Hopefully my last post on this particular topic for a while

Another Yahoo post.

Subject: PROOF Bush stole the election

Here's perfect and unanswerable PROOF that Bush stole the election, all wrapped up in a neat little package:

First, the Virtual Voting Booth. It contains the impartial results of a statewide recount of Florida's 2000 Presidential election votes. You can pick what standards you like (for example, would you accept "hanging chads"? Overvotes? The decision of two out of three ballot judges, or only those in which all three agree?) and see who would have won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

Here's the second half of the puzzle: Title IX, Ch. 101.5614 of Florida state law. It REQUIRES that all votes in which the voter's intent is clear be counted. That includes overvotes. For those who don't feel up to surfing over there, here's an excerpt:

Title IX, Ch. 101.5614

If any paper ballot is damaged or defective so that it cannot be counted properly by the automatic tabulating equipment, the ballot shall be counted manually at the counting center by the canvassing board. The totals for all such ballots or ballot cards counted manually shall be added to the totals for the several precincts or election districts. No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. After duplicating a ballot, the defective ballot shall be placed in an envelope provided for that purpose, and the duplicate ballot shall be tallied with the other ballots for that precinct.

As you'll see, if overvotes are counted (as - it's worth repeating - the law REQUIRES) Gore wins in virtually every scenario (in fact, George W. would have to push for partially-detached chads to be counted in order to have a chance).

Not to mention the thousands of African-Americans who were illegally denied the right to vote based on a false set of reports from a Texas-based company that already had strong ties to George W. Bush.

American democracy was mugged that day, and it's still in the intensive care unit. I hope it pulls through.

I realize that anyone who reads this journal (you know, I really prefer "journal" to "blog") has already heard me talk about this stuff over and over and over and over. So I'll try to hold off on the topic here until I come up with something new.

Hopefully my last post on this particular topic for a while

Another Yahoo post.

Subject: PROOF Bush stole the election

Here's perfect and unanswerable PROOF that Bush stole the election, all wrapped up in a neat little package:

First, the Virtual Voting Booth. It contains the impartial results of a statewide recount of Florida's 2000 Presidential election votes. You can pick what standards you like (for example, would you accept "hanging chads"? Overvotes? The decision of two out of three ballot judges, or only those in which all three agree?) and see who would have won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

Here's the second half of the puzzle: Title IX, Ch. 101.5614 of Florida state law. It REQUIRES that all votes in which the voter's intent is clear be counted. That includes overvotes. For those who don't feel up to surfing over there, here's an excerpt:

Title IX, Ch. 101.5614

If any paper ballot is damaged or defective so that it cannot be counted properly by the automatic tabulating equipment, the ballot shall be counted manually at the counting center by the canvassing board. The totals for all such ballots or ballot cards counted manually shall be added to the totals for the several precincts or election districts. No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. After duplicating a ballot, the defective ballot shall be placed in an envelope provided for that purpose, and the duplicate ballot shall be tallied with the other ballots for that precinct.

As you'll see, if overvotes are counted (as - it's worth repeating - the law REQUIRES) Gore wins in virtually every scenario (in fact, George W. would have to push for partially-detached chads to be counted in order to have a chance).

Not to mention the thousands of African-Americans who were illegally denied the right to vote based on a false set of reports from a Texas-based company that already had strong ties to George W. Bush.

American democracy was mugged that day, and it's still in the intensive care unit. I hope it pulls through.

I realize that anyone who reads this journal (you know, I really prefer "journal" to "blog") has already heard me talk about this stuff over and over and over and over. So I'll try to hold off on the topic here until I come up with something new.

Political Junkie

"Say, are you a junkie? You look like a junkie to me."

Okay, I'm a junkie. I'm saving my additional posts in that Yahoo thread. Forgive me.

Subject: Red-Ink Republicans
"Red-Ink Republicans" is a better term for them, I think. Catchier.

Subject: Re: TRENT LOTT CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT PRO
Just to clarify: appointing an independent Special Prosecutor is NOT the same as bringing back the independent counsel law. Ashcroft has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor whenever he wants to, and is supposed to when there is the appearance of a conflict of interest (which there surely is in this case).

But that would not bring back the independent counsel *law*, which would have to be reinstated by Congress.

Another point: Mr. "I'm so ethical butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" Bush can order Ashcroft to appoint a special prosecutor, if he wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

That no special prosecutor has been appointed is a gross and flagrant violation of ethical standards from an administration that proclaimed it would be the most ethical in the world, but is looking very much like the least.

Subject: Re: PROOF Bush stole the election
Funny, none of the fire-breathing right-wingers around here seem to have anything to say about the proof. Come on, guys - prove me wrong. Or at least call me a liberal traitor or something. I need some of that sweet, sweet GOP logic and rational debate! :D

What's the matter? Are you CHICKEN?

(Begins chicken dance, clucking sounds)

I think that killed the thread.

Political Junkie

"Say, are you a junkie? You look like a junkie to me."

Okay, I'm a junkie. I'm saving my additional posts in that Yahoo thread. Forgive me.

Subject: Red-Ink Republicans
"Red-Ink Republicans" is a better term for them, I think. Catchier.

Subject: Re: TRENT LOTT CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT PRO
Just to clarify: appointing an independent Special Prosecutor is NOT the same as bringing back the independent counsel law. Ashcroft has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor whenever he wants to, and is supposed to when there is the appearance of a conflict of interest (which there surely is in this case).

But that would not bring back the independent counsel *law*, which would have to be reinstated by Congress.

Another point: Mr. "I'm so ethical butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" Bush can order Ashcroft to appoint a special prosecutor, if he wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

That no special prosecutor has been appointed is a gross and flagrant violation of ethical standards from an administration that proclaimed it would be the most ethical in the world, but is looking very much like the least.

Subject: Re: PROOF Bush stole the election
Funny, none of the fire-breathing right-wingers around here seem to have anything to say about the proof. Come on, guys - prove me wrong. Or at least call me a liberal traitor or something. I need some of that sweet, sweet GOP logic and rational debate! :D

What's the matter? Are you CHICKEN?

(Begins chicken dance, clucking sounds)

I think that killed the thread.