The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton,
too.

Why are they a problem only now?


Because under them Bush was elected president.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?


Because under them Bush was elected president.

That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?

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

That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?


They're not. They weren't even a problem then.

In article ,
"Kal Alexander" wrote:

wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal



Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results on
that so foreign to GOPs?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results on
that so foreign to GOPs?


Not at all. In fact, that was the GOP's position in 2000.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Kal Alexander" wrote:

wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm
Beach, were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be
counted accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being
derided, and Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine
with everybody when they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were
just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal



Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results
on
that so foreign to GOPs?

No. That system was acceptable when Clinton was elected, twice.
That same system was objected to by demo-rats only AFTER Gore
lost.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:59:27 GMT, john
wrote:


I have met Alan Dershowitz, quite a long time ago,before he was
famous. And at that time he was considered a drooling fanatic liberal,
by most people in the local courthouse. He hasn't change over the
years, except now he no longer spit on you when he talks.
Pan Ohco

Get you head out of your ass.

Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.


Can't you handle another viewpoint?

Evidently you can't handle another viewpoint of Durshowitz.



Pan Ohco

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:48:59 -0600, Pan Ohco wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:59:27 GMT, john
wrote:


I have met Alan Dershowitz, quite a long time ago,before he was
famous. And at that time he was considered a drooling fanatic liberal,
by most people in the local courthouse. He hasn't change over the
years, except now he no longer spit on you when he talks.
Pan Ohco

Get you head out of your ass.

Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.


Can't you handle another viewpoint?

Evidently you can't handle another viewpoint of Durshowitz.

Oh, I can handle another viewpoint. Your viewpoint of Dershowitz is
that he is a "drooling fanatic liberal". In addition, I would gather
from that viewpoint that you are deadly afraid of reading ANYTHING
Dershowitz has written because it may be true and it might give you
food for thought. Good heavens, if you read the book I suggested then
you might come to believe that the Supreme Court did indeed steal
the election for Bush in Florida.

Pan Ohco

I repeat:

"Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.

"None" wrote in message
k.net...

I long for the day when the ballot will include the option to vote for "None
of the Above" so those who have longed to cast their vote in a presidential
election, but were totally dissatisfied with the offerings, can do so.

Seems to me that all you have to do is to cast your ballot without voting for
anyone and you've accomplished the same as you would have if you had marked a
ballot for "None of the Above".

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

Seems to me that all you have to do is to cast your ballot without
voting for anyone and you've accomplished the same as you would
have if you had marked a ballot for "None of the Above".


It should be that way. But some panel of judges could later decide you
intended to vote for a candidate in that race.