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. 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.
Your labels don't reconcile with the facts. As for freepress.org, I
suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization
and chronicles it's history. I doubt you will read it because people
like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your
biased opinions. You would rather slap labels on others instead of
admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong. But you really
-should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear,
and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and
smell the sheep-dung.


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"?


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


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. The most
important issue right now is voting fraud. Address the issue at hand.
Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's
propoganda machine.


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?


Voting fraud has been around ever since voting was invented. But there
has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2. Nor to the
extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government
of the most powerful country in the world. You aren't suggesting that
voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter
what, are you? Because that's the same kind of excuse illegal CBers
use to justify their operation.....


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? 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?


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

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. 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.

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; it was the
Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights
organizations. Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective
is towards the Republicans.


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.