"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "MnMikew"

No plans to postpone the elections.



Weren't you saying, yesterday, that contingency plans were essential?

Not me. What makes you think they dont have one? Rice stated they had no
plans to postpone the elections.

William S Everhart 90512 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:20 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Would a last minute attack cause you to change your vote? Probably not.

Betcha it would. 9/11 boosted Bushy's ratings through the roof.

People weren't thinking much about terrorism before 9/11/01. Now, they are, and the ones who are looking at the issues before deciding who to vote for will be mindful of the need for whoever is elected to do something about terrorism.

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: "DeWayne"

From N8KDV The funniest darn thing that I ever, ever see here is Michael W.
Bryant
accusing
others of not being intelligent.

If you think MWB is so stupid then why do you continue to argue with him???
How long??? Get a life Steve!!!


In that phone call I made to Steve, he actually pleaded with me to stay.

I did no such thing. That's a fabrication on your part. You continue to state that,
and I continue to counter by asking just when you're leaving.

You also lied in that very same phone call, stating you had been fired by
Louisville Technical Institute. You had not as a subsequent phone call proved.

dxAce

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: Dan

As it stands now, the election could *not* be delayed, under *any*
circumstances. Democrats would be screaming about "Bush trying to
steal another election" or some such nonsense, because there are NO
CONTINGENCY PLANS IN PLACE.



Just more proof that the Bush administration's own flip-flops indicate a
Presidency in disarray. First, they say we're looking at it as a
contingency.
Early yesterday, Rice tells the press that just ain't so. Then, today,
when the
opriginal letters are produced, they're back to saying that, well, yes, we
were
looking at how to deprive the states of their control over their
elections.

Lying and flip-flopping certainly characterizes this administration!

You can't even spell original. Let alone come up with some facts to back up
your idiotic claims. Yep, no lying or flip-flopping from Kerry.

The states have no control over federal elections, dumbass. No one
is "depriving" anyone of anything.

You are profoundly stupid, aren't you?

Dan

Pssssst, Dan, buddy -- you'd better check your facts again before you call
names and sling insults.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:21:22 -0400, dxAce wrote:

In that phone call I made to Steve, he actually pleaded with me to stay.
I'm beginning to think he really is gay.

I did no such thing. That's a fabrication on your part. You continue to state that,
and I continue to counter by asking just when you're leaving.
You also lied in that very same phone call, stating you had been fired by
Louisville Technical Institute. You had not as a subsequent phone call proved.
dxAce

What about you being GAY? You didn't deny THAT!

bonos wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:21:22 -0400, dxAce wrote:

In that phone call I made to Steve, he actually pleaded with me to stay.
I'm beginning to think he really is gay.

I did no such thing. That's a fabrication on your part. You continue to state that,
and I continue to counter by asking just when you're leaving.
You also lied in that very same phone call, stating you had been fired by
Louisville Technical Institute. You had not as a subsequent phone call proved.
dxAce

What about you being GAY? You didn't deny THAT!

So, I'm not gay. Disappointed, 'tard?

dxAce

Dan wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:46:31 -0400, longwave
wrote:

From: Dan

Bush was elected, you just don't like that fact. All of the post-election recounts proved this.

Bush would not have been 'elected' if there had been a statewide recount
in Florida.

There were several, he won them all.

'Statewide' means all polling districts in the state. There was no
statewide recount in Florida.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dan wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:44:40 -0400, longwave
wrote:


'Statewide' means all polling districts in the state. There was no
statewide recount in Florida.


OIC, we're playing semantic games. There were several recounts of
all of the contested counties in Florida. Bush won all of them.

No one was demanding a "statewide" recount.

Dan


Another factor in Florida was the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, &
MSNBC) forgot or didn't realize the Republican leaning western panhandle
is in a different time zone than the rest of the state, so at 8 eastern,
they announced the polls were closed and called the state for Gore.

I've read estimates this resulted in a net loss of 7,500 to 10,000 votes
for the Bush ticket. Bob Beckel, a political advisor for the Democrats
estimated "up to 8,000".

Florida wasn't nearly as close as most people think.

Dan wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:44:40 -0400, longwave
wrote:

'Statewide' means all polling districts in the state. There was no
statewide recount in Florida.

"Read It & Weep", indeed!

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

The New York Times is hardly a Bush supporter!

Dan

A legal recount is conducted by the election officers of a state, not a
newspaper. It would have uncovered the election fraud that resulted in
thousands of minority voters being disenfranchised. This is also
mentioned on that NYT website you referred to. The only fair solution
would have been a statewide re-vote in Florida with careful monitoring
of each polling place.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----