Sunday's Seattle Times: "[Mrs. Gregoire1] thanks Teamsters for votes"
With Teamsters national President James Hoffa Jr. looking on, Gregoire thanked the 300 or so Teamsters shop stewards assembled at the Washington Convention and Trade Center for helping her win the 2004 election.Of course she wouldn't. The Teamsters Union counts the votes. The article mentions "Local 117", calling it"I know, my friends, I would not be here without you," she said.
an amalgam of prison guards, port police, warehouse workers and airport staff, is the third-largest of the Teamsters' 500-some locals in the country.The article neglects to mention that Teamsters Local 117 also represents King County Elections workers.
1 One gets the feeling that Mrs. Gregoire will give the Teamsters pretty much whatever they ask for.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 12, 2006 12:28 AM | Email ThisShe is a Pretend Queen! All hail and turn over your check books!
Posted by: GS on March 12, 2006 01:58 AM
Http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com
Friday, March 10, 2006
DEMOCRATS: THE PARTY OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS
WILLISMS: "Union membership in the private sector in this country is WAY down over the past few decades, while simultaneously WAY up in the public sector (via The Club For Growth blog)..."
Willism has a GREAT CHART; here's a summary:
In 1948, 35% of all private sector workers were in unions. It has declined ever since.
In 1948, 12% of all public sector workers were in unions. It has increased ever since.
In 2004, only 8% of all private sector workers are in unions.
In 2004, 37% of all public sector workers are in union.
Historically, the largest single segment of the Democrat Party has always been unions. It still is, but NOT the old "blue collar" unions of the private sector. The unions of the public sector are running the Democrat Party now. FACT: SINCE 1990, public sector unions have given 90% of their donations to the Democrat Party -- $135 MILLION DOLLARS to the Dems and only $12 million to the GOP.
WHY DO THESE UNIONS FAVOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY? AND, WHAT CAN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY POSSIBLY DO FOR THEM THAT THE GOP WON'T?
Simple: the Democrats will raise taxes and increase the size of government and EXPAND THE SIZE, POWER AND WEALTH OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. That's why the public sector unions love the Dems. It's a quid pro quo.
SO, if you want to have government for the public sector unions, by the public sector unions, and of the public sector unioins, then by all means... PLEASE VOTE DEMOCRAT.
# posted by reliapundit :
Posted by: pagar on March 12, 2006 05:13 AMhttp://www.unionfacts.com/unions/unionProfile.cfm?id=93
Posted by: pagar on March 12, 2006 05:28 AMMake that a Fraudian Slip
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 12, 2006 08:49 AMGreat play on words.
Posted by: Fed Up on March 12, 2006 09:28 AMShe knows who she owes and is making sure that they view themselves as owning her and her veto. I expect that she also expects to be able to direct where they put future campaign contribution support.
Mrs. G wants higher federal office. I feel that she is hoping to get a cabinet position if we every again get a Democrat in the Whitehouse or that she will be elected as a Senator from his state in the near future. It would be an interesting cat fight to see her go against either Murray or Can't-vote-well. My money is on Mrs. G going after Murray. Mrs. G is cunning and smart. Murray is dumb and lucky.
Posted by: Bob on March 12, 2006 11:58 AMWith these kinds of friends....who cares if there are enemies!!
Posted by: Susu on March 12, 2006 03:10 PMThey already have it already written up and ready to go (they won't try it in an election year)
Look at SB 5991 and specifically section 301.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5991.pdf
Call and write your senators and these authors of this bill, Franklin (D) Kline (D) Kohl-Welles (D) and tell them what you think of this bill.
All sponsored by Democrats to if you can believe this "to provide the necessary revenues for the support of vital state services on a more stable and equitable basis....Yeh Right!
They only raised the budget 13.5 percent this year alone and they wonder why they have no stable revenue stream!
So in November Vote these idiots out and cripple Queen Christine and her court or open up your pocketbooks and dump them out.
Posted by: GS on March 12, 2006 06:24 PM
This bill was written last year and it was intended to go into effect in 2007.
From what I read, it would impose an income tax of 2.2% on everyone. Additional rates can push it up to almost 6% depending on your income and filing status. They would use the adjusted gross income from your federal income taxes. You would be allowed between $7,000 to $10,000 personal deduction, depending on marital status and whether both were working.
The law would reduce the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5% to 3.5%.
It looks like they would "eliminate" the state portion of the property tax, but it was confusing to me if it was really an elimination or a large reduction in the percentage.
Looking at my past tax filings and trying to apply this new law to that data, it looks as if I would actually pay the state twice as much as I would save from the tax cuts.
It's obvious that the Unions' strategy has been to expand the public employee ranks in light of most privately employed Americans realizing that Unions are not a good thing. Take for example the Automtoive Employees. The American Auto industry is dying under the high cost of union membership. And as such, the Automotive Employees are losing jobs, even the union employees. So, what to do if you are a union boss? Go to the one place where therr won't rbrt be any stifling competition, and you can rig the system even more in your favor: Government.
But, it won't be long before motr private citizens catch on to this practice. Why should public employees, using your tax dollars get to turn around and funnel that money to unions by way of their dues in order to get Democrats elected?
And this is one more reason to fight hard for tax credits for those who send their kids to private schools. A nice big juicy target is the WEA and the giant teachers unions.
With our population doubling or tripling since the last attempt at an income tax fizzled, I don't know how our current voters think.
Posted by: swatter on March 13, 2006 07:34 AMHow about a special tax on Weinstein's fancy suits?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 13, 2006 07:41 AM
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. Just how many new State appointees and employees are there? How many new laws, and requirements eat into the product of the people?
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: Gas tax, and all those hidden "user fees." In the face of clear calls for tax relief. Even when State revenue rises 7%, State spending goes up over twice the revenue increase.
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. Can you say emergency clause 90 times?
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Our initiatives from 601 on have be subverted, ignored and overturned.
The words above are from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
Our power to redress these grievances at the ballot box is slipping away. Taken by corrupt systems and people, the elected legislature gets carried away in a power mad frenzy and ignores the clear dictates of the People.
How much farther down this road do we go before Revolution is truly necessary to right these wrongs?
Notice that the democraps don't have any ideas? Their voters are coalition of special interest groups. Unions, greens, gay rights activists, consumers of government services, etc. They all sell their votes in exchange for promises of largess. Sounds like the worlds oldest profession.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 13, 2006 10:28 AMSIGH! No argument from me. Problem is we have whole generations of voter who could not identify the source of my above quotes. Educated in statist school with statist theory and who now vote the statist party line. With another huge voting block, state employees, the welfare class and other state dependents vote in their personal interest.
The revolution was won with the support of 1/3 of the population. About a third were Tories, a third waited for it blow over and a third were rebels.
We have a third or better in our camp. Let the revolution begin at the ballot box. However the first battle is right here in KCE. If we can restore honest elections in KC the critical battle will have been won.
Posted by: JCM on March 13, 2006 10:35 AMThat is essentially what is happening here in WA with the large voting blocs of public employees (through their unions) voting in more and more money for education, large public works projects like the viaduct, etc.
Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2006 10:48 AMAs one of those "Teamster" emmployees who count the votes, I am really insulted by your implication that we would shave or distort the count. We have to join the union as a condition of temporary employment. We work our tails off to get it right, and then you come up with a comment like that. Come down and work the convassing before you make any more snide remarks.
Posted by: judy on March 13, 2006 11:14 AMYou've nailed it. For the Dems, it's all about segmenting society into entitlement classes that justify, legitimize and perpetuate a socialist welfare state. But there's good news. Ultimately, a socialist welfare state cannot exist. It's not self-sustaining. That's why capitalism is of course the only system that really works. So now matter how much the Dems try to push us towards socialism, we will see their ideas implode. Unions destroying businesses, social security collapsing, the citizens turning against the largesse of government. It's all only a matter of time because there's just not enough money to justify every progressive fantasy.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 13, 2006 11:55 AMIt's not the count that got distorted, counting is pretty easy and usually done well by the rank and file, it's the universe of ballots in the count. Logan's people have admitted that there were ballots that should not have been counted.
Still though, you may or may not want to be part of a union, but in so doing, you are ultimately hurting yourself. How long will it be before even government jobs protecting more-than-the-tax-base-will-bear-union-salaries, get outsourced?
No matter how much progressives like Gregoire raise taxes, there won't be enough money for every scheme, and eventually, jobs will get cut. Should you really be making what you are making for counting votes? You might think so, but the free market would probably disagree.
Complain to Gregoire.
She is the one with foot in mouth disease. We are merely having some merriment at her expense.
There were problems with the election.
Teamsters counted the ballots.
Gregoire thanks the Teamsters for giving her the election.
If I were Gregoire I would have been very cognizant of my choice of words regarding the election in that venue.
It is demonstrative of her judgement that she was not.
Posted by: JCM on March 13, 2006 12:11 PM"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University.
Or this Franklin quote may explain the democraps too:
"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money."
Benjamin Franklin
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. --C.S. Lewis
Any measure that establishes legal charity on a permanent basis and gives it an administrative form thereby creates an idle and lazy class, living at the expense of the industrial and working class. This, at least, is its inevitable consequence, if not the immediate result. --Alexis de Tocqueville
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. --James Madison, principal author of the US Constitution
The American Republic will fall when the politicians learn they can bribe people with their own money. --Alexis de Tocqueville
Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody. --Calvin Coolidge
With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators. --James Madison
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. --P. J. O'Rourke
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. --Thomas Jefferson
And finally, some computer humor:
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. --Anon.
And which are you?
Thanks for the quotes; at sometime I have read most of them. I had completely forgotten the C.S. Lewis quote.
Engineer humor:
Line in the restroom at a break between meetings watches as an engineer pulls off sheet after sheet of paper towels, he notices everyone in line watching him. The then says "At IBM they teach us to be thorough!"
Next engineer meticulously use one paper towel and states, "At HP they teach us to be efficient!"
Next engineer skips washing his hands, as he walks out announces, "At Apple they teach us not to pee on our hands!"
Posted by: JCM on March 13, 2006 04:54 PMOf course SoundPolitics had to imply that you’re a crook. They don’t have squat to prove it:
“...The Secretary of State’s Office received no information from any of the state’s 39 counties that any election worker either removed ballots or added ballots. Specifically with reference to King County, there is no evidence that the significant errors which occurred resulted from intentional misconduct or someone’s desire to manipulate the election. There is no evidence that anybody associated with any of the candidates in the governor’s race had anything to do with causing the errors. There is no evidence that has been produced in this court to suggest that errors resulted from partisan bias... the various polling sites across the State were populated by inspectors, judges, Accuvote judges, observers, attorneys and the media. No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud or intentional misconduct. Election officials attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner. There is no evidence before the court to question ballot security as to those ballots actually counted.”
Here at SoundPolitics, they say that Mr. Rossi is a brilliant, visionary, tough leader, who appointed a legal team so completely incompetent that it spent six months and millions of Republican dollars not finding your obvious criminality. SoundPolitics says that our entire state needs this “leadership”, and that our tax monies should go where Mr. Rossi so directs them. These reasons, and many, many more, show why you, Judy, should not wander in from the reality-based community and expect decent treatment.
BTW, any Republican who spins guilt-by-association innuendoes obviously doesn’t know Jack about the national political situation. Am I right, Rabbi Lapin?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on March 13, 2006 05:05 PM1
Perhaps,in a gesture of fairness, King County will locate its new centralized election megacomplex in say Snoqualmie or North Bend or perhaps Maple Valley? Ron could finally hire people from Rural Eastern King County with some of those high paying Teamster wages and make good on his Rural Economic developement plan at the same time! Or do you think because Rural Eastern King county IMPLIES Republican leanings he will want to keep it DOWNTOWN.
Posted by: Mac's Daddy on March 13, 2006 05:28 PMOh, you mean how like national Democrats are trying to criminalize any Republican who has ever met JACK.
So you think you know who got the most legal votes in the governors race? Why don't you enlighten us.
Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2006 05:32 PMWe are intelligent enough over here at SP to know that Rossi would have been a way more effective and fiscally responsible governor.
It's because of goofballs like you and your ilk that this state has to suffer through the socialist crap and corruption that the State Democrat Party brings to the table.
Judge Bridges' ruling clearly suggests that most of the felons voted for Rossi. After Bridges eviscerates the "proportional deduction" suggestion for the ecological fallacy that it is, he notes the gender of a felon suggests how that felon voted. Most felons are men; one candidate was a sitting, female Attorney General-- an extremely unlikely person for them to favor.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on March 13, 2006 10:25 PMI think that most everyone who read this blog already knew that anyway, so I said for those leftist trolls who don't recognize and can't handle the truth.
Posted by: KS on March 13, 2006 10:35 PMIn the preceding pages, Judges Bridges rips the proportional reduction theory apart on general terms.
Next time, please read his ruling before you tell us what it says.
Yeah, whatever, a$$wipe. And after Fraudoire was behind in the election count, and the first recount, it took King Co. what, a half-dozen or so times of "just happening" to "find" ballots that were "innocently overlooked" in the previous counts? How many times did they "just happen to find" ballots? But, sure, it's all just innocent, human error. Yeah, sure, you stupid dolt.
This slimeball really wants us to believe that there isn't something fishy going on here? What kind of brainless idiot really thinks that everyone out there is stupid enough to believe that?
Back to the topic of Teamsters and elections, wasn't it the Kennedy adminstration that prosecuted Hoffa's Daddy for the way he ran the organization? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree right Paddy?
Posted by: Just Wondering on March 14, 2006 08:25 AMI do not know exactly what evidence Judge Bridges used to support his claim that male felons voted more for Rossi. I do know that the specific use of the ecological fallacy claimed, in this case, that male felons had voted-- and overwhelmingly so, in numbers sufficient to change the outcome of the election-- for a sitting, female law-enforcement official. That claim, loudly repeated by plaintiffs, and their supporters here at SoundPolitics, does not even pass the giggle test.
Specifically, one of Attorney General Gregoire's highest-profile cases involved one Thomas Stewart, millionaire contributor to the WA State GOP, who plea-bargained with her, on criminal charges related to his attempt to alter election laws in Seattle. Even the suggestion that male criminals voted mostly for her insults the intelligence of each and every listener.
The plaintiffs based their case, in part, on the 'fact' that illegal votes threw the election to Gregoire. Yet, in open court, they could not produce a single piece of evidence to support this allegation. Every last bit of evidence introduced shows or suggests that felons voted for Rossi. No evidence-- nothing at all-- appeared in court to counteract that idea. The utter failure of the plaintiffs to show any fraud, any wrongdoing, any criminal intent, anything at all beyond sloppy work here and there, makes a prosecution effectively impossible. Any prosecutor who attempts discovery now will face the charge of wasting public money, and of pursuing a partisan agenda with taxpayers' dollars.
All of the evidence suggests that sloppy work in King County, and failure to compile a statewide database of felons, almost put the wrong person in our Governor's office. It is Governor Gregoire's supporters who should be most angry at King County's Elections Department, and the past Secretary of Washington State!
I'm sorry, but I'm not that stupid or gullible. This whole lousy, stinking "election" undermines the basic principles of elective government. This so-called third "recount" wasn't that at all, it was a process rigged with an outcome in mind, and that was that Fraudoire would be installed as governor. Among the things that makes the "decision" by Bridges so idiotic is the fact that he says, in effect, that yes, the system is mucked up, but that voters have to fix the system, presumably by voting. How can you fix something that is broken by doing the very thing it cannot legitimately do, that is, ensure a fair election? The second idiotic point is that there was an acknowledgement that there were thousands of illegal votes, but, hey, we can't do anything about it, the result, however flawed, must stand. So then a reasonable person has to ask, why bother? I mean, if you're going to have a flawed process and it doesn't matter what the result of the flawed process is, it has to stand, what incentive is there to ever fix the crooked system?
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 15, 2006 05:35 AMBut, have you checked out State Law RCW15.36? That is the law that bans the use of common sense in government. If anyone is caught using common sense in State government, they will be immediately dismissed.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2006 07:21 AMAll of the recount procedures followed state law. When any statewide election has a difference of less than 2,000 votes, an automatic recount starts. Anyone may pay for a third count, after the mandated recount finishes. The third count, if performed, becomes the final count. In the lawsuit filed specifically to introduce evidence of wrongdoing, no such evidence appeared. Many counties found ballots during the recounts; the largest county found the largest number. Citizens testified before the state Supreme Court, that they had attempted to vote legally, but the clerks had lost their ballots. No legal voter should have to go to court to get his or her vote counted, and the primary fault for that rests with the King County elections department.
Humans handled millions of ballots, and many other ancilliary pieces of paper; at most, several thousand mistakes were made. Judge Bridges acidly noted that King County could have done better, but that errors occur in every election. The 2005 elections showed improvement, despite illegal tampering in the final week of the general election. Anyone who disagrees with the 2004 final certification can complain to Judge Bridges; no other opinion will ever matter.
By the way, when Judge Bridges dismissed the proportional reduction theory, he wrote that the petitioners created it specifically to procure their desired result, Mr. Rossi's election. That was the only attempted fraud during that entire election, and Judge Bridges caught it perfectly.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on March 15, 2006 10:05 PMThat's the problem. "Judge" Bridges proved himself to be a brainless dolt when he made the comment that, in effect, the voters had to fix the broken, corrupt, inept election system (in King Co., specifically), by, what, presumably voting. What kind of idiot says that, yes, I see, the mechanism is broken, but you have no choice but to use that same broken, corrupt mechanism to fix it? Ever tried to fix a broken machine with the same broken machine? Ever tried to repair a broken hammer with a broken hammer? Do you understand the problem? If something is broken, you need to look beyond the thing that is broken in order to repair it. Anyone with half a brain understands this, but evidently the point is lost on dimbutts like Bridges, and, most certainly, 'Rats. So "complaining to Bridges" won't do any good, because the guy is a crumbbum who doesn't have the sense to see a wrong and try to right it.
So, I guess because your slimemold candidate "won", you are okay with the fact that, time and again, during the "recount", more and more "lost" ballots kept turning up. How many times did that happen in King Co. alone, perhaps a half dozen times, maybe more? You're going to sit there and tell me that you're all fine and happy with that, because the lousy 'Rat "won" the election. And it doesn't raise any kind of doubt in your mind at all about the legitimacy of the process, or the result. Simply because "state law was followed", you are okay with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ballots whose integrity and custody is, at minimum, in doubt, were added into the total vote after the fact, when the polls were closed, when the election had been tabulated and checked and certified. You have no problem with someone coming in at the last minute and saying, "hey, wait a minute, I just 'happened' to find these extra ballots, let's throw them in with everyone else's who legitimately voted on election day", and never mind that you are, in effect, disenfranchising an equal number of honest citizens who took the time and trouble to go to the polls and legally vote when they were supposed to. Well, you may be happy with that, but I'm not that stupid or gullible. A reasonable person would look at that and be suspicious enough to legitimately question the validity of the whole process, and be inclined to do something drastic about it.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. The government cannot burden the citizen’s exercise of the franchise with frivolous or onerous requirements. Given a choice between counting or discarding a suspect ballot, we choose the former. Like it or not, that is our Constitution and our law. All of the ‘reforms’ proposed here-- drastic measures indeed, some of them-- would place undue burdens on my right to vote, and so I reject all of them. Judge Bridges counted 1,678 illegal votes-- out of how many million cast? That’s simply not a huge problem, and claiming that it is just sounds either shrill or silly.
Events can appear suspicious, and yet have innocent causes. The ballots found in each county tended to reflect the overall vote in that county. That is a very powerful suggestion that nothing untoward had happened; intentional exclusion of ballots should show a bias. (If you divide the number of votes found in each county by the total number cast in that county, you’ll see that King County had not the largest per-voter number of ballots found.) All of the votes found in King County fit this county’s very liberal voting pattern, and so they tended to favor the liberal candidate. Judge Bridges was more than clear in dismissing every claim that you recounted, concerning the integrity and value of the ballots found, and the behavior of the officials who found and counted them. Sloppiness, while annoying or even frustrating, does not make for a crime, and Judge Bridges dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because they found sloppiness in one county, not fraud or other illegal activity anywhere. He found absolutely no evidence to prove that illegal votes altered the election’s result. (Not ‘suggest’, not ‘imply’, not ‘look suspicious’-- ‘prove’. The law required proof. The plaintiffs knew this when they began.) Every piece of evidence has suggested that illegal votes gave Mr. Rossi his supposed lead, and thus suggests that the final count was indeed the best one.
Yes, I do say that if we follow the law, and find no evidence of wrongdoing, then we accept the result as the best one that we can get. Elections officials at various levels of our government have made efforts to improve, and it appears that those efforts are succeeding. I wasn’t happy about the sloppy work done in 2004, and I’m not yet satisfied with the current situation, but I believe that doing anything drastic would simply make matters worse.
Judge Bridges’ rejection of the proportional reduction method, and his cogent explanation of why it was worse than worthless, demonstrates his good education and good judgment. (I am an engineer. The very first thing I ever did, as a paid member of my profession, was to conduct a statistical analysis; I have used statistical methods extensively in every engineering job I’ve ever had.) Calling him names, especially inaccurate ones, does your cause no good.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on March 16, 2006 08:12 PMSo you can see the problems with the system, but don't want to attempt anything "drastic". So, again, you appear to be okay with the fact that the "system" can allow a particular county, especially a heaviliy liberal one, as you note, to keep "finding" so-called "lost" ballots, time and time again, during the so-called "recount" (really a recanvass), and you see no reason for being suspicious of the process or skeptical of the result, presumably as long as "your" candidate" comes out ahead after the "recount". See, that's the problem, and if you were honest with yourself and others here, you'd admit that this is the reason. You're okay with "finding" all those "lost" ballots, until they cause your candidate to "lose".
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
All the more reason to be suspicious of "found" ballots after the election is over.
The government cannot burden the citizen’s exercise of the franchise with frivolous or onerous requirements. Given a choice between counting or discarding a suspect ballot, we choose the former. Like it or not, that is our Constitution and our law. All of the ‘reforms’ proposed here-- drastic measures indeed, some of them-- would place undue burdens on my right to vote, and so I reject all of them.
A "burden", eh? Just how much of a "burden" is it to ask supposedly intelligent people to register correctly according to the rules, to show up at their designated polling place on the appointed date, and cast their ballot in person? Anyone who can't manage even those simple things is either a useless, lazy slug of a waste of human flesh, or is totally brain-dead.
Judge Bridges counted 1,678 illegal votes-- out of how many million cast? That’s simply not a huge problem, and claiming that it is just sounds either shrill or silly.
No, not a problem, it only allows an illegitimate "governor" to take office. Nope, nothing wrong with that, nothing about that which causes any loss of faith and confidence in our system of government, no siree.
What is silly is not to be suspicious of a process that allows votes to be added to the total after the election, so as to reverse the outcome tabulated and verified. Anyone who looks the other way at such an occurrence is either ignorant or a willing accomplice in the fraud. In either case, I have no use for them.
Events can appear suspicious, and yet have innocent causes.
Yeah, sure they are, sure they do. And let me know when Elvis gets here.
And, on an unrelated topic, although you brought it up, I've probably forgotten more engineering than you'll ever know, going on some 40 years in the business, now. And one thing I have learned is that there is something more important than being able to do any kind of "statistical analysis", as useful (or not) that may be in dealing with a particular problem. And that is, being able to see things as they are and tell it like it is. IOW, valuing the truth. And the truth of this matter is that there are enough legitimate questions and doubts that one simply cannot turn away and accept them in good conscience. If that is so, to stand by and do nothing in the face of a grave injustice is as wrong as the injustice itself. Those who are content to accept a fraudulent outcome simply because "the law says so" or "I got the result I wanted" are themselves complicit in the fraud, for they turn their eyes from the truth and accept a lie in its place. And as the engineer who willfully accepts what he knows to be faulty data and analyses simply to obtain the result he desires beforehand pays an awful price in the end for his dishonesty, so will a society that willingly accepts dishonesty and fraud and incompetence in its systems of government reap a bitter harvest, one that will, if unchecked, destroy that government and society.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 17, 2006 05:09 AMEngineering consists of applying scientific and mathematical principles to the solution of practical problems. Judge Bridges accurately dismanted the proportional deduction scheme, and labeled it as the ecological fallacy that it was. This showed his keen grasp of this highly techincal issue. As a practicing engineer, whose work involves such distinctions, I salute his erudition.
Interested Observer, I accept your admission. I agree that you have forgotten either sound scientific and mathematical principles, or the proper way in which to apply them. Your continued insistence of fraud, contradicted by all of the evidence, demonstrates your unscientific worldview. The same verdict holds for all who still decry Judge Bridges ruling.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on March 17, 2006 09:45 PM