Skip to comments.
Media suppress the news that Bush lost election to Gore
Sydney Morning Herald ^
| October 22, 2001
| Charles Laurence
Posted on 10/21/2001 6:06:48 PM PDT by John Jorsett
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Even assuming the accuracy of this, were we supposed to wait 8 months for a detailed and-count and analysis before naming a President? This is water under the bridge at this point.
To: John Jorsett
Make that "detailed hand-count".
To: John Jorsett
This is water under the bridge at this point.
Frankly, at this point, the water has evaporated.
3
posted on
10/21/2001 6:09:29 PM PDT
by
summer
To: John Jorsett
170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August. These were not legal votes........
4
posted on
10/21/2001 6:11:41 PM PDT
by
KQQL
To: John Jorsett
Water under the bridge. It changes nothing and I'm sure many of those people who voted for Gore (if in fact they "reall" did), are quite pleased with our President George W. Bush!
To: John Jorsett
It is very unlikely the media would surpress news of a Gore defeat.
Ask any talking head no TV, ask any VP news of a major network, if they would surpress a war story to save amercian lives. The answer is always NO with a capital N and an Capital oh.. and that stands for f*ck America.
If Gore would have won the recount they would have printed it big time. If they had the co ordinates of any special forces in Afghanistan they would publish them in a heart beat.
If you are looking for someone in the major networks who gives a damn about America you will have a long and fruitless search.
American Governments try to win wars. American media tries to increase ratings.
To: John Jorsett
Haven't they already had like two or three or more re-counts? Hasn't the Supreme Court already wieghed in on this? The fact that the very original election law regarding this whole thing was ignored. No one seems to be making a big deal of that.
7
posted on
10/21/2001 6:13:56 PM PDT
by
Slyfox
To: summer
LOL
8
posted on
10/21/2001 6:14:04 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
To: John Jorsett
Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August.The vote count was ready at the middle of November and certified by K. Harris.
History changes
The past is what is PC
Revisionism
9
posted on
10/21/2001 6:15:02 PM PDT
by
otterpond
To: John Jorsett
were we supposed to wait 8 months for a detailed and-count and analysis before naming a President? This is water under the bridge at this point. Well, in this case, truth is in the eye of the beholder. And the papers involved have massive beams in their own eyes.
In other words, the prejudices of the media are more in evidence than anything else.
I think you're right about water, but I would put it "water in the bilge", considering who is involved.
I take the Wall Street Journal, which is supposedly conservative. But everything except the editorial page is massively liberal for THAT paper.
10
posted on
10/21/2001 6:15:36 PM PDT
by
Ole Okie
To: John Jorsett
Still believe it's a bad case of liberal "sour grapes".
Nothin' more.
11
posted on
10/21/2001 6:15:57 PM PDT
by
Firebeer
To: John Jorsett
The article claims that the story was suppressed due to the events of 9/11 yet states that the results were ready at the end of August!
If Algore had actually won this election, you can be sure that the liberal media would not suppress it.
To: KQQL
These were not legal votes........Exactly. But you can't tell that to those few that seem to be hanging on to this issue like a loose chad.
13
posted on
10/21/2001 6:17:12 PM PDT
by
meyer
To: John Jorsett
Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable ... In other words, they counted the non-votes. A ballot rejected by the machine is a Non Vote. That's how it works.
Yes there is a provision for hand counting those Non Votes but such hand counting must be done by the Deadline. The Deadline was seven days after the election, not seven months or seven years.
In other words, this "analysis" is irrelevant. Whatever it says.
To: Firebeer
Wanta bet if there were an election tomorrow the margin by which Pres. Bush would whip both al gore and Bill Clinton. These people are so irrelevant, they are blowing in the wind.
To: John Jorsett
NUTS!!!!!!!
To: John Jorsett
I say we have a runoff election ... next Tuesday.
any doubt who would win now?
This swamp is dry...and they know it.
snooker
17
posted on
10/21/2001 6:18:32 PM PDT
by
snooker
To: John Jorsett
You can also add "Detailed Hand Count of ballots that were disallowed by the machines and in the original recounts and the recounts of the recount!" No other state counts ballots to try and determine how the person might have wanted to vote. These news organizations are worthless -- why not investigate real news?
Maybe they should have paid to recount New Mexico where the margin was very close or Wisconsin, or Iowa. No they went to Florida which the clinton machine perpetrated the fraud to try and make it look like Gore won again from tainted ballots -- why else would clinton have had gore hire daley (member of the original vote fraud daley family!). Why didn't they throw out the number of ballots from illegals that most likely went to Gore? Or the dead voters that voted for Gore?
Bunch of morons in the press that love to leak when they are not permitted to complete their count and then say they can't say a word!
To: John Jorsett
Someone should tell Bill Clinton that GW won. Clinton STILL thinks he's President.
19
posted on
10/21/2001 6:19:41 PM PDT
by
Hildy
To: SamAdams76
If Algore had actually won this election, you can be sure that the liberal media would not suppress it. I think that you mean that if AlGore had actually stolen this election, the media would not supress it. But regardless of semantics, you're absolutely right, especially considering the date at which this data was supposedly amassed.
20
posted on
10/21/2001 6:20:24 PM PDT
by
meyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson