On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:24:15 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:02:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Since when would facts make any difference to your version of the
"truth"? Well, maybe there's hope for you yet, so here's the best
place to start:

http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1064

Freepress.org is a leftist propaganda organization,


Enough with the labels.

If the shoe fits......


You have also labeled the mainstream media as
being heavily biased to the left, yet it is the mainstream media that
refuses to cover the Ohio recount or release the raw exit poll data.

Because even the mainstream media realizes that this story is more
fluff than substance, despite their left leaning slant. Unlike
unaccountable rags like "freepress.org" the mainstream media has
accountability to the masses. Especially after "Rathergate" they are
especially leary of stories which cannot be verified with some degree
of accuracy.

It would seem that your "standards" for what passes as "truth" is much
less.


Your labels don't reconcile with the facts.

What you perceive as "fact" is the at the core of the issue. Unless
you personally had a hand in the investigation, you are getting your
information from a 2nd, 3rd or 4th party. Any one of which can
"modify" the facts by adding a degree of bias to the point that the
message has skewed. But, for some reason, you can't seem to see that.



As for freepress.org, I
suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization
and chronicles it's history.

I'm sure Adolf Hitler wrote a glowing review about himself as well.
What "freepress.org" says about itself is meaningless. What other
groups, who track the political agendas of these rogue "news"
services, says is what tells the real story.



I doubt you will read it because people
like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your
biased opinions.

Frank, when are you going to realize that you "facts" are nothing more
than YOUR biased opinions. Telling me that my bias is wrong based on
your bias is laughable.


You would rather slap labels on others instead of
admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong.

There is always a possibility that I am wrong. But not this time. I've
been around the block to know how this all works. Republicans are not
angels by any stretch of the imagination. But just like you telling me
I'm wrong based on your own bias, democrats screaming "foul" at an
election that they lost, and pointing at republicans for cheating,
while they cross their fingers behind their backs is equally
ridiculous.

They BOTH cheat. They always have. But I am incensed that democrats
have the balls to be so blatantly hypocritical.


But you really
-should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear,

My FEAR? What "fear" is that?


and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and
smell the sheep-dung.

Until *I* wake up? You'd better pinch yourself man, because it is not
I who is sleeping.....

so it does not
surprise me that they hype the negative issues to make it seem worse
than it is. But you seem to have a problem differentiating between
real hard irrefutable FACTS with biased editorial opinion.


Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial
opinion"?

Are you equally concerned that the overturning of a clear republican
victory in Washington State after not just one, but a few recounts,
and by a similar "bloat" in voter turnout?


Pay attention, Dave: It doesn't matter who won or lost the election.

Sure it does. Would all these P.E.S.T. victims be screaming for a
recount in Ohio if Kerry had won? That was my whole point. There were
all sorts of allegations of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, particularly
in heavily democratic strongholds like Philadelphia. But nobody cares
because Kerry won the state, even if by less of a margin than Bush won
Ohio.


Read the transcript I cited. These are the same organizations that
cried foul when Gore tried to manipulate the recounts in Florida,
criticized the Clinton victories, and have members that are official
election observers for this and other countries. Yet you try and paint
them as hired guns for the Democrats.

Like I said, if the shoe fits. The sheer intensity of the protests and
the unwillingness for so many people to accept the outcome of the
election is more telling as to the driving force behind this brouhaha.


As you have demonstrated many
times before, your perspective is so slanted you are falling over.

I don't have to worry about falling over, as your equally slanted
perspective in the other direction will balance me out.


Kerry conceeded -- end of story.

No, it's not. There are all sorts of sore loser groups trying
everything from trying to throw out the electoral vote, to impeaching
Bush. They just can't deal with the fact that THEY LOST. Crying voter
fraud is just another attempt to deny the fact that THEY LOST. Denial
is the first step.

I wasn't happy when Clinton won, but I didn't accuse every state where
he won of fraud (Even though, in all likelihood, there was probably
some).


"They" is not "me". Whether the current president makes you whine or
dine, voting fraud is the issue. The "Kerry-lost-get-over-it" routine
is getting old and you are sounding like a broken record.

But that is the basic point. Hell, these people now protesting Bush's
second victory are the very same people who were claiming for the last
4 years that Gore REALLY won and that Bush was "selected, not
elected". They haven't gotten over 2000, they just changed the loser's
name.


The most
important issue right now is voting fraud.

Why now?


Address the issue at hand.
Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's
propoganda machine.

By providing me more leftist propaganda that you believe as fact? No
thanks Frank. I can spot snake oil at quite a distance.


Tell me Frank, do you believe that there has always been voter fraud,
or do you think that this is suddenly something new?


Voting fraud has been around ever since voting was invented.

So why is it such an issue for you now? Where were you in '92?


But there
has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2.

By what factual (not op-ed opinion) information do you base this
claim? How do you determine total voter fraud?


Nor to the
extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government
of the most powerful country in the world.

Mayor Daily of Chicago certainly knew that.......


You aren't suggesting that
voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter
what, are you?

Certainly not. I am for tightening the rules that regulate voting,
including several measure which make many democrats very "uneasy".

But I don't think that voter fraud is any worse now than it had been
in the past. Surely you haven't forgotten about the bus loads of
illegal immigrants, the jailed felons, and the buying of votes with
cartons of cigarettes in days past?




This problem threatens the very core of
this democracy, and if presidential elections can be rigged then we
might as well throw in the towel. Future elections will be meaningless
and open to any power-monger with enough money to buy the election,

Like George Soros?

maybe even someone as diabolical as Hitler or Stalin.

Or Ted Kennedy?


Gee, I don't know..... did Ted Kennedy kill millions of people?

No, only one. But killing people is not the only form of "diabolical".

Is
that the secret ambition which convinced him to enter the political
arena? I'm asking because the facts don't indicate anything of the
sort, but -you- know the -real- truth, don't you Dave? So polish your
lamp, gaze into your crystal ball, call the psychic friends network,
or do whatever it is you do to gain such pervasive insight into the
truth..... and tell me, what -are- Ted's secret ambitions?

I really don't know, but his interests in the direction of this
country are diametrically opposed to what a free capitalist society
would want.

But I suppose
you wouldn't mind such a 'leader' or how he comes to power just as
long as you agree with his publically stated moral principles and
objectives..... but wasn't it you that said, "politically motivated
people have incentive to lie"?

Yes


No kidding.


, but you seem to think the whole issue of fraud is one sided. You
scream with righteous indignation because your guy lost, not because
you have a genuine concern over the voting process. Id be willing to
bet that had Kerry won, you wouldn't care if allegations of voter
fraud surfaced. You'd be saying to me, the same thing I'm saying to
you.


Did you come to those conclusions after reading tea leaves or throwing
bones?

The same way that I know how people think. The same way that I
diagnosed Twisty's sociopathic tendencies.

Maybe you should read some of my previous posts regarding Bush,
how I defended him in the past.

The past is just that. Don't even try to tell me that you favored
Bush, because that would be a lie.


Maybe you missed my criticizms of Gore
for trying to manufacture votes by selective recounts. Maybe you
missed my many posts where I clearly stated that I only vote for
independents and/or third party candidates, and voted for Nader in
this election. Or maybe you just aren't paying attention to the facts.

When have you ever spoken about politics on this newsgroup before
Frank? Until this past election, this newsgroup pretty much stayed the
course on radio related issues.

I do recall you saying that you voted for Nader, even though you were
at the same time, defending Kerry and his policies with more vigor
than one of his lackey political pundits. I find it hard to believe
that someone could be behind one candidate yet espouse the "good"
points of his opponent. It's duplicitous.


It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I
voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual,
you're wrong. I voted for Nader.

But you defended Kerry as if you were married to him.

And even though he lost the election,
I didn't have any expectations that he would win.
But he and other
third party candidates -did- make a strong showing, which was my
intent with my vote, and for that reason I am -very- happy with the
outcome of the election.


Strong showing? Nader got what 2% of the vote? You call that "strong"?
Ross Perot made a better showing.

But I am glad for Nader. He at least syphoned the most idealistic
utopian liberal voters away from Kerry, which may have allowed Bush to
win again. For that I thank him.


Except for the fraud.


I also find it curious that those who seem the most opposed to putting
policies in place to lessen the chance of fraud are mostly democrats.
Mandatory voter ID, and a more secure voting environment have all been
shouted down by democrats. They used the lame "disenfranchised" and
"racism" arguments to hide their real worry that a truly fair election
would hurt them. No more buying votes with cartons of cigarettes, or
bottles of ripple.


Both Republicans and Democrats oppose those issues equally. And it
wasn't the Democrats who initiated the recount in Ohio;

Who was it then who filed suit in Ohio because there were claims of
insufficient voting machines in heavily democratic voting places?


it was the
Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights
organizations.

Bull**** Frank, plain and simple. If you can't see through that, you
are more blind than I thought. What incentive would there be, and what
gain would be had for those odd-ball independents to bring about this
action? It doesn't pass the smell test Frank.


Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective
is towards the Republicans.

I am a conservative, and I lean toward republicans because they best
represent my interests. That's no great secret. But you have yet to
admit your political slant, and the accompanied bias. You're in denial
Frank.

Get a clue, Dave.

I would think that you need one as well.


What you think about me carries no weight since you have yet to
demonstrate that you are capable of thought that is independent and
rational; i.e, above the level of domesticated livestock.

If you truly believed that you would not waste your time trying to
"show" me how "wrong" I am. The fact that you are unable to back up
anything you stand for with anything other than your own form of
propaganda, and have failed ant every attempt to discredit my position
is what keeps you coming back for more. In a way, you're acting just
like Twisty, when he can't "prove" the lies he spews about other
people.

This country was built by people who held strong traditions and
believed in putting in a full day's work, for a full day's pay, wanted
the government to protect our interests abroad, but wanted them out of
our personal lives. They also did not need or want a social "safety
net" to help the slackers of society avoid the consequences of natural
selection, and paid for by the sweat of the productive people.

No matter how idealistic and utopian left thinking liberals might
believe, there will never be a natural "classless society", because
all people are different in how they prioritize their lives and how
they achieve (or not). It's not the government's place to "provide"
for people, or to "equalize" the country's wealth.

To the victor, go the spoils. Try to be a victor Frank......


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj