Pol: President Jimmy Carter says Florida election suspect

Only being able to swing a hammer seems like quite a compliment to me,
especially on a woodworking newsgroup. Have to wonder what the majority of
Pres. Carter's critics have accomplished in their lives compared to what
he's done in his.

Naval Officer
Nuclear engineer
Governor
President
Peace maker
Nobel prize winner
Builder of homes for the poor
Sunday school teacher
Father
Husband...yep, he ain't done nothin...

John Emmons

"Ace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:iX46d.271491$mD.190911@attbi_s02...
> What does the peanut man know? All he knows how to do is swing a hammer.
> One thing I give him credit for is I was able to make a ton of money off
of
> my savings cd's at 15% plus interest while he was President. The only
> problem was no body could afford to buy a home while he was in office.
>
>
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > President Jimmy Carter had the following to say (CNN):
> >
> > Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> > international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> > for a fair election are missing in Florida."
> >
> > Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> > electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> > process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
> >
> > He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> > Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> > Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."
> >
> > He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> > "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> > treatment."
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/carter.florida.ap/index.html
>
>

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > We already know Carter is a partisan with a personal preference for a
> Kerry
> > win. So why should we care what he has to say on the subject?
>
> That's a lame dodge.

To quote yourself...."You deny the accuracy of the above?" If Sean Hannity
made a comment that the election in (pick your favorite state) was flawed, I
doubt you'd be calling for an investigation. I put the same stock in
Carter's opinion. To me, it looks like they're inoculating themselves when
they eventually lose to be able to go back to the well and claim voter
disenfranchisement.

todd

Doug Winterburn said:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:33:40 -0400, wrote:
>
>
>> Not confused at all - just unwilling to adhere to either right or left
>> wing talking points. There are things I believe are right for the country
>> and those that are not. In my opinion, Bush and his agenda are NOT good
>> for America - it's as simple as that. I can't have an opinion on Kerry -
>> there is no track record of Presidential performance to go on.
>>
>> But of course, you can't agree to disagree. I can feel the ad hominem
>> attacks mounting as I write this...
>
>Greg,
>
>I don't mind a disagreement, but I despise a deception. Don't pretend to
>be something you aren't. You started off by going down the entire litany
>of the Democrat talking points, and finished up by claiming to be just a
>little old conservative. Deception, obfuscation and changing the subject
>identify you for who you really are.
>
>-Doug

No attempt at deception was intended. I clearly stated my views on
most of the current "talking points". Categorize me any way you wish,
but if being a conservative means wholeheartedly supporting Bush and
his administration, then I guess you're right.

There are as many Liberal issues I abhor as well:
Idiotic Arts funding with no real oversight as to quality of content.
Gun Bans.
Unrealistic welfare funding.
Repeated funding of single parents who won't use birth control.
etc.
etc.

Call me Middle-of-the-Road instead of Conservative or Liberal.
How about a Free-Thinker? Independent? Pick one.

Conservatism (in my mind, anyway) does not equate to running up record
deficits, invasion of privacy issues, religious pandering, and federal
invasion of reproductive and marital rights. These are recent
inclusions into the platform that I find completely out of place in
running the business of the country and a Conservative Federal
Government.

Conservatism is fiscal responsibility, entering world conflicts with
sufficient manpower to accomplish goals quickly and efficiently,
limiting federal intervention into personal lives, allowing states the
power to make certain decisions instead of attempts to alter the
Constitution to prohibit stupid, pointless crap like gay marriage.


Greg G.

On 27 Sep 2004 19:29:33 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

>President Jimmy Carter had the following to say (CNN):
>
>Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
>international elections, said "some basic international requirements
>for a fair election are missing in Florida."
>
>Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
>electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
>process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
>
>He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
>Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
>Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."

... and the fact that the in all of the counties in contention were
operated by Democrat election commissioners dose not play into this?

This is simply stretching the bounds of credibility and appears to be an
attempt by what appears to already be the losing party to discredit the
election before it even takes place.


>
>He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
>"correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
>treatment."
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/carter.florida.ap/index.html

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:37:31 GMT, "John Emmons" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Only being able to swing a hammer seems like quite a compliment to me,
>especially on a woodworking newsgroup. Have to wonder what the majority of
>Pres. Carter's critics have accomplished in their lives compared to what
>he's done in his.
>
>Naval Officer
Granted
>Nuclear engineer
Again, granted, but nuclear operator is probably closer to the truth --
he wasn't designing nuclear boats, he was helping operate them.
>Governor
OK
>President
Proof that in 1976, it didn't matter who the Dems nominated, they were
going to win that one
>Peace maker
Yeah, that's working out pretty well, isn't it? He gave Arafat
credibility, don't see any substantive reduction in terrorist violence
against Israel however.
>Nobel prize winner
If anyone ever had any doubts that the Nobel committee is a political
entity with a political agenda, this should have dispelled those doubts.
>Builder of homes for the poor
One of the good things that he has done, should have stopped there
>Sunday school teacher
Good
>Father
OK
>Husband...yep, he ain't done nothin...
OK


You also forgot,

Political apologist for a communist dictator

Attacked sitting president from aforementioned communist dictator's shores

Has certified as "valid" several elections in which polls indicated the
person other than the "winner" was going to prevail.

>
>John Emmons
>
>"Ace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
... snip

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:49:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you see monkeys at the voting booth beware that democracy is being
>hijacked!
>
>http://www.engadget.com/entry/3622842205228263/
>

Gee mp, what a racist statement. Particularly in light of various areas
of the country bussing in mentally retarded and "helping" them vote, or the
efforts to get felons to vote. Not to mention the 25-year dead folks in
Ohio who have recently registered to vote.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:06 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>> They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever they
>> can.
>
>You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a damn
>about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
>
>All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
>overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
>Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
>*least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.
>
>Jeff Harper
>Tampa, FL
>

OK Jeff, where is your outrage over the dead people registering to vote
in Ohio? Oh, they were going to vote democrat, so that's OK? Where is
your outrage over the attempt to get felons to vote? Or outrage at the
accounts of giving homeless people cigarettes and food in return for
getting them to vote? Where is your outrage over the bussing in of people
from mental homes who were "helped" to vote? You want as fair an election
as possible? How about expressing outrage over the real accounts of voter
fraud being perpetrated rather than feigned outrage over things that the
average person with an IQ above that of a turnip realizes would not deter a
voter with even a modicum of initiative to get to the polls?

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:12:55 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You guys are great at parroting the bullshit right-wing talking points.
>

Jeff, here's a clue; these aren't right-wing talking points, those are
the words of the great, impartial Mayor Daly, sent to Florida to assure
that the recount was conducted in the same impartial and fair manner as is
done in Detroit. You seem to forget the video reports showing the election
"judges" with magnifying glasses, turning the ballots this way and that,
holding them to the light attempting to identify the "intent" of the voter.

BTW, just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, someone in 2001 tried
to create a dimpled chad -- he found the only way to do so was by placing
*multiple* ballots in the voting machine, as in maybe the people who were
hired to stuff the ballot boxes got stupid and lazy and didn't do a good
enough job. Maybe that's why Daly was down there, to find out what went
wrong.


>What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
>impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
>confidence in our government's integrity?
>

Your postings indicate that the only things that would meet this criteria
would be 1) declare Gore the winner, regardless of the real outcome of the
votes and 2) declare Kerry the winner now, he's going to win anyway and if
he doesn't, the election will obviously have been rigged, so in order to
assure the integrity of our process, just avoid having the election and
declare the rightful winner to be Kerry.

>Jeff Harper
>Tampa, FL
>
>
>"NoOne N Particular" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:b%[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> > And you think that would have changed the outcome? If so, I'll send you
>a
>> > dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
>> > news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide
>> > recount.
>> > Unfortunately, that wasn't what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a
>> > selective recount of only heavily-Democrat districts. Simply put, they
>> > wanted to count the ballots as many times as it took until Gore won.
>The
>> > Supreme Court put a stop to it. Now, if we can start ignoring Supreme
>> > Court
>> > decisions, I have a long list I'd like to start with.
>> >
>> > todd
>> >
>> >> Jeff Harper
>> >> Tampa, FL
>> >
>> >
>> One of the things that really concerned me was not so much the recount
>> itself, but they were examining all of the ballots to try and determine
>who
>> the voter INTENDED to vote for. What a joke.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:58:42 GMT, "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><Greg G.> wrote in message
>
> Greg G foamed at the mouth and spewed forth the following drivel (to quote
>you):
>>
>>
>> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
>

So you read the same AP and Reuters stories a dozen times with maybe a
few UP stories thrown in? Seems somewhat a rather exhorbitant duplication
of effort.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:07:13 -0400, Greg G. wrote:

>Gary said:
>
>><Greg G.> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
>>
>>A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
>>would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear to
>>be the case.
>
>Your opinion. At least I don't sit in front of the talking heads on
>Faux News and accept their notorious lies and BS as fact.
>

Don't know about the TV news, don't watch it all that much, but the Fox
web page is mostly populated by AP stories. AP is hardly a right-wing
entitity. AAMOF, I can read a Fox web page story and tell before I'm half
through that AP either wrote or contributed to it. Little things, like
statements when discussing various occurences in Iraq, mentioning perhaps a
missing contractor, "who works for Halliburton, the company that Dick
Cheney formerly ran" or other little digs at the administration or war
effort. Little digs or asides that aren't really relevant to the story,
but do serve to throw a little negative spin toward the administration.

On 6 Oct 2004 07:51:38 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096431138.221b/Y9+hPQc8jadqIWSXQ@teranews>...
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> BTW, just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, someone in 2001 tried
>> to create a dimpled chad -- he found the only way to do so was by placing
>> *multiple* ballots in the voting machine, as in maybe the people who were
>> hired to stuff the ballot boxes got stupid and lazy and didn't do a good
>> enough job. ...
>
>So, who was this person, where was this published?

Link is no longer working to one:
<http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30965e7fc8.htm>, the other source you
will reject out of hand, so I won't even bother.

On 7 Oct 2004 08:52:48 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1097117623.KTVdNhKaBzaeDPNz3Q6CUg@teranews>...
>> On 6 Oct 2004 07:51:38 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096431138.221b/Y9+hPQc8jadqIWSXQ@teranews>...
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, someone in 2001 tried
>> >> to create a dimpled chad -- he found the only way to do so was by placing
>> >> *multiple* ballots in the voting machine, as in maybe the people who were
>> >> hired to stuff the ballot boxes got stupid and lazy and didn't do a good
>> >> enough job. ...
>> >
>> >So, who was this person, where was this published?
>>
>> Link is no longer working to one:
>> <http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30965e7fc8.htm>, the other source you
>> will reject out of hand, so I won't even bother.
>
>_The World Tribune_ again perhaps? I'm curious what makes you think
>I'll reject something out-of-hand. I typically do not evaluate an
>article based on the reputation of the author, rather I evaluate
>the content for relevence internal consistancy and vermisilitude to
>established fact. E.g. in one artilce I read in 2000 the author
>talking about pulling down a lever to punch out the chads. Clearly
>he was not writing about votamatitcs since votamatics don't have
>levers. But I digress.
>
>Back to the article you cite, the originial article appears to
>be here:
>
>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20793
>
>Classic misdirection and misrepresentaion of content.
>
No misdirection intended, it's been 3 years since I looked at this, that
was not the link I had in mind and I was unable to get Google to provide
it.

The one reference that I know you will reject is that Rush Limbaugh did
an on-air test in which he tried to create a dimpled chad. He attempted
multiple ways but was unable to dimple a chad without punching it out, the
only way he was able to create a dimpled chad was by placing multiple
ballots in the voteamatic.

Seems like a simple test for somebody else to try.

If you see monkeys at the voting booth beware that democracy is being
hijacked!

http://www.engadget.com/entry/3622842205228263/

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1096430741.EEz959WYeZzwK43CnbbL0g@teranews...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:06 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever they
> >> can.
> >
> >You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a damn
> >about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
> >
> >All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> >overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
> >Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> >*least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.
> >
> >Jeff Harper
> >Tampa, FL
> >
>
> OK Jeff, where is your outrage over the dead people registering to vote
> in Ohio? Oh, they were going to vote democrat, so that's OK? Where is
> your outrage over the attempt to get felons to vote? Or outrage at the
> accounts of giving homeless people cigarettes and food in return for
> getting them to vote? Where is your outrage over the bussing in of people
> from mental homes who were "helped" to vote? You want as fair an election
> as possible? How about expressing outrage over the real accounts of voter
> fraud being perpetrated rather than feigned outrage over things that the
> average person with an IQ above that of a turnip realizes would not deter a
> voter with even a modicum of initiative to get to the polls?
>

And to pile on, where is your outrage about Gore's people going to court to stop the counting of the military vote?

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You guys are great at parroting the bullshit right-wing talking points.
>
> What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
> impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
> confidence in our government's integrity?
>
> Jeff Harper
> Tampa, FL
>
>

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Jeb had introduced a reform measure that would abolish the existing system wherein 24 of the 25
counties that had "irregularities" were controlled by democratic canvassing boards, and replaced it with a system that placed
"non-partisan" boards in their place. Would that have been fair? Do you believe that the dems would have jumped on that proposal
and supported it, Or would that have been seen as an attempt to override the will of the people who elected those canvassing boards?

"John Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In short, the whole FL election in 2000 was thoroughly botched. For
> either candidate. At least Jeb had the decency to recuse himself at the
> start.
>
> Regards,
>
> JT

If everyone with an interest in the result of the election had recused themselves there would have been no one left to do the
recount.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:33:32 GMT, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:

> So many other examples. Dems rounding up drunks and other derilicts and
> paying them $5 to vote Democrat.

In Milwaukee, it was a ride to the polls and a pack of cigarettes. (Yes,
I can cite news reports, thanks for asking).

> Many dead native Americans voting in South
> Dakota (I think that is the state). Busloads of illegal immigrants being
> transported to multiple voting booths in California and voting in all of
> them . All Democrat, of course.

Of course. The sad thing is, the Republican party is reluctant to drive
shut-ins to the polls so they can vote, because it'd _look bad_, yet
the Democrats do it all the time, don't care how it looks, and get away
with it.

> Whatever electronic system is inflicted on the people, you can bet that
> fraud will still be rampant. At least charges of fraud whether real or not.
> How many people do you think will be dis-enfranchised because of power
> problems?

My real concern is lack of auditability. In Wisconsin we have a paper
ballot we fill in with a pencil (connect the arrows with a dark line to
vote), and they're electronically counted. Fine, I don't have a problem
with that, because there's a basket that catches and keeps the forms.
If there's a problem, a human recound is possible. In a voting method
with no physical record of my vote, I have _no_ confidence that it's
auditable and therefore valid.

>> This is the most pathetic election year ever - I hate them both - but
>> Bush has to go - before I am arrested for not signing my oath of
>> loyalty or speaking my opinion in public.

> Yeah. they both suck. But Kerry is not the answer.

Well, if you listen to him enough, he'll eventually agree with your
point of view. Then the polls will change and so will his viewpoint.

> But Kerry is the one that I am more afraid of. Look at his voting record in
> the Senate. Look at his attendance at the security council.

Yes, missing 76% of the meetings of an important group, and then claiming
you care about the topic, is nothing short of a lie. If he cared, why
didn't he go to the meetings? He was on it for over a decade, if the
meetings weren't productive, he had plenty of time to influence that.
If he cared. But, he only cares now that he wants to use it in his
campaign.

> > Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> > international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> > for a fair election are missing in Florida."

> > Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> > electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> > process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.

> > He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> > Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> > Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."

> > He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> > "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> > treatment."

Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?

Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organization to
conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.

This election reeks to high heaven.

As did the last one. Katherine Harris was co-chair of the commitee to elect
Bush Jr. in Florida. She should have recused herself as Bob Butterworth
did.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:34:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:50 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>>
>> This election reeks to high heaven.

> The interesting thing is that if Kerry happens to win in Florida, you'll
> be saying how the election was fair and should not be questioned.

Prediction: the same will hold true for Colorado if/when Kerry loses.
Actually, they've probably got a strategy figured out for Ohio, Wisconsin,
Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Missouri
as well. I'd bet you a beer they've got the lawsuits already written for
each of those states if he loses them, but will be silent if he wins them.

It's the same as the fatal mistake Gore made last time, when he asked
for recounts - but only in the heavily-democrat counties in Florida. It
took it from being a "every vote counts" to "I'll do whatever I have to
to cheat to make it look like I won". The people that whine about
Harris's bias, or Jeb's whatever, or this or that, continue to ignore
the fact that not one vote count, recount, rerecount, or rererecount
ever showed Gore to have more votes in Florida than Bush had.

You'd think, 4 years later, they'd be over it. But Jeff's rant
shows they're not only not over it, but they're planning for a replay.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:26:12 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We already know Carter is a partisan with a personal preference for a Kerry
> win. So why should we care what he has to say on the subject?

More to the point, why does he wait until 5 weeks before the election
to complain about it? Obviously not to solve anything, if that was the
goal he would have cared a year or three ago.

> And you think that would have changed the outcome? If so, I'll send you a
> dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
> news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide recount.
> Unfortunately, that wasn't what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a
> selective recount of only heavily-Democrat districts.

Yup. The Democrats are good on "selective", aren't they. Selective
recounts, selective memory, selective fact-telling...

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:50 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>
>
> > Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
> >
> > Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official
organization
> > to conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.
> >
> > This election reeks to high heaven.
>
> The interesting thing is that if Kerry happens to win in Florida, you'll
> be saying how the election was fair and should not be questioned.

The very fact that Jeb Bush's FL administration has not taken steps to avoid
the appearance of impropriety indicates the likelihood of an unfair
election. If Kerry wins despite this, it will not necessarily mean that the
election was entirely legit.

The principle of your attack on me, while not valid, is applicable to you.
If Kerry wins, you will fault me if I don't criticize the election, and you
will certainly fault me if I do.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> > > > Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> > > > international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> > > > for a fair election are missing in Florida."
> >
> > > > Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> > > > electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> > > > process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
> >
> > > > He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> > > > Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> > > > Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."
> >
> > > > He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> > > > "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> > > > treatment."
> >
> > Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
> >
> > Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official
organization
> to
> > conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.
>
> We already know Carter is a partisan with a personal preference for a
Kerry
> win. So why should we care what he has to say on the subject?

That's a lame dodge.

> > We already know Carter is a partisan with a personal preference for a
Kerry
> > win. So why should we care what he has to say on the subject?
>
> More to the point, why does he wait until 5 weeks before the election
> to complain about it? Obviously not to solve anything, if that was the
> goal he would have cared a year or three ago.

He said why he wrote the editorial.

The only hope we have now is to focus as much light, public scrutiny, on the
Florida election as we can.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever they
> can.

You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a damn
about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.

All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
*least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

You guys are great at parroting the bullshit right-wing talking points.

What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
confidence in our government's integrity?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL


"NoOne N Particular" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b%[email protected]...
>
>
> > And you think that would have changed the outcome? If so, I'll send you
a
> > dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
> > news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide
> > recount.
> > Unfortunately, that wasn't what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a
> > selective recount of only heavily-Democrat districts. Simply put, they
> > wanted to count the ballots as many times as it took until Gore won.
The
> > Supreme Court put a stop to it. Now, if we can start ignoring Supreme
> > Court
> > decisions, I have a long list I'd like to start with.
> >
> > todd
> >
> >> Jeff Harper
> >> Tampa, FL
> >
> >
> One of the things that really concerned me was not so much the recount
> itself, but they were examining all of the ballots to try and determine
who
> the voter INTENDED to vote for. What a joke.
>
> Wayne
>
>

> > Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
> >
> > Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official
> > organization to conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's
not.

> Prove that there is.

Uh, that's what I'm asking you to do.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:29:38 -0400, Greg G. <> wrote:
> Todd Fatheree foamed at the mouth and spewed forth the following
> drivel:
>
>>dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
>>news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide recount.
>
> I hate to interrupt your BushFest with facts, but...
> This is completely in error. The Tampa Bay Tribune published a
> selective recount result that was parroted throughout the press.

First I've heard about it. I don't suppose you can, you know, supply a cite
to back that up, can you?

> Many recounts done by the media have shown otherwise.

First I've heard of it. Cite, please on these too. (Translation:
I call bullshit. Back it up or retract.)

> I'll give you a dollar so you can buy a real newspaper and read it.
> Rush Limberger and Faux news are not "fair and balanced" - you stand a
> better chance of getting the facts watching the Daily Show with Jon
> Stewart. (A comedy program with more balls than most news broadcasters
> seem to possess these days.)

I don't listen to Rush, I don't watch Fox; I go to CBS and/or NPR for news,
oddly enough, mainly because that's what's on the radio during my drive
time. I don't need Rush to give me his opinion for me to know that
Gore lost the election, that Kerry lies, and that I'm voting for Bush.

> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day. Foreign press as
> well as the yellow stuff here - and they are NOT telling you the
> complete truth.

Of course not. Any news event I've been a part of, is nearly unrecognizable
as the same event on _ANY_ news reporting I've seen, from any source.

> The current administration will not let them -

Can you, you know, back that up?

> And Boy, the Supreme Court did us a real favor!

The supreme court stopped Gore's request for a recount in _only heavily
Democrat counties_, remember? As in "Every vote counts, but I only want to
recount where the odds are that I will benefit from it". Amazing how
selective your memory is. Or are you going to say he didn't ask for that?

> Record deficits, a
> nation despised and ridiculed in the world's eyes, a quagmire know as
> Iraq that shows no sign of "Mission Accomplished", Osama Bin Laudin on
> the loose and seemingly ignored by the White House, record job
> migration, corporate scandal, Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers
> through graft and corruption...

...Saddam Hussein in custody, Libya giving up their proven WMD programs,
OBL reduced to hiding in a cave rather than leading the Taliban...
Funny how your type doesn't give any credit to positive developments
that Bush has influenced.

> And they want to privatize social security and medicare?

They want to give you and me an _OPTION_ to direct how a portion of our
social security is invested. If you don't want to take that option,
fine, no problem, but why would you push your limits on me?

> What, to the
> same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton, DBT/Choice Point, Diebold
> or Enron? (All HUGE campaign contributors.) No Thanks!

Yawn. Nice use of that particular rhetorical device, but nobody here
is going to fall for that one.

> Ask a foreign news correspondent or photographer how it's going...
> Not well at all. Where are all the flowers being thrown at the
> liberators feet? A shell from an AK-47 hardly constitutes a shower of
> rose petals.

Funny. I've talked to 4 people now who have come back from serving
time, in the military, in Iraq. Every one of them (yes, only four)
says that things are _VERY_ different than the press is reporting, and
that real progress is being made. Rebuilding of the infrastructure
that SH destroyed, attitudes towards Americans, and so on. I wonder
where those folks were, because it's sure not the place that Dan Rather
is reporting about.

> And I'm conservative.

Yeah right.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:00:27 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
(I wrote, but Jeff cut the attribution line, ...)
>>
>> More to the point, why does he wait until 5 weeks before the election
>> to complain about it? Obviously not to solve anything, if that was the
>> goal he would have cared a year or three ago.
>
> He said why he wrote the editorial.
> The only hope we have now is to focus as much light, public scrutiny, on the
> Florida election as we can.

And why did he wait until now, 5 weeks before the election, to care about
it?

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:55:22 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>
> > The principle of your attack on me, while not valid, is applicable to
you.
> > If Kerry wins, you will fault me if I don't criticize the election, and
> > you will certainly fault me if I do.
>
> It's not an attack on you, just the facts since you have already
> predetermined that if Bush wins, you won't like the outcome and will
> stamp the preocess as "reeking". If Kerry wins and there were questionable
> election considerations and if you question the outcome of the election
> because of this, I will applaud you - but I know you are incapable of
> this. And no matter who wins, I won't whine about it.

If you think there was something wrong with the election, regardless of who
wins, you have an obligation as a citizen to voice your concern. The
electoral process is key to democracy. Electoral corruption is
anti-America.

Characterizing me as "incapable.." and "whining" is a pathetic bit of ad
hominem fallacy, the typical last resort of assholes when they can no longer
argue on merit.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> Now, what are you going to do if Kerry carries Florida by a landslide and
> loses everywhere else?

Question my sanity.

Oh, and if the election was corrupt, anywhere, I'm going to voice my
concern, as I hope you will too.

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1096430741.EEz959WYeZzwK43CnbbL0g@teranews...
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:06 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever
they
> > >> can.
> > >
> > >You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a
damn
> > >about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
> > >
> > >All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> > >overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
> > >Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> > >*least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.
> > >
> > >Jeff Harper
> > >Tampa, FL
> > >
> >
> > OK Jeff, where is your outrage over the dead people registering to
vote
> > in Ohio? Oh, they were going to vote democrat, so that's OK? Where is
> > your outrage over the attempt to get felons to vote? Or outrage at the
> > accounts of giving homeless people cigarettes and food in return for
> > getting them to vote? Where is your outrage over the bussing in of
people
> > from mental homes who were "helped" to vote? You want as fair an
election
> > as possible? How about expressing outrage over the real accounts of
voter
> > fraud being perpetrated rather than feigned outrage over things that the
> > average person with an IQ above that of a turnip realizes would not
deter a
> > voter with even a modicum of initiative to get to the polls?
> >
>
> And to pile on, where is your outrage about Gore's people going to court
to stop the counting of the military vote?


What a spin! Katherine Harris had stopped counting all the other uncounted
ballots but continued to count the overseas military ballots after the
election because they were more Republican than Democrat.

Take a break from your right-wing talk shows.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

By this reasoning, Katherine Harris had no power over the election, no
important decisions, and Jeb Bush had no ability to influence her.


"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff,
>
> I posted to this discussion at another point in this thread, but please
> allow me to repeat a key point here in response to your post below. The
> Florida Constitution limits what the Governor of Florida can do to run an
> election. Under the Florida Constitution, Governor Bush does not have the
> authority to put any sort of overview or monitoring organization in
place.
> There is just the limited function of the Secretary of State. The county
> Supervisor of Elections, duly elected by each county's voters, run the
show.
>
> Each Supervisor of Elections determines the ballot format and layout, the
> location of polling places, the voting method and equipment, mailing and
> receiving absentee ballots, vote counting and security for his/her county.
> The Supervisor of Elections must report results to the state office on a
> schedule required by the State of Florida Constitution.
>
> Funding for the elections, including machines and personnel is provided by
> the state legislature.
>
> Thus, Governor Jeb Bush has little, if any "power" to influence an
election.
>
> Most of the election problems in the 2000 election publicized in the
> national media occurred in counties with Democratic Supervisors of
> Elections. Dade County (Miami), Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) and Palm
> Beach County (Boca Raton & West Palm Beach) had the most irregularities
and
> Al Gore and the Democrats challenged the election results that the
Democrats
> officials in those three counties were responsible for producing.
>
> Several months after the election, the highly partisan New York Times,
aided
> by others, did an independent audit of the election results. Three such
> independent, though partisan, audits with re-counts were completed and the
> results were all the same: Bush won, Gore lost.
>
> The stuff above is an overview of what happened in 2000.
>
> Now, my opinion: Democrats think there must be something crooked here
> because if they were in charge there would be. The Democrats that I have
> talked to wanted to win so bad, that when they didn't, they believed there
> must be something wrong! I grew up in Chicago with the first Mayor Daley.
> I understand crooked elections, I just don't like them. But I sure didn't
> see crooked elections in Florida
>
> Well, its time to get back to my shop and make some sawdust.
>
> thanks for listening,
>
> John Flatley
> Jacksonville, Florida
>
> --
> Some folks are wise and some are otherwise.
>
>
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever
> they
> > > can.
> >
> > You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a
> damn
> > about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
> >
> > All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> > overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
> > Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> > *least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.
> >
> > Jeff Harper
> > Tampa, FL
> >
> >
>
>

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:00:27 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> (I wrote, but Jeff cut the attribution line, ...)
> >>
> >> More to the point, why does he wait until 5 weeks before the election
> >> to complain about it? Obviously not to solve anything, if that was the
> >> goal he would have cared a year or three ago.
> >
> > He said why he wrote the editorial.
> > The only hope we have now is to focus as much light, public scrutiny, on
the
> > Florida election as we can.
>
> And why did he wait until now, 5 weeks before the election, to care about
> it?

He didn't. At the request of Congress he and others made numerous
suggestions after the first election scandal. Jeb Bush and the Republican
Florida legislature did not implement most of them.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> >What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
> >impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
> >confidence in our government's integrity?
> >
>
> Your postings indicate that the only things that would meet this
criteria
> would be 1) declare Gore the winner, regardless of the real outcome of the
> votes and 2) declare Kerry the winner now, he's going to win anyway and if
> he doesn't, the election will obviously have been rigged, so in order to
> assure the integrity of our process, just avoid having the election and
> declare the rightful winner to be Kerry.

How can I argue with that? You're a fucking moron.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't mind a disagreement, but I despise a deception. Don't pretend to
> be something you aren't. You started off by going down the entire litany
> of the Democrat talking points, and finished up by claiming to be just a
> little old conservative. Deception, obfuscation and changing the subject
> identify you for who you really are.

Can't stick to merits of the argument, can you? Have to make it about the
poster.

> Good God, where have you been. Shipping spoiled meat to soldiers,
> charging for services not actually rendered, overcharging 60M for fuel
> used in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Doing business with Iran through a subsidary corporation, even though
> US law prohibits it.
>
> And contracts to Halliburton were NOT awarded in the conventional
> sense of having won an open bid. They were gifts - they were awarded
> no-bid contracts.
>
> And as Cheney continues to recieve deferred benefits from Halliburton,
> is he above scrutiny?
>

And Halliburton got the contracts without competitive bidding.

But you know the group of Bushies who post en masse to threads like these
will ignore and dismiss the facts. They have an agenda and aren't concerned
with truth and reason.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> IMHO, Fox News leans to the right, which is a small counterbalance to the
> rest of the mainstream media.


Have you watched Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" the TROLL, wrote in message
>
> > Characterizing me as "incapable.." and "whining" is a pathetic bit of ad
> > hominem fallacy, the typical last resort of assholes when they can no
> longer
> > argue on merit.
> >
> > Jeff Harper
> > Tampa, FL
>
> What you are is a TROLL who has NEVER posted an on-topic message in this
> forum.

Another ad hominem fallacy. Good job, Wingnut.

You got me, I responded to a political post with what?..a political post.
LOL

Moron.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> > And Halliburton got the contracts without competitive bidding.
>
> Please name two or three other US companies that were in aposition to
> perform the work. Halibutron already had a GSA schedule in place.

That's the standard laughable factually-incorrect perversion of reason:
"there were no other companies capable, so there was no reason to open the
bidding."

Moron.

The scandal about the no-bid Halliburton contracts first hit the papers in
the UK and Australia, BECAUSE they had companies capable of performing the
work and able to implement quickly. They were our allies, they had some
troops there, and much of the money to pay for the operations was to come
from Iraq oil.

Forgetting that. I used to bid government contracts and I know that if
there were in fact no other competent companies (which there were both in
the U.S. and abroad), there would be no harm at all in opening the jobs for
bidding.

If the companies couldn't meet the terms of the contract, they wouldn't be
given the bid. And the company that did get awarded the bid would have
received it in a legitimate fashion.

What happened instead was corrupt.

Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a million
dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.

How stupid are you people? How prepared are you to ignore blatant
corruption?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> >Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a
million
> >dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.
>
> Cite, please...

Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from October 1995 to August 2000. He
continues to receive compensation from the company to the tune of $147,579
dollars in 2001, $162, 392 in 2002 and $178,437 in 2003.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004H.shtml

Pentagon no-bid contracts favor select few
..Vice President Dick Cheney is still on Halliburton's payroll, and that
many other top-level officials have previously worked in the sector and may
return there after the end of their political careers.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=9817

"Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6029943/

"Rigged from the Beginning": Once secret Halliburton oil contract rakes in
billions long after Army said work would be competitively bid
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11560

> > That's the standard laughable factually-incorrect perversion of reason:
> > "there were no other companies capable, so there was no reason to open
the
> > bidding."

>
> So, you admit defeat and resort to name calling. I knew you weren't up to
> the challenge.

Uh huh. Another fallacious argument. Just because I'm not familiar with
the all the capable companies internationally doesn't mean there are none.

Where do you get your news, right-wing talk shows?

The U.S. Army seems to think there are other companies that can do the job.


HALLIBURTON WEIGHS OPTIONS ON BIDDING FOR IRAQ WORK

By SIMON ROMERO (NYT) words
Late Edition - Final , Section C , Page 3 , Column 1

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF WORDS - The Halliburton Company signaled on Tuesday
that it might try to reduce its role as the largest private contractor in
Iraq after learning that the Army planned to break apart its largest
contract in the country to attract other companies to bid for the ...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C1EFA3D540C7B8CDDA00894DC404482


Army to Rebid Part of Iraq Contract
Competitive Process Planned for Some of Halliburton's Work
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page E03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Sep7.html

"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote in message
news:is%6d.8020$r%4.7897@trndny05...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:47:24 GMT, Gary <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> ranted in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >> Moron.
> >>
> >>
> >> What happened instead was corrupt.
> >>
> >> Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a
> > million
> >> dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.
> >>
> > You are correct that Cheney got a million bonus, but incorrect on the
facts
> > (why does that surprise me???). Cheney received a bonus from brokering
the
> > Dresser merger.
> >
>
> And the reason he's "Still being paid" is because the bonus would have
> cost him taxes had it been taken in a lump sum. So he arranged to have
> it paid over several years.

Yes, correct. Still, there's the appearance of impropriety. Awarding
multi-billion dollar contracts to the company he was CEO of until recently
and received a million dollar bonus from upon stepping down to become VP.

And the appearance of impropriety could have been easily avoided by allowing
other companies to bid.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:M9%[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> ranted in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Moron.
> >
> >
> > What happened instead was corrupt.
> >
> > Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a
> million
> > dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.
> >
> You are correct that Cheney got a million bonus, but incorrect on the
facts
> (why does that surprise me???). Cheney received a bonus from brokering
the
> Dresser merger.
>
>
> > How stupid are you people? How prepared are you to ignore blatant
> > corruption?
>
> Using your argument, the ex CEO of Dresser must be the one we need to
seek.
> He received a 2 million bonus for the merger, and the guy under him got 1
> million. And neither were employed after the merger. The same merger
that
> almost brought the company to it's knees.


Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from October 1995 to August 2000. He
continues to receive compensation from the company to the tune of $147,579
dollars in 2001, $162, 392 in 2002 and $178,437 in 2003.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004H.shtml

> > > IMHO, Fox News leans to the right, which is a small counterbalance to
> the
> > > rest of the mainstream media.
> >
> >
> > Have you watched Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism?
>
> No, I haven't. But then, unless Dora the Explorer, Dragon Tales, or the
> Cubs are on, I don't get to watch much else. Apparently, the gist of the
> piece is that Fox leans conservative. That isn't news to me. IMO,
they're
> a small counterbalance against the network news programs who have way more
> viewership. I think I'm safe in saying that their most popular program is
> Hannity and Colmes. So, unless Alan Colmes is a secret Republican
> operative, their flagship program is balanced.

Fox takes their news from White House press release talking points.

The news portions of their news network have 83% conservative guests.

The people from the left they have on are almost always no-names and are
almost always light-weights, comparitively speaking. Colmes for example is
a joke.

Watch the movie. Fox is not journalism.

> "Appearance of Impropriety" is a ruse by those who don't actually
> believe in moral absolutes.

No. Leaders are supposed to inspire confidence. For example, the voters in
Florida had no confidence in having the co-chair of Bush's campaign in
charge of the election.

When the administration give out billions of dollars to known cronies
without open bidding, they are hurting the nation, even if there didn't
happen to be anything crooked.


> Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton does
> yet?
>

The British and Australians first broke the story, because their capable
companies were not allowed to be considered, despite the fact that they were
part of the coalition and despite the fact that much of the payment was
going to come from Iraqi oil revenue.

I don't know the names of the UK, Aussie, and US companies because I'm not
very familiar with companies in that field. Me being unable to name them
off the top of my head proves nothing. You're argument that it does is
fallacious.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> >Me being unable to name them
> >off the top of my head proves nothing.
>
> Of course it does -- it proves that you're unable to back up your claims.
Not
> that anyone expected anything different from you...

Uh huh. Your reasoning is a solid as ever. If I couldn't tell you the
latin name for the house sparrow, you'd say it had none.

Oh, and about the "not that anyone expected anything different from you"..
Look who's slipping into insults right off the bat.


>
> >You're argument that it does is fallacious.
>
> That should be "your", not "you're".

Hey! You're right about something.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> So it was okay for Clinton to give them the contract, but not for the
> contract to continue into the next administration, because Cheny is the
> Antichrist and Bush is his mindless minion. Got it.

Woah! Talk about spin and putting words into my mouth.


> >> Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton does
> >> yet?
> >>
> >
> > The British and Australians first broke the story, because their capable
> > companies were not allowed to be considered, despite the fact that they
were
> > part of the coalition and despite the fact that much of the payment was
> > going to come from Iraqi oil revenue.
> >
>
> So you keep saying.
>
> My understanding is that the only company the size of HB is a German
> firm. Do you know the names of the Aussie and British concerns?

I know that the Army is now breaking up HB's largest contract and awarding
it to bidders.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> > > "Appearance of Impropriety" is a ruse by those who don't actually
> > > believe in moral absolutes.
> >
> >
> > When the administration give out billions of dollars to known cronies
> > without open bidding, they are hurting the nation, even if there didn't
> > happen to be anything crooked.
> >
> You need to educate yourself a little bit before making all of these
> statements. All of those papers you claim to read did have articles about
> how the contract was awarded, the process and who was privy, etc. I guess
> it really doesn't matter unless someone knowing even less than you would
> belief some of your irrational thoughts and ramblings!

I need to educate myself? Why? Because you say so?

From my perspective *you* need to learn to reason AND you need to educate
yourself.


> > > Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton
does
> > > yet?
> > >
> >
> I challenged you on this as well. You are quick to state Halliburton
should
> not have been given the contract, other companies existed, but you have
yet
> to name just one. If you are up to the challenge, I'm still waiting. Oh,
> and don't go naming one that can only handle 5% of the contract either!

You want me to give you the names of companies that would have bid if
bidding had been open?

There's a flaw in your assumption that if I can't give you the names, no
such companies exist.

If I can't tell you the name of your dog, does that mean you don't have a
dog?

Will it be enough if I tell you that the Army is rescinding Halliburton's
largest contract and giving it to bidders?



>
> >
> > I don't know the names of the UK, Aussie, and US companies because I'm
not
> > very familiar with companies in that field. Me being unable to name
them
> > off the top of my head proves nothing. You're argument that it does is
> > fallacious.
> Yes, it proves everything. You stand on top of the mountain proclaiming
to
> all look at the corruption, anti Halliburton, anti administration,
> _claiming_ how well read you are with the dozen of newspaper each day, yet
> when challenged, your arguments crumble! I guess it's about time for you
to
> start name calling again, isn't it?


I "stand on top of a mountain proclaiming.."? Please. I said that there
was the appearance of impropriety, whether or not there actually was
impropriety. I said that appearance could have been easily avoided if there
had been open bidding.

By the way, you are confused. I NEVER said I read even one newspaper a
year, much less a dozen a day.

(It will be slightly interesting to see if you own up to that mistake.)

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here is where I differ from you. I _did_ mistakenly take you for another
> poster and _can_ acknowledge that fact. I can even say oops, sorry. :)
>
>

Here's where you differ from me? That's some apology; you should be proud.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Gary said:

><Greg G.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
>
>A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
>would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear to
>be the case.

Your opinion. At least I don't sit in front of the talking heads on
Faux News and accept their notorious lies and BS as fact.

>> Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers through graft and corruption...
>> What, to the same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton
>
>Where is your evidence on this so called corruption? Do you personally
>_know_ any of the "thieves" that run Halliburton? How can you so adamantly
>make such a statement? Oh wait - if Kerry and a few dems say it (during an
>election year), then it _must_ be true! Right? This is what cracks me up.
>Halliburton has provided services to the government for decades, being
>awarded contracts while either party resided in the White House. But there
>_must_ be a conspiracy because Cheney was top dog at Halliburton for a few
>years.

Good God, where have you been. Shipping spoiled meat to soldiers,
charging for services not actually rendered, overcharging 60M for fuel
used in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

Doing business with Iran through a subsidary corporation, even though
US law prohibits it.

And contracts to Halliburton were NOT awarded in the conventional
sense of having won an open bid. They were gifts - they were awarded
no-bid contracts.

And as Cheney continues to recieve deferred benefits from Halliburton,
is he above scrutiny?

I guess in your mind Lay and Enron is a model company for corporate
America.

I haven't heard Kerry or any other "Dem" say one thing or another
concerning Halliburton - or anything else of merit either.

>Where is your evidence on this so called corruption?

Reports in the the NYT, LAT, WP, WT, BBC, Greg Palast, Atlanta
Journal, Indianapolis Star, Sarasota Times, etc.

>Halliburton would pack-up and leave Iraq, let the dems find an answer (good
>luck finding a better replacement), except it would leave our troops in a
>mess!

Well, they could do as they have done for decades, and run their own
messes and cook their own food. At least taxpayers wouldn't be
charged for spoiled meat and meals that were never provided. It's
that privatization thing again - Greed run amock.


Greg G.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> > > international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> > > for a fair election are missing in Florida."
>
> > > Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> > > electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> > > process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
>
> > > He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> > > Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> > > Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."
>
> > > He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> > > "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> > > treatment."
>
> Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
>
> Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organization
to
> conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.

We already know Carter is a partisan with a personal preference for a Kerry
win. So why should we care what he has to say on the subject?

> This election reeks to high heaven.
>
> As did the last one. Katherine Harris was co-chair of the commitee to
elect
> Bush Jr. in Florida. She should have recused herself as Bob Butterworth
> did.

And you think that would have changed the outcome? If so, I'll send you a
dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide recount.
Unfortunately, that wasn't what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a
selective recount of only heavily-Democrat districts. Simply put, they
wanted to count the ballots as many times as it took until Gore won. The
Supreme Court put a stop to it. Now, if we can start ignoring Supreme Court
decisions, I have a long list I'd like to start with.

todd

> Jeff Harper
> Tampa, FL

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
>> >
>> > Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official
>> > organization to conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's
> not.
>
>> Prove that there is.
>
> Uh, that's what I'm asking you to do.

Type O. Probe that there is not.

where is the OT?
personally I can't wait till the elections are over and everyone shuts up
and deals with 4 more years of Bush

Florida Patriot wrote:

> President Jimmy Carter had the following to say (CNN):
>
> Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> for a fair election are missing in Florida."
>
> Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
>
> He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."
>
> He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> treatment."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/carter.florida.ap/index.html

Swingman said:

><Greg G.> wrote in message
>
>> Look, a voting booth is not rocket science. Industrial 386 controller
>> boards could be used with UNIX and encryped SECURE results be
>> transmitted for MUCH less per machine.
>
>But ... you gotta build in enough to pay for the lawyers and swimming pool
>chemicals for top management.

Yea, I guess so. But the current crop of machines are ridiculously
insecure - at ANY price. And do YOU really want Bill's WunderOS
determining the fate of the free world? ;-)


Greg G.

Mark & Juanita said:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:49:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you see monkeys at the voting booth beware that democracy is being
>>hijacked!
>>
>>http://www.engadget.com/entry/3622842205228263/
>>
>
> Gee mp, what a racist statement. Particularly in light of various areas
>of the country bussing in mentally retarded and "helping" them vote, or the
>efforts to get felons to vote. Not to mention the 25-year dead folks in
>Ohio who have recently registered to vote.

Monkeys Racist? I missed something...

Looked like another humorous but valid demonstration of Diebold's
ridiculous, insecure, overpriced voting booths being exposed as the
complete sham they are.

Let's see... MS Access, Micro$oft Windoze and no security, no
passwords, built-in back-doors, etc. Looks like a winner to me.. NOT!

FWIW, I program in M$ Access on M$ Servers. I design embedded PIC
microcontroller devices. I've seen portions of the crap code they are
using... Beginner level programming by inexperienced greedmongers.

Look, a voting booth is not rocket science. Industrial 386 controller
boards could be used with UNIX and encryped SECURE results be
transmitted for MUCH less per machine. Even simpler embedded
controllers could even be used. The use of MS Windoze and Access is a
huge mistake, and was simply a way to get a product containing
technology they don't even understand to market quickly in order to
cash in on the taxpayer porkbarrel.

But if you want to hear about Racism, how about the Florida State
Patrol harrassing black democratic voters and elderly transportation
efforts - door to door.

This is the most pathetic election year ever - I hate them both - but
Bush has to go - before I am arrested for not signing my oath of
loyalty or speaking my opinion in public.

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

"If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
--Joseph Goebbel, Hitler's Minister of propoganda.

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

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he
can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor
in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.

But it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along to fight a
war, ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 Man


Laugh if you may, but we are steadily progressing towards a
totalitarian society - guided, if you will, by the overlords of Evil.
World Banks, a cashless society, national IDs, and a New World
Order... a phrase that Bush Sr. and Jr. have both uttered...
These are, in fact, scarey times for anyone who believes in the
sanctity of the Constitution and individual freedoms.



Greg G.

Todd Fatheree foamed at the mouth and spewed forth the following
drivel:

>dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
>news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide recount.

I hate to interrupt your BushFest with facts, but...

This is completely in error. The Tampa Bay Tribune published a
selective recount result that was parroted throughout the press.

Many recounts done by the media have shown otherwise.
Admittedly the results tend to weigh in favor of the partisanship of
the publisher, so it just goes to show how close a race it was.

I'll give you a dollar so you can buy a real newspaper and read it.
Rush Limberger and Faux news are not "fair and balanced" - you stand a
better chance of getting the facts watching the Daily Show with Jon
Stewart. (A comedy program with more balls than most news broadcasters
seem to possess these days.)

I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day. Foreign press as
well as the yellow stuff here - and they are NOT telling you the
complete truth. The current administration will not let them - Dan
Rather even proclaimed his exasperation at the electronic Berlin Wall"
than now surrounds this administration to the British Press, but you
won't hear a peep out of here - he doesn't want be removed from the
White House "Christmas Card List."

And Boy, the Supreme Court did us a real favor! Record deficits, a
nation despised and ridiculed in the world's eyes, a quagmire know as
Iraq that shows no sign of "Mission Accomplished", Osama Bin Laudin on
the loose and seemingly ignored by the White House, record job
migration, corporate scandal, Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers
through graft and corruption...

And they want to privatize social security and medicare? What, to the
same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton, DBT/Choice Point, Diebold
or Enron? (All HUGE campaign contributors.) No Thanks!

What an administration.
Dark Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rove are the true Axis of Evil.
Not ONE of these ChickenHawks ever served a day in ANY war, and all
but (possibly) one totally avoided service altogether. This makes
them real experts on the planning and execution of war.

They ignored seasoned advice from their own Generals on troop levels
needed to properly execute the "War on Iraq". They rebuffed said
Generals when they went public. They constantly ignore the truth
about the progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq - instead choosing to
attempt to buffalo the public by claiming "all is well and proceeding
as planned." Then parade that shill Ayad Allawi in front of the press
to propagate more lies.

Ask a foreign news correspondent or photographer how it's going...
Not well at all. Where are all the flowers being thrown at the
liberators feet? A shell from an AK-47 hardly constitutes a shower of
rose petals.

And I'm conservative.
As I said before - they all suck!

>todd
>
>> Jeff Harper
>> Tampa, FL


Greg G.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Ace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:iX46d.271491$mD.190911@attbi_s02...
> > What does the peanut man know? All he knows how to do is swing a hammer.
> > One thing I give him credit for is I was able to make a ton of money off
> > of
> > my savings cd's at 15% plus interest while he was President.
>
> The problem with that thinking thought is that while you earned 15%
> interest, Inflation was greater and it cost you that 15% +. You really
> actually lost money in the long run, though not as much had you not invested
> in those CD's.

Unless of course you bought 30 year non-callable municipal bonds back
then and are still earning 10%, non-taxable, AAA rated, (mom's account
doesn't have many of these left, but I gotta give dad credit for
buying while rates were high and holding to maturity).

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:34:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:


>The interesting thing is that if Kerry happens to win in Florida, you'll
>be saying how the election was fair and should not be questioned.
>
>-Doug

After Thursday night - it won't really matter.


What's the Vegas line on this debate, anyways?



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree said:
>
> ><Greg G.> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> I'll give you a dollar so you can buy a real newspaper and read it.
> >> Rush Limberger and Faux news are not "fair and balanced" - you stand a
> >> better chance of getting the facts watching the Daily Show with Jon
> >> Stewart. (A comedy program with more balls than most news broadcasters
> >> seem to possess these days.)
> >
> >You're kidding me! Rush isn't "fair and balanced"? I would have never
> >known.
>
> Sarcasm... that's a good sign. Now fess up and admit that Fox is
> partisan as well, and we'll be making real headway... ;-)

IMHO, Fox News leans to the right, which is a small counterbalance to the
rest of the mainstream media.

> >Excellent parroting of the liberal press. I especially liked the
"quagmire"
> >comment. Can't mention Iraq without throwing in "quagmire". You can
thank
> >Clinton for Bin Laden being loose if, in fact, he is still alive. And
Enron
> >was in major existence between 1986 and 2001. Now...who was President
> >during about half that time?
>
> Excellent parroting of the neo-con press.

Sorry. Just trying to inject some facts. Fact: Clinton was offered Bin
Laden by Sudan and turned him down. Fact: the Clinton administration could
have exercised oversight over Enron's activities, but failed to do so.

> I extracted the quagmire response from the RNC when a reporter tried
> to question an attendee about the "quagmire" of Iraq and the
> interviewee terminated the interview and walked off. Classy response.
>
> >You can thank
> >Clinton for Bin Laden being loose if, in fact, he is still alive. And
Enron
> >was in major existence between 1986 and 2001. Now...who was President
> >during about half that time?
>
> Excellent parroting of the neo-con press.

I don't know why you felt the need to quote me twice. See above.

> And I can thank Bush, Sr. and Reagan for Saddam and his accumulation
> of money and weapons that were used on the Kurds and everyone else in
> spitting distance. And I can thank the same administrations and the
> CIA for dealing under the table and providing training, weapons and
> money to Bin Laden.
>
> And how is Clinton responsible for our sudden abandonment of the
> "Quest for Bin Laden" and going after Iraq instead. There is and has
> never been ANY CONNECTION between Bin Laden and Saddam.

This is patently false. You'd have a better time arguing that the
connections weren't enough to warrant concern, but there were definitely
interactions of one kind or another. Meetings between the Mukhabarat and an
al-Qa'eda envoy come to mind.

> And I believe Bin Laden wasn't wanted by the FBI when Clinton
> allegedly refused custody.

That was Clinton's mistake...thinking of terrorists as potential indictees
instead of enemy soldiers. They had already declared war on us.

> And what did Clinton have to do with Enron? Did Enron contribute to
> Clinton? I think not. Did Clinton provide favors to Enron?

As a matter of fact, Enron did contribute to Clinton. Did Clinton provide
favors to Enron? According to commoncause.org, "In 1994, the
Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3
billion Enron-controlled power plant in India. President Clinton took an
interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his
former chief of staff, Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, then a presidential
adviser, to monitor the proposal. Mr. McLarty - who was later hired by
Enron- spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996,
four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, the
Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party".

and

"The Clinton administration threatened to cut Mozambique's aid in 1995 if
the world's poorest country did not award a pipeline contract to Enron"

> >You're right. Much better that the government steals the money. But
hey, I
> >don't want to privatize Social Security. I want it to go away.
>
> So what are you going to retire on?

My savings.

> Are you wealthy?

No, but I'd be a lot closer to it if I had the 15.3% of my income that the
government is confiscating.

> Are you
> depending on your pension plan at work? The one that will vaporize
> like so many others before you ever get your hands on it? Or do you
> have the self-control to save relentlessly in order to plan for your
> own retirement? If so, congratulations! You're doing what millions
> can't do - the reason SS was implemented in the first place.

Actually, I'm doing what millions *won't* do. Why should they, when the
nanny state will take care of them?

> And what of the millions of elderly who depend on SS, after paying
> into SS for decades?

Let them stay on it. Phase it out gradually. Or just let me off. I'll
even make a deal. Keep the roughly $120,000 (not adjusted for inflation)
that has been paid in on my behalf in the past 14 years. Just let me keep
the 7.65% that I pay in now and I'll do better than the government will dole
out. Don't forget that the current new retirees were contributing less than
one-third what I pay in now when they started paying into the system.
Basically, they're getting a sweetheart deal, and I'm paying extra to cover
all the increased benefits. Charles Ponzi would be proud.

> But go away it will, if Bush has his way... straight into the pockets
> of his best campaign contributors.

I guess you prefer that it disappears into the black hole that is the
federal bureaucracy.

> >> What an administration.
> >> Dark Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rove are the true Axis of Evil.
> >
> >That's a bit over the top. You might want to try turning up the lithium.
>
> Hardly. Neo-con playbook Page 2 - Resort to ad homenim attacks when
> presented by an opposing opinion.

And I guess describing the current administration as the "Axis of Evil" is
not an ad hominem attack?
Give the hyperbole a rest.

> >By the same standard, I'm betting you've never spent any time at all in a
> >presidential administration. Which makes you completely unqualified to
> >comment on it.
>
> And you have? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm using your own standard. Since Bush and Cheney didn't see action,
they're unqualified to run the war, according to your expert opinion. I'm
applying your own standard to your statements. Since you've never served in
a presidential administration, you must not be qualified to comment on it.
This is your standard, not mine.

You can have the last word. I don't have the free time that you do to write
1000-word dissertations.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't know the names of the UK, Aussie, and US companies because I'm not
>very familiar with companies in that field.

Yet that didn't stop you from confidently stating that such companies existed.

>Me being unable to name them
>off the top of my head proves nothing.

Of course it does -- it proves that you're unable to back up your claims. Not
that anyone expected anything different from you...

>You're argument that it does is fallacious.

That should be "your", not "you're".


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Jeff,

You almost got it. Just drop the absolutes.

Secretary of State Katherine Harris and her successor, Glenda Hood, have
very limited authority (power) over the election process and almost no
authority over the Supervisors of Elections. The Secretary of State does
report to Governor Bush.

The county Supervisors of Elections run the bits and bytes of elections and
they only report to the electorate. They can be taken out of their job by
the Governor for malfeasance and misfeasance in office, but not for the way
they run an election.

A case in point: The Supervisor of Elections in Broward County, a Democrat,
was removed from office after the 2002 election. I think her name was
Oliphant (sp). She mis-handled and lost completed ballots. She failed to
open some precincts on time. She kept other precincts open after the legal
closing time. Even the Democrats complained. Loudly! Governor Bush's
hands were tied until she misused state funds! When she misused state
funds, the Governor could then remove her from office. Last I heard she was
planning to run again in the next election.

The Supervisors of Elections are in charge! In the upcoming election, some
counties will use video touch screens, some will use optical scanners, some
will use punch cards. Whatever voting mechanism is used, I hope the voters
will be smart enough to make their vote count.

Jack Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida


--
Some folks are wise and some are otherwise.
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> By this reasoning, Katherine Harris had no power over the election, no
> important decisions, and Jeb Bush had no ability to influence her.
>
>
> "John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jeff,
> >
> > I posted to this discussion at another point in this thread, but please
> > allow me to repeat a key point here in response to your post below. The
> > Florida Constitution limits what the Governor of Florida can do to run
an
> > election. Under the Florida Constitution, Governor Bush does not have
the
> > authority to put any sort of overview or monitoring organization in
> place.
> > There is just the limited function of the Secretary of State. The
county
> > Supervisor of Elections, duly elected by each county's voters, run the
> show.
> >
> > Each Supervisor of Elections determines the ballot format and layout,
the
> > location of polling places, the voting method and equipment, mailing and
> > receiving absentee ballots, vote counting and security for his/her
county.
> > The Supervisor of Elections must report results to the state office on a
> > schedule required by the State of Florida Constitution.
> >
> > Funding for the elections, including machines and personnel is provided
by
> > the state legislature.
> >
> > Thus, Governor Jeb Bush has little, if any "power" to influence an
> election.
> >
> > Most of the election problems in the 2000 election publicized in the
> > national media occurred in counties with Democratic Supervisors of
> > Elections. Dade County (Miami), Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) and
Palm
> > Beach County (Boca Raton & West Palm Beach) had the most irregularities
> and
> > Al Gore and the Democrats challenged the election results that the
> Democrats
> > officials in those three counties were responsible for producing.
> >
> > Several months after the election, the highly partisan New York Times,
> aided
> > by others, did an independent audit of the election results. Three such
> > independent, though partisan, audits with re-counts were completed and
the
> > results were all the same: Bush won, Gore lost.
> >
> > The stuff above is an overview of what happened in 2000.
> >
> > Now, my opinion: Democrats think there must be something crooked here
> > because if they were in charge there would be. The Democrats that I
have
> > talked to wanted to win so bad, that when they didn't, they believed
there
> > must be something wrong! I grew up in Chicago with the first Mayor
Daley.
> > I understand crooked elections, I just don't like them. But I sure
didn't
> > see crooked elections in Florida
> >
> > Well, its time to get back to my shop and make some sawdust.
> >
> > thanks for listening,
> >
> > John Flatley
> > Jacksonville, Florida
> >
> > --
> > Some folks are wise and some are otherwise.
> >
> >
> > "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever
> > they
> > > > can.
> > >
> > > You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a
> > damn
> > > about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
> > >
> > > All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> > > overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by
one
> > > Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> > > *least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross
impropriety.
> > >
> > > Jeff Harper
> > > Tampa, FL
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Greg G foamed at the mouth and spewed forth the following drivel (to quote
you):
>
>
> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.

A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear to
be the case.

> Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers through graft and corruption...
> What, to the same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton

Where is your evidence on this so called corruption? Do you personally
_know_ any of the "thieves" that run Halliburton? How can you so adamantly
make such a statement? Oh wait - if Kerry and a few dems say it (during an
election year), then it _must_ be true! Right? This is what cracks me up.
Halliburton has provided services to the government for decades, being
awarded contracts while either party resided in the White House. But there
_must_ be a conspiracy because Cheney was top dog at Halliburton for a few
years.

The sad fact is Halliburton _makes_ one (1) percent off of documented
invoices, and if the auditing government agency finds all in order,
Halliburton _may_ be eligible for a 1 or 2 percent bonus. This is such
_lucrative_ work, that must be why Halliburton wants to rid itself of the
KBR construction side of the business (pre Iraq war). Oh, lest we forget,
Cheney was instrumental in bringing the Dresser and Halliburton merger
about - the same one that almost bankrupted the company. Yes, I bet
Halliburton really benefitted from the Cheney years! I for one wish
Halliburton would pack-up and leave Iraq, let the dems find an answer (good
luck finding a better replacement), except it would leave our troops in a
mess!

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Gary said:
>
>><Greg G.> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
>>
>>A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
>>would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear to
>>be the case.
>
>Your opinion. At least I don't sit in front of the talking heads on
>Faux News and accept their notorious lies and BS as fact.

So which talking heads _do_ you listen to? Dan Rather?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Yea, I guess so. But the current crop of machines are ridiculously
>insecure - at ANY price. And do YOU really want Bill's WunderOS
>determining the fate of the free world? ;-)
>
Four years ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article suggesting that there's
already a widely accepted, easily-used, secure technology in place that could
easily be adapted to provide secure voting: ATMs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

>And then there are the editorial pages and
>cartoons that always differ from source to source.

Now there are two unimpeachable sources of news, eh? (Using the Dan Rather
definition of "unimpeachable" of course).)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > And Halliburton got the contracts without competitive bidding.
> >
> > Please name two or three other US companies that were in aposition to
> > perform the work. Halibutron already had a GSA schedule in place.
>
> That's the standard laughable factually-incorrect perversion of reason:
> "there were no other companies capable, so there was no reason to open the
> bidding."
>
> Moron.

So, you admit defeat and resort to name calling. I knew you weren't up to
the challenge.

>
> The scandal about the no-bid Halliburton contracts first hit the papers in
> the UK and Australia, BECAUSE they had companies capable of performing the
> work and able to implement quickly. They were our allies, they had some
> troops there, and much of the money to pay for the operations was to come
> from Iraq oil.

So you admit you're inability to name a single US company who could have
done the work.

>
> Forgetting that. I used to bid government contracts and I know that if
> there were in fact no other competent companies (which there were both in
> the U.S. and abroad), there would be no harm at all in opening the jobs
for
> bidding.
>
> If the companies couldn't meet the terms of the contract, they wouldn't be
> given the bid. And the company that did get awarded the bid would have
> received it in a legitimate fashion.
>

If you did understand government procurement as it relates to a competative
bid process, you would also know that from start of the drafting of the
inquiry and solicitation documents thru award of contract would take 6
months minimum, more like a year. If the administration did that you would
be screaming that they took too long.

> What happened instead was corrupt.

Not at all corrupt. It happens all of the time. It happens all of the time
under both republican and democratic administrations. Again, I challenge
you to name two or three other US companies that were capable of bothe
performing the work AND mobilizing to accomplish it.

>
> Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a
million
> dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.
>

All of his investments are in a blind trust that he does not control. Your
suggestion that the US went to war to line Cheney's pockets proves, beyond a
shadow of a doubt that you, indeed, are the MORON.

> How stupid are you people? How prepared are you to ignore blatant
> corruption?
>
> Jeff Harper

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> Can't stick to merits of the argument, can you? Have to make it about the
> poster.
>
No Jeffery, I did stick to the merits of the argument. The other poster
quit defending his position and stated he wasn't going to make any more off
topic posts, then turned around less than 24 hours later and did. Are you
his big brother? I don't know why you would even have to comment on my
post!

HOWEVER, reading some of your replies during the past few minutes, I saw you
spiral right down from objecting to others positions, to start name calling,
then resort to some vulgar name calling. Sad really! Seems like you have
those ten cigars stuck somewhere painful!!! :) Have a nice day....

GH

<Greg G.> wrote in message

> Look, a voting booth is not rocket science. Industrial 386 controller
> boards could be used with UNIX and encryped SECURE results be
> transmitted for MUCH less per machine.

But ... you gotta build in enough to pay for the lawyers and swimming pool
chemicals for top management.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Richard Clements" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> where is the OT?
> personally I can't wait till the elections are over and everyone shuts up
> and deals with 4 more years of Bush
>

Well, you are going to have to consider that _after_ the election, there
will be months of crying and angry posting by the losing party regarding all
of the ways they got cheated out of the election.

Here is an idea for the newsgroup. Perhaps all the dems can killfile the
republicans, and the republicans killfile the dems, which should result in
about 10 on-topic woodworking posts a day and no off-topic political
postings at all! Me things there ain't a whole lotta woodworking going on
these days.

The one thing I have determined is .... all the flaming by both parties on
the wRECk will not result in their _opponents_ views changing as far as this
newsgroup is concerned. I'm waiting for the "my dad can whup your dad"
line - sooner or later. :)

In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The scandal about the no-bid Halliburton contracts first hit the papers in
>the UK and Australia, BECAUSE they had companies capable of performing the
>work and able to implement quickly. They were our allies, they had some
>troops there, and much of the money to pay for the operations was to come
>from Iraq oil.
>
>Forgetting that. I used to bid government contracts and I know that if
>there were in fact no other competent companies (which there were both in
>the U.S. and abroad), there would be no harm at all in opening the jobs for
>bidding.

This is not correct.

Apparently any experience you might have with bidding government contracts is
from the bidder's perspective. I used to work for the Federal government, and
I can assure you that from the government's perspective there is indeed a
great deal of harm in opening a job for competitive bidding when there is in
fact only one vendor able to provide the product or service -- mostly in the
form of *huge* delays in awarding the contract. When any government contract
is put out for competitive bids, there is a time period mandated by law during
which the solicitation for bids must remain open. This time period varies,
depending on the type of contract and the dollar amount, but is *never* in my
experience less than 30 days. Ninety days is much more common, and even longer
periods are not unusual. No contract can be awarded until after the conclusion
of this period. The government procurement process is a slow and ponderous
beast. Competitive bidding makes it slower still.

>If the companies couldn't meet the terms of the contract, they wouldn't be
>given the bid. And the company that did get awarded the bid would have
>received it in a legitimate fashion.

True enough -- but it takes much, much longer to get a contract awarded in
this fashion, as opposed to awarding a sole-source noncompetitive contract. To
say that there is "no harm at all" in this delay is simply uninformed.
>
>What happened instead was corrupt.
>
>Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a million
>dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.

Cite, please...
>
>How stupid are you people? How prepared are you to ignore blatant
>corruption?

Tell me, were you this upset about the Clintons firing the entire White House
travel office staff? Talk about corrupt...

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> ranted in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Moron.
>
>
> What happened instead was corrupt.
>
> Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. When he stepped down, he was given a
million
> dollar bonus, which they are still paying him.
>
You are correct that Cheney got a million bonus, but incorrect on the facts
(why does that surprise me???). Cheney received a bonus from brokering the
Dresser merger.


> How stupid are you people? How prepared are you to ignore blatant
> corruption?

Using your argument, the ex CEO of Dresser must be the one we need to seek.
He received a 2 million bonus for the merger, and the guy under him got 1
million. And neither were employed after the merger. The same merger that
almost brought the company to it's knees.

And you are still hurling insults. Is this your standard response when you
can not argue on the merits, just start insulting instead!

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
> > >impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
> > >confidence in our government's integrity?
> > >
> >
> > Your postings indicate that the only things that would meet this
> criteria
> > would be 1) declare Gore the winner, regardless of the real outcome of the
> > votes and 2) declare Kerry the winner now, he's going to win anyway and if
> > he doesn't, the election will obviously have been rigged, so in order to
> > assure the integrity of our process, just avoid having the election and
> > declare the rightful winner to be Kerry.
>
> How can I argue with that? You're a fucking moron.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BZZZZZZZTTTTTT. You lose! Thanks for playing our game!

Rick

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:30:34 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:

So it was okay for Clinton to give them the contract, but not for the
contract to continue into the next administration, because Cheny is the
Antichrist and Bush is his mindless minion. Got it.

>
>> Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton does
>> yet?
>>
>
> The British and Australians first broke the story, because their capable
> companies were not allowed to be considered, despite the fact that they were
> part of the coalition and despite the fact that much of the payment was
> going to come from Iraqi oil revenue.
>

So you keep saying.

My understanding is that the only company the size of HB is a German
firm. Do you know the names of the Aussie and British concerns?

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> >> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
> >
> >A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
> >would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear
to
> >be the case.
>
> Your opinion. At least I don't sit in front of the talking heads on
> Faux News and accept their notorious lies and BS as fact.

Yep, that is my opinion, and remains my opinion. And I seriously doubt you
read a dozen newspapers each day. You insane ranting is an excellent
indicator. For the record, and your dismay, I don't watch Fox. I get more
amusement from listening to the likes of Dan Blather, and we all know he is
not biased!


> >> Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers through graft and corruption...
> >> What, to the same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton
> >
> >Where is your evidence on this so called corruption? Do you personally
> >_know_ any of the "thieves" that run Halliburton? How can you so
adamantly
> >make such a statement? Oh wait - if Kerry and a few dems say it (during
an
> >election year), then it _must_ be true! Right? This is what cracks me
up.
> >Halliburton has provided services to the government for decades, being
> >awarded contracts while either party resided in the White House. But
there
> >_must_ be a conspiracy because Cheney was top dog at Halliburton for a
few
> >years.
>
> Good God, where have you been. Shipping spoiled meat to soldiers,
> charging for services not actually rendered, overcharging 60M for fuel
> used in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

I've been right here. Own some Halliburton stock too! (No ketchup stock
though.) Which also means I have an interest in the ongoings of this
company, and monitor the news soruces for _any_ news, especially adverse.
The Army lower level auditors apparently did find (in their view) some
irregularities that they wanted reviewed. To date, I am not aware of any
sanctions or findings of corruption being levied against the company. If
the army auditors and counsel do determine overcharging occured then
Halliburton _should_ be fined in some manner. I think that would be totally
appropriate. The other small fact your overlook, Halliburton can _not_ and
does _not_ provide 100% of these services, they do have to rely on approved
and audited vendors and 3rd parties to fulfill these contracts, and as such,
said vendors are also approved by the army. Do you actually believe any
company can go into a frigging war zone and not encounter a problem with
supply? What about the 40 or so Halliburton employees / contractors you
have lost their lives doing a supply chain job during the last year?

>
> Doing business with Iran through a subsidary corporation, even though
> US law prohibits it.
>
> And contracts to Halliburton were NOT awarded in the conventional
> sense of having won an open bid. They were gifts - they were awarded
> no-bid contracts.

Were you present when these contracts were awarded? Gifts? What a joke!
Please enlighten me on just how lucrative these contracts are for
Halliburton? How many companies are out there that could handle this
undertaking? Can you name just one?


> And as Cheney continues to recieve deferred benefits from Halliburton,
> is he above scrutiny?

That is not contested. He has deferred benefits, as has others - both dem
or repub, in past times. He also had to turn over total control of any said
investments prior to taking office. But you are grasping here trying to
connect the dots. You should read up about Cheney's deferments before
spewing.

>
> I guess in your mind Lay and Enron is a model company for corporate
> America.

No, I haven't mentioned Lay and Enron. However, much of what Enron
_accomplished_ was done on Clinton's watch. Correct? Is (was) Enron your
model company?


> I haven't heard Kerry or any other "Dem" say one thing or another
> concerning Halliburton - or anything else of merit either.

Now that is one of your most stupid comments so far. I can only agree with
your last part, as I haven't heard any dem saying anything of merit, period!
Yes, Kerry and Edwards have both brought up the Halliburton name in a
negative light. Kerry even got to mention them in Letterman's Top Ten list
last week. I say your comment is stupid simply because _if_ you read a
dozen newspapers each day as you claim, and are so enlightened, how did this
get past you? This comment is just stupid, and totally illustrates you
jumping on the dem bandwagon to point the finger at Halliburton and then
claim "I haven't heard Kerry or any other "Dem" say one thing or another
concerning Halliburton." Hogwash!

You mention below you read the WP (Washington Post). They have numerous
articles about Halliburton and dems attacking them. Does Waxman from
California ring a bell? Were you sleeping all those days? Here is an
excerpt of one article:

Quote - Yesterday, the Kerry campaign introduced a television ad suggesting
a connection between deferred pay Cheney received from Halliburton and the
contracts awarded in Iraq.
"As president, I will stop companies like Halliburton from profiting at the
expense of our troops and taxpayers," Kerry said in a speech in Albuquerque.
"I will stop companies from receiving no-bid contracts from the government
when the president or vice president is still receiving compensation from
that company." End quote.

Hell, he has a TV ad. Some company, somewhere (maybe from France) will have
to fulfill our militray contract a la Kerry, and I don't know of any company
that would undertake such a contract for a loss. I could go on and on, but
I think you get the gist of the message!

> >Where is your evidence on this so called corruption?
>
> Reports in the the NYT, LAT, WP, WT, BBC, Greg Palast, Atlanta
> Journal, Indianapolis Star, Sarasota Times, etc.

News reports - but _where_is_the_proof? Where are the sanctions, fines or
penalties? Please cite just _one_ event where guilt has been established!
And I wouldn't exactly go about quoting the BBC as an unbiased news org
either.


>
> >Halliburton would pack-up and leave Iraq, let the dems find an answer
(good
> >luck finding a better replacement), except it would leave our troops in a
> >mess!
>
> Well, they could do as they have done for decades, and run their own
> messes and cook their own food. At least taxpayers wouldn't be
> charged for spoiled meat and meals that were never provided. It's
> that privatization thing again - Greed run amock.

Another enlightening statement - I thought you could do better than this! I
agree with you, something is running amock, and that would be you.

G

>
> Greg G.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
>
> Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organization
> to
> conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.


Prove that there is.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:58:52 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> And the reason he's "Still being paid" is because the bonus would have
>> cost him taxes had it been taken in a lump sum. So he arranged to have
>> it paid over several years.
>
> Yes, correct. Still, there's the appearance of impropriety. Awarding
> multi-billion dollar contracts to the company he was CEO of until recently
> and received a million dollar bonus from upon stepping down to become VP.
>
> And the appearance of impropriety could have been easily avoided by allowing
> other companies to bid.
>

Okay. Fine. Name another US company that does what Halliburton does.

The "deal" they're getting now is no better nor worse than the "deal"
they got under Clinton.

"Appearance of Impropriety" is a ruse by those who don't actually
believe in moral absolutes.

Are you suggesting that Mr. Cheny not receive the compensation he's
entitled to for the work he did prior to his entering public office? Do
you apply the same standard to Ms. Clinton's book deal, negotiated
before she had to work within Senate ethics rules?

Are you suggesting that there's something wrong about continuing the
policy of the previous administration when there simply are no viable
alternatives?

Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton does
yet?

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Appearance of Impropriety" is a ruse by those who don't actually
> > believe in moral absolutes.
>
>
> When the administration give out billions of dollars to known cronies
> without open bidding, they are hurting the nation, even if there didn't
> happen to be anything crooked.
>
You need to educate yourself a little bit before making all of these
statements. All of those papers you claim to read did have articles about
how the contract was awarded, the process and who was privy, etc. I guess
it really doesn't matter unless someone knowing even less than you would
belief some of your irrational thoughts and ramblings!

>
> > Did you come up with another US company that does what Halliburton does
> > yet?
> >
>
I challenged you on this as well. You are quick to state Halliburton should
not have been given the contract, other companies existed, but you have yet
to name just one. If you are up to the challenge, I'm still waiting. Oh,
and don't go naming one that can only handle 5% of the contract either!

>
> I don't know the names of the UK, Aussie, and US companies because I'm not
> very familiar with companies in that field. Me being unable to name them
> off the top of my head proves nothing. You're argument that it does is
> fallacious.
Yes, it proves everything. You stand on top of the mountain proclaiming to
all look at the corruption, anti Halliburton, anti administration,
_claiming_ how well read you are with the dozen of newspaper each day, yet
when challenged, your arguments crumble! I guess it's about time for you to
start name calling again, isn't it?

:)

GH

"NoOne N Particular" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b%[email protected]...
>>
>>
> One of the things that really concerned me was not so much the recount
> itself, but they were examining all of the ballots to try and determine
> who the voter INTENDED to vote for. What a joke.


Well you do know that a lot of democrats are mind readers.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:E%[email protected]:

> Four years ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article suggesting that
> there's already a widely accepted, easily-used, secure technology in
> place that could easily be adapted to provide secure voting: ATMs.

THAT brings to mind a picture that puts new meaning to the phrase "buying
an election." ;-)

So how do we get security and a private ballot at the same time, in an
electronic world?

Patriarch

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
// massive snip

> The supreme court stopped Gore's request for a recount in _only
> heavily Democrat counties_, remember? As in "Every vote counts, but I
> only want to recount where the odds are that I will benefit from it".
> Amazing how selective your memory is. Or are you going to say he
> didn't ask for that?
>
// more massive snip.

Y'know, it's not *nearly* that clear cut. Both candidates, and both
parties, among others, were suing left and right (pun fully intended) to
either continue or halt the recount process, either in selected
counties, or the whole of the state of Florida.

Here's a timeline. It'll make your head spin.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php

In short, the whole FL election in 2000 was thoroughly botched. For
either candidate. At least Jeb had the decency to recuse himself at the
start.

Regards,

JT

> And you think that would have changed the outcome? If so, I'll send you a
> dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
> news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide
> recount.
> Unfortunately, that wasn't what the Democrats wanted. They wanted a
> selective recount of only heavily-Democrat districts. Simply put, they
> wanted to count the ballots as many times as it took until Gore won. The
> Supreme Court put a stop to it. Now, if we can start ignoring Supreme
> Court
> decisions, I have a long list I'd like to start with.
>
> todd
>
>> Jeff Harper
>> Tampa, FL
>
>
One of the things that really concerned me was not so much the recount
itself, but they were examining all of the ballots to try and determine who
the voter INTENDED to vote for. What a joke.

Wayne

Jeff Harper wrote:

>
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:50 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Oh? You deny the accuracy of the above?
>> >
>> > Prove there's a nonpartisan electoral commission or official
> organization
>> > to conduct the voting process. You can't, because there's not.
>> >
>> > This election reeks to high heaven.
>>
>> The interesting thing is that if Kerry happens to win in Florida, you'll
>> be saying how the election was fair and should not be questioned.
>
> The very fact that Jeb Bush's FL administration has not taken steps to
> avoid the appearance of impropriety indicates the likelihood of an unfair
> election. If Kerry wins despite this, it will not necessarily mean that
> the election was entirely legit.
>
> The principle of your attack on me, while not valid, is applicable to you.
> If Kerry wins, you will fault me if I don't criticize the election, and
> you will certainly fault me if I do.

Now, what are you going to do if Kerry carries Florida by a landslide and
loses everywhere else?
>
> Jeff Harper
> Tampa, FL

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark & Juanita said:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:07:13 -0400, Greg G. wrote:
>
>>Gary said:
>>
>>><Greg G.> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.
>>>
>>>A dozen? Really? One would think if you managed to read that many you
>>>would be better informed. Judging from you comments, this doesn't appear to
>>>be the case.
>>
>>Your opinion. At least I don't sit in front of the talking heads on
>>Faux News and accept their notorious lies and BS as fact.
>>
>
> Don't know about the TV news, don't watch it all that much, but the Fox
>web page is mostly populated by AP stories. AP is hardly a right-wing
>entitity. AAMOF, I can read a Fox web page story and tell before I'm half
>through that AP either wrote or contributed to it. Little things, like
>statements when discussing various occurences in Iraq, mentioning perhaps a
>missing contractor, "who works for Halliburton, the company that Dick
>Cheney formerly ran" or other little digs at the administration or war
>effort. Little digs or asides that aren't really relevant to the story,
>but do serve to throw a little negative spin toward the administration.

I've never looked at Fox News Web Site, but for a sample of what I am
speaking of, check out Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor - or even
worse, the sick and venomous Ann Coulter. Even the "balanced" program
Hannity and Colmes is fairly biased. I haven't watched it lately but
I usually try to give all sides a listen. I used to listen to Rush L.
for a laugh - but he has degenerated into an absolute pig.

I have found that CSPAN's coverage of events is about as fair and
balanced as it gets in TV news.


Greg G.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is an idea for the newsgroup. Perhaps all the dems can killfile the
> republicans, and the republicans killfile the dems, which should result in
> about 10 on-topic woodworking posts a day and no off-topic political
> postings at all! Me things there ain't a whole lotta woodworking going on
> these days.
>
Well some times you gotta take a break from wood working and discuss
politics amoung friends. ;~)

> The one thing I have determined is .... all the flaming by both parties on
> the wRECk will not result in their _opponents_ views changing as far as
> this
> newsgroup is concerned.

Correct!

I'm waiting for the "my dad can whup your dad"
> line - sooner or later. :)

It is already being said, just substitute my party is better than your
party.

Mark & Juanita said:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:58:42 GMT, "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><Greg G.> wrote in message
>>> I read a dozen or so newspapers almost every day.
>
> So you read the same AP and Reuters stories a dozen times with maybe a
>few UP stories thrown in? Seems somewhat a rather exhorbitant duplication
>of effort.

Please...
Not all papers carry the same stories. A little common sense goes a
long way in screening out articles you have already read elsewhere.
Yes there is duplication, but I certainly don't re-read the same
articles over and over. And the foreign press rarely has a duplicated
story from a US source. And then there are the editorial pages and
cartoons that always differ from source to source.


Greg G.

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree foamed at the mouth and spewed forth the following
> drivel:
>
> >dollar so you can buy a clue. Every analysis of the vote by independent
> >news organizations determined that Bush would have won a statewide
recount.
>
> I hate to interrupt your BushFest with facts, but...
>
> This is completely in error. The Tampa Bay Tribune published a
> selective recount result that was parroted throughout the press.

I more had in mind the USA Today and Miami Herald study.

> Many recounts done by the media have shown otherwise.
> Admittedly the results tend to weigh in favor of the partisanship of
> the publisher, so it just goes to show how close a race it was.
>
> I'll give you a dollar so you can buy a real newspaper and read it.
> Rush Limberger and Faux news are not "fair and balanced" - you stand a
> better chance of getting the facts watching the Daily Show with Jon
> Stewart. (A comedy program with more balls than most news broadcasters
> seem to possess these days.)

You're kidding me! Rush isn't "fair and balanced"? I would have never
known.

> I read a dozen or so newspaper almost every day.

You sound like someone with a lot of free time on his hands. Sadly, I have
to work for a living and raise a family, so I have to make do with only one
newspaper.

> Foreign press as well as the yellow stuff here - and they are NOT telling
you the
> complete truth. The current administration will not let them - Dan
> Rather even proclaimed his exasperation at the electronic Berlin Wall"
> than now surrounds this administration to the British Press, but you
> won't hear a peep out of here - he doesn't want be removed from the
> White House "Christmas Card List."

Yeah, Dan Rather has been keeping a low profile here. Did any of those
newspapers you supposedly read happen to mention Rather getting caught
trying to pass off a big whopper about some fake documents?

> And Boy, the Supreme Court did us a real favor! Record deficits, a
> nation despised and ridiculed in the world's eyes, a quagmire know as
> Iraq that shows no sign of "Mission Accomplished", Osama Bin Laudin on
> the loose and seemingly ignored by the White House, record job
> migration, corporate scandal, Halliburton bleeding the taxpayers
> through graft and corruption...

Excellent parroting of the liberal press. I especially liked the "quagmire"
comment. Can't mention Iraq without throwing in "quagmire". You can thank
Clinton for Bin Laden being loose if, in fact, he is still alive. And Enron
was in major existence between 1986 and 2001. Now...who was President
during about half that time?

> And they want to privatize social security and medicare? What, to the
> same kinds of thieves who run Halliburton, DBT/Choice Point, Diebold
> or Enron? (All HUGE campaign contributors.) No Thanks!

You're right. Much better that the government steals the money. But hey, I
don't want to privatize Social Security. I want it to go away.

> What an administration.
> Dark Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rove are the true Axis of Evil.

That's a bit over the top. You might want to try turning up the lithium.

> Not ONE of these ChickenHawks ever served a day in ANY war, and all
> but (possibly) one totally avoided service altogether.

Democrat playbook - Page 15. "Make sure to work in the words 'quagmire' and
'chickenhawk' into every discussion."

>This makes them real experts on the planning and execution of war.

By the same standard, I'm betting you've never spent any time at all in a
presidential administration. Which makes you completely unqualified to
comment on it.

> They ignored seasoned advice from their own Generals on troop levels
> needed to properly execute the "War on Iraq". They rebuffed said
> Generals when they went public. They constantly ignore the truth
> about the progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq - instead choosing to
> attempt to buffalo the public by claiming "all is well and proceeding
> as planned." Then parade that shill Ayad Allawi in front of the press
> to propagate more lies.

I hear from plenty of soldiers on leave from Iraq who say overall the
condition is better than portrayed in the press. And I don't think I've
ever heard the administration claim that "all is well".

> Ask a foreign news correspondent or photographer how it's going.
> Not well at all.

I trust foreign news correspondents for impartial reporting about as much as
I trust Dan Blather.

> And I'm conservative.

Of course you are.

> As I said before - they all suck!
>
> Greg G.

John Thomas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Here's a timeline. It'll make your head spin.
>
> http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php
>
> In short, the whole FL election in 2000 was thoroughly botched. For
> either candidate. At least Jeb had the decency to recuse himself at the
> start.

As you may recall, GWB's campaign manager did not recuse herself
ever.

The best characterization I have seen of the USSC decision was that
it was a mercy killing.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096431138.221b/Y9+hPQc8jadqIWSXQ@teranews>...
>
> ...
>
>
> BTW, just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, someone in 2001 tried
> to create a dimpled chad -- he found the only way to do so was by placing
> *multiple* ballots in the voting machine, as in maybe the people who were
> hired to stuff the ballot boxes got stupid and lazy and didn't do a good
> enough job. ...

So, who was this person, where was this published?


--

FF

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:12:55 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>
> > You guys are great at parroting the bullshit right-wing talking points.
> >
> > What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
> > impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
> > confidence in our government's integrity?
>
> That's a good one - bringing "vote early and often" Daly from Chicago in
> the last election to make sure the election was "fair" gives
> the appearance of propriety and promotes healing and confidence and
> integrity? Gimme a break!
>

Wrong Daly. That one died a while ago.

Good you at least remembered the name. Some things are best not forgotten.

--

FF

Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > >What the hell is wrong with doing the minimum to avoid appearance of
> > > >impropriety in the Florida election? If only to promote healing and
> > > >confidence in our government's integrity?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your postings indicate that the only things that would meet this
> criteria
> > > would be 1) declare Gore the winner, regardless of the real outcome of the
> > > votes and 2) declare Kerry the winner now, he's going to win anyway and if
> > > he doesn't, the election will obviously have been rigged, so in order to
> > > assure the integrity of our process, just avoid having the election and
> > > declare the rightful winner to be Kerry.
> >
> > How can I argue with that? You're a fucking moron.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> BZZZZZZZTTTTTT. You lose! Thanks for playing our game!
>

Obviously you're just pissed because your acting carreer is in
the toilet.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1097117623.KTVdNhKaBzaeDPNz3Q6CUg@teranews>...
> On 6 Oct 2004 07:51:38 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096431138.221b/Y9+hPQc8jadqIWSXQ@teranews>...
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW, just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, someone in 2001 tried
> >> to create a dimpled chad -- he found the only way to do so was by placing
> >> *multiple* ballots in the voting machine, as in maybe the people who were
> >> hired to stuff the ballot boxes got stupid and lazy and didn't do a good
> >> enough job. ...
> >
> >So, who was this person, where was this published?
>
> Link is no longer working to one:
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30965e7fc8.htm>, the other source you
> will reject out of hand, so I won't even bother.

_The World Tribune_ again perhaps? I'm curious what makes you think
I'll reject something out-of-hand. I typically do not evaluate an
article based on the reputation of the author, rather I evaluate
the content for relevence internal consistancy and vermisilitude to
established fact. E.g. in one artilce I read in 2000 the author
talking about pulling down a lever to punch out the chads. Clearly
he was not writing about votamatitcs since votamatics don't have
levers. But I digress.

Back to the article you cite, the originial article appears to
be here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20793

Classic misdirection and misrepresentaion of content.

That article does not say that anyone created dimpled ballot by
ANY method. It says the gentleman in question says he TRIED to
created a dimpled chad by punching out all the chad in 20 ballots,
and FAILED.

Inserting 20 ballots into the machine and punching them simultaneously
is hardly a valid test. No voter would be doing anything comparable
to that. It is sort of like a karate expert breaking boards. Impressive
only if you don't consider the practical applicability.

I thought the alleged problem was chads jamming in the ejection
port above the tray, rather than piling up in the tray to block
the ejection port from below. I.e. a voter who misaligns his
ballot and/or doesn't push the chad all the way down into the
tray creates a problem for the next voter. Not the same dynamic
as punching through 20 at a time. The voter who screwed up
may produce an easily read ballot, it's the next voter who has
trouble with the machine.

I'm a bit skeptical of two apsects of the story. 1) that
there is enough clearance to put 20 ballot cards all at
the same time into a votamatic and 2) that someone other
than Arnold Swarzeneggar can punch the chads out of all 20
cards that are stacked like that.

If the trays are deep and the ports shallow, then certainly neither
ejection port jams or piles in the tray would be a problem. IIRC,
the inventor of the votamatic testified on this issue befor the
USSC, (very unusual for witnesses to be heard by the USSC) I
wonder if the pleading befor the USSC are online?

It has been a very long time since I used a votamatic, it would be
nice to see one or get good images or even dimensioned drawings
of the relevent parts. That could clarify the issue. You cannot
get a jam if there is no place for it to form.

A single objective standard in the law, rather than the vague
'clear intent of the voter' might have been a good idea.

The Washington Post published a photo of one ballot that had a clean
hole punched through it in between the Bush and Gore chads. So what
was the clear intent of THAT voter?

The problem with an objective standard is that it is necessarily
tied to a specific technology, and also has abuse potential via
overly litteral or overly liberal interpretation.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1097204421.5SdtlmHYnCyipG59Y3TAng@teranews>...
> On 7 Oct 2004 08:52:48 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
> wrote:
>
> >
> No misdirection intended, it's been 3 years since I looked at this, that
> was not the link I had in mind and I was unable to get Google to provide
> it.
>

I see. Happens ot me all the time too.

> The one reference that I know you will reject is that Rush Limbaugh did
> an on-air test in which he tried to create a dimpled chad. He attempted
> multiple ways but was unable to dimple a chad without punching it out, the
> only way he was able to create a dimpled chad was by placing multiple
> ballots in the voteamatic.

It would seem that designing the votamatic so that one COULD insert
more than one ballot card at a time is a serious flaw.

It really doesn't matter who conducted the test, the problem with
your argument is the inability to prove a negative hypothesis. It is
the same problem faced by Saddam Hussein. You cannot prove it is
impossible to produce a dimpled chad any more than he could prove
there were no WMDs in Iraq.

>
> Seems like a simple test for somebody else to try.

I understand that a slew of surplus votamatics were, or were to be
auctioned on eBay.

--

FF

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "This is the last OT posting I comment on "

> Call me Middle-of-the-Road instead of Conservative or Liberal.
> How about a Free-Thinker? Independent? Pick one.
>
>
> Greg G.

Thought you weren't going to comment on any off topic post???

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
> Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> *least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.


I think what Florida needs is to learn to vote legibly.

Doug Winterburn said:

>> Doug Winterburn said:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:29:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'm conservative.
>>>
>>>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>>
>> Now that's an intellectual response. Typical...
>
>..and typical was your phony leftist rant while claiming to be a
>conservative. You're not a conservative - you're confused!

Not confused at all - just unwilling to adhere to either right or left
wing talking points. There are things I believe are right for the
country and those that are not. In my opinion, Bush and his agenda
are NOT good for America - it's as simple as that. I can't have an
opinion on Kerry - there is no track record of Presidential
performance to go on.

But of course, you can't agree to disagree. I can feel the ad hominem
attacks mounting as I write this...

Your tagline is misleading, you don't want an exchange of ideas, you
want to force others to believe as you have been led to believe.

This is the last OT posting I comment on - I knew it was mistake, but
broke down in a moment of weakness.

I've seen this neo-con BS sweeping the nation, and like the fanatical
followers of the Jones Cult, no amount of truth or reason shines
through the fog.

>> I'm going back to the shop now - it's far more interesting.
>
>Please stay for the next 5 weeks and keep yourself totally interested.
>
>-Doug

I plan to stick to WW posts and should you chose to ignore them,
please do.


Greg G.

Jeff,

I posted to this discussion at another point in this thread, but please
allow me to repeat a key point here in response to your post below. The
Florida Constitution limits what the Governor of Florida can do to run an
election. Under the Florida Constitution, Governor Bush does not have the
authority to put any sort of overview or monitoring organization in place.
There is just the limited function of the Secretary of State. The county
Supervisor of Elections, duly elected by each county's voters, run the show.

Each Supervisor of Elections determines the ballot format and layout, the
location of polling places, the voting method and equipment, mailing and
receiving absentee ballots, vote counting and security for his/her county.
The Supervisor of Elections must report results to the state office on a
schedule required by the State of Florida Constitution.

Funding for the elections, including machines and personnel is provided by
the state legislature.

Thus, Governor Jeb Bush has little, if any "power" to influence an election.

Most of the election problems in the 2000 election publicized in the
national media occurred in counties with Democratic Supervisors of
Elections. Dade County (Miami), Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) and Palm
Beach County (Boca Raton & West Palm Beach) had the most irregularities and
Al Gore and the Democrats challenged the election results that the Democrats
officials in those three counties were responsible for producing.

Several months after the election, the highly partisan New York Times, aided
by others, did an independent audit of the election results. Three such
independent, though partisan, audits with re-counts were completed and the
results were all the same: Bush won, Gore lost.

The stuff above is an overview of what happened in 2000.

Now, my opinion: Democrats think there must be something crooked here
because if they were in charge there would be. The Democrats that I have
talked to wanted to win so bad, that when they didn't, they believed there
must be something wrong! I grew up in Chicago with the first Mayor Daley.
I understand crooked elections, I just don't like them. But I sure didn't
see crooked elections in Florida

Well, its time to get back to my shop and make some sawdust.

thanks for listening,

John Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida

--
Some folks are wise and some are otherwise.


"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > They cannot help it, they are desperate and have to go for what ever
they
> > can.
>
> You should want as fair an election as possible, that is if you give a
damn
> about democracy and ideals upon which this country was founded.
>
> All Americans should care and want to see Jeb Bush put an objective
> overseeing body in place, not an ultra pro-Bush person appointed by one
> Bush's brother. The nation, especially Florida, needed healing. The
> *least* Jeb could do is avoid the appearance of such gross impropriety.
>
> Jeff Harper
> Tampa, FL
>
>

What does the peanut man know? All he knows how to do is swing a hammer.
One thing I give him credit for is I was able to make a ton of money off of
my savings cd's at 15% plus interest while he was President. The only
problem was no body could afford to buy a home while he was in office.


"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> President Jimmy Carter had the following to say (CNN):
>
> Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring
> international elections, said "some basic international requirements
> for a fair election are missing in Florida."
>
> Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan
> electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral
> process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.
>
> He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State
> Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor,
> Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias."
>
> He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to
> "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal
> treatment."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/carter.florida.ap/index.html