YAY!!!!!!

Quote:

It's hardly a single party issue.

Let's consider the following scenario. It becomes known that George Soros has engineered a takeover of the Diebold company. Further, he then publicly states that he is going to secure Ohio (or some other critical jurisdiction) for Clinton/Obama.

As regards the Diebold machines, this is a single party issue presently.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Why was it necessary to bomb him? Since he was trapped in a house that was surrounded, why didn't they go in after him or wait him out? Dropping 2 500 pound bombs on a man (don't forget the woman and child) does not seem to be a rational thing to do. Is it just luck that there was enough left to identify?

Agreed that he was a monster etc. etc., but even monsters have a right to go through the justice system. What were they afraid of that they "took him out" through bombing. Does this make them any better than the terrorists they seek?

To a certain extent, it was luck that, at least, his head was intact. I'm not an expert on explosives but tend to think that two 500 pound bombs are more likely to leave no scraps rather than recognizable ones. Of course if this is the case it suggests that the military was more concerned about making sure the bastard bought it than being able to trot out a trophy.

You seem to have made the assumption that the cordon around the hideout was impenetrable. I really doubt that, especially since the guy had escaped traps before.

As to what they were afraid of, they were afraid he would escape.

Of what else could they have been afraid?

Clearly you are insinuating that if left alive, he would spill some beans, the US didn't want spilled. Your implication is ridiculous.

Whatever the beans, why would a sworn enemy of the US refrain from spilling them long before any possibility of capture?

Monster and non-Monsters, during war, do not have a "right" to go through "the justice system." That is a foolish thing to claim, and it is equally foolish to even ask if the US, by killing this man is morally equivalent to al-Qaeda.

Whether or not innocent lives should be taken in the act of destroying a "monster," is (in my opinion) an entirely legitimate question, but one you but reference in passing.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

The only kind of news that would be good news is not more bombs or death but PEACE. PEACE is what Americans and the world want to see. Everything else is the same old bullshit and lies. Understanding, knowledge, empathy and diplomacy when those things are non-existent in the world theater we have ****. Intill WE put OUR foot foward on this the worst side of human nature will control our fate and good people cannot be happy.

Yes, and damn it, why don't these people just get on to making peace?!

Don't they know war and killing is bad ****?

We're not going to have peace and good people cannot be happy until we stop being bad!

Thank you Amigo!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, oh golly goodness. Who could have predicted this headline and this briefing?

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So just when the fuk are you turkeys going to wise up on how you are being jerked around by your chain?

Nope, that sort of blunt talk didn't do it.

Better try something else.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sword?! And you wonder why folks think there is a big pump pushing military-grade helium up your ass?

The issue here is the transparent and purposive manipulation of your (ie you as citizens) perceptions and ideas. I described precisely how this was managed in the case of Zarqawi (and elsewhere) and pointed to the near certainty that a new demon would be pushed forward to replace him. And there he is, in a framed color photo no less. Equally as predictable is that a bunch of you guys will just suck this all in as if Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch and Haditha etc had never happened. You share a deep brotherhood with all those families who lived around Bergen-Belsen who did NOT want to know what that smoke meant.

And yet we still don't listen to you Bernie.

Why do you keep trying to bring us round?

By the way, by comparing those who support the war in Iraq with Germans who turned a blind eye to the crematoriums of Nazi Germany, you have forever forfeited any and all rights to indignation when a Rightie calls a Leftie (you included) a coward and a traitor.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Fourteen pages of celebrating death.

Let's make it 20!

Here here!

Death can be a good thing, it certainly is a natural thing.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That celebrating death, taking pleasure in it, is repulsive.

It's impossible to argue this point. You claim to be repulsed by celebration of death, and therefore, for you, it is repulsive.

Of course you do not mean to comment only upon your feelings. You clearly mean to criticize and denounce those who do not share your feelings.

That's fine with me, but I keep waiting for your fellow Liberals to scold you for absolutisim...in this I will be waiting far longer than those who wait for bin Laden's capture or killing.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

How would the recount take place?

I realize this shoots a hole in the ass of your whole voter fraud scenario, but have you ever actually seen the printed tape that records each electronic vote?

0 Replies

They daren't show that Whooda. It would ruin all that edge of the seat stuff they are so very fond of.

0 Replies

That may be it, Spendius. Still, it's always been hard for me to grasp the whole schizo/paranoid thing. Even after looking under the bed 53 times they just can't resist that 54th peek, can they?

0 Replies

spendius and whooda

Is a paper verification record required by US federal voting law?

Do the machines which will be used in Ohio in several months produce a paper record?

0 Replies

finn wrote

Quote:

And yet we still don't listen to you Bernie.

Why do you keep trying to bring us round?

By the way, by comparing those who support the war in Iraq with Germans who turned a blind eye to the crematoriums of Nazi Germany, you have forever forfeited any and all rights to indignation when a Rightie calls a Leftie (you included) a coward and a traitor.

Remind you of Savonarola, do I, finn? "Bringing you round" isn't a goal I consider realistic, as I told you last week. On the other hand, what integrity is there in removing oneself from the community discourse or in pretending that one holds different notions than one actually holds?

Likely the best I can hope for is shaming you into some intellectual honesty, ie, what the comparison you note above actually held up for comparison.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

... I notice it is only the Republicans that trivialize the evidence of rigged democracy. While Democrats are fighting to ensure a fair election.

Thats because Republicans promote anything that keeps them in power which has nothing to do with democracy. They require a perversion of democracy. All the lies they have told, all the corruption, all the disinformation must be dismissed as "conspiracy theories!", "rumors", "commies"...

Amigo Reality Check: The 1960 election remains the gold standard for stolen elections in U.S. politics. Mayor Daley made good on his promise to "deliver" Chicago (and Illinois) to JFK in that razor close election. Of course, it took quite a bit of voting by dead Democrats, but we shouldn't fault the Chicago Dem Machine for "fighting to ensure a fair election."

Closer to home (for me) the Democrats were screaming holy hell in 2004 claiming voters were deprived of rights because they weren't allowed to wander into any old building with a light on and cast their votes. (Many weren't even registered.) They also claimed voter rights were denied because there weren't enough voting machines in Cleveland and voters had to actually wait in a line. GOP Secretary of State Blackwell rightfully disallowed their claims ... of course the fly in the ointment for the Dems was that Mr. Blackwell was inconveniently black like most of the allegedly deprived voters.

Yes, I'm currently registered as a Republican, Amigo, but please know I was a Democrat for the previous 30 years and I hope to become one again if my party can ever be wrested from the grips of fanatical liberals, vacuous Hollywood types, and abortionists.

0 Replies

Sound reasons all.

You missed the eating of the budget Whooda.

0 Replies

" if my party can ever be wrested from the grips of fanatical liberals, vacuous Hollywood types, and abortionists."

This phrase alone will do good...it'll have Blatham laughing in no time flat.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

spendius and whooda

Is a paper verification record required by US federal voting law?

Do the machines which will be used in Ohio in several months produce a paper record?

I'm not sure whether paper verification is required by federal law, Blatham. Perhaps those more knowledgeable might weigh in on the subject. (If it's not required, it definitely should be.)

My earlier comments were specifically directed to the Diebold allegations. These machines have been in use in Ohio for a year or longer. (Individual counties switch from punchcard to electronic as they can afford to.) My county first used the machines (Diebold) in this past May primary.

The voter makes his selections by touching the screen, but before the vote is actually cast, a reminder screen shows the choices made and asks if they are correct. Once the voter submits his approval, he can see his choices (anonymous, of course) being printed on what looks like the circular cash register tapes of old. What I found odd was that each screen of choices must be approved before those votes are cast (and printed) possibly leaving the voter with the impression he had voted for all issues and candidates when he had actually only approved his first screen of selections.

The local reaction to electronic voting was overwhelmingly positive, although I understand a gentleman in the Cleveland area (frustrated Democrat?) became upset and physically destroyed the machine. My initial reaction was that the process could be confusing to elderly (predominantly GOP) voters and possibly skew the vote, but with further thought I now believe any such anomaly would be negated by the stupidity factor by which so many Dems seem to be afflicted and prevents them from showing up at the correct precinct and/or actually registering.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

spendius and whooda

Is a paper verification record required by US federal voting law?

I don't know.

Here the ballot box is watched over by a policeman and only unsealed in the presence of all the parties. They have been trying some postal voting but there have been a number of arrests. We have Mr Returning Officer whose integrity is beyond question.

There's a powerful resistance to those machines we see in the US.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

" if my party can ever be wrested from the grips of fanatical liberals, vacuous Hollywood types, and abortionists."

This phrase alone will do good...it'll have Blatham laughing in no time flat.

As always I value your pithy observations, Deb.

Perhaps you could send me your collected works and then I could save tremendously on toilet tissue?

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

My earlier comments were specifically directed to the Diebold allegations. These machines have been in use in Ohio for a year or longer. (Individual counties switch from punchcard to electronic as they can afford to.) My county first used the machines (Diebold) in this past May primary.

The voter makes his selections by touching the screen, but before the vote is actually cast, a reminder screen shows the choices made and asks if they are correct. Once the voter submits his approval, he can see his choices (anonymous, of course) being printed on what looks like the circular cash register tapes of old. What I found odd was that each screen of choices must be approved before those votes are cast (and printed) possibly leaving the voter with the impression he had voted for all issues and candidates when he had actually only approved his first screen of selections.

The local reaction to electronic voting was overwhelmingly positive, although I understand a gentleman in the Cleveland area (frustrated Democrat?) became upset and physically destroyed the machine. My initial reaction was that the process could be confusing to elderly (predominantly GOP) voters and possibly skew the vote, but with further thought I now believe any such anomaly would be negated by the stupidity factor by which so many Dems seem to be afflicted and prevents them from showing up at the correct precinct and/or actually registering.

The machines you voted on were recently updated in response to the massive complaints of the last election.

Quote:

The new Diebold machines were greeted with skepticism last year when Clark was trying to persuade counties to participate in a bulk purchase that would lower the cost of each machine. Some officials worried that voters wouldn't trust the equipment unless they could see a paper record.

Because of that, a printer was added to the side of each machine with a roll of paper to show each voter's choices.

http://www.leadercall.com/local/local_story_145111647.html

Most of us who had concerns about the machines and the political connections of those manufacturing them, will be (mostly) satisfied now that there is a paper receipt. But keep in mind, not all of the machines in use have that. I'd be interested to see how many electronic voting machines in the country actually do have a paper receipt.

0 Replies

Also, from your source:

Quote:

The five counties that chose not to buy the Diebold machines are DeSoto, Hinds, Lee, Rankin and Yalobusha, all of which are using other types of relatively new equipment. Hinds and Rankin have other brands of touch-screen machines.

http://www.leadercall.com/local/local_story_145111647.html

Which implies Diebold holds no exclusive patent/monopoly on the manufacture of electronic voting machines ... and that individual boards of election actually choose to become part of the massive Bush/Diebold election fraud scheme.

I love this cloak & dagger stuff.

(BTW, thanks for the info, Freeduck. I wasn't aware of the machine modifications.)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know