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:
A tidal wave of churchgoers won the day. As Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin notes, the percentage of the voting electorate that attends church once a week was 42%?-precisely what it was in 2000. And President Bush's percentage of that vote was 58%, up a mere point from 2000. Bush's greatest gains came among voters who attend church less often, including an increase of 4 percentage points of those who never go.
People based their votes on their moral values. Though 22% cited their moral values as the deciding issue, the percentage that cited one of the two biggest foreign policy issues, Iraq and terrorism, was significantly higher?-34%. And it turns out that a "moral value" is in the conscience of the beholder. In a poll due out this week from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, 42% of respondents said the war in Iraq was the most important moral issue influencing their vote, compared with 13% who chose abortion and less than 10% who chose gay marriage.
All the hype about young voters was wrong; they stayed home, as they always do. Yes and no. After a lengthy slide in youth voting, nearly 21 million under-30 voters showed up at the polls this year, a 9% increase from 2000. But since just about everyone else showed up in bigger numbers too, their percentage of the total electorate was roughly what it was four years ago.
The hundreds of millions George Soros and other Bush foes poured into turning out the Democratic base was a waste. The outcome may not have been to their liking, but the Democrats' efforts paid off. Kerry got about 4.1 million votes more than Al Gore did four years ago. And nearly 60% of that increase can be found in the states that were targeted by the independent groups. What they didn't count on: that the Republican turnout operation produced an even bigger surge of 8.2 million votes nationally for Bush.
The country has moved to the right on social issues. TIME's polling suggests that voters remain where they have been for a very long time: in the moderate middle on the most sizzling social issues. They overwhelmingly favor (69% to 22%) using discarded embryos for stem-cell research; only 9% oppose abortion in all circumstances; and while 58% say they oppose gay marriage, about the same number?-60%?-approve of some kind of official recognition of gay unions, an AP poll says.
John Kerry didn't lose the election; it was stolen. Conspiracy theories abound on left-leaning websites?-particularly about Florida and Ohio, the two states that determined the outcome. None of them seem to be holding up. Why, for instance, did Bush win many Florida counties where the majority of registered voters are Democrats? Those areas in the northern and central parts of the state have long traditions of voting Republican in presidential contests.
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.
