Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by leagleaze
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...4/10078797.htm

Phila. D.A.: No planted votes; machine counters misread

By L. Stuart Ditzen

Inquirer Staff Writer


Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham today refuted reports that 2,000 votes had been "planted" on voting machines at several polling places.

Cathie Abookire, spokeswoman for Abraham, said poll workers misinterpreted numbers they found on voting machines before the polls opened. Abookire said the city's new electronic voting machines have two windows that display voting numbers - one that shows the total number of votes ever cast on the machine, the other that shows the number of votes cast today.

Some poll workers saw the number of prior votes from past elections on the machines and thought that meant votes had been planted.

"They misread the machines," Abookire said. "There were no planted votes."

See also

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra

Oh, goodie. Election workers who can't read their machines. As an aside, my polling place was a little busier than usual this morning, but no waiting at 8:50 a.m. There were a lot of retards, mongoloids, crips, and mentally defective standing about. For once, I don't mean the human detritus that calls itself "progressive" in San Francisco, though - my polling place is at the Arc - http://www.thearcsanfrancisco.org/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Kerry wrote it.

I am intrigued how some on the right seem to feel Kerry is pro gay marriage. Because I can tell you the majority of the gay community doesn't think he is. Most people I know simply see him as a better choice when compared to Bush.

Since you know more about this than I do, can you tell me: Am I all wet on the Full Faith & Credit Clause, or does it let states discriminate against out-of-state same-sex marriages?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If and when Thurgreed bitch-slaps you for this post, he has my proxy.

Relax. It's only 4 more years.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I tried to ask a nice, unloaded question and all I get is shit. You guys were saying the loyalty oath thing was pretty major, so I didn't think I was asking for alot.

Actually, I've never said a thing about the loyalty oath. When you asked if it had really happened, I was actually curious -- I thought that maybe relying on the Daily Show wasn't necessarily a good idea.

So, I did the Google search. The New Mexico story comes up a lot but there are stories from other places too, like a Cheney rally in Wyoming. Generally, the "oath" is a promise to vote for Bush. Does that qualify as a "loyalty oath"? Semanticists may disagree but the term does not seem inaccurate to me.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that may be this didn't happen, but that would seem like an odd position since the RNC communications director defended the practice -- suggesting that it really happened, and more than once, and that the RNC thinks doing it is okay.

Candidates are free to limit the attendance at their events to the party faithful (freedom of association and all), but if you do that you might as well hire actors to attend the events and cheer. For someone who billed himself as a "uniter", it seems a particularly silly practice.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This is like freaking Groundhog Day with you people.

I don't mean to blow you off, but you asked me to concisely ask the question. I suspect you knew you wouldn't be able to answer it, even before you asked me again. So I'm not biting. Of course, I expect someone or other around here will keep screeching instead of answering the questions. What's the point? There is not right answer to the question. You people simply do not know what he meant when he said opposed.

Let me get this straight. You ask a bunch of stupid, pointless questions, the answers to which don't and wouldn't mean anything to anyone other than you and I'm the one who doesn't know what he means? I already explained to you (as did many others) what he meant. If you refuse to understand what is being said, that's on you.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

K/B

AZ 45-55
CO 48-51
LA 42-57
MI 51-48
WI 52-48
PA 60-40
OH 52-48
FL 51-48
MICH 51-47
NM 50-48
MINN 58-40
WISC 52-43
IOWA 49-49
NH 57-41

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Actually, I've never said a thing about the loyalty oath. When you asked if it had really happened, I was actually curious -- I thought that maybe relying on the Daily Show wasn't necessarily a good idea.

So, I did the Google search. The New Mexico story comes up a lot but there are stories from other places too, like a Cheney rally in Wyoming.

There was this story by Chris Suellentrop in Slate:

• PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla.—"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
  
  I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one. Maybe they've replaced the written oath with a verbal one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Actually, I've never said a thing about the loyalty oath. When you asked if it had really happened, I was actually curious -- I thought that maybe relying on the Daily Show wasn't necessarily a good idea.

So, I did the Google search. The New Mexico story comes up a lot but there are stories from other places too, like a Cheney rally in Wyoming. Generally, the "oath" is a promise to vote for Bush. Does that qualify as a "loyalty oath"? Semanticists may disagree but the term does not seem inaccurate to me.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that may be this didn't happen, but that would seem like an odd position since the RNC communications director defended the practice -- suggesting that it really happened, and more than once, and that the RNC thinks doing it is okay.

Candidates are free to limit the attendance at their events to the party faithful (freedom of association and all), but if you do that you might as well hire actors to attend the events and cheer. For someone who billed himself as a "uniter", it seems a particularly silly practice.

I wasn't saying it had never happened. I was saying if it were widespread, and used at major events, then we'd be seeing the things linked on the major news sites. Apparently it wasn't widespread- that doesn't mean it should have happened at all. The one thing that might explain it is the RNC guy distinguish the particular event from a normal campaign rally. If you've worked in campaigns you know they have pep rally type things to try and charge up volunteers- here for a chance to meet Cheney! If there was limited seating, and they were trying to geek people to really work in NM, I could see why they might want message control. But you realize all this, and you're just funning me now I think .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
K/B

AZ 45-55
CO 48-51
LA 42-57
MI 51-48
WI 52-48
PA 60-40
OH 52-48
FL 51-48
MICH 51-47
NM 50-48
MINN 58-40
WISC 52-43
IOWA 49-49
NH 57-41

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. When did Thottam say he'd post his predictions?

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
K/B

CO 48-51
PA 60-40
FL 51-48
MINN 58-40
WISC 52-43
NH 57-41

These numbers are absurd. This reads more like a Christmas wish-list than anything grounded in fact.

For someone with a statistics background like Ann-Marie, one should expect more.

She should clearly stick to writing about ass-fucking.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Let me get this straight. You ask a bunch of stupid, pointless questions, the answers to which don't and wouldn't mean anything to anyone other than you and I'm the one who doesn't know what he means? I already explained to you (as did many others) what he meant. If you refuse to understand what is being said, that's on you.

TM

Again, if you knew what he meant, you'd know what he'd do. But you don't know what he'd do because you don't know what he meant.

And, this is like Groundhog day. By the end of the day, Sebby conceded that it would seem Kerry used the term "opposed" to pander to the Little People. The believers. Those who wouldn't ask what he meant. You. Congratulations, you and a senile Catholic grandma in a nursing home have a lot in common. But hey, if you feel safe in the mob, why ask questions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
K/B

. . .
MI 51-48
WI 52-48
. . .
MICH 51-47
. . .
WISC 52-43

I'm confused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was saying if it were widespread, and used at major events, then we'd be seeing the things linked on the major news sites.

Au contraire. Suellentrop points out that the media travel with the candidate and usually miss what's said by the various speakers who go on before the President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm confused.

I think "MI" is Mississippi, and "WI" is Winnipeg.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
These numbers are absurd. This reads more like a Christmas wish-list than anything grounded in fact.

For someone with a statistics background like Ann-Marie, one should expect more.

She should clearly stick to writing about ass-fucking.

I don't think they are her numbers - I think they are exit polls.

I'm ready to bet that the PA numbers represent Philly or Pittsburg and not the whole state; without knowing more about the numbers, hard to say what they mean. But Drudge is reporting that the early exit polls look very Kerry...

Story developing...