NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=1278&e=4&u=/ap/20050105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/electoral_vote

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In a move that I can't fathom, House Democrats are trying to eliminate Ohio's Electoral Vote.

They need one Senator to sign this and so far no takers though rumor on the vine has it that Senator Boxer (D CA) is leaning heavily towards signing it.

This will seriously damage the democratic party. Not only will they lose this but lose it badly. Even IF they succeed in doing this, the US House will vote and Bush has the necessary number of State Delegations to win the election anyway and Cheney will win the US Senate.

What are these Democrats doing?

This makes me glad I vote the way I do!

They're doing their best to try to prove the election fraud, I believe. Frankly, I'm all for it, if it means that the true winner of the election will take the stand on January 20th.

They're doing their best to try to prove the election fraud, I believe. Frankly, I'm all for it, if it means that the true winner of the election will take the stand on January 20th.

I concur.

Has anyone seen Farenheit 9/11?

They're doing their best to try to prove the election fraud, I believe. Frankly, I'm all for it, if it means that the true winner of the election will take the stand on January 20th.

But there isn't any! If there was massive voter fraud, it would've came out long before now!

But there isn't any! If there was massive voter fraud, it would've came out long before now!
Yes, there is. You don't know about it because it's being suppressed by the media, but if you listen to the BBC, you'd know all about the massive amount of proof gathered by organizations looking into it. And before you just shrug off the BBC as liberal spam, know this: a lot of other foreign networks are also airing the stories.
Thing is, it's out there; you just need to open your eyes and ears to more than our own media.

We will NEVER have an election without massive pissing and moaning from the losing side now.

"Bush's uncle's dog's long lost puppy pissed on my lawn that day! HE MUST BE COMMITTING A CONSPIRACY! AHHHHHHHH!"

Yes, there is. You don't know about it because it's being suppressed by the media, but if you listen to the BBC, you'd know all about the massive amount of proof gathered by organizations looking into it. And before you just shrug off the BBC as liberal spam, know this: a lot of other foreign networks are also airing the stories.
Thing is, it's out there; you just need to open your eyes and ears to more than our own media.

I read BBC, CBC, CTV, and MSNBC among others.
Haven't seen any stories on valid claims of fraud.

I read BBC, CBC, CTV, and MSNBC among others.
Haven't seen any stories on valid claims of fraud.
I've been listening to the BBC and I've been hearing about it this whole time; not sure what you've been reading.

I've been listening to the BBC and I've been hearing about it this whole time; not sure what you've been reading.

Link me up with these stories you speak of.

Yes, there is. You don't know about it because it's being suppressed by the media, but if you listen to the BBC, you'd know all about the massive amount of proof gathered by organizations looking into it. And before you just shrug off the BBC as liberal spam, know this: a lot of other foreign networks are also airing the stories.

Oh the BBC! We should take our cues from a FOREIGN NETWORK??? This is America! It WOULD NOT be surpressed because the OTHERSIDE wouldn't let it be surpressed. I think you underestimate both parties. Both sides have the media be it radio, tv, or newspaper to get it out there. I've listened to alot of major tv and radio stations, both liberal and conservative and NOT ONE have mentioned this.

Thing is, it's out there; you just need to open your eyes and ears to more than our own media.

I won't trust Foreign Press! The information can get out there. Both sides know how to get the information out there and I know that they will. Hell Kerry didn't think there was enough of it to pursue it further.

Link me up with these stories you speak of.
I don't have any links; I've been listening soley to the radio and catching the occasional peice from the TV. I wish I had links, though; it would back up what I claim.

I'm betting they are inflated! Kerry himseld didn't think there was enough voter irregularities to warrent anything. If he did, don't you think the fight would've gone on?

He conceded because he knew he wasn't going to win.

Bush won Kerry Lost! The election is over.

You guys are missing the boat here. This is not about reversing the results of the election. Kerry has conceded. He conceded before any recounts. He did not piss and moan.

This issue here is about the miscarriage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and about the distribution of voting machines and other enfranchisement issues.

Nobody's looking to reverse the outcomes here, rather they're looking to ensure that we can hold an election where votes are counted fair and square. I'm not happy Bush won, but I'm less happy about the prospect of folks getting their registration forms torn up or about the prospect of digital gerrymandering by concentrating your electronic voting machines in certain areas while subjecting other areas to more complicated or less reliable systems.

If you don't have this sort of oversight, the election process becomes more vulnerable to manipulation.

What are these Democrats doing?


It's called "civil disobedience". An institution that, without which, this country wouldn't even exist in the first place.

Get over it, bubba. People are allowed to fight, bitch, protest, petition, and express outrage - even if they're not in the majority.

If you don't like it, move somewhere where people aren't allowed to do such things.

I'm betting they are inflated! Kerry himseld didn't think there was enough voter irregularities to warrent anything. If he did, don't you think the fight would've gone on?

He conceded because he knew he wasn't going to win.

Bush won Kerry Lost! The election is over.
Negative. Publically, yes, Kerry conceded, but he didn't want to put the public through what happened in 2000. Privately--and this I know through some contacts I have with Kerry's campaign--he believes that there was fraud; after all, why do you think his campaign has funded a large majority of the investigation?
Also, why is it that we Americans are so arrogant that we won't even begin to concede that maybe, just maybe, there was fraud in our elections?

I don't have any links; I've been listening soley to the radio and catching the occasional peice from the TV. I wish I had links, though; it would back up what I claim.
If you heard it on BBC radio, then they probably have it on their website (http://www.bbc.co.uk). You could try searching there for the stories you're talking about. Then, once you find them, you could link to the stories from here.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

It's called "civil disobedience". An institution that, without which, this country wouldn't even exist in the first place.

There is civil disobedience but this IS NOT civil disobedience. This is an attempt to steal an election.

Get over it, bubba. People are allowed to fight, bitch, protest, petition, and express outrage - even if they're not in the majority.

True they are. However, when you win an election by 3 million votes. Kerry even stated himself that there isn't anything to keep fighting on so why are the democrats insisting on destroying themselve like this?

If you don't like it, move somewhere where people aren't allowed to do such things.

HAHAHA!! I'm staying here because its funny watching the Democrats piss and moan about their disasterous defeat in 2004

If you heard it on BBC radio, then they probably have it on their website (http://www.bbc.co.uk). You could try searching there for the stories you're talking about. Then, once you find them, you could link to the stories from here.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
I just did; I couldn't find anything. I don't know why, though; I'll try searching again later.

Negative. Publically, yes, Kerry conceded, but he didn't want to put the public through what happened in 2000. Privately--and this I know through some contacts I have with Kerry's campaign--he believes that there was fraud; after all, why do you think his campaign has funded a large majority of the investigation?

Maybe because he couldn't stand losing? Come on. IF there was voter fraud, and the only one's I've seen was when the Democrats were committing them. Others came out before the election. Most of the voter fraud was out in the open even before the polls open. So where were these people at during the election?

Also, why is it that we Americans are so arrogant that we won't even begin to concede that maybe, just maybe, there was fraud in our elections?

Not denying there wasn't but its not to the amount that you are claiming it is. Anytime voter fraud charge is brought forth, it is investigated. Don't you think that if it was rampant that it would've been blasted all over the papers and the tv? I do.

I don't; the media is essentially controlled by corporations, and it's been clamped down on. Believe what you wish, but this is the truth.
Oh, and try to be civil about this, please; you don't see me calling you a filthy Repuke or anything like that, do you?

There is civil disobedience but this IS NOT civil disobedience. This is an attempt to steal an election.

Perhaps we see it as an attempt to stop those who already stole the election.

True they are. However, when you win an election by 3 million votes. Kerry even stated himself that there isn't anything to keep fighting on so why are the democrats insisting on destroying themselve like this?

Kerry is not the King of the Democrats. Just because he says something doesn't mean we all believe it blindly.

HAHAHA!! I'm staying here because its funny watching the Democrats piss and moan about their disasterous defeat in 2004

Hardly disasterous. Look at the numbers Corneliu. Bush won the narrowest re-election in the history of the US. If we were talking a Modale-esque loss, then, yes, that would be disasterous.

There is, however, enough there to prompt Kerry to run again in 2008 ... and win.

I don't; the media is essentially controlled by corporations, and it's been clamped down on. Believe what you wish, but this is the truth.
Oh, and try to be civil about this, please; you don't see me calling you a filthy Repuke or anything like that, do you?

I haven't called you a name either!

As for this, both sides have the capacity to get the word out. Neither side has taken advantage of it. This tells me its not as rampant as you might think

Perhaps we see it as an attempt to stop those who already stole the election.

If I had a dime for everytime I've heard this, I could retire rich. Did you know they tried to do the samething in 2000? No Senator then backed it up so why do they think it'll work this time? If your talking about 2000, that election wasn't stolen at all!

Kerry is not the King of the Democrats. Just because he says something doesn't mean we all believe it blindly.

True but come on. If there was massive voter fraud, we all would've heard about it by now, especially from the democrats and its not there.

Hardly disasterous. Look at the numbers Corneliu. Bush won the narrowest re-election in the history of the US. If we were talking a Modale-esque loss, then, yes, that would be disasterous.

narrowest re-election? He won by 3 million votes. He had the MAJORITY OF THE NATION!!!! Bill Clinton never got a majority in any of his elections. The last president to get a majority of the vote was George H.W. Bush in 1988!

There is, however, enough there to prompt Kerry to run again in 2008 ... and win.

I don't think he will. I think Mrs. Clinton (D NY) will get the nod. If not? I don't know who it will be but Kerry got rejected by a majority of Americans.

Kerry is not the King of the Democrats. Just because he says something doesn't mean we all believe it blindly.

Nope, but Hillary would make a goddamn fantastic Queen in 2008 :)

narrowest re-election? He won by 3 million votes. He had the MAJORITY OF THE NATION!!!! Bill Clinton never got a majority in any of his elections. The last president to get a majority of the vote was George H.W. Bush in 1988!


*sigh* ... Why, oh why, must I keep doing this?

The most recent numbers I've seen, Bush got 60,608,582 votes and Kerry got 57,288,974 votes. [note: these are not the final numbers, just the last numbers reported by CNN. the final numbers will be in when the Senate canvasses the vote]

This shows that Bush won by 3,319,608 votes.

Bush won a very narrow majority of the people who voted. 55% is required for a "mandate", Bush only got 51% and claims a mandate anyway.

Not important, though. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Just how, exactly, and by what fuzzy math, is 60 million a *majority* of 300 million?

*sigh* ... Why, oh why, must I keep doing this?

The most recent numbers I've seen, Bush got 60,608,582 votes and Kerry got 57,288,974 votes.

This shows that Bush won by 3,319,608 votes.

Bush won a very narrow majority of the people who voted. 55% is required for a "mandate", Bush only got 51% and claims a mandate anyway.

Not important, though. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Just how, exactly, and by what fuzzy math, is 60 million a *majority* of 300 million?

Because he got the majority of the people that voted in the 2004 election! That is why he got a MAJORITY of the vote. No matter how you look at it, he did get the majority of the vote. He won the electoral vote too.

Therefor, what these House Democrats are doing is going against the will of the people. This will backfire on the Democrats and they'll make a loud thud when they fall.

Because he got the majority of the people that voted in the 2004 election! That is why he got a MAJORITY of the vote. No matter how you look at it, he did get the majority of the vote. He won the electoral vote too.

Therefor, what these House Democrats are doing is going against the will of the people. This will backfire on the Democrats and they'll make a loud thud when they fall.

Ending slavery and giving women the right to vote was also against the will of the people. What's your point?

My point was that you said Bush got a majority of the country. He didn't. Not even close. Even if a person didn't vote, they're still an American citizen and their voices still count - whether the Republicans like it or not.

I don't know...

there was a LARGE proportion of black constituents throughout the US who had their votes disallowed for unknown reasons...nearly all of those who weren't counted voted for Kerry.

Interesting that Bush's campaign manager was also the woman who was in charge of tallying the votes...

Ending slavery and giving women the right to vote was also against the will of the people. What's your point?

Apples and oranges! Slavery was done via Constitutional Amendment and it was passed as well as the right to vote for women! Both were introduced in Congress, passed with the required number then it was approved by the correct number of states. What's your point here?

My point was that you said Bush got a majority of the country. He didn't. Not even close. Even if a person didn't vote, they're still an American citizen and their voices still count - whether the Republicans like it or not.

He did get a majority of the vote. He got the necessary electoral votes. The election is over in my book.

There's actually a lot of evidence suggesting voter fraud. This article (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065) gives a quick breakdown of just Ohio's voting problems. New Mexico and Florida are two other states in question. This thread (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3405&whichpage=9) has many links to articles on fraud in the election. I'm trying also to figure out why our media isn't covering it like it should. Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to get burned like Tom Brokaw (or was it Dan Rather) did on the Bush documents last year, or maybe the media is less Liberal than the Right would have you believe?

There's actually a lot of evidence suggesting voter fraud. This article (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065) gives a quick breakdown of just Ohio's voting problems. New Mexico and Florida are two other states in question. This thread (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3405&whichpage=9) has many links to articles on fraud in the election. I'm trying also to figure out why our media isn't covering it like it should. Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to get burned like Tom Brokaw (or was it Dan Rather) did on the Bush documents last year, or maybe the media is less Liberal than the Right would have you believe?

Oh Freepress and skepticfriends! Any from a credible source? Probably because they realize that most of the "claims" are falsely reported and they learned their lessons from 2000. Dont overhype claims unless there is full massive proof. We've seen alot of voter fraud allegations even before the election and some of it was proven true and it was exposed as such. That was done on both sides.

Oh Freepress and skepticfriends! Any from a credible source? Probably because they realize that most of the "claims" are falsely reported and they learned their lessons from 2000. Dont overhype claims unless there is full massive proof. We've seen alot of voter fraud allegations even before the election and some of it was proven true and it was exposed as such. That was done on both sides.
So basically, you don't care what proof there is; you're just going to ignore it.

So basically, you don't care what proof there is; you're just going to ignore it.
duh, corneliu is a right wing extremist, if its not from hiw own extreme side, its liberal bullshit and not worth listening to

How about Democracy now (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/1541230)?
Here's a good writeup of why the media isn't covering it: linky link (http://democracyweek.blogspot.com/).

I'd also like to mention that I'm an Independent voter and I voted for the Green Party throughout this past election. I'm not a biased Democrat and I'd have no problem with either Bush or Kerry being in office, if that's who the public voted for. I do NOT however like the idea of someone stealing an election! NO person in the U.S. should feel good about our own rights being trampled on, whether it's the party we voted for or not! What the hell's the point of calling ourselves free if we have no choice in deciding who will run our own country???

I concur.

Has anyone seen Farenheit 9/11?
No. Have you lost it somewhere? Perhaps you should check Bill Clinton's shorts, there seem to be all sorts of things ( lost and otherwise ) in there. Perhaps it was lost in John Kerry's last marriage, the one just before Theresa ... she obviously didn't have enough money, so it's entirely possible it was lost in the shuffle to unload her.

You know something?

John Kerry LOST!

Get over it. Get over your self. Get over not having a life.

So basically, you don't care what proof there is; you're just going to ignore it.

Huh? Didn't I just say that there was proof that both sides were committing voter fraud before the election? Yes I do believe I did.

If there is proof, it would've been out there. I don't think either side would let it slide. So NO SIDE is putting things out, then I guess its not as rampant as people are claiming it is.

Allegations have always been made in most every election that I can think of. Chicago in 1960 anyone? There was massive voter fraud there. There was also voter fraud here in this election too. Most of it was exposed PRIOR TOO the election. I remember all the stories on them from voter registration cards being torn up and tossed as someone said earlier, to more registered voters than there are population in towns. Most of those were in democratically held towns too. Or what about that one guy (forgot where sorry) that continued to register and register several times? WHat about people who are registered too vote in 2 states? I could go on with voter fraud but this is what came out prior to the election. Seems to me that the media covered 90% of these! All of which I condemned no matter the party.

duh, corneliu is a right wing extremist, if its not from hiw own extreme side, its liberal bullshit and not worth listening to

First time I've been called a right wing extremist. I'm just sad that the democrats can't take their losses.

Frankly, I'm hoping that Washington State Republicans give up their fight because it isn't worth it. I doubt they will but I wish they would.

How about Democracy now (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/1541230)?
Here's a good writeup of why the media isn't covering it: linky link (http://democracyweek.blogspot.com/).

I wouldn't consider Democracy now a credible news source period. Nor do I with democracyweek. Its just as bad as me using Fox News since so many people hate that network.

I'd also like to mention that I'm an Independent voter and I voted for the Green Party throughout this past election. I'm not a biased Democrat and I'd have no problem with either Bush or Kerry being in office, if that's who the public voted for. I do NOT however like the idea of someone stealing an election! NO person in the U.S. should feel good about our own rights being trampled on, whether it's the party we voted for or not! What the hell's the point of calling ourselves free if we have no choice in deciding who will run our own country???

Here I will agree with you. Problem is no one stole an election no matter how much people are trying to say that it did occur.

There has been a great deal said about how much went wrong in this election. It has not been covered by the main cable stations in anything more than dismissive blurbs, despite everything that's happened that's decidedly wrong.

If you aren't aware of this, you haven't been paying attention when other people on this forum have been trying to show you things.

The national cable news networks have generally been avoiding talking about this, but the complaints are very real and very present. Here in North Carolina, it looks like we may be holding a new statewide special election because of problems with the balloting in November.

In Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico, there were definite problems arising; the Green Party in particular (or their candidate - www.votecobb.org ) contends that the problems in Ohio in particular are demonstrably a systematic attempt to disenfranchise certain voting groups (namely, black voters) and that Ohio has refused to abide by state and federal election laws, both during the election and during the recount of Ohio's votes.

Wow.

Somehow, when Corneliu talked about biased sources, I don't think he wanted something like DemocracyNow, but rather something like CNN or the New York Times. Not that they aren't biased, but they're generally accepted as credible whereas some other sources aren't.

eutrusca needs to finally grow the hell up for some one supposedly so old and intelligent, he needs to bring coulter, hannity, o'reilly and limbaugh with him

You know something?

John Kerry LOST!

Get over it. Get over your self. Get over not having a life.

Yes but the article says nothing about electing Kerry and a whole lot about trying to void alleged voter fraud. Hell, from the article the Democrats say that this is not to change the outcome of the election.

Talk about spin from what the article say to the title of this thread :rolleyes:

No. Have you lost it somewhere? Perhaps you should check Bill Clinton's shorts, there seem to be all sorts of things ( lost and otherwise ) in there. Perhaps it was lost in John Kerry's last marriage, the one just before Theresa ... she obviously didn't have enough money, so it's entirely possible it was lost in the shuffle to unload her.
Eutrusca, I would recommend you avoid flamebaiting the Democrats.

There has been a great deal said about how much went wrong in this election. It has not been covered by the main cable stations in anything more than dismissive blurbs, despite everything that's happened that's decidedly wrong.

Here I agree though the runup to the election, alot of voter fraud from both sides where exposded by the press.

If you aren't aware of this, you haven't been paying attention when other people on this forum have been trying to show you things.

Problem is alot of websites are skeptical at best. I'm all for proof and I've seen proof and it was exposed on most cable networks the voter fraud that was going on.

The national cable news networks have generally been avoiding talking about this, but the complaints are very real and very present. Here in North Carolina, it looks like we may be holding a new statewide special election because of problems with the balloting in November.

Problem is, are the complaints varifiable. That is the overwhelming question. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are deliberately trying to keep you from voting?

In Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico, there were definite problems arising; the Green Party in particular (or their candidate - www.votecobb.org ) contends that the problems in Ohio in particular are demonstrably a systematic attempt to disenfranchise certain voting groups (namely, black voters) and that Ohio has refused to abide by state and federal election laws, both during the election and during the recount of Ohio's votes.

Problem is proving it. They've tried and have failed. The courts even said so as much with all the cases that were going on. The courts ruled that there isn't enough evidence.

eutrusca needs to finally grow the hell up for some one supposedly so old and intelligent, he needs to bring coulter, hannity, o'reilly and limbaugh with him
Chess Squares, see my above post, read it, and apply it to yourself. I would like to see discussion remain fairly polite here.

But there isn't any! If there was massive voter fraud, it would've came out long before now!

Let's be honest here, 4000 extra votes for Bush in just one county - that's pretty major.

Add to it the (gubernatorial election) box of ballots found hidden in a closet in Washington State.

As much as I would like to see Bush out of the White House, I doubt we'll find enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. However, the problems in voting should certainly be examined closely, and neither party has clean hands in this.

Yes but the article says nothing about electing Kerry and a whole lot about trying to void alleged voter fraud. Hell, from the article the Democrats say that this is not to change the outcome of the election.

Because even if Ohio gets tossed out (disenfranchising alot of voters anyway), Bush would still win because he has the most state delegates in the House. Of course its not about changing the outcome because they know they cant.

Wow.

Somehow, when Corneliu talked about biased sources, I don't think he wanted something like DemocracyNow, but rather something like CNN or the New York Times. Not that they aren't biased, but they're generally accepted as credible whereas some other sources aren't.

That's the problem though, the MSM in this country doesn't have any articles and Republican biased news sources certainly aren't going to discuss it, so who do you have to turn to? The issue though is that there are MANY different sources handling this issue and finding different information on the subject. To me, independent claims makes for some credibility.

Let's be honest here, 4000 extra votes for Bush in just one county - that's pretty major.

Which county and state?

Add to it the (gubernatorial election) box of ballots found hidden in a closet in Washington State.

Heavily democratic county and those were also considered invalid too by the machine recount.

As much as I would like to see Bush out of the White House, I doubt we'll find enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. However, the problems in voting should certainly be examined closely, and neither party has clean hands in this.

Here I will agree with you! No party has clean hands.

Oh the BBC! We should take our cues from a FOREIGN NETWORK??? This is America! It WOULD NOT be surpressed because the OTHERSIDE wouldn't let it be surpressed. I think you underestimate both parties. Both sides have the media be it radio, tv, or newspaper to get it out there. I've listened to alot of major tv and radio stations, both liberal and conservative and NOT ONE have mentioned this.

i'm sure the people of zimbabue would assume that the foreign news networks must be stupid too... i mean, why would the foreigners know more about their own elections than their press...

Eutrusca, I would recommend you avoid flamebaiting the Democrats.
It's not flamebaiting. Don't worry about it. They know me well enough to understand that we're never going to agree so it's ok to make with the jokes. yes? :)

Wow.

Somehow, when Corneliu talked about biased sources, I don't think he wanted something like DemocracyNow, but rather something like CNN or the New York Times. Not that they aren't biased, but they're generally accepted as credible whereas some other sources aren't.

I would've accepted them. They are valid sources for news. I would read them closely and examine them and research from there based on those articles.

Because even if Ohio gets tossed out (disenfranchising alot of voters anyway), Bush would still win because he has the most state delegates in the House. Of course its not about changing the outcome because they know they cant.
Then why come back with a "Kerry lost, get over it" answer?
It was not directed at you but at Eutrusca. What was dircted at you was the comment about using this article and spinning it to make it look like the Dems wanted to change the outcome of the vote.

i'm sure the people of zimbabue would assume that the foreign news networks must be stupid too... i mean, why would the foreigners know more about their own elections than their press...

I don't trust the foreign media in how they cover America, BBC especially. I looked at several networks during this election. All of them (Fox News included) waited to call key battleground states. All of them, to me anyway, covered election night as fairly as humanly possible.

So Yes, our press knows how our elections work.

Then why come back with a "Kerry lost, get over it" answer?
It was not directed at you but at Eutrusca. What was dircted at you was the comment about using this article and spinning it to make it look like the Dems wanted to change the outcome of the vote.

I didn't say that they wanted to change the outcome! Show me where I stated it?

I didn't say that they wanted to change the outcome! Show me where I stated it?
Anyway it had come to this in the thread and I wanted to comment on it. Also, with a thread title like that, things were bound to be interpreted that way.

Anyway it had come to this in the thread and I wanted to comment on it. Also, with a thread title like that, things were bound to be interpreted that way.

Good point! Thank you for pointing that out.

Which county and state?

It was in Ohio, rather heavily reported just after the election.

Heavily democratic county and those were also considered invalid too by the machine recount.

I hadn't heard that, but I'll check into it.

Here I will agree with you! No party has clean hands.

Yeah, I can't stand either party. Ugh.

I concur.

Has anyone seen Farenheit 9/11?

Heck yes!

I believe their was voting fraud, add up the clues, some exit polls have shown Kerry winning in Ohio, and the guy who designed the computers is heavily Republican, and said to the President, "I can guarantee you a victory in Ohio."

What we have here, is one president, serving two terms, who has not won either of them.

Good point! Thank you for pointing that out.

Bloody hell! That's twice in a row I've come to an understanding with an adversary in a debate AND I've kept things civil.

What shall I do? Clearly I'm not fit for these forums.

Heck yes!

I believe their was voting fraud, add up the clues, some exit polls have shown Kerry winning in Ohio, and the guy who designed the computers is heavily Republican, and said to the President, "I can guarantee you a victory in Ohio."

What we have here, is one president, serving two terms, who has not won either of them.

And Kramer just proved once again why the Democrats have lost the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Bush won both elections. Was there fraud? Yea done by both parties. Exit Polls are just that, exit polls! They do not reflect actual vote totals. They were skeptical from the start and were proven false and they got hammered for it.

Bloody hell! That's twice in a row I've come to an understanding with an adversary in a debate AND I've kept things civil.

What shall I do? Clearly I'm not fit for these forums.

Civilty? Its becoming of you!

However, if you want to be uncivilized.

Kerry is a doucebag and deserves to be tarred and feathered.

THis is what I say to democrats :upyours:

LOL!!!!

Yes, there is. You don't know about it because it's being suppressed by the media, but if you listen to the BBC, you'd know all about the massive amount of proof gathered by organizations looking into it. And before you just shrug off the BBC as liberal spam, know this: a lot of other foreign networks are also airing the stories.
Thing is, it's out there; you just need to open your eyes and ears to more than our own media.
This my friends is a fallacy. And when I say fallacy I mean it in a psychological way.

This fellow has a pre-set belief that no matter what Republicans steal the election. This belief was strengthened by his obvious devotion to a certain cause, and the loss of this cause is hard to accept, so the brain rationalizes it in this form of a fallacy. This fallacy is rooted whereever, I don't totally know, but; what he is doing is giving evidence that supports his beliefs far more credibility than that which is against his. And, actually he's improperly turning the contradictory evidence around and claiming a conspiracy against his beliefs! This behavior is common, you'll see many UFO nuts use this same argument when presented with evidence that is against their belief.

What I just described is an accepted psychological priniciple being applied to a certain instance.

I think the title of this thread is a little hasty. I mean, it overlooks all us Dems who kicked back on the third and said, "Man, what a satisfying loss that was. Much moreso than 2000."

Let's be honest here, 4000 extra votes for Bush in just one county - that's pretty major.
The incident occured in Gahanna, Ohio, a city in Franklin county, near Columbus. What happened is not voter fraud but a computer error. Basically the file was corrupted when it was transfered from the machine to the memory stick, and the numbers were changed.

When this was found out, you know what they did? They went back to the machine and transferred the data without incident.

Since the second memory device has been turned in Ohio's vote count totals have been revised.

Thanks, just as I was starting to find reasons not to hate Bush you post this, now I hate him again!!!!!!!!

IDIOT!

Anyway, they should be unhappy, American politics is ruined, Bush rigged the 2000 elections, the first time ever that an election was succesfully rigged, he rigged the 2004 elections. And why should it change after that???

He will help his family and other conservative nuts rig all the future elections.

We may not have a Democrat as a president until we are old, really, really, old!

When will the 25th amendment (2-term limit) be repealed? Then we can re-elect Clinton, and everyone will be happy.

But enough of Fantasyland. I just hope that the 2008 Republican candidate has some INTELLIGENCE for a change. Bush apparently needs to borrow Karl Rove's brainpower just to be able to think. I don't mind seeing Rove or Cheney as President (in fact, I, a solid Democrat, would prefer Cheney in office over Kerry). However, Bush doesnt deserve to be President. No one with an IQ of 2 deserves to be President.

End of rant.

I think the title of this thread is a little hasty. I mean, it overlooks all us Dems who kicked back on the third and said, "Man, what a satisfying loss that was. Much moreso than 2000."

Well at least there are democrats that think this and I wish there was more of them. However, its high powered politicians that can't seem to take defeat.

I find it funny that the democrats are challenging the vote in Ohio, my home state. The margin of victory is more than 100,000 votes, in fact its more than 120,000. This is just another desperate attempt to discredit the true victor, President George W. Bush. I may have understood a recount, if say the margin of error were 20,000 votes, but the margin is much much larger than that. The best part of those whole sharade is that the margin of error in Penn., where Kerry, won is SMALLER than the margin of error in Ohio! The only reason they arent combating that is because they won. Just give up, not only did Bush win the electoral vote he also won the popular vote something Bill "slick willy" Clinton never did (he never got over 50% of the popular vote...look it up if u dont believe me).

Thanks, just as I was starting to find reasons not to hate Bush you post this, now I hate him again!!!!!!!!

IDIOT!

This is unbecoming of you. Please try to be civil!

Anyway, they should be unhappy, American politics is ruined, Bush rigged the 2000 elections, the first time ever that an election was succesfully rigged, he rigged the 2004 elections. And why should it change after that???

Your proving again why the Republicans have been winning elections since 1994. Bush DID NOT rig 2000. Its amazing how liberals continue to say this. It DID NOT help you in this election and it did not help you in 2002 either. This election was not rigged either. The last numbers I've seen was that about 62 million people have voted for GWB and and about 59 million for Kerry. How was it rigged?

He will help his family and other conservative nuts rig all the future elections.

Oh my God. This guy is very rediculous, I wonder why I'm responding to this at all.

We may not have a Democrat as a president until we are old, really, really, old!

I doubt this very highly.

The incident occured in Gahanna, Ohio, a city in Franklin county, near Columbus. What happened is not voter fraud but a computer error. Basically the file was corrupted when it was transfered from the machine to the memory stick, and the numbers were changed.

When this was found out, you know what they did? They went back to the machine and transferred the data without incident.

Since the second memory device has been turned in Ohio's vote count totals have been revised.

Similar thing happened in PA! My state,

It was Nov. 1st, noone new what was in store for them the next day, they were all having a good time, sleeping or whatever, than a janitor bumped into a machine, something happened and the computer read;

BUSH KERRY
1400 0

First of all, this would not even happen in Utah, the most Republican state out there. Let alone PA.

Who knows this might have happened all over Ohio, maybe even Florida, the point is we will never know, because Democrats are spineless, I mean, do you really think if this happened the other way around, that Republicans would just sit there and twidle their thumbs? NO! Because one thing I have to credit Republicans with, is that they dont know when to give up!

If Gore had a spine, He would have won, and the re-election would have had totally different meaning.

When will the 25th amendment (2-term limit) be repealed? Then we can re-elect Clinton, and everyone will be happy.

But enough of Fantasyland. I just hope that the 2008 Republican candidate has some INTELLIGENCE for a change. Bush apparently needs to borrow Karl Rove's brainpower just to be able to think. I don't mind seeing Rove or Cheney as President (in fact, I, a solid Democrat, would prefer Cheney in office over Kerry). However, Bush doesnt deserve to be President. No one with an IQ of 2 deserves to be President.

End of rant.

FYI, Bush's IQ was rated better than both Gore's and Kerry's. I read it a while ago and dont have the link at this time...but il look and you should to!

stupid lib.

I find it funny that the democrats are challenging the vote in Ohio, my home state. The margin of victory is more than 100,000 votes, in fact its more than 120,000. This is just another desperate attempt to discredit the true victor, President George W. Bush. I may have understood a recount, if say the margin of error were 20,000 votes, but the margin is much much larger than that. The best part of those whole sharade is that the margin of error in Penn., where Kerry, won is SMALLER than the margin of error in Ohio! The only reason they arent combating that is because they won. Just give up, not only did Bush win the electoral vote he also won the popular vote something Bill "slick willy" Clinton never did (he never got over 50% of the popular vote...look it up if u dont believe me).

At least Clinton is intelligent. At least Clinton can speak English. At least Clinton didn't have to build his own voting machines that skew the vote. If Clinton had built those kind of machines he would have won over 70% of the popular vote.

I find it funny that the democrats are challenging the vote in Ohio, my home state. The margin of victory is more than 100,000 votes, in fact its more than 120,000. This is just another desperate attempt to discredit the true victor, President George W. Bush. I may have understood a recount, if say the margin of error were 20,000 votes, but the margin is much much larger than that. The best part of those whole sharade is that the margin of error in Penn., where Kerry, won is SMALLER than the margin of error in Ohio! The only reason they arent combating that is because they won. Just give up, not only did Bush win the electoral vote he also won the popular vote something Bill "slick willy" Clinton never did (he never got over 50% of the popular vote...look it up if u dont believe me).

Ugh electoral college :headbang:

Didn't Gore win the populars though? He got owned, but won populars none the less.

And of course there's the arguement that the exit polls showed Kerry winning, but there's a major problem with incomplete sample polling (which exit polls are, since they don't interview everyone.)

Here, this is out of a book that is required for my Data and Statistics Analysis class:

"A more economical substitute [to the complete sample], which is almost universally used in such fields as opinion polling and market research, is called stratified random sampling.
To get this stratified sample you have to divide your universe into several groups in proportion to their known prevalence. And right there the trouble can begin: Your information about the proportion may not be correct." (Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, 1954)

The author continues on to say that your stratification levels, which are vital in "weighing" the end result may not be correct.

An example is that in this election the pollers had a stratification number that is far too low amongst suburbanites and rural voters, and the city votes were weighted too heavily.

FYI, Bush's IQ was rated better than both Gore's and Kerry's. I read it a while ago and dont have the link at this time...but il look and you should to!
IF he has such a high IQ, how come I can't understand him when he speaks? At the very least he needs some public speaking classes...


stupid lib.

It is sad that you have to resort to saying "stupid lib". If you didnt notice, I said that I would prefer Cheney in office over Kerry. And you all project liberals as "evil" people. Liberals (FDR) got us out of the Great Depression, which, by the way, conservatives (Hoover) failed to do anything about.

I find it funny that the democrats are challenging the vote in Ohio, my home state. The margin of victory is more than 100,000 votes, in fact its more than 120,000. This is just another desperate attempt to discredit the true victor, President George W. Bush. I may have understood a recount, if say the margin of error were 20,000 votes, but the margin is much much larger than that. The best part of those whole sharade is that the margin of error in Penn., where Kerry, won is SMALLER than the margin of error in Ohio! The only reason they arent combating that is because they won. Just give up, not only did Bush win the electoral vote he also won the popular vote something Bill "slick willy" Clinton never did (he never got over 50% of the popular vote...look it up if u dont believe me).

Go back to the first post, look up the link, read the article.
Done?

Where the hell did it talked about any of the arguments you just stated?

Yes, Gore won the popular vote. I love how folks so ready to criticize Clinton on this front can't, or choose not to, remember 2000. I'm curious of how many of the anti-Clintonistas on this board were old enough to vote in 92/96 and how many were just old enough to believe the Starr mantra of "blowjob icky."

Oh, yeah, Clinton was also involved a more legitimate three-way race, which accounts for his sub-50% performance. (Don't throw Nader at me, I said legitimate.)

Similar thing happened in PA! My state,

It was Nov. 1st, noone new what was in store for them the next day, they were all having a good time, sleeping or whatever, than a janitor bumped into a machine, something happened and the computer read;

BUSH KERRY
1400 0

First of all, this would not even happen in Utah, the most Republican state out there. Let alone PA.

Who knows this might have happened all over Ohio, maybe even Florida, the point is we will never know, because Democrats are spineless, I mean, do you really think if this happened the other way around, that Republicans would just sit there and twidle their thumbs? NO! Because one thing I have to credit Republicans with, is that they dont know when to give up!

If Gore had a spine, He would have won, and the re-election would have had totally different meaning.


There seem to be several problems with this story. First, what the hell was the janitor doing around the voting machines. Prior to the election the machines are supposed to be guarded. This was a serious lapse of security, and if this really happened, some security folk should be in deep shit. (at least the security part is what some poll workers I know claim, but it might not be true.)

Second of all, how did the janitor turn on the machine? The things are also supposed to not be plugged in during storage. The only times they get plugged in are for testing, training poll workers and the actual voting, not when they're just sitting around.

Also, the machines themselves don't actually display vote totals. Instead they store them on a hard drive until the end of voting at which point a poll worker comes up to the machine and plugs in the physical memory device and copies the files over.

Plus, if 1400 extra votes were tallied in one precinct I think that that would probably show up, since each precinct is only supposed to have a few hundred voters apiece.

Yes, Gore won the popular vote. I love how folks so ready to criticize Clinton on this front can't, or choose not to, remember 2000. I'm curious of how many of the anti-Clintonistas on this board were old enough to vote in 92/96 and how many were just old enough to believe the Starr mantra of "blowjob icky."

I fully remember the impeachment hearings and Clinton deserved it for lying under oath, which is purgery and a federal offense, as well as obstruction of justice. Those are impeachable offences.

I'm not going to argue this further because this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

The point is that they are trying to toss out the Ohio Electoral Votes. They won't succeed but I thought I put this out here anyway.

IF he has such a high IQ, how come I can't understand him when he speaks? At the very least he needs some public speaking classes...

Speaking ability is no sign of intellect. People's regional accents often change the sound of their voice. And Bush's verbal gaffes might be similar to mine. I think much faster than I speak and I fumble words from the beginning of the sentence with the end of the sentence. Yet, I have a very tidy set of SAT and ACT scores. (I haven't taken an IQ test, as I view their validity as questionable.)

Oh, yeah, Clinton was also involved a more legitimate three-way race, which accounts for his sub-50% performance. (Don't throw Nader at me, I said legitimate.)

Clinton-Bush-Perot in 1992

Clinton-Dole-Perot in 1996

Bush-Gore-NADER in 2000

Bush-Kerry-Nader in 2004

All of whom are three way races. Bush got 50% in the last 3 way race. The last person to get 50% or more was George H.W. Bush against Dukakus.

The point is that they are trying to toss out the Ohio Electoral Votes. They won't succeed but I thought I put this out here anyway.

If you believe this, then why post it? Just to get a raise out of democrats? Indeed, if you provoke people this way, it is YOU (I'm not talking about conserviatives, I am talking specifically about YOU, Corneliu) that is spineless.

I find it funny that the democrats are challenging the vote in Ohio, my home state. The margin of victory is more than 100,000 votes, in fact its more than 120,000. This is just another desperate attempt to discredit the true victor, President George W. Bush. I may have understood a recount, if say the margin of error were 20,000 votes, but the margin is much much larger than that. The best part of those whole sharade is that the margin of error in Penn., where Kerry, won is SMALLER than the margin of error in Ohio! The only reason they arent combating that is because they won. Just give up, not only did Bush win the electoral vote he also won the popular vote something Bill "slick willy" Clinton never did (he never got over 50% of the popular vote...look it up if u dont believe me).
Actually, the final official margin, as reported by the Ohio state board of Elections, was not greater than 120,000. Examine the evidence.

For those interested in precise details of what the complaints about the Ohio election are, click here (http://www.votecobb.org), which is quite specific. They have precise details on what irregularities they mean.

With regard to "systematic disenfranchisement," for example, one of the primary pieces of evidence is that largely black precincts were, by and large, not supplied with anywhere near enough voting machines, whereas largely white precincts generally were. With regard to irregularities, they cite that certain counties did not do a full hand recount as required when a 3% sample of precincts did not match, or did not randomly select 3%, etc. In the case of DRE precincts, well, the required hand recount of 3% to be compared with machine tabulation could not really occur.

There are very few people who believe that the results of the election are going to be changed, but more who believe that (a) things got screwed up and (b) they need to get fixed, now, with no more of this "aww, it doesn't matter, shove it under the table" crap. If you don't want to remove the opportunities to get cheated in the election, you're asking to get screwed systematically.

Clinton-Bush-Perot in 1992

Clinton-Dole-Perot in 1996

Bush-Gore-NADER in 2000

Bush-Kerry-Nader in 2004

All of whom are three way races. Bush got 50% in the last 3 way race. The last person to get 50% or more was George H.W. Bush against Dukakus.

I would agree with you, so long as Nader wasn't a Republican puppet

If you believe this, then why post it? Just to get a raise out of democrats? Indeed, if you provoke people this way, it is YOU (I'm not talking about conserviatives, I am talking specifically about YOU, Corneliu) that is spineless.

No, I didn't post it to get a rise out of Democrats. I can do that on any variety of issues and I have too.

No, I posted this because it has got to be out here in the public. The people have to know what is going on on Capitol Hill. That was the only reason I posted this.

Believe me. If the Republicans were doing this, and a thread was not up here regarding it, I would've still put this up here.

The incident occured in Gahanna, Ohio, a city in Franklin county, near Columbus. What happened is not voter fraud but a computer error. Basically the file was corrupted when it was transfered from the machine to the memory stick, and the numbers were changed.

When this was found out, you know what they did? They went back to the machine and transferred the data without incident.

Since the second memory device has been turned in Ohio's vote count totals have been revised.

Meanwhile, the majority of states declined the necessity of having a paper trail, so we have no way of knowing how many times this happened and wasn't detected (for either candidate).

nader was part of the race like badnarik was, perot was a real candidate, he actually got real votes

nader was part of the race like badnarik was, perot was a real candidate, he actually got real votes
So are you saying that a third party candidate shouldn't run?

Man, i hope boxer has the testicular fortitude to step up and challenge the Electoral certification. Talk about stepping on it. That would be perfect for the left of this nation to regain it's standing with the voters. :rolleyes:

I still think the Dems are making a huge mistake. If they let it slide, the US will only be a dictatorship until 2008. If they go through with this, then the Reps will be dictators for an entire generation.

Corneliu,

Did you miss the part where I said "legitimate candidate"?

1992:
Clinton: 42.9%
Bush, Sr.: 37.3%
Perot: 18.8%

1996:
Clinton: 49.2%
Dole: 40.7%
Perot: 8.4%

I want you to notice here that *nobody* got fifty percent of the pop vote because Perot drew major votes. I want you to notice that, while he did not receive 51% of the popular vote, Clinton garnered a larger percent of the pop vote than any other candidate. Now:

2000:
George Bush: 47.87% (50,456,002 votes)
Al Gore: 48.38% (50,999,897 votes)
Nader: 2.47%

You see the difference, homes? Friggin' Bo Gritz almost drew more votes than our boy Ralph.

Corneliu,

Did you miss the part where I said "legitimate candidate"?

1992:
Clinton: 42.9%
Bush, Sr.: 37.3%
Perot: 18.8%

1996:
Clinton: 49.2%
Dole: 40.7%
Perot: 8.4%

I want you to notice here that *nobody* got fifty percent of the pop vote because Perot drew major votes. I want you to notice that, while he did not receive 51% of the popular vote, Clinton garnered a larger percent of the pop vote than any other candidate. Now:

2000:
George Bush: 47.87% (50,456,002 votes)
Al Gore: 48.38% (50,999,897 votes)
Nader: 2.47%

You see the difference, homes? Friggin' Bo Gritz almost drew more votes than our boy Ralph.

Your forgetting 2004

Bush 52%
Kerry 47%
Other candidates about 1%

You see this? I don't have the exact vote totals but you showed it yourself. Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote. Bush did.

I still think the Dems are making a huge mistake. If they let it slide, the US will only be a dictatorship until 2008. If they go through with this, then the Reps will be dictators for an entire generation.

Since when did we become a dictatorship? Last time I checked, we still have free and open elections, the right to protest, the right to speak our minds, etc etc etc.

Your forgetting 2004

Bush 52%
Kerry 47%
Other candidates about 1%

You see this? I don't have the exact vote totals but you showed it yourself. Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote. Bush did.
with no major contestance from any other party

Negative. Publically, yes, Kerry conceded, but he didn't want to put the public through what happened in 2000. Privately--and this I know through some contacts I have with Kerry's campaign--he believes that there was fraud; after all, why do you think his campaign has funded a large majority of the investigation?
Also, why is it that we Americans are so arrogant that we won't even begin to concede that maybe, just maybe, there was fraud in our elections?
That there is fraud, yes, on BOTH sides. That there was over 56,000 votes worth of Republican Fraud, doubtful.

with no major contestance from any other party

Bush won 2004 FAIR AND SQUARE just like he won Florida Fair and Square last election cycle.

Why can't people accept the results of an election? If Kerry won, I would accept him as president.

Or what about that one guy (forgot where sorry) that continued to register and register several times?

Do you mean the drug addict in Detriot Michigan that was paid for every voter registration form he filled out with rocks of Crack cocain?

He was hired by a local coordinator of the Democratic "Get Out The Vote" effort, who in turn was being paid directly by the State DNC co-ordinator

Would have gotten away with it if the local coordinator had not turned in around 100 forms at one time, all in the same handwritting.

Now thats Brain Dead. If your going to cheat at least pay attention to how your going about it.

I think it was Cincinatti that had a population of 815,000 and sent out about 870,000 ballots. Hummm...take a look, did Cincinatti go for the Republicans or the Democrats?

Do you mean the drug addict in Detriot Michigan that was paid for every voter registration form he filled out with rocks of Crack cocain?

He was hired by a local coordinator of the Democratic "Get Out The Vote" effort, who in turn was being paid directly by the State DNC co-ordinator

Would have gotten away with it if the local coordinator had not turned in around 100 forms at one time, all in the same handwritting.

Now thats Brain Dead. If your going to cheat at least pay attention to how your going about it.

I think it was Cincinatti that had a population of 815,000 and sent out about 870,000 ballots. Hummm...take a look, did Cincinatti go for the Republicans or the Democrats?

Ahh yes. That's the one! Thanks for the information!

Anyway it had come to this in the thread and I wanted to comment on it. Also, with a thread title like that, things were bound to be interpreted that way.

*smiles*

Yes it was inevitable wasnt it?

If there was massive voter fraud, it will come out. I doubt ABC NBC CBS and CNN are stiffiling news like this on any account. They have too much to gain if they can "break" a story like this, in terms of ratings and thus in terms of Dollars. And corporations do like the sound of the cash register dont they?

Hope your New Year is going well East Canuck

Bloody hell! That's twice in a row I've come to an understanding with an adversary in a debate AND I've kept things civil.

What shall I do? Clearly I'm not fit for these forums.

Think of it as a mark of your Maturity and Wisdom.

( As Robert Hienlien once said, "Isnt it remarkable how much mature wisdom resembles being lazy? :D )

Truthfully that you dont engage in the viscious backbiting and blatant flaming is what makes you WORTH debating. Shows your intellegent enough to not have to resort to such tactics. Also makes it easier for your opponents * such as myself, * to acknowledge the points you make in these debats and allows for a civilized discussion.

It is unlikely either of us will ever agree on major points, but I RESPECT your opinions because you make them with intellegence, wisdom and humor. My hats off to ya!

In my book, these traits makes you a better man than many.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*Southern Conservitive, but no, I dont own a Gun, sorry if that ruins your image of me*

......neither party has clean hands in this.

^5 Dempublicents

I dont recall ANY politician having Clean hands, at least not since Ponious Pilate washed his.

narrowest re-election? He won by 3 million votes. He had the MAJORITY OF THE NATION!!!! Bill Clinton never got a majority in any of his elections. The last president to get a majority of the vote was George H.W. Bush in 1988!

Not to rain on your parade, but both of Clinton's elections had a serious 3rd party contender. Even with Perot taking 8+% of the vote in 96 Clinton still got over 49% of the vote. Even if everyone of the Perot people would have voted for Dole instead he still would have lost. That is a HUGE margin. If it had been a two party vote like the last election, the assumption is pretty obvious that he would have broken the 50% mark and beaten Dole by a much greater margin than Bush jr won by. Clinton's favorables were around 54% at the time, and typically an incumbent president hit's within 3% of his favorables in a two (real) candidate vote.

Both of Clinton's elections were landslides. I hated the guy, but he was a much more legitimate representation of the electorate at the time than the current president is.

I believe their was voting fraud, add up the clues, some exit polls have shown Kerry winning in Ohio,
Early exit polls were leaning torward Kerry, but a poll doesnt count every voter, and its not who voted in the morning that ends up counting. It is the final count alone that matters


[QUOTE=Kramers Intern]and the guy who designed the computers is heavily Republican, and said to the President, "I can guarantee you a victory in Ohio."

Now how increadibly idiotic would someone have to be to actually SAY that? Especially if thats what they were planning to do something like that?

If they were going to try to do that, it would only make sense to do it WITHOUT having such a "quote" floating around out there dont you think?

Use Ocrams Razor on this, if YOU were doing this would you be stupid enough to make such a statement? If not then you should conclude that anyone else doing it would not do so either.

Someone once said, "Never underestimate the power of Human Stupidity", but if I were you I wouldnt rely on it either.

What we have here, is one president, serving two terms, who has not won either of them.

And the republic has not crumbled into chaos and anarchy, remarkable how resilant the country is.

With respect

AAhhzz

Not to rain on your parade, but both of Clinton's elections had a serious 3rd party contender. Even with Perot taking 8+% of the vote in 96 Clinton still got over 49% of the vote. Even if everyone of the Perot people would have voted for Dole instead he still would have lost. That is a HUGE margin. If it had been a two party vote like the last election, the assumption is pretty obvious that he would have broken the 50% mark and beaten Dole by a much greater margin than Bush jr won by. Clinton's favorables were around 54% at the time, and typically an incumbent president hit's within 3% of his favorables in a two (real) candidate vote.

Not to be contradicting, I didn't say that Clinton should've lost the 92 and 96 elections. I know full well what Clinton, Bush, Dole, and Perot got. I am not going to argue what your saying but the fact is that Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote. He is popular, no doubt about it, but he did not get 50% of the vote though he was close in 1996.

Both of Clinton's elections were landslides. I hated the guy, but he was a much more legitimate representation of the electorate at the time than the current president is.

Landslides in the electoral College most definitely and I'll give you the popular vote too just because I'm in a nice mood right now! :D

They're doing their best to try to prove the election fraud, I believe. Frankly, I'm all for it, if it means that the true winner of the election will take the stand on January 20th.

I don't know if this has been said yet... but...

Did none of you people hear about the votes for Kerry that were found in the poll boxes BEFORE the polls even opened up in Ohio? Hmm? And you guys think Bush is the one at fault? Of course I'm sure most of you didn't hear any of that on the massivly liberal news networks we have here in our lovely nation.

Hey, I'm a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Don't hate me cuz I'm beautiful.

Civilty? Its becoming of you!

However, if you want to be uncivilized.

Kerry is a doucebag and deserves to be tarred and feathered.

THis is what I say to democrats :upyours:

LOL!!!!

LOL

*smacks Corneliu's hand* *WHACK*

Shame on you!

Wouldn't your Mother be ashamed of such behaviour? I want you to march to the front of the class and applologize to everyone right now young man.

Actually, East Canuck is one of the better Debaters I have found here, intellegent and thoughtful. He can actually make a point and not have to try and twist the knife a full turn counter clockwise. Read his posts carefully, he often makes his most compelling statements in the middle of the paragraphs.

:)

And your making your points well too Corneliu, if we are not careful we might have a *gasp* Discussion!

But, if its Corneliu, East Canuck and myself debating, I fear you will have to take the Moderate posistion Corneliu, for I fear I am well to the right of you.

With heartfelt respects

AAhhzz

LOL

*smacks Corneliu's hand* *WHACK*

Shame on you!

*Hangs head in shame*

Wouldn't your Mother be ashamed of such behaviour? I want you to march to the front of the class and applologize to everyone right now young man.

Actually she would but I'm over 18 so she can't really do anything to me! LOL

And to the rest of the class, I'm sorry for my behavior. It won't happen again. LOL

Actually, East Canuck is one of the better Debaters I have found here, intellegent and thoughtful. He can actually make a point and not have to try and twist the knife a full turn counter clockwise. Read his posts carefully, he often makes his most compelling statements in the middle of the paragraphs.

I've debated him before. Your right. He is one of the better debators in here. Him and I sparred and though we don't always agree, we don't hurl insults at eachother. I wish more people were like him on these forums.

:)

Seconded :)

And your making your points well too Corneliu, if we are not careful we might have a *gasp* Discussion!

:sniper: We can't have that. No discussion allowed in General :mp5:

But, if its Corneliu, East Canuck and myself debating, I fear you will have to take the Moderate posistion Corneliu, for I fear I am well to the right of you.

Oh my god! I never would've guessed.

With heartfelt respects

AAhhzz

Seconded

Corneliu

We may not have a Democrat as a president until we are old, really, really, old!

Oh I dont know, I think your Hillary has a half decent chance in 2008.

And if she makes her points well and presents a compelling arguement for voting FOR her and not just voting AGAINST the other party I might vote her way.

After all, I maybe a life long Republican, but that doesnt mean I dont consider my vote worth the time and effort to investigate the claims made by both the candidates and decide for myself whom to vote for thankyouverymuch

Neither party is innocent, so I decide for myself to whom I shall give my vote to, and no matter who wins, the one who won becomes MY President. I dont backbite, I dont grouse and I dont gripe about the election outcome. The bottom line is I decide and I act and I accept the outcome no matter what it may be.

AAhhzz
*No relation to that nutcase in the Emerald City*

I'm betting they are inflated! Kerry himseld didn't think there was enough voter irregularities to warrent anything. If he did, don't you think the fight would've gone on?

He conceded because he knew he wasn't going to win.

Bush won Kerry Lost! The election is over.

Kerry conceded because the number of possible outstanding votes wasn't going to be enough to put Ohio over the top.

There has been fairly consistent speculation that Ohio (especially, but not alone) was 'influenced' by 'voter irregularity', to put it at it's most diplomatic.

Maybe Eastern Europe has given the US a lesson in what a democratic government looks like?

IF he has such a high IQ, how come I can't understand him when he speaks? At the very least he needs some public speaking classes...


Actually go looking for George W Bush's debates with Ann Richardson during the race between them for Govener of Texas. At that time the man was articulate, precise, on message and devistating in the debate.

I believe Bush wears the personna of "The Average Man" deliberately as a political tactic. After all, ask yourself this, how often have his opponents underestimated him only to have him turn the table on them.


It is sad that you have to resort to saying "stupid lib". If you didnt notice, I said that I would prefer Cheney in office over Kerry. And you all project liberals as "evil" people. Liberals (FDR) got us out of the Great Depression, which, by the way, conservatives (Hoover) failed to do anything about.

Liberals? Evil? Nahhhh, neither are conservitives,....now Stupid? Yeah there are PLENTY of those on both sides of that Fence.

Hopefully its neither of Us!

I know that Republican hands are dirty, having heard about all of this wonderful voter fraud (I must apologize; the article I used to have, I don't have anymore.)

However, I'm fairly sure that the Democrats' hands are just as dirty (and mind you, I'm a Democrat.) This also I don't have anything to base on but the words of one of my best friends -- but I have no reason to doubt her as she's the daughter of a local justice around here.

In either case, I think both parties screwed up. The obvious solution is to get drunk and make out.

Kerry conceded because the number of possible outstanding votes wasn't going to be enough to put Ohio over the top.

He knew there wasn't enough voter irregularities to pursue any court case too. That should've ended this along time ago. Tomorrow will be interesting to say the least.

There has been fairly consistent speculation that Ohio (especially, but not alone) was 'influenced' by 'voter irregularity', to put it at it's most diplomatic.

If so, then why didn't Kerry push hard? He was told about voter irregularities so why didn't he pursue the matter?

Maybe Eastern Europe has given the US a lesson in what a democratic government looks like?

I hope the State of Washington was watching on how it was done.

In either case, I think both parties screwed up. The obvious solution is to get drunk and make out.FINALLY a conclusion AND a course of action I can get into...

er...

no pun intended. :D

I believe Bush wears the personna of "The Average Man" deliberately as a political tactic. After all, ask yourself this, how often have his opponents underestimated him only to have him turn the table on them.



Actually - this I agree on... the G W Bush that ran for election this last year bears little resemblence to the earlier incarnation of the same man.

He really does seem to have created an image of what he thinks the 'average american' is... and to be honest... the average american should be insulted.

But then, when GW Bush puts on his "redneck, racial/sexual/religious intolerant, illiterate" hat... a large proportion of america seems to actively EMBRACE that 'average american' image.

I guess we get the politicians we deserve.

Actually - this I agree on... the G W Bush that ran for election this last year bears little resemblence to the earlier incarnation of the same man.

He really does seem to have created an image of what he thinks the 'average american' is... and to be honest... the average american should be insulted.

But then, when GW Bush puts on his "redneck, racial/sexual/religious intolerant, illiterate" hat... a large proportion of america seems to actively EMBRACE that 'average american' image.

I guess we get the politicians we deserve.
He may not speak well, meaning grammar,
But he got into Yale and got his masters

He knew there wasn't enough voter irregularities to pursue any court case too. That should've ended this along time ago. Tomorrow will be interesting to say the least.

If so, then why didn't Kerry push hard? He was told about voter irregularities so why didn't he pursue the matter?

I hope the State of Washington was watching on how it was done.

To be honest, I don't recall anyone making an official statement, on behalf of the Democrat party, where they fully endorsed the legitimacy of the election.

Kerry said that there were not enough outstanding votes... he didn't say anything about whether or not he believed Bush had managed to rig an election.

Of course, based on the Democrat initiatives in Florida before this election, it is only logical that Democrats WILL make all necessary attempts to rule out foul play.

Kerry didn't pursue the matter, you say... and yet, what is happening even as we speak?

I WOULD hope Washington was watching Eastern Europe, but I very much doubt they are. The current government has no confidence, and more than the previous one did.

In both instances, the election results should have been declared null and void, and the elections should have been rescheduled.

He may not speak well, meaning grammar,
But he got into Yale and got his masters

Okay... isn't that the same point I just made?

did not see yours sorry.

To be honest, I don't recall anyone making an official statement, on behalf of the Democrat party, where they fully endorsed the legitimacy of the election.

That's because Kerry said it was time to move on, but not in so many words, in his concession speech. Actually, I liked that concession speech. It was one of the best speeches I think Kerry made. To bad he didn't talk like that during the election, I might've voted for him.

Kerry said that there were not enough outstanding votes... he didn't say anything about whether or not he believed Bush had managed to rig an election.

Well duh he was going to say there wasn't enough outstanding votes. His advisors though told him of voter irregularities but he didn't pursue the matter.

Of course, based on the Democrat initiatives in Florida before this election, it is only logical that Democrats WILL make all necessary attempts to rule out foul play.

To bad they didn't consider their own use of foul play in this election. They tried to deny theres just like the republicans tried to deny there own. I didn't believe either one and condemned them both for voter irregularities.

Kerry didn't pursue the matter, you say... and yet, what is happening even as we speak?

I said Kerry not his supporters. Its the Congressional Black Caucus that brought this and is looking for a Senator to Back them. As I said, tomorrow should be an interesting day.

I WOULD hope Washington was watching Eastern Europe, but I very much doubt they are. The current government has no confidence, and more than the previous one did.

I'm smelling revote in Washington but I doubt that'll take place.

In both instances, the election results should have been declared null and void, and the elections should have been rescheduled.

Ukraine's was declared null and void by the Ukrainian Supreme Court. I wish they do that in Washington State and give the voters a revote considering at least 1000 military votes where not counted and I heard that earlier today and I believe it was printed up in the Olympian Newspaper.

Not to be contradicting, I didn't say that Clinton should've lost the 92 and 96 elections. I know full well what Clinton, Bush, Dole, and Perot got. I am not going to argue what your saying but the fact is that Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote. He is popular, no doubt about it, but he did not get 50% of the vote though he was close in 1996.

I wasn't trying to say that he got 50% of the vote. I was trying to say that you were comparing apples and oranges when comparing '96 to '04. One, because there was no real third party candidate this go around to steal a signifigant number of votes from either side. And because in all likelyhood, around a 3rd of the Perot Votes would have gone for Clinton had he been out, and Clinton would have broken 51%. I.E. that your point "That even Clinton didn't break 51%" was immaterial and meaningless.

Landslides in the electoral College most definitely and I'll give you the popular vote too just because I'm in a nice mood right now! :D

I shouldn't have said landslide when referring to the popular vote. But it is at least signifigant that statistically he was well outside the margin of error, where as this last election is not, and is part of the problem with the current system. If Diebold would stop making stupid statements about making sure a candidate wins a state, and would hop-to and set their voting machines up like their ATM's (I.E. with a series of verifiable failsafes and records), noone would question the results. At least, noone sane.

For anyone who wonders what evidence there was of fraud in Ohio, here is what the minority House Judiciary Committee came up with and presented to the rest of Congress today.

http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/finalreport.pdf

Have fun, it's a looooong read.

For anyone who wonders what evidence there was of fraud in Ohio, here is what the minority House Judiciary Committee came up with and presented to the rest of Congress today.

http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/finalreport.pdf

Have fun, it's a looooong read.

But, when you read it - it pretty much equates to a damning condemnation of election fraud on the part of the Republican party, and a wealth of illegal/immoral acts calculated to steal the Ohio vote...

ITS OFFICIAL!!!!

Senator Boxer (D CA) will step up to challenge the Ohio Electoral Vote.

This is an historic event though very very foolish since it won't change anything.

I do believe that the Democrats have just now shot themselves in the foot again and that this will come back to haunt them in 2006!

But, when you read it - it pretty much equates to a damning condemnation of election fraud on the part of the Republican party, and a wealth of illegal/immoral acts calculated to steal the Ohio vote...

Yea and only the republican party too! What about the fraud done by the Democratic party? We all know that both sides conducted fraud so just don't concentrate on one party as you people always seem to do.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*Southern Conservitive, but no, I dont own a Gun, sorry if that ruins your image of me*
Ah, there's my favorite redneck! ;)
(and my number one fan, it would seem)

I hope you had a nice New Year celebration. 2005 seems to be going great for me so far (what with all the love and praises I'm receiving over the net...).

Now if you and Corneliu would tone it down a little, you're making me blush. Also, there's some Liberal who are looking me funny, like I was conspiring with the ennemy or something.

Oh, and all you said would also apply to you as far as I'm concerned...

Ah, there's my favorite redneck! ;)
(and my number one fan, it would seem)

I hope you had a nice New Year celebration. 2005 seems to be going great for me so far (what with all the love and praises I'm receiving over the net...).

Now if you and Corneliu would tone it down a little, you're making me blush. Also, there's some Liberal who are looking me funny, like I was conspiring with the ennemy or something.

Oh, and all you said would also apply to you as far as I'm concerned...

:upyours: Liberal

Yea I'm getting that look too but alas, having a civilized debate with someone from the other side is rare on these forums.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]:upyours: Liberal
QUOTE]
That's it! I'm reporting you to the mods! That's flaming and it has gone too far.

Say goodbye Corneliu![/joke]

:upyours: Liberal

That's it! I'm reporting you to the mods! That's flaming and it has gone too far.

Say goodbye Corneliu![/joke]

HAHA!!!

:p

I like you though you are a liberal.

Your forgetting 2004

Bush 52%
Kerry 47%
Other candidates about 1%

You see this? I don't have the exact vote totals but you showed it yourself. Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote. Bush did.

Corneliu,

I'm not talking about 2004 or saying that Bush didn't win that particular election. I'm painfully aware of those numbers.

My response was initially aimed at TII's moronic claim about Clinton never receiving 50% of the vote in two elections where a third candidate made a strong showing. You jumped into it, claiming that Nader made a strong showing. I reply by giving you the percent of the popular vote that Perot garnered relative to Nader's best performance (which was 2000, not 2004), just to illustrate how strong his showing was.

I was using those numbers to demonstrate that Clinton's sub-50% performance was radically different from Bush's sub-50% in 2000 because of the presence of a strong third candidate, which we did not see in either 2000 or 2004.

You can't cut it both ways: You cannot criticize Clinton for sub-50% returns and then laud Bush for sub-50% returns in 2000 because he was involved in a tight three-way race. I mean, christ, Perot drew more votes than Bush Sr. in Maine. Meanwhile, in 2004, more people wrote in "Destiny's Child" than pulled the lever for Nader and Badnarik combined.

He may not speak well, meaning grammar,
But he got into Yale and got his masters
By way of affimitive action.

The election is Over. Kerry conceded. End of story.
Kerry even has said that he welcomes looking into electoral issues, but in no way contests or will contest the election.

So Bush is the next President.

Nothing, and I mean, nothing, is going to change that.

The election is Over. Kerry conceded. End of story.
Kerry even has said that he welcomes looking into electoral issues, but in no way contests or will contest the election.

So Bush is the next President.

Nothing, and I mean, nothing, is going to change that.
And the original post was about these issues and not about the outcome of the election.

I thought it was made rather clear a couple of times in the thread...

And the original post was about these issues and not about the outcome of the election.

I thought it was made rather clear a couple of times in the thread...

It's rather pointless to discuss the issues when the outcome is already settled. Those on one side bring up these issues to piss off the ones who lost, and those on the losing side bring up these issues in the hope that they can change the results of the election (either actually, or by marring the reputation of the winner).

In either case, it's pointless discussion. Why don't we discuss the election of Warren Harding while we're at it?

Actually go looking for George W Bush's debates with Ann Richardson during the race between them for Govener of Texas. At that time the man was articulate, precise, on message and devistating in the debate.

I believe Bush wears the personna of "The Average Man" deliberately as a political tactic. After all, ask yourself this, how often have his opponents underestimated him only to have him turn the table on them.

Are you sure? I was under the impression his verbal gaffs and general forgetfulness were more a sign of presenile dementia.
Ahh the good old 80's are with us again! A forgetful (due to mental degeneration) Republican president serving his second term, Star Wars, a burgeoning deficit, Religious right...Let's hope Maimi Vice doesn't come back. I couldn't handle seeing those pastel t-shirts or designer stubble again.

Designer stubble is back, unfortunately, especially in the form of a goatee.

Or as is commonly termed in the US, "prison pussy".

It's rather pointless to discuss the issues when the outcome is already settled. Those on one side bring up these issues to piss off the ones who lost, and those on the losing side bring up these issues in the hope that they can change the results of the election (either actually, or by marring the reputation of the winner).

In either case, it's pointless discussion. Why don't we discuss the election of Warren Harding while we're at it?
I'm sorry but I don't think it's pointless finding fraud and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. That is what the issue is, after all. If we shake our head and forget all about it, it's bound to continue during next election, and the next, and the next.

And we don't want that, now do we?

Therefore, any initiative that tries to expose corruption and / or put a stop in it is a good thing.

The fraud, as you say, seems to be scattered here and there, and is being addressed locally in detail.

If it were solely perpetrated by one Party, or was orchestrated from on high, it would be a matter of national interest.

I was a poll observer at my polling place. I saw no discrepancies or fraud whatsoever.

I will recommend you read the memo from the Democratic Party headquarters some time before the election, which advised Democrats to claim voter intimidation and fraud "even if none is present".

It makes me question the veracity and mindset of people who are anxious to claim something "even if none is present" - who now want to vigorously press the same claims.

The election is Over. Kerry conceded. End of story.
Kerry even has said that he welcomes looking into electoral issues, but in no way contests or will contest the election.

So Bush is the next President.

Nothing, and I mean, nothing, is going to change that.

Browning, this is exactly where I came into this. I don't like the outcome, but popular vote, electoral vote, and most of all, the concession put Bush in office.

However, I think election scrutiny is a very good idea for keeping U.S. elections honest. I don't believe the election was tampered with to such a degree that the outcomes were affected, but I do believe there were some unsavory practices that should be investigated, particularly in the distribution of voting machines and fraudulent voter registration drives. The outcome of these investigations is not to replace Bush, but to make it clear that no tampering or miscarriages of HAVA will be tolerated. After all, what sort of message would it send if no one looked into these issues?

Browning, this is exactly where I came into this. I don't like the outcome, but popular vote, electoral vote, and most of all, the concession put Bush in office.

However, I think election scrutiny is a very good idea for keeping U.S. elections honest. I don't believe the election was tampered with to such a degree that the outcomes were affected, but I do believe there were some unsavory practices that should be investigated, particularly in the distribution of voting machines and fraudulent voter registration drives. The outcome of these investigations is not to replace Bush, but to make it clear that no tampering or miscarriages of HAVA will be tolerated. After all, what sort of message would it send if no one looked into these issues?
Not to mention the cases of machines having no paper trail. Now, I'm not that computer savvy but even me can devise a subroutine to help one side or another if no one is looking at the trail.

That and the owner of the company doing these machines claiming that Bush will win a year before the election reeks of election tampering...

And the fact that the Diebolds introduced my new favorite phrase, the "hanging chad" of 2004, ladies and gentlemen, I give you: "Finger-hacked in under a minute."

I'm sorry but I don't think it's pointless finding fraud and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. That is what the issue is, after all. If we shake our head and forget all about it, it's bound to continue during next election, and the next, and the next.

The issue is Ohio's Electoral Vote not the voting itself. They want to question the vote then they should've done it BEFORE the Ohio Secretary of State certified it. Now that he has, the issue is at an end. If they want to talk more about this, then do so on the floor during REGULAR DEBATE! This certification of the Electoral Vote is only FORMALITY, nothing more.

And we don't want that, now do we?

No we don't but there is a time and place for this debate and this is not it. The time is during regular Congressional Debate not the Formality of certifying an election.

Therefore, any initiative that tries to expose corruption and / or put a stop in it is a good thing.

Its been blasted coast to coast even before the election of all the voter fraud taking place. Seems to me if they want to stop it, it is up to the states to do it themselves.

Yea and only the republican party too! What about the fraud done by the Democratic party? We all know that both sides conducted fraud so just don't concentrate on one party as you people always seem to do.

Did you not read it, then?

That little report detailed a well-spring of Republican shenanigans... not to deny that there were ANY Democratic misdeeds, but - well, the scope of the Republican crime dwarfs any opposition naughtiness.

I love this line: "so just don't concentrate on one party as you people always seem to do". Which people am I, Corneliu?

Did you not read it, then?

That little report detailed a well-spring of Republican shenanigans... not to deny that there were ANY Democratic misdeeds, but - well, the scope of the Republican crime dwarfs any opposition naughtiness.

Now that is Bullcrap! I guess you don't follow the news as well as you think. I've seen more democratic voter irregularities than Republican ones. There were certainly republican ones and they were broadcasted right alongside the democratic ones. Both parties should be ashamed but then, this has been going on since our very first election.

I love this line: "so just don't concentrate on one party as you people always seem to do". Which people am I, Corneliu?

I will give you a guess. I at least focus on both parties. I've said all throughout this thread that both parties are guilty of it.

The issue is Ohio's Electoral Vote not the voting itself. They want to question the vote then they should've done it BEFORE the Ohio Secretary of State certified it. Now that he has, the issue is at an end. If they want to talk more about this, then do so on the floor during REGULAR DEBATE! This certification of the Electoral Vote is only FORMALITY, nothing more.

No we don't but there is a time and place for this debate and this is not it. The time is during regular Congressional Debate not the Formality of certifying an election.


I disagree. If it ISN'T objected to NOW, it is validated.

And, regardless of whether it makes a difference to the current regime (which seems very unlikely), these issues of electoral abuse and election fraud must be addressed now, long before the next election.

Personally, I think they should discount electoral votes from the state of Ohio, due to the controversy.

Then, what would happen, I wonder?

He may not speak well, meaning grammar,
But he got into Yale and got his masters

Yes, a masters from one of the schools with the worst grade inflation in the country.

I love the way people worship schools like Yale and Harvard, which are so worried about keeping their image that it is much easier to get an A there, with much less work, than in just about any other schools. This is *especially* true in humanities-type courses.

Now that is Bullcrap! I guess you don't follow the news as well as you think. I've seen more democratic voter irregularities than Republican ones. There were certainly republican ones and they were broadcasted right alongside the democratic ones. Both parties should be ashamed but then, this has been going on since our very first election.

I will give you a guess. I at least focus on both parties. I've said all throughout this thread that both parties are guilty of it.

Personally, I don't think it a good thing that the current electoral process is corrupt... I certainly wouldn't encourage you to be PROUD of the fact that it exists on the back of a HISTORY of corruption.

I have seen irregularities from both sides, but a huge amount of abuse has been carried out specifically by the Republicans, that has shifted hundreds of thousands of votes away from the Democrats... and I have seen nothing to suggest that Democrat interference has anything LIKE that scope.

That is why I am focusing on Republican abuses here. They are guilty of sufficient abuse to rig the election... therefore, THIS election result SHOULDN'T stand.

So - come now, Corneliu... who are these people that you are asserting I am 'one of'? You and I have covered similar terrain before... and you have made similar assumptions before... and you have been just as wrong, before.

I disagree. If it ISN'T objected to NOW, it is validated.

The problem is that this was supposed to be only a Formality. Now, the losers have decided to try and make political hay out of this not realizing that they tried using Florida 2000 and lost using that.

And, regardless of whether it makes a difference to the current regime (which seems very unlikely), these issues of electoral abuse and election fraud must be addressed now, long before the next election.

It should be addressed at the state level. All elections are done on state level and not the national level. Yes it was a federal election but the thing is, the elections are certified on the state level. What is going on in Congress today, as dictated, was the Formality of Certifying the Presidential Election and that is all they do.

Personally, I think they should discount electoral votes from the state of Ohio, due to the controversy.

Then you have just disenfrancized the people that did vote. Congratulations I guess liberals don't want to see every vote counted after all.

Then, what would happen, I wonder?

Bush would be elected by the House in accordance with the US Constition and Vice President Cheney would be elected by the Senate in accordance with the US Constitution. Anyway you look at it, the Democrats still lose.

Yes, a masters from one of the schools with the worst grade inflation in the country.

I love the way people worship schools like Yale and Harvard, which are so worried about keeping their image that it is much easier to get an A there, with much less work, than in just about any other schools. This is *especially* true in humanities-type courses.

Yeah, it's a good thing that Kerry went to Yale as well. It may indicate that he's as much of an idiot as you claim Bush is.

So - come now, Corneliu... who are these people that you are asserting I am 'one of'? You and I have covered similar terrain before... and you have made similar assumptions before... and you have been just as wrong, before.

Just like you've been wrong in your assertions of me. Your right, we have covered this terrain before. Your among the I hate Bush crowd. I love global warming crowd (though it does not exist but that is a different topic) crowd and you fail to see the otherside of a debate.

If not, I apologize in advance.

Yeah, it's a good thing that Kerry went to Yale as well. It may indicate that he's as much of an idiot as you claim Bush is.

*Shrug* I never claimed that Kerry was especially intelligent.

However, I have four years of proof that Bush is an idiot, and none for Kerry, so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This was especially true when considering the nature of 2nd-term presidents.

*Shrug* I never claimed that Kerry was especially intelligent.

However, I have four years of proof that Bush is an idiot, and none for Kerry, so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This was especially true when considering the nature of 2nd-term presidents.

How the hell can you say you have 4 years of proof? I have several months to prove that Kerry was an idiot.

*Shrug* I never claimed that Kerry was especially intelligent.

However, I have four years of proof that Bush is an idiot, and none for Kerry, so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This was especially true when considering the nature of 2nd-term presidents.

Well, it's hard to vote for an idiot, but it's even harder to vote for an asshole.

If I went to the place you work (or attend school), and asked their opinion of you, and didn't pay them, and 32 out of 33 close associates said you were an asshole, I would believe them.

If I had to pay that 1 out of 33 to say something good about you, I'd believe it even more.

Ok, I'll buy that Bush is an idiot if you'll buy that Kerry's shipmates believed to a man that he was a flaming asshole.

Well, it's hard to vote for an idiot, but it's even harder to vote for an asshole.

If I went to the place you work (or attend school), and asked their opinion of you, and didn't pay them, and 32 out of 33 close associates said you were an asshole, I would believe them.

If I had to pay that 1 out of 33 to say something good about you, I'd believe it even more.

Ok, I'll buy that Bush is an idiot if you'll buy that Kerry's shipmates believed to a man that he was a flaming asshole.

I will second this.

How the hell can you say you have 4 years of proof? I have several months to prove that Kerry was an idiot.

Well, Bush has been in office for four years, right? And I can point out numerous things he has done that serve as proof.

Well, Bush has been in office for four years, right? And I can point out numerous things he has done that serve as proof.

And I can point out the idiotic stuff that Kerry has done too! We're even on that scale.

Well, it's hard to vote for an idiot, but it's even harder to vote for an asshole.

If I went to the place you work (or attend school), and asked their opinion of you, and didn't pay them, and 32 out of 33 close associates said you were an asshole, I would believe them.

If I had to pay that 1 out of 33 to say something good about you, I'd believe it even more.

Ok, I'll buy that Bush is an idiot if you'll buy that Kerry's shipmates believed to a man that he was a flaming asshole.

Considering that many of those same shipmates, including one of his commanding officers that condemned him in this election, *supported* him and said what a great guy he was in his first Senate election, I really wouldn't trust a word any of them said.

And I can point out the idiotic stuff that Kerry has done too! We're even on that scale.

Yes, but you cannot point out anything idiotic that Kerry has done while president of the United States.

He also, as I pointed out, would not have been a 2nd term president.

Edit: Not that any of this matters at this point.

Considering that many of those same shipmates, including one of his commanding officers that condemned him in this election, *supported* him and said what a great guy he was in his first Senate election, I really wouldn't trust a word any of them said.

Makes you wonder if he paid them the first time around.

They definitely weren't paid this time around.

Makes you wonder if he paid them the first time around.

They definitely weren't paid this time around.

Really? Know them all personally, do you? Checked their bank records, have you?

Don't make silly assumptions.

Just like you've been wrong in your assertions of me. Your right, we have covered this terrain before. Your among the I hate Bush crowd. I love global warming crowd (though it does not exist but that is a different topic) crowd and you fail to see the otherside of a debate.

If not, I apologize in advance.

Once again - you allocate me to a non-commital grouping...

You should have just fronted up, and admitted you were saying that I was one of those damned liberal democrats - or something similar... at least I could have respected your candour, though you would STILL have been wrong.

In terms of American politics, I am entirely non-partisan... although I have watched Bush lie, cheat and steal his way through the last four years, and I do wonder why ANY of the US voter population still has any support for him, at all.

Regarding Kerry... yes, to be honest, I would have rather seen him win the last election. That is not because I am a liberal, or a democrat, but, instead, because he at least is not yet PROVEN to be a corrupt warmonger.

You confuse my politics. I argue against a corrupt regime, so you assume I am a member of the opposition.

You are right about the global warming, though... well, nearly... I am not 'pro-global-warming', which your description seems to imply... I am just wise to it's reality. I notice that, once I started posting evidence that thoroughly discredited you in THAT thread, you mysteriously disappeared...

Yes, but you cannot point out anything idiotic that Kerry has done while president of the United States.

Doesn't matter. The point is, Kerry is an idiot and I have proof to prove it.

He also, as I pointed out, would not have been a 2nd term president.

Thank God Bush did win a 2nd term

Edit: Not that any of this matters at this point.

Correct, it doesn't.

Really? Know them all personally, do you? Checked their bank records, have you?

Don't make silly assumptions.

There are some rather disappointed news services that did the footwork on the money trail for the Swifties. They came up with nothing.

Bush won in 2000 because the strength and application of existing Florida election guidelines -- while ignored by the Florida Supreme Court -- were finally upheld by the US Supreme Court.

They had X amount of days to count the votes, they didn't do it, the recount should have stopped (but didn't because of Fla Sup Ct).

Finally, Florida statutes were respected.

The Dems whined and bitched then.

Now, Bush gets a clear majority vote, wins Ohio by, what, 150,000 votes... and the Dems are whining again.

Lose with dignity, for chrissake.

My hat goes off to the Democrats who have shown some class and moved on.

My one consolation here is that the whole "assassinate Kerry's character" game isn't going to last too much longer. Pretty soon, once we've handed over power to a new Iraqi government that will glow like a shining beacon of democracy to the world, we'll be able to step back and assess the wreckage of our domestic policy, the dressed-out carcass of social security and the drug benefit cards that'll save us 25% on our pills, but won't do a thing for our 20-grand a year extended-care bills.

Then the mantra won't be "Yeah, like Kerry would have done better" but instead "How could he have done worse?" But what are you going to do? We've already pulled the lever.

Once again - you allocate me to a non-commital grouping...

Fine

You should have just fronted up, and admitted you were saying that I was one of those damned liberal democrats - or something similar... at least I could have respected your candour, though you would STILL have been wrong.

Was trying to be polite and the way you've been arguing you gave me no choice but to think that.

In terms of American politics, I am entirely non-partisan... although I have watched Bush lie, cheat and steal his way through the last four years, and I do wonder why ANY of the US voter population still has any support for him, at all.

Bull! I dn't believe that your non-partisan. As for Bush Lying, yea I'm sure he has but everybody lies. As for any voter voting for him again, 1) you don't change presidents in the middle of a war. 2) You don't vote for someone who cannot stick to one possion for more than 24hrs. 3) His wife sucked and was detremental to his election prospects. Couple that with Kerry's dry sense of humor and no plan, he wasn't electable. No wonder the people voted for Bush.

Regarding Kerry... yes, to be honest, I would have rather seen him win the last election. That is not because I am a liberal, or a democrat, but, instead, because he at least is not yet PROVEN to be a corrupt warmonger.

Corrupt warmonger? This from a guy who supports the UN and decided that no US Action should take place without their consent? The people wouldn't tolerate that. Also, if he wants UN authorization for everything then why didn't he support the 1st gulf war that had UN authorization but this one that didn't?

You confuse my politics. I argue against a corrupt regime, so you assume I am a member of the opposition.

Show me proof of corruption.

You are right about the global warming, though... well, nearly... I am not 'pro-global-warming', which your description seems to imply... I am just wise to it's reality. I notice that, once I started posting evidence that thoroughly discredited you in THAT thread, you mysteriously disappeared...

There is no reality to global warming. Just the exact opposite but as I said, that is not a topic of this thread. I've posted evidence against yours and you totally discredited it with verbal talk but no link to supplement it even though I asked you time and time again for it. The reason I disappeared Grave is that I have better uses of my time than to argue with someone who doesn't care what the otherside was saying.

The loony left is digging their own grave deeper and deeper. It's fun to watch...the gift that keeps on giving!!!

The Dems should be content with stealing the Washington State governorship, which has pretty much been rendered worthless.

The loony left is digging their own graves deeper and deeper. It's fun to watch.

and taking down the democratic party with them which is sad. Sad to see the oldest surviving political party in the US going down because of the people on their left.

Bush won in 2000 because the strength and application of existing Florida election guidelines -- while ignored by the Florida Supreme Court -- were finally upheld by the US Supreme Court.

They had X amount of days to count the votes, they didn't do it, the recount should have stopped (but didn't because of Fla Sup Ct).

Finally, Florida statutes were respected.

The Dems whined and bitched then.

Now, Bush gets a clear majority vote, wins Ohio by, what, 150,000 votes... and the Dems are whining again.

Lose with dignity, for chrissake.

My hat goes off to the Democrats who have shown some class and moved on.

To be honest - I think you miss the important point.

Most Democrats HAVE moved on. They don't expect anything to change in terms of the current regime - even though there is so much evidence of a corrupt election.

What they ARE looking towards, is fixing the corrupt system before the next election... and YOU should worry about that, too - regardless of your personal party affiliation.

and taking down the democratic party with them which is sad. Sad to see the oldest surviving political party in the US going down because of the people on their left.

I don't think that seniority should really factor in party politics, do you?

Oldest party or not - if they are corrupt... well, retire them.

Open up the party race to some new contenders - some new representatives that haven't had decades of practice at accepting corporate backhanders, kowtowing to the pharmacy and oil czars, and abusing public interest and funds.

What they ARE looking towards, is fixing the corrupt system before the next election... and YOU should worry about that, too - regardless of your personal party affiliation.
As strongly indicated in the speeches going on in the House right now - I have a discussion thread opened on it with excerpts from the speeches. Hot off the press... I wrote what I heard and what I thought about it.

I don't think that seniority should really factor in party politics, do you?

Where the hell did this come from?

Oldest party or not - if they are corrupt... well, retire them.

then retire them now

Open up the party race to some new contenders - some new representatives that haven't had decades of practice at accepting corporate backhanders, kowtowing to the pharmacy and oil czars, and abusing public interest and funds.

Good. Tell Mass to kick out Ted Kennedy. Let PA eliminate Specter. Lets start doing that. Give it back to the State Legislature for the Senators and lets place term limits on the House. If not with the state legislature then put term limits on the Senate too.

As strongly indicated in the speeches going on in the House right now - I have a discussion thread opened on it with excerpts from the speeches. Hot off the press... I wrote what I heard and what I thought about it.

And from what I've seen and heard, they have it in for the other side.

The loony left is digging their own grave deeper and deeper. It's fun to watch...the gift that keeps on giving!!!

The Dems should be content with stealing the Washington State governorship, which has pretty much been rendered worthless.
loony left? shift have you seen the radical right? we are gonig to have condoms banned again before long

loony left? shift have you seen the radical right? we are gonig to have condoms banned again before long

Now here's a scare tactic if I ever saw one.

Now here's a scare tactic if I ever saw one.

Nothing at all like "Gay marriage leads to bigamy and bestiality" or "Social Security is in imminent danger," eh?

Bull! I dn't believe that your non-partisan.


Whether or not you believe that, that is your problem.

I have told you I am non-partisan... I have NO party affiliation in US politics. I wonder why you would choose not to believe me?


As for Bush Lying, yea I'm sure he has but everybody lies. As for any voter voting for him again, 1) you don't change presidents in the middle of a war. 2) You don't vote for someone who cannot stick to one possion for more than 24hrs. 3) His wife sucked and was detremental to his election prospects. Couple that with Kerry's dry sense of humor and no plan, he wasn't electable. No wonder the people voted for Bush.


1) Why not change presidents in the midle of a war? What if the CURRENT president STARTED that war, and struggled to keep it going long enough to get him elected a second term? So - you vote Bush, you buy into his domination of you. He MADE you vote for him, by engineering a war, and then TELLING YOU that you can't change horses midstream.

2) I have watched Bush change position at least that quickly, so... why would anyone vote for him?

3) You VOTED based on who would be First Lady? Damn, no WONDER american politics is in this state...


Corrupt warmonger? This from a guy who supports the UN and decided that no US Action should take place without their consent? The people wouldn't tolerate that. Also, if he wants UN authorization for everything then why didn't he support the 1st gulf war that had UN authorization but this one that didn't?


Corrupt. Yes. Warmonger. Yes. Not that difficult.


There is no reality to global warming. Just the exact opposite but as I said, that is not a topic of this thread. I've posted evidence against yours and you totally discredited it with verbal talk but no link to supplement it even though I asked you time and time again for it. The reason I disappeared Grave is that I have better uses of my time than to argue with someone who doesn't care what the otherside was saying.

I posted links, and argued all your points into oblivion, and THEN you ran for cover.

I do CARE what the 'other side' is saying... I just think that, for the most part, they are drones repeating what they are trained and conditioned to say.

Nothing at all like "Gay marriage leads to bigamy and bestiality" or "Social Security is in imminent danger," eh?

I want you to think about that first part but Social Security is not in imminent danger but when the baby boomers retire (and they are very close too) it will be.

Whether or not you believe that, that is your problem.

I have told you I am non-partisan... I have NO party affiliation in US politics. I wonder why you would choose not to believe me?

Because of the way you talk.

1) Why not change presidents in the midle of a war? What if the CURRENT president STARTED that war, and struggled to keep it going long enough to get him elected a second term? So - you vote Bush, you buy into his domination of you. He MADE you vote for him, by engineering a war, and then TELLING YOU that you can't change horses midstream.

It just isn't done. If it was, FDR wouldn't have won four elections. As for someone starting a war, we didn't start this war. Al Qaeda started this war. Hussein, by extenstion of his refusal to follow UN Resolutions, signing a cease-fire, and his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, started the war too. A war that did not end because it was a cease-fire and not a peace treaty. As for my vote. Kerry made me vote for Bush. I trust Bush when it comes to the Economy! I trust Bush on Foreign Policy! No one made me vote for anyone and I find what you said HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and I demand an appology.

2) I have watched Bush change position at least that quickly, so... why would anyone vote for him?[p/quote]

Why would anyone vote for Kerry because he did it too.

[quote]3) You VOTED based on who would be First Lady? Damn, no WONDER american politics is in this state...

No, I didn't vote based on First Lady. I did it based on Record and Kerry's 20 year Senate record stunk to high heaven. Not to mention I was not impressed with his speeches or the way he dressed.

Corrupt. Yes. Warmonger. Yes. Not that difficult.

Proof please?

I posted links, and argued all your points into oblivion, and THEN you ran for cover.

Then why dismiss what satellite data indicated regarding the COOLING of the atmosphere and NOT warming up? Defeats global warming.

I do CARE what the 'other side' is saying... I just think that, for the most part, they are drones repeating what they are trained and conditioned to say.

THere, you just proved what I was saying. You call them drones when you said you cared. Thanks!

I want you to think about that first part but Social Security is not in imminent danger but when the baby boomers retire (and they are very close too) it will be.

Not at all... 2014 is the EARLIEST date at which Social Security is going to have problems, but the more realistic figure for actual FAILURE to MEET REQUIREMENTS is somewhere in the ball park of 2042...

Hardly a crisis.

And, of course, if Bush would stop robbing the Social economy to repair his broken War Chest... well... I don't need to go any further, do I?

Corn,

What makes you think I haven't thought about this?

The first part is a quote from television advertisements in battleground states. The second part is a scare tactic. Even with the retirement of the boomers, the SSA trustees' intermediate report shows that SS benefits will not be reduced until 2042. By this point, most of the boomer generation will have died. After 2042, payout will potentially drop off by 28 percent. 37 years down the line.

This is not an imminent crisis. This is like worrying about the millennium bug in 1960. The reason it's being pitched as a crisis is to get folks into the panic mode, and stampede toward a self-destructive revision of the program.

This is what we call a scare tactic, and yer boys are just as guilty of it.

This is what we call a scare tactic, and yer boys are just as guilty of it.

Never said the Republican Party was not guilty of it did I?

There are some rather disappointed news services that did the footwork on the money trail for the Swifties. They came up with nothing.

So you believe that if the journalists can't find it, it doesn't exist. Good to know.

Because of the way you talk.

No, I didn't vote based on First Lady. I did it based on Record and Kerry's 20 year Senate record stunk to high heaven. Not to mention I was not impressed with his speeches or the way he dressed.

Then why dismiss what satellite data indicated regarding the COOLING of the atmosphere and NOT warming up? Defeats global warming.

THere, you just proved what I was saying. You call them drones when you said you cared. Thanks!

1) I 'talk' like an Englishman... I don't see why that makes me more or less partisan.

2) So - you voted on his speechwriter and his costume designer... excellent... well, at least you didn't vote on any 'trivial'.

3) Been there, done that... I expalined the data.. go dig up the global warming thread, if you want to discuss it. You lost, leave it at that.

4) I said I cared about what they said... that doesn't mean they AREN'T drones, being push-button operated to say those things.

Thanks, Grave.

The point is that, with 37 years of wiggle room, we do not need to have a firesale mentality and buy into a privatization scheme that will hasten the failure of Social Security. The current trust fund is 1.6 trillion bucks. A carve-out privatization program will cost in the neighborhood of 1 trillion bucks. Do the math.

On the other hand, a tiny fraction of a percent increase in payroll tax fixes the system. When you're dealing with compound interest over such a span, it doesn't take much to go from certain failure to indefinite growth. If you don't buy it, look at the trustees' optimistic and pessimistic estimates, look at the tiny shifts in percentages underlying the estimates and then look at the different outcomes.

It's all available at the SSA homepage. I'll give the linky if you solemnly swear to read it and consider the data therein without anti-Dem vitriol clouding your reason.

Whether or not you believe that, that is your problem.

I have told you I am non-partisan... I have NO party affiliation in US politics. I wonder why you would choose not to believe me?

People who adhere to a specific party can't really fathom the idea that some of us can think for ourselves. You're either "us" or "them" and there is no in between. I don't worry abou tit too much.

Corrupt. Yes. Warmonger. Yes. Not that difficult.

Unable/unwilling to keep an advisor unless said advisor will tell him whatever he wants to hear in the first place. Yes.

So you believe that if the journalists can't find it, it doesn't exist. Good to know.

Well, I can't live my life with a world view composed of unprovable conspiracy theories. That would make me a kook. Ooops. Pardon me. It's "Left Wing Kook" or "Right Wing Nut-Job"

That would make me a Nut Job if I believed conspiracies like that.

Wow! I have read this thread from beginning to end. This is the major problem with politics. One side is convinced they are right and can't see it any other way and the other side is constantly trying to prove their point and end up getting lost in the argument.

Here are my thoughts. Kerry was a bad candidate. Demo's could have done a lot better. Bush has lied and cheated the american public. This war was sold to the american public on false pretenses. I dare say there is not one CLEAN politician around. So which party is better? I say the party of the people. Others say the red party. The point is, you have to choose where you stand, and STAND!

As for the Democratic party, I say put Obama up for Pres with Hilary as VP in 2008 and watch the republican party RUN! You have the two major minority groups represented and the voter turn out will at least double this one. Republicans need to remember, that only 29% of the US calls themselves republicans. If all people voted, republicans would never stand a chance of winning an election.

According to something I read, in one county (where there was the new electronic voting machines which are funded and distributed by primarily republican comapnies) that in a county with approximately 600-700 registered voters, Kerry got 200 or so and Bush got something over 4500 or something in that area. That or whatever it was, was a horrible typo...

This just in!

The US Senate has REJECTED the motion to toss out Ohio's 20 Electoral Votes.

Hmm. So maybe we should look into Pennsylvania, where Kerry won...

and where before the election started, officials found machines in urban areas with Kerry votes on them - some as high as a thousand...

if you're going to investigate, then you need to investigate ALL the allegations, not just the ones that Democrats bring up.

According to something I read, in one county (where there was the new electronic voting machines which are funded and distributed by primarily republican comapnies) that in a county with approximately 600-700 registered voters, Kerry got 200 or so and Bush got something over 4500 or something in that area. That or whatever it was, was a horrible typo...
That was already posted and explained in this thread...

This just in!

The US Senate has REJECTED the motion to toss out Ohio's 20 Electoral Votes.

No doubt that this was expected!

Vote was 74 to 1

Well, I can't live my life with a world view composed of unprovable conspiracy theories. That would make me a kook. Ooops. Pardon me. It's "Left Wing Kook" or "Right Wing Nut-Job"

That would make me a Nut Job if I believed conspiracies like that.

So you're not a nutjob if you believe they were paid the first time without any proof of that idea, but you are a nutjob if you believe they were paid the second time with an equal amount of proof.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

So you're not a nutjob if you believe they were paid the first time without any proof of that idea, but you are a nutjob if you believe they were paid the second time with an equal amount of proof.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

No, I don't believe they were paid either time.

But one was. The only one who said anything good about Kerry. The one on his campaign staff strictly for that purpose - to say good things in opposition to the Swifties.

The others weren't paid. Apparently, the FEC was also interested to know whether or not they were paid.

According to something I read, in one county (where there was the new electronic voting machines which are funded and distributed by primarily republican comapnies) that in a county with approximately 600-700 registered voters, Kerry got 200 or so and Bush got something over 4500 or something in that area. That or whatever it was, was a horrible typo...

The electronic voting machines are *incredibly* easy to tamper with, but most of our politicians decided that printers were too expensive (which obviously is more important than ensuring that the voting is proper). Go figure.

In GA, an intern demonstrated that hitting the voting card with ESD not only erased votes already saved on it, but also gave him full admin access to the computer. The committee still voted that adding printers would just be too expensive.

The US House is now voting!

The House has also rejected the motion to Toss out Ohio's 20 Electoral Votes.

The final vote is:

267 to 31

This has come to an end and thank God!

It's rather pointless to discuss the issues when the outcome is already settled. Those on one side bring up these issues to piss off the ones who lost, and those on the losing side bring up these issues in the hope that they can change the results of the election (either actually, or by marring the reputation of the winner).

In either case, it's pointless discussion. Why don't we discuss the election of Warren Harding while we're at it?

If someone broke the law and skewed the results of the election, IN ANY WAY, it is NOT a pointless discussion, whether or not it effects the outcome. Sitting on your heels and saying, "Well, he would have won anyway." just encourages further abuse of the system.

Last time I checked, this was the United States of America. We aren't supposed to let ANYONE screw around with our electoral process.

267 to 31
The senate 74-1... when you see this many abstentions on a joint session that qualifies as a publicity opportunity, you know something's wrong.

The senate 74-1... when you see this many abstentions on a joint session that qualifies as a publicity opportunity, you know something's wrong.

Very wrong.

25 Senators didn't vote and over a hundred House members didn't vote. I can see why they didn't vote but I wish everyone voted.

Very wrong.

25 Senators didn't vote and over a hundred House members didn't vote. I can see why they didn't vote but I wish everyone voted.
It would appear that at least half, and if not more than half of the abstaining senators were Republicans...

as shown by here.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00001

Very wrong.

25 Senators didn't vote and over a hundred House members didn't vote. I can see why they didn't vote but I wish everyone voted.
A lot are out of town, For example, Bill Frist is in Sri Lanka with some other senators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
1) I 'talk' like an Englishman... I don't see why that makes me more or less partisan.


Actually you "talk" like a Democratic National Committee Memo or the bullet points from MoveOn.org. So you come off looking and sounding like a Democratic Party Advocate, all the while claiming your non partisanship.

Wait a second...Is your name Dan Rather? LOLOLOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
2) So - you voted on his speechwriter and his costume designer... excellent... well, at least you didn't vote on any 'trivial'.



*shrugs*

Was his vote to do with as he wished was it not? After all as has been pointed out in this thread some people voted for Destinys Child.

Wrap your mind around the image of * that * Presidential Inaguaration speach if your having trouble staying awake, I guarenttee that the rush of adreniline will wake you up


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
3) Been there, done that... I expalined the data.. go dig up the global warming thread, if you want to discuss it. You lost, leave it at that.



http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/euoncc.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm (Global cooling activist 30 years ago, Global Warming activist now, anything to keep the money rolling in I suppose)
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34630
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/arch...L20041202a.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feat...1108853,00.html
"a general increase in overall solar radiation over the past 150 years."

About .1 percent per decade, oh my that would fit your global warming data ( as incomplete as it is ) pretty much perfectly wouldnt it?

Could the SUN have anything to do with Global warming? Nahhh, of course not YOU are such an expert you never could have missed such an obvious linkage.

So where is the additional heat that is being generated by the sun over the course of the last century and striking the earth being disappated to?

Any Ideas oh so Non Partisan Guru of the Truth and Absolute Arbitrator of Reality?

You can proclaim yourself the victor all you want, just dont expect everyone to believe you


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
4) I said I cared about what they said... that doesn't mean they AREN'T drones, being push-button operated to say those things.



See the first portion of this post, as far as I can tell you should be able to qualify as an expert when it comes to drones since you have such personal experience.

Dismissingly

AAhhzz

The point is that, with 37 years of wiggle room, we do not need to have a firesale mentality and buy into a privatization scheme that will hasten the failure of Social Security. The current trust fund is 1.6 trillion bucks. A carve-out privatization program will cost in the neighborhood of 1 trillion bucks. Do the math.

Depends I guess if your intending to be living off the plan when it does fail would make it an urgent problem or not. For myself I am not worried about it because I will likely be dead before it fails. My son however is pretty worried about it because he will be retiring just about that time. So should he pay into that system just to have it fail when he needs it most? Or should he perhaps invest in something stable and make his own nest egg for retirement?

After all as you said with compound interest 37 years of investment of about a third of your SS taxes could be a very nice sum could it not?

On the other hand, a tiny fraction of a percent increase in payroll tax fixes the system. When you're dealing with compound interest over such a span, it doesn't take much to go from certain failure to indefinite growth. If you don't buy it, look at the trustees' optimistic and pessimistic estimates, look at the tiny shifts in percentages underlying the estimates and then look at the different outcomes.

Well, I am already paying 12.4% of my earnings ( 6.2% out of my paycheck and 6.2% that my employer pays into the system that he could instead be paying me ) into the system. How many more percentage points would it take to keep SS solvent through my Great Great Great Grandsons (assuming the line doesnt die off before then, but then again we are conservitives and not very likely to divest ourselves of an innocent life, so its likely we will be around ) lifetime?

It's all available at the SSA homepage. I'll give the linky if you solemnly swear to read it and consider the data therein without anti-Dem vitriol clouding your reason.

*smiles*
It would be truely nice to see the numbers on this. Thank you YFP

And if you doubt my sincerity ask East Canuck, I do follow links and read carefully and even *gasp* consider the facts and if my opponent has the right of it I acknowledge it publicly.

Oh my goodness

http://www.patriotsforgore.com/

Press release dated Jan. 3, 2005:

As the rightful President of 2000, Al Gore should have been allowed to serve the term the people and electorate of America elected him to serve for them. We then also have been working to investigate if there is a legal and constitutional way to restore that term to Vice President Gore, and a petition to that effect is on our site. The petition will remain there as long as it takes to see justice, if that day ever comes. We intend to send this petition to Congress this year in an effort to not only then seek a suitable remedy for this act of treachery, but to also work to see that legal and constitutional remedies exist for the future.

I think this person needs to seek professional help.

Being upset that your candidate didnt win in November is one thing, being upset that they didnt win 4 years ago seems a bit, obsessive.

It's all available at the SSA homepage. I'll give the linky if you solemnly swear to read it and consider the data therein without anti-Dem vitriol clouding your reason.*smiles*
It would be truely nice to see the numbers on this. Thank you YFP

And if you doubt my sincerity ask East Canuck, I do follow links and read carefully and even *gasp* consider the facts and if my opponent has the right of it I acknowledge it publicly.
I can vouch for that! :cool:

It would appear that at least half, and if not more than half of the abstaining senators were Republicans...

as shown by here.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00001

Good! They know that this was stupid and it wasn't worth the waste of 2 hours of debate where the Congress could've been doing something more important like reforming Social Security, Healthcare, and Taxes.

Oh my goodness

http://www.patriotsforgore.com/



I think this person needs to seek professional help.

Being upset that your candidate didnt win in November is one thing, being upset that they didnt win 4 years ago seems a bit, obsessive.

I will agree with you considering it would get defeated in a hurry and I doubt it'll get out of a committee.