THIS is what's wrong with today's Democratic party:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

Article summary: "people think it isn't true." If those were the highlights, anyways. I'm not registered and the second link didn't work for me.

---

It didn't work for you? yeah right... I checked it again with three other browsers and on another computer, worked just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

Sloppy reporting. Proof? I'm unaware that every theory is been debunked so soundly. I've seen a lot of theory vs. theory. "Dixiecrats?" Come on, that's not debunking anything. I'll believe Seattle Times-style debunking, the kind that actually debunks. Until then I'll go with the gut and believe our sinister president, realizing he wasn't wooing the people (excuse me: ENOUGH people) with his chronic idiocy, calls up his buddies at Diebold. It's so in character.

---

Nice, continue on in your vague non-factual conspiratorial assumptions, it's so in character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

And those guys are really confident in their "preliminary study." Maybe once they progress in this study they'll locate the patterns idiot bloggers did. Whether they mean anything or not, they are still patterns!

---

Keep dismissing or downplaying anything that doesn't agree with your already preset assumptions, again, it's so in character.

To quote you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

Maybe if it's on CNN some day you'll believe it. Hopefully it'll be too obvious and too hard to ignore to where it will be in a news form you will accept.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teenwolf

It didn't work for you? yeah right... I checked it again with three other browsers and on another computer, worked just fine.

---

It didn't. (OK, just got my access via johnkerry7/isaputz)

Quote:

---

Keep dismissing or downplaying anything that doesn't agree with your already preset assumptions, again, it's so in character.

---

I'm not switching tracks for Dixiecrats.

Anyone quoting news organizations other than CSPAN to prove a point is not stating a fact or proving anything.

Some more articles about voting fraud implausibility:
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665,00.html
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=409

That wired article is a nice one. There goes the "Dixiecrat" conspiracy theory...

Lol...just for fun, I hit BOPNEWS again. They're really reaching now. It's become articles that have nothing to do with anything.

All we need is a poor Jamaican caricature to vote emergency powers for the President to create a clone army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Meh I want Edwards/Dean 2008 or Obama/Dean, something OTHER than republican lite without the hate mongering please.

If the Repubs went McCain/Anyone Moderate with a blow up the middle east agenda I could really get behind that.

[arab]

---

If the Dems bring Lieberman to the table, possibly with Edwards or somebody as the VP (The VP in most administrations is not all that important) they might get my vote. I used to be gungho about McCain but the main is kind've a turncoat, Guilinni is a tad too Liberal but he's a great politician.

2008 is going to be a confusing year as it stands now, the Repubs and Dems mentioned in the Time Magazine detailing possible candidates for both sides didn't really make me all that optimistic. As conservative as I am I would think a moderate Republican would be good, but one who follows mostly Conservative ideals and is well set in his ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Some more articles about voting fraud implausibility:
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665,00.html

---

Quote:

---

The optical-scan results could be explained if many so-called third-party voters -- such as those registered for the Green Party or those who registered independent -- voted for Bush.

---

LOL!! Registered Greens voting for Bush.

Quote:

---

Sekhon said it's reasonable for people to think that something was amiss in this election.

"We know something really bad happened in 2000," Sekhon said, "so why is it unreasonable to think that in 2004 the same thing happened?"

---

Exactly. This article had little to do with implausibility.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=409

Quote:

---

While there are inherent problems with electronic voting, the current allegations about Diebold and the 2004 election just don’t hold much water.

---

They don't hold much water, to this skeptic. Anyways, I get the point: people think it isn't true. I got that from this topic already without having to trudge through repetitious articles. When it comes down to it, the voting system needs to be fixed anyways, as this guy knows. (and pointing out an inherent problem doesn't do much for an "implausibility" case)

BUSH WON, GET OVER IT!

Christ. I hate you people. I'm writing myself in next election.