texasleo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:56 PM
Original message |
Bev Harris on MSNBC right now |
Coexist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
1. you mean "she who shall not be named" don't you?! n/t |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
2. How is it she has any credibility at all? n/t |
Bunny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:57 PM
Original message |
Poll_Blind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I'm not familiar with your posts, Bunny, but I already like you. 8^) |
|
:toast:
I used to have no idea about the whole BH thing and I was watching DUers getting into lots of scraps about it. So I did some research in old threads and found out what's going on. I also remember listening to Randi Rhodes over the course of two days: The first when Randi was doing her best to raise money for BH and the second when she realized she'd been screwed by same. Also the Olberman thing...it goes on and on.
Cheers!
PB
|
Bunny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. I like you, too Poll_Blind! |
survivor999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Thought she was in jail.... |
texasleo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
tenshi816
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Isn't Bev on about 14:45 of her 15 minutes of fame? |
|
I'm still embarrassed that I once donated money to her.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-31-06 04:07 PM
Response to Original message |
7. She'd rather hear the sound of her own voice than answer clearly. |
|
Edited on Tue Oct-31-06 04:07 PM by TahitiNut
That syndrome annoys the shit out of me. (Excuse me. Wiping. Back.)
The answer is clear, imho. A paper ballot is absolutely necessary under ANY condition. For those jurisdictions that want the 'speed' of some computerized tally, optical scan is sufficient but the paper ballots must be manually audited to give strong (98% confidence) assurance that the computerized tally has no material miscounts. Where the manual audit does not give that assurance, a FULL manual recount MUST be automatic before the election can be certified. When the manual count shows a material difference, the Attorney General MUST investigate for fraud, based on a prima facie presumption of fraud.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 14th 2024, 08:24 PM
Response to Original message |