over election matters, her office’s interpretations of the Florida election law should be given deference.
The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized in Bush v. Gore that the secretary of state has tremendous authority over Florida election matters. “Importantly, the legislature has delegated the authority to run the elections and to oversee election disputes to the Secretary of State.”[25] “The legislature has designated the secretary of state as the ‘chief election officer,’ with the responsibility to ‘[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the elections law.’ ”[26] The Supreme Court agreed, finding the secretary of state is the “state official charged by the legislature with ‘the responsibility to’ . . . obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws. . . .”[27]
There is no doubt that the secretary of state has power over election matters. Indeed, the secretary of state’s actions over the past election demonstrate this authority. Her office issued binding mandates as to when vote totals were to be submitted, whether they could be amended after submission, and what would constitute “[a]n error in the vote tabulation” that could trigger a manual recount of the votes.[28]
The Florida Election Code gives the secretary of state broad authority over election matters. However, the secretary of state has the discretion to exercise this authority. Jim Smith, co-chairperson of the Governor’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and former attorney general and secretary of state for Florida, provided examples of acting in a proactive manner to attempt to ensure that all citizens of the state could be in a position to vote. His number one priority as secretary of state was election reform.[29] While in office, he pushed for initiatives on voter education and voter registration, e.g., same day registration.[30]
There is no evidence that in preparation for the November 2000 election the secretary of state focused on similar initiatives. Rather, the evidence leads to the disturbing conclusion the secretary of state chose to exercise authority to ensure the vote count was discontinued and the vote was canvassed after the election, but did little to ensure that eligible Floridians were able to access the polls, be permitted to vote, or have their votes counted.
=================================
read it again? Why don't YOU read it at least once....
There is NOTHING....NOTHING in this entire diatribe that has to do with The State of Florida's Division of Elections requiring to contract with a private entity to purge its voter file by chapter 98.0975 of the Florida statutes.
Harris was not required to, nor fuckin' expected to examine the names on this list...the LAW required a private entity to generate the list....she accepted the findings of the private firm as she was required to by law...
so ALL....every fuckin' word of the nonsense above, is irrelevant to the issue being debated....
Got that, blithering idiot ???
So again, as is the case time after time, you throw a load of bullshit out there, and assume no one will actually read it...and as usual, you are wrong.
I certainly hope others take the time to analyze the post to see for themselves, that is the case.....
You might have buffaloed the folks at AOL with your buffoonery, but it ain't gonna work here....here, your just an asshole....clever with words maybe, but an asshole nonetheless.
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Fixed your rant for you.