Turns out Jeb isn't the only one...

[The Galatian]

There is no evidence that the exclusion of Hispanic felons was ordered by Bush.

Goodness no. It was probably just an oversight that his plan would let felons likely to vote for his brother vote.

But why do you charge illegal withholding of details?

That investigation has been going on for more than three months with no published findings. Under state public records law, records generated from such investigations become public after 60 days.

But Department of State officials have not turned over any documents from the investigation despite repeated requests from the Herald-Tribune.

Sounds illegal to me. What do you think?

 

[Pastor Larry]

It was probably just an oversight that his plan would let felons likely to vote for his brother vote.

Faraj said Long was referring to other technical issues that were later resolved, not the Hispanic flaw. This was also in the article. So it seems that the hispanic flaw was not in view, nor is there any evidence it was ordered.

Stick to the facts Galatian.

Question on the 60 day issue, is that 60 days after the investigation is complete? I would think it would be since an ongoing investigation could be compromised by release of records. But I don't know. Does any know what the law states?

 

[The Galatian]

Heh, pure Bush, that one...

The part of Jeb's plan that would let thousands of (likely to vote republican) felons vote is "other technical issues."

No kidding.

And the paper says that information generated by these investigations becomes public in 60 days. Doesn't say 60 days after the investigation is complete.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The part of Jeb's plan that would let thousands of (likely to vote republican) felons vote is "other technical issues."

The article didn't say that. The article expressly refuted that. You show once again that you are not interested in facts, but will gladly ignore them to make your point. The fact remians that you still haven't shown Bush to be guilty of any wrongdoing. Perhaps one day you will find something. I hope until then that you will quit cluttering up this board.

And the paper says that information generated by these investigations becomes public in 60 days. Doesn't say 60 days after the investigation is complete.

Apparently you missed the question. The question, found at the very last part of my post, was: Does any know what the law states? As you can plainly see, I did not ask you to repeat what the paper says. I already knew what the paper said. I was interested in the law. Believe it or not, papers do get it wrong, and don't always tell the whole story. It may well be that the law does not specify the end of hte investigation. But the question is about the law, not about the paper. If you do not know what the law says, then don't comment on it.

 

[The Galatian]

My guess is that the paper has it right. Newspaper editors can quote you open records laws, letter and verse.

Care to bet a chocolate chip cookie on it?

Jeb's plan to allow thousands of felons vote wasn't a "technical" error; of course it wasn't. I forgot to include my warning for the humor-impaired. Sorry.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That is at least a start. But the allegation was made that Bush directed the outcome in order to prevent democratic leaning voters from voting. Your article still proves nothing of the sort.

I didn't say it did prove anything, I said it was evidence that Jeb Bush was very much involved with the voter purge.

But it did give the interesting quote that you, for some reason, you admitted.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the governor wanted state elections officials to fix the problems and get the list released, Long said.

"The governor's office, I think, was wanting to move forward anyway with making it right," he said.

Did you omit this little part because it proves what I have been saying, and denies what you have tried to show? Why else would you? Why wouldn't you, in the interest of fairness, present the evidence for the position you don't hold?</font>[/QUOTE]As we are not supposed to quote the entire thing, I quoted the part which was relevant to the point I was making. I provided the link for your convenience so you could plumb the article for whatever you thought supported your point. I am not obliged to argue your case for you - that's for you to do. (That's one of the silliest complaints I've encountered here).

The guy who said that was the same guy who wrote the email referred to above (Long). He said Bush wanted the state to get it right. Will you admit that now?

I've never actually denied it, but if he says he wants the state to get it right, why did he also insist that it go ahead when there was no time to "get it right" or train the poll workers?