🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100o1abni1u79a1@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:9MLOb.58323$035.5552@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100mctrn8sje42c@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > Your source impeaches itself by bringing up the issue but not
reporting
> > the
> > > resolution.
> > >
> > > Still, how do you account for the fact that your source also said:
> >
> > You quoted an article that used the NORC, now the NORC is unreliable????
>
> Seems to me you can't have it both ways - YOU are quoting NORC, yet they
say
> Gore won while you claim Gore lost.  Looks to me like you're
cherry-picking.

You are wrong on two fronts.

Your quote:

"So Al Gore was the choice of Florida's voters -- whether one counts hanging
chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news
organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any
chad measure, Gore won."

First off, I said that the NORC study did not prove that Gore won. I did NOT
say that the report proved that Gore lost. Second, the NORC and one of it's
members both admit that they did not check every disputed ballot.

From the Post article:

"It may be we'll never know the exact vote totals," said University of
Chicago statistics professor Kirk Wolter, who was the director of the
recount project. "If you're finding the candidates are a few hundred votes
apart or less, then I think the lack of control of the ballots in Florida
raises the probability that error in the study exceeds the true, but
unknown, vote totals."

AND

"The study, Wolter said, will be a database for examining the flaws and
complexities of the Florida election and the obstacles in conducting such an
extensive review of the results."
But it can't identify a victor in the November election, he said. "In my
opinion, it's too close to call," he said, "and in my opinion, one could
never know in this study alone, who won the election."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/neverknow.html

Why would you claim that the NORC said that Gore won, when they are on
record as saying the they could not identify a victor?

> > So I understand, under Florida Code, a vote cannot be thrown out if the
a
> > canvassing board can determine the intent of the voter. You have posted
an
> > article that says that it can determine the intent. IF they could
> determine
> > the intent, why couldn't the State of Florida?
>
> Because Bush managed to block that determination.

That is incorrect. Gore blocked a full recount because he failed to follow
Florida Code, and file one. Since there was never an order for a statewide
recount of all ballots, there is not way that Bush could block it.






> ------------------
> Kevin Phillips is no hotheaded bomb-thrower but a seasoned wise man with
> deep roots in the Republican party. Nonetheless, his new book on the Bush
> family is more incendiary than the Bill-Clinton-murdered-Vince-Foster
books
> so popular during the '90s. Unlike them, however, American Dynasty is not
> sensationalistic and its claims are historically verifiable.
>
> American Dynasty extends that analysis, centering on the family Phillips
> calls "the House of Bush" and telling the story of four generations of
> Bushes from World War I up to the ongoing Iraq conflict.
>
> Phillips admits to being aghast at what he discovered: "[I]n examining two
> Bush presidencies and a four-generation pursuit of national prominence and
> power through an unusual lens -- one that highlighted elite associations,
> recurring political practices, and dynastic ambitions -- I learned much
> more, and I admit to being shocked at some of what I found. The result is
an
> unusual and unflattering portrait of a great family (in power, not
morality)
> that has built a base over the course of the twentieth century in the back
> corridors of the new military-industrial complex and in close association
> with the growing national security establishment. In doing so, the family
> has threaded its way through damning political and armaments scandals and,
> since the 1980s, faint hints, never more, of acts that in another climate
> might have led to presidential impeachment."
>
> But this issue is a sideshow to the main event, the depiction of the rise
of
> the Bush dynasty and how dynasties are antithetical to democratic systems.
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/books/sho-sunday-phillips18.html
>
> -----------------
> The reality is quite simple: The Bush family -- and the Republican Party
> leadership apparatus -- has contempt for democracy as in inconvenient
> obstacle to achieving one-party rule in this great nation.
>
> In his book, Phillips details the Bush family belief that they are a
dynasty
> destined to rule, regardless of voter preference. Their inner political
> belief is essentially monarchical. However, Karl Rove and the late Lee
> Atwater convinced father and son Bush that they needed to play the
"cultural
> populist" card in order to get within close enough distance to steal
> elections. That's how you end up with a dauphin prince president who plays
> the cowboy for the photo-ops but believes that he's king.
>
> To the Democratic leadership who so easily "got over" the theft of
election
> 2000, we say, never again.
>
> Never again, will we let a regime with the false appearance of WASP piety
> and integrity, a Third World attitude the totalitarian relationship
between
> government and corrupt business cronyism, and a cynical relationship with
> religious fanatics who believe that they have a right to run America
> according to THEIR fundamentalist vision of what THEY believe God wants,
> never again will the Bush Dynasty make a mockery of democracy and be
allowed
> to spend our taxpayer dollars in dismantling our Constitutional government
> brick by brick.
> http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/01/edi04004.html