[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Come on Fozzy, it wasn't a simple "paper ballot" it was the butterfly design that confused them. Everyone with an open mind and an honest viewpoint KNOWS it wasn't a fair vote. Even Buchanan knows it.

Wrong! It was only "confusing" in the 2000 election? These are the same balllots that had been used by these same morons for decades. It only became an issue when Gore's handlers (he had already admitted that he lost) thought that there was a way to manhandle the whole process and win a vote through manipulation of ONLY the democratically controlled areas.

I'm sure you don't want a serious debate on this Fozzy, but nevertheless, let's clear up some of your "facts."

It was all over the news, and admitted by the Democratic lady in charge, that SHE was responsible for this snafu. It's not the butterfly ballot design (which HAD been used before) that was the problem per se, but the fact that they didn't put Bush on ONE side and Gore on the OTHER. The 'alternating' order went... Bush on the left, Buchanan on the right, and Gore on the left. So those who didn't want Bush (first line) went to the second line assuming it would be Gore, and punched the hole for Buchanan! Gore admitted defeat, because even HE didn't know about the faulty design. Since when does the "independant" candidate get listed ABOVE the two main party candidates?

You're insulting a LOT of little old ladies, like MY mom and maybe YOURS, who can easily get confused by such things.

If they are so "confused" then the ought not be voting.

So... following this logic, and considering your STATED opinion about "believers," the Moral Majority shouldn't have been allowed to vote either, right?

I think the whole debacle of the "hanging chad" recount would have gone away, if they'd just allowed a "re-VOTE" in that one county.

That was not allowable in the voting laws of the state. This whole issue is based on the party in power in the area trying to change and manipulate standing laws.

Well... I'm not exactly sure about the state laws, but since this was a FEDERAL election, you'd think Bush or the Supremes MIGHT have over-rode them in such a situation. Lucky for them, they didn't HAVE to be so gracious since, Katherine Harris (of the REAL party in control in Florida) declared it a non-question, and forced the legislation to rule on it before it was decided in the courts.

As for the Diebold machines... I saw a report on the news yesterday that showed how easily they could be "hacked" and infected with a virus that would then infect the whole system, and we'd never be sure of the actual vote. Do you think that is GOOD for America??

I saw that there has been attempts to hijack elections for decades and that nothing has changed. There is a reason that these stories hit the air waves and it is not for information and you know it.

Hijacked? Maybe. HACKED? only since the personal computer revolution, and then only since the first use of computer voting machines, which until now have been very limited. I don't disagree that MANY things "hit the airwaves" just before elections, from BOTH sides. But, this little piece of info I've seen only MINIMAL coverage of, and I think it is VERY important to the future of our election process.

What happens if the whole thing crashes, like what happened here just recently, and we lose millions of votes? Would YOU settle for just counting the ones that could be "recovered?"

No, and I don't think that is a real issue either. If there is a fire in a place with paper ballots all the ballots should remain uncounted. Just as the democrats in FL wanted to disallow absentee voting in FL (mostly overseas military votes) it all depends on which ox is getting gored on how upset people are.

With a (someday) completely computer controlled election, that most certainly IS a possibility.... and even YOU know it. But, you contradict yourself here. You say "NO" to my question of would you settle for the last "backup" server count, then say if ballots get burned up in ... say a BLUE state election HQ... those ballots are "immaterial?"

I agree that the posturing concerning the overseas ballots was B.S.!! I NEVER would accept denying our Military their votes, I don't care if the "ship sank!" But, again, they wouldn't have mattered (I don't believe) if the Palm Beach County vote had been accurate.

I don't care if it takes until April (and it HAS before) to get the count right... I believe every vote should be counted FOR the candidate of choice.

I don't trust ANY computer based voting system, period! I doubt seriously if we'll EVER be able to trust the vote in America again.

I trust that the American lemming though the media's hystaria on this issue will trust nothing and become even more pathetic.

Not even a thought worth commenting on. :roll:

We need PAPER ballots, without holes punched in them, in our OWN handwriting, counted by hand. Not easy, I know. But, the only fair way.

That's foolish and it would take months to count the ballots, who would do the counting and who would trust them? This has to be some sort of mechaincal and or computer based system. Why the most advanced societies in the world are now insisting on reverting to the stone age (like the Taliban) is just nuts to me.

Fair questions and concerns, to be sure. But, the reason they HAD all those hanging chads (which were originally OPTICALLY counted) was because of these "dime store" punchout machines that left piles of chads under the screen, which prevented a clean "punchout." Why not use indelible ink and "fill in a circle" like we do on SAT tests and the like? And then sign your name? THOSE could then be "optically scanned" with NO problem. (unless, of course, someone "hacks" the counting machines.) And, of course, there would ALWAYS be a good, clean paper trail to verify.

If you want to blame someone, start with the Republican Tricky Dick! Americans never even considered that our elections would be rigged before HIM!

You act as though he invented something and of course this is an unbiased opinion? LOL!!!!

You might find this funny. When I was young, (I think it was Nixon's FIRST attempt at being President,) and being the son of Conservative Republicans and wanting to be part of it, I was FOR Nixon! No other real reason for it. But, my folks still get a laugh out of me saying,

"I'm for Nixon and my mind is made up! Don't try to confuse me with the FACTS!" (I think I was about 9) :lol:

Nixon woke me up to political realities with the Watergate affair. Even so, I LIKED Reagan (though I didn't vote at ALL in that election.) I can deal with being outvoted in an election. I just no longer trust the process. I want a fair vote, and a fair count. I think it was a disgrace that the Supremes decided the 2000 election because they "didn't have TIME to get it right!"

Let's see... Brother Jeb governed Florida in 2000. The governor of Ohio which decided the '04 election is now a disgraced criminal. Cheney's links to Haliburton and Diebold are unchallenged and Iraq is gonna end up WORSE than Vietnam!

You go ahead and vote for the GOP again, Fozzy. We'll try not to confuse you with the FACTS!!! :roll:

Hobo

[Fozzy]

[color=darkred]I'm sure you don't want a serious debate on this Fozzy, but nevertheless, let's clear up some of your "facts."

It was all over the news, and admitted by the Democratic lady in charge, that SHE was responsible for this snafu.

First of all, you'd have to consider it a snafu. I saw the ballots and they were NOT that confusing if you have at least SOME brain function left.

Since when does the "independant" candidate get listed ABOVE the two main party candidates?

Since when do people vote base on color? Since when do people vote on what ORDER there candidate is placed on the ballot? Both of these things were easily mastered if the dummy would have actually read the ballot.

So... following this logic, and considering your STATED opinion about "believers," the Moral Majority shouldn't have been allowed to vote either, right?

If they can get into a voting booth and READ the ballot then there is no problem if however the voted for SATAN because he was listed in purple on the second page.. then they are stupid and have only themselves to blame.

Well... I'm not exactly sure about the state laws, but since this was a FEDERAL election, you'd think Bush or the Supremes MIGHT have over-rode them in such a situation. Lucky for them, they didn't HAVE to be so gracious since, Katherine Harris (of the REAL party in control in Florida) declared it a non-question, and forced the legislation to rule on it before it was decided in the courts.

It was a federal and state election and the states set the times and basic rules for the elections.

With a (someday) completely computer controlled election, that most certainly IS a possibility.... and even YOU know it. But, you contradict yourself here. You say "NO" to my question of would you settle for the last "backup" server count, then say if ballots get burned up in ... say a BLUE state election HQ... those ballots are "immaterial?"

No, they should be inadmissable. There should be no problem with that for anyone, either the whole sector gets their votes counted or no one's does. The state elections can be redone for them, but the federal elections are just a wash.

I don't care if it takes until April (and it HAS before) to get the count right... I believe every vote should be counted FOR the candidate of choice.

Thats just crazy. A nation like this should be able to elect someone in less than 6 friggen months. It's this type of behavior that makes us the laughing stock to a lot of less desireable places on the planet. We sometimes actually deserve the ridicule that we receive.

I think it was a disgrace that the Supremes decided the 2000 election because they "didn't have TIME to get it right!"

Thats only your opinion on what happened... It doesn't take six months for the supreme court to look at something and decide whether or not they have no business in it.

Let's see... Brother Jeb governed Florida in 2000.

What did the governor decide?

The governor of Ohio which decided the '04 election is now a disgraced criminal.

What did he decide? He didnt have to.. Kerry at least could admit that he was beaten.. and then of course later when it was too late to do anything but cry, made statements otherwise..

Cheney's links to Haliburton and Diebold are unchallenged

Unchallenged? HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!

and Iraq is gonna end up WORSE than Vietnam!

Condsidering the same types of people are doing the same types of intel leaking and giving aid to the enemies of the US, its not to far from being a reality. The libs cannot disguise their glee everytime an American dies over there. Those zebras have not changed their stripes. I'm still waiting for one of the old hippies to start talking about the gentleman farmers of Iraq.

You go ahead and vote for the GOP again, Fozzy. We'll try not to confuse you with the FACTS!!!

As soon as you come up with some, let me know.

:lol:

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I'm sure you don't want a serious debate on this Fozzy, but nevertheless, let's clear up some of your "facts."

It was all over the news, and admitted by the Democratic lady in charge, that SHE was responsible for this snafu. It's not the butterfly ballot design (which HAD been used before) that was the problem per se, but the fact that they didn't put Bush on ONE side and Gore on the OTHER. The 'alternating' order went... Bush on the left, Buchanan on the right, and Gore on the left. So those who didn't want Bush (first line) went to the second line assuming it would be Gore, and punched the hole for Buchanan! Gore admitted defeat, because even HE didn't know about the faulty design. Since when does the "independant" candidate get listed ABOVE the two main party candidates?

The REAL facts are getting in the way here. Such as the fact that there were little arrows that point to the hole to be punched:

Well... I'm not exactly sure about the state laws, but since this was a FEDERAL election, you'd think Bush or the Supremes MIGHT have over-rode them in such a situation. Lucky for them, they didn't HAVE to be so gracious since, Katherine Harris (of the REAL party in control in Florida) declared it a non-question, and forced the legislation to rule on it before it was decided in the courts.

Had this supposed re-vote actually occurred, you would have had more corruption than ever, as the entire nation would know that the election was hanging on that county. The turnout would have been astronomical, and probably would have even exceeded the total population for the county, due to outsiders coming in to vote.

Hijacked? Maybe. HACKED? only since the personal computer revolution, and then only since the first use of computer voting machines, which until now have been very limited. I don't disagree that MANY things "hit the airwaves" just before elections, from BOTH sides. But, this little piece of info I've seen only MINIMAL coverage of, and I think it is VERY important to the future of our election process.

Hacked, rigged, it's all the same. They have been claiming these voting machines could be broken into for years.

Just as the democrats in FL wanted to disallow absentee voting in FL (mostly overseas military votes) it all depends on which ox is getting gored on how upset people are.

This is a constitutional violation of the right to vote, to deny people's vote just for the sake of denying it. Any true American should be upset about it, no matter what the result.

Of course, I'm sure that THIS type of punch hole ballot would have been fine for the Democrats in 2000.....

[Fozzy]

[Fozzy]

[Fozzy]

[Fozzy]

[golfhobo]

Like I said, Fozzy... and you just proved my point.... you don't want to have, and are incapable of, a serious discussion on this issue.

Simple question for ya... not that you can answer, but:

What difference do you see between the first page of the Palm Beach County "butterfly ballot" and and 3 pages that followed?

I seriously doubt you'll even bother to "get out your google" and find out!

Hobo

[Useless]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

If you want to blame someone, start with the Republican Tricky Dick! Americans never even considered that our elections would be rigged before HIM!

Actually, that is not a correct statement at all. For whatever mistakes Nixon made, or misdeeds he committed, rigging an election was not one of them. He didn't need to rig the Presidential Election of 1972; there was simply no way that Se. George S McGovern was going to defeat Nixon. During The Election of 1968, he simply did not have the political clout to rig an election.

Ironically, the first "rigged" presidential election of my lifetime was back in 1960, when Richard Nixon was DEFEATED by John F. Kennedy. Now, that was a very close race, and up until the last minute, it appeared that Nixon was going to win the White House. Unbeknownst to Nixon, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father) has already secured the election for John in Chicago, where, as we would quickly learn, there were there were more votes than voters.

As the irregularities in voting became more apparent and undeniable, it became clear that Nixon had every right to demand a recount, and that he would have quite likely prevailed. Nixon, believing that he was acting in the best interest of the country, declined to demand a recount.

Before that, there was a Senator from Texas by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson who defeated Texas Governor Coke Stevenson in the primary race for the U.S, Senate; although Stevenson., also a Democrat, was the apparent winner, a mysterious ballot Box #13 mysteriously appeared from Duval county, compliments of a Democrat Political Cronie named George Parr, who, up until the early 1970's was known as "The Duke Of Duval County". Interestingly, a drunk judge allowed the ballots to be counted, and by some wild coincidence, the ballots resulted in an 87 vote margin victory for LBJ. Without that victory, LBJ would have never become LBJ's Vice President

Another intersesting point to remember is that there was never any love lost between JFK and LBJ. JFK strongly disliked LBJ, bit needed him on the ballot as a running mate. Also interesting was the fact that when LBJ became President, he picked Hubert H. Humphry to be vice President. Who were two of Richard Nixon's closest personal friends in Washington, D.C.??? LBJ and Hubert H. Humphrey!!

As far as Watergate is concerned, the truth be told, The Nixon Administration really never did anything that The Johnson Administration had not done, and compared to the Clinton administration, his misdeeds were relatively minor. Ultimately, what brought Nixon down was the fact that he tried to cover it up, but was unable to do so. If he had had Hillary Clinton spearheading the cover-up of Watergate, he quite likely would have completed his second term in office.

What I also find interesting is that the legacy of The Nixon Administration has proven to be something of an enigma; while he remains dispised by many liberals, many liberal government programs, like OSHA and The EPA, began during his first term in office. Many social and welfare programs were dramatically expanded as well. Opening diplomatic relations with China was hardly a conservative political undertaking. What is even more ironic was that even though he presented himself as a hard core conservative, he seemed to prefer working with conservative Democrats more than he did with Republicans. Also, remember that Nixon was the last president to submitt a balanced budget, which was in 1969.

Now, as far as the computerized ballots are concerned, on that front, I agree completely with Golfhobo; they are too easily adulterated. If you look at the presidential elections of 2004, Ohio was clearly a critical state, and even though Bush carried it, most all of the exit polls in Ohio reflected a victory for Kerry.

Do I think that we need paper ballots?? Yes, I do!! Will that solve the problems of election stealing?? Absolutely not!! While I'm no fan of the Republicans, or The Bush Administration, what the Republicans have succeded in doing is beating The Democrats at their own game.

As the mid-term elections in November are fast approaching, it is important to remember some very important points.

1.) NOBODY has all the answers!!

2.) NOBODY cares about you, the hard working, taxpaying American!!

3.) NOBODY is going to lower your taxes, unless you happen to be rich!!

SOOOOOO!!!!!

LET'S ALL VOTE FOR NOBODY!!!!!!

[golfhobo]

Useless wrote:

Actually, that is not a correct statement. Ironically, the first "rigged" presidential election of my lifetime was back in 1960, when Richard Nixon was DEFEATED by John F. Kennedy. Now, that was a very close race, and up until the last minute, it appeared that Nixon was going to win the White House. Unbeknownst to Nixon, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father) has already secured the election for John in Chicago, where, as we would quickly learn, there were there were more votes than voters.

As the irregularities in voting became more apparent and undeniable, it became clear that Nixon had every right to demand a recount, and that he would have quite likely prevailed. Nixon, believing that he was acting in the best interest of the country, declined to demand a recount.

I should have said.... "in my lifetime" :lol:

Now the facts:

"Some Republicans alleged that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud especially in Texas and Illinois. There is no certainty that Nixon would have won both Texas and Illinois (which he would have had to do to win the electoral vote). What is certain, however, is that in Illinois, Kennedy won by a bare 9,000 votes, and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago's vote until late in the evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of victory of 450,000 votes. The Republican party urged Nixon to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some of the votes for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election. Nixon publicly refused to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional crisis. However, privately, he encouraged GOP Chair Thruston Morton to push for a recount, which Morton did in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961; the only result was the loss of the State of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount petitioned by the Kennedy campaign.