County officials convicted Ohio recount

[Amianthus]

My point was not Lanya's style of posting.  It was that she only posted an article about some guys tampering with a vote and you guys flew off the handle making accusations of any old anything.

Err, I based my reaction on her several claims of "standing behind her words."

Did you read the article she linked to?

"The first thing that should happen is that in all history books, Bush's 2004 'win' should have an asterisk along with his 2000 'win'. The asterisk should be explained at the bottom of the page as 'There is a good chance he didn't really win the election.'"

There were a number of other similar quotes. So, she did indeed make the claim - indirectly - that it was evidence that the vote tampering was indicative of Bush getting his win via foul play in Ohio.

Yet, the vote would have changed by only 17 in the favor of Kerry. Not enough to overcome the over 100,000 vote differential in Ohio.

Since Lanya rarely posts in her own words, and frequently responds by posting other's words as her response, I have to assume that when she posts someone else's words, they mirror her thoughts. Indeed, she has said this on several occasions - "I can't say it better than others already have" is one of her claims.

[Lanya]

Looks like I hit a nerve. 

They were CONVICTED.

<<If it had no bearing on the outcome of the recount, why highlight it as if it did?>>
Because it's still illegal.  And maybe if they hadn't tampered with the recount, it would have come out differently. Because, see, they tampered with it.   So we can't know for sure. 

They tampered with the RECOUNT.  They were found GUILTY. 

Is there a rule that I have to respond?  Because if there is, I'm breaking it. 

[sirs]

Looks like I hit a nerve.

 

Who's nerve would that be, and how would you come to that conclusion?

They were CONVICTED. They tampered with the RECOUNT.  They were found GUILTY. 

Yea.............and?  I suppose I could post an article of some folks being found guilty of some crimes here in CA.  Some might even be associated with election tampering/fraud.  What would be the purpose?

<<If it had no bearing on the outcome of the recount, why highlight it as if it did?>>
Because it's still illegal.  And maybe if they hadn't tampered with the recount, it would have come out differently. Because, see, they tampered with it.  So we can't know for sure.

Ahhhh, finally we're getting to the crux, which is basically what Ami & I have been referencing since the 1st response.  This most certainly is just the tip of the iceberg, right?  There just has to be some much more grander criminality going on here, that we simply haven't uncovered.  LOL, and Brass thought she just wanted to post a story of just a conviction

Is there a rule that I have to respond?  Because if there is, I'm breaking it.  

No rule.  Just you perfecting it to an art form

[Plane]

I have no doubt at all that fifteen people could be convicted for voting for Al Gore in both New York and  Florida in the two thousand race. More that this were caught doing this particular trick.


But perhaps a few thousand actually did this and only  few were caught?

I don't know , it might be nice to find every Democrat cheat and lock them up for the duration of the next six elections .

But would it be fair for me to ignore the cheats that might be chooseing Republicans?


No it wouldn't  , but I can't expect such fairness from Democrats .

[Plane]

Looks like I hit a nerve. 

They were CONVICTED.

<<If it had no bearing on the outcome of the recount, why highlight it as if it did?>>
Because it's still illegal.  And maybe if they hadn't tampered with the recount, it would have come out differently. Because, see, they tampered with it.   So we can't know for sure. 

They tampered with the RECOUNT.  They were found GUILTY. 

Is there a rule that I have to respond?  Because if there is, I'm breaking it. 

There is no such rule as far as I am concerned.
Every posting is voluntary and is done in a spirit of generosity more often than not.
If Lanya thinks that something she has found is interesting , and it is not so opprobrious that the membership cannot stand it , then she can use her own judgment in displaying it to the rest of us.

Why not?

Who else are we going to get willing t dredge the dregs of the liberal blogosphere and bring to our attention the pearls that might be found there?

Certainly not me , I would die of leftitus halfway thrugh the slough of Kos.

But Lanya combs those dismal shores and distills the best of it  for  our  perusal.

I consider it a duty to myself, to make myself exposed to thinking that oppsoes my own, without this exposure I may accept as proven things that I am merely being lazy in examining.

By picking out the best of the Left ,Lanya saves me a lot of work .

[sirs]

Is there a rule that I have to respond?  Because if there is, I'm breaking it. 

There is no such rule as far as I am concerned. Every posting is voluntary and is done in a spirit of generosity more often than not.
If Lanya thinks that something she has found is interesting , and it is not so opprobrious that the membership cannot stand it , then she can use her own judgment in displaying it to the rest of us.  Why not?

Ahem, Plane, please keep in mind this supposed "attack" upon Lanya has nothing to do with the op-eds that Lanya does or doesn't post.  It has always been her talent for running away from direct questions, and efforts to understand her position(s), as it relates to this non existant rule of responding.  Just wanted to keep this in perspective.  I too enjoy her postings of these 1 sided op-eds alledging/implying mass election fraud by the GOP, how they stole another election for Bush, how the Fairness Doctrine is perfectly reasonable, and how diabolicaly evil Bush & Cheney really are.  It gets just as entertaining when she's unable to defend those positions

[Plane]

Is there a rule that I have to respond?  Because if there is, I'm breaking it. 

There is no such rule as far as I am concerned. Every posting is voluntary and is done in a spirit of generosity more often than not.
If Lanya thinks that something she has found is interesting , and it is not so opprobrious that the membership cannot stand it , then she can use her own judgment in displaying it to the rest of us.  Why not?

Ahem, Plane, please keep in mind this supposed "attack" upon Lanya has nothing to do with the op-eds that Lanya does or doesn't post.  It has always been her talent for running away from direct questions, and efforts to understand her position(s), as it relates to this non existant rule of responding.  Just wanted to keep this in perspective.  I too enjoy her postings of these 1 sided op-eds alledging/implying mass election fraud by the GOP, how they stole another election for Bush, how the Fairness Doctrine is perfectly reasonable, and how diabolicaly evil Bush & Cheney really are.  It gets just as entertaining when she's unable to defend those positions

I get you , I don't share the same set of convictions as Lanya either.

If you can make it clear that you don't mean to be unfriendly to Lanya's person and that you respect her humanity , then the opinions become fair game for skewering.

No less than yours or mine.

But I disagree that there is any onus to reply .

Many threads just have to be dropped , without solution to all the adressed problems ,elese the thread would be absolutely endless.

 I give the last post on some threads , but this is not a victory , nor even much of an accomplishment , unless the points I have made are pertenent and cogent and convinceng and complete.

I have never worked out a points system for winning these contests , I suppose a panel of voters or judges could be used , do we really want this?


As it is the liberals win all the points that he Liberals beleive and the Conservatives  win all the points that the conservatives  beleive and the Libertarans win each point that they beleive.

It is a Win ,Win, Win  situation.

[Amianthus]

And maybe if they hadn't tampered with the recount, it would have come out differently. Because, see, they tampered with it.   So we can't know for sure. 

It took them 2 years to find enough tampering to change the vote by a total of 17.

How long do you think it would take to find the other 100,000+?

Sorry, there are areas where they found thousands of dead voters voting Democrat. I think 17 votes is a drop in the bucket, but if all cases of vote tampering were investigated (not just against the Republicans), I feel that Bush would probably have had a larger margin than he did.

Apparently, Democrats like looking in areas where they won to find a few more votes (both this case, and Gore in 2000). Republicans, however, seem to take the wins without bothering to look for those extra couple of votes, even though there are numerous reports of Democrat vote tampering for those areas.

[sirs]

I get you , I don't share the same set of convictions as Lanya either.  If you can make it clear that you don't mean to be unfriendly to Lanya's person and that you respect her humanity , then the opinions become fair game for skewering.

I'm not sure how much more civil one can ask a simple question, especially as Ami & Prince have been doing.  Bt as well.  Respect and civility are 1 thing.  Giving preferential nicety above and beyond, in order to try and coax an answer out of her, is entirely different.  I think you're referencing the aftermath of reponses to her non-responses when they were initially asked politely & respectfully.  Timeline thing again