I Hate bush like any real man would

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business
by
Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The
Best
Democracy Money can Buy."


Get over it already.

Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount
after
recount until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that
three
counties be counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would
have
supported.

All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush
winning. The
widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.

The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the
electoral
roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor
and
of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.

While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
responsive.

I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.

Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an
unfortunate
event.

People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of
the
republic.

You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the
validity of
the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself
quite
clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other
events
or subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite
articulate
and doesn't need that kind of help.

You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having
to
address the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves
to
give the appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her
views.

George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past
accusations
towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not
true,
come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
about your own posts, OK?

In the first place, this isn't about my past accusations about
anything......it's about your failure to respond to Mary Shafer's comments
regarding certain election activities that occurred in Florida during the
last
presidential election without trying to change the subject to something
else so
that you wouldn't have to respond. I guess your silence on that score is
an
admission of sorts that she's got it right.

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. net...

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
om...

On 17 Dec 2003 18:47:04 GMT, (B2431) wrote:


Gore would have won Florida had it not been for the monkey business

by

Harris and the voter registration purge. Read Greg Palast's "The

Best

Democracy Money can Buy."



Get over it already.

Miss Harris did as the law told her to. Would you prefer recount

after

recount until your boy won? Your boy blew it by only asking that

three

counties be counted instead of a statewide recount that even I would

have

supported.

All but one of the recounts done since the election show Bush

winning. The

widest Bush win margin was using Gore's criteria.

The issue here is not the recounts. It's the purging of the

electoral

roles, supposedly of people who couldn't vote because they'd been
found guilty of felonies but actually of many people who had never
even been arrested in their lives. Many of these people were poor

and

of African descent, both groups that tend to vote Democrat.

While it's unlikely that Democrats, the poor, or people of color were
targeted for purging, I think it's likely that their complaints may
have created less urgency of correction than if they were in
categories to whom the "Establishment" is more traditionally
responsive.

I certainly won't say the over-purging was deliberate, but it did
indicate a lack of attention on the part of the State of Florida in
the person of Ms Harris and her subordinates.

Someone posted a URL for the Federal report about what happened
earlier. I suggest (not cattily, really) that you read it. It's an
interesting account of how things went wrong and caused an

unfortunate

event.

People are right to be troubled about voters being stripped of their
vote for no valid reason. Our votes are how we, the people, direct
our republic and taking away that right threatens the stability of

the

republic.

You mean kind of like Gore and the democrats ranting about the

validity of

the absentee ballots sent back from the overseas military personnel?

It seems to me that the lady had little trouble in expressing herself

quite

clearly, and she didn't need your help in likening her views to other

events

or subjects. You don't need to translate for her.....she's quite

articulate

and doesn't need that kind of help.

You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having

to

address the points she made. Trying to change the subject only serves

to

give the appearance that you're unable to take effective issue with her
views.

George, when you have grown up enough to admit that your past

accusations

towards Bush in regards to his volunteering for Palace Alert were not

true,

come back and give me a lecture. Till then you'd be better off worrying
about your own posts, OK?

In the first place, this isn't about my past accusations about
anything......it's about your failure to respond to Mary Shafer's comments
regarding certain election activities that occurred in Florida during the

last

presidential election without trying to change the subject to something

else so

that you wouldn't have to respond. I guess your silence on that score is

an

admission of sorts that she's got it right.


When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...

John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that
your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can
start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to
the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was
the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...

John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said
about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and
force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I
won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it
suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he
keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.

Brooks

George Z.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize that
your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you can
start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation to
the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed was
the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be wonderful...

John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not said
about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire and
force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer. I
won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as it
suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn, because he
keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.

Brooks

And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get high
marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize
that
your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you
can
start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation
to
the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed
was
the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
wonderful...

John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would
know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
said
about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire
and
force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer.
I
won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as
it
suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
because he
keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.

Brooks

And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get
high
marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.

You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of holes--namely,
the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities, and
the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so to
servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side is
apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my bringing
this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to your
earlier comment? Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in Florida
during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
original post since at least it entered the military side into the equation
in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for overseas
service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
that one?

Brooks


George Z.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

(Unnecessary background snipped)

When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you recognize
that
your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it), you
can
start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in relation
to
the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that indeed
was
the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...

Brooks

snip further bellyaching



That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
wonderful...

John

By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I would
know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how hard
he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
said
about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the fire
and
force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary Shafer.
I
won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time as
it
suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
because he
keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk away
from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them. It
won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))

You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.

Brooks

And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You get
high
marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.

You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of holes--namely,
the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities, and
the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so to
servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side is
apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my bringing
this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to your
earlier comment?.....

You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in your
discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it was
only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.

......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in Florida
during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
original post since at least it entered the military side into the equation
in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for overseas
service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
that one?

It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in the
past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded at
their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that subject
from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot that
you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your chimes.....it
makes no never-mind to me.

Have a nice Holiday Season.

George Z.

Brooks


George Z.