What happened in Seminole county WAS illegal also. What is your opinion on
that? It sounds like you are a Bush supporter so that must have been OK!!!
Keith Brooks
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 13 00 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [RR] Why Al Gore lost.
OK DUANE, ENOUGH! When you smear the military voters you are WAY
out of line. Get your head out of the sand, throw away your silly
liberal cloak and look at the facts.
1. Many ships CANNOT postmark a letter. Pure and simple. This fact
was made clear but I guess you were too busy whining and crying
about your buddy GOre having such an unfair time.
2. These military votes made there way stateside via military channels.
Some of these are slow due to curcumstances beyond their control.
That's life in the military. I will not be silent when a banjo pickin
dude with one opinion too many says that those who put their lives
in harm's way for our country shouldn't have their votes counted
because the military system is tuned for military needs and not
civilian?
3. US Law specifically states each election will be run under the laws as
they exist and these may not be amended. Do A look up on cnn.com
and you can read the relevant sections of law. What the Florida
Supreme Court did was illegal. Pure and simple. Spend some time
researching BEFORE you speak.
Ed Christiansen
Duane Wheeler wrote:
>
> Ken Komoto wrote:
>
> > 1. the monkey wrenching was being done by the people 'counting' the
ballots;
>
> Respectfully, I decent...
>
> The "Monkey wrenching" was done by political operatives under the
> instruction of both camps...
>
> >
> >
> > 2. those 'counting' the ballots felt intimidated because they were lying
and
> > cheating and eating chads and didn't want observers watching them;
>
> Wow!
>
> The counters were doing a good job and counted as many for Bush as they
> found for Gore! *I don't fault them, when clear instruction needed to be
> at the head of the count from the Fla. Supream court. It was a failure,
and
> I don't buy that there isn't someone someway who will count the ballots
for
> history and delever a clear result.
>
> >
> >
> > 3. American citizens who can't be bothered to vote correctly shouldn't
get
> > treated with special care and handling when the other 99.9% can do it
> > correctly;
>
> You got me there...so I guess the sailors who normaly don't postmark their
> mail are not responsible to postmark it for meeting the rules of the
absentee
> vote? *You agree then they should be thrown out?
>
> >
> >
> > 4. The network forecasting machines did indeed have a problem. The
machines
> > that actually counted the vote did not. They simply counted what they
were
> > given to count.
>
> They came up with a second count when run again and that got the
> hand count going because of the closeness of the machine count...
>
> The election had a provision for protesting both the count and the result!
> That "provision" is ashure fairness of the election and that all the votes
> were counted. *Did that happen? You say it did... but sadly now,
> the vote dose'nt matter at all! the Bozo politicians steped in to "settle"
> the dust.
>
> >
> >
> > 5. The humans doing the counting bent over backward to count ballots
that
> > shouldn't have been counted. And the Supreme Court took note of this
when
> > they mentioned that one county had a disproportionate number of revised
> > votes for the population difference between two counties.
>
> *I agree. but desent from the claim that the human factor was intent on
> counting votes that were not there. I agree that a patchwork of
instruction
> does not meet the need of clear and uniform instruction to assure the
count
> is fair to all. That is obvious, but still the order could be to count the
> ballots
> again, under such circumstances that a fair assesment of the intent of the
people
>
> could be determined.
>
> >
> >
> > 6. Another problem that couldn't be resolved was this question: If we
are
> > going to use a standard for counting the 'undervotes', why doesn't the
SAME
> > standard get applied to votes that were already counted by the machine?
If
> > there is a definite punch, but there is also a secondary 'punch' that
would
> > be counted by the 'undervote' standard, then the ballot should be tossed
> > because two votes in the same race is an invalid vote.
>
> *Fuzzy numbers, amigo<G>
>
> If you had a contest where Nader and Bucannon were eliminated,
> Gore would have had it in the bag...
>
> If you had a contest where idiots didn't vote for the wrong person,
> or get confused by the ballot instruction, GORE would have had the edge.
>
> If all the ballots that had become "invalid" had been counted- GORE would
> have had the edge.
>
> Nationwide, the American people voted 50-50 down the middle, with
> the minescule advantage of 400,000 for Gore.
>
> *So it's no wonder Bush won.<G>
>
> -=A=-
>
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > Kenneth Komoto mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Pioneer Commander Outpost 193 Phone: (530)752-7197
> > Southpointe Christian Center Fax : (530)752-0329
> > Sacramento, Ca 95828
>
> --
> ��ࡱ
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
