Lets not forget the voter fraud in New Mexico and Illinois.

Then the Illinois gang went to Florida along with hundreds of lawyers.

Wonder why?

Their plan was to steal the election in any way they could. It just didn't
happen.


Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Whoopie Cusion McCain" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Oct 10, 10:43 am, Cliff wrote:
http://www.gregpalast.com/
[
"A lot of Europeans wonder: Why are Americans so crazy, they keep
reelecting
this guy?" Well the answer is, we don't! They keep stealing these
elections!
And they stole it in 2000, they stole it in 2004, and they're all set up
to
steal it again!" - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on BBC Television Newsnight.

On Friday at 6pm and 10pm Eastern Time, BBC America will bust open the
story of
the systematic attack on US voters that could easily cost Barack Obama
the White
House.
]

For the wingers a nearly free comic book:http://www.gregpalast.com/sbyv/
--
Cliff

Oh crap.. Several newspapers including the New York Lies got access to
the ballots in Florida after the last election through the sunshine
law. Over twenty news organizations came to the conclusion based on
their own tally that Bush won, your premise is a lie.. who'd a thunk?
Anyway, the story was buried and even neglected by most if not all of
those "news" organizations.

They were "buried" because the analyses were completed in early November
2001. I wonder what story might have overshadowed it, eh?

To keep up the fantasy that the election
was stolen, is just more bull**** from the left... And you know it...

Because of the events of the time and the fact that no one had patience for
it, the more complex story did indeed get buried -- in people's attention.
And, of course, the Republican sources seized on the parts they liked and
ignored the rest. Here's a summary of what they actually found:

"A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained
a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more
than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme
Court...

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than
those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore
might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the
rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have
reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the
consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore
might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the
one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the
votes.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/po...b5a8&ei=5 070

...and another interesting one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/po...b496&ei=5 070

The report concluded generally that the outcome would depend on how you did
the recount. Just recounting the challenged counties determined that Bush
won. Recounting the whole state *might* have turned it to Gore.

But Gore in 2000, like Richard Nixon in 1960 in regard to Texas and Chicago,
decided that, as close as it was, dragging out the challenges would be
damaging to the country. I think he was wise in that, as Nixon had been.

You need to see the movie, "Recount".

You'd do better by reading the actual reports.

--
Ed Huntress




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---