How the 2000 Election Was Fixed

7.30.06- Clinton E. Curtis, ex-programmer for Yang Enterprises tells all during a Congressional hearing on voting fraud. In October 2000, Curtis was asked by Tom Feeney (R), then Speaker of the House in Florida (now U.S. Congressman to the State of Florida), to write a computer program that would render electronic voting fraud undetectable.

http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1789

Holy hell - FYI this is 2006. Why are folks still whining and crying about 2000?

If you weren’t paying attention then, the issue wasn’t about voting machine fraud. It was about hanging chads, dangling chads and dimpled chads.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Holy hell - FYI this is 2006. Why are folks still whining and crying about 2000?

If you weren’t paying attention then, the issue wasn’t about voting machine fraud. It was about hanging chads, dangling chads and dimpled chads.

[/quote]

I really couldn’t care less about history. What I do care about is that the SAME machines with the SAME flaw are going to be used in some places for voting.

Hey metal!!!

Awesome link!!!

Even if every crackpot theory you and your pals hang your hat on is 100% correct, where was aL “APOCOLYPTO” gORE in 2004?

If he was wronged, why duck the rematch?

I fondly remember his concession speech.

Your pals were screaming “gORE IN '04!!!”

I decided that (to be perverse) I would scream along.

It stuck!!!

I was crushed when he didn’t run.

JeffR

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Holy hell - FYI this is 2006. Why are folks still whining and crying about 2000?

If you weren’t paying attention then, the issue wasn’t about voting machine fraud. It was about hanging chads, dangling chads and dimpled chads.

[/quote]

These guys are so stupid it is entertaining.

They don’t even know that Florida used paper ballots!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Holy hell - FYI this is 2006. Why are folks still whining and crying about 2000?

If you weren’t paying attention then, the issue wasn’t about voting machine fraud. It was about hanging chads, dangling chads and dimpled chads.

These guys are so stupid it is entertaining.

They don’t even know that Florida used paper ballots![/quote]

That was kinda my point.

I’m amazed that anyone still thinks: “We lost, so they had to cheat!” Hello? The American people chose according to what they knew and felt, they know that the Dems are a bunch of fucking loony tunes. They are lukewarm to the republicans but at least the republicans show some shreds of intelligence.

The people of this country chose a slick con man over a war hero, some because of ‘that ugly arm’. Was that cheating too, somehow?

Only in America…

HH

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Holy hell - FYI this is 2006. Why are folks still whining and crying about 2000?

If you weren’t paying attention then, the issue wasn’t about voting machine fraud. It was about hanging chads, dangling chads and dimpled chads.

These guys are so stupid it is entertaining.

They don’t even know that Florida used paper ballots!

That was kinda my point.

[/quote]

It was so good it needed repeating.

Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.[/quote]

You seem to forget that the ballots wer hand counted in Fla. and there was no material difference in the hand count v. the computer count.

LBJ wouldnot even have been a senator from Texas had he not had an entire army of dead folks magically voting for him from the grave.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.[/quote]

marm,

Did you vote for al gore?

Thanks.

JeffR

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush lost the vote in 2000.

The ‘paper’ ballots in Florida are counted using electronic counting machines that keep a running total.

They are so hackable it is laughable.

The Democrats have forgotten how they took and kept themselves in power.

He who runs the elections wins.

Think about it.[/quote]

Bullshit.

There were multiple hand recounts of the paper ballots. Bush won the majority of them.

Most of the problems happened in Democratic districts where the Dems ran the show and they still lost.

You are barking up the wrong tree Marmadogg.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
marm,

Did you vote for al gore?

Thanks.

JeffR[/quote]

No he’s a “paleo-conservative”, meaning he agrees with the democrats on everything, but votes Libertarian to make himself feel like he’s smarter than everyone else.

Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.

Unforunately, there is nothing that can be done, so fuck it. Politics will always be corrupt.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.

Unforunately, there is nothing that can be done, so fuck it. Politics will always be corrupt.[/quote]

Not disagreeing with you about the corrupt part, but The popular vote means dick in presidential elections.

It’s the electoral college.

Knda like the difference in match play and tournament play golf.

Well none of it changes the fact that George Bush has the IQ of a soda can, somebody should teach that inbred moron how to read.

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
Well none of it changes the fact that George Bush has the IQ of a soda can, somebody should teach that inbred moron how to read. [/quote]

Yet his IQ is higher then Kerry’s:

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.[/quote]

If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Clinton never won the poipular vote either. But as RJ said, the popular vote doesn’t mean shit.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.

Unforunately, there is nothing that can be done, so fuck it. Politics will always be corrupt.

Not disagreeing with you about the corrupt part, but The popular vote means dick in presidential elections.

It’s the electoral college.

Knda like the difference in match play and tournament play golf. [/quote]

I know. It is the one thing I wish they would change…it is outdated and too much depends on it to have a candidate (regardless of affiliation) lose because of this.

I forget who was the only other one to win the popular and lose the election…maybe Grover Cleveland?

It should have been changed back then.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bush lost. The popular vote was against him. The whole thing was bullshit.

Unforunately, there is nothing that can be done, so fuck it. Politics will always be corrupt.

Not disagreeing with you about the corrupt part, but The popular vote means dick in presidential elections.

It’s the electoral college.

Knda like the difference in match play and tournament play golf.

I know. It is the one thing I wish they would change…it is outdated and too much depends on it to have a candidate (regardless of affiliation) lose because of this.

I forget who was the only other one to win the popular and lose the election…maybe Grover Cleveland?

It should have been changed back then.[/quote]

CLinton never won even 50% of the popular vote, but he was elected.

I think the electoral college is more important now than it has ever been to protect the rural states from the huge metropolitan states.