Ignorance, Racism and Hate

[Cuchulain]

Yes bush didn't get the popular vote in the first election but that's not how you win in our system. It doesn't matter who was in charge in FL, they still have officials etc. handling the election, it's not like Harris did a hand count herself of all the votes. Even in the most favorable counting schemes Gore still lost. Sorry, deal with it.

Are you a moron or a liar? My guess is both. You suggest ol' Katie Harris and Ken Blackwell, both hipdeep in the Bush/Cheney campaigns, didn't have a thumb on the scales?

Investigative reporter Greg Palast has dug deeply into this whole mess:
'Before the 2000 election, ChoicePoint unit Database Technologies, held a $4 million no-bid contract under the control of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, to identify felons who had illegally registered to vote. The ChoicePoint outfit altogether fingered 94,000 Florida residents. As it turned out, less than 3,000 had a verifiable criminal record; almost everyone on the list had the right to vote.

The tens of thousands of “purged” citizens had something in common besides their innocence: The list was, in the majority, made up of African Americans and Hispanics, overwhelmingly Democratic voters whose only crime was V.W.B: Voting While Black. And that little ethnic cleansing operation, conducted by Governor Jeb Bush's gang with ChoicePoint's aid, determined the race in which Harris named Bush the winner by 537 votes.' http://www.gregpalast.com/

Robert F Kennedy Jr explains Ohio '04:
'Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. "Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen," Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. "You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb." '...

'The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts — nearly half of those polled — they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again — against all odds — the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered "27," in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.' http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...lection_stolen

[trish]

Whoever is held up as an example can be criticized either for what they exemplify or for their failure to exemplify that which they are held to symbolize (e.g. Joe the plumber claims Obama's tax plan will hurt him whereas Joe doesn't make near enough money to be negatively effected, indeed he'll get a tax break, and besides he doesn't pay his taxes anyway). Where did Meghan set herself up as an example? Where did anyone else, hold her up as an example? She merely is expressing a political opinion. Her recent post made the point:

If you vote McCain you vote the same. He might not be George Bush but he as voted with George Bush's policies 90% of the time, and to me, that's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Since the point is unassailable, DarkThantos seeks instead to attack the maker of the point, insinuating that she shouldn't be allowed the freedom to express herself on political issues. That's rich!

[El Nino]

Can you imagine the possibilities if all politicians were ethical? It would definitely change the state of the world as we know it.

As far as the 2000 and 2004 elections the only thing this country should regret is the the last 8 years under a Bush Regime.

It's definitely time for a change, and I believe Obama is the change that is needed. If you vote McCain you vote the same. He might not be George Bush but he as voted with George Bush's policies 90% of the time, and to me, that's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Hey. I am just wondering what it is exactly that you think Obama is going to change?? This is a serious question.

[trish]

thank you for making my point again my not addressing it.

For the third time:

If you vote McCain you vote the same. He might not be George Bush but he as voted with George Bush's policies 90% of the time,

Deal with it.

[MrShow52]

Yes bush didn't get the popular vote in the first election but that's not how you win in our system. It doesn't matter who was in charge in FL, they still have officials etc. handling the election, it's not like Harris did a hand count herself of all the votes. Even in the most favorable counting schemes Gore still lost. Sorry, deal with it. Lol @ your Ohio claim, were voters not disenfranchised in '96 when dems won it? I bet you think Bush planned 9/11 too don't you? Just admit the guy you were rooting for lost, stop acting like a victim, though that's all democrats seem to be good at.

The whole disgust over Bush v Gore was the way the Supreme Court handled the matter. Conducting and counting the ballots in a presidential contest is a matter for the States to handle. The Supreme Court injected itself along political lines and it is almost universally thought of as one of the lowest points in the Court's history. Bush may very well have won either way, but the process should not have been short circuited.

Actually the Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do. They ere arguing over whether or not the multiple recounts the dems were lobbying for were constitutional, and they weren't. The court didn't decide the election, they just stopped the dems from trying to steal it. They didn't short circuit the process, dems were trying to change it to their advantage and the courts saw this and put an end to it.

To that other noob calling me a liar. So Ohio was corrupt because some exit polls differed from the actual results? LOL what a moron. Exit polls are POLLS. Polls are highly UNscientific and can be skewed to pretty much any result you want. Who cares if some fag's exit polls differed from the ACTUAL election results, maybe he needs to work on his polling. Quote more Rolling Stones articles on politics too, we all know how reliable a news source they are.

Also in FL, sorry they don't allow rapists, murderers and bank robbers to vote.

[Cuchulain]

To that other noob calling me a liar. So Ohio was corrupt because some exit polls differed from the actual results? LOL what a moron. Exit polls are POLLS. Polls are highly UNscientific and can be skewed to pretty much any result you want. Who cares if some fag's exit polls differed from the ACTUAL election results, maybe he needs to work on his polling. Quote more Rolling Stones articles on politics too, we all know how reliable a news source they are.

Also in FL, sorry they don't allow rapists, murderers and bank robbers to vote.

Typical REICHwing snake - slither away from the facts and spew talking points and venom. Exit polls are unscientific?

'Are exit polls usually accurate?

Yes, they are. On Nov. 2, 2004, Manjoo's source Mark Blumenthal, the Mystery Pollster, had this to say: "I have always been a fan of exit polls. Despite the occasional controversies, exit polls remain among the most sophisticated and reliable political surveys available." Properly done exit polls are highly accurate. Given the large sample size in U.S. exit polls, they ought to be accurate within 1 to 2 percentage points of the official count.

The 2004 Election Day exit poll was a well-funded effort conducted by the most experienced pollsters in the business, and it represented a broad spectrum of media interests, from Fox to CBS. The sample included 114,559 respondents in the 50 state exit polls, conducted at 1,480 precincts throughout the nation. A subsample of these was selected to provide a sample representative of the U.S. electorate for the national exit poll: 11,719 Election Day voters and 500 absentee and early voters. The National Election Pool, NEP, a consortium of six news organizations (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC) pooled resources to conduct a thorough survey of each state and the nation. NEP in turn contracted two respected firms, Joe Lenski's Edison Media research and Warren Mitofsky's Mitofsky International, to conduct the polls.

Prior to 2000, no one even debated the accuracy of exit polls. Scholars, practitioners and critics all agreed. In 1987, Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote that exit polls "are the most useful analytic tool developed in my working life." Political scientists George Edwards and Stephen Wayne, in their book "Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy," put it this way: "The problems with exit polls lie in their accuracy (rather than inaccuracy). They give the press access to predict the outcome before the elections have been concluded."

An exit pollster himself for more than 20 years, St. Louis University professor of political science Ken Warren has never had an error greater than 2 percent, except one time -- in a 1982 St. Louis primary. In that election, massive voter fraud was subsequently uncovered'
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...urce=salon.rss

Rolling Stone unreliable? RFK Jr. cited 208 sources for his extensively researched article. Let's see you refute them, pinhead.

Rapists, murderers and bank robbers? Ok, that's 3000. What about the other 91,000 mostly Democratic voters that got bounced?

Crawl back under your rock, snake-boy.

[NYBURBS]

Yes bush didn't get the popular vote in the first election but that's not how you win in our system. It doesn't matter who was in charge in FL, they still have officials etc. handling the election, it's not like Harris did a hand count herself of all the votes. Even in the most favorable counting schemes Gore still lost. Sorry, deal with it. Lol @ your Ohio claim, were voters not disenfranchised in '96 when dems won it? I bet you think Bush planned 9/11 too don't you? Just admit the guy you were rooting for lost, stop acting like a victim, though that's all democrats seem to be good at.

The whole disgust over Bush v Gore was the way the Supreme Court handled the matter. Conducting and counting the ballots in a presidential contest is a matter for the States to handle. The Supreme Court injected itself along political lines and it is almost universally thought of as one of the lowest points in the Court's history. Bush may very well have won either way, but the process should not have been short circuited.

Actually the Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do. They ere arguing over whether or not the multiple recounts the dems were lobbying for were constitutional, and they weren't. The court didn't decide the election, they just stopped the dems from trying to steal it. They didn't short circuit the process, dems were trying to change it to their advantage and the courts saw this and put an end to it.

Article II Section I:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Supreme court injected itself into a matter that was left to the States to work out. Perhaps the Florida courts overstepped their bounds but at the end of the day that was for the Florida legislature to work out. So the Supreme Court did many things during that time period, almost none of which was what they were suppose to do.