"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.
Anybody that seriously thinks this country detests freedom
is a complete idiot.

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
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.

you know waht I mean, ASSHOLE

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
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

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
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.


Look at the 99.9%
not the 00.1%

"Peter Thomas" wrote in message
...
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.

--
Criticizing Cuba in Cuba can get you dead.

Clyde Slick wrote





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.




I don't have direct access to this form.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.

Right, referring to me as Duh-Mikey isn't gratutious? It isn't referring to
me?

I'm sorry I have to go shut off my bull**** detector.

Anybody that seriously thinks this country detests freedom
is a complete idiot.
I agree.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.

Right, referring to me as Duh-Mikey isn't gratutious? It isn't referring
to me?

Duh-Mikey ?
LOL, I guess it is a way to ask Middius' pardon. :-)


I'm sorry I have to go shut off my bull**** detector.

Anybody that seriously thinks this country detests freedom
is a complete idiot.
I agree.

*You* are an idiot.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.

Right, referring to me as Duh-Mikey isn't gratutious? It isn't referring
to me?

oh, I remember that there was a much worse insult,
and it wasn't directed at you. I thought you were talking about that,
cause your comment appeared right beneath it, rather than
beneath 'Duh-Mikey'. If you had a little more on the ball,
maybe you could make yourself understood a little better.

On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.

And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:

"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.

Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida’s black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates--i.e., ballots cast but not counted--between black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush’s Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data."

From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:15:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:

To me, the Electoral College may originally have arisen from an elitist
viewpoint, but its more valuable function is to serve as a check on the
concentration of power. And that, I'm sure you'll agree, is the single
most important guiding principle embraced by the Founders.

It was put in place to restrain democracy, in particular to protect
the property of the wealthy. It's an anachronism that thwarts the
will of the majority, as was clearly illustrated in 2000. It greatly
overweights rural states, which are guaranteed 3 electoral votes, so
that votes in sparsely populated states count for much more than votes
in densely populated ones.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:46:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



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.

I've got to disagree there. Freedom has greatly increased in terms of
the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, and the end of
Jim Crow.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a
difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.

And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:


here we go again!!!!!

All the votes were counted. That is, all the votes that were properly
executed and cast, and were clearly discernable according the proper
standard.

the 'votes' that you allege to be not counted, were examined, and counted as
improperly or indescernably executed. They just weren't counted
in favor of the candidate you wanted them counted for.

Be that as it may, the votes were later recounted several times by various
newspapers (with a liberal biias, I might add) such as the NYT
and the Miami Herald. I have read of six counts, being two
counts each by three papares. One count per the Gore criteria
and one count by the Bush criteria. All three Gore counts had him
losing! He actually won one of the three Bush counts.


"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.


There is a reason! Different counties used different types of ballots.
The ballots that were problematical used punch sheets. It happened that
the counties that used these ballots were large metro areas
in south Florida, counties haviong a high percentage of black residents.

the only 'racial' component I cna atrribute is that these counties may have
used
those ballots cause they were cheaper, metor areas being underfunded as they
are,
with deficient tax bases.




Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates--i.e., ballots cast but not counted--between black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush's Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data."

From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm

see my above comment.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:15:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:

To me, the Electoral College may originally have arisen from an elitist
viewpoint, but its more valuable function is to serve as a check on the
concentration of power. And that, I'm sure you'll agree, is the single
most important guiding principle embraced by the Founders.

It was put in place to restrain democracy, in particular to protect
the property of the wealthy. It's an anachronism that thwarts the
will of the majority, as was clearly illustrated in 2000. It greatly
overweights rural states, which are guaranteed 3 electoral votes, so
that votes in sparsely populated states count for much more than votes
in densely populated ones.

Well, you inadvertently hit on the real reason. It wasn't wealth,
it was to protect the smaller states, wealthy or not. Without such
protection, they felt it mght have been in their self interest
not to join the Union.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:56:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
.. .
On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a
difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.

And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:


here we go again!!!!!

All the votes were counted. That is, all the votes that were properly
executed and cast, and were clearly discernable according the proper
standard.

the 'votes' that you allege to be not counted, were examined, and counted as
improperly or indescernably executed. They just weren't counted
in favor of the candidate you wanted them counted for.

Be that as it may, the votes were later recounted several times by various
newspapers (with a liberal biias, I might add) such as the NYT
and the Miami Herald. I have read of six counts, being two
counts each by three papares. One count per the Gore criteria
and one count by the Bush criteria. All three Gore counts had him
losing! He actually won one of the three Bush counts.


"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.


There is a reason! Different counties used different types of ballots.
The ballots that were problematical used punch sheets. It happened that
the counties that used these ballots were large metro areas
in south Florida, counties haviong a high percentage of black residents.

the only 'racial' component I cna atrribute is that these counties may have
used
those ballots cause they were cheaper, metor areas being underfunded as they
are,
with deficient tax bases.




Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates--i.e., ballots cast but not counted--between black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush's Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data."

From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm

see my above comment.

That's not going to cut it Art. There were widespread violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965 in that election in Florida, and in fact
corrective action has been taken. What do you think all those voting
machines got replaced?

This was the finding of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. You are
at odds with the federal government and the state of Florida on this
issue. The fact is that more than 90,000 blacks did not have their
votes counted in 2000, and if they had, which they should have been,
Gore would have won.

"jak163" wrote in message
...

That's not going to cut it Art. There were widespread violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965 in that election in Florida, and in fact
corrective action has been taken. What do you think all those voting
machines got replaced?


Because the local Democratic county administrations that
bought them finally realized that they made a mistake
as that system was deficient.

This was the finding of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. You are
at odds with the federal government and the state of Florida on this
issue. The fact is that more than 90,000 blacks did not have their
votes counted in 2000, and if they had, which they should have been,
Gore would have won.

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

Tell me who and where and how 90,000 eligible
people who wanted to vote were denied access to the polls.
Show me 90,000 denied registrations of eleigible voters.
I suppose you are talking about convicted felons, incarcerated, or not.
BTW, the elected officials and election boards in the
areas of black concentrations are Dems, mostly
pretty liberal. They are Democrats ****ing their own people, as is usual.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:56:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
. ..
On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a
difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.

And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:


here we go again!!!!!

All the votes were counted. That is, all the votes that were properly
executed and cast, and were clearly discernable according the proper
standard.

the 'votes' that you allege to be not counted, were examined, and counted
as
improperly or indescernably executed. They just weren't counted
in favor of the candidate you wanted them counted for.

Be that as it may, the votes were later recounted several times by various
newspapers (with a liberal biias, I might add) such as the NYT
and the Miami Herald. I have read of six counts, being two
counts each by three papares. One count per the Gore criteria
and one count by the Bush criteria. All three Gore counts had him
losing! He actually won one of the three Bush counts.


"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.


There is a reason! Different counties used different types of ballots.
The ballots that were problematical used punch sheets. It happened that
the counties that used these ballots were large metro areas
in south Florida, counties haviong a high percentage of black residents.

the only 'racial' component I cna atrribute is that these counties may
have
used
those ballots cause they were cheaper, metor areas being underfunded as
they
are,
with deficient tax bases.




Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates--i.e., ballots cast but not counted--between black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush's Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data."

From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm

see my above comment.

That's not going to cut it Art. There were widespread violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965 in that election in Florida, and in fact
corrective action has been taken. What do you think all those voting
machines got replaced?

Stupidity, just like in California. There was nothing wrong with the
machines.

The violations were not anything to do with any concerted effort to deprive
legitimate voters from being allowed to cast their ballots.

This was the finding of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. You are
at odds with the federal government and the state of Florida on this
issue. The fact is that more than 90,000 blacks did not have their
votes counted in 2000, and if they had, which they should have been,
Gore would have won.

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

It matters why and how. Nobody went out and stopped anybody from casting a
legal ballot. The votes not counted were invalid. Florida had problems
with their laws regarding counting ballots and have remedied that problem.
Unfortunately the new touch screen machines are vulnerable to tampering and
that opens up a whole new batch of problems.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.

Right, referring to me as Duh-Mikey isn't gratutious? It isn't referring
to me?

oh, I remember that there was a much worse insult,
and it wasn't directed at you. I thought you were talking about that,
cause your comment appeared right beneath it, rather than
beneath 'Duh-Mikey'. If you had a little more on the ball,
maybe you could make yourself understood a little better.



Maybe if you had a little more on the ball you'd realize that your excuse is
feeble.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:46:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



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.

I've got to disagree there. Freedom has greatly increased in terms of
the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, and the end of
Jim Crow.

Yet everybody has lost rights, including the right to private property,
erosion of search and seizure restrictions, the inclusion of the concept of
probable cause. Income Tax, affirmative action, (reverse discrimination),
the war on drugs, the list goes on and on.

Government has intruded more and more into things that are not the business
of government.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"jak163" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:56:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
...

On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:



Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a
difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.

And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:


here we go again!!!!!

All the votes were counted. That is, all the votes that were properly
executed and cast, and were clearly discernable according the proper
standard.

the 'votes' that you allege to be not counted, were examined, and counted
as
improperly or indescernably executed. They just weren't counted
in favor of the candidate you wanted them counted for.

Be that as it may, the votes were later recounted several times by various
newspapers (with a liberal biias, I might add) such as the NYT
and the Miami Herald. I have read of six counts, being two
counts each by three papares. One count per the Gore criteria
and one count by the Bush criteria. All three Gore counts had him
losing! He actually won one of the three Bush counts.



"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.


There is a reason! Different counties used different types of ballots.
The ballots that were problematical used punch sheets. It happened that
the counties that used these ballots were large metro areas
in south Florida, counties haviong a high percentage of black residents.

the only 'racial' component I cna atrribute is that these counties may
have
used
those ballots cause they were cheaper, metor areas being underfunded as
they
are,
with deficient tax bases.





Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida's black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage
rates--i.e., ballots cast but not counted--between black and nonblack
voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This
conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush's Select Task Force on
Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error
rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters
account for less than 1 percent of the problems.

Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American;
however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000
spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on
estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates
were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual
precinct data."

From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm

see my above comment.

That's not going to cut it Art. There were widespread violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965 in that election in Florida, and in fact
corrective action has been taken. What do you think all those voting
machines got replaced?


Stupidity, just like in California. There was nothing wrong with the
machines.

The violations were not anything to do with any concerted effort to deprive
legitimate voters from being allowed to cast their ballots.


This was the finding of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. You are
at odds with the federal government and the state of Florida on this
issue. The fact is that more than 90,000 blacks did not have their
votes counted in 2000, and if they had, which they should have been,
Gore would have won.


The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

May we understand that Blacks are too stupid to vote correctly ?

jak163 wrote:
On 07 Oct 2004 15:59:47 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:



Florida's vote totals (at least those actually counted) indicated a difference
between the 2 candidates of a little over 500 votes - a relatively small
number.


And the result would have been a Gore victory of all the votes had
been counted:

"Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black
voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have
their ballots rejected.

Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida’s black
voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with
approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have
their presidential votes counted.

Blacks voters are well known for their genetic stupidity that why the
Bush's family has been obliged to help them to take a "good decision".

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


It matters why and how. Nobody went out and stopped anybody from casting
a legal ballot. The votes not counted were invalid. Florida had problems
with their laws regarding counting ballots and have remedied that problem.
Unfortunately the new touch screen machines are vulnerable to tampering
and that opens up a whole new batch of problems.


Yes, even worse problems.
We didn't had these problems with the old style machines.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...


Gratuitous name calling noted.


It wasn't directed at you, and it wasn't gratuitous.

Right, referring to me as Duh-Mikey isn't gratutious? It isn't
referring to me?

oh, I remember that there was a much worse insult,
and it wasn't directed at you. I thought you were talking about that,
cause your comment appeared right beneath it, rather than
beneath 'Duh-Mikey'. If you had a little more on the ball,
maybe you could make yourself understood a little better.



Maybe if you had a little more on the ball you'd realize that your excuse
is feeble.


Since my previous post, I have found two other
examples fromm you that deserved "duh-Mikey"
distinction.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:46:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



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.

I've got to disagree there. Freedom has greatly increased in terms of
the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, and the end of
Jim Crow.

Yet everybody has lost rights, including the right to private property,
erosion of search and seizure restrictions, the inclusion of the concept
of probable cause. Income Tax, affirmative action, (reverse
discrimination),
the war on drugs, the list goes on and on.

Government has intruded more and more into things that are not the
business of government.

Like building roads...I remember your old arguments

"Lionel" wrote in message
...


The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

May we understand that Blacks are too stupid to vote correctly ?

We may understand that local Democratic election
officials are too incompetent to select an adeequate
ballot system.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...


The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

May we understand that Blacks are too stupid to vote correctly ?


We may understand that local Democratic election
officials are too incompetent to select an adeequate
ballot system.

Who is the governor of Florida?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...


The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

May we understand that Blacks are too stupid to vote correctly ?


We may understand that local Democratic election
officials are too incompetent to select an adeequate
ballot system.

Who is the governor of Florida?

Jeb Bush, however, he is not the one
who selects the ballot systems used in
each county. that is decided by the local county
election board. that is why different counties in Florida
used different voting systems.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:20:35 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

Tell me who and where and how 90,000 eligible
people who wanted to vote were denied access to the polls.
Show me 90,000 denied registrations of eleigible voters.
I suppose you are talking about convicted felons, incarcerated, or not.
BTW, the elected officials and election boards in the
areas of black concentrations are Dems, mostly
pretty liberal. They are Democrats ****ing their own people, as is usual.

There were 180,000 spoiled ballots, 54 percent of which were cast by
African-Americans. That is not including people mistakenly purged as
felons or turned away from the polls. Read the summary of the
commission if you are really interested in this. They have done the
research and make the case much better than I can.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:06:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

It matters why and how. Nobody went out and stopped anybody from casting a
legal ballot. The votes not counted were invalid. Florida had problems
with their laws regarding counting ballots and have remedied that problem.
Unfortunately the new touch screen machines are vulnerable to tampering and
that opens up a whole new batch of problems.

There doesn't have to be an intent or conspiracy to disfranchise in
order for there to have been disfranchisement. The fact that it
occurred is not in dispute.

Keep in mind that Jim Crow did not function by explicit restrictions
against African Americans. It used a myriad of means to disfranchise
not only Blacks but also poor whites. Poll taxes and literacy tests
are the most well known, but even simple registration, the Australian
ballot, and confusing ballots were highly effective means of cutting
down the vote and preserving Democratic control. All of these were
violations of the 15th Amendment, but because of Plessy v Fergeson
they were not eradicated until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s,
culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The mere fact of the
Civil Rights Act on the books does not mean people can exercise the
substantive right to vote. Jim Crow made a reappearance in 2000, and
it will come back again if we don't keep due diligence.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so. Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:06:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:44 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

How many of these didn't get to vote, and how many
of them voted with infcorrectly punched ballots?
I already told you, the ones that cast ballots got their votes
examined and rejected. And, as I told you, they were unoficially
recounted several times by news organizations, and
it DID NOT change the outcome.

You are thinking of the news reports about the punchcard ballots.
Read the executive summary of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report. The disfranchisement was much broader than that. It doesn't
matter why it happened, the point is that many people who were
entitled to vote were unable to do so. That's a violation of the
Civil Rights Act and of the right to vote. The fact that
disfranchisement took place is not in dispute.

It matters why and how. Nobody went out and stopped anybody from casting
a
legal ballot. The votes not counted were invalid. Florida had problems
with their laws regarding counting ballots and have remedied that problem.
Unfortunately the new touch screen machines are vulnerable to tampering
and
that opens up a whole new batch of problems.

There doesn't have to be an intent or conspiracy to disfranchise in
order for there to have been disfranchisement.

But that is not the claim made by the Democratsin the 2000 election. They
claimed a concerted effort to keep people from voting.

The fact that it
occurred is not in dispute.

Keep in mind that Jim Crow did not function by explicit restrictions
against African Americans. It used a myriad of means to disfranchise
not only Blacks but also poor whites. Poll taxes and literacy tests
are the most well known, but even simple registration, the Australian
ballot, and confusing ballots were highly effective means of cutting
down the vote and preserving Democratic control. All of these were
violations of the 15th Amendment, but because of Plessy v Fergeson
they were not eradicated until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s,
culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The mere fact of the
Civil Rights Act on the books does not mean people can exercise the
substantive right to vote. Jim Crow made a reappearance in 2000, and
it will come back again if we don't keep due diligence.

The main thing people need to do to have their vote count is know how to
vote. The Democrats signed up lots of people but didn't give them the tools
needed to vote properly. Most of the problems happened in precincts that
were controlled by Democrats, most notably the butterfly ballot which was
designed and approved by them.

Context is important, and saying there was disenfranchisement is meaningless
without it. The claims were much different than the findings.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so.

But the claim made by the Democrats at the time was that people were
prevented from voting because of roadblocks, etc.. The things claimed were
not found to be true.

Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

There is also a thing called personal responsibility, people need to know
the proper procedures and requirements.

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


jak163 said:

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so. Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

Mickey thinks we would do just fine without a Constitution.



Bull****. I think the Constitution ought to be followed and not re-invented
anytime it's inconvenient for a particular political party.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:46:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



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.

I've got to disagree there. Freedom has greatly increased in terms of
the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, and the end of
Jim Crow.

Yet everybody has lost rights, including the right to private property,
erosion of search and seizure restrictions, the inclusion of the concept
of probable cause. Income Tax, affirmative action, (reverse
discrimination),
the war on drugs, the list goes on and on.

Government has intruded more and more into things that are not the
business of government.

Like building roads...I remember your old arguments

And I remember yours, completely specious.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so. Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so. Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

Immediately following the contested 2000 presidential election, The U.S
Commission on Civil Rights (hereinafter 'the Commission') conducted a
six-month investigation into Florida's election. The result? The Commission
found absolutely no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black
voters. Furthermore, the investigation found no credible evidence that any
Floridians were INTENTIONALLY denied the right to vote in the 2000 election.

The Commission did find, however, that many Florida voters, irrespective of
race, spoiled their ballots by MISTAKE. But voter error is not the same
thing as "disenfranchisement" and it certainly isn't evidence of any
conspiracy or plot to steal or suppress black votes. The Commission also
found violations of the Voting Rights Act in three counties. The infractions
were that some poll workers had been hostile to Hispanic voters, bilingual
assistance hadn't been provided to two Haitian voters and some Hispanic
voters had been denied bilingual assistance. None of the offending counties
was controlled by Republicans!

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:03:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question is why they were not counted and the reason is they voted
incorrectly.

No the question is were people who were eligible to vote unable to do
so. Remember, Michael, there is a right to vote in the Constitution.
You still do not seem to understand this.

They were not unable to do so, they just did it wrong.