When a State's secretary of state is allowed to be a co-chair of a re-election committee, you've got a clear conflict of interest.
And this guy is running for governor? Kick his butt, Ohio. Kick his butt.
Here's a long depressing article about vote rigging.
Where's the "tough on crime" crowd, when you need them?
Bush is all about conflict of interest. He doesn't give a ~~~~. His only purpose for getting to and being in office is to rig the system as far as possible to corporate interest and ~~~~ everyone else.
Please...that is no more true than Clinton's only purpose for getting to and being in office was to get b~~~ jobs from young interns.Originally Posted by js33
Watching people on either side get indignant about vote rigging is like watching Hitler and Stalin calling each other @ssholes.. You don't even know what election fraud is if you're not from Chicago or Louisiana.
...there was another reason?????Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
Jim Jarnagin - no not THAT Jim Jarnagin, the other one.
Well, yeah, all murderers should go to jail, all talent should be rewarded, all kinds of stuff should happenOriginally Posted by Ernstinen
Yeah But Clinton was only ~~~~ing them and himself not the entire country.Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
I second what you said here, Ern.Originally Posted by Ernstinen
Nice try, Mr. Ralston ,in attempting to change the subject.
Read the damn article, take a look at the bios and credentials of the mathemicians and statisticians who contributed toward the conclusions drawn ,and then go ahead and pretend to argue intelligently against them.
I was responding to js33's comment about Bush. But you didn't seem to confront him about changing the subject. hmmmm?
If anyone thinks any one political party is more righteous than another...they are truly deluded. There are plenty of bad apples on both sides of the equation.
As far as credentials of mathematicians and such. There are different ways to look at and interpret different situations. Present a scholar to say one thing...any one else can present an equally credentialed scholar to say the exact opposite looking at the same data infront of them. And with a magazine like Rolling Stone (who shamelessly tried to get America's women voters to like Gore more by putting him on their front cover and photoshopping his "package" to make it look bigger)...and an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr. of all people (yeah...he's not biased or a conspiracy theorist at all )...I find any of their politically driven "stories" to be suspect of having a predetermined conclusion, with hand picked "facts" presented to reach that conclusion.