"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

However, do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to be
preventing people from registering when they've signed a form attesting
that
they are citizens and otherwise meet all the voting registration
requirements?


I think its appropriate for incorrect application forms to be rejected, such
as it is
appropriate for incorrect ballots to be counted.

This is a legal process, and its a legal requirement. making exceptions
paves the way to favoritism. If the box isn't necessary,
it should be removed from the form, but, being as it is there,
it need s to be completed.


The real issue is why is Florida and at least 4 other states (according to
NBC
News) filing legal challenges concerning the way the voting process is
being
conducted?



States suing themselves, or suing individual counties?
I can't answer your question, I don't know the particulars of each suit.
It depends upon the issues.

Clyde Slick wrote
Bruce J. Richman wrote



However, do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to be
preventing people from registering when they've signed a form attesting
that they are citizens and otherwise meet all the voting registration
requirements?


I think its appropriate for incorrect application forms to be rejected, such
as it is appropriate for incorrect ballots to be counted.


That doesn't jive together. Incorrect ballots, in most cases, is cause solely
by the voters themselves ie casting their vote for the wrong candidates etc.
That happens all the time. Incorrectly filling the ap., in this case, is not.
Breezing through the form is not a meaningful reason as a cause to reject.
If not, give reasons why___ ... If there is a common pattern of errors shared
by all incorrect application, it is suspicious that you would reject them all
outward. Why or why not ?


This is a legal process, and its a legal requirement. making exceptions
paves the way to favoritism. If the box isn't necessary, it should be removed from the
form, but, being as it is there, it need s to be completed.

That can be read both ways. As it had been pointed out to your remarks
before I think.


The real issue is why is Florida and at least 4 other states (according to
NBC News) filing legal challenges concerning the way the voting process is
being conducted?



States suing themselves, or suing individual counties?

That is not the only issues.


I can't answer your question, I don't know the particulars of each suit.
It depends upon the issues.

Another issue is upon the legal challenges concerning the way the
voting process is being conducted. I'm sure you can answer.

------------------



Why don't you answer now so I can reply right away. I have things to do.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:48:07 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

In other words, Bush has caused such offence to the populace, even
his
image is insulting to people.
Thank you for giving the idiot point of view.
Do you mean to say that people on your intellectual plain can see that
the parents WEREN'T offended by the image of Bush?
Every classroom I was ever in had a picture of the current president.
Using this information, this proves you didn't go to school until the
year 2000 at the very earliest.
Wrong. Igraduated HS in 1967.

What was a picture of "current president" doing in American classrooms
you were in, prior to 1967?

The President of the THEN current time nimrod.

They usually also had pictures of Washington and Lincoln.
No Nixon? For shame!
He wasn't President then, but when he was, I'm sure they had his picture
up
as well.

Were Washington and Lincoln presidents when you were at school then?

I fail to see that,
like everyone else in this thread. Do explain how you know more than
us.
It's part of the education process, don't schools in Britain have
pictures
of the Queen and/or the PM?
LMAO! Since when?
Ahem... I suppose they could do, to help kids on their firing
practice. The school cleaners wouldn't be too happy.
I have never heard of any school in the UK displaying pictures of the
Queen and/or Prime Minister (unless it was temporarily for educational
purposes - ie: This unelected woman spends millions of taxpayers'
money, and this man lied the British public about weapons of mass
destruction).
No he didn't. He relied on the same info that the rest of the world had
and
the UN.

"JBorg" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote
Bruce J. Richman wrote



However, do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to be
preventing people from registering when they've signed a form attesting
that they are citizens and otherwise meet all the voting registration
requirements?


I think its appropriate for incorrect application forms to be rejected,
such
as it is appropriate for incorrect ballots to be counted.


That doesn't jive together. Incorrect ballots, in most cases, is cause
solely
by the voters themselves ie casting their vote for the wrong candidates
etc.
That happens all the time. Incorrectly filling the ap., in this case, is
not.
Breezing through the form is not a meaningful reason as a cause to reject.
If not, give reasons why___ ... If there is a common pattern of errors
shared
by all incorrect application, it is suspicious that you would reject them
all
outward. Why or why not ?


There has to be a consistent standard, otherwise the process becomes unfair
and subject to abuse. The standard is that the applications be filled out
correctly.
Bruce wants to absolve one group, the Broward County voters
from having to correctly complete the application. That is unfair to other
applicants in other parts of Florida who also may have already made the same
errors,
and had their apllications rejected. We are tak liing about years of
cummulative voting'
applications.




This is a legal process, and its a legal requirement. making exceptions
paves the way to favoritism. If the box isn't necessary, it should be
removed from the form, but, being as it is there, it need s to be
completed.

That can be read both ways. As it had been pointed out to your remarks
before I think.


The real issue is why is Florida and at least 4 other states (according
to
NBC News) filing legal challenges concerning the way the voting process
is
being conducted?



States suing themselves, or suing individual counties?

That is not the only issues.


I can't answer your question, I don't know the particulars of each suit.
It depends upon the issues.

Another issue is upon the legal challenges concerning the way the
voting process is being conducted. I'm sure you can answer.



Why don't you answer now so I can reply right away. I have things to do.


Present a specific question and I will provide an answer. "the way the
voting process is being conducted" is vague.What particular issues are
you asking me about?

Clyde Slick wrote
JBorg wrote
Clyde Slick wrote
Bruce J. Richman wrote




However, do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to be
preventing people from registering when they've signed a form attesting
that they are citizens and otherwise meet all the voting registration
requirements?


I think its appropriate for incorrect application forms to be rejected,
such as it is appropriate for incorrect ballots to be counted.


That doesn't jive together. Incorrect ballots, in most cases, is cause
solely by the voters themselves ie casting their vote for the wrong candidates etc.
That happens all the time. Incorrectly filling the ap., in this case, is not.
Breezing through the form is not a meaningful reason as a cause to reject. If not,
give reasons why___ ... If there is a common pattern of errors shared by all incorrect
application, it is suspicious that you would reject them all outward. Why or why not ?




There has to be a consistent standard, otherwise the process becomes unfair and subject
to abuse. The standard is that the applications be filled out correctly.

Yes, there should be a standard criteria to measure the quantitative/qualitative
value of the voting process and they better be consistent. But why are you
using this degree of requirement to suppress the legal voters from casting
their votes? You held this notion that when there's a standard, there's no
abuse. Standard does not eliminate abuse. Standard is only a criteria to
"measure" the qualitative/quantitave data or value of the voting process.
It does not necessarily prevent or suppress abuse. The people in charge
to oversee the process has the ability to either ignore or prevent it.


Bruce wants to absolve one group, the Broward County voters from having to correctly
complete the application. That is unfair to other applicants in other parts of Florida
who also may have already made the same errors, and had their apllications rejected.



Are you sure? You're saying that since others might had been treated unfairly,
therefore other groups must not be heard if they voice their concerns.




[BJR wants to absolve one and only one group?]

We are takliing about years of cummulative voting applications.


Years of cummulative voting applications does not necessarily correct abuse.




This is a legal process, and its a legal requirement. making exceptions
paves the way to favoritism. If the box isn't necessary, it should be
removed from the form, but, being as it is there, it need s to be
completed.

That can be read both ways. As it had been pointed out to your remarks
before I think.


The real issue is why is Florida and at least 4 other states (according
to NBC News) filing legal challenges concerning the way the voting process is being
conducted?



States suing themselves, or suing individual counties?

That is not the only issues.


I can't answer your question, I don't know the particulars of each suit.
It depends upon the issues.

Another issue is upon the legal challenges concerning the way the
voting process is being conducted. I'm sure you can answer.



Why don't you answer now so I can reply right away. I have things to do.


Present a specific question and I will provide an answer. "the way the
voting process is being conducted" is vague.What particular issues are
you asking me about?


Do you think that a standard criteria for conducting the voting process
eliminates abuse ?

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:

Art is misrepresenting my position totally. I don't want to absolve *any*
group. That said, I find it more than conincidental that the Secretary of
State seems to be focussing on certain counties in her enforcement of a
"law"
which is dubious at best. It certainly appears that these matters will
end up
in court, as reported in the following report:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...e,0,6781511.st
ory?coll=sfla-news-florida



If the enforcement is selective, it is wrong, if
the enforcement is statewide, it is ok

I see that Ms Hood's instructions were relayed to all
of Florida's 67 counties.

"JBorg" wrote in message
...

Yes, there should be a standard criteria to measure the
quantitative/qualitative
value of the voting process and they better be consistent. But why are
you
using this degree of requirement to suppress the legal voters from casting
their votes? You held this notion that when there's a standard, there's
no
abuse. Standard does not eliminate abuse. Standard is only a criteria to
"measure" the qualitative/quantitave data or value of the voting process.
It does not necessarily prevent or suppress abuse. The people in charge
to oversee the process has the ability to either ignore or prevent it.



A legal voter is one who is legally registered. I suppose you mean
'potential' legal voters. If the box is not necessary, it should be
eliminated from the form. Id it is necesary, it should be properly
completed. Yes, a standard does not eliminate abuse,
but a lack of a standard invites abuse.





Bruce wants to absolve one group, the Broward County voters from having
to correctly complete the application. That is unfair to other applicants
in other parts of Florida who also may have already made the same errors,
and had their apllications rejected.



Are you sure? You're saying that since others might had been treated
unfairly,
therefore other groups must not be heard if they voice their concerns.


No, there is a little misunderstanding. All I am saying is that
if the rule is changed in mid stream (not checking off the box now
being ok), the State of Florida would have to go back to
all of the voter registration forms for at least the previous four
years, maybe more, statewide, and find all the other forms in
all teh other counties, which were rejected for not haviong the box
xhecked off, and have those people registered, and notifying
them that they are now registered. They would have
to do this all before Nov. 2, quite a task. All I am saying
is whatever the rule is, it has to be enforced one way
statewide. IF the Broward rejections are reversed, they
have to go through the whole state and make identical reversals.


[BJR wants to absolve one and only one group?]

We are takliing about years of cummulative voting applications.


Years of cummulative voting applications does not necessarily correct
abuse.

Exactly, those errors would have to eb corrected, as well as the
BRoward errors, all before Nov. 2
(that is 'if' the court rules the rejections an error)



Do you think that a standard criteria for conducting the voting process
eliminates abuse ?



NO!!!
but not having a standard criteria almost assures abuse.

Art Sackman wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:

Art is misrepresenting my position totally. I don't want to absolve *any*
group. That said, I find it more than conincidental that the Secretary of
State seems to be focussing on certain counties in her enforcement of a
"law"
which is dubious at best. It certainly appears that these matters will
end up
in court, as reported in the following report:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...e,0,6781511.st
ory?coll=sfla-news-florida



If the enforcement is selective, it is wrong, if
the enforcement is statewide, it is ok

I see that Ms Hood's instructions were relayed to all
of Florida's 67 counties.











Of course. But what the article also relayed was the fact that a number of
counties have chosen to ignore her obvious attempts to keep voter turnouot, as
a whoile, down.

As the article clearly states, numerous individuals from the party you shun
think the law is ridiculous, since it is penalizing people that have already
signed an oath attesting that they are citizens of the United States, and the
check-off box is redundant and somewhat easier to overlook. Or perhaps you can
explain why now, for 2 elections in a row, Florida Secretaries of State have
been actively engaged in controversies centering around keeping the voter
turnout totals lower than should be the case.

As I said, this issue is headed toward a federal courtroom, and I think the
chances fo success on this law suit are excellent.


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...


Of course. But what the article also relayed was the fact that a number
of
counties have chosen to ignore her obvious attempts to keep voter
turnouot, as
a whoile, down.

As the article clearly states, numerous individuals from the party you
shun
think the law is ridiculous, since it is penalizing people that have
already
signed an oath attesting that they are citizens of the United States, and
the
check-off box is redundant and somewhat easier to overlook.

Then it should not be there.
Sue to have it removed!


Or perhaps you can
explain why now, for 2 elections in a row, Florida Secretaries of State
have
been actively engaged in controversies centering around keeping the voter
turnout totals lower than should be the case.


A bunch of sore losers making up controversies out of nothing.

Art Sackman wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...


Of course. But what the article also relayed was the fact that a number
of
counties have chosen to ignore her obvious attempts to keep voter
turnouot, as
a whoile, down.

As the article clearly states, numerous individuals from the party you
shun
think the law is ridiculous, since it is penalizing people that have
already
signed an oath attesting that they are citizens of the United States, and
the
check-off box is redundant and somewhat easier to overlook.

Then it should not be there.
Sue to have it removed!


Or perhaps you can
explain why now, for 2 elections in a row, Florida Secretaries of State
have
been actively engaged in controversies centering around keeping the voter
turnout totals lower than should be the case.


A bunch of sore losers making up controversies out of nothing.










Typical right-wing spin doctoring and rationalization for abuse of the voting
process. At least 5 states have been reported as mounting legal challenges
against voting irregularities in advance of the Presidential election. And
since nobody has lost anything yet, rationalizations in advance are just so
much conservative excuse making and denial of reality.


Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick wrote
JBorg wrote
Clyde Slick wrote




There has to be a consistent standard, otherwise the process becomes unfair and
subject to abuse. The standard is that the applications be filled out
correctly.


Yes, there should be a standard criteria to measure the
quantitative/qualitative value of the voting process and they better be
consistent. But why are you using this degree of requirement to suppress the
legal voters from casting
their votes? You held this notion that when there's a standard, there's no
abuse. Standard does not eliminate abuse. Standard is only a criteria to
"measure" the qualitative/quantitave data or value of the voting process. It does
not necessarily prevent or suppress abuse. The people in charge to oversee the
process has the ability to either ignore or prevent it.



A legal voter is one who is legally registered. I suppose you mean
'potential' legal voters.


If they are potential voter but doubt they're legal voter, doesn't a legal
signature hold any significant meaning to you at all ? Doesn't signature
hold legal, relevant meaning to you anymore ?


1. Why are you using the standard criteria of the voting process to
invalidate the legal importance of a signature ?



If the box is not necessary, it should be
eliminated from the form. Id it is necesary, it should be properly
completed. Yes, a standard does not eliminate abuse,
but a lack of a standard invites abuse.


Yes, Standard does not eliminate abuse.

Now answer Question # 1.



Bruce wants to absolve one group, the Broward County voters from having
to correctly complete the application. That is unfair to other applicants
in other parts of Florida who also may have already made the same errors,
and had their apllications rejected.



Are you sure? You're saying that since others might had been treated
unfairly, therefore other groups must not be heard if they voice their concerns.


No, there is a little misunderstanding. All I am saying is that
if the rule is changed in mid stream (not checking off the box now
being ok), the State of Florida would have to go back to
all of the voter registration forms for at least the previous four
years, maybe more, statewide, and find all the other forms in
all teh other counties, which were rejected for not haviong the box
xhecked off, and have those people registered, and notifying
them that they are now registered.


I understand the difficulty of changing the rules midstream.


2. But why are you *capitalizing* on the degree of requirement which
you admit contain rules that does not eliminate abuse -- to suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes?



They would have to do this all before Nov. 2, quite a task.



Right, quite a task.



Now answer Question # 2.



All I am saying is whatever the rule is, it has to be enforced one way
statewide. IF the Broward rejections are reversed, they
have to go through the whole state and make identical reversals.


Yes, you're saying that this rule, which does not eliminate abuse, has to
be enforced one way statewide.


Now answer Question #1, and Question #2.




[BJR wants to absolve one and only one group?]

We are takliing about years of cummulative voting applications.


Years of cummulative voting applications does not necessarily correct
abuse.


Exactly, those errors would have to eb corrected, as well as the
BRoward errors, all before Nov. 2
(that is 'if' the court rules the rejections an error)


Right, Nov. 2 is a few days from now. Yes, the rule does not necessarily
correct abuse.



Do you think that a standard criteria for conducting the voting process
eliminates abuse ?



NO!!!


So since the standard process do not eliminate abuse, the significance
of those "potential" voters' signatures will not represent any power in
verifying the legality of their signature. Right ?



but not having a standard criteria almost assures abuse.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:11:37 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

There's a guy on the Bush administration who is so religiously
zealous, he wants to ban dancing. And the homophobia, well, that's
highly documented, and I bet you love it. Somehow, the phrase "Taliban
were defeated" doesn't quite ring true.
Tell me, apart from being Christian rather than Islamic, and being
mainly white-skinned rather than brown, what exactly is it that sets
the USA apart from all this terrorist-loving dictatorships?
Freedom!
Homosexuality is outlawed in several states, as is oral sex, you can't
go to Cuba, the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president, petty litigation is rife, and the legal system has some of
the most harshest laws against harmless recreational drugs.
If that's "freedom", lock me up.
one freedom you have here, that you might not have
in a terrorism sponsoring dictatorship,

The US sponsors terrorism through the Security School Of The Americas.

is the ability to leave,

For Cuba?

and live in another place
more to your liking.

As long as it isn't Cuba.

And another freedom you
have here that you won't have
in a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship,

George Bush sponsors terrorism. Fact.

is that you can elect to stay here,
and suffer from living in such a horrible place as this, and
and still be free to criticize it.

As many many many people do.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:08:02 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?

Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.

the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president,
Because in our system. it's not the popular vote that elects the President.

LOL. There you have it. Your so-called "democracy" is anything but
that.

It's also a sytem that has worked well for 200 years.

Er, so why's the unpopular guy in office?

and the legal system has some of
the most harshest laws against harmless recreational drugs.
"Most harshest?" I'm opposed to laws against recreational drug use,

I said harmless recreational drugs. How do you feel about those?

If that's "freedom", lock me up.
What's your address?

Where my house is, funnily enough...

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:59:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They usually also had pictures of Washington and Lincoln.
No Nixon? For shame!
He wasn't President then, but when he was, I'm sure they had his picture
up
as well.
Were Washington and Lincoln presidents when you were at school then?

*cough*

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:11:36 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Every classroom I was ever in had a picture of the current president.
Using this information, this proves you didn't go to school until the
year 2000 at the very earliest.
That's believable.
No, I have doubts. I can't believe he went to school.
That's alrigh, we've already established that your not smart enough to kow
the difference between a free country and a dictatorship, so your opinion
isn't really worth much.

"your not smart enough" - I love the irony of that.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...


Of course. But what the article also relayed was the fact that a number
of
counties have chosen to ignore her obvious attempts to keep voter
turnouot, as
a whoile, down.

As the article clearly states, numerous individuals from the party you
shun
think the law is ridiculous, since it is penalizing people that have
already
signed an oath attesting that they are citizens of the United States,
and
the
check-off box is redundant and somewhat easier to overlook.

Then it should not be there.
Sue to have it removed!


Or perhaps you can
explain why now, for 2 elections in a row, Florida Secretaries of State
have
been actively engaged in controversies centering around keeping the
voter
turnout totals lower than should be the case.


A bunch of sore losers making up controversies out of nothing.










Typical right-wing spin doctoring and rationalization for abuse of the
voting
process.

Sems more like it's the same old story, the Dems have massive voter drives
and get people who either can't folow the rule or won't follow the rules,
possibly with the INTENT to cause a controversy.

At least 5 states have been reported as mounting legal challenges
against voting irregularities in advance of the Presidential election.
And
since nobody has lost anything yet, rationalizations in advance are just
so
much conservative excuse making and denial of reality.



Maybe Floridians in those counties are just dumber than the rest of the
state. :-)

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:11:37 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

There's a guy on the Bush administration who is so religiously
zealous, he wants to ban dancing. And the homophobia, well, that's
highly documented, and I bet you love it. Somehow, the phrase "Taliban
were defeated" doesn't quite ring true.
Tell me, apart from being Christian rather than Islamic, and being
mainly white-skinned rather than brown, what exactly is it that sets
the USA apart from all this terrorist-loving dictatorships?
Freedom!
Homosexuality is outlawed in several states, as is oral sex, you can't
go to Cuba, the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president, petty litigation is rife, and the legal system has some of
the most harshest laws against harmless recreational drugs.
If that's "freedom", lock me up.
one freedom you have here, that you might not have
in a terrorism sponsoring dictatorship,

The US sponsors terrorism through the Security School Of The Americas.

They teach Human rights there now, they may have taught some things that
were not exactly Kosher, but that is a far cry from spaonoring Terror.

is the ability to leave,

For Cuba?

and live in another place
more to your liking.

As long as it isn't Cuba.

And another freedom you
have here that you won't have
in a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship,

George Bush sponsors terrorism. Fact.

Your own personal fiction.

is that you can elect to stay here,
and suffer from living in such a horrible place as this, and
and still be free to criticize it.

As many many many people do.


And they have the ability to change thngs they don't like about the
Government without fear of being killed or imprisoned.
--

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:08:02 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?

Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.

Right, it couldn't be that Cuba has a history of sponoring terrorism and
trying to overthrow legitmate governments.

the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president,
Because in our system. it's not the popular vote that elects the
President.

LOL. There you have it. Your so-called "democracy" is anything but
that.

I never said it was a Democracy, it's a Repulic.

It's also a sytem that has worked well for 200 years.

Er, so why's the unpopular guy in office?

He's not that unpopular here. He's about as popular as the guy running
against him.

and the legal system has some of
the most harshest laws against harmless recreational drugs.
"Most harshest?" I'm opposed to laws against recreational drug use,

I said harmless recreational drugs. How do you feel about those?


I'm opposed to all laws regulating personal drug use. I figure if you don't
have sense enough to take care of your mind and body, nobody else should.

If that's "freedom", lock me up.
What's your address?

Where my house is, funnily enough...

Stay there.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:11:36 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Every classroom I was ever in had a picture of the current president.
Using this information, this proves you didn't go to school until the
year 2000 at the very earliest.
That's believable.
No, I have doubts. I can't believe he went to school.
That's alrigh, we've already established that your not smart enough to kow
the difference between a free country and a dictatorship, so your opinion
isn't really worth much.

"your not smart enough" - I love the irony of that.

--
Hypocrisy noted.

That was you chiding Dormer for going after typos, right?

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...


Of course. But what the article also relayed was the fact that a number
of
counties have chosen to ignore her obvious attempts to keep voter
turnouot, as
a whoile, down.

As the article clearly states, numerous individuals from the party you
shun
think the law is ridiculous, since it is penalizing people that have
already
signed an oath attesting that they are citizens of the United States,
and
the
check-off box is redundant and somewhat easier to overlook.

Then it should not be there.
Sue to have it removed!


Or perhaps you can
explain why now, for 2 elections in a row, Florida Secretaries of State
have
been actively engaged in controversies centering around keeping the
voter
turnout totals lower than should be the case.


A bunch of sore losers making up controversies out of nothing.










Typical right-wing spin doctoring and rationalization for abuse of the
voting
process. At least 5 states have been reported as mounting legal
challenges
against voting irregularities in advance of the Presidential election.
And
since nobody has lost anything yet, rationalizations in advance are just
so
much conservative excuse making and denial of reality.


The abuse is comong from the left, knowingly signing up
illegal aliens and Alzheimers patients. AFAIC, they
are even running some of them as candidates.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:43:52 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

The abuse is comong from the left, knowingly signing up
illegal aliens and Alzheimers patients. AFAIC, they
are even running some of them as candidates.

*cough*Ronald Reagan*cough*

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:12:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?
Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.
Right, it couldn't be that Cuba has a history of sponoring terrorism and
trying to overthrow legitmate governments.

Aren't you from the same country that installed a dictatorship in
Ecuador, overthrowing the democratically elected government there? Oh,
and you funded and trained Osama Bin Laden too.

Sorry, what was your complaint about Cuba again?

the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president,
Because in our system. it's not the popular vote that elects the
President.
LOL. There you have it. Your so-called "democracy" is anything but
that.
I never said it was a Democracy, it's a Repulic.

Many Bush supporters call it a democracy.

It's also a sytem that has worked well for 200 years.
Er, so why's the unpopular guy in office?
He's not that unpopular here. He's about as popular as the guy running
against him.

I'm talking 2000 election.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

"JBorg" wrote in message
...



1. Why are you using the standard criteria of the voting process to
invalidate the legal importance of a signature ?

Now answer Question # 1.


I could ask you "Why is your head stuck up your ass?"
Well, that question presupposes that it 'is' stuck up your ass.
Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.





2. But why are you *capitalizing* on the degree of requirement which
you admit contain rules that does not eliminate abuse -- to suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes?


Now answer Question # 2.

Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.




So since the standard process do not eliminate abuse, the significance
of those "potential" voters' signatures will not represent any power in
verifying the legality of their signature. Right ?


Well, a properly formatted question, at last!
So I will answer it. Though I am still not
sure exactly what you are getting at.
Significance of the signatures will not represent any
power in verifying the legality of their signature???


Anyway, my answer, to what I think you
are asking me:
Wrong. "those' potential voters (BrowardCo)
are only a subset of all potential voters in Florida,
finding themselves under the exact same cisrcumstances.


At any rate, standard process is a protection against abuse, not
a sure fire prevention. There are other forms of abuse
not related to standardization of process.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:14:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Every classroom I was ever in had a picture of the current president.
Using this information, this proves you didn't go to school until the
year 2000 at the very earliest.
That's believable.
No, I have doubts. I can't believe he went to school.
That's alrigh, we've already established that your not smart enough to kow
the difference between a free country and a dictatorship, so your opinion
isn't really worth much.
"your not smart enough" - I love the irony of that.
Hypocrisy noted.

What hypocrisy?

That was you chiding Dormer for going after typos, right?

Typo? You're saying it was TWO missing characters, yet it's
suspiciously like a very common mistake among school children -
getting "your" and "you're" confused.

I love the way you lecture on how I'm not smart, while making the kind
of error I last made when I was 12 years old.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:11:37 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

There's a guy on the Bush administration who is so religiously
zealous, he wants to ban dancing. And the homophobia, well, that's
highly documented, and I bet you love it. Somehow, the phrase "Taliban
were defeated" doesn't quite ring true.
Tell me, apart from being Christian rather than Islamic, and being
mainly white-skinned rather than brown, what exactly is it that sets
the USA apart from all this terrorist-loving dictatorships?
Freedom!
Homosexuality is outlawed in several states, as is oral sex, you can't
go to Cuba, the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president, petty litigation is rife, and the legal system has some of
the most harshest laws against harmless recreational drugs.
If that's "freedom", lock me up.
one freedom you have here, that you might not have
in a terrorism sponsoring dictatorship,

The US sponsors terrorism through the Security School Of The Americas.



is the ability to leave,

For Cuba?

and live in another place
more to your liking.

As long as it isn't Cuba.


you can spend t rest of your happy life in Cuba.
We aren't stopping you.


And another freedom you
have here that you won't have
in a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship,

George Bush sponsors terrorism. Fact.

is that you can elect to stay here,
and suffer from living in such a horrible place as this, and
and still be free to criticize it.

As many many many people do.


In Cuba too?

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:08:02 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?

Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.


You are a CERTIFIED IDIOT.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:43:52 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

The abuse is comong from the left, knowingly signing up
illegal aliens and Alzheimers patients. AFAIC, they
are even running some of them as candidates.

*cough*Ronald Reagan*cough*

--
Even with Alzheimer's he was more rational than you.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:12:42 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?
Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.
Right, it couldn't be that Cuba has a history of sponoring terrorism and
trying to overthrow legitmate governments.

Aren't you from the same country that installed a dictatorship in
Ecuador, overthrowing the democratically elected government there?

Nobody's perfect. For the record I've never been enamoured of everything
we've done in terms of foreign policy.

Oh,
and you funded and trained Osama Bin Laden too.

Nope. A myth.

Sorry, what was your complaint about Cuba again?

You think it's so great, go.

the guy who lost the popular vote assumes the office of
president,
Because in our system. it's not the popular vote that elects the
President.
LOL. There you have it. Your so-called "democracy" is anything but
that.
I never said it was a Democracy, it's a Repulic.

Many Bush supporters call it a democracy.

Many people use the term incorrectly, I can't help that.

It's also a sytem that has worked well for 200 years.
Er, so why's the unpopular guy in office?
He's not that unpopular here. He's about as popular as the guy running
against him.

I'm talking 2000 election.

That still applies, it was a very close election and the way our system
works doesn't require a popular vote majority to win, the candidates know
that.

The last time we had an election that close was Kennedy/Nixon, where the
fraud was from the Democrats mostly in Texas and Illinois where dead people
voted. Nixon decided that rather than put the country through a nasty
fight, he'd concede, even though he probably won.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:14:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Every classroom I was ever in had a picture of the current
president.
Using this information, this proves you didn't go to school until the
year 2000 at the very earliest.
That's believable.
No, I have doubts. I can't believe he went to school.
That's alrigh, we've already established that your not smart enough to
kow
the difference between a free country and a dictatorship, so your
opinion
isn't really worth much.
"your not smart enough" - I love the irony of that.
Hypocrisy noted.

What hypocrisy?

That was you chiding Dormer for going after typos, right?

Typo? You're saying it was TWO missing characters, yet it's
suspiciously like a very common mistake among school children -
getting "your" and "you're" confused.

I love the way you lecture on how I'm not smart, while making the kind
of error I last made when I was 12 years old.

--
Your parents must be so proud.

Who ties your shoes? Oh that's right Velcro.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:43:52 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

The abuse is comong from the left, knowingly signing up
illegal aliens and Alzheimers patients. AFAIC, they
are even running some of them as candidates.

*cough*Ronald Reagan*cough*


He ran in 1990?

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:07:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

And they have the ability to change thngs they don't like about the
Government without fear of being killed or imprisoned.

Someone (heh, a lot of people actually) doesn't like the ban on gay
marriage. How do they go about changing that then?


They go to prison, where there
are possibilities aplenty for gay marriage.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
I love the way you lecture on how I'm not smart, while making the kind
of error I last made when I was 12 years old.


Just wait.
A lot can happen in a year

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.

You are a CERTIFIED IDIOT.

I'm sure you'll admit, however grudgingly, that Americans' personal
freedom
has been eroded by government steadily over the (short) lifetime of the
country. In the past 3 years, the pace of erosion has accelerated
dramatically, wouldn't you agree? (Don't start lecturing about the war on
terror, please.)


you could look at that in a number of ways
Duh Mikey might say that the erosion of personal
freedom stared with the passage of the first
Federal Income tax, and was followed by Social Security.
What countries offer more freedoms, and don't
start lecturing about the execessively overregulated
near Socialist states like Sweden.

I think the last free place and time in America was the wild west,
and it was pretty brutal and somewhat of an anarchy.

Now, I can tell you of a few countries I do think have
some more freedoms, in many aspects, than the US, and you might
be surprised. That would be some of the former eastern block countries
like Hungary and Romania. Although the EU is soon going to take care of
their
problems with excessive freedom.

Clyde Slick wrote
JBorg wrote


[snipping noted]


1. Why are you using the standard criteria of the voting process to
invalidate the legal importance of a signature ?

Now answer Question # 1.

I could ask you "Why is your head stuck up your ass?"
Well, that question presupposes that it 'is' stuck up your ass.

Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.

Sure.

1. Do you think it's proper for such "standard" in voting process to have
the power to nullify the legal importance of a signature ?



2. But why are you *capitalizing* on the degree of requirement which
you admit contain rules that does not eliminate abuse -- to suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes?


Now answer Question # 2.


Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.

Sure.

2. Do you think it is proper to have such "standard" in voting process-- which
contain rules that does not eliminate abuse, the power to suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes ?



So since the standard process do not eliminate abuse, the significance
of those "potential" voters' signatures will not represent any power in
verifying the legality of their signature. Right ?


Well, a properly formatted question, at last!
So I will answer it. Though I am still not
sure exactly what you are getting at.
Significance of the signatures will not represent any
power in verifying the legality of their signature???


Okey. This is the same as above..



Anyway, my answer, to what I think you
are asking me:

Wrong. "those' potential voters (BrowardCo)
are only a subset of all potential voters in Florida,
finding themselves under the exact same cisrcumstances.


No, I was not asking whether they are small subset or not.


At any rate, standard process is a protection against abuse, not
a sure fire prevention. There are other forms of abuse
not related to standardization of process.


Yes, it does not eliminate abuse, you already said that.

"JBorg" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick wrote
JBorg wrote


[snipping noted]


1. Why are you using the standard criteria of the voting process to
invalidate the legal importance of a signature ?

Now answer Question # 1.

I could ask you "Why is your head stuck up your ass?"
Well, that question presupposes that it 'is' stuck up your ass.

Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.

Sure.

1. Do you think it's proper for such "standard" in voting process to
have
the power to nullify the legal importance of a signature ?


Yes, if the form is not filled out correctly. The proper course of
action, the duplication of the citizenship question
via the box and the affidavit would be to consider removing
the box in forms used for future registrations.
Whether the box is filled out is as important as the signature, the
signature
confirms that all information on the form is correct, including
whether or not the box is checked.






2. But why are you *capitalizing* on the degree of requirement which
you admit contain rules that does not eliminate abuse -- to
suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes?


Now answer Question # 2.


Ask a proper question, and I will answer it.
Try not to ask me why I am doing something I am not doing.

Sure.

2. Do you think it is proper to have such "standard" in voting process--
which
contain rules that does not eliminate abuse, the power to suppress
"potential" legal voters from casting their votes ?


Yes, if the rules facilitate elimination of abuse, or otherwise
facilitate the elimination of ineligible voters.
If the rules have no purpose in facilitating the differentiation
of ineligible voters, they should not be there, unless there
is some other valid reason. Useless rules should not be there.
And when useless rules are eliminated, that should be across the board,
for everybody, and all those needlessly
eliminated should be reinststed, across the board.

Clyde Slick wrote
JBorg wrote


1. Do you think it's proper for such "standard" in voting process to
have the power to nullify the legal importance of a signature ?


Yes, if the form is not filled out correctly.


How would you determine correctness if there's a common pattern in
error shared shared by all incorrect application ?


The proper course of
action, the duplication of the citizenship question
via the box and the affidavit would be to consider removing
the box in forms used for future registrations.
Whether the box is filled out is as important as the signature, the
signature confirms that all information on the form is correct, including
whether or not the box is checked.





2. Do you think it is proper to have such "standard" in voting process--
which contain rules that does not eliminate abuse, the power to
suppress"potential" legal voters from casting their votes ?


Yes, if the rules facilitate elimination of abuse,


How does the rule facilitate elimination of abuse if those potential voters has
not been verified or proven to be ineligible voters?


or otherwise facilitate the elimination of ineligible voters.

They have not been verified to be ineligible voters -- which prove that what
you have is an abusive voting process.


Any comment ?


If the rules have no purpose in facilitating the differentiation
of ineligible voters, they should not be there, unless there
is some other valid reason.

This is not a matter concerning whether the rule is serving the purpose to
facilitate differentiating ineligible voters. The "potential" voters eligibility
can be verified.



Useless rules should not be there.

And *you* admit that the rule does not eliminate abuse. There is a common
pattern of error that are shared by all the potential voters and yet, you are
willing
to facilitate an abusive process to allow more abuse.


Any comment ?


And when useless rules are eliminated, that should be across the board,
for everybody, and all those needlessly
eliminated should be reinststed, across the board.


Well yes, I mean duh.

"JBorg" wrote in message
m...
Clyde Slick wrote



Yes, if the form is not filled out correctly.


How would you determine correctness if there's a common pattern in
error shared shared by all incorrect application ?


1) It makes no difference if there is one error more common than
other errors.

2) By the millions filled out correctly.




2. Do you think it is proper to have such "standard" in voting
process--
which contain rules that does not eliminate abuse, the power to
suppress"potential" legal voters from casting their votes ?


Yes, if the rules facilitate elimination of abuse,


How does the rule facilitate elimination of abuse if those potential
voters has
not been verified or proven to be ineligible voters?


The form asks the potential registrants questions, and they answer them.
It eliminates those that giv the wrong answer, or no answer, to each
particular question.
I think the problem you are having is that the form essentially asks
the same question twice. In the case of the questionable applications,
the question is answered incorrectly one time, and correctly
the next time. That leaves the intended answer subject to interpretation.
The correctly answered form has the correct answer twice, each time it is
asked.









or otherwise facilitate the elimination of ineligible voters.

They have not been verified to be ineligible voters -- which prove that
what
you have is an abusive voting process.


They are ineligible, in that they haven't submitted a correct
application, Now, if you wish to describe them as otherwise eligible
voters, that would be a correct designation. Now, there is no need to
verufy whether they are otherwise ineligiblem being that they didn't
submit a correctly filled out application. It is not the job, nor
should it be the job, of the registrars to 'correct' dubious application
forms


Any comment ?


It appears there is a form that confuses inattentive registrants.
some might say the form is needlessly complicated
(and I don't know about any arguments one way
or the other about legal requirements that the forms be the way they are)
and other might say that the registrants are too inattentive to carefully
read
the form and understand what they are affirming..



If the rules have no purpose in facilitating the differentiation
of ineligible voters, they should not be there, unless there
is some other valid reason.

This is not a matter concerning whether the rule is serving the purpose to
facilitate differentiating ineligible voters. The "potential" voters
eligibility
can be verified.


I don't think its the place of the registrars to verify
incorrect forms. But, if that is waht they will do, they need to do it for
all forms
in the same class, all throughout the state.



Useless rules should not be there.

And *you* admit that the rule does not eliminate abuse. There is a
common
pattern of error that are shared by all the potential voters and yet, you
are willing
to facilitate an abusive process to allow more abuse.


that it dosen't eliminate abuse doesn't matter
one rule can't eliminate all abuse. youy need a number of rules
to do that. A rule adresses a specific issue of abuse, or voter fraud.
Other rules address other issues of fraus and abuse.
Why throw out a question about citizenship, just
because it doesn't weed out voters who are not yet 18?






Any comment ?


see above.
In general, a rule is used to stop
or control a particular abuse. It need not be 100% effective
to prevent abuse.
Look we have 'rules' against murder, and it still happens
every day (Chicago has had at least one murder
every day since 1998, I heard today). Since the 'dule'
doesn't eliminate murder, would you argue thet it is invalid.


And when useless rules are eliminated, that should be across the board,
for everybody, and all those needlessly
eliminated should be reinststed, across the board.


Well yes, I mean duh.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.

You are a CERTIFIED IDIOT.

I'm sure you'll admit, however grudgingly, that Americans' personal
freedom
has been eroded by government steadily over the (short) lifetime of the
country. In the past 3 years, the pace of erosion has accelerated
dramatically, wouldn't you agree? (Don't start lecturing about the war on
terror, please.)


you could look at that in a number of ways
Duh Mikey might say that the erosion of personal
freedom stared with the passage of the first
Federal Income tax, and was followed by Social Security.
What countries offer more freedoms, and don't
start lecturing about the execessively overregulated
near Socialist states like Sweden.

I think the last free place and time in America was the wild west,
and it was pretty brutal and somewhat of an anarchy.

That wasn't from freedom, it was from a lack of effective communication and
likewise law enforcement.

I think it's possible to have all the freedom you should be allowed without
anarchy, if and only if you have effective law enforcement, defense, and a
court system that is prohibited from legislating from the bench.


Gratuitous name calling noted.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:03:12 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

and live in another place
more to your liking.
As long as it isn't Cuba.
you can spend t rest of your happy life in Cuba.
We aren't stopping you.

I'm happy here in Europe.

is that you can elect to stay here,
and suffer from living in such a horrible place as this, and
and still be free to criticize it.
As many many many people do.
In Cuba too?

Yes, there's a lot of criticism against America in Cuba, of all
places. Funny, that.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:04:12 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

you can't go to Cuba,
Why do you suppose that is?
Your country hates freedom, that's why that is.
You are a CERTIFIED IDIOT.

Er, your country is doing all it can to prevent gay marriages from
happening, to stop abortion, to ensure no-one can burn a US flag, to
prevent its own citizens from travelling to Cuba, and you reckon your
country doesn't hate freedom, and that I'm a certified idiot.

Read that again.

--
pete [at] ¦ "I was so upset
horseshoe ¦ that I cried
[hyphen] ¦ all the way to
inn [dot] ¦ the chip-shop"
co [dot] uk¦ - Jilted John