We live in a Kakistocracy

[Truthmatters]

There were No WMDs which were useable,that is what all the experts even our own.

There were NO AQ ties That is according to our own experts.

If Iraq has a democracy why are we not freezing troop levels and polanning our exit like they asked?

Our own experts have said that Iraq war has increased terror.

I stated predictions and they were wrong werent they.


Again Our Own estimates have said the Iraq war has increased terror.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for an answer to my questions.......

 

[Truthmatters]

What question?

 

[Truthmatters]

I would make sure we truely have a democracy.

The 2000 election was scewed by the attempts fo Rs to disenfranchise legal American voters.

The felons list in Florida alone very likely caused the election to be turned over to Bush instead of Gore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would make sure we truely have a democracy.

The 2000 election was scewed by the attempts fo Rs to disenfranchise legal American voters.

The felons list in Florida alone very likely caused the election to be turned over to Bush instead of Gore.

The tampering in Florida was done by a democratic controlled Supreme Court. Its politcal decision would have ensured that Florida's electors could not be picked in time to be submitted to the Electoral College, This was what Gore wanted if he couldn't actually win the vote ( and after 2 recounts it was plain he couldn't) the failure of Florida to submit Electors in time would have meant the majority of electors would have been for Gore and would have caused a crisis at the federal level determining how to proceed and by what benchmark to determine a winner.

THAT is why the Supreme Court acted. And i suggest you read the decision, only a very small part of it was 5 to 4, the more important part was 7 to 2.

The lower court ruled two or three times that Gore had no case, no recourse past what the law already provided and had been provided to him, 2 recounts.

 

[jillian]

The tampering in Florida was done by a democratic controlled Supreme Court.

And the decision in the SCOTUS was made by a Republican controlled Court led by a hunting buddy of the VP-elect who should have recused himself. In fact, Sandra Day O'Connor has said that she wished she could go back and change her determination.

Just to give a bit of information on how these cases are done, election cases are determined by the highest court of the state in which the dispute arose. That has been the binding precedent... until Bush v Gore. The decision is so bad and so contradicts all of the leading cases on the subject that the high court held that the case could not be used as precedent in any other. It is specifically held to its facts so that if a similar dispute arose but with the "sides" reversed, the court could go back to precedent and say that the determination of the highest State court has to prevail.

Bush v Gore was an embarrassment to the legal community.

 

[Gunny]

There were No WMDs which were useable,that is what all the experts even our own.

After the fact. Before the invasion, most of the world accepted the fact that Saddam produced, possessed, and was will to once again use WMDs.

There were NO AQ ties That is according to our own experts.

There WERE proveable ties to terrorists organizations; which, once again, was the claim. Stop trying to play semantics.

If Iraq has a democracy why are we not freezing troop levels and polanning our exit like they asked?

Another misrepresentation on your part. The Iraqi parliament voted to gradually replace our troops with theirs on an yet to be announced by them schedule.

Your continuing to misrepresent what they voted for as some demand for an immediate withdrawal is less than honest.

Our own experts have said that Iraq war has increased terror.

Completely incorrect. The statistics support a global increase on terrorism. Iraq has NOTHING to do with Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Europe, Afghanistan, Israel, Sudan, nor anywhere else that terrorism is being used as a weapon.

I stated predictions and they were wrong werent they.


Again Our Own estimates have said the Iraq war has increased terror.

Again, wrong, as all of what you have stated is wrong. I most certainly hope you are not one of the ones who pick at RSR since you are just as guilty of what he is accused of as anyone .... blindly parrotting unsubstantiated talking points.

 

[Gunny]

I would make sure we truely have a democracy.

The 2000 election was scewed by the attempts fo Rs to disenfranchise legal American voters.

The felons list in Florida alone very likely caused the election to be turned over to Bush instead of Gore.

Yet another talking point. The only evidence of anyone trying to disenfrachise voters in 2000 supports the fact that Gore did in fact manage to disenfranchise write-in military votes in Duval County (Jacksonville) FL because they were late.

What gave Bush the victory was an honest count of the votes by the SCOTUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And the decision in the SCOTUS was made by a Republican controlled Court led by a hunting buddy of the VP-elect who should have recused himself. In fact, Sandra Day O'Connor has said that she wished she could go back and change her determination.

Just to give a bit of information on how these cases are done, election cases are determined by the highest court of the state in which the dispute arose. That has been the binding precedent... until Bush v Gore. The decision is so bad and so contradicts all of the leading cases on the subject that the high court held that the case could not be used as precedent in any other. It is specifically held to its facts so that if a similar dispute arose but with the "sides" reversed, the court could go back to precedent and say that the determination of the highest State court has to prevail.

Bush v Gore was an embarrassment to the legal community.

Wrong again, once more the plan by Gore was to disenfranchise the entire State. He lost and felt any thing was fair game, His only chance was to tie up the certification past the deadline set BY LAW for the electors. Once that was accomplished NO electors from Florida would be allowed and Florida would have NO voice at all in the election of the President. THIS is why the Supreme Court Intervened. And I suggest you READ the decision 7 to 2 on the important point. Not 5 to 4....

 

[jillian]

Wrong again, once more the plan by Gore was to disenfranchise the entire State. He lost and felt any thing was fair game, His only chance was to tie up the certification past the deadline set BY LAW for the electors. Once that was accomplished NO electors from Florida would be allowed and Florida would have NO voice at all in the election of the President. THIS is why the Supreme Court Intervened. And I suggest you READ the decision 7 to 2 on the important point. Not 5 to 4....

Ummmmmmmm.... I HAVE read the decision. So did every other attorney I know. It was an embarrassment. Your assessment as to *why* the Supreme Court intervened is incorrect. They violated their own precendents for political purpose. And you can take that to the bank.

And no Judge I know would have EVER EVER EVER sat on a case that determined the future of a friend, as Scalia did.

As for Gore wanting to "disenfranchise the entire State"? I'm curious as to how you spin counting the votes as disenfranchising the State.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ummmmmmmm.... I HAVE read the decision. So did every other attorney I know. It was an embarrassment. Your assessment as to *why* the Supreme Court intervened is incorrect. They violated their own precendents for political purpose. And you can take that to the bank.

And no Judge I know would have EVER EVER EVER sat on a case that determined the future of a friend, as Scalia did.

As for Gore wanting to "disenfranchise the entire State"? I'm curious as to how you spin counting the votes as disenfranchising the State.

2 recounts and the original count had ALREADY counted the votes. In fact recounts after the fact PROVED to all be the same, BUSH won.

And ya all Gore cared about was counting the votes.... lets see he wanted to count any vote that had 2 or more votes on it as for him..... he wanted to count any vote for the Independant candidate for him..... he wanted to count any ballot that had an indentation as for him.... Ohh and he ONLY wanted this in 2 districts.

Do remind us how Gore JUST wanted the votes counted again. And again and again and..... Until December 11 when the State would be unable to certify its electors and no longer be able to participate in the selection of the President.

What is EMBARRASSING is that 7 party hacks chose to IGNORE the very law of the State they were supposed to be Judges for. The Supreme Court of Florida VIOLATED the very law they took an oath to uphold, all for politics.

I must assume since you applaud their "reasoned" decisions that you find the Lower Judge that found against Gore to be an idiot and , what, a Republican stooge?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://viscom.miami.edu/felonslist/overview.htm

 

[Gunny]

In the summer of 2004 the state of Florida found itself wrapped in a controversy over a list of felons who were to be prohibited from voting in the 2004 elections. Felons do not have full civil rights in Florida and are not allowed to vote in state and national elections unless they receive clemency.

However, in the 2000 election in which George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by a mere 537 votes, up to 20,000 people who should not have been on the list were wrongly prohibited from voting. Florida’s election results, of course, swung the electoral college and thus the presidency to Bush.

The 2000 purge of ex-felons from Florida’s voter rolls resulted in numerous complaints of voter disenfranchisement, including lawsuits from the NAACP and the ACLU seeking voter reform.

As a result of the NAACP lawsuit in 2000, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hired Accenture, a global management consulting company, to assemble an updated list that would prevent felons without clemency from voting while allowing those who had received clemency to cast ballots.

It took more than two years for Accenture to assemble the list, which came to contain 47,000 names. The list was finally released to county officials in May, six months before the 2004 elections, but was not released to the public at that time.

The felons list returned to the news pages as the 2004 elections approached. Reporters consulted their 2000 clip files and went forth to learn from the Florida Division of Elections whether the voter irregularities of four years earlier had been corrected.

In response to a lawsuit filed by CNN requesting access to the list, Circuit Court Judge Nikki Clark ruled on July 1 that the list must be made public to prevent massive voter disenfranchisement.

But a week before the public release of the felon-voter list, a reporter for The Miami Herald obtained a leaked copy from a confidential source. Upon receiving the list, a team of three Herald reporters -- Erika Bolstad, Jason Grotto and David Kidwell -- analyzed it and found inconsistencies.

The July 1 court ruling forced the Herald reporters to speed up, and on July 2 they broke a story disclosing that 2,119 of the ex-felons listed shouldn’t have been included because their right to vote had been restored. More striking was that the people who were incorrectly included on the list were disproportionately black Democrats.

Five days after The Miami Herald story broke, two reporters from The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Chris Davis and Matthew Doig, broke a story exposing that the list inexplicably excluded Hispanics. Hispanics in Florida tend to support the Republican Party, which is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush, the president’s brother and ultimate keeper of the felons list.

On July 10, three days after The Sarasota Herald-Tribune story ran, The New York Times ran a story explaining that Florida election officials had used a flawed method to determine which names should be included on the list.

Later that day, after attacking The Herald’s initial story as “factually inaccurate” and refusing to acknowledge serious problems for a week, the state of Florida officially scrapped the controversial list.

First, unless you are two completely different people, I suggest you provide a link and edit this post to comply with copyright law, delete it, or swear to God you wrote what is obviously not your work.

Second, regardless WHO wrote it, it's a crock of shit. The fact is Gore lost and tried to steal the election and it was obvious to ANYONE who bothered to look. Attempts to rewrite the facts are about as legitimate as Gore's claiming every indentation, scratch, tear, or smudge as a "vote for Gore."

And how about THIS little tidbit?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200410/ai_n9460105

 

[Truthmatters]

it said maybe 1000 might have voted in both places.

Now consider the thousands disenfranchised in the felons list case.

There are LAWSUITS to prove the felons list exsisted and acttaully did harm.

Show me the lawsuits which prove your post actually happened.

 

[Gunny]

it said maybe 1000 might have voted in both places.

Now consider the thousands disenfranchised in the felons list case.

There are LAWSUITS to prove the felons list exsisted and acttaully did harm.

Show me the lawsuits which prove your post actually happened.

One, if you do not address the issue of plagarism, I WILL delete your post.

Two, I posted the article. It is encumbent on YOU to disprove it if you can, not on me to cater to your whimsical wild goose chase.

If Florida can't get its shit together in time for an election, that's Florida's problem, and the time to address it is NOT when Gore decides to pull anything he possibly can out of his ass to steal what he couldn't win.

I guarantee you there is NO 100% accurate election ANYWHERE in the world. I have no problem with attempting to ensure the results are as accurate as possible. I DO have a problem with attempting to attack the process that has been in place since whenever in order to commit grand larceny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

New attempts to make lies true....

I assume you will now go to places like Chicago and the entire State of Illinois and check all the deceased, illegal and people that voted more than once for the Democrats?

The party known for such tactics is NOT the republican party it is of course the Democratic party, it has a LONG LONG history of cheating, lying, voting for the dead and preventing people from voting.

 

[Gunny]

From wiki

[edit] James Lee's testimony
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[citation needed]

Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.

"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".

"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001. [1]

Please edit this post to comply with copyright laws. "From wiki" doesn't cover it. If you do not understand the copyright laws, scooter's thread in "Announcements" addresses the topic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
kak·is·toc·ra·cy /ˌkækəˈstɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kak-uh-stok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.

This started the thread and yet the thread starter and his allies can not answer two simple questions.... I have asked them and quoted them several times now.

Assuming this is true ( and for argument sake we will) the questions are...

What would you do to prevent this from happening in the future?

AND

What would you do to rectify the problem now?

 

[Truthmatters]

Gunny I posted a link and then posted part of the article.

If I posted too much of it I will delete some of it.

How much is too much?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File