How I stole your Election

[D_Raay]

The first thing I did to steal your election was to make friends with ALL the manufacturers and code-verifyers of the Electronic Voting Machines. They were really nice, especially Diebold who gave me $600,000 for my campaign. Wow, thanks dude!

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/stealing.htm

Next, I had my attack dog, Karl Rove, convince these companies to either alter the vote totals on the central tabulator machines (simple PCs running windows using Remote Access Server -- RAS), or reprogram (via a downloadable software patch) the voting machines themselves so that they would give the advantage to ME! Isn't America great?!? A little money and some religious zealotry goes a looooong, loooong way. Oh, the religious zealotry thing? That's just a cover. I'm not really a Christian -- or at least I don't act like one. Anyway, I digress.

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-25.htm#rig


Did you ever hear the media complaining about how inaccurate the exit polls were in prior elections? No. That's because they basically ARE accurate. But this election, the exit polls showed Kerry WAY ahead. No problem. My buddies rigged the machines (and all they needed to do was rig it in one state, Ohio, but they took care of at least Florida for me too) not only to make me squeak by in the important battleground states, like Florida and Ohio, but they also made sure that when I did get a state that I was expected to win, the margin was HUGE so that my "popular" vote would make it look like I had a mandate.


So let's recap how the popular vote thing worked again. Let's say we didn't want it to look suspicious by taking states that Kerry really would have won (except for Ohio and Florida, gotta take those! heh heh). So we let him win there, but in order once again to boost the "popular" vote (I put that in quotes because as you know, I'm not REALLY popular), we bring my vote tallies RIGHT UP NEXT to Kerry's, to jack up the "popular" vote as much as possible, even if I didn't win the state.


Then, with states like North Carolina, we know we're going to steal the state anyway (at least according to what the exit polls were telling everyone.... and according to the long, long lines of new voters were telling everyone ... because we all know most of those people were voting for Kerry, not the status quo), so we just jack the crap out of the vote total to REALLY stuff a crapload of "popular" votes in my pocket. You see, this way I can get on the TV and declare that I have a "mandate" and that I'm going to "cash in" on my political "capital" (which I don't really have of course, but we made it look that way).


Here's a nice chart to show you what I mean. Take special note of how the electronic voting machine totals compare to the paper ballot totals. And see what I mean about North Carolina?

http://www.bandsagainstbush.org/cgi-bin/archives/exit_poll.gif


Look folks, if you really want me out of office, first you're going to have to impeach me. But you know what, if you don't have verifiable paper trails at the polls like these folks recommend

http://openvotingconsortium.org


and if you don't take these voting machines out of the hands of private companies that are aligned with one end of the political spectrum, then I'm gonna just continue to hose you (and then my brother Jeb will be president too cause we're into this dynasty thing, kind of like my buddies the Saudis... ain't it cool?!?). Also, in 2006, we're going to steal about five more senate seats, and then we'll have the "super-majority". That means the Democrats can't do that confounded fillerbs... fillas.... fillbusters.... CRAP, well, they can't get in the darn way any more and we can pass ANY laws we want about ANYTHING and put whoever we want on the Supreme court. Ha ha, then you're REALLY screwed. So if you don't fix this mess (I mean great system) in two years and have a verifiable voting system nationwide, America is MINE!!!!! (and Jeb's and my daddy's and Cheney's and Rove's... hey, we could even pass a law saying I could be president for FOUR MORE YEARS after 2008! That would be SOOO cool!) Anyway, I digress once again.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html


And that pesky Bev Harris. Man I wish she would go away. If too many of you contribute to her cause, I might just get in trouble so KNOCK IT OFF!!

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Fool me once.....", oh CRAP, I forgot again. Well how about this? "This would be a heck of lot easier if this was a dictatorship.... just so long as I'm the dictator. Heh, heh." Well, sorry to say folks, but I got my way. What are you gonna do about it, huh? Bring it on!!!

http://votergate.tv/votergate/votergatethemovie_64kb.mov


"Sincerely" Yours,
"President" George W. Bush
P.S. Pass it on! I dare ya.

[Qdrop]

conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

[Qdrop]

crack·pot ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(krkpt)
n.

An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas.
adj.

Foolish; harebrained: a crackpot notion.

[Qdrop]

get it through your skulls!
there are more of them then there are of us.

it's basic math. there are more conservatives. period.


if democrats don't get off this bullshit conspiracy shit and stop wasting energy on it, instead of planning constructive strategies to recruit more democrats.....we'll lose in 2008 too!

[phinkasaurus]

conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


that defintion does not say that the conspiracy does not exist, just that it is an alternate theory.
i know you meant it as, "this is stupid because it is a conspiracy theory" but it's not an automatically refuting argument.

[Qdrop]

that defintion does not say that the conspiracy does not exist, just that it is an alternate theory.
i know you meant it as, "this is stupid because it is a conspiracy theory" but it's not an automatically refuting argument.


*sigh*
ok..fine. whatever.
yeah.....the GOP stole the election.
men in black.
loch ness played a role.
ufo's own the electronic voter boxes.
Elvis rigged the Ohio election results.


people like you are hinderances to the democratic party....not assets.

[phinkasaurus]

*sigh*
ok..fine. whatever.
yeah.....the GOP stole the election.
men in black.
loch ness played a role.
ufo's own the electronic voter boxes.
Elvis rigged the Ohio election results.


come on...
those are not all nearly equitable...

people like you are hinderances to the democratic party....not assets.
you're right. I think the democratic party is trying to be republican lite and they can do that. I am more for supporting a third party. more importanly I am for a whole new system, not this capitalist de-MOCK-racy. (<-see how creative I was with that?)

[Qdrop]

come on...
those are not all nearly equitable...


you're right. I think the democratic party is trying to be republican lite and they can do that. I am more for supporting a third party. more importanly I am for a whole new system, not this capitalist de-MOCK-racy. (<-see how creative I was with that?)

as much as we argue.....we are really on the same page with most things.

except for the non-capitalist thing.....i agree.


and oh yes,......very creative. take a bow.
;)

[infidel]

if democrats don't get off this bullshit conspiracy shit and stop wasting energy on it, instead of planning constructive strategies to recruit more democrats.....we'll lose in 2008 too!
Apparently you haven't been following the fraud instigation too closely have you?
The Democrats haven't been involved at all yet, just the third parties and private groups.

[Ace42]

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/content/showitem.cfm/issue.1119/section.albion

[phinkasaurus]

and oh yes,......very creative. take a bow.
;)

thank you thank you
[/bow]

I think the reason the dems lost, besides the stolen votes and the obviously fucked up electronics, was their centrist leanings. According to our current politicians, to win any election you have to ge the middle grounders, meaning you have to not offend them. You have to appease them instead of making a very bold and divisive stance on some issue (i.e. ending the war). And since all those who don't want the other party (of two...) to win again are going to vote for you anyway, all your playing for is the few middles. But if instread our politicians tried to appealand gather support from the many many people who don't vote, who feel like voting is meaningless anyway, or who are disenfranchised, you could topple the middle gounders.

but, then you never see that. The last big grass roots movement was Dean, and the media effectively assisanted his campaign with the constant repatitio of the "screaming wildman" clip. Any one else find that as strange?

[yeahwho]

but, then you never see that. The last big grass roots movement was Dean, and the media effectively assisanted his campaign with the constant repatitio of the "screaming wildman" clip. Any one else find that as strange?

Strange indeed. Just one of many unusual occurences of the 2004 Presidential race. The whole thing smells bad, the stench is lingering strong. Like a rotting corpse. Swiftboats, Dean's so called scream, OBL, Kerry's inability to come across more stable than Bush, Nader and all third party candidates minimized to the rank of crossing guards, the list goes on and on. Something is amiss in the air. I think everybody here feels it. Something isn't quite on the bubble.

[Ali]

Kerry was all for supporting Israel (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/strength_security.html), just like Bush (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99224,00.html). Nothing would have changed, rigged voting machines or not.

Strengthening Israel's Security and the U.S.-Israel Special Relationship

“The people of Israel should also know that, as president, my commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state will be unwavering. For nineteen years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate – whether through my votes on economic aid, military security, or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep.�

--John Kerry, Speech to the Anti-Defamation League, May 3, 2004

At the forefront of the fight for Israel’s security throughout his entire nineteen year career in the Senate, John Kerry has built an impeccable pro-Israel voting record. Along with his colleague John Edwards, he has stood time and again for Israel’s security. John Kerry and John Edwards have never wavered in their commitment to Israel’s security, and they never will.

John Kerry did not wait until he was running for president of the United States to visit Israel - he has traveled there throughout his public life. Through his meetings with Israeli political and military leaders – and especially with ordinary Israelis – he has gained a deep understanding of the everyday security threat the Israeli people face. His running mate, John Edwards, visited Israel in August 2001, meeting with Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres.

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. Their commitment to a safe, secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel is unwavering. It comes from a shared personal belief that Israel’s cause must be America’s cause.

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that anti-Semitism – often masked in anti-Israel rhetoric -- is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world. They have spent their careers standing up to prejudice in all of its forms, and they will continue that fight every day because America cannot remain silent when the voice of hate rises.


GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR AMERICA’S SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLY ISRAEL

• We will never pressure Israel to compromise its security.

• We will never expect Israel to negotiate for peace without a credible partner.

• We will always work to provide the political and military and economic help for Israel’s fight against terror.

• We will restore American leadership in the Middle East because Israel’s security is bolstered when we lead and America is safer.


A BOLD PLAN: SUPPORTING ISRAEL, RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
Supporting Israel’s Right to Respond to Terrorism. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israel’s right of self defense to eliminate threats to its citizens, including actions taken by Israel against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In spring 2002, John Kerry and John Edwards co-sponsored a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel’s efforts to provide security to its citizens by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas. The resolution called for continued assistance in strengthening Israel's homeland defenses and reaffirmed a commitment to Israel’s right to self-defense. As Kerry said in April 2004, appearing on Meet the Press, “I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it.�

Yasser Arafat: A Failed Leader Unfit to be a Partner for Peace. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafat’s isolation. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to ensure that new, responsible Palestinian leadership -- committed in word and deed to ending the violence, fighting terror and promoting democracy -- emerges.

Supporting the Security Fence. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Israel’s security fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israel’s fight against terrorism. Kerry strongly condemned the International Court of Justice’s July ruling on the fence, and he has always made clear that he did not believe that the ICJ should even be considering the issue. John Kerry believes our nation is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes Palestinians. Israel’s own Supreme Court has looked at the very same issues and Kerry believes we should respect that process.

Supporting Israel’s Withdrawal Plan and the Creation of a Palestinian State. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israel’s unprecedented plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip and they support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. They believe that the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. They understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949—and they understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed on.

Maintaining Israel’s Military Superiority. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, America will continue to guarantee Israel’s military superiority. John Kerry and John Edwards support carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region. John Kerry opposed the sale of Maverick missiles and F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, and voted to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to any foreign entities that cooperate with the Arab boycott of Israel.

Supporting Aid to Israel. John Kerry and John Edwards have always voted to maintain critical foreign aid to our ally Israel, resisting any attempts to cut it over their years in the Senate. In the early 1990s, John Kerry fought President George H.W. Bush when Bush threatened to veto loan guarantees for the costs of resettling Soviet and Ethiopian refugees in Israel. As John Kerry said of Bush’s attempt to make guarantees dependent on Israeli concessions, “It would be highly unfair to hold Israel hostage to a peace process that it has no control over.� Kerry also co-sponsored legislation to provide the loan guarantees.

Fighting to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. John Kerry and John Edwards have long advocated moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s indisputable capital. In 1999, John Kerry and John Edwards signed a letter taking President Clinton to task for not moving the embassy.

Standing with Israel in the UN and other International Organizations. John Kerry and John Edwards have always believed the U.S. must stand solidly behind Israel at the U.N. and other international organizations. They recognize that the U.N. must establish more credibility on Arab-Israeli matters, and John Kerry will never hesitate to wield a U.S. veto on the Security Council in the face of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist resolutions. As John Kerry said in opposing the U.N. General Assembly’s one-sided resolution regarding Israel’s security fence in July, “As president I will stand up for Israel’s security in the UN or any international organization.�

Strengthening Israel’s Economy While Working Together to Secure Homelands. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to secure the U.S. homeland while simultaneously strengthening the Israeli economy. He will help to jumpstart Israel’s high tech sector by working to adapt many of the innovative technologies Israel has developed to combat terrorism and protect its homeland for U.S. use.

Restoring American Leadership in the Middle East John Kerry and John Edwards believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. John Kerry and John Edwards will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.

Ending the Financing of Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards will demand accountability and action from all states, including Arab and European countries, to eliminate sources of funds that flow freely to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Aqsa Brigade.

Ending Iran’s Nuclear Program. John Kerry and John Edwards understand that a nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world. As president, John Kerry will lead our allies in a comprehensive international effort that brings all available resources to bear on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.

Ending America’s Dangerous Dependence on Mideast Oil and Getting Serious About Saudi Support for Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to reduce America's dependence on Mideast oil over the next ten years because they know that only if we are serious about energy independence, can we finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological backing for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. As John Kerry said in accepting the Democratic nomination, “I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family. And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.�

Fighting Saudi Government Anti-Semitism. John Kerry and John Edwards have condemned anti-Semitic comments made at all levels of Saudi government. John Kerry has acted while George Bush remained silent in the face of remarks that call into question the Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism. In May, John Kerry condemned outrageous anti-Semitic comments by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who blamed ‘Zionists’ for terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Kerry said Abdullah’s statements raised “serious questions about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s commitment to combating terrorism,� and Kerry strongly criticized President Bush for saying nothing. “As president,� Kerry said, “I will never permit this kind of attack to go unanswered.� In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League in May, Kerry said: “With Saudi-funded hate speech littering the textbooks of children and the Saudi interior minister claiming that 'the Jews' were responsible for 9/11, our current administration thinks that our current relationship with this regime is acceptable. I do not – and I intend to be a president who holds Saudi Arabia accountable for its conduct.�

Holding Syria Accountable. John Kerry and John Edwards are co-sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act, legislation to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East. In May, Kerry criticized the Bush administration for its delay in imposing sanctions on Syria.

[drobertson420]

if democrats don't get off this bullshit conspiracy shit and stop wasting energy on it, instead of planning constructive strategies to recruit more democrats.....we'll lose in 2008 too!


From 2000-2004, Dems cried about the 2000 election; Backlash.

Let's not go down that path again, huh?

Not saying don't investigate fraud, just don't put all your eggs in that basket....

Put more energy into winning in 2008 (y)

[QueenAdrock]

Is something fishy about the election? Sure. I think Bush definitely could have pulled something like that off. I don't think it's out of his league, and I don't think it's a "conspiracy theory". It would be a conspiracy theory if the thought was ridiculous and had little to no proof. Bush is evil, and I see him doing something like stealing an election, he has the hookups to do it, and there's proof of shit going wrong with exit polling and electronic voting. But I believe that if something did go wrong, he's like Nixon, cocky and stupid. He'll be caught, we just need the Woodward and Bernsteins of this country to keep a steady finger of blame directly on the crooks of this nation. Keep it up. (y)

[infidel]

Just heard of a group who was offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who comes forward with concrete evidence of fraud. In one day the reward doubled to $200,000 though donations, now they're shooting for a million. It's not like the OBL reward with no takers, one of bush's ilk will fall for the money temptation rather easily.
Maybe add a one year free NASCAR pass to sweeten the pot.

[QueenAdrock]

I'll donate a can of chewing tobackey.

[greedygretchen]

get it through your skulls!
there are more of them then there are of us.

it's basic math. there are more conservatives. period.!

hmm, can you think back all the way to the 2000 presidential election in which W just squeaked by?

can you combine the votes Gore and Nader got vs. the votes W got? If you do that it shows that the country is far more progressive than you're giving us credit for. The problem is not that the Democrats are involved in conspiracy bullshit- it's that they were trying to raise themselves "above the fray" and they were pandering to moderates and conservatives instead of rolling their sleeves up and getting down and dirty. Kerry had several chances to call out W. and he didn't. He tried to play mr.nice and polite and he lost. People were not passionate about him. We didn't want to hear that Kerry had a "plan" we wanted to hear that we were gonna get the fuck out of Iraq. Kerry did not emphasize enough the Haliburton connection and the straight out hypocrisy of the Bush administration- that our men and women are fighting for our "freedom" while the white house is taking it away with the Patriot Act and all the other sneaky shit the Bush admin. is doing. the Bush administration now has carte blanche to do anything they want-all in the name of "fighting terrorism" while they themselves financed these "terrorists" and while they themselves are terrorists to the Iraqi people.

[drobertson420]

Just heard of a group who was offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who comes forward with concrete evidence of fraud. In one day the reward doubled to $200,000 though donations, now they're shooting for a million. It's not like the OBL reward with no takers, one of bush's ilk will fall for the money temptation rather easily.



drobertson420: Fraud Investigator. :cool:

[Cashew]

I say we need fewer republicans, fewer democrats and more educated people :).

[QueenAdrock]

So by that theory, 1% of America is educated. Weird, I could have sworn there were millions who went through college... :confused:

[Cashew]

Being educated has nothing to do with schooling, though it does help. There is a difference between "Smart" and educated. There are kids in my high school who are straight "A" students but couldn't even tell me who Yassir Arafat was.

Educated would mean being aware of the world around you, able to think for yourself. 1% is educated.

They were both bad choices. John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything. Especially regarding the war on terrorism, the war on terrorism is in the uneducated masses (The voting population) is a fairly popular war, the majority like the way things are going. Why would Kerry go against what people like? He is a politician, he wants to be relected. Same with gay marriage and other social issues and his economic plan was mediocre at best (goddamn communists).

By educated I mean supports a third party, I mean supports freedom of speech and religion, I mean INTELLIGENT.

[paulk]

By educated I mean supports a third party, I mean supports freedom of speech and religion, I mean INTELLIGENT.

YES (y)

But actually you sort of repeated yourself, because you said being educated means being able to think for yourself, but wouldn't the ability to think for yourself imply that you're a libertarian?

HAHA EXCELLENT! (y)

[ASsman]

You mean the opposite of ignorant... Well informed and non-complacent.

[QueenAdrock]

Being educated has nothing to do with schooling, though it does help. There is a difference between "Smart" and educated. There are kids in my high school who are straight "A" students but couldn't even tell me who Yassir Arafat was.

Educated would mean being aware of the world around you, able to think for yourself. 1% is educated.

__________________________________________________ _______________
ed·u·cat·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-ktd)
adj.
Having an education, especially one above the average.

Showing evidence of schooling, training, or experience.

__________________________________________________ _

smart ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smärt)
adj. smart·er, smart·est

Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.
__________________________________________________ __________
I say we need fewer republicans, fewer democrats and more educated people

I believe you meant we need more intelligent people that know the issues.

[QueenAdrock]

They were both bad choices. John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything.
Yeah, especially environmental policies. I mean, just because John Kerry was backed by the League of Conservation Voters and has an excellent environmental record, he wouldn't have changed legislation that Bush put in place. I mean, Bush is allowing his coal-miner friends and big businesses to pollute the streams, and though John Kerry has challenged this in the senate and supported pro-environment legislation, I agree. He absolutely is the same as Bush and wouldn't change the environmental record going down the shitter. He's not a bad choice when you have a brother with an environmental policy bachelor's degree with no job because all of the environmental jobs in the state of Maryland are on a freeze right now.

Why would Kerry go against what people like?
Exactly! I mean, why else would he say that he doesn't believe in the death penalty? The last candidate who was anti-death penalty was Dukakis in '88, and we all know what happened to him. Anti-death penalty is NOT a popular stance in America, but Kerry was against it.

There's always issues overlooked when making broad generalizations. Which is why broad generalizations are usually crap.

[QueenAdrock]

Do you even read or listen to the news anymore? Or do you just stick your fingers in your ears and stay in LaLa-land?

It's a fact that the machines clocked too many votes for Bush in Ohio. That's undisputed, and the votes have been taken away from him since. This has happened in a few other states as well, closing the "winning" gap between Bush and Kerry.

The maker of the machines said that he'd do anything to get Bush re-elected, and also donated $600,000 to his campaign.

The exit polls are 99% correct. Every other election, they have been right. Why such the difference now? The people, when asked, said they voted for Kerry. But the machines say they voted for Bush. Now who would you believe, the people themselves, or machines likely to have glitches?

Not only that, the day AFTER Bush was "elected", 52% of the nation DISAPPROVED of his job as President.

Yet I digress. I don't expect someone with your intelligence capacity to understand such a hard concept as your party being one of the most evil, corrupted, manipulative administrations this nation has ever seen.

[Cashew]

Wait I have an idea! Let's anally pick apart Cashew's post in a weak attempt to prove him wrong! It's so genius and original it has to work!

Go soak your head Queen.

[ASsman]

Dude Queen broke up ages ago.

[QueenAdrock]

Wait I have an idea! Let's anally pick apart Cashew's post in a weak attempt to prove him wrong! It's so genius and original it has to work!

Go soak your head Queen.

It's not a weak attempt. You generalize and say that Kerry and Bush are the same, and they are not. End of story.

[Cashew]

It's not a weak attempt. You generalize and say that Kerry and Bush are the same, and they are not. End of story.

Yes they

Don't get me started

[QueenAdrock]

If you think they are, you haven't thoroughly looked at ALL the issues. Probably just looked at the ones on "the war on terror", in which most 3rd party supporters think they're "the same" just because they both support the war.

[QueenAdrock]

Sure, if you call MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and other major networks "propaganda". Those are the facts, they are undisputed. It's a fact that the votes in one Ohio precinct were wrong, and taken away from Bush. It's a fact that the maker of the machines donated money to the Republicans. It's a fact that Bush's approval rating after the election was only 48%. LOOK IT UP.

Though the way you are, no one can tell you otherwise. No matter how solid the evidence is, you, like the rest of the Republican party, don't listen to "facts". You listen to what you want to believe, spewed out of people like Jerry Falwell and Sean Hannity and O'Reilly, and refuse to listen to credible news stations.

Well, blow it out your ass, you brainwashed fuck.

[ASsman]

Don't feed the troll.

[QueenAdrock]

I usually try not to. But sometimes his overwhelming ignorance hurts my brain to such a point that I have to comment.

[Ace42]

That's what the ignore feature is for.

[Abdul-Karim]

The ignore feature is gay and is for little bitches. You have to admire this idiot's persistence though.

[Cashew]

If you think they are, you haven't thoroughly looked at ALL the issues. Probably just looked at the ones on "the war on terror", in which most 3rd party supporters think they're "the same" just because they both support the war.

Yes I have, I have a deeper understanding of this then you.

[ASsman]

The ignore feature is gay and is for little bitches. You have to admire this idiot's persistence though.
Yah it sure it, since you said so. Thanks for pointing that out for us.

[QueenAdrock]

Yes I have, I have a deeper understanding of this then you.

Hahaha, doubtful. Actually, it's quite obvious that you HAVEN'T looked at all the issues. Please, tell me how they have the same ideas about women's right to choose. Because last I checked, Kerry was for, Bush against. Environment? Kerry has a great voting record, Bush has polluted. ANWAR? Kerry against drilling, Bush is for.

As for the war, the one thing they're "the same" on, Kerry believed there was a right and wrong way to do this war, and Bush has made an ass of himself with the way he's done this. Kerry believed that we should increase homeland security, better port security. As of right now, under Bush, he has done nothing for homeland security; it's completely underfunded and we're left vulnerable. If you think they're both "the same", you've looked ONLY at what they've said, and not their records. Bush says he's for veteran's benefits like Kerry is, the only problem is, he cut out $2 million from their health care plans. Kerry now is sponsoring a nationwide health care plan to cover children.

It just sounds like you've been listening to Nader too much.

[Cashew]

Hahaha, doubtful. Actually, it's quite obvious that you HAVEN'T looked at all the issues. Please, tell me how they have the same ideas about women's right to choose. Because last I checked, Kerry was for, Bush against. Environment? Kerry has a great voting record, Bush has polluted. ANWAR? Kerry against drilling, Bush is for.

As for the war, the one thing they're "the same" on, Kerry believed there was a right and wrong way to do this war, and Bush has made an ass of himself with the way he's done this. Kerry believed that we should increase homeland security, better port security. As of right now, under Bush, he has done nothing for homeland security; it's completely underfunded and we're left vulnerable. If you think they're both "the same", you've looked ONLY at what they've said, and not their records. Bush says he's for veteran's benefits like Kerry is, the only problem is, he cut out $2 million from their health care plans. Kerry now is sponsoring a nationwide health care plan to cover children.

It just sounds like you've been listening to Nader too much.

Last time I checked, the election never hinged on the enviroment. The real issues, that people actually care about, they were almost twins. Abortion, Gay Marriage, The War on Terrorism, foreign oil

Let me break it down for you.

Abortion - Bush, totally against it - Kerry, Against it but will allow it in certain cases

Gay Marriage - Bush, totally against it wants to ban it - Kerry, wants to ban it but won't, only wants "civil unions"

The War on Terrorism - Bush, Has a plan sticking to it (it's dead wrong, but he is sticking to it) Kerry, Has a plan (Maybe) he was going to stick with it

Foreign Oil - Bush, (Says this but he makes way to much from foreign oil for it to ever happen) Must reduce dependence on foreign oil (drilling in Alaska) - Kerry, Must reduce dependence on foreign oil (the only way to do that kiddies? drill in alaska).

Basically, they were the same on all issues that will actually affect people on a large scale in this four year period.

When it comes right down to it, politicians don't care about the enviroment.

I do... But they don't, neither Kerry, nor the shrub

[paulk]

Here's another one Cashew:

Redistribution of property

[QueenAdrock]

Last time I checked, the election never hinged on the enviroment. The real issues, that people actually care about, they were almost twins. Abortion, Gay Marriage, The War on Terrorism, foreign oil

You should vote for what issues YOU believe should be concentrated on, not what "the people" think. Thus you saying that they're "the same" is ridiculous, unless you're basing your vote on only a few issues. I'm not like the rest of the population, who won't vote on anything but morality issues. I look at the bigger picture. You say that you care about the environment, yet if you truly did, you should vote that way.

Abortion - Bush, totally against it - Kerry, Against it but will allow it in certain cases
Wrong. Bush is totally against it. Kerry is a Catholic and believes that life does start at conception, but it should be up to the woman to choose. He has stated many times that he doesn't want his own personal beliefs to infringe on the rights of women. I didn't say whether or not they were against abortion, I said whether or not they support the RIGHT to choose. Kerry wholeheartedly supports the right to choose, whereas Bush does not. That's the REAL issue.

Gay Marriage - Bush, totally against it wants to ban it - Kerry, wants to ban it but won't, only wants "civil unions"
Bush wants to ban it, yes. Kerry NEVER said he wanted ban it, he said it should be a state issue and not up to the nation to decide. He believes in equal rights for all homosexuals, for them to have the exact same thing as straights, the only difference would be the term. One would be called "marriage" the other would be called "civil unions".

The War on Terrorism - Bush, Has a plan sticking to it (it's dead wrong, but he is sticking to it) Kerry, Has a plan (Maybe) he was going to stick with it
Kerry had a better plan. Kerry had the idea to bring in allies to help with the war effort; by having Kerry in office we would have an easier time stopping this war because world leaders would be more likely to work with him, seeing as how Bush is difficult.

Foreign Oil - Bush, (Says this but he makes way to much from foreign oil for it to ever happen) Must reduce dependence on foreign oil (drilling in Alaska) - Kerry, Must reduce dependence on foreign oil (the only way to do that kiddies? drill in alaska).
Wrong again. Kerry was dead set against drilling in Alaska. To reduce foreign oil, he would release some of the reserves America has, and pressure OPEC. Also, he wanted to set a standard for minimum MPGs on newer cars coming out. He himself stated that America only has 3% of the world's oil supplies, so drilling would just damage the environment for a minute amount that wouldn't hold out. He would fully fund research for newer types of fuels to burn, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and solar options.


Basically, they were the same on all issues that will actually affect people on a large scale in this four year period.

When it comes right down to it, politicians don't care about the enviroment.

I do... But they don't, neither Kerry, nor the shrub

Yeah, Kerry doesn't care about the environment. That's why he's backed by both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservative Voters and has one of the best voting records in the senate when it comes to the environment. He's fought for environmental legislation in the past, and would have continued as President.

[ASsman]

You should vote for what issues YOU believe should be concentrated on, not what "the people" think.
Wait, isn't that was got us into this mess to begin with? And if you think trees are more important that pissing on the constitution... that's really your own beef. Also your argument would stand only if we choose to pick between only 2 candidates. If 3rd party canidates are introduced into the mix, your arguments sink like the S.S Bush. Why should anyone have to argue that Kerry was the same on some critical issues, but it's the only choice since hes different on others.

[QueenAdrock]

First off, Kerry wouldn't piss on the constitution. And like I've said many times before, I don't vote third party because they don't have a chance. The number one thing I go for when voting is whether or not they have a chance of getting into the White House; I vote to make a difference, not to make a "statement". I'm a realist, not an idealist. That's just how I am.

From there, I go for what is the best choice of my viable options. Which in this country is an option of just two parties. One is clearly evil, and the other one, believe it or not, I agreed with! I agreed with Kerry on most issues because I'm not one of these far-left people. I'm a moderate democrat.

Was Kerry the best option for the Democrats? We might have been able to get someone better. Was he the best of the people that were running? Yes. And I include Nader and Badnarik in there too. I obviously hate Bush, Nader I don't see as being a strong leader. I see him complaining about how he doesn't get enough recognition, and how everyone is in everyone else's pockets, and yet he gets paid off by the Republicans. Badnarik is a good guy, but I think he's incredibly idealist as well; his ideas wouldn't work in an America that is in no way leaning that far left. I felt that Kerry was the best option out of ALL options. This elections, I voted for the issues that mattered most to me, AND it was someone who had a chance.

Anyways, in conclusion, I gotta go write my seminar paper. Peace.

[paulk]

Badnarik defies classification on the left/rightometer.

[ASsman]

I don't vote third party because they don't have a chance.
And they don't have a chance because you don't vote.


I'm a realist, not an idealist. That's just how I am.
Don't you mean complacent. But then it is synonymous with Democrat. But I'll leave that for another day.

[QueenAdrock]

So you're saying in a country full of idiots who love Bush, there is a possibility for a 3rd party candidate to be elected. If a 3rd party is close to that of a Democrat, or Republican, then maybe he'd have a chance. But the purpose for a 3rd party is to "think outside" the political two-party box. Thus usually 3rd party candidates having radically different ideas. And most of the people in this country are moderates, slightly leaning one way or the other, which is why 2 party systems work in this country.

Sure, someone like Badnarik would be good in an ideal society, but we are far away from an ideal society, and live in a country full of retards. So good luck with that.

[ASsman]

I bet that what our founding fathers thought, why start a completly radical form of government. The herd can continue their march to the slaughter, I won't be the one saying "Might aswell, fat chance I'll be able to fight this". Wouldn't you rather fail, than to never try? And compromise what you believe in.

Trying is the first step towards failure
--Homer Simpson


Sometimes you have to shoot for ideal, that way what you get left with isn't all that bad.

[infidel]

Trying is the first step towards failure
--Homer Simpson
I always thought that was Barbara Bush on stem cell research

[Whois]

First off, Kerry wouldn't piss on the constitution.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...riiight.

[QueenAdrock]

He wouldn't. And if you think he would, then you never bothered to research what he stands for.

[Whois]

He wouldn't. And if you think he would, then you never bothered to research what he stands for.

Right... ;)

I have some really great ocean-front property in Montana that I can let you have for next to nothing.

[ASsman]

Flip-Flopper

[Ali]

It's not a weak attempt. You generalize and say that Kerry and Bush are the same, and they are not. End of story. Are too!

[Ali]

Hey Cashew, you're a NUT!

<hysterical laughter>

[Ali]

Can I just say that this is my 341st post?

This is my 341st post!

Thanks.

[Ali]

It just sounds like you've been listening to Nader too much. Nader was the only candidate worth voting for. His stance on Israel/Palestind alone made him the one US President who could have actually done something about the fucking mess in the Middle East and his Environmental Policies would have eased the energy crisis and helped reduce Global Pollution levels.

Bush and Kerry are just a lot of hot air.

[Ali]

Yeah, Kerry doesn't care about the environment. That's why he's backed by both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservative Voters and has one of the best voting records in the senate when it comes to the environment. He's fought for environmental legislation in the past, and would have continued as President. and he's gonna keep buying that hunting license?

BIG FAT FAKE, sucking up to the NRA.

[Ali]

Nader I don't see as being a strong leader. I see him complaining about how he doesn't get enough recognition, and how everyone is in everyone else's pockets, and yet he gets paid off by the Republicans. and that's because your seriously flawed voting process ensures that the candidate with the most financial backing wins (and will owe the most favours to rich, fat bastard CEO's).
Don't dis Nader for having to raise funds from wherever, if your constitution required that each candidate had the same access to a pool of funds, using taxpayers money and not allow corporate sponsorship (and influence) then the most popular candidate would surely win and the minority of the population (with the majority of the capital) would be unable to influence the vote through sheer financial muscle. There would be a plethora of worthy candidates to choose from, not just a pair of multi-millionaires who have no idea of what it is to be Middle-Class. Just think of how much money Bush and Kerry spent on their respective campaigns? Are you satisfied with this MASSIVE WASTE of money? Can you justify this kind of expense?

[Ali]

He wouldn't. And if you think he would, then you never bothered to research what he stands for. what he SAYS he stands for.

Exactly the same as Bush. (http://www.counterpunch.org/kerry02172004.html)

First the NRA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html), then the ADL (http://www.adl.org/adl.asp)

[QueenAdrock]

Wow, counterpunch.org. I love when people put up organizations as a form of "fact" on this board. Org's are completely biased, and a lot of the time, false.

And yeah, I'm gonna dis Nader for "raising funds from wherever" because the only stance I EVER heard him taking was on how both democrats AND republicans have their hands in big-business. How they accept dirty money, etc. etc, and here he is accepting money from the Republicans. He's being paid off by the most evil administration in the world, so how can he complain that THEY accept money from big business? Total hypocrisy.

And yes, I saw Kerry hunting. He's been a hunter since he was 12. He wasn't appealing to the NRA, he was appealing to these gun-owner nutjobs who were terrified that he'd ban guns altogether. When you're painted as being a "liberal pussy", you gotta do something to show that you're not. I think it was a smart move, but should have been done earlier in his campaign. Not only that, you posted up what I said about his record on the environment and argue that he's a hunter. The two have nothing to do with each other.

And yes, it's what he says he stand for, and just so happened to VOTE FOR in the past. Environment, abortion, civil rights, he's got a good voting record. But go ahead and listen to your 3rd party candidates saying they're exactly the same, I mean, they have to say that in order to get ANY votes.

[Paul Nice]

Hey look - a post about how GWB or America sucks. How suprising and original.