Re: Time to bomb Iran?

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:45:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:40 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:50:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>
>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>
>>>There is little evidence of wide-spread fake voting in the US. There
>>>is real evidence of systematic vote suppression efforts by Republicans
>>>in several places, for example:
>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>
>>>And speaking of preventing overseas servicemen/women from voting, what
>>>about this:
>>>
>>>http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/06/11/caging-did-it-could-it-happen-here-in-tennessee/
>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/
>>>
>>>You are either ignorant or a liar or both. I think you've willfully
>>>decided to get all your "news" from one or two sources (probably some
>>>felon on talk radio) and that's it.
>>
>>I'm guessing that two of your sources have a liberal bent, as does
>>Slate. The wrench in the works is no quote from the NYT.
>
>"Liberal bent" or not, a conviction in court of using phone jamming on
>election day is a fact.
>
>Funny how reality seems to have a liberal bias these days.

Post the source, don't just pontificate.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:56:12 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:03:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>
>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>
>>>Bill "the SCOTUS was still majority liberal back then, you know" S.
>>
>>Sorni, you may not realize this, but the whole point of the US
>>attornery purge was to swing voting to Republican. That is to say,
>>either the leadership of the White House or the Justice Department or
>>both were making decisions about the prosecution of law in the US with
>>an eye primarily on winning elections.
>>
>>If that's not voter fraud in the most pernicious way, I don't know
>>what is.
>
>How about a source?

Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzalez, David Iglesias testimony to
Congress, among others.

It's the only explanation left. Multiple rationales for the firings
have been made by staff in the Justice Department and all have been
shown to be bogus. Read the papers. Read major papers. Watch the
Goodling testimony. Watch the Gonzalez testimony, Watch the Iglesias
testimon

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >>On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
> >>> >Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
> >>> >purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
> >>> >with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> >>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
> >>> have revealed?
>
> >>The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago did
> >>a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following results:
>
> >>Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey -
> >>Gore by 171
> >>Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore by 115
> >>Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
> >>One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>
> >>This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the vote in
> >>precincts known to favor democrats.
>
> >1. What is meant by review?
>
> >2. What is the margin of error?
>
> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of the
> eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled how you
> come to an opposite conclusion:
>
> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>
> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
> media companies, including CNN.
>
> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
> 225-vote margin statewide.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.

This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:47:37 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:42 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:56:12 GMT, R Brickston
>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:03:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>
>>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill "the SCOTUS was still majority liberal back then, you know" S.
>>>>
>>>>Sorni, you may not realize this, but the whole point of the US
>>>>attornery purge was to swing voting to Republican. That is to say,
>>>>either the leadership of the White House or the Justice Department or
>>>>both were making decisions about the prosecution of law in the US with
>>>>an eye primarily on winning elections.
>>>>
>>>>If that's not voter fraud in the most pernicious way, I don't know
>>>>what is.
>>>
>>>How about a source?
>>
>>Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzalez, David Iglesias testimony to
>>Congress, among others.
>>
>>It's the only explanation left. Multiple rationales for the firings
>>have been made by staff in the Justice Department and all have been
>>shown to be bogus. Read the papers. Read major papers. Watch the
>>Goodling testimony. Watch the Gonzalez testimony, Watch the Iglesias
>>testimon
>
>Pure conjecture.

It's conjecture supported by facts and logic and also by the total
inability of the people doing the firing to justify those firings. In
fact, the way in which multiple senior officials at the Justice
Department have each denied making decisions about the firings
suggests that if trying to influence elections was not the principal
cause, then it's something far more explicitly illegal. I have no
idea what that could be and believe it's probably the simpler
explantion I made.



--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:48:31 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:45:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:40 GMT, R Brickston
>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:50:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>
>>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>
>>>>There is little evidence of wide-spread fake voting in the US. There
>>>>is real evidence of systematic vote suppression efforts by Republicans
>>>>in several places, for example:
>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>>
>>>>And speaking of preventing overseas servicemen/women from voting, what
>>>>about this:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/06/11/caging-did-it-could-it-happen-here-in-tennessee/
>>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/
>>>>
>>>>You are either ignorant or a liar or both. I think you've willfully
>>>>decided to get all your "news" from one or two sources (probably some
>>>>felon on talk radio) and that's it.
>>>
>>>I'm guessing that two of your sources have a liberal bent, as does
>>>Slate. The wrench in the works is no quote from the NYT.
>>
>>"Liberal bent" or not, a conviction in court of using phone jamming on
>>election day is a fact.
>>
>>Funny how reality seems to have a liberal bias these days.
>
>Post the source, don't just pontificate.

This is the source:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/

What, do you want me to post the court records to back it up?

Or is "post the source" your standard response to things you don't
want to believe -- trying to tire out people who are telling you
things you don't want to know?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:02:00 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:48:31 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:45:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:40 GMT, R Brickston
>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:50:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is little evidence of wide-spread fake voting in the US. There
>>>>>is real evidence of systematic vote suppression efforts by Republicans
>>>>>in several places, for example:
>>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>>>
>>>>>And speaking of preventing overseas servicemen/women from voting, what
>>>>>about this:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/06/11/caging-did-it-could-it-happen-here-in-tennessee/
>>>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/
>>>>>
>>>>>You are either ignorant or a liar or both. I think you've willfully
>>>>>decided to get all your "news" from one or two sources (probably some
>>>>>felon on talk radio) and that's it.
>>>>
>>>>I'm guessing that two of your sources have a liberal bent, as does
>>>>Slate. The wrench in the works is no quote from the NYT.
>>>
>>>"Liberal bent" or not, a conviction in court of using phone jamming on
>>>election day is a fact.
>>>
>>>Funny how reality seems to have a liberal bias these days.
>>
>>Post the source, don't just pontificate.
>
>This is the source:
>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>
>What, do you want me to post the court records to back it up?

No, the article is plenty enough. The person should be banned from
anything to do with an election, imo.

>Or is "post the source" your standard response to things you don't
>want to believe -- trying to tire out people who are telling you
>things you don't want to know?

Hardly, but should I take someone's word for it? If a story, fact or
opinion has backup, I see no problem in asking for it.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:27:06 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:02:00 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:48:31 GMT, R Brickston
>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:45:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:40 GMT, R Brickston
>>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:50:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is little evidence of wide-spread fake voting in the US. There
>>>>>>is real evidence of systematic vote suppression efforts by Republicans
>>>>>>in several places, for example:
>>>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And speaking of preventing overseas servicemen/women from voting, what
>>>>>>about this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/06/11/caging-did-it-could-it-happen-here-in-tennessee/
>>>>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are either ignorant or a liar or both. I think you've willfully
>>>>>>decided to get all your "news" from one or two sources (probably some
>>>>>>felon on talk radio) and that's it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm guessing that two of your sources have a liberal bent, as does
>>>>>Slate. The wrench in the works is no quote from the NYT.
>>>>
>>>>"Liberal bent" or not, a conviction in court of using phone jamming on
>>>>election day is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Funny how reality seems to have a liberal bias these days.
>>>
>>>Post the source, don't just pontificate.
>>
>>This is the source:
>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>
>>What, do you want me to post the court records to back it up?
>
>No, the article is plenty enough. The person should be banned from
>anything to do with an election, imo.
>
>>Or is "post the source" your standard response to things you don't
>>want to believe -- trying to tire out people who are telling you
>>things you don't want to know?
>
>Hardly, but should I take someone's word for it? If a story, fact or
>opinion has backup, I see no problem in asking for it.

It seems I posted the backup, then you asked for it, then I posted it
again. Seems you are trying to wear me down and didn't actually read
what I wrote or posted.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>>
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> >...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
>> >>> >Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
>> >>> >purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
>> >>> >with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>>
>> >>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
>> >>> have revealed?
>>
>> >>The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago did
>> >>a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following results:
>>
>> >>Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey -
>> >>Gore by 171
>> >>Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore by 115
>> >>Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
>> >>One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>>
>> >>This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the vote in
>> >>precincts known to favor democrats.
>>
>> >1. What is meant by review?
>>
>> >2. What is the margin of error?
>>
>> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of the
>> eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled how you
>> come to an opposite conclusion:
>>
>> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>>
>> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
>> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
>> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
>> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>>
>> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
>> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
>> media companies, including CNN.
>>
>> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
>> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
>> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
>> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
>> 225-vote margin statewide.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>
>Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
>relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
>recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.

Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a similar
number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.

>
>This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.

Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:37:08 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:27:06 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:02:00 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:48:31 GMT, R Brickston
>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:45:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:40 GMT, R Brickston
>>>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:50:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal immigrants to
>>>>>>>>vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your damnedest to prevent overseas
>>>>>>>>military votes from being counted. (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is little evidence of wide-spread fake voting in the US. There
>>>>>>>is real evidence of systematic vote suppression efforts by Republicans
>>>>>>>in several places, for example:
>>>>>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And speaking of preventing overseas servicemen/women from voting, what
>>>>>>>about this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/06/11/caging-did-it-could-it-happen-here-in-tennessee/
>>>>>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are either ignorant or a liar or both. I think you've willfully
>>>>>>>decided to get all your "news" from one or two sources (probably some
>>>>>>>felon on talk radio) and that's it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm guessing that two of your sources have a liberal bent, as does
>>>>>>Slate. The wrench in the works is no quote from the NYT.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Liberal bent" or not, a conviction in court of using phone jamming on
>>>>>election day is a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Funny how reality seems to have a liberal bias these days.
>>>>
>>>>Post the source, don't just pontificate.
>>>
>>>This is the source:
>>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...e_jammer_helping_host_gop_candidate_workshop/
>>>
>>>What, do you want me to post the court records to back it up?
>>
>>No, the article is plenty enough. The person should be banned from
>>anything to do with an election, imo.
>>
>>>Or is "post the source" your standard response to things you don't
>>>want to believe -- trying to tire out people who are telling you
>>>things you don't want to know?
>>
>>Hardly, but should I take someone's word for it? If a story, fact or
>>opinion has backup, I see no problem in asking for it.
>
>It seems I posted the backup, then you asked for it, then I posted it
>again. Seems you are trying to wear me down and didn't actually read
>what I wrote or posted.

Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
what, 38 seconds of keyboard input? Should I send you a Starbucks gift
card to make up for the energy loss?

 

[Bill Sornson]

R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:42 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:56:12 GMT, R Brickston
>> <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:03:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:19 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go pay a few hundred busloads of homeless people and illegal
>>>>> immigrants to vote, Johnny. Oh, and don't forget to do your
>>>>> damnedest to prevent overseas military votes from being counted.
>>>>> (They might negate the DEAD vote! LOL )
>>>>>
>>>>> NO ONE rivals the Democrats for voter fraud. No one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill "the SCOTUS was still majority liberal back then, you know"
>>>>> S.
>>>>
>>>> Sorni, you may not realize this, but the whole point of the US
>>>> attornery purge was to swing voting to Republican. That is to say,
>>>> either the leadership of the White House or the Justice Department
>>>> or both were making decisions about the prosecution of law in the
>>>> US with an eye primarily on winning elections.
>>>>
>>>> If that's not voter fraud in the most pernicious way, I don't know
>>>> what is.
>>>
>>> How about a source?
>>
>> Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzalez, David Iglesias testimony to
>> Congress, among others.
>>
>> It's the only explanation left. Multiple rationales for the firings
>> have been made by staff in the Justice Department and all have been
>> shown to be bogus. Read the papers. Read major papers. Watch the
>> Goodling testimony. Watch the Gonzalez testimony, Watch the Iglesias
>> testimon
>
> Pure conjecture.

What was the underlying purpose of Clinton firing *93* US Attorneys --
including the one in Arkansas investigating Whitewater AND the one about to
indict Dem Don Rostenkowski? (No "conjecture" needed.) Where was the media
attention to that? Where was the outcry in Congress?

When will Flogger get the fact that I /plonked/ him many months ago -- have
reminded of this many times -- and yet he continues to direct questions to
me as if I see his stuff?

He really IS delusional...

BS (not)

 

[Bill Sornson]

R Brickston wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
>> Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
>> purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
>> with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
> have revealed?

Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142 times!
LOL

Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls still open
in western part of FL" S.

 

[Bill Sornson]

R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>>>
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have
>>>>>>> shown Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and
>>>>>>> Choicepoint purged thousands of voters that should have been
>>>>>>> eligible. Same story with the Blackwell purges and other
>>>>>>> machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>>>
>>>>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount
>>>>>> would have revealed?
>>>
>>>>> The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
>>>>> did a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following
>>>>> results:
>>>
>>>>> Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their
>>>>> survey - Gore by 171
>>>>> Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore
>>>>> by 115 Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
>>>>> One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>>>
>>>>> This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the
>>>>> vote in precincts known to favor democrats.
>>>
>>>> 1. What is meant by review?
>>>
>>>> 2. What is the margin of error?
>>>
>>> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of
>>> the eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled
>>> how you come to an opposite conclusion:
>>>
>>> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
>>> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
>>> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
>>> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>>>
>>> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
>>> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
>>> media companies, including CNN.
>>>
>>> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
>>> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
>>> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
>>> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
>>> 225-vote margin statewide.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>>
>> Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
>> relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
>> recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.
>
> Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a similar
> number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.
>
>>
>> This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.
>
> Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?

Absolute imbecile for an opponent. Unpopular war, major network forging
docs to defeat him (a month before the election!), total mainstream press
opposition (with resulting slanted "news coverage"), and yet he still won
with the most votes of any candidate in history. Only possible explanation:
Kerry is an incredible ****. LOL

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?

When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
kind of weird.

Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
help make that sort of stuff more obvious.

Just a suggestion.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 9:43 am, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>
> >> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >> >>On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>
> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> >...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
> >> >>> >Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
> >> >>> >purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
> >> >>> >with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> >> >>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
> >> >>> have revealed?
>
> >> >>The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago did
> >> >>a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following results:
>
> >> >>Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey -
> >> >>Gore by 171
> >> >>Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore by 115
> >> >>Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
> >> >>One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>
> >> >>This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the vote in
> >> >>precincts known to favor democrats.
>
> >> >1. What is meant by review?
>
> >> >2. What is the margin of error?
>
> >> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of the
> >> eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled how you
> >> come to an opposite conclusion:
>
> >> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>
> >> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
> >> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
> >> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
> >> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>
> >> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
> >> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
> >> media companies, including CNN.
>
> >> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
> >> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
> >> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
> >> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
> >> 225-vote margin statewide.
>
> >>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>
> >Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
> >relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
> >recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.
>
> Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a similar
> number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.
>
>
>
> >This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.
>
> Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?

Almost half of the 6 million American voters living abroad never
received requested absentee ballots or received them too late, due to
the Pentagon shutting down the web site used to file overseas
registrations.

A Republican National Committee hired consulting firm, Sproul &
Associates, was discovered shredding registrations by Democrats.

In New Mexico, which Bush "won" by less than 6000 votes, voting
machines failed to properly register a vote for president on more than
20,000 ballots.

An estimated 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment
according to the United States Election Assistance Commission.

Then Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell purged almost 25% of the voters
in the city of Cleveland, where Kerry won 83% of the vote. Overall in
Ohio, 357,000 potential voters were denied their right to register to
vote or did not have their ballots counted - almost all from heavily
Democratic precincts. On district in Cleveland had an unbelievable
official turnout of 7% in the 2004 election. There is evidence that up
to 80,000 Kerry votes were transferred to Bush.

In Ohio, waiting times in inner city precincts were 3 to 7 hours,
while at some colleges waiting times exceeded 11 hours due to lack or
voting machines. Miraculously, there were plenty of machines and short
lines in precincts expected to favor Republicans.

Ellen Connally, a liberal black judge candidate for the Ohio State
Supreme Court who supported homosexual rights outpolled Kerry by 10%
in 12 rural, mostly white counties, which stretches credulity. Kerry
outpolled Connally by 32% state wide.

In Clermont County, sworn affidavits by election observers given to
the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for
Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were
filled in to replace them, before optical scanning.

Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer have been convicting of rigging
the Ohio recount of votes from the 2004 election (recount paid for by
the Libertarian and Green parties).

This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Rationality, as the primary cognitive system for comprehending our
world, has been rejected in favor of unyielding dogmatic belief. -
David Michael Green

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 11:17 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
> R Brickston wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>
> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have
> >>>>>>> shown Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and
> >>>>>>> Choicepoint purged thousands of voters that should have been
> >>>>>>> eligible. Same story with the Blackwell purges and other
> >>>>>>> machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> >>>>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount
> >>>>>> would have revealed?
>
> >>>>> The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
> >>>>> did a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following
> >>>>> results:
>
> >>>>> Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their
> >>>>> survey - Gore by 171
> >>>>> Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore
> >>>>> by 115 Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
> >>>>> One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>
> >>>>> This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the
> >>>>> vote in precincts known to favor democrats.
>
> >>>> 1. What is meant by review?
>
> >>>> 2. What is the margin of error?
>
> >>> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of
> >>> the eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled
> >>> how you come to an opposite conclusion:
>
> >>> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>
> >>> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
> >>> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
> >>> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
> >>> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>
> >>> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
> >>> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
> >>> media companies, including CNN.
>
> >>> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
> >>> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
> >>> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
> >>> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
> >>> 225-vote margin statewide.
>
> >>>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>
> >> Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
> >> relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
> >> recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.
>
> > Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a similar
> > number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.
>
> >> This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.
>
> > Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?
>
> Absolute imbecile for an opponent. Unpopular war, major network forging
> docs to defeat him (a month before the election!), total mainstream press
> opposition (with resulting slanted "news coverage"), and yet he still won
> with the most votes of any candidate in history. Only possible explanation:
> Kerry is an incredible ****. LOL

The Kerry campaign performance makes one think that he was SUPPOSED to
lose the election.

Of course, the elections are mostly a choice between two groups of
overseers, chosen primarily by the financial elite who truly run the
US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Rationality, as the primary cognitive system for comprehending our
world, has been rejected in favor of unyielding dogmatic belief. -
David Michael Green

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:11:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What was the underlying purpose of Clinton firing *93* US Attorneys --
>including the one in Arkansas investigating Whitewater AND the one about to
>indict Dem Don Rostenkowski? (No "conjecture" needed.) Where was the media
>attention to that? Where was the outcry in Congress?

It's quite understandable to fire and replace all attorneys as a move
to get some sort of consistent new policy view on the administration
of justice. But to go after attorneys who are fundamentally following
the policies of the administration simply because they will not follow
them in a partisan manner or in a manner that is inconsistenly applied
to different people based on political affiliation is quite another.

The fired attorneys were Republicans/Conservatives who were overall
following the publically correct conservative line. But they were not
partisans, and it seems that under the Bush administration that is not
good enough.

I realize the point I made above may be too subtle for someone like
you (Bush Good, Not Bush Bad) and all that, but try to think about it
a little.

>When will Flogger get the fact that I /plonked/ him many months ago -- have
>reminded of this many times -- and yet he continues to direct questions to
>me as if I see his stuff?

You just read some of my stuff in quotes. Perhaps you've seen another
question I've posed to you: what are your sources of information about
the world? And I'll add a related question to that -- why do you seem
so afraid to reveal what those sources are?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?
>
>When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
>kind of weird.
>
>Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
>something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
>help make that sort of stuff more obvious.
>
>Just a suggestion.

Or better, I could be just be like you and never make a mistake.

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 16, 9:43 am, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>> >> >>On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
>> >> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>>
>> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>> >...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
>> >> >>> >Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
>> >> >>> >purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
>> >> >>> >with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>>
>> >> >>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
>> >> >>> have revealed?
>>
>> >> >>The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago did
>> >> >>a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the following results:
>>
>> >> >>Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey -
>> >> >>Gore by 171
>> >> >>Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore by 115
>> >> >>Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
>> >> >>One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>>
>> >> >>This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the vote in
>> >> >>precincts known to favor democrats.
>>
>> >> >1. What is meant by review?
>>
>> >> >2. What is the margin of error?
>>
>> >> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of the
>> >> eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled how you
>> >> come to an opposite conclusion:
>>
>> >> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>>
>> >> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
>> >> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
>> >> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
>> >> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>>
>> >> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
>> >> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news
>> >> media companies, including CNN.
>>
>> >> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in
>> >> heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
>> >> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
>> >> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
>> >> 225-vote margin statewide.
>>
>> >>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>>
>> >Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
>> >relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full state
>> >recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.
>>
>> Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a similar
>> number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>> >This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible voters.
>>
>> Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?
>
>Almost half of the 6 million American voters living abroad never
>received requested absentee ballots or received them too late, due to
>the Pentagon shutting down the web site used to file overseas
>registrations.
>
>A Republican National Committee hired consulting firm, Sproul &
>Associates, was discovered shredding registrations by Democrats.
>
>In New Mexico, which Bush "won" by less than 6000 votes, voting
>machines failed to properly register a vote for president on more than
>20,000 ballots.
>
>An estimated 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment
>according to the United States Election Assistance Commission.
>
>Then Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell purged almost 25% of the voters
>in the city of Cleveland, where Kerry won 83% of the vote. Overall in
>Ohio, 357,000 potential voters were denied their right to register to
>vote or did not have their ballots counted - almost all from heavily
>Democratic precincts. On district in Cleveland had an unbelievable
>official turnout of 7% in the 2004 election. There is evidence that up
>to 80,000 Kerry votes were transferred to Bush.
>
>In Ohio, waiting times in inner city precincts were 3 to 7 hours,
>while at some colleges waiting times exceeded 11 hours due to lack or
>voting machines. Miraculously, there were plenty of machines and short
>lines in precincts expected to favor Republicans.
>
>Ellen Connally, a liberal black judge candidate for the Ohio State
>Supreme Court who supported homosexual rights outpolled Kerry by 10%
>in 12 rural, mostly white counties, which stretches credulity. Kerry
>outpolled Connally by 32% state wide.
>
>In Clermont County, sworn affidavits by election observers given to
>the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for
>Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were
>filled in to replace them, before optical scanning.
>
>Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer have been convicting of rigging
>the Ohio recount of votes from the 2004 election (recount paid for by
>the Libertarian and Green parties).
>
>This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.

Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of this
is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee hearings,
panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage seems to come
from the fringes.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> ...
> >This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of this
> is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee hearings,
> panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage seems to come
> from the fringes.

Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
"structural" disadvantages.

The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort. Note that
Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same mindset.

Many Democrats feed from the same campaign contribution trough as the
Republicans. - "As long as I get mine, I won't rock the boat".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Rationality, as the primary cognitive system for comprehending our
world, has been rejected in favor of unyielding dogmatic belief. -
David Michael Green

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:52:21 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>>>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?
>>
>>When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
>>kind of weird.
>>
>>Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
>>something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
>>help make that sort of stuff more obvious.
>>
>>Just a suggestion.
>
>Or better, I could be just be like you and never make a mistake.

Oh, I make mistakes.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************