PDA

View Full Version : The REPUBLICANS WILL STEAL THE ELECTION... AGAIN!!!



Balloonknot
7th September 04, 02:40 PM
Here's a short article folks which raises great concerns I believe!! This has got to be stopped! Damn these Bush people will do ANYTHING to win this election. They might even KILL! Oh, wait a minute, they already have killed our soldiers and thousands of Iraqi's for nothing. My mistake there. I guess it's more proper to say the BUSH administration will even KILL to win the upcoming election. It's extremely troubling to stand by and watch all the criminal activity going on in this world, all in the name of Bush and his corporate henchmen!! Read on.


The Pentagon's Troubling Role
by The New York Times
August 31, 2004

Barely two months before the presidential vote, Missouri's secretary of state has suddenly announced that he will allow military voters from his state - one of the most pivotal in the election - to e-mail ballots from combat zones to the Defense Department. E-mail is far too insecure to be used for voting. Missouri and North Dakota, which announced a similar rule yesterday, should rescind these orders right away. Missouri's action also sheds light on the Defense Department's role in administering federal elections, a troubling situation that needs far more scrutiny.

The Missouri secretary of state, Matt Blunt, decided last week that military voters in combat zones will be able to e-mail their ballots to the Pentagon, which will then send them to local Missouri elections offices to be counted. This system, which has not been used before, is rife with security problems, including the possibility of hacking the e-mailed ballots, which will not be encrypted. Earlier this year the Defense Department scrapped a pilot program to allow the military to vote over the Internet, after concluding that it could not "assure the legitimacy of votes" cast online.

There is more cause for concern after the ballots arrive at the Pentagon. E-mail voters will be required to sign a release acknowledging that their votes may not be kept secret. When the people handling ballots know who they are cast for, it is not hard to imagine that ballots for disfavored candidates could accidentally be "lost." And because the e-mailed ballots arrive as computer documents, it is possible to cut off the voter's digitized signature, attach it to a ballot supporting another candidate, and send that ballot on to the state to be counted.

It is unclear how good the protections are to guard against tampering. The e-mailed ballots will be handled by a contractor, Omega Technologies, hired for this purpose, at the company's offices and without the election observers who are present at normal polling places.

E-mail voting by military personnel also opens the door to coercion. Many soldiers may have to vote on computers in places where their commanding officers may be present. They may also be reluctant to vote their conscience if they know that the Defense Department could be reading their ballots.

The Missouri and North Dakota announcements call attention to the larger issue of why the Pentagon is directly handling so many presidential ballots. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, a unit of the Defense Department, is charged with helping not only military voters, but all eligible voters overseas, a total of about six million people. But it is a fundamental aspect of the American election system that handling and counting of votes is supposed to occur at the local level. The Defense Department should stop handling actual ballots, and instead help military and other overseas voters send them directly to local elections officials.

In the 1960 election, there was widespread skepticism when Mayor Richard Daley waited until hours after the polls closed to release the Chicago vote, and it turned out to be almost precisely what was needed to put Illinois in the Democratic column. It invites cynicism about our democracy to operate a system in which employees who answer to the secretary of defense could control the margin of victory in a close presidential election.

KhorneliusPraxx
7th September 04, 02:53 PM
GIVE IT A REST.
WE GET IT, YOU HATE BUSH.
KERRY ISN'T GOING TO WIN NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF THIS MICHAEL MOORE-ESQUE BULLSHIT YOU GUYS POST. I JUST CAN'T WAIT UNTIL FOUR YEARS FROM NOW WHEN YOU GUYS GO APE SHIT AGAIN AND ACTUALLY TRY TO TELL US THAT THAT SOCIALIST CUNT HILLARY WILL MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN RUDY. HA.

Stick
7th September 04, 02:57 PM
She wouldn't make a better president than Rudy, but she would make a better pesident than Bush.

Chupacabra
7th September 04, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by KhorneliusPraxx
GIVE IT A REST.
WE GET IT, YOU HATE BUSH.
KERRY ISN'T GOING TO WIN NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF THIS MICHAEL MOORE-ESQUE BULLSHIT YOU GUYS POST. I JUST CAN'T WAIT UNTIL FOUR YEARS FROM NOW WHEN YOU GUYS GO APE SHIT AGAIN AND ACTUALLY TRY TO TELL US THAT THAT SOCIALIST CUNT HILLARY WILL MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN RUDY. HA.

AAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA H AH AHAHAHA H AH AH AH

CaptShady
7th September 04, 02:57 PM
I don't see how the article infers that Bush will "kill" to win, or how this will sway vote in Bush's favor.

Leodom
7th September 04, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
She wouldn't make a better president than Rudy, but she would make a better pesident than Bush.

I think she makes a better Bush than President.

Stick
7th September 04, 03:02 PM
Nice, have to give you that one. She could probably suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

Balloonknot
7th September 04, 03:06 PM
Rudy? Rudy is a fukkin joke!! If you believe Rudy you should get your head examined!! I say FUKK Rudy!! He's as crooked and dishonest as the rest of the Bush criminal squad.

KhorneliusPraxx
7th September 04, 03:34 PM
Wait, I just realized that your location was Boston.
Are you Ted Kennedy? Go ahead, admit it if you are.
I'd like to here that "...Dark and Murky Water..." speech of yours again.

Balloonknot
7th September 04, 03:37 PM
Whateva Praxx. Rudy G is so full of shite it's coming out of his ears. Do you actually believe him when he said, "during the 9/11 attack, I grabbed {forget who?} arm and said Thank God George Bush is our president!" - What a bunch of partisan bullshit. Rudy would sell his mother to further his career.

KhorneliusPraxx
7th September 04, 03:40 PM
Beings that Al Gore almost won, I said the same thing.

Leodom
7th September 04, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
Rudy would sell his mother to further his career.

For someone who calls Republicans "hate mongers" That sure is a hateful statement.

Hypocrite!

Chupacabra
7th September 04, 03:45 PM
Whateva Praxx.

how old is balloonknot?

Dejavu
7th September 04, 06:23 PM
This is what I know about Khornelius Praxx and Balloonknot.

From past experience, I know KhorneliusPraxx is quite intelligent, though he has an "assertive" way of posting.

Balloonknot hates Bush. A lot.

But that doesn't answer your question, does it?

TheManchu
7th September 04, 06:29 PM
For the record, Bush exaggerated claims of WMD and uses a school program that he purposefully underfunded as a success story even as it failed, solely on the basis that it has a catchy name.

In addition, the main act that his reelection bid hinges on is actually Dick Cheney's(and other's) idea, not Bush's. Which means Bush is pretty useless except as a figurehead for His Cheneyness, who cannot pass laws on his own.

[stock GOPism] focus and slander! focus and slander![/stock GOPism]

Wounded Ronin
7th September 04, 06:41 PM
I'd prefer Rudy OR Hillary OR even Ralph Nader over Bush.

Most candidates, democrat or republican, are lame. But Bush is a flaming disaster of stupidity. I don't care WHO gets elected, as long as that person isn't Bush.

Leodom
7th September 04, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by TheManchu
For the record, Bush exaggerated claims of WMD and uses a school program that he purposefully underfunded as a success story even as it failed, solely on the basis that it has a catchy name.

In addition, the main act that his reelection bid hinges on is actually Dick Cheney's(and other's) idea, not Bush's. Which means Bush is pretty useless except as a figurehead for His Cheneyness, who cannot pass laws on his own.

[stock GOPism] focus and slander! focus and slander![/stock GOPism]

How can the President "purposely underfund" anything. ALL spending bills originate in the Congress. Did Bush threaten to veto the bill if they gave schools too much money? I don't think so. Bush pressed for INCREASED spending to schools. That's been one of the two problems I've seen with the current administration and Congressional leadership. Not only do they pass Republican spending priorities, they also allow passage of Democrat spending priorities thereby increasing government spending and the deficit.

The other problem was the signing of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation. I'm sure Bush signed it for purely political reasons thinking that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. In which case Bush could tell the supporters of the legislation "Well, I signed it, it's not my fault it was found unconstitutional"


In truth, Cheney can actually vote on legislation (to break ties) Bush cannot.

TheManchu
7th September 04, 07:54 PM
Ha! You lose! Don't you know the only way to lose against the stock GOP slander and run tactic is to actually answer it? To which I only need to reply:

What a typical answer. Just what I'd expect from a supporter of a spoiled child of priveledge from a party who spends their entire convention showing nothing but hate for the opposition! Passing the buck on our children's education is just another day in the party!

Now, if Kerry would get on the ball and figure this out, Bush would be in some trouble, since people only care about their jobs and safety today, and any argument Bush can make regarding either is easily put in doubt.

And unencrypted voting with open access to the votes is so not caring about our soldiers.

Leodom
7th September 04, 08:03 PM
???

Slander and Run? Who did I slander and where did I run?

Would calling our president a "spoiled child of privilege", or calling the Republican convention "nothing but hate for the opposition", or accusing someone of "passing the buck on education" be considered slander?

Please, quote my slander back to me. I missed it.

I noticed that you completely ignored the small legislative truism in my post and immediately attacked me because I'm a Republican. Can you say "projection"

TheManchu
7th September 04, 08:12 PM
I wasn't making a personal attack on you. I'm simply adopting GOP procedures for the hell of it. Don't take it so personally.

And "ignoring the legislative truism" was actually just another aspect of the GOP program. There is no need to get into discourse with you when I can make you take it personally and act hurt, which makes you seem weak.

Which, of course, is just like Bush's stance on the Al Queda. Weak.

Leodom
7th September 04, 08:23 PM
Let me see if I can properly interpret your statements.

You are intellectually bankrupt and your idea of intelligent discourse is accusing the other party of something and then laughing at them as they prove your lack of intelligence.

You give yourself way too much credit for a faceless internet dweeb.

Dochter
7th September 04, 08:53 PM
...irony

KhorneliusPraxx
8th September 04, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by TheManchu
What a typical answer. Just what I'd expect from a supporter of a spoiled child of priveledge from a party who spends their entire convention showing nothing but hate for the opposition!

Ha ha ha, I love when people who support Kerry, the richest man in the universe :) call George Bush a spoiled child of priveledge. Ha. As for the convention, I heard hope, hope for the U.S.A., hope for all americans, hope for a better tommorow. I did hear hate, justifiable hate, shared by most of us, for the fuckers that attacked the U.S. Contrast those speeches to the ones at the Dem. convention. Speeches filled with their patented divisive, us vs.them, 2 americas bullshit. "They hate you because you're black, they hate you because you're female, they hate you because you're gay, they hate you because you don't have as much money as they do and they want to make sure you never get it." Give me a fucking break.


Originally posted by TheManchu
Passing the buck on our children's education is just another day in the party!

There shouldn't even be a Dept. of Education. Education is the States responsibility. The first half of the Presidents speech made me sick. As stated in other threads I am not a Republican, I'm anti-democrat!


Originally posted by TheManchu
Now, if Kerry would get on the ball and figure this out, Bush would be in some trouble, since people only care about their jobs and safety today, and any argument Bush can make regarding either is easily put in doubt.

1. Economy! George W. Bush did not fly planes into the World Trade Center! George W. Bush did not "Cook the Books" for multiple billion-dollor corporations that report false earning reports for the previous eight years thus creating a phoney "good" economy during the Clinton years that was based on lies.
Why do you think that this one man is soley responsible for all of these other actions set in motion way before he ever started running for office. It's amazing that things are as good as they are after everything we've been through.
2. Safety??!! If your saying that John Kerry would be a better president when it come to National Security, than I can't even debate you, you're to far gone.


Originally posted by TheManchu
And unencrypted voting with open access to the votes is so not caring about our soldiers.

"hanging chads ruined the election"
"antiquated punch cards are too hard to use"
"butterfly ballots confuse old people"
"we need, no demand, computerized voting"

*4 years later*
"What are the repulicans trying to pull with this new fangled compurized voting. I think it's a plot. They're forcing it on us in an attempt to 'steal' the election, again.":rolleyes:

TheManchu
8th September 04, 08:19 AM
Yes, again you take the statements seriously and personally, frothing at the mouth, just as the present admin frothed at the prospect of getting all that oil from Iraq under the guise of "making them free", just like the Phillipines, oh wait, the democracy we formed in the Phillipines was a corrupt regime only intended to fulfill our interests, and it was the Phillipine people themselves who reformed it, not us, oh well, that's the neo-conservative model for you- swipe and abandon, just like Iraq under daddy Bush!

Now leave me be, or I will Karl Rove you a second time.

CaptShady
8th September 04, 08:21 AM
Typically, Americans don't trust democrats when it comes to war, since they're the "anti war party". If Kerry's going to win, he has to do more than run on the "at least I'm not Bush" platform. It's time for campaign promises. If he's going to criticize the direction of this war, he has to flat out say what HIS plan WILL BE, not just "Bush is doing it wrong". Since the war is the major (sometimes it seems like the sole) point for this election, comparatively Bush has experience, and Kerry's Vietnam record doesn't mean shit. Kerry := 4 months in the shit; Bush 2 years collectively leading the U.S. into battle. Kerry's hurt himself saying he's "anti war" when people are concerned about future terrorist attacks. His flip flopping on this issue is doing damage to him too.

Leodom
8th September 04, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by TheManchu
Yes, again you take the statements seriously and personally, frothing at the mouth, just as the present admin frothed at the prospect of getting all that oil from Iraq under the guise of "making them free", just like the Phillipines, oh wait, the democracy we formed in the Phillipines was a corrupt regime only intended to fulfill our interests, and it was the Phillipine people themselves who reformed it, not us, oh well, that's the neo-conservative model for you- swipe and abandon, just like Iraq under daddy Bush!

Now leave me be, or I will Karl Rove you a second time.

:rolleyes:

you sound like the french guys in monty pythons "the holy grail" "now leave, or I will taunt you again!"

TheManchu
8th September 04, 08:29 AM
Two birds with one stone. Welcome Khornelius, it was entertaining to hear you whine about the economic problems of today being "not Bush's fault", blaming on the cooked books of the Friends of Bush, excellent passing of the buck, as well as ceding your complete inability to suggest that Bush has a record of increasing safety. And I'm certain you cried during the RNC, because crying is the Bush supporters way of dealing with the pain of all that deficit spending.

As an aside, you are aware that I'm simply copying GOP methods into this thread to make you froth, right? And you are aware that frothing wins nothing, irrespective of how informed you are, right?

Typical Bushite, posing as an independent a la Bill "hold me GOP" O'Reilly.

TheManchu
8th September 04, 08:32 AM
I was quoting monty python, republisheep, a la Ann Coulter, you know, taking the quote, changing it to serve my purposes, etc. Sorry, should've footnoted it for ya.