Saturday, October 25, 2008

I'll Be Watching You

David, That Fucking Jew, writes in:

"Hi Crack,

Well, I was bored and decided to do some digging into election fraud. This search was spurred by the publishing of a color coded map showing how each county in Ohio voted in the 2004 election.  Since this was considered the key state to win for President Bush, it got me curious. 

I then used a comparison of Cuyahoga County--where Cleveland is located and had overwhelmingly voted for Kerry (with some precincts showing an unheard of 97%). I counted up and compared the number of votes listed and compared it to a census count of percentage of people actually old enough to vote and found that the voter turn out would have to be 81% +/- 3% and said "huh? That's kinda high..." 

Did I mention the "I was bored" part?

Oh yeah, BASIC census data here and here.

Below is a paper written by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D, who researched this very county and presented it to the Ohio Supreme Court to prove the case of election fraud when the Deomocrats tried to steal the state from President Bush and the Republican Party in 2004.  Remember, my own numbers show 81% of the entire voting age population (over 18).  This mans work showed actual voter turnout at...get this...7% in some wards!

The press has been splitting hairs by saying things like 'registration fraud is not the same as voter fraud'. Well, I have this to say: Here's how it works bozos!  If I am a Democratic Party boss and I have my people working at polling places, I will use all those fraud registrations to vote for my guy after the polls have closed their doors...THEN I will turn in the numbers.  This has been the case since Boss Tweed ran New York City!

Registration fraud = voter fraud!  This = stolen election!

Lenin said it best 'It's not the vote that counts, it's the man who counts the vote that counts'"


Here's Richard Hayes Phillips's 2004 paper:

PURGING THE VOTER ROLLS IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
April 8, 2006, Revised


A cogent question has been raised by a Contributing Editor to Rolling
Stone magazine: Could a failure to purge the voter rolls be an explanation for the very low voter turnout percentage in Cleveland?

Purging the voter rolls from time to time is a necessary and desirable thing. People die, or move away, and if their names remain on the list of registered voters, two undesirable consequences ensue: (1) a window of opportunity is left open for those who would engage in election fraud by voting under someone else’s name; and (2) the voter turnout percentage (number of ballots cast divided by number of registered voters) will be reduced due to an artificially inflated denominator.

The simplest way to decide who should be purged from the voter rolls is to delete the names of all who have not voted for a certain number of years, and who have no written record of asking to maintain their status as registered voters. In Ohio, most counties purge the rolls every two years, removing the names of registered voters who have been inactive for four years. Some counties purge the rolls more often, while other counties place these names on a list of “inactive voters” and wait another four years before removing the names altogether.

In Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located, the voter rolls were purged on July 6, 2001 and January 5, 2002. I have added up the numbers purged in each of 1,436 precincts. Troy Seman prepared a spreadsheet showing that 168,169 voters, or 19.44% of the electorate, were purged from the rolls in Cuyahoga County. By comparison, Bush’s official margin of victory over Kerry, statewide, was 118,599 votes.

In Cleveland alone, 63,721 voters, or 24.93% of the electorate, were purged. In 5 of 21 wards, more than 30% of the voters were purged.
Subsequent voter registration drives were so successful as to overcome the effect of the purges; there were far more registered voters in every ward in Cleveland in 2004 than there had been in 2000. But the fact remains that 63,721 people were purged from the rolls in 2001 and
2002, and many of these did not reregister in 2004, because they did not know they had to.

VOTERS PURGED FROM THE ROLLS IN CLEVELAND

Number Not Before Percent Registered
Ward Purged Purged Purges Purged Voters 2004

CLEVELAND 01 2850 12090 14940 19.08% 17072
CLEVELAND 02 2559 10095 12654 20.22% 15352
CLEVELAND 03 3496 9988 13484 25.93% 16258
CLEVELAND 04 3383 9387 12770 26.49% 15218
CLEVELAND 05 3694 8602 12296 30.04% 15762
CLEVELAND 06 4569 9323 13892 32.89% 16117
CLEVELAND 07 4133 9537 13670 30.23% 16705
CLEVELAND 08 3491 9152 12643 27.61% 15602
CLEVELAND 09 3456 8655 12111 28.54% 15192
CLEVELAND 10 2595 9572 12167 21.33% 15641
CLEVELAND 11 1884 10220 12104 15.57% 15528
CLEVELAND 12 1876 7773 9649 19.44% 12537
CLEVELAND 13 3566 10493 14059 25.36% 19541
CLEVELAND 14 4352 8251 12603 34.53% 14174
CLEVELAND 15 2934 9141 12075 24.30% 13831
CLEVELAND 16 2912 10123 13035 22.34% 14221
CLEVELAND 17 3524 7147 10671 33.02% 13143
CLEVELAND 18 3533 8645 12178 29.01% 14651
CLEVELAND 19 3158 9024 12182 25.92% 14013
CLEVELAND 20 3021 10286 13307 22.70% 14547
CLEVELAND 21 1893 13352 15245 12.42% 17505

TOTAL 63721 191832 255553 24.93% 323202

The significance of these purges cannot be overstated. Kerry won Cleveland with 83.36% of the vote. His margin of victory was 113,145 votes. For every six persons unable to vote for having been purged from the rolls, four votes were shaved from Kerry’s margin of victory.

The percent of voters purged should be inversely related to the percent turnout in preceding elections. The best indicator is the presidential election, because it always draws the highest turnout. Because the number of registered voters in the 2000 general election was not the same as when the purges took place, no direct calculation can be made of what percentage of inactive voters were actually purged. A more meaningful comparison has been devised by Troy Seman. He has divided the percentage of voters purged in 2001 and 2002 by the percentage of registered voters not voting in 2000, resulting in a “purge ratio.”

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES, CLEVELAND

Percent Percent Percent Purge
Ward Purged Turnout Gore Ratio

CLEVELAND 09 28.54% 61.45% 94.03% 74.04%
CLEVELAND 06 32.89% 54.03% 88.18% 71.55%
CLEVELAND 05 30.04% 57.76% 96.24% 71.12%
CLEVELAND 04 26.49% 61.86% 92.66% 69.45%
CLEVELAND 07 30.23% 54.87% 94.06% 66.98%
CLEVELAND 08 27.61% 58.29% 95.63% 66.19%
CLEVELAND 17 33.02% 48.97% 71.35% 64.71%
CLEVELAND 03 25.93% 59.24% 97.00% 63.61%
CLEVELAND 19 25.92% 59.19% 68.02% 63.52%
CLEVELAND 14 34.53% 44.17% 72.85% 61.85%
CLEVELAND 18 29.01% 52.96% 69.66% 61.68%
CLEVELAND 15 24.30% 57.91% 64.27% 57.73%
CLEVELAND 20 22.70% 60.08% 64.26% 56.86%
CLEVELAND 10 21.33% 61.97% 95.15% 56.09%
CLEVELAND 16 22.34% 59.83% 58.54% 55.61%
CLEVELAND 01 19.08% 62.40% 97.16% 50.75%
CLEVELAND 02 20.22% 59.60% 94.61% 50.05%
CLEVELAND 13 25.36% 46.86% 73.23% 47.72%
CLEVELAND 11 15.57% 60.56% 75.51% 39.47%
CLEVELAND 12 19.44% 50.67% 70.74% 39.41%
CLEVELAND 21 12.42% 64.22% 55.95% 34.71%

It may be readily seen that the purge ratio in Cleveland is completely unrelated to the percent turnout in 2000. To the contrary, there is a much stronger relationship between the purge ratio and the percent of the vote won by Al Gore in the 2000 election. This suggests strongly that the most heavily Democratic wards in Cleveland were targeted for selective purging, which would be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Simply stated, 7 of the 10 wards in which Gore received his highest percentage of the vote were among the 8 wards with the highest purge ratio. 10 of the 11 wards in which Bush received his highest percentage of the vote were among the 14 wards with the lowest purge ratio. Most telling of all is Ward 21, where Gore received only 55.95% of the vote (64.26% in Ward 20 being his second-worst showing). The purge ratio in Ward 21 was only 34.71%.

By contrast, there were 13 entire towns, and 2 wards in Strongsville, where the percentage of voters purged was less than that of any ward in
Cleveland. Bush defeated Gore in most of these places. The purge ratio was less than that of any ward in Cleveland (other than Ward 21) in all of them.

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES, OUTSIDE OF CLEVELAND

Percent Percent Percent Purge
Ward Purged Turnout Gore Ratio

BAY VILLAGE 11.82% 68.66% 37.16% 37.71%
INDEPENDENCE 11.79% 67.62% 42.58% 36.41%
LYNDHURST 11.77% 67.51% 51.92% 36.22%
BEACHWOOD 11.62% 62.04% 82.52% 30.61%
BRECKSVILLE 11.19% 68.46% 34.86% 35.48%
WALTON HILLS 10.86% 72.35% 49.37% 39.28%
PEPPER PIKE 10.57% 67.85% 56.14% 32.88%
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS VIL 9.88% 66.52% 51.46% 29.51%
CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS 5.22% 60.76% 55.52% 13.30%
GATES MILLS 7.66% 75.80% 28.67% 31.66%
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS 9.16% 67.98% 43.90% 28.60%
ORANGE 7.01% 70.78% 68.12% 23.99%
STRONGSVILLE 03 6.36% 69.97% 41.48% 21.18%
STRONGSVILLE 04 6.04% 69.88% 41.22% 20.05%
VALLEY VIEW 7.98% 65.89% 47.97% 23.40%

It was not easy to put these numbers together. The numbers of purged voters were listed precinct by precinct, but the names of the precincts were abbreviated, and thus appeared in a different alphabetical order than in the records for the 2000 election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections never prepared for public consumption a table showing registered voters, ballots cast, and percent turnout, at the precinct level, for the 2000 election. The number of ballots cast is reported along with the presidential vote totals in the precinct canvass records. The number of registered voters, precinct by precinct, was provided by the Board of Elections after a diligent three-day search by three information specialists. The precinct boundaries have changed since the 2000 election, making comparisons with 2004 data at the precinct level impossible. The percentage of the vote received by Gore was calculated by hand, which proved the simplest method because there were seven candidates on the ballot in 2000, and sum total of votes counted for president were needed for the denominators. After entering these data into a table, we were able to calculate the percent turnout for each ward and town. The task of assembling the data was tedious and time-consuming. But one would expect that Robert T. Bennett,
Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, who has been State
Chairman of the Republican Party since 1988, would have had access to data on the percentage of the vote received by Gore in each precinct.

Because the data on purged voters are available at the precinct level, in a format readily converted to a spreadsheet, we were able to calculate, precinct by precinct, the percentage of voters purged.

There are 1,436 precincts in Cuyahoga County. In 151 (10.5%) of the precincts, more than 30% of the registered voters were purged from the rolls. Of these 151 precincts, 114 (75.5%) were in Cleveland. Another
8 were in East Cleveland, where Gore received 96.53% of the vote. In
Cleveland precinct 6-C, 341 of 605 registered voters, or 56.36%, were purged from the rolls. And yet, in November 2004, this same precinct had an official turnout of only 7.85%, the lowest of any precinct in Cuyahoga County. In the 2000 election, voter turnout was 59.82% for
Precinct 6-C, and 54.03% for the entire ward, which makes it almost impossible for this purge to be legitimate.

By contrast, in 133 (9.26%) of the 1,436 precincts in Cuyahoga County, less than 10% of the voters were purged from the rolls. Of these 133 precincts, only 14 were in Cleveland, and 8 of these were in Ward 21, where Gore received only 55.95% of the vote, his worst showing of any ward in Cleveland. In Strongsville Precinct 4-C, where only 19 of 779 registered voters, or 2.44%, were purged from the rolls, the voter turnout was 74.56% in 2000, which works out to a purge ratio of 9.6%.

The upshot of all this would be its effect upon the 2004 election. In most places, the percent turnout increased dramatically compared to the 2000 election. One would expect the percent turnout in Cleveland to have increased, given the deflated denominator caused by the purging of
63,721 voters from the rolls, and given the statewide and countywide trends, which showed increases of 8.11% and 10.17%, respectively, in voter turnout, compared to the 2000 election. And yet, somehow, even with the massive purges of the voter rolls, voter turnout in Cleveland reportedly decreased from 57.43% in 2000 to 53.27% in 2004.

COMPARISON OF PERCENT TURNOUT, 2000 AND 2004

2000 2004

City of Cleveland 57.43% 53.27%
Cuyahoga County 58.07% 68.24%
State of Ohio 63.65% 71.76%

Presented below are the turnout percentages for each ward in Cleveland, taken from the Official Precinct Canvass Results for Cuyahoga County in 2004, as posted on the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website at

HYPERLINK "http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/results/history/2004/110204_GE_Canvass.txt"http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/results/history/2004/110204_GE_Canvass.txt

They are compared with the turnout percentages for 2000 as derived in this paper and listed in the second table.

COMPARISON OF TURNOUT, BY WARDS

2000 2004

CLEVELAND WARD 1     62.40% 62.22%
CLEVELAND WARD 2     59.60% 57.48%
CLEVELAND WARD 3     59.24% 56.53%
CLEVELAND WARD 4     61.86% 55.15%
CLEVELAND WARD 5     57.76% 45.46%
CLEVELAND WARD 6     54.03% 48.74%
CLEVELAND WARD 7     54.87% 47.49%
CLEVELAND WARD 8     58.29% 53.01%
CLEVELAND WARD 9     61.45% 55.31%
CLEVELAND WARD 10    61.97% 54.44%
CLEVELAND WARD 11    60.56% 55.47%
CLEVELAND WARD 12    50.67% 47.67%
CLEVELAND WARD 13    46.86% 41.69%
CLEVELAND WARD 14    44.17% 41.15%
CLEVELAND WARD 15    57.91% 56.73%
CLEVELAND WARD 16    59.83% 62.67%
CLEVELAND WARD 17    48.97% 44.90%
CLEVELAND WARD 18    52.96% 52.52%
CLEVELAND WARD 19    59.19% 56.50%
CLEVELAND WARD 20    60.08% 61.17%
CLEVELAND WARD 21    64.22% 62.34%

CLEVELAND CITY 57.43% 53.27%


We have been suspicious of the reported turnout in Cleveland ever since the unofficial results showed precincts with turnout of 7.10%, 13.05%, 19.60%, 21.01%, 21.80%, 24.72%, 28.83%, 28.97%, and 29.25%. These numbers were reported in my paper “Stealing Votes in Cleveland,” presented under oath to the Ohio Supreme Court. These numbers are not credible. Not in the 2004 presidential election, which voters of both parties regarded as the most important election of their lifetimes.


Ladies and Gentlemen, real conservatives are going to need each other now, so you're going to need:

10 comments:

  1. I'm surprised by this post for two reasons:

    1. It was always the contention of the Republicans that there was nothing wrong with the electoral process, the voting machines and so forth. It was not in the interests of the GOP to allow for any question as to the integrity of the election simply because of the raft of allegations aimed at their voter turnout. Why did the mediocre Bush 2 receive a record turnout that made, say, Reagan's pale in comparison? I'd still say, "watch what happens in Florida".
    2. It is a harsh indictment on the "world's greatest democracy" that the most potent symbol of this standing - the ballot box - should be fraught with inconsistencies and even downright fraud. Try and find hanging chads in the UK or Canada, New Zealand or Australia. If these countries can get it right every time, what's wrong with the US?

    You might want to do something about that shot in the foot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Berko, if you lived here, you would hear a constant drumbeat of fraud being committed by ACORN - your chosen candidate's get-out-the-vote organization. Right now they're being investigated by the Feds in 15 states. And they aren't trying to hide it: it's the most blatant (or inept) power grab, probably, in the history of our nation.

    This isn't like Florida - we're watching this happen now, in real time - and I think, as the government, regular individuals, and scholars, keep digging for the story of Obama (that he won't reveal himself, though he's written two books) there might even be a chance he won't make it to election day. It's that obvious.

    I hate to keep telling you what you don't understand, but, Berko, this is America. It's a free country. Many people are born with a sense of entitlement that goes far beyond simple big-headedness. Our sense of freedom is so vast that it means people can, and will, attempt to get away with things that you in other countries can't even conceive of. It's like I told you before about our "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation: you have no clue what it's like to deal with it - to be an American.

    Ultimately, I think it's important (before you snicker too hard) to remember that this young nation is still in the "experiment" stage: we haven't seen all the different variations of what can be attempted; don't always know where all the potential holes are. Men (and women) of good will are always playing catch-up, but, somehow, we keep winning. And that's, pretty much, all we - or you - really need to know. Oh - except for this:

    As usual, I find your cynicism (and the barely contained glee of the anarchist when anything appears to go wrong) more than a little disgusting. How would you like it if America was always pulling for (what I'm sure is) beautiful South Wales to fail - to fall into chaos? I'm sure (since you, at least, maintain a standard of living that allows you and I to have these debates) you wouldn't like the results, for either of us, at all. As a matter of fact, it makes me think of something funny that just happened this week:

    Bill Ayers, the communist, and anti-American domestic terrorist that your boy, Obama, has (for the first time since the 60s) made into a household name over here, was recently ambushed by some reporters outside his (very nice) home. He was wearing a black t-shirt with a big red star on the front.

    As the reporter plied him with questions - that, with a sigh, he refused to answer - he was removing groceries from his car and heading for his house. Once he made it to the front steps he said one thing: "I wish you would leave, this is private property". Then, once inside, he called the police.

    Can you imagine? A communist, with (so far) a life-long commitment, citing "private property"? A guy who bombed police stations - calling the police for help? A man who writes anti-American books like most people chew gum, refusing to answer questions on his views? A man who has sworn to bring down America - afraid of one lousy reporter?

    These are the kinds of hypocrites you're rooting for, Berko. Bill Ayers is exactly the kind of person you are. You don't know what you're talking about and, I'm sure, don't live up to what you claim. if you did, you'd be doing something anarchtic, daily. But you don't. You talk shit, nah-nahing those of us who try to live with integrity and keep the world's lights on. As I've said many times, you ought to be ashamed, not just for your views but for your cowardice.

    And one more thing:

    Did you see that my NewAge wife has been busted for her belief in NewAge nonsense? It took a while, but it was as obvious as the day is long *something* like that would happen. Now, like a good little Nazi, she's got two deaths on her hands. And all I had to take was three years of the slings and arrows of liberals who were positive - positive - that I had to have done something, considering my views on (what they think of as) unimportant subjects, like "ethics".

    You've got a lot to learn, Berko. And a lot of maturing to do.

    I hope you get there before I tire of dealing with you again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Berko,

    Unfortunately, you sound like one of the sheep from Animal Farm by Orwell. Let me explain...

    When it came to Florida, there was never a contention from the Republicans that there was anything wrong with the physical machinations of voting like the complaints Democrats brought up. The pro-Gore crowd tried in vain to have an election overturned with such poppycock as old people claiming that the actual in the hand ballot was too confusing and it caused them to vote for Bush instead. This has turned out to be a series of false and/or spurious claims for many reasons which I will not elucidate here due to space concerns.

    There is one thing you should notice in your history of this event (the 2000 election): The Republicans *did* complain of widespread voter fraud favoring Gore and other Democratic candidates. That same election cycle saw the Southern California Senator Bob Dornan's seat given to Ms. Linda Chavez in what turned out to be a completely fraudulent vote where thousands of illegal aliens were registered to vote and actually had their ballots with help from groups such as ACORN. There were widespread rumors that areas Gore had "won" were done so via ballot box stuffing.

    Now, the next statement is in all caps to cite how important it is, not to try to "yell" online:

    *ahem*

    THIS IS WHY THE VOTE RECOUNT WAS ONLY DONE IN ONE COUNTY! THE DEMOCRATS WERE TOO AFRAID OF A LARGER AREA RECOUNT ENCOMPASSING MORE STATES KNOWING THAT THEIR EFFORTS OF FRAUD WOULD BE EXPOSED!

    BTW, the Republicans did complain, and these complaints were heard in Senate hearings after the election was over. These were the same hearings that put to rest the Democrat and ACORN (along with associated groups) charges that Republicans physically tried to stop black voters from voting in the South. In fact, the Senate found reason to believe that it was the Republicans who were the victims of racial attacks, voter intimidation and vote fraud. Not the other way around.

    This article only points out a large and long running problem. The difference this time around is that the of fraud and electioneering issues are coming up before an election and not afterward.

    One more thing. The press here in the USA is almost completely controlled by and supportive of one party. All of this information is out there, just not widely disseminated because it would not favor the chosen candidates (we elect more than presidents too). It is a case where the "informational powers that be" find rumors and misinformation to be more useful in order to demonize a guy they do not like. In this case it's President Bush.

    In a parting statement. Here is how Bush is being treated by much of the world media: Nothing he does is ever considered good, and nothing he does that is good is ever considered.

    Purposeful distortion to lead useful idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave, do your homework - read Bushit and then tell me, straightfaced, that Bush doesn't deserve condemnation.

    CMC, for the thirty-third (hundredth) time, not a Barack supporter per se therefore most of your comments (once again) do no apply. And never have.

    Also, when did I say I was trying to bring America down? I would love to see the great nation regain its integrity; free of torture, corruption, fraud, nepotism. The fact that you have strayed so far from the original intent of the Constitution brings me no joy. Anarchism is a pretty wide brief but, in my case, it isn't glee at seeing the status quo shown up as hypocrites and charlatans, it's a wish for something better.

    To turn this on its head: how would you like it if someone slammed you for your efforts to expose corrupt behaviour on the other side? We each do what we can and to criticise me for holding an opposing viewpoint 'lacks maturity', especially when you are so bad at articulating what it is you think I stand for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Berko,

    You read garbage. And you know what they say:

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Sometimes you sound so stupid there's just no talking to you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Berko,
    I have no earthly clue as to what you are talking about. I make a point to never engage in personal attacks in blogs. I was simply pointing out that your suppositions were wrong and where they were wrong. As to your insinuation that I would not like it if someone were to find fraud or flaws on the side I support, you are wrong there as well. In fact, I would welcome it gladly as those people would make my cause look bad. Now, if you wish to continue to call me names and draw spurious conclusions about my efforts, you are free to do so.

    However, understand that these comments will always and forever reflect upon you, not me.

    By the way, my homework is always done and can be backed up. I would be confident showing my findings to any academic board such as the ones I am accountable to every day.

    Can you say the same?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dave, all I said was to do your homework. I hardly see that as an insult - not even one as mild as 'Orwell's sheep' or 'useful idiots', which could be construed as personal attacks but we'll let it pass. The rest of my comments were directed to the Crack Emcee.

    I know you do your research but I was referring to a particular tome that does not dwell on media distortion, yet is particularly damning about Bush.

    Crack Emcee, I don't know why you persist in interpolating such concepts as 'maturity' and 'having a lot to learn' in what is otherwise naught but one big ad hominem attack. You don't throw me with that bluff and bully bluster. You think New Zealand is not a young nation? They were the first to give women the vote. They struck a treaty with their indigenous population well before any other (former) colony thought of doing so. It's not cynicism - nor is it disgusting - to point out that we never have voting irregularities; that it is in no wise inevitable that a country should experience same. Bill Smith fronts up to vote, shows his ID, gets his name struck off the register, goes and votes. Simple. It can be done.

    Free country? So far you haven't had a leader who isn't a white male Christian. Now look at the other free countries. Nuff said.

    It's when you start getting "clever" (Dave, this is to you as well) and knock voters back because they have the same name as a convicted felon that things start to go awry.

    The solution is to not to get all partisan and point out how the other side is cheating but to fix the shitty electoral process that creates the conditions where one can cheat.

    As to your last attack. Considering its lack of substance, still possible to counter with logic:

    Even though your blog is aimed at highlighting the qualities of the GOP and the deficiencies of the Dems, and despite the fact you spend a good part of the time decrying the other side for their weak-mindedness and so forth (and Christ knows why I'm supposed to be a coward. WTF?), you have never once seen fit to refute a single chapter of the book. This means either
    1) You have never read it, in which case you are in no position to call it garbage or call me stupid for doing so.
    2) You have read it but the case it puts is irrefutable, in which case you are being deliberately dishonest (not to mention needlessly insulting).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Berko,

    You ask how I can talk of "maturity" while calling you names? Simple: it's what you deserve and I'm intent on defanging all of you with your own weapons. What? You were paying my president a compliment with Bushit? Think you can diss him without a response in kind? Maybe in the liberal world you live in, people can slag him and everybody laughs, but not here. I'd say, based on the evidence, he's probably a way better person than you are.

    Berko, I don't care if New Zealand is a young nation. Don't you get it? We're a thousand times your size with a billion times your population, and a myriad of issues to deal with (like everybody wanting to come here) so, please, excuse us if trying to compete with tiny New Zealand for the all-important Who Can Be The Most P.C.? Award ain't one of them.

    Yes, ours is a free country. So free that I, for one, can find nothing to hold against white Christian males as you apparently have - I'm even rooting for one to beat the socks off the black guy this election because he's better on the issues. Focused a bit on race, aren't you, Berko? I swear, I am simply blown-a-way by the number of angry white "radicals" who insist on carrying that racial banner, when I keep asking them to put the damn thing down, I'm perfectly fine thanks. You guys have just got it all backwards:

    You Lefties aren't the "progressives" here, we are, and your insistence on fighting battles that have already been won are the problem.

    Like, if my president was the criminal the author of The Bush Haters Handbook claimed, he wouldn't (still) be the president of this nation of laws, he'd be in prison. (Especially because, even with all the crap you guys throw out there, he hardly fights back.) Both you, and the author, are just the kind of people who can't admit you've got it wrong. You're a paracitical Mutual Aid Society: he needs you to buy his books - which he'll pay no penalty for if they're filled with lies - and you need him to feed you those lies so you can (hopefully) have enough ammunition to allow you to feel bucked-up and superior from your NZ backwater. But I've got news for you, Berko - let it go - because there will never be enough:

    Ours is a great country, led by a great president, and there's nothing you liberal whiners can do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. I don't think the Bush Hater's Handbook and its second term follow-up is any laughing matter. Nor that it was intended that way.
    2. I can understand you getting upset about my referencing it but, if you wanted to mount a persuasive argument as to why I was in error for using it as a source then it would still behoove you to know what it contains, and to have some argument against the content. By all means, give me a response in kind. That wasn't it.
    3. What evidence would that be? Having not killed a single soul, started any wars on the basis of faulty evidence, driven a country into a massive deficit (thus threatening to take the rest of the free world with it), appointed cronies to positions that were in direct conflict of interest, you are going to have a very very hard time convincing me he has any superiority over me. I'm also a much better speaker, a better debater, and free of religious affiliations. Do your worst.

    I've got nothing against white Christian males. I've got kith and kin that fit the description but how plural a democracy would you call it if every single leader a country had was a feminist seperatist Hindu? The first thing I'd be looking at is what forces are being brought to bear on the process to make it such an exclusive club.

    How are you progressive? You cling onto all the old power bases, subsidise the most entrenched industry while paying bare lip service to emerging technologies, and shore up even the most inefficient processes, just because they're established. Not a good working definition of progressive.

    The book contains no lies that I can tell: all facts. You can argue the conclusions that it reaches but that would obviously be a great deal more difficult than just dismissing it out of hand.
    And much of it doesn't criticise Bush so much for breaking laws as for abusing his position. There's no law against that necessarily. But it will always be worthy of condemnation.
    It's an exhaustive list and laid out in A-Z format for easy digestion.

    btw not a liberal and don't come from NZ (just well informed enough to know about the world beyond my backyard.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah look, you're welcome to your funny worldview where everyone who believes in some kind of social justice is a deluded NewAger or liberal. If you think that's a better place to be than where you were before, your choice.

    You haven't convinced me but then I haven't convinced you either.

    Hopefully you'll take this away with you: the Left ain't all liberal (far from it), its possible to not be conservative and still be able to make the finer discernments - the difference between McCain and Bush being primary among them, and an anarchist is a wild card at any table.

    Over and out.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON