READER COMMENTS ON

"NH Election Contest Update: 7.5% Vote Count Discrepancy Found in Nashua, Ward 5 for Clinton, Edwards"

(31 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Patriot said on 1/22/2008 @ 1:37 am PT...





7.5%? That is completely unacceptable. To me it isn't even a matter in what direction the votes go after the recount, a large discrepancy as noted here is not something that should be tolerated no matter who you are voting for. I am sick of this. This wasn't the kind of report I wanted to read after reading about a possible Florida Vote fraud already in the works.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/22/2008 @ 3:25 am PT...





... Patriot pandered... "This wasn't the kind of report I wanted to read after reading about a possible Florida Vote fraud already in the works." Hallucinate much? From the above linked site

"It is the job of the U.S. Military to guarantee a Republican form of government." I'm sure. And spreading rumors of Rampant! Voter! Fraud! in order to disenfranchise minority, poor and elderly voters is a prime method the Republicans use to guarantee a government of Republicans. By the way... have you captured Ann Coulter yet?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/22/2008 @ 3:56 am PT...





Brad, you were scooped by the Nashua Telegraph. Except, unlike you, they called the City Clerk. (Would you like their phone number?) It was discovered that they added the VP write-ins to the totals, just like Manchester Ward 5. And why just Clinton and Edwards? A ingenious mistake based plan to steal the one delegate from Obama? Or the lame excuse of making the mistake on the left side of the form and not the right side. There are other HUGE typo errors in the SOS numbers, but I'll wait to see those in headlines. [ED NOTE: Actually, I don't believe the City Clerk was available to answer the phone at Midnight last night when I came across the huge disparities detailed above. But like Manchester Ward 5, if the explanation is legitimate, that votes for VP (for some candidates only) were added to the Presidential totals, then once again, I might suggest you send a thank you note to Dennis Kucinich for demanding, and paying for, the verification of election results that the state of NH should have done themselves. Were it not for that hand count, of course, the originally *incorrect* vote totals would have stood as "official". Beyond that, you're welcome to keep posting apologistic notes on behalf of the voting machine companies and/or state of NH. But a bit more honesty, and transparency on your behalf would be appreciated. As well, you've been walking a very fine line in your posts of late, between honest criticism and dishonest, disinfo. Please watch. And mind our commenting rules. Thank you. --- BF]

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... NateTG said on 1/22/2008 @ 6:52 am PT...





It does stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. https://bradblog.com/?p=5573#comment-287249

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Bluebear2 said on 1/22/2008 @ 7:12 am PT...





it is certain that the results will not change an iota....The whole idea that it will is a fallacy that is destructive to Americans' confidence in the democratic process." EXCUSE ME! The 7.4% over-count in one ward is "destructive to Americans' confidence in the democratic process."

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 8:08 am PT...





Bluebear2 wrote: The 7.4% over-count in one ward is "destructive to Americans' confidence in the democratic process." And that is why we have a paper trail so that these HUMAN errors can be found. [ED NOTE: You *presume* it's "HUMAN errors", without bothering to ask for evidence of same. In either case, they are State of New Hampshire errors, that should have been caught, had they done their job of taking some of the $3 billion they are privileged to bring in under their precious first-in-the-nation status, and apply a tiny portion of that money towards ensuring the votes are actually counted accurately. They have not done that, and it's absurd that Dennis Kucinich (or *any* candidate) should be forced to raise money and pay for the job NH should have done in the first place. --- BF]

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Badger said on 1/22/2008 @ 8:47 am PT...





What is the reason that there is a 7+% change with two candidates, but not across the board?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 9:08 am PT...





Reply to Badger, #7. The answer to your question is the number 2. Two vice presidential candidates numbers were added into two presidential candidates.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 9:41 am PT...





Patriot #1. You are going to have to fact check your articles. This is pitiful. "So far the preliminary reports from New Hampshire, are enormous amounts of vote fixing. During the ongoing re-count in New Hampshire, Hillsborough county has reported a vote change of 1869 votes...." The SOS warns on the state website that Weare County has not been finished, thus is NOT a FULL SET of RECOUNTED totals. YET, your article claims that there was a "vote change of 1869 votes". PURE BS. The TRUTH of the matter is the recount has not been completed, thus no one know what the "vote change" is going to be. Further, the article does not take in account for voter and HUMAN error that has been reported for the county. If these groups can't win with the FACTS, they need to get out of the way. By making up their own facts, they are HURTING the cause. [ED NOTE: And "these groups" would be who exactly? It seems that state and voting machine company apologists, and believers in "faith-based" voting like yourself, are the ones acting irresponsibly here, by criticizing those who are supporting, and have even paid for, the hand count which has revealed enormous errors across the board...no matter whether the errors were human or machine (which we may never know, since the SoS has so far refused to turn over the Diebold memory cards, so that they can be examined to discover if there were any errors or tampering on them). --- BF]

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Jean said on 1/22/2008 @ 9:47 am PT...





So how long is this recount going to take? I am disappointed it was not done before NC vote. Results do influence results. If it was election day yesterday, we would generally already know the results since yesterday midnight. What are the numbers? And are all the votes accouted for? When votes disapear, do we know where they went or is it totaly machine error? [ED NOTE: Read this follow-up for much more detail and answers to some of your questions. No, the votes aren't all accounted for in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately. And without the memory cards from the Diebold machines, there is little way to determine whether the errors were human, or machine-related. "How long will it take"? A while. Nashua paper reports that 40% may be counted by mid-next week. Underscoring yet again, the need to Get it Right on Election Night!!! --- BF]

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Dolphyn said on 1/22/2008 @ 10:08 am PT...





Brad, is there a typo in the headline for this article? The headline shows "Nashua, Ward 4" but the article seems to be about Ward 5. [ED NOTE: Thanks, Dolphyn. Corrected. --- BF]

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... OMSmedia said on 1/22/2008 @ 11:49 am PT...





Come on Brad....you know who exactly "These Groups" are...do you even read as you type? Memory cards are erased after tabulation confirmations at both ends. So please stop beating that dead horse. I have some old Nintendo carts...they have the same info if you want them. (OMSmedia is brother of Former SD ROV)

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/22/2008 @ 12:01 pm PT...





OMS Media (aka Don Haas)- No, actually I don't know who "these groups" are. Seems like little more than attempted slimes, without offering any evidence or citation, to go with them. We'd call that "swiftboating" where I come from. As to the memory cards, if they've been erased, that would be in violation of Federal law which requires such materials be retained for 22 months after an election. Not to mention that there have not, until now, been any "tabulation confirmations" at any end. I understand that trying to rebuild your brother's reputation, as being one of the country's worst Registrar's of Voting in San Diego is important to you, as is trying to apologize for the fact that he never met a Diebold voting machine he didn't love, and a voter's ballot he didn't give a shit about verifying as accurate in any way. But your slime machine, and that of "M.L. Cook's" and "None's" needs to stop. Even if it shows the type of democracy-hating folks that are out there who need to be contended with.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 12:24 pm PT...





Reply to editor note in #6 "You *presume* it's "HUMAN errors", without bothering to ask for evidence of same."

Hampshire recount." *Presume*?? Are you trying to tell us that all the press reports of voter error are false? Not a single voter marked a ballot, and then also wrote in a vote for the same candidate?? Not a single voter voted for a Republican candidate in the Democrat race?? Are you trying to tell us that election workers are 100% accurate??

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Daisy said on 1/22/2008 @ 12:50 pm PT...





Assuming that we believe the explanations in the article in Nashua Telegraph; These human errors wouldn't have happen if they hand counted the ballots to begin with! The machines separated these ballots as uncounted votes (for counting vice president write-ins), and then some very confused person at the polling station added these ballots to the presidential votes. I have no explanation for left-page vs. right page, though. Anyway, these mistakes would never have been made if we just use paper ballots and hand counting! There is no big error in hand counting towns so far (Obama's counts in Wilton was corrected over the weekend. Obviously, that was a transcription error which is easy to be discovered). Human errors would be minimum if you use paper ballots and hand counting with dignity. See a great example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsJE7pVHeq4

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/22/2008 @ 1:02 pm PT...





M.L. Cook #14 - *Presume*?? Are you trying to tell us that all the press reports of voter error are false? Well, golly, I'd never suggest that MSM press reports about vote counting errors could possibly be wrong (rolling eyes). That said, I wasn't "trying to tell" you anything other than what I did tell you: The Nashua Telegraph reported that explanation, I have yet to verify it. A problem with that? Not a single voter marked a ballot, and then also wrote in a vote for the same candidate?? Have said nothing of the sort. Not a single voter voted for a Republican candidate in the Democrat race?? Have said nothing of the sort. Are you trying to tell us that election workers are 100% accurate?? Again, I don't "try to tell" you anything. I just tell you. And no, I've said nothing even remotely related to "election workers are 100% accurate". You troll-apologists are really begin to try my nerves. Either stick to what has actually been *reported* here (as I do, when I report things, please post independently verifiable information for your claims, or they will be considered disinfo), or you will not be here for long. I don't care if *anybody* disagrees with me on anything. I *do* care about knowing, purpose[ful] disinformation. So knock it off, "M.L. Cook". You too have now been warned. You're welcome.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 1:20 pm PT...





Reply to editors comment on #9. "voting machine company apologists, and believers in "faith-based" voting like yourself," Are you done spewing these falsehoods? That fact still remains that those numbers in the article are WRONG. I am sorry to rock your boat with THE TRUTH, but I would rather base my opinions in FACT that made up nonsense. {ED NOTE: No clue what "article" you are talking about. If The BRAD BLOG has reported incorrect numbers, or incorrect anything, let me know. I cannot fact check reader comments. That's what you're for. But knowing disinfo is not allowed here, and slurring "those groups" or whatever nonsense you posted, without facts to back them up, will not be tolerated. You're almost gone, M.L. Cook. Straighten up, or your outta here. --- BF}

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... sunny steve said on 1/22/2008 @ 1:51 pm PT...





Actually, it's even worse than it looks. The change in vote totals do not measure the number of ballots misread by the machine counting, only the net change in the results by precinct, because the scanner can misread ballots in both directions within each precinct. Ballots counted in error by the machine for a candidate (which are then omitted in the hand count)are canceled by any valid ballots not counted by the machine (which are then added in the hand count) within the same precinct. The net change is discovered in the precinct total, but this does not represent the total of ballots misread. So calculating percentage error rates always gives a minimum value. Also, every aggregation in reporting further minimizes the error percentage. For example, aggregate up from the precinct examples to the total change for Obama. Subtracting out the votes not yet reported from Weare, Obama's vote totals increase by only one vote. Yet we can count the net changes in each precinct (total the changes by precinct regardless of + or -) and discover that at least 117 ballots were misread, not just one. The real error rate cannot be known. That would require hand counting ballots in the same order as the machine did and tracking whether every individual ballot was read correctly. My interest in this recount is to demonstrate that any avoidable error rate is unacceptable. My parents taught me that voting was the highest privilege and duty that I have as a citizen of a democracy. I want to know that my ballot, that one sacred ballot, will always be counted correctly. BTW, The Constitution stipulates that votes shall not be counted secretly. Look it up.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Alan said on 1/22/2008 @ 2:13 pm PT...





Who are these ass****s that are saying the numbers on this page are wrong and then not giving a new set. I just check double checked those numbers on the .gov site: http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm and they are correct for NASHUA, WARD 5. Obviously these people saying get your FACTS right are not idiots (idiots would post their mistaken data), but Hillary supporters or worse... by the way it's not called vote fraud (the voters didn't cheat), it's called election fraud.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 3:18 pm PT...





Reply to Alan, #19. There are two arguments in this thread. The first deals with the question if the Nashua Ward 5 change in vote totals are the result of human error. The second deals with the numbers in the article linked in comment #1. It is clear that the numbers in FloridaVote.us article are false. No one took the time to fact check the article. They assume that a full recount of Hillsborough County has been completed. But from your link, you have proven that it has not been. "PLEASE NOTE: The tally for WEARE is not done!! http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm The FloridaVote link is making a false argument that there was a 1869 vote change in Hillsborough County. But of course, when I have pointed out this indisputable fact, I am attacked by Brad. I am called a "voting machine company apologists, and believers in "faith-based" voting like yourself". It is too bad that Brad can't live by his own rules. He claims that he dislikes disinformation, but then he attacks those who try to present the TRUTH. Clearly, the point that I have tried to make in this thread had gone completely over Brad's head. There is a difference between those who uses facts to support their claim, and those who uses myths, and why that is important. If the gets me ban, then so be it.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/22/2008 @ 7:48 pm PT...





"The Nashua Telegraph reported that explanation, I have yet to verify it. A problem with that?" Yes I do have a problem with that. There was already one source of information to back up the human error claim. But that wasn't good enough for you. You claim that it has to be an "independent source". Well here it is. A source that has been used on your website. from blog.wired.com: "..... I haven't heard back from Manchester yet but did speak with Nashua city clerk Paul Bergeron. Bergeron agreed that it would be very odd if two clerks in different cities made an identical error that no one else made but says that in this case the problems in each ward were actually different, though similar enough to confuse reporters. He says that as he understands it, the initial explanation for Manchester Ward 5 is correct --- that the problem was a transcription error that occurred when a clerk mistakenly added write-in votes from the vice-presidential race to the presidential race tallies. But he says the problem in Nashua Ward 5 was different in that it occurred because election officials there tallied some presidential votes twice. He explained that after recording the votes cast for president on the Democratic ballots, the optical-scan machines automatically sorted out ballots that contained write-in choices in the vice-presidential race so that election officials could count the write-in votes by hand. He says that election officials mistakenly believed that the machines had not already counted the presidential votes on those ballots and therefore tallied those votes by hand as well, resulting in double votes for the presidential candidates." "Officials say these problems would have been caught during the normal canvassing period when they reconciled the number of ballots cast with the number of presidential votes counted and the number of voters who signed in at the polls." http://blog.wired.com/27.../01/nh-recount-unco.html Contrary to you false allegations, I have not spread any disinformation. I had the facts on my side all along. Now, that I have done your job. You can thank me later. {ED NOTE: A different reporter, reporting on explanation from the same source is hardly "independent" confirmation. That said, I've neither said the report was true or untrue, but rather, I did not confirm it one way or another. Further, I don't even know what the hell difference it makes. The hand count verification of ballots that Kucinich has paid for, but which should have been done by the state, has revealed error after error of the sort mentioned above. You deserve no thanks for your attempts to undermine democracy. Kucinich deserves all the thanks in the world, for his attempts to keep it safe from folks like you. Last chance. I've got no more time to play whack-a-moll with disingenuous disinfo agents. One more and you will no longer be welcome here. Sorry about that. --- BF}

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... James said on 1/22/2008 @ 8:11 pm PT...





And that's why its important to (a) double and triple check your work to find errors (b) let someone 'independent' review your work, and (c) always always always go to the PRIMARY source rather than relying on a SECONDARY source (like a media writer or reporter). That's also why its important to have poll/precinct workers take math and reading tests and have certain qualifications before allowing them the responsibility of tallying information. Of course its really tough to get a machine to take a comprehension test.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... GaryCol said on 1/22/2008 @ 9:28 pm PT...





As an Australian observing the American version of democracy in action, I have some problems trying to work out how the whole thing works.

If I have it right then each State runs its own election, with its own set of rules controlling not only how to vote but who can vote. These rules also set how the votes are counted and by what method.

So far, all I have seen is a shambles. A computer based voting machine that utilizes memory cards, which may or may not work and can be switched at any time even while the voting is taking place. Even the computers programming integrity has been called into question. Why not have all the computers networked

The most reported detail about each of the candidates has been the amount of money they have raised to conduct the election with a lot less time and printing ink devoted to the actual policies of each.

Now that a recount has been called for in New Hampshire, why does it take a month to count a few thousand ballot papers. Why does a candidate who calls for the recount have to pay for it? Why is it that the company who controls the voting machines holds the memory cards? These as well as all hand written ballot papers should be impounded at the close of polling booths and held at a secure location with a paper trail of handling until an agreed date for the destruction some time well into the future when all parties agree with the result.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/22/2008 @ 11:48 pm PT...





GaryCol - You are having no problems working out how the whole thing works. You have hit every nail on every head. Yes, it's a shambles. Sorry you had to notice. (Sorrier still that it seems the best we can do around here. Don't tell your countrymen, okay?)

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... M. L. Cook said on 1/23/2008 @ 7:17 am PT...





"You deserve no thanks for your attempts to undermine democracy." Here we go again with another baseless personal attack. You can't even live up to your own rules. {ED NOTE: I can't believe I'm still bothering to play this game with you. But here we go. I believe your comments are attempts at undermining legitimate, verified democracy. You have a consistent pattern of misrepresenting information, knowiningly, I believe. And thus, I see no "personal attack" in telling you as much. I believe there is quite a bit of evidence to support the claim on these pages from you --- BF} At no time have I made any claims that we should not use VOTER MARKED PAPER BALLOTS, nor have I said that we should not have these recounts. I would love to see New Hampshire completely recounted. Further, 12 minutes after I posted the link to wired.blog.com, John Gideon does the same. https://bradblog.com/?p=5592 {ED NOTE: There is no problem posting the story. The problem is the way you knowingly lied about what we have reported (and haven't) around here. --- BF} It is too bad that you are too scared to have real debate. Others freely post the IDENTICAL information, but mine is called "disinformation". {ED NOTE: I'm quite confident that if anybody bothers to go back and read what's on the record from you, on this alone, they'll be able to determine what is what. But just one of your statements: "If these groups can't win with the FACTS, they need to get out of the way. By making up their own facts, they are HURTING the cause", implies there are some unnamed groups, making up facts. Who are those groups? And what facts have been made up? Because your insinuation seems to be that one such "group" is BRAD BLOG. And if so, you have presented no such evidence, and I believe are clearly lying. Going on to suggest, as you did later, that we are somehow saying "pollworkers are always 100% accurate" is just nonsense, and a waste of time for me to even be dealing with (which I won't be doing very soon, at all). --- BF} One more thing, I noticed that you could not refute my claim that the link provide in #1 used false data. That is REAL DISINFORMATION, but you have yet to call Patriot or FloridaVote.US for their disinformation. {ED NOTE: I have not studied the article linked to, and don't have time to do so. I do not have reason to believe, however, that the poster has posted "knowing disinformation", as would be a violation of the rules. They are quite clear. Read them here, see #4. You, on the other hand, have done exactly that, time and again, as far as I'm concerned, and you're just about through doing so here on my website. --- BF}

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/23/2008 @ 7:46 am PT...





... GaryCol said... "As an Australian observing the American version of democracy in action, I have some problems trying to work out how the whole thing works." So do many Americans... and they are not encouraged to question the current state of affairs. "... If I have it right then each State runs its own election, with its own set of rules controlling not only how to vote but who can vote." Not exactly correct. A bit of a lecture here, and as I'm half-asleep please bear with me There are local, county, state, and federal levels of elections. In theory... for the most part the local levels set rules and run the elections for all levels except where the local rules would conflict with rules set by the next level up regarding that levels own elections or with laws set up by one level to govern all elections under that level. For example the (pre-Bush administration version) federal Voting Rights Act applied its anti-discrimination measures to all elections- local, state, and federal. And although the passage of time tended to homogenize these differences a bit this setup was part of the balancing of powers that's supposed to make up the U. S. political system. "...These rules also set how the votes are counted and by what method." Yes. This is often, but not always, a county-wide decision. "So far, all I have seen is a shambles." Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of mandatory e-voting... yet another fine Bush administration legacy. After the aborted 2000 election several forces synergized to create the mess we have today. BTW, a Dan Rather Reports program, "The Trouble With Touchscreens", gives evidence that the malfunction of paper cards provided by Sequoia for the 2000 election may have been planned by Sequoia in order to boost its far more profitable e-voting systems... http://www.hd.net/drr227.html But whatever the cause, the 2000 fiasco gave certain parties an excuse to supposedly reform America's "troubled" election system... and they damned near reformed it out of existence. "A computer based voting machine that utilizes memory cards, which may or may not work and can be switched at any time even while the voting is taking place." Yes. And that post-2000 creation the Election Assistance Commission spent its time and taxpayer money pushing e-voting... and quietly trying to convince anybody who would listen that e-voting was now actually mandatory. "Even the computers programming integrity has been called into question." Early and often. "Why not have all the computers networked" errr... NO. One of the major criticisms of e-voting is the ability of one flaw- or one bad actor- to compromise the votes of an entire precinct. It has been demonstrated that networking the machines increases the risks exponentially... to statewide proportions. And that means national repercussions. No networking. "The most reported detail about each of the candidates has been the amount of money they have raised to conduct the election with a lot less time and printing ink devoted to the actual policies of each." That's the direct result of when the courts were paid off in order to allow corporations to directly buy political influence via lobbyists under the aegis of the "corporations are persons and money is free speech" deception. Since then elections have been largely a matter of corporate money. "Now that a recount has been called for in New Hampshire, why does it take a month to count a few thousand ballot papers." Because recounts are regarded as a bothersome waste of time by all too many election officials. "Why does a candidate who calls for the recount have to pay for it?" See the above answer. "Why is it that the company who controls the voting machines holds the memory cards?" Because our elections have become, de facto, privatized corporate affairs wherever e-voting has gained a foothold. "These as well as all hand written ballot papers should be impounded at the close of polling booths and held at a secure location with a paper trail of handling until an agreed date for the destruction some time well into the future when all parties agree with the result." A simple rule. It should be a law. In fact it is the law. Please note that if New Hampshire had actually followed federal and state laws and regulations in regards to the ballots then Brad and Bev could be spending a lot more time on the recount and e-voting issues proper.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Savantster said on 1/23/2008 @ 2:16 pm PT...





So, lemme get this straight.. The machines kicked out various ballots for one of 2 reasons (depends on which county you were in, apparently).. Then the "workers" just added counts into totals because, hey, why not? ..... I would think a FULL understanding of WHY you're adding them would be prudent, but apparently, it wasn't. Interesting that only, seemingly, Democrats, and those voting for 2 candidates, seemed to make the "wrote in a VP", or "wrote it on the wrong side of the ballot".. and, the same people were accused of simply "lying about who they voted for" on the exit polls, but ONLY those people. From where I'm sitting, something is rotten in Denmark. And, Americans have EVERY REASON to have NO FAITH in our elections, we see time and again how screwed up they are (hell, people 1/2 way around the world see it, too). ...

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Clayton Jones said on 1/23/2008 @ 7:24 pm PT...





I am always amazed at the juvenile hooray for our side mentality! Pull your head out of your butt and take a deep breath of fresh air! Now say out loud both Republicans and Democrats cheat on elections! That wasn't so bad was it?! Both parties are in bed with each other to turn America into a police state. And, at the same time they are turning each of us against the other! You know what's really sad? You! Your sorry ass is the guilty party to this Orwellan nightmare. Why? Because all you do is talk talk talk, like I am at the moment. Men grab your gonads and women kick them out the door and demand they restore our liberties. Ladies remind the boys they ain't getting lucky until they bring home the bacon....or don't bother coming home. No more talk....guys. Do you remember the Spartans? They didn't talk much now did they?!

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Bluebear2 said on 1/23/2008 @ 7:37 pm PT...





GaryCol #23 The sad truth indeed!

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... the_zapkitty said on 1/23/2008 @ 8:24 pm PT...





Ain't it funny how the current sexist drumbeat goes on and on and on whenever matters of personal courage are discussed ? "GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR! GROW A PAIR!..." ... anyone else see some problems with this?

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 1/23/2008 @ 8:41 pm PT...

