The Katherine Harris Thread

[freedomfrypizza]

From the very outset, starting with their coup in florida in 2000

I think by coup you mean the Florida State Supreme Court unconstitutionally injecting themselves into the election when they had no jurisdiction to do so. The authority, under Florida's constitution, resided in Katherine Harris to facilitate the election, and her decisions should have been final. Why then, did the State Supreme Court get involved? Ohhhh, because it's full of left wing judges who couldn't stand to watch President Bush be elected. Yeah, I think you're confused about the whole coup idea.

P.S. Bush still had more votes than Gore in Florida.

it figures that sukiemiah would like a post that is 100% incorrect.

judicial review was necessary and correct b/c katherine harris was acting illegally. furthermore, the u.s. supreme court decision was a pile of shit.

:pray: please start another thread so we can discuss this. :rockon:


I leave it to you to find out what exactly Katherine Harris did that was illegal. The book I read on this subject is back at my parents' home in Michigan, so I may not be able to debate this as well as I would like. I stand by what I orginially said about the Florida Supreme Court acting illegaly. I'm interested in any proof you have that says otherwise.

[nehemiah]

katherine harris scrubbed 57,000 names off the 2000 election voting list.

90% of those people should have been allowed to vote - according to florida state law.

[TRIPLE P]

This is not a debate Bushistas want to get in.... its clear that the election was tainted, there are countless examples of peoples vote simply not being counted.....

Factor in that his brother runs the state, and just using everything we've learned about Bush since then and its pretty clear that the nation was stolen....

and you pathetic bush-boys don't care.... you relish the fact "your guy" won by fraudulence.... You aren't Americans, you're traitors and you should go to bed every night ashamed that you dishoner you country

[freedomfrypizza]

katherine harris scrubbed 57,000 names off the 2000 election voting list.

90% of those people should have been allowed to vote - according to florida state law.

Sources? By the way, I can't wait to get my hands back on that damn book. There is information about the Republican panhandle not getting their votes out that's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't remember what exactly happened.

[freedomfrypizza]

This is not a debate Bushistas want to get in.... its clear that the election was tainted, there are countless examples of peoples vote simply not being counted.....

Factor in that his brother runs the state, and just using everything we've learned about Bush since then and its pretty clear that the nation was stolen....

and you pathetic bush-boys don't care.... you relish the fact "your guy" won by fraudulence.... You aren't Americans, you're traitors and you should go to bed every night ashamed that you dishoner you country

How about the military absentee ballots that weren't counted? About 80% of those would be for Bush based on them being military alone. Furthermore, your argument is purely conjecture and not based on any substantiated claim. Give me some facts. And I apologize for being pathetic, I really do.

[nehemiah]

katherine harris was simultaneously the chairwoman of bush's campaign in florida and the person running the election.

again - that's enough to kick it to the courts.

[nehemiah]

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission’s subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents.[2]

Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in Florida’s election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were turned away at the polls or wrongfully purged from voter registration rolls.

While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude, and inefficiency.

Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement.

The Commission does not adjudicate violations of the law, hold trials, or determine civil or criminal liability. Therefore, the recommendations that follow urge the U.S. Department of Justice and Florida officials to institute formal investigations based on the facts in this report to determine liability and to seek appropriate remedies.

The Commission is charged to “investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation relating to deprivations—(A) because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; or (B) as a result of any pattern or practice of fraud; of the right of citizens of the United States to vote and have votes counted. . . .”[3] The Commission is also charged with reporting its findings to the President and Congress as appropriate.[4] The uncontroverted evidence leads the Commission to the following findings and recommendations.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm

[micknaboz]

and you pathetic bush-boys don't care.... you relish the fact "your guy" won by fraudulence.... You aren't Americans, you're traitors and you should go to bed every night ashamed that you dishoner you country

Right on brother.

How about the military absentee ballots that weren't counted? About 80% of those would be for Bush based on them being military alone

You care to back that up with some sources??
I didnt think so.

[nehemiah]

Yesterday's Justice Department announcement of a suit against Florida counties for purging Black voters from voter rolls and other violations of civil rights is the result, and vindication, of the investigations of BBC Television reporter Greg Palast. The award winning investigative reporter, within three weeks of the 2000 election, was first to disclose that the Florida Secretary of State's office had purged thousands of voters, mostly African American, from voter registries prior to the Presidential election. All were named as felons ineligible to vote, but most, Palast disclosed, were innocent.
...
Palast's continuing reports on the topic are devastating: disclosing e-mails and internal Florida state documents indicating that Harris' office KNEW the purge swept away the civil rights of innocents - and changed the outcome of the election. Counsel for the US Civil Rights Commission has said that Palast's reports provided, "The first hard evidence of systematic violation of civil rights."
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=157&row=2

[freedomfrypizza]

Right on brother.



You care to back that up with some sources??
I didnt think so.

Which part? The ones that weren't counted or the 80%? As for the 80%, I think 20+ years of being the son of a Marine is enough (you meet a lot of people during that timespan and learn a lot about them), but if you would like me to find sources, I will do my best. I'll be back on here probably tomorrow to discuss this further. I've got to get to class, and then I have a test to study for.

[micknaboz]

but if you would like me to find sources, I will do my best. I'll be back on here probably tomorrow to discuss this further. I've got to get to class, and then I have a test to study for.

Good, I look forward to seeing your sources on the percentages you cite.
And no, personal experiences do not count. Maybe the people you encountered were heavily republican, but its a stretch to project that onto all the armed forces. My understanding is that officers are generally repugs, whereas the grunts are weighted more to the dem side. So i do have to respectfully question your assertions on the 80% thingy.

[RabidBillsFan]

Which part? The ones that weren't counted or the 80%? As for the 80%, I think 20+ years of being the son of a Marine is enough (you meet a lot of people during that timespan and learn a lot about them), but if you would like me to find sources, I will do my best. I'll be back on here probably tomorrow to discuss this further. I've got to get to class, and then I have a test to study for.

I totally disagree with you.

Based upon the here and NOW, 80% is too high now. You forget as an all-volunteer military during an economic boom period, a lot of Democratic voters have entered the service- much more than most people realize. Although the majority hold still exists, 80% is just not an accurate reflection.

The only reason why this comes up in the first place is because most of the higher-ranking members already have their money and career at stake, and tend to be the face that gets publicly interviewed in press coverage... and yet there are many who, once they retire, suddenly are able to declare themselves against inane conservative Republican policies, because their career is finished.

[nehemiah]

How about the military absentee ballots that weren't counted? About 80% of those would be for Bush based on them being military alone. Furthermore, your argument is purely conjecture and not based on any substantiated claim. Give me some facts. And I apologize for being pathetic, I really do.which military votes weren't counted?

[shiva2999]

I'd like to have a threesome with Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris.

[TRIPLE P]

I'd like to have a threesome with Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris.


Queer :nono:

[nehemiah]

Queer :nono::rofl:

post of the mutha****ing year!

[ckg68]

I'd like to have a threesome with Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris.

Which will be immediately followed by the world's first 6 hour shower/bath. :)

[uppy]

Good, I look forward to seeing your sources on the percentages you cite.
And no, personal experiences do not count. Maybe the people you encountered were heavily republican, but its a stretch to project that onto all the armed forces. My understanding is that officers are generally repugs, whereas the grunts are weighted more to the dem side. So i do have to respectfully question your assertions on the 80% thingy.

I was a grunt and 90% of my buddys were conservative,and all voted even
if we were in the field.

[sukie]

Good soldiers... (wink)

[35Pete]

Good, I look forward to seeing your sources on the percentages you cite.
And no, personal experiences do not count. Maybe the people you encountered were heavily republican, but its a stretch to project that onto all the armed forces. My understanding is that officers are generally repugs, whereas the grunts are weighted more to the dem side. So i do have to respectfully question your assertions on the 80% thingy.
WRONG!!!! And ignorant too.

Why would the grunts be dems when the scumbags, errr I mean democrats absolutely HATE the military??

[sukie]

GI bill Pete... Free education.

[35Pete]

GI bill Pete... Free education.
But the reps support that too.

[micknaboz]

WRONG!!!! And ignorant too.
Why would the grunts be dems when the scumbags, errr I mean democrats absolutely HATE the military??
Today 10:18:48 AM

Its neither wrong nor ignorant, I'll see if I can find the stats for you.

And the only thing ignorant is that tired, old, boring, unsubstantiated lie/meme that dems hate the military.

The dems seem to be the only ones who actually fought, certainly none of the chickenhawks around Bush ever felt any great patriotism to actually serve in the military.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid Pete. They got ya right where they want you.

[sukie]

Because they know the poor will enlist in droves to fill our nations militia without needing to draft the rich republicans.

[rob on the job]

I'd like to have a threesome with Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris.


Their balls are bigger than yours, Shiva.

[ckg68]

WRONG!!!! And ignorant too.

Why would the grunts be dems when the scumbags, errr I mean democrats absolutely HATE the military??

1. Then,pray tell,why are a bunch of combat vets running for Congress as Democrats? Oh,that's right. They HATE the military. http://www.fightingdems.com/

2. I'd put forth the notion that it's the Repubs that hate the military. It's been 3 years later,and they STILL haven't given troops in the field body armor-or,for that matter,worked faster to upgrade the windows in troop vehicles to make them more explosion-resistant.

[sukie]

Mickna... The WMD's are in Syria... Georges Sada said so. Geez.

[sukie]

ckg... a bunch? I saw a news piece on 2.

[RabidBillsFan]

WRONG!!!! And ignorant too.

Why would the grunts be dems when the scumbags, errr I mean democrats absolutely HATE the military??

REALLY? My sources say you are flat wrong.

12 Generals and Admirals endorsed Kerry for President over W

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34048

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: In 1976, he unsuccessfully ran as a Democratic candidate for the Senate from Virginia.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq93-1.htm

General Wesley Clark:

http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59106

Of course, these are but a sampling of the very highest ranking retired members who have chosen the Democratic Party. They have no less love of country and its rights than anyone else, so it is patently unfair to label them as anything other than true American patriots.

[ckg68]

ckg... a bunch? I saw a news piece on 2.

That's why I included a link,jw.

Please don't tell me you were so "totally trashed" that you didn't notice it.

[uppy]

Its neither wrong nor ignorant, I'll see if I can find the stats for you.

And the only thing ignorant is that tired, old, boring, unsubstantiated lie/meme that dems hate the military.

The dems seem to be the only ones who actually fought, certainly none of the chickenhawks around Bush ever felt any great patriotism to actually serve in the military.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid Pete. They got ya right where they want you.

I never saw dems around when we were fighting....and I was their.
You don't know what your talking about.

[uppy]

REALLY? My sources say you are flat wrong.

12 Generals and Admirals endorsed Kerry for President over W

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34048

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: In 1976, he unsuccessfully ran as a Democratic candidate for the Senate from Virginia.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq93-1.htm

General Wesley Clark:

http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59106

Of course, these are but a sampling of the very highest ranking retired members who have chosen the Democratic Party. They have no less love of country and its rights than anyone else, so it is patently unfair to label them as anything other than true American patriots.

This sampling you show are mostly politcal officers that got their rank
not from the military,but from demo prezs or pols.

1) Gen Clark...Sam Nunn,Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
2)Lt.Gen Claudia Kennedy ...Bill Clinton
3)Gen Shalikashvili....Bill Clinton
4)Abm.Turner....LBJ,Jimmy Carter
5)Lt.Gen Baca....National Gaurd.. its all a home town good old boy thing

[RabidBillsFan]

This sampling you show are mostly politcal officers that got their rank
not from the military,but from demo prezs or pols.

1) Gen Clark...Sam Nunn,Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
2)Lt.Gen Claudia Kennedy ...Bill Clinton
3)Gen Shalikashvili....Bill Clinton
4)Abm.Turner....LBJ,Jimmy Carter
5)Lt.Gen Baca....National Gaurd.. its all a home town good old boy thing

They didn't HAVE to do anything when they retired, but they chose to support the Democrats. What I tried to show is that no matter what side is chosen, there are well qualified, 100% honorable people who served their country making their voices heard.

Political appointments happen on BOTH sides... for decades, in fact!! :)

[uppy]

For the most part the gop lets the military put up its own people for the top
jobs....its the demos that go over their heads and puts in politcal officers.

[micknaboz]

I never saw dems around when we were fighting....and I was their.
You don't know what your talking about.

You must have rode on the short bus.

[uppy]

You must have rode on the short bus.

:guy:

thats a good liberal for you..and whats wrong with the people on the
short bus?

[RabidBillsFan]

For the most part the gop lets the military put up its own people for the top
jobs....its the demos that go over their heads and puts in politcal officers.

All of the highest ranks are ALL filled through politics... if they don't play the game, Admiral or General just isn't gonna happen, or those very prestigious positions- it is an imbedded tradition! I wouldn't associate the practice of 'going over the head' consistently with either party.

[freedomfrypizza]

The seven day deadline imposed by FL law is unambiguous. “If the county returns are not received by the Dept. of State by 5pm of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.” The FL Supreme Court violated this law.

That’s not the only provision in the FL law that makes the seven day deadline for submitting returns mandatory. Section 102.112 (helpfully titled “Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties” states-again unequivocally- “Returns must be filed by 5pm on the 7th day following the…general election” (part to be flagrantly violated by the FL supreme court in italics).

The Democrats argue that the FL law is optional-just a suggestion, non-binding thoughts tossed out by the legislature, something akin to Democrats’ view of the Commandments against lying and adultery: you’re free to take it or leave it.

Al Gore lost the election, lost the recount, and also lost the third manual recount to the point permitted by law. Now he wants a bunch of corrupt judges to change the law two weeks after the election has taken place, to give him yet a fourth opportunity to steal enough votes to win.

Before Katherine Harris even had a chance to act, she was viciously attacked by the Democrats “election stealing task force.” The Washington Post devoted an entire article about Harris’ make-up. Obsessive rule followers are the bane of the Democrats’ existence.

Gore insists on manual recounts. He wants them only in three heavily Democratic counties in a single state-so that EVERY vote will count. Democrats denounce the butterfly ballot as racist and borderline sadistic, but they were designed by and approved by the Democrats.

November 30, 2000 A FL legislative committee recommends a special session to name the state’s 25 representatives to the Electoral College.

December 1, 2000 The US Supreme Court hears arguments on the FL Supreme Court’s extension of the election deadline.

December 4, 2000 The US Supreme Court vacates the FL Supreme Court’s decision and remands the court with instructions to please read the Constitution and the federal law next time. (This is how parents discipline small children!)

December 8, 2000 The FL Supreme Court orders manual recounts for the 43,000 ballots that registered no vote. The court adds 383 votes to Gore’s total.

December 9, 2000 The US Supreme Court orders the manual recount stopped.

December 11, 2000 The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the FL Supreme Court’s decision.

December 12, 2000 The FL House of Representatives votes to certify a slate of electors for George W. Bush

December 12, 2000 The US Supreme Court finds that the half-assed recount ordered by the FL Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Seven justices find that it violates the Equal Protection Clause; three of the seven find that it also violates Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures authority to determine the manner of choosing presidential electors (the correct grounds). Only two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, find that a partial recount of only some of the ballots in some FL counties does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. According to Justice Ginsburg, the Equal Protection Clause refers only to abortion; it has nothing to do with voting rights!