Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:49 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:24:00 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : heavy snippage throughout 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. You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left. No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite. Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations by people who used to work in them. Since the invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be, whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades another country is to shut down or take over the media. I would think that securing command and control centers would come first. This is because if they don't the media can be used against them by the defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by discouraging resistance. Lies work both ways. The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of false information, that it automatically IS. There have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of illumination to the subject. And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page with documents that were also forged. You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used empirical observation? Careful here Frank..... You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with no more credibility. Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant. By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can see the slant there. I proved that sheople like you take the word of others instead of checking the facts for yourself, which you claimed you did. But if you did you would have seen that there is nothing sinister at all about Kerry's discharge. The story was nothing more than propoganda invented to discredit Kerry and you drove that car without even checking the tires. snip Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers? People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts for themselves. The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more than a different, but equally questionable, source. snip 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. Why should he step down? Because someone accused him of something? Prove there is a conflict of interest or lay down. LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that you don't understand it? I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests. Should that official recuse himself every time this happens? 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. Who's to say that that number of ballots are really there and that they are valid? We all know that the vote count exceeded the registered voters. Another classic case of inventing an issue and then implying a nefarious agenda when the party responsible refuses to acknowledge the bogus issue, thereby casting doubt and suspicion over his integrity. Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy being implicated, then you make up your own justifications). But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to make. 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. And when you are determined to find a flaw, the fact that there aren't any automatically means that this was "planted"? Gee, maybe the main issue is that the allegations of fraud have been greatly overstated. 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. It's a shame that those extra votes for Kerry might have to be removed......... You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What if they were Kerry plants? What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than voters? I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the fault of, and benefitted republicans. 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. Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias. Ok, here are the facts: First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were accidental. It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible. Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly Bush areas. But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore less suspicious. Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always in districts that favored Kerry. And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say? Those are the facts. You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the known evidence. Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his supporters. Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a history of doing it as well. And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?). Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it for you? But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent logical fallacy to arrive at a conclusion without considering other possibilities. Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged through the muck to before they realize it. You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same. Far from it. If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle, as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing", you have socialism and finally anarchy. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies. Here's an interesting link: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm snip 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. Votes that were "suddenly" found...... Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible. Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then found. They could have also been planted. 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. Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a close election. ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not- because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his favor...... what a weiner! Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of republicans. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source. It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here for many decades and has been used by both sides. And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud. There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and fraudulent counting. One was trying to cancel the effects of the other. snip I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted? To the left. That much is obvious. You're a liberal. I guess the democratic party isn't pink enough yet. So I'm liberal because I happen to be concerned about free and open elections? No, you're a liberal because you support Nader. The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!) Are you denying that you are a liberal? And no, I'm not a fascist, simply a conservative. snip 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. Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944? Try 1876. Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political machines" were coming of age. snip Official military records are "leftist propoganda"? Which records? Kerry's military records? Oh that 's right, he refused to release them all. You mean the records that say his other records (the records that -were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents that are part of his military record? You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing records have some sort of security issue. That may not be the case. They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a not so favorable light. Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to their nature. Neither do you. But I tend to believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The fact that he refused to release his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his, suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them, then he could just say that, but he didn't. So the only clue you have as to what they are (other than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel free to answer the question -- let 'er rip! The fact that they remain sealed says more. snip 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. That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that the degree of fraud this year was any greater than that in years past? How do you know it was not a factor in years past? Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot: The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago. The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW. That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you have no factual information to back up. 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. But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic "machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics" to attribute to it. Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio? There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened before, and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on this issue. Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election. There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. If identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor, then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be subjected to some scrutiny. As I said before, the percentage of victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get bored when you stand in line for that long). The breakdown of a county by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue (80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded" with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same. Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud? 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? I'm fully in favor of that. I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their voting precinct. I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)? I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in the past. The problem is that many people are real paranoid about using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity. 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? I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more effectively, but I believe that they're still there. Possibly. The question is to what extent. We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is reduce the chance that it can happen in the future. 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; Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured. Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got over 15,000 hits. Here's just one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that statement in the context that he would use his company's voting machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's should not promote any party affiliation? 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. Interesting that in those places were voting machines were "shorted", were handled by democrats. They have only themselves to blame if they were not able to accommodate their constituency. You simply -refuse- to look at the other side of the coin, don't you? Why should I? You're doing enough for both of us. It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned, which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the deposition he evaded. How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to blame if they short changed their constituents. So is the picture coming into focus yet? It's been for a while. You just don't see it. snip 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? One word: Liberal. Three other words: Redistribution of wealth. That's called "collectivism", not "liberalism". It's time you learned the difference. They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I provided, and do some searching for yourself. It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than redistribution of wealth. snip Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you defending Bush. Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention. Then prove me wrong and provide the thread. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect me to ever have seen it? You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal. Are you denying that you are a liberal? And don't squirm out of it by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did, as Twisty can attest. Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought better of you Frank. I'm curious if you still hold such a positive opinion of Cheney.... Brilliant man, but if I had known how crooked he was I would never have said anything in his support. (You see, I -can- have both a positive and negative opinion about the same person!) snip 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. If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups, how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it? Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the past? Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on outside of this group. You jumped to your conclusion without all the facts. Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this newsgroup only. And the facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the facts, right? You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB. Maybe you think we keep tabs on each other? Maybe I'm the odd-ball in that respect, as I don't. The difference is that I, unlike you, don't make claims or accusations unless I have the facts to back them up. Most of which you have yet to show. snip I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda. The truth remains that Kerry refused to release ALL of his military records. What's he hiding? You claimed he didn't get his honorable discharge until 2001 which was a totally fabricated lie. And you can't even admit it. So now you focus on records he didn't release without a shred of evidence that they hold anything of importance to you. What was that you said earlier about suspicion and political bias.....? I read about his honorable discharge. That was only one element of a number of suspicious activities that Kerry was involved in during and post Vietnam which may have served to undermine this country's efforts in the war, including two trips to France, to meet with the N. Vietnamese representatives, in a capacity not authorized by our government. And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out of touch with current political issues. Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are? Maybe you shouldn't even be having this conversation with me -- but what the hell, a little ignorance never stopped you before, right? It hasn't stopped you. 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. A skilled debater can take either side in a debate and make valid points. But this isn't a debate for the sake of debate style points. This is a debate driven by personal feelings. Maybe for you. My motivation happens to be preservation of the concept of a democratic system of government. By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten those concepts? I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain communist ideals. Most liberals are. Again with the labels..... And you haven't yet denied them. FYI, this country has adopted ideals from just about every political process ever conceived, including Marxism, communisim, socialism and fascism. Some are good and some are bad. No ****. No one system is "pure". There'e theory and there's practice. Communism, in theory, is a "utopian" or perfect society. When put in practice, it fails miserably. But as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion. By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly ill-informed opinion? You mean the official military records (in your words, "crap") that were released by the Pentagon? Why yes, that's exactly where I got my facts. Yet you, in your unbridled wisdom, want the Pentagon to release more "crap" when you can't even accept the facts from the "crap" that was already released (from the same source). If the first load of "crap" was phoney, what makes you think a second load of "crap" is going to be any more legitimate? Or if you think that second load of "crap" is going to provide you with facts then why can't you accept the facts from the first load of "crap"? That's a load of crap, Dave, and you are a very confused person. Without the entire record, the context of what is available is compromised, and erroneous conclusions could be made. snip 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? Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded" through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates" Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this latest voter fraud cry. Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing but a disingenuous quest for power? That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain political clout, it shows where their priorities are. That every act is motivated by a self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half as well as you think you do. Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact FYI, there are quite a few people in the political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and not their wallets. Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone of a school board. I'm talking about the big time. In almost every case, when a government representative does something seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine. Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic. What, and blind myself to reality? snip 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. By voting for a liberal who's core ideals contain the notion that the government should assume a greater role as society's "nanny"? The 'liberal' label was assigned by you, not me. Which you STILL have not denied. If you're such a student of the constitution, you should know that the government was never intended to do anything more than protect , facilitate and represent our interests in the world market. Oh my dear God..... where in the hell did you get your education? That response deserves it's own thread. What so I can prove you wrong yet again? I'm tiring of this Frank. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:14:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left. No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite. Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations by people who used to work in them. So some people were slanted one way when they were working and slanted the other way when they quit. How credible is that? Check this out: In the past 20 years, millions have died in African wars and the media barely mentioned it. Yet during the same time period the media covered just about every little fistfight in the West Band and Gaza. Which way is -that- slanted, Dave? Since the invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be, whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades another country is to shut down or take over the media. I would think that securing command and control centers would come first. Didn't I say, "ONE of the first objectives [plural]....."? This is because if they don't the media can be used against them by the defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by discouraging resistance. Lies work both ways. Now you're catching on. The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of false information, that it automatically IS. Wrong. The proof is in the pudding. The media has intentionally spread misinformation to the public in the past, and there's no reason to think that they have stopped and won't do it again. There have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of illumination to the subject. And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page with documents that were also forged. You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used empirical observation? Careful here Frank..... I used the same criteria that was used to condemn the CBS documents. You can't invalidate one without invalidating both. You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with no more credibility. Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant. By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can see the slant there. Those were official military records, not "claims". The only slant was in a story intended to misinform people who where either uneducated about military records, too lazy to read the records for themselves, or too willing to accept the story without scrutiny. So which category did you trip into, Dave? snip Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers? People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts for themselves. The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more than a different, but equally questionable, source. You are still unable to differentiate fact from an opinion...... A 'fact' is undisputed and/or undisputable. For example, the validity of Kerry's military records is undisputed. But an 'opinion' can, and usually is, disputed. Staying with the same example, it is someone's opinion that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge until 2001. So the validity of the opinion is measured by weighing it against the facts. The facts are that Kerry's military service was characterized as honorable, and that he did indeed receive an "Honorable Discharge Certificate" upon completion of his military obligation in 1978. So the opinion is in contradiction to the facts and is therefore bogus. Now if you are going to dispute the source of the documents then you are either accusing the Pentagon of forgery or accusing the military of inappropriate conduct. Regardless, the allegation requires that the documents be both true and false at the same time. For example, if the DD-215 of 2001 was indeed Kerry's final discharge as claimed by your opinion, then the document must be false because it contains no such statement. And if the document is false then the claim that it marks the date of his final discharge is no longer valid. So -that- opinion is bogus. Is the fog beginning to clear yet? snip LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that you don't understand it? I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests. Should that official recuse himself every time this happens? That's the generally accepted practice, and it's also the law in most states. It's done all the time in the courts. Judges often recuse themselves from a case because of some personal or business relationship with one of the parties. It's done to -prevent- any allegations of partiality. In Ohio there was a judge who refused to recuse himself from the contest hearings despite the fact that his own election could have been affected by his decision. That's a conflict of interests, and no doubt that decision will affect his career in the future. Also, there -is- evidence of impropriety in the Ohio election, as well as the recount and the contest. snip Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy being implicated, then you make up your own justifications). But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to make. Not when the vast majority of those illegal ballots DID benefit the Republicans. snip You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What if they were Kerry plants? What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than voters? I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the fault of, and benefitted republicans. Not automatically. The fact is that the vast majority of the illegal ballots favored the Republicans. If you think that Democrats committed voting fraud in order to benefit the Republican candidates then that's your problem. snip Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias. Ok, here are the facts: First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were accidental. It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible. Statistical probability sometimes reaches a point so low that it can safely be assumed to be an impossibility. Such is the case with the Ohio election statistics. Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly Bush areas. But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore less suspicious. The recount was requested to determine if that was a possibility, but Blackwell didn't allow recount sampling in any suspected areas. Hence the contest. Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always in districts that favored Kerry. And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say? Wrong. Most of them were run by Republicans. Regardless, the statewide election was run by Blackwell. It was his office that controlled the tabulation and certified the impossible results. "So what does that say?" Those are the facts. You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the known evidence. The facts imply their own conclusion. If you think you can word them in a way that is any more objective then go for it. Otherwise, your opinions don't negate the facts. Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his supporters. Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a history of doing it as well. Nobody is denying anything of the sort, and such a denial isn't required to reach the conclusion. But you -could- say that the Republicans were more effective at rigging the Ohio election than the Democrats and I wouldn't have any problem with that. And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?). Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it for you? But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent logical fallacy to arrive at a conclusion without considering other possibilities. First, you need to brush up on your logic. Second, it's a reasonable conclusion based on factual premeses. Third, if you reach a conclusion based on improbable scenarios (such as a conspiricy to cover up Kerry's military record) then the conclusion is, likewise, just as improbable. So have you spotted any UFOs lately? Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged through the muck to before they realize it. You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same. Far from it. If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle, as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing", you have socialism and finally anarchy. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies. Here's an interesting link: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm Interesting, yes. It's also interesting how Rokeach's quantification of political ideology (assuming it can be done) differs from your own. At this point it's clear that you are quite confused and are seeking simplistic explanations for complex issues. There is no "line" or chart you can draw to describe a political ideology. Go to the library and check out the vast amount of material on politics. Then look in the history section and try to count all the different kinds of governments that have existed since the beginning of recorded history. Yet you think you can sum it all up with something as simple as a line? The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal wants things to change and the conservative wants things to stay the same. I don't know how you came up with your extrapolations to socialism, anarchy and facism, but I can make a guess that it probably -didn't- come from a source of any authority or education. The fact is that the government incorporates many aspects of just about every political ideology. For example, our medical and educational systems are partially socialized; the infrastructure is run under a mostly collectivistic system; the military works best under fascism; etc, etc. So for you to sit there and slap everyone with your simplistic labels does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance. snip 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. Votes that were "suddenly" found...... Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible. Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then found. They could have also been planted. I don't think so. The press contacted some of the people whose ballots were lost, people who voted for both parties, and they were all quite ****ed off. And I doubt that you heard enough of the facts surrounding the incident to reach that conclusion. But if you prefer to believe the less likely scenario that the votes were planted then that's your right: "You have the constitutional right to be stupid." -- Gov. Ventura 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. Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a close election. ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not- because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his favor...... what a weiner! Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of republicans. It sounds typical of any Democrat -or- Republican that can't accept defeat. They are now all over the TV begging the public to initiate a revote. Check this out: www.revotewa.com The reason for it is bogus: If there election was flawed then the fault was with the system; so until those faults are corrected there can be no valid revote. The petition is nothing more than an request to hold another flawed election in hopes that the result will favor Rossi. But I do agree with the private contest that the results are invalid because they are within the margin of error. If that holds up in court then the legislature should hold an emergency session to establish some uniform ballot rules and -then- hold a second election. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source. It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here for many decades and has been used by both sides. You didn't answer the question, Dave. Let's try it again: Were ballot boxes stuffed in Washington? And yes, I most certainly do consider the possibility that voter fraud occurs -- where have you been for this entire conversation? And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud. I don't -automatically assume- any such thing. I came to that conclusion because the voting statistics demonstrate a very high probability that the extra votes favor Bush. And you -still- didn't answer the question: Do you think 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and fraudulent counting. Agreed. One was trying to cancel the effects of the other. Cite your source. snip I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted? To the left. That much is obvious. You're a liberal. I guess the democratic party isn't pink enough yet. So I'm liberal because I happen to be concerned about free and open elections? No, you're a liberal because you support Nader. I support Nader and every other third-party candidate, be they liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, or from any other ideology (with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche, for obvious reasons). But I -don't- support the two-party cartel that currently exists in our government. The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!) Are you denying that you are a liberal? I'm not a liberal -- I'm an American. And no, I'm not a fascist, simply a conservative. Thanks for the clarification. From now on I will use the label you have placed upon yourself. snip 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. Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944? Try 1876. Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political machines" were coming of age. Try 1876. snip Official military records are "leftist propoganda"? Which records? Kerry's military records? Oh that 's right, he refused to release them all. You mean the records that say his other records (the records that -were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents that are part of his military record? You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing records have some sort of security issue. And you assume that they have some sort of sinister information that could implicate him as a communist spy or something worse. What's the difference between the two assumptions? One is reasonable, the other is paranoid fantasy. That may not be the case. They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a not so favorable light. NASA may be withholding photos that show alien habitation on Mars, the CIA may have flying saucers in Area 51, and George H. W. Bush may be a hermaphrodite. All three allegations have some foundation in fact: NASA withheld some photos from Mars probes, UFOs have been seen at Area 51, and Bush Sr. giggles like a girl. So what foundation do you have for -your- allegation? Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to their nature. Neither do you. But I tend to believe ......uh oh that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Then post your SSN to this newsgroup. The fact that he refused to release his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his, Cite your source that says; a) Bush released -all- his records, and b) he was -forced- to release all his records. suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them, then he could just say that, but he didn't. People lie, right? If there was something sinister in those records he could have simply said that the subject matter was a security risk, or that they were medical records. You still haven't provided any reason to believe that those records were in any way incriminating. So the only clue you have as to what they are (other than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel free to answer the question -- let 'er rip! The fact that they remain sealed says more. The fact that they remain sealed says nothing more than that they remain sealed. You don't know what's in those records any more than I do. Yet you choose to speculate that they contain some damning and incriminating information. On what do you base your speculation, Dave? Your own "belief"? Are you a proponent of "faith-based justice"? So if someone goes to court for a crime, the burden of proof no longer rests with the prosecution? Proof of guilt is decided by a jury based only on the allegation and the silence of the defendant? Guilty until proven innocent? Have you never heard of the 5th Amendment? Or is that another one of those "liberal" concepts that leaves a bad taste in your mouth? I'll ask this again, Dave: Are you a fascist? snip Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot: The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago. Well, yes it does because the issue is still fresh and the direct results can still be rectified if needed. The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW. That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you have no factual information to back up. You got me there, Dave. Now, how about providing some facts to back up -your- accusations and speculations? If you can't then I would expect you to do as I did and concede any such issue you can't back up with facts. Can you do that? snip But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic "machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics" to attribute to it. Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio? There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened before, A fact I never denied. and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on this issue. Voting fraud has been around a lot longer than the Democratic party, Dave. In fact, it's been around almost as long as elections! Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election. What it will do is push for uniform voting standards, laws prohibiting conflict of interests for voting officials, better accountability for tabulation errors, etc, etc. IOW, a more fair and equitable election system that's less suseptible to fraud. Is that such a bad thing? Or is it just a bad thing when the candidate you voted for might be implicated? There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. The only problem with that scenario is that the state's voting records have already been examined and indicate nothing on the scale that's found in Ohio. It's true that many people are trying to make this a Bush/Kerry issue, but I'm not. You can keep claiming I am, but like I said before, claims don't suddenly become true just because you repeat them enough times. If identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor, then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be subjected to some scrutiny. Who said they -weren't- subjected to scrutiny? They were. You can bet that analysts have crunched the numbers from -all- the states if for no other reason than to work the demographics for the next election. As I said before, the percentage of victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get bored when you stand in line for that long). So you have your own version of an "exit poll". Congratulations. So why should I accept -your- exit poll data as fact and ignore the official exit poll data that CNN refuses to release? Oh, that's right, you have some sort of sixth sense regarding the truth, huh? The breakdown of a county by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue (80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded" with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same. Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud? http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/969 The reason you hear most about Ohio (but not from the "liberal" media) is because most Bush supporters are content with the results of the election, fraud or not. Does that make sense to you? snip I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their voting precinct. I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)? I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in the past. Excellent! We have found some common ground! The problem ......oh no is that many people are real paranoid about using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity. I'll buy that. If people want to stand up and be counted they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and be counted. snip The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed, have they not? I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more effectively, but I believe that they're still there. Possibly. The question is to what extent. We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is reduce the chance that it can happen in the future. Again, we find common ground. 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; Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured. Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got over 15,000 hits. Here's just one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that statement in the context that he would use his company's voting machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's should not promote any party affiliation? As if he would publically state, "I intend to manipulate the tabulation of votes with software so it favors Bush". Revisit "conflict of interest". The machines and software should be available for inspection, but the judge (the one who refused to recuse himself) would not allow it. 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. Interesting that in those places were voting machines were "shorted", were handled by democrats. They have only themselves to blame if they were not able to accommodate their constituency. You simply -refuse- to look at the other side of the coin, don't you? Why should I? You're doing enough for both of us. I'm trying, but you only seem to be reading from one side of your monitor. It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned, which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the deposition he evaded. How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to blame if they short changed their constituents. Wrong: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/917 That's just one example. There were plenty more. Are you ever going to read these articles? Or would you rather make me post them one by one as you continue to make inaccurate statements? snip 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? One word: Liberal. Three other words: Redistribution of wealth. That's called "collectivism", not "liberalism". It's time you learned the difference. They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I provided, and do some searching for yourself. I read the link and responed appropriately. I invoke that same response here. It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Many of those "safety net" social programs are not only necessary, but designed to prevent more costly problems in the future. Such as AIDS, smoking, and other health information campaigns designed to take the burden away from Social Security and other medical programs that end up flipping the bill. And you seem somewhat biased in your accusations: After all, it was Clinton who instituted some overdue welfare changes such as work initiative programs. OTOH, Bush is responsible for that drug discount card fiasco which is basically just government subsidation of drug companies at the expense of the elderly, while at the same time he has cut vet benefits to the point where they are almost nonexistent. So if there's any redistribution of wealth being done it's done by both sides. Which side you favor depends on who gets the wealth -- you, or someone who needs it. snip Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you defending Bush. Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention. Then prove me wrong and provide the thread. Here's one. There are plenty mo http://tinyurl.com/4c37f http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect me to ever have seen it? You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal. Are you denying that you are a liberal? Bad spin, Dave. You will begin to heal only after you learn to admit your mistakes. And don't squirm out of it by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did, as Twisty can attest. Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought better of you Frank. Common cause. I still don't agree with his position regarding illegal radio, but we have agreed to suspend those disagreements pending a resolution to a much more immediate and important issue: Bush and the Vulcans. snip If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups, how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it? Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the past? Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on outside of this group. But I -did- voice my support of Bush in this venue, as I cited in the link above. Are you now going to try and escape your error by saying the post wasn't directed at you, or that you were on vacation, or some other lame excuse? You didn't check your facts before you ran your mouth. That's -your- fault, Dave. Not mine. You jumped to your conclusion without all the facts. Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this newsgroup only. You screwed up, you can't admit it, and you can't vindicate yourself by pulling an ex-post-facto excuse. And the facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the facts, right? You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB. Yeah, it's just too much effort to find the facts. Your "belief" system is so much easier, isn't it, Dave? Maybe you think we keep tabs on each other? Maybe I'm the odd-ball in that respect, as I don't. The difference is that I, unlike you, don't make claims or accusations unless I have the facts to back them up. Most of which you have yet to show. Most of which you have yet to verify for yourself and accept that they are in contradiction with your beliefs. snip I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda. The truth remains that Kerry refused to release ALL of his military records. What's he hiding? You claimed he didn't get his honorable discharge until 2001 which was a totally fabricated lie. And you can't even admit it. So now you focus on records he didn't release without a shred of evidence that they hold anything of importance to you. What was that you said earlier about suspicion and political bias.....? I read about his honorable discharge. That was only one element of a number of suspicious activities that Kerry was involved in during and post Vietnam which may have served to undermine this country's efforts in the war, including two trips to France, to meet with the N. Vietnamese representatives, in a capacity not authorized by our government. One step at a time: Is it your opinion that the available records are phoney? If not, is there something in those records that makes you think he did not receive an honorable discharge in 1978 as opposed to 2001 as you first claimed? A better question might be if you actually read the documents yourself, but that would be silly..... you wouldn't make such damning accusations without first verifying the facts for yourself, would you Dave? Once we clear -that- up we can move on to your next accusation, which would be his "suspicious activities" after the war, and then his visit with NV officials. But first things first. Honorable discharge in 1978: yes or no? And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out of touch with current political issues. Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are? http://tinyurl.com/6mf8m Maybe you shouldn't even be having this conversation with me -- but what the hell, a little ignorance never stopped you before, right? It hasn't stopped you. No it hasn't -- your ignorance is what fuels this conversation. snip A skilled debater can take either side in a debate and make valid points. But this isn't a debate for the sake of debate style points. This is a debate driven by personal feelings. Maybe for you. My motivation happens to be preservation of the concept of a democratic system of government. By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten those concepts? Saddam didn't pose any real threat to our country or democratic process -- both would have survived despite any efforts by him. OTOH, Bush & Co. are a very -real- threat to the democratic process for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the level and scope of voting fraud that has been uncovered in this past election. I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain communist ideals. Most liberals are. Again with the labels..... And you haven't yet denied them. But I have. You weren't listening. You were too busy tending to your "beliefs". FYI, this country has adopted ideals from just about every political process ever conceived, including Marxism, communisim, socialism and fascism. Some are good and some are bad. No ****. No one system is "pure". There'e theory and there's practice. Communism, in theory, is a "utopian" or perfect society. When put in practice, it fails miserably. But as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion. By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly ill-informed opinion? You snipped the source from your reply. You mean the official military records (in your words, "crap") that were released by the Pentagon? Why yes, that's exactly where I got my facts. Yet you, in your unbridled wisdom, want the Pentagon to release more "crap" when you can't even accept the facts from the "crap" that was already released (from the same source). If the first load of "crap" was phoney, what makes you think a second load of "crap" is going to be any more legitimate? Or if you think that second load of "crap" is going to provide you with facts then why can't you accept the facts from the first load of "crap"? That's a load of crap, Dave, and you are a very confused person. Without the entire record, the context of what is available is compromised, and erroneous conclusions could be made. http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf Notice the header: "Encl: (1) Honorable Discharge Certificate" Is that compromised? Is it an "erroneous conclusion"? How much "context" do you need? snip 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? Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded" through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates" Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this latest voter fraud cry. Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing but a disingenuous quest for power? That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain political clout, it shows where their priorities are. That can be said for both parties, and in that respect I agree with it completely. But I wouldn't apply it to everyone in the political arena, nor would I apply it to all Republicans or all Democrats. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. Just because a person may be a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, that doesn't automatically render judgement on that person. That every act is motivated by a self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half as well as you think you do. Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact Cynicism most definitely has -you- by the balls. FYI, there are quite a few people in the political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and not their wallets. Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone of a school board. I'm talking about the big time. Off the top of my head? Colin Powell. Bill Frist. Bob Dole. John McCain. Need more names? In almost every case, when a government representative does something seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine. There is some truth in that statement, but it's certainly not a rule of thumb. Your implication is that politicians cannot have honorable intentions. But many do. Some of them lose those intentions after getting caught in the quagmire, but some don't. Some appear to have alternative intentions but are forced to "deal with the devil" on occasion (which I think may be the rule in politics regardless of intent). But they are still people and there are many good people in this world. Maybe you have lost sight of that. Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic. What, and blind myself to reality? Contrary to the opinion of some, you -can- have ideals and be realistic at the same time. You just have to keep yourself balanced. snip 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. By voting for a liberal who's core ideals contain the notion that the government should assume a greater role as society's "nanny"? The 'liberal' label was assigned by you, not me. Which you STILL have not denied. Oh, that's right -- you're a member of that "guilty until proven innocent" jury. If you're such a student of the constitution, you should know that the government was never intended to do anything more than protect , facilitate and represent our interests in the world market. Oh my dear God..... where in the hell did you get your education? That response deserves it's own thread. What so I can prove you wrong yet again? I'm tiring of this Frank. I'm not. Maybe your fatigue is your unconscious anxieties telling you that you should back off before you are forced to admit to yourself certain truths you have denied. In that case I would suggest you take a sabbatical to refresh yourself and assimilate what I have taught you in this discussion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:58:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:14:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left. No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite. Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations by people who used to work in them. So some people were slanted one way when they were working and slanted the other way when they quit. How credible is that? As credible as the claim that the mainstream news isn't biased. Check this out: In the past 20 years, millions have died in African wars and the media barely mentioned it. Yet during the same time period the media covered just about every little fistfight in the West Band and Gaza. Which way is -that- slanted, Dave? It is slanted toward the areas of interest to most Americans. It's no big secret to anyone who's been around the block a few times. Since the invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be, whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades another country is to shut down or take over the media. I would think that securing command and control centers would come first. Didn't I say, "ONE of the first objectives [plural]....."? There can only be ONE first objective. The rest descend from there. This reminds me of a manager that I once worked for, who assigned job priorities. When he started assigning several jobs to the "#1 priority", I asked him how he wanted us to prioritize the #1 priority. He wasn't amused...... This is because if they don't the media can be used against them by the defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by discouraging resistance. Lies work both ways. Now you're catching on. Considering that Saddam Hussein was a regular watcher of CNN, the military used to give out false information so that the media would unknowingly give this false info to Saddam, and he would plan accordingly, and then be surprised when we did something totally different. But this exposes just why close media coverage of a war zone is not really the best course of action. The enemy watches TV too..... The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of false information, that it automatically IS. Wrong. The proof is in the pudding. The media has intentionally spread misinformation to the public in the past, and there's no reason to think that they have stopped and won't do it again. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the claim that they do it all the time. But even so, it only makes second and third sourcing news through many different venues all that more important, if you want accuracy. But you need to be aware of the slant that exists in all sources of "news". There have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of illumination to the subject. And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page with documents that were also forged. You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used empirical observation? Careful here Frank..... I used the same criteria that was used to condemn the CBS documents. You can't invalidate one without invalidating both. You are not skilled in those disciplines enough to make that claim with any credibility. You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with no more credibility. Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant. By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can see the slant there. Those were official military records, not "claims". The only slant was in a story intended to misinform people who where either uneducated about military records, too lazy to read the records for themselves, or too willing to accept the story without scrutiny. So which category did you trip into, Dave? I'm of the thought that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. He's holding back records. Why? Perhaps the answers to those questions are contained within them. snip Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers? People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts for themselves. Most of the time, the only verification you can find are other sources which are just as credible (or not) as the original source. Then what have you proved? The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more than a different, but equally questionable, source. You are still unable to differentiate fact from an opinion...... No, I just have a tighter standard for what I consider as "fact". A 'fact' is undisputed and/or undisputable. For example, the validity of Kerry's military records is undisputed. Did you see the original documents? Did you hold them in your hand? If not, how can you claim they are "indisputable"? But an 'opinion' can, and usually is, disputed. Staying with the same example, it is someone's opinion that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge until 2001. So the validity of the opinion is measured by weighing it against the facts. The facts are that Kerry's military service was characterized as honorable, and that he did indeed receive an "Honorable Discharge Certificate" upon completion of his military obligation in 1978. So the opinion is in contradiction to the facts and is therefore bogus. Assuming what you saw was not bogus. Now if you are going to dispute the source of the documents then you are either accusing the Pentagon of forgery or accusing the military of inappropriate conduct. Or the Kerry people who displayed them. Regardless, the allegation requires that the documents be both true and false at the same time. For example, if the DD-215 of 2001 was indeed Kerry's final discharge as claimed by your opinion, then the document must be false because it contains no such statement. And if the document is false then the claim that it marks the date of his final discharge is no longer valid. So -that- opinion is bogus. Is the fog beginning to clear yet? Your logic is sound, if each premise is true. THAT truth is what I dispute. snip LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that you don't understand it? I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests. Should that official recuse himself every time this happens? That's the generally accepted practice, and it's also the law in most states. It's done all the time in the courts. Judges often recuse themselves from a case because of some personal or business relationship with one of the parties. It's done to -prevent- any allegations of partiality. In Ohio there was a judge who refused to recuse himself from the contest hearings despite the fact that his own election could have been affected by his decision. That's a conflict of interests, and no doubt that decision will affect his career in the future. Also, there -is- evidence of impropriety in the Ohio election, as well as the recount and the contest. Well then have an independent agency audit the results. snip Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy being implicated, then you make up your own justifications). But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to make. Not when the vast majority of those illegal ballots DID benefit the Republicans. How do you know that? Have you a factual determination of which ballots were illegal, and of them, which ones were for republicans? snip You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What if they were Kerry plants? What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than voters? I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the fault of, and benefitted republicans. Not automatically. The fact is that the vast majority of the illegal ballots favored the Republicans. According to what data? If you think that Democrats committed voting fraud in order to benefit the Republican candidates then that's your problem. No, they committed fraud to help democratic candidates. Only it wasn't enough and Bush still won. snip Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias. Ok, here are the facts: First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were accidental. It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible. Statistical probability sometimes reaches a point so low that it can safely be assumed to be an impossibility. Such is the case with the Ohio election statistics. Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly Bush areas. But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore less suspicious. The recount was requested to determine if that was a possibility, but Blackwell didn't allow recount sampling in any suspected areas. Hence the contest. Right! So for the time being you don't KNOW for sure if the illegal ballots benefitted republicans. Any conclusions that you may now hold is based on pure speculation. Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always in districts that favored Kerry. And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say? Wrong. Most of them were run by Republicans. Regardless, the statewide election was run by Blackwell. It was his office that controlled the tabulation and certified the impossible results. "So what does that say?" Not according to my sources. The largest metro areas, where people complained about the lack of machines, were also the places where democrats ran the show. It stands to reason that democrats have their greatest power in metro areas. Those are the facts. You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the known evidence. The facts imply their own conclusion. If your neighbor is killed and they find the murder weapon under the front seat of your locked car, what do those facts imply? Of course if another fact comes to light that the real killer stashed the weapon in your car to frame you, then the picture changes. That's the danger of allowing incomplete data, no matter how factual, to form conclusions, before all valid possibilities are explored. If you think you can word them in a way that is any more objective then go for it. Otherwise, your opinions don't negate the facts. The facts are incomplete. And what fills in the gaps is pure speculation. Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his supporters. Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a history of doing it as well. Nobody is denying anything of the sort, and such a denial isn't required to reach the conclusion. But you -could- say that the Republicans were more effective at rigging the Ohio election than the Democrats and I wouldn't have any problem with that. Or that the democrats simply weren't effective enough. And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?). Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it for you? But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent logical fallacy to arrive at a single conclusion without considering other possibilities. First, you need to brush up on your logic. Not at all. Perhaps you would like to look it up. Second, it's a reasonable conclusion based on factual premeses. No matter how "reasonable" it may be (And the term reasonable is relative and open to speculation), as long as there are other possibilities which could make the logical statement true, you cannot responsibly make the claim one way or the other Third, if you reach a conclusion based on improbable scenarios (such as a conspiricy to cover up Kerry's military record) then the conclusion is, likewise, just as improbable. So have you spotted any UFOs lately? Yea, they're hovering over Tampa. Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged through the muck to before they realize it. You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same. Far from it. If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle, as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing", you have socialism and finally anarchy. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies. Here's an interesting link: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm Interesting, yes. It's also interesting how Rokeach's quantification of political ideology (assuming it can be done) differs from your own. Not at all. It's pretty much in line. At this point it's clear that you are quite confused and are seeking simplistic explanations for complex issues. Complex issues can be simplified to a degree with only a small loss of granularity. Not too much different in theory from digital audio compression. There is no "line" or chart you can draw to describe a political ideology. No, but you can compare the relative aspects of the different ideologies and place them on a line (or as the site shows) a two dimensional dual line. Go to the library and check out the vast amount of material on politics. Written, of course, by people who maybe have their own slant. You have to do a lot of reading to be able to form a barometer to judge. The problem is that the definitions of terms like "liberal" have changed over the years. I would be classified as a liberal by the oldest definition of the term. But by today's generally accepted political definitions, it almost the opposite. Then look in the history section and try to count all the different kinds of governments that have existed since the beginning of recorded history. Yet you think you can sum it all up with something as simple as a line? You can if you take the main points and catergorize them. You can complain that this may destroy some of the individual subtleties, but that's how it is done. You need to take this up with the people who do this. I'm only one who reads with interest. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal wants things to change and the conservative wants things to stay the same. That is overly simplistic and also somewhat obsolete in today's political climate. But the essence is true. The problem is the term change and what those changes involve and the question of whether those changes are good. Change for change sake is not a valid reason to push for change. New is not always better. Old is not always obsolete. I don't know how you came up with your extrapolations to socialism, anarchy and facism, but I can make a guess that it probably -didn't- come from a source of any authority or education. Based on what evidence? You saw the line from the site that I gave. Did it not illustrate the same thing as what I stated? If you want, I can dig up a bunch more. The fact is that the government incorporates many aspects of just about every political ideology. For example, our medical and educational systems are partially socialized; the infrastructure is run under a mostly collectivistic system; the military works best under fascism; etc, etc. You are right about one thing, the medical system IS partially socialized, on the demand side. One of the main reasons why costs are skyrocketing is due to socializing the demand side while allowing the free market to control the supply side. The two don't mix. The failure of public schools can also be somewhat attributed to the socialized structure of the teachers. There is no motivation to "better" oneself, once "tenure" is obtained. The school boards are more concerned with self preservation than they are with education. That's why I support private vouchers. So for you to sit there and slap everyone with your simplistic labels does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance. There is not enough bandwidth and I don't have enough time to get into a deep multi-faceted discussion of the nuances of political ideologies. It's also outside the subject matter of this newsgroup. So simple will have to suffice for now. Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible. Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then found. They could have also been planted. I don't think so. Key word: "think" The press contacted some of the people whose ballots were lost, people who voted for both parties, and they were all quite ****ed off. As they should be. And I doubt that you heard enough of the facts surrounding the incident to reach that conclusion. It IS a distinct possibility especially when you consider the past history of these practices. But if you prefer to believe the less likely scenario that the votes were planted then that's your right: Keeping an open mind is less preferable to jumping to conclusions? 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. Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a close election. ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not- because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his favor...... what a weiner! Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of republicans. It sounds typical of any Democrat -or- Republican that can't accept defeat. Like Al Gore? They are now all over the TV begging the public to initiate a revote. Check this out: www.revotewa.com The reason for it is bogus: If there election was flawed then the fault was with the system; so until those faults are corrected there can be no valid revote. The petition is nothing more than an request to hold another flawed election in hopes that the result will favor Rossi. I can't argue with that logic. You are correct. But I suspect they will claim to have "fixed" many of the problems. But I do agree with the private contest that the results are invalid because they are within the margin of error. If that holds up in court then the legislature should hold an emergency session to establish some uniform ballot rules and -then- hold a second election. That sounds like the reasonable course of action. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source. It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here for many decades and has been used by both sides. You didn't answer the question, Dave. Let's try it again: Were ballot boxes stuffed in Washington? There would seem to be some evidence to suggest that, since the vote count was higher than the number of registered voters. And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud. I don't -automatically assume- any such thing. I came to that conclusion because the voting statistics demonstrate a very high probability that the extra votes favor Bush. Because he won? And you -still- didn't answer the question: Do you think 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? It's suggestive of fraud. There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and fraudulent counting. Agreed. One was trying to cancel the effects of the other. Cite your source. Past experience with political machines. I'm not stating it as a matter of fact, only as a distinct possibility. The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!) Are you denying that you are a liberal? I'm not a liberal -- I'm an American. Cop out answer. Actually, I expected you to claim to be a "moderate". I'll take that as a affirmation of my original suspicion. What is it with some of you liberals? So many seem to be ashamed to admit what you feel, as if the term liberal is like holy water to a vampire. I'm PROUD to be a conservative. I know some liberals who are also proud of their affiliation. So why are so many other so reluctant to admit it? And no, I'm not a fascist, simply a conservative. Thanks for the clarification. From now on I will use the label you have placed upon yourself. I am not ashamed to be a conservative. snip 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. Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944? Try 1876. Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political machines" were coming of age. Try 1876. Like I said, whatever works for you. But the original question stands. Why wasn't it fixed in 1876? The answer would seem to be that they just weren't interested enough, or plainly didn't want to. You mean the records that say his other records (the records that -were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents that are part of his military record? You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing records have some sort of security issue. And you assume that they have some sort of sinister information that could implicate him as a communist spy or something worse. What's the difference between the two assumptions? One is reasonable, the other is paranoid fantasy. And why would you think that? They are BOTH reasonable. If in fact it was a security issue, as you assume, he would have claimed such. That may not be the case. They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a not so favorable light. NASA may be withholding photos that show alien habitation on Mars, the CIA may have flying saucers in Area 51, and George H. W. Bush may be a hermaphrodite. All three allegations have some foundation in fact: NASA withheld some photos from Mars probes, UFOs have been seen at Area 51, and Bush Sr. giggles like a girl. So what foundation do you have for -your- allegation? If you have nothing to hide, then why hide? You're getting silly now. Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to their nature. Neither do you. But I tend to believe .....uh oh that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Then post your SSN to this newsgroup. There's no need for me to do that. The fact that he refused to release his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his, Cite your source that says; a) Bush released -all- his records, and b) he was -forced- to release all his records. Any news source from the time. suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them, then he could just say that, but he didn't. People lie, right? If there was something sinister in those records he could have simply said that the subject matter was a security risk, or that they were medical records. You still haven't provided any reason to believe that those records were in any way incriminating. A lie by omission. So the only clue you have as to what they are (other than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel free to answer the question -- let 'er rip! The fact that they remain sealed says more. The fact that they remain sealed says nothing more than that they remain sealed. You don't know what's in those records any more than I do. Yet you choose to speculate that they contain some damning and incriminating information. On what do you base your speculation, Dave? The why hide them, especially after the public outcry that Bush release his FULL records (After which there was STILL speculation that he was withholding some of them) Your own "belief"? Are you a proponent of "faith-based justice"? So if someone goes to court for a crime, the burden of proof no longer rests with the prosecution? Proof of guilt is decided by a jury based only on the allegation and the silence of the defendant? Guilty until proven innocent? Have you never heard of the 5th Amendment? Or is that another one of those "liberal" concepts that leaves a bad taste in your mouth? You twist the facts almost as well as twisty. I don't need a jury verdict to hold a belief. Neither do you. Should I call you a fascist because you want to believe that republicans committed fraud before all the facts are known? snip Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot: The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago. Well, yes it does because the issue is still fresh and the direct results can still be rectified if needed. You could make the same statement after every election. And the beat goes on....... The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW. That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you have no factual information to back up. You got me there, Dave. Now, how about providing some facts to back up -your- accusations and speculations? If you can't then I would expect you to do as I did and concede any such issue you can't back up with facts. Can you do that? Sure. But it's fun considering the possibilities. snip But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic "machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics" to attribute to it. Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio? There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened before, A fact I never denied. Past performance sets a precedent. and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on this issue. Voting fraud has been around a lot longer than the Democratic party, Dave. In fact, it's been around almost as long as elections! I'm sure the Romans had their issues. But then they executed their criminals on the spot. Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election. What it will do is push for uniform voting standards, laws prohibiting conflict of interests for voting officials, better accountability for tabulation errors, etc, etc. IOW, a more fair and equitable election system that's less suseptible to fraud. Is that such a bad thing? No, it would be a GREAT thing. But you have to acknowledge the likely motivating force, no matter what potential benefit arises from it. There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. The only problem with that scenario is that the state's voting records have already been examined and indicate nothing on the scale that's found in Ohio. Because no one has forced a recount. The margin of victory was not small enough to trigger an automatic recount, and no one from the republican side (Why would they, they won the overall election) wanted to force the issue. It's true that many people are trying to make this a Bush/Kerry issue, but I'm not. You can keep claiming I am, but like I said before, claims don't suddenly become true just because you repeat them enough times. Your motivations may be more honorable than the people who are screaming the loudest, but it doesn't deny the underlying reason for all the hoopla. Otherwise why not in Pa.? If identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor, then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be subjected to some scrutiny. Who said they -weren't- subjected to scrutiny? They were. You can bet that analysts have crunched the numbers from -all- the states if for no other reason than to work the demographics for the next election. Without a recount, then how valid are those numbers? How would this be any different than what's happening in Ohio? As I said before, the percentage of victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get bored when you stand in line for that long). So you have your own version of an "exit poll". Congratulations. So why should I accept -your- exit poll data as fact and ignore the official exit poll data that CNN refuses to release? Oh, that's right, you have some sort of sixth sense regarding the truth, huh? I personally witnessed my "exit poll", therefore I know it to be fact. At least with regard to my district. The point is that with so many republican suburbanites turning out in record numbers (hence my 3 hour wait), it becomes harder to consider the almost total reversal in the large cities. The breakdown of a county by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue (80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded" with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same. Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud? http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/969 The reason you hear most about Ohio (but not from the "liberal" media) is because most Bush supporters are content with the results of the election, fraud or not. Does that make sense to you? Very much. Thank you for making my point for me. The democrats are obviously not interested in exposing their own dirty deeds, and the republicans are content with the overall results of the election, so there is no motivation in those other states. The fact that it is happening with such zeal in Ohio is that it is being driven by "sour grapes" politics, under the guise of "concern" for voter fraud. snip I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their voting precinct. I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)? I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in the past. Excellent! We have found some common ground! The problem .....oh no is that many people are real paranoid about using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity. I'll buy that. If people want to stand up and be counted they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and be counted. Thank you. We have indeed found some common ground. But those paranoias that I spoke of, are the main reasons why something so painfully simple isn't being implemented. Curiously though, it seems to be the city democrats who howl the loudest about this. They pitched a fit when they heard that some precincts were asking for I.D. and started accusing (or course) repulicans of fostering "disenfranchisement". snip The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed, have they not? I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more effectively, but I believe that they're still there. Possibly. The question is to what extent. We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is reduce the chance that it can happen in the future. Again, we find common ground. It's not hard. While we may never see politics in the same way, we both want elections to be fair. Otherwise why bother? 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; Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured. Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got over 15,000 hits. Here's just one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that statement in the context that he would use his company's voting machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's should not promote any party affiliation? As if he would publically state, "I intend to manipulate the tabulation of votes with software so it favors Bush". Revisit "conflict of interest". The machines and software should be available for inspection, but the judge (the one who refused to recuse himself) would not allow it. The software should be available for audit. That is only fair. Once again, when things are hidden, it implies that there is something (usually not good) to hide. It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned, which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the deposition he evaded. How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to blame if they short changed their constituents. Wrong: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/917 That's just one example. There were plenty more. I'd like to see something from something other than an obviously slanted news source. They have their own agenda, and I don't trust what they say to be 100% factually accurate. I've read other sources that claimed that the inner city election boards were run by democrats (I don't pull these things out of my butt) which makes sense knowing the political demographics of the typical cities. Are you ever going to read these articles? Or would you rather make me post them one by one as you continue to make inaccurate statements? I question the bias of your "source", so it's a moot point to continue to cite them. They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I provided, and do some searching for yourself. I read the link and responed appropriately. I invoke that same response here. It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Many of those "safety net" social programs are not only necessary, but designed to prevent more costly problems in the future. That is a matter of much debate. This country got by without most of them for a the first 150+ years, there's no reason to think we need them now. Such as AIDS, Keep it in your pants. No problem. smoking, Don't smoke. Plain and simple. and other health information campaigns designed to take the burden away from Social Security and other medical programs that end up flipping the bill. If we change it so that these programs no longer pay the bill then the problem is solved. And you seem somewhat biased in your accusations: After all, it was Clinton who instituted some overdue welfare changes such as work initiative programs. Only after it became clear that with a republican majority in congress, which BTW, had been championing welfare reform for years, that Clinton had better go with the flow. Clinton is a man with a large ego, and he was much more concerned with his legacy, and he learned to "play ball". If you look at his terms, he became much more moderate after the republicans took over congress. OTOH, Bush is responsible for that drug discount card fiasco which is basically just government subsidation of drug companies at the expense of the elderly, while at the same time he has cut vet benefits to the point where they are almost nonexistent. Being both a fiscal and social conservative, I found that Bush's example of kow-towing to liberal democratic issues (For obvious political reasons) to be irresponsible and deplorable. We will never lower medical costs as long as someone continues to subsidize the demand side without controlling the supply side costs. So if there's any redistribution of wealth being done it's done by both sides. Which side you favor depends on who gets the wealth -- you, or someone who needs it. I want to keep what I earn. Plain and simple. snip Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you defending Bush. Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention. Then prove me wrong and provide the thread. Here's one. There are plenty mo http://tinyurl.com/4c37f Uh, Frank, Unless I'm blind, there is no spot in that thread where you defended Bush other than listing other administrations which were "guilty" of similar "atrocities" that simple minded people like Twisty think just started up with GWB. I guess you could claim that by doing that, you somehow "validate" Bush's actions. But it's a weak endorsement. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect me to ever have seen it? You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal. Are you denying that you are a liberal? Bad spin, Dave. You will begin to heal only after you learn to admit your mistakes. I haven't made one. You have yet to deny that you are a liberal. And don't squirm out of it by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did, as Twisty can attest. Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought better of you Frank. Common cause. I still don't agree with his position regarding illegal radio, but we have agreed to suspend those disagreements pending a resolution to a much more immediate and important issue: Bush and the Vulcans. You should pick better allies. He couldn't find a clue if it was stapled to his forehead. snip If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups, how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it? Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the past? Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on outside of this group. But I -did- voice my support of Bush in this venue, as I cited in the link above. That was hardly a glowing endorsement. You were more concerned with slamming twisty's paranoia (A fun game BTW), than in giving Bush the thumbs up with his politics. Are you now going to try and escape your error by saying the post wasn't directed at you, or that you were on vacation, or some other lame excuse? You didn't check your facts before you ran your mouth. That's -your- fault, Dave. Not mine. You need to post something a little more substantive. I didn't see a defense of Bush as much as I saw a counter of twisty's allegations. But interestingly enough, you have turned a 180 and are now condemning the same guy you claimed to have "defended", and are now aligning with the same idiot who you "defended" Bush to. Talk about duplicity...... Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this newsgroup only. You screwed up, you can't admit it, and you can't vindicate yourself by pulling an ex-post-facto excuse. I didn't screw up. I still have yet to see you post a true defense of Bush's policies in this newsgroup. And the facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the facts, right? You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB. Yeah, it's just too much effort to find the facts. Your "belief" system is so much easier, isn't it, Dave? When you are keyed in to the main players, it's not as much a game of facts but of behaviors and patterns. But first things first. Honorable discharge in 1978: yes or no? No. And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out of touch with current political issues. Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are? http://tinyurl.com/6mf8m A term coined by yet another washington insider "tell all" rag. Like I said, the paper never refuses ink. Since you like this sort of stuff, you should love this : http://www.newamericancentury.org/ By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten those concepts? Saddam didn't pose any real threat to our country or democratic process -- both would have survived despite any efforts by him. That's a myopic viewpoint based on insufficient evidence. OTOH, Bush & Co. are a very -real- threat to the democratic process for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the level and scope of voting fraud that has been uncovered in this past election. A poor link. You make the erroneous assumption that voting fraud (Which you acknowledged earlier has been around for as long as elections) is now somehow the brainchild of Bush and Cheney who must have some secret aspirations of ruling the world. I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain communist ideals. Most liberals are. Again with the labels..... And you haven't yet denied them. But I have. You weren't listening. You were too busy tending to your "beliefs". You never denied that you were a liberal. You gave a lame non-answer. I'm an American too. That's a fact of birth. But I'm also a conservative. as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion. By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly ill-informed opinion? You snipped the source from your reply. Then you should remove it, since it's wrong. Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded" through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates" Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this latest voter fraud cry. Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing but a disingenuous quest for power? That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain political clout, it shows where their priorities are. That can be said for both parties, and in that respect I agree with it completely. But I wouldn't apply it to everyone in the political arena, nor would I apply it to all Republicans or all Democrats. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. Just because a person may be a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, that doesn't automatically render judgement on that person. No, but then again, I'm not talking about individual politicians, I'm referring to parties in general. As I'm sure you're aware, one contrary statistic does not invalidate the rule. That every act is motivated by a self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half as well as you think you do. Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact Cynicism most definitely has -you- by the balls. It comes with playing the game for too long. You get to see the ugly side of humanity. Then you realize that it shows itself way too easily in some circles. FYI, there are quite a few people in the political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and not their wallets. Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone of a school board. I'm talking about the big time. Off the top of my head? Colin Powell. Bill Frist. Bob Dole. John McCain. Need more names? And you know for sure that none of these individuals have someone's hands in their pockets? Sure there are politicians who have done some really good things for their constituents. But there's a difference in motivation between true altruism, and doing it for the political points that it would bring, or the money that it might bring to the party. In almost every case, when a government representative does something seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine. There is some truth in that statement, but it's certainly not a rule of thumb. It's more true that you are either aware of, or are unwilling to admit. Your implication is that politicians cannot have honorable intentions. But many do. Yes, some do, especially when they're juniors, before the temptation of corruption sets in. Some of them lose those intentions after getting caught in the quagmire, but some don't. Some appear to have alternative intentions but are forced to "deal with the devil" on occasion (which I think may be the rule in politics regardless of intent). But they are still people and there are many good people in this world. Maybe you have lost sight of that. I tend to believe that absent laws and punishments to deter, that most people will do whatever they feel they need to do to accomplish their goals. Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic. What, and blind myself to reality? Contrary to the opinion of some, you -can- have ideals and be realistic at the same time. You just have to keep yourself balanced. It's a tough thing, when reality stomps on idealism with increasing regularity. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : These posts are getting too big. I did read your entire reply, and except for the parts where we found common ground, there was little content that wasn't obviously flawed. So I snipped the common ground as well as your nit-picking, blatant denials, selective snipping, and hypocritical criteria for the determination of fact: Contrary to the opinion of some, you -can- have ideals and be realistic at the same time. You just have to keep yourself balanced. It's a tough thing, when reality stomps on idealism with increasing regularity. Idealism motivates change. And things do change whether you like it or not. Whether those changes work in your favor or not is dependent upon how willing you are to accept those changes and the idealism that motivates them. Now if there is any topic you feel needs to be addressed then feel free to reply again using a -rational- argument. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. ----== 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 =--- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted, with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening again. Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those discrepancies are resolved. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:43:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted, with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening again. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud (and at this point that appears to be the case) then there -should- be changes made. But as far as a new election, why bother when Rossi doesn't even want the job? Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those discrepancies are resolved. If that's the case then Gore should be in office, not Bush. And while I may not like Bush, I -really- don't like the idea of Gore taking the helm after watching his tantrums during the 2000 election. Same deal with Rossi. And yes, that's just my opinion. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
N3CVJ wrote:
I tend to believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I'm a conservative. If you actually believed that bull****, you would be a nudist. If someone has nothing to hide, then why would they fear anything? And of course if they do have something to hide, we would want the government to know. After all, this is how the Jews lived in Nazi Germany, the Ukrainians lived in the Soviet Empire, and how the Chinese peasants lived under Emperor Mao. Of course, Davie's nazi doctrine he adheres to is a well known slogan of oppressive totalitarian regimes throughout history and is fascist, something he confuses with extreme radical conservatism. "One who would give up essential liberty obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither" B. Franklin "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" T. Jefferson |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
How to improve reception | Equipment |