Voter fraud in ohio

[goes4ever]

Just heard this on rush limbaugh's show, and I did an internet search to find it, wierd thing is this town is less than 30 miles from my house. Really sad some democrats stoop this low in attempt to get someone elected into office, sad, very sad. :

City man is arrested on voter fraud
By TODD HELBERG
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Defiance man has been arrested for his role in an alleged scheme to supply the county’s board of elections with fictitious voter registration forms.

Chad Staton, 22, 70012 Stratton Ave., appeared this morning in Defiance Municipal Court on a charge of false registration, a fifth-degree felony.

He requested time to speak with an attorney, and was ordered by Judge John Rohrs III to reappear Friday at 10 a.m. He was released on a personal-recognizance bond.

The proceedings in municipal court are only to determine whether there is probable cause to hold Staton on the charge. Since his case is a felony, it can only be resolved in common pleas court.

Staton was arrested this morning by the Defiance County Sheriff’s Office which conducted an investigation based on a complaint from the board of elections. Authorities determined that Staton allegedly filled out more than 100 voter registration forms.

“It is very disappointing that voter fraud exists,� said Sheriff David Westrick.

“We hear about it elsewhere, but we’re seeing it here on the local level, and it concerns me immensely. Just how widespread it is I don’t know.�

Deputies allege Staton was to be paid in crack cocaine for each registration form he would have citizens fill out. But, according to authorities, Staton filled out the forms himself and returned them to Georgianne Pitts, 41, Toledo, who was to pay him.

Westrick alleged that Staton made up some names and addresses while others represented real persons.

The sheriff added that the board of elections sent letters to the addresses on the registration forms saying the named persons could not vote without proper identification.

Local deputies along with Toledo police conducted a search of Pitts’ home and allegedly discovered drug paraphernalia and voter registration forms.

Pitts allegedly told authorities she had been recruited by Thaddeus Jackson II, Cleveland, to obtain voter registrations.

She admitted to paying Staton with crack cocaine, deputies said.

According to lawmen, Jackson is the assistant Ohio director of the NAACP’s national voter fund. An investigation is reportedly underway by Cleveland authorities concerning Jackson’s connection.

AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, JACKSON IS A DEMOCRAT

 

[Nullifidian]

I like that you post this but didn't post about the 2 private organizations in Ohio that are going to be brought up on charges of disenfranchisement for shredding registration slips from all newly registered Democrats that registered through them.

 

[goes4ever]

I posted this because of two reasons

#1 I heard it on the radio and was able to find it on the net in my local online paper
#2 it was very close to home and interest to me

 

[Nullifidian]

Of course, because it swings your way.

The thing is, filing bogus registration slips is nowhere near the crime of disenfranchisement. Basically these organizations are guilty of removing literally thousands of American's fundamental right as citizens. IMO disenfranchisement should be a capitol offense.

I don't care whether you are a socialist, a facist, or a friggin member of the sapce monkey's for death party, NO ONE other than a court has the right to take away your right to vote.

 

[Jeff]

I like that you post this but didn't post about the 2 private organizations in Ohio that are going to be brought up on charges of disenfranchisement for shredding registration slips from all newly registered Democrats that registered through them.

I liked how you posted the link for your statement :hammer:

link me (unless its moveon or democraticundergound)

 

[goes4ever]

I can give you the link to mine, but I think you are talking to Nullifidian

 

[Jeff]

yeah, I saw your story all over the internet (drudge and MSM) but haven't heard anything about nullifidian's.

 

[goes4ever]

me neither, I would like a link as well

 

[Physicist]

yeah, I saw your story all over the internet (drudge and MSM) but haven't heard anything about nullifidian's.

Try watching the liberal TV. I saw it on several channels. I've only seen this fradulent voter story on the internet.

A friend of mine was just telling me about a different media bias story.
You guys already know that the libertarian and green party candidates weren't allowed to the presidential debates. So they went to St. Loius for the second debate, with the intention of either debating or getting arrested for trying to enter the debate. They were stopped by the police, held for a few hours, and released.
Made the local St. Loius news, but nothing national at all.
My friend also told me why national news didn't cover it. He said that the Republican and Democrat parties have told the national news agencies that if they cover third party stories then they'll be denied access to White House press conferences.

 

[goes4ever]

this story has been all over fox news today, you missed it because you were watching liberal channels

 

[Nullifidian]

And you were watching conservative stations instead. Stop assuming you are high and mighty or that Fox is anything but a rightwing propaganda machine.


As for my delay, sorry but I am unable to post while at work. I originally heard about it from my mother who heard about it on a news story on the radio and then again on TV. So I sent her an email asking for a link.

Sorry, it wasn't Ohio, I appologize, it was Nevada and Oregon:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20041013/NEVADA/110130046

 

[CDB]

And you were watching conservative stations instead. Stop assuming you are high and mighty or that Fox is anything but a rightwing propaganda machine.


As for my delay, sorry but I am unable to post while at work. I originally heard about it from my mother who heard about it on a news story on the radio and then again on TV. So I sent her an email asking for a link.

Sorry, it wasn't Ohio, I appologize, it was Nevada and Oregon:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20041013/NEVADA/110130046

Yup, the **** is equally spread among both sides. However a couple things can be seen from this exchange.

One, the slant of ALL stations is evident. As a conservative I've never denied Fox's conservative slant, though to me they seem fairer than most because they explicitly diffirentiate between news and news analysis, and they label everyone, be it liberal, conservative or whatever. Viewers know where every commentator is coming from. Can't say the same for the so called liberal stations who will more often than not label conservatives but call blatant liberals on like reps from N.O.W. for 'America's' response to this or that story, conveniently never letting people know these comments come from someone who is slightly to the left of Marx politically. And I've heard a lot more liberals deny media bias than conservatives, bottom line is what has and has not been reported on which stations shows they are ALL biased. The crack story was given major air time on Fox and AM radio, the form story was given major air time on every other network. To me it's obvious where most stations are slanted. Now I honestly don't give a ****, no news is without slant and I'd prefer people just came right now and said what their biases are. Makes things easier.

Two, in the first article quoted in full above, it doesn't once say the perpetrators were Democrats. How much you want to bet had it been Republicans that label would have been slathered all over the article, and my guess is the article would have been on page 1, above the fold.

All the fraud going on is a perfect example of how both parties are totally full of it, and why neither deserves the vote of a red blooded American.

 

[size]

One illegal act is rewarded with an illegal substance. Too funny.

 

[Jeff]

Ok, so the nevada story needs to be looked into, but it appears that it is a 'canvasser', NOT an election official. Do people need there hands held to fill out the fucking voter registration ballet, like I am gonna trust the dude with nothing to do but stand in front of the grocery store with my voter registration. It smells fishy, kind of like the DNC published document to allege registration improprieties whether they exist or not. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though, as always you have to apply the 24 to 48 hour filter to almost all news that comes out. Most of this **** just doesn't pan out, and with our 5 second attentions spans they hope nobody will remember.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The thing is, filing bogus registration slips is nowhere near the crime of disenfranchisement. Basically these organizations are guilty of removing literally thousands of American's fundamental right as citizens. IMO disenfranchisement should be a capitol offense.

How about offering cigarettes to homeless people in an exchange for a gore vote, a democrat activist caught with the vote-o matic machine in the 2000 recount ( this was on abc's website but it's funny it didn't make it on to the nightly news), registering more people than there actually were on a Indian reservation, how about votes for pardons , how about trying to get solders votes thrown out, and how about trying to register illegal aliens and criminals. Then they turn around and say African American votes were disenfranchised yet they can't provide any evidence to support their claims, yet the media takes it seriously. In most of the counties in Florida that had problems all but one were run by democrats. Do republicans cheat too? Probably but the overwhelming evidence that it is the democrats that that are the ones cheating.

 

[Jeff]

No liberal bias around here

MSM MEDIA WATCH:

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"
NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."
KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"
THOMAS: "Not really."
KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Maybe."
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"
THOMAS:"Yeah."
KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."
THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"
THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."
(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.

Much of the Kerry campaign's political calculation relies on the media reporting as fact baseless charges of voter intimidation, "privatizing social security" and "reinstating the draft," blaming President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage when Kerry opposed liability reform for vaccine manufacturers, and the demonstrably false charge that the President has banned stem cell research.

 

[goes4ever]

problem is that you can believe about 2 words out of 50 said on CNN

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Unless Bush wins on a land slide this election is going to make 2000 look like the democrats and republicans were holding hands singing kumbaya. The dems have thousands of lawyers in place "supervising" the elections. There are all ready several reports of voter fraud. When you add the provisional ballot into place you have a recipe for disaster. The provisional ballot is a ballot they give to people who were not allowed to vote to be determined in the future if it will be counted or not. All the democrats have to do is get thousands of illegal immigrants to fill the provisional ballots out. Then you will see law suites and allot of whining about how voters were "disenfranchised" because the provisional ballots were not counted.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20022

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...vote/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...other.recounts/

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/11....cgi.4689.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral.../2072000.htm?1c

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...12/120247.shtml

 

[INFOHAZARD]

MSM MEDIA WATCH:

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"
NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."
KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"
THOMAS: "Not really."
KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Maybe."
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"
THOMAS:"Yeah."
KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."
THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"
THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."
(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.

Much of the Kerry campaign's political calculation relies on the media reporting as fact baseless charges of voter intimidation, "privatizing social security" and "reinstating the draft," blaming President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage when Kerry opposed liability reform for vaccine manufacturers, and the demonstrably false charge that the President has banned stem cell research.

Newsweek has been liberal as long as I have been alive. They are not discussing the effect of Washington Times, Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.


I assume this exchange occured on CNN. If so, it shows that CNN is not liberally biased, or they wouldn't air the dialogue. CNN used to be modestly liberal , but not at all since Ted Turner quit the company. In fact, it's slightly to the right of Ghengis Kahn, and only a bit to the left of Fox NewSpeak (TM).

Did you see Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's CrossFire? Wow! For once, someone cut through the bulshit.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Newsweek has been liberal as long as I have been alive. They are not discussing the effect of Washington Times, Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.

No, but that was specifically noted in the interview / dialogue.

I assume this exchange occured on CNN. If so, it shows that CNN is not liberally biased, or they wouldn't air the dialogue. CNN used to be modestly liberal , but not at all since Ted Turner quit the company. In fact, it's slightly to the right of Ghengis Kahn, and only a bit to the left of Fox NewSpeak (TM).

If you think CNN is "right" you are as left as I thought. And just because they do one piece on an how media bias may present a significant advantage to Kerry-Edwards, doesn't mean that they're not unbias by any means! Now they may not be "as bad", but they're not right.

Did you see Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's CrossFire? Wow! For once, someone cut through the bulshit.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831

Ehh...he made a few good points like "the show blows" and that they're just sitting there spiting out their respective parties rhetoric, but it wasn't heated....except for that one "dick" comment

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Did you see Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's CrossFire? Wow! For once, someone cut through the bulshit.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831

I don't know if he cut through the bs. He had a few good points but contradicted himself and showed that he him self has a liberal bias. As they pointed out when talking with him on one hand Stewart's criticizing them for the show being more political theater then criticizes them for being too hard on a candidate. John Kerry based much of who he is politically on his service in Viet Nam. Now it's looking like he lied about his war record to some degree or another and John Stewart doesn't think that's important? He also said in a previous interview that Kerry wasn't a flip flopper that was just political rhetoric when it's crystal clear that Kerry changed his position on the war several times. What Stewart is really saying is basically the charges against the dems aren't important and mean spirited but any critique of the republicans is fair game. He tries to come of as semi non partisan but when you get down too it he says he doesn't think anyone can do a worse job than the Bush administration.

 

[Nullifidian]

VG, you do realize that "His Dudeness" is a Democrat. I just can't stand hearing your rightwing extremist spew come forth from an avatar of The Dude.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

VG, you do realize that "His Dudeness" is a Democrat. I just can't stand hearing your rightwing extremist spew come forth from an avatar of The Dude.

That is Lebowski, isn't it..... Heh.

 

[CDB]

That is Lebowski, isn't it..... Heh.

I was wondering who the hell that was. Couldn't place the face though.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

I don't know if he cut through the bs. He had a few good points but contradicted himself and showed that he him self has a liberal bias. As they pointed out when talking with him on one hand Stewart's criticizing them for the show being more political theater then criticizes them for being too hard on a candidate. John Kerry based much of who he is politically on his service in Viet Nam. Now it's looking like he lied about his war record to some degree or another and John Stewart doesn't think that's important? He also said in a previous interview that Kerry wasn't a flip flopper that was just political rhetoric when it's crystal clear that Kerry changed his position on the war several times. What Stewart is really saying is basically the charges against the dems aren't important and mean spirited but any critique of the republicans is fair game. He tries to come of as semi non partisan but when you get down too it he says he doesn't think anyone can do a worse job than the Bush administration.

Letsee, Stewart pointed out that he calls his show "the Fake News," that his show followed a bunch of puppets making crank phone calls. He never implied that he was unbiased and that their attack on him of being biased was a red herring. He was also attacking the lefties on the show as much as the right-wingers. Now it's interesting that he has gotten a reputation for more actual journalism at times than the people who call themselves journalists. He calls himself a comedian and he has never denied his bias.

I'm not sure why you bring up Kerry's service record in this, but the Swifties have been highly discredited. No I'm not gong to argue it with you, go to mediamatters.org if you want the arguments.

The argument about Bush is whether he's only been arrested twice (confirmed- disorderly conduct at Yale and DWI at Kennebunkport), three times , or more.... http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9990544.htm?1c
(use bugmenot.com if subscription)

 

[CDB]

The argument about Bush is whether he's only been arrested twice (confirmed- disorderly conduct at Yale and DWI at Kennebunkport), three times , or more.... http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9990544.htm?1c
(use bugmenot.com if subscription)

Hell, minus the DWI the fact that Bush is such a **** up is one of the reasons I like him. I've given up actually expecting anything from politicians other than amusement. I can't have Clinton back, by far the most amusing president in history, but I can have Bush. Kerry would be so fucking boring.

Buchannan for president, now that would be comdey hour year 'round. I can see him personally trying to string barbed wire across the US Mexico border in my head right now. Throw in a fence around the White House with a sign hung on it saying, "Beware of the right wing nut job," and I'd be set for four years of constant hillarity.

Now Bush, he's a good compromise. He looks like a monkey, is about as articulate as a tree stump, blows **** up with regularity while talking about his desire for peace, and he has a vice president that's walking time bomb in more ways than one. My friend Jim and I refer to this duo as Emperor Cheney and Darth Stupider. Right now I'm waiting for Cheney to do that Jedi mind trick thing and strangle Edwards from across the room.

And Rumsfeld... I don't think I could live without this guy in some national office with a lot of TV time. I've got a book with some of his quotes arranged into existential poetry called Pieces of Intelligence. You just don't get that with most Democrats.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Letsee, Stewart pointed out that he calls his show "the Fake News," that his show followed a bunch of puppets making crank phone calls. He never implied that he was unbiased and that their attack on him of being biased was a red herring. He was also attacking the lefties on the show as much as the right-wingers. Now it's interesting that he has gotten a reputation for more actual journalism at times than the people who call themselves journalists. He calls himself a comedian and he has never denied his bias.

I wasn't talking about what stewart does on his own show. They poke at both sides but it is pretty clear which side they prefer. I watch the show from time to time. What I am taking about is Stewarts ctitque of the media. On on one hand Stewart's criticizing them for the show being more political then criticizes them for being too hard on a candidate then says they have to hold his thier feet to the fire to make them answer questions.

I'm not sure why you bring up Kerry's service record in this, but the Swifties have been highly discredited. No I'm not gong to argue it with you, go to mediamatters.org if you want the arguments.

I brought it up because Stewart was asked about it and said he didn't think it was important. The fact is a Kerry brought up Viet Nam and used it to define himself as a candidate. Now it looks like the senator lied about some of to all of his Viet Nam service. A presidential candidate lying about what defines them politically is an important issue that needs to be taken seriously and not simply dismissed. This point of view shows Stewart's bias and contradiction to what he was saying.

No I'm not gong to argue it with you, go to mediamatters.org if you want the arguments.

You were saying the Washington Times isn't credible but this link you posted is? They are right meet the press is way too conservative. Give me a break. The swift boat vets have not been discredited. They have sure tried pretty hard though. When you have allot vets who don't support Kerry and very few that do that should tell you something.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

INFO that web site is just full of things that are not true.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

VG, you do realize that "His Dudeness" is a Democrat. I just can't stand hearing your rightwing extremist spew come forth from an avatar of The Dude.

LOL the dude would be either too stoned to vote or rolling. Weren't you trying to pass your self of as a conservative on another thread null?

 

[INFOHAZARD]

INFO that web site is just full of things that are not true.

Name 3.
Defend your reasoning. ("Because Limbaugh said so" is insufficient.)

 

[INFOHAZARD]

I wasn't talking about what stewart does on his own show. They poke at both sides but it is pretty clear which side they prefer. I watch the show from time to time. What I am taking about is Stewarts ctitque of the media. On on one hand Stewart's criticizing them for the show being more political then criticizes them for being too hard on a candidate then says they have to hold his thier feet to the fire to make them answer questions.

But that's not what he said. Those are the words they tried to put into his mouth. He made a subtle point- that the pundits on both sides were promoting the party agenda ahead of promoting the truth, beyond just honest perspective. The are dishonest in this to the degree they are doing a great disservice to the needs of the nation.

Is Kerry biased? Sure, but he's not a journalist. Nor have I seen him distort information (except in obvious satire) in the way pundits o both sides have. I keep watching operatives float lies on the air just to get them out there. Dispicable.

He was extremely brave, given the obvious attacks he was going to receive.

Also note the sentiments of the audience. They clearly supported what he was saying, much to the chagrin of the pundits. Stwart focused on Carlson because Carlson was the one to go on major offense.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

OMFG. LOL. This site is so blatantly left it's ridiculous.

I would love for everybody to take a look at this site: http://www.mediamatters.org/ and determine whether or not it's a credible source. LOL. Hilarious. Their headlies were 100% liberal, 100% Kerry, as if the left makes no mistakes or distortions itself.

Thanks, INFOHAZARD, for the great link :trout:

At least http://www.factcheck.org "attempts" to seem center, much like O'Reilly. They "attempt" to seem center; O'reilly deifnately throws off a huge right spin while factcheck.org throws a big one to the left. MediaMatters.org is just ridiculous.

 

[Number 5]

Here's an article from The Nation. I'm not sure about the quality of the paper, but they quote NYT a lot, which though liberal, still offers credible reporting. The article argues that a big turnout would favor democrats more than republicans and therefore republicans are attempting to disenfranchise voters and the armies of dem lawyers are there to fight this. The article is one sided of course, but it'll at least offer the other side to the earlier claims in this thread that dem are trying to steal the ohio vote using fraud and to claims in another thread that the dem strategy to deploy laywers all over battleground states was unethical.

full article from from: http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

"A front-page story in Saturday's New York Times reported that the Republican Party has registered thousands of people to serve as partisan "vote challengers" at Ohio polling places, in what they say is an effort to prevent "voter fraud." Meanwhile, the Columbus Dispatch reported that based on a mailing to newly registered voters, the GOP plans to challenge 35,000 voters in an effort to keep them from the polls.

This disturbing news from Ohio points to the potential for massive voter disenfranchisement in November--and additional confusion and chaos at the polls in this key swing state and others, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona-- that have seen huge increases in voter registration."

-5

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Oh, I definately believe that a big turnout would favor the democrats. That's for damn sure. All of the politically educated, hard working people usually already vote. A bigger turnout would mean that the less educated, lazier, more impressionable crowd who want "more" from the government would vote for the Democrats, especially because "the big bad republicans only care about rich people." Now, I think if people had to pass a voting test of some sort, demonstrating political knowledge, the democrats would lose hands down because although they have a sect of highly educated "elitists" much of their core is made of those who rely on government programs to keep them from needing to find a job--well, not that much, but a big enough percentage (maybe 3-5%) that would make it nearly impossible for them to win elections. But, that's just my partisan anti-liberal theory....

 

[Number 5]

Oh, I definately believe that a big turnout would favor the democrats. That's for damn sure. All of the politically educated, hard working people usually already vote. A bigger turnout would mean that the less educated, lazier, more impressionable crowd who want "more" from the government would vote for the Democrats, especially because "the big bad republicans only care about rich people." Now, I think if people had to pass a voting test of some sort, demonstrating political knowledge, the democrats would lose hands down because although they have a sect of highly educated "elitists" much of their core is made of those who rely on government programs to keep them from needing to find a job--well, not that much, but a big enough percentage (maybe 3-5%) that would make it nearly impossible for them to win elections. But, that's just my partisan anti-liberal theory....

you'd have a better case here if Bush hadn't spent the last 4 years borrowing, spending and creating deficits. i'm sure he thinks his economic policies will trickle down to everyone, but that hasn't happened yet. for now big corporations and rich people have done well while poverty rates have increased and job growth has sucked ass. and let's not kid ourselves, most of the corporate welfare financed by your taxes is just a payoff to big corporations so they'll finance the GOP in return.

About the knowledge factor: "Yesterday's Washington Post picked up the story about the Univ. of Maryland report that I reported Friday. This report concluded that Bush and Kerry supporters live in different worlds with different facts. For example, 75% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks (vs. 30% of Kerry supporters), despite the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluding that Iraq was not involved in the attacks. Similar disparities exist on whether Iraq had WMD, whether the world approves of the war in Iraq and more." (from: http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct25.html)

So how about that voting test?

-5

 

[CDB]

About the knowledge factor: "Yesterday's Washington Post picked up the story about the Univ. of Maryland report that I reported Friday. This report concluded that Bush and Kerry supporters live in different worlds with different facts. For example, 75% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks (vs. 30% of Kerry supporters), despite the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluding that Iraq was not involved in the attacks. Similar disparities exist on whether Iraq had WMD, whether the world approves of the war in Iraq and more." (from: http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct25.html)

So how about that voting test?

-5

Well, I for one don't give much of a **** what "the world" approves of. Not arguing for the Iraq war, but if the world disapproves of an action and it's in our interests, I expect the president and congress to tell "the world" to go **** itself. As for Iraq being behind 9/11, I'd like to see how the question was phrased and to whom it was put. How much do you want to bet that a similar question put to liberals would have them saying corporations were behind the problem of poverty?

 

[Number 5]

Well, I for one don't give much of a **** what "the world" approves of. Not arguing for the Iraq war, but if the world disapproves of an action and it's in our interests, I expect the president and congress to tell "the world" to go **** itself. As for Iraq being behind 9/11, I'd like to see how the question was phrased and to whom it was put. How much do you want to bet that a similar question put to liberals would have them saying corporations were behind the problem of poverty?

it's not about whether you care about whether you want "the world" to approve, but rather whether you are up-to-date on how they think. apparantly a lot of bush supporters are not.

the way the questions were asked and how big and representative the sample was makes a big difference of course, but i don't have access to the original poll or the washington post article that discusses it. however, given the post's reputation i doubt they write a story based on a junk poll.

yet, given the division in the media and only one week until election it's hard to trust anything one hears.

-5

 

[CDB]

it's not about whether you care about whether you want "the world" to approve, but rather whether you are up-to-date on how they think. apparantly a lot of bush supporters are not.
-5

That may be so, but to speak honestly I don't care how they think or whether or not the president understands it. A good analogy is a shark attack. Whenever a shark rips off someone's limb or kills them and it gets publicized, there's always an army of talking heads on TV explaining that the shark just thought the person was a seal or something like that. Wonderful, now we know how the shark thinks and why it did what it did. Problem is in the end it doesn't make a difference, someone's still missing a leg and something needs to be done about it to make sure no one else gets ripped into pieces. Understanding doesn't erase blood.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Defend your reasoning. ("Because Limbaugh said so" is insufficient.)

First of all find me any where that I have ever said that. Second, I don't even like Rush. Third, You are guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are saying because this left wing web site says so. They think Tim Russert is biased to the right. That says it all. If any thing he is a moderate democrat like Chris Mathews. Give me a break info.

But that's not what he said. Those are the words they tried to put into his mouth. He made a subtle point- that the pundits on both sides were promoting the party agenda ahead of promoting the truth, beyond just honest perspective. The are dishonest in this to the degree they are doing a great disservice to the needs of the nation.

Yes it is what he said and he did not make a subtle point. He said flat out that he feels shows like cross fire are hurting this country and was attacking them. Go back and listen to it again. On one hand he is saying he is flowed by a group of puppets making prank phone calls then on the other he wants to be taken seriously as a media critic. You are doing the same thing.

Is Kerry biased? Sure, but he's not a journalist. Nor have I seen him distort information (except in obvious satire) in the way pundits o both sides have. I keep watching operatives float lies on the air just to get them out there. Dispicable.

He was extremely brave, given the obvious attacks he was going to receive.

Also note the sentiments of the audience. They clearly supported what he was saying, much to the chagrin of the pundits. Stewart focused on Carlson because Carlson was the one to go on major offense.

How old are you? The daily show it a comedy show not a news show and they distort things all the time. I don't think he did or said anything that warrants Stewart being called brave but you are entitled to your opinion. My problem is not with the context of the show. It is that Stewart blatantly contradicted himself and seems to want to be taken seriously as a media critic but when ever he is asked a tough question reverts back to saying he is a comedian on a comedy show. If that's what he wants to be known for he can shut up and tell jokes or answer questions he doesn't like.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Here's an article from The Nation. I'm not sure about the quality of the paper, but they quote NYT a lot, which though liberal, still offers credible reporting. The article argues that a big turnout would favor democrats more than republicans and therefore republicans are attempting to disenfranchise voters and the armies of dem lawyers are there to fight this. The article is one sided of course, but it'll at least offer the other side to the earlier claims in this thread that dem are trying to steal the ohio vote using fraud and to claims in another thread that the dem strategy to deploy laywers all over battleground states was unethical.

full article from from: http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

A big turn out will absolutely benefit the democrats over republicans. New voters also benefit the democrats. However, that is a totally different issue that vote fraud. The fact is over the past 4 years there is overwhelming evidence to support the claims of democratic vote fraud. Then to throw provisional ballots into the mix gives them even more of an opportunity both for fraud and litigation if they loose.
That was more of an op-ed piece that a news story which was obviously biased and provided no evidence to republican vote fraud or voter suppression. Do you know why they are doing that in Ohio? It's because many new registrations are turning out to be bogus. Either by giving a false address or a obviously fake name such as I.P Freely or Hue Jass. The article also shows how democrats will challenge the election by stating that because provisional ballots weren't counted people were disenfranchised. The reality will be that the democrats will be wheeling in elderly comatose patients, homeless people, and illegal aliens to vote for Kerry. So the reason the democrats are sending out lawyers across the country is legitimate but the evil republicans aren't trying to make sure Sancho who isn't an American citizen isn't voting but are in fact suppressing votes?

you'd have a better case here if Bush hadn't spent the last 4 years borrowing, spending and creating deficits. i'm sure he thinks his economic policies will trickle down to everyone, but that hasn't happened yet. for now big corporations and rich people have done well while poverty rates have increased and job growth has sucked ass. and let's not kid ourselves, most of the corporate welfare financed by your taxes is just a payoff to big corporations so they'll finance the GOP in return.

5 Who do you think employs people in this country? Big corporations? Small businesses that make over 200,000 a year maybe?
As for job growth after 9-11 it decimated the job market it's not fair to blame Bush for that. Did Bush create deficits? Yes but I don't see any democrats out they saying we should cut spending either.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

it's not about whether you care about whether you want "the world" to approve, but rather whether you are up-to-date on how they think. apparantly a lot of bush supporters are not.

It pretty easy to figure out how they think. Their mind set is rooted into arrogant bureaucratic socialism. They believe in a one world government that is run by the UN. They don't believe in countries having their own sovereignty and all countries should bases their policies on the opinion of European elitist. They are for high taxes are against gun ownership. It's easier to put it this way they are basically against every principle this country was founded on. Who cares what they think or how they think?

 

[jeriko1975]

Dummycrats are always whining, especially if they lose. They still can't get over the last election. Socializing the US will not work.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

Who Cares What Other People Think?

It pretty easy to figure out how they think. Their mind set is rooted into arrogant bureaucratic socialism. They believe in a one world government that is run by the UN. They don't believe in countries having their own sovereignty and all countries should bases their policies on the opinion of European elitist. They are for high taxes are against gun ownership. It's easier to put it this way they are basically against every principle this country was founded on. Who cares what they think or how they think?

Here's the movie:
http://media.texansfortruth.org/bushuncensored.mov

I'm sure he found this satisfying, but it is not in any way presidential or appropriate, unless you want to run the country like a frat house.

 

[Jeff]

Voter fraud in Wisconsin

powerlineblog.com

Susan Tully, midwestern field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, became alarmed when she realized that the deputy registrar of voters in Racine, Wisconsin, was an illegal alien. To see whether her fears were justified, Tully sent two individuals from other states to Racine to register to vote. Here is what happened:

I wanted them to specifically tell this person they were illegal aliens, but that they wanted to register to vote -- and she registered them both," she says.

Tully sent the same individuals to the Milwaukee office of a Hispanic organization of which Racine's deputy registrar is also the head:

The two activists received a similar response at the Milwaukee office of the Hispanic group. "This time one of the men in the office at least said it's a felony to register someone who's not a citizen to vote -- but the office manager went ahead and registered them."

Tully reports that the same Hispanic group has a stated goal of registering 20,000 new voters in Wisconsin. Al Gore carried Wisconsin in 2000 by 850 votes.

If Americans don't get serious about voter fraud very soon, it will be too late. That is, if it's not too late already.

CORRECTION: Reader Joe Kachelski points out that Gore's margin of victory was 5,708.

 

[CDB]

I'm sure he found this satisfying, but it is not in any way presidential or appropriate, unless you want to run the country like a frat house.

Any less presidential than getting a knob shine in the oval office? Or pulling what I hear Kerry does, cutting to the front of a line and when someone calls him on it saying, "Don't you know who I am?" Between left elitist unpresidential and frathouse unpresidential, I'll take the latter. Not that I'd be happy with it, I just dislike it less than the former.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Here's the movie:
http://media.texansfortruth.org/bushuncensored.mov

I'm sure he found this satisfying, but it is not in any way presidential or appropriate, unless you want to run the country like a frat house.

He was joking around. Are you up set that Kerry dropped the F bomb in a rolling stone interview as well? That isn't very presidential either.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Any less presidential than getting a knob shine in the oval office? Or pulling what I hear Kerry does, cutting to the front of a line and when someone calls him on it saying, "Don't you know who I am?" Between left elitist unpresidential and frathouse unpresidential, I'll take the latter. Not that I'd be happy with it, I just dislike it less than the former.

Forget the knob shine........How presidential is it to trade technology to China for campaign money? Wait ...........that's treason. How presidential is it to rape someone?

 

[Jeff]

VG, If I was married to shillary, I .........

j/k

 

[kwyckemynd00]

you'd have a better case here if Bush hadn't spent the last 4 years borrowing, spending and creating deficits. i'm sure he thinks his economic policies will trickle down to everyone, but that hasn't happened yet.

I'm not too happy with his lack of fiscal conservatism; I never said I was.

for now big corporations and rich people have done well while poverty rates have increased and job growth has sucked ass. and let's not kid ourselves, most of the corporate welfare financed by your taxes is just a payoff to big corporations so they'll finance the GOP in return.

Now let me get this straight...I"m being taxed so that Bush can pay corporations to pay bush? In stead of making the retarded sounds that immediately popped in my head when I read this, I'll just see if I can clear this up. Who's paying who again? Bush is paying corporations so that they pay Bush...huh??? :trout:

About the knowledge factor: "Yesterday's Washington Post picked up the story about the Univ. of Maryland report that I reported Friday. This report concluded that Bush and Kerry supporters live in different worlds with different facts. For example, 75% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks (vs. 30% of Kerry supporters), despite the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluding that Iraq was not involved in the attacks. Similar disparities exist on whether Iraq had WMD, whether the world approves of the war in Iraq and more." (from: http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct25.html)

So how about that voting test?

-5

I'd say this: READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE (Despite it's ludicrous title)

The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)’s) “Duelfer Report,� the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group.

Note the fact that they either said "had" or "had" the capacity to produce them. Had is "past tense" and we still don't know if the "had" them considering the great duration of time before the war actually started. Do I think they had them...nope. Does it seem reasonable to believe that with all the time Saddam had to prepare for the invasion that he moved them the hell out, yes it does.

It found that that Hussein had dismantled all of his WMD programs shortly after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and had never tried to reconstitute them.

Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters said they believed that most experts currently believe that Iraq had actual WMD, and 57 percent said they thought that the Duelfer Report had itself concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38 percent).

Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast, said they believed that pre-war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and only 18 percent said they believed that “most experts� agreed.

Similar results were found with respect to Hussein’s alleged support for al Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently asserted by Vice president Dick Cheney (news - web sites), but that was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer.

Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing “substantial� support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon (news - web sites). Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that “most experts� have reached the same conclusion.

It has been proven that there were links between al qaeda and saddam, just not specifically with "9/11". Now 20% believing he gave them money compared to the 50% of New Yorkers who think Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time is a damn good comparison between conservatives and liberals, IMHO.

By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters said they believe that such a link existed and that most experts agree.

But large majorities of both Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, those majorities have actually grown since last summer, according to PIPA.

This was the classic case of playing the "statistics game". Nothing damaging here. Yeah, I know there are plenty of conservative idiots out there, but there are way more liberal idiots. I mean come on! 50% of New Yorkers believeve the government knew about 9/11 and conciously did not act on it. No flame on NYer's. It's just a very liberal state and I'm using a statistic based on the liberals in the state.

You're trying to compare this kind of ignorance to the fact that some 28% of people believe Saddam "had" WMD's and that another 50 or so percent thought he "had" programs.