THIS IS TO ALL THOSE TURNCOAT BLOGS WHO CALL US FRAUDISTS...

[TruthIsAll]

TO BE FRANKEN, ITS KOS I'M PISSED AT ALL THE CORN-FED BS THAT OUR NEO-LIBERAL PRESS IS SPREADING AROUND..

YOU ARE SO DAMN CLOSE-MINDED THAT YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE DEMS FOUGHT FOR VERIFIED TOUCHSCREEN PAPER BALLOTS.

AND THE REPUKES JUST DELAYed AND DELAYed and STONEWALLED:
"NO WAY, JOSE, SU HAVA ESTE. NO MAS. COMPRENDE?"

THAT IS THE ISSUE!
YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THAT BASIC FACT.

THE SINGLE, SOLITARY POINT IS THIS:
THE REPUKES MUST PROVE THEY WON!
THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT US.
ON THE CONTRARY, WE HAVE EVIDENCE, LOTS OF IT, THAT THEY CHEATED.
WE ARE CONVINCED THEY DID NOT WIN.

THIS IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE US WRONG.

BUT THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE...
THERE ARE NO DAMN PAPER BALLOTS TO PROVE THE TOUCHSCREEN VOTES.

IN FACT, THERE IS EVIDENCE THEY SWITCHED VOTES FROM KERRY TO BUSH.
LOTS OF EVIDENCE.

DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU GUYS?
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

DO YOU STILL CLAIM TO BE THE NEW MEDIA?
WHAT HAS MADE YOU ALL BECOME SO FRANKENIZED?

MUST WE SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU AGAIN?

OK, LISTEN CLOSE.
THE REPUKES KNEW THEY COULD NOT ALLOW PAPER BALLOTS,
BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN.

IT'S VERY CLEAR.
IS THAT SO GODDAMN DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVE IT WHEN WE WIN AN ELECTION.
IN FACT, WE WANT TO PROVE THAT WE WON IN 2004.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN.
WE JUST WANT TO LAY OUT ALL THE FACTS.

DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF THEM.
AND WE VOTED MORE THAN THEY DID.
IT'S VERY CLEAR.

KERRY WON.

GET OVER IT.

NOW STOP THE INSANITY AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

[merh]

1. So true, so very true.

Thanks TIA!

[LoZoccolo]

2. BA HA HA HA HA!

You get knocked off the block for calling people FReepers, so you get around that by calling people on other sites "turncoats".

[Al-CIAda]

3. nice -eom

:thumbsup:

[itzamirakul]

4. While every word you say is true...

you forget that they have perfected the fine art of "victimization." WE are not the victims of their lying and cheating and stealing. THEY are the victims because WE FOUND OUT!

[Jo March]

5. TIA, you are feeling a bit fiesty this morning, aren't you? LOL

We shouldn't have to prove that we won. They should have to prove that they did, darnit. They won't be able to prove it so they try and destroy us by labelling us "dissidents" and such.

It's pathetic but easy to see through and easy to spot.

Relax, TIA, they are fighting us now. The next step is winning!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Ghandi

[foo_bar]

25. first they misspell Gandhi, then they roll their eyes

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001006.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/

see also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=228993&mesg_id=229276
regarding the exact same quote with the exact same misspelling.

[Jo March]

28. Got to love the thread police who are too busy looking

for flaws in grammar and wording that they miss the message entirely.

Whatever.

:eyes:

[foo_bar]

37. it's disingenuous to quote someone you know nothing about

As though this mysterious "Ghandi" svengali will cause people to stop laughing at faith-based crusades.

[Jo March]

39. Whatever

:eyes:

One day I'll know it all too. :hi:

[The Gigmeister]

6. So much for differing opinions, I guess...

Is this DemocraticUnderground.com?

[planetc]

7. Your arguments are unanswerable.

And I'm hoping to write up something as a "guest column" for the local paper that will use some of those arguments. It turns out that one of my letters to the editor sparked a call from a local Democrat who wants to head down to Washington to protest, which I can't do myself.

We are winning, and we will win, because they CAN'T prove it.

NGU

[Igel]

72. You're right. They can't. It's impossible.

The terms have been set: electronic voting, paper voting, lever-machine voting ... none are reliable, all have been corrupted. Apparently intentional "mistakes" by BOEs, by once- or twice-a-year poll workers. Turn-out fluctuations, lack or abundance of machines ... there's no possible way of answering the objections beyond everybody's reasonable doubt. Any attempt to show that any portion of the process was clean or just troubled by routine mistakes is discounted by yet another possible way the process might have been corrupted. Any single person's reasonable doubt might have been dealt with, but put all the reasonable doubts together and I don't think it's reasonable.

I have no trouble believing a half dozen contradictory things, and I cheerly admit there are parts of my life that nicely accommodate numerous incompatible contradictions, and I'm always on the lookout for more; I just don't expect to be taken seriously when I roll them up into a neat little ball.

Whenever I'm faced with proving something given those conditions, I just reply that the discussion has moved past the realm of testable hypothesis and into the realm of unfalsifiability. And things in that realm there's no arguing about (although one can easily argue whether or not things have become unfalsifiable).

[neek]

8. Truth is All- I stay pretty silent

but feel I have to say something.

I haven't slept well in weeks.
I am so discouraged and scared about what is happening. I can't believe what our country has become.

With all the evidence of disenfranchisment PLUS all the studies of the exit polls etc. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how ANYONE could pass this by.

The worst of it for me is watching those in my own democratic party who have the power to do something stand by and watch and do nothing despite what they know.

I don't see a single ray of hope.

[neek]

10. woops and one more thing

I watch DeLay and others just doing these sleezebally things and I know its all calculated and SO UNDERHANDED.
I just don't get how they can get away with it.

[whometense]

30. As a newbie here as well,

I can understand how you feel. On Nov. 2 I felt like I'd been flattened by a runaway train.

For what it's worth, here's how I cope. I'm a huge John Kerry fan, so I joined the John Kerry group here on DU. It's heartening to sometimes hang around with like-minded people with a sense of humor. That's where I go to get my sense of proportion back. There are a ton of interest groups here. Maybe one for you as well?

And remember Watergate, BCCI, Iran-Contra, etc. One little step at a time. We can't afford to give up, but we'll get there in small steps. We have to.

And welcome!!!!

[Jo March]

42. Welcome to DU!

Nice to have you here.

Welcome to the family. We are having a few Hatfield and McCoy moments here but this too will pass.

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. I don't think I'd go as far as to call naysayers "turncoats," but

I do have to wonder how they can sit blithely by in the face of information such as http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065

It takes some serious denial. But that's just my opinion.

[TruthIsAll]

11. I am talking abot Kos and Franken and Corn....n/t

.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. I understand that.

I still think they have to be in denial. I have to give them the benefit of the doubt or I'll sink into a deep depression.

[LoZoccolo]

17. You posted this message in another thread to another DUer.

You just left out the "turncoat" thing.

[Snivi Yllom]

23. I got this message in another thread too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=236973&mesg_id=237255&page=

im not surprised he equates me with a turncoat

[dzika]

43. TIA - YOU ARE THE NEW MEDIA

The "neo-anti-fraudist" are posers. They aren't even on the radar.

[Walt Starr]

12. So now those of us who disagree with you are Tunrcoats?

:eyes:

Okay. Yeah. Sure.

:eyes:

Buh bye

[YNGW]

20. Yes, you are.

What? You didn't get the memo?

Apparently from what I've read here, you either fall in line and agree or you don't really care. Don't go against the collective. Don't require infallible, documented evidence. Just go along. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? What's that "ism" that many here keep referring to? Starts with an "f", I recall.

[Not a Sheep]

46. I've been saying some of the exact same things....

...... that everyone on DU must fall in line and agree or face the wrath of others.

[Walt Starr]

49. THERE...ARE...FOUR......LIGHTS!

:D

[Snivi Yllom]

53. Ah! You called me Picard!

[understandinglife]

13. Halt, Count the Vote (darn, for 30 % we've got nothing but vapor)..

....well then,

WE HAVE NO ELECTION.

Oh, and that little matter of things like countless documented reports of "I want Kerry, screen gives me Bush"....well then,

WE HAVE NO ELECTION.

Oh, and that little matter that countless numbers of my fellow citizens were prevented from voting, harrassed, mis-informed, ..... well then,

WE HAVE NO ELECTION.

Get it? Just in case not....

WE HAVE NO ELECTION.

Prove my vote counts; Prove my fellow citizen's vote counts; Prove it, dude, or you ARE NOT OUR PRESIDENT, EVER.

Peace.

[euler]

15. Sorry, this is not an argument for anything.

"THE REPUKES MUST PROVE THEY WON! THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT US." This is not a serious remark.

Also, you managed to offend a significant number of people with your language (just a friendly reminder.)

You do a lot of analysis here on DU and much of your work informs the work of others. You say you have 3 Math degrees, so I think is only fair that you disclose them given the importance of what you do here. For each, please provide the degree, year of degree and school name, or at least the degree and year.

For example, I have a BS Mathematics from the University of Texas. Thanks.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

16. Who are you?

The hall monitor?

[LoZoccolo]

18. He's not acting like a hall monitor.

The original version of the original post had some very inflammatory language directed at anyone who disagrees (I notice it's been edited at least twice now). If someone does that, they can expect to be called out on it.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foo_bar]

26. in other words, you have no math degree

That's been established with 99.44% certainty. A dozen people have asked you a dozen different ways in a dozen different contexts, and each time you've managed to change the subject. If truth is indeed all, a tiny bit of it should be forthcoming.

[TruthIsAll]

29. Hey, foo-bar. Cut the ad-hominens. I have 3 degrees. Get it?

And why are you guys questioning my degrees?

Did any of you study:
Linear Programming.
Differential Calculus.
Integral Calculus.
Numerical Methods.
Mathematical Statistics.
Probability Theory.
Complex Variables.
Queuing Theory.
Partial Differential equations.
Ordinary Differential Eaqutions.
Linear Algebra.
Matrix Analysis.
Non-linear Programming
Quadratic Programming

I did.
Had enough?

Focus on the math.
You are good at one-liners.

But I have never seen one damn piece of work from you at DU.

Why is that?

[LoZoccolo]

34. That doesn't mean anything...

Because:

1. You could have got that list off of some college's website.
2. Even if you did study all that, you could still be abusing your degree.
3. You haven't proven that you have three degrees. How can you have three math degrees anyways? You'd have one and then maybe a lot of graduate or post-graduate work.

Question the math degrees.
Question the logic.

[TruthIsAll]

36. Now I KNOW you guys are desperate. n/t

.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Hey, YOU'RE the one that brought up the math degrees!

And that was the desperate tactic.

"STILL NOT BEAT DOWN BY MY ALL CAPS AND INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC? WELL I HAVE THREE MATH DEGREES!"

dot dot dot

"NO I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU WHERE I GOT THE THREE MATH DEGREES. BUT I HAVE THREE MATH DEGREES!"

[foo_bar]

40. it's "put up or shut up" time, in your deleted words

The probability that you're lying about your credentials just rose to 99.9944%. On edit: this is called inference, the basis of all your work. I believe your OP explains how the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser.

But I have never seen one damn piece of work from you at DU. Why is that?

This -is- work.

[TruthIsAll]

44. The more you guys attack me, the worse you look.

You can't go any lower.
Your desperation is showing.

That's all you are left with?
Questioning my educational background?
Calling me a liar?

Where is your analysis?
Oh, you have none.
Sorry for asking.

You are resorting to those ad hominem attacks which you always criticize others for.

OH, THE HYPOCRISY SMELLS TO HIGH HEAVEN!

You guys are so sad.

Get a life.

[LoZoccolo]

45. Notice he only said "3 degrees", not "3 math degrees".

And, he asked if we'd "studied" those things in the list and says he did, but doesn't mention if it was part of a degree program or not. So for all we know, there is no claim made to a math degree at all.

[TruthIsAll]

65. Hey Loco, I said Three (3) MATH Degrees

BA Mathematics
MS Applied Mathematics
MS Operations Research

Satisfied?
Of course you aren't.



Waiting for your next strawman.

[foo_bar]

70. you conveniently answered the wrong question, an hour after

protesting too much:

For each, please provide the degree, year of degree and school name, or at least the degree and year.

[euler]

83. Thanks

[foo_bar]

55. it appears that you're caught in a lie

But appearances can be deceiving. You could dispel this appearance with a simple answer, instead of composing essays on the unfairness of asking you to back up your foundational claim to expertise.

[TruthIsAll]

66. Hey, foo, what about you? Did you study Slander 101 with Ann Coulter>? n/t

Keep calling me a liar.

Every time you do so, you sink lower.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TruthIsAll]

73. Twisting the language, eh? Ok, I showed you mine. Now show us yours.

Now that you are talking logic, is it not logical for us to assume that since you have never presented analysis to dispute mine, only nasty one-liners, that you are mathematically challenged?

Either you can't do the numbers or you choose not to.

Which one is it?

[foo_bar]

75. the only thing you showed was the ability to Google

as you neglected to mention where or when these hypothetical degrees were attained, as originally asked. That it took an hour and a dozen posts to even get names of (someone's) degrees indicates something less than forthright honesty.

Ok, I showed you mine. Now show us yours.

The logical difference is, I never invoked my education as evidence for competence. In the interest of disclosure, B.A. Psychology, Brandeis University 1994.

is it not logical for us to assume that since you have never presented analysis to dispute mine, only nasty one-liners, that you are mathematically challenged?

Garbage in, garbage out. Your use of MS Excel is sound, but your premises are unscientific and illogical, such as placing the burden of proof on the accused. Or confusing inferential statistics with "proof". Or the idea of a conclusion preceding a hypothesis, or the notion of peer review as a conspiratorial attack on your person.

[TruthIsAll]

81. Brandeis. Excellent. But not in Math. Case Closed.

I'm not on your couch.

Do not shrink from my challenge.

Do the math.
I'm still waiting for your analysis.

[foo_bar]

88. an apocryphal math degree isn't a prerequisite for junk science

My analysis is that none of your hypotheses are falsifiable, thus they inhabit the realm of Creationism and faith. I find no fault in the math itself; one won't find mathematical fault in Ptolemaic geometry, but it still has the wrong object at its center.

[euler]

82. self delete. i got the answer i wanted. thanks.

[euler]

52. I didn't question your degrees. I asked what they were.

By the way, it would have taken a lot less time for you to answer the question I asked than it took you to type this list of Math courses. What gives ?

I ask this because so many people base their work on your work. I's sure many people would like to make note your credentials. Also, I would like to know too.

On Edit: Added 'work' after 'base their' in second paragraph.

[SouthernDem2004]

60. Hmmm, I took the majority of those classes to get an

Engineering degree and I did not have a math type minor. Alot of us non-math types are forced into those classes.

[ntwkgirl]

64. I have!

Studied *some* of those subjects...and I agree with you. As a matter of fact, it would appear that every member of academia that looks at the numbers does as well.

It's pretty clear.

I'm thinking if the objection doesn't happen tomorrow we should secede. We could start a national barter system and shut down (or severely cripple at least) this administration's income.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Oh man, this is good.

THE REPUKES MUST PROVE THEY WON! THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT US.

dot dot dot

I don't have to disclose a damn thing to you...

Hoooo doggay.

[mgr]

51. Here's mine

I've had several run ins with TIA, along with Euler, I think it is truth time:

BA, Double major, English (complete) and Biology (lacked Physics criteria) with minor in Geography, CSU Northridge, 1986

MA, Geography with minor emphasis in biology program (24 units in graduate seminars), CSU Northridge, 1991

Ph D. never completed. UC Berkeley, Geography, withdrawn 1998

My Masters work combined geography and botany, and employed statistics to characterize processes within stream channels and their impact on the distribution and reproduction of three vines.

My Doctoral work attempted to reconstruct past climates using palynology; got involved with a demographic/environmental study of early native populations in the foothills.

Currently work with DOT on characterizing hazardous waste or materials at highway construction sites. Running out of time to be on this blog as contracts are now in place, e.g. I am no longer biding my time.

Mike

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mgr]

77. Anything I can answer to? Moderator got to it before me. n/t

[euler]

84. Well, it was me, but it was really quite innocuous.

I'm not going to repeat it. It could have been construed as a mild taunt, I suppose.

[mgr]

86. Thanks, n/t

[bleever]

19. No return (to office) without original store receipt!

And thanks to all the Knights of Nay, so valiantly defending the status quo of the rigged carnie game we call our election system. You lift TIA's threads, and provide contrast that enhances his credibility.

[Patsy Stone]

21. Kos never wanted to discuss this.

That's how I came to DU. It's fun writing dissertations and I do like higher reasoning, but there was never much activism over there.

He never wanted it on the front page and, on Nov. 3, told us all to take a vacation and see a movie to relax.

I love DU. We rock... and I BELIEVE.

:)

[whometense]

41. For the record,

that is what brought me to DU as well. Well, that and the vicious Kerry bashing... :-)

[Patsy Stone]

48. Yep :) n/t

[LiveInHope]

24. TIA I think many have the same feelings

EVERYTHING I see points to a Kerry win. I was re-watching a video of election night and Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer were talking about how independents were breaking for Kerry by a BIG margin: PA and OH 60 to 39, NH 61 to 37, FL 60 to 38. And they said they got this information from exit polling AND precinct captains. How could everything turn around so suddenly??? It doesn't make sense.

[New Earth]

31. w00t

best afternoon post of the day :toast:

[onecitizen]

32. Absolutely correct.........

TIA!

[roenyc]

33. FRANKENIZED!! i love it! great stuff n/t

[Not a Sheep]

35. This "single, solitary point" is simply and obviously false........

"THE SINGLE, SOLITARY POINT IS THIS:
THE REPUKES MUST PROVE THEY WON!
THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT US."

Bush will take office if we do not prove he didn't win. Unfortunately, the onus is on us not them. No matter how much someone keeps screaming Bush didn't win, at this point, he is the one being inaugerated on the 20th.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Exactly.

He can complain about what he thinks the standard should be, but if we don't knock down the results based on what the standard is, we're wasting our time.

And for this, for talking about how to do the same thing the right way, we get all this junk about turncoats.

[katinmn]

50. Yes. Prove fraud and suppression DIDN'T happen

[goclark]

58. That is all that I want them to prove

Prove it DID NOT happen.

Case closed.

[SouthernDem2004]

62. Also, prove their are no UFOs or ghost.....

[bemis12]

56. This time for real!

Bush is TOAST!

[euler]

57. And we wonder why we haven't been taken seriously by MSM.

[JackORoses]

59. don't let them get to you, TIA

character assassination...the age-old tool of the oppressor

they attack you personally because they cannot attack the work you've done
they question your mathematical degrees because they cannot dispute your analysis
they nitpick your contributions but make none of their own

the proof is in the pudding, not the puddingmaker

keep it coming TIA

[euler]

61. I posted the message that started this.

Read it. It's #15.

I did not attack him.
I did not question his degree.
I asked him to tell me what his degrees are.

[Pathwalker]

63. He's done so repeatedly in the past.

WHY didn't you notice?

[JackORoses]

67. I know you started this

I've seen you do the same on many of TIA's threads
(though never one of your own oddly enough)

Do you truly think that knowing what degrees TIA has will aid you in discrediting his analysis?

You can't dispute the numbers, so you dispute the man himself.
This is obvious.

1+1=2 whether I have a PHD in math or not

[foo_bar]

76. you have it backwards

TIA himself used the degrees as a cudgel to dispel argument about his/her methods. We were to take his base assumptions on faith, because of credentials we were also to take on faith. The diploma argument became an ad hominem diversion only because of the author's failure to back up his own (often repeated) assertions.

[mgr]

74. Not about character assassination, but of depth and style of analysis

TIA, to many of the people questioning his methods and assumptions, has shown, at least to my understanding, a failure to appreciate experimental design and hypothesis testing. He has engaged in ad hominen attacks, personally calling me out as a republican when I am a registered Democrat since the time I could vote. These responses generally follow germane and critical comments regarding his assumptions and analyzes.

I found his work on the exit polling a fruitful hypothesis, but consider that it has now been refuted. That is a high compliment, not an insult, however he has taken as such. His work has led me to evaluate and weigh other vote irregularity issues, and come away with the opinion that some strong arguments can be made that voter intent was not made known as precisely as it could be in this election (I am choosing my words carefully). I care about the fact that we, as Democrats, get it right; and now find TIA engaged in rehashing old arguments and information for emotional rather than intellectual impact. I consider his threads a distraction from the important work and political events taking place.

What I have been trying to engage TIA in would constitute informal peer review. Rather than take the critique for what it is, TIA pursues that you prove the opposite, a very interesting post-modern position for a mathematician, rather than address or refute my argument. For those that may not know, peer review is about getting it right, and egos should be left outside the door. I am direct and blunt, but I acknowledge and explain when I am in error.

The manner and tone of TIA's language reminds me of the creationist debate I participated in in the late eighties. We could never make the 'moderator' acknowledge his error as an error, but kept having to wade through his rhetorical tricks to keep making the point again and again. At least he wore down. He made a statement that suggested his lack of incisiveness on evolutionary theory was that he was not an expert. We had to make the point to him that he is offering a refutation of a widely held hypothesis, and at the very least had to hold him to the same standard as we would one of our own. Like it or not, the widely held theory is that the election was sufficiently fair and honest, and it is no one's duty to prove that it is, it is ours to show that it is not.

It is TIA's apparent ignorance of what constitutes the scientific method, and the fact that his current threads rely upon rhetorical flourishes that are suspicious. I was especially put off by his thread regarding null hypotheses (I believe that that is the one 'flame fest' thread that got deleted, but should have been reinstated, since the only one truly flaming was TIA)

TIA's manner and tone suggests that he is a neophyte in addressing basis science, and may not have the background in mathematics or science at all. I can tell you right now that his approach would not have survived in any of the graduate seminars I attended.

Mike

[spooked911]

68. ROCK ON, TIA!!!!!!!!

:yourock: :headbang: :toast:

[pauldp]

71. Yes!

The Repukes are the ultimate sore losers. They had to cheat, they could not accept that they lost the campaign. SORE FUCKING CHEATER LOSERS.

[Chimpanzee]

78. I could give a rats ass how many degrees anyone has

TIA's analysis speaks for itself. If you object, then you are objecting to the rules of mathematics and statistics. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[fooj]

79. TIA- you are my hero!!!

No shit...



WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[mdb]

80. Agree

Scenario.

Touchscreen - I'll vote for Kerry. Touching Kerry on screen. Thank you for your vote for Bush. What? After canceling and starting over the same thing another vote for Bush and who knows if it was actually cancelled within the program counting for Bush and how many never noticed or just walked off because they didn't know what to do?

Scenario 2. ATM machine - You know the scenario. But the point of this one is how many times has a screw-up actually happened that the screen tells you when you did touch the right button that you touched the wrong one? Never for me.

The election was stolen do something NOW, and work on reform which could always be done.

[TruthIsAll]

85. !) At the ATM, you get a receipt. 2) 98% of the votes were Kerry to Bush

And there is no receipt, either.
So what's your point?

ALWAYS one way.
Kerry to Bush.
Why?

Explain that.
Please.
If you can.

[mdb]

87. Yeah, true...

and not many really feel they actually will need this receipt from an ATM machine.