posted on November 24, 2000 04:14:27 PM
Toke,
Agreed. I haven't found what "behind closed doors" actually meant in that fiasco. It's hard to imagine that the appointed republican party observers were excluded, and I haven't found anythig to say that they were.
So, as I said, the administration of the counting is a local matter, and by that I mean how many people, how many tables, how many observers from each party. I would find it understandable if the doors were closed to preserve peace and the ability to continue the count. One of the reasons that the M-D board gave for stopping altogether is that they could not continue in the clamorous environs brought after the doors were reopened.
posted on November 24, 2000 04:22:16 PM
You're welcome, Shelly! Bon appetit!
I do think that it's important that I provide a cite for that recipe, which may (or may not) be taken by folks as a credible, unbiased, or nonaffiliated source, and therefore, be given accord or discounted, as wished.
This recipe came (originally) from Mrs. V.M. Griffin of Princeton, KY, and was submitted to Southern Living magazine, where it was subsequently published as a part of their article, "Make These Dishes The Day Before," contained in the December 1986 issue. Not long after, the Southern Progress Corporation (parent of Southern Living) included this recipe, among others, in their "Southern Living 1986 Annual Recipes" volume, which was copyright 1986 by Oxmoor House, Inc.
I urge you to evaluate this source carefully, taking into account your own bias about what may be their bias, and further, the motivation of the Southern Progress Corporation to provide bogus recipes in order to effect disappointment in your cooking outcomes, or possibly the even more nefarious expectation of bring ruination to your dinner.
posted on November 24, 2000 04:30:19 PM
Even if they were bussed in...<b>so what?</b>. This has happened as long as I can remember.How come Jesse left so quickly? Did they quit paying his way? And doesn't Jesse have groupies that parrot and follow him?
Brown shirts...I'd rather be that than a stuffed ballot..err...stuffed shirt!
posted on November 24, 2000 04:39:20 PM
Toke: I think the 'behnd closed doors' thing in Miami-Dade meant excluding the press and people who were not involved in the process. The observers from both parties, however, were not excluded, as the observers were part of the process.
Stuffed carrots, eh? Sounds interesting. Think I'd better check out the food threads.
posted on November 24, 2000 04:39:36 PM
Okay, I have gone to the Ny Times website myself to try to find the article that Krs is quoting from. Let's see:
Krs' title for this article (If I have found the proper article) is:
"MIAMI-DADE STOPPED COUNTING BECAUSE OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL VIOLENCE"
The NY Times' website titles the article like this:
"Protest Influenced Miami-Dade's Decision to Stop Recount"
Not the same thing.
I have read the article. Nowhere does it say that Miame-Dade county stopped the counting because of acutal physical violence. It does say that Miami-Dade county stopped counting. It does say there was physical violence. It doesn't say that fears of violence caused the counting to stop.
Krs further goes on to "quote"
"The subsequent demonstrations turned violent on Wednesday after the canvassers
had decided to close the recount to the public [because of fears of physical violence.].
On the NY Times' website, it says something similar, but with one important difference, the absence of the phrase contained in KRS' [ ].
Here's what the NY Times online edition says:
"The subsequent demonstrations turned violent on Wednesday after the canvassers had decided to close the recount to the public."
There's a difference between adding something to a quote for clarity, and adding something to a quote to make it seem to say something it didn't say.
Here's the URL to the 2 page article on the website. The NY Times Online requires that one register, but it's free. Also, NY Times online updates their website around 2 am. every morning, and only have searchable archives for paid subscribers (I think) so if you want to read it, without paying for a subscription, you have to read it today.
So, read it for yourself, and then decide for yourself what you think about it.
For myself, I've been discussing this with my much smarter sister. She and I both feel that if we were members of the canvassing board, we would have been scared to walk out of that room if we had decided to keep counting, and we wouldn't be surprised if the county canvassing board felt that way and that immediate fear for their safety had caused them to change their plans. However, even in the NY Times online article, I haven't heard any canvassing board member say for him or herself that he or she was conceerned for his or her safety at that moment and that that caused someone to change their mind about doing a recount. Until I hear one of the canvassing board members say that, (and if they really felt that I think they should have said that then, or should say that now), then I can't jump to that conclusion. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear one of them say that. It's just that I haven't heard any of the three members say that.
However, I do find it very troubling that Republican operatives will assemble a group, whip them up with rhetoric to turn them into a mob, and then turn that mob loose on public officials in a government building. I find that extremely irresponsible and dangerous. It's much easier to get a mob going than it is to stop one. The level of persuasion that started a mob will not be enough to stop one.
And for the Republican supporters to say that this was "...nothing more than a spontaneous manifestation of people's anger" is a lie. When Republican officials send out automated phone messages to encourage people to congregate in an area and protest, that's not a "spontaneous manifestion of people's anger."
posted on November 24, 2000 04:46:34 PM
donny, about 1/2 hour ago on CNN, they quoted one of the canvasing board members who voted to stop the recount, saying his vote reflected his fear for his safety, and that were it not for that demonstration the count would still be going on. They gave his name, but I didn't catch it. This was on CNN, so not in the printed media, so I can't post a link. Sorry.
posted on November 24, 2000 04:47:33 PM
And what about FLA saying that thousands of people called and complained about the butterfly ballot.?
In reality it was the next day a telemarketing firm was hired to call voters in that area and suggest perhaps they'd voted wrong. Hmmm...and who hired this firm?
Why the dems of course!
posted on November 24, 2000 05:00:10 PM
Donny,
You could take up the embellishments with politex, I suppose, as I brought the entire post from there to here.
I didn't quote anyone, as you keep saying.
I don't know where the truth lies in that occurance. Obviously it was troublesome to people who worked there, and from what I saw in the news coverage it was anything but benign.
The mere possibility that there may have been more to both the stimulus and the actuality is worthy of note here, I think, or thought. (now I wonder if it isn't true that most posters seek a comfort level within their political affiliations rather than answers to questions of the type which would begin "What the Hell is really going on in regards the.......(place subject here).
These issues will be around us all long after we've become attuned to the daily President Bush show during primetime.
posted on November 24, 2000 07:17:44 PM
KatyD, thanks for the head's up, they've been repeating lots of stuff on CNN and I'll see if it comes on again. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them said they were afraid, at that moment, for their safety. I would have been if I'd been in their shoes.
Anyway, I said, in one of my much earlier posts about all this, that I was surprised that no violence had broken out yet, so I'm not all that surprised that some has. But that it might have been set in motion with cool calculation, with knowledge of the danger, is awful.
Some people on tv, the Republican spinners, have said the Miami-Dade demonstration is no different than the Jesse Jackson orchestrated demonstrations. How wrong that is.
First off, we all knew that Jesse Jackson had organized the protest. He made sure we all knew. On the other hand, the Republicans tried to claim that this Miami-Dade situation was a "spontaneous manifestion of people's anger."
When Jesse Jackson staged his, it was in a relatively safe place (as safe as any place with a mob can be.) When the Republicans staged theirs, they put their mob right outside an office that contained the 3 people that the mob's anger was tuned to, as well as some other people.
The difference between the Jackson rally, and the Republican rally is the difference between having a loaded gun, and pointing a loaded gun at someone. The gun is the issue. Loading it is filling it up with partisans who are primed to explode. Jackson didn't point his at anyone within range. The Republicans pointed it at the Miami-Dade canvassing board, who were within arm's reach.
posted on November 24, 2000 07:52:34 PM
Donny...are you really that upset about the 'mob' in FLA? I thought it was funny the way the dems were so shocked.
The ususally placid republicans are simply [fed up] with the manure the dems have dished out...we aren't taking it anymore.
If Jesse were really interested in fairness he'd keep his biased bottom out of politics.
Whenever he shows up I laugh as I know he is going to speak rubbish!.
He is a looser and I don't know anyone who admires this guy.
Now Rush...#1 political talk show in the USA..he got 15 million hits last week..we can't all be wrong now can we?
posted on November 24, 2000 08:07:49 PMThe ususally placid republicans are simply [fed up] with the manure the dems have dished out...we aren't taking it anymore.
So you ARE advocating violence, then, pushing and shoving people around to demonstrate how "fed up" you are. Shame on you.
Now Rush...#1 political talk show in the USA..he got 15 million hits last week..we can't all be wrong now can we?
Yeah, right. Care to let us in on where you're getting your statistics? Oh right, Rush says so.
posted on November 24, 2000 08:21:46 PM
Oh, you're talking about a website. That doesn't mean diddly squat. Most likely 15.9 million of those hits came on click thrus from another site. You should see the stats for MY website. Unfortunately for me this season, all those hits aint buying what I'm selling. And I imagine it's the same for ole Rush, people aint buying what he's selling.
posted on November 24, 2000 08:25:36 PM
Yes, lets stop. We dont want to be like "them" people in Harlem, now do we?
[ edited by FrannyS on Nov 24, 2000 08:26 PM ]
posted on November 24, 2000 08:27:54 PM
Ya know Carole, I go to a lot of web sites. Not because I believe everything on them but because I find them entertaining. You don't suppose some of those 15 million might be just going there for a laugh do you?
posted on November 24, 2000 11:34:17 PM
Canada's gonna be holding its election for Prime Minister Monday, I think. If Bush works quickly, he can bus his guys up there and declare that he won that too, before the election's even begun.
posted on November 24, 2000 11:49:01 PM
Donny: We don't vote for the prime minister here, at least not directly. The head of the party which gets the most members elected to parliament becomes the prime minister.
.
