By Beauty Damned

Mad Mikey believes that the only reason democrats claim that Bush stole the election is because we think that the Supreme Court should have allowed the continuation of the hand recount and that there were conflicts of interest.

No, that's not what I meant.

What I was gunning for was the numerous re-counts that were done by Newsweek and others (can't remember exactly who) just to find out.

They all came out the same - Bush won by a slim margin but he still took Florida.

As for the 'depriving people the chance to vote', the Florida Election officials - both Dems & Repubs - conducted at least one investigation - nothing conclusive found.

If you have proof that says otherwise, I'd really like to see it. And I mean proof - not conjecture, not theory, not 'might haves' - PROOF.

Everytime I lock horns with someone over this, I ask for proof and I get static. Are you going to continue the tradition of just shaking your head and repeating the mantra 'Bush stole the election'?? Cause repeating something millions of times doesn't make it true - it just makes it memorable.

Oh and here is a pre-emptive strike: Nunya - jam it pal. Your opinion, while welcome here at Maria's place, is IRRELAVENT to me.

I recall how Bush won that election in 2000, fair and square.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

too bad for those blacks and hispanics who were systematically pulled over on their way to the polls conviently delaying them enough so the polls closed before their vote counted.

Here is some proof:

here
here
and here.

*edited by your mama*

Nunya, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself. Mikey, rest assured that comment will be deleted as soon as I get back to my own computer.

As for the 2000 election, the facts are the facts, and you can't change them.

The facts are the facts. Bush won. The liberals spent 4 years crying. I can't wait to hear what their excuse is when they lose this time.

i expect mikey's coment to me will be deleted as well.

wah fucking wah, neocunt. You didn't seem to have a problem when you were posting pictures of yourself *edited* and claiming it was Gordon.

I'm not trying to change them - I'm presenting them.

"i expect mikey's coment to me will be deleted as well."

Nunya's trying to boss Maria around.

I just watched Arnold's speech, Maria. I'd have given a week's pay to watch your face! I'm outta here, Laura's on.

Nunya, I don't see anything nearly as offensive in Mikey's post as in yours. In fact, I don't see anything even remotely near to the venom and nastiness that you spewed. Mikey has always kept it very cool at my site, and I'd appreciate it if you'd settle down. You get real hostile sometimes Nunya, when it's not necessary. So, put a lid on the hypersensitive anger.

Gordon, I'll bet you would have paid to see my face. If I'd been watching!!! Sorry. I only saw his cheesey opening wisecracks before I was sidetracked by other things. Things that won't leave me wishing I could have an hour of my life back. After last night, I can only take small doses. I'll be back on this tomorrow.

Oye....

Even though my first thought was 'ignore them', I went and checked on Nunya's *cough* proof. And they were exactly what I thought: non-proof.

First one: Commentary

Second one: A message board post which sources an op/ed from the New York Times.

Third one: Some law students Power Point presentation (you're kidding, right?)

I anticipated rubbish and that's what was presented. Nunya's grade: D

Maria, thanks for putting Nunya in his place. You said I'm 'ignoring facts' - what facts are you presenting?

I didn't even attempt to use Nunya's links. For all I know each link was more pics of men jerking off like two threads ago.

I hope nobody hit that link at work nunya, you could someone their job.

and I guess the garbage on dogsnot is worksafe as well....typical GOP fuzzy logic

A hell of alot more work safe than *edited*.

Christ, you're stupid Nunya. Whenever I post something questionable, I have the courtesy to post whether it's work safe or not. It's called common decency, something you know nothing about.

That's on MY own blog. I'll be damned if I'd link shit like that on someone elses.

I fail to see how allowing someone to post "i tocuh myself" and "I like to rape cats" or having pictures of a hair ass with a thong crammed up the crack (sans any warning or disclaimer) is "common decency." Maybe in your deluded world, perhaps.

The mere fact alone that you are one of the most hipocritcal people I have ever seen, "Gordon" is enough to make people hate you. Unfortunately, that is but only one of many many bad traits you have.

Again imbecile, a huge pic of a man's *edited* lap appearing on someone's monitor in front of their coworkers is not even comparable to size 12, times new roman font with one quote amongst a whole screen full of text.

As for your hate quip nunya, I don't know if anyone hates around here with exception to you. Hurling insults and disagreeing on politics hardly equates to hate. I don't even know anyone here, how the hell can I hate them? Even if I did know you, I'd probably feel pity, not hate.

Still waiting for facts to be presented.....

You'll be waiting awhile. You should have seen enough of NeoCunt by now to know he can never present facts to back up his wild claims.

disagreeing with something in your book mikey (as well as geoff/gordon's) doesn't immediately mact it factless. So, tough shit if you don't agree with what you read there. Fact is, state troopers on the night of the election of 2000 in predominantly black and latino communities, were systematically stopped and delayed from going to the polls to where it would have tipped the balance in Gore's favor. Just because you don't like that, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Maybe that shit works in your house and your little church, but reality is reality. Deal with it.

Yeah, Mikey, fuck you if you don't like it. As I said before, don't expect facts from Neocunt to back it up. He just made up his "facts".

Actually, I was waiting for Maria to present something tangible.

And as for nunya's *cough* proof - believing it, that is - well, I'm trying to be 'nice' here in Maria-land.

I realized long ago that arguing with nunya is like trying to catch farts and paint them blue....

Hahaha! Mikey. You made a funny.

And "tangible" as to what? Proof and evidence are not always "tangible." If you do your research, you will find that the facts regarding Katherine Harris and her 2000 election activity as presented in the video that I clipped are completely accurate and supported. Now why don't you present me with "something tangible" that would make me reasonably believe that the campaign to suppress completely legal votes never took place and that Katherine Harris wasn't duly rewarded.

While you're at it, why don't you give me something tangible that would lead me to believe that it wasn't a conflict of interest for Clarence Thomas' wife and Justice Scalia's son to be working for George Bush, respectively, at the time that Thomas and Scalia took part in the decision to stop the recount.

Of course it took place as everyone here in Florida who find such things completely business as usual in the political sphere, will gladly tell you so. Do you guys not read the articles on the felons list, for example?

I'm really sick of all your intentional and convenient ignorance. The only reason your constant garbage works is because a huge number of people who will vote for Bush are couldn't discern a fact if their daughter was raped by one in front of them.

What's rape got to do with this?

Maria: I haven't presented anything (as yet) because you are the one asserting the election was 'stolen' and as such, the burden of proof is on you.

(Glad you enjoyed my yuk-yuk funny! ;) )

I already proved it. Now I'm waiting for you to present a rebuttle. That's the way it works.

Your two links in this post aren't working and the last link is based on conjecture; they're extrapolating a possible reason for conducing this investigation.

Sorry, but it isn't proof.

The ball is now back in your court Maria....

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Cut and paste that into your browser Mikey. Then do some research and confirm for yourself that it is all true.

The ball is in your court Mikey.

Do you have anything that isn't biased? All this is is a macromedia presentation of your argument.

Okay, I've posted this before but apparently no on addressed it: MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH
WON THE 2000 ELECTION

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

Now, is PBS.org a satisfactory source for this 're-education'? The contention that the Supreme Court stopping the re-count cost Gore the election appears to be a moot (sp?) point.

As for the possible invocation of the Popular Vote vs. the Electoral Vote: while the popular vote was in Gore's favor, the fact of the matter is that Gore edging Bush out in more popular votes still didn't make a difference in how many electoral votes Bush received.

EXAMPLE: If say California voted for Gore with 10 million votes out of 18 million possible votes, then Gore would take the 54 electoral votes since he was the majority winner in California. And the same could be said if 16 million votes went to Gore in California, but he'd still get only 54 electoral votes; winning a higher percentage in a given state doesn't mean that the candidate gets more electoral votes.

CONCLUSION: In the states where Gore was clearly the majority winner of votes, the added percentages didn't contribute any difference.

Popular votes only matter in the state(s) deciding to which candidate to award the entirety (I think that's a word) of the electoral votes, not in the overall nationwide tally.

That's the beauty of our system - the more populus states cannot 'bully' the smaller states.

Back to you....

You have still missed the point completely regarding Katherine Harris.

"Do you have anything that isn't biased? All this is is a macromedia presentation of your argument."

It is a macromedia presentation of THE FACTS. Not my argument. The facts. If you would like to dispute the facts as presented in that there link, please, I invite you to do so. All you've done so far is blather on about polls, percentages, recounts and lecture me on the electoral system, which I am well informed about already.

Get this in your noggen: I'm not talking about recounts. I'm talking about voter suppression. We could argue about the Supreme Court ruling and the recounts all day long, but that's not what I'm talking about here. You still haven't addressed the issue that I am posting about in this thread. What about the voter suppression Mikey? What's your rebuttal? Stop avoiding the real topic.

Your 'evidence' of voter suppression is conjecture.

I could assert that Martians actually voted in Florida and produce a photo of one leaving a voting station, but I couldn't substantiate it.

Can you show that the 'voter suppression' was substantiated by authorities? That it isn't just so much hooey?

The evidence is there and it is not conjecture. Why don't you try doing some research Mikey? You are a very trusting fellow aren't you?

Like most of the rest of you conservatives, you wouldn't recognize clear evidence of wrongdoing by your leaders, even if it kicked you in the cojones.

I recognize allegations - that presentation is just a 'jazzed up' version of an accusation.

To me, evidence would be something verified by several news organizations - not partisan groups. Believe it or not, I question stuff that conservative groups assert.

Would you believe something that came from NewsMax? FoxNews? Ann Coulter?

Come on....show me something that isn't foaming-at-the-mouth with bias.

Do not underestimate the value of so-called "biased" sources. As I've said before, the presentation I linked is backed by the facts. Whether or not mainstream media gave the proper amount of attention to this information is of no consequence, since they are asleep at the wheel most of the time anyway. I depend on independent media a lot of the time to provide me with news. Why? Independent media holds the interests of the public before that of corporate congloms and without being slaves to the crippling fear of appearing biased, which breeds a lack of truly analytical or substantive reporting. The entire 2000 election shenannigan was as irresponsibly sidestepped as the leadup to the Iraqi war. Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11? Did you see the footage, the actual video, of each and every minority house speaker standing up and protesting the blatant suppression of the African American vote in Florida? That shit made me want to cry. Every one of those people were silenced. It made me wish we had another MLK to stand up and fight with them. It made me wish that someone would have given those people A VOICE. Preferably, our lovely mainstream media. But they weren't given a voice. The African American vote was suppressed and then the entire thing was brushed under the carpet. Truly disgusting.

Here are some other interesting articles and information about Katherine Harris and voter suppression:

http://www.local10.com/news/1237092/detail.html

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=332&printmode=true

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16373

http://www.naacp.org/news/archives/2000/florida_lawsuit.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/29/election.naacp.reut/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.29A.fl.face.2K.htm

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5772&fcategory_desc=E-Voting%20Machines%20/%20Vote%20Integrity

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=6939&fcategory_desc=E-Voting%20Machines%20/%20Vote%20Integrity

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/08/08/politics/main305435.shtml

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/13/harris/index.html

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19477/

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15394

I also found a good post at Sirotablog, with a couple of excellent comments to boot (plus one extremely racist comment!):

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/07/gop-lawmaker-calls-for-voter.html

No, I didn't see Moore's movie - I decided that my $10 was better spent on cigarettes.

I'll take a look at these articles, but tell me now: are they biased? Will I find that these are all 'fluff' pieces?

Mikey, would you like to get educated on the subject or not? Figure it out for yourself. Read the lawsuit filed by the NAACP against Katherine Harris. The document is there for you to read. Read the articles documenting the settlement that was reached in that case. Read the articles detailing the facts about the 2000 election, and maybe, finally, you will understand at least one small part of the ugly truth.

I read the articles and the settlement - they prove there were allegations. And this 'settlement' between the NAACP & Florida admits no wrong-doing; you're knowledgeable in law - you should know this.

I'm willing to bet that Florida settled this just to get is done with - lest the NAACP drag it out in the court of public opinion.

What else do you have to convince me?

"I'm willing to bet that Florida settled this just to get is done with - lest the NAACP drag it out in the court of public opinion."

You're absolutely right. And why do you think they would want to keep it out of the "court of public opinion" Mikey? Because most rational people would see the facts and the evidence and conclude that there was some obvious wrongdoing.

I guess it doesn't bother you that thousands of people who were never convicted of any crime whatsoever were put on a list of felons and were therefore prevented from voting. THAT IS A FACT Mikey.

If it doesn't bother you, then I think it's your conscience you need to consult with, not me.

p.s. When cases are settled, it is often for two reasons: (1) the defendants do not believe they have an adequate defense to convince the jury of their side of the story; or (2) the publicity that the trial would bring would cause some individual or entity bad publicity which could cost them on a professional level.

In the case of Katherine Harris, bad publicity has already been rampid and a lawsuit wouldn't have worsened her position in the political sphere in the least. So I can only conclude that the real reason this case was settled was because Katherine Harris's legal representatives didn't feel they had enough of a defense to win at trial. They would have had nothing to lose if there was even a shred of evidence that they could present in defense of the actions taken with regard to excluding legal voters from voting.

You have to admit, the evidence is clear as day.

If nothing dubious had occurred or the defense had evidence that would exonerate them from these allegations, I truly believe that they would have fought it out all the way to trial.

Not 'consulting' on anything.

YOU are the one that began with 'Time to Review' thinking that those of us that do not believe the election was stolen need to be re-educated.

I do not require re-education.

I do require that you show some proof that substantiates your claims of election theft - for the moment, all you have provided is allegations and conjecture.

I say conjecture because the settlement between the State of Florida and the NAACP was settled and you're jumping to the conclusion and/or assumption that the State had something to hide in seeking to settle. For all you know, it was the NAACP that sought to settle the suit.

Now, point-blank: can you show proof of your claim? YES or NO?

Now here is CNN showing that the independent recount after the election shows that Bush WON.

HERE is something from ABC News showing the same thing - Bush WON.

And HERE is the site of the organization of media groups that conducted the recounts after the smoke settled.

I don't know why you're still talking about recounts when this whole time my focus has been on African American voter suppression. Try seeing beyond the narrow confines of your brainwashed mentality Mikey. Seems to me you're trying to switch the subject from the clear evidence of voter suppression back to the issue of recounts (perhaps because you realize that there is no defense against undisputable evidence), when that is not even remotely the last or only lingering question.

Okay - show me proof of voter suppression then. Not allegations - proof.

I'm not attempting to change the subject; you have yet to prove the allegations of voter suppression are true.

Pretend I'm from Missouri - SHOW ME.

Still waiting....

You don't have anything, do you?

Mikey, if you were paying any attention you already would have observed the proof of voter suppression. The voter rolls are proof. The fact that all of those African Americans were excluded from voting is proof. The proof is in the mutherfuckin puddin. And if you can't see it, then it's not because it's not there, it's because you're either blind or in blatant denial.

It's not my problem anymore.

You mean I have to tilt my head 'just right' in order to see it?

Sorry - no proof equals no basis to stand on and subtle nuance doesn't count in my book.

To paraphrase Tom Cruise: Show me the proof!!

No. I mean you are incapable of identifying proof. You wouldn't know proof if it grew legs and kicked you in your huevos rancheros. What I mean is, I showed you the proof, but you have already made up your mind, so you are unwilling to recognize that it is there. Sorry. Don't blame me. It's not my fault you're thickheaded.

You cannot fall on the you're too dense to understand defense.

And you haven't shown proof - you've shown allegations and I nailed you down on them.

Let's play like we're in court and you have to explain it to a jury.

Actually, explain it like you would to a kid.

I shouldn't have to and I won't. I provided you with everything you need to discern the truth on your own. If you can't take a set of facts and reach the most reasonable and obvious conclusion, like I said, it ain't my responsibility to spoonfeed it to you. You, my friend, need to learn a little something about research and weighing the evidence before you.

"you've shown allegations and I nailed you down on them."

When? The allegations are supported by the facts. You haven't nailed anything down except your expertise at exhibiting a total lack of insight and playing the usual conservative game of spin and denial. If you deny the evidence is there, it doesn't make it any less real. I know, and the disenfranchised minorities in Florida know, what really happened. Ultimately, your inability to see the glaring truth is irrelevant.

I provided you with everything you need to discern the truth on your own.

Please humor me: POINT TO IT.

I don't recall 'seeing' it, but I'll take a stab at discerning the truth: I think your "evidence" is bogus

Pulling the if you can't see it then that's your problem defense is classic Dem duck-N-cover - assert/claim/foam-at-the-mouth about XYZ and when pushed to substantiate it, intellectual obtuseness is invoked.

Come on Maria - you're the one that posted the "need to review". Review what - allegations?

If this is indeed true, then someone somewhere must have substantiated it. Otherwise, it's just another urban legend that's been proven to be a hoax....

You don't like to read very much do you Mikey? If you did, I wouldn't have to hold your hand.

Furthermore, as I said before, what you think is of no consequence.

You should read the lawsuit Mikey. Especially the part under the heading

FACTS
A. Arbitrary and Racially Disparate Adverse Impact of Electoral Systems

That should tell you everything you need to know. Those are not allegations. They're facts. Not that you would know the difference.

The lawsuit is your primary source?

As was noted above, it was settled out of court which neither confirms (nor denies) any wrong doing - both parties (no pun) decided it would be too messy.

Just as in a civil case where either plantiff or defendent agree to settle the case, it's implied that guilt is no assigned.

BTW, thanks for linking to my blog ;)

I didn't say it was my primary source. But all of the facts are conveniently located there and it is a reliable source since you are not allowed to lie to the court.

Furthermore, the fact that the case was settled does not cancel out the veracity of the facts and sequence of events as stated there.

And you're welcome.

You know, over the last week the Killian memos have been leading a trail to Bush possibly being in rehab for a cocaine addiction.

The interesting part is that when any news article refers to this cocaine "problem", there's never any proof - only inference - all Bush would say about those 'party years' was "I was young & foolish" which doesn't say COCAINE, it just says he did (what are now considered) stupid things.

I'm starting to think that the cocaine business with President Bush is another urban myth....

And I'm starting to think that you are willing to blindly overlook every single one of Bush's faults in favor of the extremely naive notion that he is innocent of anything that he is accused of, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against him, and the belief that he could do no wrong (yeah, since there is not even the smallest possibility that he could be anything but the most upstanding, deeply credible, genuine and selfless individual ever to walk the earth and that all the havoc that he's wreaked over the past four years -- all the mistakes, miscalculations, misleading statements, not to mention the rocking sea of ulterior motives on which his political boat floats -- are nothing but a common figment of the collective imaginations of more than half the citizens of this country).

Hey Mikey

WAKE UP!!!! Bush is a deeply flawed individual, and the sooner that people like you start to realize that and stop denying the blatantly obvious, the better off you and the rest of this country will be.

Okay, show me the blatantly obvious about Bush's coke use.....

I'm not playing the "show me the proof" game with you Mikey. It's so pointless. First of all, because I am not the one who engaged you in the whole "Bush's cocaine use" debate, nor does it interest me very much. Secondly, you would have to have the ability to look at the facts at hand and reach a common sense conclusion. As in the case of the 2000 election / African American voter suppression scandal, -- which I see you've conveniently taken a detour from -- If all the signs point in one direction, I'm going in that direction. Unlike you, who would wander off into a dark forest teeming with grizzly bears if Bush told you that it was the most prudent route. I'm not saying I have proof of Bush's cocaine use, nor am I saying that the cretin Katherine Harris (or anyone else) signed a confession to the misdoings of 2000, but I am saying that all the signs point in that direction.

It's this whole concept of reasonable and most likely conclusions. Let me put it to you a way we can all understand: if you found notes from another man to your wife, cellphone bills showing strange phonecalls, and she was no longer interested in sex with you, would these signs not point you to the ultimate assumption that she was cheating on you, or would you have to walk in on her screwing the mailman before you would believe it was true?

See Mikey, I believe that circumstantial evidence is very powerful and is sometimes the only thing that a person has on which to base their conclusions. You on the other hand, are willing to feed on whatever line of bullshit is fed to you by the Bush administration. And that, my friend, is why I think you are so naive. You don't question. You just accept.

I question the validity of the claims perpetuated by the Democrats and the Left.

And I was not attempting to 'detour' from the supposed voter suppression - I'm waiting for you to offer up additional evidence to support your claim. Remember, this is your blog and YOU posted about the need to review - so review...meaning offer up the material(s) to substantiate your assertions. Come on, you're a paralegal - you know that rock-solid evidence is required for criminal and civil cases.

But you're right - all the signs point in that direction. However, you and I both know that not everything in the world is what is appears to be.

What is does appear to me to be is that there are some Dems that would do almost anything - anything - to get Bush out of office....even forge memos that discredit him. When I see people just spewing raw vitiolic statements and reciting the 'talking points' that are (at best) circumstantial over and over again in place of logical arguments, of COURSE I'm going to doubt what's put in front of me.

You say that circumstantial evidence is powerful - what about the circumstancial evidence brough forth against Kerry by the Swift Boat veterans? Do you discount that? 250+ veterans that all say the same thing.....Naw, they're just bitter...