We are well and truly tentacle-raped now

Kite-san · Post by **Kite-san** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:27 am

weren't also a lot of he voting machines in several states actually "donated" by a company that was a large donor to the bush campaign? i remember there was a big fuss about that a few months ago.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:40 am

Yep

That would be diebold.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:43 am

Of course, given the "yin-yang" comment I find it hard to believe that Diebold would donate anything.

OTOH, I believe it was in relation to a Democrat state, so... Conspiracy Theory away!

Halo299 · Post by **Halo299** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:53 am

I my mind america died today.

i can't recall ever hateing anything as much as i hate this country right now, it's people who are dumb enough to let this happen, and the system of govenment that is under control very evil minded people i.e. george bush.

(sigh)

well, i can still hope that John Titor was right can't I?

Cuteswan · Post by **Cuteswan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:44 am

Goddessmisca wrote:But if just last election they made such a fuss about bush's not winnign the popular vote, then started shit when, unfortunatly(IMHO) he did win it, it is hippocrytical in alot of ways.

Yes, if any individual Democrat (or anyone, really) had publicly stated that Bush wasn't a legitimate President after 2000 then s/he would be a hypocrite for taking the other side now; usually, different people or even different groups (like MoveOn.org, SwiftVets, Sierra Club, NRA, etc.) will make new negative statements that don't line up with what others of their ilk said before. That's why the people and groups who call Bush an idiot must avoid also claiming that Bush, Rove, and Ashcroft are evil masterminds who are going to enslave us for their rich oil buddies.

Also, without a strong leadership in the Democratic party, the members/supporters can express their diversity of opinion without concern of damaging the party leader's reputation. If they ever win back the Presidency or a house of congress then most of them will temper their statements to avoid weakening the party's "strongest" member. (Of course, there are always individuals and groups who will make the wild accusations, anyway.)

With a little luck, the Democrats will come up with a better candidate in 2008 and give us a better, clearer choice. Then again, I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton wants the job, and her nomination will definitely be divisive.

Tha_Pig · Post by **Tha_Pig** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 am

Muahahahahahah!!!! 4 more years of Bush! Just watching some people I know having a fit is worth it!

I find fun how the the same people who screamed and made such a fuss about the importance of voting and democracy, now that the result is not what they expect are saying democracy doesn't work or coming out with half-baked conspiracy theories.

All those who made a big advertising campaign to make people vote now are regretting it. Looks like telling everyone to vote was not a good idea after all.

So now they are going to say someone cheated or the machines were tampered with. C

Happypeepeehead · Post by **Happypeepeehead** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:06 am

cuteswan wrote: - The recession that started under Clinton was ended.

Yet job growth in the US declined

- Vast amounts of corporate malfeasance that started in the 1990s has been uncovered and prosecuted.

A tiny percentage of said malfeasance has been actually prosecuted

- Women's rights have improved dramatically. (Just ask any women in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

While I am not endorsing Hussain, women did have probably one of the best defenders in him. Now in Iraq, there is far less freedom for women. Hussain's oppression acted as a buffer against those who sought to attack other groups based off of differences.

now for my petty lament.
Ah, Kerry gave up so soon (though I would have rather had Wesley Clark as the candidate). I find it very disheartening to have a political party espouse 99% of my ideals being considered unamerican by coworkers, etc. What's so unamerican about it? It's a party that was created in the US and is very nearly as old as the constitution itself.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:10 am

actually what was pissing me off was MSNBC. the office of Election asked all news companies not to call electoral votes until the Assoicated Press called them and NBC wasn't doing what it was asked. At 8:30 my time, they called Orgeon for Bush and Bush didn't win Orgeon, Kerry did. And for hours they had Ohio as Bush, and that state didn't call their votes at all. NBC, will you never learn... you get asked not to do things for a reason.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:22 am

happypeepeehead wrote:
cuteswan wrote: - The recession that started under Clinton was ended.
Yet job growth in the US declined

Unfortunately, this is being compared to Clinton's time, which, BTW, coincided with the rise of the Net, "Information Revolution", massive economic growth, etc. Compared to then, of course job growth's declined!

Unfortunately, it seems like no one in DC is willing to fix the real problems; at least the big ones. Medical is one issue; at least they're talking about it. I still place a lot of blame on our bass-ackwards tax policy that rewards imports (fewer jobs needed here) by not taxing them when they are not taxed in their originating countries, and penalizes exports (fewer jobs needed here), by taxing them here only to be taxed again in their destination. Yeah, we try to fix the gaps this creates with a whole bunch of tarrifs, which are flawed in that they engender favortism and ill will, not to mention that they are rediculously complicated.

happypeepeehead wrote:
- Women's rights have improved dramatically. (Just ask any women in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
While I am not endorsing Hussain, women did have probably one of the best defenders in him. Now in Iraq, there is far less freedom for women. Hussain's oppression acted as a buffer against those who sought to attack other groups based off of differences.

It's funny; I was thinking yesterday that that's one of the benefits of having a dictator. At least you can band together and hate one person/group united. Look at this democracy; it splits us into bickering amoungst ourselves.

Kite-san · Post by **Kite-san** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:27 am

the true issue with teh vote calling is doing so before all the polls have closed, because of the issue of people unsure whether they're gonna vote or not. if it looks liek they're guy already won, they won't bother. if it says the enemy is winning, they're more likely to vote.

also, while i do think that Bush/Cheney would stopp to conspiracy if it seemed to them like they needed it, i've never felt the current system 'works.' personally, i'd think what would make more sense is to gather all the cantidates in a classroom the day after the primaries, spend several hours getting them all roaring drunk, and then tell them they have 2 hours to write their platform in an essay, and that's all the campaigning they get. no tv ads, no debates, just all of those essays published in every newspaper in the country the next morning. then people get a year to think about it, and then vote. that way, they're too drunk to lie convincingly, and too fuzzy to conceal things, AND we don't have to endure the shitstorms of "he's a big dumb doody head!" "no, HE'S a big dum doody head!"for a whole year.

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:07 pm

Leave for Canada or elsewhere? Nowhere is really far enough.

To quote Tolkien:

"If the Mundburg falls, whither shall we flee From the gathering Darkness in days to come?" "

Happypeepeehead · Post by **Happypeepeehead** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:20 pm

I can't pull the move to canada threat. I love this country (doused in blood and betrayal as it may be) even though I do not care for the current elected head and the majority of its legislature. I'm fearful of what will become of the Supreme Court now since two are potentially leaving soon. This is where I am and where I intend to live. I have to work with it.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:32 pm

I was thinking of moving to canada anyways... you know, because it's warmer there than it is here.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 pm

I'm not forwarding any conspiracy theories here, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat, and I'm not whining cause my guy didn't win (cause I didn't vote), I'm just being one of the things they pay me to be, which is a paranoid computer security administrator.

The below article scare the hell out of me. Of course, the sources are questionable (because ALL sources of information should be questioned), and I'm pretty sure some of the quotes were taken out of context. However, the pattern is disturbing.

Some comments made by the CEO of Diebold
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:57 pm

that's very unsettling

Goddessmisca · Post by **Goddessmisca** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:03 pm

Disturbing yes, but the slant in it is far to hard for me to take it as credible. I want to see the context of the quotations and what not.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:08 pm

As do I.

At very least that was a poor, and excedingly inflammatory choice of words.

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:13 pm

Read Black Box Voting. The head of Diebold was promising to deliver Ohio by any means necessary for years.

JPSloan · Post by **JPSloan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:36 pm

cjburgandy wrote:I was thinking of moving to canada anyways... you know, because it's warmer there than it is here.

I was thinking the same thing... for the opposite reason.

Cuteswan · Post by **Cuteswan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:51 pm

happypeepeehead wrote: While I am not endorsing Hussain, women did have probably one of the best defenders in him. Now in Iraq, there is far less freedom for women. Hussain's oppression acted as a buffer against those who sought to attack other groups based off of differences.

While I agree that having a brutal dictator does repress different groups from attacking one-another (such as the Yugoslovia example), I'm very curious to see any credible evidence that leads to your conclusions that (a) Saddam defended women from anything or (b) that women in Iraq have less freedom now than when he ruled. Reveal your sources; give us links. Did I just miss the release of those documents recovered from Hussein's rape rooms?