*edited* Democracy, what is it good for?

[DrewKaree]

You want them so you feel you can protect you and your family because you generally don't trust people, or you trust that there's a certain element of danger prevalent in our society, fine, I'm with you. However, if you don't trust people, why would you fight for them to have access to more weapons?

No, you generalize here.  It's not that we "generally don't trust people", it's that we specifically don't trust criminals to follow the same laws you wish foisted upon us.

I would trust Dartful, if he lived in my neighborhood, NOT TO BREAK INTO MY HOUSE.  Oh, and he even has a gun, so if he really wanted to, he could FORCIBLY get into my house.  I trust that HE won't break into my house and do my family harm.  The people we don't trust are Joe and Bob Crackhead who can't seem to understand that there's a door they could knock on, and a doorbell to ring, and those things get you a meeting with the homeowner.  If the homeowner doesn't show for that meeting, that doesn't give you the right to come into the house.  If you do so, I will use my weapon with deadly force, if necessary, because you, Mr Criminal, haven't followed simple rules regarding my property, and I can't trust that since you couldn't follow those simple rules, you will also leave if asked politely to do so.  I will make it my business to escort you out, either with you scampering merrily out with your tail between your legs, or in some other fashion more conducive to making you think twice (or finally) that you shouldn't do this again.

Your generalizations, while "cute", only serve yourself.  If we "hated people", as you wish to paint us, we wouldn't ever leave the house.  And if we never left the house, how would we buy bullets so that we could reload?

Those of you who like them because you are an enthusiast and you just "like to shoot them"...well, you're just crazy and your arguments don't count.

...aaaand that about wraps you up.  Seriously.  Thanks for inviting us, we appreciated the offer of Kool-Aid. 

Jeffrey Dahmer liked to eat people, I'm sure he thought we taste just like chicken. I'm sure his argument would be "Who doesn't love chicken, right?"

Nice analogy.  I've got another.

I have a frog.  His name is Billy.  We're going to use magic spells on him and turn him into a tiger. 

(yeah, you're right.  It IS almost as nuts as your analogy  )

[danny_galaga]

Can't we all just get along?

snigger  . what the world needs now....

[Dexter]

Hi all, just a few (dozen) points. My access to a PC able to access the forums is tight at the mo so apologies on entering this thread so late.....

Part 1
To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG...

2- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

3- That Harris last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.

4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds break for the challenger)was WRONG.

5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)

6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.

10- That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore agains an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority - when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.

13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.

[Dexter]

Part 2

Part II: To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe...

1. That people who voted for Bush were not anxious to speak to exit pollsters in the states that Bush had to win (like Florida and Ohio) where the exit polls were off, but wanted to be polled in states that he had sewn up (like Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas) where the exit polls were exactly correct.

2. That Democrats who voted for Kerry were very anxious to be exit-polled, especially in Florida and Ohio. That accounts for the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual votes in these two critical states.

3. That women were much more likely to be polled early in the day in Florida and Ohio. That is another reason why the exit polls were wrong in those states. In those states in which the exit polls were correct to within one percent, women did not come out early.

4. That the University of Pennsylvania Professor (trained at MIT) who calculated the probability of Bush gaining votes beyond the exit polling margin of error as ONE out of 250 million, does not have any credibility.

5. That network newscasters who claim that those who consider the possibility of fraud are just wild conspiracy theorists do not have an agenda.

6. That it is just a coincidence that only since the 2000 presidential election have exit polls failed to agree with the actual vote - and that Bush won both disputed elections.

7. That exit polls are not to be trusted in the United States, even though they are used throughout the world to monitor elections for fraud.

8. That even though more votes were cast than there were eligible voters in many precincts of critical states, it is not an issue that needs to be covered in the media.

9. That the absence of a paper ballot trail for touch screen computers does not encourage fraud, even though they have been proven by hundreds of computer experts to be highly vulnerable to fraudulent attack.

10. That statistical tests which indicate a high probability of fraud are just conspiratorial junk science.

[Dexter]

Part 3

In order to believe Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in FL by 4%. Based on 2846 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 1.84%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 1667.

2. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentage in OH by 3%. Based on 1963 individuals exit polled, the polling margin of error was 2.21%.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 333.

3. That his vote tallies could exceed his exit poll percentages in 41 out of 51 states.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 135,000.

4. That his vote tallies could exceed the margin of error in 16 states. Not one state vote tally exceeded the MOE for Kerry.
The odds of this occurrence: 1 out of 13.5 trillion.

5. That his vote tallies could exceed a 2% exit poll margin of error in 23 states.
The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

6. That of 88 documented touch screen incidents, 86 voters would see their vote for Kerry come up Bush - and only TWO from Bush to Kerry.
The probability of this occurrence: as close to ZERO as you can get.

7. That Mitofsky, with 25 years of experience, has lost his exit polling touch.

8. That by disputing the Ukrainian elections, the Bush administration would base its case on the accuracy of U.S. sponsored exit polling, while at the same time ignoring exit polls in the U.S. presidential election, which the media reported Kerry was winning handily.

My favourite part, personally. Add to the fact that every effort to ensure every vote ws tallied fairly and correctly is being hampered, plus the countless stories of surpression, and you have an electoral system that would be the envy of the very best faschist regieme.

And you guys are 'exporting' this to Iraq? LOL

Dexter

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dexter,

Good points, all. But remember, you are dealing with a "faith-based" group...reality is *not* welcome.

Anyhow, here's a very prescient quote I found online and which I feel is applicable to this thread, "Perhaps so many people taking comfort in the idea of the US being the "greatest democracy" is what let things get this bad."


Proud member of the "reality-based" community.
mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Does this look like a Democracy?

1.  80% of all votes in America are counted by only
two companies:  Diebold and ES&S.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

2.  There is no federal agency with regulatory
authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine
industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

3.  The vice-president of Diebold and the president of
ES&S are brothers.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

4.  The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush
campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he
was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral
votes to the president next year."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5.  Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman
of ES&S.  He became Senator based on votes counted by
ES&S machines.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html

6.  Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected
with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about
his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7.  Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George
W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html

8.  ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in
the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

9.  Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no
paper trail of any votes.  In other words, there is no
way to verify that the data coming out of the machine
is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html

10.  Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and
ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and
can generate a paper trail.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11.  Diebold is based in Ohio.

http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

12.  Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior
managers and developers to help write the central
compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes
in 30 states.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13.  Jeff Dean, Diebold's Senior Vice-President and
senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code,
was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the
first degree.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14.  Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was
convicted of planting back doors in his software and
using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade
detection over a period of 2 years.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15.  None of the international election observers were
allowed in the polls in Ohio.

http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html

16.  California banned the use of Diebold machines
because the security was so bad.  Despite Diebold's
claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a
chimpanzee was able to do it!  (See the movie here
.)

http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17.  30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on
unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no
paper trail.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

18.  All -- not some -- but all the voting machine
errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor
of Bush or Republican candidates.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

19.  The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush,
is the President's brother.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html

20.  Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again
always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically
demonstrated and experts are recommending further
investigation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
http://uscountvotes.org/

[DrewKaree]

i've got to wonder

MrC, Dexter, does the sun hurt on your skin after coming up from your underground bunker designed to protect you from the experiments the government conducts on us each day without ever telling us?

How is that "cough" you guys have developed?

Did you guys install one of those "so-called filters" for your water supply so you wouldn't become a puppet in the experiment?

Does your phone sometimes click while you are talking, and you can't figure out why?

Does your mail come to your house sometimes with 4 EXTRA DIGITS!!! at the end of your zip code?

What have you named the little pink elephants you sometimes see?



We're all good with our "reality" we're living under.  If you need these things to sustain you through the day with YOUR daily dose of reality, more power to ya.  I notice you didn't include any of the "secret airfield" points from the Clinton years, or anything about "suicides" and how they dragged their own dead bodies around town

As it was once put so eloquently (although you boys know of conspiracies by Hollywood I haven't even DREAMED of):

Go sell crazy someplace else.  We're all stocked up here

[locash]

Not to turn this into another gun debate thread - 'cuz where has that ever gotten anyone? - but the thing I'll never understand, regardless of the "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" nonsense, is how gun advocates can argue the "I want them for my protection" angle.

You want them so you feel you can protect you and your family because you generally don't trust people, or you trust that there's a certain element of danger prevalent in our society, fine, I'm with you. However, if you don't trust people, why would you fight for them to have access to more weapons?

The general "pro-gun" mindset seems so short-sighted. Those of you who like them because you are an enthusiast and you just "like to shoot them"...well, you're just crazy and your arguments don't count. Seriously. Jeffrey Dahmer liked to eat people, I'm sure he thought we taste just like chicken. I'm sure his argument would be "Who doesn't love chicken, right?"

The reason our forefathers wrote the right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution was expressly for protection.  Not protection from other citizens, but protection from an tyrannical government.  The reasons individuals choose to keep arms are irrelevant.

If they outlaw guns, outlaws won't be the only ones with guns, you can be sure the police and military won't go without.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

i've got to wonder

...if you'll ever address the questions raised above?

P.S. It always cracks me up how high and mighty you are when I dish it out, then you have absolutely no problem, whatsoever, resorting to ad hominem attacks when you are too afraid to address the issues at hand. You deride those who would present valid questions concerning free and fair elections as "conspiracy theorists" at the SAME TIME you put forth the Clinton conspiracy theories. The rethugs had 8 YEARS, MILLIONS of dollars and a grand jury, but what did they finally nail Clinton on...a blowjob. I feel there is AT LEAST enough evidence to warrant the same treatment for "Saint Bush". Do you think he has something to hide? Do you not see your own hypocrisy? I can at least admit to mine, at times.  You act like you're tying to debate, but you'll then cop to using "sarcasm" if you're caught spewing bull$h!t..

You're as smug as any effete commie liberal I've ever met. Watch it, you may lose your membership to the Conservative "Pompous Windbag Division" of your party...then again, maybe you're just payin' your dues?!

[DrewKaree]

P.S. It always cracks me up how high and mighty you are when I dish it out, then you have absolutely no problem, whatsoever, resorting to ad hominem attacks when you are too afraid to address the issues at hand.

Ad hominem...that's rich.  From Dexter, we get "you have to believe that educated guesses (that's right, guesses - that's what polls are) were wrong", ad nauseum.  From you, we get conspiracy theories you read on moonbat sites about companies and processes that have been used for more than this election, yet even your blue state officials had no problems with them being used, even with all the "proof" and statistics you are now claiming show a clear and evident bias, conveniently after an election you lost.

I at least am on record trying to point out vote fraud of EITHER party, and a call to speak to your local officials in an effort to do something about it.  Back then, when I was pointing out IDENTICAL charges you are now bringing up (and did so about BOTH parties), WHERE O WHERE was your klaxon call to action and justice over probable vote fraud? 

I notice you used the tactics of derision and partisanship to point out how "rethugs" were working to steal the election, but curiously you turned a blind eye to that which your own party was doing (probably under the pretense of "we're just trying to even it all out")

You're so blinded you can't even realize when idiocy is pointed out to you in the form of the Clinton conspiracy theorists.  You'll notice I NEVER said I agree with them, I personally think THEY are as nuts and loony to believe the things they did as the folks looking for some grand conspiracy in the last elections.  You simply assumed I believe in them because I brought it up.  Merely pointing out nutty conspiracies about your party as well.  Here's another one for you, in the interest of fairness.  They say Reagan was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran a few more weeks to insure he was elected.     Oh my GOODNESS!  The party heads are knocking at my door right NOW because I let escape the "secret" to that election! 

I resort to sarcasm because you two have done better than I EVER could have to prove how far the level of hatred for Bush will take someone.

You're as smug as any effete commie liberal I've ever met.

Actually, you're probably a bit off there.  I'm probably MORE smug, but I view it as my right.  After all, my guy won.  In another four years, you'll understand why it feels so good to be out from under the Presidency of someone you diametrically oppose.  Then again, I have a feeling you may have to live with 16+ years of it. 

Address your points?  Seriously?  This coming from the person who thought I provided nothing but moonbat site links?  That which you chided me for seems to be the tactic you adopted.  I'd be flattered but for the fact you're at least twice as good at the tactic as I could hope to be!  I feel I addressed the overriding point prevalent in your post - at least the one that needed to be addressed. 

Use the "representatives" you've elected to change the system.  After all, wasn't that the theory you were working under when you were on the campaign trail trying to get out the vote?  All these things you decry as "indicators"...why weren't they addressed after the LAST "stolen" election?  Why the issue yet again?  I thought all the promises of solving all the problems would surely lead to vast sweeping changes.  After all, isn't there SOME way democrats can ensure that all their votes are counted?  Much to Dexter's consternation, we use a DIFFERENT "poll" to elect our officials.  One where more than just a few thousand folks are used to decide the result. 


As for ad hominem attacks, I read your very words.

Dexter,

Good points, all. But remember, you are dealing with a "faith-based" group...reality is *not* welcome.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

[DrewKaree]

Alright.  For you.  The addressing of points.

1.  blah blah blah

through

20.  blah blah blah

How long has Diebold and ES&S been doing this?  Long enough to "steal" 8 years of Clinton - if you want to believe elections are being "stolen".

How long ago was the Bush / Gore election?

In ALL the time since the Bush / Gore "debacle", why have Democrats sat on their hands and done nothing to change any of the points you bring up?


You speak of family connections, you speak of a member of the voting machine company speaking of their vow to work for the Republicans (Helloooo?  Dan Rather, White House phone....Dan Rather, White House phone), you speak of INTERNATIONAL observers, but make no mention of the fact that Democratic observers WERE there .... your theories REEK of conspiracies.

I can see how you'd think brothers and friends have an interest in their brother/friend in being elected.  I'd also like for you to realize if they were allowed to steal the election, your Democratic representatives are even MORE stupid than you give US credit for.  They had to have it pointed out for them - elected officials had to be told after a screwy election the first time that they should have changed it the second time - AFTER THE ELECTION HAPPENED!

Good God man, what's next?  Are you gonna buy a gun because you don't trust your Democratic representatives?

[fredster]

Dexter, Mr.C,

To believe any of the compound link garabage you have produced shows that you have no faith in the american system.

If the system could have been manipulated to that extent, George Soros would have bought that ticket.

I wish both of you would realize that a majority of the American people didn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

The exit polls were wrong in all the states, even the ones that didn't have these machines.  Geeze.

Talk about taken out of context. 80% of the votes counted were made by two companies? Come on boys.  There are local election boards all over the US that count the votes. They don't go through a central processing unit.  It's shades of "I Robot" . Do you think Bush hit a button and all the voting machines had a red glow come on and they all went Bush?

It confound the senses for you to say on the one hand that Bush is so inept that he can't tie his shoes and on the other that he could orchastrate voter fraud on a National scale.

If you guys are jealous of Bush and the Bush family, why don't you try and make money like that yourselves? After all, of all the President and VP Candidates, Bush had less money than all of them. Do what Kerry did, keep marrying rich widows until you hit the jackpot.

And I have to tell you guys, I don't understand this prejugdice toward faith based groups. I really don't. I am NOT a religious person, I don't attend church and I don't contribute to any spritual group. I am not a believer in any sense of the word, and I don't understand this.

It's not religion that's the issue, it's the fact that these people don't lock step to your "progressive" thinking. I have a lot of respect for people who devote themselves to any cause they think is greater than the self, like patriots, clergy, and even tenants.  I don't do that, and they don't upset me. I'm a traditionalist. I like Xmas, I celebrate all of the holidays because that's what I have always done. 

There is no issue at hand Mr. C.  You can't address someone who is jousting at windmills. You are as blind to the real world as the exteamist factions you decry. Give it up. It's not there. Kerry Lost, Bush won.

I know how you feel, I felt the same exact way in '92 and again in '96.  I had P.E.S.T then. I really got it in '96.  I couldn't believe that people wanted Clinton AGAIN. It was clear the man was "slick" willie and I understand how you feel.  I was disappointed too.

Get over it, I did.  Regroup and come up with some ideas that make sense. Support your local people and find the right ideas that make the most sense for America. Don't sit there and whine about the President.  You will lose every time in every battle. 

The thing that irks me the most is the way you guys put down the US. What's your frame of reference to say the US isn't the greatest Democracy on the earth?  There is NO perfect government, there is NO perfect system anywhere on the face of the planet.  A lot of people have given more than you and I will ever have for us to live as freely as we do.

So I say it again, get over it. You can try again in 4 years and we'll see where the American people stand then.  Until then I share your pain and understand your frustration.  I had clinton, you have Bush.  We'll see who suffers in '08.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Alright.  For you.  The addressing of points.

How long has Diebold and ES&S been doing this?  Long enough to "steal" 8 years of Clinton - if you want to believe elections are being "stolen".

The presidents of both companies are strong Republican contributors, why would they steal an election for Clinton?

In ALL the time since the Bush / Gore "debacle", why have Democrats sat on their hands and done nothing to change any of the points you bring up?

Good question. Answer: Because they are mostly a bunch of spineless politicos too afraid to sacrifice their careers in order to do the right thing. If they let this latest atrocious election slide without affecting REAL voting reform, then they are irrelevant as a party and need to be pushed off the island. I am working, as much as I can, to help reform the party from within. Through donates, activism, etc...I don't trust politicians as a general rule. From either side.
You seem to think I lap up everything the dems have to offer. Far from it. The democratic platform, as an ideal, appeals to me far more than anything else. Thus, I work towards implementing as much as I care to support. Ultimately I'd prefer a much more "grass-roots" oriented party, devoid of special interests and jelly-spined glad-handers. I believe fraud on BOTH sides merits investigation and have *NEVER* stated differently.

I am, however, faced with a government of Republican majority. The House, the Senate, and the Judiciary branch are packed with Bush sympathizers. The one, most effective system of democratic governorship is missing, that of "checks and balances". You may not believe me when I say it, but I wouldn't want *ANY* party, Dems included, to have such a stranglehold on our government. My time/funds are limited so I choose to focus my energy on Republican wrong-doing. I support transparent, auditable elections, as I feel it disallows either party to "game the system". I don't see why you wouldn't support that?

Even so, your point that the Dems "let" it happen, doesn't justify any illegal/unethical acts, if they truly *did* happen. Why not allow, or support an investigation into alleged wrong-doing? Again, do you really feel Bush has something to hide?

You speak of family connections, you speak of a member of the voting machine company speaking of their vow to work for the Republicans (Helloooo?  Dan Rather, White House phone....Dan Rather, White House phone)

Not a "member", the OWNER. Both Diebold and ES&S are run by BROTHERS. Both brothers are  fiercely partisan Republicans, who've donated to Bush's campaign. The CEO of Diebold wrote, in 2003, that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to (President Bush) next year." Looks like he delivered.

Blood is thicker than water, and political allegiances are often thicker than blood.

I want to ask you for a genuine response, and I want you to think about it first. No knee-jerking allowed. Katherine Harris (Secretary of State of Florida, 2000) and Kenneth Blackwell (SoS of Ohio, 2004) were both CHAIRS of the Bush/Cheney campaign while acting as Secretaries of State. Is that not a conflict of interest? Do I not have the grounds for suspicion?

Finally, Dan Rather? Since when did he start a company that produces paperless e-voting machines? You guys and your hard-on for Rather is pretty pathetic. He was, at best, a misguided newsman, who had looong ago outlived his prime. Your comparison has absolutely no relevance to the issues at hand.

You speak of INTERNATIONAL observers, but make no mention of the fact that Democratic observers WERE there .... your theories REEK of conspiracies.

How so? The process is NOT TRANSPARENT, how does is matter whether democrats were there or not? Why support LESS observation of a potentially close election? It's been put forth by a programmer allegedly approached by a Republican senator to create e-voting fraud "proof-of-concept" software, that you could watch someone commit fraud on a touch-screen system, and not know they are doing it.

I can see how you'd think brothers and friends have an interest in their brother/friend in being elected.

If you're being honest with this statement, then why would you consider anyone questioning the results (given the circumstances) a conspiracy nut? Are you being serious here?

I'd also like for you to realize if they were allowed to steal the election, your Democratic representatives are even MORE stupid than you give US credit for.  They had to have it pointed out for them - elected officials had to be told after a screwy election the first time that they should have changed it the second time - AFTER THE ELECTION HAPPENED!

I DO realize this, as stated above. You know, we're not all kool-aid drinkers. If you can imagine something that makes me *more* angry than Chimpster-in-chief, then this issue is it. I'm already working to help win back some seats in 2006 and I've got a hitlist of dems who need to show some backbone in the coming months, years. Kerry is on that list as well. If they don't do the right thing, they'll not only lose my support/contributions, but I'll work against them in support of a better democratic candidate.  Why just democrat? Again, this isn't the time to be myopic with fatalistic idealism in support of some altruistic "third-party" candidate. We're up against Republican "dictatorship". It's not the time to throw away votes. I mean, if an appealing third-party candidate stood a solid chance, I'd bite. But it's just not likely. Yet.

Vicious? Yes. We on the left don't pledge our allegiance to party members until death, like it seems a lot of the Right does. (read: Tom Delay)

That's what makes it so difficult for our ideology to move forward. We're not "ditto-heads". We're generally more inclusive, more subversive, and more individualized as party-members. You've heard the one about how getting the left together is like "herding cats", right? Well, it's true.  The dems have been mostly ineffectual of late, but YOUR party has been completely taken over. The inmates are running the asylum. We'll see who delivers real *positive* change in the long-run.

Good God man, what's next?  Are you gonna buy a gun because you don't trust your Democratic representatives?

What's so wrong with that? Isn't gun ownership my right? Do you know where I can get a cheap semi-automatic assault rifle? Can I move into your neighborhood, once I get one?

Last, but not least, it looks like whether you like it or not, this "conspiracy theory" is on it's way to the Ohio Supreme Court. Although Blackwell has done his best, at every turn, to stop this issue from seeing light (wonder why?), and even though the Ohio Supreme court judge was initially able to throw the case out (Not suprising as he is named as a defendant in the suit. Can you say conflict of interest?), we may yet see how flawed our precious democracy truly is.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dexter, Mr.C,

To believe any of the compound link garabage you have produced shows that you have no faith in the american system.

At this point, I don't.

If the system could have been manipulated to that extent, George Soros would have bought that ticket.

Soros is not a "leftist" God. He's no Rovian "architect". He donated a LOT of money, and let others do the walking. His power has been overblown by the right-wing media.

I wish both of you would realize that a majority of the American people didn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

56 million and the rest of the civilized world do though. You see, we on the left have the unmitigated gall to consider ourselves part of a much larger "global system". We don't follow orders from other countries, but we sure would like to be able to work with them. As members of this global community, we see the fanatical neo-conservative relgious right as a small minority that has run amok. Don't agree with me. Well maybe you'd agree with a more conservative perspective. If I see more of this type of rationality from the right, my faith may be restored in that party. Until then...

Read: I Am A Conservative Christian, And The Religious Right Scares Me, Too

The exit polls were wrong in all the states, even the ones that didn't have these machines.  Geeze.

Not true. They are *far* more disparate in counties were paperless e-voting machines were present. A lot of exit poll numbers have since been "reworked" to more closely fit the outcome. In my view, history is being re-written.

Talk about taken out of context. 80% of the votes counted were made by two companies? Come on boys.  There are local election boards all over the US that count the votes. They don't go through a central processing unit.  It's shades of "I Robot" . Do you think Bush hit a button and all the voting machines had a red glow come on and they all went Bush?

He didn't need to. Just the counties that mattered. He only won Ohio by 119,000 vote margin. Were goes Ohio, so goes the election. We've already suffered under a president elected by "activist judges" in 2000, so the precedent has already been set. You can win, without the popular vote. If fraud is proven, Kerry wins the election. No matter who has been certified at this point. I know, wish in one hand...$hit in the other and see which one fills up first.

It confound the senses for you to say on the one hand that Bush is so inept that he can't tie his shoes and on the other that he could orchastrate voter fraud on a National scale.

No one is being literal when they accuse Bush of commiting fraud. He may have been aware of it, but I don't think anyone imagines him accomplishing much of anything himself. I don't even think the guy can look after himself. (read: Pretzels)

If you guys are jealous of Bush and the Bush family, why don't you try and make money like that yourselves? After all, of all the President and VP Candidates, Bush had less money than all of them. Do what Kerry did, keep marrying rich widows until you hit the jackpot.

Wah? Nonsense. Still attacking Kerry eh? Why not pull out the ol' Flip-flopper routine, that one is so much more interesting.

And I have to tell you guys, I don't understand this prejugdice toward faith based groups. I really don't. I am NOT a religious person, I don't attend church and I don't contribute to any spritual group. I am not a believer in any sense of the word, and I don't understand this.

It's not religion that's the issue, it's the fact that these people don't lock step to your "progressive" thinking. I have a lot of respect for people who devote themselves to any cause they think is greater than the self, like patriots, clergy, and even tenants.  I don't do that, and they don't upset me. I'm a traditionalist. I like Xmas, I celebrate all of the holidays because that's what I have always done. 

That's fine for you. Until a majority group legislates otherwise. So, it's not about religion, but religion masquerading as politics. They are free to practice whatever they want, outside of the publically owned arena. Thus the importance of seperation of Church and State. So that each denomination my continue to practice it's beliefs. The religious Christian Right has been the most egregious in foisting it's beliefs on other people to the exclusion of others. (ie: 2-ton Ten Commandments in the courthouse, why not a 2-ton Star of David, or some Islamic Icon? Is it cool because they're the majority?)  The more they continue to push their divisive agenda, the large, I fear, the backlash is going to be. You can't legislate morality. Moses tried it and 2000 years later, it still doesn't work.

It's not about lock-step beliefs either. I'm an atheist. One of my best friends in college was a friggin' pastor who wore a gleaming cross and carried a bible with him wherever he went...in his right hand. We got along fine and had great respect for one another. I never tried to convince him there isn't a God, and he never preached to me. You'd be suprised what I'd be willing to accept from the right after a disaster as large as "W". He actually makes me pine for the days of H.W...

There is no issue at hand Mr. C.  You can't address someone who is jousting at windmills. You are as blind to the real world as the exteamist factions you decry. Give it up. It's not there. Kerry Lost, Bush won.
...
Get over it, I did.  Regroup and come up with some ideas that make sense. Support your local people and find the right ideas that make the most sense for America. Don't sit there and whine about the President.  You will lose every time in every battle. 

Nice try, but somehow you haven't convinced me. Give up? or regroup? Which is it?

The thing that irks me the most is the way you guys put down the US. What's your frame of reference to say the US isn't the greatest Democracy on the earth?  There is NO perfect government, there is NO perfect system anywhere on the face of the planet.  A lot of people have given more than you and I will ever have for us to live as freely as we do.

When you love someone, do you let them continually hurt themselves? or do you confront them and try to help make them stronger? The U.S. was once a beacon to the world. No longer. I find that sad. Sorry you don't. It's not a question of perfection, but a question of persisting to obtain perfection. I, and those like me are not "putting down" the U.S., we're trying to pick it back up.

So I say it again, get over it. You can try again in 4 years and we'll see where the American people stand then.  Until then I share your pain and understand your frustration.  I had clinton, you have Bush.  We'll see who suffers in '08.

8 years of record jobs gains, a balanced budget and relative peace sure must have been a hellish experience for you. I'm sorry, but again...Bush is such a miserable failure that I  (and a lot of other people) are not content to just "wait" another 4 years to see what's left of our dear country. If Clinton was creating record deficits, endless wars and relgious theocracies when he was president, then maybe you've have a point. Clinton let you believe what you wanted to believe, Bush doesn't want anyone around who thinks differently. To wait, is to become irrelevant.


mrC


P.S. I've gotta' stop being drawn into these discussions. Online activism really doesn't do it for me. And to think these Ultra-mega-mega posts only make my post count go up by '1'. 

[shmokes]

it feels so good to be out from under the Presidency of someone you diametrically oppose. 

Clinton is the most conservative or, if you prefer, least liberal Democratic President in American history.  Clinton is Bush's opposite only in that liberals hate Bush with similar passion as conservatives with Clinton.  Being diametrically opposed to Clinton would simply mean that you are a very moderate conservative with an ideology not very different than his.  Clinton is not the flaming liberal to juxtapose Bush's radical conservatism.  The hatred Clinton gets from conservatives is unjustified.

[Gunstar Hero]

Uhhhh... words... words... ummm... I gotta go!

[DarkKobold]

Drew, you are killing me.
   

[DrewKaree]

Drew, you are killing me.
   

Slowly but surely, my precioussssssssssss.   

 

[fredster]

Mr C.

. I'm already working to help win back some seats in 2006 and I've got a hitlist of dems who need to show some backbone in the coming months, years. Kerry is on that list as well.

Speaking as a good republican:
Based on what efforts you posted before the election and the results afterwards, Go for it Man!  It worked so well for us last time 

Man, you need help dude. Real help.

(ie: 2-ton Ten Commandments in the courthouse, why not a 2-ton Star of David, or some Islamic Icon? Is it cool because they're the majority?) 

Why not? They are really pretty.

Nice try, but somehow you haven't convinced me. Give up? or regroup? Which is it?

Clarification: Give up on this election, it is over.  Regroup for the next one.

8 years of record jobs gains, a balanced budget and relative peace sure must have been a hellish experience for you. I

That bright spot was because of the Republican Congress.  Remember the "contract for America" ? That and our man Newt lead that charge.  I remember travelgate, Monica, Waco, the bombing of the federal building The bombing of the WTC and the rest.  Bosnia, and "Black Hawk down".  The Mark Rich pardon,  I remember those things.  Don't forget those things. That's why conservatives don't like Clinton. Let alone how he lied to american people "I did not have Sex with that woman".

Isn't gun ownership my right? Do you know where I can get a cheap semi-automatic assault rifle? Can I move into your neighborhood, once I get one?

Why yes, Yes you can.  I know of several places you can get one. There's a great gun show up in Nashville we can go to and shop.  Now you are beginging to grasp the concept of the right to bear arms!  It's great to be an American, isn't it??

Still attacking Kerry eh? Why not pull out the ol' Flip-flopper routine, that one is so much more interesting.

  What do you mean Still? Like I stopped or something? Was I supposed to have stopped?  I would be flip flopping if I did stop.

In my view, history is being re-written.

  In my view, you are just plain wrong. Does my view count?

The more they continue to push their divisive agenda,

  It's only devisive if you don't agree with it. Any issue is devisive.  Try and arguement about football teams and see where you go with that. 

You can win, without the popular vote.

Finally you came around! Man you are making progress.  I'm encouraged.  What about you Drew, are you not happy that MrC is actually slowly comming around to reality based living?

[DrewKaree]

(Hint, another funny column by Mr Czabin can be found by clicking the following  )

Fredster, you brought it up, and now it's time for some smack talk   

You will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

Take THAT, you rabble rouser!

[Dexter]

We'll see who suffers in '08.

I'd hazzard a quick guess at your troops, your economy, your healthcare system, the next countries you invade and people slaughter, probably the same as whose suffering right now. "Four more wars, Four more wars, Four more wars, Four more wars". Remember boys and girls, the rules don't apply when you've got the nukes 

[Dartful Dodger]

Remember boys and girls, the rules don't apply when you've got the nukes

[Dexter]

But don't worry boys and girls, if you forget how powerful the USA is, we'll remind you.
 

Ah yes 'the bullies of the world', a title well earned. Power is irrelevent, you'll never be faught head on again thanks to your overwhelming force, just caught up in lots of quagmires with your troops bumped off one by one. Remeber your 'commander-in-chief' announcing the war over 18 months ago, how many more troops have died since compared to during the invasion? This will be the de facto standard from now, guerilla war with no possible victory.

If your 'power' is the only thing that counts, how come you're caught in another vietnam dispite your advances in technology since the 70's??

Couple of quick links on the election...
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/985
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1006

I just love the hypocracy of the republicans quoting the deviation in exit poll data in the Ukraine as reason enough to rerun their election, but ignore the exit poll data deviations in the US...the statistical chance of the deviations happening naturally being calculated at 1 in 13.5 trillion

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They'll forget, just like they've forgotten about Hitler, so they let Saddam go unchecked.

But don't worry boys and girls, if you forget how powerful the USA is, we'll remind you.
 

So when do you ship out, Dartful? I'm sure those "dead-enders" are just quakin' in their boots?

Anyhow, looks like your the one who forgot. Saddam was no Hitler. If you're going to resort to saber-rattling jingoism, at least work on the comparisons. The guy didn't even have a viable army for christsakes. No WMD either, from what I hear.

Powerful? If that means stumbling around pulling tin-pot dictators out of little hidey-holes in the sand, then yeah, we're powerful. If it means actually accomplishing a lasting peace in the Middle East, then, not so much. Fat lot of good all these nukes are doing against a bunch of homemade roadside bombs and mortars. 21 killed today, 51 wounded - 51 people whose lives will never be the same. Add that to the 1300 U.S. troops killed, thousands wounded. Are you going to "support" them when they come back and can't work because they're missing most of their body parts? Gunna' help them w/ lifelong medical bills and psychiatric care? Didn't think so...it's not *your* problem. That's war...that's the price we pay for ________(insert latest excuse here)__________

This "tough-guy" chickenhawk administration failed to plan accordingly. We had 450,000 troops in Desert Storm in 91'. In 2003, Bush sends in less than 150,000 for a full-on assault of Baghdad. They refused to listen to those w/ experience. They refused to acknowledge even the *possibility* of an insurgency (ie: we will be greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy). Even now, in the face of criticism from several republican senators, Bush thinks Rumsfeld is doing a "swell" job.   Liberals whining won't lose the war in Iraq, Bush's lack of planning will lose the war in Iraq. He went in with a swagger, but he's coming out with a limp...as I imagine he'll cut n' run after "elections" in Janurary, leaving those "liberated" Iraqi's to fend for themselves because he couldn't get the job done. This is what he's done throughout his whole life, leaving others to clean up his messes.

Reminds me of a good joke, "What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam."

As for your logic, which dictates power through nuclear (Pronounced: nkl-r) programs...does that mean North Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and France get to puff their chests out too?

Oh, btw, just to avoid your inevitable response...."turning the Middle East to glass" won't really work either. There's this little thing called "fallout", it can be a real pain in the ass.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I just love the hypocracy of the republicans quoting the deviation in exit poll data in the Ukraine as reason enough to rerun their election, but ignore the exit poll data deviations in the US...the statistical chance of the deviations happening naturally being calculated at 1 in 13.5 trillion

*applause* ...for our precious democracy!

[Dartful Dodger]

So when do you ship out, Dartful? I'm sure those "dead-enders" are just quakin' in their boots?

I was responding to:

Remember boys and girls, the rules don't apply when you've got the nukes

So I don't have to ship out, at most, I'd just have to push a button.

does that mean North Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and France get to puff their chests out too?

Yes, and they are, but you choose not to see it.

just to avoid your inevitable response.... ...."turning the Middle East to glass"

You are wrong, I do not want glass from the middle east, I want oil, so nuking them is not an optioin option.

My inevitable response...

BUSH WON!

[fredster]

Dodger,

It's no use. Remember the old saying -
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift"

Mr.C. has made up his mind.  He has his own spin on things, so does Dexter. Let them rant, it makes them feel better.

Fortunately we won't have to know what would have happened if the election had gone the other way.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Mr.C. has made up his mind.  He has his own spin on things, so does Dexter. Let them rant, it makes them feel better.

I love how you guys think this is some "conspiracy theory". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities)

All I'm saying is that in an election as close as this...every vote must count, and every vote must be counted. Those of you that would defy that have no right living in this country. There are serious questions regarding voter disenfranchisement, suppression, and possible voting fraud. There have been over 38,000 incidents alleged in the 2004 election. Are you denying that? If so, what proof do you have that any allegation is wrong?

What will become of this? I don't know, but it certainly lends credence to my concern. Personally, I support a FULL investigation into all allegations, irregardless the outcome. You heard that correctly wingnuts.

One thing Dartful, fredster, Drew, et al. have refused to answer is whether or not they support paperless, non-auditable e-voting machines?

Lastly, it also seems that Bush isn't as popular as he wants you to believe:

"Since his 3-percentage-point win over Sen. John Kerry, Bush has experienced a complete lack of bounce in the polls. In fact, in at least one national survey, Fox News' Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted Dec. 14-15, Bush's approval rating has fallen five points in the last month, to 48 percent. In other polls, including Washington Post-ABC, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Pew Research Center, Associated Press-Ipsos, Zogby, and Gallup, Bush's already soft approval numbers have flat-lined since the election. That phenomenon stands in sharp contrast to U.S. history, when presidents voted into office for a second term, even after close elections, routinely have received robust approval ratings.

According to an analysis posted on the Gallup Web site in mid-November, Bush's current 53 percent approval rating "is actually the lowest of any of the last seven presidents who won a second term in the first poll conducted after their re-election."

Suck on that Mandate....


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

P.S. I'll be out of town for the holidays, so I won't be able to respond to this thread until after the new year. If there are any further developments, I will surely update all of you concerned Bush supporters about the state of our democracy, specifically regarding voting fraud, when I return.

Because I know how much you love it!

Bush police state=> 

Drew, fredster, Dartful=> 

Me=> 

Everyone Have a Safe and Happy Holiday.

[Dartful Dodger]

I love how you guys think this is some "conspiracy theory".

You start off by pointing the "conspiracy theory" finger at someone else and then follow up with aliens fixing the election.

I am pointing a different finger, not at you but up to the aliens, with the back of that hand facing you.

[Dexter]

Mr.C. has made up his mind.

[fredster]

Dexter,

I know you disagree with Bush and are disappointed in the election.

Anybody who alleges or denies fraud without looking at all of the evidence isn't very smart

  - It's not in the court, if there is evidence of fraud, it will be found and procecuted.

Who isn't doing a full investingation Dexter? If there was something to investigate, why isn't the NYT and LAT investingating it?   When there was the hint of conspiracy in Nixon's time it was investigated wasn't it?

You can't let Left or Right wing nutcases define what is the "truth".

If you don't believe the election results, follow the law and your heart and investigate.

But if there was a shread of real evidence, there is enough in the media who feel the way you do to tear it up.

If I had real evidence of a fraud, I might be upset. Just because people are screaming they lost doesn't mean there's fraud.

The real investigation should be on who came up with the exit polls. I understand that was one company.  Does that make more sense?  Who leaked the exit polls to the media and to the DailyKos? Why?  There's the story.

[Dexter]

Disenfranchisement, polling stations in democrat leaning neghborhoods being under allocated machines forcing people to queue for up to 11 hours, people voting kerry and the screen showing bush in all but two instances of such an occurance, exit polls being spot on where there are paper ballots but completely worng where there is electronic voting, 57000 complaints from people who believe their rights have been violated. These are all matters being investigated. Surely you would like your candidate to be seen as winning legitimately? Kerrys conceeding is not legally binding, the results of Ohio can be contested, all it takes is one represenative and one senator with the grapes to do what they should have but didn't in 2000.

[Mameotron]

the results of Ohio can be contested, all it takes is one represenative and one senator with the grapes to do what they should have but didn't in 2000.

It is a state law in Ohio that the electoral college MUST vote for the candidate who has the most popular votes.

[DrewKaree]

All I'm saying is that in an election as close as this...every vote must count, and every vote must be counted. Those of you that would defy that have no right living in this country. There are serious questions regarding voter disenfranchisement, suppression, and possible voting fraud. There have been over 38,000 incidents alleged in the 2004 election. Are you denying that? If so, what proof do you have that any allegation is wrong?

Here's why conservatives have such a hard time swallowing that bilge.  Prior to the elections, this "concern" was nowhere to be found.  Now that the elections are over, there are NUMEROUS cries for "questions, fraud, disenfranchisement, something MUST be done" and the American public is supposed to believe that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that Kerry lost?  Come on, you're smart enough to see why we look askance at you!

You had 3+ years to have your side do something about it, you had incidents of alleged fraud by both parties, and yet there's underwhelming silence by your party to fix and investigate the problems.  The day AFTER the election, we hear countless tales of fraud, countless theories about counties/precincts/polls.  Where was this cacophony prior to the election, when untold numbers of the very thing you now allege were going on? 

As a matter of fact, here's the link for this very board.  I know you prolly missed it, what with thinking I'm down with the Kool-Aid and the jumpsuits and all, but I stated then that if it's happening, they should be nailed to the wall, and I still stick to it. 

People would take you far more seriously if you had said anything about this prior to the elections other than to offer up "here's more "rethug" disenfranchisement going on".  You simply reek of sour grapes now.

What will become of this? I don't know, but it certainly lends credence to my concern. Personally, I support a FULL investigation into all allegations, irregardless the outcome. You heard that correctly wingnuts.

There hasn't been a person here who has said we should not have an investigation.  Given the view about your silence about this until your man lost, why would you expect us to jump up and say "boy HOWDY let's get to work trying to prove Bush lost".

Are you so hopped up that you believe there WON'T be an investigation if the facts warrant it?  Thus far, presenting circumstantial evidence (at BEST) wouldn't get you a hearing in ANY court in the land.  If and when facts present themselves, I've no doubt there will be an investigation based on those facts.  Right now you're expecting someonen to stake his political career on what is essentially hearsay, with the possibility of bringing up allegations that would HURT your party.  Kinda tough row to hoe there.

[DrewKaree]

One thing Dartful, fredster, Drew, et al. have refused to answer is whether or not they support paperless, non-auditable e-voting machines?

I couldn't care less what type of machine is used.  If there are problems that our elected officials feel require correcting, they'll DO SO.  If I feel they need to do so, and aren't moving in the right direction or fast enough, I need to work to get someone in there who shares my views. 

Look, last election it was the punch-card butterfly ballot that you had a problem with.  Now it's the "paperless" kind.  You will have a problem with whatever method is used if you feel your guy got robbed.  These methods were good enough to elect Clinton, but now that it worked against you for two elections, now you think the whole process should be examined.  Again, your righteous indignation rings hollow.

Lastly, it also seems that Bush isn't as popular as he wants you to believe

Well, let me be the first to say that I don't care what others think of him.  What matters to me is what I think of him.  If you've got to rely again on polls for your data, then your head must be spinning like a top.  The polls you're pinning your hopes on getting you an investigation were wrong, but if polls are what you're going to base your political ideology on, then more power to you.  Run with this poll.  I know when I've got an itch and the cortizone isn't working, I'm willing to try anything for relief too.

[DrewKaree]

Surely you would like your candidate to be seen as winning legitimately?

He won legitimately.  Your opinion of him didn't change one bit, so why would it make a whit of difference what we would like?

We voted.   Bush won.

The entire election could be recounted, and you'll still believe that he stole it.  There's not a thing that could happen that would make you accept that Bush is the President of The United States of America.

Would I like him to be seen as winning legitimately?  Of course.  Will it ever happen, even if they resort to DNA testing of each ballot machine in the U.S. and cross matching it - taking 30 years and ensuring that there simply could be no doubt that Bush indeed DID wiin?  No.  You'd find some "neocon" in the lab who may have tainted the samples or rigged the findings 

The fact that you believe your state-run media gives you unbiased facts in their reporting is the only "you'd have to believe" I need.

[Dexter]

We voted.

[Pacific Ripper]

We voted.