Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

[Format C:]

My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

While I'm here, can anyone tell me a word befitting the following definitions and what, if any, relevance it may or may not have to this discussion?

1. give over

2. surrender

3. relinquish

4. acknowledge defeat

5. yield or grant

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Format C:
My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

You put the Nick in "Nick Picky"

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Format C:
My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

You put the Nick in "Nick Picky"

Mah name Nick. HUH. HUH.

Actually, I just wanted to preserve the quote as it originally was for all posterity before you edit it later. Thanks! I have to go now, so you'll have to find someone else to play with.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Format C:
My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless [sic] of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

While I'm here, can anyone tell me a word befitting the following definitions and what, if any, relevance it may or may not have to this discussion?

1. give over [sic]

2. surrender

3. relinquish

4. acknowledge defeat

5. yield or grant

While I'm here, how about you stop your ridiculous parade of posts and actually try to contribute to a thread?
'
I know it's very difficult for you not to snipe, insult, denigrate, and troll. But, try for once. Esp. today. It *is* the Sabbath after all. Doesn't that mean something to people like you?

 

[Gaard]

Nader calls for recount

According to Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch, Nader has only completed the first step of the recount request; he has yet to put a down payment of $2,000 and demonstrate a commitment to pay the actual cost of the recount for the entire state.

According to state law, candidates applying for a recount can fall into three separate categories based on the percentage they won and what the winner totaled. If there is less than 1 percent difference between them and the winner, it costs $500 for a recount. If the difference is between 1 to 2 percent it is $1,000. If it is between 2 to 3 percent it is $2,000 and if like in Nader's case it is more than 3 percent the candidate pays for the total sum. Fitch estimates it could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000.

Um, could it be that you guys were actually, like I said, ASSUMING?

I don't expect a "I guess you're right" from either of you. I know CAD is physically incapable of admitting a mistake. I don't know about Format, but judging from the tone of his posts, I doubt it. But whatever, you can think what you will, but even if you disagree with this, you are indeed assuming.

Oh yeah, just for sh!ts, this thread will be vaulted for posterity's sake...and just in case the phrase "You're just assuming" comes up in another thread.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Nader calls for recount

According to Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch, Nader has only completed the first step of the recount request; he has yet to put a down payment of $2,000 and demonstrate a commitment to pay the actual cost of the recount for the entire state.

According to state law, candidates applying for a recount can fall into three separate categories based on the percentage they won and what the winner totaled. If there is less than 1 percent difference between them and the winner, it costs $500 for a recount. If the difference is between 1 to 2 percent it is $1,000. If it is between 2 to 3 percent it is $2,000 and if like in Nader's case it is more than 3 percent the candidate pays for the total sum. Fitch estimates it could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000.

Um, could it be that you guys were actually, like I said, ASSUMING?

I don't expect a "I guess you're right" from either of you. I know CAD is physically incapable of admitting a mistake. I don't know about Format, but judging from the tone of his posts, I doubt it. But whatever, you can think what you will, but even if you disagree with this, you are indeed assuming.

Oh yeah, just for sh!ts, this thread will be vaulted for posterity's sake...and just in case the phrase "You're just assuming" comes up in another thread.

Wait. Didn't Kerry already win New Hampshire?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Gaard
Nader calls for recount

According to Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch, Nader has only completed the first step of the recount request; he has yet to put a down payment of $2,000 and demonstrate a commitment to pay the actual cost of the recount for the entire state.

According to state law, candidates applying for a recount can fall into three separate categories based on the percentage they won and what the winner totaled. If there is less than 1 percent difference between them and the winner, it costs $500 for a recount. If the difference is between 1 to 2 percent it is $1,000. If it is between 2 to 3 percent it is $2,000 and if like in Nader's case it is more than 3 percent the candidate pays for the total sum. Fitch estimates it could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000.

Um, could it be that you guys were actually, like I said, ASSUMING?

I don't expect a "I guess you're right" from either of you. I know CAD is physically incapable of admitting a mistake. I don't know about Format, but judging from the tone of his posts, I doubt it. But whatever, you can think what you will, but even if you disagree with this, you are indeed assuming.

Oh yeah, just for sh!ts, this thread will be vaulted for posterity's sake...and just in case the phrase "You're just assuming" comes up in another thread.

Wait. Didn't Kerry already win New Hampshire?

I'm not sure how that matters. I was trying to show how CAD & Format's 'logic' might not be a slam dunk. Thereby, making it an 'assumption'. Follow me?

(Actually, now that I think about it, whether or not they are correct, they are still 'assuming'.)



Edit: It might be a good idea if someone searched on who pays for a recount. (I already have. )

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Format C:
My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

You put the Nick in "Nick Picky"

Mah name Nick. HUH. HUH.

Actually, I just wanted to preserve the quote as it originally was for all posterity before you edit it later. Thanks! I have to go now, so you'll have to find someone else to play with.

Time to crawl back in your Casket?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Nader calls for recount

According to Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch, Nader has only completed the first step of the recount request; he has yet to put a down payment of $2,000 and demonstrate a commitment to pay the actual cost of the recount for the entire state.

According to state law, candidates applying for a recount can fall into three separate categories based on the percentage they won and what the winner totaled. If there is less than 1 percent difference between them and the winner, it costs $500 for a recount. If the difference is between 1 to 2 percent it is $1,000. If it is between 2 to 3 percent it is $2,000 and if like in Nader's case it is more than 3 percent the candidate pays for the total sum. Fitch estimates it could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000.

Um, could it be that you guys were actually, like I said, ASSUMING?

I don't expect a "I guess you're right" from either of you. I know CAD is physically incapable of admitting a mistake. I don't know about Format, but judging from the tone of his posts, I doubt it. But whatever, you can think what you will, but even if you disagree with this, you are indeed assuming.

Oh yeah, just for sh!ts, this thread will be vaulted for posterity's sake...and just in case the phrase "You're just assuming" comes up in another thread.

Or could it be that you didn't understand what Format was talking about yet jumped in head first yapping about fundraising?

I didn't expect any less from you guys though - a simple - well sure it'll cost tax-money would have worked -but no - that'd been too simple and required logic to process what was said.

Gaard - what "mistake" did I make? Hmm...

Call it what you want -but logic dictates that at $10/precinct - those "fees" won't cover the light bill for each precinct. So sure try to dismiss it as assumption if you wish -but we all know you and your boys got caught not thinking again...

CsG

 

[SirStev0]

so... what happens if bush didnt win and the tinfoil hats were right... would the neocons apoligize...

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Format C:
My oh my, 'tis a vain and quixotic task indeed to attempt to impress logic upon a fence post.

I have not said one thing about the merits of the recount or about the statutorily mandated fees for it. My one quite logical, and VERY SIMPLE, point was just as CKG has stated. It WILL cost the taxpayer's money irregardless [sic] of the fact that the mandated fees are paid. Now, don't you feel just a bit silly rushing off into KenStarrDieboldIraqLAHLAH land? Probably not.

While I'm here, can anyone tell me a word befitting the following definitions and what, if any, relevance it may or may not have to this discussion?

1. give over [sic]

2. surrender

3. relinquish

4. acknowledge defeat

5. yield or grant

While I'm here, how about you stop your ridiculous parade of posts and actually try to contribute to a thread?
'
I know it's very difficult for you not to snipe, insult, denigrate, and troll. But, try for once. Esp. today. It *is* the Sabbath after all. Doesn't that mean something to people like you?

Before you attempt to run around and correct other's grammar you might wish to at least arm yourself with some facts. You DO remember what those are don't you? Here's you a good starting point...



Educate yourself

StICk that somewhere handy.

 

[conjur]

As I said, I know it's difficult for you not to snipe and insult but why don't you give it a shot for a while?

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, I know it's difficult for you not to snipe and insult but why don't you give it a shot for a while?

Trying to make someone else into your kettle again Mr Pot?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, I know it's difficult for you not to snipe and insult but why don't you give it a shot for a while?

Trying to make someone else into your kettle again Mr Pot?

Looks like you're vying with AntiEverything for the obnoxious poster-of-the-day award.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, I know it's difficult for you not to snipe and insult but why don't you give it a shot for a while?

Trying to make someone else into your kettle again Mr Pot?

Looks like you're vying with AntiEverything for the obnoxious poster-of-the-day award.

You worry too much. Nobody could ever rob you of your title.

 

[Format C:]

Well, once again I see you've came unarmed to a battle of wits. I'll have pity on you though and bow out for the rest of the day so you may continue polluting the forum with your nonsense and hate speech. Make good use of your time now.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Well, once again I see you've came unarmed to a battle of wits. I'll have pity on you though and bow out for the rest of the day so you may continue polluting the forum with your nonsense and hate speech. Make good use of your time now.

If I didn't know better (which I do) I'd swear you were Crimson posting under another handle. Like him you never post your opinion about a political topic, you just attack those whom you disagree with..constantly. You add nothing to any thread you participate in.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Format C:
Well, once again I see you've came unarmed to a battle of wits. I'll have pity on you though and bow out for the rest of the day so you may continue polluting the forum with your nonsense and hate speech. Make good use of your time now.

If I didn't know better (which I do) I'd swear you were Crimson posting under another handle. Like him you never post your opinion about a political topic, you just attack those whom you disagree with..constantly. You add nothing to any thread you participate in.

Maybe it's time to re-format C:/

 

[conjur]

LOL!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BBond
Maybe it's time to re-format C:/

:laugh:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGuy
Gaard - what "mistake" did I make? Hmm...

You said this, didn't you? "it's illogical to think that they'll raise enough to pay for the recount without spending tax-payer money."

Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong or correct. I'm just saying that to claim tax-payer money will be used is simply an ASSUMPTION, and very well may not be the case, especially after reading the linked article.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: BBond
Maybe it's time to re-format C:/

:laugh:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGuy
Gaard - what "mistake" did I make? Hmm...

You said this, didn't you? "it's illogical to think that they'll raise enough to pay for the recount without spending tax-payer money."

Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong or correct. I'm just saying that to claim tax-payer money will be used is simply an ASSUMPTION, and very well may not be the case, especially after reading the linked article.

Like I said- call it what you wish but it doesn't change the fact that logic dictates that at $10/precinct(or $17 or heck even $50) the costs won't be covered by this "fundraising".

Ah, so you now you won't say I'm wrong...but yet you claim I made a mistake? Go figure...

And BTW -the thread is about Ohio so you trying to make the claim that it *might not*( :roll: ) cost tax-payers in New Hampshire money - doesn't mean a damn thing in Ohio.

Nice try gaard but you should have quit while you weren't so far behind...

CsG

 

[BBond]

What exactly does the cost of the recount have to do with the OP???

The state required $10 per precinct. Paid. Start counting.

That's all.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Looks like they are upto $235,000 and the Ohio Democrats have joined in the suit to get the recount started.

.MSNBC

Kansas City Star

Looks like the Kansas City Star link is subscription, funny, it let me read it the first time.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: BBond
Maybe it's time to re-format C:/

:laugh:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGuy
Gaard - what "mistake" did I make? Hmm...

You said this, didn't you? "it's illogical to think that they'll raise enough to pay for the recount without spending tax-payer money."

Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong or correct. I'm just saying that to claim tax-payer money will be used is simply an ASSUMPTION, and very well may not be the case, especially after reading the linked article.

Like I said- call it what you wish but it doesn't change the fact that logic dictates that at $10/precinct(or $17 or heck even $50) the costs won't be covered by this "fundraising".

Ah, so you now you won't say I'm wrong...but yet you claim I made a mistake? Go figure...

And BTW -the thread is about Ohio so you trying to make the claim that it *might not*( :roll: ) cost tax-payers in New Hampshire money - doesn't mean a damn thing in Ohio.

Nice try gaard but you should have quit while you weren't so far behind...

CsG

How much did the first count cost... since you seem to be so sure that 50 dollars a precinct wont cut it... it would have had to have been ... more than 1/2 a million dollars...

for some reason... i just dont think it was that much... they have to recount votes... i dont know what those people are gunna get paid... but i think $10 for counting about 500 votes isnt that bad...

You think it will be more the $50 dollars to count 500 votes... ten cents to look at a each little card... seems a little over the top...

hell... if they want... ill volunteer some time and help save you some money... hot damn...

ohh and btw... if it does cost more... which would be ridiculous... why shouldnt ohio foot the bill... if they were that incompetent... that they couldnt hold an election ... something we pride ourselves with so damn much... then they deserve to pay the extra ... i dont know 5 cents per vote .. which would make everyones taxes go up ... oh i dont know a penny...

get a clue ... money is wasted on much worse things then making sure an election wasnt fuked up...

 

[Siddhartha]

When in doubt, recount.