DUmmie FUnnies 08-05-05 (Pied Piper Pitt Contradicts Himself AGAIN)

It looks like Pied Piper Pitt needs to break out in song to sing “Self-Recanted Evening” since he has contradicted himself YET AGAIN as you can see in this DUmmie THREAD titled, “Before the 'Hackett Wuz Robbed' train gets really rolling...” Pitt makes it appear that the Left is making themselves appear ridiculous by claiming that every election they have lost was stolen. However, a couple of days before making this post, Pitt made his infamous Sound Of Distant Thunder post in which he proudly claimed that he stood on the Capitol steps in May 2001 with a bunch of fellow loonies protesting “the illegitimate delivery of the presidency to George W. Bush.” Sorry, Pitt. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t now be self-righteously proclaiming that it is wrong to claim elections are stolen when you folks lose and at the same time still claim that Election 2000 was stolen. NO recount ever showed Gore ahead in Florida. Following the election, several major LIBERAL newspapers carefully checked the voting results. Their conclusion: Bush won. And yet despite ALL the evidence showing that result, Pitt still proudly boasts of his participation in a demonstration protesting that “stolen” election. So let us now watch Pitt contradict himself once again in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, humming “Self-Recanted Evening” from atop a Diebold machine, is in the [brackets]:

[You helped set the ball in motion, Pitt, by contesting the 2000 election results.]

I've been dealing with local elections since I was a little kid. My mom held a small office in our town and worked with the Mayor, who ran every term for 22 years. We were there every election night listening to the results come in and go up on the board. Results from districts would come in late and dramatically change the count. It happened all the time, and it wasn't fraud.

I think everyone is correct to be suspicious of elections these days. But I would offer also a word of caution: What happened here with Hackett is not unusual. Before the accusation of fraud is made as a declarative fact, some proof beyond conjecture and disappointment would be a good thing.

[That was Pied Piper Pitt posting on Aug. 4 at 11:05 AM. Here is what Pied Piper Pitt posted on Aug. 2 at 3:37 PM: “It seems a million years hence that I stood upon the steps of the Capitol Building in May of 2001 with thousands of other activists to protest the illegitimate delivery of the presidency to George W. Bush.”]

I won't be calling it fraud. But the evidence points to questionable proc As long as the Ohio elections board operates with such questionable procedures and equipment, I think it's a fair question to ask:

[You shouldn’t have said that, Pitt. You have only stoked the DUmmie paranoid fires.]

The only irregularity I'm aware of is that they had to hand count part of Clermont because of high humidity

[But isn’t hand counting what you DUmmies have been screeching for all along? And now you are COMPLAINING about a hand count?]

In four minutes, four thousand votes appear? I think the more important question is William, why you seem more interested in quieting legitimate discussion and/or skepticism, and appear resistant to looking at the reality that Republicans have in fact (as wild as this may sound) been known to engage in dishonest activities once in a blue moon.

[The answer to your question is that Pied Piper Pitt is trying to mainstream himself to be more acceptable for press interviews. Unfortunately, for Pitt, that is an IMPOSSIBLE task since his own melodramatic writings are a bloated paper trail in wackiness. His laughable essay about a Third American Empire that began at the end of an Olympic hockey game is enough in itself to have him laughed off most TV interview shows before he even sets foot there.]

[Do what, Pitt? If it is contradicting yourself, then you better wipe that poop off your face with your cold dead fingers.]

Well, whaddya expect after the last 2 presidential elections were outright STOLEN??? Democracy is America is dead...

[We know for sure that Pied Piper Pitt has proclaimed, without a shred of evidence, that Election 2000 was stolen.]

Hey Will Pitt! I believe we've been down this road, Ohio ring a bell in 2004!!! The people need a voice to decide wheter paperless verification for voting machines has proven it's something that should or should not be mandatory!

[You had hand counting in part of Clermont county and you DUmmies cited THAT as proof of election fraud. Heads you lose; Tails you STILL lose.]

why does every election seem to have fishy things happen? why after all day of basically 50/50 do the machines go down and suddenly 91 precincts need to be hand counted? and why are those particular precincts the ones that are heavily for schmidt? in fact just about the amount needed to give victory and ensure no automatic recount?

[Why is Karl Rove spotted in the Kinko’s of every contested election district?]

There are many people here on DU who simply can't fathom the possibility that a Republican could get more votes that a Democrat in a fair election. They believe that a majority of voters have similar political views to them. The only way to they can rationalize election results is accept the idea that the election was stolen. This started immediately after the mid-term elections of 2002.

I am old enough to remember President Eisenhour, actually President Truman also, although it gets a little fuzzy there. Anyway, this is an entirely different time, yes we had corruption back then too, but nothing like the times we are in today. I have never, never seen it this bad. For me, your type of thinking is now long gone, I've taken off my rose colored glasses.

[Ah yes! Those were the days of CLEAN elections especially in the 1948 Senate race from Texas where Landslide Lyndon won thanks to 202 extra votes found form him in the town of Alice in Box 13.]

Weren't reporters booted from one of the vote tabulation places? Was there an explanation for that?

very fishy circumstances, long neocon history of fraud. Hence, fraud until proven otherwise, since there are big red flags of fraud.

I would suggest that every election - win lose or draw - be called stolen until such time as voter-verified paper balloting is implemented.

I'm not following the story, at all, but I no longer believe any election at face value. Sad, but true. We're completely f***** here in the USA, where are votes are corporate secrets.

We cannot afford to be the little boy who cried wolf If we cry "We Wuz Robbed" after every election we may soon lose our credibility.

[Losing your credibility is something that already happened to the DUmmies long ago.]

Especially since "Eisenhour" is more likely misspelling than typo. The "u" and "we" keys are not likely to be switched: they use different fingers and different hands. Sometimes, though, I think liberals have different keyboards than the rest of us: shift F10 is the "Karl Rove conspiracy theory insert" key, Control F5 is the "ballot fraud conspiracy insert" key, and so on.

Actually, you would be surprised.

There's some of us engaged in heavy-duty "research" of democraticunderground--soon we all should have our Ph.D.s in dummieology--and from what the members in there betray about themselves, the number of "kids" in there cannot possibly be more than 25%, if even that much.

The vast overwhelming bulk of the members of democraticunderground appear to be people born circa 1940-1965--man, at least 60% of them. These are not "kids" over there.

I will bet the median age of members of democraticunderground is circa 8-12 years higher than the median age of members of freerepublic.

In this thing which is going on right now--never mind the details; they're all over the place--the "leader" is a woman just three months shy of half a century old; old enough to be the Head Warden "Skinner"'s mother. And the followers, with only one known exception, were born between 1950-1960.

This is information gotten from their own mouths.

On the other side of the aisle, the side in favor of open and honest fund-raising, the "leader" is a guy in his late 20s, and while there are a couple of nice grandmothers involved, the "average" age of the participants is at least 10-15 years younger than the side opposed to open and honest fund-raising.

BABY BOOMERS. The worst generation. The only question I have is how did the "greatest generation" raise them, and what can we do to avoid their mistakes.

Just because some of the 'Boomers' are kooks doesn't mean that it is a lost generation.

It was the most 'divided' generation politically and you can find the extremes of each persuasion in the group. But before you paint MY (1947) generation with the 'worst generation' brush, please be reminded that our President George W. Bush is a 'Boomer'.

The problem with the 'Boomer's' is it was the first affluent generation. I'm not saying rich, just the fact that a much larger percentage of our parents moved from the abject poverty of the depression to the post war boom.

The 'boomers' were the most educated generation. The numbers that attended and or graduated from college was exponentially larger than any other before it. The mostly 'liberal' education, and the 'affluence' ran head on into a war that was poorly prosecuted and deemed incorrect by the press.

The fact is, most of the 'boomers' have settled down, cast off their 'tie died' clothes and become productive members of society.

Those who couldn't make the transition have found their way into the DUmp.

Of course not ALL boomers are whacked out lefties of some variety. And not all members of the WWII/ "greatest generation" are all that great. However, generalities can be gathered from how the vocal majority has behaved. Behind most america-bashing we see even today inevitably stands a baby-boomer.

I agree with your assessment of how it came about that so many of the boomers turned out the way they did. And I find that even those that came out of their tie-dyed clothes & complete craziness are STILL self-centered spoiled brats, even if they've entered societal "establishment". But no, not the EVERYONE in the generation.

My take on this whole thing is that we were a generation who didn't know sacrafice.

When the VietNam war finally moved off of the back burner (remember it was a slow thing) a group of activists took it up. There already was a goodly number involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and this was a ready outlet for their try at being significent.

The Soviets picked up on the thread of this and abetted it.

The majority of this group weren't 'communists', or 'socialists' but rather idealists, who were manipulated.

Once it was put to rest (so to speak), and the Boomers came of age, they realized that there was no 'utopia', and took their place in the society and workplace. A small group remained 'loyal' to the thesis, and these became the nucleus of the radical left of the Democrat party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.