Forums Index >> General >> Presidential Debates, Ummmm, Presentations Schedul...
Page : 1 . . . . . 5 : 6 : <7>
http://www.outsourceoutrage.com/ not sure if Tally posted this one, but found if thru dailykos.
...."Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy, or go on Prozac?"
-Susan Sheybani
, Bush Spokesperson
Last edited: Saturday, November 06, 2004 at 9:22:56 AM
Dash, finally getting back to this. Yes, my use of the word Creationism (and the "sound bite") was rhetorical, but it highlights the hypocrisy I see with the Religious Right these days. I have always seen Jesus as a social liberal, not an exclusionist conservative. I think that a lot of people lock onto a few narrow points from the Bible and use those to restrict the rights of others while ignoring that Jesus, as Leonard Pitts, Jr. (a columnist with the Miami Herald) points out, was considered a radical liberal in his day and would still be today:
After all, the Book says that Jesus consorted with lepers and prostitutes. It says He talked with women -- which was beneath a man of His time and place -- and washed the feet of his followers.
And it tells us He said things that seemed to make no logical sense: If someone takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well. If someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the left. Love your enemies. This was crazy talk. There was nothing conservative about this man.
The rest of the article is at http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10125367.htm (but you have to give them your email, etc to register and read on).
Of course, I have also heard the interpretation that Jesus was only reaching out to people and offering assistance (salvation) if you converted to his beliefs. My altruism, however, comes with no strings. I, like Leonard, am disappointed in the Democrats' failure to maintain a hold on this aspect of activism in light of the Republicans' blindered Bible-thumping.
Ok.... So are we then suggesting that going back to paper voting would be a good thing? "Let's see... Juding by the snot dripped on this part of the chad, I'm positive that the voter MEANT to chose MY guy..." We will never go back to paper voting, now that electronic voting is available - it would be degenerate. Regress. Certainly, there are bound to be some wrinkles to iron out with a new voting medium, but I think the level of duplicity and political manouvering are less than or equal to the amount amount possible with paper voting. Ultimately, I expect electronic voting to be far more accurate in the future than paper voting could ever be. C'mon, with all the programmers and tech-industry people in this community, I know most of yall must agree...
And the discrepancy between the exit polls and the voting results do not at all implicate Bush (or Kerry) in "stealing votes" or any other chicanory. There is a far simpler explanation: given the level of hatred in the D camp for Bush and most R policies of late, and amount of venom and malice present in the campaign on both sides, the majority of average-joe voters who voted for Bush simply lied about their choice on the way out the door. C'mon, I mean, really... The secret ballot is what makes our democratic system possible, and I'm supposed to just waive that right when confronted with a militant Democratic exit poller, exposing myself to insults and disdain? Just because someone asked? Lots of people said "forget it" and blatantly lied to the pollers. I have freinds who did this.
I don't personally like to lie, so I probably would said I didn't have time for an exit poll, or didn't want to, or somethign like that.... But before you judge the thousands of peopel who did lie to the pollers, think of this: havn't you ever lied to a pesky phone salesman to get rid of him? Or the booth salesmen at the mall? I have. I bet almost everyone has. And the feeling behind it is this: why should I sacrifice several minutes of my time just to politely, and repeatedly, tell a salesman I'm not interested in his product? One could spend all day being polite..... The same thing occured with the exit polls. They are simply not reliable, because people are liable to lie rather than expose themselves to an unneccesary confrontation.
I really believe the election was fairly up & up, and the majority of voters really did choose Bush. To be fair, Bush recieved both the record # of votes in favor of him AND the record # of votes against him. It was close in all the important states. But I really think he did win. This wasn't like in 2000, where we may never know who the real winner was, and if the exit polls imply that it was... We simply shouldn't believe them.
Shellshock, regarding voters lying to exit pollers, why then, in the past, have exit polls largely matched the actual outcome? Why then, was lying so rampant in ALL of the swing states? Why then did exit polls match up almost exactly in all other states? I'm sorry man, but there are far too many oddities here to just dismiss this as mere 'coincidence'.
Did you even read the articles Tally linked? Did you see how incredibly easy it was for someone to edit the MS Access database used to collect poll data by the Diebold machines? Are we seriously trusting our sacred election process to a private, heavy Republican supporting company using one of the most compromised and buggy OSes on the planet?
This country is no longer a democracy. Welcome to the new fascist America.
Even though stink's out for a bit, I had to reply to this...
And glad you voted for bush? As though you may have done otherwise? C'mon. You are implying that you gave that some thought.
I would wager I spent more time considering a vote for Kerry than stink did for Bush. Sure, maybe the time was measured in nanoseconds for each of us, but I did have those moments around the house and office when I considered the possibility.
Which is why you all vote against your own economic interests when a presidential candidate makes a big show of his religion.
Well, it is true that I considered values over economic interests, but I think there's more to life than being rich. Just an FYI...I voted for the Democrat in my state's gubernatorial race. I felt he was the best candidate to get things done economically, especially since he agreed with my values.
As far as other stuff, is it even remotely possible that the early exit polls just got it wrong? I was listening to a commentary on the exit polls and that was their analysis. Early on, their findings were incorrect, but by the end of the evening they had worked themselves out and reflected the offical results.
Many of the post-election analysis has discussed the evangelical turnout vs the 18-24 turnout. My homies showed up while the youtz didn't. XD Other analysis has focused on how the Dems missed the direction of the nation, what concerned the people the most.
Nationally, 80-some percent believe in God (regardless of religious preference) while the precentage of unbelievers is in the teens. So while atheists may be in the majority in the forums, their voices don't reflect the beliefs of the national majority. Maybe that's why some are so shocked here that Bush actually won.
I was watching a French news broadcast on C-SPAN over the weekend and they made the comment that the US media missed how important values were to Americans and how they dislike/distrust intellectual elitists. The French governmental offical, Bremier (I think), they interviewed was actually more supportive of Bush than I would have guessed (based on how our media depicts our relationship with the French). Sure, he was trying to build bridges and acted as any politician would, but I could tell the interviewer wasn't quite getting the response he wanted. "Bremier" even commented that he wished the EU was as strong as America and Bush in their response to terrorism and leadership in general.
So, try to accept the fact the Bush won, the majority wanted him and he's the nation's president.
/
good point about the media. That's really all we're talking about here: discussing what the media fed us...
@OM
As I said, the reason the exit polls were off base this time is because a) the hostile nature of the campaings resulted in Bush's supports staying in the closet, and b) also the large number of first time voters, people who usually just sit and watch the election like a football game. A huge number of generally apathetic people actually cared enough this time to get off their couches and vote. Past exit polls dealt with generally the same crowd of people. The large % of 1st timers adds an unexplored variable which screws up the statistics.
Exit polls are not as precise a science as they've been treated in the past anyway... There are innumerable variables like what kind of people are most likely to take the polls, who the pollers are most likely to approach, etc... Without 100% participation, the exit polls have a sizable margin of error. This election was different than any we've had before, and exit polls were unable to adjust to this.
As far as the voting accuracy thing..... You can't really believe that the system was warped and hacked by pro-republican computer criminals. I think statements like "welcome to the new fascist America" express a disappointment that the Dems lost more than any real belief that democracy has perished in America. I'm a historian. We are nowhere, NOWHERE, near life in a fascist country. Political chicanery is an outrage, and has always occured in small amounts from both camps. It 2000, it may have decided the election, I don't know. But it didn't this time. As a political independant, it seems to me that the Dems need to regroup, re-assess, and get ready for 2008.
Rabban remains trapped in his tautological reasoning washing machine. Now I see shellshock has joined him as well. Reciting to us that Bush has won, and that you really believe it, does less than zero to reinforce a clean victory. People lying to exit pollsters? O ok, I buy that. But from the result, can we thus conclude that it was only Republicans who are the liars?
Eh, call me crazy, but I don't get it, and the schism of dialogue, sparked by the rove-machining buchanan-esque values propaganda bullshit, is getting wider every day. I'll go out on a limb and say its the Orwelll v. Reality divide; call it what you will. In fact, God didn't choose this president. Seems neither did we, and the more "we" discover, the more I feel that assertion will be supported.
Nationally, 80-some percent believe in God (regardless of religious preference) while the precentage of unbelievers is in the teens. So while atheists may be in the majority in the forums, their voices don't reflect the beliefs of the national majority. Maybe that's why some are so shocked here that Bush actually won.
Using the above logic, I'm still trying to understand how Kerry got more than 20 percent.
OM: Don't expect people to read. Reading causes the individual to disagree with himself, leading to confusion. And anxiety. I am often filled with gas.
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002328.html#2328
" target="_blank">http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002328.html#2328</a>
MSNBC's Hardblogger: Keith Olberman on George, John, and Ohio
The numbers don't add up
CIA-style hacking rigs election for Bush
Black Box Voting calls it Fraud
Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
The Greg Palast classic: An Election Spoiled
Washington Dispatch: Vote Fraud in Ohio?
Presidential votes mis-cast on machines across the country
Reconciling voting machine and exit poll discrepancies
Ohio Whitewash
Institute for Public Accuracy on Ohio Elections
software flaw found in Florida vote machines
Florida numbers analysis (chart)
exit poll chart via BOP reader alyosha (thanks, man)
Stolen Election 2004
Open Voting Consortium
4000 votes missing in Pennsylvania County
Palm Beach county logs 88,000 more votes than voters
outrage in ohio
Broward County Florida voting machines count backwards
Diebold Pres Odell's 2003 promise to "deliver Ohio for Bush"
Greg Palast: Kerry Won
Diebold Machines yield fishy results
Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Votes in Ohio
More evidence of possible fraud in Darke County, Ohio
NC: 11,823 "extra" votes cast for Bush
chart: Florida voter reg vs performance
Something looks very wrong in Florida
Election Theft Bombshell: Major Security Breach
And finally, from the "We told you so" files: A technical look at how they can steal it (from October 9, 2004)
The list so far. If you guys think your dude won CLEAN, I accept that as your belief. Belief is the ace up your sleeve.
I like digits. If you think he didn't win it clean, I'm curious how many votes went the wrong way.
And where.
I just noticed these:
Nternational Election Monitors banned in Ohio
Group tallies more than 1,100 e-voting glitches
Slashdot: Avi Rubin & More on Electronic Voting
Slashdot: Evoting problems in Ohio
That first one is interesting. International election monitors banned in Ohio.
Why would international monitors be banned? Now I'm confused, because I remember those republican monitors were allowed in.
She and three other delegation members had been well received by local representatives of the Democrat Party who had ensured their access to polling stations.
But Republicans were less welcoming. "We were denied entry to a local Republican office in Orlando," she told Ritzau: "They called the police, saying they had received guidelines from Washington to do so."
I guess it's just life's little ironies, those rascally republicans.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Voters calling in to a toll-free number had reported more than 1,100 separate incidents of problems with electronic voting machines and other voting technologies by late Tuesday during the nationwide election.
Hey, it's the price you pay for progress, right? I'm sure by the next one those wicked bright computer programmer cats WILL FIGURE OUT HAD TO ADD.
Unless it's not in their interests, e.g. Diebold.
In a majority of cases where machines allegedly recorded a wrong vote, votes were taken away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, or a Democratic candidate in another race, and given to Republican President George Bush or another Republican candidate, said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
You guys keep believing whatever you want and making up theories about what people may or may not have been thinking, but I'm not lying down.
http://stinging-nettle.blogspot.com/
REGISTERED VOTERS - OAKWOOD VIL 2746
BALLOTS CAST OAKWOOD VIL 7099
REGISTERED VOTERS - MORELAND HILLS VIL 2990
BALLOTS CAST MORELAND HILLS VIL 4616
REGISTERED VOTERS - MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS 12713
BALLOTS CAST - MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS 14854
___
for levity.
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002130.html#002130
Check out the pie chart. Nice mandate, very definitive.
http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/nov2004/nov032004/11-03-04-colbert.mov
very amusing (even if you don't like sucking on other men's tongues).
Olbeman, as snowflake: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368819/#041107a
___
who are all these liars.
Last edited: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 at 12:54:36 AM
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405
Shell's anecdotes v MIT cat's statistics.
Pick 'em.
Dude, Tally...
This is a perfect example of the leftist venom I was describing. Accuse me of not reading if you want to. I read a lot. I simply dont BELIEVE everything I read. And don't harp on "belief" as some kind of ignorant neglect of the facts. You BELIEVE
Kerry should have won, the same as I believe the election process worked. We have both read the articles (presumably). It's useless and immature to accuse each other of idiocy if we reach different conclusions.
Did I not say that some chicanery took place? I realize that. It always does, and that's an infuriating outrage. But 1100 votes here or 2000 there are not enough to change the outcome of this election either way. To believe it was "stolen" by the Republicans, you have to believe that they fraudulently warped 100's of thousands of votes all over the country in the most heavily contested states. The fact is, the overall election wasn't all that close. It was close in a few important areas, but by and large, Bush recieved more votes! The Repubs won more house and senate seats, too. Were all those elections also "stolen" by the secret ninja Republican hackers?? You're right: it's Orwell vs. Reality here... But as I said, this Orwellian rhetoric expresses more of a disapointment that your guy lost than an actual belief that the election process was subverted.
You implicitly accused me blindly and ignorantly believing Bush won fair and square because that's what I wanted to happen. I would not make the same accusation of you, but allow me to suggest that refusal to accept that Kerry may have just plain lost is in every way equal to what you're (wrongly) criticizing me for. I understand your disapointment. Personally, I'm disappointed that neither candidate was one I really wanted to stand behind. But cool off, Tally. Just because your guy lost doesn't make this a fascist country, and just because someone sees things differently than you doesn't make them ignorant or stupid.
Don't be intolerant. How's that for an "anecdote"?
BTW, Tally, did you read that bluelemur article, or just the headline?
"In fact, the non-electronic voting states of New York and New Hampshire had higher gains for President Bush than states in the exit polls using some electronic voting: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada and West Virginia."
AND....
"Anick reasons that there are four possible causes of the Bush gains. (1) Significantly greater lying or refusal to speak to pollsters in Bush voters versus Kerry voters; (2) Consistent/systematic errors in weighting demographic groups; (3) A surge of Bush voters after 4 p.m., in all states; (4) Systematic tampering/hacking of reported vote totals, in Bushs favor."
Now, in this article we have 4 possibilties for the descrepency b/w the exit polls and election results. Tally, you are refusing to believe all but the last and most unlikely!
Let us invoke Hakim's Razor here: the simplest answer tends to be right one.
You can talk about numbers all day, but unless you look at them without bias they mean nothing...
Oh, and I like the thing comparing the election to the slave vs free states in the 1860s. That's rich. Abe Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN!!!! The free states were REPUBLICAN!!!! Political parties and their platforms today have practically nothing in common with their platforms and policies in the past. Only their names have stayed the same.
Last edited: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 at 11:52:58 AM
The fact is all these "articles" Tally's posting should not be considered journalistic at all. Their just oppinion blogs, from pro-Dem websites. Check the websites. Most of them still have their "Kerry, Edwards 2004" banners up.
Let's look at each one of those points that Anick brings up:
(1) Significantly greater lying or refusal to speak to pollsters in Bush voters versus Kerry voters;
Technically, exit polls cease to be scientific the very first moment that someone refuses to participate: there's no way to predict the refusal patterns versus voters' choice of candidates or issues. Secondly, I wonder if those people that lied to exit pollsters are the same ones that said "morals/values" were the most important issue to them...
(2) Consistent/systematic errors in weighting demographic groups;
Quite possible, in my opinion. I think when you do this over the country or over a state, it fits better because you end up averaging-out the errors that do exist in particular cities (which are a small part of the whole).
(3) A surge of Bush voters after 4 p.m., in all states;
Possible, but less likely, in my opinion. For example, I would have thought that the most convenient voting time for soccer/security moms (supposedly a big Bush-supporting group) would have been during school hours.
(4) Systematic tampering/hacking of reported vote totals, in Bushs favor."
I'm skeptical that this was a Republican conspiracy, but the mere fact that there are so many discrepancies involved with the touch-screen and optical scan tallies is extremely disturbing to me. The optical scans ballots can be rescanned, but I think the decision to use a voting system like the touch-screens that is purposefully designed to not have an accountable paper trail is negligent, and can be suspected of being criminally so - it invites doubt into the process. And the fact that the software for these Diebold systems is insecure gives me even greater pause to place my trust in them.
When it comes down to it, I think it is very likely the case that more people in this country voted for Bush than for Kerry - after all, I think most Americans either truly believe that WMDs were really found or they try to convince themselves that WMDs were found because they have a hard time rectifying the evidence otherwise with the loss of over 1,100 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqi's. However , the fact remains that in many places across the country (and the issue isn't whether most of them were Democratic-voting areas) there are more votes than registered voters, and isn't that the EXACT type of voting fraud that Republicans were worried about in the weeks before the election?!? I find it interesting that I haven't heard this from Republicans since the election - now all I'm hearing is "you lost, now get over it." This is a serious problem, and needs to be addressed promptly and thoroughly no matter what side of the aisle you're on.
@ Shellshock
Where were you 60 days ago?????
Conspiracy Theories Abound After Bush Victory
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9, 2004 -- There were minor voting irregularities on Election Day long lines, voting machine breakdowns, shortages of provisional ballots but some people are now leveling charges of voter fraud.
Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.
"There was no overwhelming reason to cast doubt on the outcome of this election," seconded Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 campaign. "George Bush got more votes this time."
And
Off the record, many Democratic strategists dismiss such allegations, but they also know such resentment can be channeled for political use in the future.
Pay close attention to the second quote "...resentment can be channeled for political use..." That's all the Dems have at this point.
@Tally - My 80% of Americans believe in God reference was used to point out that the overwhelming slant of this forum against God is out of step with the general population. Since that is the case for one topic, I was hoping to show it may be the case for other topics as well, which is why so many here were shocked and amazed that Bush won reelection.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 4:27:22 PM
Pay close attention to the second quote "...resentment can be channeled for political use..." That's all the Dems have at this point.
Um, nay.
I'm loading up for a postal bombardment tonight. Until then, something to snack on.
NEW YORK With news this morning that the computerized balloting in North Carolina is so thoroughly messed up that all state-wide voting may be thrown out and a second election day scheduled, the story continues.
Tonight on 'Countdown,' we'll examine the N.C. Mess (which would not include a second presidential vote), new fuzzy math in Nevada, allegations against the Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ralph Nader's news conference, and the other voting developments as they occur. A Stanford computer expert will address the vulnerability of the Optical Scanning system (and answer the question: which is easier to hack, electronic voting or exit polls?), and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter will join me to report on the reporting.
In the interim, for the North Carolina situation, we refer you to the Website of the excellent newspaper The Charlotte Observer.
from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
via http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/10142064.htm?1c
I still have problems with this god thing:
A. I'm unable to find from where you've determined that most people here believe in no god.
B. I still see no connection between atheism and the bush vote, or more accurately, how belief in bush = a vote for god. Or vice versa, rather.
As for conspiracy theories, I don't understand how you can call tangible vote irregularities "theories."
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1161971.html
http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/11/04/news/news02.txt
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983
http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/charlotte/news/special_packages/election2004/10104576.htm
http://www.wcnc.com/news/politics/stories/110404ccjrwcncpolmissingvotes.264d17aa.html
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/local_news/mecklenburg/?ArID=78411&SecID=3
http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/288078640794824.php
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/288078640794824.php
and so many more.
Is evidence of vote anomaly "theory"? Is reading those reports and accepting them for what they seem to be thus "belief?" I guess if Doug Chapin says so...we should disregard the nameless cats whose votes got hosed.
BTW: Hakim uses an electric razor. You refer to Ockam whose Razor, from Wikki I quote, "...states that one should not take more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."
Phenomenon: Thousands of votes inaccurately going to a candidate, particularly in instances where electronic vote-counting or vote-registering was used - manufacturers of which are a wee partisan?
What would the simplest explanation be.
I have a problem with the whole updated and revised -manifest destiny that seems to be circulating in Christian circles. God seems to be thrown around with such license lately that I wonder if God's purposes are actually considered in the scheme of things or whether we use God's name to promote our own self-interests. That's a big set-up line for more later. I don't have the time right now to elaborate but I will.
1,000 votes here, 100,000 votes there.
From Bloggerman again:
Recounts and Retractions (Keith Olbermann)
NEW YORK - John Kerry or no John Kerry, there could still be recounts in Ohio and New Hampshire - courtesy of the two candidates who got far more grief than votes during the presidential campaign.
David Cobb of the Green Party told a California radio station late yesterday afternoon that he is quite likely to be demanding a recount in Ohio, with a final decision to be reached and announced during the day
The New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General, meanwhile, told us at Countdown that negotiations are on-going with Ralph Nader, who at a news conference yesterday not only demanded a recount in a minimum of four districts, but also added another bizarre touch to the proceedings by launching into a brief but surprisingly high-quality Richard Nixon impression.
The central issue in both potential recounts appears to be money. Cobb, whose presence on the ballot in all 50 states is probably coming to your attention only as you read this, said in an interview with the Pacifica station in Los Angeles, KPFK, that a recount would cost the Greens around $110,000, on a basis of approximately $10 per precinct. As youd probably guess, Mr. Cobbs doesnt have the money lying around - but as a presidential candidate, he does have the right. Whether or not he can raise the cash is the operative question.
In New Hampshire, Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch indicated that reports that Nader forfeited his right to request a recount there because he didnt get a $2,000 filing fee to them before last Fridays deadline were erroneous. However, Fitch did raise the bar on Nader, saying that he would have to provide a written guarantee that he would cover all costs relating to a recount, and that the state would probably demand a deposit, or the establishment of an escrow account. Complicating matters still further is Fitchs admission that New Hampshire really cant give a good estimate on the final costs.
Its been twenty years since theyve had a recount there and Fitch said costs in todays dollars could be $30,000, $50,000, or even $80,000 - although he guesses that the middle figure is the top end of what theyre looking at. New Hampshire is a recount-friendly state. Candidates are permitted to base a recount on the results of a particular community, and if they find their doubts resolved, theyre afforded the opportunity to cancel the rest of any statewide investigation.
That Cobb and Nader between them could lead to a resolution of both Democrats doubts about the legitimacy of the election, and Republicans resentment that there are doubts, contains a delicious irony. To call them fringe candidates is to demean their efforts, but theyre hardly favorites at any spot on the political spectrum. Nader, in particular, was trashed on a daily basis by the Democrats who feared he could negatively impact Kerrys vote totals in swing states, as he clearly did to Al Gore in Florida in 2000. For the rancor, Nader has nobody to blame but himself. Not until late in the campaign did he successfully articulate his reasons for running anyway - namely, his conviction that breaking the two-party duopoly at lower echelons of government (particularly in the House) will take decades, and had to start at the top and work down.
In any event, if Nader and Cobb are at the edges, questions about Ohio moved back into the mainstream yesterday with another cogent article in The Cincinnati Enquirer. The rationale for the bizarre lockdown of the vote-counting venue in Warren County on election night suddenly broke down when it was contradicted by spokespersons from the FBI and Ohios primary homeland security official.
County Emergency Services Director Frank Young said last week that in a face-to-face meeting with an FBI agent, he was warned that Warren County, outside Cincinnati, faced a terrorist threat. County Commissioners President Pat South amplified, insisting to us at Countdown that her jurisdiction had received a series of memos from Homeland Security about the threat. These memos were sent out statewide, not just to Warren County, and they included a lot of planning tools and resources to use for election day security.
In a face to face meeting between the FBI and our director of Emergency Services, Ms. South continued, we were informed that on a scale from 1 to 10, the tri-state area of Southwest Ohio was ranked at a high 8 to a low 9 in terms of security risk. Warren County in particular, was rated at 10.
But the Bureau says it issued no such warning.
The FBI did not notify anyone in Warren County of any specific terrorist threat to Warren County before Election Day, FBI spokesman Michael Brooks told Enquirer reporters Erica Solvig and Dan Horn.
Through a spokeswoman, Ohio Public Safety Director Ken Morckel told the newspaper that his office knew of no heightened terror warning for election night for Warren County or any other community in Greater Cincinnati.
Despite the contradiction from both security services, Ms. South again amplified, telling the Enquirer It wasnt international terrorism that we were in fear of; it was more domestic terrorism.
So the media was kept two floors away from the vote counting at the Warren County Administration on election night on the basis of a 10 FBI terror threat that the FBI says was never issued....
@(UF)Chief(AB)
I just recently got involved in this thread. 60 days ago, I hadn't really discovered the forums yet, and just drove around blasting stuff in game. :)
@Memphis
I know what you mean. I doubt many people were praying "Thy will be done..." during the electing, but rather, "please oh please give us Bush (or Kerry)". God's name gets tossed around an aweful lot on the far right and
the far left. I suspect His purposes are somewhere closer to the center. :)
@Tally
Bloggerman, again. It's a BLOG! It's from the oppinion page! This is not statistical science. And that article you posted in full... What's your point? Nader wants a recount. The Green party wants a recount. Oooooooh, watch out everybody! That has nothing to do with voting fraud, it's just one of the silly little things upstart independant parties do to try to make themselves significant. Too few people voted for either the Liberetarians (sp?) or the Greenies to make a recount worthwhile for them.. They're just trying to stay in the news. And the part about "security risk", I'm sure you realize, has to do with terrorist attacks, not vote manipulation. Altogether, it's a little off topic. BTW, I did vote for some of the independant nuts in my area, along with some Reps and some Dems. So don't play the bias card here.
And no, actual instences of voting annomaly are not "theory". However, they come in very small ammounts. The theory is the X-Files-esque assumption that 100s of thousands of votes were stolen from the Dems by pro-Rep hackers (led, I'm sure, by the Smoking Man) in all the right areas to change the final outcome. The annomolies (sp?) and chicanery that did take place are inconsequential. Some of the incedents described in your articles occured in states won by Kerry, or places where it didn't matter. Others in such low numbers as not to affect the outcome in a state. You can't give me an example of 100,000 votes being stolen. It's just a conspiracy theory put forth by left-oriented bloggers to cultivate the resentment Rabban was refering to in the hopes of helping the Dems in 2008. A very cynical approach to politics, and not to be taken seriously.
And about the Razor... Sorry about the spelling. If you havn't noticed, I'm a sucky speller. But are you actually suggesting that a widespread vote-stealing conspiracy is the simplest possibility to explain the difference b/w the exit polls and the voting results? Any of the other three, especially the first two, make more sense more easily than the last possibility.
In light of the new "shoot the messenger" policy, allow me to present further targets of opportunity.
http://www.fuckthesouth.com/
The rhetoric is rather intense, but t'is amusing nonetheless.
Man this guy is my hero.
He stole my rant. Probably did it better than I would have anyway..
Have to admit, that is damn funny. It's a harsh rant no doubt, but I think it's humorous because it treads close to the truth in some cases.
Don't have time right now to respond to Shellshock or JJ (in due time), but I find it this interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
Funny that Bush's ultra-con allies are turning on him so viciously for making his choice.
LOL
That's cute. I guess he must want something from the other 20 states that went for Bush.
Bet you a dollar that Dan Rather wrote that site.........
However, the fact remains that in many places across the country (and the issue isn't whether most of them were Democratic-voting areas) there are more votes than registered voters, and isn't that the EXACT type of voting fraud that Republicans were worried about in the weeks before the election?!? I find it interesting that I haven't heard this from Republicans since the election - now all I'm hearing is "you lost, now get over it."
No response to this point, gentlemen? More of the same, perhaps?
Hey, yo.. Everybody, I'm moving my responses to a new thread created by JJ called: Putting the election in perspective. I'll be answering there now.
C ya there :)
To the victor go the spoils, G.
Best we get over it, lest we due overly concern ourselves with articles such as the afomentioned.
A little "chicanery" ne'er did hurt no one. http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf
It seems the right is retiring to elsewhere forum entitled Election Perspective. Shall we remain in our corner?
In the hopes of beating a dead dog to death:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/193880-4433-093.html
Glitch causes Franklin Co. Recount
Star report
November 11, 2004
BROOKVILLE, Ind. - Election equipment counted straight-party votes for Democratic candidates as Libertarian votes, an error that could affect election outcomes in as many as nine counties, the Richmond Palladium-Item reported today.
Democrats discovered the error in Franklin County, where ballots will be counted again tonight.
The county's election equipment vendor, Fidlar, notified officials Wednesday of the error.
Libertarian candidates received 7 to 8 percent of the votes in Franklin County, which is about 30 miles south of Richmond.
Franklin County Democratic Chairman Jim Sauerland questioned Clerk Marlene Flashpohler on Tuesday about the results after seeing information on the final tally he couldn't decipher, Flashpohler said. That's when Flashpohler contacted Fidlar, who agreed Wednesday there was an error.
The Franklin County Election Board agreed at an emergency meeting today to recanvass the ballots tonight. Noon Friday is the deadline to contest the election results...
Page : 1 . . . . . 5 : 6 : <7>
This thread has been locked
Sept. 30 @ 9 pm ET
Oct. 5, VP debate
Oct. 8
Oct. 13
Ready to think?
Last edited: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 3:28:52 AM