MASSIVE Election Fraud, 2004

[The Sloth]

A little bit on the "credibility" of bourgeois electoral politics...

I typed this up a few days ago and have added some more information to it recently.

I hope our local capitalist apologists get the chance to see this.

1. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/what_happened_in_ohio.php

A few "highlights"...

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. That's assumingToday the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. [NOTE: "spoilage" since 2000 and 2004 did not occur "equally"; rather, mostly racial minorities were affected.]

Forget that, let's get to the "meat" of it all:

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

Funny!

Continued:

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

Let's go on to part two.

2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...0&mesg_id=19390 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=19390&mesg_id=19390)

This basically discusses the "new" eight-million Republican voters through an objectively statistical perspective.

A few "highlights"...

2. The five states I picked on the basis that they are known to have lots of voting machines (and particularly Diebold machines) had a significantly higher percentage increase in bush voters than average… 25% compared to 17% nationally.

Continued:

4. Among the 31 states I examined were three big democratic states NY, NJ and IL. I selected them on a hunch because a) they are unlikely to be suspected of being used in a vote rigging exercise, but b) necessary to include if you want to achieve a large across the board popular vote gain that does not look too suspicious. These three states averaged a 21% vote gains for Bush and NJ and NY achieved around 25%. However between them they contributed 1.7 million new bush votes, or nearly 20% of Bush's total vote gain.

5. The remainder of my selection of states is broadly defined as "red states", they averaged 20% in terms of voting gain for bush. Notably both Kansas and Utah achieved % gains for bush below the national average. I am guessing here but I would have thought both states were "moral issue" based voter heavy.

3. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0411/S00055.htm

In a nut-shell, this is an article on the Diebold voting machine used during the elections, told by BSNewswire.

Here is the MAJOR highlight of this article. The boldface is important:

"People might be quite surprised if they knew how big a chunk of our revenue stream is due to our exclusive proprietary implementation of the 'plus' operator, which has been an essential component of our strategy to deliver Florida and now Ohio as promised to our partners in government in the last two Presidential elections," Diebold's president stated at a recent press conference. "Diebold's cutting-edge implementation of the '+' operator is the result of years of painstaking research and development by the kind of highly-paid Harvard MBAs who have been keeping America's GDP strong with innovative product rollouts such as New Coke and Windows XP Service Pack 2. Diebold's AoIP - Addition over Internet Protocol technology - has been proven to demonstrate the kind of 99.999% reliability required by America's Fortune 500 and White House CEOs for the most demanding desktop applications. America's national security and technological prowess are predicated on a robust defense of our vital intellectual property rights. We can't allow key state secrets - such as our formulas for computing sums and percentages - to fall into the wrong hands," he added.

4. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

I like the way this is done:

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Haha.

Continued:

Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.

Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."


5. http://pages.ivillage.com/americans4america/id20.html

A statistical analysis of one county in Florida -- voter turn-out went above the possible "100%," sometimes spilling over to the impossible 1150%

In the end, close to 100,000 votes "appeared" out of thin air.

Some more on Florida found here: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~adamsb6/elections/

"Florida is reporting more votes in the presidential election than it is reporting citizens that turned out to vote. Adding all the presidential race votes reported by the Florida Department of State here yields a total of 7,588,422 votes. The Florida Department of State reports here that voter turnout totalled only 7,350,900. That's a difference of 237,522. 3.1% of Florida's presidential votes were in excess of the number of voters in the election. 380,952 votes separate the President and John Kerry in Florida.

If we disregard the votes cast on the Model 100s and the Optech 3P Eagles, the difference between Bush and Kerry drops to 124,514. The votes cast on the Model 100s and the Optech 3P Eagles in conjunction with votes that cannot be tied to voters may have elected George W. Bush.

6. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm

A bit on the black vote, then and now:

WASHINGTON - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic.

Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights
The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting."

To continue:

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

And...

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.




Hmmmmmm?

[Trump_$$$]

Wow, sounds like a bunch of shit that was spewed by the left during 2000. Tons of accusations and no proof.

[synthesis]

If someone speaking for the current regime actually looks at the above post and says that there's "no proof" for the "accusations made", then we're a lot closer to Orwell's nightmare than anyone could have imagined.

[timbaly]

In a certain county in Ohio it was reported that there were more registered voters than people actually eligible to vote in that particular county. I haven't heard about whether or not the votes tallied in the county exceeded the population but I wouldn't be surprised. It's great to see how blatantly corrupt dealings such as this barely get any publicity at all. I heard it on two american radio shows and nowhere else. It seems like the democrats were trying to get more people to register, since it was a highly democratic county.

[Individual]

Through all of this conspiracy I ask: Do you think John Kerry and the Democratic party itself was behind the re-election of Bush?

Assuming your answer is no, then I ask why do you think Kerry conceded with this knowledge? If we can even call it knowledge..

First the claim is that two million of Florida's votes were essentially thrown out. Two million! I would assume that this means that there would be two million votes missing, correct?

Then he goes on to claim that hundreds of thousands of votes must have suddenly reappeared out of thin air thus exceeding the expected voter turn-out.

So which is it? Did we lose two million votes, or did we have more votes than expected? Make up your damn mind..

Can we make up our mind, or do we like tons of little conspiracies which contradict eachother that hopefully add up into one big conspiracy?

Now let us look at the Ohio conspiracy... All of those spoiled votes that just weren't counted.

Come on here, do we really think that every last spoiled vote that came in, every last one, would have gone to Kerry? Really, you think that every last provisional ballot would have gone to Kerry? Throw me a fucking bone here..

In New Mexico, as it had said "Little Texas", are you truly surprised that the vote went to Bush? You must not have heard Bush's immigration policy? It is not surprising, especially coming from an area near the border. We don't really assume that every last minority is going to vote liberal do we?

Come on people, Bush was the last one I wanted in office. But the man won by a four million vote landslide. This isn't 2000, face the fact that the American people really are just that dumb.

I can assure you that if you are able to come across this information, the Democratic Party hasn't already seen it themselves, let alone information you would wet your bed over.

John Kerry wouldn't have conceded if it wasn't as blatantly obvious as it was. The man was going to lose, we all knew this from the point the votes started coming in.

Bush won in his firm stance on terror, borrowing the liberal tactic of implying fear. Bush won on his stance in firm family values. Bush won because Kerry couldn't make up his damn mind.

Let us face the facts, where can you find a conspiracy big enough to explain 4 million + votes? And when you do, start explaining how John Kerry was behind the conspiracy to re-elect Bush.

[Urban Rubble]

*stands up*

*applause*

Good post AQ. You said it all. The American people simple ARE that dumb. And the ones that aren't probably knew better than to vote. I didn't (except on a few local initiatives).

[noland]

In a certain county in Ohio it was reported that there were more registered voters than people actually eligible to vote in that particular county.
Wasn't that like in that Chris Farley Movie, Black Sheep. Where dead people were registered to vote and did so. And then the fuck-up and the crazy war vet who lived in a school bus exposed the corruption of the candidate. That's what we need right now, an overwieght dumbass and a lunatic with a rocket launcher to save the day.

[ComradeRed]

A bourgeois election...fraud? No... it couldn't be! :lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey Urban Rubble, one doesn't exclude the other. Perhaps George Bush would have won legitimately, and there is reasonable evidence that 30% eligible American voters may well be intolerably stupid, and/or ultra-nationalist Christian-fundamentalist reactionay neo-fascists . . . but it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't ALSO a degree of fraud going on!

[HankMorgan]

I'm glad to see Che-Lives (long may it prosper) is back.

All is in proper order. Democrats are better than Republicans, the American voters are stupid and the only way Republicans can win is to cheat. No searching of the Democrat soul going on here. There's no reason the Democrats should change course now.

Looks like another Republican victory on the way in the 2006 midterm.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wha' you talkin' 'bout, Hank? I don't see anybody singing the praises of the other wing of the war party.

[Individual]

Perhaps George Bush would have won legitimately, and there is reasonable evidence that 30% eligible American voters may well be intolerably stupid, and/or ultra-nationalist Christian-fundamentalist reactionay neo-fascists

Always have to throw fascists in there.

Seriously, can we not comprehend that these people are merely Americans, raised on American values, that have been suckered into a god-fearing bump in their daily wheat chewing lives?

If you think using their logic, would you rather have an administration that vows to protect your safety, or an administration that is worried about offending the people that are "going to kill us".. Again, don't use your logic, use theirs.

The Republican party finally figured out the greatest liberal "catch", and that is implying fear upon us. We've all seen it, the liberals have been scaring us for decades, the GOP just finally caught on..


but it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't ALSO a degree of fraud going on!

Honestly people.. You act like we live under a direct democracy. What is there to complain about, it has been this way since the day this country was founded. We do not directly elect our representatives.

Bush won this election following the same circumstances following two and a half centuries of the exact same process. What is so surprising?

Can you really assume that the Democratic Party didn't have any tricks up their sleeves themselves? You act as if they are represent innocence in politics, when did we start giving them breaks?

Either way, this country is the way it is. It could be much, much worse. Yet at the same time it could be much better, but I ask where do you define perfect?

I wanted Bush in no more than any of you, as a matter of fact I was fucking annoyed. But honestly, we all know that we do not directly elect the president, why are we so surprised?

Can't watch this clip on this computer, but hopefully it turns out to be the clip I want..

Should be Stewart's and Cordury's skit on the election results.. How the people in the South were at a "safe distance" to "save" the people in the cities from themselves.. Perfect daily show analysis once again..

The Safe Distance (http://politicalhumor.miningco.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml%3Freposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9055.html)

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Trump_$$$@Nov 9 2004, 12:29 AM
Wow, sounds like a bunch of shit that was spewed by the left during 2000. Tons of accusations and no proof.
He just provided you with countless links. As for more proof, we can examine some of the inconsitencies in various counties as far as voting was conscerned.

Baker County, in Florida: 69% of voters registered Democrats, 24% registered as Republicans, yet Bush got 7,738, while Kerry got only 2,180.

Holmes County: Seven democrats for every two republicans, but Bush got 6,410 and Kerry 1,810.

In Dixie Country: 77.5% democrats - Bush: 4,433 - Kerry: 1,959.

Liberty Country: 88% registered democrats, only 8% registered republicans. Bush: 1,927 - Kerry: 1,070.

Very odd, in my opinion, that the democrats would suddenly swoon over Bush.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 8 2004, 11:58 PM
A little bit on the "credibility" of bourgeois electoral politics...
Great, another crybaby who's bitter just because Kerry lost the election. :lol:

How many votes did the CPUSA get, I wonder ?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2004, 02:04 PM
Great, another crybaby who's bitter just because Kerry lost the election. :lol:

How many votes did the CPUSA get, I wonder ?
I don't believe the CPUSA runs candidates. Also, your assertion is simply yet another indication that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It is obvious, just from the very first sentence, that the evidence is intended to indict our system in its totality rather than to accuse one rival politician of political malpractice. Argue with that as you may, but I think even a 6th-grader could tell that this has nothing to do with "losing."

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:31 AM
Argue with that as you may, but I think even a 6th-grader could tell that this has nothing to do with "losing."
Heard it all before.

[The Sloth]

Great, another crybaby who's bitter just because Kerry lost the election. :lol:

Realistically, however, I could care less about Kerry.

I guess you don't understand this statement:

A little bit on the "credibility" of bourgeois electoral politics...

Let me explain. The phrase "bourgeois electoral politician" refers to any pro-capitalist, pro-religion, pro-etc. candidate, especially those that are considered "mainstream" and "popular."

And considering that you chose to specifically reply to the phrase "bourgeois electoral politics" and imply that I am "bitter" over Kerry's defeat is the equivalent of you saying:

"Kerry was not a pro-capitalist bourgeois candidate, thus he is exempt from the mainstream 'bourgeois electoral politics' that you are attacking,"

which implies the following:

"Professor Moneybags has no idea of what he's talking about."


How many votes did the CPUSA get, I wonder ?

About as many as the number of candidates that they run for office: zero.

Now, answer this question:

Is every communist pro-Party?

[The Sloth]

Through all of this conspiracy...

"Conspiracy," in your context, means "anything that defies the status quo."

Thus, if we can analyze every statistic and get several more presidents of corporations to admit that their machines were "instrumental" for Bush to win the election, you would still consider it a "conspiracy."

Oh well...when I proclaim to fellow high school students that have been inculcated with political Zionist propaganda that Palestinian children are being killed left and right in numbers far greater than Israelis, they call me a "conspiracy theorist" just as well.


Do you think John Kerry and the Democratic party itself was behind the re-election of Bush?

No.


Assuming your answer is no, then I ask why do you think Kerry conceded with this knowledge?

Kerry conceded a few hours after the results became "official." And, before the election, Kerry promised he would concede/refuse a vote count if it became "obvious" that Bush would be the winner. And judging by the immediate and "official" numbers, Bush was the winner.


If we can even call it knowledge..

I assume by those two "suspenseful" periods that you have evidence contrary to my own?


First the claim is that two million of Florida's votes were essentially thrown out. Two million! I would assume that this means that there would be two million votes missing, correct?

Yes.

Except what you may be referring to is the previous election.


Then he goes on to claim that hundreds of thousands of votes must have suddenly reappeared out of thin air thus exceeding the expected voter turn-out.

Yes.


So which is it? Did we lose two million votes, or did we have more votes than expected? Make up your damn mind..

I'm sure you could have thought this one out with asking me.

After the voting booths/machines/etc. are "closed," then certain "undesirable" votes are discarded and certain "desirable" votes are fabricated. Remember -- the votes that went "above" the number registered were mostly all for Bush, while most of the discarded votes were for Kerry.

Now let us look at the Ohio conspiracy... All of those spoiled votes that just weren't counted.


Come on here, do we really think that every last spoiled vote that came in, every last one, would have gone to Kerry? Really, you think that every last provisional ballot would have gone to Kerry? Throw me a fucking bone here..

Actually, all of the reports seem to conclude that the "spoiled" votes (votes that were not counted) were overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Thus, they didn't spoil "evenly" as "fair probability" would happen, but, rather, spoiled with a "bias."

Hmmmm.


And when you do, start explaining how John Kerry was behind the conspiracy to re-elect Bush.

You're asking me questions about "personal" decisions made by Kerry. I certainly don't know the man and I certainly don't have to answer questions for him as long as I have the aforementioned evidence.

In the end, the president of Diebold did proclaim in the press conference that the voting machines were instrumental for Republican victory.

In the end, the "spoiled" votes, against the law of probability, "spoiled" with a sharp "bias."

In the end, many voting-machine corporations had strong ties to the Republicans.

In the end, while experts agree that exit polls are almost never wrong, major media outlets sharply adjusted their exit poll totals to be "consistent" with the radically different, "official" numbers.

Now, instead of answering my questions with more questions, how about I get some actual explanations, hmmm?

But fuck it, I've come to wrong place for "answers" considering that I already know the truth.

By the way, Moneybags, do you and me a favor. Can you, like, actually offer counter-arguments to the points presented without throwing cute little one-liners and hope that I don't "catch" the fact that you're dancing around the evidence? All I see is protesting from your side and a distortion of my views. But when it comes to actually giving me a rebuttal, you're "suddenly" intellectually bankrupt.


EDIT: The 2004 Election Fraud has already made it to wikipedia!

lmao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Ele...nic_voting_bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularitie s#Evidence_of_electronic_voting_bias)

Ciao!

:lol:

[Xvall]

Great, another crybaby who's bitter just because Kerry lost the election.

None of us even like Kerry, and none of us are crying about it. We're not bitter, we're seriously under the impression that the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have taken unlawful and dishonest actions to secure votes for their own candidate. We're very speculative, considering the circumstances of the election in 2000.

If all of this is jut trivial nonsense and whining, then there should be no problem allowing people to investigate these votes, as no evidence of 'foul play' should turn up.


How many votes did the CPUSA get, I wonder ?

Very few. Now that I think about it, I don't even remember if they selected anyone to run for office. They mainly do little but support the Democratic Party these days.

What are you trying to say by pointing out that communistic and socialistic parties got so few votes?


Heard it all before.

And we've all heard the capitalism=freedom; communism=slavery argument before. Would you appreciate it if I just responded to all of your posts saying that I've heard it all before? (And believe it, I have.)

[Individual]

Realistically, however, I could care less about Kerry

All of this hype, dreaded time, and pondering over Bush stealing the election.. And you have the nerve to claim you "could care less about Kerry"..

Then what the fuck are you doing?

I mean come on, there has got to be a soft spot for Kerry, maybe even just a nudge; a pinch maybe? :unsure:


Let me explain. The phrase "bourgeois electoral politician" refers to any pro-capitalist, pro-religion, pro-etc. candidate, especially those that are considered "mainstream" and "popular."

Right.. Got'cha.

By your definition, should I start listing names? [Ace V]Alrighty then..[/Ace V]

Those nasty "bourgeois electoral politicians" you aren't so fond of..

Yassar Arafat, Fidel Castro maybe? Ya'll can't deny it, I'm a fucking rider, you don't want to fuck with me :o

Anyway, without getting into another debate of ignorance.. On with it.


"Conspiracy," in your context, means "anything that defies the status quo."

Had you caught the name?

Defies the status quo? :unsure: What the fuck, my resume is only a paragraph; take it easy..

"Conspiracy", under my context of the context (how about that), means you have come nowhere close to explaining four million votes, let alone enough votes to change the outcome of an individual state.

A thousand votes here and there speaks to me, let me tell you. Those thousand votes are just screaming, screaming out loud.. Go get a fucking girlfriend.

Pardon my attitude, those colorful exports from Holland have taken their toll. But toot my horn here..


Thus, if we can analyze every statistic and get several more presidents of corporations to admit that their machines were "instrumental" for Bush to win the election, you would still consider it a "conspiracy."

Well what if I had a golden goose egg? What if's and assumptions do nothing for me when it comes down to..

Four million votes! Chugga-chugga Chugga-chuggaChoo~choo


Oh well...when I proclaim to fellow high school students that have been inculcated with political Zionist propaganda that Palestinian children are being killed left and right in numbers far greater than Israelis, they call me a "conspiracy theorist" just as well.

Don't get me started on support for Palestine..

In the left corner...
Weighing in at ___ lbs...
Wearing red, black, green and white we have the un-disputed douche bag of the world...

ALLAHH!!

And in the right corner..
Weighing in at 327 lbs..
Wearing...
..well wearing nothing but a leaf...
We have the un-disputed ... ~John~ ...

Dear Lord.. this just in..
We now have a tie for world's biggest douche bag, oh what shall we do?

Ohh the humanity! (ha--ha, come on folks, humor!)

...Time spent deliberating while both douche bags bask in a tub of gold without a whim or two shits of the world in which they do not exist...

It's official.. The results are in.. Here goes:

hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob <--- Recent words from Allah.

Interpreted translation: Convert the fucking world

Real translation: hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob

Well that is that folks.. hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob it is.. Isn&#39;t that just something. :o

We are officially fucked, pack your bags jimbo.



What does all this fucking squabble mean? Well nothing really, but it damn well could mean something.. So figure it out..

Alrighty then; don&#39;t smoke more than fifty fags a day.

-----



Do you think John Kerry and the Democratic party itself was behind the re-election of Bush?

No.

Well then explain how Bush allegedely stole the election. You didn&#39;t really think that Republicans get away with murder while liberals walk around squaking like roosters did you?

Fuck, first it is: Ohh but I don&#39;t feel any remorse for Kerry, I can&#39;t stand him, he is the same as the rest of them damn capitalist bastards, they&#39;re all the same

then the scenario quickly turns to: Kerry and the entire Democratic party know absolutely nothing about what goes on in this country, they were robbed blind and not a last one of them knew what happened. I mean hell, even teenagers on the Internet know more than those damn Democrats, good lord.

You don&#39;t really think the Democratic Party would sit back and watch something as big as this "conspiracy" float on by would you? Especially as blatant and obvious as you&#39;d like us all to believe?

By that logic Kerry, and the rest of the Democratic party, would have had to either support it, or millions of people burning with hatred for Bush just decided "Ahh.. Fuck it, he&#39;s just not so bad after all."

Four million votes&#33; Chugga-Chugga Chugga-Chugga Chooo-Choooo


Kerry promised he would concede/refuse a vote count if it became "obvious" that Bush would be the winner

No shit, if you were being watched by half of the world, would you want to cry like a baby?

Mind you, Kerry also promised that "every last ballot" will be counted in Ohio.

Did you want him to wait for the numbers to get worse, sitting their galloping in misery? Or should we have just let him go to bed and move on with life? You decide..


I assume by those two "suspenseful" periods that you have evidence contrary to my own?

Evidence? You provided my evidence.. That along with what happened when the entire world was watching.

I saw it, didn&#39;t you? I watched right in front of me.. Kerry lost.

The shit you threw togethor, I pointed it out for you.. It was contradicting..

First Florida had these hundred of thousands missing ballots, seemingly having disappeared. After this Peterson trial is over, I think the boogie man should hire Geragos to defend himself in court against accusations of an appetite for liberal ballots.

Then, under a different source, the latest conspiracy was that Florida had an excess number of votes as compared with the number of registered voters.

So two conspiracies that should add up into the conspiracy seemed to have backfired.. Hundreds of thousands of ballots went missing. This would leave me to assume there would be less ballots then there are registered voters.

But ohh no, instead, your conspiracy ended up dishing out a contradiction.. Instead of missing liberal ballots (of course assuming all of these missing ballots went to Kerry), there was an excess number of ballots.

Something smells like fish, and I am nowhere close to Pike Place..

-----

Now I bet your sick of reading through my shit.. So let us get down to the real nitty-gritty. The point where you think you&#39;ve got this shit all figured out.

Yeah, that is right.. Florida baby&#33; The sunshine state..

We&#39;ll start with your overwhelming evidence, the evidence that just proves your case.

Let me break it on down, woo, god bless you on the real deal with the conspiracy in Florida.. Mind you all this bickering over a few thousand votes, but ah hell I&#39;ll do it anyway..

Here&#39;s the counter-conspiracy theory that you&#39;re looking for..

Suppose that in these largely registered democrat counties that went to Bush..

Suppose that these counties are composed or a large white population, shooting your "suppressed black vote" theory right out the door.

Suppose that these counties have a higher percentage of women, who statistically speaking tend to have gone Bush this year due mainly to issues on family values and fear of attack.

Suppose that these counties consist of a large percentage of people that have stuck around town for a while, leaving their registered democrat trademark iin jeopardy since they haven&#39;t had to re-register, leaving time in place for a political view change.

Suppose these counties have a low percentage of those with college degrees.

Suppose that these counties have a low "below" poverty rate, tending to shoot democratic votes out the window.

Suppose that these counties have a higher average annual income than that of the Florida average, thus tending to sway republican.

Now suppose all of this is true, just suppose I ask. Just supposing, would you then re-consider the possibility of why these counties decided to vote Bush this past election?

Well hopefully you aren&#39;t close minded enough to realize that all of those are reason enough that they usually vote republican..

But damn, it sure would be great if I could get statistics to back up all of these assumptions I have, no wouldn&#39;t it...

While hie-de-hoe neighbor, because my statistics don&#39;t come from common dreams, but reality...



In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

Blah-blah-blah-blah Blah..

Baker County -- Here is why (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12003.html)

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 9.2%

White persons, percent, 2000 84.0%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 13.9%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, 2000 59.0%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 8.2%

Median household income, 1999 &#036;40,035

Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 14.7%

and here comes the real killer...

Metropolitan Area None


n Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

Dixie County -- Real deal evidence (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12029.html) - None of that funky-shit

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 17.1%

Female persons, percent, 2000 46.7%

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 88.8%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 9.0%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, 2000 60.2%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 6.8%

and again..

Metropolitan Area None

Now, whoever concocted this one-sided conspiracy, that for some god-unknown reason people actually changed their mind, realized he was dealing with people that will believe the first bullshit they read.. So, of course, they couldn&#39;t bear to keep on keeping-on. But I would be abliged to do so, so here goes..

Oh yeah, and the best reasoning they could come up with after spewing their purported "evidence".. Yeah, well, you know.. Just blame the voting machines. Hell, we can&#39;t beat real facts, just throw out the term "voting machines" and they&#39;ll buy it.

Whatever works I guess, eh?


Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush

Holmes County -- Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12059.html)

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 89.8%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 6.5%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, pct age 5+, 2000 57.2%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 8.8%

Female persons, percent, 2000 47.0%

Metropolitan Area None


Franklin County -- Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12037.html)

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 81.2%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 16.3%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, pct age 5+, 2000 59.5%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 12.4%

Metropolitan Area None


Why do the Southern states predominantly vote red? I&#39;ll tell you why...

Southern States: Metropolitan Area None

hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob Jim-Bob..

Maybe I should read into things instead of collecting all of my information from a site filled with dreams, hell, they even have dreams in their name...

When will we account for change? When will we believe that shit really does happen ?

[Trump_$$$]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 9 2004, 08:59 PM
He just provided you with countless links. As for more proof, we can examine some of the inconsitencies in various counties as far as voting was conscerned.

Baker County, in Florida: 69% of voters registered Democrats, 24% registered as Republicans, yet Bush got 7,738, while Kerry got only 2,180.

Holmes County: Seven democrats for every two republicans, but Bush got 6,410 and Kerry 1,810.

In Dixie Country: 77.5% democrats - Bush: 4,433 - Kerry: 1,959.

Liberty Country: 88% registered democrats, only 8% registered republicans. Bush: 1,927 - Kerry: 1,070.

Very odd, in my opinion, that the democrats would suddenly swoon over Bush.
Yeah yeah, conspiracies, UFO&#39;s, no moon landing and Elvis and Kennedy are still alive.

Long live the tin foil hat.

[Osman Ghazi]

Yeah yeah, conspiracies, UFO&#39;s, no moon landing and Elvis and Kennedy are still alive.


Well, to be fair, you have no proof that any of those things really happened. Now I&#39;m not saying they didn&#39;t, because they probably did. However, the only reason you believe it to be true is because other people believe it to be true.

And the fact that there are thousands of dead religions is a testament to the fact that people will believe a lot of dumb shit simply because other people believe in the same dumb shit.

[Xvall]

Yeah yeah, conspiracies, UFO&#39;s, no moon landing and Elvis and Kennedy are still alive.

Long live the tin foil hat.

Were you born stupid, or did you asininity develop during adolescence? These aren&#39;t conspiracy theories; I&#39;m stating factual evidence directly gathered from the election results.

[Individual]

..And I am stating factual evidence gathered prior to the election.

What good does pursuing insults insisting your evidence hasn&#39;t already been accounted for..?

..Prove me wrong.

[Pete]

If it mattered either way I might think about reading all the posts up to this point, but since it does not, and I can forsee any fuck ups by Bush to be the cause of more change then any halfassed isolationist policy Kerry tried to set up could be. (The Governments of most provinces had already more or less formulated policy to keep our medicines from going to the states in the numbers proposed by the wax statue). Some may see this as a gross use of horrible logic, but in being bad Bush may be the force for good. Something I proposed nearly a year and a half ago (this is my two year Che-day I just remembered) in the history forum during a discussion of the German Empire... or somewhere about the German Empire.. anyways... the Democrats NOT being a party of anything but the ruling elite of the West and NorthEast has been their own downfall.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 9 2004, 02:10 AM
*stands up*

*applause*

Good post AQ. You said it all. The American people simple ARE that dumb. And the ones that aren&#39;t probably knew better than to vote. I didn&#39;t (except on a few local initiatives).
Well I think that first of all we should forget all this speculation about voter turn-out. The real scary thing is all the controversy these boregois elections are creating.

As for the idea of a conspiracy, it is all the more likely, given what you guys are saying. Okay, you believe a pecentage of the American population is that ignorant, right?

So imagine you are in power and looking to stay there. What do you do? You organize pressure on the part of the other party, to stay within the margins of the fascist agenda. Therefore the only people likely to vote are(ignorant) supporters of fascism. Seeing as this is all you have to do, to supress the arguments and concerns of .....well..... at least the more rational Americans&#33; Who make up the cities.

Kerry threw the election.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Lunch anyone? Today&#39;s special is sour grapes.

Between today&#39;s election, Arafat&#39;s death, and the assault on fallujah, this is turning out to be the best month of the year so far&#33;

Oh, and I&#39;m glad that Che is back also.

[synthesis]

Does anyone else get the feeling that CI is some sort of necrophiliac?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:51 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that CI is some sort of necrophiliac?
Maybe.

That and the fact that he has been unable to reply to me regarding a long PM on Haiti. Since he supported the rebellion, he now has to deal with thousands of civilian carcasses -- and it&#39;s obviously to his tastes considering his "liking" of the Fallujah assault, Arafat&#39;s death, and etcetera. Necrophilia. ;)

And regarding Arafat -- CI, you told me that you were too ignorant of Middle East politics to comment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, whenever I question you on American support of the Israeli terrorists, you "plead" "ignorance." Now, all of a sudden, you find Arafat&#39;s death to your taste. Which one is it? Do you know enough about the Middle East to take on my arguments regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians, or are you too ignorant on the subject to even comment? I can, at least, personally admit that I don&#39;t know enough about Arafat and his impact to actually label his death as a "good" or "bad" thing; (maybe my previous accusations of labeling him a "terrorist" were undeserved??) after all, Mahmoud Abbas (sp?) is his successor and I don&#39;t think their politics are too different to force the situation to change. But, actually, it&#39;s up to the Israeli government to create change, not the Palestinian people. If you were to pin the responsibility on the Palestinians, then you are pretending that their encouragement of terrorism is rooted in "evil" and "insanity," not in the conditions that they find themselves in. And, of course, their conditions are a result of Israel and other imperialists, NOT their own doing.

Anyway.

Yeah, just get back to me.

[The Sloth]

All of this hype, dreaded time, and pondering over Bush stealing the election.. And you have the nerve to claim you "could care less about Kerry"..

Yes, I am THAT audacious&#33;

:lol:


Then what the fuck are you doing?

Showing the ineffectiveness of throwing all energy into bourgeois politics, as evidenced by the very first line of this thread, hmmm?


I mean come on, there has got to be a soft spot for Kerry, maybe even just a nudge; a pinch maybe? :unsure:

No.


Yassar Arafat...

Undecided.


Fidel Castro...

A politician? A bourgeois politician?

I am going to ask you to explain this one.


Ya&#39;ll can&#39;t deny it, I&#39;m a fucking rider, you don&#39;t want to fuck with me

This is even more abstruse. How is this Nate Dogg quote relevant to the discussion at hand? Or are you merely using his quote to reinforce the idea that you are a "rider"? A "rider" in what way? What is a "rider," anyway?

:rolleyes:


"Conspiracy", under my context of the context (how about that), means you have come nowhere close to explaining four million votes, let alone enough votes to change the outcome of an individual state.

Hmmm...if it doesn&#39;t explain anything to you, then it doesn&#39;t mean that I lack the information; rather, it means that you don&#39;t understand the information.

Continue reading, and you will see a link to a cute 30-minute movie on what has occurred on Nov. 2

Ohio -- the "spoiled" votes were almost entirely Democratic. If the "spoiled" Democratic votes are counted, Kerry takes the state. You must agree that "spoilage" should be equal according to the laws of probability...and if it ain&#39;t, well, then I can claim "foul play" and remain justified. Correct?

Florida AND Ohio -- the president of Diebold, a major voting machine, went on record and stated that his machines were "instrumental" in delivering Ohio and Florida to Bush "as promised." Now, unless he was being "funny," attempting to use "humor" to take tension away from the uncertainty of election day, then maybe the Diebold machines "really were" fair&#33;

But if he was not joking, as evidenced by an interview with a top Diebold official (check the aforementioned link), then I guess I am justified.

SORRY -- you haven&#39;t yet offered a rebuttal to these points.


Those thousand votes are just screaming, screaming out loud.. Go get a fucking girlfriend.

I&#39;m not sure I understand what you&#39;re saying.

Are you saying that those "thousand votes" are speaking to you and saying "go get a fucking girlfriend," or are you telling me to "go get a fucking girlfriend"?

Either way, where is the relevance, or the sense, in such a command? What are you trying to say?


Don&#39;t get me started on support for Palestine..

In the left corner...
Weighing in at ___ lbs...
Wearing red, black, green and white we have the un-disputed douche bag of the world...

ALLAHH&#33;&#33;

I&#39;m sure you understand that "Allah" has nothing to do with my desire to see the Palestinians no longer oppressed.


Ohh the humanity&#33; (ha--ha, come on folks, humor&#33;)

Not...very...humorous?


hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob <--- Recent words from Allah.

Interpreted translation: Convert the fucking world

With the exception of the United States, almost all nations whose population is relatively happy with their wealth are proportionally less religious.

I&#39;m sure you see the ramifications of keeping Palestinians from the creation of their state -- and thus reinforcing their paranoia of the West and the proportionally "stronger" grip they have on their culture/religion.


Well then explain how Bush allegedely stole the election.

It has been explained.


You didn&#39;t really think that Republicans get away with murder while liberals walk around squaking like roosters did you?

I don&#39;t know WHAT the "liberals" are going through. BUT, you are asking me questions about the personal decisions made by Kerry. Should I know what is going through his head? His family seemed extremely concerned with the allegations of election fraud, as reported. Kerry, however, refused to concern himself with any of it.

As far as I know, many of the voters are personally investigating the "alleged election fraud."

And, AQ, if you are able to show me evidence of fraud committed by the Democrats, I&#39;d love to have my hands on that information. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s out there but it&#39;s difficult to find it considering the attention is usually on the Republicans.



Fuck, first it is: Ohh but I don&#39;t feel any remorse for Kerry, I can&#39;t stand him, he is the same as the rest of them damn capitalist bastards, they&#39;re all the same

then the scenario quickly turns to: Kerry and the entire Democratic party know absolutely nothing about what goes on in this country, they were robbed blind and not a last one of them knew what happened. I mean hell, even teenagers on the Internet know more than those damn Democrats, good lord.

You don&#39;t really think the Democratic Party would sit back and watch something as big as this "conspiracy" float on by would you? Especially as blatant and obvious as you&#39;d like us all to believe?

Again, you&#39;re asking me questions regarding the personal opinions/actions/stances of Kerry. Should I have the answer?

Again, I will ask you to stop answering my questions with more questions. Obviously no one is able to offer me any rebuttals to the information, so they begin "asking" me things which are impossible to answer considering I don&#39;t know the man.


Did you want him to wait for the numbers to get worse, sitting their galloping in misery? Or should we have just let him go to bed and move on with life?

If I was Kerry, I would have probably conceded just as well.

With all of the "voting watches" going on, I thought there would be little possibility of election fraud. And Kerry probably assumed it as well. So when the numbers came in hours after the election, and they were so favorable to Bush, there "seemed" to have been no point in continuing the counting.


I saw it, didn&#39;t you? I watched right in front of me.. Kerry lost.

Yes, he officially lost.


The shit you threw togethor, I pointed it out for you.. It was contradicting..

And as I pointed out later on, it certainly was not contradicting.


First Florida had these hundred of thousands missing ballots, seemingly having disappeared. After this Peterson trial is over, I think the boogie man should hire Geragos to defend himself in court against accusations of an appetite for liberal ballots.

Then, under a different source, the latest conspiracy was that Florida had an excess number of votes as compared with the number of registered voters.

So two conspiracies that should add up into the conspiracy seemed to have backfired.. Hundreds of thousands of ballots went missing. This would leave me to assume there would be less ballots then there are registered voters.

But ohh no, instead, your conspiracy ended up dishing out a contradiction.. Instead of missing liberal ballots (of course assuming all of these missing ballots went to Kerry), there was an excess number of ballots.

Something smells like fish, and I am nowhere close to Pike Place..

Blah blah blah blah blah, I answered this shit already. You might want to actually read my posts before replying to them and bringing up old, invalid "points."


Suppose that these counties are composed or a large white population, shooting your "suppressed black vote" theory right out the door.

"Theory," eh?

Why, after this betrayal of your ignorance, should I listen to anything else you have to say?


Suppose that these counties have a higher percentage of women, who statistically speaking tend to have gone Bush this year due mainly to issues on family values and fear of attack.

Actually, the "official" approximation is that approximately 52-53% of women voted for Kerry this year.


Suppose that these counties consist of a large percentage of people that have stuck around town for a while, leaving their registered democrat trademark iin jeopardy since they haven&#39;t had to re-register, leaving time in place for a political view change.

Explain why these individuals never "wanted" to switch parties for such a long time.

Certainly if I was a Democrat twenty years ago and I now hate the so-called "liberals" I would switch my party.


Suppose these counties have a low percentage of those with college degrees.

Then I guess they would like the fact that Kerry wanted to...increase minimum wage?


Suppose that these counties have a low "below" poverty rate, tending to shoot democratic votes out the window.

Yes.


Suppose that these counties have a higher average annual income than that of the Florida average, thus tending to sway republican.

Well, do these counties have a "higher average annual income" or are they "below poverty [level]"?


Now suppose all of this is true, just suppose I ask. Just supposing, would you then re-consider the possibility of why these counties decided to vote Bush this past election?

I might. As you have noticed, I haven&#39;t "totally" emphasized the controversial Florida votes in these counties considering that I believe there is much better information out there. Unfortunately, you have chosen to make a post where 50% of it revolves around this detail. I will, however, get to your statistics.


Well hopefully you aren&#39;t close minded enough to realize that all of those are reason enough that they usually vote republican..

Of course they are reasons.


Baker County -- Here is why (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12003.html)

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 9.2%

White persons, percent, 2000 84.0%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 13.9%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, 2000 59.0%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 8.2%

Median household income, 1999 &#036;40,035

Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 14.7%

and here comes the real killer...

Metropolitan Area None

Dixie County -- Real deal evidence (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12029.html) - None of that funky-shit

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 17.1%

Female persons, percent, 2000 46.7%

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 88.8%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 9.0%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, 2000 60.2%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 6.8%

and again..

Metropolitan Area None

Holmes County -- Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12059.html)

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 89.8%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 6.5%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, pct age 5+, 2000 57.2%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 8.8%

Female persons, percent, 2000 47.0%

Metropolitan Area None

Franklin County -- Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12037.html)

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 81.2%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 16.3%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000&#39;, pct age 5+, 2000 59.5%

Bachelor&#39;s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 12.4%

Metropolitan Area None

Now, through all of these statistics, let&#39;s examine the actual VOTES, hmmmm???

Votes for the Republicans, according to year, difference, and increase:

Franklin 3,472 [2004] 2,454 [2000] 1018 [DIFFERENCE] 0.41483292584

Holmes 6,410 [2004] 5,012 [2000] 1398 [DIFFERENCE] 0.27893056664 [INCREASE]

Dixie 4,433 [2004] 2,697 [2000] 1736 [DIFFERENCE] 0.64367816092 [INCREASE]

Baker 7,738 [2004] 5,610 [2000] 2128 [DIFFERENCE] 0.37932263815 [INCREASE]

Now, the statistics regarding degrees, income, demographics, etc. you have provided are from both 1999 and 2000. Thus, I doubt the demographics changed very much since the last election.

If you were to look at a few years ago, the registered Democrats were very likely to for the Democratic candidate, Gore; this time around, the registered Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

Obviously, the racial demographics, the Bachelor&#39;s degrees, the income, etc. did not change much since then.

Why, then, all of the "sudden" votes for Bush? What made him so special this time around?

Remember, almost all blacks in ANY area voted overwhelmingly for Bush -- and the racial make-up of these counties are not always so very different from the national average. For example, some of those counties have 8-11% blacks, when the national average is a little over 12%.

On top of this, the hispanic vote for Bush this time around in Florida decreased by about 40%...and you DO realize that many sources count hispanics as "white," correct? I wonder how many hispanic individuals are counted as "white" in your figures.

Hmmm...

And, interesting enough, you proclaim that areas of lower-income and lower-education "seem" to usually go for Bush.

Well, Kerry wanted to raise the minimum wage as much as he possibly could have.
If that is not an incentive for the very poor and uneducated to go vote for him, then I don&#39;t know what is.

I doubt that, under Bush, blue-collar folks really liked the economy...remember, the so-called "job increases" were ultimately "temporary" jobs in restuarants and such. The prospects for the person with no Bachelor&#39;s degree, thus, are not too bright.


Oh yeah, and the best reasoning they could come up with after spewing their purported "[i]evidence".. Yeah, well, you know.. Just blame the voting machines. Hell, we can&#39;t beat real facts, just throw out the term "voting machines" and they&#39;ll buy it.

So the voting machine "conspiracy theory" is just bullshit, eh?

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater268.html

Watch the movie, even if it is 30 minutes long.

Notice that the Diebold official isn&#39;t denying the fact that the president of the corporation proclaimed Diebold were "instrumental" for Ohio and Florida victories, "as promised."

And notice the other 29 minutes of the documentary.

Ha.


hosh-kapla-Shhish-ka-bob Jim-Bob..

I noticed that you have gone on these irrelevant and incoherent rambling rampages all throughout your post. I don&#39;t know your intentions, but it&#39;s...corny.

Stop.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 8 2004, 11:58 PM
A little bit on the "credibility" of bourgeois electoral politics...
There&#39;s nothing &#39;bourgeois&#39; about it: this is a case of the corporate Ameristocracy manipulating backward fundamentalists whose views on &#39;morality&#39; predate William Jennings Bryan by about a century.

Perhaps if the &#39;bourgeois&#39; participated in the election at a higher rate, it would not have been close enough to make such a fraud possible-- surely the &#39;Religious Right&#39; does not constitute a majority in this country. (I suppose the &#39;bourgeois&#39; are to blame, after all&#33;)

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Yes, there was a conspiracy against African Americans to supress the Pro-Kerry vote. However, the election proves that the majority of Americans are
anti-revolution. They wanted a reactionary government and they got what they asked for. Of course, there are some Americans who believe that a vote for Kerry would make things better. However, bourgeoise liberals cannot make the world a better place.

Bourgeois liberalism does not destroy the beast of Capitalism. Therefore, yes it is true, the poor IN THE USA will benefit from a Kerry adminstration. However, the 3rd world won&#39;t get a penny from a Kerry administration. Also American history has shown that the liberal presidents often have been as pro-imperalist as the conservative ones.

Bourgeois liberals believe in freedom. They are more fun than square conservatives. They believe in free speech, pornography, gay rights, sex drugs rock and roll etc. However, these things cannot bring about a revolution. These things themselves are used to generate capitalist profit.

So basically the 2004 election was about hedonistic capitalism vs

puritan capitalism. Either way the 3rd world and world revolution loses.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:09 AM
Bourgeois liberals believe in freedom...They believe in free speech, pornography, gay rights, sex drugs rock and roll etc. However, these things cannot bring about a revolution.
If they believe in freedom then why do you want a revolution to get rid of them ?


These things themselves are used to generate capitalist profit.

Big deal.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

If they believe in freedom then why do you want a revolution to get rid of them ?

I don&#39;t believe in freedom. The main objective of Communists is to end poverty.
How can wasted drug and sex addicts help the revolution? Communists don&#39;t like lazy people just like the army doesnt. They can&#39;t accomplish anything. Some communists want to make communism sound fun. It&#39;s not fun. It&#39;s sacrificing yourself for the common good. Hey, I&#39;m just being honest. I&#39;m not saying people can&#39;t enjoy drugs and sex. They just can&#39;t place those things before Communism.



These things themselves are used to generate capitalist profit.

Pablo Escobar was a great capitalist. He made millions of dollars. Scarface
(though a fictional charachter) believed in the American dream. Iv&#39;e always wondered why America fights the "War on Drugs". Drugs is a great capitalist enterprise. So is sex just go look at Thailand or the Phillippines.

[Trump_$$$]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 11 2004, 08:46 PM

Yeah yeah, conspiracies, UFO&#39;s, no moon landing and Elvis and Kennedy are still alive.

Long live the tin foil hat.

Were you born stupid, or did you asininity develop during adolescence? These aren&#39;t conspiracy theories; I&#39;m stating factual evidence directly gathered from the election results.
I may have been born a little stupid but when I start reading this shit I can feel the logic draining out of me.

Here is a video that will make you feel better.

Lets all be friends. (http://67.19.85.90/~richard/gfest.wmv)

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Wait... One thing... I thought that the status on Farenheit 911 was that there had not yet been any facts proven wrong, merely vague accusations of distortion... has that changed? If so, I&#39;d love to see specific examples of the lies in F911.

[HankMorgan]

Try a little soul searching instead of blame.

Like this from Tish Durkin of the New York Observer. (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9831)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:28 AM
I don&#39;t believe in freedom.
Good thing I consider honesty a virtue.

[RedAnarchist]

Maybe you should teach your President that word, Moneybags. <_<

[timbaly]

The statistics on the Florida counties do seem a bit fuzzy but they do not blatantly point to fraud. I can see a few reasons as to why the vote went the way it did in these counties. Although Gore had won the counties in the last election let us not forget that this was before 9-11. since 9-11 the United States has become more conservative, which might explain the reason as to why more people went Republican this time. Antoher figure that&#39;s misleading is the percentage of people registered for a particulary party. When people are young and register to vote many of them register democrat, as they get older people have a tendency of becoming more conservative. Many democrats will become republicans as they get older and will not change their registered party. Plus many of the young voters who decided not to vote were probably democrats, so the democrats although stronger in numbers of those registered might not be stronger when it comes to those who actually went to the polls. Also let us not forget that even though a county might have a low education rate and more poverty than average, people in this election did not necessarily vote on those issues. As hard as it is for North Easterners and foreigners a like the decisive issue in the past presidential election was the topic of morals and christianities impact on the social aspects of the US, not foreign policy and the war in Iraq. Many of these poor and uneducated people might have voted based on their morals rather than how they felt about their economic conditions.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Many of these poor and uneducated people might have voted based on their morals rather than how they felt about their economic conditions.

We don&#39;t care about thousands of dead people in Iraq. We don&#39;t want that homo Kerry in the white house. He ain&#39;t no different than Clinton. HANOI KERRY

huh huh huh.......



As hard as it is for North Easterners and foreigners a like the decisive issue in the past presidential election was the topic of morals and christianities impact on the social aspects of the US, not foreign policy and the war in Iraq.


Bush is a very moral person. He kills thousands of people and promotes poverty worldwide. Bush is truly a man of faith just like he said in the presidential debates.
He&#39;s a saint.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

However, bourgeoise liberals cannot make the world a better place.
Sweeping generalization.


Bourgeois liberalism does not destroy the beast of Capitalism. Therefore, yes it is true, the poor IN THE USA will benefit from a Kerry adminstration. However, the 3rd world won&#39;t get a penny from a Kerry administration.
Yeah, who cares about poor Americans when we could be making &#39;developing nations&#39; dependent upon us? :rolleyes:


Bourgeois liberals believe in freedom. They are more fun than square conservatives. They believe in free speech, pornography, gay rights, sex drugs rock and roll etc. However, these things cannot bring about a revolution. These things themselves are used to generate capitalist profit.
Given your sweeping definition of &#39;bourgeois liberal&#39;, you would likely consider me such. :blink: Quit stereotyping, please.


Either way the 3rd world and world revolution loses.

You have some kind of fixation on the Third World.

Depending on &#39;humanitarian aid&#39; from superpowers isn&#39;t a very &#39;revolutionary&#39; thing for a Third-World country to do. That&#39;s a good way to make a nation of sycophants, not &#39;revolutionaries&#39; (however you define that).

[synthesis]

It&#39;s not about a lack of money to the Third World, it&#39;s about continued American suppression of any Third World movement that threatens to return its country&#39;s natural resources to the people who actually work to produce wealth out of those resources.

So-called "liberals" have been just as guilty of these bourgeois tactics of repression as "conservatives". Examine the foreign policy of Truman, of Kennedy, of Johnson, all those ex-liberals of the C.I.A... they&#39;re just as worthy of the guillotine as their conservative mirror images.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 22 2004, 02:02 PM



Sweeping generalization.

The bourgeois liberals cannot make the world a better place ?

Maybe they can a little bit. But not very much. Bourgeios liberals do not want

to destroy capitalism. It&#39;s like giving someone drugs to kill the pain of a toothache but not getting a root canal.



Yeah, who cares about poor Americans when we could be making &#39;developing nations&#39; dependent upon us? :rolleyes:

Communists do not want 3rd world nations to be dependent on other countries.

That is why I support Communism rather than a full or watered down form of capitalism. Capitalism produces "banana republics". The resources of banana republics do not benefit the people. They are stolen by rich countries. Let&#39;s assume all the 3rd world countries were like Cuba. Would the resources of these countries be used to benefit the people? Yes, they would. These nations might have to trade because of the inequality of resources. But, the resources would be used to benefit the local people rather than 1st world consumers.


Also, Communism would not create dependent people in the USA.
They would be given a hand-up not a hand-out. Basically, the US is a
"law of the jungle society". Some people cannot live the American dream because they lack of education, racial prejudice, or disability.

In some cases these problems are self-inflicted. You know like the intellegent guy that partied all the time in college and did not graduate. Most first time college students in the US drop out during the 1st year due to lack of self discipline
(The US army exploits this truth to get recruits). Who&#39;s fault is that? It&#39;s not society&#39;s fault (Unless they were really poor and dropped out for financial reasons.).


Anyways, these problems produce dependent people. So our society gives them
financial help. This allows them to survive. But a Communist society would give them an opportunity to not just survive but exist as an equal with the big shots.
Of course, with the assumption that this the person is not a jackass or lazy. He would have to be someone with a good attitude.



Given your sweeping definition of &#39;bourgeois liberal&#39;, you would likely consider me such. :blink: Quit stereotyping, please.

Maybe that was overkill. You have some people like PJ O Rourke who like sex drugs and rock and roll and are big Capitalist supporters. Also, you have
people that favor socialism but have puritanical values. For example, Fidel Castro banned internet pornography in Cuba. Is he a real Christian hating Communist? He has succeded in doing something Jerry Falwell has failed to do.
It make offend some people on here to say that but, look what he did.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:23 AM
We don&#39;t care about thousands of dead people in Iraq. We don&#39;t want that homo Kerry in the white house. He ain&#39;t no different than Clinton. HANOI KERRY

huh huh huh.......



I&#39;m sorry that I haven&#39;t replied in nine days but, I&#39;ve been busy. I don&#39;t understand what you mean by your rebuttal to the first of my points you quoted. Can you explain.


Bush is a very moral person. He kills thousands of people and promotes poverty worldwide. Bush is truly a man of faith just like he said in the presidential debates.
He&#39;s a saint.

It all has to do with perception. Middle America sees Bush as a religous man with values similar to them. He is anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, against gay marriage (though he changed his policies towards it at the campaigns end) and is a born again christian. Those are the issues of morality I speek of, the American populous does not equate morality with the issue of the war in a negative way. They generally see it as a positive since these deeply religous people tend to be conservative on foreign policy.