Who thinks the 2004 election was "stolen" ?

An article isn't proof, dear. If you need to look up the word to understand what I'm looking for, try dictionary.com. I can find an article proving damn near anything.

No. The SOURCES cited in the article are though.

Nope. Not really.

But you know, if it helps you sleep better at night thinking that everyone agrees with you and your candidates only lose when the election's stolen, you go right on doing that. You remind me of the partisan mudslingers who care more about winning elections and rehashing old campaigns than they do about governing to solve real problems.

Yeah. I sleep like a baby knowing our election system is hopeless fucked.

you wake up every 2 hours crying?

No. The SOURCES cited in the article are though.

LMAO. Did you actually read the sources?


This one says the exit polls were wrong.

http://www.hillnews.com/morris/110404.aspx

At the very least, the exit pollsters should have to explain, in public, how they were so wrong. Since their polls, if biased or cooked, represented an attempt to use the public airwaves to reduce voter turnout, they should have to explain their errors in a very public and perhaps official forum.

This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play.

Ok, lets try another. Since you admit the sources prove the case, check out the section in bold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html


Latest Conspiracy Theory -- Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether

By Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 11, 2004; Page A02

MIAMI, Nov. 10 -- The e-mail subject lines couldn't be any bigger and bolder: "Another Stolen Election," "Presidential election was hacked," "Ohio Fraud."

...

Each of the claims is buoyed by enough statistics and analysis to sound plausible

...

Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to close scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories -- the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- are not biting.


Here's a free tip. Before I post a link to something on the interent to support my position, I read it first. Otherwise people may think I'm an ass.

Ok, lets see what else we have.

Your list of sources includes The New York Times Editorial Desk, ''About Those Election Results,'' The New York Times, November 14, 2004.

So an editorial from a left leaning newspaper printed only days after the election counts as proof?

Lets try something more offical then. Care to show me where in this one they say there was fraud?

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf


Ok, that wasn't fair. We all know the government is controlled by Bush and has suppressed the real data. So lets look at another one of your sources. How about this one written on September 21, 2004. Wait, wasn't the election in November?

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0921/local/stories/02local.htm


Ok, lets try again. How about another article written before the election?

Sandy Theis, ''Blackwell Accused of Breaking Law by Pushing Same-Sex Marriage Ban,'' Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 29, 2004.


Ok, I'll try to be fair now and pick one that was written after the election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64737-2004Dec14.html

Electoral problems prevented many thousands of Ohioans from voting on Nov. 2. In Columbus, bipartisan estimates say that 5,000 to 15,000 frustrated voters turned away without casting ballots. It is unlikely that such "lost" voters would have changed the election result -- Ohio tipped to President Bush by a 118,000-vote margin and cemented his electoral college majority.


How about this?

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Seems good for raw data, but I didn't have time to read the entire website. Maybe you can show me where it says Bush stole the 2004 election.

The article itself is not proof, as you admit. And the number of sources is impressive but really don't prove anything either.

What it does say is that even though Bush is dumb as a stump, his opponents are even dumber.

lmao --read the article again and look to WHY the sources are quoted.

Christ do they even teach research in schools anymore?

we try too!

lmao --read the article again and look to WHY the sources are quoted.

Christ do they even teach research in schools anymore?

One "O" in to, Professor.

The Liberal Left loves to claim Bush stole both elections. It's much easier than dealing with the reality that the majrority of U.S. citizens who vote are conservative - or at least voted conservative in the '04 election.

Briana Dawson

I would argue that if the vast majority of USA citizens examined their beliefs honestly they would find thay are also liberals.

We live in a liberal country. The radical fringe are the fuckers in the White House and their 30% of a moronic base.

One "O" in to, Professor.

Ahh, Kendra and Billybob. This should be good.

Goes to get some popcorn

Here is an internet site that is a rebuttal to the article published by Rolling Stone, which we all know is believed by some to be the final word on all things political.

In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn't new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html

An article isn't proof, dear. If you need to look up the word to understand what I'm looking for, try dictionary.com. I can find an article proving damn near anything.

The plain fact of the matter is that both parties always have stolen elections and will continue to do so, from school board right up to the Presidency. All we can do - rather than weaving elaborate theories condemning people we dislike - is try to make the system better. Or all that we can do that will be effective, anyway.

Another plain fact of the matter is that as far as close elections go, Ohio '04 was not all that close. It's not hard to use skulldugery to pick up 537 votes. It's pretty damn unlikely to do it in a way that would tip the balance by 118,601 votes. You'd have to involve thousands of election officials all over the state, and after two years one of them would have been seduced by a member of the opposity party and spilled the beans by now, or given a deathbed confession, or a box of ballots would have turned up in a warehouse, or evidence would have turned up in connection with another case, or something. Real evidence, the kind investigated by a United States Attorney, not the kind reported on by Rolling Stone. It's just not feasable.

To steal an election, you have to keep the percentage between the candidates *very* close - very, very close. Florida 2000 cuts it, so there always will be, and should be, questions and suspicions about that. The only reason people are shining the light on Ohio 2004 is because it involved Bush. That's why Kerry decided not to challenge the results - because he knew 118,000 votes was far too big a margin to overcome through recount. Lord knows it wasn't because he was out of money or attorneys.

The plain fact of the matter is that both parties always have stolen elections and will continue to do so, from school board right up to the Presidency. All we can do - rather than weaving elaborate theories condemning people we dislike - is try to make the system better. Or all that we can do that will be effective, anyway.

Another plain fact of the matter is that as far as close elections go, Ohio '04 was not all that close. It's not hard to use skulldugery to pick up 537 votes. It's pretty damn unlikely to do it in a way that would tip the balance by 118,601 votes. You'd have to involve thousands of election officials all over the state, and after two years one of them would have been seduced by a member of the opposity party and spilled the beans by now, or given a deathbed confession, or a box of ballots would have turned up in a warehouse, or evidence would have turned up in connection with another case, or something. Real evidence, the kind investigated by a United States Attorney, not the kind reported on by Rolling Stone. It's just not feasable.

To steal an election, you have to keep the percentage between the candidates *very* close - very, very close. Florida 2000 cuts it, so there always will be, and should be, questions and suspicions about that. The only reason people are shining the light on Ohio 2004 is because it involved Bush. That's why Kerry decided not to challenge the results - because he knew 118,000 votes was far too big a margin to overcome through recount. Lord knows it wasn't because he was out of money or attorneys.

He decided not to challenge it --because Diebold machines make counting impossible.

But you are overlooking the voter supression the vast amount of voter irregularities that occureed ALL in Bush's favor.

You overlook everything in fact.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392

Question: Do you work for the Bush mis-Administration? if not, it sure sounds like you do.

Questin: Do you ever think about what you're writing before you hit Submit Reply?

Actually, you sound like you do, what with that whole "making-no-sense-at-all" thing you have going on there. Toss in a few typos next time and it's good for a job application.

Just because I don't accept Rolling Stone as a source of political news, I must work in the Bush Administration? What on earth are you talking about? Was there any logic involved there at all?