It's Happening Again...

-- "Investigation into Trashed Voter Registrations"
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595

"An employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters."

-- "Pushing to Be Counted in Fla."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28107-2004Oct12.html
"Nearly a dozen African American ministers and civil rights leaders walked into the Duval County election office here, television cameras in tow, with a list of questions: How come there were not more early voting sites closer to black neighborhoods? How come so many blacks were not being allowed to redo incomplete voter registrations? Who was deciding all this?"

-- "Voter Registration Fraud"
http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x47627&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530
"A recent report says that a man paid to register voters was instructed to only accept Republican registration forms.

'Voters Outreach of America,' the company he claims to work for, is largely bankrolled by the GOP."

-- "City, county spar over ballot supply"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct04/266144.asp

"Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, citing vote-fraud concerns, is publicly balking at a City of Milwaukee request for almost 260,000 additional ballots in anticipation of high turnout for the Nov. 2 presidential election. Mayor Tom Barrett blasted Walker's stance...

Walker, a Republican, is a state co-chair of President Bush's campaign, while Barrett, a Democrat, is state co-chair of the John Kerry campaign. ... the dispute is playing out against a partisan backdrop in a battleground state.

More specifically, it involves central-city voters, most of them minorities, thousands of whom have been registered in recent months by voter-registration groups. Those efforts, though non-partisan, are widely viewed as helping the Democrats; Bush drew just 2% in 2000 in Milwaukee's predominantly African-American voting wards."

-- "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today [A report by People for the American Way and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

"This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a 'potential felon' purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-Americans, from the rolls."

-- "Map redrawing angers US Democrats"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3724372.stm

"The increasingly widespread - and perfectly legal - practice of gerrymandering is having a serious and lasting effect on American democracy, as the BBC's James Silver reports from Texas."

-- "FDLE Investigating Suspicious Florida County Voter Applications"
http://www.local6.com/news/3786610/detail.html

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating 1,500 voter registration forms received by the Leon County elections office that apparently were altered to register local students as Republicans."

-- "Kerry says Republicans suppressing voting in swing states"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/10/03/politics0026EDT0401.DTL

"Republicans have been trying to suppress voting in states where the presidential race is too close to call, Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday at one of the city's largest predominantly black churches."
"'Like so much of his campaign, John Kerry's false charges of voter intimidation are baseless [yes, baseless - see above articles],' said spokesman Steve Schmidt."

-- "Desperation and 80 Pound Paper Stock in Ohio"
http://static.act04.org/act/paperstock.htm

"With only a few days left before the registration deadline in Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is trying re-instate selective voting. His controls on the voting process will prohibit thousands of Ohioans from voting in the upcoming election."

-- "Something Rotten in the State of Florida"
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20052/ (The article is originally from The Independent, but you have to register to use their site, so I found this one)

"Of the many weird and unsettling developments in Florida since the presidential election meltdown four years ago, none is so startling as the fact that Theresa LePore, the calamitously incompetent elections supervisor of Palm Beach County, still has her job. It was LePore who chose the notorious 'butterfly ballot' – a format so confusing that it led thousands of Democrats, many of them elderly, retired Jewish people, to punch the wrong hole, giving their vote not to Al Gore, as they had intended, but to the right-wing, explicitly anti-Jewish fringe candidate Pat Buchanan."
"(Without the butterfly ballot, Gore would have taken as many as 7,000 more votes and cruised past Bush's official 537-vote margin of victory.)"

-- "Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election" (I posted this one before, I think, but it bears repeating here)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6306466
"Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts."

-- "Florida OK's Nader's Name on Election Ballot" (Reuter's article, but their site has taken it down)
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015256.html

"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida’s elections chief told officials on Monday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state."

-- "Carter fears Florida vote trouble"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3693354.stm

"[Jimmy Carter] said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - 'seems likely'."


Of course, all this isn't intended to imply that we're going to be seeing an exact repeat of the 2000 election debacle on a much larger scale, nor do I intend to imply that the Republicans are being - hold onto your seats - dishonest.
As I'm sure many here will point out - this is all pure coincidence and I'm just spouting off my zany Martian conspiracy theories again and I can't prove that anything is going on but a collection of conveniently coinciding mistakes - all happening in swing states - that just so happen to benefit Republicans. There is no proof that the Republicans might be behind all these mysterious coincidences.

And you know what? They're right. I can't prove a thing. I'm just going to present the facts, and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

did you find each of those links.. or they listed somewhere ?

If I disclose where I got all these links they will be immediately discredited as liberal garbage, despite the fact that they are from reputable news sources and the site I got them from has no influence on their content.

Looks like that damage is already done, Swifty.
Might as well come out with your source.

Welcome to last week...it's been known about for sometime that Florida and even a couple other states may have some trouble afoot.

Nah, I'd rather keep it to myself and see how the Republican posters respond without a source to slander - having to attack the actual content instead of the mouthpiece presenting it.

Well like I said above this has been talked about all over from much more than one mouthpiece for a little while now, plus you already stated it was from an overtly liberal source. If they really wanted to attack a mouthpiece they could just run with that...

Yeah, but the articles themselves, as in, those reporting the news, are not from liberal sources. The only liberal source was the site that linked to them.

PS. sorry, I didn't know you had already talked about this. I just felt that the evidence was piling up too fast for me to allow people like PAD to ignore it.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Nah, I'd rather keep it to myself and see how the Republican posters respond without a source to slander - having to attack the actual content instead of the mouthpiece presenting it.[/quote]

One cannot place the Genie back in the bottle after having released it.
Failure to disclose the source will only further taint it's credibility.
Instead of attacking the site, people will now directly attack you, due to the act of omission you have conducted.

Well, look at the links. The articles are not from liberal sources (well, I guess the NAACP is kinda liberal, but still)! That's where the story is, in the articles themselves - not the place that linked the articles.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so important where I got these links? They're there, they're accurate, they're non-biased. That should be all that matters. The content of the links is what's important, not what site posted them.

I will not reveal the source - at least not for a good while. I will not have people dismissing them as unimportant simply because of their source. That's what's always happened when someone calls the GOP's hand on dishonesty - they always attack the mouthpiece instead of what it says. That's disingenuous and I refuse to allow that to happen.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Well, look at the links. The articles are not from liberal sources (well, I guess the NAACP is kinda liberal, but still)! That's where the story is, in the articles themselves - not the place that linked the articles.

Just out of curiosity, why is it so important where I got these links? They're there, they're accurate, they're non-biased. That should be all that matters. The content of the links is what's important, not what site posted them.[/quote]

Because someone has already asked the question of thier point of origin, which you are being increasingly evasive off. That really hurts your point, no matter how credible your links. You offer up that they come from a source with a known bias, yet refuse to offer up the source.

Had you not stated that they came from a site with a known bias, it would not be as important.

I will not reveal the source - at least not for a good while. I will not have people dismissing them as unimportant simply because of their source.

They already will be. Your refusing to offer up the source places the exact same taint on them.

That's what's always happened when someone calls the GOP's hand on dishonesty - they always attack the mouthpiece instead of what it says. That's disingenuous and I refuse to allow that to happen.

And? That's common practice for argumentation, practiced by any politician with the savvy to actually be in office. By first attacking the source, one can first cull out the weak arguments and then concentrate more upon the compelling, better sourced arguments.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Well, look at the links. The articles are not from liberal sources (well, I guess the NAACP is kinda liberal, but still)! That's where the story is, in the articles themselves - not the place that linked the articles.
[/quote]

Umm check those links again. From what I've read via links from here, the SFGate is at least somewhat liberial. Also there's a couple the .org sites some of which are quite liberal or at least quite bias. A quote from ACT.org's frontpage "ACT needs you to help beat George W. Bush and elect Democrats up and down the ticket in 2004 – in federal, state, and local elections." Some of these are far from impartial sources.

"That really hurts your point, no matter how credible your links."
I think the key clause in that sentence is, "no matter how credible your links [are]." The plain fact is, the links are credible. It's the equivalent of me, a self-professed liberal, handing you a newspaper that says that George Bush and John Kerry are running for president and you saying, "You're a liberal! Why should I believe anything you hand me!"
"Well, one, because it's the truth, and two, I'm not the one saying it - the newspaper is."

"By first attacking the source, one can first cull out the weak arguments and then concentrate more upon the compelling, better sourced arguments."
Yeah, that's fine. My problem is the GOP tends to stop at step 1: discredit the source and hope the rest takes care of itself. Sadly, it usually does.

"A quote from ACT.org's frontpage 'ACT needs you to help beat George W. Bush and elect Democrats up and down the ticket in 2004 – in federal, state, and local elections.'
I'm well aware of that. As I hoped people would read on the site, ACT had a source for its story (linked in the article). Its source was here:
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/ele...story=dispatch/2004/09/25/20040925-A1-02.html

And the SFGate story is just a story about Kerry decrying Republican tactics - not really a story about the Republican tactics themselves. I think it's safe to say that, if SFGate is biased, they're not going to be lying about Kerry.

Yep, that sounds like a really non-bias, non-partisian source.

That was the same one as the NAACP, which, as I mentioned, was somewhat of a liberal source.

But let's look at the Washington Post. The BBC, Reuter's, local news stations... those aren't biased, and that's the bulk of what I posted.

By first attacking the source, one can first cull out the weak arguments and then concentrate more upon the compelling, better sourced arguments."

Yeah, that's fine. My problem is the GOP tends to stop at step 1: discredit the source and hope the rest takes care of itself. Sadly, it usually does.

Your bitter hatred of the "GOP" (which one can infer from the way you have been responding) really throws a bias on anything you say and robs most of your words of any real force.

Well, let's get back to the original issue:

Refute the news articles - prove that they are untrue - or don't bother. Are we clear on that?

That isn't the original issue.
This is:

Of course, all this isn't intended to imply that we're going to be seeing an exact repeat of the 2000 election debacle on a much larger scale, nor do I intend to imply that the Republicans are being - hold onto your seats - dishonest.
As I'm sure many here will point out - this is all pure coincidence and I'm just spouting off my zany Martian conspiracy theories again and I can't prove that anything is going on but a collection of conveniently coinciding mistakes - all happening in swing states - that just so happen to benefit Republicans. There is no proof that the Republicans might be behind all these mysterious coincidences.

And you know what? They're right. I can't prove a thing. I'm just going to present the facts, and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

If one were going to argue you, this is all they have to discredit.
Discrediting or calling into question the bias or veracity of the sources you link only go to establishing the refutation of your statement.

But you've got the sources I link. They're in the post. What you're asking for is the source of the sources of the links. And that, I'm sorry to say, has no relevance.

Once again, if you intend to disprove anything those articles say, I'd start now. Otherwise you're just going to be scrambling for something to discredit - and I'm not going to give it to you - so you might as well give disproving the articles a shot.

What I'm doing is forcing you to look at the content, and do one of two things:
1. Discredit the content of the articles.
2. Admit that I have a point.
And this is very deliberate on my part, I will make no qualm about it. I want to force you to try to disprove the words instead of the mouthpiece. I believe I have been very clear on that.

That's all I want to see. You have the sources for my articles, they're in the links. If you'd like to disprove the articles, go ahead. If you'd like to discredit the source of the articles themselves, there are 3-4 which could be construed as biased - so go at those, but just remember that someone is bound to notice the glaring omission of the other 9 non-biased sources.

If you'd like to discredit the source of the links to the source of the articles, then I'm sorry.

But you've got the sources I link. They're in the post. What you're asking for is the source of the sources of the links. And that, I'm sorry to say, has no relevance.

It didn't until you mentioned it. Now it looks like you are trying to hide something. It draws some of your motives and your bias into question, which are legitimate ways to discredit an argument.

Once again, if you intend to disprove anything those articles say, I'd start now. Otherwise you're just going to be scrambling for something to discredit - and I'm not going to give it to you - so you might as well give disproving the articles a shot.

You don't seem to get it. There's plenty in just your conduct and your statement that can be picked apart and discredited without getting too deep into the refutation of what you linked.



What I'm doing is forcing you to look at the content, and do one of two things:
1. Discredit the content of the articles.
2. Admit that I have a point.

No one has to admit you have a point, as your conclusion far oversteps what your data can back up. Jimmy Carter saying to expect problems, Kerry decrying Republican tactics, and the actions of a disgruntled employee do not prove a "vast right wing conspiracy" you hint at.

Do some of the links bring up questions of wrong doing? Yes.

Does any of it piece together to form vast pattern of voterigging that you suggest? No.

I wouldn't be too shocked to see some right-leaning and some other credible news sources accusing the Democrats of some of the same things.




And this is very deliberate on my part, I will make no qualm about it. I want to force you to try to disprove the words instead of the mouthpiece. I believe I have been very clear on that.

The sources do not have to be disproved to disprove the conclusion.
Your conclusion oversteps the bounds of reason and suggests some vast machiavellian scheme by the GOP to win the White House.


That's all I want to see. You have the sources for my articles, they're in the links. If you'd like to disprove the articles, go ahead. If you'd like to discredit the source of the articles themselves, there are 3-4 which could be construed as biased - so go at those, but just remember that someone is bound to notice the glaring omission of the other 9 non-biased sources.

Yet agian, I will state: Your sources do not need to be disproven to disprove your conclusion.

If you'd like to discredit the source of the links to the source of the articles, then I'm sorry.

While not as compelling, the proof of bias in some of the sources helps establish a context of the argument.

"It draws some of your motives and your bias into question, which are legitimate ways to discredit an argument."
Let me give you an example of why this is horrible logic.

Let's say that I tell you that the Nazis killed millions of people for no reason other than that they were Jewish. At that point, it should be pretty obvious that my motive is a strong stance in opposition of Nazis, and the idea that I can make the listener consider the possibility that the Nazis were very mean, and my prejudice is one against Nazis. So, by pointing out my motive and prejudice, does it make it untrue that the Nazis killed millions of people for no reason other than that they were Jewish? No, it doesn't. That statement is still true, and while you can choose not to believe it, it happened.
Much in the same way (though not nearly in the same level of magnitude as genocide) it should be pretty clear that my motive is a strong stance against the Republican Party, and to make the reader consider the possibility that the Republican Party is being dishonest in this election. Does that make those links untrue? No, it doesn't.

Now, I admit, I misspoke. You don't have to admit that I have a point, as I said originally. Jimmy Carter saying to expect problems, Kerry decrying Republican tactics, the actions of a "disgruntled" employee (isn't it funny that anything a company does that is wrong is the work of a disgruntled employee?), African Americans - who vote overwhelmingly Democratic - not being allowed to redo incomplete voter registrations, another disgruntled employee, a Republican County Executive refusing a request for 260,000 additional ballots that mostly involve minority voters, a repeat of the 2000 removal of "potential felons" from voter rolls, the division of areas into voting districts for the purpose of giving one party an unfair advantage, the mysterious alteration of voter registrations to register voters as Republicans, an Ohio Secretary of State not allowing people to cast votes on provisional ballots if they go to the incorrect polling place - even if the voter is not at fault, the fact that the person who chose the disastrous "Butterfly Ballot" - which cost Gore 7,000 votes in Florida, legal experts stating that countless black voters will be disenfranchised again this election, Ralph Nader being accepted on the ballots - a violation of a court order - in Florida, governed by Jeb Bush, brother of George Bush, who I find it strange is willing to break the law for his brother - doesn't prove a thing and you have every right not to believe that something fishy is going on. I do, and I'd like to make people consider the possibility, but I can't prove anything.

"While not as compelling, the proof of bias in some of the sources helps establish a context of the argument."
How desparately must one grasp at straws before they finally lose their grip?
We've already established that I presented facts with the intention of proving a point - which would mean that they were presented with some bias, yes. That proves nothing, as the facts are still facts. Until the facts are proven not to be facts, this is not relevant.

[quote name='"SwiftyLeZar"']"It draws some of your motives and your bias into question, which are legitimate ways to discredit an argument."
Let me give you an example of why this is horrible logic.

Let's say that I tell you that the Nazis killed millions of people for no reason other than that they were Jewish. At that point, it should be pretty obvious that my motive is a strong stance in opposition of Nazis, and the idea that I can make the listener consider the possibility that the Nazis were very mean, and my prejudice is one against Nazis. So, by pointing out my motive and prejudice, does it make it untrue that the Nazis killed millions of people for no reason other than that they were Jewish? No, it doesn't. That statement is still true, and while you can choose not to believe it, it happened.

This argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of false analogy, Prejudicial Language, as well as a straw man.
An argument discredited does not say anything about it's absolute truth, rather just it's relative truth during the argument.


Much in the same way (though not nearly in the same level of magnitude as genocide) it should be pretty clear that my motive is a strong stance against the Republican Party, and to make the reader consider the possibility that the Republican Party is being dishonest in this election. Does that make those links untrue? No, it doesn't.

Fallacies of Popularity and Hasty Generalization,

In fact, your entire argument falls to the fallacy of Begging the Question.

Now, I admit, I misspoke. You don't have to admit that I have a point, as I said originally. Jimmy Carter saying to expect problems, Kerry decrying Republican tactics, the actions of a "disgruntled" employee (isn't it funny that anything a company does that is wrong is the work of a disgruntled employee?), African Americans - who vote overwhelmingly Democratic - not being allowed to redo incomplete voter registrations, another disgruntled employee, a Republican County Executive refusing a request for 260,000 additional ballots that mostly involve minority voters, a repeat of the 2000 removal of "potential felons" from voter rolls, the division of areas into voting districts for the purpose of giving one party an unfair advantage, the mysterious alteration of voter registrations to register voters as Republicans, an Ohio Secretary of State not allowing people to cast votes on provisional ballots if they go to the incorrect polling place - even if the voter is not at fault, the fact that the person who chose the disastrous "Butterfly Ballot" - which cost Gore 7,000 votes in Florida, legal experts stating that countless black voters will be disenfranchised again this election, Ralph Nader being accepted on the ballots - a violation of a court order - in Florida, governed by Jeb Bush, brother of George Bush, who I find it strange is willing to break the law for his brother - doesn't prove a thing and you have every right not to believe that something fishy is going on. I do, and I'd like to make people consider the possibility, but I can't prove anything.

This forms the basis for ones belief that there is an organized manipulation of the electoral process how? Those all look like
mostly unrelated occurances, and little can be done to actually link them other than rather untenable conspiracy theory. By the way, this passage falls into a couple other logical fallacies.


"While not as compelling, the proof of bias in some of the sources helps establish a context of the argument."
How desparately must one grasp at straws before they finally lose their grip?

We've already established that I presented facts with the intention of proving a point- which would mean that they were presented with some bias, yes.

That makes bias a reasonable argument for discrediting the bulk of your claims. You do carry an irrational bias that robs much of the evidence you provide of it's oomph.

That proves nothing, as the facts are still facts. Until the facts are proven not to be facts, this is not relevant.

Most of what you provide, however are not facts.
The word fact itself has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as unless people discuss the absolute truth of a conclusion, things that seem tenable and relatively true are still not facts.

Do I think there is some Machievellian scheme by the GOP to suppress the Democratic vote? No, there won't be a smoking gun linking all of these charges. The sad thing is there doesn't have to be. Individual conservatives are doing it all on there own. They simply do not repect the right of every eligible voter to vote. And I can't think of many things more un-American than that.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Do I think there is some Machievellian scheme by the GOP to suppress the Democratic vote? No, there won't be a smoking gun linking all of these charges. The sad thing is there doesn't have to be. Individual conservatives are doing it all on there own. They simply do not repect the right of every eligible voter to vote. And I can't think of many things more un-American than that.[/quote]

If all of these charges are true, I couldn't agree with you more.
The thing is, most of those articles talked about the appearence of impropriety, and not of instances of fraud that can be proven.

If they do find someone tampering with the eletoral process, be them Republican, Democrat or Independant, they deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The thing is, if you look at my posts, you will see that there is actually precious little opinion stated. The bulk of what I have posted questions Swifty's credibility and attacks the bias and logical flaws in his posts.

Goddamn I loves me some JSweeney posts.

[quote name='JSweeney']If all of these charges are true, I couldn't agree with you more.
The thing is, most of those articles talked about the appearence of impropriety, and not of instances of fraud that can be proven.

If they do find someone tampering with the eletoral process, be them Republican, Democrat or Independant, they deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The thing is, if you look at my posts, you will see that there is actually precious little opinion stated. The bulk of what I have posted questions Swifty's credibility and attacks the bias and logical flaws in his posts.[/quote]

I agree that there isn't any hard proof given in the articles I have read, but there does seem to be enough appearances of impropriety to warrant a further investigation. The problem is that all of this is extremely time-sensitive. Some states have already passed the voter registration cut-off and after November 2nd it will be too late to do anything.

"The bulk of what I have posted questions Swifty's credibility and attacks the bias and logical flaws in his posts."
I must say, all I gleaned from this exchange was that anyone who has a political stance is not to be trusted. All persuasive essays, editorials, and op-ed pieces - even if they are factually accurate - are, in reality, inaccurate by the very nature of the fact that they are tainted with the deadly poison of personal opinion.

Nobody can ever tell the truth about any issue on which they have a stance of any kind. They are biased and nothing they say is true... even if it is.

God help us all.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"The bulk of what I have posted questions Swifty's credibility and attacks the bias and logical flaws in his posts."
I must say, all I gleaned from this exchange was that anyone who has a political stance is not to be trusted. All persuasive essays, editorials, and op-ed pieces - even if they are factually accurate - are, in reality, inaccurate by the very nature of the fact that they are tainted with the deadly poison of personal opinion.

Nobody can ever tell the truth about any issue on which they have a stance of any kind. They are biased and nothing they say is true... even if it is.

God help us all.[/quote]

If you take it to an absurd point, yes.
However, you do need to consider someones political view when you look at thier opinion. Considering they are human, and will have specific point of view, than one needs to take thier words with a grain of salt.
Ones opinion colors everything, and it is often worthwhile to examine ones motives. I never said that nothing you posted was of value.
Yes, everything is tainted by the deadly poison of personal opinion... which is why, if ever, you will see anyone say anything even closely resembling absolute truth.

What's really shocking is that you didn't defuse the situation by pointing out some of the major ad hominem fallacies that ran rampant is some of my posts. I'm actually shocked you didn't. I specificly left them there, hoping you'd at least be able to recognize some of them.

Apparently, you didn't.

By the way, if you're going to continue to argue this for others, you'd be well advised to pick up a copy of the Detroit News/Free Press from a few days back... there's a particularly interesting article about voter fraud rabble rousing and the Democratic party supporters involved in it.