John Kerry's WDW comment

[goofygirl]

I don't post much on political threads but let me be the first to say that Maray's post was absolutely DISGUSTING!

Really? I thought it was a scream!! I copied it and emailed it to all my friends!


PS- I think Bush lives in Never-Never Land with Peter Pan, if we want to get more specific!

 

[Mom2Ashli]

There he goes running his mouth before he thinks about what he says. Guess him and his wife have the same problem.

 

[Lebjwb]

Perhaps Rokkitsci was too busy"drooling" during his tirad to even bother to click on the link. The quotes are NOT mine they are from the United States Commission on Civil Rights whose members are appointed by the White House and Congress.


Now take the time to scrool down to the bottom of the post and lets all count together how many Members are Democrats, how many are Republicans and how many are Independents. Oh dear I count 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 2 Independents.

Have a great day.............





"I won't ask who did this "status report" but I will be willing to bet that it was a group who were LOOKING for every thing they could on ONE side of the issue."-Rokkitsci








PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES
CONGRESSIONAL APPOINTEES

Mary Frances Berry (Chairperson)
Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought
Professor of History and Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: INDEPENDENT



Cruz Reynoso (Vice Chairperson)
Professor of Law
University of California

Davis School of Law
Davis, California
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: DEMOCRAT



Jennifer C. Braceras

Professor of Federal Anti-Discrimination Law

Suffolk University Law School

Boston, Massachusetts

POLITICAL AFFILIATION: REPUBLICAN



Peter N. Kirsanow

Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan and Aronoff LLP

Cleveland, Ohio

POLITICAL AFFILIATION: REPUBLICAN


Christopher Edley, Jr.
Professor, Harvard Law School
Founding Co-Director, The Civil Rights Project,
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: DEMOCRAT



Elsie M. Meeks
Executive Director, Lakota Fund
Co-owner/Operator, Lone Creek Store, Wanblee,

South Dakota
Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: DEMOCRAT



Russell G. Redenbaugh

Investment Manager, Director & Co-Founder of Kairos, Inc.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: INDEPENDENT



Abigail Thernstrom
Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
New York City, New York
POLITICAL AFFILIATION: REPUBLICAN

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
No, Bush is in the White House because the Florida Supreme Court attempted to re-write its states election laws by judicial fiat.

As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The Florida statute calls for a manual recount whenever someone wins/loses and election by less than .0025% of the total votes cast.

If, after the 1st manual recount, someone still loses the election by between .0025% and .005%, they can still request a 2nd manual recount by 5PM on the 3rd day after the election.

The standard used to count a vote as legal is if the voter has made a clear indication that there was a definitive choice.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0102->Section%20166#0102.166

It wasn't the Supreme Court of Florida that was rewriting the state statutes, it was the Supreme Court of the United States who negated the Florida Statutes.

Can't wait to see the usual "straw hits the fan" response.

 

[Lebjwb]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The Florida statute calls for a manual recount whenever someone wins/loses and election by less than .0025% of the total votes cast.

If, after the 1st manual recount, someone still loses the election by between .0025% and .005%, they can still request a 2nd manual recount by 5PM on the 3rd day after the election.

The standard used to count a vote as legal is if the voter has made a clear indication that there was a definitive choice.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0102->Section%20166#0102.166

It wasn't the Supreme Court of Florida that was rewriting the state statutes, it was the Supreme Court of the United States who negated the Florida Statutes.

Can't wait to see the usual "straw hits the fan" response.

Thanks...you got to post this before I did.

You are %100 correct.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
Perhaps Rokkitsci was too busy"drooling" during his tirad to even bother to click on the link. The quotes are NOT mine they are from the United States Commission on Civil Rights whose members are appointed by the White House and Congress.


Now take the time to scrool down to the bottom of the post and lets all count together how many Members are Democrats, how many are Republicans and how many are Independents. Oh dear I count 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 2 Independents.

Have a great day.............

Did you click on my link? The above statement of yours seems to suggest that all members of the commission agreed with the report. That is not the case.

THE FLORIDA ELECTION REPORT: DISSENTING STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER ABIGAIL THERNSTROM AND COMMISSIONER RUSSELL G. REDENBAUGH

July 19, 2001


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

The United States Commission on Civil Rights, charged with the statutory duty to investigate voting rights violations in a fair and objective manner, has produced a report that fails to serve the public interest. Voting Irregularities Occurring in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election is prejudicial, divisive, and injurious to the cause of true democracy and justice in our society. It discredits the Commission itself and substantially diminishes its credibility as the nation’s protector of our civil rights.

The Commission’s report has little basis in fact. Its conclusions are based on a deeply flawed statistical analysis coupled with anecdotal evidence of limited value, unverified by a proper factual investigation. This shaky foundation is used to justify charges of the most serious nature—questioning the legitimacy of the American electoral process and the validity of the most recent presidential election. The report’s central finding—that there was “widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights” in Florida’s 2000 presidential election—does not withstand even a cursory legal or scholarly scrutiny. Leveling such a serious charge without clear justification is an unwarranted assault upon the public’s confidence in American democracy.

The statistical analysis in the report is superficial and incomplete. A more sophisticated regression analysis by Dr. John Lott, an economist at Yale Law School, challenges its main findings. Dr. Lott was unable to find a consistent, statistical significant relationship between the share of voters who were African Americans and the ballot spoilage rate.

Furthermore, Dr. Lott conducted additional analysis beyond the report’s parameters, looking at previous elections, demographic changes, and rates of ballot spoilage. His analysis found little relationship between racial population change and ballot spoilage, and the one correlation that is found runs counter to the majority report’s argument: An increase in the black share of the voting population is linked to a slight decrease in spoilage rates, although the difference is not statistically significant.

Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the right to vote and to have valid votes properly counted. Allegations of disenfranchisement are the fertile ground in which a dangerous distrust of American political institutions thrives. By basing its conclusion on allegations that seem driven by partisan interests and that lack factual basis, the majority on the Commission has needlessly fostered public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism. The report implicitly labels the outcome of the 2000 election as illegitimate, thereby calling into question the most fundamental basis of American democracy.

What appears to be partisan passions not only destroyed the credibility of the report itself, but informed the entire process that led up to the final draft. At the Florida hearings, Governor Jeb Bush was the only witness who was not allowed to make an opening statement. The Chair, Mary Frances Berry, was quoted in the Florida press as comparing the Governor and Secretary of State to “Pontius Pilate... just washing their hands of the whole thing.” On March 9, six commissioners voted to issue a “preliminary assessment”—in effect, a verdict—long before the staff had completed its review of the evidence.

The report claims that “affected agencies were afforded an opportunity to review applicable portions”; in fact, affected parties were never given a look at the preliminary assessment, and had only ten days in which to review and respond to the final report, in violation of established procedures and previous promises.


The rest can be found here.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm

Richard

 

[Lebjwb]

Funny how you forgot to include Rokkitsci's quote when responding. Here it is again....

"I won't ask who did this "status report" but I will be willing to bet that it was a group who were LOOKING for every thing they could on ONE side of the issue."-Rokkitsci


My response was to the above quote.


"Did you click on my link? The above statement of yours seems to suggest that all members of the commission agreed with the report. That is not the case."

Sorry,that's your assumption, not mine.

 

[Lebjwb]

"Did you click on my link? The above statement of yours seems to suggest that all members of the commission agreed with the report. That is not the case."

Perhaps you'd care to tell us what the other 2 Republican members of the commission thought of the findings.

Why didn't they share in the dissenting statement?

 

[TDC Nala]

Read the article and make your own conclusions.

None of this looks like anything but good old-fashioned incompetence exacerbated by an unprecedented close vote.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by tomshelley
Yesterday, he implied that visiting Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, was living in the same "fantasyland."

Nice. That's the way to win back the respect of the international community.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
Funny how you forgot to include Rokkitsci's quote when responding. Here it is again....

"I won't ask who did this "status report" but I will be willing to bet that it was a group who were LOOKING for every thing they could on ONE side of the issue."-Rokkitsci


My response was to the above quote.

Why would I include Rokkitsci's quote? You posted the link to the commission report and were quoting parts of it long before Rokkitsci ever posted on this thread. I just posted a dissenting opinion by members of that same commission.

Originally posted by Lebjwb
"Did you click on my link? The above statement of yours seems to suggest that all members of the commission agreed with the report. That is not the case."

Sorry,that's your assumption, not mine.

Guilty as charged. That is my assumption. You are quoting a finding by a commission then posting the names and political affiliations of that commission to bolster your argument. It gives the impression that a bipartisan committee agreed 100% with the findings. And that's not the case. I was under the impression that you may not have been aware there was a dissenting opinion by members of the commission. Another assumption I know, but the only other logical choice would be that you were purposely misleading people.

Richard

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
"Did you click on my link? The above statement of yours seems to suggest that all members of the commission agreed with the report. That is not the case."

Perhaps you'd care to tell us what the other 2 Republican members of the commission thought of the findings.

Why didn't they share in the dissenting statement?

I don't know what the other 2 Republican members thought of the findings. It would be interesting to know their opinion. Would you volunteer to do the research?

Richard

 

[Grog]

Nice. That's the way to win back the respect of the international community.

You have to remember that to Kerry, Only France, Germany, and Russia are "real" countries.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The Florida statute calls for a manual recount whenever someone wins/loses and election by less than .0025% of the total votes cast.

If, after the 1st manual recount, someone still loses the election by between .0025% and .005%, they can still request a 2nd manual recount by 5PM on the 3rd day after the election.

The standard used to count a vote as legal is if the voter has made a clear indication that there was a definitive choice.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0102->Section%20166#0102.166

It wasn't the Supreme Court of Florida that was rewriting the state statutes, it was the Supreme Court of the United States who negated the Florida Statutes.

Can't wait to see the usual "straw hits the fan" response.

ThAnswr, how much of that was already in place before the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001? I only ask because I seriously don't know. I have been following (not closely, but keeping an eye on) Rep. Robert Wexler and the paperless ballot issue (some news today btw) and on his website there is this;

"The Florida Legislature recognized the importance of being able to conduct recounts by including more specific provisions for machine and manual recounts in the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001. According to this law, a manual recount will automatically be conducted in any election when the margin of victory is one-fourth of a percent or less. Without individual paper ballots being verified by each respective voter, a true manual recount is impossible."

That makes it sound like the recount laws were different in the 2000 election. Now I thought I had heard something like that way back but to be honest, sometimes the old memory just ain't what it used to be.

Richard

 

[Lebjwb]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Why would I include Rokkitsci's quote? You posted the link to the commission report and were quoting parts of it long before Rokkitsci ever posted on this thread. I just posted a dissenting opinion by members of that same commission.



I included the names and parties of each Commissioner to refute the following statement:

"I won't ask who did this "status report" but I will be willing to bet that it was a group who were LOOKING for every thing they could on ONE side of the issue."-Rokkitsci

Please note the comment "ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE".

This IMHO, implies that the Commission (who seems to be unknown to Rokkitsci..."I won't ask who did this status report") was composed entirely of non Republicans. I pointed out the FACT that there were Republicans on the committee and that only one of the 3 dissented. This blows a few holes in his theory that "it was a group who were LOOKING for every thing they could on ONE side of the issue"

 

[Lebjwb]

Originally posted by Grog
You have to remember that to Kerry, Only France, Germany, and Russia are "real" countries.

I get all warm and fuzzy just knowing that Uganda has got our backs.




Here is a list of the Coalition of the bribed:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

 

[Lebjwb]

Palau doesn't even have a military force and it's " defense is the responsibility of the US; under a Compact of Free Association between Palau and the US, the US military is granted access to the islands for 50 years"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ps.html#Military

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
I get all warm and fuzzy just knowing that Uganda has got our backs.




Here is a list of the Coalition of the bribed:

Who else would have to be in the coalition to be acceptable to you?

Richard

 

[Grog]

Palau doesn't even have a military force

Well, I guess you put me in my place then...

 

[Grog]

Who else would have to be in the coalition to be acceptable to you?

That's easy... France, Germany, and Russia. Didn't you know that countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Poland, etc, don't rate in the eyes of Bush haters?