Any questions?
YES, do contact him there.
This article is an "opinion" -- not fact. All ballots were counted in the most objective way -- by machine -- not once but twice. The manual recount results might have been different had Sore/Loserman not tried to steal the election by trying to handpick only four democRAT counties to recount.
Most people make errors when they suffer from guilt the rest is BS.
True story: When I was in Palm Beach last year I entered an apartment complex unfamiliar to me and stepped onto the elevator. A little old lady standing next to the panel asked me what floor I wanted and I said "26". There was no "26" button so she pressed "20" and "6" and said to me "that ought to do it"
I wonder how she voted.
The Nazis found that in a vacuum if you say something enough times people will eventually start to believe it. But there is no such vacuum here in America because of the free flow if information. The only people that believe this Dem/liberal/socialist spittle about Gore winning are the ones that have a vacuum between their heads.
Democratic Party = "CONFEDERACY OF GANGSTERS".
True then. True now.
I did. But by some horrible mistake my name wasn't on the ballots. I blame Bush, the Illuminati and the Skull and Crossbones for this.
Counting every "potential" vote is not the same as counting every eligible vote. For example, if that were the case, my potential income could be much greater than it is because had I done some things differently in the past, I could have saved and made much more money. But I can only count the income I have now. What opportunity I had in the past has been squandered, much like the idiot voters who cannot read a ballot and follow the directions.
Thank you, but I'll stick with President Bush.
Mike
My recollection is that not all of them had been incorporated into the various counties' certified results as of the date the hammer came down and the official statewide result was certified. My thanks to anybody who has that info on tap.
Any questions?
Sure is a great diversion...
A: The social characteristics of Florida Democrats. The two groups making the most errors were African Americans and seniors, who are core constituencies of the Florida Democratic Party. Seniors probably made errors because of weak eyesight and other physical limitations caused by aging. African Americans may have made errors because of the anxiety they are likely to feel at the polls, where in the not-very-distant past they would have routinely faced threats, violence, police harassment, and worse.
This pathetic excuse overlooks two factors.
1. Seniors, who Democrats might consider a "core constituency", actually gave their vote to Bush. Exit polling revealed a surprising edge for Bush in voters 65+.
2. Any black who explains a voting error as due to "anxiety" is making a truly pathetic excuse. And anybody who attributes any such broadspread errors by blacks to "anxiety" is obscenely patroninzing and disrespectful of blacks.
And, while we're at it, let's deal with this piece of crapola:
During the controversy, [the governor and his administration] collaborated either directly or through intermediaries with the legal and political advisers of George W. Bush to:...(2) bend the rules on absentee ballots to allow improperly marked absentee ballots to be counted;
The obvious reference is to the military absentee ballots. Florida state law reads that absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before election day. Overseas military ballots do not carry postmarks at all. Or, if they do, they are postmarked at the port-of-entry, when received and forwarded to Florida post offices.
Obviously, existing Florida statutes did not effectively deal with this situation. As a consequence, due to legal challenges concerning overseas absentee military ballots in prior elections, the state of Florida was operating under a consent decree which required the counting of these ballots regardless of an absent or out-of-date postmark! Instead, they were to rely on the customary affidavit enclosed, affirming that the ballot was filled out and cast by the deadline.
It's one thing for Professor DeHaven-Smith to assert the unproveable. It's quite another to assert that which is provably wrong!