Re: Lists... every time you show up to vote, they cross your name off a little list...
which automatically puts you on another list, as one of the voters participating.
Obviously, they must have a record that you were there at the booth... wouldn't they?
After four "no-shows" they drop you from the list... ?
The Cato letter never references the 300,000 number you mention. (And is an indictment of all voter fraud. In fact, it mentions several irregularities in Georgia and Florida among others.)
The Free Republic article does not cite sources for the 300,000 number they claim. (And states rather vehemently that "this is because they are illegal aliens" without ever giving any supporting evidence.)
So far, you have yet to convince me.
Sorry Merlin the Free Republic article used to link back to the NY Post but it is now dead.
Magus, there used to be a way to figure out when people don't show up and modify the rolls thereafter. They don't do that anymore. I suppose it is disenfranchising to force people to reregister when they have not voted for a time, but this has gotten very messy in the last 10 years.
Freeper? Is that good or bad?
I'm sure some folks consider the conservatively-oriented news-and-commentary web forum Free Republic, and its denizens, Freepers, the absolute embodyment of evil. In its infancy, the forum was a factor in the Clinton Impeachment. Among recent events Freepers have taken to heart and been of influence upon have been the Swiftboat Vetreran's anti-Kerry campaign, the exposure of the CBS document fraud, the marginalization of Wesley Clark, demolishing the credibility of both Joseph Wilson and Richard Clarke, and pushing the Oil for Food scandal to the forefront. By-and-large, conversation among and commentary by Freepers on the website is mature and civil, characteristically lacking profanity, vulgarity, and internecine vituperation.
As counterpart on the liberal side, there is the younger webforum called Democratic Underground. The ambience there is distinctly different. Among the causes behind which the denizens of that forum, called "DUers", have rallied, have been the Draft Hillary movement and the Howard Dean campaign. Their current cause celebré appears to be the ongoing Systemic Vote Fraud nonsense, a natural outgrowth, I suppose, of the delight, passion and vigor with which the early, flawed, misinterpreted, misunderstood exit poll numbers contemporaneously were embraced by some participating there.
Some folks are easily entertained.
Thanks timber, I am not crazy about labels myself.
MaryM wrote:Freeper? Is that good or bad?
In the mind of many people, it's very, VERY bad, and yes "evil" is probably not too strong a characterization for these folks. Harper - IN MY OPINION - is one such person. In fact, she holds "freepers" in such low esteem - IN MY OPINION - that to call you one is borderline a "personal attack" and a violation of the board rules.
But of course, it's just her opinion, so it really isn't a personal attack at all. ... Nevermind.
And welcome to A2K!
The following is from TIME magazine. .....
Quote:The Folklore of Election '04
Debunking the falsehoods springing from this November's contest
By KAREN TUMULTY
Monday, Nov. 15, 2004
Few political rituals are so honored as overreading the results of an election. In the rush to explain this one,
at least six myths have taken root:
From the Nov. 22, 2004 issue of TIME magazine
MaryM wrote: I am not crazy about labels myself.
Some folks are real fond of 'em. Its easier than thinkin' 'bout stuff, I guess.
And, oh, yeah ... welcome to A2K. Enjoy. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier, but then I ain't the real sensitive sort
Take note that nothing in my last three posts citing multiple vote discrepancies and fraud has been refuted or even addressed.
Karen Tumulty is a hack.
timberlandko wrote:MaryM wrote: I am not crazy about labels myself.
Some folks are real fond of 'em. Its easier than thinkin' 'bout stuff, I guess.
And, oh, yeah ... welcome to A2K. Enjoy. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier, but then I ain't the real sensitive sort
Ha ha ha ha, this is toooo funny, brought to you by the folks who who have spent the last forty years turning the word liberal into a pejorative.
Quote:Ha ha ha ha, this is toooo funny, brought to you by the folks who who have spent the last forty years turning the word liberal into a pejorative.
That is really true, the term liberal almost means "radical" now. I don't remember exactly when that started, but it was a good election ploy by some Republican I am sure. I think one of the reasons it worked, and works, so well is that the hollywood types count themselves as liberal. Who wants to have the same opinion a cute airhead with a press agent has? "Conservative" has fared better, but in some circles it is a curse word too. Speaking of curse words, how does "OMFG" skirt the rules?
Thanks you all for the welcomes, although I feel like I am sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with a new friends who have LOTS of old issues to work out among themselves.
Harper, having rooted for the winning side, I don't know what it is like to get "cheated" out of an election twice. I suppose I would be angry and not give up as you haven't. I was familiar with all the studies you posted, and it is nice others now are.
Welcome to A2K MaryM
Harper wrote:Take note that nothing in my last three posts citing multiple vote discrepancies and fraud has been refuted or even addressed.
ROFL
... Don't feel bad... no one addressed the ones I posted about fraud earlier, either.
And so far the claims of "vote fraud" in NH have turned out to be
a big nothing.
Out of 678,000 votes a grand total of 9 votes have been found to have been miscounted.
Labels can be useful when they are objective and specific. You can assume a few things about a "Christian" or a "liberal" or a "conservative" or an 'athiest" or a "New Yorker" even though all are labels. The problem comes when a label is used as a slur or when more is read into one than can be accurately assumed.
You are usually safe in assuming that a Freeper visits that particular site and is most likely more conservative than liberal. You reallycan't assume any more than that.
Harper wrote:brought to you by the folks who who have spent the last forty years turning the word liberal into a pejorative
Thanks for the kudos, but we couldn'ta done it without lotsa help.
As for responding to or rebutting the talking points you've recently offered, even to acknowledge same would be to accord them more merit than they are due.
As said often before, thanks for the help.
Why is it so hard for you guys to admit that Bush cheated his way to victory...again? I don't understand it. Come on, you know it's true. You can admit it. Go ahead, it will make you feel better.
Cling to that thought, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort as the Democrats consider the results of the 2006 Mid-Terms and once again wonder how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.
Just who's stupid here ... Bush the Greater and The Republicans, or those who think them stupid yet cannot best them in the electoral arena?
timberlandko wrote:Just who's stupid here ... Bush the Greater and The Republicans, or those who think them stupid yet cannot best them in the electoral arena?
How about the people who voted for Bush yet disagree with his platform? Plenty of those around.
