I’m stunned! I assumed that when Diebold changed the name of its voting machine division to “Premier Election Solutions”, that was the end of it. The new name signaled they had cleaned up their act and it was no longer possible to rig their machines. I may have been a tad hasty.
Who needs dirty tricks and kicking people off voting rolls who lost their homes when simply not providing enough ballots will keep Dems from voting! Sweet!
Voting problems in several swing states
A new Government Accountability Office report on voting system testing finds that the Election Assistance Commission has not notified election officials across the country about electronic voting machine failures.
And a new study by Common Cause and the Century Foundation finds that 10 very vital swing states have significant voting problems that have not been addressed since the last election.
[…]
“You know, Colorado is two years behind many states in implementing a statewide voter database. … This is a new system, and there’s just a lot of unknowns as to whether or not voters will be successful,” said Jenny Flanagan of Common Cause.The problems listed in the report range from not enough voting machines to glitches with electronic registration poll books. Read the report.
[…]
“And yet I see nothing, except in one of the 10 states, that the states are doing to ensure that there will be enough provisional ballots on hand so that they don’t run out of them. Ideally, provisional ballots should be on hand for 10 percent of the voting population,” she added.
#31 – O’Furniture
>>Sure. I read all of it.
How about sharing some of that “proof” in regards to David Kernell, O’Furn?
I haven’t seen any, but since you “read all of it”, I’m sure you’re a wellspring of information.
#32 – J
>>Unfortunately, for you we live in a country
>>that doesn’t allow asshats to have their 14th
>>century thought process to control they way
>>we conduct our society.
Don’t get to categorical there, J. After all, we have the Patriot Act. Warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo, waterboarding, government control of private communications, and like that.
LOL, the evidence against Kernell was pretty solid based on what’s come out of the grand jury testimony(isn’t that supposed to be secret?). Do you guys really think he didn’t do it?
Bobbo, Pat Buchanan didn’t have 80k votes in Miami. It was as much as 3 thousand ‘stolen’ from Gore in Palm Beach County.
# 34 Mister Mustard
LOL
# 35 MikeN
“the evidence against Kernell was pretty solid based on what’s come out of the grand jury testimony”
Not solid enough to hand down an indictment apparently. You do realize how easy it usually is to get an indictment right?
“Do you guys really think he didn’t do it?”
Don’t know and neither do you because you don’t have any evidence.
#35 – Silly Mike
>>LOL, the evidence against Kernell was pretty
>>solid based on what’s come out of the grand
>>jury testimony
“Pretty solid”??? Aw Mike! Tell me you’ve got some links regarding “what’s come out of the grand jury testimony:!! Otherwise, you’re busted back to Lyin’ Mike.
And I guess it wasn’t THAT solid, hmm? The grand jury failed to indict. And you know what they say on Law & Order… “the DA could indict a ham sandwich of he wanted to”. When a grand jury fails to indict, you just KNOW there’s no evidence at all.
>>Do you guys really think he didn’t do it?
Personally, I don’t give a flying f&ck. If he did it (which it appears that he did NOT), he can take his slap on the wrist and go home.
The real scandal here is Sarracuda and her “subpoena-proof” electronic communications with staffer and other government employees.
When are the FBI and the Secret Service going to start looking into THAT????
#33 “How about sharing some of that “proof” in regards to David Kernell, O’Furn?”
What are you babbling about? All I said was that the Secret Service would be involved and some idiot didn’t think they would. I was right. I never claimed having proof of anything, only knowledge of who would be involved.
Take you meds.
# 39 Paddy-O
“I never claimed having proof of anything,” only knowledge of who would be involved.”
Really? It looks like you did here in post#31 where you said “Sure. I read all of it”
“All I said was that the Secret Service would be involved and some idiot didn’t think they would.”
Nice way to misinterpret what I said. I set the parameters under which they would be involved. You just simply said they would because you don’t understand the law. So my prediction was much closer to knowledge of the matter than yours and mine was correct.
“only knowledge of who would be involved.”
You had no knowledge. You were making a guess and an uneducated guess at that.
#39 – O’Furniture
>>I never claimed having proof of anything,
>>only knowledge of who would be involved.
If you’re still conscious, go back and read your original message. In case you can’t find it, here it is:
#30 “You didn’t seem very interested in proof the other day in regards to David Kernell.”
Sure. I read all of it.
You “read all of it”. All of what? The only thing mentioned in the previous message was PROOF. And you’ve read all of it.
Dunno what you’re jibber-jabbering about wrt to the Secret Service. That they would be involved is as old as the ho-hum “search for the hacker” story itself.
I see the McBush cartel has been successful so far in suppressing the REAL crime and scandal here; Palin’s abuse of e-mail to cover up what she’s doing.
Let’s hope the MSM can slip the surly bonds of the neocon right-wingnuts, and get this story out into the light of day.
#41 Hey moron,
“Sure. I read all of it.”
Was said as sarcasm because there is no proof that the public has seen.
Remember when an idiot posted “You didn’t seem very interested in proof the other day in regards to David Kernell.”?
There was no proof referred to. Hence the sarcasm.
Take yer meds.
#42 – O’Furniture
>>Sarcasm
Yer no Lenny Bruce, I’ll tell you that.
So. You agree that there’s no evidence that the kid was the one who exposed Palin’s malfeasance as governor of Alaska?
Yay! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
# 24 bobbo said, in part:
“I’d say the Dem party could spend some money on training their sheep on how to vote in their various locations.”
What? And get arrested & charged with election fraud? That’s almost as bad as the #1 activity that gets people charged with election fraud: offering people free rides to the polls on election day!
#43 “So. You agree that there’s no evidence that the kid was the one who exposed Palin’s …”
Even if you nail the computer it’s very hard to say X person did it. No real evidence. If more than one person uses the computer the prosecutor is probably SOL.
# 42 Paddy-O
“Remember when an idiot posted “You didn’t seem very interested in proof the other day in regards to David Kernell.”?”
Wow are you fucking dumb. I was pointing out that you didn’t seem to care that there was no evidence that the kid did it and yet you were willing to point fingers at him as if he were guilty.
THAT WAS SARCASIM!!!!
You think you can wiggle out of it but you know god damn well what you were saying. You are a fucking hypocrite. You don’t want to apply the same rule of evidence when it is your side under attack. You want to point fingers at a kid, with zero evidence, who STILL to this hour not even named as a suspect by the FBI and Secret Service and insinuate he is guilty yet you require some sort proof for other to do the same.
# 45 Paddy-O
“No real evidence.”
Oh we agree there is NO evidence! So then until there is you won’t be making comments that insinuate he is guilty correct?
Who gives a shit. .. Since Boss Rove took over, elections in the USA are no more relevant than they are in Uganda.
The rest of the world should insist they get to supply monitors at all voting stations in the states now.
#46 “I was pointing out that you didn’t seem to care that there was no evidence that the kid did it and”
You consider yourself an idiot? I didn’t refer to you by name.
I guess you know yourself better than I.
#48 – O’Furniture
Your usual senseless rambling has turned into psychotic gibberish.
Whatever point you were trying to make, it went off into one of those multiple dimensions that are rattling around in your head.
To summarize:
1) There’s no evidence that the son-of-a-Democrat had anything to do with “hacking” Palin’s unauthorized Yahoo! account. You continue to refer to the situation as though there were.
2) You continue to perseverate on this unidentified hacker, as though he/ she were the real issue here, and continue to ignore the REAL scandal, to wit: WTF WAS SARAH PALIN DOING CONDUCTING OFFICIAL STATE BUSINESS ON A PERSONAL, DISPOSABLE E-MAIL ACCOUNT THAT COULD BE DELETED AND WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SUBPOENA??.
Did I miss anything?
# 48 Paddy-O
“You consider yourself an idiot? I didn’t refer to you by name.
I guess you know yourself better than I.”
That rambling nonsense is the best you’ve got?