BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election

Subject: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:23 AM

Libs are alredy laying the Unfair Election groundwork. They have had 6 years to fix anything that might be wrong with the election process but they are still not satisfied with the election process.

Why? They don't want it fixed so they can always cry RECOUNT if they loose.

If you go back to the original ground zero, the Palm Beach butterfly ballot, it was designed by a Democrat, Theresa LePore, Approved by a Democrat and the poles were supervised by Democrats. Who do they have to blame but themselves? In the 1996 election, the exact same problem occurred, for the exact same reason. In that instance, the Republican candidate, Robert Dole, had 14,000 ballots tossed out because of double-punching. But there was no furor over a Republican loosing because of a lousy ballot.

Have Democrats done anything to do away with the Electoral College? No, they realize they might need it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:27 AM

Purging Blacks and young people from election lists is just a fine thing to do huh? Blow me you simple-ass dickhead.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:30 AM

Old Guy, are you really as simple as you appear? And do you think we are even simpler? The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process. They haven't been in charge. The Repubs have. They have gerrymandered, and obstructed everything. And now they are going to pay the price.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:39 AM

ACORN can always add more Libs to the list.

KC officials pan ACORN voter efforts

Published Wednesday, October 25, 2006

KANSAS CITY (AP) - Kansas City election officials say thousands of questionable voter registration cards have been turned in by the same group whose efforts have been criticized in St. Louis.

Kansas City Election Director Ray James said the U.S. attorney and Jackson County prosecutor’s office have been asked to investigate registrations collected by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN.

James said more than 15,000 registrations have problems such as duplicates, questionable or unreadable information, or names, addresses and Social Security numbers that don’t match existing records.

Kevin Whelan, communications director for ACORN, said the group was surprised to see that large of a number in media reports. He said ACORN representatives had been working with the Kansas City Election Board to sort through about 3,000 cards that had problems.

Calling such a large number questionable is misleading because duplicates or mismatched personal information are an inevitable part of the voter registration process, Whelan said.

And, he said, the problem might have been made worse because the Kansas City Election Board did not follow federal law that requires it to notify applicants of the status of their registration. He said that makes it more difficult to correct information and might cause some people to fill out a second card.

Earlier this month in St. Louis, election officials said at least at least 1,500 potentially fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by the St. Louis ACORN branch.

Democrats, Start Your Chainsaws.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:40 AM

"The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process" Did they try?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:46 AM

That was much nicer Mick. I am rude, crude, and lewd, often angering those around that I might find disagreement with and hence putting this place and the members here in a bad light. I need to rephrase things and take back what I said to Old Guy.

Old Guy......I'm sorry I suggested you blow me because you're such an ignorant cocksucker. Allow me to repost.

Blacks, young people and other traditionally Democratic voters have been purged from election rolls through exceedingly underhanded, devious, and fraudulent means. I can understand how you would of course disagree with this assessment. You are first, foremost, and obviously, a dyspeptic and pathetic, broke-dick, mook lacking the intelligence to separate urine from high-topped footwear when lacking detailed instructions. Additionally, you probably molest Cocker Spaniels. Thanks so much for your dimwitted, cut and paste posts.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:49 AM

I love you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:50 AM

Please note I am NOT a Cocker Spaniel.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:51 AM

That's OK, I forgive you.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:54 AM

Spaw, you should have seen that post before I re-edited it. I sure wish I had your way with words.

Fucking idiot, this old guy, yes?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:03 AM

Presenting insults is always easier than presenting facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:24 AM

Facts? You? Facts?

{Wild, hysterial laughter!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:27 AM

You just proved my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:33 AM

I would suggest that Old Guy get a clue, but he couldn't get a clue even if it were the middle of clue mating season, he rubbed clue musk all over his body, then went out into the middle of a field full of horny clues and did the clue mating dance.

Don Firth

P. S.   I think we find it a little difficult to take you seriously, Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:42 AM

Is that a red herring, ad hominem or a straw man logical falacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:49 AM

None of the above. Just an acute observation.

Don Firth

P. S. Approaching 11:00 p.m. here on the West Coast. Good night.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: fumblefingers
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:31 AM

As I recall in 2000 (I wrote it down at the time), the Democrats hired a Dallas PR firm before the election. Jesse Jackson was in Florida by the time the polls were closed. He claimed fraud. Gore operatives flew in a planeload of "volunteer" vote counters from Boston to get their hands on those punch card ballots. Military absentee ballots were thrown out on technicalities. Gore wanted a recount, but only in 3 counties that were heavily Democratic. The Florida Supreme Court was changing the election laws by fiat when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. The Federal court ruled that the Florida court could not make law, but only rule on the constitutionality of existing law. I've always thought that the 2000 Florida fiasco had Bill Clinton written all over it, but I have no proof of that. Subsequent recounts by the media never found that Gore won in Florida. The DNC knew they lost, but it has been useful to them to perpetuate the myth that Bush "Stole" the election. That started the Bush haters on their way.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:55 AM

Mick,

You state "The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process. They haven't been in charge. The Repubs have. They have gerrymandered, and obstructed everything. And now they are going to pay the price."

Unfortunatly for the trurh, the districts are determined at the state level, wher the Dems have about as much say. In fact BOTH parties act the same in this regard.

As for rigged elections, Maryland is a good example of a Dem state that has wholeheartedly embrassed Diebold, and the Rep. Governor has been unsuccessful in getting any kind of paper trail, or verification of the electronic results, because of the Dem. State legislature..

To think that only the opposing side is using these immoral and unfair tactics is to be even more of a fool than you have accused OG of being.

Ohio in 2004 - HOW many counties even had the Diebold machines blamed for the "incorrect " count? ( I guess "incorrect " means thqat the wrong person won.) And WHICH party had control of the local election boards that would have been able to alter the counts?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:59 AM

Actually, one only needs to look at the recent history of federal elections...

In 2000 it was Florida, a state controled by Repubs and...

...in 2004 it was Ohio, also controled by Repubs...

Repubs have stealing elections down to an art...

The problem with this is that the world knows what is going down here in the US... That's why there will never be anything that resembles "democracy" in Iraq because the Iraqis can just point to the US when we make demands on them to be ***democratic*** and ***share power***...

The US is the supreme fake when it comes to preaching these principles...

Even if the Repubs hadn't stolen the elections (which there are mounds of evidence that they have) they don't even get the "share power" principle...

Like I have always said here: In all the red states, a Dem will have to win by 5 points to win... Under 5 points and they are screwed...

In both Ohio and Florida the exit polls and the final talleys were off in favor of the Repubs...

Hmmmmmmmm???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: mack/misophist
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:57 AM

As far as 'fixing' the Electoral College goes, I believe my civics teacher said it was in the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:11 AM

The gerrymandering of districts is far more of a problem for democracy than suspected, but not proven, vote misrecording.

I remember seeing somewhere that about half of all the competitive house seats were in the two states with neutral boards in charge of drawing up district boundaries. It doesn't matter how the votes are counted when the state has been split into districts with 15% inbuilt majorities for one party or the other.

Maybe a Democratic congress could try getting a bill requiring all paper and pen voting through...

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:13 AM

Who has taken any action to ammend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college?

It was something devised when it took days or weeks for election results to reach the Capital. Now it arrives in microseconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM

Old Guy, are you really as simple as you appear?

No. A great deal simpler.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM

...the districts are determined at the state level, wher the Dems have about as much say.

Two words:

1. Texas

2. DeLay

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM

Has anyone stopped to consider that the possibility of fraudulent elections is not a simple partisan problem? I'll freely concede that Dems are as likely to cheat as Repubs. Isn't it to the advantage of voters to insure that elections results reflect the wishes of the folks that vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:14 AM

OG, just in case you missed it, and assuming (BIG assumption) that you can actually process cogent information, suggest you watch both the First and Second videos on THIS PAGE. And, like Dick Greenhaus, I don't give a shit which party fucks with the voting process, I want a paper trail and my congressional reps. have heard from me and many others who feel the same way. What have you done to bring about change?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:27 AM

Nothing. I think it is up the the people that dissagree to make the effort. Otherwise it looks like they want to have something to fall back on and bitch about in case they loose.

I certainly wouldn't block eliminating the electoral college.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:46 AM

Old Guy, the inverting of 'loose' versus 'lose' is a common mistake and anyone can on occasion misuse a word. However, repeated misuse displays ignorance.

Repeat after me: Infant's stools are loose; You can lose an election.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM

Well, if you happen to have loose stool (the shits) you could lose control of your bowels. In the case of OG, he keeps crapping all over himself continually.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM

kat,

I think OG is to thick to see that one day he could be on the side that disputes a result and finds the system can not be checked. Either that or he believes democrats never would cheat.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:34 AM

Oh, I see...he starts a thread o fopposition, but he isn't in opposition, so he can sit back in apathy and do nothing to improve our system 'cause it's perfect, right?

I think you are right, guest!

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Alice
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

OG, you write from the perspective that all Republican actions are good, all Democratic actions are bad. You "kneejerk react" whenever Republicans are criticized. Don't you realize that these are just political parties made up of human beings who make mistakes? Republican dirty laundry that gets aired here causes you to jump to the defense of Foley, vote tampering, etc. Do you realize how nuts that makes you look?   People who are objective and logical recognize that every group has its bad apples, including political parties, including the Republicans and the Democrats. Why is your mind so locked into the Republicans that you keep defending their flaws and misbehavior?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:29 PM

Sometimes I find myself wondering if it's something in the water or maybe something in the diet of the knee-jerk neo-thinkers that makes them incapable of reacting differently. It's the Stepford Wives all over again- just on a larger scale.

And - I'm not kidding - it's scary.

(By the way, I changed to 'infants' from 'babies' and somehow infant plus apostrophe became singular.)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM

Thanks for posting links to those videos, kat!

Bush and the neo-conservative klatch that back him talk about wanting to bring democracy to Iraq and other countries, and what they actually mean by "democracy" is "make these countries safe for American business." They don't really care anything about democracy. They don't want to govern, they want to rule. And they're willing to resort to just about anything they think they can get away with to stay in power. Such things as the disenfranchisement of 57,000 voters, mostly black, in Florida in 2000, the reduction of voter facilities forcing tens of thousands of voters to stand in lines for hours in Ohio in 2004, the wholesale gerrymandering of Texas and other states, and the murky business of Diebold (a company in which an executive said quite openly that he felt it was his duty to God to see that Bush stayed in office) and the replacement of reliable systems with verifiable paper-trails for other systems that can be easily diddled with amply demonstrate their anything but democratic hunger for power.

Unless we watch them like hawks, and insist on substantial election reform with independent and duly suspicious citizen oversight, we may have seen the demise of democracy in this country and its ultimate degeneration into a tyrannical corporate-driven empire. Indeed, many of the world's people already view us this way.

And as long as the Right-Wing is in power, and no matter how obviously they're screwing things up on a national and international scale, Old Guy and those like him think everything is just ducky-peachy. But just suppose, by some bizarre, horrible, unpredictable fluke, a substantial number of liberals and progressives do get elected democratically and fairly, take over control of Congress, then begin restoring our democratic institutions and correcting the long list of Bush administration foul-ups?

Who do you think will be the "crybaby" then?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM

I keep wondering if this administration ever has stopped to consider what precedents they are setting for future administrations. For instance, given their hatred of Hillary Clinton, how would they feel about it if she in her administration had the power they have given themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

The rule on the Mudcat appears to be that it's bad to say that all Republican actions are good and all Democratic actions are bad but it's good to say that all Democratic actions are good and all Republican actions are bad. (Repeat that sentence three times, quickly, without reading it.)

Myself, I tend to assume that all Republicans are intelligent but crooked and all Democrats are honest but stupid, or at least naive. But I know that's a ridiculous generalization. There are really plenty of honest but stupid Republicans and plenty of intelligent but dishonest Democrats. And a good number of both who are stupid and dishonest at the same time.

I am firmly convinced that we need to abolish the two-party system if we want to salvage the United States as a free nation.

As for the Electoral College: I have read that, with the present system in place, Vermont controls one-half of one per cent of the votes for President, but with direct election of the President, we'd have one-fifth of one per cent. So what's our incentive to support elimination of the Electoral College? And the same applies to any State with a small population. And an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by a certain proportion of all the states. I think it's either 2/3 or 3/4, but don't remember. Why would all the less populated states vote to give California and New York and Florida and a few other snake pits any more power? They have too much already.

So there.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Midchuck
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM

That last long rant was me. They de-cookied me again while my back was turned.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: pdq
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:28 PM

Don Firth:

What kind of glasses enable you to see corruption 3000 miles away in Florida but keep you free observing anything wrong in your home town of Seatle?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{from WSJ}

Florida With Rain

More funny business in the Washington governor's race. Will there be a new election this year?

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Washington state has supplanted Florida as the leading example of the need for election reform. The Evergreen State's voting system is so sloppy that you can't tell where incompetence ends and actual fraud might begin. Three Washington counties just discovered 110 uncounted absentee ballots--including 93 from Seattle's King County--in a governor's race that occurred more than five months ago and was decided by only 129 votes. Officials in Seattle's King County admit they may find yet more ballots before a court hearing next month on whether a new election should be called. Last Friday, they reported finding a 111th ballot.

The infamous 2004 governor's race was finally decided seven weeks after the election, after King County officials found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts. After the new ballots were counted, Democrat Christine Gregoire won a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. Even as she was sworn in last January, King County election supervisor Dean Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."

He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.

       {first part only}

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM

Get a grip, pdq!

I am perfectly aware of local elections screw-ups and I'm working--locally--with others, to bring an end to that sort of thing. Most of it consisted, not of partisan politics, but of clerical and administrative fuck-ups. You will note that the misplaced and/or uncounted votes numbered in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands. And you will also note that the goof-ups may or may not have affected only local offices. Heads have been rolling in the King County Elections office.

And I have a vested interest in the absentee ballots being counted efficiently and accurately because I vote absentee ballot.

Considering the magnitude of the obvious Florida and Ohio efforts to tip the election, and all the gerrymanderiing that's been going on, what happened in Washington State is pretty small potatoes. Not to be ignored, but it hardly compares.

And what are you doing about it, other than just leaping to conclusions and pointing fingers at others?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM

A well-done collection of data about the many different scams run to subvert the 2000 and 2004 elections can be found in Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" -- here's a discussion about it. Required reading IMNSHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

LMAO.....PETER, that was just beautiful!!! Sadly, I think you're right......................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM

Surely making the case for an unfair election means arguing that an unfair election can be a desirable thing.

I would have thought that anyone who thinks that Bush has been a good President would have no difficulty in making that case in respect of 2000. Whether many people would agree with it is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM

That was a biggie Ebbie. Keep 'em coming. Do your repeated personal attacks indicate anything?

"OG, you write from the perspective that all Republican actions are good, all Democratic actions are bad"

That in itself is a knee jerk reaction because I have complimented Bill Clinton for things he did that I consider right and I criticize GWB for things he does that I consider wrong.

But I have thought about this and I am giving my conclusion. You are welcome to disagree and/or present facts.

The continued personal attacks illustrate the fact that Liberals don't have any facts to the contrary to present so they use personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:00 PM

Theresa LePore bought Sequoia Voting Systems DRE voting machines for the 2002 elections.

"..a March 2002 runoff election in Wellington, FL, was decided by five votes, but 78 ballots had no recorded vote...."

"In November 2004, during her last election as a lame-duck supervisor, LePore faced one final round of criticism when the new touch screen machines apparently recorded 88,048 more votes than there were voters. This was later attributed to accidental double entry of data from some precincts."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM

"...they use personal attacks"   Not the only ones by a long way, Old Guy - in fact some of the nastiest examples we'e had here (and some of them very nasty indeed) have come from decidedly illiberal posters.

Personal attacks, or generalised insults for that matter (eg "Crybaby Liberals), which are essentially the same technique, distract from rational discussion, whatever the politics of those who give in to the temptation.

Friendly teasing has a place; it can lighten things up, and that's needed at times. But playground insults or worse, they are just a drag, whoever throws them around. Basically they're just a variant on the old rule, when you are losing a game, knock over the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:24 PM

By the way, a little more recent history from the Soviet of Washington.

When the votes were counted after the gubernatorial election in 2004 (that's when we elect our goobers), Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate came out a couple of thousand votes ahead of Democrat Christine Gregoire. When Chris Gregoire pointed out that Washington State law requires a recount when the margin is that close (and she knew, because she had been State Attorney General before running for Governor), Dino Rossi accused her of being a "sore loser." But when the recount, mandated by law, was complete, Chris Gregoire had won by a razor-thin margin:   129 votes. Rossi—who's the sore loser now?—wanted to sue (on what basis, no one was quite sure), but cooler heads in his own party talked him out of it.

The sloppiness of the 2004 election (uncharacteristic in this state) has many of the voters of all parties here watching gimlet-eyed and looming menacingly over election officials. I think that's a good thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:31 PM

Who have I called a Crybaby Liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:55 PM

I didn't actually say you had, Old Guy. And when I talked about "some of the nastiest examples we've had here", I didn't have you in mind, by a long way.

But if the cap fits... (And if you don't think it fits this thread might be worth casting an eye over.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:30 AM

Old Guy! (Snort! LOL! Gasp! LOL some more...) And that's just from reading the first 15 or so posts on this thread which I just took my first look at...with you and the so-called "liberals" battling tooth and nail over the old pointless divide, by which I mean the completely bogus choice you Americans have to vote for Tweedledee (the Democrats) or Tweedeldummer (the Republicans).

Sheesh, what a travesty it is. And you're still willing to divide up and fight each other over it? Good. The guys who are really in charge and who OWN both those parties body and soul will be very, very happy about that. As long as they can keep you fighting amongst yourselves, they are fully in control.

Look, here's how it works: You have 2 completely phony and power-hungry party machines both of whom are entirely beholden to their major lobbyists and funders, who are the major corporations, the banks, the oil industry, the insurance companies...to put it simply, Big Business and the military-industrial complex.

Now, both those phony political parties still want VERY much to win your phony elections, naturally, because it's a GAME....like the World Series, only it's more expensive and takes longer and has effects that are more far-reaching and last longer. So, the Democrats and Republicans, even though they are owned and controlled by the same rich moneyocracy will do ANYTHING to screw things up for the other side and win the damn game. They will lie, cheat, accuse, finger-point, engage in character assassination, whatever it takes.

And the one that's already in power is far better positioned to do that, because being in power allows them to command more money and pull more dirty tricks. So the $ySStem is always skewed pretty heavily in favor of the party already in power unless that party has managed to so totally discredit itself in the last term that the public turns massively against it. That may happen this time...and it may not.

But whatever happens, the same people will really be controlling it all from behind the scenes, and you don't get to vote for them. You don't even know their names, for the most part. You get to vote for the flunkies, the corporate servants they trot out for you as official "candidates"...that's all.

This isn't about liberals and conservatives any more. This is about the takeover of a once at least supposedly democratic system by a vast moneyocracy which controls BOTH of your parties and most of your elected representatives (like about 98% of them, I figure).

You don't HAVE a democracy. You have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich, controlled from the top by an elite few, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it unless 100 million or so of you have the guts to go out in the streets with guns and baseball bats and launch a new American revolution. (And I'm afraid if you did, some vicious scoundrels would just take it over, become the new bosses, and you might end up with something even worse than what you have now.)

And guess what? The same basic corruption of the political process has already happened in Canada and the UK and many other places too. It's the rule, not the exception. All the supposedly independent political parties that are big enough to command a significant number of votes have sold out long ago to the big financial interests. They do not and WILL not represent the ordinary public, and they will not field candidates (for any of the key positions that really matter) who represent the ordinary public. Elections are just entertainment now, not the providing of a genuine choice, and the entertained are kept deluded by fighting endlessly with each other over these completely passe and out-of-date labels like "liberal" and "conservative" like a bunch of dinosaurs arguing about who was to blame for the comet hit or something.

But, Gawd...it is funny listening to you still argue over it, I must say.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM

My First Post:

"Sometimes I find myself wondering if it's something in the water or maybe something in the diet of the knee-jerk neo-thinkers that makes them incapable of reacting differently. It's the Stepford Wives all over again- just on a larger scale.

And - I'm not kidding - it's scary."

Number Two Post:
"I keep wondering if this administration ever has stopped to consider what precedents they are setting for future administrations. For instance, given their hatred of Hillary Clinton, how would they feel about it if she in her administration had the power they have given themselves? "

Old Guy's Response: "That was a biggie Ebbie. Keep 'em coming. Do your repeated personal attacks indicate anything?"

Ebbie's Answer:

1) I notice that you have no trouble recognizing yourself in the first scenario.
2) You didn't address my second concern.

Little Hawk, your opinion and delineation would sound better to me if you were talking about your own country. If Canada ever - and I think it is quite possible- goes in the same direction as the US is going, she may have even greater difficulty than we in extricating herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 06:39 AM

Last time I looked Erlch was a Republican and he is cryong shame on Diebold. He is urgig everyone to use mail in ballots.
OF course the State does not have enough

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 08:06 AM

Peter-

You can "firmly believe" whatever you want. But if you're a US citizen of voting age and don't vote this time to toss Bushites out-------(and sorry to say--perfect candidates with any chance to win are not running this time--only Democrats and Republicans have any realistic chance, except for sterling citizens like Mr. Lieberman)----- we don't want to hear any complaints from you in the next 2 years about what Bushites are doing.

And that goes double for any courageous Ghosts (Guests?) who have hypnotized themselves with their fascination about the terrible "duopoly".

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 08:32 AM

Little Hawk:

Everything is so perfect in Canaduh. What do you do to occupy your time? Watch reruns of Sargent Preston of The Yukon?

It must be boring as hell.

BTW Iv'e been to the Yukon. Have you? I chickened out when I got to the road to Inuvik and I didn't go there.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 09:29 AM

Mid-term precriminations
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
October 31, 2006
A FORMER Republican leader burst forth into print yesterday and asked what the hell went wrong. A lot of them are doing it these days.

It was all about Republican losses in the mid-term elections and how the so-called Republican revolution that started in 1994 had gone so badly wrong.

What's wrong with this picture? Well, the elections for control of the US Congress are still a week away. Votes are yet to be cast and counted.

No matter, welcome to the latest political trend in Washington, dubbed "precriminations" or "pre-mortems".

"The 2006 mid-term elections will be a success for the Democrats," says Dick Armey, aleading "precriminator", in The Washington Post. Armey was Republican leader of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

"Where did the revolution go astray?" he asks plaintively. "How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today -- from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?"

Rest of article.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM

we don't want to hear any complaints from you in the next 2 years about what Bushites are doing.

I'll complain about anything I damn please. Live with it or get off the list.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:55 AM

I'm reminded of the man who cut his right hand off and then complained about being unable to find a left-handed corkscrew.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:59 AM

An interesting dissertation on the imminent fall of the elephants.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM

Hey!

How could you guys possibly have read my post with so little attention as to miss the fact that I already said that the same corruption of the political system HAS happened in Canada as has in the USA? ;-)

Hmmm? How could you have missed that? Tell me? (grin)

****************************************


I'll tell you what the situation is in Canada. It's a little better than in the USA...maybe quite a bit better...but that's not because our political parties represent the public. Ha! They don't. They represent the same corporate entities and elite that controls the USA. Canada, both politically and economically speaking, is merely a subsidiary branch plant of the USA, and scratches itself everytime the USA feels an itch anywhere.

But it is a more moderate and reasonable society and it does have a better social safety net. Why? Well, simply because it has a more moderate social tradition behind it from the past and a public that is accustomed to that already...thus the political powers are not as free to institute nearly as virulent a form of fascism here yet as in the USA. People aren't as frightened here, they aren't as ready to give up their social services in the name of "privatization" (a scam), they aren't quite as ready yet to voluntarily turn the place into a police state.

It's just a question of historical momentum, that's all. Things can only move so fast against the inertia of past tradition, and Canadians are standing on a more progressive tradition and a more peaceful tradition than Americans.

It is only that inertia, that resistance to change, that keeps Canada a bit less insane than the USA...but the same scoundrels are in charge, I assure you, and they have completely hijacked and taken over our political parties and our system, and there's nothing we can do about it either.

All of North America, to me, is really one entity, but the Canadian section of it is safer, less crazy, and less troublesome on the whole, so, yes, I am damn glad to be here! You oughta move up here, Old Guy. You'd love it, and you could still find opinions that match your own too...just read the Toronto Sun. (the worst newspaper in Canada, and it can be found for free in any greasy spoon in town)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM

Little Hawk, your viewpoint on the two-party system in the United States is accurate to a point, but I think there are a lot more differences between the two parties than you are aware of, or at least, acknowledging. Personally, I would favor a proportional system like many countries have, or at the very least, preferential voting so I could vote for the candidate I really like the best (third party or tenth party) without fear that my one vote will go for naught, one of a few voices crying out, but lost in a howling windstorm. But unfortunately, we're stuck with what we have until we get off our butts and change it.

In the meantime, I wrote a little dissertation for another thread which I think is relevant here. I would be interested in reading your comments on it.

Clicky.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:17 PM

You make a lot of interesting points in that post, Don, many of which I would agree with.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I definitely do NOT think that "all Democrats and Republicans are the same", when we're talking about ordinary people who are party members. Not at all. They are tremendous in their variety, their intentions, and their capabilities.

It was not members of the 2 parties I was pointing my finger at, it was the great and shadowy forces that control those 2 parties that I was talking about. Those people are beyond allegiance to any party or any credo, as far as I can see, except the credo of "the bottom line".

The problem with political parties is that they necessarily fall under the control of the largest money interests who decide whether or not to back them. Without enormous financial backing a candidate will not get elected, because he will not be able to conduct an effective campaign and get enough media attention and public exposure. Thus the most powerful financial people in the system basically control the agenda and they control all the major parties. They don't really give a damn about tiny little parties that most people don't vote for, because those are no threat to the ruling order.

And that is the situation that is occurring, not only in the USA but in most countries which hold "democratic elections"...perhaps all such countries.

It's an incredibly corrupted system. I won't deny that there are many individual politicians who genuinely wish to serve the public and do good things...but how far will they get if they don't play ball with the powerful who control the pursestrings? Not very far at all. Maybe as far as a ruined career or a pine box.

I'm not saying the Democrats and Republicans are identical, I'm saying they are both indirectly controlled by huge corporate entities that the public has no recognition of and no control over...and I can't see that changing, because the mechanisms are simply not in place to change it. It can all be done legally. One can legally circumvent and eviscerate a democracy and turn it into autocratic rule by secret corporate committee...IF one has the money to do it and one also owns and controls the main national media outlets. And they do.

By all means, though, one party may be somewhat preferable to the other at any given time...so of course when the time comes to vote, vote as you think best. That's what I do in Canada...but I don't expect much from it, I can tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

Why oh why do so many folks on this forum resort to personal attacks when someone has a view other than theirs? Isn't there room for more than one point of view on this forum?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:51 PM

One hundred percent with you there, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:58 PM

Isn't there room for more than one point of view on this forum?


Sure there is, Doug!! As long as they are civil.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

Chongo says that if chimpanzees got a chance to run things instead, all that would clear up right away.

Mind you, he says a lot of stuff like that, specially when he's had a few drinks. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM

Yes, Peter, we're all well aware you will complain about anything you want to.   That actually was never in any doubt. But thanks for confirming.

And thanks for your calm, well-reasoned response.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:38 PM

Good analysis, Little Hawk. I agree.

Unfortunately, just about the only viable choices the voters have are candidates affiliated with the two major parties. I know there are those out there, and some here on Mudcat, who get real ticked off at me for saying that, but it's just being hard-headedly realistic. I don't like it any better than they do, but within the context of the configuration, that's what we're stuck with until we manage (somehow!) to change it.

For what I would like to see the country become—or at this point, prevent the country from continuing to become—I will go on voting for the Democratic candidates because to do otherwise will only accelerate the country's slide into corporate imperialism combined with the establishment (contrary to the Constitution) of a state religion (evangelical fundamentalist Christian). Back to the Rome of Constantine and the beginning of a new Dark Ages!

Fortunately, in this mid-term election, Washington State has some pretty good candidates for Congress. Although early on, Maria Cantwell, the state's junior senator, voted for giving Bush war powers (Patty Murray, the senior senator voted against it, and delivered an impassioned speech to Congress as to why they should not, earning her the title of "Taliban Patty" from the Right-Wing), Maria has since developed both a brain and a spine, and is working like a little beaver on environmental and energy issues especially. She's become a real pain in the patoot to those who want to cut down all the forests and pave over them and drill holes everywhere looking for oil. She's gung-ho for developing renewable energy resources. My congressional representative, Jim McDermott, is very anti-war, very pro-single payer universal health care, and a burr under the saddle of those opposed to election reform, which has made him a special target for the Right-Wing's bile. But Jim is pretty much a slam-dunk. In the last election, he got 85% of the votes. Folks in the 7th District like Jim. And there are several other very good candidates from the area. From listening to them being interviewed on the radio, the Republicans in this area seem to be trying to distance themselves from Bush, but when it comes down to cases, they're pretty much a collection of Bush yes-men. So I'll be voting straight Democratic ticket this time around.

In 2008? Remains to be seen. But Barack Obama was in town a few days ago. I heard him being interviewed several times, and although he won't come right out and say he's game to run, he won't deny it either. He's quite progressive, is as yet unspoiled by the system and is fully aware of the traps, knows where the bodies are buried, he's sharp, articulate, quick on his feet, and has one helluva sense of humor. He knows where his towel is. I don't know how he'd play in the Confederate South, but if he runs in 2008, I'd sure vote for him.

In ancient Athens, the citizens were expected (it was their duty as citizens) to know the laws and be up on current issues and affairs. It was especially important for them because the Athenians chose their public officials from the citizens at large by lottery. And at the end of their term, their performance in office was reviewed by a jury of 501 other citizens, and either lauded or condemned for their performance in office. In short, they were held accountable. There were various factions, of course, but there were no political parties.

Athenian democracy (the world's first) had a lot of flaws, but it had a lot going for it, too. I think we could learn a lot from them.

Excellent book. Very enlightening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

The Republicans will lose the H of R, and it will be real close in the Senate. Bush is going down! And any Republicans who want to have a hope in hell of getting reelected in future will have to distance themselves from Georgie.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:46 PM

I would think the Republicans may lose the House--but not by much. I'd be real surprised if they lose the Senate. Especially in Virginia and Tennessee, there are lots of good ol' boys--who may well not be caught by pollsters--or may not be honest in responses. In Tennessee, for instance, the Republican Senate candidate is stressing that there are differences between him and Harold Ford. One of the most obvious differences is race--Ford is black. I've seen it put that race in the Tennessee contest is "the quiet issue"--you won't hear about it til after election day.

Also, as the WSJ pointed out, the "Religious Right" still has its turnout machine churning away--and the recent New Jersey decision on homosexual marriage has--unfortunately--brought that issue to a high profile--again. "Values voters" are being told it's their Christian duty to vote--they should hold their noses and vote--and guess what their litmus test issues are--again: homosexual marriage, abortion, pornography, flag-burning--and now stem-cell research.

They will be out in force. I hope those voters to the left of center don't insist on a simon-pure candidate as the only one to deserve their votes. ( Other candidates are of course all part of the evil "duopoly", don't you know).

It's also questionable how many Hispanic citizens will come out to vote-- the Democrats have not made it a clear choice between them and the Tancredo mob.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM

How 'bout that, cookieless again--that last one was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM

Sounds like you have some good candidates in Washington state, Don. That's great. If I was in your place, I'd vote the same way I figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM

Well said LH, I was yanking your chain a bit. But, given half a chance, Canada would be as corrupt as the US.

I do like the wide open spaces up there. Ever been to the Edmunston Mall?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:12 AM

U.S. Investigates Voting Machines' Venezuela Ties

New York Times

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: October 29, 2006
The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.


Tim Boyle/Getty Images
A touch-screen machine by Sequoia Voting Systems was used this month during early balloting in Chicago.

The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, the Smartmatic Corporation, and is trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm's operations, government officials and others familiar with the investigation said.

The inquiry on the eve of the midterm elections is being conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, the same panel of 12 government agencies that reviewed the abortive attempt by a company in Dubai to take over operations at six American ports earlier this year.

The committee's formal inquiry into Smartmatic and its subsidiary, Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, Calif., was first reported Saturday in The Miami Herald.

Officials of both Smartmatic and the Venezuelan government strongly denied yesterday that President Chávez's administration, which has been bitterly at odds with Washington, has any role in Smartmatic.

"The government of Venezuela doesn't have anything to do with the company aside from contracting it for our electoral process," the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said last night.

Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country's elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.

Seven months before that voting contract was awarded, a Venezuelan government financing agency invested more than $200,000 into a smaller technology company, owned by some of the same people as Smartmatic, that joined with Smartmatic as a minor partner in the bid.

In return, the government agency was given a 28 percent stake in the smaller company and a seat on its board, which was occupied by a senior government official who had previously advised Mr. Chávez on elections technology. But Venezuelan officials later insisted that the money was merely a small-business loan and that it was repaid before the referendum.

With a windfall of some $120 million from its first three contracts with Venezuela, Smartmatic then bought the much larger and more established Sequoia Voting Systems, which now has voting equipment installed in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its takeover by Smartmatic in March 2005, Sequoia has worked aggressively to market its voting machines in Latin America and other developing countries. "The goal is to create the world's leader in electronic voting solutions," said Mitch Stoller, a company spokesman.

But the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less visible in public documents as the company has been restructured into an elaborate web of offshore companies and foreign trusts.

"The government should know who owns our voting machines; that is a national security concern," said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, who asked the Bush administration in May to review the Sequoia takeover.

"There seems to have been an obvious effort to obscure the ownership of the company," Ms. Maloney said of Smartmatic in a telephone interview yesterday. "The Cfius process, if it is moving forward, can determine that."

The concern over Smartmatic's purchase of Sequoia comes amid rising unease about the security of touch-screen voting machines and other electronic elections systems.

Government officials familiar with the Smartmatic inquiry said they doubted that even if the Chávez government was some kind of secret partner in the company, it would try to influence elections in the United States. But some of them speculated that the purchase of Sequoia could help Smartmatic sell its products in Latin America and other developing countries, where safeguards against fraud are weaker.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which oversees the foreign investment committee, said she could not comment on whether the panel was conducting a formal investigation.

"Cfius has been in contact with the company," said the spokeswoman, Brookly McLaughlin, citing discussions that were first disclosed in July. "It is important that the process is conducted in a professional and nonpolitical manner."

The committee has wide authority to review foreign investments in the United States that might have national security implications. In practice, though, it has focused mainly on foreign acquisitions of defense companies and other investments in traditional security realms.

Since the political furor over the Dubai ports deal, members of Congress from both parties have sought to widen the purview of such reviews to incorporate other emerging national security concerns.

1 2

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM

On this morning's NBC news, Wayne Slater, the man who wrote 'The Architect, Karl Rove,' etc, was asked why Rove sounds so confident about next week's election. Rove says that Democratic expectations are grossly inflated.

Slater's opinion is that Rove is trying to energize Republican voters. On the other hand, he said, if Rove is right and the Democrats fail spectacularly, Rove would be "the god of all political gods." If the Democrats garner the seats they need, Rove's star will dim and his legacy will be diminished.

They didn't go there- might Rove (and some others) have a trick or two up his sleeve?

Rove, Slater said, has lost a few 'small' races but never one that had Bush in it.

Of course, Slater also said that the Repub are confident that even if they lose control of either house or both, that would be just a small blip in the inexorable course of the Republican machinery they have created and put in place, machinery that they expect will prevail for "a generation."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 07:52 PM

I think the Repubs will likely lose the majority in the House but not by the land-slide margin the Dems are predicting. It's going to be very close. I think we will hold on to the Senate, but with it's Liberal bent, I'm not convinced that will be holding on to much.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM

I've never understood the psychology of these things. Whatever the country and whatever the politics, the politicians always seem to predict that they will do better than they actually think they will.

I'd have thought that what you'd do would be the other way round - that you'd say you were doing worse than you thought you were, to try to scare your own people into going out and voting, while lulling the others into thinking it's already won, so why bother. But it never seems to work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 08:48 PM

The Libs are so smug. Hell, thay have it in the bag. Why even vote?

Imagine the crying and accusations of fraud if they loose.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: pdq
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:31 PM

DougR,

Put down that glass of Flav-R-Aid! It seems like you are actually thinking about drinking it.

The election next Tuesday will be very close, as have the last several. The Democrats will pick-up three house seats, those once held by Foley and Tom DeLay are probably gone since the Republicans are not able to put a new name on the ballot in those two races. However, the Dems will lose two. Net gain: Dems get one more seat. Same in Senate. Dems gain one. Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:41 PM

"But, given half a chance, Canada would be as corrupt as the US."

Canada already is as corrupt as the US. No question about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:48 PM

Oh, so after yet another Diebold theft, the Dems will be blamed for not showing up???

Is that your final answer, Oldster???

2 stolen presidental elections and we have to listen to this same old crap from the thieves...

I thought you folks were for law and order... You and yer heros are crooks, Oldster, so don't ven start with that old crap about not enough Dems didn't bother to show...

There is a mountian of evidence that a million Dems can't beat back 900,000 repubs and Diebold, or purging Dems from the roles ,or....

You pick...

yer guys run the vote countin'...

Don't even start there... I'll guarentee that any contect where the Repub wins by 3% that that Repub lost....

This game is rigged big time... You know it... I know it and the entire world knows it...

The Dems better get 5 points spread or else...

Tell ya what, Oldster... There are one heck of a lot of folks gettin' purdy danged tired payin' taxes to the Repubocrooks an' if this election is stolen, like the '00 and '04, your guys are going to have a real tax payers revolution on your hands...

We tax payers deserve and honest count and more for our money than corruption...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:49 PM

The Democrats will win a decent majority in the H of R. As to the senate, it is a possibility that if Bush steps on his crank in the next few days, the Senate will give the Dems a on seat majority. And remember, all Bush has to do to step on his crank is open his mouth. The party's over.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:35 PM

LH:

Yes, but it is a benign corruption, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

"ut where the constitution ends, politics begins. For both houses of Congress wield a crucial power: the right to hold hearings into the conduct of the administration. For six years, Bush has been spared the ordeal of congressional investigation. While Clinton saw his every move subject to televised inquiry by hostile Republican committees, subpoenaing witnesses, demanding sensitive documents, Bush has operated with the lightest of scrutiny.

As of January 2007, when the new Congress is sworn in, that could change. Suddenly, Democrats would chair the pivotal foreign affairs committees. They could instantly establish the kind of sustained inquiry opposition MPs vainly sought in Westminster yesterday, subjecting the likes of Rumsfeld and others to fierce, public cross-examination."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:08 PM

Yeah, it's a somewhat benign corruption. A long post of mine describing it in detail vanished for some reason...(sigh!)...and I don't feel like typing it all again.

No, I've never been to the Edmonton Mall, but I've been to Alberta.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:35 PM

interesting--Doug agrees with me--the Democrats will take the House, but not by much--and not take the Senate.

pdq--I'll bet a nickel that the Democrats will make more than a net gain of one seat in the House. Will you take the bet?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:15 AM

Bobert,

You have missed the point that Diebold machines , without a paper trail, mean the votes are suspect REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS. If you bother to check, you will find that Maryland, using Diebold machines, will certainly go for the Dems- REGRADLESS of the exit polls. Or at least the 4 populous counties- not sure the State Dems will bother with the rest of the state. Last time 4 counties went overwhelmingly Dem., and 17 were 60% to 80% Rep.

The Rep. Governor has been asking for a paper trail- IT IS THE Democratic state legislature that has been forcing Diebold down the throats of the ENTIRE state, not just the two counties in Ohio that you claim gave the election to Bush- ( I guess the votes elsewhere had no effect on the state totals)



"yer guys run the vote countin'..."

I have seen NO eviodence of this- votes are counted on the local level, and the split is still about even. Or have you made up some new figures we are supposed to belive without any basis in fact?


As long as you insist that ANY Rep. win is due to fraud, and NO Dem. win is, you will have to provide a little more evidence of fraud than you have chosen to share with us, before.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 11:44 AM

Yes, the votes ARE suspect regardless of who wins, Bearded Bruce! Amusing, isn't it?

Mind you, vote fraud is an old, old story in democratic (and not so democratic) systems. Before there were fairly organized and reliable ways of documenting and identifying voters at the polls, for instance, vote fraud was outrageous in the USA. For example, back in the historical period in which the movie "Gangs of New York" was set....that being the mid-1800's more or less...various factions would get the same people to vote several times on one day by changing their appearance. A man with a beard would show up at 9 AM and vote. Half an hour later he would show up again with a closer trimmed beard and vote. Later he would appear with a mustache and sideburns and vote. Later he would appear sans sideburns and vote. Late he would appear cleanshaven and vote. Later he would appear in a new suit of clothes and vote. Etc....

Elections would end up with a candidate sometimes receiving three or four times as many votes as were available in his constituency! They would run out of ballots, and the "voters" would still be lining up! LOL! This was of course done through bribery, getting people drunk, intimidation, and every form of usury and dishonesty.

It's the people who count the votes and run the system and have most of the money who ultimately control elections. Always has been, probably always will be. The only thing they must avoid is to practice corruption that is so plainly obvious that almost no one is fooled anymore. That can lead to serious trouble, as it eventually did for Tammany Hall in New York City.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 06:59 PM

"Oh, so after yet another Diebold theft, the Dems will be blamed for not showing up???"

So Bobert is saying the election has already been stolen?

Start the protests now. Why wait? Go burn something.

And may I ask why we have he insidious Republican voting machines in the first place?

Because Democrats can not supervise an election. They screw it up through incompetence and they want a machine to do the work.

Why not buy Democratic voting machines from a Democratically owned and operated company?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:41 PM

As we can see, senility is a dreadful thing. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Nah, I ain't sayin' that the Dems won't do well, Old Guy... I am sayin, however, that they would do even better if the vote counting was on the up-'n-up...

Exhibit A: Florida, 2000

Exhibit B: Ohio, 2004

Both states where the vote counters were Repiblicans... Both states where the irregularites were monumental... Both staes which put or kept Bush in the White House...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:05 PM

C'mon, guys! ;-) Good and evil are not neatly divided along party lines. They never have been and never will be. If you think they are, you may believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too. These vicious partisan wrangles that you Americans engage in endlessly are about as meaningful as people fighting about whether the Cubs or the Yankees are going to win the next ball game.

They are both employed by the same league fer chrissake. (I mean the Democrats and the Republicans are, I might actually be wrong when it comes to the baseball teams, cos I don't know my baseball minutiae all that well...)

Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:18 AM

LH:

People just have to have something to fight about. Like Ford or Chevy. Sunni or Shia.

It's better than watching reruns of Sgt. Preston of the Yukon ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:31 AM

Heh! Good point. Okay, if you enjoy it that much, why should I spoil your fun, right? I would not dream of forcing anyone to watch reruns of Sergeant Preston of the Yukon. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 06:46 AM

Bobert,

You offer
"Exhibit A: Florida, 2000

Exhibit B: Ohio, 2004"


As for A,
1. it was Gore who refused to allow a statewide recount (He only wanted the three counties were he expected to pick up votes to be counted, and refused to allow the Panhandle to even count the abnsentee ballots)
2. When the count was done post election, BUSH STILL WON.

As for B,
1. You have claimed that Diebold gave the election to Bush, with no comments as to how. The TWO ( of 67 counties ) that DID uses Diebold machines- Can you give any reason to think that those results were not in line with the real vote besides your preference for a different result?

Leaving you with NOTHING, save the erroneous idea that the last reported state somehow "determines" the elections- if the some other state had reported later, would you then claim the election was a fraud, just because the result was not what YOU would like to see?
It seems that you feel it is OK for massive fraud, as long as a. the candidate YOU want wins and b. the state reports in before the results can be determined nationwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:00 AM

Oh contraire. Bobert's got plenty. If even a fraction of this
is true. You should be very worried. Next time the other team's hackers might be better than your hackers. Will you feel that all is OK then?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:10 AM

Also it was counted, re-counted and re-re-counted by the Liberal Media newspapers and the result was Boosh wun it.

"on the up-'n-up"? You mean one way.

All the Libs are doing is setting up a big jihad type protest if they lose even though they have had a full share of control on how the poles are run and how the votes are counted. Who ordered those unfair Republican voting machines in Palm Beach County? A Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:49 PM

Yo, BB...

You want provide a source that supports your contention that Gore "wouldn't allow" a state wide recount??? "Wouldn't allow" is some mighty tough language and given the actual suit that stopped the recount was Bush V. Gore says alot about how things really went down... But irregardless of the recount question there is the little situation where Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, in conflict with existing laws, disenfranschised over 50,000 voters, disporportionately black, by having them purged from the voting rolls...

And that's just for starters here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 10:16 AM

"Posted on 04/10/2002 6:59:47 AM PDT

Legislation that would allow Marylanders with repeat felony convictions to regain the right to vote after completing their sentences got final approval in the General Assembly on Saturday.

The Legislative Black Caucus had made passing the bill a major priority the past few years. Supporters said the current law disenfranchises many black voters who have served their time and are working to redeem themselves.

The bill stirred passionate debate, especially in the Senate, where it was approved last week.

Maryland already allows people with one felony conviction to regain voting rights.

Likewise, I just heard on the radio this morning that a voter ID bill was killed in Annapolis. It would be "intimidating" and "racist." We've heard it all before here in the Old Line State. After all, how would have Glendenning got elected in the first place if it wasn't for the absent, moved and dead voters. Now, Ms. Kennedy-Townshed can add the votes of repeat offense drug dealers, robbers and murderers to the steaming heap of corruption.
All we hear about is "disenfranchised" voters. "


Comments, Bobert? You going to call out the DEMS for THEIR efforts to put illegal voters ON the rolls?


BTW, one of the rights LOST upon conviction of a felony, AND NOT RESTORED upon completion of any sentance, is the right to vote. And the right to "bear arms"

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:39 PM

HBO Democracy Hacked

watch how my friend Beverly Harris, a simple housewife, found proof of Diebold hacked elections.

If you are human it will make you cry.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:55 PM

The fact is, both those parties cheat in every way they possibly can, and they always have, but the party in power at any given time is better positioned to pull off such cheating...by nature of the symbiotic relationship between big government, big business, and organized crime (of various sorts).

The cheating and vote fraud seen in the last 6 years may have been the worst in modern times, but I doubt that it will be the last.

I don't doubt that the voting machines have been used to falsify results either, but it's not problem likely to be exclusive to the Republican Party. It's just that they happen to be in power at the moment, and that puts them in a good position to pull strings and make things happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:42 PM

LH,

Now YOU have missed the point. You state " but it's not problem likely to be exclusive to the Republican Party. It's just that they happen to be in power at the moment, and that puts them in a good position to pull strings and make things happen. " BUT you do not seem to realize that election boards are LOCAL, or STATEWIDE at best.

The US is split about evenly at that level. The Dems control about as much, if not more, than the Reps, and HAVE FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:54 PM

Perhaps it's evenly split (I have not seen the demographics). BUT, it's been in Republican hands in the places that it really counted (Florida and Ohio). Plus, I have yet to see accounts of suspect results favoring Kerry from Democratically-controlled states or counties. Got any citations for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:31 PM

According to a 12 December 2000 article by David Barstow and Adam Nagourney in The New York Times:

"... Gore's failure to ask the Florida courts for a manual statewide recount ... unnecessarily raised constitutional obstacles that made it far more difficult for Florida's courts to fashion a timely remedy that the Supreme Court might have found tolerable. That error ... had been compounded by an earlier misstep by ... Gore's lawyers - a decision to seek more time to complete the first phase of the counting process. The decision, one on which even ... Gore's lawyers disagreed, greatly shortened the time available in the second phase to seek a statewide manual recount.
"He has nobody to blame but himself," said Thomas W. Merrill, a professor of law at Northwestern University, who criticized the Gore campaign for elevating hardball tactics - seeking immediate hand recounts in Democratic strongholds - over a strategy of demanding that all votes be counted regardless of the political consequences. ...

... Gore's principal lawyer, David Boies, erred in failing to respond to a clear invitation from several [US Supreme Court] justices to define more precisely how counters should evaluate voter intent in examining ballots. At least seven of the justices, according to tonight's main opinion, were clearly not satisfied by ... Boies's attempt to argue that it is was enough, simply, to determine the voters' intent.

... Gore ...[did not]... formally petition the Florida courts for a manual statewide recount. Instead, ... Gore had only made the offer ... for a manual statewide recount ... to ... Bush in a televised address nearly a month ago. ... Bush rejected the offer, and

... Gore's lawyers did not pursue ... a manual statewide recount ... in court, even though they were invited to do just that during oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court. ... Boies told the Florida justices that the vice president would "accept" a statewide recount, but added, "We are not urging that upon the court." ...

... Gore lawyers said they never dreamed, given the shortness of time, that the Florida Supreme Court would order a statewide manual recount of some 45,000 ballots.

... Ben Ginsberg, a senior lawyer for the Bush team, said that ... Gore's lawyers pursued an intellectually dishonest course to further one overriding goal: finding enough Democratic votes to overcome ... Bush's lead. ... The Gore team sought recounts in four of Florida's 67 counties - Broward, Palm Beach, Volusia and Miami-Dade - all of which ... had voted for ... Gore. ... "Going statewide, they're really not sure they can win," ... Ginsberg said. "Their overall mistake," he added, "is being so hypocritical about what they were asking for. ... They haven't been able to sustain as a legal matter what they were talking about at press conferences. That hurt them in court." ...".

AND...

"In public, Al Gore argued that all the counties in Florida should be recounted. In public, Al Gore asked George Bush to agree to a statewide recount. In public, Al Gore was a true champion of all the votes.

But in court papers and in the court, Al Gore's lawyers always argued for a four county recount and argued against a statewide recount.

It is often claimed that one candidate alone could not get a statewide recount. This is false. Yes, under the Protest Phase, it is difficult, one must convince all 67 counties to do a recount. But under the Contest Phase, a statewide recount can be requested with one lawsuit. If the circuit court agrees to, they can order a statewide recount (see Section 102.168 of Florida Law, as it was in November 2000). The contest phase would have started on November 18, but the Florida Supreme Court delayed the start until November 26.

But the court papers that Gore's lawyers submitted before the courts:

Judge Terry Lewis on November 13, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2000
Judge Sauls on November 27, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on December 7, 2000

only requested a recount of the four counties that he had won by 380,000 votes.

Before each of the courts above, Al Gore's lawyers argued against including the other 63 counties that Bush had won by 380,000 votes. In the publicly televised court hearing on November 20 they did tell that court that if the court wanted to recount all of Florida, that would be okay. But they made it very clear, that they preferred the four county recount over the statewide recount.

Not until December 11, 2000, after it was totally impossible for them to get a four county recount, did his lawyers, in papers submitted and in arguments before the United States Supreme Court, argue for a statewide recount."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:56 PM

http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/default.html

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 04:02 PM

When Kerry lost Ohio and New Mexico, there was proof of fraud but instead of contesting the fraud with all the assembled experts, he basicly fired all of them when he conceeded.

That was his vote for the MIComplex and business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 04:31 PM

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?offset=0&sort=state&selectstate=&selectproblemtype=

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 05:50 PM

Hmmmmmmmmm, BB...

So you admit that your statement that Gore "wouldn't allow" a complete state recount is not an accurate representation of the facts of the case???

That's a start...

Now as for SCREAMY GUEST... Yeah, okay, I can live (though not agreeing with) a sate saying that ex-felons shouldn't vote but that's not the issue here.... The issue is about the meahodology is purging of the voting roles that were used in Florida where there wasn't any particular oversight thus leading to over 50,000 predominanetly black voters striped of their voting rights, a large percenttage of whom were not ex-felons...

If you want the evidence, which from your SCREAMINg suggests you couldn't care less to have, read Greg Palist's book "Best Democracy Money Can Buy"... But you won't do that because then you might find yourself having to SCREAM at yer own friggin' heros...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 06:07 PM

Okay, BB. I did say that they both cheat in whatever way they can, didn't I? And my point was that a party in power has more ways of getting things done the way it wants than a party not in power. ;-) That is self-evident, and needs no further explanation. For this reason, incumbents everywhere have a built-in advantage of sorts at election time, but they can, of course, squander it by having sufficiently alienated the public in their last term (or terms). Eventually the worm always turns, just because people get sick of the party in power.

But does it really matter much when the 2 parties really serve the same financial/corporate masters? Not too much. I will admit that it might matter a little, depending on who in particular is running in your voting area. Some candidates are definitely worse than others, as we all know very well!

Again, I draw no party lines when I say that...nor do I draw party lines in any of the above. I do not decide good and evil on the basis of party affiliation. Unfortunately, a great many people do just that, and they do it without even a second thought. This is to the advantage of maintaining bad government that is not truly representative, and both parties try by every means possible to maintain that sort of knee-jerk thinking in the public.

Why? Because they're BOTH playing a game, the same game, they're playing it to win (for the money, the power, and the glory) and just as in a football game both sides are very eager to win at any cost, by any means they can get away with, and to build their fanatical fan base and they appreciate it when their fans hate the other team's guts, and when they cheer loudly for the "home team" and boo the opposition.

The whole business is utterly puerile. Infantile almost. It's a wonder how easily people fall for it...but when they have been brought up since Grade school to take such a system for granted, that's what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 06:34 PM

Bobert, dear friend,

""In public, Al Gore argued that all the counties in Florida should be recounted. In public, Al Gore asked George Bush to agree to a statewide recount. In public, Al Gore was a true champion of all the votes.

But in court papers and in the court, Al Gore's lawyers always argued for a four county recount and argued against a statewide recount.

It is often claimed that one candidate alone could not get a statewide recount. This is false. Yes, under the Protest Phase, it is difficult, one must convince all 67 counties to do a recount. But under the Contest Phase, a statewide recount can be requested with one lawsuit. If the circuit court agrees to, they can order a statewide recount (see Section 102.168 of Florida Law, as it was in November 2000). The contest phase would have started on November 18, but the Florida Supreme Court delayed the start until November 26.

But the court papers that Gore's lawyers submitted before the courts:

Judge Terry Lewis on November 13, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2000
Judge Sauls on November 27, 2000
Florida Supreme Court on December 7, 2000

only requested a recount of the four counties that he had won by 380,000 votes.

Before each of the courts above, Al Gore's lawyers argued against including the other 63 counties that Bush had won by 380,000 votes. In the publicly televised court hearing on November 20 they did tell that court that if the court wanted to recount all of Florida, that would be okay. But they made it very clear, that they preferred the four county recount over the statewide recount.

Not until December 11, 2000, after it was totally impossible for them to get a four county recount, did his lawyers, in papers submitted and in arguments before the United States Supreme Court, argue for a statewide recount."