 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 2, 2008 at 08:22:06
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 10/2/08: |
|
|
1
As a result, some constituents may get a 'try back at a later time' response if they use the House website to e-mail their lawmakers about the bill defeated in the House on Monday in a 205-228 vote. The CAO issued a “Dear Colleague” letter Tuesday morning informing offices that it had placed a limit on the number of e-mails sent via the “Write Your Representative” function of the House website. It said the limit would be imposed during peak e-mail traffic hours. “This measure has become temporarily necessary to ensure that Congressional websites are not completely disabled by the millions of e-mails flowing into the system,” the letter reads. Ventura likened the problem to a bottleneck scenario on a highway, where multiple lanes of traffic converge into a smaller set of lanes. In that situation, some cars get to move forward while others have to remain at a standstill. “What we had to do was basically install the digital equivalent of a traffic cop,” Ventura said. “It was a question of inconveniencing everybody or inconveniencing some people some of the time, while servicing other people the other half of the time.” Member offices began to notice an overwhelming number of e-mails last week as the economy roiled and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or “bailout package,” became of interest to millions of Americans. All the clogs in the traditional e-mail service have since been resolved, according to the CAO. However, Ventura ventured that the problems on the House website might not be resolved until the economic package was finalized. “We think we will see this spike [in Web traffic] until when and if another bill is hammered out,” Ventura said. “There’s going to be a lot of interest in this all week.” The error message in its entirety reads: “The House of Representatives is currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of e-mail traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittently available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience.”
House limits constituent e-mails to prevent crash By Jordy Yager Posted: 09/30/08 01:16 PM [ET] The House is limiting e-mails from the public to prevent its websites from crashing due to the enormous amount of mail being submitted on the financial bailout bill.
www.voiceofthevoters.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 15 comments |
|
still can't get thru Thursday 11AM CDT
Can't get thru after numerous tries to email my treasonous Rep...How is it that the original 3 page bill grew to 110 pages when the House voted on it Tuesday,and by yesterday evening it was 450 pages when Senators voted on their version...who can read 450 pages of 'senatese' before voting on it in such a short time? NO ONE, that's who! Adding pork for car race tracks, rum vendors and others, and raising the FDIC limit to 250,000 is just making me MORE mad about this. Who the hell has over 100,000 in one bank account except for people who already are dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking rich alerady?? by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM  (0+)
|
|
Conyers in july stopped voters from telling him to impeach
In July when HJC Chair Conyers held the non-impeachment hearing that went on for what six hours with two overflow rooms of activists and more in the halls, Conyers Stopped voters from conveniently mailing the entire judiciary Committee by first breaking the software link on the website and then just deleting it. We were getting rejected email messages as well. Now you have to individually email everyone on the HJC separately. This is typical behaviour for the DLC House democrats lead by Pelosi, Conyers and Hoyer. Fisrt they voted against the bill saying they had a huge incoming volume of emails most against. Now they say the emails are for the bailout and are using the minor changes to justify it. Campaign negatively against these jerks. They are unworthy to be called Democrats. by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:37:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Chaos on the Hill, and everywhere
Mary Ann Goulds observations,indignation and justified fury, are not an isolated event. All aspects of Americas "governing" body is out of control and are without any means to regain such...and in their intuitive hearts the American population knows it. Congress knows that any economic "bailout" is empty because even they know that governmental loans are backed by vapor. The Government needs money, the Fed prints federal reserve notes backed by vapor, charges preposterous interest...presto-chango the national debt jumps ten percent overnight! The snowball comprising economics, social justice, founding principles is out of control and caroming wildly across Americas landscape. Yeah, I can see why Congress fears emails raining down on them...but, I could not possibly care less what they think or want. They are all devoid of morality and character. Unfortunately, nightmarishly, this IS part of a pattern of government attempting to control the influence and autonomy of the population at large. Control the money, molest the vote, undermine constitutional precepts, police the state, and spin it all as the nature of modern life. If there is a hell, if there is any justice in the afterlife money changers and politicians will walk endlessly neck deep in a ditch filled with their own filth. Oh yeah, almost forgot....Call their offices, mail them hate mail, send them a Fedex...build a bon fire and use smoke signals, do anything that you can to let them feel your righteous rage. by James Strait (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 193 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:26:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Perhaps they should listen to us instead of rushing another
Bush power grabbing, money scamming bill through? Instead, they have to limit email access and hold votes when their offices are closed. How about some debate and discussion of alternatives? No, that would be too democratic!!! So, 74 Senators said, "Let them eat cake!" If you want to know more about the bailout bill, what caused the crisis, who really benefits, and what the bailout bill will actually do, see Senate Bailout a.k.a. Bank Robbery Bill by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:28:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Be Creative!
Americans are proud of ingenuity. We can - we MUST - find ways to get OUR message thru to OUR Representatives, Call local offices...call their campaign...go to their local office and register your position Put out flyers. Email friends TPTB want us to disappear. Though representatives are influenced by lobbyists and own party they still are concerned if constituents have strong beliefs on legislation. The reps need to be re-elected so will in certain circumstances put voters first BUT they need to know our position and the depth of our concern as well as determination. The limitation of emails is IMO an act to limit citizens from getting their points across Will you accept this or find another way to make sure representatives are well aware of your position and what they may have to pay in November if they listen to moneyed interests versus people. by Mary Ann Gould (75 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:41:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Be Creative!
Americans are proud of ingenuity. We can - we MUST - find ways to get OUR message thru to OUR Representatives, Call local offices...call their campaign...go to their local office and register your position Put out flyers. Email friends TPTB want us to disappear. Though representatives are influenced by lobbyists and own party they still are concerned if constituents have strong beliefs on legislation. The reps need to be re-elected so will in certain circumstances put voters first BUT they need to know our position and the depth of our concern as well as determination. The limitation of emails is IMO an act to limit citizens from getting their points across Will you accept this or find another way to make sure representatives are well aware of your position and what they may have to pay in November if they listen to moneyed interests versus people. by Mary Ann Gould (75 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:46:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Listen to Leaders of Past
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." by Mary Ann Gould (75 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Have you thought this through?
Mary Ann Gould writes: WE DESTROYED OUR VOTING SYSTEM THROUGH A RUSH TO PASS HAVA (HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT). NOW WE KNOW MANY OF THE PROBLEMS OF THIS POWER/MONEY INFLUENCED LEGISLATION WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A HUGE WASTE OF FUNDS, "FATALLY FLAWED" VOTING. IN MANY INSTANCES WE ARE DEPENDING ON FAULTY AND SECRETLY PROGRAMMED SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE VULNERABLE, UNRELIABLE, UNTRUSTWORTHY YET THESE WILL BE USED IN NOVEMBER TO GIVE US RESULTS OF ELECTIONS. THE ACTIONS ARE TO VOTE IN RECORD NUMBERS, OBSERVE & REPORT ON WHAT IS HAPPENING, DEMAND ANSWERS AND AS MUCH PROOF AS POSSIBLE. We voted in record numbers in 2000 and 2004. Both times the President was sworn in BEFORE THE VOTES WERE COUNTED. Suppose that a central tabulator is programmed to give 55% of the vote to McCain and 45% of the vote to Obama. Does it matter how many votes are cast for Obama? Supposing that every eligible voter in the country voted for Obama and not a single voter voted for McCain. How would that stop the central tabulators from saying that McCain won, and Congress from swearing in McCain as President? Suppose that we had observed and monitored the election carefully and had rock-solid proof that everyone had voted for Obama and that nobody had voted for McCain. Do we have any way to force Congress to look at that proof before swearing in McCain? Do we have any way to stop them from taking down their websites, unplugging their phones, and having Homeland Security suppress mass protests when they swear in McCain? Even if we had absolute undisputable proof that everyone voted for Obama and nobody voted for McCain, do we have any way to remove McCain from office once he is sworn in as President? Congress passed HAVA so that they would no longer have to concern themselves about our votes or our voices, Mary Ann. That was their purpose. Once we vote, the machines will produce the preprogrammed results that Congress and their wealthy elite cronies want, and we have no further say. The Constitution does not allow us to vote directly for President and Vice-President and gives Congress (or the unelected Supreme Court) the final say. The Constitution made Congress itself the sole judge of Congressional elections. When you vote, you are delegating your authority to whoever the machines "elect" to do whatever they want during their term of office. Only AFTER the damage has been done and cannot be undone, are you given a chance to vote in the next rigged election and try to delegate your authority to a different set of crooks, if the machines will allow you to do so and if Congress bothers to count your vote. You cannot bring about change by voting in rigged elections. Documenting the election only gives you proof that the election was stolen, not a means to force a new election or remove the fraudulently elected candidates from office. Don't vote -- it only authorizes them to keep screwing us. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:43:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: VOTE!!
I appreciate your concerns. We do have a flawed system but I do not believe the answer is to not vote...the powers that be would love to see Americans not vote and leave outcome to their minions. The more people who vote, the harder it is to cover up mistakes and fraud. The more who vote, the more data we capture to both show problems and show what needs to be corrected as well as keep those who seek to undermine our election on their toes and possibly prevent some plans, for it will be too obvious In 2004, it was the large turn-out in New Mexico that allowed the voting problems to be identified and led to throwing out those touchscreen machines Lincoln said, "Elections belong to the people. It is their decision" It is up to us to make it our decision..to get involved,,,to vote,,,to be reporters on what we observe, to be poll workers, to speajk out when we see wrong or questionable doing. The derivation of the word "vote" has meaning of "sacred word". The vote is our sacred word, a sharing in the compact to participate together in self governing. To give up on the vote is to give up on Democracy. We need to fix the system and we won't by avoiding our most important responsibility as citizens ... Vote and work to make a better system. by Mary Ann Gould (75 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:21:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I know you feel strongly, Mary Ann.
Mary Ann wrote: I appreciate your concerns. We do have a flawed system but I do not believe the answer is to not vote...the powers that be would love to see Americans not vote and leave outcome to their minions. Not so. If people don't vote, the powers that be can no longer claim to be a legitimate government with the consent of the governed. They gain that consent through elections. The Apartheid regime in South Africa and the corrupt Batista regime in Cuba were delegitimized thrugh successful election boycotts. It is the only nonviolent and proven effective way to discredit a corrupt government. The more people who vote, the harder it is to cover up mistakes and fraud. The more who vote, the more data we capture to both show problems and show what needs to be corrected as well as keep those who seek to undermine our election on their toes and possibly prevent some plans, for it will be too obvious Mary Ann, it doesn't matter how many people vote. As I just explained here, this is how one of the many common methods of election fraud works: The central tabulators that secretly count 80% of all U.S. votes can be programmed to undetectably allocate a certain percentage, say 55% of the vote to McCain, and a certain percentage, say 45% to Obama. If everyone in the entire country votes for Obama, the machines will still say that McCain got 55% of the votes and won. And if we get sworn statements from every single registered voter in the country that they voted for Obama (the way that Clint Curtis did after his election was stolen), we have no way to force Congress to look at the evidence or to stop them from swearing in McCain. In 2004, it was the large turn-out in New Mexico that allowed the voting problems to be identified and led to throwing out those touchscreen machines I was told that in Ireland they never had to use the voting machines because when their government tried to introduce them, the Irish people refused to vote on them, so they had to be removed. Once again an election boycott was more successful than any other strategy. Lincoln said, "Elections belong to the people. It is their decision" Well, he may have thought that, and it may even have been so at the time. In today's reality elections have no impact whatsoever on who becomes President. In the presidential races of 2000 and 2004, a full one hundred percent (100%) of the votes were stolen. In both elections, the President was sworn in before the votes were counted. Uncounted votes have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of an election, so it doesn't matter who people voted for or whether or not their votes were recorded accurately. Since our Constitution doesn't allow us to vote directly for President or Vice-President, if we vote and our votes happen to be counted accurately, the political parties can take our votes into consideration in alloting Electoral Votes, if they wish, Congress can accept or reject those Electoral Votes, it it chooses, and the Supreme Court can intervene or not, as it feels appropriate, since there is no way to appeal a Supreme Court decision even if what they do is not within their jurisdiction and is totally unconstitutional and irrational. As for Congressional races, the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, makes Congress itself the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of Members of Congress, so if they choose to install somebody who was fraudulently elected, there is no appeal from that decision either. And once a fraudulently elected candidate is sworn into office, only Congress has the power to remove them, as you may have noticed if you have been active in the impeachment movement. Suppose that Gore had gotten 100% of the vote in Florida 2000, would that have forced the Supreme Court to allow the votes to be counted before Bush was sworn in? And since they didn't allow the votes to be counted, how would anyone have known if Gore had gotten 100% of the vote? If Kerry had gotten 100% of the votes in Ohio 2004, would that have prevented him from conceding before the votes were counted? And how would anyone have known how many votes he'd gotten, since we weren't allowed to count the votes before he conceded? It is up to us to make it our decision..to get involved,,,to vote,,,to be reporters on what we observe, to be poll workers, to speajk out when we see wrong or questionable doing. I'm sure that you will find creative ways to speak out, just as I'm equally sure that Congress doesn't have to listen. Since they control the rigged elections and they have the final say, why should they listen. According to The Prevailing Theory, once you vote, your job is done and they don't have to listen to you any more. You voted, you can complain all you want, but you already delegated them your power and authority to do whatever they want and there's nothing you can do to stop them. The derivation of the word "vote" has meaning of "sacred word". The vote is our sacred word, a sharing in the compact to participate together in self governing. Many people have stated openly, including here on opednews in a poll that I posted, that they hold their vote so sacred that they would continue to vote even if the only federally-approved voting mechanism was a flush toilet. Those who cannot understand the difference between a real vote that gives you a voice in government, and a symbolic vote that does not, probably aren't intelligent enough for self-governance. To give up on the vote is to give up on Democracy. We need to fix the system and we won't by avoiding our most important responsibility as citizens ... Vote and work to make a better system. On the contrary, Mary Ann. To vote in elections where your vote does not control the outcome, is to give up on democracy and settle for tyranny. You cannot work to make a better system by accepting a corrupt system. Think of it this way. Food is essential to life. We need to eat. Suppose you go to a restaurant and the waiter brings you stinking, rotten, rancid, putrid food. Would you say that food is essential to life and we need to eat, and proceed to eat and pay for the food? Or would you send it back, refuse to eat it, and refuse to pay for it? Rigged elections in a system where the popular vote doesn't even have to be counted before the "winner" is sworn into office, do not constitute democracy or a sacred vote. Voting in rigged elections will make your country sick, just as eating putrid food will make you sick. Honest elections are essential to democracy. Rigged elections are the opposite of democracy. Observing, monitoring, and documenting election theft, and then complaining about it afterwards, does not change the outcome of elections because the only people you can complain to are the ones stealing the elections. Karl Rove didn't steal the election of 2000 (although he may have engineered it), the Supreme Court, the highest law of our land, the unelected (and therefore TOTALLY undemocratic) appointed body whose decisions cannot be appealed, stole the election. Do you think it would do any good to complain to them about election theft? Besides, the only candidates on the ballot with any chance of winning the "election" whatsoever, are two of the people who brought us the wars we can't afford and don't need or want, and the bailout that we can't afford and don't need or want. Even if we had honest elections where our votes counted, what good would electing one of them do? To complain about what Congress does, and then turn around and vote to grant them the power and authority to do it again, may not be the most sensible thing to do, Mary Ann. Take a look at my comments below this article, comparing rigged elections to broken vending machines. No matter how many times you put money in a broken vending machine, no matter how closely you observe your money going into the slot, and no matter how many videos you make of your money being stolen by the broken vending machine, if the reason the machine is broken is because the owners of the machine are crooks, and they also control the courts, you are never going to get anything out of the machine or get your money back. To think that putting more money into the voting machine and watching more carefully as your money is stolen, might help, is illogical. Sometimes somebody might love another person very much. But the person they love might change and might start drinking, stealing, killing, and setting fires. Continuing to love them is not going to change their behavior, it just enables them. We do not have a democracy, Mary Ann. We have an abusive tyranny. And we need to recognize that fact and stop legitimizing it. If you vote to grant Congress your mandate, your power, your authority, and your blank check to continue destroying this country, and then complain that you have to find creative ways to complain to them when they do it, because they won't listen to you once you vote to allow them to do whatever they want, I think you are acting with your heart and not really thinking things through. Unfortunately, the rest of us will also have to suffer for your actions. I don't see why my grandkids should have to suffer for your poor judgment. Instead of voting to allow Congress to continue to do things you don't like, and then trying to find creative ways to make them listen to your complaints, when you have no way to hold them accountable, do you think that you might consider not granting them that power in the first place? You can't trust them, you can't hold them accountable, and you don't like what they've been doing, so why, even if your vote was likely to be counted, would you continue to vote for them? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:01:27 AM (0+)
|
|
REMEMBER BACK WHEN TIMES WERE GOOD
Shortly before Christmas of 2006, Goldman Sachs proudly served up a press release informing America that its investment banking experts would share around 16 billion in bonus pay (for Christmas). I found this little tidbit in one of Greg Palast's books. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:49:22 PM (0+)
|
|
ROFLMAO!
It just struck me -- Remember all the thousands of times you've heard people says, "If you don't vote, you can't complain"? Well, now those same people are complaining that the people that they voted for don't want to listen to their complaints. I mean, the only reason they were voting was so that they'd have the right to complain, and now they're having to look for "creative ways" to complain because Congress won't even let them complain. How about this? You give me $700 billion dollars and I promise to listen to every complaint you have. That's more than the people you're voting for will do. My email is listed in my bio so you can send the money, approximately $5,000 for each person who votes, directly to my PayPal account, and you can email me your complaints. I guarantee that I will respectfully listen to and thoughtfully respond to every single complaint than anyone who sends me $5,000 may have. Ain't democracy grand? ;) by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:13:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Too sick to laugh, personally.
When the email is kicked back - call. When the call can't be taken, leave a message. When you can't leave a message, write it down: "I'm here, I'm paying your salary and it's my neck that Congress, Wall Street and the 'anonymous' bankers who call themselves the 'Federal' Reserve are standing on. This week Congress showed the people of the United States that they represent themselves, big business and the casino-player 'economist' of Wall St. But they do not represent us. (Delete as necessary) When you voted/refused to vote for this bill you voted/refused to vote to keep the boot on my neck although/because you knew your constiturents were begging you not to do it. Please, now do everything possible to stop th is bill before it goes any further and support alternative measures to restore ownerhip of our currency to the people to whom it lawfully belongs (not the FRS) and to obtain the necessary finance through windfall taxes of obscene wealth. Signed" Meanwhile, we all could do with taking a sober look at realities we are encouraged not to think about, let alone understand. Without even examining the widespread and well documentedf crime of election fraud which pre-nullifies any supposed 'power' of the voter, the following is the reality of our starting point. Your vote is a contract by which you agree to: a. the preselection of the candidates you will choose between; b. whatever they shall later choose to do on your behalf while in office, with or without your agreement - whichever candidate is deemed to have 'won' the election; c. in return for having your say in a predecided race (between candidates who are mostly members of an elite minority bought and paid for by corporations - who pay a lot better than your tax dollar salary -) you will abide by the results of the vote and, d. in doing so you will hand over your mandate upon which the legitimacy of any government of this country must rest, so allowing the United States government to count your vote as the foundation upon which it stands and trumpets to the rest of the world "see how democracy works" and "we are the government by, with and for the people". (To anyone who says no, you are tyrants, they can answer - "But X million people voted for us. This is democracy at work.") This is the way that the law is set up. Your vote, your neck, your mandate. Meanwhile, the arguments between the Republicans and the Democrats get both sides as worked up as the Puritans and Catholics, yelling "Heretic!" and "Papist!" at each other and swearaing that the other was going to burn in hell. And they are about as bl**dy relevant. Because when it came down to it both religions were flip sides of the same Imperialistic pseudo-christianity. They just killed, sold, hunted down, maimed, tortured and removed the Native peoples with a different rehetoric. So here's my question - which rhetoric do *you* think it best to be raped to? That's obviously the one to vote for. Unless you think it best to register as a conscientious objector and refuse to legitimize either bunch of b@#t$rds, refuse to agree that your 'non voice' is a real voice, refuse to consent to a fraudulent election system and a government that is committing genocide in your name. (Oh yeah, Barack plans to bring the troops home and let Blackwater carry on the killing in Iraq. Good *man*!!) But if you are maybe starting to think about the power of your mandate and what a truly conscientious and fully accountable citizen ought to do with it - other than give it to the tyrants to make them look like representatives (a bit like giving Wall St our money to rescue us with, huh?); if you are beginning to wonder what would happen if we all became conscientious voting objectors, then here's a little something from the Declaration of Independece for inspiration: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." by Sara Brown (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:11:42 PM (0+)
|
|
To Vote or Not to Vote, or Vote and Help Stop the Fix!
If you’re wondering why so many members of the Senate, the House, and even the Republicon and Democrook Presidential candidates risked the wrath of the voters to support this bailout bill, could it be because our votes are "counted" in secret now? Oh yeah, that is not only inherently dangerous, it’s unconstitutional, too! For more info, see Project Vote Count’s Election News and Project Vote Count’s FAQ Yes, Virginia, secret vote counting is unconstitutional, but no one in power gives a damn! Still, if you get involved in a citizens' exit poll effort like the ones being conducted by ProjectVoteCount.com, VoteRescue.org, and ElectionDefenseAlliance.org, then you can deter widespread cheating, like the kind that they would need to chalk up a win for McSame, or catch them red-handed like we did in Florida in 2006 and 2008. by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:47:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Tell me more, Mark....
Mark Adams wrote: Still, if you get involved in a citizens' exit poll effort like the ones being conducted by ProjectVoteCount.com, VoteRescue.org, and ElectionDefenseAlliance.org, then you can deter widespread cheating, like the kind that they would need to chalk up a win for McSame, or catch them red-handed like we did in Florida in 2006 and 2008. Really? Tell me more, Mark. How can a citizens' exit poll "deter" widespread cheating? I thought all it could do would be to catch it after it happened, so that you could report it to the authorities who don't give a damn. And I'm particularly interested in what you accomplished by catching them "red-handed" in Florida in 2006 and 2008. As far as I know, you proved conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Clint Curtis won his election and that the election was stolen from him, but Congress didn't give a damn, didn't look at the evidence, and as far as I know, Tom Feeney is still in Congress. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:02:50 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
