Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why No Outrage Over The Real Vote Fraud?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Elections
Constitutionally Speaking
So many of you are all worked up over the relatively minor irregularities in Ohio even when if they ALL worked out in Kerry's favor - STILL would not change the outcome.


Meanwhile in Washington state, Mountains of evidence is accumulating that points to a REAL stolen election.

Why no outrage on a CREDIBLE case of election fraud????

We have dead voters voting. Military ballots not allowed. 1,800 more voters than were registered to vote in King county. People voting more than once, Mysterious ballots appearing out of thin air. Unverified Provisional ballots hurried through the counters and convieniently mixed in with the regular votes. Every bit of this is documented IN MAINSTREAM SOURCES (not the KOOKS that are making stuff up in Ohio).

The Judges in Washington (as is a habit among liberal judges i.e. New Jersey in the Laughtenberg (sp) case and in Florida with Bush V Gore) changed the existing law in order to accomodate the Democrats positions.


Also, the people in Ohio OVERWHELMINGLY agree that the Bush won their state.

The Majority of people in Washington State believe that ROSSI won.

Why no outrage????
Panda
Links please, and then I'll see if I can work up a froth over something not quite as important to me as two presidential elections in a row being STOLEN with links and documentation provided up the yazoo.

Let me ask you......why no outrage on your part when none other than Pat Buchanan admitted back in 2000 that something fishy happened in Florida?
What made you accept the results despite overwhelming evidence that machines had miscounted votes (for both candidates) in several states?

Aren't you the teensiest bit worried that our votes might not count as they should?
It's only fair....to count all our votes and give us a paper trail.

I'm sure you're familiar by now with the famous "Brooks Brothers" plants who faked the Miami riots over the recount. Don't you ever wonder to yourself why the Bush folks had to pay so many henchmen to go to Florida and make a ruckus? Sure gave ME pause. Especially when I saw all their employers and the lovely jobs they got within the new administration....paid for out of OUR taxes......yours and mine.

And for my own amusement...lookee whose name is just accidentally missing from the ballot here in Ohio. Whoops. Sorry Democracy. Lady Liberty weeps.

user posted image


Blinded by the right.
user posted image

happymisanthropy
Then why doesn't Sam Reed, the REPUBLICAN secretary of state for Washington, protest it?

They found dead people who voted in King County... they found NINE dead people who voted in King County. And at least one of them, who died a few weeks before the election, "voted" Republican.

BUT if you want to work together to ensure that everyone (even in poor minority neighborhoods) has equal access to the ballot, that the handling of ballots is transparent, that public records are open to the public, and that everything else necessary for a fair election and a fair count are required by law and PUNISHABLE if VIOLATED...

Then we're right beside you. smile.gif

Incidently, no county in Washington declared a terrorism emergency and threw out the observers. That was in Ohio. wink.gif
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
BUT if you want to work together to ensure that everyone (even in poor minority neighborhoods) has equal access to the ballot, that the handling of ballots is transparent, that public records are open to the public, and that everything else necessary for a fair election and a fair count are required by law and PUNISHABLE if VIOLATED...


I DO want to work for this and for the most part, I think we have this. But there is nothing more important than a free, fair election with all people confident of it's legitimacy.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
I'm sure you're familiar by now with the famous "Brooks Brothers" plants who faked the Miami riots over the recount. Don't you ever wonder to yourself why the Bush folks had to pay so many henchmen to go to Florida and make a ruckus? Sure gave ME pause. Especially when I saw all their employers and the lovely jobs they got within the new administration....paid for out of OUR taxes......yours and mine.


I'm sure you know what those "brooks brothers plants" were actually chanting.


They were chanting "let them in", and alternately "let us in" !

Why????? because the election officials took the counting BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. They were upset that the counting was being done in secret with no press to observe the shenanigans.

You should have been there right along side them.

To characterize this as a "riot" is really quite funny. There were maybe a dozen people half heartedly chanting! But those nerds did look really scary!

(and it wasn't just the Bush folks that brought in campaign workers) Why not mention the telemarketers hire BEFORE the election who made calls urging people to go in and claim "disenfranchisement" .

Can you name me ONE person who testified before the Mary Frances Barry's Civil Rights commission who's allegations of personal disenfranchisement were verified???

Can you explain why there were constantly changing standards as to what constituted a legal vote. - but ONLY when it was becoming clear that Bush would still win??

Can you explain why Gore only wanted all of the GORE votes counted - to hell with the Bush votes??? To hell with counting the republican counties to hell with the military votes.

The Republicans simply wanted the law followed as it was written BEFORE the election. The Dems tried to change the rules to suit thier own purposes.

The SCOTUS ruled that the way votes were being counted VIOLATED the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

This vote was not the 5-4 decision that you hear so often. It was 7-2 in other words, it was not even close.

But even given all of that, if Gore had gotten his way. HE STILL WOULD HAVE LOST.

Gore would have won if the Supreme court allowed the votes to continue

QUOTE

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN AND JOHN M. BRODER (NYT) 2527 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Comprehensive review of uncounted Florida ballots from 2000 presidential election, conducted by consortium of eight news organizations and professional statisticians, indicates George W Bush would have won election even if US Supreme Court allowed statewide manual recount of votes ordered by state Supreme Court; finds, contrary to allegations by partisans of Vice Pres Al Gore, that Supreme Court did not award election to Bush; says that Bush would have retained slender margin if Florida court order to recount more than 43,000 ballots was not reversed by Supreme Court, and that even under strategy Gore pursued at beginning of standoff, of filing suit to force recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties, Bush would have retained lead; says close examination of broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in court decisions shows Gore might have won if courts ordered full statewide recount of all rejected ballots, and if he pursued in court action he publicly advocated of calling on state to count all votes; finds statistical support for complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate


The ONLY way Gore could POSSIBLY have won is if you include those ballots that had votes for BOTH Gore and Bush - AND you read the minds of those people and determined that they were all Gore votes.

Also the early announcing of the polls cost Bush @ 12,000 votes in the fla. Panhandle.

Early calling of election cost bush THOUSANDS of votes

And you know what? most of the Military votes STILL did not get counted AT ALL.
Dr. Left
Oh brother CS you really should apply for a job at FOX, boy can you "spin", the Brook Brothers were chanting and pounding the doors to STOP the count not "observe" the count and by the way why is it that it just so happens that those "brook Brothers" happened to work for Delay, gee now isn't that interesting...

rolleyes.gif

Doc
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (Dr. Left @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 7:35 am)
Oh brother CS you really should apply for a job at FOX, boy can you "spin", the Brook Brothers were chanting and pounding the doors to STOP the count not "observe" the count and by the way why is it that it just so happens that those "brook Brothers" happened to work for Delay, gee now isn't that interesting...

rolleyes.gif

Doc

Prove it. I have a damn video of the incident . You are lying.

Period
Constitutionally Speaking
All that being said, I acknowledge we need a verifiable paper trail so that those of you that have doubts, can again be confident in our system.

I have absolutely no desire to argue this same argument every two years. I am tired of it. Lets move on. There are lots of things we have in common. Lets focus on those.
POAC
Its posts like those that totally destroy CS's credibility. He sounds reasonable for a while and then....WHAM complete nonsense. Is he brainwashed? Does he believe what he says? Only the shadow knows.
Panda
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 3:08 pm)

Prove it.  I have a damn video of the incident .  You are lying.

Period


You know better than to say that.
It's not nice, and it's uncalled for.
It's also not true.

SIGH
No, you prove it. Typical tail wags the dog.
user posted image


Don't make me forage back through my archives for the names, occupations, salaries after the incident.
I saw the videos. I also saw and read the spin shown with the videos that they were merely reglar ol' Florida folks plum tired of waiting for the results. They were tired of waiting and wanted it the vote counting to stop NOW!
Yes, they wanted in......to stop the count.

We know all about those NON-Floridians; their backgrounds; who paid them.
If you choose to ignore those facts that's up to you. Perhaps you can't allow yourself to believe that such vile people exist and do things that are so low and rotten. But we can see the truth. Please. The facts have already spoken volumes. Those men and a couple of women all got lovely jobs after that performance.

If I could access archives at Malloy and DU I've already posted all their names, occupations at the time of the "riot" and their jobs and salaries with the new administration. So have many others. It's old news. It happens to be true.
Fer chrissakes we know who they are. WE paid for them...you AND me.

What sort of proof do you need that might poke a tiny pinhole into this fantasy bubble-land you're talking about. Let's get real here....this administration is a disaster for MOST Americans. They do NOT care about you CS any more than they care about me. Unless you've got some mighty big bucks you are just as much a subject of King Georgie as I am. His whims affect you just as much as they affect us. We're all on our own. They're robbing us blind.

Go ahead. Don't even entertain the idea that Bush and co. lie constantly. Those troublesome facts that we keep coming up with....ignore them at your own peril. We're all going down in the same ship. I understand that it must be somehow comforting to believe in them. A nice secure feeling I'll bet. Unemployment figures went up and shocked Wall Street today....I don't understand why that would surprise them at all. Do you? Less secure perhaps? Think the war in Iraq is the problem? That's just one tiny slice of the financial pie for these parasites and skimmers. They buy what they want with money they borrowed and pay it back with other money they borrowed. Lovely scam. Without Moon they wouldn't have NEARLY as much money....want HIM in charge?

Facts. Aren't they a royal pain in the ass? I know, you won't pay this any heed either. "Facts are stupid things"--St. Ronald Reagan

You: user posted image.......Me: user posted image


OT
And I haven't forgotten about the BFEE comment and when I have a few I'll drag out my information on why the name IS appropriate. It is what it is.
Constitutionally Speaking
Panda,


I do not dispute that they were out of staters - nor do I argue that they were employed by various congressmen and many went on to govt. jobs afterward.

That much is absolutely true. No argument. Why do you think that the Dems did not have their people down there????


What I DO dispute is that these dozen or so nerds were part of a riot.

If they were on the left and protesting something - you all would wonder what the hell happened to their passion! It was very short in duration (only when the cameras were turned on) and rather pathetic as far as volume and consistancy. It was very sporadic and not well attended.

I also am telling you they were upset that the press (and everyone else) was locked out of the room that the votes were being counted in.

They were absolutely chanting "let them in" and that morphed into "let us in"

They were protesting a violation of Florida's sunshine laws. EVERYONE should have joined in THAT protest.
POAC
user posted image


Panda
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 10:03 pm)
user posted image

Why, thank you, POAC! Saved me the trouble.
Still, it won't do any good.

Now will this...nor would the salary lists of those involved.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html



user posted image
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
user posted image
POAC
user posted image

My favorite one is #2. He was convicted in the FUTURE!!!!!
POAC
there's a great article in vanity fair aboutt he guy who made the software that they used to purge the likely democratic voters and how they gave him the boot and later totally abused his creation.

My grandmother was there when it happened and she said it was one of the scariest things she'd ever seen. She said "They came in there marching in lock-step and with looks on their faces like just what you'd expect the fascist brownshirts must have looked like.".
Constitutionally Speaking
Did you guys catch the fact that I don't dispute the names or occupations of these guys???

It's not like I haven't seen this oh 'bout a thousand times! whoopee! wall.gif

Why are you so reluctant to admit that they were protesting the moving of the vote counting behind closed doors???

If you are for fair and open elections, you would cheer these guys.
POAC
so how do you feel about the media being locked out of the recount in Ohio due to a "terrorist threat" that was proven to be a lie the next morning by the FBI?
Panda
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 10:16 pm)
there's a great article in vanity fair aboutt he guy who made the software that they used to purge the likely democratic voters and how they gave him the boot and later totally abused his creation.

My grandmother was there when it happened and she said it was one of the scariest things she'd ever seen. She said "They came in there marching in lock-step and with looks on their faces like just what you'd expect the fascist brownshirts must have looked like.".

I read that.....funny I had never even read Vanity Fair until last year when they came out with some terrific articles.

That must make your terrified grandmother a conspiracy theorist. wink.gif
You KNOW we all imagine or make these things up for some strange reason.
Maybe we do it for fun.
Yes, that's it, living in fear of fascism is fun.

It took the Germans and Italians decades to recognize what they were getting themselves into.
user posted image

We're just quicker this time to see it for what it is.
user posted image
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 10:47 pm)
so how do you feel about the media being locked out of the recount in Ohio due to a "terrorist threat" that was proven to be a lie the next morning by the FBI?



There was no reason for it. I will back you on that.

But I also would point out that if it was a great conspiracy, the FBI would have backed up the story.
Constitutionally Speaking
Lets go for some common ground here.


We ALL want a verifiable vote. We ALL want honest elections. I will back any idea that I think will lead to this. Can you back the idea that we need a system to ensure that only those legal to vote do so?
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (Panda @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 10:48 pm)
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 10:16 pm)
there's a great article in vanity fair aboutt he guy who made the software that they used to purge the likely democratic voters and how they gave him the boot and later totally abused his creation.

My grandmother was there when it happened and she said it was one of the scariest things she'd ever seen. She said "They came in there marching in lock-step and with looks on their faces like just what you'd expect the fascist brownshirts must have looked like.".

I read that.....funny I had never even read Vanity Fair until last year when they came out with some terrific articles.

That must make your terrified grandmother a conspiracy theorist. wink.gif
You KNOW we all imagine or make these things up for some strange reason.
Maybe we do it for fun.
Yes, that's it, living in fear of fascism is fun.

It took the Germans and Italians decades to recognize what they were getting themselves into.
user posted image

We're just quicker this time to see it for what it is.
user posted image

That is exactly what we are avoiding when we vote Republican, Panda!


With the consolidation of power in the hands of a few in Washington, we run a much greater risk of falling into fascism and totalitarianism. When we promote policies that give the Federal Government more and more control over our everyday lives, we then become dependant upon that government. When the populace is dependant upon the government for their very existance, they will vote all of their rights away in order to "keep bread on the table".

Are there things I disagree with this Admin on? Of course, but much of what I found dangerous in the Patriot act is being - or already HAS been ruled unconstitutional.

What has NOT been discontinued is the oppressive burden placed on individual freedoms and the job killing and often counter - productive burden that ill-concieved regulations place on our economic freedoms.

POAC
QUOTE
We ALL want a verifiable vote. We ALL want honest elections. I will back any idea that I think will lead to this.


You mean the Voting Rights act? The Liberal initiative that was violated time and time again in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004? Ummm... yeah, isn't that what this conversation is about?


QUOTE
Can you back the idea that we need a system to ensure that only those legal to vote do so?



Yeah, we had that, remember. And the Florida republicans replaced it with their own, paid their company 4 times what the original company was paid, and then blatantly scrubbed thousands of eligible voters from the voting rolls.


i guess what we really need is for everyone to acknowledge when election fraud is being committed and not to ignore major wide scale corruption of the republican party and focus entirely on a contested election where the democrats actually "won". Yeah, that would be a nice start. But you'd have to get it through your cognitive dissonance for that to take place, huh?
POAC
QUOTE
But I also would point out that if it was a great conspiracy, the FBI would have backed up the story.


If the FBI had concluded that yes, there was a terror threat, there either wouldn't be a conspiracy and the threat was legitimate, or there would have been one, and you'd be sitting here calling us conspiracy theorists and citing the FBI statement as proof.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (POAC @ Saturday, 15 January 2005, 10:13 am)

If the FBI had concluded that yes, there was a terror threat, there either wouldn't be a conspiracy and the threat was legitimate, or there would have been one, and you'd be sitting here calling us conspiracy theorists and citing the FBI statement as proof.

Perhaps, but the since they discredited it, it supports the NO conspiracy argument.
POAC
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 5:08 pm)
QUOTE (Dr. Left @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 7:35 am)
Oh brother CS you really should apply for a job at FOX, boy can you "spin", the Brook Brothers were chanting and pounding the doors to STOP the count not "observe" the count and by the way why is it that it just so happens that those "brook Brothers" happened to work for Delay, gee now isn't that interesting...

rolleyes.gif

Doc

Prove it. I have a damn video of the incident . You are lying.

Period

If you are going to call someone a liar and claim to have a video. Lets see it. they were sent in to halt the recount. You are the liar uhntil you prove otherwise
Panda
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 15 January 2005, 9:20 am)
Lets go for some common ground here.


We ALL want a verifiable vote.  We ALL want honest elections.  I will back any idea that I think will lead to this.  Can you back the idea that we need a system to ensure that only those legal to vote do so?

I'm all for a verifiable vote count. What do you suggest?
It's impossible for us to believe we are "electing" people if half the voters don't even believe in the system anymore. The last thing I want to see is the anarchists (on both sides) getting more credibility.
We desperately need reform....but you still need to address POAC's points.

Then, lets move on to a REAL voting system that includes all citizens.
CS, you know that if half of us don't trust in the process it can ONLY lead to more mayhem and division in this countrty. This is the worst it has even been in terms of divisiveness. Except maybe for the Civil War....I fear another if this keeps up.


And back to your point about the branches of government being under sole control of one party....helloooooo? That's what we have NOW. No checks and balances as our founding fathers carefully planned.

We are under tyranny rule....Madison warned us.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (Panda @ Saturday, 15 January 2005, 1:58 pm)
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 15 January 2005, 9:20 am)
Lets go for some common ground here.


We ALL want a verifiable vote.  We ALL want honest elections.  I will back any idea that I think will lead to this.  Can you back the idea that we need a system to ensure that only those legal to vote do so?

I'm all for a verifiable vote count. What do you suggest?
It's impossible for us to believe we are "electing" people if half the voters don't even believe in the system anymore. The last thing I want to see is the anarchists (on both sides) getting more credibility.
We desperately need reform....but you still need to address POAC's points.

Then, lets move on to a REAL voting system that includes all citizens.
CS, you know that if half of us don't trust in the process it can ONLY lead to more mayhem and division in this countrty. This is the worst it has even been in terms of divisiveness. Except maybe for the Civil War....I fear another if this keeps up.


And back to your point about the branches of government being under sole control of one party....helloooooo? That's what we have NOW. No checks and balances as our founding fathers carefully planned.

We are under tyranny rule....Madison warned us.

I think your side has come up with some very good Ideas, I don't object to any that I have seen.

As far as half not believing the results, I gotta believe that that is overstating it a bit.

Most democrats know they lost this election, and accept the results. Just because they were Kerry voters does not mean they believe the allegations of the far left.

I think they are justified in that belief. I would however be in favor of your sides cure - a paper trail for every vote. (we had that for the most part until your side raised such a stink about the punchcard ballots you know) Any verifiable system you wish I think would be fine with me.


Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
And back to your point about the branches of government being under sole control of one party....helloooooo? That's what we have NOW. No checks and balances as our founding fathers carefully planned.


That was not my point at all. My point was about the consolidation of power in the federal government - period. Having a balance between the two major political parties has nothing to do with it.


My point was Government ITSELF has too much influence in our everyday lives. When the government can tell you how big your toilet can be, they are WAY overstepping their constitutional role.

The WHOLE PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights was to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government. The Government was NOT supposed to have nearly the power it has today. Unfortunately we have some people who have twisted the constitution and are using it to INCREASE the size and scope of the Government. _ the consolidation of power into the hands of a few.

If you want to take the corruption out of the government, remove the incentive that people and businesses have to try and influence politicians.

What is it that these people and businesses want? Favorable legistlation. Legistlation that has no business being enacted in the first place. Legistlation that is expressly prohibited by the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th and the 10th amendments of the Constitution.

As to your point about the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, I would dispute that they control the Judiciary but regardless of that point, What we are seeing now IS the checks and balances working to perfection.

For 40 years the Democrats controlled all three branches of Government, the pendulum had swung way to the left. It is now starting to swing to the right. Eventually it will swing back. Hopefully not before the conservatives can re-establish the rights that the left ignored and attacted when they held sway.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
You mean the Voting Rights act? The Liberal initiative that was violated time and time again in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?


Can you give me the result of any court case that proves this point???

Don't get me wrong there were lots of allegations - but what would you expect when the Democrats set up phone banks to solicit such allegations - BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE HAD BEEN CAST. Not one has been verified in court.

I saw lots of testimony in front of the Civil rights commission , but when it came right down to it - they proved false. There has not been ONE case proven of intimidation not one case proven of not allowing a person with proper documentation being disallowed their right to vote.

The police intimidation? There's absolutely no evidence that a single person was intimidated, harassed, or prevented from voting by Florida law enforcement. Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement "misconduct" consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions regarding the actions of the Florida Highway Patrol. One of these witnesses testified that he thought it was "unusual" to see an empty patrol car parked outside a polling place. There was no evidence that sight of the vehicle somehow intimidated the witness or any other voters from casting ballots. There was no evidence that the erstwhile occupant of the vehicle harassed voters. There was no evidence that the empty vehicle was there for the purpose of somehow disenfranchising anyone assigned to vote at that location.

The second witness had filed a highly publicized complaint with the NAACP regarding a police motor-vehicle checkpoint. In the hysterical recount period following the election the complaint took on a life of its own and apparently became part of the basis for the legend that legions of cops were harassing thousands of black voters throughout Florida.

The evidence, however, shows that the checkpoint in question was two miles from the polling place. Moreover, it was not even on the same road as the polling facility. During the checkpoint's approximately ninety minutes of operation, citations for faulty equipment were issued to 16 individuals, 12 of whom were white. The uncontroverted evidence shows that no one was delayed or prohibited from voting due to the lone checkpoint.

Mary Frances Berry's smear job that was long on accusations yet curiously could not come up with proof
Dr. Left
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 3:08 pm)
QUOTE (Dr. Left @ Friday, 14 January 2005, 7:35 am)
Oh brother CS you really should apply for a job at FOX, boy can you "spin", the Brook Brothers were chanting and pounding the doors to STOP the count not "observe" the count and by the way why is it that it just so happens that those "brook Brothers" happened to work for Delay, gee now isn't that interesting...

rolleyes.gif

Doc

Prove it. I have a damn video of the incident . You are lying.

Period

You have the video, gee I've seen it over and over again...and it proves my point and DON'T ever call me a liar, face it the Right stole election 2000 and 2004 and delay and his boys had alot ot do with the 2000 riot. They are thugs dumbass plain and simple.

Doc
Dr. Left
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 15 January 2005, 6:23 pm)

Can you give me the result of any court case that proves this point???

Don't get me wrong there were lots of allegations - but what would you expect when the Democrats set up phone banks to solicit such allegations - BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE HAD BEEN CAST. Not one has been verified in court.

I saw lots of testimony in front of the Civil rights commission , but when it came right down to it - they proved false. There has not been ONE case proven of intimidation not one case proven of not allowing a person with proper documentation being disallowed their right to vote.

The police intimidation? There's absolutely no evidence that a single person was intimidated, harassed, or prevented from voting by Florida law enforcement. Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement "misconduct" consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions regarding the actions of the Florida Highway Patrol. One of these witnesses testified that he thought it was "unusual" to see an empty patrol car parked outside a polling place. There was no evidence that sight of the vehicle somehow intimidated the witness or any other voters from casting ballots. There was no evidence that the erstwhile occupant of the vehicle harassed voters. There was no evidence that the empty vehicle was there for the purpose of somehow disenfranchising anyone assigned to vote at that location.

The second witness had filed a highly publicized complaint with the NAACP regarding a police motor-vehicle checkpoint. In the hysterical recount period following the election the complaint took on a life of its own and apparently became part of the basis for the legend that legions of cops were harassing thousands of black voters throughout Florida.

The evidence, however, shows that the checkpoint in question was two miles from the polling place. Moreover, it was not even on the same road as the polling facility. During the checkpoint's approximately ninety minutes of operation, citations for faulty equipment were issued to 16 individuals, 12 of whom were white. The uncontroverted evidence shows that no one was delayed or prohibited from voting due to the lone checkpoint.

Mary Frances Berry's smear job that was long on accusations yet curiously could not come up with proof

Gee NAACAP won their case, ohhh that's right Jeb settled out of court, gee I wonder why....they stole the election in 2000 and now in 2004 plain and simple...

Doc
Constitutionally Speaking
Perhaps you could back that up Doc! Show me where these instances were settled in Gore's favor!
happymisanthropy
I don't object to making voters prove their identity.

What I do object to is people from the suburbs (where there are no lines at the polls) going to the urban minority neighborhoods (where the lines are hours long) and challenging voters there (making the lines even longer). It is wrong.

You need to require ID from everyone, or no one. Setting higher requirements for black people (or people in black neighborhoods) is a crime.

I've never been asked for ID. I live in a 97% white neighborhood, and this last election was the first time I've ever had to wait. The workers told me that the three-minute "line" was the most they had had all day. And yes, they did ask the black guy in line behind me if he was in the right place!

Voting machines should be allocated according to number of registered voters, and in Ohio they were not. That, by itself, should be enough to send someone to prison.
Dr. Left
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Wednesday, 19 January 2005, 7:46 pm)
Perhaps you could back that up Doc!  Show me where these instances were settled in Gore's favor!

Geee, let's see IF Florida allowed the blacks to vote instead of using their dirty bag of votes, how's that for starters moron....oh here's one for you dumb ass, how about dropping thousands off the rolls because their names are close to criminals in Texas...gee why do all illeciet roads lead to Texas.... dry.gif

Doc
Dr. Left
QUOTE (happymisanthropy @ Thursday, 20 January 2005, 2:37 am)
I don't object to making voters prove their identity.

What I do object to is people from the suburbs (where there are no lines at the polls) going to the urban minority neighborhoods (where the lines are hours long) and challenging voters there (making the lines even longer). It is wrong.

You need to require ID from everyone, or no one. Setting higher requirements for black people (or people in black neighborhoods) is a crime.

I've never been asked for ID. I live in a 97% white neighborhood, and this last election was the first time I've ever had to wait. The workers told me that the three-minute "line" was the most they had had all day. And yes, they did ask the black guy in line behind me if he was in the right place!

Voting machines should be allocated according to number of registered voters, and in Ohio they were not. That, by itself, should be enough to send someone to prison.

Not to CS though he thinks that's Democracy...Oh CS where are those WMDs you keep avoiding that question.... rolleyes.gif

Doc
POAC
Sorry its taken me this long to respond. The point I believe made by CS was that there was no widespread voter disenfranchisement or violations of the voting rights act because there was no court case proving it.

My response is this: If a tree falls in the woods and there is noone there to hear it does it make a sound? And if a law is broken thousands of times and a court refuses to hear it, is the law still broken?

And I just came across this a few minutes ago:
Rep John Conyers open letter to Ohio AG Jim Petro, questioning his motive to sanction attorneys who challenged the vote in Ohio
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00231.htm
Dr. Left
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 3:33 am)
Sorry its taken me this long to respond. The point I believe made by CS was that there was no widespread voter disenfranchisement or violations of the voting rights act because there was no court case proving it.

My response is this: If a tree falls in the woods and there is noone there to hear it does it make a sound? And if a law is broken thousands of times and a court refuses to hear it, is the law still broken?

And I just came across this a few minutes ago:
Rep John Conyers open letter to Ohio AG Jim Petro, questioning his motive to sanction attorneys who challenged the vote in Ohio
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00231.htm

Awesome, I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, what CS would be saying...oh excuse me screaming....


Doc
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
You need to require ID from everyone, or no one. Setting higher requirements for black people (or people in black neighborhoods) is a crime.


100 % agreement. I do not believe anyone is asking for anything different.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (POAC @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 3:33 am)
Sorry its taken me this long to respond. The point I believe made by CS was that there was no widespread voter disenfranchisement or violations of the voting rights act because there was no court case proving it.

My response is this: If a tree falls in the woods and there is noone there to hear it does it make a sound? And if a law is broken thousands of times and a court refuses to hear it, is the law still  broken?

And I just came across this a few minutes ago:
Rep John Conyers open letter to Ohio AG Jim Petro, questioning his motive to sanction attorneys who challenged the vote in Ohio
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00231.htm

The reason there is no court decision, is that they HAD NO CASE. Either they were not brought before the court - or they lost.

The charges were laughable. I gave links to the ONLY two documented cases of claimed police intimidation in Florida for the 2000 election.

In one case, the road block was TWO MILES from the polling location and was ON A DIFFERENT STREET! In the other, and EMPTY police car was parked outside the voting facility - THAT IS IT!!!!

I also showed direct evidence where the infamous voter purges actually worked to GORES benefit.

Most of the Florida military votes NEVER were included in the 2000 tally and the calling of Florida for Gore before the polls closed cost Bush an estimated 8,000 - 14,000 net votes.

The "Bush stole Florida" argument simply does not hold water. I don't blame Gore for challenging - it was absolutely close enough to bring suit, but I DO blame him for feeding the myth now.


The "Bush stole Ohio" is simply laughable. There is no way Kerry won Ohio - period.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
Oh CS where are those WMDs you keep avoiding that question.


I answered it Doc, you just haven't figured out how to click links yet.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
Voting machines should be allocated according to number of registered voters, and in Ohio they were not. That, by itself, should be enough to send someone to prison.


Which party was in charge in those precincts that had voting machine shortages, Happy???? You might not like the truth when you see it.

Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE
I've never been asked for ID. I live in a 97% white neighborhood, and this last election was the first time I've ever had to wait. The workers told me that the three-minute "line" was the most they had had all day. And yes, they did ask the black guy in line behind me if he was in the right place!


I agree, this is inexcusable.
happymisanthropy
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 4:43 pm)

Which party was in charge in those precincts that had voting machine shortages, Happy???? You might not like the truth when you see it.

That's just stupid, CS. It's not the precinct chairman who decides how many machines each precinct gets - it's the county elections department.

I don't know where you are getting your facts, CS, but I have to conclude that you are stupid.
Constitutionally Speaking
QUOTE (happymisanthropy @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 11:21 pm)
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 4:43 pm)

Which party was in charge in those precincts that had voting machine shortages, Happy????  You might not like the truth when you see it.

That's just stupid, CS. It's not the precinct chairman who decides how many machines each precinct gets - it's the county elections department.

I don't know where you are getting your facts, CS, but I have to conclude that you are stupid.

My statement STILL stands, who was in charge of the number of voting machines in those precincts??????
happymisanthropy
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 22 January 2005, 3:34 am)
My statement STILL stands, who was in charge of the number of voting machines in those precincts??????

I don't remember who it was, but he made a sworn statement that there were no more voting machines available. In reality, there were several sitting in a warehouse.

I presume you have a link?

Because I agree, whatever party he is he should go to jail.

And my comment about stupidity still stands, because you are. You named the WRONG office.
happymisanthropy
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 22 January 2005, 3:34 am)
who was in charge of the number of voting machines in those precincts??????

His name is Matt Damschroder, Franklin County elections board director. And not only is he a Republican, he's the former head of the County Republican Party.

But, if you don't trust freepress.org, I suppose you could call him yourself:

Director Matthew M. Damschroder
Deputy Director Michael R. Hackett
280 East Broad Street, Room 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 462-3100
Fax: (614) 462-3489
Dr. Left
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 4:23 pm)

I answered it Doc, you just haven't figured out how to click links yet.

No you didn't dumbass, there were no WMDs CS, you are just to stupid or blind or both to see that. But I'll try to explain it to you like I would a four year old. We have our Secretary State in front of the UN with Satilte imageries (that's pictures to you), showing blurr pictures of some vehicle, or building or whatever and saying that its a WMDs, he says he has HUMIT (that's people on the ground, you know like spies you see in TV movies, but not as action packed). Now the military mind, and intell mind is very on track. You see, when we have a target, that we are watching for possible attack, we keep them under obervation. So if they were moved, or buried or another one of your pipe dreams we would have known....and Shrub would have gone before the UN and the world and screamed "we must move now..." wish I could imiatate his chimp voice but use your imagination. The night of the invasion Rummy said they knew where the WMDs were exactly....so let me ask you again, bearing all this in mind where are they CS, you never answered the question.....but I tell you what I won't hold my breath because you can't tell me so I will tell you....they DIDN'T exist, your president KNEW
Dr. Left
[U]...and he LIED!!!!!

DOC
Dr. Left
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Saturday, 22 January 2005, 3:34 am)
QUOTE (happymisanthropy @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 11:21 pm)
QUOTE (Constitutionally Speaking @ Friday, 21 January 2005, 4:43 pm)

Which party was in charge in those precincts that had voting machine shortages, Happy????  You might not like the truth when you see it.

That's just stupid, CS. It's not the precinct chairman who decides how many machines each precinct gets - it's the county elections department.

I don't know where you are getting your facts, CS, but I have to conclude that you are stupid.

My statement STILL stands, who was in charge of the number of voting machines in those precincts??????

....probably a Republican....the point IS dumbass, there were not enough machines...God what a moron.

Doc
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.