Debunking the "rigged election" theory

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure if these were posted already or not, but considering the source of these articles (definitely NOT conservative websites), it should put to bed the BS "election was rigged debate"

From Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109416/

The big problem with this theory is that this year's results match those from 2000. (And with the exception of Dixie, which used punch cards in 2000, all of these counties used optical-scan machines four years ago.) In 2000, Baker County had 83 percent registered Democrats, and 69 percent of the county's voters went for Bush. Dixie County had 86 percent registered Democrats, and 58 percent went for Bush. Franklin County: 81 percent registered Dems, 53 percent for Bush. Holmes County: 83 percent registered Dems, 68 percent for Bush. (For complete 2000 results in Florida by county, look here. For 2000 results as compared to voter registrations, look here.)

While each of these counties had a lower percentage of Bush voters in 2000 than in 2004, the 2000 election was much closer than this one. Each of these counties also appears to be moving toward the GOP. In all four, there is a lower percentage of registered Democrats and a higher percentage of registered Republicans in 2004 than in 2000.

Of course, you could argue that this similarity to the 2000 results just points to an even bigger conspiracy. But that's a bit, well, crazy. Take a look at the geography: All four counties are either in Florida's panhandle—known by some as the Redneck Riviera—or the northern part of the state. Like their neighbors in Georgia and Alabama, northern Florida voters tend to be very conservative. Baker, Dixie, Franklin, and Holmes counties are represented in the House by two Republicans and a Blue Dog Democrat who lists his No. 1 issue as "Second Amendment rights." Democratic registrations here are more an artifact of history than evidence of massive fraud.



From Salon:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index_np.html

Specifically, Dopp noticed that in many optical scan counties, there were many more votes for George W. Bush than you'd expect from the number of Republicans registered in those counties. Although Dopp offered no speculation as to why Bush seemed to have won so many votes in apparently Democratic counties, her report has been cited as proof that something may have been amiss with the optical scan systems. Reporting on her work in a widely circulated article in CommonDreams.org, the journalist Thom Hartmann concluded that Dopp's analysis shows that Florida's "results seem to contain substantial anomalies."

Dopp's analysis does give one pause. For instance, about 70 percent of the 12,000 registered voters in Baker County are Democrats, but of the 10,000 votes cast there, more than 7,000 were for Bush. There are 11,000 registered voters in Holmes County, and 72 percent of them are Democrats -- but 77 percent of the voters in Holmes chose Bush. Considering that most voters across the country voted according to their party -- 90 percent of Democrats chose Kerry, and 90 percent of Republicans chose Bush -- why did so many Democrats in Florida's optical-scan counties go with Bush? And why was such a startling pattern not seen in counties that use touch-screen voting machines?

For anyone who knows Florida politics, the explanation is easy -- "Dixiecrats." Ansolabehere points out that in Florida, optical-scan machines are mainly in "rural areas or places with low population density, and those counties happen to be more Republican," even if voters there are registered as Democrats. These voters may keep their Democratic registrations alive so that they can participate in local Democratic primaries, but when it comes to national races they would never vote for the Democrat. Walter Mebane, a political scientist at Cornell who's long studied Florida politics, echoed this thought. In a rebuttal to Dopp's work that has also been flying around over e-mail, Mebane -- working with Jonathan Wand, another Cornell political scientist, and Jasjeet Sekhon, at Harvard -- explains that many of the counties Dopp considers curious have been voting for Republicans for years. "The pattern in which counties that have high Democratic registration had high percentage increases in the vote for Bush reflects the fact that all those counties have trended strongly Republican over the past twelve years," he wrote. "The counties are mostly in the Florida Panhandle. Given the voting history and registration trends, these counties seem to have many old-style southern Democrats who have not bothered to change their registration."

To many Democrats, the most important bit of evidence pointing to a Kerry win is the exit polling data on Election Day. Although news agencies did not report the Election Day polls during the day, and no networks used the polls to call the race in close swing states, the polls, which were conducted by a consortium of news agencies called the National Election Pool, were leaked all over the Web. Those leaks seemed to show Kerry winning. And how could the polls have been so spectacularly wrong? Democrats wonder.

It's a good question, and at the moment, there's no answer, says Joe Lenski, who led the exit polling at Edison/Mitofsky Research, the firm that conduced the survey for the media. But Lenski says it's absurd to conclude from the surveys that the actual count is off. An exit poll is a survey, and surveys can fail. "The exit polls never said Kerry was going to win," he says. "The exit polls might have showed that Kerry was up in the national popular vote -- but it's still a survey with a margin of error, and every paying client knew from us that a 1- or 2-point lead is nothing that anybody would go to the bank with." It's worth noting that early exit polls in 2000 were also wrong, calling the race for Gore or Bush in various states where the other eventually won.

[Suff]

The elections over right? Bush won right? Then why are you arguing with people that won't let it go? Your not that anxious for a fight are you? Jiminey christmas. If my fellow Democrats want to debate or argue anything then make it on why we think the majority went the way they went...or why we think they erred..

Like Reagan , Kerry will run again in 2008. And like Reagan he may win. Reagan lost what? Once or twice in his Poltical Career?

The 59 Million figure that Keeps getting POUNDED out on the board. Its meaningless. More people voted. Bush got the Most votes ever cast and Kerry got the 2nd most. Bush won. Do you want a decent debate on my take on the who whats ands wheres of the Vote. Ask me, I'll tell you. But I don't want to just vomit my opinion on anyone and everyone.

You feel safer? I was in Manhattan this morning. I drove down Madison avenue... Right from the East side all the way into Harlem. You may feel safer , but I sure don't.

Bush is the President. Move on everyone.

[so.cal.fan]

I am one of your fellow Democrats, Suff....I disagree with you, I don't think Kerry will run again. He was a very poor candidate.
There was something I didn't like about him from jump, and the more I heard of his poor record in the Senate.....the more I saw the radical wing of the party (specifically, the Hollywood crowd) the more I was put off.....then the swiftboat stuff.......all the memories of John Kerry's behavior after the war in Viet Nam....
Kerry came across as a man who was very artificial.....phoney....cold.......just plain not the real deal, Suff.
No way is he a candidate again, imho.
Did you hear what President Clinton said today?
I agree with him.
Democrats have to get away from Michael Moore and the old 1960's type liberal spin and into the mainstream of the American voters. The Democrats CAN come up with a good AGENDA.....they can be CLEAR on their positions. If and when they do so, they will get some of us back.....if not........they keep losing elections.

[lsbets]

Suff, politically you and I agree on very little, but your advice to your fellow Kerry voters is dead on, and for that I respect you.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Moving toward the center does not mean you should be more self-centered.
And find a candidate who is as tolerant of gambling as Bush instead of one who goes to Vegas and calls gambling a "nusiance". LOL.
Maybe then rigging will not be suspected.

[Secretariat]

PA,

You reference an article about the “Dixiecrats”.

“These voters may keep their Democratic registrations alive so that they can participate in local Democratic primaries, but when it comes to national races they would never vote for the Democrat.”

Really? If you check 1996 those counties went for Bill Clinton. As to 2000 in Florida, we just don’t know because a recount was stopped by the Supreme Court.

Actually, when I started looking into this, I thought it was a bunch of hooey, but the more I examine the information, watch Keith Olbermann, look at the disparities between the Exit Pollling with paper trail states verus those without paper trails, hear about precincts with 7% turnout which had dramatic turnout in 2000; NC which will have to redo their election (except for the Presidential) due to a variety of problems mainly - Carteret County. See the problems in Warren County, OH, the 4,000 votes added to Bush in an OH precinct with less than a 1000 people, Broward County machines which count backwards, and the fact that many precincts in Cuyahoga County, OH actually show less voter turnout in 2004 than in 2000 for Gore despite increased voter registrations I have come to be a believer something is not quite right here. Does any of this matter? Will Kerry supplant Bush as President? Of course not. It isn’t about that. It’s about fraud, it’s about the inability of our government to even be able to run an audit of our own election. It’s about the fact that the first time elections in which touch screens were used on a massive scale it will not be audited, and in some cases (where there is no paper receipt) can’t be audited. Obviously, the party which is reported as winning will never complain. And Kerry or the Democratic party hasn’t either. This movement has been from the grassroots.

Nader, the Green Party, Bev Harris from blackboxvoting.org are going after this to expose the fallacies in our voting process. Six Congressmen have already stepped up to the plate to address this. And Olbermann is the only network reporter to address voter fraud.

Why shouldn’t our voting problems be fixed? Why shouldn’t people trust that their vote actually count and be scrutinized by auditors? The IRS scrutinizes every penny we make, why can’t a vote we make for the highest office in the land be given the same scrutiny?

Many of these problems were warned about before the election and they’ve come to roost. I don’t think this story is going to go away, but is building.

[lsbets]

Sec,

Its interesting that your posts have become parrots of post on the DU site. None of your claims add up when put the test by credible sources. As I said, what you guys are doing appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the government of the United States while we are at war. Pretty sickening.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec,

Its interesting that your posts have become parrots of post on the DU site. None of your claims add up when put the test by credible sources. As I said, what you guys are doing appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the government of the United States while we are at war. Pretty sickening.

Please name me one thing I have said about the war in my above quote.

The info I gather is from a variety of locations. I've seen no debunking of the above that I just quoted. If so, I would appreciate you providing it. I have no problems if people can show me where I've received bad information.

Isbets, this has nothing to do with the war. I'm not sure where you drew that conclusion from what I just said.

[PaceAdvantage]

So Sec, you disagree with the articles posted on Slate.Com and Salon.Com, two very liberal websites?

Did you bother reading the articles?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
The elections over right? Bush won right? Then why are you arguing with people that won't let it go? Your not that anxious for a fight are you?

Not anxious for a fight, just quite disgusted with where certain people are trying to take this without any evidence. I started this thread as a rebuttal to the "Was the election rigged" thread.

Believe me, I am not looking for anything, but I am finding plenty that's pissing me off.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
So Sec, you disagree with the articles posted on Slate.Com and Salon.Com, two very liberal websites?

Did you bother reading the articles?

Yes, I did. All of them. Although I had to register for one. They're op-ed pieces, and entitled to their opinions.

I wouldn't consider slate liberal...Scoop is liberal.

Would you like an article from them on this? Salon is sometimes liberal and sometimes not.

But seriously, PA, you have to acknowledge there has been serious voter fraud in this election. Why else would NC have to redo their election?

[lsbets]

Sec,

I never said that you said anything about the war - read again. What I said is that you are attempting to undermine the government of the United States at a time when we are at war.

Your wacky theories have been debunked all over the place. I can only make two assumptions for why you are sticking with them:

1) You are not intelligent enough to understand how they have been shown to be false, or

2) You are more concerned with the far lefts agenda and the need to deligitimize President Bush than you are with the truth. You will do anything to advance your agenda and attempt to gain power.

Now, what do I believe? You have shown me that you are not unintelligent, so I toss option 1 out the window. That only leaves me with option 2 - that discrediting our government, weakening it, and making it less effective are more important to you than ensuring that we can project an image of strength as a nation at a time when it is critical that we do. That makes me question your patriotism. A word that comes to my mind is sedition. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where party was more important than the people and the nation, and considering how far left the agenda of the folks over at the DU is, their politics are not that far removed from those of our old commie friends.

[JustRalph]

You keep going with Olberman........even Imus referred to him as a "whack job that is way off base on this election stuff"

Sen. John Conyers, a certified dyed in the wool leader of the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society, says that there is nothing to the stuff that Olberman is airing.

Oh yeah.........that society goes by the acronym

"KOOKS"

[Dick Schmidt]

Just a thought:

I think all the talk on the web and elsewhere is undermining not only the confidence of the voters, but also the judgment and legacy of John Kerry. The man ran a strong campaign and got 54 million Americans to agree with him. When he saw the will of the people, he gave what is undoubtedly the best speech of his life when he delivered his concession speech, graciously admitting defeat and wishing the President, and more importantly the country well.

I think it's a shame that people have lost faith in democracy to the point that they run to the courts before the last ballot is counted. Or smear the whole process when it doesn't come out the way they want. Let Kerry retain his dignity and respect. He lost, he conceded and he fought a good fight.

It's done.

Dick


Who's proud to wake up in the morning as an American.

[JustRalph]

Olbermann Can 'Countdown,' But Can He Count Up?
November 10, 2004
On Fox News' "Special Report," Brit Hume raised the nut conspiracy theories circulating on the Web about Republicans stealing the presidential election. The liberals on the panel responded by quickly pointing out that no national Democrats – not even Terry McAuliffe! – had suggested that there had been any systematic vote theft. Hume admitted the rumors of vote fraud were limited to nutcases on the Web.

Like most Americans, apparently no one at Fox is watching MSNBC!

In a major report on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" last Monday, Olbermann revealed that Bush's win in Florida – and thus the election – was "attributable largely to largely Democratic districts suddenly switching sides and all voting for Mr. Bush at the same time"! You know Keith Olbermann is heart-attack serious when he starts using "largely" twice in the same sentence.

Somberly reporting that "all this data here is from the office of Florida's secretary of state," Olbermann listed five Florida counties where the registrations are majority Democratic – and yet (!) the counties went for Bush.

A quick glance at the Congressional Almanac indicates that all five counties in Olbermann's conspiracy theory are in the Florida Panhandle, where most people have been registered as Democrats since their grandfathers registered them to vote shortly after the Civil War. This is in contrast to Broward and Dade Counties, where the vast majority of voters entered their party registrations when they moved to Florida from New York a few years ago.

As if anticipating Olbermann's idiotic conspiracy theory two years ago when he wrote the most recent almanac, Michael Barone specifically notes that these Panhandle counties – though still majority Democratic in party registrations – have been voting for Republicans for president for many years. This would include the 2000 presidential election when the three voting districts at the centerpiece of Olbermann's conspiracy theory voted for Bush by 69 percent, 66 percent and 57 percent. The only way Barone could have made this any clearer to the "Countdown" host would have been to begin the chapter, "Dear Keith Olbermann ..."

There's no mystery, no scandal. These are what's known as "Southern Democrats," who have been voting Republican for a very, very, very long time. Most of them probably don't even realize they're registered as Democrats. These people are Democrats like Kevin Phillips is a Republican, like Ashlee Simpson is a singer.

The only scandal is that a purported news program would raise insinuations of vote fraud based on the party registration of Southern Democrats living in the Florida Panhandle – without anyone at the show checking the Congressional Almanac. (It's especially attractive to be promoting a theory based on a lack of basic information, in the self-righteous, smug manner of Keith Olbermann.)

No election in the United States can be discussed intelligently without reference to Michael Barone's Congressional Almanac. At any half-serious TV news station, the Congressional Almanac is as common as a phonebook.

But at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann can go on air with the major breaking story that five conservative Democratic Panhandle counties voted for Bush, without one person on the show: (1) consulting the Congressional Almanac, (2) looking at the results of the 2000 election, or (3) apparently ever having heard of "Southern Democrats." (They're all Republicans now!)

In case you needed more on the genius theories being hatched on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," even if every one of these counties went unanimously for Kerry – count them up, Keith! – that's still, at most, about 50,000 votes. Bush won by 350,000 votes in Florida.

So I guess we can add "math" to Keith's growing "I Don't Do" file, along with "Reading the Congressional Almanac," "Basic Show Prep," "Getting My Attitude in Line With My IQ" ... (By the way, shouldn't Keith Olbermann be avoiding "time is running out" motifs wherever possible?)

One cable news network employs Michael Barone as an analyst; one cable news network does not own a copy of the Congressional Almanac. Guess which one regularly gets seven times the ratings of the other?

In addition to Olbermann peddling the theory that Bush stole the election to his viewer, guess which network employs a correspondent who wasn't sure if the following was a joke?

BUSH AT FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER WINNING ELECTION: "Now that I have the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one question rule – that was three questions."

BUSH RESPONDING TO A REPORTER'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: "Again, you violated the one question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people."

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster replayed this exchange on MSNBC's "Hardball" and then grimly remarked: "It was hard to tell at times whether the president was simply needling reporters, or whether he really planned to clamp down." It wasn't hard to tell for anyone who speaks English.

[Equineer]

The problem is that dissent is necessary to preserve democracy.

I don't subscribe to the proposition that tampering determined the outcome of the recent election; however, it is counterproductive to attack Secretariat or anyone who thinks or suspects differently.

Our history is replete with examples where dissent was unpopular until critics and protesters were proven to be either wrong or right.

At the zenith of President Reagan's popularity and credibility, I remember how ridiculous the first accusations about the Iran-Contra scandal sounded... we were publically supporting Iraq and castigating Iran.

Many months of accusations and unpopular dissent followed before the controversy was resolved.

During the Iraq-Iran war from 1980 to 1988, we provided overt and covert aid to Saddam Hussein, legally funded and approved by Congress and motivated primarily because we had previously supported the deposed Shah of Iran.

In the very same period, the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran while it was engaged in the bloody war with Saddam, and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist but democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Both transactions were contrary to acts of Congress, which prohibited the funding of the Contras and the sale of weapons to Iran. Both activities violated United Nations sanctions that our government publically acknowledged. And finally, there is the obvious moral question about simultaneously arming both sides in a war that took over a million lives.

Congress eventually discovered the truth about the illegal Iran-Contra dealings,.. and to his credit, President Reagan avoided Nixon's Watergate fate by admitting to his administration's Iran-Contra transgressions in a famous televised speech to the American public.

So I repeat, dissent is necessary to preserve democracy.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Equineer
So I repeat, dissent is necessary to preserve democracy.

LOL. You're starting to believe everything you type as gospel, aren't you?

Rational dissent is of course a necessity. Radical dissent just for dissent's sake is quite a different animal.

What we have in this case is none of the above. This case should be put in a box and labeled:

HANDLE WITH CARE - CONTAINS WILLFUL STUBBORNNESS / IGNORANCE

[schweitz]

Originally posted by lsbets


2) You are more concerned with the far lefts agenda and the need to deligitimize President Bush than you are with the truth. You will do anything to advance your agenda and attempt to gain power.



Bingo!

[Equineer]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
LOL. You're starting to believe everything you type as gospel, aren't you?

Rational dissent is of course a necessity. Radical dissent just for dissent's sake is quite a different animal.

What we have in this case is none of the above. This case should be put in a box and labeled:

HANDLE WITH CARE - CONTAINS WILLFUL STUBBORNNESS / IGNORANCEDissent usually seems irrational... few if any of my contemporary associates thought either Watergate or Iran-Contra were rational issues for dissent... the charges seemed ridiculous until the facts eventually emerged.

What you miss is that dissenters only have to be right once to reaffirm the necessity for dissent.

I was sorely disappointed to learn that Iran-Contra allegations about the Reagan administration were true. It was, after all, in 1981 when I proudly accepted a direct commission by executive order. It wasn't until Reagan acknowledged the truth, that I really accepted the facts.

[boxcar]

lsbets responds to Sec:

2) You are more concerned with the far lefts agenda and the need to deligitimize President Bush than you are with the truth. You will do anything to advance your agenda and attempt to gain power.

Isbets, I have little doubt that what has energized this bunny is the trash he's been reading over on the DUmb site.
As they say, "garbage in, garbage out" -- one of the dangerous hazards of having a "wide open mind".

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Apparently, I am not alone:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader

[Dick Schmidt]

Sec,

No, you're not alone, but it's close.

Dick


Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Apparently, I am not alone:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader

Of course not, Sec. Misery always loves company...at least some company. Let's see: Just what percentage is 2,000 of more than 104 million voters?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec,

I never said that you said anything about the war - read again. What I said is that you are attempting to undermine the government of the United States at a time when we are at war.

Your wacky theories have been debunked all over the place. I can only make two assumptions for why you are sticking with them:

1) You are not intelligent enough to understand how they have been shown to be false, or

2) You are more concerned with the far lefts agenda and the need to deligitimize President Bush than you are with the truth. You will do anything to advance your agenda and attempt to gain power.

Now, what do I believe? You have shown me that you are not unintelligent, so I toss option 1 out the window. That only leaves me with option 2 - that discrediting our government, weakening it, and making it less effective are more important to you than ensuring that we can project an image of strength as a nation at a time when it is critical that we do. That makes me question your patriotism. A word that comes to my mind is sedition. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where party was more important than the people and the nation, and considering how far left the agenda of the folks over at the DU is, their politics are not that far removed from those of our old commie friends.

And there it is. Asking for an accounting of the votes and now my patriotism is questioned. Pointing up irregularities in our voting process and my patriotism is questioned. That is absurd, and regardless of whether we are at war or not, VERIFYING that every vote was counted correctly in a democracy is NOT UN-PATRIOTIC.

To associate my request to verify voter irregularities to the Soviet Union smacks of McCarthyism. In the Soviet Union there was no vote if I remember, and to question the government was tantamount to a death sentence. Here I point up irregularities based on the voting technolgy that we will most lilkely be seeing more and more in the coming years, and now I am being charged with sedition.

I don't subscribe to the keep your mouth shut and look down if I see something possibly fraudulent in our democracy. Thankfully neither does Ralph Nader.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader

[boxcar]

Secretariat writes:

I don't subscribe to the keep your mouth shut and look down if I see something possibly fraudulent in our democracy. Thankfully neither does Ralph Nader.

That's nice. But it's obvious to most of us here that you also wholeheartedly subscribe to being sucked in to thoughtless, poorly researched theories by a relatively very few nattering, crybaby, sore losing pinheads who stubbornly refuse, as you have, to confront all the facts head on. This indeed raises questions as to your patrotism because whenever one deliberately chooses to remain blinded to the evidence and the facts, then there must be a political agenda that drives that kind of decision.

Nice company you keep...

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

It's not over yet..........Kerry has a million lawyers in Columbus Right now..............I posted some info on another thread.....Kerry is trying like hell to find a way to contest the election..........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6460869/

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Sec,

No, you're not alone, but it's close.

Dick


Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity

Thanks. Looks like your Libertarian party is also asking for an OH recount as well as the Greens along with Nader and myself, and if JR is right, perhpas Kerry soon. Let's hope so.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Found on the Ohio Secretary of State website:

Please consider making your own commitment to character building. By learning and living character ethics.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Thanks. Looks like your Libertarian party is also asking for an OH recount as well as the Greens along with Nader and myself, and if JR is right, perhpas Kerry soon. Let's hope so.

Hey, I guess you have to keep yourself busy with something. A life without meaning isn't really a life.

Good luck to you. When you have concrete proof that the election was rigged, you let us know....ooops....you'll probably let us know lots of stuff, even without evidence....I forgot who I was communicating with for a moment....

Didn't you say you were leaving the board after the election, or was that LJB? I get so confused now and then....

:rolleyes:

[lsbets]

Sec - if I thought that you really gave a crap about counting every vote, your statements might have some credibility. However, it is painfully obvious that all you are concerned with is trying to deligitimize the President of the United States. You can't win at the polls, so you have to find another way to advance your agenda, truth be damned. I stand by my statements and am sickened by the actions of those on the far left like the DU and others of that ilk.

[Secretariat]

More problems with Fidlar machines.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/193880-4433-093.html

[PaceAdvantage]

There are glitches in every election.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED GLITCHES

You don't need 17,000 lawyers to figure that out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec - if I thought that you really gave a crap about counting every vote, your statements might have some credibility. However, it is painfully obvious that all you are concerned with is trying to deligitimize the President of the United States. You can't win at the polls, so you have to find another way to advance your agenda, truth be damned. I stand by my statements and am sickened by the actions of those on the far left like the DU and others of that ilk.

It's a continuation of what we saw leading up to the election. It will never end. These people have become a bit dependent on this sort of stuff. They're, dare I say, addicts. Probably the worst thing in the world for them would have been if Kerry won!!!

Life without meaning....

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

There are glitches in every election.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED GLITCHES

You don't need 17,000 lawyers to figure that out.

If you're a Liberal, you do. It would take this number who had their collective heads up their butts to figure out what is readily understandable to one normal, clear-thinking person. who regularly sees the light of day and is capable of smelling the coffee.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Pa,

Why are you so frightened of an actual accounting of the election?

[PaceAdvantage]

GFY. I'm not frightened at all. I'm saddened that you continue to stoop to the depths that you do to undermine our President.

I told you, GATHER YOUR EVIDENCE, then POST your PROOF. Until then, you have NOTHING except baloney. It's YOUR BURDEN to prove that the election results are incorrect. As far as I'm concerned, the election is over, like it is every 4 years, and the results are crystal clear.

How dare you project some sort of inaccurate emotion onto me. Go to hell. And you can read that quite appropriately as ANGER.

[kenwoodallpromos]

W. F. Fidlar Biography

From "History of Davenport and Scott County" Vol. II by Harry E. Downer-S. J. Clarke Publishing Co. 1910 Chicago.

Surnames: Fidlar, Luse, Lane, Griggs, Watson, Egbert, Chambers.

That W. F. Fidlar occupies a conspicuous and honorable position in commercial circles in Davenport is due entirely to his own efforts. At the outset of his career he realized that energy and determination constitute indispensable factors in success and therefore putting forth strenuous and intelligently directed factors in success and therefore putting forth strenuous and intelligently directed effort he ha reached the prominent place which he now occupies in business circles as senior partner of the firm of Fidlar & Chambers.
A native of Ohio, Mr. Fidlar was born in Hebron, Licking county, on the 30th of August, 1841. His father, Samuel P. Fidlar, was a native of Pennsylvania and at an early day removed to Ohio. In 1859 he came to Davenport and was United States mail agent on the Mississippi in the early '60s, his time being thus occupied until his life's labors were ended in death in 1864. He had married Maria M. Moore, who survived him until 1891.
While spending his youthful days under the parental roof in Ohio, W. F. Fidlar there acquired his education and on coming to Davenport, when in his eighteenth year, he entered the employ of Luse, Lane & Company, bookbinders and printers, under whose direction he learned the trade. He remained with the house when the business was taken over by the firm of Griggs, Watson & Day, remaining with the latter firm as an employ until 1868, when the business was reorganized and he entered into partnership relations as a member of the firm of Day, Egbert & Fidlar. In 1880 a change in partnership led to the adoption of the name of Egbert, Fidlar & Chambers and on the death of Mr. Egbert the firm became Fidlar & Chambers. The success of Mr. Fidlar is due undoubtedly in part to the fact that he has always continued in the same line in which he embarked as a young tradesman, concentrating his energies upon this particular field, so that he soon gained intimate and comprehensive knowledge of the business in every department and was therefore able to intelligently direct any phase of the enterprise. Under his capable management the business has become one of Davenport's most successful industrial enterprises, with a patronage of large and profitable proportions.
Mr. Fidlar is not a *****politician in the commonly accepted sense of the term but at all times manifests that deep interest in public questions which every American citizen should display, and has served as alderman of his ward. He is a very prominent mason and much respected in the fraternity. He became a member of Davenport Lodge in 1864, has always been most loyal to the teachings of the order and when the Masonic Temple was erected he was made one of its first directors. He has taken all the degrees up to the thirty-third and has filled the various chairs in the blue lodge, chapter and commandery. He is a man of high character, exemplifying in his life the beneficent spirit of the craft and is held in highest respect socially and in a business way, for the policy which he pursues has always been in harmony with high commercial ideals. In the conduct of his business he has ever felt that the output of the house should be its best advertisement and therefore has maintained the highest standard of excellence in product. Close application and energy have enabled him to overcome all difficulties and obstacles in his path and his capable utilization of opportunity and coordination of forces have brought him into important relations with the business interests of his adopted city.

Transcribed by Elaine Rathmann
_________________
This should put to rest any conspiracy theories involving Fidlar.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Kenwoodall, why do you constantly muck up threads? Or am I the dummy who can't figure out what the hell you are posting half the time?

[kenwoodallpromos]

The war ended, Colonel Egbert quietly resumed the pursuits of civil life, again taking up the work of the farm to which he gave his attention until the fall of 1869, when his fellow citizens gave expression of their desire for his service in a public capacity by electing him treasurer of Scott county. He held that responsible position for four years and about the close of his term engaged in the printing, binding and blank book business as ****the senior member of the firm of Egbert, Fidlar & Chambers. In the fall of 1879 he was *****elected on the republican ticket as Scott county's representative to the Iowa legislature, and his sourse in the general assembly was characterized by the same loyalty and fidelity which had marked him in other offices, both civil and military. He was from its founding deeply interested in the Soldier's Orphans' Home at Davenport, and while a member of the legislature worked earnestly and successfully to secure such enactments as would insure the permanency and still greater usefulness of that institution. For several years he was the local member and president of its board of trustees.

In politics Colonel Egbert was always a stanch supporter of the republican party,
____________
At least he supported the veterans.LOL.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Hey Kenwoodall, why do you constantly muck up threads? Or am I the dummy who can't figure out what the hell you are posting half the time?

Amen! Is it a Friday night thing?

Ken..... I don't follow.................maybe it's me.........