Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (21923)	9/5/2004 9:58:50 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 173976

That's it? That's all you got? So easily swept aside... Votes: [A] consortium hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001. “The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001. See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. aei.org The rest is just a bunch of emptiness. There is no disputing any facts at all, just a lot of complaining and whining. For example, the part where the lone Oregon state trooper patrols a huge section of coastline himself, without any anti-terrorism training or even documentation as to what he's supposed to be looking for. Moore correctly points out how inadequate Homeland Security is right now. THAT was the point, and nothing here refutes that point. The Ashcroft part is another example. No lies here, just pointing out that Ashcroft and the Bush administration KNEW that bin Laden wanted to attack in the US. And, despite her lying statements otherwise, Rice WAS informed that they wanted to use planes as weapons. You cut and pasted this without reading it, right? You figured that since it was really long and had a lot of words, it must be solid evidence that Moore lied. Instead, it is a whining piece, with evidence of not one single lie by Moore. Try again. This time, read before you cut and paste, so as not to further embarrass yourself.