The last stand of the American Republic....

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you live in Florida your right to vote for president was taken away. If you vote on a diebold machine, your right to vote does not exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

For a third time I'll ask you for specific citation of credible proof beyond any doubt of yet another one of your ridiculous claims that persons' rights to vote for president have been stripped or denied. Specific proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? There's plenty of documented cases of people, in florida and elsewhere, that have been improperly denied their vote. In florida specifically, many people were removed because they had names similar to some convicted felons.

Here's a story from 2004:

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB7TQUZ5VD.html

[ QUOTE ]
Hundreds of people wrongly removed from voter rolls in 2000, who never committed felonies or whose rights had been restored, may not yet have been put back on the rolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spend five seconds on google and you can find a lot more documentation.

Note that while right-wingers tend to attempt to manipulate voter demographics by disqualifying voters, left-wingers tend to attempt to manipulate voter demographics by making it easier for unqualified people to get to vote. Assuming you can accurately identify qualified voters you think will vote for your opponent and get them wrongly disqualified or that you can accurately identify unqualified people that will vote for your side and get them improperly snuck into the voting booth, both tactics have the same *net* effect. The difference is that one prevents specific, identifiable people from casting votes, while the other cancels out votes of legitimate voters, but does it in a way that doesn't produce a specific, identifiable victim. Is one more reprehensible than the other?

Pvn,

Citing a Tampa Bay Online story about a felon who can no longer vote because of a properly enforced law doesn't in any way whatsoever qualify the statement "If you live in Florida, you have no right to vote".

Nor does citing a story of how there may have been (and the article does emphasize that) some hiccups in the transition of enforcing this widely accepted rule which has possibly temporarily confused some legitimate people (whose party affiliation is, obviously, unknown) with felons, qualify that statement in any way.

[ QUOTE ]
Spend five seconds on google and you can find a lot more documentation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can also spend five seconds googling about all of the rapes, murders, and cannibalism that was occurring in the SuperDome at the height of Hurricane Katrina. Do you accept this as infallible proof?

[Meech]

The "Florida votes didn't count" thing is overdone. And wrong.

Honestly, with the idiots down there I think the country might be better off if they officially didn't count. Between Jebidiah and the people who can't read a punch card -- well, that is Amerikkka.

Just because its on the internet doesnt make it true.

More people Voted for Al Gore (including in Florida), but George's brother made sure he won. Pretty simple.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because its on the internet doesnt make it true.

More people Voted for Al Gore (including in Florida), but George's brother made sure he won. Pretty simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you meant to say........

----

More people Voted for Al Gore (including in Florida), but George's brother made sure he won. Pretty simple.

Just because its on the internet doesnt make it true.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because its on the internet doesnt make it true.

More people Voted for Al Gore (including in Florida), but George's brother made sure he won. Pretty simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently we have a conspiracy theorist on the boards.

Are you aware that the New York Crimes, Atlanta Journal Constipation and several other media sources conducted a recount on their own and came up with the same results?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn,

Citing a Tampa Bay Online story about a felon who can no longer vote because of a properly enforced law doesn't in any way whatsoever qualify the statement "If you live in Florida, you have no right to vote".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not addressing the "you have no right to vote" statement, since I didn't make it. I am addressing your statement that there's no citations of actual people being denied their vote.

The felon that is the focus of the story isn't the part I was citing.

I'm not sure what kind of "proof" will satisfy you. There are lawsuit settlements of public record where various state agencies have *admitted* that people were wrongfully removed.

[ QUOTE ]
I am addressing your statement that there's no citations of actual people being denied their vote.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no such statement. I expect more from you.

I requested specific credible evidence to qualify the statement "If you live in Florida or if you use a diebold voting machine, you have no right to vote for President".

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am addressing your statement that there's no citations of actual people being denied their vote.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no such statement. I expect more from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I'll ask you for specific citation of credible proof beyond any doubt of yet another one of your ridiculous claims that persons' rights to vote for president have been stripped or denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pvn,

You entirely missed the context: ...(context)

[ QUOTE ]
I'll ask you for specific citation of credible proof beyond any doubt of yet another one of your ridiculous claims that persons' rights to vote for president have been stripped or denied (by virtue of them "living in Florida or using a diebold machine") .


[/ QUOTE ]

This of course doesn't change the fact that I still made no such claim , but rather was asking for citation of evidence to the first claim that living in Florida or using diebold machines automatically implies the absence of any right to vote for President.