On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:54:02 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
Ohio Recount Steeped in Fraud


That's a wonderful story, if it's true. Is there any solid proof other
than these allegations and he said-she said testimony to back it up?


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, 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.


The paper never refuses ink, and politically motivated people have
incentive to lie.


That's the point.


Perhaps they should do a recount in Pa.. There were all sorts of
allegations of fraud in Philthy. Perhaps they may find that Bush
really won Pa. as well. Then Ohio becomes a moot point. Are you sure
you really want to go there?


Your guy lost. Get over it.....


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.

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).

So quit invoking his name to distract
from the -REAL- issue which is the huge scale of the voting fraud that
happened during the election.

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


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?

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, 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.

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.


Get a clue, Dave.

I would think that you need one as well.

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