is how long it took me to cast my early vote today. I now know more about Edgewater library's childrens' lit section than I ever thought possible.

The vote in Chicago touch screen, with a printout paper receipt that you look at, but don't take with you.

I heard on one of the news channels this evening that there are a lot of accounts of machines altering votes. I can't remember which state or county, but I THINK it was Florida. All Obama votes being thrown to John McCain.

Funny that the glitches only happen one way. I guess having a majority holding in DIEBOLD really helps a party out. Though I suppose I have no evidence that they were Diebold machines… just a really good likelihood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Security_issues

If you can't win the vote, steal it.

DIEBOLD is a mass manufacturer of many different types of products. 

ACORN is an organization specific to a single unethical purpose.

Which one would logically be of the biggest concern ?

Wikipedia is not a viable source of information for any subjects open to some bias.  It's a manually updated resource by the public.

You might as well try unclyclopedia.org if you depend on Wiki for any subjective information.  It satires the very principle.

ACORN:

Acorn is an organization of paid volunteers who work to make sure the Dallas Cowboys don't forget to vote. Many view the Dallas Cowboys as a very wise and natural leader of America.

The problem in the past has been these great men are on the road a lot in many different cities in many different states and sometimes even in foreign nations. ACORN is an acronym that stands for All Cowboys Officially Registered Nationally.

Thanks to the recent help of ACORN, voting is even easier! Just vote in the box below for who you want to be President. Acorn is a bipartisan voter registration group. Enjoy your choices and pick wisely.

------------
President of the United States of America:
Please vote below.

( ) Barack Obama
------------

The ACORN that we know today started out quite differently. Originally they were only trying to register the offensive line and the organization was called Some Cowboys Officially Registered Nationally - SCORN.

SCORNs discrimination against the defense was viewed as offensive, even by special teams. Thus SCORN turned into ACORN and became the popular organization that it is today.

Please note that ACORN is not an organization that Barack Obama supports as they clearly favor the Dallas Cowboys over the Chicago Bears. It is believed that the Dallas Cowboys lean heavily to John McCain.

ACORN shares the vision of the media and even with corrective glasses is still legally blind. Most ACORN members are left handed and also lean that way which makes them underhanded.

Occasionally an ACORN paid volunteer will register a real voter who isn't a Dallas Cowboy because as Obama says "You can put lipstick on a blind hog but it can still find an ACORN sometimes." ACORN members could accidently register a real voter. Unlikely, but it could happen.

In a similar fashion ACORN makes sure that all eligible voters register and cast their vote for correctly, politically speaking. Many voters don't understand voting or elections and they need help. ACORN can help them vote.

ACORN searchs all the common places where unregistered voters likely congregate. This includes but is not limited to: combing skid-rows, trailer-parks and "disenfranchised neighborhoods" in the end-zone for unregistered Dallas Cowboys, that may include: homeless, crack-heads, tweakers, schizophreniacs, low-lifes, bottom-feeders, - you know… Dallas Cowboys.

It may also include people that don't speak English very well or can't speak English at all and registering to vote for them, sometimes without their knowledge or consent. Here ACORN members can facilitate these people in registering before they are caught and deported.

ACORN commonly registers Dallas Cowboys using fake addresses - fast-food restaurants, hospitals, homeless shelters, cemeteries, libraries, used car lots, etc.

Potential voters can also be found in obituaries - just because one is deceased does not mean that their franchise has also expired - and mental institutions - many ACORNS in Congress started out here.

In so many words, there is no limit on the potential and skill in the ACORN scheme to find the Dallas Cowboys where ever they may be and to make them into good citizens.

ACORN makes sure that all unbeknownst voters that may have some voting-handicap register and cast their vote for Barrack Obama, even though he is not Fair and Balanced toward the Cowboys.

Many ACORN volunteers think that Obama WAS a Dallas Cowboy and seem to favor him. McCain attempted to counter this by pointing out his "maverick" tendencies, but ACORN has classified him as a Cardinal.

Acorn has been so successful in registering the Cowboys, it has rewritten its charter to register former players, players of other teams, other sports, and even those who aren't good at sports like celebrities, bartenders and investment bankers.

This came about after football players in Boston who shall remain nameless called Acorn "Unpatriotic". The Houston Oilers moved from Texas with no forwarding address in protest.

Acorn, not wanted to be Scorned again started registering other teams players but this time decided to keep the Acorn name.

Acorn has been looking into registering nurses, guns and cash. Bill Gates has been in contact with Acorn to see if they could register dlls. Recently an Acorn representative in California registered an earthquake.

Mike, I have a very had time responding to any of your arguments. It sounds like you're mostly just angry. I wish that I had the time to layout a complete response to most of your misunderstandings as they relate to Obama, unfortunately, I don't.

I think they are very important issues, which you could EASILY investigate on your own and come to a different conclusion, if you weren't operating on blind outrage.

I think your time would be better spent listening to NPR or PBS, so that you can get a realistic picture of what each candidate offers. It's pretty obvious from your arguments that you care very little about either platform and that you've invested most of energy in rattling off insignificant information that has hardly anything to do with what either candidate would do while in office.

As for Diebold, I am aware that they produce a number of different electronics. Most of their other products have nothing to do with the voting process. Do I really need to acknowledge that, when I'm only speaking about the voting machines, which have been investigated on MANY levels. I'm certain that there are a NUMBER of different links and information available - including YouTube videos - that explain how the machines can be tampered with to skew the vote.

There are even many articles discussing the actions of Diebold to try to cover up (via Wikipedia) the discrepancies with their voting machines: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

There are many terrifying concerns that I have with McCain not the least of which are:
(1) His involvement in the largest savings and loan scandals in US history
(2) His dedication to deregulation of the economy, given (a) the overwhelming agreement of economists that deregulation has caused the current set of problems that we (and the rest of the world) are dealing with and (b) that, despite his own personal experience - and public remorse over the Keatings S&L;issues - it has done nothing to change his opinion that any deregulation is good regulation
(3) He's voted with Bush 90% of the time. I don't care what you say. I voted for Bush twice. I consider them the third and fourth greatest mistakes of my life. The first and second are far too personal to go into.
(4) He selected Sarah Palin. Who has less than two years as governor in a state with a population the size of Alaska. Who was formerly the mayor of a city with almost more meth labs than residents. Who purportedly (a) doesn't believe in global warming (b) doesn't believe in dinosaurs (c) threatened a librarian over the content in her library. (Maybe I'm extra angry over (c) because my mom is a librarian - and I've actually visited the square in Berlin where Hitler did his massive book burning)
(5) He's 72 years old, which is close to the average life expectancy of an American male
(6) He's flipped his voting more times than I can count (I know this, because I agreed with half the shit he said when he ran in the primaries against Bush in 00).
(7) He, nor his VP counterpart, seem to have any problem in starting additional wars and/or staying in Iraq for, hummm… ever. Indefinitely. Possible future conflicts as a result of this foreign policy stance include those with: Russia, North Korea, Iran. (Related: The war in Iraq was a ridiculous idea and Obama was against it from the beginning. That gives me additional confidence that Obama will make the more mature, measured decisions than McCain.)
(8) He is the candidate that most of the world hopes loses, including most of our thanks-to-GWB, luke warm European allies.
(9) I've never, ever heard him discuss programs to improve the infrastructure of the US as a way to increase jobs and build our economy - in my opinion, the most valid opportunity to improve our country AND our workers
(10) He has lobbyists in his campaign. Which wouldn't be so bad if you could say the same of Obama. You count. (Incidentally, I recognize that not all lobbyists are bad. My uncle is a cable lobbyist in Oklahoma. He's awesome, but he has no business lobbying his way into a presidential campaign.)
(11) I'll just lump these all in one lump "character defects" issue: bad temper, unprofessional, whiney, hypocritical (robocalls after he accused Bush of using below the belt politics?), and unable to articulately explain any of his platform issues.
(12) He has publicly stated that he would support the nomination of heavily conservative supreme court justices.
(13) With one publicized exception, McCain has stood back and allowed racists at his rallies to insult and threaten Obama. Palin is particularly worse, and I suppose that's because she doesn't know what a black man is. I doubt there are any in Alaska.

There are many, MANY additional problems that I have with the McCain. And the reasons why I have already voted for Obama. And the reason that I have particular concern for voting machines which favor Republicans.

That's it, I'm out.

One thing that I can think of that I DO agree with John McCain regarding is the use of ethanol and/or biodiesel fuels. I think that this would only increase the price of food and lead us into a dead end road where we create demand for something that we can't adequately produce.

Can you think of anything that you agree with Obama about? Anything???

Try.

I don't operate on blind anything.  That's exactly what I DON'T like seeing so many do in this election; making a blind decision out of a popularity contest.  Contrary to what I've heard several celebs say, an election absolutely should NOT be a popularity contest. 

As for anything I agree with him on ?  Very little.  Most of his plan details either contradict common sense, employs another spending program, contains an empty promise, or is a meaningless use of decorative words that say nothing.

For instance, he says he wants to commit more manpower and technology at our borders (which I agree with), but then he turns right around and says we need to increase the number of "legal immigrants" to "fill the jobs that employers for now cannot fill."

I can't listen to an entire presentation, or read an entire plan, because he is full of decorative, empty crap and control-freak programs and spending.  FULL of it.  Everywhere. 

Don't start me on where he "says" he plans on getting that money for all this spending.

Way to read up on Obama's policy. Sounds like you've got absolutely no idea what he's about.

And as far as contradicting oneself, McCain is the absolute epitome of double/confusion/let-me-have-my-people-get-back-to-you-on-that-because-I've-backed-myself-into-an-uncomfortable-corner---but-WAIT!,-I'm-a-WAAAAR-HEEEROOOOO!

Way to read up on Obama's policy. Sounds like you've got absolutely no idea what he's about.

And as far as contradicting oneself, McCain is the absolute epitome of double/confusion/let-me-have-my-people-get-back-to-you-on-that-because-I've-backed-myself-into-an-uncomfortable-corner---but-WAIT!,-I'm-a-WAAAAR-HEEEROOOOO!

I repeat.  I've read as much as I can stomach of "what Obama is about".  Most of what I read or hear him say (that has any substance) concerns me greatly. 

If one hears or reads the man's thoughts on several issues, and strongly and very basically disagrees with the man's philosophy on most of them…

and recognizes the other points as either empty promises unapproachable from the presidency (that are meant as ear candy to his main constituency), or else directly contradictory to common sense…

one simply doesn't feel any urge to read or listen any further.  Especially when one already strongly supports his/her own candidate. 

Re-clarifying something.  I support McCain, I like what he has to say, I agree with most of his philosophies and platform, and I believe that he's far and away the better man for the job of President.  I'm not just a "he's not Obama" person.

Further reiteration:  I question whether most Obama voters have any idea what they are voting for besides "not Bush", "no War", "I'm dissatisfied with my place in life", "I want change", "the rich are evil", etc.  That is all being drilled into their heads constantly by a media and celebrity darling.  Nice voice, but what are you really saying ?

As for McCain, I've never heard him refer to himself as a war hero.  He never did make use of his kids' choices to all be involved in military service.  I see great humility when it comes to McCain's service to his country.  He simply points to his experience as qualifying him to further serve his country.

I see McCain actually answering the questions in the debates, while Obama often is intent on focusing on rebuttal of McCain's answers rather than on what HIS answer is. 

I respect your passion, and even moreso the sweat you put behind it.  I might disagree with you, but I have respect for you.  That applies to your political efforts, to your animal efforts, to your music and radio ambitions, to your family…  you tend to pour yourself into your passions, and that's pretty cool.

Diebold, as it relates to Wikipedia updates (and vice versa):

Your source article simply stated that a lot of information was deleted from the Wikipedia entry for Diebold.  The deleted information expressed dissent and concern about Diebold's machines primarily due to the CEO's support for the Bush campaign.

The article further explained that a CalTech student made some sort of program that traces IP's on Wiki updates back to their source, and that the deletions in the Diebold entry traced back to the Diebold corporation itself.

That's my point.  If someone writes any defamatory paragraphs on the "MiT" article in Wikipedia, you can rest assured that the person responsible for "MiT" is going to erase or alter it.  That's the natural course of action.

That is also exactly why one cannot rely on Wikipedia concerning any entries that have room for subjectivity.

The Keating 5 (savings and loan scandal): 

Year 1989.

John Glenn, a highly respected Democrat senator (also holding a special place in most American's hearts for his own military and NASA service to his country)

and John McCain - a highly respected Republican senator (with all previously discussed service)

were both cleared of any wrongdoing within that scandal. 

Three other senators were at the same time nailed by a Senate Committee for direct interference with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

John McCain took responsibility anyway, even though he had been cleared by the Senate Committee.  McCain to this day states that he acted in an immature and unethical manner. 

I wish so many other politicians would actually take some responsibility for poor judgments THEY made…  as opposed to denying involvement.

Deregulation stimulates production.  Programs stimulate a false sense of satisfaction.

That being said, some regulation is necessary, and some programs are necessary. 

I am definitely on the Conservative side of both.

There is nothing wrong with voting for Bush the majority of the time if Bush has been right the majority of the time. 

9/11 took place in the very beginning of Bush's tenure in the White House.  The Stock Market IMMEDIATELY took over a 30%+ correction, and fell another 10% before beginning to recover.

However, the Market fully recovered back to it's pre-9/11 point in less than 4 years.  That's pretty good stuff.

We voted in a Democratic Majority on Congress (who legislates law - NOT the president) in 2006, and since then have watched Fuel prices rise over $ 4.00 a gallon, watched the bottom drop out of our housing market and our equity dry up, and are now witnessing foreclosures soar and the stock market take a dump.

I do completely disagree with No Child Left Behind.  I do feel that Bush should have tried harder to take stronger control over immigration.  I'm not sure whether Congress would have ever complied much, but Bush's stance wasn't strong enough.

I don't feel that Iraq was all a huge mistake.  Colin Powell did not check his intelligence closely enough, and declared proof of WMD.  However, Powell stood with Bush on using force when Iraq continued to refuse to adhere to UN demands.  We HAD to do what we said we would do.

We DID eliminate a tyrannical regime in Iraq.  A regime that DID use terror to control its people, and consistently ignored the World's requests to disclose and disarm. 

We can't systematically pull the troops out on a schedule.  That would tell the insurgents EXACTLY when to move back in.  Regardless of what the Iraqi military claims, we must withdraw only as our military leaders deem it safe to do so. 

There has been such a huge effort to discredit Bush over the entire Iraq situation, but the US absolutely could NOT allow Hussein to continue his noncompliance.  There MUST be progression of consequence, and the consequences in place were not working. 

I have my own opinion of why much of the rest of the World seems to favor Obama, but then the rest of the World doesn't have the interest of the Unites states (Country First) at heart, does it ?

For the Record: 

Palin was first a City Council Member (at the time the librarian was asked at a council meeting about removing a book from the shelves) and later became Mayor.

She attended a City Council Meeting. As a representative.

Part of the people she represents are the Church members, who have a problem with some sort of moral issue with the content and wish for these books to be removed from the Library.

Palin broaches the subject in the Council Meeting - simply doing what she is supposed to do as a Council Representative.

The Librarian emphatically says "No." Which is to be expected.

Palin is later elected Mayor, and she replaces the Democrat Librarian with her own appointment, likely a Republican.

Palin asked for the librarian's resignation, the same as she asked for resignations from police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

This librarian is the same as appointing all other positions a Mayor is responsible for - Positions that are not elected officials.  And yes, this librarian is a political appointee position.

It's her staff to post for herself, and normally after a new Mayor, Governor, President, or other executive defeats the incumbent, they replace the staff with their own.

The people of Wasilla show overwhelming support for the first Librarian, so Palin pays attention to the wishes of her Constituents and REINSTALLS the old Librarian to her post.

Sounds like a very good, attentive Councilmember AND a responsible, attentive Mayor to me.

But then, I like a lot of things about Sarah Palin.  You betcha. 

I have to like someone who has had the guts - as a woman governor at that - to stand up in her executive position and expose corruption, expose government officials involved in corruption, and take steps to remove the corruption at its source. 

I have to like someone who had her own governor's plane sold due to it's being an excess and unnecessary amenity.

Regardless of the size of the town, or of the State, Sarah Palin has had to make decisions.  Important decisions. 

All Obama has had to do is talk.  That's ALL Obama does.  Talks real well.  Damn good fundraiser.  Let him run Red Cross or Salvation Army and actually do the country some good in an area he could excel.

Dang.  If I'm gonna write a novel, I might as well try to get paid for it.

Seriously, Mike? Is there ANYTHING that McCain or Palin or Bush can do wrong? Except, obviously, no child left behind?

Sarah Palin is unqualified. Several members of the Republican party have agree. McCain's appointment of her as his Vice Presidential pick indicates that he'd rather shoot from the hip than make informed decisions.

Conservatives across the board know this.

And for something like your last 15 posts you've gone on and on and on and on and ON about Obama without indicating that you know ANYTHING about his policy stance.

I don't care that you don't like the guy. You're uniformed. I think you're a good person and a good dad, but you are copying and pasting all this Republican jargon and sidling up to a party that has done nothing but trash the financial integrity of this country. Not to mention the personal rights (Patriot Act, anyone) that they've put in jeopardy.

I've read Richard's response in the other thread and I absolutely agree with him that this administration - the Bush administration, not necessarily McCain - has taken a stance far more closely resembling communism than anything Obama has to offer. And I said communism. Not socialism.

At the heart of Obama's campaign are a number of issues: (1) the last 8 years have not only NOT WORKED, they have failed miserably. (2) And simultaneously ESCALATED anti-American sentiment abroad. (3) Deregulation and disregard of banking trends have been largely ignored by all branches of government and have contributed greatly to the current economic crisis (4) Government has mainly NOT acted on behalf of the people, and there are many areas that need to be reviewed (line by line) and overhauled to make government MORE transparent (as much as you would like to think he's some crazy socialist loon, he has the technology and the network - as his campaign has clearly proven to make drastic strides in making sure the branches of government are held accountable to the people) (4) times like these call for more government action, a la FDR. You know, the greatly loved - widely heralded FDR. Who probably helped your Okie dustbowl ancestors survive the 30's.

Mike, just because he's popular doesn't mean he's some evil sorcerer, using black magic to hijack the minds of innocent Americans. Just because you don't buy it - and can you PLEASE admit that you're are an EXTREME CONSERVATIVE and potentially COMPLETELY out of touch with political moderates? - just because YOU don't buy into Obama's speeches (and lets face it, you only know him for his speeches, because you can go on and on about McCain and Bush and Palin - what about the dinosaurs and the climate? - you can't clearly indicate much of anything as it regards to Obama's stance on the issues. Do you really know his tax plan? Or are you just taking sound bites from the major news sources - who incidentally say the same 25 lines 2,000 times a day?

I'm not trying to insult you, I just feel you're being unreasonable. "Power Hungry F*ckwad" aside, you still seem angry and unecessarily incensed by the idea of anyone - ANYONE - actually agreeing, intellectually with Obama. As if he's so commie crazy that the average American - that what looks to be the MAJORITY of Americans MUST - just MUST be blinding following some new wave hippie dippy fruitcake man into the land of happy hokey paradise.

Here's the thing: Obama's winning points because he behaves maturely. Because he demonstrates class, and good character. Because he hasn't spent the majority of his campaign floundering around, bait and switching. People are making INFORMED, INTELLIGENT decisions about who they're voting for. Maybe you are too. From what I've read, you're only partly informed. You've got a very obvious set of blinders on. And whether or not you realize it, it's INCREDIBLY insulting to listen to you rant on and on about how stupid Obama supporters must be - or that we clearly can't understand where he will be leading the country. (And making me an exception to the rule may seem like a compliment, but it's not. Most Obama supporters would make the same arguments if they had the patience that I do.)

We understand. And we disagree with you and your candidate on a fundamental level. You can argue about wikipedia - and I can show you fifteen million other sources that say the same thing. Or you can go on about Ayers and I can say "GORDON LIBBY". And you can talk about Acorn, which has hardly ANY clear and/or relevant connection to Obama, and I can say "Keatings Economics." And you will still try to find every reason under the sun why Obama is bad and McCain is good. (McCain apologized and Palin reappointed a librarian - so they win merit points for being sorry for fucking up? Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?!?!)

I get it, we disagree. But stop being such a jerk. 

Who is Gordon Libby ?

I'm not being a jerk.  However, I had already agreed that a thread entitled "Power-hungry F*ckwad" was not exactly an endearing title.

Stupid Obama Supporters:  Anyone who actually equates an election to a popularity contest, or seeks to turn it into one.  If that's insulting, so be it.

I found the "I'm a WARRR HERRROOO" line to be rather insulting considering McCain has spent over 40 YEARS serving his country, but it's all right.  People are passionate about their politics. 

No harm, no foul.  I take that lesson from McCain and Palin from their making appearances on SNL even when SNL seems hell bent on bashing them and their party.

Yes.  Taking personal responsibility for a past mistake DOES show integrity. 

Denying involvement, or claiming that you never really knew the man was like that over the period of twenty years definitely shows the opposite of integrity.

Reinstalling a political post due to the wishes of your constituents DOES show integrity and good responsibility.

As for Roosevelt…  he was given credit for far more than what he accomplished.  His term saw a quick recovery that spiraled right back down into another depression.  Roosevelt got his ass saved by the impending arrival of America's involvement in WWII and all the production that went with it.

When America declared war, Unemployment fell to almost nonexistent due to the men's all being pulled into the war while those left at home had to dive into the production. 

Scary guy, Roosevelt.  The only president elected to more than 2 terms of office.  If he hadn't died after being elected to his 4th, who knows HOW long he may have been there ?  The president who made his constituency feel completely dependent on him and bigger government.  The president who introduced liberalism to our country, and began the pattern of dependent culture.  The president who put tens of thousands of Japanese Americans into Concentration Camps.  You can take the comparisons from there.

FDR was a classic example of what happens when government and regulation and programs are TOO BIG.  Lucky for that war, or else God knows WHERE we'd be today.