Fla. needs a revote on paper. If Pelosi refuses to seat Buchanan and does seat Feeny. That will say a lot about where the dems. stand on election fraud. Coleen Rowley wasn't helped by the DNC in her senate bid.Move along. Everything is fine. Don't make waves.

Sorry ..got that backwards. Refuses to seat Buchanan and doesn't address Feeny's dubious win.

America needs to take a chimichanga from Mexico's election cafeteria . . .

Tom Feeney's another crook "on the take" within the GOP and will experience the same fate as his comerade-in-crime, Bob Ney. I can't wait to see Feeney get his "just desserts" for a lifetime of manipulation, chicanery, deceit and fraud. Atta boy, Clint. Go afer Feeney's jugular - see if he has any human blood surging through those veins...I highly doubt it!

And, I'd bet megabucks on the fact that the same "fix" that was in on the Jennings/Buchanan race was in on the Feeney race? What does anyone want to bet? Florida is full of corruption. Just look at the "stolen election of 2000" but, of course, big bro Jebbie couldn't have a second stolen election again in 2000 so they made certain to have Diebold, ES & S and Sequoia do their bidding for them in Ohio....do these crooks really think that americans respect them? Do they really believe that have the people fooled? Absolutely not! Just let Jebbie make a run for political office and you'll see just how complicit this guy has been in all of this....the "whistleblowers" will be crawling out of the palm trees in Florida like the "packrats"...hahah!
Can't wait!

If the affidavits of Clint voters add up to more than the "final machine count", is that a huge blockbuster? Or what??? Then, Clint's a genius for even THINKING of doing that!

Also, that means candidates have to run their OWN parallel elections...isn't that pretty sad???

If Clint's affidavit votes are greater than the "final machine count" votes, that really means we are no better than some 3rd world country with sham elections. And America's democracy is a big joke.

AND...it would beg the question, what did our soldiers die for in the Iraq War...AND, would we have even HAD that war, if it weren't for e-vote machines???

The ramifications of Clint's affidavits cannot be underestimated.

Expect the CMSM NOT to follow the story...I don't mean a couple of newspapers, I mean the amount of coverage will NOT be in proportion to the importance of the story.

The state of Florida is clearly ingnoring its constitutional responsibility to run clean and auditable election. The House of Representitives can and must investigate and if necessary block HIGHLY QUESTONALBLE candidates from taking their seats.
If the House fails to act, then the US is on the path to a "Government Run By 50 Banana Republics".

Far from everyone who voted for Clint is likely to be willing to sign an affidavit. If Clint got more signatures than votes despite that fact, then it is clear that the reported vote count could not even have been close to correct. Faith based voting is clearly only for Banana Republics! We need to dump faith based voting ASAP!

Feeney corrupt?

Says who, Curtis?

So much rhetoric so little proof.

Does Clint have a job?

Ummm, Comment 11.

Feeney's culpability may only be quantified as "alleged" at this time, however, Curtis has passed with flying colors every challenge that's been thrown at him. He's passed lie detector tests and testified under oath before a republican congress who chose not to act. (Remember Bill Clinton's testimony? I'm sure you do, he was impeached for trying to conceal a Blow Job...which PALES in comparison the theft and fraud related to massive electoral corruption that Curtis has alleged, you lie to a hostile congress at GREAT PERSONAL RISK)

Meanwhile, Feeney is ducking and dodging and refusing to answer these allegations with anything even remotely resembling a straight answer.

The scales of integrity, in this case my dear troll, fall squarely with Clint Curtis.

Where, pray tell, does your integrity lie?

... Under a rock... obviously....

Um asked:

Feeney corrupt?

Says who, Curtis?

Actually, Curtis has said so for a long time. But more of note, so has Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who ranked Feeney among the Top Most Corrupt Congress Members for the second year running. Details here.

Thanks for reminding us.

I can never understand people who defend corruption, and bash people fighting corruption. They are either shills or delusional listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc...

They are the same people who defended the Iraq War, and now avoid the subject. It's all the same thing. Bash the truth and people fighting corruption...until it's proven beyond a doubt they are wrong...and then go into hiding. So, I guess with the Clint affidavit thing, we're at the "bash the people fighting corruption" phase, and soon when Clint is proven right...AGAIN...said bashers will go into hiding.

Remember all the people who bashed us, when we first said e-voting was a fraud? Remember all the Bush-backers for the Iraq War?

I do hold some optimism that with the Dems in solid
control of congress that both Rep. Feeeney and Buchanan
will be refused thier seats in congress pendinding a
new elections.This time using straight paper ballots only,plus using independant observers and vote counters
will generate a much differnt result.This has worked well in 2nd and 3rd world counties,sad... that it has to be done in this way to insure fair results in disputed American elections here at home !

Holy cow, Clint got all those affidavits! I'm IMPRESSED. What a bulldog!

Also, Clint's website says BOTH elections (his and Jenning vs. Buchanan) are also being challenged in State Circuit court in Tallahassee.

Clint's great idea should be a model for all elections held on voting machines. This is BIG and just what I had hoped for. The fact that all those people signed affidavits shows their absolute devotion to Clint's cause. Amazing!

How do we know this is big news? The media will not cover it!

COMMENT #11
UM:
"Feeney corrupt?

Says who, Curtis?"

Clint says so but that is beside the point. If Clint has the signatures of more registered voters voting for him than were credited with doing so then we clearly don’t need to decide if we can trust Clint or not. We have to decide if in a “democracy” we should trust the word of the voters or the word of those who claim to be “counting” our votes. It has to be one or the other. Clint has made it perfectly clear that we can not trust both. Those who really believe in democracy clearly have to go with the word of the voters. Those who only claim to support democracy will go with the word of the proven crooks (Thank you Clint!!!) who claim to be “counting” our votes!

“So much rhetoric so little proof.”

If the signatures on the affidavit match those of the registered voters then “so little proof” is all the proof any logical mind should require to reach the correct conclusion! That’s plenty good enough for me. Is it good enough for you?

“Does Clint have a job?”

That question does not even logically fit into the big picture so among those of us who think logically there clearly is no need for any answer to your worthless question!

I read somewhere, “Does Clint have a job?”

If Feeney doesn't get in he'll be dressed up as a cigarette girl on one of those Sun Cruise casino boats for his new occupation, either that or a microchip salesman to the Chinese
:D

Apt description of the 109th "Rubber Stamp" Congress in which neoCon conartist Feeney "starred":

I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,

And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Bob Dylan

Unfortunately, after an anonymous vote in the hands of an elections apparatus that is unresponsive to your goals, your only recourse is to have a published vote that is in excess of what they show you to have gotten. The short story is: anonymous vorting doesn't cut it, if you're to have any confidence in it, through all possible eventualities.

READ THE FOLLOWING:

IF THE BALLOT IS NOT SECRET THEN YOU HAVE GIVEN POWER OVER THE VOTERS TO A THIRD PARTY

READ THAT AGAIN.

As in... you would give the current administration even more control over the voters than they already exercise with disenfranchising laws, gerrymandering, and the ever-popular e-voting.

This Public Service Announcement has been provided by the zapkitty... as many times as it takes

I was surprised at how easy it was to get affidavits from people. In the two Saturdays I spent out collecting them, I can only recall two people who refused to sign one. Most people were really receptive, and thanked me for the important work I was doing. The real problem is catching people at home... The work is ongoing, and I'm certain it will bear fruit. The proof is already outlined in Clint's filing, but as more time passes, and more affidavits are collected, Clint's case for a re-vote can only become stronger. Everyone can help by contacting Nancy Pelosi and urging her to oppose the swearing in of Buchanan and Feeney!

David Francis #25

I was surprised at how easy it was to get affidavits from people. In the two Saturdays I spent out collecting them...

And I'm glad about that, and hope it works for the intended purpose... and will not be surprised if it does. If you voted for Clint Curtis you should consider filling out an affidavit if asked to.

The danger I speak of would lie in people seeing this as something other than what it really is: an emergency response to an election system that is badly broken.

But if the concept gets institutionalized even socially, much less legally... well, the last well-known example of that was Nazi Germany. (Secret ballots were "optional" and Bast help you if you took that option.)

Exit polls are fine, with safeguards. (and I don't mean the peculiar Republican concept of safeguarding themselves from valid exit polls) But having to tie specific votes to specifc people should only be regarded as an emergency measure...
...and I don't mean the Bush variety of "perpetual emergency measure".

#6 - Great use of parallel - another great example...

CURTIS WINS PARALLEL UNIVERSE VOTE!!!!!

But Feeney gains win in terrestrial balloting. Curtis pledges "forensic reconstruction" of vote. No word on Curtis sanity test results.

www.crazyclintcurtis.com

the_zapkitty #26

Maybe we should put hoods over our heads when we vote.

I mean really, if we are the home of the brave, we shouldn't give a hoot who knows what we're casting our vote for, and that includes your employer. It's the principal of the thing that counts.

I've become very weary of the whole concept of secret voting, and nobody can deny that the HAVA act wrecked our system specifically because of that concept. It doesn't work. If you're not proud of who you're voting for, or are afraid to tell your employer who you're voting for because you think he might disapprove, you're practically unamerican.

... Larry Bergan said...

"Maybe we should put hoods over our heads when we vote. I mean really, if we are the home of the brave, we shouldn't give a hoot who knows what we're casting our vote for, and that includes your employer. It's the principal of the thing that counts."

Liberals shouldn't try sarcasm... it's hard for sane people to tell if you're serious ot not

BTW, editor, please don't edit my posts, even for cosmetic reasons, without a notice that they've been edited and why... the reasoning should be self-evident.

The zapkitty's revolting continues...

The zapkitty's revolting continues...

Conservatives should back off the sarcasm... period.

... Agent 99 said...

Conservatives should back off the sarcasm... period.

Conservatives understand sarcasm... it's irony they have trouble comprehending.

Neither Liberals or Conservatives should be allowed to run loose as they will surely come to harm.

Sincerely,
the zapkitty
(a Libertarian Nekomimiist with Rakugaki tendencies)

Conservatives, including Libertarians, only understand their own benefit, and can't even fathom that their own annihilation lurks behind this very thing.

(...and please just lay off the "bold" altogether. It's less offensive --- all us stupid librulls can bear it --- and you will stop throwing the threads off when you forget to close the tag.)

the_zapkitty #29

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet because the voice inflection needs to be there for it to be understood. That's why I always tell people when I'm being sarcastic here.

I believe every word I typed in my post about secret voting and never hesitated to tell my boss and regional manager where I stood, despite the fact they were 180 degrees in opposition to my stance. In fact, I think they would probably tell you I shoved it down their throats. I think they admired my commitment and I admired them for not firing me.

I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings Kitty, but sometimes I can't tell where you're coming from. I hate it when that happens.