When the fire of suspicion is fanned - with gasoline

"Do New Hampshire Vote Count Questions Harbinger Super Tuesday Vote Theft Disaster?"

Obvioulsy, it's a disaster only if you're not with the "Neocons Boyz" - and I don't mean the fictional rap group of the same name.  Otherwise, it's a psychological operation and clear conspiracy theory on the scale of the faked Apollo 11 moon landings, SKU barcodes controlling people, and Microsoft's secret language via their Wingdings font - http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx .

Go with a "known" winner, go neocon.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM
 

Mr Murphy..Mr. Kall

     Mr. Murphy. I really like and respect you. You have caused me at times to think over again on some issues. Thanx. Even though I disagree with you much of the time, I was taught (mostly by my dad) that if I truly want to learn, I should pay attention epescially to those who see things in a way I do not. In my 56 years this has been proven to me over and over again to be good medicine. 

     On this particular issue above, I wish to ask you one question .......If your vote was not counted and you had good reason to believe it was not, what would you do?

     Mr. Kall. Thanx for your efforts to follow the questions. If the base integrity of our efforts to be fair and accurate is flawed, if all (each one) of our votes are not equally counted, the house we've built on top shall not stand.

     It is hard for me to swallow how dire is this implication.

     peace

by mikel paul (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 460 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 12:47:39 PM
 

troll warning

I know you use opednews.com for your entertainment, Tom, but you haven't tangled with me before. You get one warning. One. The site could lose your 400+ comments without suffering any loss at all, as far as I'm concerned.

Think about it.  You've posted hundreds of baiting, silly, argumentative for the sake of argument comments. For what good? How have your comments done any good in the world, or have you even had any intention to do any good?  

It is one thing to discuss details of voter integrity issues. To suggest that all  considerations are comparable to fake lunar landing conspiracy theories is an insult to the community here.

This is a warning. You will be banned if you continue acting like a troll.

by Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM
 

He's A TROLL Rob

Rob ; Mr. T. Murphy is using you and you know it.

He goes on with his arguments stating his comments, but never do his comments recommend ways of fixing it. He always has an argument defending why it couldn't be or how ridiculous we are...labeling OpEd as conspiracy rouges. And yet he still supports his defensive antics.  He plants his seed, defends his right to do so, and gives nothing to the analysis in fixing it.

Well if he was so smart then tell us how he envisions it; so that we don't have these abberations then, of voter fraud. If that is the case. But he won't because he knows darn well these elections are rigged, and certainly rigged so far in advance such as this McCain Fraud goes to prove that we are indeed right.

Whatever you do Rob...banning or not....we know he's a TROLL....end of story.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM
 

Voting fraud

Fraud in the voting process is  actually encouraged in the US because neither there is an independent body to invesstigate nor  there are aany real punishments.  Moreover, for successful fraud the rewards are lawish. The question could be  not whether the fraud occured but why and also what can be done about it.  The answer to the first is- in case Obama had won NH  the Hillary's puppetmasters might decide to change the horses. The answer to the second question is:  unless the state oNH decides to  revote the one and only person who can do something about this is Obama.  If he is really a candidate and he considers that there was a fraud he has to  cry wolf. If he does not- I said it all along- it is rigged.

Tom Murphy can make his caustic remarks as much as he wants: that does not change anything. I do not enjoy the  Cassandra role here: It is painful to see that people who seem so reasonable do not see the danger  right in front of them.

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM
 

We and our expectations are the TRUE danger

"It is painful to see that people who seem so reasonable do not see the danger right in front of them."

The danger to people is in letting their expectations (and the fear of them not being met) control their thinking and subsequent actions. Why one cannot accept the primary results (as reported) is a direct reflection of their expectation that Senator Obama would win. And why did they have that expectation? The almighty poll told them so; therefore, it must have been the voting process and not the citizens that prevented their expectation from being met.

As with all things in life and with "truth", there's a margin of error that accompanies them. Why? We are all human and "flawed", well – the flaw is usually perceived by others but that's a different issue. That margin of error is our perceptions of life and "truth", as well as the fact that we can change our minds – even after we told someone our thought.  And why would we change our minds? We get upset, frustrated, and angry when pestered by endless calls and doorbell rings from pollsters. We listen to an emotional appeal from a candidate.  We are proud that ours is the first primary in the Nation. 

When these emotions are expressed, the almighty poll begins to waiver a bit because although there's a margin of error built into the poll, it fails to capture that which is inherently subjective – our emotions.

Before one runs – not walks - to judgment (as Mr. Kall has actively encouraged to do so here), I recommend that they check their motives first and see if they are being honest first to themselves, secondly to the process, and lastly to the people. If you can say that you've kept your "side of the street" on all three levels clean and pure of motive, then by all means go ahead and allege fraud. But if there is some "garbage in the gutter" and you're pursuing ulterior motives, then honesty to yourself says you should clean it up first.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 12:31:10 PM
 

Tom

'If you can say that you've kept your "side of the street" on all three levels clean and pure of motive, then by all means go ahead and allege fraud. But if there is some "garbage in the gutter" and you're pursuing ulterior motives, then honesty to yourself says you should clean it up first.'

Tom, no one in the world keeps ' his side of the street' clean, including my neighborhood in winter.  In summer we all pick up  dog poop but in winter we let it slide.   Still, if someone notices another guy's dog  pooping on his lawn he /she immediately complains. How about them apples?

You did not  even notice that I gave a criteria- the only person who should be interested is Obama. If he does not care  while staring right at the inconsistencies, that could mean only two things: that he knows.. or that he himself is somehow involved.  Even if we imagine the third one- that he kinda  considers the fraud imposssible,  then in the sight of all these strange events wouldn't it be prudent to seek  plausible explanations, at least hold a conference?

Tom, it is not for the first time you   proclaim your 'purity of mind' against alleged 'dirty thoughts' of mine and other people. I would argue that no one is pure and  your Twilight Zone is as dirty as mine.

With that adjourn

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 12:43:26 PM
 

Words mean something

Please note...

The term "Voting Fraud" or "Voter Fraud" refers to the very, very rare and almost never election-impacting action where a VOTER actually commits fraud by voting when they should not.  Again, this is INCREDIBLY RARE, and ALMOST NEVER IMPACTS AN ELECTION (even in Illinois for Kennedy, it would NOT have impacted the national election).

On the other hand, "Electoral Fraud" or "Election Fraud" or "Vote Count Fraud" are situations where the counting of validly cast ballots are manipulated to alter the outcome from what it SHOULD have been.

Electoral Fraud = Common Rethuglican trickery
Vote Fraud = Rethuglican Myth

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 720 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 3:26:36 PM
 

Electoral Oddities

I felt Greg Palast http://www.gregpalast.com/ delineated and explained vote "caging" and other electoral oddities and abuses of the 2000 & 2004 elections quite well in his book Armed Madhouse.  It is a tactical advantage that will be used until it is punished and prevented.

by boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 329 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 4:39:15 PM
 

Elections can, and need to be above suspicion

Diebold vote counting machines have repeatedly been proven to be hacakable, have been documented to have "lost" tens of thousands of votes, that use source code that is secret, cannot be trusted. 

Now, when these machines result in vote totals that are wildly different than the hand-count totals, and wildly different than ALL the pre-election polling, reasonable people are suspicious.

Tom Murphy claims people who are questioning the results are wacky "conspiracy theorists"- instead of standing with those who are demanding an election system that is open and accountable, that everyone can agree accurately reflects the People's will. He occasionally correctly challenges incorrect assumptions with real facts and reasoned arguments. When Tom CAN"T come up with facts and reasoned arguments and resorts to snide comments, I think it adds some credence to the views he's attacking. I won't be too sorry if he gets banned, but he'll probly get a new IP address and start posting under another name, anyway

by Better World Order (4 articles, 448 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 986 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 1:33:29 PM
 

Diebold different not only from pre-election polls, but the

exit polls as well.  This in fact is the standard for overturning elections results in countries, and that's what we now have in New Hamsphire.  Exit polls and the paper ballots are raw data after the election of people who actually voted-- both are evident, transparent and easily audited and they favor Obama, while the non-auditable Diebold tallies show the opposite.

As strong an indicate of electoral fraud as it can get.

by Ivan the Terrible (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 3:55:11 PM
 

Information

has not only to be delivered, but also absorbed, said my father all the time. We here in the US are in awash of information  delivered but our absorbing capabilites are  not that good due to .. sorry, US educational system.  We just could not believe that... our govt could not only lie to all of us but actually use us  for  private purposes. But they did. We could not believe that our administrators could be people not only of shallow but also  of criminal minds. But they were. We could not believe that  we ourselves happened  to be  not only not better than other human beings but even worse in many cases. But we are. We could not believe that not only our democracy  could be not appreciated by others but it also could harm us ourselves if abused. But it does.  And all of that  MUST develop a certain absorbing capability on the subconscious level like if you hear someone like Colin Powell  lying his ears off  once again you would not need any more proof of his lies; you will know.

And what   does that mean: Considering  the  2000 and 2004 unfortunate legacy, current stakes,  position of Hillary Clinton before and now on th crucial issues of War and Peace,  position of Demparty on the same issues,  the strange timing for the push for electronic voting ( when exactly the opposite should be pursued), introduction of voting machines practically by force while  it should be just an option, nothing more,  obvious  sense of discontent in the camp of far- right after Iowa- if we add all of that the  POSSIBLITY of fraud in NH under such tied race becomes a FAMILIAR REALITY. And that is why the candidates should be the first people to demand recount  and even revote.  That is if they are not in it also.

The Devil is in details.  And we here again and again  witness that in the US politics those who know what they want and work on that 24 hours a day  win. And we also know that evil usually knows what it wants and works on this dilligently.  All of that we know. Put your knowledge to thee good use, folks- demand  from your candidate that he/she  goes for recount. What do they have to lose, reallY?

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 2:06:54 PM
 

A response from the Troll

Mr. Kall, this threat could be argued on so many different levels as an affront to the VERY thing which OpEdNews.com stands for:

"The nonprofit goals of OpEdNews are to enable education, interconnection, communications, and to empower activism by organizations and individuals." - http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/opednews.html

When you terminate permanently a person's view or opinion, how are you, the creator of this web site, meeting the declared goals of enabling education and communication?

As to your accusations and/or threats you've leveled against me, here is how I respond:

"I know you use opednews.com for your entertainment, Tom..."

You have only my word, but I do not use it for my "entertainment". Do I find certain persons or causes entertaining? Yes, and yet that doesn't mean I do not take the same persons or causes seriously. I have been respectful of ALL persons to whom I've responded or provided comment to, while I have been labeled a great many things by some of these same persons – not the least of which has been "troll".

Do I use satire or humor to prompt thought or debate on an issue or item? Absolutely!

But here's the kicker that many ever realize or accept – am I responsible for how someone reacts or responds to something I've posted? Absolutely not. I can only control how I, me, Tom Murphy react or respond to another and not vice versa. It is for this reason that I treat others with due respect.

"The site could lose your 400+ comments without suffering any loss at all, as far as I'm concerned."

I honestly do not object if you make the decision to ban me and remove all my comments. While they are mine and I take full responsibility for them, I do not covet them for themselves. Rather, I thought (apparently erroneously) they might be used by the reader to look at a discussed topic from a differing viewpoint.

However, how "educational" is a discussion on an issue if all you have are "bobble heads" nodding "yes" all the time? And if you use the power of banning to enforce this means of education, then how does it contribute to the open communication on an issue? It doesn't; it forces one to discuss a topic along narrowed lines of perception. That's fine if that's all that you want out of the web site, but it seems decidedly biased and not very honest with respect to the declared goals.

"You've posted hundreds of baiting, silly, argumentative for the sake of argument comments."

That is entirely your opinion, and may very well be the opinion of a fair number of other readers, commenters, and authors. There have been others, though, that have indicated concurrence with some of my postings and/or thoughts. However, they are not the owner of the web site; you are. Again, it's entirely within your purview to ban me but to do so because of your opinion only (for you're the only one wielding the power) is an affront to your statement regarding dissent:

"Disagreement is totally acceptable, regarding ideas, issues, behaviors, statements." - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/writersguidelines.php .

"How have your comments done any good in the world, or have you even had any intention to do any good?"

And what is meant here by "good", Mr. Kall - click here ? I prefer to use the definition of "effective: exerting force or influence" and would answer that they HAVE "done good". The fact that you responded they way in which you have serves that I have exerted force or influence. However, I believe you would prefer the definition of "having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified," ,but I realize that only you can answer what you deem "good" to be.

As I stated previously, how "educational" is a discussion on an issue if all you have are "bobble heads" nodding "yes" all the time? It certainly would be good or beneficial to the author if I agreed with them always, but it would be false (for me) and of little value to them because they would have been lied to by me.

I cannot lay any claim to the world for it is far, far bigger than I and I do not control it (nor would I want to). But I will say that my intentions have always been honest - without dissimulation. Whether or not that same thing as "good" is what opinions are for, I suppose.

"It is one thing to discuss details of voter integrity issues. To suggest that all considerations are comparable to fake lunar landing conspiracy theories is an insult to the community here."

Again, this is your opinion. I was using the above and the other examples as analogies to how easily a seemingly "innocent" issue can be misunderstood and rapidly mushroom into a full-flown conspiracy - overnight. This is evidenced by the domination in the OpEdNews.com header space today by all things "voter fraud". Yesterday, the more reasonable and worthy of discussion articles were posted in the header space - "New Hampshire -- The Comeback State and the Races are Wide Open", "Why Hillary Clinton Beat Obama in New Hampshire", and "The New Hampshire Polls Weren't Wrong, the Media Was".

What has changed literally overnight that would prompt such a significant swing, aside form the continued allegations of a committed group? And then to add fire to the fuel, you prompt the reader along a narrowed line of perception, by writing, "We were warned that there could be problems with vote counts, because of e-voting vulnerabilities. The warnings came true." What knowledge do you posses that the warnings "came true" aside from the allegations of a committed group? If we are being HONEST here, the ONLY statement that can be made is that, "It's noteworthy where some have warned of vote counting issues due to e-voting vulnerabilities, a perception exists that their warnings may have been warranted."

My intention for making the comment was to highlight the "silliness" of encouraging such a shift more so given where it will naturally lead, if you don't review the issue in total HONESTLY. My intention is further clarified and supported in my reply to Mr. Sashine's comment.

Whether you choose to ban me or not (now because of this post or in the future because of some perceived slight) is under your control and not mine. Again, I can only control how I react to another and not vice versa. However and unlike others here who suggest I'll only pop on under a different IP address if banned, I give you my word as a military officer - a person who takes oaths as being deadly serious – that I will not return to post or write.

"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note." – Doug Floyd

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 2:52:19 PM
 

your response to my warming is fair and reasonable.

and your comment on this article-- this comment-- is fair and reasonable. Your first comment, suggesting that I was engaging in crazy conspiracy theorizing verged on name calling and was not conducive to intelligent dialogue.

I appreciate the thought  and effort you put into your reply to me. Frankly, it is never fun nor a pleasure to ban anyone. And just because a person has a differering point of view is no reason to keep him or her. That said, OpEdNews tolerates diverging viewpoints far more than other left or right wing sites. What we do insist upon is civility and respect. And frankly, we probably have more problems with that from some of our regulars on the left. 

It's clear you do have something to offer here and I'd like you to continuing offering it. But please, keep on pushing edges, but do it without using insulting remarks. I know you did not engage in namecalling, but you can push ideas without pushing edges of hyberbole. 

by Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 3:40:48 PM
 

The Headlines are about ELECTORAL fraud

Tom says "This is evidenced by the domination in the OpEdNews.com header space today by all things "voter fraud"."

No, the headlines are about ELECTORAL fraud. Voter fraud is pretty much an irrelevant issue, as far as the integrity of elections are concerned, as a poster noted above. Ann Coulter's guilty of it- voted in a precinct she falsely claimed she was a resident in- but it's never been proven to have swung an election outcome.

ELECTORAL fraud is committed by the vote-counters, and appears to be a massive problem, as anyone who actually reads the many recently posted articles and checks the sources can confirm. The vast majority of votes are now cast on or counted by proven unreliable and easily-hackable electronic machines controlled by shady Republicans who want to keep their code a secret, and effectively do the vote counting in secret, inspires confidence in no one except people who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that corporate execs and people in public office are somehow automatically above suspicion- or people who know they're cheating and want to keep it covered up.

Voting should be done in secret, vote-counting should be done in the open. Every person interested in having honest elections AND in putting an end to the "conspiracy theories" should support keeping the vote-counting process in public view, where it should be.  

by Better World Order (4 articles, 448 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 986 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 4:56:57 PM
 

Just to clarify

I do not think that Tom  expressed his intentions  'clearly' in his answer to  my comment neither do I think that his comments are  witty or contributive in any way.  He is rather boring, sorry. Hope  it is not considered ad hominem or anything; he has been praised as 'clever' here too.  In fact  if it was my site I would tell him to  go waste  his time elsewhere. But I am not in charge here. I would like to mention though that Tom has the same disease other similar kind  of people here have: he just ignores the whole site. This site had literally hundreds of legacy articles explaining how the fraud could be conducted, some going  back to Y2004 and if we look at them and then back to NH- we will see the familiar trend. Moreover, as I said,   nothing happens if the ones who are suppossed to fight do not:  Gore, Kerry and now Obama did not and do not fight for their  victory as the real fighter is supposed too. And that meant and means a deal.

I think, Tom  as many other people like him do not think that we are in trouble in this country, neither does he  consider himself and/or  his loved ones in danger.  It is his prerogative. But by doing so  in the current   environment he behaves like that Homerian mischievous  Tersith who, while beeing on the Aheyan side during the Trrojan siege did only one thing - undermined the cause.

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 7:46:18 AM
 

Re: New Hampshire Vote Count Questions

Well put, Rob.

by Munich (0 articles, 74 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 922 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 3:54:38 PM
 

Danger of violence in the streets if this possible fraud is

not investigated.  I was talking to an old friend who lives out in Atlanta, and she mentioned that African-Americans are already enraged with Hillary's slap at Martin Luther King and Cuomo's idiotic comment about shucking and jiving, against Obama.  Vote fraud in New Hampshire, if not investigated, is pushing us very close to 1968-style Watts riots. 

The paper ballots, easily counted and audited, show a big Obama victory, as do the exit polls, while the unauditable Diebold ballots show the opposite, for Hillary.   Stinks of fraud no matter how much perfume you spray the result with.  That HBO special, Hacking Democracy, shows just how easy it is to hack the Diebold machines-- Harri Hursti was able to use entry-level programming skills to pre-program in a plus or minus factor for candidates, and since the data are proprietarily held by Diebold and its partners, the results cannot be held up to scrutiny.  This is a formula for tremendous fraud.

by Ivan the Terrible (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 4:02:57 PM