The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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.

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

"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".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

all they had to do was apply Florida's long held policy of counting
ballots whose intention was clear -- and then count the damn votes


That would have been fine, the problem was the Democrats were recasting
those votes.

And exactly who got to vote twice and how was that accomplished?/

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

How do you know that? Cite, please.


http://makeashorterlink.com/?P39A22F37

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.

"john" wrote in message
...

So you blindly dismiss any book by Dershowitz because of his
partisanship.


Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.



Can't you handle different viewpoints?

If you read the book then you might have some germane comments to
make.

Maybe you can then tell us where in the book Dershowitz lied or
exaggerated or misled the reader.


I don't see the leopard changing his spots.



If you read the book you might get an understanding as to how the
Supreme Court is supposed to work and how it did work in the Florida
election.


Well, since a post-election analysis of the Florida vote shows that Bush
would have won even if Gore had had his way we know the Supreme Court did no
harm in this election, regardless what Dershowitz has to say about it.

"devil" wrote in message
news

So?


So his book isn't worth the read.



It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed?


That's what the Supreme Court prevented.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.

Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!