(Side note: where are all the conservatives? I need some back up here!) Actually Nem, Bush gets up at 5 and goes to bed at 10. Source: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471420069/qid=1051623815/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-9736414-1858510?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Leadership Genius of GWB</a>. I don't have the page since I returned it to the library.
Second, Salon is a liberal publication. That doesn't mean that it should be discounted, but its imporatant to know which way a source leans. As (I forget who) pointed out, 10% of ballots cast in 2000 were disquallfied. As for the Saddam picture, the US is not perfect. We support the better people during the cold war, and Iraq was better than Iran at the time. The US isn't a utopia capable of always doing the morally right thing. Your other source, 'progress.org' is also a bastion of fair and balanced news, with such headlines as "Does Being the World's Only Superpower Cost Anything? In its <i>lust for militarism</i>, the US government has badly <b>fumbled its relations with European nations</b>. What might be some results of that policy?" I've added the emphasis. A year and half of building a case for war is lust? Its the US' fault that France tried to protect its secret tis with Iraq?... Fair and Balanced!
Call me naive if you want (chorus of 'Naive!'s begin) but the 'proof' of Bush's foul deeds in Florida results in a conflict of interest. (Company that made purge software had 'ties' to Republicans meaning, and Bush is a Republican so the software was designed to prevent people who would vote against Bush off the software but those who would vote 'for' were allowed in). It seems a little far fetched.
This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. It seems to be people political leanings causes them to want to beleive certain things. Bush is my guy, so I want to beleive the good stuff. Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.
There are always 3 versions of the truth. My version, your version, and the real version that no one knows.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited April 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the Saddam picture, the US is not perfect. We support the better people during the cold war, and Iraq was better than Iran at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Iraq was not the "better" country while we were supporting it. The vast majority of Saddam's atrocities(the ones we supposedly attacked him for) were commited while we were openly giving him arms and money. Iraq was not the "better" choice, merely the more convenient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. It seems to be people political leanings causes them to want to beleive certain things. Bush is my guy, so I want to beleive the good stuff. Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard this many times before, and it always seems like a cop-out argument to me. It fails because it assumes that when we were born we just kinda popped out as either a liberal or a conservative and that was the end of it. It also conveniently disregards any proof either way, in favor of broad generalizations about people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Call me naive if you want (chorus of 'Naive!'s begin) but the 'proof' of Bush's foul deeds in Florida results in a conflict of interest. (Company that made purge software had 'ties' to Republicans meaning, and Bush is a Republican so the software was designed to prevent people who would vote against Bush off the software but those who would vote 'for' were allowed in). It seems a little far fetched.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This whole paragraph(and most of Jammer's comments on the subject thus far) basically boils down to "I refuse to believe it, therefore it isn't true"
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Side note: where are all the conservatives? I need some back up here!) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't blame me because you asked a loaded question! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've got plenty of counters for the points that have been posted here, I just don't feel like wasting my time. Another day maybe, but not today.
I guess I'll add this though: Is it more important to have a superficially acceptable leader or is it more important for a leader to take action and measure the results (wether you agree with them or not)?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited April 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Apr 29 2003, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Apr 29 2003, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess I'll add this though: Is it more important to have a superficially acceptable leader or is it more important for a leader to take action and measure the results (wether you agree with them or not)? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The superficially accepted one, of course, and I think the world agrees with me. Look at Saddam. He was not the "superficially accepted" leader according to the rest of the world, but he certainly took action. Do we look upon him favorably? The same comparison can be drawn for The Bolsheviks, or Mussolini.
[edit]Why do I get the feeling that was merely bait in a subtle literary(right word?) trap?[/edit]
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Apr 29 2003, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Apr 29 2003, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]Why do I get the feeling that was merely bait in a subtle literary(right word?) trap?[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good eye <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll give you a hint:
<b>Superficial</b>
1 a (1) : of or relating to a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> b British, of a unit of measure : SQUARE <superficial foot> 2 a : concerned only with the obvious or apparent : SHALLOW b : lying on the surface : EXTERNAL c : presenting only an appearance without substance or significance
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited April 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Apr 29 2003, 09:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Apr 29 2003, 09:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Apr 29 2003, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Apr 29 2003, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]Why do I get the feeling that was merely bait in a subtle literary(right word?) trap?[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good eye <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll give you a hint:
<b>Superficial</b>
1 a (1) : of or relating to a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> b British, of a unit of measure : SQUARE <superficial foot> 2 a : concerned only with the obvious or apparent : SHALLOW b : lying on the surface : EXTERNAL c : presenting only an appearance without substance or significance <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By this I assume you mean Gore if he had become Pres(or else I am missing the point completely in which case I would ask you to clear things up for me). I'm not sure how this changes any of what I said, as it is still all true. None of those leaders were acceptable at all, superficially or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Call me naive if you want (chorus of 'Naive!'s begin) but the 'proof' of Bush's foul deeds in Florida results in a conflict of interest. (Company that made purge software had 'ties' to Republicans meaning, and Bush is a Republican so the software was designed to prevent people who would vote against Bush off the software but those who would vote 'for' were allowed in). It seems a little far fetched.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, perhaps this is some new usage of the phrase that I'm not familiar with, but how is that a conflict of interest? It seems like a dead-on intersection of interest to me.
Now, as far as the finger quotes you put around Republican 'ties', indicating that you do not believe that they are there. Salon (yes, the liberal rag) gets very specific:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, if you still do not accept these as legitimate 'ties', then I'd like to see <i>your</i> sources.
And heck, if Salon isn't legit enough for your purposes, then just read the U.S. Civil Rights Commision's report that I linked. If you can chalk it all up to happy coincidence, even considering that an accidental mechanism to keep minorities from the voting booths was <i>mighty</i> advantageous for the repubs (which the statistics demonstrated well ahead of the elections), and that we're talking about a state where the governor was the cantidate's <i>brother</i> . . . well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
But you still win the 'Hypocricy of the Year' award:
You slammed the info in my initial thread, saying that it must have come from a crazy, left wing blog . . . you then criticized my use of Salon as a reference because it was 'liberal' . . . and <i>then</i> you cite a book called 'The Leadership Genius of GWB' to support one of your claims?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually Nem, Bush gets up at 5 and goes to bed at 10. Source: Leadership Genius of GWB. I don't have the page since I returned it to the library.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I stand corrected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. [...] Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means, in short, that whatever is reported, you'll not believe, no, not even <i>consider</i> unless it fits your previous notions. In that case, tell me why you clicked on the 'Discussion' forum in the first place.
I for mine am trying to understand how other notions are formed (and thus reconfigure my own notion) in here. By blanketing whole newssources as 'left/right leaning' and thus inacceptable (interesting to note, I googled for the links in my previous post and used those the highest in the list...), one just doesn't accept the other discussing parties opinion, which neglects the whole point of a discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you got the answer - the most questionable election in recent history, a political curse that can only be described as 'unique', arguable intellectual abilities, and a staff that consists of corporate sleep-ins, fundamentalists, and war criminals (Is selling WMD to people who've commited ethinc cleansings illegal? I think so.). It adds up.
[off-topic]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the Saddam picture, the US is not perfect. We support the better people during the cold war, and Iraq was better than Iran at the time. The US isn't a utopia capable of always doing the morally right thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard this 'pragmatism' speech once too often by now. This man was a known killer. A murderer. 'As bad as Hitler.' One should think that supplying him with Anthrax wasn't exactely necessary to resolve the conflict with Iran, was it? [/off-topic]
It doesn't help your position to slap labels on everyone who disagrees with your point of view either.
Just to set you straight, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I am not left wing, or right wing. I am not a democrat or a republican. To anchor yourself to one extreme, in any direction, is a sad and sheepish thing to do. I cannot understand the motive of someone who posts a deliberately loaded question and then attacks everyone's opinion based solely on his own conservative stance. You asked the question, and people have given you answers, opinions, and even presented factual, cited information, and all you have done is decry their arguments based on what you <i>think</i> their political positions are.
I wouldn't ask for backup from your fellow conservatives, because even they are capable of recognizing a bad argument when they see it.
I hate you guys. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Relic25+Apr 29 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Relic25 @ Apr 29 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldn't ask for backup from your fellow conservatives, because even they are capable of recognizing a bad argument when they see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm a Conservative, a card carrying one at that, and I see a bad arguement.
All I can say is that whilst George W. Bush may be a good leader (although I disagree with pretty much all of his foreign policy), he lacks that certain statesman-like quality that inspires trust and confidence that other presidents have had.
[Off-Topic] Note the capital C in Conservative, albeit closer to the left (Just to the right of New Labour and to the left of those who want to decentralise power) of the party than the right, - I am a member of the <a href='http://www.conservatives.com/' target='_blank'>Conservative Party</a> and even though I'm not an American citizen I do donate money to the <a href='http://www.democrats.org/' target='_blank'>Democratic Party</a>
This is besides the point but I'd like you all to see where I am coming from [/Off-Topic]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Constance Milstein, a platinum-card Democrat, flew into Milwaukee a few days before the election to help Gore-Lieberman workers trade packs of cigarettes for votes at a homeless shelter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We call it "smokes for votes,' ” said Wisconsin state Rep. Scott Walker, chair man of the Bush campaign in Milwaukee. “We have videotape and a log by the security officer at the homeless shelter. He asked them to leave because the homeless people were complaining about Gore-Lieberman workers asking them to vote for cigarettes.” <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
• “Marquette University students were seen taking 10 or more ballots at a time.” A survey of 1,000 students by the campus Marquette Tribune found 174 who said they voted more than once. “Students said that identification was rarely checked . . . (and) they picked up extra ballots or were handed multiple ballots and voted on all of them.”
• “Poll workers told a voter to "vote Democrat.' ”
• “A poll worker at the door was reported saying, "If you're voting for Bush, you might as well leave.' ”
• After one student told ABC News he voted four times, Marquette President Robert Wild was “shocked, disappointed and frankly angered.” A news story pointed out that voter fraud can get you 4 1/4-years in prison and a $1,000 fine. The student quickly retracted his story. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In Arkansas, Democrats said a former staffer hired two teenagers to recruit voters, but then used a phone book to register hundreds of unwary residents, including dead people and businesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 25 South Dakota counties, state and federal officials are investigating suspected voter fraud and believe one Democratic operative is linked to 1,750 applications for absentee ballots. Becky Red Earth-Villeda was fired by the Democratic Party after the charges surfaced. "A dead woman signed up twice to vote in two different counties — very active this woman," said Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for Republican Rep. John Thune, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->•A Louisiana parish (county) councilman is under investigation in a suspected vote-buying scheme and three other elected officials may be linked, Baton Rouge's the Advocate reported. •FBI agents seized voter records from Nye County, Nev., offices to investigate suspected voter fraud. •Two Republicans in California have been sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty to voter fraud for forging signatures, the Los Angeles Times reported. •Iowa residents are receiving absentee ballots unsolicited in the mail. •A Connecticut state representative who lost the Democratic primary last month was placed under investigation for supposedly helping seniors fill out absentee ballots in violation of state law, the Hartford Courant reported. •The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is examining suspected voter fraud in a Democratic race for Adair County commissioner. •Three Arizona county officials have been indicted on charges of election fraud and helping illegal aliens to vote. •In Rhode Island, Providence police are investigating a complaint by a senior citizen who said she was forced to turn over her ballot at a home for the elderly. •In Texas, 16,000 dead or ineligible voters remain on the voting rolls, "creating an environment that is ripe for fraud and abuse," said Ted Royer, spokesman for the Texas Republican Party. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But since Republicans eat babies I guess voter fraud is ok.
Complaining about lessonning fraud then in Wisconsin taking hobos, felons and illgeal imigrants to the polls is something I would exspect from the party that invented gerrymandering. In Wisconsin, you can just show up at the polls on election day and vote without being registered by saying that you have just moved into the precinct. In Democratic precincts in Texas there was a 125 percent voter turn out. About 200 known cases of people voting both in Florida and New York. About 500 known cases of felons voting in Florida in a couple counties, with statewide projections around 5000. Im not supprised the Republicans wanted a clean ballot. I am suprised that a few people didn't get to vote.
If all this is not true then why do the democrats oppose stoping voter fraud so badly?
Once again, I see the theory of relative dirt in action - because those you try to defend can't be defended, you throw light on the faults of those you believe the opposing party in the discussion tries to defend. Apart from the fact that this is an incredibly weak argumentation strategy, I'll share a secret with you: Most of us on the other side of the barricades loathe the Democrats as much as the Republicans. Try something different.
Because the argument on voter fraud is that the Republicans were trying to clean up ballots by stoping felons which also unfortunatly got alot of people who had commited misdomenors. I am trying to show that was justfiable even if some people that didn't get to vote because look at all the voter fraud that is going on.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 29 2003, 11:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 29 2003, 11:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So... Because one side starts a fraud, the other has the right to do the same? Come out of that sand box. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No they tried to stop it. Its just unfortunate that some people could not vote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are more states then Florida.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep . . it's a problem on both sides of the line in (I'd wager) every state. The only thing is that in Florida, we're not talking hundreds or even thousands of votes-- we're talking tens of thousands of potential votes lost.
And personally, while I find voter fraud troubling to begin with, I'm less bothered with bribing someone to use their legal vote to help your cause than I am with robbing someone of their legal vote to help your cause. Not that I condone either.
Additionally, it's the nature and rank of the people involved in the Florida scam, as well as the scope. These aren't people (supposedly) in one of the campaign offices-- these are the elected state leaders who are (allegedly) manipulating the system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Republicans were trying to clean up ballots by stoping felons which also unfortunatly got alot of people who had commited misdomenors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately or intentionally?
I mean, isn't it a little suspect that the state of TEXAS got the ball rolling by REQUESTING that they incorrectly pull 8,000 people off of their rolls? That either makes Texas corrupt or supremely incompetent. Your call.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No they tried to stop it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't 'stop' fraud by excluding demographics from an election. Give it up. Both sides cheated. All this tells me is that the election should be redone from scratch, as it should've happened by the time the first irregularities showed up.
You can't 'stop' fraud by excluding demographics from an election. Give it up. Both sides cheated. All this tells me is that the election should be redone from scratch, as it should've happened by the time the first irregularities showed up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its been that way since the 1800s you can have 1,000 reelections there will always be fraud. You can minimize it though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean, isn't it a little suspect that the state of TEXAS got the ball rolling by REQUESTING that they incorrectly pull 8,000 people off of their rolls? That either makes Texas corrupt or supremely incompetent. Your call. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then all you have is speculations and I suspect if a couple thousand votes are kids voting 10 times and the undead rising I suspect it happeneds other places also.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then all you have is speculations and I suspect if a couple thousand votes are kids voting 10 times and the undead rising I suspect it happeneds other places also. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is quite ludicrous logic. Sources at ChoicePoint DBT pointed to Texas as the source of the 8,000 incorrect 'felons' that were purged from the Florida voter rolls (this is separate from those scrubbed due to matches-- the criteria of which included race but not SSN, btw-- with felons from other states). This is documented fact.
Therefore, the only speculation in this case is-- as I said-- whether the state of Texas was acting out of corruption or incompetence.
Edit: Or, alternately, ChoicePoint DBT could be lying. But then that hardly helps Jeb Bush's cause here . . .
Follow me? All speculation concerns their <i>motivation</i>, and not whether or not the act occurred-- So unfortunately, your hyperbolic 'suspicions' of children voting 10x or the undead rising bear little relevance as an argument here, unless you can provide some sort of documtentation that either event occurred in the first place.
Havent people always hated whoever the President of the United States is?
I mean seriously, can anyone tell me a President that never made any mistakes, went back on their word, offended certain lobbyists and had people protest their actions persistantly?
There is no such thing as a perfect President, or a perfect person for that matter. I never really get why people argue about how President <i>X</i> sucks because of <i>X</i> and <i>Y</i>, instead of complaining about a President it would be much much more influencial and beneficial to get out there and do something.
I don't think of myself as conservative so much as a person who likes to make their own choices. Yet, I do agree with many conservative ideas. I also disagree with some of them (the DMCA, some parts of the Patriot Act, and of course that whole "videogames are bad for kids" thing!).
On another note.... Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him in a flash, its NOT going to influence Bush in any way shape or form, its NOT going to help your fellow countrymen, its NOT going to change anything except my perception that you have no idea what the definition of "Discussion" is!
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Apr 29 2003, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Side note: where are all the conservatives? I need some back up here!) Actually Nem, Bush gets up at 5 and goes to bed at 10. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> the fact remains that Bush has spent more days on vacation than any other president ever has
<!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Apr 29 2003, 09:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Apr 29 2003, 09:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Havent people always hated whoever the President of the United States is ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 3 friggin times. Explain how the People could have hated him...
oh , and Bush is considered a Benny surrounded with corrupt ministers , mostly anywhere outside the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is not the intelligence of Bush , it's his actions. After all many have somewhat dumb leaders , but power makes them nastier. Bush executed more innocent people in Texas than anywhere else in the States... hence "Bush the Butcher". Bush is literally hijacking public money using various means. Soon you will regret thoses "tax cuts" ... Bush has a "bull in a china shop" behavior as a poor excuse for a foreign policy. And it's only beginning... I'm quite afraid of the future , much more than after he was "elected" in 2000...
Well , since it's a french point of view it's not remotely as valid as a american one by the way...
For one he seems far too eager to send my men and me out to die in some foreign country, and two, he's barely done anything about the domestic situation.
<!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Apr 29 2003, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Apr 29 2003, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Apr 29 2003, 09:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Apr 29 2003, 09:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Havent people always hated whoever the President of the United States is ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 3 friggin times. Explain how the People could have hated him...
oh , and Bush is considered a Benny surrounded with corrupt ministers , mostly anywhere outside the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is not the intelligence of Bush , it's his actions. After all many have somewhat dumb leaders , but power makes them nastier. Bush executed more innocent people in Texas than anywhere else in the States... hence "Bush the Butcher". Bush is literally hijacking public money using various means. Soon you will regret thoses "tax cuts" ... Bush has a "bull in a china shop" behavior as a poor excuse for a foreign policy. And it's only beginning... I'm quite afraid of the future , much more than after he was "elected" in 2000...
Well , since it's a french point of view it's not remotely as valid as a american one by the way... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, FDR was elected four times, but didn't live very long into his fourth term before Polio claimed his life. He also won by one of the greatest voting landslides in election history.
Comments
Actually Nem, Bush gets up at 5 and goes to bed at 10. Source: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471420069/qid=1051623815/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-9736414-1858510?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Leadership Genius of GWB</a>. I don't have the page since I returned it to the library.
Second, Salon is a liberal publication. That doesn't mean that it should be discounted, but its imporatant to know which way a source leans. As (I forget who) pointed out, 10% of ballots cast in 2000 were disquallfied. As for the Saddam picture, the US is not perfect. We support the better people during the cold war, and Iraq was better than Iran at the time. The US isn't a utopia capable of always doing the morally right thing. Your other source, 'progress.org' is also a bastion of fair and balanced news, with such headlines as "Does Being the World's Only Superpower Cost Anything? In its <i>lust for militarism</i>, the US government has badly <b>fumbled its relations with European nations</b>. What might be some results of that policy?" I've added the emphasis. A year and half of building a case for war is lust? Its the US' fault that France tried to protect its secret tis with Iraq?... Fair and Balanced!
Call me naive if you want (chorus of 'Naive!'s begin) but the 'proof' of Bush's foul deeds in Florida results in a conflict of interest. (Company that made purge software had 'ties' to Republicans meaning, and Bush is a Republican so the software was designed to prevent people who would vote against Bush off the software but those who would vote 'for' were allowed in). It seems a little far fetched.
This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. It seems to be people political leanings causes them to want to beleive certain things. Bush is my guy, so I want to beleive the good stuff. Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.
There are always 3 versions of the truth. My version, your version, and the real version that no one knows.
Iraq was not the "better" country while we were supporting it. The vast majority of Saddam's atrocities(the ones we supposedly attacked him for) were commited while we were openly giving him arms and money. Iraq was not the "better" choice, merely the more convenient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. It seems to be people political leanings causes them to want to beleive certain things. Bush is my guy, so I want to beleive the good stuff. Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard this many times before, and it always seems like a cop-out argument to me. It fails because it assumes that when we were born we just kinda popped out as either a liberal or a conservative and that was the end of it. It also conveniently disregards any proof either way, in favor of broad generalizations about people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Call me naive if you want (chorus of 'Naive!'s begin) but the 'proof' of Bush's foul deeds in Florida results in a conflict of interest. (Company that made purge software had 'ties' to Republicans meaning, and Bush is a Republican so the software was designed to prevent people who would vote against Bush off the software but those who would vote 'for' were allowed in). It seems a little far fetched.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This whole paragraph(and most of Jammer's comments on the subject thus far) basically boils down to "I refuse to believe it, therefore it isn't true"
Don't blame me because you asked a loaded question! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've got plenty of counters for the points that have been posted here, I just don't feel like wasting my time. Another day maybe, but not today.
I guess I'll add this though: Is it more important to have a superficially acceptable leader or is it more important for a leader to take action and measure the results (wether you agree with them or not)?
The superficially accepted one, of course, and I think the world agrees with me. Look at Saddam. He was not the "superficially accepted" leader according to the rest of the world, but he certainly took action. Do we look upon him favorably? The same comparison can be drawn for The Bolsheviks, or Mussolini.
[edit]Why do I get the feeling that was merely bait in a subtle literary(right word?) trap?[/edit]
Good eye <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll give you a hint:
<b>Superficial</b>
1 a (1) : of or relating to a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> b British, of a unit of measure : SQUARE <superficial foot>
2 a : concerned only with the obvious or apparent : SHALLOW b : lying on the surface : EXTERNAL c : presenting only an appearance without substance or significance
Good eye <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll give you a hint:
<b>Superficial</b>
1 a (1) : of or relating to a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> b British, of a unit of measure : SQUARE <superficial foot>
2 a : concerned only with the obvious or apparent : SHALLOW b : lying on the surface : EXTERNAL c : presenting only an appearance without substance or significance <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this I assume you mean Gore if he had become Pres(or else I am missing the point completely in which case I would ask you to clear things up for me). I'm not sure how this changes any of what I said, as it is still all true. None of those leaders were acceptable at all, superficially or not.
Er, perhaps this is some new usage of the phrase that I'm not familiar with, but how is that a conflict of interest? It seems like a dead-on intersection of interest to me.
Now, as far as the finger quotes you put around Republican 'ties', indicating that you do not believe that they are there. Salon (yes, the liberal rag) gets very specific:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, if you still do not accept these as legitimate 'ties', then I'd like to see <i>your</i> sources.
And heck, if Salon isn't legit enough for your purposes, then just read the U.S. Civil Rights Commision's report that I linked. If you can chalk it all up to happy coincidence, even considering that an accidental mechanism to keep minorities from the voting booths was <i>mighty</i> advantageous for the repubs (which the statistics demonstrated well ahead of the elections), and that we're talking about a state where the governor was the cantidate's <i>brother</i> . . . well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
But you still win the 'Hypocricy of the Year' award:
You slammed the info in my initial thread, saying that it must have come from a crazy, left wing blog . . . you then criticized my use of Salon as a reference because it was 'liberal' . . . and <i>then</i> you cite a book called 'The Leadership Genius of GWB' to support one of your claims?
Ok, that's laugh out loud funny.
I stand corrected.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just proving, as I've said all along, that your appraisial of Bush's character leads you to your version of the truth. I think Bush is a good guy. I'm naturally going to trust favorable news. If you don't like him, you're gonig to beleive news that reflects poorly on him. [...] Nem is more liberal (well, and from Germany...) so he'll probably be more predisposed to beleive the negative news.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means, in short, that whatever is reported, you'll not believe, no, not even <i>consider</i> unless it fits your previous notions. In that case, tell me why you clicked on the 'Discussion' forum in the first place.
I for mine am trying to understand how other notions are formed (and thus reconfigure my own notion) in here. By blanketing whole newssources as 'left/right leaning' and thus inacceptable (interesting to note, I googled for the links in my previous post and used those the highest in the list...), one just doesn't accept the other discussing parties opinion, which neglects the whole point of a discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This discussion was intended to be about what intially causes the perception of Bush as a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you got the answer - the most questionable election in recent history, a political curse that can only be described as 'unique', arguable intellectual abilities, and a staff that consists of corporate sleep-ins, fundamentalists, and war criminals (Is selling WMD to people who've commited ethinc cleansings illegal? I think so.). It adds up.
[off-topic]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the Saddam picture, the US is not perfect. We support the better people during the cold war, and Iraq was better than Iran at the time. The US isn't a utopia capable of always doing the morally right thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard this 'pragmatism' speech once too often by now. This man was a known killer. A murderer. 'As bad as Hitler.' One should think that supplying him with Anthrax wasn't exactely necessary to resolve the conflict with Iran, was it? [/off-topic]
Just to set you straight, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I am not left wing, or right wing. I am not a democrat or a republican. To anchor yourself to one extreme, in any direction, is a sad and sheepish thing to do. I cannot understand the motive of someone who posts a deliberately loaded question and then attacks everyone's opinion based solely on his own conservative stance. You asked the question, and people have given you answers, opinions, and even presented factual, cited information, and all you have done is decry their arguments based on what you <i>think</i> their political positions are.
I wouldn't ask for backup from your fellow conservatives, because even they are capable of recognizing a bad argument when they see it.
I surrender! I'm French!
I'm a Conservative, a card carrying one at that, and I see a bad arguement.
All I can say is that whilst George W. Bush may be a good leader (although I disagree with pretty much all of his foreign policy), he lacks that certain statesman-like quality that inspires trust and confidence that other presidents have had.
[Off-Topic] Note the capital C in Conservative, albeit closer to the left (Just to the right of New Labour and to the left of those who want to decentralise power) of the party than the right, - I am a member of the <a href='http://www.conservatives.com/' target='_blank'>Conservative Party</a> and even though I'm not an American citizen I do donate money to the <a href='http://www.democrats.org/' target='_blank'>Democratic Party</a>
This is besides the point but I'd like you all to see where I am coming from [/Off-Topic]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Constance Milstein, a platinum-card Democrat, flew into Milwaukee a few days before the election to help Gore-Lieberman workers trade packs of cigarettes for votes at a homeless shelter.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We call it "smokes for votes,' ” said Wisconsin state Rep. Scott Walker, chair
man of the Bush campaign in Milwaukee. “We have videotape and a log by the security officer at the homeless shelter. He asked them to leave because the homeless people were complaining about Gore-Lieberman workers asking them to vote for cigarettes.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
• “Marquette University students were seen taking 10 or more ballots at a time.” A survey of 1,000 students by the campus Marquette Tribune found 174 who said they voted more than once. “Students said that identification was rarely checked . . . (and) they picked up extra ballots or were handed multiple ballots and voted on all of them.”
• “Poll workers told a voter to "vote Democrat.' ”
• “A poll worker at the door was reported saying, "If you're voting for Bush, you might as well leave.' ”
• After one student told ABC News he voted four times, Marquette President Robert Wild was “shocked, disappointed and frankly angered.” A news story pointed out that voter fraud can get you 4 1/4-years in prison and a $1,000 fine. The student quickly retracted his story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/12/10/loc_bronson_marlboros.html' target='_blank'>Cincinnati Enquirer</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In Arkansas, Democrats said a former staffer hired two teenagers to recruit voters, but then used a phone book to register hundreds of unwary residents, including dead people and businesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 25 South Dakota counties, state and federal officials are investigating suspected voter fraud and believe one Democratic operative is linked to 1,750 applications for absentee ballots. Becky Red Earth-Villeda was fired by the Democratic Party after the charges surfaced.
"A dead woman signed up twice to vote in two different counties — very active this woman," said Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for Republican Rep. John Thune, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->•A Louisiana parish (county) councilman is under investigation in a suspected vote-buying scheme and three other elected officials may be linked, Baton Rouge's the Advocate reported.
•FBI agents seized voter records from Nye County, Nev., offices to investigate suspected voter fraud.
•Two Republicans in California have been sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty to voter fraud for forging signatures, the Los Angeles Times reported.
•Iowa residents are receiving absentee ballots unsolicited in the mail.
•A Connecticut state representative who lost the Democratic primary last month was placed under investigation for supposedly helping seniors fill out absentee ballots in violation of state law, the Hartford Courant reported.
•The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is examining suspected voter fraud in a Democratic race for Adair County commissioner.
•Three Arizona county officials have been indicted on charges of election fraud and helping illegal aliens to vote.
•In Rhode Island, Providence police are investigating a complaint by a senior citizen who said she was forced to turn over her ballot at a home for the elderly.
•In Texas, 16,000 dead or ineligible voters remain on the voting rolls, "creating an environment that is ripe for fraud and abuse," said Ted Royer, spokesman for the Texas Republican Party.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021031-30356402.htm' target='_blank'>Washington Times</a>
But since Republicans eat babies I guess voter fraud is ok.
Complaining about lessonning fraud then in Wisconsin taking hobos, felons and illgeal imigrants to the polls is something I would exspect from the party that invented gerrymandering. In Wisconsin, you can just show up at the polls on election day and vote without being registered by saying that you have just moved into the precinct. In Democratic precincts in Texas there was a 125 percent voter turn out. About 200 known cases of people voting both in Florida and New York. About 500 known cases of felons voting in Florida in a couple counties, with statewide projections around 5000. Im not supprised the Republicans wanted a clean ballot. I am suprised that a few people didn't get to vote.
If all this is not true then why do the democrats oppose stoping voter fraud so badly?
Apart from the fact that this is an incredibly weak argumentation strategy, I'll share a secret with you: Most of us on the other side of the barricades loathe the Democrats as much as the Republicans. Try something different.
No they tried to stop it. Its just unfortunate that some people could not vote.
Yep . . it's a problem on both sides of the line in (I'd wager) every state. The only thing is that in Florida, we're not talking hundreds or even thousands of votes-- we're talking tens of thousands of potential votes lost.
And personally, while I find voter fraud troubling to begin with, I'm less bothered with bribing someone to use their legal vote to help your cause than I am with robbing someone of their legal vote to help your cause. Not that I condone either.
Additionally, it's the nature and rank of the people involved in the Florida scam, as well as the scope. These aren't people (supposedly) in one of the campaign offices-- these are the elected state leaders who are (allegedly) manipulating the system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Republicans were trying to clean up ballots by stoping felons which also unfortunatly got alot of people who had commited misdomenors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately or intentionally?
I mean, isn't it a little suspect that the state of TEXAS got the ball rolling by REQUESTING that they incorrectly pull 8,000 people off of their rolls? That either makes Texas corrupt or supremely incompetent. Your call.
You can't 'stop' fraud by excluding demographics from an election.
Give it up. Both sides cheated. All this tells me is that the election should be redone from scratch, as it should've happened by the time the first irregularities showed up.
So count me in.
You can't 'stop' fraud by excluding demographics from an election.
Give it up. Both sides cheated. All this tells me is that the election should be redone from scratch, as it should've happened by the time the first irregularities showed up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its been that way since the 1800s you can have 1,000 reelections there will always be fraud. You can minimize it though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean, isn't it a little suspect that the state of TEXAS got the ball rolling by REQUESTING that they incorrectly pull 8,000 people off of their rolls? That either makes Texas corrupt or supremely incompetent. Your call.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then all you have is speculations and I suspect if a couple thousand votes are kids voting 10 times and the undead rising I suspect it happeneds other places also.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is quite ludicrous logic. Sources at ChoicePoint DBT pointed to Texas as the source of the 8,000 incorrect 'felons' that were purged from the Florida voter rolls (this is separate from those scrubbed due to matches-- the criteria of which included race but not SSN, btw-- with felons from other states). This is documented fact.
Therefore, the only speculation in this case is-- as I said-- whether the state of Texas was acting out of corruption or incompetence.
Edit: Or, alternately, ChoicePoint DBT could be lying. But then that hardly helps Jeb Bush's cause here . . .
Follow me? All speculation concerns their <i>motivation</i>, and not whether or not the act occurred-- So unfortunately, your hyperbolic 'suspicions' of children voting 10x or the undead rising bear little relevance as an argument here, unless you can provide some sort of documtentation that either event occurred in the first place.
I mean seriously, can anyone tell me a President that never made any mistakes, went back on their word, offended certain lobbyists and had people protest their actions persistantly?
There is no such thing as a perfect President, or a perfect person for that matter. I never really get why people argue about how President <i>X</i> sucks because of <i>X</i> and <i>Y</i>, instead of complaining about a President it would be much much more influencial and beneficial to get out there and do something.
I don't think of myself as conservative so much as a person who likes to make their own choices. Yet, I do agree with many conservative ideas. I also disagree with some of them (the DMCA, some parts of the Patriot Act, and of course that whole "videogames are bad for kids" thing!).
On another note....
Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him in a flash, its NOT going to influence Bush in any way shape or form, its NOT going to help your fellow countrymen, its NOT going to change anything except my perception that you have no idea what the definition of "Discussion" is!
Actually Nem, Bush gets up at 5 and goes to bed at 10. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the fact remains that Bush has spent more days on vacation than any other president ever has
Well , Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 3 friggin times. Explain how the People could have hated him...
oh , and Bush is considered a Benny surrounded with corrupt ministers , mostly anywhere outside the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is not the intelligence of Bush , it's his actions. After all many have somewhat dumb leaders , but power makes them nastier.
Bush executed more innocent people in Texas than anywhere else in the States... hence "Bush the Butcher".
Bush is literally hijacking public money using various means. Soon you will regret thoses "tax cuts" ...
Bush has a "bull in a china shop" behavior as a poor excuse for a foreign policy. And it's only beginning... I'm quite afraid of the future , much more than after he was "elected" in 2000...
Well , since it's a french point of view it's not remotely as valid as a american one by the way...
When asked in a 1999 poll what his favorite childhood book was, Dubya chose <i>The Very Hungry Caterpillar</i>.
<i>The Very Hungry Caterpillar</i> was not published until he was in college.
So the question is: was Dubya just making stuff up, or was he still "reading" picture books while he was studying (cough cough ahem guffaw) at Yale?
He doesnt do anything to raise the tone of your country on the interntational stage. He reflects poorly on all Americans.
Well , Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 3 friggin times. Explain how the People could have hated him...
oh , and Bush is considered a Benny surrounded with corrupt ministers , mostly anywhere outside the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying "Bush is a moron because...." is NOT going to change anyone's opinion of him <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is not the intelligence of Bush , it's his actions. After all many have somewhat dumb leaders , but power makes them nastier.
Bush executed more innocent people in Texas than anywhere else in the States... hence "Bush the Butcher".
Bush is literally hijacking public money using various means. Soon you will regret thoses "tax cuts" ...
Bush has a "bull in a china shop" behavior as a poor excuse for a foreign policy. And it's only beginning... I'm quite afraid of the future , much more than after he was "elected" in 2000...
Well , since it's a french point of view it's not remotely as valid as a american one by the way... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, FDR was elected four times, but didn't live very long into his fourth term before Polio claimed his life. He also won by one of the greatest voting landslides in election history.