Next time someone refers to this as a "conspiracy theory",

[tbuddha]

remind them that at one time, WATERGATE was a "conspiracy theory". The Washington Post was heavily criticised as being partisan conspiracy nuts at the time for reporting the story.

If you've never seen it, watch "All the President's Men". BTW, I still need Carl Bernstein's email address.

[whistle]

1. As for Woodward, hasn't he gone over to the "Darkside"?

[Stand and Fight]

2. Yes

He praises both Poppy Bush and Junior shamelessly... I'm sorry to say.

[tbuddha]

4. I think he was always kind of a puss

[Ian David]

5. Evidence of organized criminal activity

It isn't a conspiracy theory.

It is evidence of organized criminal activity.

[RaulVB]

3. Right!

But is even more simple...

The huge amount of data available on the fraud that took place on November 2nd, is indisputable at this point.

Only a conscious decision to ignore it explains why some people would call this a "conspiracy theory."

[Ian David]

6. Converging lines of evidence

Converging lines of evidence suggest organized criminal activity.

[Ian David]

8. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests organized criminal activity.

[RaulVB]

10. Yes...

I meant to say that is a clear conspiracy, not a "theory" at all!

[texpatriot2004]

7. Yeah, Watergate sounded pretty "out there" to begin with...

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true. And, it's not a conspiracy theory...it's math.

That is too bad about Woodward, in fact, that's awful. Kind of like an American hero who becomes a traitor. Yuck!

[Straight Shooter]

9. All roads lead to Rove.

No conspiracy, just a scheme to implement an agenda, hiding in plain sight.

Conspiracy is "bait" language. As far as I'm concerned, a surprise birthday party is planned by conspirators. B.F.D.

[libertypirate]

11. Question folks: How is vote fraud a theory?

It happened we know it, what theory? I don't see a theory do you? What I see is a load of circumstantial evidence, which points a finger at the elephants. Anyone around here see it differently...

from dictionary.com
theory- 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

This is the frame that we are being put in folks, we have less knowledge then we desire I can accept that portion but what we know is much more then limited.

"conspiracy theory" -- these words should not be associated with this election and the "proof positive" that most of us picked B and it added up to A.

[Straight Shooter]

12. You are absolutely correct. The more accurate term is "hypothesis"

noun: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

noun: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

See more at http://onelook.com/?w=hypothesis&ls=a

And even more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

"As an example, someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white.

It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. It can be falsified by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example that it is a sheep, instead of a goat) and that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), the hypothesis is falsified."

What we have here is a hypothesis, as follows: The 2004 election is tainted due to vote manipulation, as well as voter suppression in the form of apartheid policies towards minorities.

edit: Our hypothesis cannot be falsified by those who claim the election was fair, because we have already gathered too much evidence to prove our hypothesis is correct; i.e., the election is tainted.

[texpatriot2004]

14. Right on Straight Shooter...tell it like it is...n/t

[Old and In the Way]

16. We can easily confirm/refute the hypothesis....if we want.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=89055&mesg_id=89055&page=

[libertypirate]

18. hypothesis and stuff

Refer to those who did it as (CRIMINALS).
Refer to fraud as (CRIMINAL FRAUD).
Why?
When a crime takes place someone’s a victim and someone’s a perpetrator, in this case we can establish the victim. No one wants to be a victim, even when they are, victims when angry are motivated, and that will get this thing off the ground.


We need to look at what they are attacking as bait. Baiting us to think about shit they want and not what we want the public to notice AKA (the crime). Their MO is to move us away from the goods and make us look foolish.

The word hypothesis if used correctly can put a theory pointing fool back on their heels.
when they say theory (butt in) and inform them that we are way beyond a theory, theories are like hunches, when you have evidence you are profiling a crime that's where we are now.

When someone pulls a faux fact on you look at them in the eyes, chuckle with a big grin and ask them if they got that from faux TV...
Act like they are pulling your leg, well because they are; when they get that enough they will seek out the truth on their own.

Frame it so your question puts faux in the crosshairs not your information...

[texpatriot2004]

13. I like your piercing argument. The facts are against those

who would yell conspiracy theory. And, like you said, though we would like more (and we will get it) back-up, what we have is far from limited. Much of the public banter wouldn't fly if people would think and get the facts...like simple definitions. Good job.

[TexasLawyer]

15. Also Enron

The elaborate accounting maneuvers taken by several insiders to bilk money from Enron was a conspiracy. But no one labeled Sharon Watkins and others who came forward to report their suspicions as "wacky conspiracy theorists." Also, the poor employees who lost their pensions when Enron tanked aren't called "sore losers."

Similar respect should be shown to the people (present company included) who are trying to document what already looks like a very good case for vote fraud and systematic disenfranchisement of Dem. voters. We also lost our political voice when our votes didn't get counted. So we DU-ers are the equivalent of Sharon Watkins AND the Enron pensioners all rolled into one.

[malaise]

17. No Longer still in shock

I've been following this for weeks. I have copied the academic presentations and shared them with several colleagues and I also followed several threads and links.

There are obvious problems and what makes it more vulgar is that people who have discredited Exit Polls in the US election are attacking elections elsewhere based on said Exit Polls. I am not into conspiracy theories, but I am not a naive dumb fool. The results defy everything that exists in textbooks on the subject and sound academic analyses have demonstrated that something stinks.

I am a patient human being and time and history will expose this for what it is. Time and history are always kind to people who think for themselves.

By the way that Fraser article on the Front Page is very, very good - there is smoke.