UC Berkeley prof proves Bush stole election!!!

University of California at Berkeley ^ | 11/18/2004 | Michael Hout

[dighton]

[mlocher]

there are lies, damn lies and stastics!

[Arrowhead1952]

How can these intellectuals be so stupid?????

Stupid and more than likely DUmmy posters

[Bob]

These folks are very good at the double standard.

Oh, c'mon. If it weren't for the double standard and low standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

[melbell]

stuning!

[beezdotcom]

Sorry, you meant vey series. Your beeber is probably just stuned.

[Rippin]

If I understand this paper correctly, it is completely consistent with the following explanation.

1. Democrats traditionally commit vote fraud in heavily Democratic districts.

2. Electronic voting machines are a new tool and they have not figured out how to manipulate them yet.

3. Fraud occurred in heavily Democratic counties in 2000 because old familiar technology was used.

4. Fraud was lessened in 2004 because electronic voting has not been coopted yet.

Incredibly they spend this much time thinking about a topic and it never crosses their mind they are walking into a trap.

[Former Dodger]

Not really an oxymoron, more of an apt description: if you are HIGH you are being EDUCATED, the HIGHER you are, the more EDUCATION.

Remember, this is the home of LSD...

[Sender]

These idiots are not only oblivious to losing in 2004, they still are hanging on to 2000. One nitwit posted "If only President Gore had been allowed to serve out his term, none of this would be happening!".

[js1138]

I find this whole theme very odd, because I followed the Florida count all night, in detail. By midnight I noticed that the percentage margin in any county did not change much as more returns came in.

As soon as we had partial returns from the three big dem counties, I was able to project the state outcome. Bush did slightly better in all three compared to 2000, but he did better everywhere. All the major counties using touch screen machines have democrat majorities. Republican counties were not stupid enough to waste millions of dollars on unnecessary technology that has no backup, no paper trail, and no method for recounting or verification. Paper ballots have all this and cost 1/1,000,000th as much, so to speak.

[IrishBrewer]

If these guys had their way we wouldn't count all the votes, just a portion of them and do a statistical analysis to find out who won.

...oh yea. They did that with the exit polls and we all know that they did a bang-up job of that.

[Junior_G]

This is hilarious. Apparently this is what liberals are talking about when they say they're more intelligent than Republicans. It's not real intelligence; but rather an ability to take the most stupid concept and convert it into a scholarly-sounding research paper. What a stellar piece of crap these people have produced!

[DrewsDad]

Fraud was lessened in 2004 because electronic voting has not been coopted yet.

My thoughts exactly.

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

So what this Berkeley dude was saying was "Hey! You know, Kerry's lame and couldn't win on his own, so we'll just say Bush is bogus and the whole election thing was bogus too." Yeah?

[ReeseKev27]

LOL I didn't go to Berkley.

[mewzilla]

LOL. True, I hadn't thought of that :)

[Tacis]

Not worth reading the article. However, these variances can be explained by the simply fact that the dems weren't able to steal the votes this time that they stole before machine use.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Paper ballots have all this and cost 1/1,000,000th as much, so to speak.

I love that. Great job working in my screen name. ;)

[b4its2late]

Vey series.....