🚀 go-pugleaf

"nntp.interaccess.com" wrote:

> Check out the new http://www.fucked-up.org to sign up for a bi-partisan

Bi-partisan?  So the other 8 parties don't count?  You need to reform
yourself.

On 14 Nov 2000 08:32:48 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist <mayday@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Besides, half the country thinks that even the Board of Elections called
>Florida wrong.  You expect the press to do better than THEM?

If one doesn't want to conduct a legal election and follow the law,
they might think that.

Why do 3 or 4 democrat counties with typical minority block votes come
in for scrutiny. Are the block voters too stupid to even steal an
election convincingly?  I'll bet Daley wishes he was back with the
Cook County Machine and its veteran block voters.

> Why do 3 or 4 democrat counties with typical minority block votes come
> in for scrutiny.

Who cares?  What is wrong with making sure what the vote counts are with both
Republican and Democrat lawyers present?  The only people that can possibly
have a problem with recounting votes is the people who think the current
count is wrong and don't want people to know what the real count is.  With
both parties present, no one will be able to do anything illegal like in the
first count.

Remember, no matter who comes out ahead in the vote of the people, the
government is still the one who actually picks a president in December, NOT
the people, so who cares what the totals are anyway?

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:52:09 -0600, "J.L.Webb" <jlwebb@nospam.net>
wrote:

>> Why do 3 or 4 democrat counties with typical minority block votes come
>> in for scrutiny.
>
>Who cares?  What is wrong with making sure what the vote counts are with both
>Republican and Democrat lawyers present?  The only people that can possibly
>have a problem with recounting votes is the people who think the current
>count is wrong and don't want people to know what the real count is.  With
>both parties present, no one will be able to do anything illegal like in the
>first count.
>
>Remember, no matter who comes out ahead in the vote of the people, the
>government is still the one who actually picks a president in December, NOT
>the people, so who cares what the totals are anyway?
>
You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.

Professor Vonroach <vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:52:09 -0600, "J.L.Webb" <jlwebb@nospam.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Why do 3 or 4 democrat counties with typical minority block votes come
>>> in for scrutiny.
>>
>>Who cares?  What is wrong with making sure what the vote counts are with both
>>Republican and Democrat lawyers present?  The only people that can possibly
>>have a problem with recounting votes is the people who think the current
>>count is wrong and don't want people to know what the real count is.  With
>>both parties present, no one will be able to do anything illegal like in the
>>first count.
>>
>>Remember, no matter who comes out ahead in the vote of the people, the
>>government is still the one who actually picks a president in December, NOT
>>the people, so who cares what the totals are anyway?
>>
>You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
>personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
>spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.

 Well, FWIW, the choice of the _country_ is Al Gore by some 150,000 votes.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:22:29 GMT, neilk@cs.uchicago.edu (neil
klopfenstein) wrote:

>Professor Vonroach <vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:52:09 -0600, "J.L.Webb" <jlwebb@nospam.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> Why do 3 or 4 democrat counties with typical minority block votes come
>>>> in for scrutiny.
>>>
>>>Who cares?  What is wrong with making sure what the vote counts are with both
>>>Republican and Democrat lawyers present?  The only people that can possibly
>>>have a problem with recounting votes is the people who think the current
>>>count is wrong and don't want people to know what the real count is.  With
>>>both parties present, no one will be able to do anything illegal like in the
>>>first count.
>>>
>>>Remember, no matter who comes out ahead in the vote of the people, the
>>>government is still the one who actually picks a president in December, NOT
>>>the people, so who cares what the totals are anyway?
>>>
>>You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
>>personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
>>spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.
>
> Well, FWIW, the choice of the _country_ is Al Gore by some 150,000 votes.
That bucket of warm spit is not anybody's choice except the slimy
trial shysters who seek to steal the election.  The final tally is far
from complete. It is clear that G. W. Bush is preferred by a vast
majority of U. S. counties out side the urban welfare slums.

> >You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
> >personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
> >spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.
>
>  Well, FWIW, the choice of the _country_ is Al Gore by some 150,000 votes.

Why is it that people think that Florida is the whole country?  Sure Bush is ahead
by under 300 votes in Florida, but when you look at the whole country, Gore is
ahead by thousands of votes.  Even Florida's 300 votes don't make a dent in Gore's
victory in the popular vote.

Doesn't really matter which one of those crooks gets it, as Republicans and
Democrats always raise our taxes and pass more laws taking away more of our
freedoms.  Why do people keep wasting their votes on these two parties when they
will be elected even if you don't vote for them?!  At least send a message by
voting for one of the OTHER 46 political parties that we have.  There has got to be
ONE out of 46 that has a platform that is to your liking.

"nntp.interaccess.com" <fgolman@REMOVEMEinteraccess.com> wrote:

>Check out the new http://www.ReformTV.org to sign up for a bi-partisan
>effort to rein-in the way network television reports and effects national
>elections.

A simpler change would be for the East coast, among others, to keep the
polls open 24 hours, or at least past 10 pm at night.

It would give "the people" a better chance to vote, and take the
pressure off calling the winner during prime TV time.

That and the news media need to realize that projections and speculation
isn't news. My answer is to not watch it, until there really is some
factual news. And for future elections, that means the actual vote
counts published on the 'net by the counties.  Since network news
ratings are down, I'm not the only one that feels this way.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:30:00 -0600, John B. Hines
<jhines@enteract.com> wrote:

You are confused.  The Media is not broadcasting news. No, they are
broadcasting propaganda as part of an attempt to steal the election
and install a fascist administration where they can dictate  public
information and have a monopoly on propaganda.

Considering our experience with this administration, I would have
grave reservations about ever casting my vote for a Jewish national
candidate again.  The hypocrite Lieberman has done as much as Algore
to poison the electorial process.  This pair can not govern with any
credibility.

>"nntp.interaccess.com" <fgolman@REMOVEMEinteraccess.com> wrote:
>
>>Check out the new http://www.ReformTV.org to sign up for a bi-partisan
>>effort to rein-in the way network television reports and effects national
>>elections.
>
>A simpler change would be for the East coast, among others, to keep the
>polls open 24 hours, or at least past 10 pm at night.
>
>It would give "the people" a better chance to vote, and take the
>pressure off calling the winner during prime TV time.
>
>That and the news media need to realize that projections and speculation
>isn't news. My answer is to not watch it, until there really is some
>factual news. And for future elections, that means the actual vote
>counts published on the 'net by the counties.  Since network news
>ratings are down, I'm not the only one that feels this way.
>

vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com writes:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:22:29 GMT, neilk@cs.uchicago.edu (neil
>klopfenstein) wrote:
>>Professor Vonroach <vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
>>>personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
>>>spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.
>>
>> Well, FWIW, the choice of the _country_ is Al Gore by some 150,000 votes.
>
>That bucket of warm spit is not anybody's choice except the slimy
>trial shysters who seek to steal the election.  The final tally is far
>from complete. It is clear that G. W. Bush is preferred by a vast
>majority of U. S. counties out side the urban welfare slums.

bleet bleet bleet

Complicated Man <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com> wrote:

>vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com writes:
>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:22:29 GMT, neilk@cs.uchicago.edu (neil
>>klopfenstein) wrote:
>>>Professor Vonroach <vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You think a gaggle of shysters should decide an election?  Absurd.  I
>>>>personally hope for President Hastert if the House doesn't have the
>>>>spine to chose the choice of the country = President G. W. Bush.
>>>
>>> Well, FWIW, the choice of the _country_ is Al Gore by some 150,000 votes.
>>
>>That bucket of warm spit is not anybody's choice except the slimy
>>trial shysters who seek to steal the election.  The final tally is far
>>from complete. It is clear that G. W. Bush is preferred by a vast
>>majority of U. S. counties out side the urban welfare slums.
>
>bleet bleet bleet

Oh... YOU'VE got the keys to my Jeep