DISQUS

Perhaps Kucinich didn't pursue it further because of the lack of regard for the security of the ballots counted. They sat in the middle of a warehouse all over the three day weekend instead of being locked in the vault like they were supposed to. Several boxes showed up cut open, not sealed.

In other words, the recount was going to be just as fixed as the primary, if the primary was stolen - there was absolutely NO security and integrity in the chain of custody. Several laws were broken during the recount.

Why do we trust the criminals to investigate the crime in this country?

Check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org to find out what the Telegraph ISN'T reporting.

Why are the papers in NH so adamently opposed to a recount? Why were boxes showing up to recount slit open, when they are supposed to be secured?

Why do the papers in NH hate democracy? Every single article about the recount sounds like some form of spin. Ridiculing people for wanting a recount.

Perhaps you can explain to your readers why you have not followed a SINGLE lead about the discrepencies being found.

Oh, and you are only telling PART of the story. The difference between hand-count and machine-count are also backed up by EXIT POLLS that showed the same odd trend.

EXIT POLLS were always considered fairly accurate, well, of course, untill voter fraud became rampant in America. Then suddenly a half-century long staple of accurate prediction became "unreliable." NO, the electronic voting is "unreliable."

If the recount is such a pain to do, stop stealing elections. It's THAT simple.

"Other explanations have been offered for the difference. They include the fact that ballots are hand counted only in smaller towns, such as Lyndeborough and Mont Vernon, while Clinton's support in cities is considered strong."

This is the problem with that explanation. We don't DO elections by "considerations" we elect people by votes. What scientific evidence do you have that Clinton is "considered" to have strong support (and of course the implication being that asking for a recount is then silly.) If you knew the results of the election before we voted, why all the taxpayers expense to hold a primary?

The rule of holes is once you are in one, you stop digging. The NH media just keeps digging.

People,

Seriously why try to engage this person? He isn't interested in learning anything new. No matter what you say, he is simply sticking to his talking points. No matter what you do to prove him wrong, he just repeats the question as if it isn't answered.

Go ahead, click on the link he provided me to *prove* that this was more than one newsletter. See for yourself that this person is a liar and move on with your lives.

Are you deranged, Rogel? It's a rhetorical question.

Don't bother answering. I am not going to come back.

Good luck with your smear campaign

Rogel, I DID read that. And no, there isn't more than one NEWSLETTER. More than one article, yes. But they were all in one newsletter. What I see at the link you just posted is 1992, 1992, 1992... so thank you for exposing to those reading these comments what a liar you are.

The rest of the dates are articles where the same 1992 newsletter was brought up over and over again and Ron Paul's reponses to it at the time.

And I did say there were other snippets taken from OTHER newsletters, but those are hardly racist. Look, I am done with you. It is clear you are simply a trouble maker. You are speaking in talking points we are hearing from the same people spreading this smear.

You are lying and that's the first sign that you have a clear motive. I gave you a pass on not just dropping your support quietly like anyone else would do, but instead you just wanted to continue the smear.

You know what, Rogel. It isn't going to turn off Ron Paul supporters simply because they believe him. He answered the questions. At this point the only attack you have left is that you don't believe him.

And you have no credibility to call him a liar when you start being dishonest.

"...and I read them as well, it is more than one"

Nevermind... it is clear you are lying, unless you somehow read something no one else on the internet following this has read. It was ONE newsletter, and an implication by Jamie that he *found* 20 years of this stuff  with ZERO proof of THAT claim (and he keeps changing the time frame each time he tells the story.) There WERE writings that were not racist in anyway, but were instead non-PC. No more incendiary than stuff Bill Cosby has said.

Why am I wasting my time on you? You just flat out lied in your response to me. Your intentions are clear. See you later, go support someone else that will keep the race wars going and people enslaved.

In fact, I think I recall him saying "I wish I did." But I will have to go listen to the interview again.

Rogel, you are playing a game here and it is beginning to make you look suspicious. He said he DOESN'T KNOW who wrote this, actually his exact words were "honestly, I don't know who wrote this."

How can he make it anymore clear?

Again it comes down to whether or not you believe him. He has met all of your demands already. He has answered your questions. If you simply keep changing the bar, then well, I will have to agree with the others that you are simply trying to cause mischief. James and his crew are doing this all over the internet. Every time Ron Paul responds, they just move the goal posts to keep the story alive.

Are you sincere in your intentions, Rogel?

Rogel,

One final point. I read the one article (yes, only one article was clearly racist and inflammatory) and it read like a caricture. Like the author didn't even believed what he was writing but instead was using stereotyping.

It's not just wishful thinking for me to believe this was a set up. I was just as disappointed and critical of Ron Paul's response. After the emotions settled, I looked at it more carefully, listened to his response on CNN again, and thought about what I would do in the same cirmunstance. I would simply tell the truth and hope that people believe me. What else could I do? Have you never had someone steal your identity in a forum and use you name to post crap because they didn't like you? Well, imagine a HUGE political machine doing it.

In our volunteer groups, we run into people joining us with ill intentions all the time. Huckabee supporters, Romney supporters, etc... They come in. They come to a couple of rallies. We find them on other blogs leaking information and causing trouble in our own groups. It's just political reality that people are this evil.

Rogel,

I am not going to chastise you for your disappointment. All I can say is what if Ron Paul really doesn't know who wrote this? What if his explanation that the newsletter was shifting parties at the time is absolutely true?

What if Ron Paul was set up? Both the GOP and the Dems had been trying for years to unseat Ron Paul. To the extent that the GOP recruited democrats to run against him and funded them. To the extent that they even shifted districts to force him to appeal to entirely different people (yet he was still re-elected.) And Ron Paul expressed Presidential ambitions around the time this ONE newsletter was printed.

What if Ron Paul was set up? Did you watch his explanation on CNN? Ron Paul sounded excited, agitated, and cornered. All he has is his character to back up what he says is true.

If you were attracted to his campaign because of his honesty, why would you be willing to distrust him so easily? Nobody said this was going to be easy. Just look at what the media has been doing to him in an attempt to force him out. For months. If you were a supporter, Rogel, there is simply no way you couldn't have noticed this.

Ron Paul has been fighting the establishment for decades. The GOP hated Reagan at a time that Ron Paul supported him.

If somehow someone did this to you, what would you do? You would just tell the truth, right? Well, what if no one believed you?

Look at the new spin on the smear that Ron Paul "admitted" it before. Listen to his responses. When he was confronted before, he didn't spew more racism. He didn't even DEFEND the statements. He talked about positive things instead. In fact, he doesn't even say "yes, I wrote that." What else could he do? What proof did he have that wouldn't just sound crazy?

He accepted responsbility and told you that he honestly doesn't know who wrote these. I think if you open your mind back up you will see these appeared in ONE newsletter. Never before and never after.

If you truly did volunteer in NH, you know doubt met the man. I have. And I could see absolutely nothing that would make me believe he would lie to me.

Well, I'm sorry to say, but it boils down to whether you believe him or not. He HAS explained it to you. If it is not 'acceptable' then that just means you think he is lying. And if that's the case, well, you were looking at Ron Paul for all the wrong reasons.

God bless

Why can't we let the candidates and their supporters decide when the race is over for them? As long as the candidate has the money to continue and hasn't folded, they should be allowed to keep appealing to new voters. What if they had cut off Huckabee early on (actually, the media did the exact opposite with Huck - his surge was BECAUSE of the medias sudden 24/7 coverage of him for no apparent reason?)

Most of these debates and forums require the candidates to pay to participate. Most people don't realize this. And they don't charge more to the media anointed front runners. They all pay equally. Yet they are not even given equal time.

This election season has been one of the wierdest I have ever seen. The media has been so overtly blantant in their attempt to manipulate the outcome.

Why is no one filing FCC complaints?