As I stated early on this thread and what Rigs has restated... Just the tern "conspiracy theory" is used much the way the term "liberal" is used... It has been PR'd to a point where any factual story can be blanketed with the "conspiracy theory" label and everyone is supposed to automatically disbelive the factual story...
As for the 2004 election, Ron, perhaps you'd like to esplain why the relationship between Diebold and the Bush administration??? Or perhaps why the winning party is the same party who has fough so hard to not have a paper trail??? No, we can't prove any wrong doing, like in 2000 election where there is a mountain of evidence that Katherine Harris and Jeb ush broke their own laws in order to get over 50,000 mostly black voters off the rolls... But given the 2000 election it is not "unreasonable" to think that something went wrong in Ohio in 2004...
I mean, if we are trying to sell the concept of "democracy" we need to get our elections right and for folks to just put the "conspiracy theory" on the 2004, or even the 2000 election is like telling the rest of the world that we are no better than countires where elections are always corrupt... LIke in Iraq when Saddam got 99% of the vote...
So, please, Ron, don't fall into that trap... You are too good a thinker to be sucked into such undemocratic PR trickery... And make no bones about it, that is what "conspiracy theories" is...