Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
But Smooth, my statement was that that people over at DU are arguing for fraud and your reply was that you didn't see such arguments. As an example, you pulled ONE post.
First, it seems clear to me what the author is trying to say; that the numbers are inconsistant and indicate fraud. You say different. So be it.
What I can't figure out is why didn't you see these. They are all on the first few pages. Did you even look?
|
You argued that democrats were claiming the election was stolen (again). I didn't pull that article, Mr.SelfDestruct posted it--I just pasted the text of the link he provided (it's a few posts above mine). I agree that the author says his research indicates fraud--but that isn't the same as claiming the election was stolen, especially when the researcher allows that the data for Bush is still that he won the election albeit by a smaller margin.
Yes, I did look. I don't know the site, didn't care that much, don't have any particular reason to defend democrats (especially those part of a self-identified underground group), and didn't spend much time searching around. That's why I asked you to post the ones you were talking about.
Of course, I did check your first two links and the first one doesn't say anything about fraud in the opening post and the second one is
a compilation of other sites alleging fraud. You are exasperating. Why do you bother reading a site so opposed to your beliefs--is it so you can feel justified in thinking democrats are loony?