Next time some guy tries to tell you why Kerry lost, tell 'im that
Bush lost. And if he doesn't believe you, send him to Truth Is All's new site,
www.truthisall.net. (Although I admit that TIA needs a good, simple, concise introduction for non-math geeks and newcomers.)
10 comments:
Awesome. Now we just have to get georgia10 into blogworld with her info and we'll be all set! Kidding, I'm sure TruthIsAll's work will make a difference.
Several readers have told me that blogger's "word verification" security feature -- which prevents spam -- has been acting up, preventing them from leaving comments. Yet without that feature, this place gets pretty heavily spammed in short order. What to do?
A reader named Katie asked me if I could somehow publish this response to the above post:
Thank you Joseph for this excellent reference website on election fraud that also includes this article:
http://www.truthisall.net/Diane_Perlman/diane_perlman.html
The Silence of the Scams:
Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud
Diane Perlman, Ph.D., April 20, 2005
Few Americans know about the historic event that happened onJanuary 6, 2005, the official date for counting electoral votes. For the first time since 1877, congressmembers challenged the electoral count. Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio, accompanied by the lone senator, Barbara Boxer of California, led the challenge to the Ohio vote count. Although massive fraud was reported around the country, only Ohio was officially cited.
It is curious that an issue so profound and consequential is barely on the radar screens of most Americans, especially those who supported Kerry.
Though we are not certain of the actual outcome, statistically impossible discrepancies exist between results of exit polls and official counts in counties without paper trails. Also documented are patterns of anecdotes about corrupted procedures and accounts of strange behaviors, phenomena and illegal interventions in Ohio,New Mexico, Florida, Pennsylvania and other places. Many say there is fraud in every election, but there was far more in 2004 than in any previous year, and if the errors were random, about half would go in Kerry's favor. Virtually all went in Bush's favor.
But rather than demanding a thorough investigation, the many Americans seem eager to forget the incidents and put the election behind them, thus implicitly supporting such corruption. In my conversations, I observed that white, US born males were more emphatic about accepting the outcome and the futility of challenging it, while others were more willing to recognize being dominated and open to questioning what happened. White males may be more susceptible to obeying patriarchal authority, and the fish does not know it is swimming in the water. This difference was reflected in Congress. Women and members of the Congressional Black Caucus were most active. Representative John Conyers lead the investigation and press conferences, and women, Stephanie Tubbs Jones in the House and Barbara Boxer in the Senate led the historical challenge.
That's (mostly) brilliant.
Thanks, Katie (and Joe)!
The press is starting to look at Wilkes, but they still seem to be treating him as if he were running a real business, providing real services.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_1n4adcs.html
Hi Joe. Archives of www.mirrorlabs.com can be found at the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mirrorlabs.com
How to talk to white males about the Stolen Elections.
(As many married women know, you give them an ultimatim.)
You ask "So hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority, Dem voters and none for rich, white, GOP voters is OK with you, right?"
www.january6th.org
Loosers never do stop whining, do they?
Prepare for futher losses, '06 and '08. And remember that the mouths of kerry, pelosi, murtha and a few others are to blame.
The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In 2004?
With An Introduction by DemocraticUnderground Poster Autorank
According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds,
What odds? Bush was a slight favorite going into Election Day.
particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians.
Yes, "unbiased" statisticians. That would refer to liberal Democrats, of course.
He won despite trailing in most state and national polls.
A problem arises when you encounter someone who knows what those state and national polls REALLY showed. Bush led by 2.5 points in the AGGREGATE OF ALL NATIONAL POLLS. He led in Florida (where Kerry's internal polls, according to Evan Thomas of Newsweek, reflected a late deterioration in the Democrat's support) and Ohio.
He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%,
However, it was slightly ABOVE 50%.
usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate.
A lot of untruths? Not really. I'd say for leftist propaganda, it was restrained. Its denial of objective reality is total and that's to be expected.
On election day, Bush's average job rating (11 polls) was 48.5%.
Kerry led in 11 of 18 national polls, with an average lead of 48-47.
Read the details here:
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=3052
There's only one messiah, and he's not of this world.
Post a Comment