Big Ol' Smitty

How is this relevant? What does this mean? How do you fall into rhetoric? Again, why does he need you to speak for him?

Nothing? By any independents? I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Why don't you let him speak for himself?

By the way, Nader's challenge is officially on.

Aww... BoyScout returns. What happened to the end of the Republicans, dude? Give them enough rope and they'll kill themselves, buddy... That's a really lame plan. Having to hope the other party does itself in is a weak plan. But keep thinking that. It'll be hilarious to watch as your party continues to lose elections and seats because they don't have a clue what they're doing. I think that warrants some evil laughter. Mwahahahahahahaha!

Aww... BoyScout returns. What happened to the end of the Republicans, dude? Give them enough rope and they'll kill themselves, buddy... The Democratic Party Plan: HOPE the Republican Party kills itself cause we sure as hell can't do it. For somebody who claims to be independent you sure shill for the Repubs a lot there, guy.

Where is here? Wisconsin? Miami, Florida Well then your previous question is a good one. I don't know the answer.

I disagree, for reasons already stated.

I don't think those stupid names being on the petitions were his fault. There were petitioners here at my university. You could walk up and write whatever name you wanted to on the petition. The signature lists should have been checked before submission, though. Do you seriously think Nader is doing things out of malevolence or trying to be deceitful? I'm asking this seriously. He may be a lot of things, but I don't think he's crooked.

Where is here? Wisconsin?

Thanks for the advice. I think I'm just going to forego creatine and try to eat more good fats and clean carbs like you said. Plus, I think I'm just going to have to learn to live with being skinny. At least I got some guns on me. *flexes*

There was a recent story on how the models used for the theory have been proven false. I've not seen actually solid proof of the theory. -=Mike I mean lots of people more knowledgeable about these things than you or me are studying these things. If it gets debunked, then so be it. That doesn't seem to be the consensus in scientific circles, though. I do think that first article you posted raises some very good questions about the economic impact of global warming policy.

Nader wasn't on the ballot in Ohio. I don't know about Florida. And he's not really trying to change the election results (remember, he loathes both sides), just expose fraud.

Tell me more. Cite, my man, cite. The polls had Kerry winning the Carolinas. What more do you want? -=Mike Deez polls? http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html I'm asking seriously, by the way. Are these the "debunked" polls or the earlier ones?

These articles are interesting and raise some good points. However, they aren't exactly from highly credible sources. The first is from the CATO Institute-->conservative think tank. The second is dated. The third is from the President of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.

What I'd like to know is what standing Nader has to file, since he's not even on the radar screen. And thanks for the info, smitty. -=Mike Sure thing. I'm not sure, but I think you just have to be a candidate to challenge. He obviously doesn't think he's going to win. Badnarik and Cobb are supposedly considering involvement in this stuff as well. I think the third parties are doing this because it would look bad in the public eye if either of the major parties did it.

Again, I disagree. He is pushing for a more transparent election. This should not even have to be done in the longest-running democracy in the world, but it is necessary. I don't see how either side of the political spectrum could possibly argue against less transparency in the electoral process. If you think the other side is EVIL~!, then why not take the steps to ensure that they don't commit fraud? It's a win-win dealy, yo.

E-voting irregularities raise eyebrows, blood pressure Thu Nov 4, 6:58 AM ET Concern over electronic voting technology was not assuaged Tuesday as glitches, confusion and human error raised a welter of problems across the country, even while e-vote watchdogs prepared to file suits challenging the results derived from the controversial machines. New rules, new voters and a tight presidential contest combined to create "a recipe for problems," said Sean Greene, who was watching Cleveland polls for the Election Reform Information Project, a nonpartisan research group on election reform. Nearly one in three voters, including about half of those in Florida, were expected to cast ballots using ATM-style voting machines that computer scientists have criticized for their potential for software glitches, hacking and malfunctioning. In South Carolina, problems were reported in a handful of precincts in two counties using electronic machines. Officials said voters were forced to switch to paper ballots while technicians got the iVotronic touch screens from Electronic Systems & Software up and running within about 90 minutes. And in Volusia County, Florida, a memory card in an optical-scan voting machine failed Monday at an early voting site and didn't count 13,000 ballots. Officials planned to feed the ballots, in which voters fill in a bubble, and count them Tuesday. Many of the problems with electronic voting - whether accidental or intentional - may not be known until well after Tuesday, if at all. Most of the ATM-style machines, including all of Florida's, lack paper records that could be used to verify the electronic results in a recount. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's VerifiedVoting.org, which has been monitoring the implementation of e-voting machines in the U.S., warned on Monday that over 20 percent of the machines tested by observers around the country failed to record votes properly. The organization recommended that voters choosing to use touchscreen voting methods be sure to double-check the summary screen to confirm that their votes had been properly registered. BlackBoxVoting.org, the site organized by e-voting activist Bev Harris, announced early Wednesday that it plans to conduct what the site describes as the largest Freedom of Information Act request in history, requesting internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships using electronic voting machines. According to a release posted on the site, "Such a request filed in King County, Washington on Sept. 15, following the primary election six weeks ago, uncovered an internal audit log containing a three-hour deletion on election night; 'trouble slips' revealing suspicious modem activity; and profound problems with security, including accidental disclosure of critically sensitive remote access information to poll workers, office personnel, and even, in a shocking blunder, to Black Box Voting activists." Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...wsbloodpressure

Tell me more. Cite, my man, cite.

Again I ask, how could they have possibly gotten a decent sample for that poll?

How old is Sandra D.? She seems reasonable enough.

Agreed.

I just wanted to say that, Powerplay, your posts in this topic have been, in my opinion, very persuasive and well thought out. However, due to your avatar, whenever I read your posts I hear Al Sharpton's voice in my head.

This is true. But why do we do so? Because of the vigilance of the antiwar set. No, we do so because WE DO NOT WANT TO KILL INNOCENTS. It is not in our interests and it's not in our make-up. We are doing this as antiseptically as possible and MOST of our deaths is caused by that. Like it or not, the military is made up of HUMANS who don't pop wood at the idea of killing innocents. -=Mike Targeting civilians has gone way down in recent wars. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing. World War II saw massive killing of civilians--take Dresden for instance. It worked well. But since then, we have realized that killing civilians en masse is unethical. And I think this is, at least in part, due to agitation by humanitarians and antiwar groups. The military's job is to win swiftly and decisively. If the military was all soft and cuddly it wouldn't be nearly as effective. I think that if it wasn't for the aforementioned agitation then the military would still be using the very effective method of targeting civilians. Not because they're evil, but because they're smart and they want to win.

This is true. But why do we do so? Because of the vigilance of the antiwar set. So much effort would not likely be put into limiting civilian casualties if the military didn't know there BUTT was going to be held to the fire for it.