🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Nov 2004 00:19:25 -0800, fountaingrove@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon)
wrote:

>November 18, 2004 by Inter Press Service 
>US Election: Democracy in Question 
>by Ritt Goldstein
> 
>STOCKHOLM - John Zogby, president of the polling firm Zogby
>International, told IPS he has been calling it "the Armageddon
>election" for about a year. Independent presidential candidate Ralph
>Nader believes the Republican Party was able to "steal it before
>election day."
>
>Facts suggest something went very wrong on Nov. 2. 
>
>Speculation focuses upon a number of questions -- purposeful
>miscounts, anomalies surrounding electronic voting (e-voting)
>machines, particularly the optical scan types; and numerous reports of
>voting "irregularities" in heavily Democratic areas.
>
>"What they 'do' is minorities," Nader said, highlighting the thrust of
>Republican efforts, "and make sure that there aren't enough voting
>machines for the minority areas. They have to wait in line ... for
>hours, and most of them don't. There are all kinds of ways, and that's
>why I was quoted as saying, "this election was hijacked from A to Z,"
>Nader told IPS.
>
>Zogby was concerned about the difference between some of the exit
>polls (surveys of individuals who have just cast ballots) and the
>official vote counts. "We're talking about the Free World here," he
>pointedly noted.
>
>On Nov. 10, University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven F Freeman,
>whose expertise includes "research methods," compiled an analysis
>entitled 'The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy'. The document was
>prepared in view of the unusually large differences between what exit
>polls had predicted and the recorded vote tallies.
>
>His findings suggest Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry should
>have received far more votes than he did.
>
>In three of the key battleground states -- Florida, Ohio and
>Pennsylvania -- Freeman's analysis states the odds of Kerry receiving
>the percentage of votes recorded, given the exit poll findings, were
>less than three in one thousand, per state.
>
>Freeman also determined that the odds of any two of these states
>simultaneously reaching their stated vote tallies were "on the order
>of one-in-a-million," and the odds of all three states arriving at the
>vote counts they did "are 250 million to one."
>
>"Something is definitely wrong," said Zogby. 
>
>Highlighting both the expected accuracy of exit polls and the
>significant disparity that Kerry's defeat illustrated, Republican
>consultant, commentator and Fox-TV News regular Dick Morris wrote an
>article, 'Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage', suggesting a
>pollster conspiracy to swing the election for Kerry.
>
>In doing so he, perhaps inadvertently, provided ammunition for
>arguments from the opposite side -- that the exit polls were correct
>but the final results were fudged. "Exit polls are almost never
>wrong," argued Morris, and in 10 of the 11 key states they had
>predicted significantly fewer votes for Republican President George W
>Bush than he was eventually credited with.
>
>In New Hampshire, Bush tallied a surprising 9.5 percent more votes
>than predicted, the most significant difference in any of the key
>states.
>
>Morris observed that outside the United States, exit polls are often
>used to provide a check on official vote counts, in his words, "to
>foreclose the possibility of finagling with the returns."
>
>Among the most cited exit polls were those conducted by Mitofsky
>International, whose founder, Warren Mitofsky, is widely credited with
>having invented exit polling. Zogby, whose firm was not among those
>that provided network TV coverage of the Nov. 2 election, described
>the possibility of either incompetence or fraud causing the
>controversial deviation as "impossible."
>
>According to Zogby, it would have required "wrong sampling in wrong
>areas throughout the country," or the purposeful manipulation of data
>to obtain exit poll results so significantly different from the
>official totals. He viewed neither as a possibility.
>
>When asked what exactly had happened then, Zogby replied, "a problem,
>but I don't know where it is ... something's wrong here, though."
>
>On Nov. 5, Nader requested a hand recount of New Hampshire ballots,
>subsequently telling IPS he had "reports of irregularities there, and
>we have the cooperation of the state government ... the state
>attorney-general and secretary of state."
>
>Nader also said his headquarters had been flooded with requests for
>assistance from a number of states.
>
>On Thursday, five of the 11 New Hampshire voting wards where Nader
>requested a recount will undertake new tallies. According to his
>staff, all 11 wards had their votes counted with optical scan
>machines, primarily the AccuVote models made by Diebold.
>
>"If there are irregularities, it may have broader applications in
>other states," Nader said, adding that the current recount -- a
>45,000-vote sample -- is expected to be completed within a week.
>
>Allegations regarding optical scan machines' potentially allowing the
>manipulation of Florida's vote have been widely reported. In Ohio, the
>Green and Libertarian parties are pursuing a recount, numerous
>instances of voting irregularities having been reported there.
>
>"As far as I'm concerned, this election was clearly stolen. What they
>did in Ohio was systematically deny thousands of African Americans,
>and other suspected Democrats, the vote," charged progressive author,
>commentator and activist Harvey Wasserman of Franklin County, Ohio.
>
>"It was like Mississippi in the fifties, and it was deliberate ... had
>there been enough (voting) machines, and had people equal access to
>the polls with a reliable vote count, there is no doubt that John
>Kerry would have carried Ohio," he told IPS.
>
>The Nov. 14 'Cleveland Plain Dealer', one of the country's top 50
>broadsheets, reported a Nov. 13 voter hearing where: "For three hours,
>burdened voters, one after another, offered sworn testimony about
>election day voter suppression and irregularities that they believe
>are threatening democracy."
>
>"People are deeply concerned that this is the end of American
>democracy, that we cannot get a fair election," Wasserman said,
>poignantly adding, "there was no question of apathy in this election
>-- we had more volunteers than could be used ... thousands and
>thousands of grass-roots volunteers."
>
>If Kerry had taken Ohio, he would have taken the presidency. 
>
>"In the end, what Nader is doing in New Hampshire is the best answer.
>And if there's a recount in Ohio," that is also important, said
>Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political
>scientist who specializes in statistical methods, elections and public
>opinion.
>
>Somewhat concerned about the possible manipulation of e-voting
>machines, Franklin was more concerned over "the ordinary
>administration of elections," citing the simple logistical problems
>that had plagued voters.
>
>He pointedly noted that the last two presidential elections
>highlighted "how the decisions of local people (officials) ... can
>have a considerable influence over who gets to vote, what rules
>govern."
>
>When asked if he was aware of any parallels to the present election,
>Zogby replied, "I'm certainly aware of the election of 1960."
>
>"It's been discussed, overtly, the roll that Richard Daley, and the
>roll that Lyndon Johnson played, separately," Zogby said, referring to
>an episode where the John F Kennedy campaign had supposedly asked,
>"How many votes do you have?", the reply allegedly being, "How many
>votes do you need?"
>
>Of course, such examples also serve to highlight the influence "local
>people" can exert on an election's outcome.
>
>In the end, many people speculated that the 1960 incidents were not
>part of a grand conspiracy per se, but the cumulative effects of the
>actions of a number of individuals who shared a similar perspective,
>acted semi-independently, and did whatever it took to win.
>
>Political "dirty tricks" culminated in the Watergate scandal, forcing
>then President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) to resign, ushering in a long
>era without similar illicit activity, until questions raised by the
>election of 2000.
>
>With American democracy, until now, providing an effective model for
>many, as Zogby said, "we're talking about the Free World here."
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1118-11.htm

Hey, asshole - YOU LOST.  Get over it.

LV




Barney Lyon wrote:
(conspiratorial mania from the leftist fever-swamp)

http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d/Seal.jpg 

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:24:38 GMT, Lord Valve <detritus@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Hey, asshole - YOU LOST.  Get over it.
>
>LV
>
>
>
>
>Barney Lyon wrote:
>(conspiratorial mania from the leftist fever-swamp)

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:50:52 GMT, "C. S. Lewis" <r30_d1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

Schmucky wrote:
> 

> 
> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their

& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
this several times already, but
repeating the Big Lie never makes
it true.

You fear the math-men & scientists
with their stuuborn facts. They
point the way to the truth, in
this suspicious election. 4 sad
years after 2004 Bush did nothing
to make sure this election was
open & honest. Instead he stood
aside and watched the situation
decay, but he is only the President
& what power does a mere President
have in Federal elections?

So shrug off the numbers, search
high & low for one exception to
the obvious. Practice denying the
math of the situation, so you can
also deny the disaster of the budget
& the fudged casualty numbers from
Iraq. Then you can go on to deny
law & Constitution & all else
you dislike.


Lou P. Garrew, at your service!

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:11:05 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
wrote:

>Schmucky wrote:
>> 
>
>> 
>> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
>
>& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
>this several times already, but
>repeating the Big Lie never makes
>it true.


You mean the Venezuelan elections were not legit?

CITE!

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:38:08 GMT, Resident Samuel
<raccoon@forest.city> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:11:05 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Schmucky wrote:
>>> 
>>
>>> 
>>> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
>>
>>& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
>>this several times already, but
>>repeating the Big Lie never makes
>>it true.
>
>
>You mean the Venezuelan elections were not legit?

Like this is really relevent to these newsgroups.

Who cares!
>
>CITE!

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:25:39 GMT, Gary J. English <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:38:08 GMT, Resident Samuel
><raccoon@forest.city> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:11:05 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Schmucky wrote:
>>>> 
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
>>>
>>>& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
>>>this several times already, but
>>>repeating the Big Lie never makes
>>>it true.
>>
>>
>>You mean the Venezuelan elections were not legit?
>
>Like this is really relevent to these newsgroups.
>
>Who cares!

Um yeah, if the issue is exit polling and its veracity, it IS indeed
relevant:

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

Schmucky wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:11:05 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Schmucky wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
> >
> >& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
> >this several times already, but
> >repeating the Big Lie never makes
> >it true.
> 
> You mean the Venezuelan elections were not legit?

Your Big Lie this time around
deals with the recent election
here in the USA which is why
you burble about Venezuela
while slamming Zogby's comments
on Bush's dubious election.

But you will remember the dubious
votes later when the economy tanks
& the war gets worse & not even the
tame media can deny the protest &
declining approval of the Bushits.
Then you will blame Kerry for not
taking the election so he could
also take the blame for Bush's crimes.
> 
> CITE!

The Netcops hereby cite you for
loitering on the information high-way
& posting without a brain & not
maintining the lower IQ limit.



Lou P. Garrew, at your service!

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:37:29 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
wrote:

>Schmucky wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:11:05 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Schmucky wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
>> >
>> >& so on, Schmucky, you have posted
>> >this several times already, but
>> >repeating the Big Lie never makes
>> >it true.
>> 
>> You mean the Venezuelan elections were not legit?
>
>Your Big Lie this time around
>deals with the recent election
>here in the USA which is why
>you burble about Venezuela
>while slamming Zogby's comments
>on Bush's dubious election.


The issue is whether exit polls are sacrosanct.

Carter thinks they aren't.

History proves they aren't.

Grow up, get over it.

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

Schmucky wrote:
> 
>
> 
> The issue is whether exit polls are sacrosanct.

In Venezuela, or in the USA,
where Zogby et alia have 
mucho experienco? O but
to you the question is
can you bury the truth under 
enough lies, enough twaddle.
> 

> 
> Grow up, get over it.
> 
Yes, do, please.

Lou P. Garrew, at your service!

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:14:33 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
wrote:

>Schmucky wrote:
>> 
>>
>> 
>> The issue is whether exit polls are sacrosanct.
>
>In Venezuela, or in the USA,
>where Zogby et alia have 
>mucho experienco?

Nice flame out fuckface- bounce up again so I can smack you harder.

Schmucky wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:14:33 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Schmucky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The issue is whether exit polls are sacrosanct.
> >
> >In Venezuela, or in the USA,
> >where Zogby et alia have
> >mucho experienco?
> 
> Nice flame out fuckface- bounce up again so I can smack you harder.

Oooooh, Schmucky! So nice
that you want to smack me
with a wet one no doubt?
You yummie boy you! I am
so manly & macho that you
decide to drop your lies
about the election & instead
make a pass at me.

Keep being stubborn you
dear sweet things but
do not think that you
can out-stubborn the facts.


Lou P. Garrew, at your service!

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:48:34 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
wrote:

>Schmucky wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:14:33 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Schmucky wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The issue is whether exit polls are sacrosanct.
>> >
>> >In Venezuela, or in the USA,
>> >where Zogby et alia have
>> >mucho experienco?
>> 
>> Nice flame out fuckface- bounce up again so I can smack you harder.
>
>Oooooh, Schmucky! So nice
>that 

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

We were out early on election morning and were amazed at the
incredibly large turnout, with thousands of people waiting in line an
hour before polls were scheduled to open. Venezuela has a system of
electronic voting (with a paper ballot backup) and voters' thumbprints
are recorded electronically, transmitted by satellite, and compared
almost instantaneously to prevent multiple voting. A "No" vote
supported Chavez, and a "Yes" vote called for his removal from office.
Starting was somewhat slow, but 99.5 percent of the voting machines
were on the line by 10:30 a.m. Some of the fingerprint operators did
not report for duty, but this was not permitted to interfere with
voting. The great waiting crowds were in fine spirits, cheering loudly
everywhere we showed up.

During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their
supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that
showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent
this information to their own people and to foreign news media.
However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting
any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long
voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an
extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally
closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m.

At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the
disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes
at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million
votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria
and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition
leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them
that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media
owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment
while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample
voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next
morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in
Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to
make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will
of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait
on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to
be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do
so.

Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition
leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before
we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during
election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (S�mate)
admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point
defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the
next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55
percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming
massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results,
including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of
Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states.

Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on
Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called
Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of
results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington
endorsing our findings. 

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:48:34 GMT, "Lou P. Garrew" <howling@moon.com>
wrote:


>Lou P. Garrew, at your service!



4.228.195.69 = [ dialup-4.228.195.69.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net ]  
  OrgName:    Level 3 Communications  Inc. 
  OrgID:      LVLT 
  Address:    1025 Eldorado Blvd. 
  City:       Broomfield 
  StateProv:  CO 
  PostalCode: 80021 
  Country:    US 
  NetRange:   4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255 
  CIDR:       4.0.0.0/8 
  NetName:     LVLT-ORG-4-8 
  NetHandle:  NET-4-0-0-0-1 
  Parent: 
  NetType:    Direct Allocation 
  NameServer: NS1.LEVEL3.NET 
  NameServer: NS2.LEVEL3.NET 
  Comment: 
  RegDate: 
  Updated:    2004-06-04 
  OrgAbuseHandle: APL8-ARIN 
  OrgAbuseName:   Abuse POC LVLT 
  OrgAbusePhone:  1-877-453-8353 
  OrgAbuseEmail:  abuse@level3.com 
  OrgTechHandle: TPL1-ARIN 
  OrgTechName:   Tech POC LVLT 
  OrgTechPhone:  1-877-453-8353 
  OrgTechEmail:  ipaddressing@level3.com 
  OrgTechHandle: ARINC4-ARIN 
  OrgTechName:   ARIN Contact 
  OrgTechPhone:  1-800-436-8489 


From: Lou P. Garrew (howling@moon.com)
Subject: Re: (OT) Kerry at War 
View: Complete Thread (122 articles)  
Original Format 
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Date: 2004-08-01 06:45:03 PST 
 

Barrister wrote:
> 
> Well, I think it is relevant given that Carl has decided to grace our
> lovely town with his drivel and mindless mental meandering.  The fact
> that he's a Bush supporter has nothing to do with it.  Carl would be a
> loser and fair game no matter which candidate or party he supported.

I don't think that Carl Standifer has any politics as such, but I'd
flame him even if he were a Democrat.  If he actually made favorable
comments about Senator Kerry in his trolls, I'd work day and night to 
find something unkind and factual to say about Kerry, just to annoy 
~~troll~~.  By the way, it's a good idea not to appear to agree with
him.
I'm not saying that people on the right should make anti-Bush
comments;
just make it clear that it's only a coincidence that you support the 
same candidates and views.  When the Video-goof thinks someone agrees
with him, he'll follow you around like a lost dog . . . the kind that
gives you fleas, wets on your shoes and tries to hump your leg. I 
wouldn't wish him on a Republican.

Standifer will leave your group as soon as he gets it into his empty
head that what you have here are words, which can only give him 
lip-strain.  Then he'll return to infesting the binary groups, where
he 
can find pretty pictures with which to "entertain" himself.

Until then, think of me as your friendly cyberspace garbage man,
taking
out the trash for you.  That should make ~~cretin~~ happy, too--it
will
be the first time in his dateless life he's ever been taken out.


From: Lou P. Garrew (howling@moon.com)
Subject: Re: 23 years ago tonight... 
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)  
Original Format 
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv
Date: 2004-08-16 03:02:38 PST 
 

~~carl~~ wrote:
>
>I detest rap. All rappers are fags..they don't
> have nothing to grab. 

Unlike those little boys who turn you on, eh, Carlypoo?

> So...I deleted mtv from my channels. 

Yet you claim you see what's on it.

> Yes features some rap..I don't watch that junk music for retards.

You mean it's too intellectual for you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------