Yup. As would be obvious to you if you had actually read my post thoroughly.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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, which was a property tax which incorporated a graduated tax 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 modified the British income tax plan in 1815. It was not adopted. But two more direct taxes 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 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:
Well, I did mine, and I conclude this guy doesn’t know jack.
[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 inventedthis Hillary smear .
Boortz screams about the Clintons so much that I think he has a woody for both Bill and Hillary.
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.
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).
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:
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.
Then, in Chapter 5, the Commission goes into detail about the “purposeful use of erroneous listings”:
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:
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.
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!)
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.
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.