On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this:
_
N3CVJ wrote:
I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I

used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER

or chase it off the channel


But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier...
After talking skip internationally on the

freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose

interest in skip

Different time periods. I've been in CB for 35 years now.

God, you really do have to be spoon fed everything in order to
understand it..........

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ wrote:
I no longer partake in those activities. I grew
up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will
you?

That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore,
Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging
about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the
intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a
bandaid when you were bleeding,,,..

I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB
population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to
anyone back then was to those who were asking for it, in the form of a
payback (You know all about paybacks right?). Plus, I was a teenager
then. That should explain everything. I knew way more about radio
back then than my maturity level could control.

I guess some of us (me) were light
years ahead of others (you) in radio mannerisms and operating procedure.

Yet, you operate on illegal frequencies and see nothing wrong with
breaking federal law? How is that any better than what you lambast me
for?

I never splattered, never ran huge power, never was a jerk on the air,
even as a child, I not only knew better, I was taught better.

But you see nothing wrong with breaking federal communications law as
an adult? It would seem that respect for the law was a subject skipped
over when you was "learned".

Glad you
"grew up" and joined those of us who have been waiting for idiots like
you to stop being part of the problem.

I'm not the one operating on illegal frequencies or using above legal
power limits.

Although, just for the record,
you have claimed you haven't operated illegally since the seventies or
eighties, but that little gem you cited about running the AB amp in your
vehicle was made in '98, not that long ago, and was referring to your cb
use.

No, that was in reference to 10 meter operation.

But if you grew up since then, I'm happy to say, I was indeed a
part of it, since that is when we first exchanged pleasantries and you
began crying about technical legalities,

You had nothing to do with it. Had I not grown up, I'd be singing
right along side of you with the "screw everyone else, I'm going to
talk where I want" attitude.

It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect
for the law...

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:09:05 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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.


That still doesn't explain why they won't release the raw exit poll
data. And you fail to realize the simple fact that 'mainstream media'
is predominately owned and operated by huge corporations that strongly
favor the Republicans. If they slant in any direction it's going to be
towards the conservatives.


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.


I knew you wouldn't read it.


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.


You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable
discharge until 2001?


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.


......oh brother. I'm sure that these "other groups" are mostly
conservative organizations, right?


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.


"..........Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has
refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching –
where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the
computerized tabulation stage – involve his own re-election campaign.

............

Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State
Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as
co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious
conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election
challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of
GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why
he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots
entirely uncounted.

............

The final recount tested roughly 3% of the roughly 5.7 million votes
cast in the state. But contrary to the law governing the recount, many
precincts tested were selected not at random, but by Blackwell's
personal designation. Experts with the election challenge suit have
noted many of the precincts selected were mostly free of the
irregularities they are seeking to investigate, while many contested
precincts were left unrecounted.

.............

In other precincts, impossibly high voter turnout figures -- nearly
all of them adding to Bush's official margin -- remain unexplained. In
the heavily Republican southern county of Perry, Blackwell certified
one precinct with 221 more votes than registered voters. Two precincts
-- Reading S and W. Lexington G -- were let stand in the officially
certified final vote count with voter turnouts of roughly 124% each.

In Miami County's Concord South West precinct, Blackwell certified a
voter turnout of 98.55 percent, requiring that all but 10 voters in
the precinct cast ballots. But a freepress.org canvas easily found 25
voters who said they did not vote. In the nearby Concord South
precinct, Blackwell certified an apparently impossible voter turnout
of 94.27 percent. Both Concord precincts went heavily for Bush.

.............

In Warren County, Bush was credited with 68,035 votes to Kerry’s
26,043 votes. But just as the county's votes were about to be counted
after the polls closed on November 2, the Board of Elections claimed a
Homeland Security alert authorized them to throw out all Democratic
and independent observers, including the media. The vote count was
thus conducted entirely by Republicans.........."


Those are facts, Dave. Not left-wing propoganda, "editorial opinions"
or "MY biased opinions". Facts.


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.


Gee, seems I've heard this somewhere before..... by golly I did! A
couple months ago it was ME that was telling YOU about how both sides
cheat! At least -something- finally sunk in.


But I am incensed that democrats
have the balls to be so blatantly hypocritical.


Once again, Dave, I'm not a Democrat. How many times do I need to
repeat it?


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

My FEAR? What "fear" is that?


Losing.


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?


First off, it was -HARDLY- a "clear republican victory". The first
count was done by machine and gave Rossi a lead so slim that it
triggered an -automatic- recount. That recount narrowed the lead to a
few dozen votes. It would have been foolish of any opponent -not- to
request a hand recount, which put Gregoire in the lead by 139 votes.
The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are
whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have
been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional
ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to
contest the election. So far he hasn't.

But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida,
New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a
transparent process.

And for the record, I didn't vote for either of them -- again I voted
third-party.


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.


People would probably be more willing to accept the results if they
could see that the election was conducted fairly and LEGALLY. That's
why you don't see such protests in Washington.


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.


I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted?


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.


Like I said before, "they" is not "me". Whether Gore won or lost, his
conduct during the recounts was reprehensible.


The most
important issue right now is voting fraud.

Why now?


How does that proverb go..... "Never put off until tomorrow what you
can do today". They tried to repair the faults of the 2000 election
with band-aids and it didn't work; the wound got bigger. If we don't
fix it now the same problems will be bigger and more widespread in
2008, or perhaps even sooner.


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.


Official military records are "leftist propoganda"?


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?


When the race is so close that voting fraud could have been the
determining factor.


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.......


I don't live in Chicago.


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".


How about requiring a paper trail?


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?


The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed,
have they not? We have -new- problems that need to be addressed, such
as a corporation that wrote the software for the voting machines and
whose CEO promised to deliver the state's electoral votes to Bush;
election officials (i.e, the Secretary of State) who is also the
campaign manager for that state; the shorting of voting machines in
selected precincts; etc, etc.


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.


Really? Care to elaborate?


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.


Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors
your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right?


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


So it's beyond my capability for me to open my eyes and see my own
mistake of supporting Bush? That's pretty hypocritical, Dave. And
pretty ignorant:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source


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.


Yeah, right. And I've been on Usenet a lot longer than I've been in
this newsgroup.


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.


I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda. I'll re-restate
what I posted previously on the subject: "I have stated before that
I didn't think Kerry was a strong enough leader to be president. He
doesn't have the connections, his communication skills aren't quite up
to snuff (but not as bad as Bush), and he doesn't command a presence
in Congress (which would be necessary for a president, especially if
his party doesn't hold the majority)."

And anyone can see that Bush has some good qualities. He has a certain
charisma that he uses to great advantage. Like Time magazine notes, he
sticks to his guns (even if they are pointed in the wrong direction).
And just because he got mixed up with the wrong crowd (the Vulcans)
that doesn't mean he's a bad guy. A moron perhaps, but not necessarily
evil as some people claim.

It's far from duplicitous. It's simply a matter of looking at the
facts without bias.


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.


I defended Communism in a debate in high-school. That doesn't mean I'm
a communist (or married to a communist). And I didn't defend Kerry so
much as I disproved the lies and conjecture you ignorantly chose to
believe without regard to the facts.


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.


Nader and other third-party candidates got more recognition in this
election than in any previous election, with the exception of Perot. I
call that a strong 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.


If Kerry had won it would be the Bush supporters whining about how the
third-party candidates siphoned away -their- votes.


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.


Have you ever thought for one moment that there may be people that
actually care about fundamental issues such as voting rights? Or is
that dish too liberal for your table?


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.


My political "slant" is towards the Constitution. That's my political
party, that's my religion, and that's my first concern whenever I step
into the voting booth. The Republicans may represent -your- interests
(whatever they may be, and I don't think I want to know), but -my-
interest happens to be preserving a democratic form of government.


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,


Keep saying it and maybe it will come true. LOL!


and have failed ant every attempt to discredit my position


Oh, really? You still think that Kerry didn't get his honorable
discharge until 2001 despite the official military records? Or do you
prefer to believe someone else's misinformed interpretation of
documents that are available for you to read any time you want? Or
have you dismissed the facts in favor of some conspiricy to forge
those records and cover up some deep, dark secret that exists only in
your imagination? Or maybe you are a card-carrying member of the Bush
propaganda machine and intentionally spout this garbage because the
party serves your interests?


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.


yawn.


This country was built by people.....


Yes it was. "We The People", not "We the Republicans" or "We the
Christian traditionalists". Get that through your head.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong
evidence to the positive.


Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.


Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact? What happened to
your "trained observation skills"?


and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities
occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these
illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous.


Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:39 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ wrote:
I no longer partake in those activities. I grew
up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will
you?

That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore,
Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging
about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the
intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a
bandaid when you were bleeding,,,..

I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB
population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to
anyone back then was to those who were asking for it,


Dave = judge, jury and executioner.


in the form of a
payback (You know all about paybacks right?). Plus, I was a teenager
then. That should explain everything. I knew way more about radio
back then than my maturity level could control.


And I thought -I- was arrogant.


snip
It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect
for the law...


Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king. The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?

On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.


No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.


Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.


That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.
And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.


The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?


He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.

No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.

Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.

That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.
And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?

He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm

On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.

No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.

Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.

That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.
And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?

He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm


If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. The two big
parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if
it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate. The only thing
this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in
free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along,
and also why I don't vote for either of them.

Also, notice that the article states that Nader had his own petition
to run under the Reform Party ticket. So which petition won?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got
on the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm

If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed.

Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected.