<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Feb 2 2005, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Feb 2 2005, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> funny how "conservatives" make up a "small group with similar ideologies", while "liberals" make up "the rest of the world" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Conservatives are just as, if not more broad, then liberals. If you think all conservatives think alike and all follow the same ideology then you are gravely mistaken.
First off we are clearly not a "small" group as this last election has proved, but that brings up the point that Bush and his cohort are not even considered conservatives but neo-conservatives.
I myself am I pro-choice conservative, which certainly does not fall under the mainstream however many top republican leaders are as well. (McCain, Giuliani) This alone can get you ostracized from many conservative groups not to mention your personal stance on **** marriage and other moral issues.
Then again you could just have been sarcastic with your statement but just thought I would clarify.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 2 2005, 11:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 2 2005, 11:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Feb 2 2005, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Feb 2 2005, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> funny how "conservatives" make up a "small group with similar ideologies", while "liberals" make up "the rest of the world" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Conservatives are just as, if not more broad, then liberals. If you think all conservatives think alike and all follow the same ideology then you are gravely mistaken.
First off we are clearly not a "small" group as this last election has proved, but that brings up the point that Bush and his cohort are not even considered conservatives but neo-conservatives.
I myself am I pro-choice conservative, which certainly does not fall under the mainstream however many top republican leaders are as well. (McCain, Giuliani) This alone can get you ostracized from many conservative groups not to mention your personal stance on **** marriage and other moral issues.
Then again you could just have been sarcastic with your statement but just thought I would clarify.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The conservative ideology is <i>comparatively</i> small - I apologize for being unclear.
I don't have a precise statistic but consider this - in terms of elected officials in this country, the Green Party vastly outnumbers all else [this obviously included - and is mostly made of - state and town positions]. Yet it is obvious that the Green Party is no contender for the presidency.
I consider myself a liberal. However I will never get into politics because it's a gory trench of awful minds and animal beliefs. I believe much differently than my most politically-motivated democratic friend; we both believe much differently than my non-partisan liberal-leaning friend.
The election has clearly proven nothing, as only 51 million woted for this man (in more simple terms, by the raw numbers one in six people wanted him as president.) The electoral system is not scientific; a scientific group must include a random sampling that encompasses all viewpoints in America - not only those who were not either:<ul><li>blacklisted</li><li>a student</li><li>anybody not in their home county [yes I know of absentee ballots but you have no idea how difficult it is to secure one]</li><li>in the armed forces</li></ul> The election is not a guage of the dreams of the american people. I will be honest with you right now - I do not personally know a single 'conservative' who did not vote; by the same token the majority of people I know who would consider themseves 'liberal' did not vote. If the world was polled, I can guarantee you that [again, relatively] few support anything that Bush does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election has clearly proven nothing, as only 51 million woted for this man (in more simple terms, by the raw numbers one in six people wanted him as president.) The electoral system is not scientific; a scientific group must include a random sampling that encompasses all viewpoints in America - not only those who were not either:<ul>
</li><li>blacklisted
</li><li>a student
</li><li>anybody not in their home county [yes I know of absentee ballots but you have no idea how difficult it is to secure one]
The election proved everything. Your raw numbers, in addition to being supremely irrelevant, also take into account children, and underages who cannot vote for good reasons. But why the hell mention them? And who cares if its not scientific. Almost every single eligible American voter got their chance to vote - who cares if they dont take it up? If you dont vote, it doesnt mean you didnt want Bush, it meant you decided to leave that decision up to someone else. If I dont actually order the Meatlovers pizza, does that mean I dont want to eat it, so skip it when its delivered for my family? Not at all.
George W. Bush brings out the most emotion, hatred and vitrol from pretty much every liberal I've ever met. I used to have a great quote saved on my computer by a Democrat pollster stating something to the effect of: "We've got more money then they have, we have Bush at a very low job approval rating, he's in the middle of an unpopular war, we have our supporters more motivated than ever before, if we cant win this then we cant win anything." Michael Moore claimed this was going to be the election decided by the couch potato liberals. The potatoes didnt show. If you dont show, then nobody in a democracy gives a damn what you think about Government, as you clearly dont give a damn likewise. Am I the only one here that see that as normal, healthy and in no way detracting on iota from the legitimacy of democracy?
Are you honestly suggesting scientific polls as the best way forward? Care to explain how that little system works? It sounds distinctly communistic - ie, completely divorced from reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is not a guage of the dreams of the american people. I will be honest with you right now - I do not personally know a single 'conservative' who did not vote; by the same token the majority of people I know who would consider themseves 'liberal' did not vote. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats your solution then? Force everyone to vote? They do that here in Australia - and the conservative PM John Howard, hardcore Bush supporter, just got voted in again - <b>with increased majority</b>.
The election is the gauge of the dreams of the only American people that matter - the voters. The rest made their democratic choice to leave it to the voters, so they can shut up and put up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the world was polled, I can guarantee you that [again, relatively] few support anything that Bush does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who gives a flying ****? If the Middle East got polled on "Should the Jews be slaughtered", they'd all be dead tomorrow. If the world got a vote on Reagan, he would have been out on his rear in seconds. If the world got to vote on "homosexuality, yay or nay" - homosexuality would be banned. The world didnt get to vote because its not their bloody country. That doesnt detract from Bush's victory in the slightest. Guess what? The animal kingdom didnt get a vote either - where does that fit in your whole scheme of legitimacy? How would the trees vote? The minerals? All of those carry the same relevance as "how the world would vote".
The election is an <i>approximation</i> of the will of the people-- and lest we forget, Clinton won each of his elections by wider margins than Bush (5% vs <1%; 8% vs 3%).
If 3% is a <i>mandate</i>, then I don't know what to call 8% . . . supreme authority?
(And yes, more people voted for Bush than any other president . . . and more voted against him. And it wasn't that many more than those that voted for Clinton in 1996, population growth, blah blah blah).
3% shouldn't give him the authority to remake the country in his image any more than the 8% gave Clinton. Which is a good thing, in both cases.
Thin ice there BM. Reagan won by rediculous margins like 10, 18%. Sounds like he should be God, and there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with canonisation.
I do think mandate talk is a little silly. Conservatives claim the Democrat President has no mandate, liberals claim the Republican President has no mandate, its been that way since the dawn of time.
As <a href='http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009090.php#009090' target='_blank'>Powerline</a> quoted
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Several of the President’s detractors hastened to suggest that his relatively narrow margin of victory—amounting to 3 percent of the popular vote—should not be taken as a “mandate.” Whether they would have said the same had Bush’s Democratic opponent won by a like amount is doubtful.
The New York Times, for example, has regularly questioned the presence of a mandate in recent elections—but only when the winner has been a Republican. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan bested incumbent President Jimmy Carter by 10 percentage points, the paper’s editors observed that his “mandate,” a word they themselves put in suspicion-arousing quotation marks, had “little policy content,” a position they reiterated four years later when Reagan won reelection over Walter Mondale by a whopping 18 percentage points (a “lonely landslide” and “a personal victory with little precise policy mandate”). Nor could the 8-point victory by Bush’s father over Michael Dukakis “fairly be called a mandate,” asserted the paper in 1988.
Whenever a Democrat has won, by contrast, the Times has perceived things differently. After Bill Clinton’s first victory (by 6 percentage points) in 1992, the editors commented: “The test now will be how quickly President-elect Clinton can convert his mandate into momentum.” When he won reelection (by 8 points) in 1996, it repeated the thought—“There can be no question about his mandate”—and added a little civics lesson: “The American people express their clearest opinion about what they want government to do through their choice of chief executive.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a fiercely contested election, GWB didnt just won, he increased his majority. Sounds pretty positive to me.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3% shouldn't give him the authority to remake the country in his image any more than the 8% gave Clinton. Which is a good thing, in both cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, but I dont think any man should do that. I do think they should persue the platforms they were elected on, and I dont think GWB made any secret of what he was after this time around.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Feb 3 2005, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Feb 3 2005, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was a fiercely contested election, GWB didnt just won, he increased his majority. Sounds pretty positive to me..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "Increased", or "finally got the . . "?
Anecdotally, of all the people I know who voted in this election, <i>one person</i> (and it wasn't me) was actually excited about his candidate (A rabid Kerry supporter). Everyone else basically fell into the 'Well, he ain't the other guy' mentality.
I don't think this election would have given <i>either</i> candidate justification for pursuing an activist agenda. (Especially considering that the percentage of those voting specifically on 'values', thought to be those <i>most</i> favorable to Bush's goals, actually voted in <i>low</i> numbers, historically speaking. I believe they were at 22%, the smallest percent in quite some time. Let me look that stat up . . . )
What 51% to 48% tells me:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others!</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anecdotally, of all the people I know who voted in this election, one person (and it wasn't me) was actually excited about his candidate (A rabid Kerry supporter). Everyone else basically fell into the 'Well, he ain't the other guy' mentality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was pretty exited about both of the candidates I was choosing between, even though neither of them had a chance in hell of winning...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The election proved everything. Your raw numbers, in addition to being supremely irrelevant, also take into account children, and underages who cannot vote for good reasons. But why the hell mention them? And who cares if its not scientific. Almost every single eligible American voter got their chance to vote - who cares if they dont take it up? If you dont vote, it doesnt mean you didnt want Bush, it meant you decided to leave that decision up to someone else. If I dont actually order the Meatlovers pizza, does that mean I dont want to eat it, so skip it when its delivered for my family? Not at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not suggest that there is a better way considering the circumstances. I only bring the idea that, contrary to what you may believe watching this unfold from Australia, numbers can be manipulated to speak any truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->George W. Bush brings out the most emotion, hatred and vitrol from pretty much every liberal I've ever met. I used to have a great quote saved on my computer by a Democrat pollster stating something to the effect of: "We've got more money then they have, we have Bush at a very low job approval rating, he's in the middle of an unpopular war, we have our supporters more motivated than ever before, if we cant win this then we cant win anything." Michael Moore claimed this was going to be the election decided by the couch potato liberals. The potatoes didnt show. If you dont show, then nobody in a democracy gives a damn what you think about Government, as you clearly dont give a damn likewise. Am I the only one here that see that as normal, healthy and in no way detracting on iota from the legitimacy of democracy?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell this to the nearly 300 thousand documented voters who were blacklisted in 2000. Tell that to the in-excess-of 500,000 who were blacklisted this very year in entirely new states (that, even more surprisingly, are not governed by a Bush) - an example being Colorado.
Consider the 10-million-plus who are not even citizens. Consider that minorities - and especially "latinos" - vote overwhelmingly democratic. Perhaps this is a motivating factor behind Mister Bush's plans for temporary working credibility to such people - he wishes to curry favor that he could not under any fair circumstance.
Consider the millions of college students in this country. I know firsthand how difficult it is to obtain an absentee ballot. An overwhelming number of students discovered this in November.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and otherwise. It is known that military personnel lean right - this has always been the case. Even as such, all ballots cast by an overseas soldier are collected by a ranking officer. if the intimidation of voting blue in a red sea is not significant enough for you, imagine the impact of a zealous conservative commander.
Consider the thousands of aid workers overseas - such workers have always voted overwhelmingly democratic. Unfortunately(?) most were not allowed to vote this year based on extremely limited ballot supplies and the extreme inaccessability of such ballots.
So no, the only thing I see is an unhealthy, corrupt circumstance that in more ways than one, detracts from the legitimacy of democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is the gauge of the dreams of the only American people that matter - the voters. The rest made their democratic choice to leave it to the voters, so they can shut up and put up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The election is only the guage of the dreams of those allowed to vote.
Have you read nothing about the fraud that occurred this year? The hundreds of thousands of votes counted in ohio that simply did not exist? The easily-accessable digital voting machines used in Florida that, as I can tell you now, I know precicely how to manipulate [along with any person even vaguely familiar with Microsoft Excel]? I saw a video on it - the knowledge is public domain, sir. These systems have no more security in place than my computer that I type this on right now.
There is no democracy in America - I figure even an Australian could figure that out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Feb 3 2005, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Feb 3 2005, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tell this to the nearly 300 thousand documented voters who were blacklisted in 2000. Tell that to the in-excess-of 500,000 who were blacklisted this very year in entirely new states (that, even more surprisingly, are not governed by a Bush) - an example being Colorado.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps they are blacklisted for a reason? Nah, Bush did it to win the election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the 10-million-plus who <b>are not even citizens.</b> Consider that minorities - and especially "latinos" - vote overwhelmingly democratic. Perhaps this is a motivating factor behind Mister Bush's plans for temporary working credibility to such people - he wishes to curry favor that he could not under any fair circumstance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOW. Read my lips (no pun intended) <b>if you are not a citizen of America, you <i>do not have</i> the right to vote, period.</b> Regrettably Bush is compromising our border and our nations future with his policies regarding Hispanic immigrants.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the millions of college students in this country. I know firsthand how difficult it is to obtain an absentee ballot. An overwhelming number of students discovered this in November.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That fault is entirely their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and otherwise. It is known that military personnel lean right - this has always been the case. Even as such, all ballots cast by an overseas soldier are collected by a ranking officer. if the intimidation of voting blue in a red sea is not significant enough for you, imagine the impact of a zealous conservative commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I find it hard to believe Army officers have the time to be sorting through all the ballots and picking out the ones they don't agree with. This could just as easily go the other way, perhaps an over zealous liberal officer disposed of some Bush votes? This is nothing more then speculation with no facts to back it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the thousands of aid workers overseas - such workers have always voted overwhelmingly democratic. Unfortunately(?) most were not allowed to vote this year based on extremely limited ballot supplies and the extreme inaccessability of such ballots.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering many aid workers are often located in rather remote locations, Indonesian villages, African tribes, poorer more remote areas, it’s not always possible to reach everyone. However I find it hard to believe that if every single aid worker had voted it would have even put a dent in the current election results. Also I would like to see some numbers from a reliable source as to how many aid workers didn't/couldn't vote and why.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is only the guage of the dreams of those allowed to vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every law abiding American citizen is allowed to vote, you may have to go out of your way to do it, but if it's important to you why wouldn’t you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have you read nothing about the fraud that occurred this year? The hundreds of thousands of votes counted in ohio that simply did not exist? The easily-accessable digital voting machines used in Florida that, as I can tell you now, I know precicely how to manipulate [along with any person even vaguely familiar with Microsoft Excel]? I saw a video on it - the knowledge is public domain, sir. These systems have no more security in place than my computer that I type this on right now.
There is no democracy in America - I figure even an Australian could figure that out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have <i>heard</i> of the "fraud" I have yet to see any real proof. I have a question for you if these voteing machines are so easy to manipulate, wouldnt that come out in Kerrys favor? I don't think its unfair to say that the liberals are certainly the more computer savy of the two parties, perhaps their was fraud as you say, maybe Kerry got some extra votes he didn't deserve. Look at me I'm mad about the election I can make up stuff!
There is A democracy in America, you just don't like the way it worked out this time around. You wouldn't be saying this if Kerry had won and you know it, the exact same "frauds" could have occurred and you would just quietly ignore them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps they are blacklisted for a reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They sure were. It was because they shared the names of convicted felons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WOW. Read my lips (no pun intended) <b>if you are not a citizen of America, you <i>do not have</i> the right to vote, period.</b> Regrettably Bush is compromising our border and our nations future with his policies regarding Hispanic immigrants.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While this is perfectly true, it demonstrates that a huge portion of people currently living in america and solely supporting its economy do not support the man in power. It is the right of all to rebel if their rights are not being recognized and their needs met.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That fault is entirely their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It most certainly is not. As most attend school out of their own districts, it is inordinately hard to prove that you are indeed from the region that you claim to be from. This has crippled the college vote for years and years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 a bit of a stretch don't you think? I find it hard to believe Army officers have the time to be sorting through all the ballots and picking out the ones they don't agree with. This could just as easily go the other way, perhaps an over zealous liberal officer disposed of some Bush votes? This is nothing more then speculation with no facts to back it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you read the newspaper? (my guess would be no, as you also seem to believe in this "liberal filter") Recently there was a piece of investigative work included in the New York Times (I do not have the document anymore - you're free to search for it on the website if you wish) that detailed many of the points I have made. It is true that the base commander handles every ballot - it is his express job to send them through. While I don't consider it likely that anybody tampered with such votes, I completely believe in the persuasive power of intimidation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well considering many aid workers are often located in rather remote locations, Indonesian villages, African tribes, poorer more remote areas, it’s not always possible to reach everyone. However I find it hard to believe that if every single aid worker had voted it would have even put a dent in the current election results. Also I would like to see some numbers from a reliable source as to how many aid workers didn't/couldn't vote and why.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> For their caring spirit they are stripped of the right to vote? They are less of citizens than the suburban businessman who drove three miles to his town hall to place a vote for Bush?
I do not propose that they would have made a dent - I have simply proposed that there are so very many that have been overlooked in favor of a speedy inauguration process. This is a problem that must be fixed and you know it very well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every law abiding American citizen is allowed to vote, you may have to go out of your way to do it, but if it's important to you why wouldn’t you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they have no means to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have <i>heard</i> of the "fraud" I have yet to see any real proof. I have a question for you if these voteing machines are so easy to manipulate, wouldnt that come out in Kerrys favor? I don't think its unfair to say that the liberals are certainly the more computer savy of the two parties, perhaps their was fraud as you say, maybe Kerry got some extra votes he didn't deserve. Look at me I'm mad about the election I can make up stuff!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A simple Google news search reveals much. Find information about fraud <a href='http://news.google.com/news?q=voter%20fraud&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn' target='_blank'>HERE</a>
Second, why would the security holes in these machines favor Kerry? The machines were used in Florida, for the most part - a wonderful little state inhabited by our grays and ruled by mister Bush's cousin. It has been proven (again - research goes far to prove points) that, in many counties, there were tens or hundreds of thousands more red votes than there were voters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is A democracy in America, you just don't like the way it worked out this time around. You wouldn't be saying this if Kerry had won and you know it, the exact same "frauds" could have occurred and you would just quietly ignore them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well there you have it - your misconception of the liberal mind. Foremost, I (as many liberals!) do not like John kerry. Second, I seek a more pure governemnt and a more pure and lawful electoral system. I WILL SAY IT ONCE: I do not agree with your "if it works, use it" philosophy.
I hold the american people to greater ideals than this. SO no, I would not forget because looking the other way would violate the essential principle of my entire political viewpoint.
Do not think that all are like you - we are not. I would much rather see a fair election than see my candidate a winner.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Feb 3 2005, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Feb 3 2005, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They sure were. It was because they shared the names of convicted felons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is unfortunate however no system is perfect and this particular mistake could hurt ether party. Obviously this needs to be addressed and fixed, however I would like a source, out of curiosity, to see how many people were affected by this flaw. There is no perfect political system, and there never will be, no matter what you do there will be corruption and mistakes on some level.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While this is perfectly true, it demonstrates that a huge portion of people currently living in america and solely supporting its economy do not support the man in power. It is the right of all to rebel if their rights are not being recognized and their needs met.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well this "huge portion" should be deported back to Mexico, if you are referring to the illegals, not given more rights. I would love for you to show me how the illegal immigrants are the sole support for the American economy.
Heh...yea...are you insinuating that the illegal immigrants should <b>rebel</b> because we won't give them the rights of citizenship for breaking our laws? Simply absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It most certainly is not. As most attend school out of their own districts, it is inordinately hard to prove that you are indeed from the region that you claim to be from. This has crippled the college vote for years and years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it has in fact crippled the college vote for years, why haven't they gotten there act together? Shouldn't they be making web sites explaining the process? Lobbying for changes to better accommodate them? Or maybe you’re just making excuses for a generation of teenagers filled with ignorance and apathy towards the system and that has had everything handed to them and when they have to go out of their way for something they just don't bother?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do you read the newspaper? (my guess would be no, as you also seem to believe in this "liberal filter") Recently there was a piece of investigative work included in the New York Times (I do not have the document anymore - you're free to search for it on the website if you wish) that detailed many of the points I have made. It is true that the base commander handles every ballot - it is his express job to send them through. While I don't consider it likely that anybody tampered with such votes, I completely believe in the persuasive power of intimidation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did a quick search and I couldn't find anything like what you have mentioned, perhaps I missed it, ether way it’s not my job to find sources to back up your arguments. I still don't see your point here, are you saying soldiers were threatened into voting republican? I still see nothing here but speculation. Also I read my local paper everyday, along with many online articles, what’s your point? Also what do you mean by me believing in the "liberal filter"? I don't think I mentioned that anywhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For their caring spirit they are stripped of the right to vote? They are less of citizens than the suburban businessman who drove three miles to his town hall to place a vote for Bush?
I do not propose that they would have made a dent - I have simply proposed that there are so very many that have been overlooked in favor of a speedy inauguration process. This is a problem that must be fixed and you know it very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were not "stripped" of there vote, hell if they cared so much they could come back stateside and vote. No one took the right to vote away from these people, you leave the country and go off to some remote area you can't expect to have things as easy as Mr. suburban businessman. You are right though, it is <i>a</i> problem, not really an urgent one, I think there are more important flaws that need to be looked at before this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because they have no means to do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Elaborate?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well there you have it - your misconception of the liberal mind. Foremost, I (as many liberals!) do not like John kerry. Second, I seek a more pure governemnt and a more pure and lawful electoral system. I WILL SAY IT ONCE: I do not agree with your "if it works, use it" philosophy.
I hold the american people to greater ideals than this. SO no, I would not forget because looking the other way would violate the essential principle of my entire political viewpoint.
Do not think that all are like you - we are not. I would much rather see a fair election than see my candidate a winner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have my apologies for my mistaken assumptions; sometimes grouping just makes life easier. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Look I'll say this; we do not have a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. What we do have is a work in progress, an on going experiment in democracy that, in my opinion, is the best, most plausible system designed by mankind to this date. You bring up some good points, but every election has had its flaws, and to spite the few mistakes that were made Americans got the man they voted for, fair and square.
I still disagree with the original post though. Bush falling off a Segway or saying that black people die young is a hell of a lot funnier than "Kerry looks like a horse.. his face is long..". Maybe Bush gets more negative(as you interpret it, I call it comedy) responses because he screws up so much, he's a clown. That is the view from an unbiased person.
BM has provided anecdotal evidence that the MSM isnt always left biased, and in some cases is clearly right biased, using the InaugauratationmathingyIcantspell as an example. I still fail to see the lack of balance at a conservative victory party and speech as a big problem, but I cant deny that it was extremely conservatively slanted. I have provided anecdotal evidence demonstrating that MSM is left biased when it comes to reporting on the Israeli conflict, before the debate redirected over the raw numbers and distributions of journalists in the American Media. Here I made an as yet unchallenged argument demonstrating that the majority of the US media was heavily slanted towards the left in social matters, and more balanced, althought right of the population, in economic matters. Dubbilex then brought his contribution to the table, claiming that the US elections were obviously unfair and proved nothing because... they were not perfect. This was worrying, because in a world full of perfection, if your election's arent perfect, then clearly the whole system is rotten to the core. However, it quickly because apparent that the elections weren't perfect because we had the wrong definition of perfect - perfection involved polling a randomly selected group, including criminals and illegal immigrants, and preferrably citizens from every other nation of Earth as well.
However, I cant help but seeing this thread being on the whole confirmatory of my original assumption that the media is packed full of liberals - given that my analysis of data collected specifically to attack my idea was demonstrated to be overwhelmingly indicative of a liberal majority. This was the only non-anecdotal evidence presented, so I'd like to see someone tackle it please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. However - it must be noted that BM scored some BIG bonus points with the only post punctuated with actual musical enhancements.
Comments
so there is a few good strongholds of values left in socioty's media
Just because they hate Bush does not mean they are liberal. Understand that.
Calling all people who voice dissent about this man in office is like calling the people of Africa one tribe.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conservatives are just as, if not more broad, then liberals. If you think all conservatives think alike and all follow the same ideology then you are gravely mistaken.
First off we are clearly not a "small" group as this last election has proved, but that brings up the point that Bush and his cohort are not even considered conservatives but neo-conservatives.
I myself am I pro-choice conservative, which certainly does not fall under the mainstream however many top republican leaders are as well. (McCain, Giuliani)
This alone can get you ostracized from many conservative groups not to mention your personal stance on **** marriage and other moral issues.
Then again you could just have been sarcastic with your statement but just thought I would clarify.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conservatives are just as, if not more broad, then liberals. If you think all conservatives think alike and all follow the same ideology then you are gravely mistaken.
First off we are clearly not a "small" group as this last election has proved, but that brings up the point that Bush and his cohort are not even considered conservatives but neo-conservatives.
I myself am I pro-choice conservative, which certainly does not fall under the mainstream however many top republican leaders are as well. (McCain, Giuliani)
This alone can get you ostracized from many conservative groups not to mention your personal stance on **** marriage and other moral issues.
Then again you could just have been sarcastic with your statement but just thought I would clarify.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The conservative ideology is <i>comparatively</i> small - I apologize for being unclear.
I don't have a precise statistic but consider this - in terms of elected officials in this country, the Green Party vastly outnumbers all else [this obviously included - and is mostly made of - state and town positions]. Yet it is obvious that the Green Party is no contender for the presidency.
I consider myself a liberal. However I will never get into politics because it's a gory trench of awful minds and animal beliefs. I believe much differently than my most politically-motivated democratic friend; we both believe much differently than my non-partisan liberal-leaning friend.
The election has clearly proven nothing, as only 51 million woted for this man (in more simple terms, by the raw numbers one in six people wanted him as president.) The electoral system is not scientific; a scientific group must include a random sampling that encompasses all viewpoints in America - not only those who were not either:<ul><li>blacklisted</li><li>a student</li><li>anybody not in their home county [yes I know of absentee ballots but you have no idea how difficult it is to secure one]</li><li>in the armed forces</li></ul>
The election is not a guage of the dreams of the american people. I will be honest with you right now - I do not personally know a single 'conservative' who did not vote; by the same token the majority of people I know who would consider themseves 'liberal' did not vote. If the world was polled, I can guarantee you that [again, relatively] few support anything that Bush does.
</li><li>blacklisted
</li><li>a student
</li><li>anybody not in their home county [yes I know of absentee ballots but you have no idea how difficult it is to secure one]
</li><li>in the armed forces
</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The election proved everything. Your raw numbers, in addition to being supremely irrelevant, also take into account children, and underages who cannot vote for good reasons. But why the hell mention them? And who cares if its not scientific. Almost every single eligible American voter got their chance to vote - who cares if they dont take it up? If you dont vote, it doesnt mean you didnt want Bush, it meant you decided to leave that decision up to someone else. If I dont actually order the Meatlovers pizza, does that mean I dont want to eat it, so skip it when its delivered for my family? Not at all.
George W. Bush brings out the most emotion, hatred and vitrol from pretty much every liberal I've ever met. I used to have a great quote saved on my computer by a Democrat pollster stating something to the effect of: "We've got more money then they have, we have Bush at a very low job approval rating, he's in the middle of an unpopular war, we have our supporters more motivated than ever before, if we cant win this then we cant win anything." Michael Moore claimed this was going to be the election decided by the couch potato liberals. The potatoes didnt show. If you dont show, then nobody in a democracy gives a damn what you think about Government, as you clearly dont give a damn likewise. Am I the only one here that see that as normal, healthy and in no way detracting on iota from the legitimacy of democracy?
Are you honestly suggesting scientific polls as the best way forward? Care to explain how that little system works? It sounds distinctly communistic - ie, completely divorced from reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is not a guage of the dreams of the american people. I will be honest with you right now - I do not personally know a single 'conservative' who did not vote; by the same token the majority of people I know who would consider themseves 'liberal' did not vote. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats your solution then? Force everyone to vote? They do that here in Australia - and the conservative PM John Howard, hardcore Bush supporter, just got voted in again - <b>with increased majority</b>.
The election is the gauge of the dreams of the only American people that matter - the voters. The rest made their democratic choice to leave it to the voters, so they can shut up and put up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the world was polled, I can guarantee you that [again, relatively] few support anything that Bush does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who gives a flying ****? If the Middle East got polled on "Should the Jews be slaughtered", they'd all be dead tomorrow. If the world got a vote on Reagan, he would have been out on his rear in seconds. If the world got to vote on "homosexuality, yay or nay" - homosexuality would be banned. The world didnt get to vote because its not their bloody country. That doesnt detract from Bush's victory in the slightest. Guess what? The animal kingdom didnt get a vote either - where does that fit in your whole scheme of legitimacy? How would the trees vote? The minerals? All of those carry the same relevance as "how the world would vote".
If 3% is a <i>mandate</i>, then I don't know what to call 8% . . . supreme authority?
(And yes, more people voted for Bush than any other president . . . and more voted against him. And it wasn't that many more than those that voted for Clinton in 1996, population growth, blah blah blah).
3% shouldn't give him the authority to remake the country in his image any more than the 8% gave Clinton. Which is a good thing, in both cases.
I do think mandate talk is a little silly. Conservatives claim the Democrat President has no mandate, liberals claim the Republican President has no mandate, its been that way since the dawn of time.
As <a href='http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009090.php#009090' target='_blank'>Powerline</a> quoted
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Several of the President’s detractors hastened to suggest that his relatively narrow margin of victory—amounting to 3 percent of the popular vote—should not be taken as a “mandate.” Whether they would have said the same had Bush’s Democratic opponent won by a like amount is doubtful.
The New York Times, for example, has regularly questioned the presence of a mandate in recent elections—but only when the winner has been a Republican. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan bested incumbent President Jimmy Carter by 10 percentage points, the paper’s editors observed that his “mandate,” a word they themselves put in suspicion-arousing quotation marks, had “little policy content,” a position they reiterated four years later when Reagan won reelection over Walter Mondale by a whopping 18 percentage points (a “lonely landslide” and “a personal victory with little precise policy mandate”). Nor could the 8-point victory by Bush’s father over Michael Dukakis “fairly be called a mandate,” asserted the paper in 1988.
Whenever a Democrat has won, by contrast, the Times has perceived things differently. After Bill Clinton’s first victory (by 6 percentage points) in 1992, the editors commented: “The test now will be how quickly President-elect Clinton can convert his mandate into momentum.” When he won reelection (by 8 points) in 1996, it repeated the thought—“There can be no question about his mandate”—and added a little civics lesson: “The American people express their clearest opinion about what they want government to do through their choice of chief executive.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a fiercely contested election, GWB didnt just won, he increased his majority. Sounds pretty positive to me.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3% shouldn't give him the authority to remake the country in his image any more than the 8% gave Clinton. Which is a good thing, in both cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, but I dont think any man should do that. I do think they should persue the platforms they were elected on, and I dont think GWB made any secret of what he was after this time around.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Increased", or "finally got the . . "?
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anecdotally, of all the people I know who voted in this election, <i>one person</i> (and it wasn't me) was actually excited about his candidate (A rabid Kerry supporter). Everyone else basically fell into the 'Well, he ain't the other guy' mentality.
I don't think this election would have given <i>either</i> candidate justification for pursuing an activist agenda. (Especially considering that the percentage of those voting specifically on 'values', thought to be those <i>most</i> favorable to Bush's goals, actually voted in <i>low</i> numbers, historically speaking. I believe they were at 22%, the smallest percent in quite some time. Let me look that stat up . . . )
What 51% to 48% tells me:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others!</span>
I was pretty exited about both of the candidates I was choosing between, even though neither of them had a chance in hell of winning...
I do not suggest that there is a better way considering the circumstances. I only bring the idea that, contrary to what you may believe watching this unfold from Australia, numbers can be manipulated to speak any truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->George W. Bush brings out the most emotion, hatred and vitrol from pretty much every liberal I've ever met. I used to have a great quote saved on my computer by a Democrat pollster stating something to the effect of: "We've got more money then they have, we have Bush at a very low job approval rating, he's in the middle of an unpopular war, we have our supporters more motivated than ever before, if we cant win this then we cant win anything." Michael Moore claimed this was going to be the election decided by the couch potato liberals. The potatoes didnt show. If you dont show, then nobody in a democracy gives a damn what you think about Government, as you clearly dont give a damn likewise. Am I the only one here that see that as normal, healthy and in no way detracting on iota from the legitimacy of democracy?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell this to the nearly 300 thousand documented voters who were blacklisted in 2000. Tell that to the in-excess-of 500,000 who were blacklisted this very year in entirely new states (that, even more surprisingly, are not governed by a Bush) - an example being Colorado.
Consider the 10-million-plus who are not even citizens. Consider that minorities - and especially "latinos" - vote overwhelmingly democratic. Perhaps this is a motivating factor behind Mister Bush's plans for temporary working credibility to such people - he wishes to curry favor that he could not under any fair circumstance.
Consider the millions of college students in this country. I know firsthand how difficult it is to obtain an absentee ballot. An overwhelming number of students discovered this in November.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and otherwise. It is known that military personnel lean right - this has always been the case. Even as such, all ballots cast by an overseas soldier are collected by a ranking officer. if the intimidation of voting blue in a red sea is not significant enough for you, imagine the impact of a zealous conservative commander.
Consider the thousands of aid workers overseas - such workers have always voted overwhelmingly democratic. Unfortunately(?) most were not allowed to vote this year based on extremely limited ballot supplies and the extreme inaccessability of such ballots.
So no, the only thing I see is an unhealthy, corrupt circumstance that in more ways than one, detracts from the legitimacy of democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is the gauge of the dreams of the only American people that matter - the voters. The rest made their democratic choice to leave it to the voters, so they can shut up and put up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The election is only the guage of the dreams of those allowed to vote.
Have you read nothing about the fraud that occurred this year? The hundreds of thousands of votes counted in ohio that simply did not exist? The easily-accessable digital voting machines used in Florida that, as I can tell you now, I know precicely how to manipulate [along with any person even vaguely familiar with Microsoft Excel]? I saw a video on it - the knowledge is public domain, sir. These systems have no more security in place than my computer that I type this on right now.
There is no democracy in America - I figure even an Australian could figure that out.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps they are blacklisted for a reason? Nah, Bush did it to win the election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the 10-million-plus who <b>are not even citizens.</b> Consider that minorities - and especially "latinos" - vote overwhelmingly democratic. Perhaps this is a motivating factor behind Mister Bush's plans for temporary working credibility to such people - he wishes to curry favor that he could not under any fair circumstance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOW. Read my lips (no pun intended) <b>if you are not a citizen of America, you <i>do not have</i> the right to vote, period.</b> Regrettably Bush is compromising our border and our nations future with his policies regarding Hispanic immigrants.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the millions of college students in this country. I know firsthand how difficult it is to obtain an absentee ballot. An overwhelming number of students discovered this in November.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That fault is entirely their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and otherwise. It is known that military personnel lean right - this has always been the case. Even as such, all ballots cast by an overseas soldier are collected by a ranking officer. if the intimidation of voting blue in a red sea is not significant enough for you, imagine the impact of a zealous conservative commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I find it hard to believe Army officers have the time to be sorting through all the ballots and picking out the ones they don't agree with. This could just as easily go the other way, perhaps an over zealous liberal officer disposed of some Bush votes? This is nothing more then speculation with no facts to back it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider the thousands of aid workers overseas - such workers have always voted overwhelmingly democratic. Unfortunately(?) most were not allowed to vote this year based on extremely limited ballot supplies and the extreme inaccessability of such ballots.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering many aid workers are often located in rather remote locations, Indonesian villages, African tribes, poorer more remote areas, it’s not always possible to reach everyone. However I find it hard to believe that if every single aid worker had voted it would have even put a dent in the current election results.
Also I would like to see some numbers from a reliable source as to how many aid workers didn't/couldn't vote and why.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The election is only the guage of the dreams of those allowed to vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every law abiding American citizen is allowed to vote, you may have to go out of your way to do it, but if it's important to you why wouldn’t you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have you read nothing about the fraud that occurred this year? The hundreds of thousands of votes counted in ohio that simply did not exist? The easily-accessable digital voting machines used in Florida that, as I can tell you now, I know precicely how to manipulate [along with any person even vaguely familiar with Microsoft Excel]? I saw a video on it - the knowledge is public domain, sir. These systems have no more security in place than my computer that I type this on right now.
There is no democracy in America - I figure even an Australian could figure that out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have <i>heard</i> of the "fraud" I have yet to see any real proof. I have a question for you if these voteing machines are so easy to manipulate, wouldnt that come out in Kerrys favor? I don't think its unfair to say that the liberals are certainly the more computer savy of the two parties, perhaps their was fraud as you say, maybe Kerry got some extra votes he didn't deserve. Look at me I'm mad about the election I can make up stuff!
There is A democracy in America, you just don't like the way it worked out this time around. You wouldn't be saying this if Kerry had won and you know it, the exact same "frauds" could have occurred and you would just quietly ignore them.
They sure were. It was because they shared the names of convicted felons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WOW. Read my lips (no pun intended) <b>if you are not a citizen of America, you <i>do not have</i> the right to vote, period.</b> Regrettably Bush is compromising our border and our nations future with his policies regarding Hispanic immigrants.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this is perfectly true, it demonstrates that a huge portion of people currently living in america and solely supporting its economy do not support the man in power. It is the right of all to rebel if their rights are not being recognized and their needs met.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That fault is entirely their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certainly is not. As most attend school out of their own districts, it is inordinately hard to prove that you are indeed from the region that you claim to be from. This has crippled the college vote for years and years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><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 a bit of a stretch don't you think? I find it hard to believe Army officers have the time to be sorting through all the ballots and picking out the ones they don't agree with. This could just as easily go the other way, perhaps an over zealous liberal officer disposed of some Bush votes? This is nothing more then speculation with no facts to back it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you read the newspaper? (my guess would be no, as you also seem to believe in this "liberal filter") Recently there was a piece of investigative work included in the New York Times (I do not have the document anymore - you're free to search for it on the website if you wish) that detailed many of the points I have made. It is true that the base commander handles every ballot - it is his express job to send them through. While I don't consider it likely that anybody tampered with such votes, I completely believe in the persuasive power of intimidation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well considering many aid workers are often located in rather remote locations, Indonesian villages, African tribes, poorer more remote areas, it’s not always possible to reach everyone. However I find it hard to believe that if every single aid worker had voted it would have even put a dent in the current election results.
Also I would like to see some numbers from a reliable source as to how many aid workers didn't/couldn't vote and why.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For their caring spirit they are stripped of the right to vote? They are less of citizens than the suburban businessman who drove three miles to his town hall to place a vote for Bush?
I do not propose that they would have made a dent - I have simply proposed that there are so very many that have been overlooked in favor of a speedy inauguration process. This is a problem that must be fixed and you know it very well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every law abiding American citizen is allowed to vote, you may have to go out of your way to do it, but if it's important to you why wouldn’t you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they have no means to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have <i>heard</i> of the "fraud" I have yet to see any real proof. I have a question for you if these voteing machines are so easy to manipulate, wouldnt that come out in Kerrys favor? I don't think its unfair to say that the liberals are certainly the more computer savy of the two parties, perhaps their was fraud as you say, maybe Kerry got some extra votes he didn't deserve. Look at me I'm mad about the election I can make up stuff!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A simple Google news search reveals much. Find information about fraud <a href='http://news.google.com/news?q=voter%20fraud&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn' target='_blank'>HERE</a>
Second, why would the security holes in these machines favor Kerry? The machines were used in Florida, for the most part - a wonderful little state inhabited by our grays and ruled by mister Bush's cousin. It has been proven (again - research goes far to prove points) that, in many counties, there were tens or hundreds of thousands more red votes than there were voters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is A democracy in America, you just don't like the way it worked out this time around. You wouldn't be saying this if Kerry had won and you know it, the exact same "frauds" could have occurred and you would just quietly ignore them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there you have it - your misconception of the liberal mind. Foremost, I (as many liberals!) do not like John kerry. Second, I seek a more pure governemnt and a more pure and lawful electoral system. I WILL SAY IT ONCE: I do not agree with your "if it works, use it" philosophy.
I hold the american people to greater ideals than this. SO no, I would not forget because looking the other way would violate the essential principle of my entire political viewpoint.
Do not think that all are like you - we are not. I would much rather see a fair election than see my candidate a winner.
That is unfortunate however no system is perfect and this particular mistake could hurt ether party. Obviously this needs to be addressed and fixed, however I would like a source, out of curiosity, to see how many people were affected by this flaw.
There is no perfect political system, and there never will be, no matter what you do there will be corruption and mistakes on some level.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While this is perfectly true, it demonstrates that a huge portion of people currently living in america and solely supporting its economy do not support the man in power. It is the right of all to rebel if their rights are not being recognized and their needs met.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well this "huge portion" should be deported back to Mexico, if you are referring to the illegals, not given more rights. I would love for you to show me how the illegal immigrants are the sole support for the American economy.
Heh...yea...are you insinuating that the illegal immigrants should <b>rebel</b> because we won't give them the rights of citizenship for breaking our laws?
Simply absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It most certainly is not. As most attend school out of their own districts, it is inordinately hard to prove that you are indeed from the region that you claim to be from. This has crippled the college vote for years and years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it has in fact crippled the college vote for years, why haven't they gotten there act together? Shouldn't they be making web sites explaining the process? Lobbying for changes to better accommodate them? Or maybe you’re just making excuses for a generation of teenagers filled with ignorance and apathy towards the system and that has had everything handed to them and when they have to go out of their way for something they just don't bother?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Do you read the newspaper? (my guess would be no, as you also seem to believe in this "liberal filter") Recently there was a piece of investigative work included in the New York Times (I do not have the document anymore - you're free to search for it on the website if you wish) that detailed many of the points I have made. It is true that the base commander handles every ballot - it is his express job to send them through. While I don't consider it likely that anybody tampered with such votes, I completely believe in the persuasive power of intimidation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did a quick search and I couldn't find anything like what you have mentioned, perhaps I missed it, ether way it’s not my job to find sources to back up your arguments. I still don't see your point here, are you saying soldiers were threatened into voting republican? I still see nothing here but speculation.
Also I read my local paper everyday, along with many online articles, what’s your point? Also what do you mean by me believing in the "liberal filter"? I don't think I mentioned that anywhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For their caring spirit they are stripped of the right to vote? They are less of citizens than the suburban businessman who drove three miles to his town hall to place a vote for Bush?
I do not propose that they would have made a dent - I have simply proposed that there are so very many that have been overlooked in favor of a speedy inauguration process. This is a problem that must be fixed and you know it very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were not "stripped" of there vote, hell if they cared so much they could come back stateside and vote. No one took the right to vote away from these people, you leave the country and go off to some remote area you can't expect to have things as easy as Mr. suburban businessman.
You are right though, it is <i>a</i> problem, not really an urgent one, I think there are more important flaws that need to be looked at before this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because they have no means to do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Elaborate?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well there you have it - your misconception of the liberal mind. Foremost, I (as many liberals!) do not like John kerry. Second, I seek a more pure governemnt and a more pure and lawful electoral system. I WILL SAY IT ONCE: I do not agree with your "if it works, use it" philosophy.
I hold the american people to greater ideals than this. SO no, I would not forget because looking the other way would violate the essential principle of my entire political viewpoint.
Do not think that all are like you - we are not. I would much rather see a fair election than see my candidate a winner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have my apologies for my mistaken assumptions; sometimes grouping just makes life easier. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Look I'll say this; we do not have a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. What we do have is a work in progress, an on going experiment in democracy that, in my opinion, is the best, most plausible system designed by mankind to this date.
You bring up some good points, but every election has had its flaws, and to spite the few mistakes that were made Americans got the man they voted for, fair and square.
BM has provided anecdotal evidence that the MSM isnt always left biased, and in some cases is clearly right biased, using the InaugauratationmathingyIcantspell as an example. I still fail to see the lack of balance at a conservative victory party and speech as a big problem, but I cant deny that it was extremely conservatively slanted. I have provided anecdotal evidence demonstrating that MSM is left biased when it comes to reporting on the Israeli conflict, before the debate redirected over the raw numbers and distributions of journalists in the American Media. Here I made an as yet unchallenged argument demonstrating that the majority of the US media was heavily slanted towards the left in social matters, and more balanced, althought right of the population, in economic matters. Dubbilex then brought his contribution to the table, claiming that the US elections were obviously unfair and proved nothing because... they were not perfect. This was worrying, because in a world full of perfection, if your election's arent perfect, then clearly the whole system is rotten to the core. However, it quickly because apparent that the elections weren't perfect because we had the wrong definition of perfect - perfection involved polling a randomly selected group, including criminals and illegal immigrants, and preferrably citizens from every other nation of Earth as well.
However, I cant help but seeing this thread being on the whole confirmatory of my original assumption that the media is packed full of liberals - given that my analysis of data collected specifically to attack my idea was demonstrated to be overwhelmingly indicative of a liberal majority. This was the only non-anecdotal evidence presented, so I'd like to see someone tackle it please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. However - it must be noted that BM scored some BIG bonus points with the only post punctuated with actual musical enhancements.