YAY!!!!!!

Did someone say they had a monopoly? That article was about the state of Mississippi, I believe, but I also recall news that new machines were used in the recent primaries in Ohio. No, nobody is forced to buy diebold machines but there is the Help America Vote Act which is supposed to get all precincts on to some sort of electronic voting machines by some date in the future. I'm hazy on the details, so perhaps now is the time to move this discussion to the thread that deals with this topic.

There are many to choose from, but this one looks to be most recent and most pertinent.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=74920&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Did someone say they had a monopoly ... perhaps now is the time to move this discussion to the thread that deals with this topic.

There are many to choose from, but this one looks to be most recent and most pertinent.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=74920&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Blatham had mentioned the alleged-Diebold/Bush voter fraud conspiracy in a lengthy list of (possible smoking-cessation-related) beefs and it seemed to be among the most implausible given my experiences with the machine.

As far as joining the other thread, no thanks. A quick scanthrough and a glance at the doctored Diebold advertisement (depicting Josef Stalin casting his vote) was enough for me ... just the usual crowd bitching as usual.

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.

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

0 Replies

whoda wrote

Quote:

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.)

They are not.
As regards Ohio (a critically important electoral jurisdiction) the Republican chap in charge has and continues to resist this requirement.

But it doesn't do to ignore the connections between the owner of Diebold and he Bush administration particularly in light of his statement that he would "ensure" Ohio for Bush/Cheney. No one responded to my hypothetical of George Soros gaining control of Diebold and making the same statement but substituting Clinton/Obama and it is pretty clear why the point didn't gain a response.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

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.

A switch over to electronic machines seems inevitable. But at present, the potenial for manipulation remains far too high (lots of independent research on the matter). Concerns regarding this are made far more acute given the private ownership/control of the machines coupled with Diebold's continuing resistance to facilitate paper records and overview of their code.

Because Diebold has the political affiliations that it has (which you guys ought to check into) one can describe this problem of potential fraud as a "one party" matter. But that is short-sighted. As Grover Norquist commented re the concentration of powers in the hands of Bush, "Do I want Hilary to have this kind of power?"

0 Replies

But back to the matter of information control by government where that includes deceits, lack of transparency, and obfuscation...

The working assumption of the folks in charge of such manipulation is that you, as citizens, are incapable of a proper response when you are provided with the truth. You have to be deceived and have your perceptions/ideas determined by those folks in charge. That is assuming they actually care, in itself a leap of faith.

Where a government demonstrates that they cannot be trusted to be truthful and forthright, a whole lot of problems ensue, including the "boy who cried wolf" dilemma...how do you trust them when something important arises?

The case in point is Zarqawi's death and his "replacement". How important are these events/individuals really? Has a corner been turned? All that is certain is that such claims will be made.

We know the nature of he operation that Poindexter began to set up before everyone got wind of it. We also know that Rumsfeld said after the program was ostensibly shut down that they would "do whatever they needed to do anyway" (paraphrased, but that was the precise meaning).

So, now, when two soldiers are captured and we get reports that they have been tortured and possibly beheaded and that the person who did this is Zarqawi's replacement, we simply cannot trust that this information is factual.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

Oy! I just thought it was hilarious because of stuff like the oxymoron in "fanatical liberals" (kinda like the killer bunny in "Holy Grail") and such. I thought you'd have a good laugh...so have one!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

I think it's the fanatical libs who should be embarrassed, Blatham. Clinton knew the recipe to get elected and he moved to the center. Witness Hillary's similar shift.

And ... I can assure you I'm not lying through my teeth, as I was a registered Dem so long I can remember when being a "liberal" was actually honorable. So, by your narrow standards, that must place me in your second category. I shall wear that as a badge of honor in light of what it takes to qualify as an "intelligent" Democrat.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

blatham wrote:
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.

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

Oy! I just thought it was hilarious because of stuff like the oxymoron in "fanatical liberals" (kinda like the killer bunny in "Holy Grail") and such. I thought you'd have a good laugh...so have one!

Deb: I love it when you do the empty-headed cheerleader thing. Will you also be going back to your t*t-shaking avatar?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

blatham wrote:

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.

Actually, you don't remind me of anyone, but if you did, I feel confident that it would not be anyone of either renowned or obscure fame.

Integrity is a strange word to employ in this context. Do you mean to suggest that you are compelled by intellectual honesty to call those with whom you don't agree "turkeys?" Is it rectitude that demands you resort to hyperbolic insults?

Those of us who reside in The Darkness, are well aware that you rarely, if ever, agree with our foul gibberings. For our sake, at least, it is not necessary for you to consistently implore us to see The Light, and therefore I have to assume that your passionate efforts are intended for some other audience. Perhaps it is that group of A2Kers who are of the opinion that you are really really smart...and cool.

As the old saw goes, "Hope springs eternal," and so you are free to hope with all your meagre might that you may shame me or other A2K miscreants. The likelihood, however, of you shaming (at least me) in any respect is virtually nil. Keep trying though; it seems to hearten you so.

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.

Ahhh blatham...your audience reveals itself.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But at present, the potenial for manipulation remains far too high (lots of independent research on the matter). Concerns regarding this are made far more acute given the private ownership/control of the machines coupled with Diebold's continuing resistance to facilitate paper records and overview of their code.

Sources & documentation, please.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Ahhh blatham...your audience reveals itself.

And an embarrassingly fawning audience at that ...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

Good grief blatham, this is an even more fatuous response then the one that sought to compare yourself with Girolamo Savonarola. Presumably, folks, such as yourself, labor heroically on sites such as this for the very promise that people can change their beliefs.

I also presume that you are capable of appreciating how a Republican might experience an epiphany and transform themselves into a Democrat.

But a Democrat (Liberal) that finds themselves evolving into a Republican (conservative), such a person must be a liar or stupid. Why mince word bernie, such people are, undeniably, pooh-pooh heads.

0 Replies

Yet another Lost Generation apparently ... membership totaling 2.

0 Replies

Poo-poo heads Finn? There should be a law against such a bad case of self-imposed stupidity.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/Neighbor_problems.jpg

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Ahhh blatham...your audience reveals itself.

And an embarrassingly fawning audience at that ...

Nah. You're upside down on this one.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Poo-poo heads Finn? There should be a law against such a bad case of self-imposed stupidity.

That's a great find, maggie.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
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.

Indeed. If I had a dollar for each time I've read, "I used to be a Democrat until..." followed by some set of words that indicate the fellow is either likely lying through his teeth or that indicate he was one of the stupidest Democrats I've bumped into. Please, whooda, begin to be embarassed by the substiution of cliches for actual reflective though.

Good grief blatham, this is an even more fatuous response then the one that sought to compare yourself with Girolamo Savonarola. Presumably, folks, such as yourself, labor heroically on sites such as this for the very promise that people can change their beliefs.

I also presume that you are capable of appreciating how a Republican might experience an epiphany and transform themselves into a Democrat.

But a Democrat (Liberal) that finds themselves evolving into a Republican (conservative), such a person must be a liar or stupid. Why mince word bernie, such people are, undeniably, pooh-pooh heads.

Touch of irony here, finn, Savonarola being a famed dipshit, the 'famed' being merely a convenient means to identify a precedent and the 'dipshit' (over-certain, self-righteous moralizing) being the point.

Lots of cases of folks sincerely changing affiliations or political ideas, in either direction. But the words used to describe or explain such a shift (perhaps you ought to read my sentence again) often reveal rather more than the speaker suspects. As deb suggests, with her usual brighteness and perception, Whoda didn't use a combination of words as silly as "blood-thirsty pacifist", but he's heading in that direction.

It would be interesting to understand what notions whoda sincerely held, when he was a Dem, why he held them, and what specifically altered his notions. This ought not to be a difficult progression to explicate. Steering away from slogans and cliches and speaking of the real and personal would be the manner in which this story could be told, to our edification (and I don't mean that sarcastically, by the by).

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Whoda didn't use a combination of words as silly as "blood-thirsty pacifist", but he's heading in that direction.

It would be interesting to understand what notions whoda sincerely held, when he was a Dem, why he held them, and what specifically altered his notions. This ought not to be a difficult progression to explicate. Steering away from slogans and cliches and speaking of the real and personal would be the manner in which this story could be told, to our edification (and I don't mean that sarcastically, by the by).

Blatham: I'll readily admit I'm too lazy to scroll back for my actual comment that prompted the slur from Ozprah, the Oprah of the Antipodes ... (bright & perceptive, Blatham? Rolling Eyes

)

But as memory serves me, I was lamenting the fact that my Democratic party was the party that I've always perceived as embracing the values of FDR's New Deal, JFK's New Frontier, & LBJ's Great Society as the traditional load-bearing planks of its platform. Meaty, visionary stuff, if you will. All of the other was just fluff to appease the extreme left wing.

I believe I referred to the party as being in the grips of "fanatical liberals." Would you (and Ozprah) feel more comfortable with the phrase "extreme left wing," Blatham? The Greens of the party stole enough votes (threw them away actually) in 2000 to cost Gore the election. (I view them as my-way-or-no-way fanatics.)

I also referred to the party as being in the grips of "abortionists." I know that's dismissed as a wedge issue by the pointy-headed types, but the current group of extreme left wingers relish each and every opportunity to push their "right to abort" onto the front burner when it would better serve the party to simply allow it to simmer. That issue alone traditionally mobilizes an incredible block of mainline Christians in this country. Factor in the gigantic number of Fundamentalist voters and one can only wonder what Dem party leaders are thinking. (In 2004, the GOP was actually recruiting the Amish, traditional non-voters, with this very issue hoping their added votes might decide the state's status as a swing state.)

And I also said the party is in the grips of "vacuous Hollywood types." This is one of my petpeeves, Blatham. When Martin Sheen hauled a cross on his back down a thoroughfare in Hollywood to promote his cause d'jour, I wanted to vomit a quart and a half. When the Kerry crowd trotted Bruce Springsteen into my flyover state to sway God knows what portion of the demographics, I had the same physical reaction. I don't care if the offenders are GOP, Dem, or Druid -- whenever a party tries to buy my vote with such a cheap Madison Avenue tactic it triggers instant revulsion. And it seems that of late the Dems have hauled out more than their fair share of wannabe actors and actresses apparently to buy the idiot vote.

Somewhere, maybe not on this thread, I noted that the Clintons are savvy politicians and as such they recognize the necessity to move to the center of the political spectrum to get elected in this country. He did it twice, and she's clearly maneuvering in that direction.

Perhaps we can strike a deal, Blatham. I'll try to avoid slogans and cliches, if you try to avoid pontificating from fog-shrouded peaks?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know