"tianli" wrote in
:

Personally, it was the choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. What
concerns me is that the possibility of actually having a decent candidate
from either party making it to the primary is nil to none. All of the
future elections will assuredly be determined years before the election.

I had to return some defective software recently, and I wrote to the
company explaining my situation. They said to return it, and the would
replace the defective disk, free of charge. Months later, I still hadn't
received the replacement disk, I again wrote to them. They said that they
had no record of receiving the disk and asked for my proof that I had
mailed it to them.

I copied verbatim their instructions to me concerning returning the disk,
and I e-mailed them again. No where in their instructions did they
specify that I should obtain a receipt for the return mail. I also
informed them that I had bought a couple of hundred dollars worth of
software from them, as well as cables and the like. I also told them that
I had to send multiple e-mails to them to get them even to respond. I
added that the disk was defective (the drive spent 15 minutes reading and
re-reading the disk, but it finally loaded), but that I had successfully
loaded the program onto my system.

I went on to explain that I had a functioning program, was a good
customer, had written multiple times about my problem, and that it wasn't
part of a vast Right Wing conspiracy to obtain a disk from them that
their records would clearly show that I already had. When they finally
sent the replacement disk, the paperwork was initialed for every step of
processing by a supervisor, to show that the disk was being sent without
cost.

What is my ****ing point, you are no doubt asking? My point is that we
are being asked to vote by electronic methods using a system that gives
no receipts. If a lousy $35 dollar disk caused so much problem for the
lack of a receipt, why should something as serious as voting be done by a
method that precludes serious challanges to the results. Bush received
3000 votes more (in Ohio) than Kerry in an area where only 800 people
voted. When discovered, they said that the machine should have read 300
votes for Bush, not 3000, and corrected the, ahem, mistake. How many
areas did this happen that no one noticed the discrepency?

Don't get me wrong, I work in heavy industry, and I tire of the
Democratic mantra at election time of "vote early and vote often".
Elections have been rigged before, but it would be nice to see the
Citizens actually determine the results for a change. But people cannot
make educated choices when we are spoon fed by the media.

..................etc,

Soliloquy



I understand that whoever is elected, they figure that Ohio will be
the determining state.


What is so hypocritical of the Democrats is that Bush lost by far
smaller margins
than Kerry in states such as Wisconsin and, I believe, Washington as
well as a couple other
states.

Be careful what you ask for, should be the Democratic Party mantra in
regards to disputed
Kerry votes.