Forum Discussion

Stupid (October 3, 2005 6:50 PM)
Posted by: Taylor Scheiner
Wow, liberals are stupid. It isn't just the ranting and raving, pointless protests, or outrageous (and false) accusations, but their political views are so eskew. It astounds me that anyone can think the way they can. Maybe they're an undercover organization trying to screw-up the the world, starting with America. I don't know, but I honestly wish they'd at least shut-up.

Re: Stupid (October 4, 2005 8:24 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Wow, conservatives are stupid. It isn't just the ranting and raving, pointless protests, or outrageous (and false) accusations, but their political views are so eskew. It astounds me that anyone can think the way they can. Maybe they're an undercover organization trying to screw-up the the world, starting with America. I don't know, but I honestly wish they'd at least shut-up.
Re: Stupid (October 8, 2005 5:33 PM)
Posted by: David Millson
.pu-tuhs tsael ta d'yeht hsiw yltsenoh I tub ,wonk t'nod I .aciremA htiw gnitrats ,dlrow eht eht pu-wercs ot gniyrt noitazinagro revocrednu na er'yeht ebyaM .nac yeht yaw eht kniht nac enoyna taht em sdnuotsa tI .[_.cis_] wekse os era sweiv lacitilop rieht tub ,snoitasucca (eslaf dna) suoegartuo ro ,stsetorp sseltniop ,gnivar dna gnitnar eht tsuj t'nsi tI .diputs era (sevitavresnoc)(slarebil) ,woW

[Makes about as much sense and provides as much cogent content as the previous two coments!]
Re: Stupid (October 13, 2005 8:57 PM)
Posted by: Adam Wiswell
are any of y'all at least 5 or older?
Re: Stupid (October 14, 2005 12:49 PM)
Posted by: David Millson
First, Adam, it's "IS any of you...." That said, didn't you get a sense of humor from your gene pool?

David
Re: Stupid (October 17, 2005 6:29 PM)
Posted by: Bridget Lennon
>First, Adam, it's "IS any of you...."
>That said, didn't you get a sense of humor from
>your gene pool?
>
>David

Actually grammatically speaking Adam is right when he says ARE any of you over 5. ARE is plural; IS is singular.

Also for Good Will, reversing people's statements about liberals being stupid: if your going to make a comeback, make an intellectual statement that doesn't sound like a third grader saying "I know you are but what am I?"
Re: Stupid (October 18, 2005 1:22 PM)
Posted by: Adam Wiswell

Congrates to the English professor I wasn't aware i was in class, I apologize sir. I was only trying to lower myself to your standards
Stupid (January 6, 2006 12:04 AM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Ok. Which liberal political views are askew? Just toss something out there, and we'll see if we can get some actual dialogue going on here.
Stupid (January 6, 2006 8:52 AM)
Posted by: T J
//Ok. Which liberal political views are askew? Just toss something out there, and we'll see if we can get some actual dialogue going on here.//

Hmmm there are SO many, but I think one of the worst is supporting abortion, killing brand new innocent babies, while on the on the other hand liberals revile the death penalty for the most evil of humankind. That's just twisted thinking.

I don't care for that minority rules thing either; if you REALLY believed in democracy than you guys would just shut yer traps when you LOSE.

Oh and Welfare is stupid. Make people work for it. If you want your "welfare" check go pick up trash by the side of the road or clean some toilets...oops that's an immigrant job...wouldn't want to put those guys out of work.

Increased Taxes...more Liberal dogma to support the welfare masses and programs, cause you know the nursemaids have gotta keep the kids sick if they want to keep their jobs. You know what? Cut out income tax, increase SALES tax and then EVERYBODY pays.

I got more, but you probably wouldn't get it.
Stupid (January 6, 2006 1:56 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
"I got more, but you probably wouldn't get it."

Man, you haven't even met me, so save the insults to my intelligience and just admit when you don't want to type anymore. For the sake of brevity, and all that.

Supporting abortion: Admittedly a sticky one. I think the problem stems from what you want to define as a "brand new innocent baby." Late term abortions are already largely illegal, as they should be. But is freshly fertilized zygote or a embryo the size of a fingernail there yet?

Death Penalty: I don't know about anyone else, but my opposition to the death penalty stems not from its use on "the most evil of humankind," but rather from the fact that the judicial system seems to mess it up so much, enough that Illinois declared a moratorium on the death penalty a few years back. 69 people had been released from death row since 1973 as of 1997 (Dieter, 1997), and no one is entirely sure how many innocent people may have been executed. Wouldn't it be preferable to imprison capital criminals for life, than risk executing even a single innocent person?

As for shutting our traps, Republicans screamed an wailed the whole time the Democrats controlled the White House. People in this country NEVER shut their traps when they lose: it's the American way.

Welfare: You got me there. Welfare, as in plain old cash payments to the jobless, is stupid. But what about workman's comp, medicaid, food stamps, and reduced price school meals for poor children? Surely you don't suggest that those who are injured or down on their luck should starve in the streets. How about their kids?

And if you want to cut taxes, how about not starting multi-billion dollar a month wars on false pretenses? That would save a little money for the government. You can't cut taxes AND ramp up spending!
Stupid (January 6, 2006 3:51 PM)
Posted by: Adam Wiswell
well try this ,

Democrates want to keep social security the way it is, which in all reality is I.O.U notes from the government. you collect little interest on them, and its running out fast.

Now they want to raise minimum wage, which will obviously raise the price of everything else, meaning the value of a dollor will drop once more, so the little money that you might have had in Social Security, is now pretty much, worthless.
Stupid (January 6, 2006 7:24 PM)
Posted by: T J
//how about not starting multi-billion dollar a month wars on false pretenses? That would save a little money for the government.//

Oh you mean the war that EVERYBODY signed on to via the "false pretenses" that nobody knew were "false" at the time (if you discount all the chemical weapons that got shipped to Iran and Syria and terrorist training camps in Iraq, funded by Saddam/the UN <oil for food>) and you know what's really interesting is that war creates jobs and profit, not that you want to take on any of the POSITIVE side affects of war.

The fact is I'd rather have the cut taxes and ramp up spending to defend our nation than raise taxes and blow the money on BS programs (recalling the enconomy of beloved Jimmy Carter or the bust of .Coms during our darling Clinton era)

And yeah, losers should shut up, and go the way of, dare I say, natural selection....
Stupid (January 6, 2006 8:58 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Positive side effects? Well, I'm sure that the families of our dead service men and women will dry their tears when they hear that they died for JOBS and PROFIT.

As for chemical weapons....where's the proof? Do we have receipts from Iran and Syria, perhaps? We sure as heck don't have the budding nuclear program that had everyone scared blind for a few months there. And would it be expecting too much to ask if anyone here has even HEARD of the Downing Street Memo?
Stupid (January 6, 2006 9:41 PM)
Posted by: T J
//As for chemical weapons....where's the proof? Do we have receipts from Iran and Syria, perhaps? //

LOL! I dare you to go over there and ask them for the receipts!!! Do you think they'll behead you slowly or just put a bullet in your head?

//We sure as heck don't have the budding nuclear program that had everyone scared blind for a few months there//

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news lately but Iran is bragging about the "budding" they're doing, and I'm just waiting for Israel to get tired of it.

//And would it be expecting too much to ask if anyone here has even HEARD of the Downing Street Memo? //

I filed that one with Dan Rather and Mary Mapes National Guard Memos...
Stupid (January 6, 2006 10:04 PM)
Posted by: T J
//Positive side effects? Well, I'm sure that the families of our dead service men and women will dry their tears when they hear that they died for JOBS and PROFIT.//

And I'm sure the people with the jobs will appreciate their sacrifice...cause dude, war happens, and you learn to be practical about the results or you go looney...oh wait, THAT'S why you're arguing with me, I'm sorry, didn't realize....oh you poor thing...
Stupid (January 6, 2006 10:44 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
"LOL! I dare you to go over there and ask them for the receipts!!! Do you think they'll behead you slowly or just put a bullet in your head?"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news lately but Iran is bragging about the "budding" they're doing, and I'm just waiting for Israel to get tired of it."

We're talking Iraq, not Iran. Close, though.

"cause dude, war happens, and you learn to be practical about the results or you go looney"

War never just happens. Someone starts it. And up until 2003, it wasn't us.



Stupid (January 7, 2006 3:30 PM)
Posted by: T J
//War never just happens. Someone starts it. //

You're right, human nature just dictates that people are confrontational and it's really fortunate that we of the United States are better able to defend ourselves or you wouldn't be able to post your nasty little whiny liberal viewpoint, precious.
Stupid (January 7, 2006 5:21 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Oh, my. Your sound points and unbreachable oratory have opened my eyes sir. Calling me a nasty little whiny liberal was just the powerful hammer fo logic required to make me see the error of my ways. How silly of me to hold the United States to a higher standard than banana republics. We've got a bigger hammer, but why should we be more careful and just in its use? Let's just bludgeon whoever the hell we want, because we're AMERICA, and they'll thank us for it later. Any day now, I'm sure.
Stupid (January 8, 2006 11:30 PM)
Posted by: T J
//Let's just bludgeon whoever the hell we want, because we're AMERICA, and they'll thank us for it later. Any day now, I'm sure.//

Just like Japan. <grin>
Stupid (January 9, 2006 4:10 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Let me qoute you a Republican Senator John Cornyn:
"Civil liberties aren't worth much if you are dead. "

What ever happened to: "Give me liberty or give me death"
By Cornyn standard we should have just surrended to the Nazi.
I imagine Cornyn in the 40's waving white flag and yelling:

"Take my liberties, take my freedom, just do not kill me"
Stupid (January 9, 2006 7:08 PM)
Posted by: T J
//"Take my liberties, take my freedom, just do not kill me"//

Pretty much the whole liberal population summed up right there. Well done.

Stupid (January 10, 2006 7:55 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Ah, yes, refusing to mindlessly submit to unsupervised wiretapping, arrest without trial, and search without warrant...clearly the signs of people eager to give away their freedom. I suppose we should just let Bush do whatever he wants, so long as it keeps us "safe."

"Those who give up essential liberty for a little bit of safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Stupid (January 11, 2006 8:51 AM)
Posted by: T J
//I suppose we should just let Bush do whatever he wants, so long as it keeps us "safe."//

That's better than the reasons Clinton did it...in a lousy attempt to save his degrading presidency.

//unsupervised wiretapping,// OF TERRORISTS //arrest without trial,// OF TERRORISTS // and search without warrant// OF TERRORISTS... see this is the part the liberal media keeps leaving out, these guys don't DESERVE any rights, they are trying to destroy us and we are wonderfully blessed to have a president who is more worried about this than trying to plan the next oval office ROMP/Pizza and Cuban cigar party.

So if you're not happy with it Stevie Mac, move to France, I hear they're wonderfully lenient on the Terrorists over there.


Stupid (January 11, 2006 1:10 PM)
Posted by: Adam Wiswell
As for chemical weapons....where's the proof? Do we have receipts from Iran and Syria, perhaps?

We have not found all the weapons yet, and this should be no comfort to anyone>
Stupid (January 11, 2006 4:24 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>Pretty much the whole liberal population summed up right there. Well done.
I guess you missed the part where it points out that a REPUBLICAN SENATOR SAID THAT!!!

TJ, if you approve of illegal wiretapping that much you shoudl really move to China. No one question it there. Actually, no one question it there for long.
Stupid (January 11, 2006 10:10 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
//OF TERRORISTS, etc...//

See, the problem with that, though, is that all of those things come BEFORE someone can be proven to be a terrorist. I know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is painfully inconvenient, but it's a rather key element of a democracy, and if we give that up, then what's the point of trying to defend ourselves anymore? We'll have become the very thing we revile, a totalitarian, paranoid, theocratic state that imprisons or kills anyone who steps out of line, and justifies it with the handy label of "terrorist." History repeats itself; it used to be McCarthy screaming about "communist!", and before that it was someone screaming "witch!" All labels for a regime to eliminate inconvenient citizens.
Stupid (January 11, 2006 10:52 PM)
Posted by: T J
//I know, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is painfully inconvenient,//

Funny the liberal media does this all the time....

//it used to be McCarthy screaming about "communist!", //

Especially about Hollywood, but then I guess most of Hollywood is communist from the way they act. Some animals are more equal than others I suppose. Poor misled McCarthy...
Stupid (January 12, 2006 12:22 AM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Liberal media? It doesn't matter how often I hear that, it still makes me laugh. I'll be sure to let Bill O'Reilly know that he's part of the liberal media. Rush Limbaugh, too, assuming he's out of rehab yet. And how you can call Hollywood communist when it is the single shining example of backstabbing capitalism...well, actually, it takes second to Washington DC, but that never changes no matter which party is in charge.
I guess you missed the whole witch-hunt reference?
Stupid (January 12, 2006 12:42 PM)
Posted by: T J
//I guess you missed the whole witch-hunt reference?// That would be Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarrandon, Tim Robbins, they fill both bills, belonging to a coven of communists and all card carrying members of the Film Actors Guild(according to Matt Stone and Trey Parker). They love to expound their political "ideals" all over the "little people" but just can't come to practice it themselves.

Bill and Rush can hold their own without my help, 'cause you know Capitalism actually works, Stevie Mac. <smoochies>
Stupid (January 12, 2006 3:22 PM)
Posted by: Adam Wiswell
clinton carter, FDR and lincoln all used "Domestic Spying" look where it got them?
Stupid (January 12, 2006 4:06 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>They love to expound their political "ideals" all over the "little people" but just can't come to practice it themselves.

Bad people!!! Only Texas millionaires, who only had jobs given to them by their daddies, and run 3 oil exploration companies into the ground should expound their political "ideals" onto the "little people".
Stupid (January 12, 2006 10:42 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
//all card carrying members of the Film Actors Guild//

*Sigh* You DID realize that was a joke, right? The actual organization is the Screen Actors Guild. And while quoting Team America: World Police, you did notice that they were mocking the current state of American foreign policy, and thus not exactly showering praise all over the current administration?
Stupid (January 13, 2006 12:53 PM)
Posted by: T J
//You DID realize that was a joke, right? //

LOL Yeah Stevie! It spells FAG(sorry If this is a no/ no Jim)...but you know what, it totally made sense when I apply MY definition of that word. Abunch of whiny surrendering wimps, typical Hollywood.

//thus not exactly showering praise all over the current administration? // and still managing to blatantly make liberals look like whiny jackasses! Well done Trey and Matt!
Stupid (January 14, 2006 12:55 AM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
//Well done Trey and Matt!//
Good to see you can praise liberals for something.
Appropriate language on the forum (January 14, 2006 12:36 PM)
Posted by: Jim Huber
TJ -

I don't encourage that sort of language in the forum (unless you're British refering to cigarettes), but my disclaimer warns that there may be foul language. I only step in if I learn of something "libelous, threatening, or otherwise damaging".

As for Stone and Parker's beliefs, they are more so libertarians.

From http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_rp-hate_conservatives.htm :

"As the show's co-creator Matt Stone sums it up, 'I hate conservatives, but I really (expletive) hate liberals.' Stone acknowledges that he and his fellow 30-something Coloradoan colleague Trey Parker are 'more right-wing than most people in Hollywood' -- though, he cautions, that's the case partly because Hollywood types are so out there on the Left."

I thought it was pretty obvious that TA:WP was anti-liberal.

Anyway, back into the shadows...
Stupid (January 14, 2006 6:12 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
Interesting...I hadn't read about South Park from that perspective. They're definitely anti-Hollywood, and this article reminds me that people find arrogant Hollywood idiots synonymous with liberalism in the same way they equate illiterate racist, pick-up driving idiots with conservatism. I mean, geez, who doesn't hate Rob Reiner?

Thanks for the link, Jim.
Stupid (January 15, 2006 6:12 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Adam: clinton carter, FDR and lincoln all used "Domestic Spying" look where it got them?

Here is the thing about it: It is not about wiretapping. its about warrantless and hence illegal wiretapping. I hope you see the difference.
Stupid (February 5, 2006 12:52 PM)
Posted by: Ben Sebaugh
(weakley) i drive a pikup
Stupid (February 8, 2006 1:40 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
yay!!!
Stupid (February 16, 2006 5:19 AM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
//"Those who give up essential liberty for a little bit of safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin//

Not a bad point. The only problem is that you *typed* the word "essential" but ignored it. To a liberal, every liberty is essential, but conservatives like myself prioritize. For example, I think my "liberty" to fly on a plane and arrive safely is far more "essential" than my "liberty" to avoid being searched before boarding. Likewise, my "liberty" to be assured that terrorists are placed and kept behind bars outweighs my "liberty" to be freed until there's time for a trial if I'm suspected of *being* a terrorist.

//As for shutting our traps, Republicans screamed an wailed the whole time the Democrats controlled the White House. People in this country NEVER shut their traps when they lose: it's the American way.//

Except when the Republicans were making noise while Democrats controlled the White House, the GOP still controlled the House of Reps. under Newt. The current-day Dems control nothing, because *the people of America didn't elect them* and they whine about how the Republicans are being tyrannical for ignoring leftist complaints. Oh, and don't even bring up contested elections - you sang that song for four years from '00 to '04, but after a decisive reelection in '04, it's not a song anymore, just a broken record.

Stupid (February 16, 2006 5:58 AM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
51% is "decisive"? I didn't realize such a narrow victory was considered grounds for utterly ignoring and mocking half of your countrymen. If you aren't a Republican these days, you might as well not be an American at all for all the representation you have in Washington. I suppose the concept of a government that serves everyone and listens to everyone is another silly liberal idea, eh?
And yes, I hold trial by jury, search only with warrant, and privacy to be essential liberties. Cock-eyed schemes that seem far more effective at expanding executive power than actually making America safer or more respected in the world are not, to my mind, a viable priority in the face of those.
Stupid (February 16, 2006 11:36 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
>For example, I think my "liberty" to fly on a plane and arrive safely is far more "essential" than my "liberty" to avoid being searched before boarding.
No that would be safety/security not liberty. You mighjt want to look up definition of liberty.

>he current-day Dems control nothing, because *the people of America didn't elect them* and they whine about how the Republicans are being tyrannical for ignoring leftist complaints.
Yeah....and looking at all the lobbyist scandals I am sure they are glad they elected them now.

>Oh, and don't even bring up contested elections - you sang that song for four years from '00 to '04, but after a decisive reelection in '04, it's not a song anymore, just a broken record.

By the way have you heard that news story where Diebnold voting machines totalled the amounts of votes and it turns out there were way more then there are people in that precinct.
Interesting how the votes just appeared!!! Or I guess Diebold machine just cloned some people.
Stupid (February 16, 2006 3:32 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
Steven, I meant decisive not in the sense of a landslide, but merely in the sense that (setting aside Good Will's "Diebold Conspiracy" theory) the result was not seriously contested (as the 2000 one was).

Good Will...
//No that would be safety/security not liberty. You mighjt want to look up definition of liberty.//

I was using "liberty" as synonymous with "right" (which is actually a convention started and favored by liberals, not conservatives). If you wish to talk only about *enumerated* rights, we can do that, but the left doesn't usually like the result of that discussion.

//Yeah....and looking at all the lobbyist scandals I am sure they are glad they elected them now.//

Irrelevant. Even if I were to grant you your implied premise (that the voters wouldn't elect a Republican majority again if the election were today), it doesn't change the fact that they *did* in 2004. You can't retroactively change your vote, and additionally I *don't* grant your premise (though we'll see for sure at the midterms).

//By the way have you heard that news story where Diebnold voting machines totalled the amounts of votes and it turns out there were way more then there are people in that precinct.
Interesting how the votes just appeared!!! Or I guess Diebold machine just cloned some people.//

You know as well as I do that Democrats have no objection to litigation as a means of ramrodding their views down the country's throat. Therefore, if this were seriously considered to have potentially thrown off the election (if it even really happened), we would have seen a court case to attempt to reverse the result, just as we did with the butterfly ballots and hanging chads. The fact that this did not happen (even though liberals still held a plurality on the Court at the time) shows that no one in the mainstream, *even "mainstream" far-left DNC leadership*, thought this wqs a serious issue. They'll continue to *talk* like it is, but the fact that they *did* nothing about it proves that it's all just rhetoric and baseless accusations ("Bush stole another election! Waaahhhh! It's *our* turn to run the country, but the mean Republicans won't shaaarrre!")
Stupid (February 16, 2006 3:44 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
What is the behavior of the current administration if not "ramrodding." Yeah yeah yeah, I've hear all about the republican majority and that anyone who disagrees should just shut up and take it ofr a few years, but honestly, do you all appreciate a precedent that the party in power will COMPLETELY IGNORE the concerns and wishes of the minority party? There are essentially as many liberals as conservatives, democrats as republicans, and it is generally the ever narrower band of "non-declareds" in the middle who decide national elections, usually by a handful of percentage points. Under this paradigm of "winner gets to do WHATEVER they want," half the country will always be angry, frustrated, and disenfrancised. "United We Stand" has already become a joke. I just hope that whatever happens in the next big election, one party takes the whitehouse, and the other the congress. The parties seem to do less damage when they reign each other in.
Stupid (February 16, 2006 6:11 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
I agree that divided government can often be a good thing (though I'd personally be content with a continued GOP majority too, I admit). However, I stand by my point that if a party is powerless, they shouldn't spend the next 2 years (between presidential and midterm I mean) whining. If they can learn to sway moderates from the other side, form a meaningful coalition, and get something done as the minority party, then by all means, do it, and props to them for getting it done. If they can't though, doing nothing is preferable to whining and simply attempting to obstruct every move the majority makes.

Also, I disagree - "United We Stand" is alive and well. 9/11 proved that (and this isn't saying that's due to either party, so don't *make* it partisan). We squabble, and revile one another, and muckrake, and mudsling, but when it really counts, we're together. It's sort of the "no one can hit my brother but me" concept... Dems can rag on the GOP, and vice versa, but if a plane full of liberals was shot down in foreign airspace, the GOP would be right alongside the Dems in both providing for the families and making the agressors pay. It would be exactly the same, I believe, if the roles were reversed and it was a plane of conservatives.

Creed (the band) - "We may rise and fall, but *in the end* we meet our fate *together*."
Stupid (February 16, 2006 10:07 PM)
Posted by: Steven McAllister
I really hope you're right, I just wish the attitude extended to the day-to-day running of the country and not just to disasters. I do agree with you that the democratic party has been utterly ineffectual in mounting a resistance to majority domination, but I've seen little or no effort on the other side of the aisle to bridge the gap, either, mercilessly taking advantage of a probably temporary power position to ram through bills and nominees that don't even TRY to be moderate or even handed. Sure, the donkey may be whining, but what can you expect when you never miss a chance to rub its nose in your power?
Stupid (February 16, 2006 11:43 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>setting aside Good Will's "Diebold Conspiracy" theory)

Anthony: Enjoy the news reports and the official statements about the Diebold more votes then voters fiasco.
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/02/05/MJ020506CARLISLE.html
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207592.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_267.shtml

Official statement: http://www.ci.carlisle.oh.us/State_of_the_City/State%20of%20the%20City%202006.htm

So you still think its a conspiracy theory?
Stupid (February 17, 2006 2:54 AM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
Steven - I agree that Republicans probably ignore the other side a bit *too* much, but I also still maintain that we're not obligated to compromise with a party that America voted to leave out in the cold. However, lack of obligation doesn't mean it wouldn't be a *good idea* to compromise a bit more often on the issues we're not too far apart on.

Good Will - Honestly, yes, I do think it's a conspiracy theory now. I didn't before, I was just being flippant, but now I do. Of the four links you sent me, three, including the official one, merely mentioned a mechanical error in machines *installed in '05*, and had no connection at all to the '04 election. One of them even specifically said the error was likely due to becoming un-calibrated in transit. The *only* one of the four that mentions '04 *or* suggests that the error was intentional on the part of Diebold "and other Republican suppliers" was written by two guys who wrote a book entitled "HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008"... <heavy sarcasm>*yeah*, they're a credible non-partisan source</heavy sarcasm>.

Please explain to me how an error in an '05 municipal election impacts the '04 Presidential election, and then explain to me how these articles (the blatant left-wing propaganda one excluded) are supposed to show anything except the bare fact that there *was* an error in an '05 municipal election.
Stupid (February 17, 2006 12:23 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>merely mentioned a mechanical error in machines *installed in '05*, and had no connection at all to the '04 election.
The whole notion of an electronic voting machine where such errors can happen is simply infuriating. The error from what I read was due to a clerk improperly configuring the machine. WHo is to say that was not malicious. I have no evidence it that it was but in a matter as sensitive as voting process no one can be trusted. Every thing shoudl be double checked three times over.We know it was broken and election were wrong because there 200 more votes then voters in the city. And that got noticed, because it is a really blatant error There maybe other errors which we might not notice. Errors like votes going accidentally for one candidate or one issue and not another. How do you check those? Diebold machines have NO PAPER TRAIL. And they are not allowing independent expert to review their code.

You may call me paranoid, but I think we it comes to the voting process I'd error on the side of paranoi just to make sure everything is OK.

And since Diebold machines were used in 2004 for election and they HAVE NO PAPER TRAIL and apparantly can have dramamtic errors, I call sheenanigans.

Also did you hear that a Diebold high official actually said: "We will deliver election to the republicans". Now I will pull that story for you if you want, but I do not quote such things lightly and as you see so far, I beack them up.
Stupid (February 17, 2006 12:53 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
Well, if you can show me that quote from a real source, not a fellow blogger or a leftist author, then I might believe you. Until then, I'm going to assume that you've just taken this minute incident (200 votes in a single town) and done your "grasping at straws" thing to desperately try to find a way to illigitimatize the '04 election. Furthermore, the articles you linked all said that some of the misplaced votes weren't just miscalibration, but people hitting the wrong thing onscreen (which, while unfortunate, does not technically invalidate their votes any more than it would if they filled in the wrong bubble on a paper ballot and didn't catch it).

Furthermore, if we assume that the error was *not* malicious (which I'm not insisting, but I do think it's more than likely), then if there were irregularities in '04, who's to say Kerry didn't benefit? Who's to say the real margin of victory in Ohio wasn't much higher?
Stupid (February 17, 2006 3:25 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Actually there have been other reports of Diebold incosistencies. I'll look them up over the next week and post them up for your reading pleasure if you woudl like :)

>Who's to say the real margin of victory in Ohio wasn't much higher?
Note I never said it should gone for Kerry. I just want fair elections. And I think Diebold is dirty given reports I read about them.

Here is that quote:
O'Dell stated that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,92950,00.html?SKC=security-92950
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Diebold#Diebold_political_connections

Now when a guy who is a charge of how the software on the electronic machines is written and refuses to have that code examined...says that.... I WORRY.

Stupid (February 19, 2006 8:49 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
OK, while I'll admit that that is *potentially* worrisome, I also see another way to read it: "I am confident that President Bush will win, and when he does, it will be our machines that collect the votes." Granted, I have no evidence to make my interpretation better than yours (or vice versa), but if I *am* right, then his remark was just typical optimism, sort of like "He will win, and we will have been a part of it." Also worth noting, from the second article: "he pointed out that the company's election machines division is run out of Texas by a registered Democrat."
Stupid (February 19, 2006 8:55 PM)
Posted by: Patricia Gruffs
WOW you guys went really off topic in this forum.

Since the topic is "Stupid" I only want to chime in saying...Good Will speaks for himself, so the topic should also be DUMBASS!
Stupid (February 19, 2006 10:44 PM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
Everyone says they are committed to helping the candidate win at the fundraiser they host. That's what they do. It had nothing to do with the machines, but just rallying the President's supporters at the event.

Considering his role at Diebold, it obviously looks worse than it is. But he would have to had programmed the voting machines himself, or have assembled a team of coders who are all very committed to the conspiracy? ... and, of course, drugged the Dem that ran the division.

This is just another ongoing desperate attempt of the Bush-haters to discredit an election they know they can't claim was stolen. In 2000, they had a shred of case, as full of holes as it was. 2004 is just embarrassing. Or as some might describe their efforts: villify villify villify.
Stupid (February 20, 2006 12:46 AM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
I'll leave your last paragraph alone because I've pledged myself to avoid flaming and ad hominem arguments at all costs. As for the other two paragraphs though, that's precisely what I meant. Thank you for so clearly elucidating my position.
Stupid (February 22, 2006 3:41 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Jim:
>
Considering his role at Diebold, it obviously looks worse than it is. But he would have to had programmed the voting machines himself, or have assembled a team of coders who are all very committed to the conspiracy? ... and, of course, drugged the Dem that ran the division.

Um....who care if a democrat is in charge. I want my election to be fair DESPITE Republicans or Democrats or any other party.

Jim, you KEEP are making a classic mistake.
You assuming that just because I do not agree with your side you think I automatically support the other side.

I WOULD BE very worried if the guy in charge of voting machines who refused to have them inspected said:

"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the <insert political denomination here> president next year."

More over it appears you know nothing about programming. It is NOT hard to write a code that will do the cheating. Actually it very easy. That is why it is profoundly important that any such machines code should be thoroughly examined. And why they shoudl have a paper record. Diebold machines is REFUSING to have them examined. More over there havign been tests done on Diebold machines where people voted one way but the result was compeletely wrong:
Here is that story:
--snip--
Harri Hursti, a computer security expert from Finland, manipulated the "memory card" that records the votes of ballots run through an optical scanning machine

...Sancho and seven other people held a referendum. The question on the ballot

"Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?"

Two people marked yes on their ballots, and six no. The optical scan machine read the ballots, and the data were transmitted to a final tabulator. The result? Seven yes, one no.

"Was it possible for a disgruntled employee to do this and not have the elections administrator find out?" Sancho asked. "The answer was yes
--snip--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101051.html

Also look how easy it to hack it:
--snip---
On Tuesday, Dec. 13, we conducted a hack of the Diebold AccuVote optical scan device. I wrote a five-line script in Visual Basic that would allow you to go into the central tabulator and change any vote total you wanted, leaving no logs.
--snip--
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/hacking/story/0,10801,107881,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-15-opticalvoting_x.htm

Even, REPUBLICAN Governor Bob Ehrlich does not like them:
caution, pdf: http://www.bradblog.com/docs/EhrlichLetter_021506.pdf

Would you like more more proof that we shoudl not be using Diebold?
Stupid (February 22, 2006 4:00 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
I see what you mean, but you're the one who made the mistake of trying to *link* the potential for tampering to the CEO's statement. It's pretty clear that the CEO himself could not have gotten direct access to the machines without someone at least noticing, and it's highly unlikely at best that he could have asked an employee to do it (since a CEO of a corporation that large wouldn't know his employees well enough to be certain of secrecy).

The problem is that this issue could come up with *any* electronic voting machine, yet we can't simply stay with outdated technology (which is incidentally even easier to mess up). I do agree that a paper trail would be nice though.
Stupid (February 22, 2006 8:02 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>The problem is that this issue could come up with *any* electronic voting machine, yet we can't simply stay with outdated technology (which is incidentally even easier to mess up).

And will be against that too.

>I do agree that a paper trail would be nice though.
I'd use the words: absolutely necessary

>I see what you mean, but you're the one who made the mistake of trying to *link* the potential for tampering to the CEO's statement

Thats cause I think he is corrupt. In fact the whole company is iffy.
Read up if you wish, there is just no point in copying and pasting it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Systems

I do nto want THAT company in charge of my voting machines. Its not too much to ask. In voting I will always err on the side of EXTRA caution.
Stupid (February 23, 2006 1:09 AM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
//Thats cause I think he is corrupt.//

And I believe I pointed out why *his personal* corruption could not possibly be linked to the irregularities. He could certainly gain access to the machines, but not without the very good chance that someone who wasn't part of the scam would remember he was there. The fact that no whistleblower has yet come forth says to me that there was no tampering (though I admit it's disturbing to think that there *could* have been).

Also, you're right, I should have said that a paper trail is necessary. In fact, I'd like to see one copy for the voter and one for records. However, in the spirit of my "personal responsibility" principle, I'd say that once that becomes law, the law should also say that if you want to lodge a complaint that your vote was not properly counted, you must have your own copy of the print-out with you. If something happens to the government's copy (e.g. fire, flood, whatever), and you didn't save yours, then the government didn't disenfranchise you - you disenfranchised yourself.
Stupid (February 23, 2006 3:20 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>The fact that no whistleblower has yet come forth says to me that there was no tampering (though I admit it's disturbing to think that there *could* have been).

Actually a whistleblower has come forth saying that Diebold in their internal meeting is trying to circumvent the

>e could certainly gain access to the machines, but not without the very good chance that someone who wasn't part of the scam would remember he was there.
I am going to say this based on personal experience and if you have a programmer to ask, I'll bet you he can back it up.

It is not hard to change and obusfcate the code so it would cheat. It really is not. In fact the code does not need to be part of the program. You can have an external program run and modify either the memory or database records (hell they have them for most games, they are called trainers). In fact its been proven that you can EASILY do with Diebold machines. If you do not believe my personal expertise you can in fact ask a programmer and he will confirm.

Let me reintroduce the snipp from above:
--snip--
On Tuesday, Dec. 13, we conducted a hack of the Diebold AccuVote optical scan device. I wrote a five-line script in Visual Basic that would allow you to go into the central tabulator and change any vote total you wanted, leaving no logs.
--snip--

In fact this is even worse because you do not need a person with any computer knowledge to do it. All they will have to do is run a little program written by someone in advance (and it would reqire only one person to write it like the proffessor who did teh hack test) and enter what numbers they want for each candidate/issue/etc. There is no paper trail so it can not be checked. Thats it.
In addition, please note that Diebold is REFUSING to have their voting machine code examined even in states that laws that require taht they do (I believe they are pulling out NC because they asked to show the code as is required by law). What the hell do they have to hide?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/29/2024208
Stupid (February 23, 2006 4:03 PM)
Posted by: Anthony Zarrella
Well, your first response is cut off...

As for the second, I didn't say he couldn't have done it, I said he couldn't have gotten to a *physical location* in which to do it, without someone having seen him.

As for the last part, I *said* that I agreed we need a paper trail (and if we have that, then examining code or whatever becomes irrelevant because accuracy is verifiable).
Stupid (March 4, 2006 1:59 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
Good, the "classic mistake" is yours - I said "Bush-haters", not Kerry-lovers, not Gore-fans, and not even Democrats. You assume I think you support the other side.

Anyway, it does matter if the guy in charge is a Dem. If you knew that he was a Republican, would you not consider it to bolster your conspiracy theory argument?
Stupid (March 7, 2006 12:11 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
So I am gone for a week, and all debate stops? tsk...tsk..tsk ;)

>Anyway, it does matter if the guy in charge is a Dem. If you knew that he was a Republican, would you not consider it to bolster your conspiracy theory argument?
No it does not. I do not like corruption. Period!!

>(and if we have that, then examining code or whatever becomes irrelevant because accuracy is verifiable).
Not true. Give one good reason why we should not check the code?

Post a reply

Subject:

Message:

Username: Password:
Forgot your username/password?
If you haven't already, register now.