[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/16/2000 3:08:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > *Only a clear count of the votes, no matter the cost will settle
> > the dust! I say COUNT ON!
>
> Then they ALL need to be counted - not just the votes in states where that "
> other" party typically wins. :>)
I agree to the bone<G> *Count 'em till the fingers go raw!
*Then let the wild horse buck!
>
>
> The really annoying thing is IF the vote had not been close, say like 20,000
> more for Bush, then the votes that were thrown out wouldn't even be an issue
> - because that happens EVERY TIME.
I was completely undecided at the election, and willing to
write-in McCain on princeipal. My son and McCain himself
pushed me to vote Bush.
I'm still on the fence.
>
>
> Besides, how do you fairly count all the ballots? With one Democrat and one
> Republican counting? Who decides in ties?
It's patrol system fair.. check it out NO HIDDEN DECISIONS!
Every dimple/hang'n chard is out in the open and is place in a stack by
consencis.
I wouldn't think it all that hard.
> Or like some of the counties were
> doing - with 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. EVERY TIME there was a
> disagreement the Democrats outvoted the Republican.
In the world of "semantics" use of the term "*Everytime" is a
shaky ladder to stand on<G> Try "Most times"<G>
*i get what yur say'n tho-
>
>
> And finally, how do you determine how someone intended to vote?
One way is with the Bucannon hole punched- what is the second hole?
The question is then did the voter mistakenly punch Gore- or Bucannon?
*What would a resonable man do in a reasonible situation?
BTW- *On that I agree to throw'em out.
>
>
> Accept the count and the recount. That's what the law says and that's where
> it should end.
*Mayby- Lawyers need to cash in for a pay day<G>
>
> And yes, I am fearful of who the winner might be. I know at least one who's
> morale will not be lifted or encouraged if Al wins. And don't bother telling
> me that the ultimate winner will be the one that God wants there. Not
> everything that happens in this world is His will - I know that may sound
> like heresy to some but it's truth - and I won't debate it.
>
> Now Duane, in spite of the fact that "your man" was never a contender, I
> can't believe you'd rather have a baby-killing, gun-stealing, tree-hugging,
> semi-communist/socialist for a president than GW - who at the very least
> isn't any of those things!
*Never? *Interesting<G> McCain would have been a clearly different choice
to Bush and far more conservitive in record. His POW service would have crossed
over to appeal to Independent's and conservitive Demo's... *He would be
Elected today!
Yur right that I backed McCain. *still do.. and that's why I punched the
chad on Bush... I trust McCain and his decision, more than my judgement<G>
These other "things" you say are interesting... For many Viet-Vets were called
"Baby-Killers" and were far from it. Gun "tote'n" is an American hot button,
and the rights of the many should be considered. We can't tolerate Gun violence.
Gun locks, safes and disassemby are prudent, and do not equate confiscation.
*Tree hugging referes to enviromental awareness and restoreing the natural world
as good stewards of the things God gave us, I'm for that! I want more Steelhead!
>
> I know you sometimes like to PLAY the antagonist and other times the
> peacemaker but in this instance, it's almost as if in trying to be one -
> you're becoming the other! Make sense?
Yea<G>
Let's let the dust settle<G>
>
>
> Anyways, gotta run.
>
> Love ya bro!
>
> Michael
Thanks amigo!
Duane -=A=-
--
��ࡱ�
_______
Note: the address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" no longer works. Please use
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
(or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") instead.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm and fill out the form.
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks! - A#1's mule" RTKB&G4JC!
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
