I don't believe it!!! Jeanne

[Jim Isbell]

I find it interesting that the Democrats are now claiming the Gore won 
the popular vote but lost the electorial vote.  Gore DID NOT win the 
popular vote either.

Joe R. wrote:

>   I read it. I'd heard that the Guardian was biased and now I have proof.
>For example the article claims that a recount in Florida in 2000 gave the
>election to Gore. That is simply untrue, there were literally dozens of
>recounts done at different tiems and by different groups and agencies. They
>were also done under all different conditions (count hanging chats, don't
>count hanging chats, count military votes, don't count military votes,
>count absentee ballots, don't count absentee votes, etc etc etc.  Only ONE
>recount at exactly one point in time and under optimal Democratic
>conditions (such as not counting the absentee ballots) gave the majority to
>Gore. ALL of the other recounts gave the majority to Bush.  The LAST
>recount was done weeks after the election and including ALL of the military
>and absentee ballots said that Bush won over Gore by over 3200 votes.
>That's not mentioned anywhere in the Guardian's report is it?  They also
>failed to mention that the Democratic party tried desperately to have ALL
>of the military and absentee votes for Florida thrown out since they knew
>that the military voted overwhelmly for Bush. My wife was working out of
>state and one of those absentee ballots was her's so we paid a lot of
>attention to what was going on here. Apparently a lot more than the
>Gaurdian did. You need to find a less biased source of news!
>
>    Joe
>
>
>At 11:37 PM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
>  
>
>>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1307810,00.html
>>
>>That's one of  the articles , make your own mind up.
>>
>>Geoff.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Joe R." <rigdonj at cfl.rr.com>
>>To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas at onetel.com>; "General Discussion:
>>On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:56 PM
>>Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>At 05:56 AM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
>>>>To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>>>><cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>Mr.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>Bush's backers.
>>>>>>So who were you really voting for ?
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>Read between the lines.  Ask yourself, "why?"  It's more cynical than
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>you
>>    
>>
>>>>>think.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Festival
>>>>
>>>>Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
>>>>lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Bush's
>>    
>>
>>>>way.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>   Exit polls have CONSISTANTLY shown that Nader takes more votes away
>>>      
>>>
>>from
>>    
>>
>>>the Republican than from the Democrats.  I've heard CLAIMS that the
>>>republicans secretly finance Nader but I neve seen any proof and I don't
>>>beleive the claims.
>>>
>>>    Joe
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>