Evidence is surfacing that Dubbya stole Ohio

Greg Palast wrote a long article on the DETAILS concerning the vote fraud. I"ll post it up in the thread "Greg Palast at it again" (he's an incredibly awesome investigative journalist).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/politics/campaign/06ohio.html
it was in the new york times too..

 

Yes there is credible evidence. So much so that I can make a list-

-CASE found a greater descrepency between the polls and the votes tallied in areas that used Diebolds voting machines.

-Diebold promised to deliver the election to George Bush

-People have been predicitng this for years. Bev Harris started http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ years ago and "Billionares for Bush" made this online video months before the election- http://www.billionairesforbush.com/video/votingmachine.mov

-Bev Harris's sight was "temporarily" shut down right before the elections.

And now we have the ultimate proof, this article which was posted earlier-

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...63&sid=96378798

And notice the concentration of the machines in the important swing states...arrrrgggghhh!!!

 

Actually, I was kind of thinking that if Kerry were to be elected, that something was going to happen. But I guess who ever's behind this figured tampering with the votes is less messy and harder to uncover.

 

But unlike 2000, a swing of a few thousand votes would NOT have changed the outcome of this election.

Undoubtedly a stupid thing for them to do, but that doesn't mean they rigged the machines.

This is NOT evidence. This is just a conspiracy theory.

You guys are taking your pre-drawn conclusions and looking for evidence that fits them, rather than basing your conclusions on the evidence. There are voting irregularities in any election, but in this one they simply would not have changed the outcome. You guys see what you want to see in terms of evidence, when it simply does not exist.

Rather than complain about Bush cheating, maybe your time would be better spent trying to figure out, like I am, why the Democrats lost this election.

 

I find these kinds of statements to be pretty dumb. Yeah, like all of the evidence is completely open to the public. Oh no, the government and corporations never, ever keeps inciminating facts secret. Just face it, the government that you love so dearly is corrupt and criminal; they feed you lies day after day, and you seem to be quite content to take them at face value.

In the months leading up to the war in Iraq, while Bush was accusing Saddam of building WMDs, there were some who questioned this--this was dismissed as mere "conspiracy theories". Well, now we know that the claims were bogus, that Bush had an agenda for Iraq long before 9/11.

 

Not only that, but Bush and Co. had a plan for afghanistan before 9/11...hmmm...that doesn't make sense, why would Bush and Co. Plan to invade afghanistan in July of 2001 with there being no logical explanation to do so?...the american people would never allow that invasion, unless they knew something was coming that could give them their pretext....I give you 9/11...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I never said I love the government. And of course they keep things secret...but that doesn't mean that every single stupid conspiracy theory is true. If you people have no evidence to back up your claims (other than "a website was shut down on Election Day") then perhaps you should abandon this ruse. I suspect that prior to the election, you already planned to scream "voter fraud" in the event Kerry lost, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

There's a big difference between questioning what politicians tell you (which everyone should do, regardless of ideology), and claiming that they're lying for the sole reason that "politicians always lie."

Only the ideologues of Bush's administration called them conspiracy theories. Any rational person could plainly see that Bush was lying, and most rational people did. The two situations are not comparable. When Bush lied about Iraq, there was plenty of evidence to prove he was lying. When you claim he stole the 2004 election, there is little to no evidence.

Face the facts. More people voted for George Bush than John Kerry because America is a homophobic, hillbilly red state.

 

Kandahar, I recommend a book by Greg Palast called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". It's an indepth, terribly arduous-to-read book that gives details on how the 2000 election was stolen. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this time was more fair than the last. Yes, it's a "conspiracy theory" (that phrase is getting tired), but that label in itself doesn't say it isn't so.

You're telling people to "face the facts". Where do you think these "facts" come from? Where did you hear them? All the "evidence" you propose is right off of the mainstream media. Do you honestly believe what you hear on MSNBC and FOX? Even CNN, except for Lou Dobbs is predominantly corporate-biased. The notion of a "liberal media" is a myth. It is slanted to favor those in power. To deny that is true denial.

Please research alternative sources of information. To do otherwise, and make assumptions is not only naive, but ignorant and foolish. Not that I'm saying anything negatively against you, cuz you seem like an intelligent guy, but please do some more reading before forming conclusions, because in this sense, you aren't saying anything we wouldn't hear in the corporate media.

 

I didn't disagree with that proposition. I never even mentioned the 2000 election in this thread.

The burden of proof is on the people who claim that there was fraud. And there's plenty of reason to believe it was more fair, not the least of which is the fact that Bush won Ohio by over 100,000 votes as opposed to 500-something in Florida.

Sure, the various media have various biases, but yes, most of what they say is at least grounded in reality. While they may spin their stories different ways, only rarely do they report a story that proves to be 100% false. None of the news networks, nor the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, nor NPR or talk radio, nor various respectable blogs, have given any credence whatsoever to the idea that this election was stolen. It simply did not happen.

There's a difference between alternative sources of information like respectable blogs; and "alternative sources of information" such as tabloids or conspiracy theory websites.

 

We live in times where "conspiracy theories" keep coming true. I don't think that my "evidence" would hold up in court, but if you check the links I posted you can tell it at least warrants an investigation into these "voting machines". Something, yes something I would wish to put the American people through before I put them through four more years of heartache and war.

People are finding voting ;irregularities everywhere.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4175

Strange coincidence that exit polls were accurate in non-swing states and in precints with punch-card ballots. No paper trail though, so I'm afraid we may never know.

Does anyone else have that "Georgey Bushy" song in their head?

 

In the past century, there is only one that I think has any degree of credibility: The Kennedy assassination conspiracy.

There might be some other minor ones, but for every one that's true there's a thousand that aren't.

I've got no problem with that. I don't like the idea of one company with an obvious political bias controlling all the voting machines, especially when they don't leave a paper trail (in most states) and can be easily hacked.

Nevertheless, any problems with them are not enough to erase George Bush's lead in the vote count.

The exit polls were pretty inaccurate across the board.

 

How did he cheat, you ignorant ass? Why aren't you banned anymore

 

Oh me me me! Let me guess? The conservatives control the media dont they. Huum Guess thats why the media does'nt cover it. Makes perfect sence to me.

 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for any of this, or are you just running your mouth as usual? Of course you don't have any evidence.

As for why you should be banned...because you're an obnoxious troll.

 

Karl-I kinda feel like this is our last chance to talk about it, so I will.

Kandahar- I remember when the idea of the Bush administration misleading the public was a "conspiracy theory". I even disbelieved it for a while. The polls reportedly "did" more accurately reflect the vote in areas without voting machines, although I admit we should wait and see what other sources say.

Here is an interesting article on commondreams.org-

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

Whether or not the discrepancies were enough to erase Bush's lead we will never know, as there is no paper trail. Of course, one might also say there was no proof that he won Ohio, but with every branch of government at his control we can't really question him anymore now can we.

Okay I concede for tonight, everyone please watch this rather catchy music video if you haven't already-

http://www.billionairesforbush.com/video/votingmachine.mov

I'm going to sleeps

 

Again, I say that it's kind of stupid to insist that someone on a message board should "provide evidence" when it's obvious that ALL of us here do not, and will not, have access to the applicable evidence. We all only know what's fed to us through the media, and few of us truly have the time to sit down and analyze all of the data that we have access to in order to dervive sound, rational conclusions. That includes you. So you really have no justification for arguing that the election was legitimately won by Bush. It saddens me that people are so intent on taking things at face values in order to not upset their sensitivites and make life easy.

As for what you said about the Iraq War--please spare me. Yeah, a vocal minority raised question's about Bush's agenda, but the vast majority bought into his story. Evidence that Bush and his clique had an agenda for Iraq (as well as Afghanistan, as someone else has pointed out) were widely dismissed by supporters as "conspiracy theories".

And still, despite the fact that Bush has been repreatedly exposed as a blatant, arrogant liar, whose cowboy mentality has gotten the US embroilled in a war that may just devolve into WWIII, tens of millions of Americans still voted for him.

 

Then what makes you think it was stolen? The final national polls had Bush leading Kerry by about 2-3%, and he won by about 2-3%. Since you admit having no evidence, is there really any reason you hold the belief that you do other than partisanship?

I'm certainly not "taking it at face value to make my life easy." I raised hell following the 2000 election, and planned to do so again if there was legitimate evidence of voter fraud. But there simply was not. I may be a hardcore Democrat, but I'm not going to scream "voter fraud" just because my side lost. Look at the situation RATIONALLY. If there's no evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to disbelieve the legitimacy of the election. You seem blinded by partisanship. Ask yourself this, and be honest with yourself: Is there any way that Election Day could have possibly played out where Bush would get reelected but you would NOT be charging voter fraud?

No they weren't. No skeptics dismissed them as conspiracy theories. No rational people dismissed them as conspiracy theories. Only dumbass Republican hacks dismissed them as conspiracy theories. I pride myself on having a pretty good bullshit detector, and I for one never bought into his lies about Iraq. In fact, the reason I didn't believe him about Iraq (he offered NO legitimate evidence whatsoever) is the same reason I don't believe you guys about the 2004 election being stolen.

 

Kandahar-
These are the same people who set up 9/11, you don't think they would do a haphazard job of it do you? They've had practice after all. Diebold voting machines make it rather easy for them as well as covering their tracks. This type of thing is highly planned out. The polls were no more accurate than the actual election.
Everytime Bush was on the stump this whole campaign, he was preaching to a crowd that had pledged their support, a loyal crowd......Now how do you get millions of people to swing your way by doing that? Didn't look like he wanted to reach the undecideds. Why would millions come out tho vote for the first time for more of the same? It doesn't make sense, and when you consider the lost absentee ballots, the biased owners of the voting machines, the long lines that didn't need to be....it adds up to a very suspicious election. There aren't that many religious fanatics out there.

Now if Kerry just fades away and does nothing about the alleged fraud, then we might assume he's in on it and gave away the election. But naturally I'm hoping that's not the case.

 

When the original report came out of Johns Hopkins It aroused alot of people's attention. Since then it was determined that the entirety of electronic voting was in question as to it's reliability. Much like any new system whether it be for voting or if it is simply a large network for some company, tests have to be run. Glitches can and will come up. It is only logical to thuroughly test and re-test such a system. Analyze, evaluate, and if need be scrap it in favor of re-constructing it from the ground up or at least say "it's just not ready yet". Some of our most notable scientists were systematicly ignored on the issue, as well as barred access to even take a look at it, because simply put, it just wasn't ready to impliment. We were pulling water from the well with a bucket full of holes as soon as the elections started.