PDA

View Full Version : Voter Meltdown


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 12:38 AM
US citizen, to world: HELLP!!!

Here I am, sitting in the belly of the military behemoth that purports to be the "light of freedom and democracy," yet we cannot seem to be able to conduct our own Presidential elections without nationwide improprieties cropping up.

In Ohio: Republican officials have hired hundreds of "monitors" to challenge and question new, first-time voters. The reasons for this ploy are obvious: in an election with large voter-turnout, Republicans always get the short end of the straw.

And then, of course: there's the funny-business of Diebold, the company whose CEO promised to "deliver the election to George Bush," and I guess he succeeded. Diebold fostered the ignominous "electronic voting" that you've all heard about--the paperless trail of hacker-friendly machines that may, or may not, decide to register your vote in the manner of your choosing. Accountability? Who needs it, when you have a cool, hi-tech machine with neato buttons, to press?

And then there are impersonators (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/938) of elections technicians.

"The impersonators were going into the polling places and asking the inspectors which machines they having trouble with and writing down the serial numbers of those machines. Then, they gave the inspector their cell number and asked them to call if there were any other problem machines and they would come fix them.

And don't even get me started about Florida...! :freaky: Glenda Hood, the Secty of State of Fla (and, a Jeb Bush appointee), has recently done an end-run around the law, saying that recounts WILL be allowed, so long as they do not change the course of the current lead. So, if W has the lead in Fla, and a recount is needed in some counties (as it most likely will be, as there are already reports of machines broken down), then we can rest assured on Nov 2nd eve, that no recounts will upset the status quo.

Whew! Now THAT'S a load off my mind! :rolleyes:

And, speaking of Florida shenanigans...

New Florida vote scandal feared (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm)

secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Portrait of a country on the verge of a nervous breakdown (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=575453)

Elsewhere, there were computer breakdowns during early voting in Memphis. Pre-election testing of electronic machines in Riverside County, California, and in Palm Beach County, Florida, led to multiple computer crashes. Elsewhere, machines have manifested problems handling basic addition - especially when asked to display instructions in a language other than English. Several county administrators have chosen simply to skip the non-English language part of the test.

In Nebraska, dead people were found to have applied for absentee ballots. In Ohio, a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was found to have offered crack cocaine to a known drug addict in exchange for completed voter registration forms, which he duly submitted in the names of Mary Poppins, Janet Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer.

How the courts will react to this hypothetical state of affairs is anybody's guess. They could accept the given election results, however flawed. They could allow the arguments to rage until December, when the electoral college is supposed to meet, or even into the new year, when an undecided election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Or they could be trumped, once again, by the Supreme Court. The most disconcerting possibility is that the highest court in the land could remove the electoral process from the voters altogether and turn it over to the state legislatures. Technically, they can do this under Article II of the Constitution, which offers no automatic right to vote. We know from the deliberations in 2000 that two, possibly five, of the nine justices have doubts whether the people should be the ultimate arbiters of presidential elections - a strict, literal reading of the Constitution that no modern Supreme Court countenanced before the current crop of ultra-conservatives. "After granting the franchise in the special context of Article II," the majority declared in its Bush vs Gore ruling, "[the state] can take back the power to appoint electors."


One bright spot in all this chaos, however: is the excitement over voting. I have never seen so many people so eager to vote. No matter what, this election will not be dull...hang onto your hakama's; it's gonna be a wild ride, come November. :ai: :ki: :do:

deepsoup
10-28-2004, 07:33 AM
You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado. :)
(And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)

I was listening to a news report on the radio about the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio the other day, and there was a (not entirely serious) suggestion that UN inspectors need to be sent in to oversee the election.

Sean
x

dan guthrie
10-28-2004, 08:32 AM
I don't think this election will be perfect. We've never had one before, why start now? :D
Thomas Jefferson, founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence, wasn't clean in one election (I forget which one). Many large cities used to have political "machines" that would deliver for one party ( I'll let you guess which one). Chicago's famous for doing this well into the 60's.
I don't see any reason to panic, yet. The last election was a true aberration. I think the electoral college and popular vote will match this time.
I'll support whoever becomes president.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 01:49 PM
I don't think this election will be perfect. We've never had one before, why start now? :D
.
I don't see any reason to panic, yet. The last election was a true aberration.

Wanna bet...? ;) Come on: I'll lay odds, on this one (unless there's a landslide result, of course).

I think the electoral college and popular vote will match this time.
I'll support whoever becomes president.

Sure, there have always been shenanigans in the past. But, never on this scale. Certainly, both the Dem and Repub parties think that this election will have major flaws: the Dem's alone have a team of 800 lawyers standing by, to jump in when improprieties pop up (as, they already are).

And yes, Florida has a long history of dead ppl voting, of nursing homes trundled into buses and intimidated into voting on candidates. This sort of thing is not new. But it's the SCALE of the thing, that is so daunting.

Respectfully, I think you're too complacent about this election. It's a mess already, and the problem lay not with whether or not the popular votes will match the decisions of the electoral college, IMO: it's the nightmare scenario of whether or not the Concervative-packed Supreme Court will, once again: appoint our next President, as several have already stated that they feel that the selection of President is too important, to leave to the masses.

I wish I had your confidence in the system: but the system has already proven to be flawed, and nothing has been done to fix the problems. Worse, more problems have been added to the pile.

Neil Mick
10-28-2004, 01:58 PM
You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado. :)
(And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)

Interesting: thanks for the tip, Sean.

What Colorado's Amendment 36 means for America... (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/24/74544/159)

The most important issue on the ballot in our state is Amendment 36, which would change our electoral voting from "winner takes all" to a proportional voting system.

But I haven't told you the best part yet. If it were passed, Amendment 36 would go into effect IMMEDIATELY. Like ON THIS ELECTION. See, we get nine electoral votes. If George Bush got 51% of the vote (and despite how close the polls are, this is the most likely scenario for our traditionally red state) and Amendment 36 passes, he would only get five electoral votes instead of the whole kielbasa.

I was listening to a news report on the radio about the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio the other day, and there was a (not entirely serious) suggestion that UN inspectors need to be sent in to oversee the election.

Sean
x

Not to mention, of course: Jimmy Carter's warning that he doubts that Florida can actually HAVE a fair election, at this time. And actually, I have heard that int'l election observers WERE called in, but the suggestion was turned down, by the gov't.

Anyone else heard of any election stories? Post them here.

Hogan
10-28-2004, 03:58 PM
You didn't mention Amendment 36 in Colorado. :)
(And the potential for a lot of legal wrangling if those 9 votes are enough to tip the electoral college one way or the other.)...Sean
x


I had heard on one of the news channels that there was an 1800's federal law that would prohibit this Amendment 36 from going into effect for this election - that it would have to go into effect for the next one, regardless of the Amendment language.

Perhaps someone can provide further info.

Don_Modesto
10-28-2004, 10:19 PM
Oodles of requested absentee ballots haven't made it to their destinations. The Republican supervisor of elections blames the PO. They say they don't have a problem.

If folks don't have those ballots in hand by election Tuesday...they can't vote. If they try to early vote, the ballots can be cancelled on site.

PeterR
10-28-2004, 11:44 PM
Dan;

Interesting point about the lack of clean elections.

I'm sure Sean also remembers the rotten boroughs of his country.

Just as it is near impossible to graft one political system directly on another country, it is a given that political systems do evolve to fit a particular society usually with a significant lag. Doesn't start perfect and never gets perfect.

Stable democracies (2 generations/40 years) usually evolve in the direction of more open, more accessible, more fair and therefore it is a cause for concern when there is a huge increase in the number of people that don't expect a fair election.

Could be increased sensitivity or it could be fact - no matter, it is a problem.

dan guthrie
10-29-2004, 08:53 AM
I just remember the panic over Y2k. Much ado about nothing. I recognize the fear many have I just don't have it myself. I'm concerned but that's about it.

deepsoup
10-29-2004, 11:31 AM
Peter is quite right, we have a few problems with the state of our democracy over here too. I think the root cause of our problems is apathy born of cynicism, and I think our cynicism about our politicians is well founded.

Quite apart from all the electoral shenanigans that're going on, and the seemingly inevitable legal wranglings we'll be seeing next week, I think there are deeper problems with the US presidential system though. Problems that can't be sorted out so easily.

It takes more than a vote to make a democracy, the electorate have to have access to the information they need to make a decision. That means freedom of information and freedom of speech. (It also requires the electorate to be reasonably well educated, but lets not open that can.)

I'm really concerned about the state of freedom of speech in the US. Here's an example: GWB's local paper, The Lone Star Iconoclast.

It surprised everyone by endorsing Kerry this time around, rather than Bush as it did last time. Now you can't buy a copy over the counter in Crawford. Advertisers dropped it, shops and gas stations stopped stocking it.

This is not freedom of speech.
When someone is saying something you don't want to hear, you can put your fingers in your ears and go "La la la", thats stupid but its ok. What you cant do is prevent them from saying it, or prevent anyone else from hearing it.

If you value freedom of speech, you have to defend the rights of people to speak even if you disagree with them. People who don't want to buy the paper anymore are putting their fingers in their ears and thats their right, but the shopkeepers who're refusing to stock it are engaging in censorship of a legitimate point of view, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Now about that mass media. More and more of the media is owned by a handful of super-rich individuals. Newspapers, radio and tv stations have their editorial content shaped by fewer and fewer people, so they're dancing to the same tune. They shape public opinion, people believe what they see on tv, and what they read in the papers.

The majority of Republican voters still believe, in spite of all the evidence, that Saddam Hussein had access to WMD's prior to the war. They still believe there was a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. Even GWB has had to admit that there is no truth in this.

But the fact is, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes 'the truth'.
And with so much of the media owned by a small group of people with their own agenda, those people can repeat the lies relentlessly, the truth simply cannot compete.

Another worry is the sheer amount of money you need to run for President. It simply can't be done unless the candidate is seriously rich or has the backing of some huge businesses. Global corporations don't just spend millions of dollars without expecting something in return, so if you want to vote for a President who'll represent your interests you'd better be rich, or the CEO of some big company, otherwise you just don't have a candidate, sorry.

But don't think that means they're both the same, Bush has got to go. Then Republicans, who I believe are basically decent people, in spite of everything, have 4 years to find themselves a sane, humane candidate for the next time around.
(And no, I don't mean Schwartzenegger. :))

Sean
x

By the way, there was an interesting edition of Question Time on the BBC last night, from Miami. (A serious, panel/debate talk show - at least its usually pretty serious, I this week's studio audience were more used to Jerry Springer.)

The panellists were:
Michael Moore
David Frum
Sidney Blumenthal
Richard Littlejohn
Lida Rodriquez-Taseff

If you have access to the BBC World channel, it'll be on at the following times: Saturday 30 October at 0810, 1410, 2110 GMT; Sunday 31 Oct at 1810 GMT
or you can follow the link from here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/3954967.stm) to watch online.

Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 06:20 PM
I just remember the panic over Y2k. Much ado about nothing. I recognize the fear many have I just don't have it myself. I'm concerned but that's about it.

Well, AFAIC, this story is getting hotter, by the day.

Check this out:

Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-votesue29oct29,1,2023894.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house) (subscription required, but it's free)

Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.

Veteran voting-rights lawyers expressed surprise at the government's action, saying that closing the courthouse door to aspiring voters would reverse decades of precedent.

Since the civil rights era of the 1960s, individuals have gone to federal court to enforce their right to vote, often with the support of groups such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters or the state parties. And until now, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court had taken the view that individual voters could sue to enforce federal election law.

But in legal briefs filed in connection with cases in Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the administration's lawyers argue that the new law gives Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft the exclusive power to bring lawsuits to enforce its provisions. These include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls.

Neil Mick
10-30-2004, 04:04 AM
HALLOWE'EN'S A' COMING! ;)

Be afraid...be VERY afraid... (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/days.html)

p00kiethebear
10-30-2004, 04:26 AM
My friend (a masters in computer science) wrote this short article in his livejournal about why electronic voting is flawed.

Everyone should read this.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spastic_cow/6858.html#cutid1

and the electoral college is bull. Honestly... So some cities are bigger than others? Well guess what, this is how democracy works. The majority gets their way. The states have senators and representives to make things more equal.

Popular vote is the way to go...

Neil Mick
10-30-2004, 10:41 PM
This might interest--

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR VOTE ON ELECTION DAY: (http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=faqs_vote)

To find your polling place, click here. (http://www.mypollingplace.com/find.php)

If you want to volunteer to be a "mystery voter" and help collect polling data and exit polls, visit www.votewatch.us

Sign up to be a poll watcher at www.electionprotectionvolunteer.org.

Call the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law at 1-866-OUR VOTE for immediate, legal assistance to voters during the early voting period and on Election Day.

For a map of the specific voting technology used in your area, visit www.verifiedvoting.org.

To report an election irregularity, visit www.voteprotect.org

Also, check this out: http://www.indyvoter.org/index.php

dan guthrie
11-04-2004, 09:18 AM
Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. :D Everything went smoothly. Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up.
Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive.
I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum. I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base we might have a chance at pulling this country together and attack the real enemy, Belgium. :D
I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

Don_Modesto
11-04-2004, 11:51 AM
Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. :D Everything went smoothly. Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up.
Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive.
I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum. I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base we might have a chance at pulling this country together and attack the real enemy, Belgium. :D
I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

Haha!

Nice post.

Neil Mick
11-05-2004, 04:32 PM
Since no one has pointed this out, yet. Nyah nyah nyah. :D Everything went smoothly

If you believe this, then I have some states (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php) to sell you. Merely because you woke up and it nothing untoward was reported on the news, doesn't mean that shenanigan's (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041103-030957-8557r.htm) didn't happen.

Elsewhere, a bogus flier with the McCandless Township, Pa., seal said because of long lines, Republicans should vote Nov. 2 and Democrats should vote on Nov. 3; a faked NAACP letter in Columbia, S.C., said voters with outstanding parking tickets or unpaid child support would be arrested if they voted; and in Miami, Haitian Americans said they were threatened with deportation by several "thugs" who walked along lines at a polling site and demanded to see identification.
Also, fliers in Missouri and Wisconsin were sent to black voters showing a photo of a firefighter hosing a black man in what appeared to be a civil rights confrontation from the 1960s, blaming Republicans for past and present voter discrimination; a faked letter purportedly from the Republican National Committee went to Wisconsin voters saying the party's chairman had endorsed Sen. John Kerry; and telephone callers told senior citizens in Pennsylvania that Mr. Bush was going to take away Social Security benefits.

And then there are the Diebold e-voting machines. At least one group, www.blackboxvoting.org, is instigating the largest FOIA request in history to investigate the extent of e-voting hacking.

The question is not whether or not there was tampering (as there certainly was): the question is was the tampering was sufficient to throw the election results. For the answer to THIS question: we'll have to wait awhile.

Perhaps the vote went against your candidate or proposition but civil war was avoided and if the streets ran red with blood it was cleaned up before 6 a.m. when I woke up.
Quite a few votes didn't go my way but I think our country will survive.

Firstly: Kerry was not "my" candidate. I'd have been out on the streets Nov.3, (http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1703076.php) no matter who won (BTW, the march went COMPLETELY unreported by the mainstream media, even tho there was 5-10k marchers present, by my estimation). Secondly, I never thought that this would "plunge" the country into civil war. Never said it: never thought it.

I hope this doesn't reveal my personal politics too much but I pray our President chooses Supreme Court justices that are easily accepted but both sides of the political spectrum.

You can pray, but that's all the good it'll do. Bush has already said that he "plans to spend his political clout," and I doubt it means that he plans to buy jelly-beans, in honor or Reagan.

You can start kissing Roe v Wade goodbye, for starters.

I know the chances are slim but if he chooses justices that offend his conservative base

Now, why would he do this? It's against his interests, and his character.

I think the other major issues - the war and jobs - will probably go conservative no matter what we wish.

And a lot of other things, too. We lost 5 seats to Con's in Texas, due to gerrymandering. Civil rights, abortion, more giveaways to corporations, and a lot more is in store for America. The Con's control all brances of gov't now, and changes certainly are on the horizon, for us all...few of them good.

I was in the locker-room of my University, changing in to my gi and hakama before teaching class. Everyone, everywhere, seemed to be talking about the election, and the basketball-team didn't seem to be an exception.

Now, I expect athletics students to be more Conservative than other students, and so I wasn't surprised by their assessment. But at the end, they were trying to comfort themselves with the notion that Congress would "never" accept a draft.

I wanted to say to them: gosh, I hope you didn't vote for W, because karma is a real bitch. I can almost imagine these guys reporting for draft-duty, wondering how this all could happen. But I kept my mouth shut, as my opinions are unimportant when it comes to invididual fates, or karma.

The trouble is: karma is also collective, and the totality suffers for the decisions, of a slim minority of misguided voters. We all go down, when the ship starts to sink. No one was more surprised as the passengers, when the Titanic hit the iceberg.

dan guthrie
11-05-2004, 09:23 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood your original posting and the entire subject of this thread. Perhaps you'll explain " nationwide improprieties", "an election with large voter-turnout, Republicans always get the short end of the straw.", "New Florida vote scandal feared ", and "Portrait of a country on the verge of a nervous breakdown"?
BTW the "you" in my post was generic and not directed at you.
In a nutshell; I'm merely observing the relative calm and quiet of a typical election. For some reason a large number of people on the left have turned into some of the strangest paranoiacs I've ever seen. I just don't understand anyone who doesn't have an unshakable faith in democracy.
If this election didn't work out the way you wanted it to, volunteer and work for the next election. This ranting and fuming is not going to move your position forward or get your candidates elected.
The last part of my post was just wishful thinking.
It's just my opinion but if Bush tries to load the Supreme Court he'll go down in history as the "President who was blocked at every turn."

Neil Mick
11-05-2004, 10:30 PM
If this election didn't work out the way you wanted it to, volunteer and work for the next election. This ranting and fuming is not going to move your position forward or get your candidates elected.

As I stated earlier, it's not about "my" candidate getting elected. John Kerry wasn't "my" candidate.

Check out the link's I've posted: there are huge improprieties in this election. And, it's not about "ranting and raving" because of sour grapes: there is good, hard evidence surfacing that this election was rigged.

Was it rigged enough to throw the result...? Too early to tell. But, there are odd discrepancies btw the exit-polls, and the results of Ohio precincts. If they were all for Bush before and after the polling, that's one thing. But, that's not the way it went down. Again, go read the links; then decide for yourself.

The last part of my post was just wishful thinking.
It's just my opinion but if Bush tries to load the Supreme Court he'll go down in history as the "President who was blocked at every turn."

Yes, we agree: that last part IS wishful thinking.

Neil Mick
11-06-2004, 12:07 AM
I just don't understand anyone who doesn't have an unshakable faith in democracy.


Elections are, in the end: run by human beings, who are just as capable of placing party affiliation over job responsibilities as anyone else. Ballots often go missing (in SF, I remember a story in 2000 about a huge boxfull of ballots found floating in the SF Bay), dead ppl sometimes vote, the elderly are forced out of their nursing-homes and extorted to vote, etc.

Expecting these things to happen commonplace, for an election. But, the reports of the frauds attempted in Fla, etc hit an all-time high.

So, it's not about questioning one's "unshakable faith in democracy:" it's about making sure that the election wasn't rigged, to a point that it threw off the result.

All the Leftie's want, is a guarantee that the result was fair. With the leering, apelike gloat staring back at them from the newspapers, can you hardly blame them?

dan guthrie
11-06-2004, 08:50 AM
None of my posts were directed specifically at you, Neil, except for the requests for explanation of your first post. No offense, but I don't care who you voted for and I never meant to infer Kerry was "your candidate."
This wasn't a perfect election but it wasn't anywhere near being the most corrupt. It actually seems to be less corrupt than usual. Maybe all the attention kept the fraud to a minimum. The people who predicted it would be a horrible election were wrong, plain and simple, in my opinion.
If anyone broke the law, I hope they're punished.
The main point of this thread isn't whether or not the vote would be fair. The point was whether or not it would be "voter meltdown."

We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

PS Neil, I don't think "apelike gloat" is going to help. The more hyperbole you throw at Bush the more difficult it will be for every elected official. Everyone want's to get their licks in now.
Whatever happened to the phrase, "I disagree?"
Why isn't that enough?

DanielR
11-06-2004, 02:54 PM
There was a good (IMO) "This American Life" (http://www.thislife.org) show on NPR last week (http://www.thislife.org/ra/276.ram). It had a special segment on voter suppression (http://www.thislife.org/ra/276hitt.ram), which showed that the amount of fraud and suppression attempts on the part of republicans was far greater than that of democrats. It seemed rather persuasive.
The same show had a series of interviews with an undecided guy from Ohio, who, being a pro-choice physician (IIRC) and having serious reservations about Bush's policies, the war etc., still couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry because he thought Bush had more integrity, conviction and determination, even if this meant allowing Bush to continue with policies the guy doesn't like. I suppose this just goes to show that the democrats didn't do such a great job with the candicate and the campaign.

Neil Mick
11-06-2004, 10:08 PM
This wasn't a perfect election but it wasn't anywhere near being the most corrupt. It actually seems to be less corrupt than usual.

Since you have no way of knowing how much corruption is "usual:" let's just say that I'm taking this comment with a great deal of salt.

If anyone broke the law, I hope they're punished.
The main point of this thread isn't whether or not the vote would be fair. The point was whether or not it would be "voter meltdown."

We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

Since I was the originator of the thread: I suppose that I should know what this thread was "about." But yes: agreeing to disagree is fine by me.

PS Neil, I don't think "apelike gloat" is going to help. The more hyperbole you throw at Bush the more difficult it will be for every elected official. Everyone want's to get their licks in now.

Oh please: usually I am quite restrained in the description-dept, of Our Beloved Leader. I cannot think of a more descriptive phrase to describe W's face, as he lays out his supposed new regime, so "apelike gloat" will just have to do.

And I'm sorry: dissing Bush seemed to be a pastime for a lot of Leftists (not particularly me, as I find it ultimately self-deating to engage overmuch in Bush-bashing...see my comments on the "anti-Americanism" thread, for more on this vein), but a little grousing is healthy, and I fail to see how it will "be difficult for every elected official." You totally lost me, there.

Whatever happened to the phrase, "I disagree?"
Why isn't that enough?

When W torpedoes Roe v Wade, you come on back and tell me if your protestations of "I disagree" is enough, OK? :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
11-09-2004, 03:06 AM
But, this election was fine: no problems at all.

Kerry Won: Here Are The Facts (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0)

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded.

Yep, just a typical fair & clean election, in the good old, democratic USA.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)

So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.

But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

Neil Mick
11-15-2004, 02:04 AM
Now, why is this not being reported all over the mainstream?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/.

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is implementing fraud diagnostics on the state of New Mexico. Information we recently received is indicative of widespread vote manipulation. We are not going to publicize the specifics here.

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is requesting legal assistance for a specific county in Georgia. Indications of corrupt voting processes, with possible criminal actions by local officials.

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is launching a fraud investigation on Pima County Arizona.

BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting is launching a fraud investigation on the state of Nevada. Pro bono legal help certified to practice in Nevada, needed immediately. Multiple irregularities. Need people to take affidavits from election workers, statewide.

BREAKING -- FRIDAY NOV 12 2004: Ralph Nader to audit Diebold machines in New Hampshire. According to Nader, the current situation with voting machines warrants investigation. Several elements make voting machines "probative" for investigation, according to Nader, a consumer affairs lawyer: proprietary ownership, secret code, vested interests, a high-value reward, and lack of any real consequences, or likelihood of getting caught, for vote manipulation. "We are told that shenanigans are just politics," said Nader at a press conference on Nov. 10. "Well, it's not politics. It's taking away people's votes."

Michael Neal
11-15-2004, 10:12 AM
Neil you are absolutely nuts, even Kerry's lawyers have said publically that the election was legit and that they had no chance of winning.

Taliesin
11-15-2004, 10:28 AM
Dan

To have an unshakable belief in democracy it helps to believe you are in a Democracy not a Corporate Oligarchy(big word) or Plutocracy. To get support in democracy you need to have something that is clearly recognizable as a democracy - not something that has the trappings. That means that votes alone do not make a democracy - a respect for the rule of law is also integral (something GWB is not to keen on) you also need a position where it is believed that all voters are equal and the representative exercises his judgment as to when is best on balance for everyone not the just what is best for those who spent most money buying the candidate (Iraqi Oil, drilling in Alaska anyone???)

Neil Mick
11-15-2004, 04:47 PM
Neil you are absolutely nuts, even Kerry's lawyers have said publically that the election was legit and that they had no chance of winning.

[sarcasm on]
Of course: it's all above-board--Kerry's signing-off means that nothing needs to be investigated (one Ohio county having 3400 ppl voting for Bush, in a county of 660); that NOTHING happened worth investigating, etc ad nauseum. [/sarcasm off]

Coming from someone who crowed "GO USA, LET'S ROLL!" the day after the invasion (i.e., YOU), I am stunningly unsurprised, at your response.

If God's entire staff came down and announced the totality of Bush's crimes: no doubt you'd be unimpressed, unless it were reported on Fox, CNN, et al.

Michael Neal
11-15-2004, 08:26 PM
Neil, you really make no sense. You are so rabid in your anti-Bush agenda and propaganda that you find all kinds of conspiracies where there arent any. You have no credibility in what you say.

The simple fact is that if there were significant voter irregularities in Ohio, Kerry's lawyers would have gone after them like mad dogs. Not only Kerry, but Kerry's lawyers, most of the Democratic Party, and even the liberal Kerry supporting media have conceded that Bush won the election. Get over it already, you lost.

I say by all means investigate away. However, at the end all you will have is your typical venom to spit and no real evidence of anything.

Neil Mick
11-15-2004, 10:01 PM
Neil, you really make no sense. You are so rabid in your anti-Bush agenda and propaganda that you find all kinds of conspiracies where there arent any. You have no credibility in what you say.

Of course not. No, the links I posted earlier in this thread were just smoke & mirrors...no validity to them, at all.

Of course, the empirical evidence is mounting that the exit-poll/Bush-voter discrepancy is HIGHEST with e-voter touch-screen systems, but of course that is SHEER coincidence.

BTW, Michael: how ARE those wmd-searches coming along? Found any, yet?

The simple fact is that if there were significant voter irregularities in Ohio, Kerry's lawyers would have gone after them like mad dogs.

Wrong. As kerry was deciding whether or not to throw in the towel, the stock market was plummeting. His concession changed that. I'm sure that his backers had some input into his decision. Likely, they put pressure on him, and he caved...waay early, IMO.

Not only Kerry, but Kerry's lawyers, most of the Democratic Party,

Listen, when this story is still the hottest underreported topic 6 months from now, you come back and tout your expansive knowledge again, OK?

BTW: have you gotten that new dance down yet? You know: the "Iraqi 'Cakewalk?'" I hear that the Pentagon's having problems with that one, too... :P

and even the liberal Kerry supporting media have conceded that Bush won the election.

"Liberal media?" Repeat after me: JUST SAY NO---drugs can do horrible things to a person's life.

Please. The "Liberal media" (myth, that it is...and I defy you to prove otherwise) was hardly "kind" to Kerry. I have plenty of documentation to prove this.

Get over it already, you lost.

"I" lost, the moment Kerry won over Kucinich. It has nothing to do with winning or losing: it has to do with noticing a pattern, and following your instincts...which, you might do yourself, if you were not so biased in the other direction.

I could well say: get over it--YOU lost (as did most American's).

by all means investigate away. However, at the end all you will have is your typical venom to spit and no real evidence of anything.

If you even bothered to read up on the link I posted for www.blackboxvoting.org , you'd have found evidence growing out like kudzu.

But, please: go back to sleep, Michael. Nothing to see here. Everything's fine: the election wasn't tampered, and your President loves you. Whatever sleepytime myths get you through the day.

In the meantime: don your little flag-baseball-cap, gather round the TV-hearth, and cheer out "Let's roll!" as if this were some sort of football game, the next time you hear (or, don't hear) the latest casualty statistics in Iraq. I'm sure that mindless cheerleading is your forte no matter what the news, so why not just be yourself? Certainly, it makes for an easier life (until, of course, the inevitable bill comes due).

dan guthrie
11-16-2004, 12:13 AM
But, this election was fine: no problems at all.

Kerry Won: Here Are The Facts (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0)



Yep, just a typical fair & clean election, in the good old, democratic USA.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)

_____________________________________

This is the original source for the Dick Morris quotation:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15821

"Quote:
So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.

But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play." "

___________________________


Just in case anyone is confused, Morris' contention is that the exit polling was wrong, not that the election was corrupt. The "foul play" he's referring to was the exit polls.
The way the quotation reads may lead one to the exact opposite conclusion that Morris intended but IS the intended conclusion of the commondreams.org article.

I think commondreams was being ironic when it used Morris' words.

If any election laws were broken, I hope there are indictments and lengthy prison times. Only a few months to go before the electoral college meets and we'll see who's correct. I'm not aware of anyone being charged or arrested but I could be wrong.

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 12:24 AM
If any election laws were broken, I hope there are indictments and lengthy prison times. Only a few months to go.

Yes. :cool:

dan guthrie
11-16-2004, 12:56 AM
Dan

To have an unshakable belief in democracy it helps to believe you are in a Democracy not a Corporate Oligarchy(big word) or Plutocracy. To get support in democracy you need to have something that is clearly recognizable as a democracy - not something that has the trappings. That means that votes alone do not make a democracy - a respect for the rule of law is also integral (something GWB is not to keen on) you also need a position where it is believed that all voters are equal and the representative exercises his judgment as to when is best on balance for everyone not the just what is best for those who spent most money buying the candidate (Iraqi Oil, drilling in Alaska anyone???)

I don't think we live in a perfect society. I also don't think we live in a Plutocracy, either. Corporations don't always get their way. Enron collapsed and it's management is going to prison. Boeing is today's focus of corporate wrongdoing and someone's probably going to jail. Even lowly Martha Stewart is in the Big House for lying to the government.

In California we have a new governor. He was selected over the wishes of the sitting Democratic governor in a solidly blue state. That's democracy in action.
I would never try to prove it's perfect. That would be insane.
On the other hand, I think it's a very, very difficult argument to prove it's in "meltdown" over one rather sizable victory for the Republicans (if you count the gains in the Senate).

This voter meltdown proclamation is wishful (dreadful?) thinking, IMHO. I'm underwhelmed by the links presented so far. In a few months we'll know for sure.


Until someone's indicted I'm going to avoid commenting on this subject. Carry on, but this is a waste of time.

vanstretch
11-16-2004, 02:27 PM
http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heros/heros.htm

vanstretch
11-16-2004, 02:29 PM
www.Remeber the Blood of Heros.com

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 04:26 PM
This voter meltdown proclamation is wishful (dreadful?) thinking, IMHO. I'm underwhelmed by the links presented so far. In a few months we'll know for sure.

It's only Nov. 16th: were you expecting a full-bore indictment, so soon?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10133265.htm

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=e9f5a08d-222b-4c9c-8b1a-557ee89f4bb1

Please, these stories keep filtering in, in spite of the mainstream-media blackout.

And, anything discounted by Ann Coulter, that attack-poodle of the Right, DEFINITELY deserves a 2nd look.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411160006

In her November 11 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter falsely asserted that Olbermann has been "peddling the theory that Bush stole the election" and referred to "Olbermann's idiotic conspiracy theory." A November 14 column by associate editor Bill Steigerwald in the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (owned by right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife) claimed Olbermann "really made a Dan Rather of himself" by focusing a segment of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on allegations of voter fraud. And in his November 10 "Inside Politics" column, Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce quoted the conservative Media Research Center's analysis of Olbermann's coverage:

"With 'Did Your Vote Count? The Plot Thickens' as his on-screen header, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday night led his 'Countdown' program with more than 15 straight minutes of paranoid and meaningless claims about voting irregularities in states won by President Bush," the Media Research Center reports at www.mediaresearch.org.

But Olbermann has not suggested that the election was stolen. Discussing the possible causes of the bevy of reported voting irregularities from around the country, Olbermann offered this analysis on the November 10 edition of Countdown:

There are really only three possible explanations for all of this. The first is hoped for virtually unanimously by supporters of every candidate and every party -- namely, that all those elected last Tuesday got in because that's the way the people voted. The second is that some of them got in through manipulation of a series of insufficiently sophisticated, insufficiently secure computer voting machines that might be hacked into by the nearest 9-year-old. But the third possibility is actually more heart-stopping still, one that threatens the democracy in the way 100 terrorist rings could not -- that the president or the District 90 dog catcher or other Republicans or other Democrats were elected because a series of insufficiently sophisticated, insufficiently secure computer voting machines was affected by bad design, bad use, damp ballots, power surges, and/or static cling.


Until someone's indicted I'm going to avoid commenting on this subject. Carry on, but this is a waste of time.

You already have, commented on this subject. And, I for one am overwhelmingly unsurprised, as to your response. You've already weighed in your opinion.

Go on, nothing to see--not important. But if it were me, I for one would welcome an investigation in light of the widespread allegations. Don't you want to know why there was--suddenly--discrepancies btw the exit-polls and the results, when Bush started running in the nat'l elections?

Nah, it's far, far easier to pooh-pooh the efforts to find out if our election was hacked, or not. Back to sleep, with you. It doesn't matter, of course: unless you've seen it on CNN. :dead:

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 11:04 PM
Jeez...even reading about the attempt to recount, is like reading a detective-story...it just gets better n' better...

Black Box Voting began to compare the special printouts given in the FOIA request with the signed polling tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. By this time, Black Box Voting investigator Andy Stephenson had joined the group at Volusia County. Some polling place tapes didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an African-American precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and other Republicans.

Hmm. Which was right? The polling tape Volusia gave to Black Box Voting, specially printed on Nov. 15, without signatures, or the ones with signatures, printed on Nov. 2, with up to 8 signatures per tape?

Well, then it became even more interesting. A Volusia employee boxed up some items from an office containing Lana Hires' desk, which appeared to contain -- you guessed it -- polling place tapes. The employee took them to the back of the building and disappeared.


(full story)
www.blackboxvoting.org

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 11:49 PM
Woohoo!

Ohio To Go Through Statewide Vote Recount After All (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2004/local/11/16/recount.html)

A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December.

Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party's David Cobb said on Monday they raised more than $150,000 in four days, mostly in small contributions.

Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.

Badnarik and Cobb said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.

Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.

Naysayers, you can now proceed to eat your hakama's (gi's will do as well)! :D
If a third-party coughing up the bucks to get a recount in Ohio isn't newsworthy: well then, what is...? ;)

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 02:52 PM
Hey Neil ------ Ya REALLY think it's gonna matter?????? :rolleyes:

Taliesin
11-22-2004, 09:33 AM
Of course it MATTERS - Whether it makes a difference is something else entirely

Michael Neal
11-29-2004, 09:18 AM
Ok, Neil keep believing in you stupid conspiracies. It is sad to see someone waste so much of their life on such crap.

Taliesin
11-29-2004, 12:26 PM
Michael

Are you saying that Democracy is Crap. In which case try saying that in the Ukraine. or are you saying it's stupid to believe that GWB could have secured the election by fraud. In which case you don't remember your history very well.

Michael Neal
11-29-2004, 01:45 PM
Really, what history is that? I certainly don't remember GWB being elected by fraud? You really need some CREDIBLE evidence to back such claims. Just because a few third party candidates in Ohio want a recount does not mean there was fraud on behalf of GWB. And some left wing organizations crying foul is not evidence either.

If there are legitimate isssues then lets hear them, I want to see them work though the legal system to establish their validity. But no, the lawyers already said there was nothing there.

You guys can claim all you want that the election was a fraud but that is not evidence of anything, except maybe the ugliness of extreme leftists and their propaganda.

And Neil, I know you have a weak argument but don't make it so obvious by trying to changes the subject to WMDs and a statement I made before the liberation of Iraq, what do those things have to do with the current topic? "Smoke and mirrors", you know that tactic well.

Neil Mick
11-29-2004, 04:36 PM
Ok, Neil keep believing in you stupid conspiracies. It is sad to see someone waste so much of their life on such crap.

You can depend upon a few things in life: you can depend upon the sun to rise, for voters to vote against their interests, and you can depend upon Michael Neal to come online and rant no-brain platitudes, lacking any merit or substance.

It's almost like a clock, in its mechanical regularity....

Neil Mick
11-29-2004, 04:37 PM
And Neil, I know you have a weak argument but don't make it so obvious by trying to changes the subject to WMDs and a statement I made before the liberation of Iraq, what do those things have to do with the current topic? "Smoke and mirrors", you know that tactic well.

It's called "discussion of a different topic." Mayhap you've heard of it? More precisely: read. the. forum. topic.

Next.

Michael Neal
11-29-2004, 08:55 PM
You can depend upon a few things in life: you can depend upon the sun to rise, for voters to vote against their interests, and you can depend upon Michael Neal to come online and rant no-brain platitudes, lacking any merit or substance.

It's almost like a clock, in its mechanical regularity....

Yep, that is another way of escaping from your original losing argument.

Neil Mick
11-29-2004, 10:03 PM
Yep, that is another way of escaping from your original losing argument.

ROFL, you're too much, sometimes. Um, nooo: it's neither an escape, nor is it an argument (and in point of fact, Michael: you're one to talk. BTW, you STILL didn't answer the question--how ARE those wmd's coming along in Iraq? Turn up anything yet? Certainly, nothing that justifies $200+ B and 1400+ American lives, I imagine).

But let me break it down so that even a knee-jerk, cheerleading Fox-viewer can understand:

1. During and before the election, there were widespread claims of voters getting turned away. The 866-OUR-VOTE ppl stated that they received calls in the 10's of thousands of ppl calling in about

a. Ppl coming to their houses, claiming that they "don't have to go to the polls on 11/2,;, they can just cast their vote, with them;

b. Lines as long as 6hours, in mostly Af-Am neighborhoods;
c. Optical-scan machines that would vote repeatedly for the wrong (i.e., Republican) candidate (some, as many as 6x in a row);

c. Old machines in Af-Am neighborhoods, and not enough voting machines in these areas (typically, the # was 1/2 the required amount);

d. systematic refusal of some polling places to allow polling inspectors to watch the ballot-collection process (this, I might remind you, is in most places, the LAW);

e. In one particular Ohio precinct: the voting officials claimed that they received a "level 10" (the highest) terror-threat from the OHS and the FBI and proceeded to lock down the place during the ballot-counting, even tho both OHS and the FBI stated that they issued no such warning;

f. Widespread disenfranchisement of Af-Am voters in Florida (notably Broward Cty) and Ohio;

g. The near complete mainstream media blackout on this story, even tho (see above references) there was MORE than enough grist for the mill, before 11/2, for further investigation. Doesn't this fact ALONE make you pause? Nah, probably not, because FoxNews hasn't told you, to pause.

Even IF there wasn't enough shenanigan's to tilt the election, Michael: don't you want to be assured that Bush won, fair and square? Do you REALLY want to go on, day to day, not knowing whether the vote was cooked or not?

Or do you simply want to nod and mindlessly take in whatever the mainstream says is acceptable...?

On second thought: don't bother answering, I think I already know the answer... :rolleyes:

I mean (and I'm addressing both Timi AND Michael, here), here we are, pooh-pooh'ing the Ukranian election on this side of the Pacific...why? Because their exit-polls don't match up with their endf-result!

Oh, COME ON! Are you both trruly BLIND to the hypocrisy of this statement? Or is it just that you're both satisfied with the result, and the "ends justify the means?" :dead:

Michael Neal
11-30-2004, 01:12 PM
ROFL, you're too much, sometimes. Um, nooo: it's neither an escape, nor is it an argument (and in point of fact, Michael: you're one to talk. BTW, you STILL didn't answer the question--how ARE those wmd's coming along in Iraq? Turn up anything yet? Certainly, nothing that justifies $200+ B and 1400+ American lives, I imagine).

Neil, why should I answer the damn question? It has nothing to do with this topic. By answering it I would allow you to change the subject to something else.

But let me break it down so that even a knee-jerk, cheerleading Fox-viewer can understand:

WTF does Fox news have to do with the discussion?

1. During and before the election, there were widespread claims of voters getting turned away. The 866-OUR-VOTE ppl stated that they received calls in the 10's of thousands of ppl calling in about

a. Ppl coming to their houses, claiming that they "don't have to go to the polls on 11/2,;, they can just cast their vote, with them;

"widespread claims," "claiming" etc is not evidence Neil. If these are legitimate issues then the legal system should sort them out.

b. Lines as long as 6hours, in mostly Af-Am neighborhoods;
c. Optical-scan machines that would vote repeatedly for the wrong (i.e., Republican) candidate (some, as many as 6x in a row);

c. Old machines in Af-Am neighborhoods, and not enough voting machines in these areas (typically, the # was 1/2 the required amount);

First you blame the new machines then you blame the old machines then you blame there were not enough of them, contradictions to go around. How did the lines get so long? Did Republicans get volunteers to stand in line to clog them up? The truth is that all lines were long that day, to say that they were longer in af-am communities as part of a Republican conspiracy is funny, please prove it Neil, making a claim is not enough. Why did Kerry's lawyers not have a field day with this if it were true? If there were not enough machines in af-am communities then maybe the af-am election board officials for that precinct are to blame not the so called "Right Wing Conspiracy."

A problem at some precinct does not automatically equal a Republican conspiracy to suppress the vote. There were problems at Republican precincts as well, even mine.

d. systematic refusal of some polling places to allow polling inspectors to watch the ballot-collection process (this, I might remind you, is in most places, the LAW);

BS, The only time I saw any evidence of this was when the Republican Party had to sue to be allowed to do this exact thing in Ohio, evidence that the Democrats were trying to disallow inspectors.

e. In one particular Ohio precinct: the voting officials claimed that they received a "level 10" (the highest) terror-threat from the OHS and the FBI and proceeded to lock down the place during the ballot-counting, even tho both OHS and the FBI stated that they issued no such warning;

If it were true it would be grounds for legal action but it would have to be true. There were simlar reports about Democrats pulling similar schemes. I am also sure you think it was a conspiracy orchestrated by John Ascroft or something.

f. Widespread disenfranchisement of Af-Am voters in Florida (notably Broward Cty) and Ohio;

Really? provide evidence please.

g. The near complete mainstream media blackout on this story, even tho (see above references) there was MORE than enough grist for the mill, before 11/2, for further investigation. Doesn't this fact ALONE make you pause? Nah, probably not, because FoxNews hasn't told you, to pause.

Maybe there was blackout on this story because it was BS, most of the "mainstream" media was supporting Kerry.

Neil, your propoganda and conspiracy theories simply do not fly.

Neil Mick
11-30-2004, 03:46 PM
I noticed, Michael: that you failed to respond to my point...

I mean (and I'm addressing both Timi AND Michael, here), here we are, pooh-pooh'ing the Ukranian election on this side of the Pacific...why? Because their exit-polls don't match up with their endf-result!

Oh, COME ON! Are you both trruly BLIND to the hypocrisy of this statement? Or is it just that you're both satisfied with the result, and the "ends justify the means?" :dead:

Your silence is deafening.

"widespread claims," "claiming" etc is not evidence Neil. If these are legitimate issues then the legal system should sort them out.

Give the man a cigar! That's right: "widespread claims" are NOT evidence. And you're RIGHT: the legal system SHOULD sort them out. I am so pleased that we agree. And so: you're obviously in agreement that the GAO SHOULD investigate these allegations, as it is so doing.

Excellent: we're getting somewhere.

First you blame the new machines then you blame the old machines then you blame there were not enough of them, contradictions to go around.

One step forward: two steps back. Nope, no contradictions...except in the mind of one Michael Neal, with a rightwing-fueled axe to grind.

Old machines clog, break down easier. See the link above in www.gregpalast.com, regarding "vote spoilage."

New machines (specifically, Diebold-style optical scanners) have been showing a disturbing tendency to vote Bush, on their very own. worse, these machines are unverifiable as they do not leave a paper-trail.

I understand that the term "machine" confuses you, but not all "machines" are created equal.

How did the lines get so long? Did Republicans get volunteers to stand in line to clog them up?

If you read the links, you'd know. Not enough poll-workers in primarily Af-Am commuities. Confusion in redistricting, with voters unsure as to where they were allowed to vote.

The truth is that all lines were long that day, to say that they were longer in af-am communities as part of a Republican conspiracy is funny, please prove it Neil, making a claim is not enough.

I did, already. You're just too lazy to read the links.

Kerry's lawyers not have a field day with this if it were true?

Ah, now that's the $51 million dollar question (the amount Kerry had in his treasury after the election), isn't it? Why DID he bail on his promise so soon? The only person who can say for certainly, is disturbingly quiet on the recounr issue.

e were not enough machines in af-am communities then maybe the af-am election board officials for that precinct are to blame not the so called "Right Wing Conspiracy."

Yes, maybe they are. In Ohio, we can blame Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican secty of State.

em at some precinct does not automatically equal a Republican conspiracy to suppress the vote. There were problems at Republican precincts as well, even mine.

Garbage. Prove it---sources, pls. Certainly, they aren't as widespread, going by the empirical volume of the complaints. And even if this WERE true: you should be clamoring for an investigation right along with me, instead of pooh-pooh'ing the effort.

only time I saw any evidence of this was when the Republican Party had to sue to be allowed to do this exact thing in Ohio, evidence that the Democrats were trying to disallow inspectors.

Again, see above links, esp the incident on www.blackboxvoting.org , Volusca Cty.

Next!
it were true it would be grounds for legal action but it would have to be true. There were simlar reports about Democrats pulling similar schemes.

Well, it is true. Sorry to burst your balloon.

And: regarding "similar reports..." again, garbage. Certainly not in the same volume.

No sources, no joy.

I am also sure you think it was a conspiracy orchestrated by John Ascroft or something.

You see: here's why I lamblast your critiques so much. YOU think that this is about some conspiracy by the Republican Party to keep Kerry out of office: I think that this is a systematic indicator of deep problems with our voting system. We saw it in 2000 and 2002, and we're seeing it now.

Quote:
f. Widespread disenfranchisement of Af-Am voters in Florida (notably Broward Cty) and Ohio;

Really? provide evidence please.

Yeah, really. I ALREADY PROVIDED THE SOURCE. www.gregpalast.com, "Kerry Won: here are the Facts."

Also, simply search "voter irregularity," Broward Florida, or Ohio, and you'll find plenty.

Quote:
g. The near complete mainstream media blackout on this story, even tho (see above references) there was MORE than enough grist for the mill, before 11/2, for further investigation. Doesn't this fact ALONE make you pause? Nah, probably not, because FoxNews hasn't told you, to pause.

Maybe there was blackout on this story because it was BS, most of the "mainstream" media was supporting Kerry.

ABSOLUTE garbage. www.spinsanity.com or www.mediamatters.com to see the way Kerry was maligned. Please. I'm guessing that you think that the "Swiftboat Veterans for Rove" were supporters??

Neil, your propoganda and conspiracy theories simply do not fly.

Not in the mind of a knee-jerk'er, no.

Neil Mick
12-01-2004, 12:03 AM
Consider this:

Something's Fishy in Ohio by Jesse Jackson (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1130-21.htm)


Ohio is this election year's Florida. The vote in Ohio decided the presidential race, but it was marred by intolerable, and often partisan, irregularities and discrepancies. U.S. citizens have as much reason as those in Kiev to be concerned that the fix was in. Consider:

In Ohio, a court just ruled there can't be a recount yet, because the vote is not yet counted. It's three weeks after the election, and Ohio still hasn't counted the votes and certified the election. Some 93,000 overvotes and undervotes are not counted; 155,000 provisional ballots are only now being counted. Absentee ballots cast in the two days prior to the election haven't been counted.

Ohio determines the election, but the state has not yet counted the vote. That outrage is made intolerable by the fact that the secretary of state in charge of this operation, Ken Blackwell, holds -- like Katherine Harris of Florida's fiasco in 2000 -- a dual role: secretary of state with control over voting procedures and co-chair of George Bush's Ohio campaign. Blackwell should recuse himself so that a thorough investigation, count and recount of Ohio's vote can be made.

Blackwell reversed rules on provisional ballots in place in the spring primaries. These allowed voters to cast provisional ballots anywhere in their county, even if they were in the wrong precinct, reflecting the chief rationale for provisional ballots: to ensure that those who went to the wrong place by mistake could have their votes counted. The result of this decision -- why does this not surprise? -- was to disqualify disproportionately ballots cast in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County.

Neil Mick
12-01-2004, 12:28 AM
And, this: (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/#lawsuit2)

We went in through the kitchen, using a reconassaince map provided by a colleague, led by Kathleen Wynne dressed as hired help. Black Box Voting investigator Kathleen Wynne, in black jeans and a white polo shirt had earlier traveled through the route to the back entrance to the supervisor's meeting, nodding to the waiters.

"Very nice, very nice," Wynne said authoritatively.

Wynne led Bev Harris and Andy Stephenson through the back way without raising so much as an eyebrow, since she looked like hotel staff.

Harris went onto the podium and introduced herself to the crowd. "I know I'm interrupting. This will only take a minute." She turned to LaPore, "Since we can't get your attention any other way, I'm serving you with a courtesy copy of the lawsuit we served on your office this morning."

LaPore glared, turned her back on Harris, and refused to take the lawsuit, so Harris set it on the table in front of LaPore.

Stephenson stood up in front of the crowd of perhaps 200 Florida elections officials.

"This was a courtesy call on Ms. LaPore for failing to produce public records," he said. "For any of you who have not complied, we have more of these coming."

Black Box Voting has identified 13 Florida counties who have earned litigation due to failure to comply with public records requests.

The elections officials erupted into deafening shouts, boos, gavel-pounding, and then Wynne stepped up smack dab in front of the crowd, took a sturdy stance and panned the crowd with her video camera.

"This is what democracy looks like," she said, as the officials scowled and shouted for the sergeant at arms.

Nope...nothing to see...totally baseless charges,,,back to sleepytime, now...

Michael Neal
12-01-2004, 12:55 PM
Anything else Neil? You might want to consider that it is the quality of the argument that counts not the quantity of them. Maybe sticking to a few good points and backing those up would bolster your argument more rather than throwing out as much as you can in the hopes that something will stick.

This same idea also applies to the amount of complaints about the election from the far left. It is the quality of the compliant and whether or not it is true that matters, not the amount of complaints made. You seem to be arguing that the amount of complaints themselves is evidence of election fraud. But, there is a very plausible explanation and motivation for these complaints other than fraud, the far left’s dissatisfaction over the results of the election and their refusal to accept loss.

And I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with John Kerry, I know John Kerry was not the candidate of the far left. This is all about the outright hatred of George W. Bush and his policies by the fringe. You can not bear that your past four years of activism against Bush was rejected on Election Day. It is much easier for you psychologically to believe it was a fraud then face your own failures.

This is why it is only the very far left that is making an issue out of this, they had put so much emotionally into this election. The rest of the nation (the vast majority) clearly sees your efforts to claim fraud in the election as political shenanigans.

Now lets get to your litany of complaints in your above posts. I refused to respond to your statement regarding the Ukrainian election because it is absurd on its face to compare the two elections. In the U.S the opposition candidate conceded as well as stated that he had “no chance of winning” by challenging the election with his legal team. His legal team publicly stated that the election was legitimate as did the DNC. The media who mostly favored Kerry has accepted the results and most of the Democrats in America as well. There is no such consensus in Ukraine. There is nothing really comparable Neil and to do so makes your entire argument all the more absurd.


Your arguments regarding the voting machines are weak. So what if old machines break down easier? All that proves is that old machines break down easier, where is the fraud? The new machines you say are “showing a disturbing tendency to vote for Bush.” Have you considered that maybe it was people actually voting for Bush? So I assume here you are alleging that since black voters had older machines (which do leave a paper trail) they were disenfranchised. So I guess they should been given the newer machines that do not leave a paper train and that you claim vote for George Bush on their own, would that have been more fair? I fail to see your logic.

Also, it was not only Democrats in Democratic precincts voting on old machines, a great deal of the country still uses old machines. Your link www.gregpalast.com really is not evidence of anything; this guy is as biased and ideological as they come, just look at his other stories. The source is not credible Neil.

Voter confusion is not evidence of election fraud, although it is evidence of poor grassroots organization by the Democrats. You have not proved anything here regarding the long lines conspiracy, just unfounded accusations from liberal activists.

“Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican secty of State.” Just stating that fact does not prove anything. Basically you are saying that since he is a Republican and Secretary of State he must have been involved in voter fraud. There is no evidence in your statement Neil just wild innuendo.

www.blackboxvoting.org, another link that is suspicious. Why should I take these people’s word for anything, it is an organization made up of disgruntled liberal activists. They make a lot of claims and file lawsuits and such but I see nothing on this site but claims of fraud, nothing concrete or substantiated.

Regarding my sources, you can do a google search if you are interested, I have not the time to compile a list of links for you. Most of them are on right leaning websites just as yours are on left leaning websites, none of which are anywhere near objective. I see no reason to take any of them as gospel. I was just stating that there were also claims of fraud committed by Democrats in the election, I don’t take at as far as you and automatically assume they are all true.


You see: here's why I lamblast your critiques so much. YOU think that this is about some conspiracy by the Republican Party to keep Kerry out of office: I think that this is a systematic indicator of deep problems with our voting system

But you did say this was a conspiracy by the Republican Party to keep Kerry out of office. You mentioned Jeb Bush, Kenneth Blackwell, Republican election boards etc.

Regarding the media, there might have been a handful of negative comments about Kerry allowed to be aired on the news from time to time and Swift Boat Veterans played ads on TV, so what? The media has to report the news even if they support Kerry and they do not control the content of ads. This does not mean they were not Kerry supporters, poll show a vast majority of them did support Kerry, and most of the liberal newspapers publicly endorsed him. Dan Rather’s stunt on 60 minutes and the New York Times’ October Surprise are perfect examples of media bias against Bush. If there were serious issues of voter fraud they would be all over it no doubt.

In short, you have proved nothing Neil with your left wing websites and quotes from the unbiased Jesse Jackson. I am sure you believe it all to be true but that does not make it so. Give me some credible sources with legitimate cases of voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election, then I will listen. Until then you can scream and scowl all you want but it will make no difference because it is just ideological drivel.

Michael Neal
12-01-2004, 01:28 PM
Ah, now that's the $51 million dollar question (the amount Kerry had in his treasury after the election), isn't it? Why DID he bail on his promise so soon? The only person who can say for certainly, is disturbingly quiet on the recounr issue.

Oh, I forgot this one. LOL, so you are saying Kerry was in on the Republican conspiracy to defeat himself?

Actually there is a pretty rational explanation for the $51 million. It is quite possible he left that money in his account for the recount effort knowing the election would be close. After getting defeated and realizing there was no way his lawyers could steal the election in his favor since the margin was too wide he decided not to. But I am sure that makes too much sense for you and there must have been a conspiracy right?

Neil Mick
12-01-2004, 09:29 PM
OK, Gentle readers, it's been awhile since I've been attacked with a hatchet-job, but Aikido is about being aware, and so here goes.


Anything else Neil? You might want to consider that it is the quality of the argument that counts not the quantity of them. Maybe sticking to a few good points and backing those up would bolster your argument more rather than throwing out as much as you can in the hopes that something will stick.

See, here we start right off with an attempt to misrepresent the whole argument. Dan Guthrie framed it very well, in reverse:

The last election was a true aberration. I think the electoral college and popular vote will match this time.

This is where it started, and I contend that the 2000 election WAS, actually: not an aberration at all.

Now since a lot of this concerns voter irregularities in states around the country: your suggestion that I "keep to one topic" runs counter to the very point, of the topic. So please: your suggestion that I "stick to one point" in the current voter-crisis is silly, at best.


This same idea also applies to the amount of complaints about the election from the far left. It is the quality of the compliant and whether or not it is true that matters, not the amount of complaints made. You seem to be arguing that the amount of complaints themselves is evidence of election fraud.

It's called "empirical evidence," the evidence that is plainly in front of you. If you're in a movie-theatre and a bunch of ppl shout "fire;" you assume that there is indeed, a fire going on.
You also assume the same if you saw smoke (i.e., the high amount of election irregularities announced BEFORE the election...again, documented in the earlier links), then yes...a fire is likely the culprit.

But, there is a very plausible explanation and motivation for these complaints other than fraud,

OK, let's hear it? Why WERE there so many calls of voter disenfranchisement to 866-OUR-VOTE? Why WERE so many broken-down machines sent to Af-Am districts (and I personally know that this is true)? Why HAVE there been so many widespread irregularities in the numbers?

I could go on and on, but it's pointless and you know it. And this is why you castigate the idea--not out of any merit it may/not have.

the far left's dissatisfaction over the results of the election and their refusal to accept loss.

Now leaving Rational-ville: heading into Speculation-Country. Beware: Very Dark Inside! :eek:

And I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with John Kerry, I know John Kerry was not the candidate of the far left. This is all about the outright hatred of George W. Bush and his policies by the fringe.

Whoa! The Great Prophet of THE LEFT Speaks!!

You just don't get it. Sure, a good part of the Left is anti-Bush: but not all of it. Certainly not me---as I mentioned earlier, I felt "annoyance," not hatred.

SOME of the Left, just want to see the man facing justice...an unlikely thing, but that's why they call us "idealists." But, hatred has nothing to do with it.

You can not bear that your past four years of activism against Bush was rejected on Election Day.

Sad, isn't it? The man thinks that because "his" candidate was elected (BY 31% of THE VOTE), that this is some sort of "mandate o' da people." Give it a rest, will you? The "past four years of activism" had nothing to do with Bush's election. Next!

It is much easier for you psychologically to believe it was a fraud then face your own failures.

NOW LEAVING SPECULATION-COUNTRY: NOW ENTERING AMATEUR POP-PSYCHOLOGIST, Land. Beware! Posionous snakes, disguised as cigars! :hypno:

This is why it is only the very far left that is making an issue out of this, they had put so much emotionally into this election.

Gosh, ONE SENTENCE in the whole drivel, where you make sense. Halleliuh: thought we'd never get there.

Darn right: their "making an issue of this," because they put a lot in the election. You attempt to blissfully ignore the fact that there were shenanigan's in 2000 and '02 all you like: but the rest of us know better.

And so: it makes perfect logical sense that the Left WOULD want to make sure that there was no funny-business. And the early signs are not too good.

ESPECIALLY when some "yes people" (ahem) say that "there's NO problem with the election: it was all nonsense." Methinks THEY doth protest too much.

t of the nation (the vast majority) clearly sees your efforts to claim fraud in the election as political shenanigans.

Ah yes: Michael Neal pulls out his crystal ball and knows all. This is why I keep asking: where are the wmd's? You MUST know, Michael...with that crystal ball, and everything.... :freaky:

s get to your litany of complaints in your above posts. I refused to respond to your statement regarding the Ukrainian election because it is absurd on its face to compare the two elections.

Yeah, let's. THEY cry foul: and the US says that they're shocked; SHOCKED! To hear of voter-irregularities.

The Left cries foul: and the US media clamps down on the stories; the President ignores them.

Oh yeah, "absurd:" sure it is.

In the U.S the opposition candidate conceded as well as stated that he had "no chance of winning" by challenging the election with his legal team. His legal team publicly stated that the election was legitimate as did the DNC.

Get this: KERRY or BUSH, is NOT THE VOTE! This whole thing is not about who won! Kerry can concede to the STARS if he likes, but it's a much more involved process than what a candidate says (BTW, Kerry has consented to having one of his lawyrs facilitate re-counting in Ohio, so it appears you might be wrong there, in the long-run).

The media who mostly favored Kerry

Oh, please.

has accepted the results and most of the Democrats in America as well.

Yep: here we are. NOW ENTERING DELUSION. POPULATION: millions served, and growing

The mainstream says "nothing to see," and you fold like a piece of origami. Glad you admitted it, tho: doesn't it make you feel better? :cool:

There is no such consensus in Ukraine. There is nothing really comparable Neil and to do so makes your entire argument all the more absurd.

Of course not! My gosh, you're right: here let me see what the New York Times has to tell me, now? :eek:

Your arguments regarding the voting machines are weak. So what if old machines break down easier? All that proves is that old machines break down easier, where is the fraud?

The older machines were (it appears) mostly in Af-Am, lower income neighborhoods, that likely would have voted for Kerry.

And, you seem to LOVE to forget those "voter-felon-purge" rolls, so popular in 2000, so prevalent (AGAIN) in Florida (or so they tried).

The new machines you say are "showing a disturbing tendency to vote for Bush." Have you considered that maybe it was people actually voting for Bush?

Sorry...these reports were from ppl who tried to vote for Kerry, and it kept voting for Bush. These were the ppl who complained.

So I assume here you are alleging that since black voters had older machines (which do leave a paper trail) they were disenfranchised. So I guess they should been given the newer machines that do not leave a paper train and that you claim vote for George Bush on their own, would that have been more fair? I fail to see your logic.

Because, you are thinking that there are only two types of machines. Some of the older ones break down, or jam (really, read the Greg Palast article, Michael. Clearly, you didn't before), creating "spoiled votes," or causing longer lines.

The newer, Diebold optical machines are the ones that seem to vote for Bush, on their own. And there are other machines in between.

You mistake me: I am not suggesting that ALL of the machines voted for Bush, or broke down....only some. Some DEFINITELY did: but was it significant enough, to alter the outcome?

I don't know. But, I'd sure like to find out...

t was not only Democrats in Democratic precincts voting on old machines, a great deal of the country still uses old machines.

But, primarily in Af-Am precincts...that's important.

our link www.gregpalast.com really is not evidence of anything; this guy is as biased and ideological as they come, just look at his other stories. The source is not credible Neil.

He sure is "ideological:" he broke the story of the voter election fraud in 2000. But "credible?" Please. He's VERY credible--you just don't like what he says. Judging a reporter by his links...sheesh.

Voter confusion is not evidence of election fraud, although it is evidence of poor grassroots organization by the Democrats.

Sorry, but a lot of these stories don't involved "confusiuon:" the intent was quite evident. A lot of Secty's of State have a lot of questions to answer.

You have not proved anything here regarding the long lines conspiracy, just unfounded accusations from liberal activists.

Oh sure: throw the "c" word in. I hate conspiracy-theories, so no joy there, either.

"Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican secty of State." Just stating that fact does not prove anything. Basically you are saying that since he is a Republican and Secretary of State he must have been involved in voter fraud. There is no evidence in your statement Neil just wild innuendo.

Why bother to show you more information, because your mind is made up? The second I do: you'll pooh-pooh it as "lacking credibility" because you don't like his "links," or some other nonsense. Face it: if it's not in the mainstream--you don't believe it (or, you believe only what you want).

www.blackboxvoting.org, another link that is suspicious. Why should I take these people's word for anything, it is an organization made up of disgruntled liberal activists. They make a lot of claims and file lawsuits and such but I see nothing on this site but claims of fraud, nothing concrete or substantiated.

TODAY is Dec 1: the thing went down Nov. 2nd. You do the math.

Regarding my sources, you can do a google search if you are interested, I have not the time to compile a list of links for you.

Ahahahahaha!


Most of them are on right leaning websites just as yours are on left leaning websites, none of which are anywhere near objective. I see no reason to take any of them as gospel.

I don't take anything as gospel. I cross-reference.

I was just stating that there were also claims of fraud committed by Democrats in the election, I don't take at as far as you and automatically assume they are all true.

So, maybe there were. If there were: I'd like to know about those, too.

But you did say this was a conspiracy by the Republican Party to keep Kerry out of office. You mentioned Jeb Bush, Kenneth Blackwell, Republican election boards etc.

"Conspiracy" involves them working in concert. I have never made that claim, as I wouldn't know.

Regarding the media, there might have been a handful of negative comments about Kerry allowed to be aired on the news from time to time and Swift Boat Veterans played ads on TV, so what?

MoveOn wasn't allowed the "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad to run, either. But, didn't the FCC go crazy when we saw Janet's nipple?

And come on, a "handful of comments?" There was a whole EVENING on Fox, where they talked endlessly about Kerry wanting his nails done, based on a comment he said. Trouble is---he never said it.

There are plenty of other stories like that on the sites I listed. But you won't look. Nothing to see,,,move along...

The media has to report the news even if they support Kerry and they do not control the content of ads.

The media reports what it wants to see (what will make the most money); and charges exorbitantly to air the ads.

es not mean they were not Kerry supporters, poll show a vast majority of them did support Kerry, and most of the liberal newspapers publicly endorsed him.

By "liberal newspapers" I assume you mean Leftist publications.

Yeah, they did. What would you expect?

Dan Rather's stunt on 60 minutes and the New York Times' October Surprise are perfect examples of media bias against Bush.

Please. Dan Rather's stunt was a Rove-implanted snafu, that Rather bungled, in his haste. Hardly "media bias." If there were media bias: Why no alternative, to the White House war coverage? Why has Noam Chomsky almost never been on mainstream TV? Why have they been so soft on Bush and his plainly unworkable policies (the economy, for one)?

The list goes on. This "liberal media bias" garbage is unprovable nonsense...all based upon whom reporters like to vote for.

Heck, the Pentagon even just released a study, criticizing Bush's attitude towards the Arabs. Are they guilty of "Liberal Bias?" After awhile, you just start to see "Liberal Media Bias" everywhere you're told to look.

If there were serious issues of voter fraud they would be all over it no doubt.

Wrong. The FCC debate was given very little coverage: even though it has/had profound implications upon the way the media was covered. Why should the media change it's selective-myopeia, for election-day?

After all: they announced Bush WAAY early-on in 2000, so why not now?

In short, you have proved nothing Neil with your left wing websites and quotes from the unbiased Jesse Jackson. I am sure you believe it all to be true but that does not make it so.

At least, in your mind.

Give me some credible sources with legitimate cases of voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election, then I will listen. Until then you can scream and scowl all you want but it will make no difference because it is just ideological drivel.

Again, time will tell, who is right. And that's why I keep reminding you about wmd's...SOMEONE here has a peculiar afflication of aphasia, I think....hmm...

Neil Mick
12-02-2004, 12:39 AM
And here's what you don't get, in ignoring Jesse Jackson, just because of partisanship:

He's right: it smells. There's too much empirical evidence for something not to have happened.

Your major contention: that all the data is biased; ignores the sheer volume of it. Your bias blinds you to this point, or you'd agree, as well, that it smells. Certainly, you'd be singing a different tune, were Kerry elected.

But I wouldn't. Not with this much data.

Voters Tell of Election-Day Troubles at Hearing (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1100428444286470.xml)

Columbus

Tales of waiting more than five hours to vote, voter intimidation, under-trained polling-station workers and too few or broken voting machines largely in urban or heavily minority areas were retold Saturday at a public hearing organized by voter-rights groups.

For three hours, burdened voters, one after another, offered sworn testimony about Election Day voter suppression and irregularities that they believe are threatening democracy.

The hearing, sponsored by the Election Protection Coalition, was to collect testimony of voting troubles that might be used to seek legislative changes to Ohio's election process

I listened to a part of that hearing, on Pacifica Radio. Sorry, but I'm guessing that it wasn't covered in CNN. If you think that the "Plain Dealer" is somehow also in cahoots with Pacifica: then you're a lot deeper in Conspiracy-ville than I, Michael.

Neil Mick
12-02-2004, 12:42 AM
After getting defeated and realizing there was no way his lawyers could steal the election in his favor since the margin was too wide he decided not to. But I am sure that makes too much sense for you and there must have been a conspiracy right?

No, it's definitely a possibility. And, I'd be careful of slinging the "c"-word, were I you...has a nasty tendency of hitting you back, in the eye. :freaky:

dan guthrie
12-03-2004, 12:06 AM
Since my name came up . . .
I stopped posting here because I seriously doubt this question will ever be settled in some people's minds.
When John Kerry conceded I figured he knew more than I did and let it go.
Neil, if the investigations you've listed don't reveal any significant subterfuge will you let this drop? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me the argument will be over, one way or the other, by inauguration day.
I know it's like watching grass grow but may I suggest we reopen this thread mid-January? barring news flashes, of course.

Neil Mick
12-03-2004, 12:51 AM
Since my name came up . . .
I stopped posting here because I seriously doubt this question will ever be settled in some people's minds.
When John Kerry conceded I figured he knew more than I did and let it go.
Neil, if the investigations you've listed don't reveal any significant subterfuge will you let this drop? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me the argument will be over, one way or the other, by inauguration day.
I know it's like watching grass grow but may I suggest we reopen this thread mid-January? barring news flashes, of course.

Look, don't get me wrong: I appreciate your point, and I think, from your perspective--that this is a wise course of action. Certainly, it was a good post.

Yet, from my perspective: newsworthy items are happening almost every day. That post about the Ohio-voter testimonies? That was the first thing to come up from a google search of "voter irregularities." There were about 18,000 others.

Sure: I'm willing to admit that it might be largely internet-conspiracy-jabber: but as I said, the empirical evidence is all there. And, more of this is coming out, daily.

You think about Presidents in the past. Gods help me: but I'm about to say something nice about Nixon (sorry Mom :) : he resigned, rather than tear the country apart. He could have gone through the whole sorry process of the impeachment: but he didn't, because he had a feeling of duty, to upholding the rule of law. Not this President.

There is a widening credibility-gap in the validity of this election: and what does the President, and the mainstream media, do? Roll up their eyes, and whistle as if nothing is amiss.

Michael Neal
12-03-2004, 08:49 AM
Neil, just about every one of your arguments suffers from one logical fallacy or another whether it is begging the question (something you do a lot) or Ad Hominem.

Definition of begging the question for those who do not know offhand:
"Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly)."

Another quick point,

It's called "empirical evidence," the evidence that is plainly in front of you. If you're in a movie-theatre and a bunch of ppl shout "fire;" you assume that there is indeed, a fire going on.

No, you are absolutely wrong. Empirical evidence is scientifically-based research, please get your terminology straight. The information you have provided includes no empirical evidence that I can see. And your fire in a crowded theatre anology, not really relevent here.

I will respond in detail to your absurdity above this weekend when I have time.

Michael Neal
12-03-2004, 04:18 PM
In the meantime, here is something that can keep you occupied. The place is perfect for you.

http://www.bocanews.com/index.php?src=news&prid=10324&category=Local%20News

Neil Mick
12-03-2004, 11:04 PM
No, you are absolutely wrong. Empirical evidence is scientifically-based research, please get your terminology straight.

As usual: you don't know what you're talking about.

Empirical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical)
em·pir·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl)
adj.

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Next!

Michael Neal
12-04-2004, 09:41 PM
I am confused, the definition you just supplied is exactly what I said it was, "scientifically-based research." You really keep setting yourself up to look like a jackass.

In no way have you demonstrated anything "Verifiable or provable" based on "observation or experiment" in your claims of election fraud therefore it is inappropriate for you to use the term empirical evidence.

You seem to want to just use the word observation and ignore the rest of the definition.

Neil Mick
12-04-2004, 11:55 PM
I am confused, the definition you just supplied is exactly what I said it was, "scientifically-based research." You really keep setting yourself up to look like a jackass.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think. When pressed: he resorts to invective, true to form.

"Jackass?" Au contraire. Did the bolded part, OBSERVATION confuse you? Did the example of the burning theatre, miss your eagle eye?

Then, go back, and read it again.

Next.

In no way have you demonstrated anything "Verifiable or provable" based on "observation or experiment" in your claims of election fraud therefore it is inappropriate for you to use the term empirical evidence.

Still waiting for that "stunning rebuttal," you know: about how I employ all these "fallacies."

I will respond in detail to your absurdity above this weekend when I have time.

__________________
Michael T. Neal


Guess I'll be waiting awhile, as you clearly don't even understand the term "empirical." But if you like to argue semantics; go right ahead, I'm not interested. I gave a source, and supplied an example...if you refuse to get it: you prove my point about accepting evidence, all too well.

You seem to want to just use the word observation and ignore the rest of the definition.

You DO understand the use of the term "OR:" don't you? Do I need to explain this, too? :rolleyes:

Michael Neal
12-05-2004, 12:31 AM
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think. When pressed: he resorts to invective, true to form.

"Jackass?" Au contraire. Did the bolded part, OBSERVATION confuse you? Did the example of the burning theatre, miss your eagle eye?

Then, go back, and read it again.

Please explain to me how your fire in a crowded theatre story amounts to empirical evidence. You see Neil empirical evidence is not just an observation like you trying to redifine the term as, it must be "Verifiable or provable." Also an observation in the context of emprirical evidence is not just casually noticing something it refers to a scientific study of something.

Guess I'll be waiting awhile, as you clearly don't even understand the term "empirical." But if you like to argue semantics; go right ahead, I'm not interested. I gave a source, and supplied an example...if you refuse to get it: you prove my point about accepting evidence, all too well.

Seems that you are the one who does not understand the term, not me who is playing semantics. As I said above empirical evidence is not simply an observation, it is a scientific observation that is provable.


You DO understand the use of the term "OR:" don't you? Do I need to explain this, too?

What?

Still waiting for that "stunning rebuttal," you know: about how I employ all these "fallacies."

Neil, just about every one of your points about the election begs the question, I already told you that. Anyone can read your posts and see that clearly. But as I promised I will respond more in detail when I can find the time.

Neil Mick
12-05-2004, 02:07 AM
Please explain to me how your fire in a crowded theatre story amounts to empirical evidence.

No, I'm sorry, but I won't. I explained it in as much detail, as I could. I have given an example, and a definition. I apologize, but my educational skills seem to be limited to explaining the term, in this manner (in spite of the fact that I taught science for a year, dammit!)

You see Neil empirical evidence is not just an observation like you trying to redifine the term as, it must be "Verifiable or provable." Also an observation in the context of emprirical evidence is not just casually noticing something it refers to a scientific study of something.

Wrong again. At least, in part. Empirical evidence often refers to the gross observation, of a phenomenon in nature. If you notice that, say: earthquakes occure in California every 50 years or so: the empirical evidence suggests that another one is due, 50 years from the last one.

Dammit: you got me to give another example! :hypno:

Seems that you are the one who does not understand the term, not me who is playing semantics. As I said above empirical evidence is not simply an observation, it is a scientific observation that is provable.

Please, for the love of the English language,,,please: look up the word "or." :rolleyes:

But as I promised I will respond more in detail when I can find the time.

Riiight. :rolleyes: "When he finds the time...." :dead:

dan guthrie
12-05-2004, 12:33 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living/110224269071571.xml

News or opinion? Click on the link but they asked me for my zip code, sex and age. I'm now a 22 year-old woman living in Beverly Hills, at least that what the Cleveland Plain Dealer thinks.

From the end of the article:

'"In that environment," said University of Akron political expert John Green, "conspiracy theories flourish."

The following facts don't help: Some Republican Party officials reject the need for electronic voting machines to have paper results as backup. The chief executive of a voting machine maker promised to "deliver" Ohio for Bush. Laws allow a state elections chief to double as a presidential candidate's campaign chairman.

And there were Election Day problems widely reported by the news media - voting machine malfunctions, long lines at the polls, the rejection of provisional ballots - most of which Green and other political observers consider "run-of-the-mill" stuff.

"The election irregularities were modest by comparison" with 2000, Green said.'

dan guthrie
12-05-2004, 03:40 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4163625

NPR, it's audio and it'll take about 3 minutes

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=928

This is the Zogby link mentioned by NPR.

Neil Mick
12-05-2004, 03:45 PM
'"In that environment," said University of Akron political expert John Green, "conspiracy theories flourish."

Maybe. In his opinion.

The following facts don't help: Some Republican Party officials reject the need for electronic voting machines to have paper results as backup. The chief executive of a voting machine maker promised to "deliver" Ohio for Bush. Laws allow a state elections chief to double as a presidential candidate's campaign chairman.

And there were Election Day problems widely reported by the news media - voting machine malfunctions, long lines at the polls, the rejection of provisional ballots - most of which Green and other political observers consider "run-of-the-mill" stuff.

"The election irregularities were modest by comparison" with 2000, Green said.'

The information is still coming in: too soon to tell. By comparison, Greg Palast didn't break his Florida 2000 election till months after the election.

But, I certainly acknowledge that it could all be internet-conspiracy bluster. OTOH: I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. I am not suggesting that this is some Republican-conspired attack upon the voting-process: I'm suggesting that irregularities certainly DID occur, and that they MIGHT have altered the results. The way that the powers-that-be (the sectys of state, etc) are responding to this is also telling.

dan guthrie
12-06-2004, 09:00 AM
Neil,
The NPR story answered most of the voting "problems" that I'd heard of and a few that were new to me. If there are any they missed please list them. The Zogby site has a lot of information as well.

You said:
"I'm suggesting that irregularities certainly DID occur, and that they MIGHT have altered the results."

I guess your definition of "voter meltdown" and my definition are different. Please don't try to move the goal posts now.
There are going to be irregularities in every election and the ones that occurred this time were regrettable but typical.
I'm still open to sudden revelations of massive voter fraud but the door on that happening is closing rapidly IMHO.

rachel
12-06-2004, 09:23 AM
I still haven't gotten my absentee ballot that was supposedly mailed two months ago...

Michael Neal
12-06-2004, 10:43 AM
Riiight. "When he finds the time...."

Yes, you see I actually have a life with responsibilities outside of posting on Aikiweb. I am sorry I do not share you fanaticism, I find it amazing you are still carrying on the argument in the thread I started about anti-Americanism 2 years ago. That is indicative of mental illness in my opinion.

No, I'm sorry, but I won't. I explained it in as much detail, as I could. I have given an example, and a definition. I apologize, but my educational skills seem to be limited to explaining the term, in this manner (in spite of the fact that I taught science for a year, dammit!)

The fact that you taught science for year and do not know what empirical evidence is not surprising given the state of our education system these days. It is pretty sad. If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, while I might react out of fear of my own life, it is not empirical evidence that a fire exists in the theatre. As the definition that you supplied on empirical evidence states, it is "provable or verifiable." You are conveniently leaving that part of the definition out.

Wrong again. At least, in part. Empirical evidence often refers to the gross observation, of a phenomenon in nature. If you notice that, say: earthquakes occure in California every 50 years or so: the empirical evidence suggests that another one is due, 50 years from the last one.

If what you are saying above is accurate it is "Provable or verifiable" that earthquakes occur every 50 years or so. If someone had the observation that a UFO passes over Chesapeake, Virginia every third Wednesday of the month, this would not be empirical evidence because it is not "verifiable or provable.

So if until your election fraud claims are "verified or proved" they are not empirical evidence of election fraud.

You DO understand the use of the term "OR:" don't you? Do I need to explain this, too?


Yes I certainly do understand what the word or means lets look again at your provided definition


Empirical
em•pir•i•cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl)
adj.

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Yes it can be derived from an observation OR experiment, however, regardless of whether it is an observation OR an experiment it still must be "verifiable or provable."

It's called "empirical evidence," the evidence that is plainly in front of you. If you're in a movie-theatre and a bunch of ppl shout "fire;" you assume that there is indeed, a fire going on.
You also assume the same if you saw smoke (i.e., the high amount of election irregularities announced BEFORE the election...again, documented in the earlier links), then yes...a fire is likely the culprit.

LOL, smoke and fire have nothing to do with this argument Neil, claims of voter irregularities can be attributed many different things: clerical errors, mistakes, mechanical breakdowns, rumors, false reports, etc. Irregularities are not necessarily indicative of fraud. Claims of irregularities is not proof, they must first be substantiated.


OK, let's hear it? Why WERE there so many calls of voter disenfranchisement to 866-OUR-VOTE? Why WERE so many broken-down machines sent to Af-Am districts (and I personally know that this is true)? Why HAVE there been so many widespread irregularities in the numbers?

I could go on and on, but it's pointless and you know it. And this is why you castigate the idea--not out of any merit it may/not have.


You are begging the question here Neil,
866-OUR-VOTE, this is a legal hotline, lets see the results of the various compliants in a court of law before making a conclusion. Just because they claim a lot of people called this hotline does not mean there was election fraud. So you personally know broken machines were deliberately sent to black districts in Ohio? LOL, Did you know that the various individual counties are in charge of purchasing their voting machines, not the State Election Board run by the evil Republican Kenneth Blackwell?

I castigate the conclusion you are reaching Neil, I don't doubt there are frustrated liberals out there claiming election fraud because it is easier to do this then accept the results, However, the claim must be substantiated before being taken as fact.
You have been begging the question with you main argument by basically saying the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premise.



Now leaving Rational-ville: heading into Speculation-Country. Beware: Very Dark Inside!

Neil, your whole damn argument is speculation and to then accuse me of it is a bit of hypocrisy.


Sad, isn't it? The man thinks that because "his" candidate was elected (BY 31% of THE VOTE), that this is some sort of "mandate o' da people." Give it a rest, will you? The "past four years of activism" had nothing to do with Bush's election. Next!

No it was 51% not 31%. It is hard to believe that your past 4 years of activism against Bush has nothing to do with it.


NOW LEAVING SPECULATION-COUNTRY: NOW ENTERING AMATEUR POP-PSYCHOLOGIST, Land. Beware! Posionous snakes, disguised as cigars!

No it is just an observation, don't need to be psychologist to observe human behavior. However, I will not make the claim that it is empirical evidence because it is just an observation. 


Gosh, ONE SENTENCE in the whole drivel, where you make sense. Halleliuh: thought we'd never get there.

Darn right: their "making an issue of this," because they put a lot in the election. You attempt to blissfully ignore the fact that there were shenanigan's in 2000 and '02 all you like: but the rest of us know better.

And so: it makes perfect logical sense that the Left WOULD want to make sure that there was no funny-business. And the early signs are not too good.

ESPECIALLY when some "yes people" (ahem) say that "there's NO problem with the election: it was all nonsense." Methinks THEY doth protest too much.

Yes the only shenanigan's in '00 that I saw was the democrats attempt to change the result of the election through lawsuits, something they are trying again to no avail.


Ah yes: Michael Neal pulls out his crystal ball and knows all. This is why I keep asking: where are the wmd's? You MUST know, Michael...with that crystal ball, and everything....

This from someone who magically knows that all the claims of election fraud are true.


Get this: KERRY or BUSH, is NOT THE VOTE! This whole thing is not about who won! Kerry can concede to the STARS if he likes, but it's a much more involved process than what a candidate says (BTW, Kerry has consented to having one of his lawyrs facilitate re-counting in Ohio, so it appears you might be wrong there, in the long-run).

No really, the candidate does have a lot to do with it. I have not heard that story but if it is true then so what, I welcome a recount.in Ohio, they are entitled to it if they so wish.



Oh, please.


New York Times poll of journalists 56 to 40 favored Kerry over Bush.



Yep: here we are. NOW ENTERING DELUSION. POPULATION: millions served, and growing

The mainstream says "nothing to see," and you fold like a piece of origami. Glad you admitted it, tho: doesn't it make you feel better?


So you are saying the far left fringe is the holder of truth and the mainstream is just a big conspiracy?


Of course not! My gosh, you're right: here let me see what the New York Times has to tell me, now?

The New York Times endorsed Kerry.



The older machines were (it appears) mostly in Af-Am, lower income neighborhoods, that likely would have voted for Kerry.

And, you seem to LOVE to forget those "voter-felon-purge" rolls, so popular in 2000, so prevalent (AGAIN) in Florida (or so they tried).

But the machines did work for the most part Neil, it is possible a few machines broke down but so what? They could have voted on another machine. Machine break down, this is nothing new. Anyway, It is likely the fault of the Democratic controlled election board in those counties for not purchasing new machines, not the Republican Secretary of State.


Sorry...these reports were from ppl who tried to vote for Kerry, and it kept voting for Bush. These were the ppl who complained.

I claim BS, prove it that machines were automatically voting for Bush, have a lawyer subpoena a machine used in those precincts and see if it automatically votes for Bush.


Because, you are thinking that there are only two types of machines. Some of the older ones break down, or jam (really, read the Greg Palast article, Michael. Clearly, you didn't before), creating "spoiled votes," or causing longer lines.

The newer, Diebold optical machines are the ones that seem to vote for Bush, on their own. And there are other machines in between.

You mistake me: I am not suggesting that ALL of the machines voted for Bush, or broke down....only some. Some DEFINITELY did: but was it significant enough, to alter the outcome?

I don't know. But, I'd sure like to find out...

Yes, I ready the Greg Palast article and saw nothing but speculation.


But, primarily in Af-Am precincts...that's important.

That has to do with the priority in spending within their own individual counties, nothing to do with any conspiracy. And they can still vote like everyone else, some of the newer machines broke down as well on election day.


He sure is "ideological:" he broke the story of the voter election fraud in 2000. But "credible?" Please. He's VERY credible--you just don't like what he says. Judging a reporter by his links...sheesh.

His links show other pieces he has written, all anti-Bush. So this guy obviously has an agenda other than looking for election fraud. He is not credible, and why don't you find some American journalists instead of relying on the foreign press who has a rabid anti-Bush agenda.



Sorry, but a lot of these stories don't involved "confusiuon:" the intent was quite evident. A lot of Secty's of State have a lot of questions to answer.

Some of them do involve voter confusion and that what I was referring to, voter confusion is not fraud.


Oh sure: throw the "c" word in. I hate conspiracy-theories, so no joy there, either.

You are very good at propagating them, so I am not buying that you hate them.


Why bother to show you more information, because your mind is made up? The second I do: you'll pooh-pooh it as "lacking credibility" because you don't like his "links," or some other nonsense. Face it: if it's not in the mainstream--you don't believe it (or, you believe only what you want).

Neil, innuendo and speculation is not proof of anything, that is why I don't believe it.



TODAY is Dec 1: the thing went down Nov. 2nd. You do the math.

What?


So, maybe there were. If there were: I'd like to know about those, too.

Then look them up, as said before I really do not have the spare time to spend all day doing research for you.


"Conspiracy" involves them working in concert. I have never made that claim, as I wouldn't know.

Oh ok, LOL


MoveOn wasn't allowed the "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad to run, either. But, didn't the FCC go crazy when we saw Janet's nipple?

What was with the ad that made the FCC to block it?

And come on, a "handful of comments?" There was a whole EVENING on Fox, where they talked endlessly about Kerry wanting his nails done, based on a comment he said. Trouble is---he never said it.

There are plenty of other stories like that on the sites I listed. But you won't look. Nothing to see,,,move along...

Well I guess that never happens to Bush, oh wait there was that little issue of the falsified memo on CBS that got Dan Rather a forced retirement.

The media reports what it wants to see (what will make the most money); and charges exorbitantly to air the ads.


By "liberal newspapers" I assume you mean Leftist publications.

Yeah, they did. What would you expect?

Yea, like the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, basically the mainstream media.


Please. Dan Rather's stunt was a Rove-implanted snafu, that Rather bungled, in his haste. Hardly "media bias." If there were media bias: Why no alternative, to the White House war coverage? Why has Noam Chomsky almost never been on mainstream TV? Why have they been so soft on Bush and his plainly unworkable policies (the economy, for one)?

The list goes on. This "liberal media bias" garbage is unprovable nonsense...all based upon whom reporters like to vote for.

Heck, the Pentagon even just released a study, criticizing Bush's attitude towards the Arabs. Are they guilty of "Liberal Bias?" After awhile, you just start to see "Liberal Media Bias" everywhere you're told to look.


"a Rove-implanted snafu" please provide proof of this. Even if Rove was involved (which is total speculation) that does not explain why Rather completely ignored other people's claims that the memos were not legit, and aired the story without even mentioning that there were some doubts about the memos. I think he was all too eager to get Bush and got caught, pretty plain and simple to me.



Wrong. The FCC debate was given very little coverage: even though it has/had profound implications upon the way the media was covered. Why should the media change it's selective-myopeia, for election-day?

After all: they announced Bush WAAY early-on in 2000, so why not now?

No actually they announced Gore early in 2000, then it turned out Bush won, then Gore challenged the results.


At least, in your mind.

And just about everyone else as well



Again, time will tell, who is right. And that's why I keep reminding you about wmd's...SOMEONE here has a peculiar afflication of aphasia, I think....hmm...

I know you want to change the subject really bad but I am not biting.

dan guthrie
12-06-2004, 08:02 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041206-124847-4142r.htm

In a more extensive article, which I heard on NPR, McAuliffe lists some voting problems not addressed in the NPR radio link I posted above.

From the article:
'"We owe it to the people who waited hours to vote, who voted for the first time or have voted in every election to understand what happened and what can be done in the future to ensure every voter's rights are protected," said DNC head Terry McAuliffe.

McAuliffe cited a litany of complaints, mostly in minority communities, of citizens waiting hours in line to vote on Election Day and of numerous reports of problems with machines and provisional voting.'

This is interesting. Although it doesn't rise to the level of "meltdown" IMO it is a sign that the system is working. We'll have to wait until spring to find out what's what.

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 09:12 PM
That is indicative of mental illness in my opinion.

I know you want to change the subject really bad but I am not biting.

Yawwn. Yes, and neither and I. I scanned your vituperous post--mostly having to do with attempts to re-define "empirical," and try to make me look stupid, or insane.

All in all: I'd say that you've slipped well past "debate," and have settled into your more comfortable terrain: ad hominem, and slur. Not that I'm surprised.

I'll just leave the upsurge of news stories coming in (even on the mainstream media, more or less) as proof that this isn't all conspiracy-hooey, and leave you to your pointless attacking.

BTW, one of your central points--that Kerry was staying out of the recount affair in Ohio--just got slammed, too: as Kerry is weighing in, as well. Sorry, Michael: there just doesn't seem to be any joy nowadays, for a vitriolic ex-Aikidoist who cannot seem to leave the ad hominem's home, is there? :dead:

Michael Neal
12-06-2004, 09:12 PM
Good for them, I do think they should investigate and work out as many of the problems as possible. But I agree with you this is hardly "voter meltdown" or widespread fraud that Mr. Mick is alleging. Actually I think it is more evidence that the voter problems were relatively minor and results was in the end correct.

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 09:16 PM
I still haven't gotten my absentee ballot that was supposedly mailed two months ago...

So, if I were Michael Neal: my next question would be: "So why do you hate Bush so much??" :crazy:

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 09:17 PM
Good for them, I do think they should investigate and work out as many of the problems as possible. But I agree with you this is hardly "voter meltdown" or widespread fraud that Mr. Mick is alleging. Actually I think it is more evidence that the voter problems were relatively minor and results was in the end correct.

I see no evil; I hear no evil....

Michael Neal
12-06-2004, 09:30 PM
Yawwn. Yes, and neither and I. I scanned your vituperous post--mostly having to do with attempts to re-define "empirical," and try to make me look stupid, or insane.

All in all: I'd say that you've slipped well past "debate," and have settled into your more comfortable terrain: ad hominem, and slur. Not that I'm surprised.

I'll just leave the upsurge of news stories coming in (even on the mainstream media, more or less) as proof that this isn't all conspiracy-hooey, and leave you to your pointless attacking.

BTW, one of your central points--that Kerry was staying out of the recount affair in Ohio--just got slammed, too: as Kerry is weighing in, as well. Sorry, Michael: there just doesn't seem to be any joy nowadays, for a vitriolic ex-Aikidoist who cannot seem to leave the ad hominem's home, is there? :dead:

LOL, no Neil Mick certainly never used Ad hominem in his previous posts :) Your entire argument is based on logical fallacy Neil. The burden of proof is on you, the one making the accusation of voter fraud. You have not proved your case you have only provided speculation. You have begged the question, used ad hominem attacks all while pretending emprical evidence is merely a casual observation that needs no verification.

An important fact about Kerry and the recount is that he isn't disputing the outcome of President Bush's victory in Ohio. He is doing this to appease the liberals so they will stop criticising him for conceding defeat.

Michael Neal
12-06-2004, 09:35 PM
Have fun Neil and make sure to check out those therapy groups for those upset about the election.

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 11:29 PM
Have fun Neil and make sure to check out those therapy groups for those upset about the election.

Uh, OK, you too...and I pray for your burgeoning and ever-continuing struggle, to advance in maturity. Good luck!

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 11:30 PM
An important fact about Kerry and the recount is that he isn't disputing the outcome of President Bush's victory in Ohio. He is doing this to appease the liberals so they will stop criticising him for conceding defeat.

ROFL, you just CAN"T admit you were wrong, can you? Gotta explain it away.

Next!

Michael Neal
12-07-2004, 08:46 AM
How was I wrong? I was right until he just now decided to get involved in the recount. He is doing it to appease people like you, he already said they are not disputing the results and that they have no chance of winning even with a recount.

It is up to you to prove that you are right, it is not up to me to prove you are wrong Neil. The burden of proof is on the accuser, so far you only have speculation.

Michael Neal
12-07-2004, 09:20 AM
actually Neil I was right and I am still right, what I said before in this argument is that Kerry did not dispute the results of the election, this statement is still true.

Neil Mick
12-07-2004, 04:20 PM
Neil,
The NPR story answered most of the voting "problems" that I'd heard of and a few that were new to me. If there are any they missed please list them. The Zogby site has a lot of information as well.

One NPR story that attempts to explain it all, is not enough for me. It's a start, but a long way from the finish (also, to be honest: I am having some trouble pulling up the audio, so I didn't get to hear it. I DID read your Zogby link, tho).

You said:
"I'm suggesting that irregularities certainly DID occur, and that they MIGHT have altered the results."

I guess your definition of "voter meltdown" and my definition are different. Please don't try to move the goal posts now.
There are going to be irregularities in every election and the ones that occurred this time were regrettable but typical.

The "meltdown" occurs ex post facto (speaking of "posts" :) ). The election results were fudged; and the meltdown is now occurring, with the mainstream's trying to bury this and pretend that it's all situation-normal, with NO full investigation. Why isn't the mainstream all over this? With all the allegations flying around on Nov2: you'd have figured that there would be reporters jetting to all corners of the US, interviewing pollsters and trying to set the record straight.

The silence is deafening (OK, a few peeps here and there: but hardly the media onslaught it deserves). And if there WAS a massive voter-disenfranchisement, then I suggest to you that the meltdown has already occurred, and is being wrapped-up nicely, with the media blackout.

I'm still open to sudden revelations of massive voter fraud but the door on that happening is closing rapidly IMHO.

I don't think so. We won't know the full details for sure, unless the e-voting companies and the secty's of state are fully investigated. This could take awhile.

And, I found this post on another forum, that states my perspective, better than I seem to, here:

Well since it's my state we're talking about and my vote we're talking about here I really don't give a rip what you believe. There is more than a little evidence that Blackwell and co. may have engaged in election fraud and I want it investigated. When I go into the booth next time I don't want to be questioning whether it's going to be rigged or not. And for those of you who don't think it should be looked into or that it's unreasonable to question the results all I can say is I wonder what you're so afraid of? If Bush won fair and square a re-examination of the results won't change anything other than ending the possibility of people having lingering questions about the legitimacy of the vote. So the only reason I can see to object is if you think there's a possibility that it was rigged.

It's not my state: but what's the big deal, if there really were no voter-fraud?

This is interesting. Although it doesn't rise to the level of "meltdown" IMO it is a sign that the system is working. We'll have to wait until spring to find out what's what.

This is only a piece of the investigative puzzle. But, we are in agreement--this is a "wait and see" issue.

Neil Mick
12-07-2004, 04:59 PM
Now, THIS is interesting:

Why We Must Not "Get Over It" (http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/get-over-it.htm)

This paper goes a lot farther into the issue, and explores a lot of the underlying concerns (Bush-voters being mistaken on a wide variety of int'l issues, etc)

SOME UNDISPUTED FACTS:

The following essential facts about direct-recording electronic (DRE) “touch-screen” voting machines are acknowledged by both sides of the dispute:

The machines produce no paper or other independently auditable record of the votes.


The software that records the votes is “proprietary” – i.e., secret.


It follows that there are no direct and independent means for a citizen or a government agency to verify that a vote has been correctly counted and recorded. As the UC-Berkeley group pointed out, statistical analysis is “the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e- voting.” Accordingly, the only possible answer that a company official can give to a demand for verification is “trust us.”


DRE machines can be easily “hacked” – vote totals changed, leaving no evidence of the tampering. This is not speculative. Several demonstration “hackings” have been performed.


The owners and senior officers of the three major companies that manufacture and program the machines are supporters of and contributors to the Republican Party and the Bush Campaign.

critics of “the official version” of the election have had little impact upon the general public, not because their arguments are weak or the rebuttals conclusive, but, far worse for their case, because they are regarded as "unfashionable," and "out of the mainstream."

dan guthrie
12-08-2004, 12:21 AM
Neil, I'd like to see a paper trail and a national standard for national elections. I don't like electronic voting, period. If a "touch screen" is used it should be used to produce a paper product for the voter to see before putting the physical paper in the ballot box. I've used both punch-card "chad" and "blacken the circle" voting cards and I prefer the "blacken the circle" variety.

The NPR November 10 audio story was IMO pretty thorough but the questions the Democrats raised are new and not covered by the NPR story.

I would like to adjourn my side of this debate until the Democrats have had their investigation. If I still think it's important ( to me, at least) this spring I'll jump back in here and rub your face in it or apologize :) . Or maybe both.
I agree, this is going to be a long wait.

Neil Mick
12-09-2004, 03:33 AM
Neil, I'd like to see a paper trail and a national standard for national elections. I don't like electronic voting, period. If a "touch screen" is used it should be used to produce a paper product for the voter to see before putting the physical paper in the ballot box. I've used both punch-card "chad" and "blacken the circle" voting cards and I prefer the "blacken the circle" variety.

Yes, me too.

The NPR November 10 audio story was IMO pretty thorough but the questions the Democrats raised are new and not covered by the NPR story.

I would like to adjourn my side of this debate until the Democrats have had their investigation. If I still think it's important ( to me, at least) this spring I'll jump back in here and rub your face in it or apologize :) . Or maybe both.
I agree, this is going to be a long wait.

Yes, it will take awhile. I imagine at least a few good books arising from this. Will it change anything? Who can say.

Neil Mick
12-22-2004, 09:13 PM
Update:

Michigan congressman seeks exit poll data (http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2721945)

Congressman John Conyers has asked The Associated Press and five broadcast networks to turn over raw exit poll data collected on Election Day.

Michael Neal
12-29-2004, 09:11 AM
Update: barely any change in vote total after ohio recount

dan guthrie
12-29-2004, 08:22 PM
I heard Zogby interviewed by Charlie Rose last night and he supports the idea of some serious review of this election's procedures. Not to change the outcome or correct some of the problems with bad machines/waitinglines/fraud but just to bring confidence back to all voters. I can't see any problem with that idea.

Neil Mick
12-29-2004, 09:53 PM
I heard Zogby interviewed by Charlie Rose last night and he supports the idea of some serious review of this election's procedures. Not to change the outcome or correct some of the problems with bad machines/waitinglines/fraud but just to bring confidence back to all voters. I can't see any problem with that idea.

At the very least: it's a good start.

Neil Mick
12-31-2004, 01:33 AM
Hooray!! They're HERE! Block The Vote Hero Playing-Cards! (http://billionairesforbush.com/tradingcards/slide8.php) Collect 'em ALL!!! :D

Neil Mick
12-31-2004, 01:36 AM
Update: barely any change in vote total after ohio recount

Update: indy rep's ask for second recount.

Neil Mick
01-09-2005, 06:09 PM
Way to go, Senator Boxer! (http://michaelmoore.com/_media/barbara_boxer_ca.mov)

An historic event happened Thursday. For the first time since 1877 a member of the House and a member of the Senate stood up together to object to a state's electoral college votes. And, where was the media? Burying the story on A-13! What did we get in the form of debate, from the Republican's? Griping that this was wild conspiracy theory, (http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/deborah_pryce_oh.mov) internet nonsense, sour grapes. That's right: deal not with the substance of the issue (that the election process needs retooling), and fling ad hominem's like mud, at a favored target.

Nice work, fella's (and the lady, or two). All on message and in lock-step...decending, again: to my lower expectations.

Hogan
01-10-2005, 07:57 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn09.html

"Election protest shows why democrats don't count"

Brilliant article...



"...Democrats' votes are vanishing because Democrat voters are vanishing because Democrat intellectual energy has all but vanished. Or as Republican Congresswoman Deborah Pryce summed up Thursday's Boxer rebellion: ''Their objection is a front for their lack of ideas.''

Oh, so true....

Neil Mick
01-10-2005, 05:58 PM
Brilliant article...

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D :p :D

"...Democrats' votes are vanishing because Democrat voters are vanishing because Democrat intellectual energy has all but vanished. Or as Republican Congresswoman Deborah Pryce summed up Thursday's Boxer rebellion: ''Their objection is a front for their lack of ideas.''

"tautological" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautological)

Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

I suppose you consider all of the reports of voter irregularities, as a manifestation of a "lack of ideas." :crazy: No, a lack of ideas suggests an inability to observe, or to ask questions...questions such as these:

Why I Must Object, by Barbara Boxer (http://www.alternet.org/story/20928/)

Why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyon College, for example, made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1,300 voters?

Why did poor and predominantly African-American communities have disproportionately long waits?

Why in Franklin County did election officials only use 2,798 machines when they said they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in warehouses? Why were 42 of those machines in predominantly African-American districts?

Why did, in Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places, out of frustration, without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard about this?

Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush? Thankfully, they fixed it -- but how many other votes did the computers get wrong?

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts, while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

But, OTOH: never mind, you'll no doubt respond with another "brilliant" bon mot that results in another thread closure, your clear objective. Forget I said anything.

Oh, so true....

See my previous posts, on the differences btw "opinion," and "fact."

P.S. Hope you had a REALLY nice holiday. I sure did: and I thought nice thoughts of you, John. :cool: Bon Chance!

Neil Mick
01-18-2005, 06:23 PM
Woah.

OK, since this thread is getting to be a form of marking time: here we are at Jan 18, 2005: and at last! Kerry decides to speak up (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed/) about election irregularities that happened, on Nov. 2nd.

Woah. The speed of the response is astounding.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston.

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans [went] through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

dan guthrie
01-19-2005, 08:53 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/208484_governor19.html

And I'd post the same thing if the Republican had won.

Neil Mick
01-20-2005, 12:39 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/208484_governor19.html

And I'd post the same thing if the Repu.blican had won

That's all very nice, but you prove my point, precisely. The Rep Party is all up in arms about the shenanigan's in Wash; yet they seem to dismiss the national elections irregularity reports as internet hoax.

Can you say relativism? Sure you can.

IMO: sure, let's have recounts...ALL across the board. Let's start with the mishaps of Nov. 2nd.

Neil Mick
05-15-2006, 03:04 PM
Well, it seems as if succeeding investigations (such that they are, and almost completely ignored by the mainstream "Liberal-bias" :crazy: media) have borne up my contention.

'04 was fixed.

Consider. We lost 3.6 million votes in the '04 election.

So what, you say? It was all about "American's voting their morals." Uh huh. Consider this: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1334249)

GREG PALAST: And the way it was done is that 3.6 million votes were cast and never counted in the United States. That's very important to know.

AMY GOODMAN: Say the number again.

GREG PALAST: 3.6 million ballots cast, never counted. And that's because they call these spoiled votes or rejected provisional ballots, 1.9 million so-called provisional ballots, and then, most of those don't get counted. And so, whose votes don't get counted? If it was random, it wouldn’t matter. In other words, if these were votes where the machine doesn't record it properly, hanging chads, extra marks on a paper ballot, you had the wrong address on your absentee ballot, etc.

Three million ballots. Whose ballots? If you're a black person, the chance your ballot will be technically invalidated is 900% higher than if you're a white voter. Hispanic voter, 500% higher than if you're a white voter. Native Americans, it’s like 2,000% higher than if you're a white voter. The overwhelming majority -- and I went to the state of New Mexico, which supposedly Bush won by 5,000 votes, 89% of the ballots were cast out of minority precincts that were thrown away. Kerry won New Mexico. You go into the dumpster, and it’s black votes, 155,000 black votes that were chucked away in Ohio. Kerry won those votes. He won Ohio.

My guess for the elections of '06 and '08? We'll see a flurry of negative campaigning around election-time, dealing less with the central issues and more with spin, followed by an exclamation of "amazement" from the mainstream, when the Republican's sweep the elections, again. The fix is in; and the only thing that will save us is legal protections of elections-processes, with teeth.

No more electronic-ballots; cheesy "provisional ballots" or jumping thru hoops to prove your citizenship. Keep it simple.

P.S. For those who think I am just spouting whacko theories...consider this: why couldn't LA and New Orleans supply polling stations for those displaced by Katrina, when they did it for Iraqi's displaced from Iraq?

Could it be that they didn't want to know the votes of poor, displaced NO voters? Nah, that couldn't be it...we excised racism from this country, 40 years' ago...that sort of thing NEVER happens HERE... :rolleyes:

James Davis
05-15-2006, 04:23 PM
No more electronic-ballots; cheesy "provisional ballots" or jumping thru hoops to prove your citizenship. Keep it simple.


Uh-huh. I also think that our expectations are too high in regards to counting the votes (not to mention re-counts :rolleyes: ). Our polling stations should have time to do it right. When our food, cars, and medical care are done in the fastest way possible, it's generally bad for us; Still though, people vote and race home to see who the six o'clock news thinks might have won. :rolleyes: The guys gonna be running the country! We should be making sure that the winner is honestly decided before we say, "O.K. That'll do. :drool: " If we keep going through the election express lane, we can expect many more conspiracy theories about stolen elections... :yuck:

However, I still think it's a good idea to make sure someone is a citizen before we let them decide our future.

Neil Mick
05-15-2006, 04:47 PM
However, I still think it's a good idea to make sure someone is a citizen before we let them decide our future.

Not to the point that this "making sure" inhibits US citizens from voting...that's just wrong.

James Davis
05-16-2006, 12:17 PM
Not to the point that this "making sure" inhibits US citizens from voting...that's just wrong.
Yeah. So we should all take note that November is coming and get our papers in order.

Neil Mick
05-16-2006, 12:58 PM
Yeah. So we should all take note that November is coming and get our papers in order.

Right. It's that simple. Just make sure that your papers are all in order, and you should have no trouble.

Unless, of course: you're a minority, living in a swing-state.

Or, you have a name reminiscent of someone who is a felon.

Or, you moved recently and request a "provisional ballot."

Or, your district uses an electronic ballot that dutifully records your Democrat-vote, as Republican. :freaky:

Yes, James, nothing to worry about...there's nothing wrong with our system of voting...no improprieties, here. :rolleyes: We have shown the world how well we run our voting system with a full and transparent investigation-process, which conclusively revealed no official tampering, in the slightest. Our democracy is safe in the hands of our law-abiding, FISA-side-stepping President.

The Secty of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (the fellow responsible for certifying the Ohio elections and bringing in the e-voting machines), had no partisan interests in '04, aside from the fact that he was also chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. :rolleyes:

Go back to sleep now: nothing to see here. :dead: :dead:

James Davis
05-16-2006, 05:29 PM
Right. It's that simple. Just make sure that your papers are all in order, and you should have no trouble.
I never said it would fix everything! You'll probably still have trouble. At least if you have your stuff in order, you can freely start blaming other people for when things go wrong. I won't deny that there are a lot of things wrong with our elections process, but then plenty of our citizens can be screw-ups too. It's well within the realm of possibility that some people voted twice in the same catergory, or didn't punch any holes at all. Then there are the computers...

...Oh Heaven help us with the @#$#@$ computers.

Unless, of course: you're a minority, living in a swing-state. Race shouldn't even be a factor. Only citizenship.


Or, you have a name reminiscent of someone who is a felon.That's a problem. It's caused me a delay in purchasing a firearm. All the more reason to have your documents in order.


Or, you moved recently and request a "provisional ballot."The more lenient we are with something like this, the more people might try to get away with voting in two places. Members of our military have a hard time getting their votes counted too. The system needs to be fixed.


Or, your district uses an electronic ballot that dutifully records your Democrat-vote, as Republican. :freaky: Oh, I almost forgot; we'd have to get rid of all of us dirty bastard Republicans too.
Yes, James, nothing to worry about...there's nothing wrong with our system of voting...no improprieties, here. :rolleyes:...and just when did I ever say that?
We have shown the world how well we run our voting system with a full and transparent investigation-process, which conclusively revealed no official tampering, in the slightest. Our democracy is safe in the hands of our law-abiding, FISA-side-stepping President.Yup. He sucks, but then, he is a politician.

The Secty of State in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell (the fellow responsible for certifying the Ohio elections and bringing in the e-voting machines), had no partisan interests in '04, aside from the fact that he was also chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. :rolleyes: I wish you the best of luck in finding someone who has no partisan interest that wants to be a politician. He was secretary of state; was it his job to certify?
I'm an honest guy, but then I'm also a registered Republican. I guess I can't be trusted to do anything now, huh?

We have the technology. Can't we get rid of this system that elects someone who didn't even get the popular vote? :disgust:

Go back to sleep now: nothing to see here. :dead: :dead:
Yeah, I am pretty tired. yawn.

Maybe you should go look for a fight somewhere else.

Neil Mick
05-16-2006, 10:30 PM
I never said it would fix everything! You'll probably still have trouble. At least if you have your stuff in order, you can freely start blaming other people for when things go wrong. I won't deny that there are a lot of things wrong with our elections process, but then plenty of our citizens can be screw-ups too. It's well within the realm of possibility that some people voted twice in the same catergory, or didn't punch any holes at all. Then there are the computers...

Please. Next you'll be apologizing for the '08 elections fraud, in advance..."oh, well! Stuff happens! Gotta break a few eggs, to make an omelet! etc, ad nauseum..."

...Oh Heaven help us with the @#$#@$ computers.

Race shouldn't even be a factor. Only citizenship.

I think you missed the references: most of these things were documented as happening in the '00 debacle.

That's a problem. It's caused me a delay in purchasing a firearm. All the more reason to have your documents in order.

Yeah, and it caused a number of A-A's in Fla, '00, to be totally passed over for their right to vote. For some of them, their "convictions" were "committed" in '09.

Prescience, it appears, is not limited to whacko-Leftist-Aikidoka: now, even Diebold can predict the future.

Hey, it worked for Tom Cruise in "Minority Report..." why not Diebold...? :crazy:

The more lenient we are with something like this, the more people might try to get away with voting in two places.

Ah...so THAT'S why the Republican's were out in 11/04, rigorously questioning minorities waiting in line to vote, questioning their residency...they just wanted to make sure that the electoral process was going smoothly, with no "double-dipping..."

Uh huh.

Still have some swampland in NO, LA available: if you want it...cheap! :rolleyes:

Members of our military have a hard time getting their votes counted too. The system needs to be fixed.

Sure do. And, I have heard reports of the Republican Party questioning the residency of soldiers shipped off to Iraq.

Serve your country! Go off to a senseless war; then lose your voting rights!! :disgust:

You must be so proud of your Party, at this moment in history. So many shining beacons (DeLay, Abramoff, Cheney, and the other usual suspects) carrying the standards of good ethics and democracy....

cough...cough...

sorry: couldn't finish. The burrs of irony were too much...got stuck in my throat... :yuck:

Oh, I almost forgot; we'd have to get rid of all of us dirty bastard Republicans too.
...and just when did I ever say that?

(and, just when did I say that all Republican's are "dirty," or have to go??)

Oh, just consider it MY attempt at reading minds...ya see, Republican's aren't the only ones with this skill...

Yup. He sucks, but then, he is a politician.

"Sucking," like all pol's, is one thing.
Pissing on the Constitution, well: that's a horse of another color.
AND, it's a thread topic for another time.

I wish you the best of luck in finding someone who has no partisan interest that wants to be a politician. He was secretary of state; was it his job to certify?

Hello...? Can you say "conflict of interest??" Come on, try it! Practice in front of a mirror, if you need to... :)

I can just imagine you having that laissez faire attitude, if Kerry won, and Kenny-boy Blackwell were a Democrat; and Diebold promised to "win the state of Ohio, for Kerry," as the President of Diebold did for his buddy, Bush.

Sure, I can imagine it...I have a GOOD imagination... :p

I'm an honest guy, but then I'm also a registered Republican. I guess I can't be trusted to do anything now, huh?

I dunno: are you running for anything?

You're an honest guy, who is also a registered Republican. You're also someone who confuses being a Republican, with being a Republican politician. BIG difference.

We have the technology. Can't we get rid of this system that elects someone who didn't even get the popular vote? :disgust:

Apparently, not.

Yeah, I am pretty tired. yawn.

Must be that perpetual, subliminal drone, from the TV-set (sleeeep, James....sleep. All is well, James...sleeeeep...)

Maybe you should go look for a fight somewhere else.

And miss out on all the fun...? ;) No WAY! :cool:

P.S. But mayhap you're right...poor minorities aren't the only backsliders trying to play funny-money games with their residency. Apparently Ann Coulter got into the residency switcheroo game, (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm) as well:

Coulter, who appears to have committed a third-degree felony by knowingly giving an incorrect address on her voter registration form in Palm Beach, Florida, and then knowingly voting at the incorrect polling place last March, could face up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison if convicted.

Oh lawd have mercy...is this the end of Little Coulter??! :eek:

James Davis
05-17-2006, 11:45 AM
Please. Next you'll be apologizing for the '08 elections fraud, in advance..."oh, well! Stuff happens! Gotta break a few eggs, to make an omelet! etc, ad nauseum..."

I never apologized for a thing. Our electoral process leaves much to be desired. I am unhappy with it. Do I have to say it again?

Not only can you predict the future, but even my thought patterns! Over the net! You are just so bad-ass!


Yeah, and it caused a number of A-A's in Fla, '00, to be totally passed over for their right to vote. For some of them, their "convictions" were "committed" in '09.
Their representatives should be getting loud about it. Or, if nothing's happening to change this, they should be getting loud with their representatives - or voting their asses out to get someone better who will fight for them...

...and not just the minorities. If nobody in D.C. wants to fix this problem, we should all be cleaning house. I, myself, am just about sick of everybody.

Prescience, it appears, is not limited to whacko-Leftist-Aikidoka: now, even Diebold can predict the future.


Hey, it worked for Tom Cruise in "Minority Report..." why not Diebold...? :crazy:

So far, Diebold hasn't come on aikiweb and told me what I'll be saying about the election in '08; just you, so far.


Ah...so THAT'S why the Republican's were out in 11/04, rigorously questioning minorities waiting in line to vote, questioning their residency...they just wanted to make sure that the electoral process was going smoothly, with no "double-dipping..."

Uh huh.

Still have some swampland in NO, LA available: if you want it...cheap! :rolleyes:

Plenty of swampland over here, thank you.

That's another thing that I'd like to see go. I don't want to be bothered when I stand in line to vote, or when I'm leaving. Exit polls are BS. People should be available to help if a voter has a question or problem; otherwise, they should leave us the hell alone.


Sure do. And, I have heard reports of the Republican Party questioning the residency of soldiers shipped off to Iraq. Serve your country! Go off to a senseless war; then lose your voting rights!! :disgust:
Yeah. There were also lawyers sent here by the Democrats in '04 to try to throw out military votes.

You must be so proud of your Party, at this moment in history. So many shining beacons (DeLay, Abramoff, Cheney, and the other usual suspects) carrying the standards of good ethics and democracy....


Nah. I'm pretty pissed with just about everybody in D.C. right now; I don't know who the hell I'm gonna vote for in '08. I can't think of anybody that I would want to run.

I am pretty pround of their past, though. Like when they were suffering through the filibusters of Democrats who were dragging their feet during the civil rights movement.



(and, just when did I say that all Republican's are "dirty," or have to go??)
"Republican's were out in 11/04, rigorously questioning minorities waiting in line to vote"Implied meaning: Republicans were harassing minorities and trying to make things more difficult for them.
"My guess for the elections of '06 and '08? We'll see a flurry of negative campaigning around election-time, dealing less with the central issues and more with spin, followed by an exclamation of "amazement" from the mainstream, when the Republican's sweep the elections, again. The fix is in; and the only thing that will save us is legal protections of elections-processes, with teeth."The fix is in. It's just inconceivable that people would vote Republican. The Democratic candidate lost, so fraud is the only possible explanation.

George Bush received the most votes, ever. John Kerry received more votes than EVERY president in history, except Bush. A whole bunch of people, for whatever reason they chose, thought he was the right guy for the presidency. There just weren't enough.

Maybe, just maybe, not enough of the American people like what the Democrats have to say to get them elected?

Nah. They were cheated. It's the only possible explanation.


Oh, just consider it MY attempt at reading minds...ya see, Republican's aren't the only ones with this skill...


It wouldn't be the first time.




I can just imagine you having that laissez faire attitude, if Kerry won, and Kenny-boy Blackwell were a Democrat; and Diebold promised to "win the state of Ohio, for Kerry," as the President of Diebold did for his buddy, Bush.

Sure, I can imagine it...I have a GOOD imagination... :p

Imagine me not liking this particular president very much, and not agreeing with him very often.Imagine me preparing for the future, worrying about how to put somebody good in office in '08 instead of worrying about what happened in '04. Are you getting a good picture now?




You're an honest guy, who is also a registered Republican. You're also someone who confuses being a Republican, with being a Republican politician. BIG difference.

Thanks for the kind words. Were all of those people you saw hassling minorities outside of a voting location elected representatives?




P.S. But mayhap you're right...poor minorities aren't the only backsliders trying to play funny-money games with their residency. Apparently Ann Coulter got into the residency switcheroo game, (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm) as well:


Oh lawd have mercy...is this the end of Little Coulter??! :eek:


She's a loudmouth that wants to be on TV. She's nothing like me, or any other Republicans that I know. She should have to answer for it when she intentionally does something like that...

...along with anybody else who tries to get away with it.

Neil Mick
05-17-2006, 01:17 PM
I never apologized for a thing. Our electoral process leaves much to be desired. I am unhappy with it. Do I have to say it again?

Wrong. This is an apology:

I won't deny that there are a lot of things wrong with our elections process, but then plenty of our citizens can be screw-ups too.

Widespread and numerous claims of voter-shenanigans; wholesale denial of these shenanigans by the NeoCon's: and all you have to say is "aw, well, stuff happens...??"

This, my friend, is the stuff of apology. "Whoops! Stuff happens!" :disgust:

Not only can you predict the future, but even my thought patterns! Over the net! You are just so bad-ass!

Thanks. Oh Lords, it's hard to stay humble... :p

Their representatives should be getting loud about it. Or, if nothing's happening to change this, they should be getting loud with their representatives - or voting their asses out to get someone better who will fight for them...


You mean these SAME representatives that got selected into Congress with these shady doings...? Does Kathleen Harris ring a bell?? You know,,,Secty of State of Fla (your home state)...interfered with the vote-count...paved the way for Bush's election...used her accrued influence to get kicked upstairs into the House of Rep...remember?

Please.

So far, Diebold hasn't come on aikiweb and told me what I'll be saying about the election in '08; just you, so far.

Pot. Kettle. Black. If we went back through our posts and counted the # of times you predicted what I'd say or think...I imagine that you'd have me outpaced by a ratio of 2:1.

And, so far, I fail to see the point to Diebold's testimony, on aikiweb. All I see is your apologizing.

Plenty of swampland over here, thank you.

My point exactly.

That's another thing that I'd like to see go. I don't want to be bothered when I stand in line to vote, or when I'm leaving. Exit polls are BS

Exit-polls WERE the most accurate way to predict the polls. They were all SPOT-ON, until '00: when SUDDENLY! They were useless.

Uh huh. No irregularities here... :rolleyes:

Yeah. There were also lawyers sent here by the Democrats in '04 to try to throw out military votes.

Great. So corruption occurs on both sides of the political aisle. Stop the presses.

But, I am having trouble remembering which Democratic candidate was elected President by Supreme judicial fiat (a fiat that, alone of all rulings, is NOT bound by precedent)....prehaps you can enlighten me,,,?

Take your time...I'm sure that this will take awhile....

Nah. I'm pretty pissed with just about everybody in D.C.

We see eye-to-eye on this point. You can also add the mainstream media on my personal mad-list.

right now; I don't know who the hell I'm gonna vote for in '08. I can't think of anybody that I would want to run.

Noam Chomsky? :)

I am pretty pround of their past, though. Like when they were suffering through the filibusters of Democrats who were dragging their feet during the civil rights movement.

It's so funny: the Republican predilection to reminisce on the "good ole dayz" when we're talking about corruption, today. The President breaks the law by spying on American's? Gosh, remember the good ole' days of Lincoln? :rolleyes:

And, speaking of civil rights...I seem to have trouble remembering those crusading Republican's who lobbied for civil reforms...mayhap you can refresh my memory?

Implied meaning: Republicans were harassing minorities and trying to make things more difficult for them.

You see? You cannot even wait until the next post, before you try to cram words in my mouth.

ACTUAL, Implied meaning: Republican pol's were targeting minorities that were more likely to vote Democrat.

A little spin goes a long way, right, James?

The fix is in. It's just inconceivable that people would vote Republican. The Democratic candidate lost, so fraud is the only possible explanation.

Ignoring, of course: the myriad and widespread reports of voter irregularities.

George Bush received the most votes, ever. John Kerry received more votes than EVERY president in history, except Bush. A whole bunch of people, for whatever reason they chose, thought he was the right guy for the presidency. There just weren't enough.

Yes, James: THAAT'S it! Ignore EVERYTHING, but what you believe. Ignore the statements by Diebold; the actions of Blackwell; the terrorist-attack (and subsequent lockdown) called by one district on election-night, yet unreported to the Dept of Homeland Security; ignore it all!

You sit back, and lampoon the evidence...evidence that you refuse to even examine. It makes you sound SO wise and superior,,,

Maybe, just maybe, not enough of the American people like what the Democrats have to say to get them elected?

Maybe. I certainly didn't vote Democrat (not that I usually do). But, if this were so: why the problems with full investigations in voting irregularities? You mentioned earlier that they should take their time in counting votes: why not make sure that there are no problems?

No, instead of knowing for sure: all you can do is resort to sarcasm, such as

Nah. They were cheated. It's the only possible explanation.

Nah. They were cheated. It's a likely explanation, and it deserves an investigation; instead of simple sarcasm, a shrug, and a dismissive "oh well: the Dem's were unpopular."

(Neil said: Oh, just consider it MY attempt at reading minds...ya see, Republican's aren't the only ones with this skill...)

It wouldn't be the first time.

Certainly not for YOU...

Imagine me not liking this particular president very much, and not agreeing with him very often.Imagine me preparing for the future, worrying about how to put somebody good in office in '08 instead of worrying about what happened in '04. Are you getting a good picture now?

Yeah, I have a very good picture...a picture of someone dodging my point.

Thanks for the kind words. Were all of those people you saw hassling minorities outside of a voting location elected representatives?

I saw at least one political Republican flack pretending to be a voter protesting a recount. That was a good beginning.

She's a loudmouth that wants to be on TV. She's nothing like me, or any other Republicans that I know. She should have to answer for it when she intentionally does something like that...

...along with anybody else who tries to get away with it.

Funny...why just the last post, you were confusing Republicans and Republican politicians...you're improving in your political understanding of issues. Good work.

Neil Mick
11-07-2006, 03:45 AM
And so, here we are: election-time. Frankly, I didn't post anything on the election because I'm a little burnt-out, from the deluge of campaign mail I've been getting.

But, needless to say: my contention for starting this thread is, IMO: confirmed...there IS a lot of voter irregularity already occurring, for this election.

This time, tho: some voters are taking action. Check out this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaEECHjWptU)

And, don't forget to vote.

Taliesin
11-07-2006, 06:03 AM
Just out of curiosity which states are hoding transparent and democratic elections to Congress and the Senate?

Hogan
11-07-2006, 08:47 AM
And so, here we are: election-time. Frankly, I didn't post anything on the election because I'm a little burnt-out, from the deluge of campaign mail I've been getting.

But, needless to say: my contention for starting this thread is, IMO: confirmed...there IS a lot of voter irregularity already occurring, for this election.

This time, tho: some voters are taking action. Check out this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaEECHjWptU)

And, don't forget to vote.

Wow - you post this at 3:45am, before polls open anywhere in the US, and you still say voter irregularity has ALREADY occurred....

The Dems must love you.

Neil Mick
11-07-2006, 12:36 PM
Just out of curiosity which states are hoding transparent and democratic elections to Congress and the Senate?

"Transparent and democratic?" IMO, the answer would be: none.

But, this IS an important election, because the Dem's have a chance to take back the House (15 seats), poss the Senate (6 seats, but a much closer race), too. What this means is hardly a return to democracy; but the Dem's in power again would kick off a spate of investigations and committee's, and BushCo doesn't want that.

Criminals-in-office NEVER want a REAL investigation, into the questionable legality of their policies...

Couch Potato's Guide to Election Night (http://www.alternet.org/stories/43930/)

And this year there is real intrigue about which party can get its supporters to the polls. Since the 1990s, the GOP has been hands-down better at this. Leaving aside the question of fraud for the moment, most observers believe this "get out the vote" effort was critical in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. But this year may be different.

GOP superiority has been based on two factors -- a much better on-the-ground organization and far greater enthusiasm among the rank and file. Such enthusiasm means potential voters are more likely to brave cold weather or long lines to vote; and it also means more volunteers to encourage people to get out and, in some cases, to transport them to the polls.

The Democrats have been working since 2004 to build up their on-the-ground organizations in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because Bush is so unpopular and the GOP obviously so vulnerable, opinion polls tell us that there is tremendous electoral enthusiasm among Democratic rank and file -- and concomitant gloom and disillusionment on the Republican side.

What about fraud? In 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio, fraud made a world of difference in close contests. As early as noon on Tuesday, you should begin to get a sense of how much of a problem fraud will be this time around.

Many people are terrified that the new electronic voting machines will be the means to falsify vote totals (as was apparently done in Ohio in 2004) and so steal elections -- especially with no paper trails available for recounts. However, the biggest threat is old-fashioned indeed: legal and illegal methods that block eligible voters from voting.

Two examples will illustrate how this can be done. In the 2000 election, Republicans in Florida disenfranchised over 10,000 voters, by purging names from the voting lists that happened to match the names of convicted felons. When these voters showed up at the polls, they were simply declared ineligible; and, by the time they took their case to court, George W. Bush was already president. (The excluded voters were largely African American and would have voted overwhelmingly in the Democratic column.)

In Ohio in 2004, election officials simply did not provide enough voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas, so many potential voters waited all day in endless lines without ever getting the chance to vote, while others grew discouraged and left. There seems little doubt that the excluded voters would have tipped the state to Kerry -- and this act of voter suppression wasn't even illegal.

This year, GOP state officials in as many as a dozen states have already made good use of the legal system to exclude otherwise eligible voters. They have, for instance, passed laws that will disqualify people who think they are eligible to vote. One common way to do this is by requiring a state-issued picture ID (a driver's license), which many old and poor people (guaranteed to fall heavily into the Democratic column) do not have. These potential voters will simply be turned away and, by the time anyone can register a meaningful complaint, the election will be a fait accompli. Watch especially for complaints in the following states that have passed such laws (or similar ones to the same end): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

James Davis
11-07-2006, 05:36 PM
Regardless of one's political party affiliation, I would strongly suggest that they vote early. My precint was kind of close to my home, but not at all close to my dojo (where I have to teach on tuesday nights), so I went with my family to vote on saturday. The weather was beautiful on saturday, and I was in and out in about 45 min. :)

and I got a cool sticker. :cool:

The weather's been pretty ugly all day today. I hope that a little rain (or a tee time :disgust: )doesn't keep my neighbors from voting.

Can't wait to see the results tomorrow! :)

Mike Sigman
11-07-2006, 07:48 PM
Frankly, I think it's critical that the Republicans get spanked in this election. They need to get rid of the too-soft "hearts and mind" core of the Repub Party and start playing the "liar" and "traitor!" games in order to stay even. Secondly, there's no way the economy, lack of attacks, etc., can continue to hold and it would strategically be better for the Dem's to be at least partially in power for when things start to go wrong again (they always do, but the Dem's have usually been out of power and more than willing to point the finger if things go wrong).

At the moment, it appears that the Dem's went out of their way to get "moderate" (read "somewhat conservative") candidates to run and potentially win against a lot of Repubs. That works out well, because it will be hard for the Neil Mick wing of the Dem's to take over and run with a "mandate" if there are reasonably moderate Dems.

Similarly, the Repubs have been becoming more "moderate" (read "more liberal"), so it looks like some of the rift is beginning to heal.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
11-07-2006, 09:04 PM
and I got a cool sticker. :cool:

Can't wait to see the results tomorrow! :)

Excellent. I'm wearing my sticker, as I type.

No matter what your affiliation: you should try to get out to vote. My housemates are so indifferently hip..."Uhhh, I just don't CARE."

So, just in their honor: I voted to raise the tax on cigarettes (they're all smokers). :cool:

Shortsighted rubes, that they are. :p

Steve Mullen
11-08-2006, 06:21 AM
Now THAT'S a new way to get people to vote. I can imagine it now huge billboards with a picture of neil on with the caption

IF YOU DON'T VOTE YOU CAN'T HELP SCREW THE SMOKERS!

It'd work for me

James Davis
11-08-2006, 12:26 PM
So, just in their honor: I voted to raise the tax on cigarettes (they're all smokers). :cool:


Great, then maybe it'll pay for the cost of the everybody taking care of them when they get cancer. I work in an oncology office, and some of my co-workers still smoke even after seeing the stuff that we see. :crazy: It's horribly addictive. :disgust:

It's disgusting to see medicare paying for chemo on patients that continue to smoke. :crazy:

I hope that these "stop smoking shots" are successful, and that they catch on. That's something that I'm comfortable paying for.

Hopefully, your roomies will vote in the next election. If California hits 'em where in the pocket book. :p

Ron Tisdale
11-08-2006, 12:31 PM
It's disgusting to see medicare paying for chemo on patients that continue to smoke.

So just exactly how do you expect them to pay for it?? Are you suggesting that because they smoke, if they get cancer, they should be left on a trail somewhere to die?

Best,
Ron

James Davis
11-08-2006, 12:40 PM
So just exactly how do you expect them to pay for it?? Are you suggesting that because they smoke, if they get cancer, they should be left on a trail somewhere to die?

Best,
Ron

Do you really think that I'm like that, Ron? :uch:

Nope, just suggesting that they're only getting half the help they need. It's not cost effective; They're not going to get better. The benefits of stopping smoking can be seen (on a cellular level) in minutes. Chemo is designed to kill the cancer, so we need to find a way to quit feeding it. ;)

Ron Tisdale
11-08-2006, 12:49 PM
I don't know you well enough to tell...that's why I asked. Do you really think in another thread I would suggest that someone get's in a fight with the instructor? You don't know me well enough to tell...so when you made the mistake, I just corrected you. No biggie...

Best,
Ron

James Davis
11-08-2006, 05:15 PM
No biggie...

Best,
Ron
No biggie at all. :)

hapkidoike
11-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Now THAT'S a new way to get people to vote. I can imagine it now huge billboards with a picture of neil on with the caption

IF YOU DON'T VOTE YOU CAN'T HELP SCREW THE SMOKERS!

It'd work for me

Yeah but what are you goona do when we (the smokers) band together and screw you guys over? Just trying to point out one of the major problems with mob rule, oh wait, I mean democracy. :D

Neil Mick
11-08-2006, 08:38 PM
It's disgusting to see medicare paying for chemo on patients that continue to smoke. :crazy:

Hopefully, your roomies will vote in the next election. If California hits 'em where in the pocket book. :p

Yeah, but sadly: the cigarette-tax didn't pass. :( Not that it would change the habits of my housemates, much...they looove their Camel's... :uch:

...more fools, they. :yuck:

David Orange
11-08-2006, 09:56 PM
Well, all particular issues aside, I work with a doctor who travels the world as if it's his back yard, working with scientists all around the globe. He said that last Saturday night he and another American had dinner with two Frenchmen and two Germans and that all of them thought that this election would amount to a referendum on George Bush. We agreed that, in essence, it was. And today we see the result. It has been said that this election was a "sharp rebuke of George Bush" and we see that Rumsfeld has precipitously stepped down. A long overdue step.

My colleague says he thinks this election will boost the world's esteem for the United States and I agree. I think the whole world will think better of us as a nation and as a people that (no matter that it took six years...) we did rise up and sweep out the thugs, bullies and profiteers. I think foreigners will respect us far more for standing up and changing things yesterday.

Now I just pray that the Democrats will bring in a new era of personal responsibility and ethical integrity. I hope we can save the lives of our soldiers, plug the hemorhaging of money in Iraq and help end the violence over there that we have so far caused.

Best to all.

David

James Davis
11-09-2006, 12:40 PM
Now I just pray that the Democrats will bring in a new era of personal responsibility and ethical integrity. I hope we can save the lives of our soldiers, plug the hemorhaging of money in Iraq and help end the violence over there that we have so far caused.

Best to all.

David
The violence will still be there when we leave, it'll just be somebody else's problem. :disgust:

People of Iraq, prepare to be abandoned.

Neil Mick
11-09-2006, 12:46 PM
My colleague says he thinks this election will boost the world's esteem for the United States and I agree. I think the whole world will think better of us as a nation and as a people that (no matter that it took six years...) we did rise up and sweep out the thugs, bullies and profiteers. I think foreigners will respect us far more for standing up and changing things yesterday.

Not IMO. By several accounts, the Iraqi's are paying very little attention to this election: they have too many other things to worry about.

Remember: Bush didn't usher in this mess all by himself. He had help...help from the Dem's.

On October 12, 2002: the Congress voted (illegally) to empower Bush to go to war with Iraq, whenever he felt like it. Many Dem's voted for this travesty.

When the Dem's stop crying vague anti-Bush slogans and start initiating some real reform: then we'll see some changes in attitude around the world.

ust pray that the Democrats will bring in a new era of personal responsibility and ethical integrity. I hope we can save the lives of our soldiers, plug the hemorhaging of money in Iraq and help end the violence over there that we have so far caused.

Best to all.

David

Yeah, one can only hope.

Neil Mick
11-09-2006, 12:53 PM
The violence will still be there when we leave, it'll just be somebody else's problem. :disgust:

Instead of the people who are the primary instigators of the violence now occurring, and the motivation for further violent extremism. :dead:

People of Iraq, prepare to be abandoned.

Oh please: methinks you swallowed too much of the Republican campaign-trail propaganda bile, for your own good.

The Dem's aren't going to "leave" Iraq anytime soon (altho they would, if they cared a whit about what the Iraqi's want)...show me where a solid block of Dem's are actively advocating for a withdrawal, now (or heck! Anytime in the near future!)

Nah, IMO, I imagine the Dem's will be very busy, attempting to regain their power. They're accomplices in this illegal invasion, too...just not so willing to engage, as were the Republican's.

But what we CAN hope for, are some long-needed investigations and subpoena's (but heck! The Dem's have even taken impeachment off the table! :yuck: Some reform!)

Lorien Lowe
11-09-2006, 10:36 PM
What I want from the Dems:
1)shift the tax cuts to the middle class and poor from the upper 3% or so.
2)innitiate some of the suggestions of the 9/11 board.
3)raise the federal minimum wage
4)close tax loopholes for companies that keep p.o. boxes on tiny little islands in the pacific.
5)balance the budget - not sure if this can be done while we're still pouring money into the sand in iraq, but I'd like to see the effort.
6)stay out of people's private lives - and, on the same note, uphold the constitution and bill of rights.
7)pass a law limiting the use of eminent domain to shift property ownership from one private party to another.

anybody? What are your hopes for this?

-LK

Mike Sigman
11-09-2006, 11:39 PM
What I want from the Dems:
1)shift the tax cuts to the middle class and poor from the upper 3% or so. Lorien... this is so ill-informed. The "rich" (a meaningless category, unless you're willing to define it... and no Democratic politician has ever defined it) pay a disproportionate share of all taxes. See these figures from the NCPA just to see how absurd the charge is:
http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/hot_issue/share/

There is no fixed class of "rich", BTW.... people rise up to being rich and many fall out of being rich, all the time. Our society is constantly in flux.

If you tax people so that the average person has to go through too many hoops to become rich or until the Return On Investment becomes too low to be worth the effort, new businesses quit being formed, the economy goes down, and the "poor" suffer even more than in your situation where "the rich don't pay enough taxes".

By the way.... what is the "fair share" for the rich to pay? Another question that no Democrat ever wants to answer. "Redistribution of Wealth" is essentially socialism... and no socialist culture has ever been viable. 2)innitiate some of the suggestions of the 9/11 board. Many have already been enacted. The "9/11 Commission" is not the "Voice of God". They've already had a number of their findings proved wrong, BTW. 3)raise the federal minimum wage I'm for it.... but how much? If you start a shoestring business, the essence of the American economy, how much money on wages and health insurance, Workers Compensation, etc., would it take to put you out of business? Ask California.... business were leaving California because of restrictive taxing. If you can't make a profit that is big enough to satisfy the shareholders, the business must close... it will not compete with foreign business, so that is where the business will go. 4)close tax loopholes for companies that keep p.o. boxes on tiny little islands in the pacific. Sounds good.... but have you heard that Bono and U2 have moved their "business" out of Ireland because too much of their money was going to taxes???? Bono.... the man who insists that governments give more of their tax money to poor countries? Reality is different than daydream ideas of doing good, sometimes. ;) 5)balance the budget - not sure if this can be done while we're still pouring money into the sand in iraq, but I'd like to see the effort. I'm all for it. But Iraq isn't what the real money-sapper is. It's "entitlements"... which comes from the taxes which the rich pay most of. I.e., the biggest sapping of money is going into social welfare and wealth redistribution like Social Security, healthcare, etc. 6)stay out of people's private lives - and, on the same note, uphold the constitution and bill of rights. Hmmmmm... so the next time I'm going through the lengthy security process at the airport, I'll try to reconcile why some people have "rights" which cause the rest of us to have to go through security. It's a good thought starter.
7)pass a law limiting the use of eminent domain to shift property ownership from one private party to another. I agree with you, mostly, but there are some positives to eminent domain. As usualy, though, someone takes a good idea and abuses it, causing it to be outlawed... so the potential benefits are lost forever.

But good comments. ;)

Mike

Hogan
11-10-2006, 09:10 AM
What I want from the Dems:

5)balance the budget - not sure if this can be done while we're still pouring money into the sand in iraq, but I'd like to see the effort.

7)pass a law limiting the use of eminent domain to shift property ownership from one private party to another.

anybody? What are your hopes for this?

-LK

Did you know that the IRS only collects about 85% of the taxes owed?? If they actually close the 'tax gap', we would actually have a slight surplus.

I don't think the dems would fix the eminent domain controversy. The supreme court justices that upheld the Kelo decision were liberals, with the exception of Kennedy. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Conner all ruled in favor of the "little man" in the Kelo case.... We need more republican conservatives on the court!!!!

James Davis
11-10-2006, 11:28 AM
Lorien... this is so ill-informed. The "rich" (a meaningless category, unless you're willing to define it... and no Democratic politician has ever defined it) pay a disproportionate share of all taxes.
If you tax people so that the average person has to go through too many hoops to become rich or until the Return On Investment becomes too low to be worth the effort, new businesses quit being formed, the economy goes down, and the "poor" suffer even more than in your situation where "the rich don't pay enough taxes".


Tax cuts won't help people who don't pay taxes. Tax cuts help the economy though, making it possible to create more jobs. By getting a good job, one gets the wonderful opportunity to pay taxes! :D

Strangely, the federal government gets more income when taxes have been cut... ;)


Sounds good.... but have you heard that Bono and U2 have moved their "business" out of Ireland because too much of their money was going to taxes???? Bono.... the man who insists that governments give more of their tax money to poor countries? Reality is different than daydream ideas of doing good, sometimes. ;)

Mike
Ridiculous hypocrites. :disgust:

Neil Mick
11-10-2006, 02:59 PM
What I want from the Dems:

anybody? What are your hopes for this?

-LK

OK, this is my wish-list for what the Dem's ought to do: and well COULD do (I'd hope that the Dem's enact reforms to include 3rd parties in elections more: but I recognize that this is beyond their capacity or desire):

1. Congress refuse to fund any military ventures toward Iran.
2. Impeach Bush!
3. Get out of Iraq, yesterday.
4. Return Habeas Corpus (a no-brainer)
5. Start up the long, involved, teeth-pulling process of subpoenas and committees, investigating the numerous war-crimes
6. Transfer funding from wasteful foreign wars into research of alternative energies
7. Public campaign financing reform! :freaky:
8. Nationalized healthcare
9. Invest in national infrastructure (roads, emergency services, education, etc)
10. Investigation on voter-fraud since '00, and a bill aimed at voter reform (that really works, this time)
11 Promote small-scall business and funding to promote local growth

Neil Mick
11-10-2006, 03:01 PM
Ridiculous hypocrites. :disgust:

Now, why am I suspicious that this carp at Bono isn't the whole story, hmm....? :rolleyes:

Mashu
11-10-2006, 03:56 PM
Bono?

I think we just saw the Chewbacca defense in action. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTd77TB8ef8

James Davis
11-10-2006, 05:03 PM
Now, why am I suspicious that this carp at Bono isn't the whole story, hmm....? :rolleyes:
Ireland used to have a policy of authors, musicians, and all sorts of artists being exempt from paying taxes. When they decided to have artists pay taxes, U2 left the countrry. "Stars" shouldn't have to pay taxes, I suppose. :rolleyes:

dan guthrie
11-10-2006, 09:12 PM
It's only Nov. 16th: were you expecting a full-bore indictment, so soon?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10133265.htm

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=e9f5a08d-222b-4c9c-8b1a-557ee89f4bb1

Please, these stories keep filtering in, in spite of the mainstream-media blackout.

And, anything discounted by Ann Coulter, that attack-poodle of the Right, DEFINITELY deserves a 2nd look.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411160006






You already have, commented on this subject. And, I for one am overwhelmingly unsurprised, as to your response. You've already weighed in your opinion.

Go on, nothing to see--not important. But if it were me, I for one would welcome an investigation in light of the widespread allegations. Don't you want to know why there was--suddenly--discrepancies btw the exit-polls and the results, when Bush started running in the nat'l elections?

Nah, it's far, far easier to pooh-pooh the efforts to find out if our election was hacked, or not. Back to sleep, with you. It doesn't matter, of course: unless you've seen it on CNN. :dead:


It's been two years, and I believe I'm owed an apology, Neil.

Mike Sigman
11-10-2006, 10:07 PM
10. Investigation on voter-fraud since '00, and a bill aimed at voter reform (that really works, this time) I think this is fairly easy to research. Almost all the convictions I can find are of Democrats...... and please don't tell me that you're unaware of the massive frauds by ACORN, the liberal activist group.

Mike Sigman

Cady Goldfield
11-10-2006, 10:22 PM
Almost all the convictions I can find are of Democrats......

Well, that's because all the Republican ones had friends in high places or bought their way out. :p

Lorien Lowe
11-10-2006, 11:32 PM
The "rich" ... pay a disproportionate share of all taxes.
cbpp.org:
"The highly respected Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year — the richest 0.2 percent of the U.S. population — already are receiving tax cuts averaging $103,000 this year, before these two new tax cuts take effect. The Tax Policy Center finds that the two tax-cut measures in question will give these “millionaires” nearly another $20,000 a year in tax cuts, when the measures are phased in fully....Essentially none of the benefits will flow to families with incomes under $100,000...."

Los Ricos pobresitos...!
people rise up to being rich and many fall out of being rich, all the time. Our society is constantly in flux.
Ummm, yeah. So the college students who don't have to work in order to keep themselves housed and fed, the ones whose parents buy them new cars when they graduate (so they don't have to worry -or pay for - about their 20 y.o. beast breaking down), don't have an advantage over the students whose parents can't afford to take care of these things for them? The ones who can afford to take unpaid internships in desirable fields don't have an advantage over the ones who can't afford to? The ones who don't graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt don't have an advantage over the ones who do?

The ones whose parents went to Ivy-League colleges don't have an advantage, come admission decision time, over the ones whose parents graduated from State College?

From the NYU website:"Alumni whose children are applying for undergraduate admissionto the University are entitled to a waiver of the application fee."
From the Yale alumni webmagazine: "The admissions rate for [Yale]legacies is about 30 percent -- three times the rate for non-legacies."

If you tax people so that the average person has to go through too many hoops to become rich or until the Return On Investment becomes too low to be worth the effort, [the economy suffers].
Did I imply otherwise? I think that a "bottom-up" approach works better than a Reganomics-trickle-down approach, though.
By the way.... what is the "fair share" for the rich to pay?
According to the IRS website, the highest tax rate in the country is currently 35% - vastly lower than other (decidedly capitalist) western nations. I think ~ 40-45% would be fair as a top rate, but I also think that the types of income that are taxable should be widened. The Bush taxcuts were specifically targeted to types of income that are specific to very wealthy people.
The "9/11 Commission" is not the "Voice of God". They've already had a number of their findings proved wrong, BTW.

Source? I haven't heard about this - which findings?
Ask California.... business were leaving California because of restrictive taxing.
I AM Californian. I agree - there's a lot that needs to be fixed in this state. In the recent election, we* voted in a bunch of bond measures that we really can't afford; they're all for good, important things, but we're already in debt up to our eyeballs. But it's ok - it's all for bonds, not taxes, and Republicans think that it's better to be in debt than to pay-as-you-go, right?
*not including myself.

Iraq isn't what the real money-sapper is....the biggest sapping of money is going into social welfare and wealth redistribution like Social Security, healthcare, etc.
Social Security is a trust fund. It's allocated separately from all other taxes. If you look at the rest of the taxes, nearly 50% goes to current military spending and debt from past military spending (veteran's benefits, interst on the debt, etc).
...next time I'm going through the lengthy security process at the airport, I'll try to reconcile why some people have "rights" which cause the rest of us to have to go through security.
I was refering not to preflight checks (which do not make us a heck of a lot safer, imnsho), but to things like warrantless searches of private citizens; the elimination of habeus corpus; the ability to declare an American citizen an 'enemy combatant' and dissapear them, send them to another country, have them tortured... as long as they don't die or go into organ failure, it's ok, right? Right? Shoving bamboo slivers under people's fingernails dosen't cause organ failure, so it should be ok.
... there are some positives to eminent domain. As usualy, though, someone takes a good idea and abuses it, causing it to be outlawed... so the potential benefits are lost forever.
I don't want it to be outlawed; I just don't think that the city should have the right to condemn my house and then sell it to a private developer so that they can get more property taxes. If that's constitutional, we need a constitutional ammendment to limit eminent domain to things like sewers and freeways and other important community things.

-LK

Neil Mick
11-11-2006, 01:21 AM
It's been two years, and I believe I'm owed an apology, Neil.

Yes it has...and I don't think so.

Just because the minority-vote was mobilized to vote against Bush (which, in effect, was what this election was about...a mandate against Bush, and the Iraq Folly) doesn't mean that hanky-panky didn't occur...

Voting Problems Include Long Lines, Intimidation Reports (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1457225)

With around eighty percent of the electorate casting at least one vote electronically, voting problems were reported in scores of districts across the country. In Denver, hundreds of people were forced to wait long past the 7 p.m. voting deadline. Voting hours were extended in eight states. Hundreds of precincts in Florida, Indiana and Ohio turned to paper ballots amid problems with electronic voting machines. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported dozens of complaints that touch-screen machines recorded votes for the wrong candidates. There were also scattered reports of voter intimidation. In Virginia, voters reported receiving telephone calls telling them to stay home or face criminal charges. In Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported Latino voters were stopped and questioned by three armed men outside a precinct in Tucson.

How widespread was this?

Electronic Voting Machine Headaches Shut Out Citizens (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#004991)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) joined a nationwide team of technology lawyers and other experts staffing nationwide call centers and legal command posts on Election Day. The volunteers chronicled election problems, assisted voters, and worked with election officials to pull malfunctioning machines wherever possible. By 8:00 pm ET on Tuesday, over 17,000 incidents, including machine-related problems, had been reported to the Election Protection Coalition's 866-OUR-VOTE hotline.

The types of machine problems reported to EFF volunteers were wide-ranging in both size and scope. Polls opened late for machine-related reasons in polling places throughout the country, including Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Utah, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and California. In Broward County, Florida, voting machines failed to start up at one polling place, leaving some citizens unable to cast votes for hours. EFF and the Election Protection Coalition sought to keep the polling place open late to accommodate voters frustrated by the delays, but the officials refused. In Utah County, Utah, more than 100 precincts opened one to two hours late on Tuesday due to problems with machines. Both county and state election officials refused to keep polling stations open longer to make up for the lost time, and a judge also turned down a voter's plea for extended hours brought by EFF.

"If election officials insist on depending on this unreliable technology, they should be prepared to react appropriately when things go wrong," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Voters should not have to bear the brunt of this poor planning. We are very disappointed that the court did not recognize that."

And then there was the nastiness about the letter falsely asserting that immigrants will be jailed, should they try to vote:

O.C. candidate defends letter scaring immigrants (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-tan23oct23,1,2049116.story)

At a chaotic sidewalk news conference Sunday, Orange County congressional candidate Tan Nguyen defended a letter his campaign sent to 14,000 registered voters that warned in Spanish that immigrants could be jailed or deported for voting.

"There has been no crime committed, so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election?" asked Nguyen outside his campaign office in Garden Grove. It was his first public appearance since the controversy erupted last week. "What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?"

Bush's failure at the voting-box doesn't mean that no hanky-panky took place, this election. There ought to be investigations into voter impropriety.

I said it then (in '04), and I stand by my words, now.

Mike Sigman
11-11-2006, 09:49 AM
cbpp.org:
"The highly respected Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year — the richest 0.2 percent of the U.S. population — already are receiving tax cuts averaging $103,000 this year, before these two new tax cuts take effect. The Tax Policy Center finds that the two tax-cut measures in question will give these "millionaires" nearly another $20,000 a year in tax cuts, when the measures are phased in fully....Essentially none of the benefits will flow to families with incomes under $100,000...."

Los Ricos pobresitos...!

Ummm, yeah. So the college students who don't have to work in order to keep themselves housed and fed, the ones whose parents buy them new cars when they graduate (so they don't have to worry -or pay for - about their 20 y.o. beast breaking down), don't have an advantage over the students whose parents can't afford to take care of these things for them? The ones who can afford to take unpaid internships in desirable fields don't have an advantage over the ones who can't afford to? The ones who don't graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt don't have an advantage over the ones who do? Yeah, people work hard, etc., so that their family benefits, Lorien. And some people are richer than others... it makes the ones less rich want to work hard and get rich, too. That's the way life works. If you have some vision of equally distributing the wealth and everyone is happy, you don't know much about your fellow man.... nor do you understand the competitiveness, the sex drive, the territoriality, etc., that makes us tick, when you peel away the veneer.

When you go to dinner with a group of friends, do you always insist that the richest guy/gal there pay the bill because they can afford it more than you can? Your argument really sounds to me more like you've got a chip on your shoulder against people that have money. I.e., class warfare. Remember that *most* of those people worked hard for it. Many put their whole life savings on the line and worked many hours to get a company up and going.... and yes part of the drive for them doing it was to give their children advantages. That's what life is about. If you take all their money away and give it to other people, many of whom simply didn't have the drive to do much in life anyway, you'd simply be fulfilling some socialist fantasy that has never turned out to work. We're competitive, Lorien... enjoy that part of humanity and quit moaning about it. ;)

Yes, there needs to be *some* progressive taxing... all I'm saying is that it shouldn't go too far. Do some research on what happened to Sweden and how they have tried to recover... but may not make it.
The ones whose parents went to Ivy-League colleges don't have an advantage, come admission decision time, over the ones whose parents graduated from State College?

From the NYU website:"Alumni whose children are applying for undergraduate admissionto the University are entitled to a waiver of the application fee."
From the Yale alumni webmagazine: "The admissions rate for [Yale]legacies is about 30 percent -- three times the rate for non-legacies." Yeah.... so work hard and become rich, Lorien. Don't scheme so hard to get those bad ole rich people. ;) According to the IRS website, the highest tax rate in the country is currently 35% - vastly lower than other (decidedly capitalist) western nations. I think ~ 40-45% would be fair as a top rate, but I also think that the types of income that are taxable should be widened. The Bush taxcuts were specifically targeted to types of income that are specific to very wealthy people. OK, I'm ready to bail. The famous disgust at "trickle down" turns out to have been won by Reagan... it works. Now even the Dems talk about tax breaks, conceding they are a boost to the economy. And your 35% tax rate... that's only part of the story, Lorien. Here read this.... despite the liberal rhetoric, Reagan was right and that's why you don't hear the Dem's saying anything against tax decreases, they just now claim to want to shift the tax decreases:

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html

Social Security is a trust fund. It's allocated separately from all other taxes. If you look at the rest of the taxes, nearly 50% goes to current military spending and debt from past military spending (veteran's benefits, interst on the debt, etc). Lorien, don't be naive. Social Security is simply another wealth distribution scheme. Everyone should understand that. The "rich" are paying a goodly share of most peoples' retirement income. I was refering not to preflight checks (which do not make us a heck of a lot safer, imnsho), but to things like warrantless searches of private citizens; the elimination of habeus corpus; the ability to declare an American citizen an 'enemy combatant' and dissapear them, send them to another country, have them tortured... as long as they don't die or go into organ failure, it's ok, right? Right? Shoving bamboo slivers under people's fingernails dosen't cause organ failure, so it should be ok. Too much. You're into buzzwords, not facts. Is Neil your teacher???? ;)

C ya

Mike

Lorien Lowe
11-11-2006, 08:55 PM
My point was not that it isn't nice to be rich. My point is that a lot of rich people are rich because their parents, grandparents, etc. were rich - not because they themselves 'merit' in any way, shape, or form the wealth that is showered on them. My point is that a rich person has to be a horrible failure to lose their wealth and sometimes even that isn't enough), and a poor person has to be an incredible genius to get to the upper tiers. The vast majority of people carry on at levels somewhere around where their parents started off.

Yes, there needs to be *some* progressive taxing... all I'm saying is that it shouldn't go too far.
Ok, so we're in agreement on something at least... difference of where we draw the line, but not what the line is.
The famous disgust at "trickle down" turns out to have been won by Reagan... it works.
Your URL, at least as far as I read, was about the tax revenue that results from various levels of taxation. Saying that total tax revenues are highest around 35-45 % is not the same as saying that 'trickle-down' economics works.

Re: buzzwords:
Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
I stand corrected in that the definition was expanded somewhat after the Eeeeeevil Democrats (and McCain, having been a POW) whined that 'organ failure' was not a good minimum level of pain. Those darn unamerican dems.
However:....it is the position of the U.S. Government that none of the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (Third Geneva Convention) apply to al Qaida detainees...that Taliban detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war....
18 U.S.C. § 2340A requires that the offense occur "outside the United States"....The "United States" is defined to include all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States,....
(U) Guantanamo Bay Naval Station (GTMO) is included within the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly, is within the United States for the purposes of §2340, Thus, the Torture Statue does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel at GTMO....
;)

-LK

Mike Sigman
11-11-2006, 09:24 PM
My point was not that it isn't nice to be rich. My point is that a lot of rich people are rich because their parents, grandparents, etc. were rich But not anywhere near "most" rich people, Lorien. Unless you're stereotyping from what you've seen in the movies about "The Rich". You're the victim of Democrat propaganda. Most people work pretty darned hard to get what they have.- not because they themselves 'merit' in any way, shape, or form the wealth that is showered on them. My point is that a rich person has to be a horrible failure to lose their wealth and sometimes even that isn't enough), [Quote] Wealth tends to last no more than 3 generations, Lorien. [QUOTE]and a poor person has to be an incredible genius to get to the upper tiers. The vast majority of people carry on at levels somewhere around where their parents started off. Oh... is it hard to become wealthy and most people don't??? Of course. What do you think should happen, in the real world????

Time for me to go wash the dishes, I'm afraid.

Mike

Neil Mick
11-12-2006, 02:10 AM
Hey! This thread's about voter meltdown...Torture's three rows over, to the left. :crazy:

Cady Goldfield
11-12-2006, 09:53 AM
You don't have to be a genuis to become rich. Just clever and resourceful, and have enough drive and ambition to fulfill your wish.
Or rob banks!

I rob banks because that's where the money is.
-- Willie Sutton.

Neil Mick
11-12-2006, 01:24 PM
You don't have to be a genuis to become rich. Just clever and resourceful, and have enough drive and ambition to fulfill your wish.
Or rob banks!

You don't even have to work hard. Someone pls tell me that W worked hard for everything he owns.

Go on, someone...anyone...I could use a good chuckle, on this fine Sunday morning... :drool:

Thomas Campbell
11-12-2006, 04:56 PM
You could just marry an orthopedic surgeon.

Neil Mick
11-12-2006, 06:42 PM
You could just marry an orthopedic surgeon.

Or, I suppose I could buy a certain natural gas company; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) tout my increasing success through my "marketing and promotion of power and communications bandwidth commodities and related derivatives as tradable financial instruments" (read: use big-sounding, vague phrases to lie about my profits); cover up my losses; rip off thousands in energy-costs and faked energy "blackouts;" and then fake my death (right after my conviction, just before I'm sent to the Big House) and retire to my nice, private island, to avoid the gov't seizing my ill-gotten gains from my family...

Yah: I suppose I could do all that...and, I suppose that some would call that "working hard..." :crazy: :freaky: :dead:

Lorien Lowe
11-12-2006, 11:04 PM
Personally, I think his wife and/or other family members whacked him. No sentencing means that his estate stays intact.

-LK

Neil Mick
11-13-2006, 01:23 AM
Personally, I think his wife and/or other family members whacked him. No sentencing means that his estate stays intact.

-LK

Yeah, that theory works, too. :cool: