Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2004, 11:28 PM   #51
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

And, this:

Quote:
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...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 11:55 AM   #52
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.


Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 12:28 PM   #53
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 08:29 PM   #54
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.


Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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:

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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....

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
The media who mostly favored Kerry
Oh, please.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-01-2004 at 08:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 11:39 PM   #55
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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

Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 11:42 PM   #56
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 11:06 PM   #57
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 11:51 PM   #58
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Dan Guthrie wrote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 07:49 AM   #59
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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,

Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 03:18 PM   #60
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

In the meantime, here is something that can keep you occupied. The place is perfect for you.

http://www.bocanews.com/index.php?sr...y=Local%20News
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 10:04 PM   #61
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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
em·pir·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pīr-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!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2004, 08:41 PM   #62
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.

Last edited by Michael Neal : 12-04-2004 at 08:44 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2004, 10:55 PM   #63
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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.

Quote:
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."

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-04-2004 at 10:57 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2004, 11:31 PM   #64
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Michael Neal : 12-04-2004 at 11:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2004, 01:07 AM   #65
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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!)

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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."

Quote:
But as I promised I will respond more in detail when I can find the time.
Riiight. "When he finds the time...."
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2004, 11:33 AM   #66
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

http://www.cleveland.com/living/plai...4269071571.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.'

Last edited by dan guthrie : 12-05-2004 at 11:35 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2004, 02:40 PM   #67
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2004, 02:45 PM   #68
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Dan Guthrie wrote:
'"In that environment," said University of Akron political expert John Green, "conspiracy theories flourish."
Maybe. In his opinion.

Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 08:00 AM   #69
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 08:23 AM   #70
rachel
Dojo: Aikikai Foundation Hombu Dojo, Aikido of Hilo
Location: Tokyo
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 63
Japan
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

I still haven't gotten my absentee ballot that was supposedly mailed two months ago...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 09:43 AM   #71
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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-pīr-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."

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. 


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Quote:
Oh, please.

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



Quote:
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?


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



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


Quote:
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.


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


Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
At least, in your mind.
And just about everyone else as well



Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 07:02 PM   #72
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...4847-4142r.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.

Last edited by dan guthrie : 12-06-2004 at 07:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 08:12 PM   #73
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Michael Neal wrote:
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 08:12 PM   #74
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2004, 08:16 PM   #75
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Voter Meltdown

Quote:
Rachel Klein wrote:
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??"
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2021 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2021 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate