Explain this:

[Snoopi]

I agree wholeheartedly CavemanJ !

Kudos to the Election supervisor too.

I wasn't sure what the "rules" where in the U.S.
In Canada if you screw up the ballot and let them know, they will destroy that ballot and give you a new one. If you have any questions, you just ask and they will explain the ballot.
From what you posted it seems the same rules apply.

Do people realize this ??
If "THEY" don't, I think they should find out how it works.
Maybe an education campaign next time ?
Then again you can't make a horse drink.  
It would probably just be another fruitless waste of tax money and time spent on trying to eliminate stupidity.

Like you stated, taking responsibility is the issue.

I understand only 50% of the population turned out to vote. ?

It is amazing how people in democratic countries take it for granted.
(then whine about who gets elected)
A old buddy of mine escaped from Vilnius, Lithuania (then U.S.S.R.) in the early '70s.
HE understands and values his right to vote in Canada, and is disgusted and confused
by those who don't.

Regards,
Snoopi

[F4UDOA]

Before the propaganda gods start believing their own print, let me square a few things away.

1. The first recount in Florida was done by state law anytime there is a close election.

2. The hand count is at the request of the Democrats because of 30,000 discounted votes and is also provided for in Florida state law for cases of either voter fraud or mechanical counting problems.

3. The Republican party is filing in federal court to stop the recount. Despite claiming to support states rights they are filing to override them. They have lost there case BTW and the hand count is happening as it has in other elections around the country ie. Massachusetts 2 years ago where a hand count overturned a congressional election.  

4. Rip was right when he said Palm beach county is only partially Jewish. However the statement "most Jews hate him for marrying a Catholic" is not a true statement. First I didn't know she was Catholic? Her name is Haddasa which is a very traditional Jewish name. I would be surprised if she was not Jewish with that name. Secondly I have never heard that mentioned, much less any animosity towards him or his decision.
I think most Jews (including myself) are just surprised that their is a Jewish VP candidate that has done so well.

Later
F4UDOA

[Toad]

Well F4, you didn't even make it 24 hours from your post in Pyro's topic about not wanting to participate in these discussions before you are back in one.

Methinks he doth protest too much!  

I'm not going to plow old ground over illegal ballots and who sued first...it's not worth re-discussion.

Two situational questions, though, on your stand here and please be honest:

If this situation was exactly reversed and Bush was the one that stood to gain from manual recounts, what would your position be? Would you be concerned that essentially ALL of the officers of the Canvassing Boards were Republican? Would you suspect those sneaky Republicans were going to fudge the results until their guy won? Particularly after 3 machine recounts showed your guy winning?

Second, when this big wahoo finally ends...IF Bush is the winner, will you accept the result? Or will you press for further counts or litigation up to the Supreme Court?

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

First I did not say that I would not participate in these conversations anymore. What I did say is that there should be another offline board not including politics or religion, more humor oriented topics.

I think you took what I said and rearranged the words to suit your needs. You must have learned that from the Republicans and how they read the constitution  

Anyway I have had the same question put to me by a Republican friend. And my answer is this. Al Gore owe's it to me and 50,000,000 other people that voted for him to make sure that the vote count in Florida is as accurate as possible before he concedes the Presidency to Bush. Bush owes the same to the other almost 50,000,000 people to make sure the vote count is as accurate as possible. What Bush has done is try to block examination of 30,000 American votes that were thrown away. What he has not done was ask for a recount of 26,000 votes in Duval County Florida which was a Republican majority. This tells me he is not interested in the decision of the voters but the outcome of the Electoral college. And while this has been going on the Republicans had a Hand recount of votes in New Mexico which nearly led to Bush winning the state. But notice that Gore never opposed that recount.

BTW, I just got done watching Bushes speech tonight on TV. He has said at least 5 times during the first 30 seconds that all votes were counted. This is not true. I other words this is a lie. This man has not even been made president yet and he already feels compelled to lie to me when I know that the opposite is true. And he is not lying about who he slept with either. He is lying about a matter of national interest. I can already see that the next four years will be an economic and foreign disaster for this country and the people on this board will believe anything.

I have another name for the Republican party. The Stepford wife's.

Later'
F4UDOA  

Oh yeah, your second question. If the hand count votes are not admitted I say push it through the courts. Why would I want to leave that decision in the hands of a Republican Secratary of state who's boss is Jeb Bush? If the Hand count is accepted then I say that is final.

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Toad]

To save some clicking time, this is what you said.

"Pyro,
Yes please.

Even I can hardly stand the message boards these day's. It is turning friends into enemies and even more so, turning my relaxation into frustration. I am even ready to deal with more C-hog whining.

So please add another off topic thread just for political bantering so I can get back to the business of enjoying my spare time.

Thanks
F4UDOA"

Excuse me if I thought that meant that you didn't enjoy this.    

I see you did not answer the first question. I could be as snide as you and say "I guess you learned that...." but I try not to do that stuff. In light of your second answer, I'm particularly interested in how you'd feel if ALL the Canvassing Officers were Republicans and they were doing the hand counts? Would that give you the warm fuzzy of fairness?

At least you did answer the second one. Looks like that one is going to the courts itself. I'll spectate along with the rest of the US.

<Edit 1> BTW, I see you continue to use the word "recount" in relation to New Mexico. Can you direct me to your source? All I can find is information about ballots that were initially overlooked and NOT COUNTED in the first tally. These ballots have not been RE-counted as far as I can tell. They have simply been "counted".  This is NOT the case in FL, where the PBC ballots have been MACHINE COUNTED three times.

So, what or where is your source for the NM "re-count" please? Thx.

<Edit 2> I also would like your source or sources for the reference to "of 30,000 American votes that were thrown away".

I found this on CNN.com"
 http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/10/ballot.confusion/index.html


"Palm Beach County election officials said 19,120 ballots were voided because they were double-punched."

You are aware that a double-punched ballot is illegal and uncountable because no man or machine can legitimately determine which candidate is the voter's actual true choice?  

Are these 19,120 ballots part of your 30,000 total F4? If so, please explain how a double-punched ballot can legitimately be counted?

What other "votes" are you including in this 30,000 total? I'd like to keep this discussion to the facts, as I am sure you would also.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-15-2000).]

[Fury]

<<edit: it ain't worth it.>>

Fury

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-15-2000).]

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

I thought I answered your first question?

Anyway I did say that I am not enjoying these political debates anymore. But I did not say that I would no longer participate. I would like to see another off topic board for humor so I don't feel compelled to reply every time I view a thread. This thread is titled "explain this". I wasn't looking for another vote count debate when I viewed it. But once again all of the replies were republican biased. How would you feel if you were the only Republican in a Democratic forum?

Anyway I learned of the New Mexico "recount"
on TV. I do not spend allot of time perusing the internet looking for cannon fodder. From what I understand the entire state was recounted with some hand counting in certain districts. The First recount had Bush ahead by 17 votes and then Gore by approx. 300 more.

In Florida there are 19,000 votes that were double punched and rejected by the machines. The other 10,000 did not register any vote and were also rejected by the machines. However if you watched 60minutes II on Tuesday you would see why. Many of the "Chads" or punch outs on the cards did not detach from the ballots and caused an error in the machine. These are the ballots that are at the center of the hand count controversy. These are valid votes and there are 10,000 of them. More than enough for either candidate to win convincingly. This is one of the reasons under Florida Law that would call for a hand count. Mechanical failure to read ballots or voter fraud.
This is why when George Doubleya says that all votes have been counted I say he is lying and he knows it.

Your other question is, would I feel comfortable in the reverse situation if Republicans were doing the hand count.
The answer is of course not. However I guarantee you if it was reversed Gore would have people overseeing the process instead of sticking his head in the sand and trying to discount 30,000 people.

I will research a source for New Mexico.

Let me ask you a question. You are a hardline Republican. Who is the top 3 Republican Presidents since 1930 and why?
I'll give you my top 3 Democrats.

1. Roosevelt-Brought country out of Depression. Fought against isolationist and brought US into WW2.

2. Kennedy-Backed Soviets down in Cuban Missile crises. Started campaign to send a man to the moon. Was last Pres. to be loved by the people.

3. Clinton- Has overseen the Country during greatest economic growth in the countries history.

Later
F4UDOA


[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-16-2000).]

[Cobra]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
 Who is the top 3 Republican Presidents since 1930 and why?
I'll give you my top 3 Democrats.

1. Roosevelt-Brought country out of Depression. Fought against isolationist and brought US into WW2.

2. Kennedy-Backed Soviets down in Cuban Missile crises. Started campaign to send a man to the moon. Was last Pres. to be loved by the people.

3. Clinton- Has overseen the Country during greatest economic growth in the countries history.

Later
F4UDOA


[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-16-2000).]

Ok...can't resist here..too easy.  First my rebuttals to your candidates.

1.) Good Leader, Very true..no arguments.  But was a womanizer.  May not mean much to you, but does to me.

2.) Barely won first election, (can you say voter fraud), and is only beloved because of his tragic assassination.  Would have been lucky to win second term...and can you say covert operations and Vietnam.  Also, a womanizer...getting a common thread here.

3.) Can you say Alan Greenspan!!  I know you can.  Also a womanizer and in legal terms a sexual harrasser.

Top Reps.

1.) Eisenhower--Aside from keeping the military alliance together and focused to win the war, his plans and backing for the nationwide Interstate system is really what spurred and continues to help maintain our economic prosperiety.  How you ask, Commerce moves on wheels, thats how.  Brought an end to the Korean hostilities, that a Dem started.

2.) Nixon.  Great foriegn coups with China and bringing an end to Vietnam hostilities that a Dem started (oops, another common theme).  His War on Cancer program has benefited more lives than Clinton's suppossed economic programs ever will.

3.) Reagan.  Just a little thing called winning the Cold War.  And say what you want about the man, but he uplifted this nation after the Carter years and galvinized our can do spirit just as much as FDR.

Cobra

[Mighty1]

I think it's funny how the Demos keep saying it's the Repubs that are stalling everything but it's the Demos that have all the lawsuits going.

The Demos say follow the state laws but when a decision is done they say ..no they are Repubs so their decisions no matter how legal they are should not count unless they  are in our favor.

I wish they would stick to the truth and facts not opinions from partisons.




[This message has been edited by Mighty1 (edited 11-16-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

Our military was pathetic from 1976-1980...the soviets took advantage of this by invading Afgan, and Iran took hostages, knowing the US was a bird with clipped wings...Carter got up in front of millions on his state of the union address in late '79 and made a statement saying he was wrong about the military, that we were indeed hurting (Just saw this on the History channel last night).

Well, Reagan did two great  things, he built the military back up, made the other agressive nations think twice about taking advantage of us, and gave us a great economy by appointing Greenspan.  Greenspans policies regarding inflation and the market is why we flourished in the 90's...to think that it was a republican House and Senate, or Clinton, is beyond rediculous.

[Ice]

F4....

Don't worry, you will get what you want.

Ice

[Toad]

F4,

I still find your logic a bit confusing on the O/T issue.

F4: I would like to see another off topic board for humor so I don't feel compelled to reply every time I view a thread.

Are you saying if there was an official "O/T Humor" topic you would only read that one and not read this one?

Or are you saying if there was an offical "O/T Humor" topic you would be able to read this one and not feel compelled to reply?

Or are you saying you need the BBS moderators to protect you from yourself? A "Help me before I post again!" plea for help from the controlling agency?    

Let me save you some time on the NM "recount" research. According to the CNN and USA Today websites there has been NO New Mexico recount. There have been "first counts" of ballots that were misplaced or overlooked. All ballots are now being impounded by the NM state police IN CASE a need for an actual "recount" is determined.

Sorry, but I view the continued use of "NM Recount"  by you on this board as an attempt to legitimize and justify what is going on in FL. However, New Mexico HAS NOT recounted; therefore any attempt to link the two situations is flawed from the start. It's basically the old "Red Herring" fallacy.

So, please, if you are going to argue these points, at least don't try to obscure the issue with incorrect information.

You are doing the same thing with the "trying to discount 30,000 people" argument. You know that double punched ballots are not acceptable no matter how you count them.

Therefore, 19,100 people in PBC disenfranchised themselves by double punching their ballot. Those voters alone are responsible for the fate of those ballots. Yet you continually seek to portray the disallowance of these 19,100 as part of a sinister plot.

Therefore, in your "30,000" quotes, at best you should be talking about 10,900 PBC  ballots that "did not register any vote." I went looking on CNN and USA Today for that number. I could not find it. I found one reference to "some" ballots that did not register any vote. I found another that used the term "several thousand" ballots that did not register any votes.

I ask you now to use accurate language in your arguments. the 30,000 is misleading incorrect rhetoric and you know it. 10,900 is almost certainly misleading rhetoric and incorrect as well. I think "several thousand" might be supportable. Might.

So, again, let's at least TRY to argue from fact without distorting an already muddled situation.

Perhaps the primary reason I took to posting replys to the liberals on this board is because of the near total absence of fact in their inflammatory arguments. There is ever so much unsupported opinion and tons of inflammatory rhetoric but rarely any sound logical argument supported by fact. (Not that some of the conservatives are any better.    )

Lastly, I am once again amused by your attempt to categorize me as a "hardline Republican". I've pointed out before that I voted Republican in 4 of 8 Presidential elections. Don't think the Republicans would claim me as hardline.  

My personal political outlook is pretty simple. Use common sense when approaching a problem. Do the best you can with the resources you have. Don't lose sight of the ultimate goal when beset by problems. Act in an honorable, dignified manner. Never surrender your integrity. Be responsible for your actions and inactions. Be accountable for your actions and inactions.

Now I haven't seen a Republican or a Democrat candidate in the last 32 years that really filled that bill. I guess I am expecting too much.

But "me a Republican"? It's exactly as funny and wrong as "me a Democrat"!    

As far as Presidents, no point in me posting. I don't share your belief that the man in the office has the power you attribute to them.

For example, the argument has been repeatedly made that WW2 brought the US out of the "Great Depression". Massive government spending and full employment, so to speak. Can Roosevelt then take credit for that?  

Kennedy backed the Russians down in Cuba? Gee, F4U, when I flew recon for NSA we monitored Russian pilots in Russian Migs practicising nuke delivery profiles in Cuba. There's a bit more I know but I won't post as I signed a little agreement with the US government (Oh, it was a "Democratic" government at that time).  

Clinton simply was in office during an economic boom and thus is enshrined in the "Presidential Hall of Fame"? Good thing there's no "Presidential Hall of Shame".    

Besides, be careful with the knife, it cuts both ways. These "good years" are not just the result of who sits in the oval office, just as the "bad years" are the results of other factors as well. Economic business cycles have a lot to do with it, so do "baby boomer" demographics as an explanation of prosperity.

If Gore gets in and the economy tanks for 4 years, will it be solely Gore's fault? No, I don't think so...it's not that simplistic.

[F4UDOA]

Mighty1,

Why do you say that it is the Dems that are slowing things down. This Hand count could be done if not for the Republican efforts to stop it. Also the Republicans not the Dems have taken this to Federal court. Even though the Republicans say that they are in favor of states rights. Until it becomes inconveniant I guess.

Cobra,

If we can keep this civil it may actually turn into a conversation.

1.) Eisenhower--Aside from keeping the military alliance together and focused to win the war, his plans and backing for the nationwide Interstate system is really what spurred and continues to help maintain our economic prosperiety. How you ask, Commerce moves on wheels, thats how. Brought an end to the Korean hostilities, that a Dem started.

Great Guy but he did that stuff before he was president. Even as a General he was more of a politician. Patton once described him as "The best secratary I ever had". I also wouldn't say that he ended the Korean war. Gen. Vandergrift and Gen.Macarthor had more to do with stablizing South Korea than Eisenhower. BTW South Korea is a strong allie to this day. I am not an isolationest so we will disagree on that one.

2.) Nixon. Great foriegn coups with China and bringing an end to Vietnam hostilities that a Dem started (oops, another common theme). His War on Cancer program has benefited more lives than Clinton's suppossed economic programs ever will.

Well your leaving out that he was impeached as a thief trying to steal an election. His work in China was good. As far as any othe achievements consider he was only in office for a very short while. The Majority of cancer research in this country has been done well after him. I don't like LBJ very much but again I am in favor of protecting our allies. Are you ok with what Po Pot(SP) and the communist did in Cambodia?

3.) Reagan. Just a little thing called winning the Cold War. And say what you want about the man, but he uplifted this nation after the Carter years and galvinized our can do spirit just as much as FDR.

As much as FDR? Really? We fought a world war with FDR, we fought a spending war with Reagan. Hardly a comparison. BTW, 200 Marines died in Beruit without ammo to defend themselves. That was a Republican call. He also lied about trading hostages for guns with Iran and was knee deep in the Iran Contra affair in which he had his subordinates take the blame, then pardon them later. Nice moves.

1.) Good Leader, Very true..no arguments. But was a womanizer. May not mean much to you, but does to me.

2.) Barely won first election, (can you say voter fraud), and is only beloved because of his tragic assassination. Would have been lucky to win second term...and can you say covert operations and Vietnam. Also, a womanizer...getting a common thread here.

3.) Can you say Alan Greenspan!! I know you can. Also a womanizer and in legal terms a sexual harrasser


I can see you don't like men who run around.
But womanizing is not sexual harassment. It is sex between two consenting adults. BTW George Washington had the same reputation. It is a common thread amoung men in history. Hardly a defining characteristic. Remember if your father didn't harass your mother, you wouldn't be here.

Roosevelt- The Greatest president since Lincoln. He supported all classes of people as well as the need to be envloved in world politics at a time where that was not popular.

Kennedy- People like to throw Illinios around with Kennedy but the fact is he won the Election with or without Illinios. It wasn't that close.

Clinton- Greenspan changes the interest rates. He had nothing to do with the budget for the last 8 years. And Clinton pulled us out of Somalia. A place where a Republican left us. And we are still in Iraq fro the last Republican pres. all to save the great Domocracy of, Kuwait??

You are basing your opinions on two things.

1. Womanizing
2. Isolationist

By that standard you should like Nevil Chamberlin over Winston Churchill. He signed a peace treaty with Hitler and didn't fool around.

Later F4UDOA

[CavemanJ]

ok....
Them 'pubs are responsible for the delay.....

10+ court actions from dems
1 from 'pubs.

Seems to me it's them dems trying to rewrite laws and pitch the constitution.

And let's not forget the dems pushing for hand recounts ONLY in democratic strong holds.  That's fishing for votes and nothing else.  Where's the fair and accurate in that?  Gore's proposal to do a state wide hand recount was nothing but a PR move.

And what about Gore's Gorons threatening Broward county when they stopped thier hand count and said it was pointless?  Out of the same recount they did I believe they found only 4 votes for Gore (I'd have to go look it up again).  Broward county has taken up the hand recount again, probably under immense pressure from the Gorons (threats of lawsuits can be immense pressure) and have only found an addition 7 votes for Gore.
 

taken from: http://msnbc.com/news/466882.asp
Broward: Officials there reversed course Wednesday and granted the Gore campaign’s request for a hand recount of all of the county’s 588,000 ballots. As of Wednesday night, they had counted 45 of the 609 precincts, adding seven votes to Gore’s total and none to Bush’s.

Lessee.. lying about the count....
the votes were counted, twice, by the machines.  Once for the election, and the second time because FL law triggered the recount because of how close the election was.  Then a few counties counted them again.  Loose chads hanging out.... ever stop to think they could be loose from too much handling?  The ballots are only paper though.  While I'm sure there were some that weren't completely punched, there are others that have been left hanging because of excessive handling.  
Now you're talking about devining a voter's intentions.  What if they dinnae case a vote for president, but one of the chads partially broke loose because of excessive handling?  That voter is now credited with a vote they choose to not cast.  Yes, this is hypothetical, but it is still well within the bounds of reality.

Now let's discuss the human factor of hand recounts, and yes this will include some speculation, but we'll stay within the bounds of reality.  And let's not forget that people have feelings, often strong ones, about politics (note: people, not just dems).  That's where the fudge factor comes in.  Let's say there's a ballot with no presidential vote cast (and no loose chad either) that the hand counter comes across.  If noone is paying too much attention (or everyone present is of the same party/mindset) what's to stop this person(s) from punching out the chad to count the vote?  Nothing.  Then you've also got blanant vote theft, blamed on human error.  This can (and probably does) happen on both sides.
Then there's good old fashioned human error.  Looking at it and misreading where the hole is.  After looking at the same things over and over and over and over ad nauseum that's a very real possibility.  I know I've misread things when I've been doing the same thing over and over all day.  Are these canvassing people to be regarded as superhuman and infallible to this type of mistake?  I think not.

I'm opposed to ANY hand recount, save counting write in candidates since a machine can't read those.  And it's kinda hard (in most cases) to misread the name printed.  Whenever people do something human nature must be factored into it.
Now if you want to get a 'pub offical and a dem offical and a neutral 3rd party (call switzerland) together and each one look at each ballot and agree on it, I'll shut up.  Otherwise I'll say no to any hand recount.

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

I am going to make this a quick post as I am starving and need to go eat something.

1. My position on two offline boards is this.
One board for humor, one board for politics. That way I won't look at the political one when I am not in the mood. Hey, sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.

2. Therefore, in your "30,000" quotes, at best you should be talking about 10,900 PBC ballots that "did not register any vote." I went looking on CNN and USA Today for that number. I could not find it. I found one reference to "some" ballots that did not register any vote. I found another that used the term "several thousand" ballots that did not register any votes.

Quote
"In Palm Beach County there were problems with only 6 percent of the ballots - but that's 30,000 votes more than enough to throw this election, where the margin between the candidates in Florida is only a few hundred."

I just pulled that off of the CBS website. It took about20 seconds to find. I'm sure I can give you more 30,000 vote references without to much trouble.
 
3. New Mexico- Check this link and click on New Mexico.  http://www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp
and this artical.

Lead Change in New Mexico
In addition to Iowa, the presidential vote between Gore and Bush remains remarkably close in New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin.
     A mistake similar to the one in Iowa has given Gore an additional 500 votes in the southwestern state and apparently vaulted him back into the lead there.
     Rita Torres, the clerk in New Mexico’s Dona Ana County, said Monday that election workers had misread a 600-vote absentee total for Gore in one precinct, mistakenly thinking the figure was 100.
     “They wrote a six that looked like a one,” said Torres. “That’s where the 500 for Gore comes from.” But Torres added that the county canvassing board had not certified the new total.
     Currently, Gore leads in New Mexico by 374 votes with nearly 600,000 ballots cast, according to The Associated Press.

Later
I'm Hungry
F4UDOA