How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 A Touch of Class   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Touch of Class

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


75 posted 11-13-2006 02:22 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ron, I have to disagree that there are no WMDs in Iraq.  There is enough depleted uranian to change life forever there for 1000 miles surrounding where it was used.  Now whose weapons those were, however, is another story; maybe that's where the lie is.  
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


76 posted 11-13-2006 11:37 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Right Iliana, I suspect Bush must have scattered some uranium around when he made the unannounced trip to Baghdad

And come on now Ron. As a former business owner, I'm sure you had to fire some employees. How many times did you announce your intention to the press or anyone else a few weeks before doing so. It just doesn't work that way. Claiming otherwise is just common business practice as well as common courtesy to the firee. "I did not have sex with that woman." Now there is a lie. Even that one though, I was able to excuse since I suspect most of us would have done the same under similar circumstances.

If you have to be a Bush Basher, at least find something worthy. He surely has committed enough mistakes that actually count. If this is the best you can offer then you are wasting your time.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


77 posted 11-13-2006 11:46 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Not a Poet, I suggest you check with Veterans' Affairs and other veterans' organizations on the depleted uranium thing if you don't believe me.  Maybe you don't listen to the news?  This did make national news although it was immediately hushed up. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


78 posted 11-13-2006 12:02 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Made news then was hushed up?  You mean like the sat recon which showed the fuselage of a Boeing 747 (just fuselage and cabin, no wings or tailsection) just south of Baghdad on a segregated military base where the soldiers were prohibited on pain of death from consorting with the 'guests' who were practicing something with the 747 during the late 90's up until 2001?  I even recall reading the story at MSNBC about a year after 9/11 before the article mysteriously vanished when Iraq was in the crosshairs, which was remarked upon in the Drudge Report.

I know, I know...Matthew Drudge is an uber-neocon and cannot be trusted. Just when I did a google search, his site was one of the few that popped up which referenced the vanished story from major online news sites, as well as asking the question of why it vanished so quickly after the intent to invade Iraq became known.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


79 posted 11-13-2006 12:06 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ali, check my link above.  I heard about DU over CNN and fox when it was being investigated by the Congress -- then nothing more -- that's what I mean by hushed up.  Read the links provided in that link and then give me your argument.  My info did not come from Drudge.

I have put two different links on my previous post and when I first tested them, they worked.  The last one I put doesn't seem to work now so I am adding this one for you.  Will see if it works.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium  

[This message has been edited by iliana (11-13-2006 12:46 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


80 posted 11-13-2006 02:44 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
As a former business owner, I'm sure you had to fire some employees. How many times did you announce your intention to the press or anyone else a few weeks before doing so. It just doesn't work that way.

Pete, if the press or anyone else asks me a question I don't want to answer, then I simply don't answer. It's really not a great deal more complicated than that. In this particular instance, I believe Bush's after-the-fact justification for lying would have been a perfectly reasonable before-the-fact reason for refusing to comment.

The trouble, in my mind, is that Bush didn't lie about firing Rumsfeld because it was necessary. He lied because it was easy. I will certainly concede that lying, regretfully, is sometimes necessary. I don't think it should ever be easy.

And just for the record, Pete, Clinton's lies were no better in my estimation and were arguably much worse because he was under oath. I'm not a Bush Basher. The many Bush mistakes to which you allude are, indeed, mistakes, and hey, we all make them. I look for leaders who make fewer mistakes than others, or at least less serious mistakes, but I long ago abandoned any hope of finding leaders free of mistakes. However, in my opinion, character flaws aren't mistakes. They're choices. And I don't trust people who make those kinds of choices.

quote:
There is enough depleted uranian to change life forever there for 1000 miles surrounding where it was used.

A thousand miles, Iliana? Sorry, but it's hard to take someone's concern entirely seriously when they blanket them in blatant exaggeration. The dangers of DU are still speculative, with little agreement from scientific circles, but there's certainly nothing to suggest even its worst predicted effects can magically extend over great distances. All radiation is limited by the inverse square law and DU's impact as a heavy metal is only pertinent with the actual, physical presence of DU.

Not that it matters all that much. Those arguing against the continued use of DU are essentially arguing that we should make safer bullets, perhaps forgetting the purpose to which those bullets will be applied. When someone pumps a couple of thirty-eight rounds into your chest, I'm sorry but it seems a bit inane to me to worry overmuch about lead poisoning. Whether crooks use steel jackets, traditional lead, or armor piercing rounds made out of depleted uranium, you aren't going to be any less -- or any more -- dead. I applaud your concern, Iliana, but the best way to stop killing people is to stop TRYING to kill them. Arguing we should do it less efficiently isn't the right answer.

For those interested in Iliana's concerns, here's what I think is a fairly well balanced report on depleted uranium from the BBC.
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


81 posted 11-13-2006 02:56 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

Have to put this out there. You are talking about class or was originally.

Even the U.S president can't take any awards for class. He could of not lied to the press or lied about WMDS , but he did. I don't call that class.He could have not lied to us about the reason fo taking our country to war, and not told us something about terrorists that he knew wasnt't true.

As you say,Balladeer , your right its all about class. Which apparently Bush has none of, which is sadder than Kerry or Gore not having any. They are insignificant both being failed nominees for presidency who both lost. Bush is our current president. He can't even have class.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


82 posted 11-13-2006 03:01 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ron:  "I applaud your concern, Iliana, but the best way to stop killing people is to stop TRYING to kill them. Arguing we should do it less efficiently isn't the right answer."

I'm glad you appreciate that, Ron.   And, I totally agree with "but the best way to stop killing people is to stop TRYING to kill them."  I wasn't trying to argue that we should be more efficient.  I was responding initially to your comment about the President's lying when I said I disagreed that there were no weapons of mass destruction.  I think, maybe you'll agree, that DU does constitute WMD.  

As for the 1000 miles, maybe it was 1000 sq. miles.  It was something I read a few weeks ago in a report but I can't find the link now.  I know I shouldn't believe everything I read, but most of what I have researched indicates that if this stuff hits the air, it can travel with the wind that far.  It does not disintegrate; it does stay active for what we could term "forever" (several hundreds of thousands of years, I think).  There hasn't been enough exaggeration on this topic as far as I am concerned.  
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


83 posted 11-13-2006 03:09 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

"The requested UN working paper was delivered in 2002[8] by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the United Nations Convention Against Torture; the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I; the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980; and the Chemical Weapons Convention."
From the Wiki link listed earlier.

"The main hazards of uranium are fire, toxicity, and radioactivity. Uranium in larger chunks ignites at 500 deg C, while in finer form it self-ignites and burns spontaneously in the air. Heavy metal uranium forms oxides that are as toxic as arsenic compounds, particularly affecting the renal system. Inhaling and swallowing a high dose of uranium oxides entering nose and throat could pose a serious risk, as could happen in an acute exposure to explosion dust and debris from a uranium weapon. Prolonged exposure in a contaminated environment would lead to similar effects.

As in the toxic hazard, radioactive risks arise by inhaling uranium dust in the air and ingesting it from dust in the mouth, water, or food. Inhaled particles under 2.5 ?m enter deep into the lungs. The body removes insoluble uranium oxides very slowly, halving their amount in 10 to 20 years. Some particles may move from the lung to the lymph nodes and bone. U-238 emits mainly ?-particles - high energy but ranging only a few millimeters in the air, and ?-particles and ?-rays from its products of decay. Hence the radiological insult from a microscopic speck of U-238 oxide inside the body is focused on the surrounding tissue within a radius of about 30 microns. “Impurities” added to DU in the recycling process add other “hot “ micro-particles to the hazards of pure DU.

Uranium radiation hazards are covered-up and misrepresented. The total radiological dose inside a person over years severely exceeds safe limits. Limits set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) derive from empirically invalid assumptions due to secrecy and distortions around the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then around Cold War developments of nuclear power and weapons. The ICRP risk model was based on studies of bomb survivors, which overlooked the effects from an internal radiation source and ignored cancers that take decades to appear. Physicists instead of biologists developed the ICRP model before DNA was known, yet it purports to represent cell damage processes. ICRP model spreads a dose over a large mass of tissue instead of considering biophysical and biochemical damage mechanisms at the cellular level. A critique was just published by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). It shows ICRP models of risk from internal particles underestimate empirical mortality and morbidity by a factor of 100 to 1000." http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


84 posted 11-13-2006 03:12 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"Have to put this out there. You are talking about class or was originally."

~ Then you went on about Bush and class when that had nothing to do with the original topic. You must not of read the opening posts of this thread.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


85 posted 11-13-2006 03:16 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

JCP -- we are over 80 posts now and have been off track about 20 posts ago.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


86 posted 11-13-2006 03:53 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Still not quite right Ron. You surely know that an answer of "No comment" to the question "are you going to fire Rumsfeld?" is not a refusal to answer. It damn well is an answer,in fact, the exact same answer as "hell yes."

I fully agree with you on the point of chaqracter. But I think you again refer to that old WMD song. It appears to be true that he was mistaken in accepting the "intelligence" received but there is still nothing other than opinions that he lied about it. The vast majority of those opinions somehow just happen to be from democratic leaders and a few Bush haters.

I'm sorry but I am not ready to accept that any president of this country, democrat or republican, would lie about something so important without stronger evidence than just his opponent's opinions, speculations and innuendo.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


87 posted 11-13-2006 05:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Uh, you want to talk about WMD again, Mike?  

No, I don't and you don't either unlesss you want to tell me there was a country or a person in the world in 2000 (you included) that DIDN'T thnk Iraq had wmd's.

As far as the Hunt and Keil question, come on, Ron. It would have  been a no-win situation no matter what Bush did. If he had responded  then that Rummy was going, the Democrats, the press, and maybe even Michigan professors would have claimed he only did it to influence the election. The scream of FOUL would have been heard on the moon. If he  denies it then he is just a liar that cannot be trusted in anything. One could even go so far as to say the Democrats should feel a little respect and gratitude that he didn't announce it before the election. It may not have changed it but there would have been SOME influence. God knows the Republicans are mad at him for not doing so. The scary part? The scary part is that you would hold that against him and use it as an example of his dishonesty.

I don't take a poll before saying most people know the sun came up this morning, if only because I think the sun rising is pretty self-evident. I really can't see anyone honestly thinking Bush has never deliberately lied to the American people to justify what he thought was necessary. That, too, it seems to me, is self-evident.

Ok, then. You equate the sun coming up with Bush lying......nothing biased about that thought!   You claim that it is abundantly clear to most people just because it is abundantly clear to you. I must suppose then that Clinton lied about everything he said in office simply by looking in the camera and saying "I never had sex with that woman."   It has become abundantly clear to most people..." Sorry, I don't recognize you as the spokesman for most people. Noah has that honor.

And those following his leadership surely know that, too.

I make the statements as observations


Well, it it an observation or is it a sure thing? They surely know it how? Why? Because you do?  Your observations lead you to one way of thought and you are convinced that others must also come to your conclusions or they are wrong - or blind?  As I said before, I'm surprised. That's not like you.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


88 posted 11-13-2006 05:57 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"JCP -- we are over 80 posts now and have been off track about 20 posts ago."

~ Why are you telling me that? You must not of read what Rhia posted.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 11-13-2006 06:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I've read the reports on the links and several things confuse me. I've done my best to read them as objectively as possible. On the surface they seem very damaging and disturbing. According to them, Bush basically engineered the election results by eliminating the right to vote for many people, mainly blacks, who would have leaned toward a Democratic vote. He did it by removing the rights of felons to vote and the rights of all people even with the same names as felons, thereby removing the voting rights of thousands of people. In a way it reminds me of the special run by 60 Minutes last month, investigating the lists of suspected terrorists who were thoroughly checked each time they went to fly. Any name on that list was checked, strip-searched, the whole bit....not only the terrorists but anyone with the same NAME as any terrorist. Mike Wallace had a room full of  Dennis Rogers, Mary Johnsons, and all sorts of other normal citizens who were enduring this every time they had to fly. The names on the list had never been updated. There were 6 of the 9/11 hijackers on the list! 60 Minutes grilled the agency mercilessly and rightfully so. It was just faulty bookeeping and laziness.

If everything on those links is accurate, that is very damaging stuff, damaging enough for even impeachment...no question. It portrays a deliberate attempt by the administration to manipulate the election results in an illegal way. That is BIG time!....and that's what confuses me for the following reasons.

First, I could find no documents presented to substantiate the claims of wrongdoing. They were not on those pages or any links from those pages.The quotes concerning what Katherine Harris said was presented in a "he said - she said" scenario.

Second,  I could find nothing that indicated the outcome from these reports. There was only one link which advertized results and it was a dead link. So tell me....in something this big, big enough for impeachment or big enough to overthrow an election...what happened?  I see nothing that came from it at all. You can't claim that Congress just squelched it. Democrats squelching the thing that cost their party the election? I can't see that happening. I didn't read hardly anything about it in the newspapers. Don;t even bother trying to  say the White House muzzled the press. The Miami and Ft. Lauderdale papers are two of the most liberal papers in the country. They were the ones who kicked out the bald eagle and made the hanging chad the symbol of America. No way would they sit on a story like this, especially if it could reverse election results.

Third, when Gore and party began attacking with screams of foul play, this was not one of their rallying cries. They screamed about the hanging chad, the difficulty of reading complicated ballots, times the polls closed in different parts of the state, the ballot design and all sorts of reasons.....but nothing on this one topic which can only be described as a blockbuster. I would have seen it. I didn't. The newspapers were certainly not throttled about all those other topics. Why didn't they use it?

So it all confuses me as to why something that is presented as such a blatant attempt to "fix" an election had little follow-through and was not used by the Democratic party to their advantage to change the election results. The only explanation I can come up with is there must be something more to this story than what is simply found on those links, something which would help explain these discrepancies I mention here.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


90 posted 11-13-2006 07:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Thanks for reading Mike -- I'm not sure what you're looking at that you didn't find the source material but;

Let's take a look at the official documents (found at the bottom of the Wiki page) from the US Civil Rights Commission.  Keep in mind -- these are reports prepared by the Executive branch to the President, President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House -- AFTER the election of 2000.

quote:

Excerpts From the Executive Summary of the Report on Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election United States Civil Rights Commission

Pursuant to its authority, and fulfilling its obligations, members of the Commission staff conducted a preliminary investigation and discovered widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The Commissioners voted unanimously to conduct an extensive public investigation into these allegations of voting irregularities. Toward that end, the Commission held three days of hearings in Miami and Tallahassee and, using its subpoena powers, collected more than 30 hours of testimony from more than 100 witnesses—all taken under oath—and reviewed more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents.

After carefully and fully examining all the evidence, the Commission found a strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) occurred in Florida. The VRA was enacted in 1965 to enforce the 15th Amendment’s proscription against voting discrimination. It is aimed at both subtle and overt state action that has the effect of denying a citizen the right to vote because of his or her race. Although the VRA originally focused on enfranchising African Americans, the law has been amended several times to also include American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and people of Spanish heritage. Additionally, the VRA includes a provision that recognizes the need for multilingual assistance for non-English speakers.

The VRA does not require intent to discriminate. Neither does it require proof of a conspiracy. Violations of the VRA can be established by evidence that the action or inaction of responsible officials and other evidence constitute a “totality of the circumstances” that denied citizens their right to vote. For example, if there are differences in voting procedures and voting technologies and the result of those differences is to advantage white voters and disadvantage minority voters, then the laws, the procedures, and the decisions that produced those results, viewed in the context of social and historical factors, can be discriminatory, and a violation of the VRA.

The report does not find that the highest officials of the state conspired to disenfranchise voters. Moreover, even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred. Instead, the report concludes that officials ignored the mounting evidence of rising voter registration rates in communities. The state’s highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency, uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take responsibility.

The disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters. The magnitude of the impact can be seen from any of several perspectives:

- Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, black voters were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have their ballots rejected.
- Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida’s black voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have their presidential votes counted.
- Statistical analysis shows that the disparity in ballot spoilage rates—i.e., ballots cast but not counted—between black and nonblack voters is not the result of education or literacy differences. This conclusion is supported by Governor Jeb Bush’s Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, which found that error rates stemming from uneducated, uninformed, or disinterested voters account for less than 1 percent of the problems.
- Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American; however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000 spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual precinct data.

The Commission calls upon the attorney general of the United States to immediately begin the litigation process to determine liability under the VRA and appropriate remedies. The Commission is a fact-finding body, authorized to investigate allegations of voting discrimination, fraud, and other irregularities.

However, it does not adjudicate violations of the law, hold trials, or determine civil or criminal liability. It is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice and Florida law enforcement officials to seek appropriate sanctions and remedies. In addition to calling on the attorney general to initiate the litigation process on this issue, the Commission requests this action on a number of other issues as well, such as Florida’s handling of its voter roll purge and its failure to accommodate voters with disabilities and limited English proficiency

Missing Leadership

Florida’s governor insisted that he had no specific role in election operations and pointed to his secretary of state as the responsible official. After the election, however, the governor exercised leadership and responsibility in electoral matters in the commendable action of appointing a task force to make recommendations to fix the problems that occurred. The secretary of state, the state’s chief elections officer, denied any responsibility for the problems in the election, claiming only a “ministerial” role, her clear statutory obligations notwithstanding. Rather, she asserted that county election officials are responsible for the conduct of the election, describing her role in the policies and decisions affecting the actual voting operations as limited. However, her claims of no responsibility sharply contrast to her actions in the immediate aftermath of Election Day, when she asserted ultimate authority in determining the outcome of the vote count. On the local level, supervisors of elections in the counties that experienced the worst problems failed to prepare adequately and demand necessary resources.

This overall lack of leadership in protecting voting rights was largely responsible for the broad array of problems in Florida during the 2000 election. Furthermore, state officials ignored the pleas of some supervisors of elections for guidance and help. Especially at the highest levels, officials must take responsibility for leading on matters for which they have authority and, to the extent they do not have sole authority, to take the initiative for working with other key officials. Specific examples of the areas in which Florida officials need to improve are discussed in other parts of the Executive Summary and throughout the report. However, the need for key officials to exercise leadership in protecting the right to vote is imperative. This was not a responsibility that officials were willing to accept during the 2000 election

Purging Former Felons from the Voter Rolls

Individuals not legally entitled to vote should not be allowed to vote. Appropriate efforts to eliminate fraudulent voting strengthen the rights of legitimate voters. In fact, there are already laws in place in Florida that make it a crime to vote unlawfully. However, poorly designed efforts to eliminate fraud, as well as sloppy and irresponsible implementation of those efforts, disenfranchise legitimate voters and can be a violation of the VRA. Florida’s overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida’s voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election.

The purge system in Florida proceeded on the premise of guilty until proven innocent. In 1998, the Florida legislature enacted a statute that required the Division of Elections to contract with a private entity to purge its voter file of deceased persons, duplicate registrants, individuals declared mentally incompetent, and convicted felons without civil rights restoration, i.e., remove ineligible voter registrants from voter registration rolls. This purge process became known as list maintenance. Once on the list, the process places the burden on the eligible voter to justify remaining on the voter rolls. The ubiquitous errors and dearth of effective controls in the state’s list maintenance system resulted in the exclusion of voters lawfully entitled and properly registered to vote.

African American voters were placed on purge lists more often and more erroneously than Hispanic or white voters. For instance, in the state’s largest county, Miami-Dade, more than 65 percent of the names on the purge list were African Americans, who represented only 20.4 percent of the population. Hispanics were 57.4 percent of the population, but only 16.6 percent of the purge list; whites were 77.6 percent of the population but 17.6 percent of those purged.

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. The state’s aggressive purging laws, policies, and practices disproportionately affect African Americans, who are disproportionately charged, convicted, and sentenced in the criminal justice system. The Commission questions Florida’s onerous and infrequently rendered clemency process. Former offenders who have paid their debt to society should have citizenship rights restored, which is already done in 36 states. Further, the report expresses disappointment that the recently enacted legislation failed to address the issue of automatic restoration of voting rights for former felons and asks that the governor recommend reform in this area of state law.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm




quote:

Excerpts from Chapter 9: Findings and Recommendations

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

-During Florida’s 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote.

-This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election

-The state of Florida’s statutorily mandated purge list, compiled by a private firm, was provided to county supervisors of elections with names that were inexact matches. The data provided demonstrated that this list had at least a 14.1 percent error rate.

-African Americans had a significantly greater chance of being listed on Florida’s mandated purge list. The probability of names of African Americans appearing on the list in error was significantly greater than the likelihood of the names of whites being erroneously included on the purge list.  

-The state of Florida’s use of this purge list, combined with the state law that places the burden on voters to remove themselves from the list, resulted in denying countless African Americans the right to vote.

-Florida’s statutory scheme for elections provides responsibility without accountability and contributed significantly to the disenfranchisement of Florida voters.

-The governor chose not to exercise his authority to appoint special officers to investigate alleged election law violations in response to the allegations of impropriety in the 2000 presidential election.

-The secretary of state chose to exercise authority to ensure the vote count was discontinued and that the vote was canvassed after the election, but did little to ensure that Floridians would be able to get to the polls and be permitted to vote. The secretary’s office did little to ensure that the state was prepared for the election, adequate resources were available to address problems arising on Election Day, Florida voters received adequate education on voting processes, election precincts were appropriately staffed, and election workers received needed education and training.

-The secretary of state delegated her statutory obligation before and during the 2000 presidential election, to “[o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the election laws” (as it relates to ensuring that legal voters would be permitted to vote) to the degree that her duty was exercised on such a discretionary basis as to be arbitrary.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm



Read the entire report http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

Especially Chapter 5 http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


91 posted 11-14-2006 01:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for the links, LR. It's some very interesting reading. I think the report could have been cut down in size about 80% since they  keep going over the same points and information throughout......but governmant documents tend to do that   It still doesn't answer the questions I have though.  It doesn't tell me why action was not taken. For example:

This section of the statute was passed in response to a 1997 Miami mayoral election where it was challenged in court and went up through the court system in the state of Florida. The gentleman who originally won that mayor’s race was turned out of office. There was a grand jury investigation. There was a Senate select committee appointed to investigate that election. There was [an] allegation and it was eventually proven that a large number of people who were deceased cast ballots—well, someone cast ballots in the name of some people who were deceased in that election. People who were convicted felons who had lost their right to vote under the Florida Constitution cast ballots in that election, and people who were also registered in another municipality or another county within that area cast ballots in the city of Miami mayor’s race.

In that case, the mayor was kicked out because many of these same points were investigated and brought to light.  What happened with the Senatorial investigation of 2000? I guess this is it:


The report does not find that the highest officials of the state conspired to disenfranchise voters. Moreover, even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred. Instead, the report concludes that officials ignored the mounting evidence of rising voter registration rates in communities. The state’s highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency, uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take responsibility.

Laziness? Yes. Unprofessionalism? Yes. Conspiracy? No.

As  a side note, another part that I found to be interesting, especially with time spent in law enforcement, was this:

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. The state’s aggressive purging laws, policies, and practices disproportionately affect African Americans, who are disproportionately charged, convicted, and sentenced in the criminal justice system.

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, allow me to gurgle disproportionately??? The figures rest with the fact that blacks commit more crimes in Florida. That's a matter of record. That's why the figures would have a higher percentage for blacks.....no rocket science there.  What should we do to make it more proportionate to satisfy the commission? Ok, fellow officers, we have arrested 55 blacks this week and 50 whites, so today do not arrest any more blacks until the numbers are equal so the figures are not disproportionate.   Is that the solution to satisfy them?

In addition or, in conclusion. the main crux of this situation seems to have it's feet in 1998, two years before Bush ran for office. How then would you lay it at his doorstep? I also still ask..."Why didn;t the Democrats use it...launch a war with it to fight the election results instead of pinning their hopes on a hanging chad? How would they lay it on a Bush conspiracy when the committee reported they found none? Where was Gore to scream this to the rafters?

I see a report that certainly points out flaws that need to be corrected  and testimonies from 100 citizens who claim their rights were violated but I see nothing which would indicate a White House or Bush conspiracy that scares Ron into believing that this administration has us going to hell in a handbasket  because of George Bush.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


92 posted 11-14-2006 02:56 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't have a problem with you demonstrating the conviction rates by ethnicity -- I think it's a point to explore -- and then compare that figure to the ratio of purged voters.  But, the point would be that persons who had no relation to the list were prevented from voting.

Now, the salient question -- why were there no investigations, lawsuits, etc...

quote:

The Commission calls upon the attorney general of the United States to immediately begin the litigation process to determine liability under the VRA and appropriate remedies. The Commission is a fact-finding body, authorized to investigate allegations of voting discrimination, fraud, and other irregularities.

However, it does not adjudicate violations of the law, hold trials, or determine civil or criminal liability. It is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice and Florida law enforcement officials to seek appropriate sanctions and remedies. In addition to calling on the attorney general to initiate the litigation process on this issue, the Commission requests this action on a number of other issues as well, such as Florida’s handling of its voter roll purge and its failure to accommodate voters with disabilities and limited English proficiency



Who would the AG have been?  Oh, yes.  John Ashcroft.  Who worked for.. um... who is that guy again?

Do you begin to see the magnitude of the difficulty?

Of course we could rely on the Republican controlled House and Senate to follow through right?

There is an old saying though -- A lie can go around the world while the truth is still lacing up its' boots -- this story was just gaining momentum when something happened in New York that changed all of the priorities around the world.

The commission didn't have the investigative legs to find the conspiracy -- but -- if you objectively read Chapter 5 it becomes pretty plain.  As they pointed out though -- they didn't have to SHOW a conspiracy -- they just needed to show that it happened to have causeable action -- something Ashcroft's JD didn't see fit to execute... for SOME reason
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


93 posted 11-14-2006 02:57 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Excellent retort, Mike.

What still gets me is all of those reports of alleged disfranchisement by the Republicans, yet did not disfranchisement really occur when Gore sent his team of lawyers to get the military absentee ballots disallowed because of NO FAULT to the service men and women?

Hypocracy 101

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


94 posted 11-14-2006 04:41 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I think you mean hypocrisy.  

You know, I tend to spell it with another 'h' for some reason.

But let me get this straight:

Nobody has challenged the recent election except when they did.

Disenfranchisement is bad, but it's okay sometimes.

Bush doesn't lie. Except when he does.

There was no conspiracy to steal the 2000 election except that the media, intentionally, confused the time zones in Florida.

Liberals bad.

We must all be bipartisan because the dems can never be trusted.

Bush didn't plot to steal the 2000 election so that makes everything okay.

And because that didn't happen that makes it okay that there were no further investigations because, uh, what were we talking about again?

Oh, and just for fun, will everybody stop this pre-911 thinking. It's so reality biased.  

Man, politics, like you know, is really complex.  

But, seriously, what is the proper response to an ad hominem tu quoque argument?

1. Okay, let's find out what happened.

2. Shut up.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


95 posted 11-14-2006 05:48 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

I think you mean hypocrisy.

~ I think I know what I mean, but thanks for your concern.

hypocracy n. hypocratic, hypocrat [ < hypocrisy and -cracy ] a government characterized by hypocrisy

You know, I tend to spell it with another 'h' for some reason.

~ Hypocracy?

But let me get this straight:

~ I'll be back later for that.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


96 posted 11-14-2006 06:45 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Okay, you're joking now.

quote:
What still gets me is all of those reports of alleged disfranchisement by the Republicans, yet did not disfranchisement really occur when Gore sent his team of lawyers to get the military absentee ballots disallowed because of NO FAULT to the service men and women?


a hypocritical government 101

Does that even make sense?

But alrighty, I'll bite, what dictionary did you use for that nugget?

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


97 posted 11-14-2006 07:42 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ No, I am not joking, and do your own research. If you can't "get it," it is certainly not my fault.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


98 posted 11-14-2006 08:34 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I've tried four different dictionaries (3 on the computer) and I'm always redirected to hypocrisy:

quote:
hypocrisy
One entry found for hypocrisy.


Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy



Oh well, I guess I'll never 'get it'.

I can live with that.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


99 posted 11-14-2006 09:42 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ Seriously, did you ever think to just google the word, hypocracy?

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-14-2006 10:16 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> A Touch of Class   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors