Voter fraud - American election vastly corrupted

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Monday, January 27, 2025 00:47
VIEWED: 29224
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

GEEZER

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
I'd prefer paper and pencils deposited in a locked ballot box. Keep it simple and stupid.

But then we couldn't have instant results!! What would the networks do on election night? Just kidding.

IMHO, the method of voting isn't the issue, as any system can be gamed. People were stuffing ballot boxes and voting the dead long before computers were invented. It's the people who control the process you have to look out for. If you can get an election commission/board/agency that most people think is above corruption, it won't matter how folks vote; paper, potsherds, pebbles or pixels.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 2:01 PM

"Its' not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes"

- Joseph Stalin (aka Karl Rove)

HARDWARE

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But then we couldn't have instant results!! What would the networks do on election night? Just kidding.

IMHO, the method of voting isn't the issue, as any system can be gamed. People were stuffing ballot boxes and voting the dead long before computers were invented. It's the people who control the process you have to look out for. If you can get an election commission/board/agency that most people think is above corruption, it won't matter how folks vote; paper, potsherds, pebbles or pixels.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

True, living near Philly where the unofficial voting motto is "Vote early and often", yes, paper ballots can be rigged. What concerns me currently is that with the level of automation and lack of security in the few systems in use. Diebold voting machines can be hacked with a 10 line Visual Basic script. A script kiddie can control the election!

Automation minimizes the number of people in collusion to control an election. Stuffing ballot boxes takes a wider degree of corruption and the more people you have involved, the more likely there is going to be a leak.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ ? It's not some old ladies responsibility to make sure American voter laws aren't corrupted. Really. Sheesh, you are ignorant. Shut up!

So I'm ignorant because I expect her to be responsible and make sure that her vote counts?? How is that ignorant? It's called taking responsibility for the things that one can control. If you cannot place your vote, then it IS your responsibility to bring it up when you are voting, NOT AFTERWARDS. Plain and simple. Basically, because she (and others) did not make a scene when it happened, it allowed other people to vote on that faulty (tampered with) machine, and essentially allowed it to misinterpret their votes. If it was a paper ballot and that ballot was "lost", then of course it would not be her fault that she couldn't do anything about it. This is like if it only said "Bush" on a paper ballot and you couldn't even vote for Kerry on it. If you know you cannot vote for a person that you know you should be able to vote for, there is an expectation that you bring it up immediately to the officials, then if they don't do anything, you call the voting hotline, or your local representative. Voting is a right AND a responsibility, not JUST a right. We were not given the right to vote, we had to fight for it. We have that right because people stood up and fought against oppression to get it. They didn't just say "Oh well, it doesn't count, so I guess I'll just complain about it" and get it. It wasn't the laws that caused the problems with the election, it was people. The law didn't force her to not say anything when that machine didn't work, she decided it wasn't worthwhile to do so, or she was afraid to. Every person here in the US, if they are eligible, have the right to vote and the responsibility to make sure that they did everything they could to make sure it counted, old or no, minority or no, blind or no, deaf or no, low-IQ or no, and if they cannot themselves, find someone who can for them. The people who are willing to bend election laws and corrupt an otherwise good election system count on these people, because they know that they will not cause a fuss when they actually try to vote. Who is easier to fool, a person who knows their rights and will stand up for them, or someone who will let anything happen and just bitch about it afterwards? If there was corruption in this election (which I am not convinced of, even though I didn't vote for Bush nor Kerry, I voted for someone else) then they need to stand trial for it and be thrown in prison. But, that still doesn't take that lady off of the hook for not doing anything about it.

If it is ignorant to expect people to do their part, then I guess I am. I'd rather be ignorant and know 100% that I did everything to make sure my vote counted that I could than to be pissing and moaning because I was too lazy to do anything about it when I did vote. I guess it's too much to expect people to actually know their rights and stand up for them. And people wonder why we have so many problems in this country......

Yikes. You really need to justify your opinion eh. All I ment was that blaming a little old lady for voter fraud, which you did in your post previous to this one, is ignorant of the reality, law, and responsibilities of the election officials.

Next, you prolly will post something about how I interpreted your post incorrectly.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Its' not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes"

- Joseph Stalin (aka Karl Rove)

lol!!! Funniest post so far... even funnier than Geezers posts.

BOJESPHOB

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 4:13 PM

And you'd be right. I don't like to be misunderstood. I had no intention of making it sound like it was her fault that there was voter fraud. I was just trying to make the point that it was her fault for not pressing the issue. She could have saved a lot of people from having their votes not count if she would have done something. I agree that it would be wrong to blame her for the problems that happened. The officials/designers of the machine should be held accountable for the votes not being taken correctly on a large scale, and to prevent voter fraud, but that lady is responsible for her own vote not counting. I'm not trying to be difficult on this.... I have issues sometimes trying to explain things when I type, and can be misunderstood easily (this wasn't the first time)......

GEEZER

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Its' not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes"

- Joseph Stalin (aka Karl Rove)

I expected better of you, SignyM. Everyone knows that the correct allusion is Karl Rove as Joseph Goebbels to Bush's Hitler. No wonder you lost the election.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 8:08 PM

Quote:
because she (and others) did not make a scene when it happened

Actually, she did. After she tried over a dozen times to vote for Kerry, she called the election officials in. (so much for secret ballot) They also tried to vote for Kerry on that machine. It took about 7 of their tries before it went in. They noted in their records that they could not get that machine to accept a Kerry vote until a number of tries later. This was officially verified and documented EARLY ON ELECTION DAY. But it wasn't enough (apparently) for that machine to be taken out of service. Nor did anyone think to question how the other machines might be functioning.

RUE

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 8:18 PM

Oh, but Rove is so much more than a Goebbels. While Cheney runs the country, Rove runs the political machine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 10:32 PM

"No wonder you lost the election." - Geezer

Tsk! Now WHERE did I put that thing? rummmages tabletop It MUST be here somewhere! Last I saw it, it was November 2... in a black box I think. Yeah that was it... in a black box. looks through desk drawers, finds a black box Now see, I KNOW I didn't lose that thing! If it was anyhwere, it would be here opens black box... long, shocked silence followed by stunned comment It's been... stolen...

BOJESPHOB

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
because she (and others) did not make a scene when it happened

Actually, she did. After she tried over a dozen times to vote for Kerry, she called the election officials in. (so much for secret ballot) They also tried to vote for Kerry on that machine. It took about 7 of their tries before it went in. They noted in their records that they could not get that machine to accept a Kerry vote until a number of tries later. This was officially verified and documented EARLY ON ELECTION DAY. But it wasn't enough (apparently) for that machine to be taken out of service. Nor did anyone think to question how the other machines might be functioning.

Ok, then that means that since it took her vote, that it was a programming glitch? If she made a fuss about it and got her vote to count, I'm proud of her. This illustrates the need for more information, with how it was stated earlier, it sounded like she complained about it and left. Anyhow, a new question about this for all of you that might know: How does the voting machine thing work? Does it show you who you voted for before you submit it? Is that how she knew that it wasn't accepting it? Since we still use paper ballots (thank God), I haven't even seen the voting machines in action.

RUE

Thursday, December 2, 2004 5:53 AM

I haven't seen them in action either. (We too still use paper.) Apparently you select who you intend to vote for and it reformats it back on the screen, with a selection 'cast ballot' to actually input your selection. I saw her being interviewed afterward, she said she kept selecting Kerry and it kept showing Bush on the screen. After a dozen tries to get it to show 'Kerry' she called in the officials who pow-wowed together in front of the machine. They would select Kerry, Bush would show up, they'd try again etc. until finally it showed 'Kerry', at which point they pressed 'cast ballot'. But there was not paper trail or any way to check what actually went into the count inside the machine. It failed at the very first, obvious, selection step and that's what they were addressing.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, December 2, 2004 1:41 PM

The Canadians may now investigate voter fraud in their own country. While researching this topic, I found this: 'Author of “Black Box Voting,” investigator Bev Harris also wondered why source code for Diebold voting machines, used in over 30 states and 5 Canadian provinces, was publicly available on the Internet.'

Apparently, the fraud in Canada is more severe than here in the United States. While the United States citizenry was at least aware of the presence of Diebold voting machines, Canadian citizens were completely unaware that they were voting on the machines in five provinces. This bespeaks of a media suppression campaign on a wide scale.

No doubt this is due to a new conspiracy theory which will shortly be described where the US is corrupting Canadian voting and their media.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GHOULMAN

Thursday, December 2, 2004 2:10 PM

^^^ I'm not aware of that. Could you provide a link to a story where Diebold machines are in Canada? I'd be interested. As far as I know, Bev Harris has been writing more articles about the fraud of this 2004 US election than most people but I can't find one about Canada using Diebold machines, as you state AnthonyT. I voted not but a few short months ago and it was the still highly effective pen and paper technology that allowed me to encrypt my vote with the universal script code - X.

Found this article but I don't have time to read it. Let me know if it's crap.
Voting errors tallied nationwide
By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | December 1, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/
2004/12/01/voting_errors_tallied_nationwide/
?rss_id=Boston.com%20/%20News%20/%20Politics%20/%20Recent%20Globe%20coverage
More than 4,000 votes vanished without a trace into a computer's overloaded memory in one North Carolina county, and about a hundred paper ballots were thrown out by mistake in another. In Texas, a county needed help from a laboratory in Canada to unlock the memory of a touch-screen machine and unearth five dozen votes.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, December 2, 2004 2:59 PM

From Diebold's website. They're selling some sort of voting machine to Canada. Don't know where exactly it is being used. But clearly, the vile stain of injustice is spreading North.

< http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm>

Voting Solutions
Diebold, through our wholly owned subsidiaries Diebold Election Systems and Diebold Procomp, is one of largest electronic voting system providers in the world. We've enjoyed years of success in the United States, Canada and Brazil. Our qualifications are unmatched.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GHOULMAN

Thursday, December 2, 2004 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"No wonder you lost the election." - Geezer

Tsk! Now WHERE did I put that thing? rummmages tabletop It MUST be here somewhere! Last I saw it, it was November 2... in a black box I think. Yeah that was it... in a black box. looks through desk drawers, finds a black box Now see, I KNOW I didn't lose that thing! If it was anyhwere, it would be here opens black box... long, shocked silence followed by stunned comment It's been... stolen...

Nice1.

Great way to point out the difference between those who mistakenly believe they won something and those of us that believe all Americans had something stolen from them... thier country.

HERO

Thursday, December 2, 2004 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"No wonder you lost the election." - Geezer

Tsk! Now WHERE did I put that thing? rummmages tabletop It MUST be here somewhere! Last I saw it, it was November 2... in a black box I think. Yeah that was it... in a black box. looks through desk drawers, finds a black box Now see, I KNOW I didn't lose that thing! If it was anyhwere, it would be here opens black box... long, shocked silence followed by stunned comment It's been... stolen...

Nice1. Great way to point out the difference between those who mistakenly believe they won something and those of us that believe all Americans had something stolen from them... thier country.

Nice1.

Great way to point out the difference between those who irrationally believe they had something stolen from them and those of us who are not psycho BushHaters stuck in a fantasy world where AlGore is President and Osama bin Ladden is a humanitarian.

H

ANTHONYT

Thursday, December 2, 2004 5:06 PM

Erm... there might be some middle ground being missed here...

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Thursday, December 2, 2004 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"No wonder you lost the election." - Geezer

Tsk! Now WHERE did I put that thing? rummmages tabletop It MUST be here somewhere! Last I saw it, it was November 2... in a black box I think. Yeah that was it... in a black box. looks through desk drawers, finds a black box Now see, I KNOW I didn't lose that thing! If it was anyhwere, it would be here opens black box... long, shocked silence followed by stunned comment It's been... stolen...

Nice1. Great way to point out the difference between those who mistakenly believe they won something and those of us that believe all Americans had something stolen from them... thier country.

Nice1. Great way to point out the difference between those who irrationally believe they had something stolen from them and those of us who are not psycho BushHaters stuck in a fantasy world where AlGore is President and Osama bin Ladden is a humanitarian.

H

Nice1.

Great way to take some gentle joshing between sides and twist it into another insult fest. Please consider yourselves the recipients of non-partisan virtual dope-slaps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

UNICORN

Thursday, December 2, 2004 7:44 PM

Not everybody who believes the election could have been stolen is irrational.

Holding a belief despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary is irrational.

There is no such thing as a weed.

GEEZER

Thursday, December 2, 2004 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Not everybody who believes the election could have been stolen is irrational.

Holding a belief despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary is irrational.

There is no such thing as a weed.

...and you too. Let's see...Cntl/Alt/D...Virtual dope-slap delivered.

Y'all are gonna be nice today, even if I have to VDS you into virtual unconsciousness.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 2, 2004 8:19 PM

I think the VDS belongs to Hero, who first introduced the genteel phrase "psycho BushHaters stuck in a fantasy world where AlGore is President and Osama bin Ladden is a humanitarian."

And so my award goes to HERO, for taking this line of discussion to a new low. And I'm retroactively removing the VDS from Ghoulman and Unicorn, who really didn't deserve them.

HERO

Friday, December 3, 2004 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I'm retroactively removing the VDS from Ghoulman and Unicorn, who really didn't deserve them.

Wow, you guys are big on rewriting history.

And you wanted a draft. And you wanted the courts to step in and change the election results, and you don't want free speech, and you are against heterosexual marriage, and you want to raise everbody's taxes, deny health coverage to the rich, kill puppies in the name of cats, eat snails, ban beer in football stadiums, deny ketchup to millions of school kids, hug trees, deny hugs to SUV's, turn off Fox News, turn on Bill Clinton, turn in George Bush, turn over American soveriegnty, turn up the number of abortions, and turn down the chance to spread liberty to the Muslim world.

I've heard some Democrats say y'all need a new message, truth is y'all need new values. There's millions of Red state Democrats, like myself (being a Republican don't mean I aint a Democrat), who'd fight hard for a Democratic candidate that shared our values. Aint seen one since...maybe Truman, since I aint claiming Carter. He had all the right values, but knew peanuts about runnin a country. Now Reagan, there was a President the Red Democrats could love.

Me, I just live and let live, fight for what's right, work hard, play rough, and don't settle for second best. Thats why I almost always win and never really lose.

So take your pansy blue helemted, French licking, Starbucks coffee drinking, Vermont Teddy Bear ordering, luxery towncar driving, blue blooded, ivy league, liberal close minded elitisist VDS and stick right next to your virtual desktop stripper. I prefer the real thing. May be Bush League, but we gets the job done

H

DIETCOKE

Friday, December 3, 2004 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
It's been a few days and George W. Bush has been declared the winner of the 2004 Presidential election... by the media.

Now the media is commited to "healing" instead of doing thier job - checking for fraud.

In an election that has brought out more Americans to punch thier vote since 1968 it is the shame of America that each and every vote wasn't counted, worse, many votes were simply destroyed in a cruel and fascistic campaign by many Republicans to steal an election they feared would go very badly for them.

This is really silly nonsense. Please stop making the Democratic party look bad.

It's plain the election is a fraud.

The line-ups for voting were a joke.
The Diebold voting machines are a joke.
The police prevented hundreds from voting.
Voters were prevented from voting at the booths.
Fake lists of people were created to prevent voting.
Poor areas were closed to voting.
Minority areas were closed to voting.
University voting booths were "stolen".

The list of stories about fraud go on and on. You might think these are the usual incidents... but voting isn't difficult, it shouldn't have any problems. If there are problems... THAT'S A PROBLEM! But this logic fails American media who are ordered to support thier man George W. Bush.

Worse... there is no controling election body to officially count votes and insure the count, rather like every other democratic government on the planet. Three Republican dominated corporations control over 80% of the vote count in the United States: Sequoia Voting Systems Inc; Electronic Systems & Software Inc. (ES&S); and Diebold" Inc.

... and the stories keep coming out. The number one issue Americans will not see on thier TVs, but the rest of the world will see, is the incredible corruption of the 2004 US Election.

Your vote didn't count.

UNICORN

Friday, December 3, 2004 1:36 AM

Geezer,
You miss my meaning, Friend.

There is a huge amount of evidence that the vote was hacked in counties and other areas where e-voting took place without any paper trail or other means of verifying the numbers. The numbers in only those places are completely mismatched between the polling data and the actual results; nowhere else were the results as skewed as in those particular places.

The consistent polling data showed Kerry up by a large margin in those areas where discrepencies were noted, while the vote as counted consistently showed higher numbers for Bush.

In my statement which was deliberately open-ended, I said that it is irrational to believe something when there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. By that measure it would be irrational for me to trust my government to accurately represent me at all. By that measure, I have heard a great many facts spun until they were unrecognizeable, splashing, fountain-like, from the froth at the top of this administration, so I have a fairly strong idea that they care less about the truth or the voters than they care about winning and expanding their power. I mean come on, "The environment has never been cleaner"? Did anybody believe Bush when he said that?

As I have posted previously,

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

this is a good site to read more about all that.

Before I accept your dope slap, you should understand that those of us who wanted change for our country read this information from multiple non-crazed sources and feel cheated, because the evidence here supports the notion that the Bushies were willing to cheat in order to win, if not at a national level, then at least repeatedly on a more local scale, and there _were_ documented cases of organized disenfranchising in (I think it was 11) numerous states by a supposedly reputable group with strong ties to the Republicans.

It's very disheartening to all of us that nobody higher up seems to care about the appearence of fraud; if they really won fair and square, they should be willing to make sure every vote is counted and counted correctly when there are so many of us calling for it. They should be bending over backwards at a national level to find any sort of cheating and put an immediate and very public stop to it. They're calling for our unity, but they refuse to represent us to the best of their abilities. In fact they've made repeated attempts to bury any evidence that doesn't make them look good.

Those of us in the Kerry camp fear for our inalienable rights. This election saw nationwide attacks on sexual freedom across the board; when did Senators and Presidents become a fixture in the bedroom? This freedom, this privacy, this representation, _has_ been stolen from us if there is no one in the winners' circle who will fight for us, who will bother to make sure it's all kosher, who will look at credible sources and take them seriously instead of trying to discredit them with spun half-truths.

Mr. Bush is completely surrounded by people who agree with everything he says, or everything Cheney says. He never hears from the other _half_ of his constituents, and as far as we can tell, he never even tries.

So you can send me the dope slap, but honestly I didn't feel it, because I think you missed.

(I've done enough stupid things to recognize that particular sensation, after all.)

There is no such thing as a weed.

BOJESPHOB

Friday, December 3, 2004 2:43 AM

Actually, I have a question for all of you. This is a little off topic, and a little on. Ok, here goes: The 2000 election was close. Too close. Ok, fine enough. Bush kinda won, kinda didn't. Let's not get into that. Ok, he won the 2004 election. Ok, some people think that it was rigged, others don't. Here's the question: Why, if you are really "in control" of the way votes are counted and can control the outcome of an election, would you allow somebody like Bill Clinton to win office, two successive terms??? I can assure you that both times he won, there were problems with the voting, there were issues with fraud. Do you know why it wasn't news? It's because the race wasn't close. He won. Just as Bush won this time around. If the people "in control" were really "in control" then Bush the first would have had two terms. The people got sick of him, and wanted Clinton. How much did you hear people complaining that Clinton won when he did? Some, not much, but some.

I will admit that there were people (on both political sides) that tried to make votes disappear, disenfranchise voters, rig the vote. It wasn't only Republicans doing it.

Also, the media is a liberal medium (except for Fox, which is weird cause they used to be the worst).

They want Americans to have as much unprotected sex with multiple partners that have differant diseases while smoking cigarettes and dope so that they can make us a country of "victims" so that they can gain votes and power. They gain power and say to themselves "Look what I've done for myself. Screw everybody else, this is about ME!!" (Ted Kennedy is a wonderful example of that attitude!)

On the other side, the Republican party tries to believe that they are the "compassionate" party that tries to help others help themselves. While that is an admirable goal, they fail miserably when they only do things that fuel their self-interest. They gain the power and say to themselves "Wow, look at me, I am making descisions that will affect BILLIONS of peoples lives!! I'm going to start a war!!"

Hopefully, soon, people will wake up and realize that neither group is the one that is going to help this country. It's kinda like being in a country where the Nazi's are running against the Marxists....... Whomever wins, we all lose!!

SIGNYM

Friday, December 3, 2004 3:15 AM

The religious right and the non-religious right have been working towards this ascendancy for the past two decades (or more) and the political balance of power doesn't remain static. Something seriously changed during Clinton's terms in office- the right wing took over the Republican Party and tipped that balance. I can give several indicators of the change:

The religious right claimed, openly and proudly, to have taken over the entire Republican Party in Texas at all levels: county, state, and national.

The Republicans and Ken Star pursued Clinton with a vicious single-mindedness that hadn't been seen in Presidential politics for over 60 years.

Dole's candidacy revealed the split between the "moderate" Republicans and the more right-wing kind, and his failure to win office gave the right-wing the green light to play out their scenario. (The same thing might happen as a result of Kerry's failure.)

Just because someone's in power now doesn't mean they were always in power, or that they will remain in power ad infinitum. After all, even The Nazis started w/o power and (thankfully) ended w/o power.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 3, 2004 3:23 AM

Oh, BTW

"They {liberals} want Americans to have as much unprotected sex with multiple partners that have differant diseases while smoking cigarettes and dope so that they can make us a country of "victims" so that they can gain votes and power."

"They"- the coporations- want us to smoke because it makes a huge profit, and the sexual focus of our society comes from advertising because the industry is pushing the button that works on just about everyone- sex. After all, sex sells, doesn't it? If you were to look at how people actually behave, you would find that godless liberals are actually more moral- they lie, cheat, steal, and fornicate less often and generally profess (and act on) selfless values more often than the supposedly religious. So, in sum, I think you've got the wrong "they" in your crosshairs.

UNICORN

Friday, December 3, 2004 4:37 AM

Kind of trollish here, but...

Isn't the unprotected sex thing much more of a Republican thing, because (according to certain of them) BIRTH CONTROL IS BAD?

After all, we Godless Sodomite Family-Hating Tree-Hugging Liberals are pro-condoms, pro-sex-ed, pro-abstinance-plus, and pro-social-programs-that-support-unwed-mothers. Also, we think that people who provide birth control prescriptions, counseling or referrals for abortion/adoption services, and educational materials about such things should be able to (gasp!) talk about those issues without losing funding.

(We are not, by the way, pro-trading horrible diseases. That's an icky fallacy and not much fun at a party. :b)

Sorry guys. I'm not playing with much sense of humor tonight. It's nothing personal (or even political)-- I had dental work done today.

Evil Republican Dental Work. (Ow.)

There is no such thing as a weed.

GHOULMAN

Friday, December 3, 2004 1:16 PM

Quote:
Wow, you guys are big on rewriting history.

And you wanted a draft. And you wanted the courts to step in and change the election results, and you don't want free speech, and you are against heterosexual marriage, and you want to raise everbody's taxes, deny health coverage to the rich, kill puppies in the name of cats, eat snails, ban beer in football stadiums, deny ketchup to millions of school kids, hug trees, deny hugs to SUV's, turn off Fox News, turn on Bill Clinton, turn in George Bush, turn over American soveriegnty, turn up the number of abortions, and turn down the chance to spread liberty to the Muslim world.

I've heard some Democrats say y'all need a new message, truth is y'all need new values. There's millions of Red state Democrats, like myself (being a Republican don't mean I aint a Democrat), who'd fight hard for a Democratic candidate that shared our values. Aint seen one since...maybe Truman, since I aint claiming Carter. He had all the right values, but knew peanuts about runnin a country. Now Reagan, there was a President the Red Democrats could love.

Me, I just live and let live, fight for what's right, work hard, play rough, and don't settle for second best. Thats why I almost always win and never really lose.

So take your pansy blue helemted, French licking, Starbucks coffee drinking, Vermont Teddy Bear ordering, luxery towncar driving, blue blooded, ivy league, liberal close minded elitisist VDS and stick right next to your virtual desktop stripper. I prefer the real thing. May be Bush League, but we gets the job done

Typical neofascist rebuttal - an attack on the person and never the issue.

Notice how this is a responce to Signym quoteing HERO? Instead of quantifiying his own words... he attacks Signym with "state of the art" right wing name calling.

Reading this it breaks down into: "you, you people, me, we who are rightious, and take your...

*sigh* ... good gracious, I'm morderating.

Having said that it's well written. Nice flow. Oh, and HERO, you can eat me.

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, December 3, 2004 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Wow, you guys are big on rewriting history.

And you wanted a draft. And you wanted the courts to step in and change the election results, and you don't want free speech, and you are against heterosexual marriage, and you want to raise everbody's taxes, deny health coverage to the rich, kill puppies in the name of cats, eat snails, ban beer in football stadiums, deny ketchup to millions of school kids, hug trees, deny hugs to SUV's, turn off Fox News, turn on Bill Clinton, turn in George Bush, turn over American soveriegnty, turn up the number of abortions, and turn down the chance to spread liberty to the Muslim world.

I've heard some Democrats say y'all need a new message, truth is y'all need new values. There's millions of Red state Democrats, like myself (being a Republican don't mean I aint a Democrat), who'd fight hard for a Democratic candidate that shared our values. Aint seen one since...maybe Truman, since I aint claiming Carter. He had all the right values, but knew peanuts about runnin a country. Now Reagan, there was a President the Red Democrats could love.

Me, I just live and let live, fight for what's right, work hard, play rough, and don't settle for second best. Thats why I almost always win and never really lose.

So take your pansy blue helemted, French licking, Starbucks coffee drinking, Vermont Teddy Bear ordering, luxery towncar driving, blue blooded, ivy league, liberal close minded elitisist VDS and stick right next to your virtual desktop stripper. I prefer the real thing. May be Bush League, but we gets the job done

Typical neofascist rebuttal - an attack on the person and never the issue.

Notice how this is a responce to Signym quoteing HERO? Instead of quantifiying his own words... he attacks Signym with "state of the art" right wing name calling.

Reading this it breaks down into: "you, you people, me, we who are rightious, and take your...

*sigh* ... good gracious, I'm morderating.

Having said that it's well written. Nice flow. Oh, and HERO, you can eat me.

Unfortunately Ghoulman you are the consummate Hypocrite. You accuse everyone of attacking other folks, when every single one of your posts does the exact same thing, and in many cases crosses a line between civillity and discordance. You label and insult those who don't agree with your "Opinion". "Neo-Fascist" being a good example of such an attack. Your rebuttals could be considered "State of the Art Left Wing name calling"

Everyone gets their gander up occasionally. I'm a guilty member of that as well.

It is difficult to remain civil when you are constantly attacked for being an American and lumped in with anyone who has fringe beliefs in either direction.

As for moderator.. this board desperately needs one, to keep the topics civil, as well as the titles of the topics. I could compile a list of the Anti-American Hatemongering you have initiated on this board, changing the landscape from civil discourse to defensive antagonizing discourse.

I have a few friends who won't even visit this Firefly site, because when they first did the first thing they saw was an Anti-American statement in the forum topics on the main page.

It's tough to get folks to share their love of the BDS, when they feel they will be attacked if they join the ranks.

HERO

Friday, December 3, 2004 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Typical neofascist rebuttal - an attack on the person and never the issue.

Aint nothing "neo" or "fascist" about it. I'm Conservative. Same Conservative who sailed to a new world looking for new ideas. Same conservative who blazed trails, fought indians, and tamed a continent. Same Conservative who dumped tea in the harbor, said no to King George, and yes to the soveriegnty of my friends and neighbors. Same Conservative who stood the walls under the rocket's red glare, charged the field at Fredricksburg, stormed the beaches of Normandy. Same Conservative who freed America from Kings, freed slaves from bondage, freed Europe from Nazis, gave hope to millions, gave the boot to Saddam, and our vote to George Bush.

Quote:

he attacks Signym with "state of the art" right wing name calling.

It aint "state of the art". I tell it like it is, no bullshit, thats as old as time. Liberals hate it because it aint to their liking. They invent "political correctness" to civilize the truth out of us Red staters and reserve speech to themselves or at least their approved topics, language, and viewpoints.

Quote:

Reading this it breaks down into: "you, you people, me, we who are rightious, and take your...

Its always been "you people" and "we, us". Thats the American way. Two sides, or more, discussing, arguning, and ultimately voting. The problem is you prefer the other way. When only your side gets to talk, gets to have power, gets to have an opinion. Thats why you and France, and Saddam, and Koffi "I don't know nothin bout no oil money" UN Guy and John Kerry can't stand it. Not only are you losing, you can't stand that anyone dares question you.

Quote:

Oh, and HERO, you can eat me.

Sorry, I don't approve of that particular life choice. I leave you free to practice it in the privacy of your own world, but don't include me in your fantasies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just choose not to particiapte. Sure, I'm a sexy man. But thats not an invitation to hold hands and take long showers.

Unless your a hot, liberal chick...then send me your number and I'll show you my concealed weapon...

For the record, I'm a moderate on the whole gay issue. I support civil unions (makes sense to the lawyer in me), but not gay marriage (thats the Christian conservative side). I also am against sex between men (thats the homophobic side) but am in favor of sex between hot women (thats the heterosexual side). So I think that makes me a moderate leaning hippocrite...but its my opinion, MINE, ALL MINE, GO AWAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

H

SIGNYM

Friday, December 3, 2004 5:25 PM

Um Hero, I follow your drift starting at "Aint nothing "neo" or "fascist" about it. I'm Conservative. Same Conservative who sailed to a new world looking for new ideas. Same conservative who blazed trails, fought indians, and tamed a continent. Same Conservative who dumped tea in the harbor, said no to King George, and yes to the soveriegnty of my friends and neighbors. Same Conservative who stood the walls under the rocket's red glare, charged the field at Fredricksburg, stormed the beaches of Normandy. Same Conservative who freed America from Kings, freed slaves from bondage, freed Europe from Nazis, gave hope to millions, gave the boot to Saddam, and our vote to George Bush."

But you lost me at a couple of points... Calling yourself "conservative" kinds of obscures the fact that in Colonial times you would have been called a traitor by the then-existing government (which couldn't tolerate dissent), fighting (and enslaving) Indians just isn't consistent with freeing slaves, and "giving hope to millions" doesn't square with supporting dicatorship abroad.

So I believe in the same ideals you do but I'm more consistent about it, and I might possibly have a more balanced view of my role in history- Other than those two caveats I think we're on the same page.

HARDWARE

Saturday, December 4, 2004 5:22 AM

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary%5C14736.html

A verifiable-voting insurgency

Colleen Redman

Redman, of Floyd, is a writer and poet.

Just as the U.S. invasion of Iraq seemed over with the fall of Baghdad, so did the 2004 presidential election seem to end when John Kerry conceded. But the war was hardly over when Bush prematurely claimed victory, and the election isn't over, either.

In fact, a new Harris Poll indicates that one in five Americans doesn't believe the election was legitimate. The number of skeptics would probably be higher if more people were aware of the scope of voting irregularities that occurred. Unfortunately, the corporate-owned media have mostly fallen in line with the "powers that be," just as they did in the run-up to the war (something a few major newspapers later apologized for).

In the days following the election, I got my election news from the Internet because the mainstream media weren't covering it thoroughly. Bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states, wrote Thom Hartmann, author and nationally syndicated talk show host, in a Nov. 4 article that really piqued my interest.

With a story here ("Vote count glitches haunt Bush's supposed mandate") and a story there ("Palm Beach County logs 88,000 more votes than voters"), I pieced together news from across the country in an effort to inform myself.

On Nov. 14, I came across a compelling paper by University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven Freeman, titled "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy." After comparing exit polls, which had Kerry in the lead, with the announced results for Bush in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, Freedman, a statistician, calculated that the odds against such an accidental discrepancy in all three states together are 250 million to 1.

Exit polls generally match official voting counts and have been used around the world as a way to verify voter accuracy and guard against vote tampering. Even Dick Morris, a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, said in an article for The Hill, "Exit polls are almost never wrong. ... [They] cannot be wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

In an ironic twist, the media have recently been in high gear covering the suspected vote fraud in Ukraine. Just weeks after our own election, in which exit polls didn't match the computerized tallies, The Associated Press, while reporting the story, included Ukraine's exit poll discrepancies as evidence of alleged vote fraud there.

Not only have the media been neglectful of investigating the validity of the U.S. election, they have occasionally discredited those who have questioned it, referring to them as "conspiracy theorists." Given the high numbers of vote "purges," "spoiled" ballots, voter intimidation incidents and other reported irregularities that disenfranchised mostly Democratic voters, coupled with the knowledge that the largest voting machine companies are owned by known Republicans, or that a John Hopkins study determined that electronic voting machines are wide open for fraud, isn't some oversight in order? Isn't it suspicious that voting anomalies have overwhelmingly come down in favor of Bush?

While tens of thousands of Ukrainians are in the streets defending the principles of democracy, most Americans probably aren't even aware of the University of California-Berkeley statistical study that found that irregularities with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 to 260,000 or more excess votes to Bush in Florida. For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone must explain the statistical anomalies in Florida, the professor who headed up the study said.

If Americans knew that a reputable MIT political scientist succeeded in replicating the Berkeley analysis, would they take to the streets like the Ukrainians, or at least get on the phone to their congressmen?

EVILMIKE

Sunday, December 5, 2004 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
While tens of thousands of Ukrainians are in the streets defending the principles of democracy, most Americans probably aren't even aware of the University of California-Berkeley statistical study that found that irregularities with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 to 260,000 or more excess votes to Bush in Florida. For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting, someone must explain the statistical anomalies in Florida, the professor who headed up the study said.

I just posed this link in another threat, but I figured I should post it here too since it specifically addresses this point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/01/opinion/main658540.shtml

RUE

Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:00 AM

I read the article in the other thread, but I thought I'd respond here.

The first 'voting anomaly' instance in Florida is not taken seriously by anyone, so far as I know.

There is another statistical analysis aside from Berkley's, which examines exit polls (not approval ratings) v counts, which is not specifically adressed in the article.

The story behind the 'extra tapes' through Black Box Voting is MUCH more interesting than indicated here. Part of that story is that the 'tally tapes' they were supposed to see (and which were presented as original poll tapes) did NOT match the original signed and dated poll tapes found in the trash.

Whatever became of those 60,000 mail-in ballots that disappeared in Florida? They were going to re-send about 20,000, but not only did that not cover the full amount that went AWOL, it was thought that they could not be filled in and returned on time to count.

The 90,000 mostly Democrats who were dropped off the voter registration list for 2000 were never returned to it.

There were voting machines witheld in Democratic precincts in Ohio.

Etc etc etc.

Even the 'reasoned' article concludes that these irregularities have to be looked into. But that's a switch from the automatic dismissiveness in the first few weeks.

I don't think anyone wants anything more than that ALL the problems be looked into thoroughly and carefully. The question is: will it happen?

I dunno. What's your prognostication? The forces of the status quo are doing their best to bury the questions. Will they whitewash the answers as well? Or will the push to examine the facts prevail?

UNICORN

Monday, December 6, 2004 2:24 AM

So um...
How does a gay marriage do ANYTHING to heterosexual marriage?

And how does being liberal mean we're against heterosexual marriage? Maybe you're joking to say it, but this is a charge that's been made seriously over and over again, and frankly those of us on the open, accepting side of this issue are really confused by y'all on the other side of it. We're not forcing conservative churches to do anything they don't want to do; we just want to make certain that legally speaking, as well as spiritually speaking in the case of, say, Unitarian churches, all people are protected equally under the law.

After all, I'm a happily married heterosexual who takes great pains to make sure my marriage is strong and communicative and all that, and as we've been together for a scant 5 years, I expect we'll have a very long time of being happily married to each other for galloping aeons to come. So how does my stance on gay marriage hurt heterosexual marriage at all?

Sign me really confused...

There is no such thing as a weed.

SIGNYM

Monday, December 6, 2004 1:49 PM

Unicorn- How're the teeth??

I think HERO is still stuck on the "fighting Indians and freeing the slaves" conundrum. If he's not, he should be! That's one of the things I find so very interesting about right-wingers: the deep deep chasms in their minds between one thought and another. I don't think I could live with that level of internal self-contradiction. It would drive me craz ... oh wait, nevermind!

LITTLEMANLOVESFIRE

Friday, December 17, 2004 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JenDandy:

If you're in Canada why do you care so much about what's going on in the U.S.?

I'm not in Canada I'm from the UK and I'll damn well tell you why we care.

You are the biggest, most powerful nation in the world, but right now, in the world's playground, you are a hateful, immature, nasty little boy running around pushing everyone over.

I have nothing against AMERICANS. You are people, exactly the same as us. However, right now, I hate AMERICA and everything it stands for. As does just about everyone in the world. Europeans don't even like you anymore, nor Canadians. You may be powerful but you're carving out a future where you have no friends you can rely on.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as us saying "it's somewhere else, we shouldn't get involved, it's not my country."

Bollocks. It's not my country, but it is my f*cking planet - it belongs to all of us. The other reason we care is because a retarded maniac like Bush has the kind of reach which could end MY life, and he has no right to do that. He could end not just my life, but yours, my five year old daughter's life, the lives of everyone I know - the lives of almost everyone on the planet.

So yeah, we f*cking care.

Your constitution has been pissed on, and whether you voted for him or not everyone in that once-great country of yours has been made a monkey of. And people who go "Snigger, let's point and laugh at the conspiracy theorist!" are letting it happen.

In what kind of world wouldn't the people with all the power and money in the world sink to unethical means to keep hold of that?

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, December 17, 2004 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Littlemanlovesfire:
In what kind of world wouldn't the people with all the power and money in the world sink to unethical means to keep hold of that?

well.. I think everyone needs to take a look at their own governments. The US isn't teh only one being shifty behind the closed doors. France, Germany, Russia..the majority of the UN etc..etc.. are using unethical means to retain power and improve upon it.

RUE

Saturday, April 9, 2005 2:32 AM