Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mantichorus:
"There's an old cat saying, which has particular relevance here; it goes something like this: 'We are all gonna die!'" -Cat, Red Dwarf.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Anarko:
It's official, John Kerry has conceded. It's all over the news.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html

Anybody But Kerry...damn right!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
Well, we'll soon have the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Niska" bumper stickers floating around.

---

Quote:

---

*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBlueFan:
Yeah! Four More Years!! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hjermsted:
It sucks that Bush and his chronies get to fuck with America for another four years... but (poetically) Bush gets to clean up his own mess in Iraq and must find a way to improve the economy other than by creating more McJobs.

I don't think he'll be able to do either. Bush has never had to clean up his own mess before. This is new terrain for him. Daddy can't bail him out this time.

The republicans as a whole have to shit or get off the pot now... they have everything they ever wanted.

If things don't improve in the U.S. now that the repubs hold all the cards, their party will be exposed for the corporate/christian right tools they are and 2006 / 2008 will not be pretty for them.

Prayer alone won't make things better around here. Nothing fails like prayer.

Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

mattro

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Static:
"Wait, wait, wait. . .you mean to tell me, in YOUR time and YOUR country, the PEOPLE select their own leaders?"

Audience replies with resounding "Yes, of course!"

"Well. . .how's that been working out for you lately?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
...*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)

-Taylor

---

Quote:

---

What terrifies me is that he knows it - so he no longer has to play nice, 'cause either way, he's out in 4 years for good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lissa:
i think i'm going to cry.

i changed my mind. i'm moving to canada.

and then i'm crying.

~lissa, spwhore

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:
Hjermsted:

"If things don't improve in the U.S. now that the repubs hold all the cards, their party will be exposed for the corporate/christian right tools they are and 2006 / 2008 will not be pretty for them."

Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results.

In other words, via the Diebold (the CEO of which publically vowed to keep Bush in the White House) voting machines, it would appear Bush stole the election.

With these easily hacked machines in place, what chance do you have for your vote to mean ANYTHING?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:
Hjermsted:

"If things don't improve in the U.S. now that the repubs hold all the cards, their party will be exposed for the corporate/christian right tools they are and 2006 / 2008 will not be pretty for them."

Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results.

In other words, via the Diebold (the CEO of which publically vowed to keep Bush in the White House) voting machines, it would appear Bush stole the election.

With these easily hacked machines in place, what chance do you have for your vote to mean ANYTHING?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dither:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
...*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)

-Taylor

---

Or can he? <---evil conservative grin

---

Quote:

---

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after U.S. President George W. Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.

Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year.

"Let me tell you -- if they're hard-working honest people, there's a process, and let them apply," Immigration Minister Judy Sgro told Reuters.

Asked whether American applicants would get special treatment, she replied: "No, they'll join the crowd like all the other people who want to come to Canada."

There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, which leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally favored the Democrats over the Republicans.

But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation.

Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that while some Americans might talk about moving to Canada rather than living with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx.

"It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one official.

Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing about a possible exodus of party members.

"I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States and continue being politically active there," he said.

Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada, a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further three years.

The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to come through.

Statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. In 1981 some 10,030 Americans gained permanent residency, compared to 5,541 in 2003.

Asked if there had been signs of increased U.S. interest, Sgro said: "Not yet, but we'll see tomorrow."

The Canadian foreign ministry said there had been no increase in hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business.

"Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services.

Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the Iraq war.

"Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit...it doesn't matter what country they're from," said an immigration ministry spokeswoman.

Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lissa:
i think i'm going to cry.

i changed my mind. i'm moving to canada.

and then i'm crying.

~lissa, spwhore

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
Anyway, today more than ever (and I know I said this in some other post in some other thread) I believe the following statement: "Yeah, I was on the losing side...still not convinced it was the wrong side."

-Taylor

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Anarko:
It's official, John Kerry has conceded. It's all over the news.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html

Anybody But Kerry...damn right!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
...*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

We have two fairly centrist parties. Other than a couple of hot button issues, if you read between the lines, they were basically proposing the same ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

Personally regardless of the outcome, we still live in the greatest country currently around...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

We have two fairly centrist parties. Other than a couple of hot button issues, if you read between the lines, they were basically proposing the same ideas.

---

If your idea of centrist is very right then you'd be correct. Note: Relative positions don't dictate actual positions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

Personally regardless of the outcome, we still live in the greatest country currently around...

---

LOL, think again. http://www.iht.com/articles/529503.html

Please note that the US went down in its ranking.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:
For those who ignore the fact that Bush's lies murdered 100,000 people in Iraq, let alone your sons and daughters in the armed forces, I suggest a bullet in the brain will do you a lot of good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:


Those of you who have an honest interest in this country might find this of interest:


On November 9, 2003, the New York Times reported: "In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. 'I AM COMMITTED TO HELPING OHIO DELIVER ITS ELECTORAL VOTES TO THE PRESIDENT NEXT YEAR,' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio. That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's 'Rangers and Pioneers,' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. But it is not the only way that Mr. O'Dell is involved in the election process. Through DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, a subsidiary in McKinney, Tex., HIS COMPANY is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen VOTING MACHINES. Judging from Federal Election Commission data, at least EIGHT MILLION people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November. ... Some people find Mr. O'Dell's pairing of interests -- as voting-machine magnate and devoted Republican fund-raiser -- troubling."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:


====================================================
Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Susan Truitt said today: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the case."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:


=========================
Dan Wallach is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston specializing in building secure and robust software systems for the Internet. Along with colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Wallach co-authored a groundbreaking study that revealed significant flaws in electronic voting systems. He appeared on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release in June entitled "Electronic Voting -- Danger for Democracy."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:



=========================
Senior editor of FreePress.org, an Ohio-based web site, and co-author with Fitrakis of the recent article "Twelve Ways Bush is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote," Harvey Wasserman said today: "There was a huge fight around ensuring that the electronic voting machines had paper trails and there was resistance by the secretary of state, so there is no paper trail. There were some victories to ensure a paper trial -- by 2006. There were limited numbers of voting machines in African-American districts. Some people had to wait up to eight hours, far more than in predominantly white areas."
===============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:


AND:
On November 3, 2004, Reuters reported: "Voters across the United States reported problems with electronic touch-screen systems on Tuesday in what critics said could be a sign that the machines used by ONE-THIRD of the population were prone to error.... "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruxton:


Doubt it? Go here:
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

And yes, the troubles were not confined to one party. But the connection between Diebold and Bush is clear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results" I was curious about that too. There was exit polling all over Florida, which I followed closely. But the exits didn't look like the final vote. I wonder if this will be followed-up with statistical analysis.

Well, things didn't go like I wanted, but at least I made a tidy bundle on bets. Among other factors, my assessment was that Bush was appealing to fear, greed, hate, and American jihad. You can never go wrong with those.

Now, I have some thoughtful honest friends who voted for Bush. They were just trying to do the right thing for the future, and, misguided as I think their vote was, I respect their intentions and effort. But I also know those who consider themselves the embodiment of righteous Christian morality who said they would vote for Bush because he was 'going to kill all those Middle Easterners'. They also think it's OK to kill them raghead children, but a single cell is precious. There are others I know who have no particular reason to support Bush except he likes to kick Arab *ss. No religious screen here, just hate.

As for Bush being held to an accounting in the next four years, don't bet on it. I won't. 9/11 happened on his watch, but do people think it was his fault? (It must have been a concern or he wouldn't have so vigorously blocked the 9/11 Commission.) But people actually think 9/11 does him credit. The economy lost jobs. The government hemorrhaged money. 'Dead or Alive' bin Laden is alive. There were no WMDs. Iraq isn't a complete loss, yet, but certainly it's unexpectedly obstructed. These things are *already* legacy.

And was there an accounting at election? Those people who agree with his basically hate-greed-fear filled message are also willing to uncritically overlook any problem he creates, any lie he tells, any death he causes. Unless there is a SEVERE, catastrophic loss, the kind that shakes people to the core and makes them look at Bush thinking 'LOSER', nothing will come home to him. Just my prediction.

---