I Hate bush like any real man would

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:30:01 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:51:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


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?

No, I don't.

Glad we cleared that up--stripping the vote from those likely to be dems
is
apparently a travesty, while doing the same to those who serve overseas
is
A-OK, huh?

If the rules say your absentee vote has to be postmarked before a
given date, it's not stripping your vote from you if you don't get it
done in time. The same is true for folks serving in the US as well,
by the way, just like it is for civilians voting absentee.

Your concern was expressed as being regarding "...voters being stripped of
their vote for no valid reason." I'd think you would want to investigate
what constitutes "valid" and apply it equally across the board, to include
those absentee ballots that were almost tossed out because the democrats
feared their likely pro-republican count (justifiably, IIRC). The argument
was NOT over when they were submitted, but over the validity of the source
for the ballots being sent out (done by the local republican committee
chair--gee, I wonder why the democratic chair did not do likewise?), and a
technicality regarding who had listed the voter ID number on the envelope.
Even the Florida State Supreme Court, which demonstrated a rather
significant bias towards the Gore camp, in the end could not stomach this
kind of disenfranchisement effort on the part of Gore's supporters, and
affirmed the lower court's ruling to let them be counted. I'd think the
above definitely falls into your "no valid reason" category, don't you?


Come to think of it, how could they tell the ballots were from
overseas military, not civilians overseas or folks stationed outside
Florida but within the US?

The challenges from the Gore camp were curiously directed at two
predominantly republican counties, and the majority of absentee ballots
filed usually come from military sources. The courts found in both cases
that there were no grounds for tossing out the ballots. Interestingly, there
were no legal challenges by the republicans to have any absentee ballots
tossed out, even in predominantly democratic counties (and IIRC there was
some well based speculation that absentee ballots in Miami-Dade would likely
be leaning towards the Gore side). If you are truly concerned over alleged
disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 election, then I'd assume you
would be equally insensed at the efforts by the democrats in those two
counties to have those absentee ballots tossed out on the basis of minor
technicalities like who wrote down the individuals voter ID number as you
are over the allegations against Ms. Harris--if not, then you are letting
your sentiments get in the way of being fairminded, something you have in a
round about manner accused Ms. Harris of doing.

Brooks


Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

As a Florida resident, I offer these observations:

1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.
2. The punch card ballots were approved by the local county Democrat party.
3. The supervisors of elections in those counties were Democrat.
4. The Democrat approved punch card ballots didn't seem to be a problem in
previous elections.\
5. The same people who had trouble dealing with punch card ballots qualified
for drivers' licenses and seem to be able to drive a car without much problem.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Makes you go 'hmmmmmmm.'"


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

"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.

"RobbelothE" wrote in message
...
As a Florida resident, I offer these observations:

1. The counties involved are VERY heavily Democrat.

Seminole and Martin, the two counties whose absentee ballots were contested
by the Gore camp, voted Republican in 2000.

Brooks

2. The punch card ballots were approved by the local county Democrat
party.
3. The supervisors of elections in those counties were Democrat.
4. The Democrat approved punch card ballots didn't seem to be a problem in
previous elections.\
5. The same people who had trouble dealing with punch card ballots
qualified
for drivers' licenses and seem to be able to drive a car without much
problem.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Makes you go 'hmmmmmmm.'"


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(miso) wrote:

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

You mean her trying to actually follow what the law said, despite the
Gore camp's attempts to steal the election via the Florida Supreme
Court? Yeah, shame on her for that.

Additionally, why did Florida (and Gore) dis-allow any of the military
absentee ballots????

"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.

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

"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.

No, your first post, in response to my FIRST post in the thread, included:
"You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
address the points she made." Odd, in that my first post was merely to point
out that the alleged disenfranchisement effort attributed to Ms. Harris was
not the only such effort during that election in Florida. I did not attack
her claims--merely wanted to see how evenhanded she was in accessing the
situation. Her subsequent responses indicate that, like you, even-handedness
is not a priority.


......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.

No, the issue in that discussion was your bold faced claim that Bush never
volunteered for overseas duty, period. Which was not the case, as he
reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert. You can't even bring yourself to
admit that, can you?


Have a nice Holiday Season.

Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am currently
enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing death
upon our temporary foes).

Brooks

George Z.

Brooks


George Z.