"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


"Osama who?" George W. Bush

Kerry:
After all of THAT, I lost Super Tuesday?
Dang, I must really BE lame. hehe ....

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:17:57 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:04:05 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Iowa seems a longshot for Kerry, but there are a couple of states that
really, truly are up in the air for both candidates. If kerry wins Ohio
AND Florida, Bush is toast.

Kerry will not win Ohio and Florida.

Go to the bank on Monday and get my $100 bill.

Thank you, sir.

I am from NE Ohio, just east of Cleveland. I am concerned about the number
of "fake" voter registrations. Will my vote even count?

Hell, the news showed 2 registrants that claimed their home address as
vacant lots. Another registered voters residence has been a cemetery for the
past 20 years.

4 counties have more registered voters than residents old enough to vote.

Seems as if the election and voter registration process in my home state is
being made a mockery of.

I'll not blame either party but it sure is discouraging to realize that my
vote might be canceled out by someone voting from the grave. And yeah, I
already heard that they should have the right to vote since they were not
fortunate enough to live long enough to vote in this election and should not
be disenfranchised because of it.

I'll not blame either party but it sure is discouraging to realize that my
vote might be canceled out by someone voting from the grave. And yeah, I
already heard that they should have the right to vote since they were not
fortunate enough to live long enough to vote in this election and should not
be disenfranchised because of it.

Both parties will, of course, blame the other.

I think the difference this time around is the elevated emotional state of the
electorate. We have entire media-industries in place that have been making
billions a year demonizing the opposition. It's been going on non-stop since
the before the last election. Many people are now convinced that the other side
isn't only wrong, it's "evil."

When asked to express an opinon, most people can only repeat slogans and
talking points. Oh oh.

Some of that zeal has found its way into a "win at any cost" mentality. Aren't
there supposed to be hordes of attorneys already lined up for both the
Republican and Democratic parties, ready to challenge almost every aspect of
this election if their guy doesn't win?

The "win at any cost" mentality is expressed in voter registration issues.
There was a news item about a bunch of
people from a certain political party who just arbitrarily "challenged" the
registrations of
a ton of folks from the opposite party.
Turned out that in that community, if you are challenged as a voter, you have
to go to a hearing to get back on the roles. They held the hearing, only about
25-30% of the voters who were challenged got the day off work (etc) to go to
the hearing. When the hearing started, the party that brought the challenges
admitted that it had *no* evidence to support the challenges. None.
(One woman who was challenged said she had lived at her same address in the
precint for 20 years).
The judge threw the challenges out, immediately, but that won't help the 70-75%
of the voters who were challenged and who got kicked off the roles as a result.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:21:23 -0400, John S wrote:


I'll not blame either party but it sure is discouraging to realize that my
vote might be canceled out by someone voting from the grave. And yeah, I
already heard that they should have the right to vote since they were not
fortunate enough to live long enough to vote in this election and should
not be disenfranchised because of it.

Hell, I blame both parties. After the 2000 fiasco, do you remember all
the promises that it would never happen again? That the system would be
fixed? Yeah, right.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:21:23 -0400, John S wrote:


I'll not blame either party but it sure is discouraging to realize that
my
vote might be canceled out by someone voting from the grave. And yeah, I
already heard that they should have the right to vote since they were
not
fortunate enough to live long enough to vote in this election and should
not be disenfranchised because of it.

Hell, I blame both parties. After the 2000 fiasco, do you remember all
the promises that it would never happen again? That the system would be
fixed? Yeah, right.

Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right?
In *each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone
tells you the system works. You take multiple readings of something
and your always gonna get different readings. If you take multiple
readings, and multiple recounts, and if in each time they are more
that the other, then stastically that one has won, thats basic stats.
Been different if at LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:10:36 +0000, Mr Wizzard wrote:


Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right? In
*each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone tells you the
system works. You take multiple readings of something and your always
gonna get different readings. If you take multiple readings, and multiple
recounts, and if in each time they are more that the other, then
stastically that one has won, thats basic stats. Been different if at
LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

Not broken? Multiple readings? Would you use a bank that counted your
money the way this country counts your vote? I wouldn't, but hey, it's
your money. Speaking of banks, I'm sure you have heard of ATMs. They are
apparently secure, mostly reliable, and give a receipt (paper trail). Why
couldn't our elections offer something comparable? They have had more
than enough time.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The voters would have to be in the system and be able to remember a
PIN. That would wipe out much of the Democratic base.

And their accounts would be overdrawn for voting more than once.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:10:36 +0000, Mr Wizzard wrote:


Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right? In
*each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone tells you
the
system works. You take multiple readings of something and your always
gonna get different readings. If you take multiple readings, and
multiple
recounts, and if in each time they are more that the other, then
stastically that one has won, thats basic stats. Been different if at
LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

Not broken? Multiple readings? Would you use a bank that counted your
money the way this country counts your vote? I wouldn't, but hey, it's
your money. Speaking of banks, I'm sure you have heard of ATMs. They
are
apparently secure, mostly reliable, and give a receipt (paper trail).
Why
couldn't our elections offer something comparable? They have had more
than enough time.


Indeed, the ATM approach is a good one.

As long as there's a retinal scan to keep fraud down amongst your ilk.

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:10:36 +0000, Mr Wizzard wrote:


Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right? In
*each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone tells you
the
system works. You take multiple readings of something and your always
gonna get different readings. If you take multiple readings, and
multiple
recounts, and if in each time they are more that the other, then
stastically that one has won, thats basic stats. Been different if at
LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

Not broken? Multiple readings? Would you use a bank that counted your
money the way this country counts your vote? I wouldn't, but hey, it's
your money. Speaking of banks, I'm sure you have heard of ATMs. They
are
apparently secure, mostly reliable, and give a receipt (paper trail).
Why
couldn't our elections offer something comparable? They have had more
than enough time.


Indeed, the ATM approach is a good one.

As long as there's a retinal scan to keep fraud down amongst your ilk.

YOUR "ilk" has been putting out fliers telling people to vote Tuesday,
if republican, and vote Wednesday if other, saying they've done this
to avoid conflict. Republicans done this, NOYB. Do you think THAT is
okay?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com"
onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in
message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:10:36 +0000, Mr Wizzard wrote:


Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right?
In
*each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone tells
you
the
system works. You take multiple readings of something and your
always
gonna get different readings. If you take multiple readings, and
multiple
recounts, and if in each time they are more that the other, then
stastically that one has won, thats basic stats. Been different if at
LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

Not broken? Multiple readings? Would you use a bank that counted
your
money the way this country counts your vote? I wouldn't, but hey,
it's
your money. Speaking of banks, I'm sure you have heard of ATMs. They
are
apparently secure, mostly reliable, and give a receipt (paper trail).
Why
couldn't our elections offer something comparable? They have had more
than enough time.


Indeed, the ATM approach is a good one.

As long as there's a retinal scan to keep fraud down amongst your ilk.

YOUR "ilk" has been putting out fliers telling people to vote Tuesday,
if republican, and vote Wednesday if other, saying they've done this
to avoid conflict. Republicans done this, NOYB. Do you think THAT is
okay?

If Democrats fall for that, then it's obvious which party has the monopoly
on "stupid" voters.