Kerry: Road Bush: Mountain

wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

Thank you for admitting that is was a parital recount, thus proving
that you are the REAL LIAR in this thread.

Sorry, I just proved you're the liar.

ROFLMAO!!! Really, why have you refused to post any source with a full
recount??Why do you have to qualify you responce with "the fullest
recount"?? Why can't POST A FULL RECOUNT?????

Read what I just wrote, ass-head.

--Blair
"Your problem is you're illiterate."

wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Apparently, you do not the ramifications of the Electoral Count Act of
1887. The courts could NOT take away Bush's certification, only
Congress has that authorty. To talk about a decision that happened two
weeks after state certification completely ignores how the system
works.

My standard answer for you twits: "It was legal, but it wasn't democracy."

--Blair
"Dubya didn't win."

Typical moronic response from someone who refuses to prove his point.

I proved my point the moment I posted the facts. You pretended
the facts weren't the facts. I got something for you about
right-wing trolls and proof and projection and all your other
faults.

--Blair
"Read and learn."

Republican Trolls:

State impossible generalizations like "ALL LIBS ARE LIARS".

Employ the old, Nazi, "Big Lie" tactic.

Attempt to link liberalism to the most horrible of people, even though
every Republican is by definition a Liberal Democrat.

Say "prove it," even though they have seen the proof many times.
When the proof is given in response, they repeat their demand for proof,
in a syntax mimicking the recursive ignorance of a toddler who asks
"why?" to every answer.

Exhibit Projection. They are evil and liars, but rather than recognize
it they characterize others as liars and evil.

Say that there is a moral equivalence between Bill Clinton's lies and
George W. Bush's.

Ignore facts, and avoid posting facts. Facts are their enemy.

Support their party to a fascistic degree, but don't know what "fascism"
means.

Deny they are wrong, even when the proof is right in front of them.

Blame the "liberal media" for news critical of their party but ignore
that every major media outlet is owned by a giant corporation.

Epitomize the scientific study showing that Conservatism is a
psychological complex of fear, aggression, dogmatism, intolerance of
ambiguity, avoidance of uncertainty, overreaching for cognitive closure,
and terror management. Even their moral attributes are merely expressions
of these needs.

Change the subject, often by making up scurrilous accusations about
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or FDR.

Read lists of rhetorical fallacies not to refute the illogic of others,
but to construct illogical arguments of their own. They need an illogical
argument because there is no logical argument supporting their goal,
or, if there is one, they are not intelligent enough to construct it.

Rarely believe what they're saying, but always believe that the Republican
power apparatus will reward them for their political atavism.

Never see any return on their intellectual gamble, and don't understand
that it's because they are being played by the Republican power apparatus.

Think Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley believe their own copy, and
aren't just doing it for the money. (Rush Limbaugh is so screwy he may
actually believe almost half of what he says.)

In short, Republican Trolls are a market of suckers, dupes, fools, naifs,
and evil liars, and have complied with the duping by trying to grow the
market, unpaid.

wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

You are such a liar. It is NOT that the ballots were spoiled beyond
interpretation, it was they could find all of the disputed ballots.

As I have proven to those who can do simple math. That seems to leave
you out of the loop.

You proved nothing but that you don't understand simple facts.

You also don't understand that I never said anyone ever did
a "full recount".

Now, if you'd like to apologize for lying by saying that I did,
then I might not continue to prove you're a liar.

--Blair
"Like I need to intervene in the obvious."

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

Thank you for admitting that is was a parital recount, thus proving
that you are the REAL LIAR in this thread.

Sorry, I just proved you're the liar.

ROFLMAO!!! Really, why have you refused to post any source with a full
recount??Why do you have to qualify you responce with "the fullest
recount"?? Why can't POST A FULL RECOUNT?????

Read what I just wrote, ass-head.

I read the lies. The NORC did not check every disputed ballot, thus your
claim that they proved Gore won is a lie.

When you started qualifing your response with "the fullest recount", then
you know for a fact that they didn't prove it.

The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp

The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as many
as 179,855 disputed ballots.

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf

The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.

--Blair
"Your problem is you're illiterate."

Don't let the truth get in the way of your lie.

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Apparently, you do not the ramifications of the Electoral Count Act of
1887. The courts could NOT take away Bush's certification, only
Congress has that authorty. To talk about a decision that happened two
weeks after state certification completely ignores how the system
works.

My standard answer for you twits: "It was legal, but it wasn't
democracy."

--Blair
"Dubya didn't win."

Typical moronic response from someone who refuses to prove his point.

I proved my point the moment I posted the facts. You pretended
the facts weren't the facts. I got something for you about
right-wing trolls and proof and projection and all your other
faults.

Now you are running from you lies. You did NOT post the facts, you posted a
partial recount from the NORC. Then you ignore fact that the NORC said that
they could NOT determine a winner.

"Third, the project does not identify "winners." Its goal is to assess he
reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest standards of
scientific accuracy and reliability."

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp

When you try to tell us something IN DIRECT conflict with the authors of the
study, that proves you are a liar.

Again, here is PROOF again that you have failed to provide a "recount" that
checks all of the disputed ballots.

The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp

The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as many
as 179,855 disputed ballots.

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf

The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.

Why don't you learn how to READ the study and LEARN what it actually says
instead of spreading your lies?

--Blair
"Read and learn."

Republican Trolls:

I am not a registered with any party MORON.




State impossible generalizations like "ALL LIBS ARE LIARS".

Employ the old, Nazi, "Big Lie" tactic.

Attempt to link liberalism to the most horrible of people, even though
every Republican is by definition a Liberal Democrat.

Say "prove it," even though they have seen the proof many times.
When the proof is given in response, they repeat their demand for proof,
in a syntax mimicking the recursive ignorance of a toddler who asks
"why?" to every answer.

Exhibit Projection. They are evil and liars, but rather than recognize
it they characterize others as liars and evil.

Say that there is a moral equivalence between Bill Clinton's lies and
George W. Bush's.

Ignore facts, and avoid posting facts. Facts are their enemy.

Support their party to a fascistic degree, but don't know what "fascism"
means.

Deny they are wrong, even when the proof is right in front of them.

Blame the "liberal media" for news critical of their party but ignore
that every major media outlet is owned by a giant corporation.

Epitomize the scientific study showing that Conservatism is a
psychological complex of fear, aggression, dogmatism, intolerance of
ambiguity, avoidance of uncertainty, overreaching for cognitive closure,
and terror management. Even their moral attributes are merely expressions
of these needs.

Change the subject, often by making up scurrilous accusations about
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or FDR.

Read lists of rhetorical fallacies not to refute the illogic of others,
but to construct illogical arguments of their own. They need an illogical
argument because there is no logical argument supporting their goal,
or, if there is one, they are not intelligent enough to construct it.

Rarely believe what they're saying, but always believe that the Republican
power apparatus will reward them for their political atavism.

Never see any return on their intellectual gamble, and don't understand
that it's because they are being played by the Republican power apparatus.

Think Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley believe their own copy, and
aren't just doing it for the money. (Rush Limbaugh is so screwy he may
actually believe almost half of what he says.)

In short, Republican Trolls are a market of suckers, dupes, fools, naifs,
and evil liars, and have complied with the duping by trying to grow the
market, unpaid.

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

You are such a liar. It is NOT that the ballots were spoiled beyond
interpretation, it was they could find all of the disputed ballots.

As I have proven to those who can do simple math. That seems to leave
you out of the loop.

You proved nothing but that you don't understand simple facts.

It quite clear that of the two of us, that I am the only one who understands
simple math.

179,855 minus 175,010 leaves 4,845 ballots unchecked.

You say that the "prevailing standard" shows that Gore "won" by 60 votes.

4,845 unchecked ballot is MORE than 60 votes, thus leaving doubt that Gore
"won" because there more ballots left than Gore's so called LEAD.

What part of those fact does you not understand???

And don't give us these lies about they were "so spoiled that no data can be
interpreted in them to determine a vote", the NORC claimed that the counties
were disorganized that they could not find all of the ballots. In fact, they
found that Volisua was so bad, that they could not rely on their own
recount, they had to use the official totals from the COUNTY.

You also don't understand that I never said anyone ever did
a "full recount".

Now you are running from your point. You are basing your point on a PARTIAL
recount of disputed ballots ballots. I said that it does NOT prove Gore won
because it as NOT a "full recount of disputed ballots".

NOTICE: DISPUTED BALLOTS

Now, if you'd like to apologize for lying by saying that I did,
then I might not continue to prove you're a liar.

There is no need for me to apologize to you, I have a proven you to be liar.
You are trying to use partial results from a media recount and representing
those results as a "full recount of disputed ballots". You the liar, any
second grader can figure that out.

For the NORC to "prove" that Gore won, they must do a "FULL RECOUNT OF
DISPUTED BALLOTS". IF they leave out more ballots that the margins of
victory, then their PARTIAL RECOUNT does NOT PROVE anyone won.

I have asked several times for you to prove what was in the 4,845 ballots
that they were not able to find, and said they were spoiled so bad that they
could not get any data from them. That is another lie.

Either post a complete recount of the disputed ballots, are admit that you
are lying.

The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp

The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as many
as 179,855 disputed ballots.

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf

The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.

"Third, the project does not identify "winners." Its goal is to assess the
reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest standards of
scientific accuracy and reliability."

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp




--Blair
"Like I need to intervene in the obvious."

On 26 Oct 2004 19:43:08 -0700, )
wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote in message .. .
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

You are such a liar. It is NOT that the ballots were spoiled beyond
interpretation, it was they could find all of the disputed ballots.

As I have proven to those who can do simple math. That seems to leave
you out of the loop.


Thank you for admitting that is was a parital recount, thus proving
that you are the REAL LIAR in this thread.

Sorry, I just proved you're the liar.

--Blair
"And I have the data to back it up."


Just out of curiosity, did you ever hear of Greg Palast? He did the
most thorough investigation of the entire Florida vote. Not just the
chads, not just the recount. He explains quite thoroughly how the
election was stolen. From "felon" lists to roadblocks to crappy
machines.

Let's look at how those crappy machines work. The crappiest machines
are sent to mostly black precincts. Because of failures of the
machines, in Florida in 2000, your vote was seven (7) times more
likely to be rejected if you were black than if you were white. Solely
because their machines did not punch as well.

Now let's look at the felon list. Hmm, interesting. It seems that over
70,000 legal voters, mostly black, were prevented from voting because
Katherine Harris demanded the loosest possible interpretation of a
match. So, if the birthday of a felon and a black voter wasn't the
same, ignore it. First name not a match, ignore it.

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush should be executed for intentionally
denying people their right to vote.

dgk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, did you ever hear of Greg Palast? He did the
most thorough investigation of the entire Florida vote. Not just the
chads, not just the recount. He explains quite thoroughly how the
election was stolen. From "felon" lists to roadblocks to crappy
machines.

Let's look at how those crappy machines work. The crappiest machines
are sent to mostly black precincts. Because of failures of the
machines, in Florida in 2000, your vote was seven (7) times more
likely to be rejected if you were black than if you were white. Solely
because their machines did not punch as well.

Now let's look at the felon list. Hmm, interesting. It seems that over
70,000 legal voters, mostly black, were prevented from voting because
Katherine Harris demanded the loosest possible interpretation of a
match. So, if the birthday of a felon and a black voter wasn't the
same, ignore it. First name not a match, ignore it.

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush should be executed for intentionally
denying people their right to vote.

Well, here's one lunatic that's certainly familiar with the Palast story:
http://snipurl.com/a3lb

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2004 19:43:08 -0700, )
wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message
The results I posted were the fullest recount anyone ever
could have done.

You just had to qualify your response. FULLEST recount is NOT a FULL
RECOUNT Of disputed ballots.

A full recount is mooted by the fact that a full recount can not
be done. Some ballots are so spoiled that no data can be interpreted
in them to determine a vote. But you go on pretending pigs can fly.

You are such a liar. It is NOT that the ballots were spoiled beyond
interpretation, it was they could find all of the disputed ballots.

As I have proven to those who can do simple math. That seems to leave
you out of the loop.


Thank you for admitting that is was a parital recount, thus proving
that you are the REAL LIAR in this thread.

Sorry, I just proved you're the liar.

--Blair
"And I have the data to back it up."


Just out of curiosity, did you ever hear of Greg Palast? He did the
most thorough investigation of the entire Florida vote.

Once Palast found that not all counties used the potential felon list, he
ran away from the investigation. He knew if he continued, that he could not
keep making his claims based on his own work. The Palm Beach Post and the
Miami Herald picked up on his work and found that he was wrong.

Not just the chads, not just the recount. He explains quite
thoroughly how the election was stolen. From "felon" lists
to roadblocks to crappy machines.

You mean a checkpoint, miles away from any voting place, that gave more
tickets out to whites than any other race. What does that prove?

Let's look at how those crappy machines work. The crappiest machines
are sent to mostly black precincts. Because of failures of the
machines, in Florida in 2000, your vote was seven (7) times more
likely to be rejected if you were black than if you were white. Solely
because their machines did not punch as well.

Under Florida Code, the county election boards choose the machines that they
want to use. Of the 25 counties with the highest rate of spoiled ballots, 24
of them were controlled by Democrats. The other was controlled by an
independent.

You have ask yourself one simple question. IF everybody knew before the
election that these machines would discriminate against blacks, why did
these DEMOCRATS choose to use these machines??

Now let's look at the felon list. Hmm, interesting. It seems that over
70,000 legal voters, mostly black, were prevented from voting because
Katherine Harris demanded the loosest possible interpretation of a
match. So, if the birthday of a felon and a black voter wasn't the
same, ignore it. First name not a match, ignore it.

Palast tells us that the Republicans hired Choicepoint. The problem with his
accusation is that Harris was NOT the Sec of State when they were hired.
Choicepoint was hired by the previous DEMOCRAT administration.

Salon.com had to make a correction to Palast's story.

"In the Salon Politics article "Florida's flawed 'voter-cleansing' program,"
it was incorrectly stated that Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris
hired a company, ChoicePoint, to create a voter "purge" list. The company
was hired in 1998 before Harris was elected to her post. Also, Rick Rozar
was incorrectly identified as a founder of ChoicePoint. Rozar was the
president of a company, CDB Infotek, of which Choicepoint owned 70 percent,
and which ChoicePoint eventually bought. Salon regrets the errors.
[Corrections made 12/19/00]"

http://archive.salon.com/letters/cor...ml#choicepoint

"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial groups,
but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls through the
state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no evidence of that.
Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that election officials
were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when unregistered voters
presented themselves."

See: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

Under Florida Code 98.0975(4), each county election supervisor is to verify
the information. Again, the DEMOCRATS held the majority of these positions
in the state. You are telling me that these Democrats IGNORED the laws and
the warnings that they were given.

Fla. Stat. 98.0975 (4) (1999)

(4) "Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must attempt
to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not determine
that the information provided by the division is incorrect, the supervisor
must remove from the registration books by the next subsequent election the
name of any person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or adjudicated
mentally incapacitated with respect to voting."

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/ind...s&SubMenu=1&Ap
p_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0098/SEC0975.HTM

"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the first
of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first experience
with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
accurate list."

and

"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

"If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly
targeted for removal from voting rosters."

and

"In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed
to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all.
But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names
from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort
at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the
file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names
incorrectly identified as felons."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...ile/print.html

The Palm Beach Post checked all 67 counties and found:

"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not
share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he
couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."

"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

Finally, besides the Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post also found that is
was Gore may have benefited errors on the felon list, not Bush. They found
5,643 felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost...ay/news_1.html

Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gor...11378?source=1

Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush should be executed for intentionally
denying people their right to vote.

What an idiotic statement. You want to murder Bush and Harris for the
shortcomings of these DEMOCRAT controlled canvassing boards in the state.

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:15:24 -0700,
,
Mark Hickey wrote:

So you're saying that Gore would have asked for a recount even if he
lost by 6-11,000 votes? He really IS a sore loser, huh?

Once upon a time there was a Presidential election that was too close
to call. Neither the Republican presidential candidate nor the
Democratic presidential candidate had enough votes to win the
election.

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest
between the two candidates to determine the final winner. There was
much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc, but a
week-long ice fishing competition seemed the manly way to settle
things. The candidate who catches the most fish at the end of the week
wins.

After a lot of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the
contest would take place on a remote and cold lake in Wisconsin. There
were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out
separately on this remote lake and return daily with their catch for
counting and verification.

At the end of the first day, Kerry returns to the starting line and he
has 10 fish. Soon GWB returns and has zero fish. Well, everyone
assumes he is just having another bad day or something and hopefully,
he will catch up the next day.

At the end of the second day Kerry comes in with 20 fish and GWB comes
in again with none. That evening, Dick Cheney gets together secretly
with W. and says, "I think Kerry is a lowlife cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I
want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just
spy on him and see if he is cheating in any way."

The next night (after Kerry comes back with 50 fish), Cheney says to
GWB "Well, what about it, is Kerry cheatin'?"

"He sure is, Dick, he's cutting holes in the ice."
--
zk