# Hey...how do the pro-democrats on the SDMB feel about this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2003, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504 "2003-06-13T04:04:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/41 "2003-06-17T12:59:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > \*\*Say Oliver, did you read that linked article? > \*\* Yup. As would be obvious to you if you had actually read my post thoroughly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Or did you miss the whole point of my postings on this thread? Which was, not that Florida’s 2000 election did not have problems, but that to blame Jeb Bush, rather than the local and locally elected election supervisors, is just bullshit. > > Like I said, we get all the stories on this crap. \*\* You asked for evidence that scores of voters who were eligible to vote were turned away as ineligible. I provided it. As for Bush vs. the local and locally elected supervisors, the list of felons was requested by the State, it was provided to the State, with explicit caveats. Saying that the local authorities are responsible for being swamped with bogus data the State knowingly dumped on them is distorting at best. The State knew that the data was bogus. Yes, more local authorities could have just ignored it such as the one cited. Would that have removed the problem? No. It would have merely decreased the number of eligible voters turned away and increased the number of ineligible voters who voted. So, let’s look at the facts: Several thousand voters who were eligible to vote were turned away. (Something you demanded a cite for, which I provided) They were turned away because of a bunch of hogwash in a list the State had requested, the State had been provided with, and the State had distributed to local authorities. As such, looking for the responsibility with local authorities is nothing but whitewashing the fact that the eligibility issue was screwed up on the State level. As the phone line problems demonstrate, the local authorities lacked the infrastructure for the ‘Don’t worry, the counties will verify the information’ to have any credibility. Once again: Local authorities did not make those lists. They were given them by the State. Local authorities did not knowingly turn away eligible voters. State authorities however knowingly labeled law-abiding citizens felons in lists they provided the local authorities with. ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/42 "2003-06-17T13:19:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Once again: Local authorities did not make those lists. They were given them by the State. Local authorities did not knowingly turn away eligible voters. State authorities however knowingly labeled law-abiding citizens felons in lists they provided the local authorities with. \*\* I’m going to ignore the rest of your post, I really don’t want to rehash the 2000 election. But let’s concentrate on this little tidbit, when you say that: > [@](#): > > State authorities however knowingly labeled law-abiding citizens felons Do you mean that officials at the state level gave instructions to remove law abiding citizens from the polls? I only ask because there’s a whole batch of black helicopters hovering over the house next door and I’m thinking they might need to be sent over to your place. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/43 "2003-06-17T21:12:16Z")
Okay, at first I thought this guy was just another chump blogger, but now I find that he is also a mud-slinging pinhead and terrible historian, which **really ticks me off**. Today, I found this brilliant little smear against General Wesley Clark on his site: > [@](#): > > GENERAL WESLEY CLARK … NOT EXACTLY A HISTORIAN > > Clark was a guest on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press this past Sunday. The questioning turned to Clark’s political ambitions and his feelings on the Bush tax cut. Clark says that he would not have supported the tax cuts … and gave the following reason: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. **I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.** ” > > Sorry, General Clark. You have the Constitution of the United States mixed up with the Communist Manifesto. Don’t feel bad though. This is a very common problem with Democrats. Your political bedmates just can’t seem to tell the difference between the two, and apparently either can you. I’ve pointed out the fact that Republicans seem genuinely fearful of General Clark, but this is absolutely unconscionable. The first federal progressive tax I can find is the [Direct Tax of 1798](http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-q.htm), which was a property tax which incorporated a [graduated tax](http://departments.mwc.edu/hipr/www/1798l1a.htm) on all dwellings valued over $100. Signed into law by **President John Adams**. The first proposed income tax came when Secretary of the Treasury [Alexander Dallas](http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm) modified the British income tax plan in 1815. It was not adopted. But two more [direct taxes](http://www.futuregate.com/tax_buster/history2.html) similar to the 1798 one were levied by Congress and signed into law by **President and Founding Father James Madison**. And then of course, the first [_actual_ graduated income tax](http://taxhistory.tax.org/Articles/civilwar.htm) is fairly well known to those of us who actually read history books. Signed into law by the **first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln**. I think Wesley Clark was dead on when he said this country was founded on the principle of progressive taxation. This Boortz pinhead is an uninformed baboon. However, at least he knows he’s an ignorant fool. Here’s the disclaimer at the bottom of his webpage: > [@](#): > > WARNING! > Do not believe anything you hear on my show, or anything you read on the Internet unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true – or you have actually taken the time to verify the information with another source. That’s called “doing your homework.” Well, I did mine, and I conclude this guy doesn’t know jack. ---
**Author:** ![AtomicDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@AtomicDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AtomicDog)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/44 "2003-06-18T00:58:34Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* \*\*Okay, at first I thought this guy was just another chump blogger, but now I find that he is also a mud-slinging pinhead and terrible historian, which **really ticks me off**. What do you expect from someone who claims that he **invented** [this Hillary smear](http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/panthers.htm) . Boortz screams about the Clintons so much that I think he has a woody for both Bill and Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/45 "2003-06-19T05:47:08Z")
I suspect that most of the pro-Democrats on this forum are intelligent enough to know that most Republicans do not come close to duplicating the stupidity and mean-spiritedness of Neal Boortz. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/46 "2003-06-19T13:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > Do you mean that officials at the state level gave instructions to remove law abiding citizens from the polls? I only ask because there’s a whole batch of black helicopters hovering over the house next door and I’m thinking they might need to be sent over to your place. I doubt that they gave these explicit instructions. However, they were at best **extremely negligent** in not requiring reasonable checks to be made to the list that was compiled. And, on top of that, they were extremely generous with state funds, giving the company that compiled the list a ridiculously lucrative contract for the amount of work they actually did on it (after apparently rejecting much lower bids for the contract according to Pallast). ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/47 "2003-06-20T07:48:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > \*\* > Do you mean that officials at the state level gave instructions to remove law abiding citizens from the polls? I only ask because there’s a whole batch of black helicopters hovering over the house next door and I’m thinking they might need to be sent over to your place. \*\* The only thing you demonstrate is that you are willing to apologize any degree of misconduct when the outcome is one you find favorable. What I meant was very clear from what I wrote, and tearing individual sentences out of context to misrepresent them only shows that dishonesty is a prime requirement for support for this result. The sort of conduct depicted by state officials would not be tolerable from any private party but would result in huge liabilities. But because it brought Bush into power, it is entirely acceptable to you. Once again: Local officials are not responsible for law-abiding citizens being listed as felons on these lists. State officials knew there were law-abiding citizens listed as felons on those lists, but did nothing about it. ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/48 "2003-06-20T12:18:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*The only thing you demonstrate is that you are willing to apologize any degree of misconduct when the outcome is one you find favorable. What I meant was very clear from what I wrote, and tearing individual sentences out of context to misrepresent them only shows that dishonesty is a prime requirement for support for this result. > > The sort of conduct depicted by state officials would not be tolerable from any private party but would result in huge liabilities. But because it brought Bush into power, it is entirely acceptable to you. > > Once again: Local officials are not responsible for law-abiding citizens being listed as felons on these lists. State officials knew there were law-abiding citizens listed as felons on those lists, but did nothing about it. \*\* Oliver you might want to move that chip to the other shoulder, I’d hate to see you incur any permanent disabilities. What you said before was:[ QUOTE]State authorities however **knowingly** labeled law-abiding citizens felons in lists they provided the local authorities with. [/QUOTE] boldding mine And what you said again, in this post, was: > [@](#): > > State officials knew there were law-abiding citizens listed as felons on those lists, but did nothing about it. Any time you want to post any evidence that state officials, or local officials for that matter, knew that non-felons were listed as felons on those lists BEFORE the election, please feel free to do so. And while we’re on the subject of evidence, and misrepresentations, please feel free to post any place in this thread where I have explicitly or implicitly said that anything that happened in the 2000 election “as long as it brought Bush to power” was acceptable. If you can not do that, please feel free to post an apology. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/49 "2003-06-20T16:24:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > **Any time you want to post any evidence that state officials, or local officials for that matter, knew that non-felons were listed as felons on those lists BEFORE the election, please feel free to do so.** I presume that offer is open to all. Allow me to direct you to the [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights](http://www.usccr.gov). Note its coveted .gov surname. In 2001, the Commission released its report, [Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm). The [executive summary](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm) states: > [@](#): > > …Two key failings accounted for a large portion of the purge-related disenfranchisement: > > - The Division of Elections failed to recommend the same cautionary steps before the November 2000 presidential election that were taken before the 1998 election. At that time, supervisors of elections were asked to verify the exclusion lists with the greatest of care. They were asked to provide opportunities for persons to vote by affidavit ballot in those instances in which the voter made a credible challenge to his or her removal from the voter registration rolls. > > - Inadequate supervision of Division of Elections staff allowed irresponsible decisions to be made, including an official of the Division of Elections encouraging an error-laden strategy that resulted in the removal of a disproportionate number of eligible African American voters from the rolls. > > … > > The purposeful use of erroneous listings to promote the state’s purging priorities and the permanent disenfranchisement of discharged felons raise important questions of fundamental fairness. Then, in Chapter 5, the Commission goes into detail about the “purposeful use of erroneous listings”: > [@](#): > > Clay Roberts, director of the Division of Elections, testified that a list of 3,993 possible felons was compiled by DBT Online and sent to the 67 supervisors of elections.[59] Janet Modrow, technical assistant for the Division of Elections, clarified the number provided by Mr. Roberts. Ultimately, DBT Online provided a list of 3,993 possible felons from its own databases and 38,329 possible felons based on the databases provided by the state of Florida.[60] Mr. Bruder stated the list created was not inaccurate, but rather it contained “false positives.” He explained: > > A false positive is an industry term that means some but not all the data elements match the data provided. The fact that there were names on the list that were not ultimately verified as deceased, registered in more than one place, or convicted felons does not mean the list was inaccurate, but reflects the nature of the search parameters established by the Division of Elections.[61] > > **DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the likelihood that a significant number of false positives existed and made recommendations to reduce those numbers, according to Mr. Bruder.** [62] He further asserted that DBT Online specifically suggested to state officials that narrow criteria be used in creating the lists, which would lower the false-positive rate, and therefore, minimize errors in the number of names matched.[63] Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that **“the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”** [67] \*–my bolding–SK State election were informed before the election that their list contained false positives, and officials knowingly and intentionally decided to keep the erroneous list. ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/50 "2003-06-20T16:55:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*State election were informed before the election that their list contained false positives, and officials knowingly and intentionally decided to keep the erroneous list. \*\* This is becoming a battle of semantics, but what your quote said was: > [@](#): > > DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the **likelihood** that a significant number of false positives existed Note the word **likelyhood** as in “not certain”, consequently it would be incorrect to say that “officials knowingly and intentionally decided to keep the erroneous list”, since it was never established that the list was erroneous, only that there was a \*\*likelyhood[B/] that it was. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/51 "2003-06-20T17:13:43Z")
I think the **likelihood** is fairly well proven by the fact that people _were_ disenfranchised through the use of the erroneous list. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/52 "2003-06-20T17:21:47Z")
You know, I was going to reply to this, but it’s just not worth it. Too many ants crapping in the pepper. You continue to believe what you want to believe there, **bayonet1679** , and I’ll see you at the polls. ---
**Author:** ![Clu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@Clu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/53 "2003-06-20T17:26:40Z")
[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/florida.htm](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/florida.htm) A small contribution, but this site states: > [@](#): > > At least one unauthorized law enforcement checkpoint was set up on Election Day resulting in complaints that were investigated by the Florida Highway Patrol and the Florida Attorney General; I presume to scare away voters with traffic warrants. ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/54 "2003-06-20T17:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*You know, I was going to reply to this, but it’s just not worth it. Too many ants crapping in the pepper. > > You continue to believe what you want to believe there, **bayonet1679** , and I’ll see you at the polls. \*\* Thanks for the benediction **Sofa King**! You do the same. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/55 "2003-06-21T05:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bayonet1976 \* > Note the word **likelyhood** as in “not certain”, consequently it would be incorrect to say that “officials knowingly and intentionally decided to keep the erroneous list”, since it was never established that the list was erroneous, only that there was a **likelyhood** that it was. Well, yes, if you want to argue that the officials in question were hopelessly naive, grossly incompetent and negligent, I suppose that is a possible alternative to a claim that they acted maliciously. (And, by the way, while it may not say that it was established at the time that the list was definitely erroneous, it has been well-established by Pallast and others since that time. Hell, according to Pallast, the election official in one county refused to use the list after she found **her own name** on it!) ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/56 "2003-06-21T08:12:21Z")
> [@](#): > > "The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections. It’s nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year. I guess you can’t blame them. Nothing else has worked. Well, Republicans scare me. If the tactic suceeds in getting people to vote them out of office in favor of less scary candidates that don’t want to implement scary policies, more power to it. ---
**Author:** ![cynicismkills](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@cynicismkills](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cynicismkills)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504/57 "2003-06-22T18:14:10Z")
bayonet, this is only becoming a ‘battle of semantics’ as you put it, because you choose to ingore the majority of information provided by other posters, seemingly preferring to split hairs re: wording. Another poster has already provided you with evidence that there was a clear precedent re: due diligence to ensure voting rights during previous elections (i.e. affidavits), and this knowledge, combined with clear evidence that state officials intentionally saw fit to leave out such recommendations such diligence even after being warned by the very same company that they apparently overpaid to collect the data warned them that they should narrow the results should be disquieting (to say the least!) to even the most partisan among us. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-how-do-the-pro-democrats-on-the-sdmb-feel-about-this/181504.md?page=2)