UpN,
Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?
You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.
Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.
In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.
LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?
Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way? I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.
Answer at your own will, I am done with this. You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid. I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.
Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?
You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.
Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.
In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.
LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?
Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way? I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.
Answer at your own will, I am done with this. You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid. I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.