Who thinks the 2004 election was "stolen" ?

I thought it was interesting that you didn't cite sources

Uh, really? They make counting impossible? Think that through twice, or even once, and get back to me. No, they don't, and Ohio not only counts its ballots, they have a mechanism to recount them, like most states. Do you know anything about vote-counting, besides the brand names of machines?


Much like you overlooked my entire post, and any part of the real world that disagrees with you.


If by "everything" you mean "the paranoid ramblings of partisan lunatics", then yes, I'm overlooking everything.



Just like you're being lazy about grammar - "its claims."

I think you're being lazy. I don't think you read any of it at all. Happy now?

It must be great to live in a world where you know everything about everything, and can never be wrong. Who does that remind me of.....let's see......I'll call him G.W. Bush, or George W.B.

Uhm --How does one recount from a paperless ballot system?

You are very facile at diminishing opponents by questioning their sanity --do you have anything to back-up your claims --I've provided 2 solid links that you try to bat away with a charge of cinspiracy theory.

Sorry Charlie -- you have to do better than that with me.

I don't think I'm right about everything. Rather I doubt everything --and research it until I find something that has a basis in reality and is backed up by facts instead of emotions.

Do you? Or is your head comfie in the sand Mr. Ostrich?

fixed and reapplied

Magnum, people are trying to actually have a discusion somewhere. People that I actually respect, even if I don't agree with. Your side certainly doesn't need your help here - this is a discussion for people who actually comprehend the world beyond "Bush is bad".

Question: Do you think people actually take you serious?

That you fail to understand that, or how exit polling really works, shows how little you know about this, and how seriously I should take your theories.


What claims did I make, exactly, that I have to prove? I'm not the one making claims, you are. No link you could provide would bat away any claim of conspiracy theory, because that's what any accusations you make are. They're not proven - therefore a theory. They involve more than one person - therefore a conspiracy. Therefore, conspiracy theory. Look up the words.
No "evidence" you can provide "proves" your theory. Live with it. Now most people would take that as a sign to re-think things, but not you, clearly. You're a partisan attack dog and this is a character attack. At least be honest about it. There's nothing wrong with that. You hate the man, and you want others to hate him. You're not on some holy crusade for The Truth any more than he is.


Giggles
Oh, is that what you do? Funny how you never find anything that changes your mind about anything. Really convenient, that. You seem to find simplistic explanations from sources that confirm your prestated beliefs about things which you know very little about. Tell me, have you ever attended a recount? Or conducted an exit poll?


Ahh, I get it. Because I disagree with you I'm BLINDED TO THE TRUTH. Now you sound even more like Bush. Tell me, where do I sign up for your Holy Crusade?

Really? Kendra, did you hear that? What Reitsuki just said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com


Evidence submitted:



Evidence questioned:



Evidence clarified:



Evidence reclarified:



Complete backpedal on what the evidence is:



So your argument is this: An article written by RFK is not proof, but the sources he sites are. However, the sources either dismiss the conspiracy or are raw data. But but because RFK knows his shit, he makes a good argument in his article. But the article itself isn't the proof only the sources.


And the dems wonder why the person they claim to be dumbest president ever was elected twice?

editing your posts after the fact makes it difficult to reply to you Toni --but --here ya go.

They do indeed have a mechanism to recount --but recounting by the same methods is by definition insane especially on machines.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_121704Z.shtml

I've done quite a bit of reading on voting machines despite your curt dismissal of me.

Do you object to hand recounts? Of so why?

Relying on faulty or corruptable machinery to do recounts instead of going to hand count is just asking to repeat the exact same error.

Garbage in. Garbage out.

however hand recounts are subject to fraud as well, since the counters can "miscount" just as easily.

This wasn't directed toward me, but did you ever consider that you don't have to support Bush and still accept the election results?

He was elected once. The other time he was appointed by the Supreme Court despite the fact that is now KNOWN that Gore actually won both the Popular and Electoral votes.

Further there is EVIDENCE of wide spread tampering with the election results.

http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm

sorry but when the link has

"Reach Passionate Liberals. Your Ad Here"

it kinda discredits it, just saying

really? Do you have statistics on that?

http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu/argument-map.html
an article discussing pros and cons of machine versus hand from a non-political source.

its a statement of "it could happen" why do I need statistics for that? Can you not see the obviousness that no matter how a recount is carried out, someone will claim fraud?

of course I can. I'm discussing which is the more valid way of making sure the citizen's vote is counted according to his/her wshes.

Electronic machines are flawed and corruptable --from BOTH sides -- far more than a human count.

http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/2240291

hey I'm on your side here, I would rather have a hand count the first time around because it makes someone accountable. The way the machines are no one is accountable for any mistakes where as with a hand count there is an accountability that arises from having "your" name on the ballot count. I am rational enough ( ) to realize that no system is going to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time, though.

www.opednews.com. Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion Home Page.

From your article.

A ‘president’ who takes office through fraud and usurpation can make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.

Somehow I suspect the author will have a lot of links to support his beliefs. And while I'm sure you enjoy reading his opinions, it really undercuts your claim of proof.

This is part of the reason I've argued in the past that machines need a more extensive paper trail. But I'm not sure what you mean by the "same methods" - when you do a hand recount of paper ballots it's by the same method. It's just in a different place with more people, and you do it multiple times. It still just comes down to counting.
Besides, you know what's really insane? Tossing out paper ballots because someone used the wrong-colored ink, or made a write-in candidate, or scribbled instead of using a clean check in the box. All these and more happen at recounts; they're the paper ballot equivalent of the hanging chad.


Why would you think I object to hand recounts? I don't care how they're recounted, really. I've participated in a few hand recounts, and observed a few others, so I know quite a bit about them. Hand recounts aren't intrinsically more or less accurate than machine recounts, on the whole.


Perhaps you're right, but the same can be said of hand counting. Hand counting is no less prone to error than machine counting; believe me, I've been to hand recounts. All it is is longer and more partisan, not necessarily more effective. As many errors come out of recounts as come out of the initial counts.

In short, recounts do not create a more accurate result. And you're still missing my main point - that 118,000+ votes is too large a margin to recount, no matter the election. In recounts, it's not the percentage difference that's important, but the difference in vote totals. A 500-vote difference is small and can conceivable be changed in a recount, whether it's 1% of the vote or 10%. A 118,000 vote difference probably is too much for the overall outcome to be changed in a recount, whether that 118,000 votes is 10%, 5%, or 1%.

This may seem obvious, but in recounts, the odds of overturning the result decrease with the larger the separation in votes. Over 10,000 votes and the odd of changing the overall result is about the same as the odd of the best DNA sample being wrong. At 118,000 votes the election wasn't worth recounting, and Kerry knew that.

I know ya do BillyB.

You're like me. A true patriot.

a machine recount will result in the same exact count. sheeeesh. Do you not understand that it's the software at issue --not the ballot?

And yet people who use such sites are mortally offended by "Faux News"

Having an agenda is not a bad thing. Using distored facts and lies is.

/me Snaps to attention!

/me Salutes

Yes ma'am I am!