HILLARY''S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT IN 2009

[movie zombie]

amen, AGBF, amen!

 

[rubydick]

Date: 4/8/2005 9:51:31 AM
Author: fire&ice
No, it amazes me at the ability for an American to have so many conspiracy theories.

What amazes me is that so many Americans cannot distinguish between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts.

This is gonna be a long one. I apologize in advance.

Regarding the former, I'd say the idea that the moon landings were faked is a perfect example. It can be reasonably proved wrong a dozen different ways.

As for the latter, we have many examples. Let's look at one.

JFK's assassination. He was allegedly killed by a single man (Oswald) who claimed he was a patsy right before he himself was gunned down by a member of the Dallas mob (Jack Ruby).

The FBI at the time was run by a man (J. Edgar Hoover) who denied the very existence of the Mafia for decades. Now what would make him do that? Could it be blackmail? Or was it that he was simply stupid? Which is more likely?

A commission was set up to investigate JFK's death. Heading it was the very man (Allen Dulles) who JFK had fired after the Bay of Pigs debacle. Gerald Ford was also on the panel (yes, that Gerald Ford; for those paying attention, please research the backgrounds of those on the 9/11 Commission).

To explain the unexplainable, a theory was concocted by the Warren Commission's junior counsel, Arlen Specter (yes, that Arlen Specter) that had a bullet changing direction in mid-air.

Here's some more fun. A Freedom of Information Act request in recent years turned up a memo where Hoover said he had briefed CIA agent George Bush on the progress of the JFK investigation (yes, that George Bush) just days after the assassination.

Now despite the links that I have provided (many of which reference official US government documents and investigations), you might regard all of the above as mere conspiracy theory. So I'll throw into the mix the salient fact that when JFK's brother was assured of the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 1968, he was also killed.

Before his death, RFK had actually asked Charles De Gaulle to help him investigate his brother's death, knowing that any US investigation would be tainted. The result of that study was eventually published in a book that was initially banned in the US. It's title is Farewell America. It is fantastic reading, and explains far better than any other volume why JFK was taken out. He had pissed off the wrong people (re: CIA/Cubans/Mafia/Texas Oilmen).

The knee-jerk reaction from skeptics regarding such conspiracies is always the same: "With so many players, it would be impossible to keep it secret." What they ignore is that keeping everyone in the dark is far less important than keeping the majority of the public in that state.

Among those who take the time to research JFK's assassination, there are few secrets left. We basically know who planned it, who sponsored it, who pulled the trigger and who profited from it. But as long as we are a small minority, that knowledge is useless. This is the power of propaganda, so clearly evidenced by Fire & Ice's statement regarding "conspiracy theories." It is a common view.

Since the death of the Pope has dominated the news of late (Popeapalooza, according to some), let me recommend a bit of cinematic greatness. Please view Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part III. It speaks volumes. Some might call it "conspiracy theory," but like all of Copolla's Godfather films, it is based in fact.

Unless common people take the time to research a subject, they will always fall prey to propaganda, no different than a skilled magician's parlor trick, where a rabbit is pulled from a hat. Today the American populace is in denial: they watch the rabbit emerge, but can't bring themselves to admit that it is a trick. For to admit that they have been tricked is to admit that they are fallible.

So they prefer to reside in a land where bullets change direction, where despite volumes of evidence to the contrary, they cannot believe their own eyes.

I will finish this too-long essay on a single note: a documentary record of JFK's death does exist. It was a home movie shot by a man standing nearby the motorcade as he was killed. This film clearly shows his death, it clearly shows him being hit from a bullet from the front, in agonizing detail, it shows his life being ended. As the bullet hits his skull, it fragments. And in those brief moments, it shows Jackie's frenzied attempts to retrieve the pieces of her husband's life.

What happened to this film? It was locked up for many years. We report, you decide: Why was it kept away from the public eye?

I do no fault anyone who dismisses "conspiracy theories." I understand. It's painful to admit thay you've been mislead. I experienced the same thing a number of years ago.

What I can say is that knowledge is freedom. When you arrive at the place that you can freely admit that you are not perfect, that you are merely human, that you can be swayed by propaganda, then you admit your humanity.

And at the same time, you are set free. Nobody knows it all. Not me, not you, not the Pope, not the Bible, not the Koran, not the Buddhist scriptures. That's when you become a true human.

 

[fire&ice]

Oh brother, It is now *I* who buys into "propaganda".

Edited to add: Oh that right, you speak only the truth. The truth of interpretation.

 

[MissAva]

I think the jokes was quite funny. I dont like her personally beucase I belive she nearly was able to ruin our health care system when her husband stayed in office. Or that she didnt buy the house in NY that allowed her to run for office but that it was a gift, or that she refers to NJ as a part of NY....perhaps a geography lesson would help her. I would not have problem with a women in office, but if we as a nation are going to take that step lets do it with a woman who has an iota of class, shall we?

 

[rubydick]

Date: 4/21/2005 12:16:47 PM
Author: fire&ice
Oh brother, It is now *I* who buys into 'propaganda'.

Edited to add: Oh that right, you speak only the truth. The truth of interpretation.

Sorry for the confusion. I certainly never meant to suggest that I have a lock on the truth. What I was trying to say was that it is all too easy to dismiss something as a "conspiracy theory."

Some conspiracy theories are real. Each needs to be evaluated on its individual merits, rather than throwing a subject into a "this is too strange so I will never believe it" trash can. This was my take on your comment in regard to my attempt to start a discussion on black-box voting.

What I was trying to suggest (and obviously not gently enough) is that one should approach a subject with an open mind, rather than dismissing something prior to doing the research.

I'll give you an example from my own experience. I've spent much of my adult life living in SE Asia, from roughly 1977-1992. This corresponds with the post-Vietnam War period. During my time in SE Asia, I thought I knew it all. I heard the stories of US GI's being held by the Vietnamese/Lao following 1975, and always dismissed them as conspiracy theories.

Then I read a book called "Kiss the Boys Goodbye." And I realized that I was wrong, that such stories could not be dismissed so simply. That there were motives that I had not previously considered. The author of that book was not a "conspiracy whacko," but a serious journalist who had researched the subject for several years. This book gave me an entirely different perspective on the question of whether or not Americans were held by the Vietnamese following 1975.

All of this is a long-winded way of suggesting that, with regard to black-box voting, you should do your own research. Don't take my word for it. Do your own due diligence. And after such study, if you return and say it's all a "conspiracy theory," then you'll get no argument from me. But if you have not done such research, then I stand by my original comment that the opinion you originally voiced regarding "conspiracy theories" is more a function of indoctrination than study.

I have been wrong on such quesions too many times to count, where a radical challenged my mainstream notions. And I was foreced into defending the indefensible. It usually took a bit of time before I could admit my errors.

So here we are. You apparently consider black-box voting to be a "conspiracy theory" on the order of fake moon landings. I'm willing to consider the possibility that you might be right. But I prefer to base my final decision on more than just faith (interpretation) alone. Thus I ask for substance to back up your opinion. I think it is a fair request. Hope you feel likewise. Hope I don't get a reply back saying something like: "You're an idiot; I really don't have time for this."

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/22/2005 1:17:23 AM
Author: Richard Hughes


Thus I ask for substance to back up your opinion. I think it is a fair request. Hope you feel likewise. Hope I don''t get a reply back saying something like: ''You''re an idiot; I really don''t have time for this.''

You''re an idiot & I don''t have time for this.

My mantra has always been - where does one get their information from & how does one process (interprete) it. I could find several articles/studies/etc that could support the moon landings as fiction. I''ve seen different people read the same information & come to completely different conclusions. I''ve been in commitee meetings where the minutes don''t come near what a person was saying.

I''m never quick to jump on any conspiracy theory band wagon. Often, a cigar is just that. I find Americans, in particular, NEED & CRAVE conspiracy. And, nothing better than a scandel w/ a scoundrel. It''s not that I don''t question things, motives & authority. I just don''t jump the gun that there is always an ulterior motive or it isn''t a "what you see is what you get".

That being said, our little tiny voting district used the black box. I found them very fast, easy to operate, and in my little world - accurate. My local voting tendencies are very different that my national politics. I usually see my vote in the results published in the paper. I saw my vote this time. I do find it disconcerting that no paper trail exists. But, I''m not going to elevate that to a conspiracy.

Just my take of things. I tend to gravitate towards the good.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/22/2005 10:54:50 AM
Author: fire&ice
I tend to gravitate towards the good.

You mean that you tend to gravitate towards what you perceive as good.

Deborah

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/24/2005 9:18:58 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 4/22/2005 10:54:50 AM
Author: fire&ice
I tend to gravitate towards the good.

You mean that you tend to gravitate towards what you perceive as good.

Deborah

You must need a conspiracy theory about what I said.

It''s quite simple. I tend to NOT believe negative things off the bat. HOW MUCH SIMPLER IS THAT? It''s not my perception. It''s a statement.

Geez, I''m done. Now a very simple sentence is elevated into something else. A cigar is just that.

 

[movie zombie]

richard hughes,

i just wanted to say i read your posts here and took the time to go to the link re the article you wrote re drugs and gems. i have known about most of this and share your believe. i find it amazing that more americans do not take the time to do independent reading and become informed regarding what is done in our name throughout the world. conspiracy? no, just the facts. i wish i could be as articulate as you when i discuss these things with other people.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2005 9:34:24 AM
Author: fire&ice
It''s quite simple. I tend to NOT believe negative things off the bat. HOW MUCH SIMPLER IS THAT? It''s not my perception. It''s a statement.

Well, in my opinion one should not believe *anything* "off the bat", i.e. without investigation. Why would positive "things" be any more true than negative ones?

I would be interested in your criteria for deciding what it "negative", and thus must be investigated, as opposed to what is "positive" and need not be.

Let''s face it: you don''t investigate anything that makes you happy. Like blind patriotism and organized religion.

If I praised the Pope, it would be OK (no investigation needed). If I praised an investigative journalist for "The New York Times" you would be screaming bloody murder and saying that "The New York Times" was "liberal" (bloody untrue) and therefore biased (also untrue)!

Sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar.


Deborah

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I was driving from LA to SF in 1991.

Left Berkley - an anti war student protest - many thousands of protestors marching north - we past them for maybe 2 or 3 miles. On 1 bridge there were a dozen drunken dirty old Vietnam vets abusing the protestors.
that night on the TV news, and papaers next morning "Vietnam Veterans March to Support War Efforts - Attacked by Studnets"

Next day we visited Hearst Castle

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/24/2005 4:44:10 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 4/24/2005 9:34:24 AM
Author: fire&ice
It''s quite simple. I tend to NOT believe negative things off the bat. HOW MUCH SIMPLER IS THAT? It''s not my perception. It''s a statement.

I would be interested in your criteria for deciding what it ''negative'', and thus must be investigated, as opposed to what is ''positive'' and need not be.

Let''s face it: you don''t investigate anything that makes you happy. Like blind patriotism and organized religion.

Deborah

Positive - believing the good in people rather than focusing on the bad. Gosh, I thought that was a strength - i.e. positive. Littering - bad. As bad - bitching about it. Good - cleaning the road - doing something about it instead of just bitching.

Quite arrogant of you to *assume* that I don''t investigate anything that makes me happy. Blind patriotism & organized religion make me happy? Again, quite arrogant since you know NOTHING about me on those issues. You have absolutley NO idea who I am or what I am about. Please don''t rebute with the arrogance that you can.

What I find negative - arrogance. Arrogance to ASSUME you know the TRUTH. Arrogance to BELIEVE it.

BTW, up until recently we received the NYTimes at our other house. How do you know how I feel about the NY Times? Oh, wait - you have me so figured out. That''s right sometimes a cigar is not a cigar.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/24/2005 5:43:48 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I was driving from LA to SF in 1991.

Left Berkley - an anti war student protest - many thousands of protestors marching north - we past them for maybe 2 or 3 miles. On 1 bridge there were a dozen drunken dirty old Vietnam vets abusing the protestors.
that night on the TV news, and papaers next morning ''Vietnam Veterans March to Support War Efforts - Attacked by Studnets''

Next day we visited Hearst Castle

Precisely Garry. I have attended many media events. I''ve yet to see an accurate report. We don''t talk to the press. Funny though, one time they quoted us. Go figure.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2005 6

2:23 PM
Author: fire&ice
Positive - believing the good in people rather than focusing on the bad. Gosh, I thought that was a strength - i.e. positive. Littering - bad. As bad - bitching about it. Good - cleaning the road - doing something about it instead of just bitching.

Oh...now I get it! Working for peace: good. Going to war: bad.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/24/2005 6

2:23 PM
Author: fire&ice
Quite arrogant of you to *assume* that I don''t investigate anything that makes me happy.

Gee, I guess you don''t have a corner on arrogance, after all.

Deb

 

[rubydick]

Date: 4/24/2005 2:37:38 PM
Author: movie zombie
richard hughes,


i just wanted to say i read your posts here and took the time to go to the link re the article you wrote re drugs and gems.   i have known about most of this and share your believe.  i find it amazing that more americans do not take the time to do independent reading and become informed regarding what is done in our name throughout the world.  conspiracy?  no, just the facts.  i wish i could be as articulate as you when i discuss these things with other people.


peace, movie zombie

Many thanks for the kind words. And thanks for taking the time to read my article,
"Conspiracy Theory." It's one of the strongest pieces I have penned, precisely because much of it is based on first-hand experience and information. I spoke with the people who confirmed my worst fears.

Like Fire&Ice, I prefer to think good about people until proven otherwise. Our current government falls into the "proven otherwise" category.

I take heart from the fact that Fire&Ice finds it "disconcerting" that there is no paper trail with our current black-box voting machines. And I would gently suggest that there is only one good reason why these machines have absolutely no audit trail. So the vote can be fixed. I stand ready to hear reasons to the contrary.

Perhaps some would like to read what Avi Rubin, a computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University has to say.

Few Americans know the history of the companies that make most of the machines. One (ES&S) was formerly headed by Chuck Hagel, whose own machines were used to engineer his upset election to the Senate. Here's the whole study:

Black Box Backlash

The president of Diebold (the other big company making these machines), Wally O'Dell, actually promised he would deliver Ohio to Bush.

And the two companies are actually controlled by two brothers.

For those who find reading difficult, I give you this link, where you can watch a short video with a Diebold spokesman trying to explain that one away:

Votergate

You won't have to worry about the source. The major players do an excellent job of hanging themselves.

I guarantee that those who take the time to read the whole story or watch the video will find the lack of a voting paper trail just as "disconcerting" as the lack of a trail to WMDs in Iraq. Interestingly enough, if you follow the former trail, you end up at the latter.

Finally, I'll end again with the same plea. Don't just accept. Research, research, research. Then make up your mind. Or as they say on Faux News: "We report, you decide." Which is a total cop-out. How about: "Voters research, then they decide."

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/25/2005 10

6:18 PM
Author: Richard Hughes



I take heart from the fact that Fire&Ice finds it ''disconcerting'' that there is no paper trail with our current black-box voting machines. And I would gently suggest that there is only one good reason why these machines have absolutely no audit trail. So the vote can be fixed. I stand ready to hear reasons to the contrary.

It''s rather late as I must get to my regular chores. Admittedly, I have not read the links; so, perhaps my question is redundant. But, what audit trail exists? I get very confused because I don''t quite understand cyber space. My bank has assured me that they have records of my checks yet there is no paper trail that will exist. I''m unsure as to what extent there is no audit trail. Paper trails is probably a antiquated word to use as they literally exist less and less. Are they electonically housed? What "trail'' would be effective & tamper resisitent?

But, I''ve thought about a possible reason for NOT having "paper trail". When I go to vote, I am number 105 (I''m the 105th person to vote). They write that number next to my name. If such detailed trail exists, they (call them big brother

) would know exactly how I voted. That''s pretty scary. Honestly, what "paper trail" could be in effect that couldn''t be tampered with. Wouldn''t electronical transfer create more opportunity?

Prior to the little black box (which as I stated DID count my vote), we used the BIG curtain voting machine. What kind of paper trail does that have? Was I in the same exposure?

If you have read some of my posts, hubby''s family *was* deeply involved in politics. Without giving out too much detail (I like to be anonomous over the net), overseaing elections was something that was near and dear to the family. It''s always been overwrought with fraud. The tales are pretty frightening. I can only say that those BIG curtain box voting machines were a blessing. An officer was assigned to each precint and the machine padlocked until they could be collected. So, I wasn''t pleased when our precint replaced them. As stated, I did find the new little boxes to be easy & reliable.

 

[tanuki]

I look at it this way.

Have you ever seen the news reports of the programmer who was fixing the computerized slot machines in Vegas?

He worked for one of the companies that made and programmed slot machines. By manipulating the code just slightly (a manipulation buried in thousands and thousands of lines of code) he could make the slot machine pay out if you played certain coins in a particular sequence.

Since he was employed by the Nevada gaming commission to oversee the propriety of the slot machines he couldn''t play them himself (he wasn''t allowed to gamble in a casino) but by getting a partner to go in and play the machine for him for a split the guy was able to have a nice extra income for years.

He finally got caught when the partner slipped up by winning a big Keno jackpot and drawing a lot of attention to himself. The jackpot that time was so big he had to give ID for the IRS and the "friend" handed them a fake ID with a name different than the one he was using. If he had pulled the correct ID out of his wallet they would still be bringing in the money.

The money this guy won in Vegas is small potatoes compared to the money that potentially changes hands based on the outcome in an election.

We use electronic voting in my state and there is no paper trail.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/27/2005 7:27:27 AM
Author: tanuki
I look at it this way.

Have you ever seen the news reports of the programmer who was fixing the computerized slot machines in Vegas?

He worked for one of the companies that made and programmed slot machines. By manipulating the code just slightly (a manipulation buried in thousands and thousands of lines of code) he could make the slot machine pay out if you played certain coins in a particular sequence.

Since he was employed by the Nevada gaming commission to oversee the propriety of the slot machines he couldn''t play them himself (he wasn''t allowed to gamble in a casino) but by getting a partner to go in and play the machine for him for a split the guy was able to have a nice extra income for years.

He finally got caught when the partner slipped up by winning a big Keno jackpot and drawing a lot of attention to himself. The jackpot that time was so big he had to give ID for the IRS and the ''friend'' handed them a fake ID with a name different than the one he was using. If he had pulled the correct ID out of his wallet they would still be bringing in the money.

The money this guy won in Vegas is small potatoes compared to the money that potentially changes hands based on the outcome in an election.

We use electronic voting in my state and there is no paper trail.

Yes, but who''s to say who''s tampering with whom. I know with the family situation it was equal opportunity fraud. And that was with PAPER ballots. Couldn''t get much more of a PAPER trail.

And, by paper trail - what do you mean? And, if such paper trail would exist - would it be an opportunity for more fraud?

 

[tanuki]

The only way I could see doing it is to actually keep score ON the machine itself and in front of the person voting.

The machine has a counter that records the vote on that particular machine in real time as you vote.

It shows up just above the voting screen like on a pinball machine or video game.

As you vote you see the number go up by one each for the candidate you voted for.

That way you can see if the vote being recorded is the person you actually just voted for.

You could then keep a camera on the screen of each machine to provide the record and make sure the screen matches the report the machine gives to the total votes being counted for the precinct.

 

[rubydick]

Regrettably, there is no perfect system of voting. Every system has the potential for fraud. In the 2000 election, Bush took Florida with the help of his brother Jeb, who purged the voter lists of tens of thousands of voters likely to vote for Gore (black residents of Florida), a list provided by a company (Choicepoint) that was based in his own state of Texas. In 2004, he took Ohio with the help of Kenneth Blackwell by the simple trick of not giving enough voting machines to heavily Democratic districts.

However, and this is the kicker, the traditional system of voting, where one drops a ballot into a box and that ballot is then counted by hand, has probably the least potential for fraud, because to change a significant number of votes requires a significant number of people in on the conspiracy. Black-box voting is so frightening because there is no audit trail and a small number of individuals can change a large number of votes so easily.

The system of voting currently used in the US is a textbook example of how not to conduct an election. When we choose a new President, we do so on the same day that we also choose senators and representatives, along with voting on sometimes dozens of other questions. Many other democracies devote a single, separate election to the choice of their supreme leader. No chance for confusion that way.

What is even more shocking is that, by the use of black-box voting machines, we have actually privatized the very process by which we choose our leader. Is there no role at all left for government?

I would submit that the conduct of elections, and the instruments used to conduct them, should be dealt with by a separate agency. Under no circumstances should a private company be manufacturing the machines using proprietary software.

So what is a paper trail? A paper trail can easily be created by black-box machines (our ATMs do it every single day). When you finalize your vote, it prints out a piece of paper showing clearly who you voted for. You check the paper, and when you agree it is correct, you finalize your vote. That vote gets tallied electronically. You then deposit the paper into a sealed box. Voila, you have an audit trail.

Now, as you exit the polling booth, you have exit pollers. They will approach a sampling of voters and collect exit polling data. If that data is ever off by more than a few tenths of a percent, an automatic audit is triggered. The boxes with the voter receipts are opened and hand counted in the presence of representatives from both parties.

The exit polls from the 2004 election flipped almost completely. Exit polls showed Kerry winning in key states, but the actual tallies had him losing by almost identical margins.

Is this system perfect? Of course not. There is no perfect system. But it is far far better than what we have today.

I will leave you with this. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty was a high-ranking Air Force officer who wrote two extremely important books, along with a number of spectacular articles. He was the man played by Donald Sutherland in the movie JFK. Much of his work is thankfully preserved on the web.

Prouty was a direct witness to many of the most important events of the last century. He was there in Cairo and Teheran during World War II, he was on one of the first planes that landed in Japan following the atom bombs. He was involved in the events in the Philippines (where the US manufactured a fake insurgency to take out a government that had decided not to buy American), he was involved in the events in Laos, and later Vietnam. He was there during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and was there when JFK signed the order drawing back US troops in Vietnam (an order that was immediately reversed following JFK’s assassination). As an Air Force officer working as a liason to the CIA, he was not covered by the secrecy oaths that govern Agency employees. Which is why he was able to write so freely about what he had seen in his service at the highest levels of government.

All this is a way of saying that Prouty was “well connected.” First editions of his first book, “The Secret Team” generally go for $250 and up.

During the latter part of his life, Prouty discussed the assassination of JFK and conspiracy theories in general. He said:

“A conspiracy is a plan, usually an evil or unlawful plan. It involves two or more people. The denial of the fact of a conspiracy, i.e. the cover story, is like a bubble. Once any part of it is proved to be false, it bursts and the cover story is exposed. Like a balloon, it is not necessary to burst a cover story with ten or fifteen pins. It collapses with only one bit of circumstantial evidence that is undeniable.”

And so I come back to my original statement. The lack of any audit trail with black-box voting machines is prime facie evidence of a conspiracy to fix elections. This fact bursts the bubble of the cover story.

So who is doing the fixin''? Examine the backgrounds of the companies that make the machines and you''ll find your answer.

Here''s an idea for Fire&Ice: divorce yourself from the politics of the question. Just look upon it as a puzzle in search of a solution.

You''ve had time to make over 5000 posts to these forums. Take a little time to research this puzzle:

Why would any voting system without an audit trail be used?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/27/2005 11:36:18 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
However, and this is the kicker, the traditional system of voting, where one drops a ballot into a box and that ballot is then counted by hand, has probably the least potential for fraud, because to change a significant number of votes requires a significant number of people in on the conspiracy. Black-box voting is so frightening because there is no audit trail and a small number of individuals can change a large number of votes so easily.

I''d say trust me - but somehow I doubt you will. But - anyway - I talked to my husband last night. The "family" has said *unequivocally* that the paper ballots were WROUGHT with fraud. Elections can be decided by a small margin. Those precincts that voted by paper ballot were visited first - with armed guard and state police excorts. Election night was a night a scary night for the family.

I asked the question *how* an audit trail can exist. Thank you Tanuki for giving one way. Makes sense - but wouldn''t that give you premature information about who is leading the election? Perhaps I don''t understand enough about electronics/cyber space to know; but, a audit trail seems problematic.

5000 posts in nearly three years. I enjoy diamonds way more than I enjoy politics. Also, you seem to think that because I don''t come to your conclusions that I haven''t examined the questions. Maybe I just reached a different conclusion.

As for the JFK thing, it''s not an uncommon thought that Chicago was delivered to JFK. It''s not an uncommon thought that "that" election was bought. As far as his assassination, to me - it''s less of a conspiracy theory and more of a landmine FULL of theories as to who *really* killed JFK. At the end of the day, you have to pick one. Hubby firmly believes it was LBJ. Don''t get him started. He has all his ducks in a row.

As far as conspiracy theories on a grand scale, logic would dictate that whenever you have more than one person in on the conspiracy, someone''s gonna talk. It''s human nature. That is why some believe that the Clinton''s murdered - gosh can''t remember his name - the one who knew too much about whitewater.

Sure with any CT (consp. theory), you look to "who has the most to gain". But, with an election - I say EVERYONE. What about the women who was PAYING democrats to vote.

My conclusion - which is just my opinion. Kerry lost the election for two reasons. One, with all the hype, the youth DIDN"T turn out. And, having lived in a state with more intimate knowledge of Edwards & his subsequent support (or severe lack thereof), I think Edwards was a liability. The guy couldn''t deliver his own district let alone his state.

You believe it was election fraud. I don''t.

 

[fire&ice]

I concur about exit polls. Historically, they have been useless. I never answer them. The best one yet - we have supported a local candidate with our pocketbook and attend his fund raising functions. The democrats must have us on their list from this as we are both registered inde. The person asked me to go vote as they didn''t have a record of me voting. Indeed, I had voted and said so. He just said "Oh, then thank you for your support." HUH? As I hung up, I thought - that''s a leap of faith.

I mentioned this before. We had a poll watcher at our precint. Hubby raised a BIG stink. My 6''2" 200lb hubby found this middle aged red wearing "soccer mom" intimidating. The voter volunteers said that she had every right to be where she was - she was privy to your address, etc. I was unsure why she was there. It made me uncomfortable.

Fey - how do you propose that the little black boxes have an audit trail that would be effective yet relatively tamper proof - without infringing on my right to secret ballot? I''m asking an honest question; as, my head can''t come up with something. Admittedly, I am computer challenged.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 4/28/2005 10:21:51 AM
Author: fire&ice

I''d say trust me - but somehow I doubt you will.  But - anyway - I talked to my husband last night.  The ''family'' has said *unequivocally* that the paper ballots were WROUGHT with fraud.  Elections can be decided by a small margin.  Those precincts that voted by paper ballot were visited first - with armed guard and state police excorts.  Election night was a night a scary night for the family.

I asked the question *how* an audit trail can exist.  Thank you Tanuki for giving one way.  Makes sense - but wouldn''t that give you premature information about who is leading the election?  Perhaps I don''t understand enough about electronics/cyber space to know; but, a audit trail seems problematic.

5000 posts in nearly three years. I enjoy diamonds way more than I enjoy politics.  Also, you seem to think that because I don''t come to your conclusions that I haven''t examined the questions.  Maybe I just reached a different conclusion.

As for the JFK thing, it''s not an uncommon thought that Chicago was delivered to JFK.  It''s not an uncommon thought that ''that'' election was bought.  As far as his assassination, to me - it''s less of a conspiracy theory and more of a landmine FULL of theories as to who *really* killed JFK.  At the end of the day, you have to pick one.  Hubby firmly believes it was LBJ.  Don''t get him started.  He has all his ducks in a row. 

As for as conspiracy theories on a grand scale, logic would dictate that whenever you have more than one person in on the conspiracy, someone''s gonna talk.  It''s human nature.  That is why some believe that the Clinton''s murdered - gosh can''t remember his name - the one who knew too much about whitewater. 

Sure with any CT (consp. theory), you look to ''who has the most to gain''.  But, with an election - I say EVERYONE.  What about the women who was PAYING democrats to vote. 

My conclusion - which is just my opinion.  Kerry lost the election for two reasons.  One, with all the hype, the youth DIDN''T turn out.  And, having lived in a state with more intimate knowledge of Edwards & his subsequent support (or severe lack thereof), I think Edwards was a liability.  The guy couldn''t deliver his own district let alone his state. 

You believe it was election fraud.  I don''t. 

It is entirely possible to have an audit trail and still have anonymous voting. Please re-read my post of how this could take place. One''s name is on no ballot.

As for the 2000 election, I would provide you with the following link, one which tells the story of a computer programmer who was asked and did write vote flipping software in Florida. Click on the dog to read the whole piece:

White House link to clandestine vote switching software

And for some amazing voting facts, this is a good one:

20 amazing facts about voting in the USA

There appears to be some serious misunderstandings about exit polls, both by yourself and Feydakin. Exit polls are entirely different from any other type of polling, in that they take place immediately after an event. Thus they represent eyewitness accounts, not some hypothetical about what mighta, coulda, shoulda...

So I''ll give you a couple links that discusses some of the issues:

Exit poll problems: A reply to Russ Baker

A corrupted election

 

[tanuki]

I had envisioned my voting machine with a score counter on top (like a pinball machine) and the entire thing contained within the curtained voting booth.

So it''s true you would be able to see how the vote was going on that particular machine at the time you were already in there voting. My county has a tremendous number of polling places and machines - you can''t drive over a mile or two on election day without passing a polling place. So the total you saw wouldn''t be more than a small percentage of the total votes.

I don''t really expect people to change their vote at that juncture (standing there in front of the machine logged in and ready to push the button) - the people who saw the candidate they supported was behind would probably want to continue to vote for them and people who maybe would not have come down to the polls to vote because it was a landslide for their candidate are already in there to vote before they see how far ahead he is.

So the next question is would the voters or the poll workers be able to tell an exit poller how their precinct was going before the election was over? Would that information be used on election day to bring vans of party workers in to try to get out the vote. That is probably being done anyway just from the exit polls. The parties already know from polls taken all through the campaign where they are going to need to focus their efforts to get out the vote.

The problem I''ve seen is that it is next to impossible to keep exit poll information from getting out to the general public over the internet. Whether it''s true or not Matt Drudge has some information about the exit poll numbers up by the middle of the afternoon on election day. I vote on the east coast so this really doesn''t do much to change my mind. The west coast voters aren''t in the dark about how the election is going and they haven''t been since the exit poll was invented.

Could we make exit polling illegal? People would still post stuff on the internet whether it was true or not.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/3/2005 11:28:33 PM
Author: Feydakin
Excapt I know a lot of people that refuse to answer those polls because it''s none of their damned business how I voted.. And most of the people that refuse to answer are conservatives.. So, if conservatives refuse to answer, and liberals do answer, wouldn''t that skew the polls???

Logic would dictate that. Exit polls aren''t rocket science to understand. I used to answer the polls. Now, it''s none of their business. It''s why we have a private ballot.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 5/3/2005 11:28:33 PM
Author: Feydakin
Excapt I know a lot of people that refuse to answer those polls because it''s none of their damned business how I voted.. And most of the people that refuse to answer are conservatives.. So, if conservatives refuse to answer, and liberals do answer, wouldn''t that skew the polls???

"And most of the people that refuse to answer are conservatives..."

Huh?

Who said this? Based on what?

Steve, please support what you say. Provide us references for this statement. Give us just a taste, any little factoid peg upon which to hang that bald-faced claim. Was it that dope-addled Rush Limbaugh who said it? Or that paragon of moral values, Bill "I''d rather be in Vegas" Bennett? How about that Republican fundraiser Finklestein who just married his gay lover? Or did you read about it on Talon News, in a report filed by male hooker Jeff Gannon?

No? Then was it something that the closet queer Matt Drudge posted? No? How about Arnie''s campaign manager, David Drier, who enjoys the tango, but prefers the butter to be applied by Brando rather than Maria Schneider? Did you hear it from him?

No? Perhaps it was something that Bill O''Reilly whispered to the woman he worked with, before he paid her off for sexual harrassment. No doubt she leaked the story, right?

While we''re at it, please let me know how the times have changed. These exit polls have been accurate for decades.

So what suddenly changed conservatives minds over the past few years? So why have they suddenly decided to stop talking to exit pollers, while liberals feel the need to blab?

And why did the Bush Administration cite exit polls as evidence of electoral fraud in the recent elections in the Ukraine, if they are so inaccurate?

Please, discuss.

I haven''t bothered to include my usual links. It''s clear that few read them. For anybody who wants me to back up what I say, I stand at the ready.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/7/2005 2

6:58 AM

While we''re at it, please let me know how the times have changed. These exit polls have been accurate for decades.

No they haven''t been. And, the prolification has well - MULTIPLIED. Our "exit" polls actually broke down who voted for whom by religion/income bracket/gender/race/past voting practices/ad nauseum. So, it''s none of your business who I voted for & now you want to know my religion?

It''s the media that''s out of control. A "sampling" now means 5 people.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/7/2005 2

6:58 AM
Author: Richard Hughes
but prefers the butter to be applied by Brando rather than Maria Schneider?

Oh, good Lord, are we going back to this topic? Ice kept talking about bending people over the counter years ago and I had to go take a cold shower. Have mercy on some of us who walk on the wild side, so to speak .

Deb

 

[movie zombie]

ROFLOL, deb!!!

believe it was none other than mr kissinger who when asked why such an ugly man as himself could get so many gorgeous chicks and it went something along the lines of ''power/politics is the greatest of aphrodisiacs....

peace, movie zombie

ps richard, i note that you are still the only one providing links for resource verification purposes.