jcd11235 0 #76 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have. Care to link to the post in which I claimed the article is completely without merit? That would be here, I believe... Your belief is indeed incorrect. I did not claim the article is completely without merit. I did point out what was necessary in order for such a claim to be made.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 October 31, 2006 Shall I quote the post? It clearly shows you using the phrase "without merit". Neither devil nor myself said the article was bogus, only that parts or it were refuted. You're the one that construed that to mean "the entire article is bullshit". You're the one that came up with the "you have to refute every point" argument, and then want to cry foul when it gets turned back on you. If you want to debate, then debate...otherwise, your time may be better served in a word games room in Yahoo groups...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #78 October 31, 2006 QuoteShall I quote the post? It clearly shows you using the phrase "without merit". Neither devil nor myself said the article was bogus, only that parts or it were refuted. You're the one that construed that to mean "the entire article is bullshit". You're the one that came up with the "you have to refute every point" argument, and then want to cry foul when it gets turned back on you. If you want to debate, then debate...otherwise, your time may be better served in a word games room in Yahoo groups... Just because I used the words does not mean I made such a claim. I suggest you (re)read the post. For that matter, you should re-read the thread. I posted an article in response to Rushmc's claim that: QuoteFair count? I totally agree. But the Ohio and Florida votes are still brought up to this day! Investigations done and nothing found of any significance. The article I posted brought up many things of significance. Using logic, in order for anyone to successfully defend rushmc's claim, all of the things brought up in the article must be refuted. Otherwise there are still some things of significance that happened with regard to election fraud. (Hint "some things" does not equal "nothing.") Personally, I am still waiting for anyone to refute a single claim made by the RS article. Sundevil claimed some points could be refuted, yet declined to do so himself. So, if you are through demonstrating your ability to misquote me, feel free to refute a point in the article. If you can refute all the points, then it can even be conceded that there was nothing of any significance found with respect to election fraud. But please stop bitching to me about how the task is too daunting. Or maybe you should go check out the word games at yahoo groups. Perhaps they will offer you a lesson in logic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 November 1, 2006 I'll try once more, then I'm done. Nobody said the article was without merit. The only person to use those words was YOU. If I was less than clear in my response, thereby confusing your massive leftist intelligence, I apologize. If your points (and the articles points) have such significance, where are the convictions? That's the point that's being made... lots of talk and nothing else happening otherwise from the Left. Also using logic, to prove YOUR claim, all things brought up in the article must be conclusively proven. Again - where are the trials and convictions over it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #80 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteShall I quote the post? It clearly shows you using the phrase "without merit". Neither devil nor myself said the article was bogus, only that parts or it were refuted. You're the one that construed that to mean "the entire article is bullshit". You're the one that came up with the "you have to refute every point" argument, and then want to cry foul when it gets turned back on you. If you want to debate, then debate...otherwise, your time may be better served in a word games room in Yahoo groups... Just because I used the words does not mean I made such a claim. I suggest you (re)read the post. For that matter, you should re-read the thread. I posted an article in response to Rushmc's claim that: QuoteFair count? I totally agree. But the Ohio and Florida votes are still brought up to this day! Investigations done and nothing found of any significance. The article I posted brought up many things of significance. Using logic, in order for anyone to successfully defend rushmc's claim, all of the things brought up in the article must be refuted. Otherwise there are still some things of significance that happened with regard to election fraud. (Hint "some things" does not equal "nothing.") Personally, I am still waiting for anyone to refute a single claim made by the RS article. Sundevil claimed some points could be refuted, yet declined to do so himself. So, if you are through demonstrating your ability to misquote me, feel free to refute a point in the article. If you can refute all the points, then it can even be conceded that there was nothing of any significance found with respect to election fraud. But please stop bitching to me about how the task is too daunting. Or maybe you should go check out the word games at yahoo groups. Perhaps they will offer you a lesson in logic. Significance would indicated proven fraud. Innuendo and conspiracy are not significant. They are sour milk at best......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #81 November 1, 2006 This whole back and forth is silly. To claim an article is invalid only if all of its points can be proven wrong is inane. Practically all propaganda has some truth in it. The tricky part is mixing in half-truths or out and out lies, giving the audience a completely dishonest representation of the situation. Sometimes it's merely an omission of facts that can dramatically skew the picture. In my book, if someone misrepresents facts, especially if they present themselves as an objective party, then their credibility is shot. Just because someone is offering their opinion, that doesn't give them free rein to misrepresent the facts. And let's not kid ourselves in thinking this dynamic only applies to those you disagree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 November 1, 2006 QuoteThis whole back and forth is silly. To claim an article is invalid only if all of its points can be proven wrong is inane. Practically all propaganda has some truth in it. The tricky part is mixing in half-truths or out and out lies, giving the audience a completely dishonest representation of the situation. Sometimes it's merely an omission of facts that can dramatically skew the picture. In my book, if someone misrepresents facts, especially if they present themselves as an objective party, then their credibility is shot. Just because someone is offering their opinion, that doesn't give them free rein to misrepresent the facts. And let's not kid ourselves in thinking this dynamic only applies to those you disagree with. I must be missing the perspective here because I do agree with what you post here. However, the fact does remain that no significant issues were found when voting was looked at in Ohio and Florida. I am not saying there were not problems or some iregularities. But those happen both honestly and dishonestly. And they are believed (by the investigators) that those incedents did not affect the election outcomes If I am missing you point somehow please forgive me."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #83 November 1, 2006 Quote If I am missing you point somehow please forgive me. Did you know.... 1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold 2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html 6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26 http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php 7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html 8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html 10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm 11. Diebold is based in Ohio. http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm 12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml 13. Jeff Dean, Diebold's Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 14. Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years. http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html 16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it. (See the movie here.) http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm 19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html 20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida - again always favoring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation. http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html http://uscountvotes.org/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #84 November 1, 2006 You dont think any of the right wing skidmarks( ie ANAL RETENTIVE TYPES) here will actually read this do you... THey truely feel that WINNING is everything and it does not matter how you get there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #85 November 1, 2006 Quote 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm I checked out both of these stories and couldn't find where either claimed "all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #86 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm I checked out both of these stories and couldn't find where either claimed "all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates" Are you conceding his first 17 points then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #87 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm I checked out both of these stories and couldn't find where either claimed "all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates" Are you conceding his first 17 points then? No. That was the only claim I checked out. So far the tally is: Lies - ONE Truths - ZERO Are the rest of the claims "false but accurate"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #88 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm I checked out both of these stories and couldn't find where either claimed "all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates" Are you conceding his first 17 points then? I checked out a few that were dead links or links to far left web sites, so I stopped. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #89 November 1, 2006 QuoteI checked out a few that were dead links or links to far left web sites, so I stopped. Yep.. not on the approved propoganda list so it CANT have any truth to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #90 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteI checked out a few that were dead links or links to far left web sites, so I stopped. Yep.. not on the approved propoganda list so it CANT have any truth to it. Why should a far left website have any credibility with me when Fox News and Newsmax has none with you? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #91 November 1, 2006 As has been pointed out Newsmax just links stories from OTHER news media.... WHEN it meets the far right litmus test they apply to it.. And YOUR idea of what FAR LEFT is... is like NBC CBS.. ABC... etc.... when you are that far to the RIGHT even something somewhere in the middle looks far left to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #92 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote 18. All - not some - but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm I checked out both of these stories and couldn't find where either claimed "all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates" It's true. I didn't check out all of the links. I got this through a site that's usually pretty good about their documentation. "All favored......" is admittedly a pretty bold statement. But looking at the links and doing some additional searches so far allows me to only state that "most favored...." because I can't verify "all". But I also haven't run across any that showed a swing towards Kerry. From what I've read it appears that there's a pretty substantial amount of evidence to support that the electronic voting irregularities favored Bush. Still looking......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #93 November 1, 2006 Quote2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. 8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. 10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. 11. Diebold is based in Ohio. 15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. 17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. 19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother. A number of the claims of that damning "cut and paste" are non-issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #94 November 1, 2006 QuoteQuote2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. Not that I want to make the government any bigger but I'm not against there being some sort of federal oversight of federal elections. Probably could have nixed that one 8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. This one is important because of the family ties to Diebold. 10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. This points to the fact that there's no excuse to not have a paper trail. You get a receipt for everything else in your life, sometimes multiple receipts. There's no reason to resist giving one for your vote 11. Diebold is based in Ohio. Not really of any significance, just another bullet probably to round it out to 20 15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. I think that's significant, especially since Ohio is where the battle was being fought. 17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. Pointing out that almost 1/3 of votes are potentially easily corrupted. 19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother. Another battleground state, and it's run by a candidate's brother. In itself evidence of corruption? No. Evidence for potential corruption? Yes. A number of the claims of that damning "cut and paste" are non-issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #95 November 1, 2006 Quote15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. I think that's significant, especially since Ohio is where the battle was being fought. What is missing from the statement is that many county officials wished to accommodate these observers, but doing so would violate state law. (editted to correct my previous claim) Of the three points I've checked out (that I thought were damning in any way), only one was true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #96 November 1, 2006 QuoteI'll try once more, then I'm done. Nobody said the article was without merit. The only person to use those words was YOU. If I was less than clear in my response, thereby confusing your massive leftist intelligence, I apologize. The claim was that nothing of significance had been found after investigation. I posted the article, disproving that claim. QuoteIf your points (and the articles points) have such significance, where are the convictions? That's the point that's being made... lots of talk and nothing else happening otherwise from the Left. Also using logic, to prove YOUR claim, all things brought up in the article must be conclusively proven. Again - where are the trials and convictions over it? What you seem unable or unwilling to understand is that the well cited article only has to make a single point to refute the claim that nothing of any significance had been found supporting allegations of election fraud. Just one. The article finds evidence to support many claims of election fraud. There need be no trials or convictions to prove fraud occurred. If such were the case, then one could claim that Jon Benet Ramsey was not killed because no one had been tried and convicted of the crime. So, since you cannot refute the overwhelming evidence, we are left with no choice but to conclude that GWB won Ohio via election fraud. Or, of course, we can continue to live in denial of such things happening in the USA, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #97 November 1, 2006 QuoteThis whole back and forth is silly. To claim an article is invalid only if all of its points can be proven wrong is inane. You are misunderstanding what I said.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #98 November 1, 2006 I understood your point. I just think a source loses credibility if they continually offer up half-truths and misrepresentations. Also your comparison to the Ramsey murder doesn't hold water. There was obvious evidence of a crime that was seriously investigated by law enforcement. Why hasn't there been a similarly serious official investigation into the voting irregularities? Would the Democrats actually lay down if there was a compelling case? By their nature, politicians seek to exploit their rivals weaknesses. But this story tends to have a conspiracy theory feel to it. As far as I'm concerned anyone involved in voter fraud should be fully prosecuted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #99 November 1, 2006 Quote What is missing from the statement is that many county officials wished to accommodate these observers, but doing so would violate state law. (editted to correct my previous claim) I'm not sure which law what would be but Ken Blackwell, who is in charge of State election laws and changed a couple of them prior to the election, is at the center of much of the election irregularity finger pointing. Unfortunately I can't follow this up today. But just to add a jab at him, I think he's still in charge of elections yet he's also a candidate. Something wrong with their laws over there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #100 November 1, 2006 Blackwell is down 16-21 points in the polls so far. If he ends up winning then all hell will break loose in Ohio. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
