Philly the Kid wrote:What do you want me to do Vox? I will never be able to prove anything to you and others satisfaction. Doesn't mean Im' whacko. Doesn't mean that the things I've heard, read, are not accurate or reasonable.

PtK, forecasting that 1 in 20 votes in a US presidential election will be fraudulent is neither accurate nor reasonable. You have to meet a much higher standard for a claim like that than "things I've heard, read...."

Philly the Kid wrote:What do you want me to do Vox? I will never be able to prove anything to you and others satisfaction.

Isn't that a fairly good indicator that you are talking out of your rear end? I mean, folks here can be pretty unresonable, but only a few continue to march on in the face of strong data *

I think you reassure yourself too often that you "aren't a wacko" for my comfort. I mean - what is a wacko if not someone who can believe anything with little supporting evidence in the face of contradictory evidence?

If we were arguing religion, I'd understand your posture - faith is not something you can prove, but that's not what you're talking about - you are arguing palpable well recorded events and extraordinarily implausable conspiracies.

*that which appears on the internet does not automatically constitute resonable data. That which appears on a geocities site doubly so.

Laexile wrote:Who are the "powers that be?" Do you have evidence of cheating? How are long lines cheating? Do you have evidence anyone purposefully disenfranchised a voter for political gain? What about rigged voting machines?

The powers that be, are a cabal of neo-cons, corporate trans-national robber barrons, and secret militaristics... who have shaped our reality for a long time -- and installed W as their puppet and Cheney as their go-to guy. Do I personally hold the evidence in my filing cabinets? Do I have the b-roll of the interviews of activists and citizens on the ground explaining the dis-enfranchisement in community after community -- no. Why are long lines happening in Black and Democratic areas where people have limited time -- and never happen in white affluent Rep distrincts? I'll see what I can do about pointing you all to some evidence.

You can play this game LaX, but it's simple -- if the machines are on the up n up, then they wouldn't be shrouded in secrecy and unwilling to explain for all to see and know, how they are not rigged. You will say that that doesn't prove they ARE rigged. I'm not doing that dance. Diebold is not IN MY OPINION a trustworthy entity-- and there have been more than enough opportunities to demonstrate the full-proof-ness of the machines. There is no way to check or verify -- we live in an age of hackers and computer experts -- it wouldn't be hard to write an algorithim to shift a percentage of votes in certain districts. Not enough to be so obvious. "A good thief still pays for something..." I found the owners quote troubling and the teacher federation is a poor analogy.

Laexile wrote:
It'd be nice if you could prove it to one person. Or provide evidence to back up your claims. And no, Bush didn't clearly lose anything in the last two elections. If it were clear everyone here would know all of the evidence.

Are you aware that in 2000 the networks announced the polls had closed in Florida at 7 pm eastern, even though the Panhandle's polls were open another hour? At 7:30 they called Florida for Gore. As a result there were few voters during that last hour. Estimates are that Bush lost a 10,000-15,000 vote margin in that hour. If the networks had kept quiet, all the Florida nonsense would've been irrelevant. Yet I rarely hear Republicans talking about a conspiracy. If the Republicans conspired, surely the Democrats did too.

I will try to find some documentation the supports my claims. But everyone doesn't know because it isn't reported on CBS or CNN. If you are going to throw the mainstream corporate media up as the barometer of whether something has been vetted out to the mainstream acceptance or the NY Times, then we will continue to have a problem. Those are not my sources in most cases. I assure you I have listened to far more people not found on those outlets whether citizens in communities, or election officials, or academics who have anlyzed or alternative to mainstream corporate media investigative journalists, uncovering serious problems and explaining the corruption from Chads to the Supreme Court, to people being excluded from voter roles as felons for crimes attributed to them in the future!

Diebold and others refusals to allow any kind of checks to their systems, the head of Diebold on the record saying to thing to the effect of "i won't let Bush lose..." excuse me if my confidence is way down.

Laexile wrote:That'd be great, except he never said that. A simple Google search would tell you what did happen. He sent out a fundraising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

I have no idea if he ever even read the letter, but it's still a big leap to use this as complete evidence that Ohio voting machines were tampered with. Is there something wrong with Walden O'Dell supporting a candidate? If the head of the American Federation of Teachers said he was committed to helping Obama win the Presidency, should we conclude that since voting is in the schools something sinister is going on?

HBO put on a fascinating documentary called "Hacking Democracy." In it, they showed that it's possible to rig the Diebold machines. They showed several instances of Republican AND Democratic candidates that experts concluded that someone may have rigged machines. They did not have any evidence that anyone actually did or that it in any way influenced either the 2000 or 2004 election. That doesn't mean that someone didn't put the fix in. There just isn't any evidence to support that.

I would say that because of Diebold's secrecy there will be no way to ever prove what happened in 2000 and 2004, and that quote may not be a smoking gun to you, but it's pretty clear to me. It's that quoet in combination with a variety of toher factors... it's the fact that there were gaping contradictions in certain precincts between exit polls and then reported voting -- gaps the liks of which had never been seen in the history of exit polls

Laexile wrote:
You have a perspective that's based on inaccurate or exaggerated information that is somehow extrapolated to draw conclusions that are unwarranted. People don't gang up on you because they think you're "whacko." They gang up on you because you throw out wild ideas and present them as fact. They gang up on you because you're lazy in providing supporting facts. All I had to do was enter "diebold deliver ohio for Bush" in Google and click on the first result to get the real information. The more controversial a statement you make the more people will demand evidence to support it.

You may be right. Bush may have cheated to win the last two elections. There's just never been evidence to support that theory. I've never liked the Bush political machine, partly from first hand interaction. I've never voted for George W. I'd like to believe he cheated. I won't without proof.

I'm neither whacko nor are my ideas wild. I'm under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. I don't have the time to run around and try to document via what you and others deem credible sources to prove every assertion. I'm still entitled to my opinion. I'm sorry that my oft used "trust me, I've heard teh evidence..." isn't going to fly ... on several occasions where I did provide bits and pieces and pointed folks to something that at a minimum raises troubling questions... it was nitpicked to death ... anything I try to present will be met with a voracious desire to dis-credit.

That's because most people here are pre-disposed to believe what Big Brother is selling. My view of reality is different. To me, its full supported with a combination of facts, evidence, interpretations and EXPERIENCE -- my own conclusions.

It's really more a philosophical question. How do you come to the conclusions you have? What /who do you believe? We could play this game where I say,"you don't really know either" and 'how do you know' and you will lay out your evidence and I will not accept it or question what's behind it.

All I can tell you and the rest of the board, as unconvincing as it will be -- is that I'm far from lazy. I have probably spent more time than most, listening and reading non-mainstream coverage of a variety of events including the last two elections, and I'm quite satisfied that there was cheating and likely enough to push Bush in over close races in which he lost.

I believe further that our entire political process needs an overhaul. From the Electoral college, to the need for a universal natioanl voting system that is governed indepently in DC. To the PROPER use of technology, with sufficient experts monitoring the algorithms and processes to be accurate. Far too few of the citizens participate aka VOTE and far too lack solid non-propoganda info.

I actually have a lot of confidence in the average Joe, that most people are fundamentally decent and fair and if presented with a proper context and perspective will vote in their interests and vote for the common good. Unfortunately, they manipulated through fear and mis-information.

I don't know percentages. I don't know if McCain will get 5% or 1% or 10% from cheating. I don't know if Obama won't steal a few votes here or there in some local areas. I'm sure there are shenanigans all over the land. The diff -- is that the Cheney-machine is much more insiduous and bold and willing to engineer large scale maneuvers and I believe the Dems are incapable and incompetent to pull that kind of espionage -- off. And worse, when its perpetrated on them, they just take it up the *** and don't use the power they have to fight back. Gore and Kerry wimped out.

When I get some time, I will try to present some sources I find credible to support some of my claims. I'm not just making this stuff up. And I'm not intractable. Reports on PBS not hosted by Bill Moyers are rarely going to be seen as independent and credible to me by the way. But I'm willing to see so-called sources I believe, dis-credited.

I don't know why so many of you find it so far-fetched that Big Business and govt and military are liars and manipulators and there is a kind of Big Brother aspect to the world and society we live in? It's so obvious ...

Philly the Kid wrote: Do I have the b-roll of the interviews of activists and citizens on the ground explaining the dis-enfranchisement in community after community -- no.

Technically this wouldn't be B-roll

This thread needs a poll.

PTK- there's plenty of things that the powers that be do wrong. So much so, that you really dont have to bother with making up stuff or pigeon holing things to make wild theories and conspiracies fit. IOW- there's plenty to complain about than chase monsters under the bed

This thread is better than anything on television.

momadance wrote:This thread is better than anything on television.

p-t-k will be on television soon. then what?

Mass Hysteria. Cats and dogs living together.

Woody wrote:Just so I have this straight. PtK, who generally mistrusts almost everything about government and doesn't want anyone anywhere to have any personal information on him whatsoever, is in favor of voting via fingerprints and retinal scans? He keeps an elaborate, time-consuming, cypher-based accounting system to avoid having to give his name and address to Visa or Paypal, but he wants to go to his local municipal building to have his eyeball scanned with a laser? Peculiar.

I appreciate how well you've documented me Woodrow.

I am mistrustful as things are now. HOWEVER, I beleive the technology exists and if the will was tehre, we could implement systems that i would trust -- and could be a benefit to society. When business is involved, they exist to make profit. They exist to have things favor them, not me, the consumer. In the case of Electronic voting, if it was not being done 'for profit' and if the laws were such and being enforced properly that privacy was maintained. Perhaps a way to identify the voter and cross themoff a list, but once the vote was entered in to the basket, it was no longer tied to the actual id of the voter. That way, no one could know for sure who I a specific person voted for, I'm sure smart people can figure it out. And once advocacy and watchdog groups indicated it wass safe, if I trusted congress to reign in the CIA and FBI and Homeland and if the Supreme Court were NOT neo-con puppets (please don't tell me that Clarence Thomas had qualifications to be a SC justice!) -- and I knew they would protect me -- then yes, I'd let my finger print or retinal scan go in to Big Brother's system.

I'm mistrustful as things are now. But that doesn't mean I don't believe it could be accomplished in a way as to be safe and reliable.

The analogy of online banking and ATM/Visa doesn't quite hold. It involves your money, and it involves large corporate entities that can screw you and "oh well, tough luck to you.... good luck on getting that mess up straightened out...".

Clarence Thomas :?:

Woody start writing the freaking script already

Woody wrote:Clarence Thomas :?:

Definitely one of the better Afro American ball players.

What's wrong with Clarence Thomas?

jerseyhoya wrote:What's wrong with Clarence Thomas?

I need an emoticon for "speechless" ...

Who has put a pubic hair on my Coke?

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What's wrong with Clarence Thomas?

I need an emoticon for "speechless" ...

No, you need an ability for it.

Woody wrote:Who has put a pubic hair on my Coke?

That fell out of his African.

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What's wrong with Clarence Thomas?

I need an emoticon for "speechless" ...

His qualifications. Yale Law, assistant AG in Missouri, Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Philly the Kid wrote:The powers that be, are a cabal of neo-cons, corporate trans-national robber barrons, and secret militaristics... who have shaped our reality for a long time -- and installed W as their puppet and Cheney as their go-to guy.

I was looking for names. I don't know who they are from your statement.

Why are long lines happening in Black and Democratic areas where people have limited time -- and never happen in white affluent Rep distrincts? I'll see what I can do about pointing you all to some evidence.

That's certainly a provocative question. Questions aren't answers. We should find out why this has occurred.

if the machines are on the up n up, then they wouldn't be shrouded in secrecy and unwilling to explain for all to see and know, how they are not rigged.

Because explaining how they work would give information to the people who tamper with them and provide trade secrets to competitors. The only people who need to know how they work are the election commissions who buy them. If you have an issue, it's with your election commission.

You will say that that doesn't prove they ARE rigged. I'm not doing that dance. Diebold is not IN MY OPINION a trustworthy entity-- and there have been more than enough opportunities to demonstrate the full-proof-ness of the machines.

You're not doing the dance? Since when is the possibility of tampering proof that Republicans tampered? That dance, which you refuse to do, is proving something to be true based on evidence. It's used in science, law, and pretty much all of society.

If you read my post, Diebold's machines have been shown to be vulnerable to tampering. So they can't demonstrate they are foolproof. Despite spending three years on the project, the makers of "Hacking Democracy" were unable to prove that anyone actually tampered with the machines, only that it could have happened.

If you are going to throw the mainstream corporate media up as the barometer of whether something has been vetted out to the mainstream acceptance or the NY Times, then we will continue to have a problem.

I've never said that I do hold the mainstream media as evidence of proof. They do, however, have certain credentials that support that claim. You seem to think it's wrong to be skeptical of some "expert" that has nothing backing him.

explaining the corruption from Chads to the Supreme Court, to people being excluded from voter roles as felons for crimes attributed to them in the future!

My problem is that you take inaccurate information, exaggerate it, and don't bother to pursue any information counter to your beliefs. Did you discover the explanation of why those voters were excluded before making your judgement?

I would say that because of Diebold's secrecy there will be no way to ever prove what happened in 2000 and 2004, and that quote may not be a smoking gun to you, but it's pretty clear to me.

Yes, I recognize evidence is irrelevant when you can draw conclusions not supported by the information available.

I'm neither whacko nor are my ideas wild. I'm under no obligation to prove anything to anyone.

Of course you do. You've chosen to come on to this message board and participate with a group of people who ask for a standard of proof with all claims. This happens all the time on this board. You post and then are taken aback when EVERYONE asks you to prove your theory. There is a standard here. You've chosen not to meet it.You believe only the people who support what you already believe. That's hardly scientific.

I don't have the time to run around and try to document via what you and others deem credible sources to prove every assertion

.
Then don't make them.

I'm still entitled to my opinion.

Of course. But when you choose to share it with us, you're held to a different standard than your own.

I'm sorry that my oft used "trust me, I've heard teh evidence..." isn't going to fly ... on several occasions where I did provide bits and pieces and pointed folks to something that at a minimum raises troubling questions... it was nitpicked to death ... anything I try to present will be met with a voracious desire to dis-credit.

Why do you suppose people don't just trust you when you say you know something? You're asking us to blindly trust what you say without proof. Isn't that your complaint about the American people and the government? Of course we try to discredit what you write. The way to find the truth is to pick apart all facts, not to accept something blindly.

That's because most people here are pre-disposed to believe what Big Brother is selling. My view of reality is different. To me, its full supported with a combination of facts, evidence, interpretations and EXPERIENCE -- my own conclusions.

How do you know what I believe and how I draw my conclusions? I understand what you consider facts, evidence, et al proves it to you. Fine. Everyone is different. Do you expect us to just take your word for it?

How do you come to the conclusions you have? What /who do you believe?

I listen to all the facts and arguments from both sides and don't draw conclusions without sufficient information.

All I can tell you and the rest of the board, as unconvincing as it will be -- is that I'm far from lazy.

Yet you make claims that are easy to test out by a simple search and you choose not to.

I'm quite satisfied that there was cheating and likely enough to push Bush in over close races in which he lost.

You do understand that without evidence we don't draw that conclusion.

When I get some time, I will try to present some sources I find credible to support some of my claims

.
If you choose to post, you need to provide sources that you think we'll find credible. You're trying to prove to us.

I don't know why so many of you find it so far-fetched that Big Business and govt and military are liars and manipulators and there is a kind of Big Brother aspect to the world and society we live in? It's so obvious

I don't find it far-fetched that any of those people are liars or manipulators. It's been proven a number of times that some are. What we find far-fetched is the assumption that everyone who is involved in these fields is. That the Enron people were guilty of this was proven. That doesn't prove anyone else did so. It doesn't exclude it either. I don't draw conclusions without evidence.