Kerry: Road Bush: Mountain

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

It doesn't matter what he thought, or even what he did.
The state's pre-existing procedure for recounting the
entire state would have given him the win.

Wrong on two counts.

Gore never ASKED for a statewide recount, and using pre-existing
procedures (and standards) clearly would have given Bush the win.
This is well-documented, and not subject to wishful thinking.

If we used pre-existing procedures, then there would NOT have been a
recount. The Florida Courts had ruled in the passed the recounts were not
done for dimpled or hanging chads.

"(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
recount because of the claim that a county's machines were failing to count
partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral Arg. in Bush,
at 39-40 (concession of Florida Attorney General that no county had
previously done so). For example, in Broward County Canvassing Board v.
Hogan, 607 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the board recognized that
"voter error in piercing of computer ballot cards created loose or hanging
paper chads." But the board declined to do a manual recount even though two
machine counts indicated a margin of 3-5 votes. "Such voter errors, the
board explained, are caused by hesitant piercing, no piercing, or
intentional or unintentional multiple piercing of computer ballot cards,
creating what are referred to as overvotes and undervotes. The board
thereupon declined appellee's request for a recount". Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, before this election, the fact that a request for a manual recount was
based on incompletely perforated chads was considered not just insufficient,
but an affirmative reason to reject a manual recount because the request was
based on voter error rather than on machine or ballot defects."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf

Only if a statewide recount would have allowed the selective use of
unprecedented types of "counting" (for dimpled chads, overvotes, etc.)
would Gore have been able to muster enough votes.

Otherwise known as manipulating the vote so that Gore can steal the
election.

But before you say "that's what should have happened"... answer
this... It's November 10th, 2004 and Florida's count is once again
razor thin. Kerry wins the initial count, and a couple recounts
clearly. Bush asks for a statewide recount, but using a different
method to determine valid votes - one that's not in the books, but one
that may give him the victory.

Would you support that?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey

wrote in part:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

---remainder snipped---

I don't understand why you are wasting your time on Blair, Mark. He is not only
an obvious "true believer" unwilling to let pesky little details like facts and
truth interfere with his opinions but he's not even very good at arguing facts
when they *might* support his view. Instead of discussion or even reasoned
argument, he seems to prefer to dismiss any opinion contrary to his as being
"ignorant" and adding cutesy insulting taglines to his sig. All of that would
be forgivable if on those rare occasions that he posts in a bona fide *cycling
related* thread, he showed an ounce of experience or even wit. I mean, read
those few such posts. In one thread he claimed that he rides in terribly windy
conditions and implies that those conditions would utterly destroy a less
skilled rider. In another thread he stated that he never carries a tire repair
kit because he never rides more than easy walking distance from his home.
Now that I consider it maybe that last explains him. I don't know but maybe
living in a wind tunnel destroys brain function.
Blair will undoubtedly respond to this post with his usual withering wit. Most
likely it will include his customary (and improperly defined) accusation of "ad
hominem attack" and some variation of, "I know what you are but what am I?".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Blair- You can have the last word. You're just too boring to waste any more
time on.

On 26 Oct 2004 16:33:00 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote in
message :

I don't understand why you are wasting your time on Blair, Mark. He is not only
an obvious "true believer" unwilling to let pesky little details like facts and
truth interfere with his opinions

Heh! And it's not even a h*lm*t thread :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

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."

Mark Hickey wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

It doesn't matter what he thought, or even what he did.
The state's pre-existing procedure for recounting the
entire state would have given him the win.

Wrong on two counts.

Wrong on no counts. 100% factual on all counts.

--Blair
"Stop spinning. Start riding."

Hunrobe wrote:
Mark Hickey

wrote in part:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

---remainder snipped---

I don't understand why you are wasting your time on Blair, Mark. He is not only
an obvious "true believer" unwilling to let pesky little details like facts and
truth interfere with his opinions but he's not even very good at arguing facts

I'd like to see you morons find a fact.

--Blair
"Nothing but air in here."

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.

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

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?????

--Blair



FACT: The NORC SAID they could NOT get access to all of the ballots.

FACT: The NORC SAID did NOT recount all 67 counties, because Volusia
was so disorganized, they used the county's totals, not theirs.

FACT: You have NO PROOF, you are lying out you ass.

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

Yet you have REFUSED to back it!!! Why won't you post the proof???

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.

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."