bmetzler's Journal: Kerry to Steal Election

Democrats play dirty, and then wonder why they lose elections. After they lose elections, they then try to steal them by hook or by crook.

The Democrats say that we need to have recounts to make sure that 'every' vote is counted, but that is basically bunk. This article reveals the liberals real ulterior motive.

In a series of e-mail interviews with North County News two weeks ago, Kerry spokesman David Wade spoke about recount efforts led by a team of 17,000 lawyers that could trigger the removal of President George W. Bush from office.

Since then, under mounting pressure from alternative media outlets as well as progressive voices outside the Democratic Party, Kerry issued a statement to his supporters that left open the possibility that he could obtain--through a recount--the requisite electoral votes to seize the White House.

Seize the White House through a recount? That's pretty sleazy. And yet the liberals seem to be proud of it. Well, go for it. Continue to try to figure out why you keep losing elections, even running against such 'evil' candidates. The answer might be as obvious, and as hidden as the noses on your faces.

What it all boils down to...

[Timex]

...is that these people honestly believe that the ends justify the means.

They believe that it doesn't matter if one lies, cheats, or steals, so long as the action is done against someone that is "evil". Consider the many instances of Bush's campaign headquarters across the country. They were broken into, and in most cases, property was stolen. The offices were mobbed by "protesters". Every instance was a violation of the law (Yes, Virginia, the protesters have a right to protest, but not to tresspass).

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What it all boils down to...

[Zeriel]

Y'know, you've summed up my philosphical quandry pretty well here--I don't like Democrats, I hate 'em. But I don't like neocons, and frankly I think the PNAC agenda sucks big hairy nads. Which means I had no one to vote for this time (except Badnarik, who may well be a psychopath but at least he's honest).

Re:What it all boils down to...

[Timex]

Remember this if you are ever tempted to vote for one of the lying, scumsucking pinko candidates, though.

I don't have to remember... They'll remind me when the time comes.

Remember Al Gore? When election time came rolling around, what happened? Gore started foaming at the mouth like he's never done before, pushing hatred and whining about how the 2000 election was "stolen" from him.

Come 2008, I fully expect Gore and Kerry to be nudging their way into the spotlight, screeching like banshees about how t

Why?

[SimianOverlord]

Why should GWB fear a recount? He won the most votes fairly, didn't he??

Yes...

[SimianOverlord]

Why should he fear a recount? That was not a statement of fact, bmetzler. Why should he, or you, fear John Kerry's machinations if he won the most votes? He should have no fear. Therefore it doesn't matter a jot what Kerry, gets up to: do you agree?

Yes again

[SimianOverlord]

There was no implication I could see except in your own mind. You confuse asking a question with making a statement. If the count in Ohio is accurate, then no matter how many counts are done, Bush will remain on top.

Are you implying Bush fears a recount? You keep using those words "Bush" and "Fears Recount" after all.

I am confused. How is ordering a recount over-ruling the will of the voters?

Are you implying votes are not the will of the voters? I have seen no reports or articles saying such a thin

Re:Yes again

[the_mad_poster]

Jesus Christ, Brent.. pay attention. His original post says this:

Why should GWB fear a recount?

He didn't say anyone did or didn't fear a recount, he's asking you why, if Bush won fair and square, he should fear - or even care - about anything John Kerry does. The implication here is very simple: if Bush won, the recount won't change that, so why does it matter what John Kerry does?

Or, to put it more bluntly: are you scared that perhaps the will of the people wasn't accurately counted on November 2nd fo

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Forget the whole damn Kerry/Bush thing for a moment. Say it's something that has relatively NO power- dogcatcher. Why is an attempt to get an accurate count through a recount sleazy? Or is it just because it's a presidential election that makes it sleazy?

Re:Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, if the voters elect one dogcatcher, it would still be sleazy for the other candidate to try to get the position by recounting ballots and padding his count by doing stuff like trying to count "blank" ballots for himself, or by trying to determine voter "intent," or any other previously unthought of method to get a victory out of a recount.

And yet, NONE OF THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A RECOUNT. Nor can much of it be done in this case, since the main problem is with the touchscreen voting machines, and in

Re:Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm glad you *finally* got my point. Democrats don't want recounts to make sure that the ballots were counted properly. That is usually not an issue. That want recounts so that they can manipulate the results.

Ah, but in this case, or at least in Ohio, it's the Libertarians and the Greens asking for a recount, not the Democrats. And thus it's for the purpose of making sure the ballots were counted properly in the precints where Diebold machines were counting punch card ballots. Given the statements made

Re:Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ok- I hadn't realized that the fee is so rediculously low. In Washington State, which is near me, the Democrats are being charged $.25/VOTE, not $10/precinct. Heck, with most OHIO precincts- that would come to more like $1000/precinct.

I still think there's a compelling reason to recount- the potential for MACHINE FRAUD still exists in Ohio- but certainly the interested parties SHOULD have to pay for it.

Re:Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

2nd reply- neither Badnarik nor Cobb are Democrats, and thus have nothing about your original point:

Democrats play dirty, and then wonder why they lose elections. After they lose elections, they then try to steal them by hook or by crook.

Also- Cunningham's opinion about what Cobb and Badnarik's intention is not valid. When you try to discern intention- go to the first source not the 2nd or 3rd. In that same article you quoted we have first level sources from Badnarik:

"We want to do an investigation

Re:Why is accuracy sleazy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

We know what Badnarik and Cobb say is their motive, but what is their ulterior motive?

Given their chances of "success" with the two main possible motives, I'd have to say their ulterior motive is to create better elections. Their chance of finding enough votes for Kerry in any voting irregularities in machines that have been specifically designed NOT to record voter intention is nil.

People have ulterior motives and I doubt they care about voting irregularities.

And yet- I do care about voting irregul