Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 I take no joy in posting this because it will only further anger us Libs and is probably bad for the country. It seems there are problems with the machines in Ohio... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/...s.ap/index.html
KD in CA Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Why should there be "anger" with the result? That sure speaks volumes about the quality of the people who were on the losing side. As for voting machine errors, that sucks. Let's figure out how to fix that. But I'm sure this wasn't the only machine in the whole country that had an error or gave one guy or the other a few extra votes. Just the one that the media jackoffs decided would stir up the most controversy. Good thing Bush won by 130,000 in Ohio so that this particular issue is moot.
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 I take no joy in posting this because it will only further anger us Libs and is probably bad for the country. It seems there are problems with the machines in Ohio... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/...s.ap/index.html 104051[/snapback] Or we can wait a week or two to find out what the real story is. Jessica Lynch anyone?
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 Or we can wait a week or two to find out what the real story is. Jessica Lynch anyone? 104058[/snapback] It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, no doubt. It's rediculous that machines used for such an important purpose were seemingly not thoroughly tested before being put into a real-life situation. It will be a big deal if this happend in many machines, but you're right, we'll have to wait and see.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 Why should there be "anger" with the result? That sure speaks volumes about the quality of the people who were on the losing side. As for voting machine errors, that sucks. Let's figure out how to fix that. But I'm sure this wasn't the only machine in the whole country that had an error or gave one guy or the other a few extra votes. Just the one that the media jackoffs decided would stir up the most controversy. Good thing Bush won by 130,000 in Ohio so that this particular issue is moot. 104057[/snapback] Moot so far because right now it's only one machine. If the tables were turned and Kerry's vote count was erroneously increased in a critical state, I'd imagine you might be a little upset yourself. Especially if he won.
Paco Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, no doubt. It's rediculous that machines used for such an important purpose were seemingly not thoroughly tested before being put into a real-life situation. It will be a big deal if this happend in many machines, but you're right, we'll have to wait and see. 104060[/snapback] Curious way you have of spelling "ridiculous." I'm sure it's just a typo. But I feel like I've seen that typo before.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 Curious way you have of spelling "ridiculous." I'm sure it's just a typo. But I feel like I've seen that typo before. 104070[/snapback] Sorry, the spell checker was off. Do you have a point or are you just attacking my spelling, Paco?
/dev/null Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 I take no joy in posting this because it will only further anger us Libs and is probably bad for the country. It seems there are problems with the machines in Ohio... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/...s.ap/index.html 104051[/snapback] sounds like those machines could use a little more cowbell
Paco Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Sorry, the spell checker was off. Do you have a point or are you just attacking my spelling, Taco? 104081[/snapback] Just trying to align the guy with 89 posts with the guy he likely replaced. Can't remember who it was that always used to spell ridiculous with an e. Nothing personal. Just bustin' balls.
KD in CA Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Moot so far because right now it's only one machine. If the tables were turned and Kerry's vote count was erroneously increased in a critical state, I'd imagine you might be a little upset yourself. Especially if he won. 104067[/snapback] Not really. I have no doubt the libs have been stuffing the ballot boxes for decades. It's not even a dispute that they stole the election in 1960. Anyway, what I was refering to was your statement that this news would "further anger" liberals. Further? What do they have to be angry about in the first place? They lost fair and square.
_BiB_ Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Curious way you have of spelling "ridiculous." I'm sure it's just a typo. But I feel like I've seen that typo before. 104070[/snapback] No kidding.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 Just trying to align the guy with 89 posts with the guy he likely replaced. Can't remember who it was that always used to spell ridiculous with an e. Nothing personal. Just bustin' balls. 104089[/snapback] Buckner's Glove. I thought the screen name didn't fit any more with the Sawx winning the World Series. You could have asked - it's no secret unless your name is Thurman's Helment or Hollywood Donahoe. Now you know.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 They lost fair and square. 104091[/snapback] Were you angry when the Bills lost the Super Bowl? What's this thread about? Don't be so sure.
/dev/null Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Were you angry when the Bills lost the Super Bowl? 104098[/snapback] angry? no. tho i did throw and shatter a remote control after thurmans fumble in XXVIII heartbroken more like. but i got over it. but then again i actually cared who won those superbowls. as opposed to this election which pitted a Giant Douche vs a Turd Sandwich
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Yeah, I'm absolutely stunned that the first allegation on this subject is anti-Bush and reported by CNN. Especially since the seed for this was planted numerous times over the last 3+ years. Personally, I thought it would be some minority group claiming they had been held up at gunpoint, therefore disenfranchised. Guess they're saving that for next month.
AKC Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, no doubt. It's rediculous that machines used for such an important purpose were seemingly not thoroughly tested before being put into a real-life situation. It will be a big deal if this happend in many machines, but you're right, we'll have to wait and see. 104060[/snapback] The new ballot technologies are a direct result of the Democratic tactic of dividing Americans in the last ( and other previous ) elections by suggesting minorities were "disenfranchised" by using paper ballots. The resultant overreaction to an incredibly reliable system, possibly the most reliable ever devised, is the absolutely idiotic reaction we take to other hypocritical garbage from the left- we changed them out for electronic devices. Because, of course, nothing bad can happen with electronics! Stop whining, bitching, crying, getting your way and then whining, bitching a crying about THAT! Talk about the skunks who cried wolf! Enough with your hypocrisy, you're a member of a diminishing group of crybabys who obviously have learned nothing from the repeated ass-whippings your candidates are taking on a national level. Your base is diminishing because your garbage of scaring minorities and old people through your cronies in the MSM is being supplanted by the new information age offering news alternatives on the internet and talk radio. The elderly, with an understandable resistance to technology, are the last people you can still scare without there being a counterpoint- but that base is diminishing. Your lies and distortions and crybaby garbage about "they're attacking us" after you spent a full year and nearly 1 billion dollars calling Bush a liar and an idiot is beyond hypocrisy. Hopefully the new leftists who replace your tired, sorry and losing agenda will be a bit more genuine with the American people down the road. That might even lead to the left winning an occasional election.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 The new ballot technologies are a direct result of the Democratic tactic of dividing Americans in the last ( and other previous) elections by suggesting minorities were "disenfranchised" by using paper ballots. The resultant overreaction to an incredibly reliable system, possibly the most reliable ever devised, is the absolutely idiotic reaction we take to other hypocritical garbage from the left- we changed them out for electronic devices. Because, of course, nothing bad can happen with electronics! Stop whining, bitching, crying, getting your way and then whining, bitching a crying about THAT! Enough with your hypocrisy, you're a member of a diminishing group of crybabys who obviously have learned nothing from the repeated ass-whippings your candidates are taking on a national level. Your base is diminishing because your garbage of scaring minorities and old people through your cronies in the MSM is being supplanted by the new information age offering news alternatives on the internet and talk radio. The elderly, with an understandable resistance to technogoly, are the last people you can still scare without there being a counterpoint- but that base is diminishing. Your lies and distortions and crybaby garbage about "they're attacking us" after you spent a full year and nearly 1 billion dollars calling Bush a liar and an idiot is beyond hypocrisy. Hopefully the new leftists who replace your tired, sorry and losing agenda will be a bit more genuine with the American people down the road. That might even lead to the left winning an occasional election. 104106[/snapback] Tell me how you really feel! Progress if fine, but if there were votes added to either candidate's total as a result of a voting machine malfunction, it should be looked at, no? BTW, I WISH I had 1 billion dollars to spend - if I did I certainly wouldn't spend it solely on calling Bush a liar. Don't confuse me with the Democratic Party.
AKC Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Don't confuse me with the Democratic Party. 104112[/snapback] I must have become disoriented by those buckets of water in your hands with the Jack-Asses painted on them ;-)
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Author Posted November 5, 2004 The elderly, with an understandable resistance to technogoly, are the last people you can still scare without there being a counterpoint- but that base is diminishing. 104106[/snapback] Oh, and before Paco points it out, 'technology' is the correct spelling.
Paco Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Buckner's Glove. I thought the screen name didn't fit any more with the Sawx winning the World Series. You could have asked - it's no secret unless your name is Thurman's Helment or Hollywood Donahoe. Now you know. 104097[/snapback] I appreciate that. I actually thought you were someone who currently posts regularly under another, that's all. And you're absolutely right about TH and HD.
Recommended Posts