Shiva your submission is certainly long, I will give it that. Unfortunately simply making a large number of allegations doesn't serve to substantiate any of them. Much of the information in this document is inacurately sourced, irrelevant or both. To such a degree that it is pretty obvious that you yourself didn't read it before posting it, unless of course the point you are trying to make is that it is not to be trusted?
Consider here only a few of the many examples:
"Some of Suarez's brand of "specific expertise" may have been evident in Seminole County. A lawsuit there nearly succeeded in throwing out
15,000 absentee ballots because the elections supervisor, Sandra Goard (an elected Republican), had illegally allowed two GOP operatives to "correct" thousands of pre-printed absentee ballot applications that mistakenly printed birth dates instead of the legally-required voter IDs. 35Without the voter ID numbers, the law says the applications are automatically void, and no third party can "correct" them. Period. But when the Republicans realized what had happened, they called Goard, who agreed to let them correct the applications as long as they brought their own laptops loaded with the ID data. Goard had her staff retrieve the voided applications from storage and sort the Republican ones from the rest. She then provided a room for the men to work in. For "15-21 days" (they're not sure?), the party hacks worked there - completely unsupervised. Meanwhile, the helpful Goard made sure Democrats' applications with similar errors were thrown away, as required by law.
According to trial transcripts, the two GOP operatives "corrected" at least
2,100 absentee ballot applications - nearly four times the majority Bush "won" by in Florida. Incredibly, it came out during the trial that a large number of these had "scrambled" ID numbers and should have been rejected (again). Instead, Goard illegally instructed her staff to process the applications anyway and send these completely illegal absentee ballots to the Republicans. 36 "Now from the bibliography within the same document:
"- Julia Preston & Joe Pichirallo, "Bay of Pigs Survivors Find Common Cause With Contras," Washington Post 10/26/1986.
- "
Note the date on item 35. No I didn't forget to paste something with regard to
36 it is blank as are 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and every other evenly numbered footnote in the entire bibliography. Rendering half of all footnotes completely irrelevant w/o any further study or investigation.Now the statement "According to trial transcripts, the two GOP operatives "corrected" at least 2,100 absentee ballot applications - nearly four times the majority Bush "won" by in Florida." would have us beleive that we are talking about events from the 2000 election, as would everything else, that I read. If that's the case either Julia Preston or Joe Pichirallo must have one hell of a crystal ball to have written an article on it for the Washington post in 1986. As far as footnote 36, well it speaks, or rather doesn't for itself, along with as previously mentioned every other evenly numbered footnote in the whole document.
There are MANY other examples of irrelevant, e.g. a source listed which supports only a single statement contained in the paragraph but which does not support the larger allegation, as well as completely unsourced allegations (every even numbered footnote in the entire document for starters), in short it is pretty much what I expected. I will be happy to post some other examples if you would like but in the interest of preserving resources with regard to something so O/T for the NG I have concentrated here on only the most glaring and, lets face it, self discrediting items.
Note that I am not flaming or ridiculing you for posting it since obviously it isn't your original work, and as far as I can tell you haven't specifically vouched for it's validity. My only point from the beginning has been that it is only reasonable to post sources for statements made.