I'd agree with this if I thought they were actually trying to count those votes.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "The amount of voter fraud that's acceptable is the amount that is less than >> the error in collecting, attributing, and counting the votes." >> >> Blah, blah, blah. Typical egghead, response. You can't throw up a 1%, .5%, >> .01%, or a .001%? With a percent established, cases can be shown where the >> fraud exceeded the "acceptable" fraud level. >> >> And in my opinion, the answer should zero. Fraud should not be acceptable. >> > > Blah, blah, blah, typical bonehead response. > > Let me point out one more time: we don't even know if it's a problem > because it's a much smaller problem that counting votes! > > Said another way, we can't accurately count votes fraudulent or not! > > So, if you haven't figured it out yet, is the crux of problem with > your bogus argument: > > We can't tell if voter fraud is even a problem because we can't audit > the fecking election! > > You know who had zero election fraud? Hitler. > > B > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339639 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
