My gut feeling is the 2000 elections were littered with fraud...

Bush was way ahead of Gore in the polls before the election, then Gore pulls an amazing come-from-behind at, literally, the last second.

I was suspicious then, but aside from some reports of Dems offering homeless people cigarretes to vote for Gore (here, here and here) and university students openly admitting to voting more than once and ex-felons illegally voting(here and here), there was no clear evidence as to how far it went and what impact it had.

In the light of the "shady" dealings of 2000, election and law enforcement officials are starting to be wary of possible voter fraud. This story tells of Socialists planning to exploit MN law and do something unethical (and possibly even illegal). This story and this story tells of rampant voter fraud in South Dakota for the upcoming election.

Two items to note:

First, all of these election fraud stories are fraud in favor of Democratic candidates.

Second, two of the states in question (WI and MN) both have same-day voter registration (i.e. you can register to vote on the day of the election). This study shows that the only registration reform that has proven to drastically increase voter turnout is same-day voter registration (not mail-in ballots, not absentee voting and not early voting), which also happens to make voter fraud easier.

Makes you wonder how much of the increased voter turnout is due to fraud?

-pheirce

EDIT: fixed link
Post edited by pheirce at 10/19/2002 6:08:44 PM

Phierce, I think you probably under estimated the level of fraud that exists in American Politics in general. IMO and working for a state government, I have seen and experienced things resulting from corrupt politics that absolutely boggle my mind. Fraud and corruption exists in both parties, and probably to the same high level.

Accusations of election fraud here in Florida is rampant from both parties, and in my view, much of it is probably accurate.

Personal and private agendas are the norm, as is political favoritism and intimidation.

Dont get me wrong, the way our democratic system of government is SUPPOSED to run is a wonderful thing and I am a patriotic american. However, I am deeply disturbed by the level of corruption at every level.

IMO all political lobbys and gift giving, favors, and riders should be banned and heavily punished, as it is one of the main driving forces that influence the votes of politicians.

I would like to hear your views regarding the level of American political corruption in general.

It is apparent pheirce is just a Republican(the Republican or hell type) that is too cought up int he X-Files and the internet.

Turn off the computer. Stop staring at your Scully posters.

Go outside and talk to someone face to face for once.

Then, get a life.

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

It is apparent pheirce is just a Republican(the Republican or hell type) that is too cought up int he X-Files and the internet.

Turn off the computer. Stop staring at your Scully posters.

Go outside and talk to someone face to face for once.

Then, get a life.

Originally posted by: pheirce

About your "life" comment, I must say that was right on que. Next will be 6 pages of derogatory questions/insinuations about my education, religion, logic, intelligence, possibly even my family and personal looks; while the whole time avoiding the substance of the discussion. After 6 pages I will either convince you to engage in the discussion or you will simply disappear (usually with a few parting shots).

Since we already know the outcome of the drama, can we dispense with it and stay on topic with actual discussion?

Alpha, I'll address your points and questions later as I "have" to go play T2 now .

-pheirce
Post edited by pheirce at 10/18/2002 9:16:27 PM

vote early... vote often...vote freedom first. N.R.A.!!!
"Jesus saves , but only Buddha makes incremental backups"

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

It is apparent pheirce is just a Republican(the Republican or hell type) that is too cought up int he X-Files and the internet.

Turn off the computer. Stop staring at your Scully posters.

Go outside and talk to someone face to face for once.

Then, get a life.

I see a lot of flames in these forums, which is not really cool. The most outspoken here (cimat, phierce, dominus, and others), seem to refrain from that. That's not to say they haven't said anything to this effect, but I haven't seen it myself. They also make some really good points. Kudos to them. But maybe they realize that everyone here is a real person, and not just a viewpoint. Wow, what a concept. Try to make the distinction here. Trash the viewpoint, not the person.

(I am, in many ways, as you put it, "republican or hell"... yet most of my friends are liberal. Made for an interesting beach party a few months ago, spent playing football in the sand then laying on the beach, argueing about politics.)

criminals = goto jail
good criminals = welcome to the famailiy
great criminals = run for office
they are all crooks dems , reps , leftwind , rightwing , moderates and YES ever your buddies cimat the greens all take money bribes donations. Whatever you wanna call it its wrong but its life in american polotics(sux)

They make good points? So taking a few half truthes that benefit their one sided view are good points?

No, it is narrow mindedness.

If you want to be fooled by someone who has to post his slanted views on an internet ladder site for games, then by all means go ahead and be fooled. You go ahead and eat the crap he serves you, and I hope you get some corn with it.

I, on the other hand, will call him out on it.

BTW, being 'Republican or hell' is quit stupid. I am lucky to have realized at 25 that neither Republican nor Democrats are correct(nor right or left wing or correct). The sweet spot, the g spot, is right there in the middle. You want to keep thinking either right or left, fine by me. Just don't expect this country to pick itself up and start fixing itself in your lifetime.

Half truths? Are you the judge of what is fact and what isnt? He posted supporting documents to give credibility to his argument, which I dont see from you.

Being in the "middle" isnt a bad thing, but there would be no middle without a right and a left would there? I tend to side strongly with the left on some issues, and strongly right on some issues... Does this put me in the middle? overall, yes, but on any given issue I have some very strong opinions.

And I dont expect the country to suddenly "fix itself". It took 200 years to get this deeply imbedded in corruption and will not change until the lethargic, apathetic, and undereducated american public gets fed up and does something about it.

"They make good points? So taking a few half truthes that benefit their one sided view are good points?"
-They quote facts, they compare facts, they argue point per point. Rather than resorting to personal insults, that is.

"If you want to be fooled by someone who has to post his slanted views on an internet ladder site for games, then by all means go ahead and be fooled."
-Nothing I've read posted by anyone here has changed my mind on any issue. Your statement here infers thta it would be better for me to be 'fooled' by someone who has to post personal insults in a thread of political nature, than to be 'fooled' by someone who posts facts in the same thread?

"I, on the other hand, will call him out on it."
-Where in these forums have you posted a true rebuttal for anything ANYONE here has said? I don't see one.

"I am lucky to have realized at 25 that neither Republican nor Democrats are correct(nor right or left wing or correct)."
-I am not truly republican or hell, I have my views, they side with republicans (most of the time). In some ways I'm more libertarian, and in some ways I'm undecided (legalisation of weed). You, however, seem incapable of discerning the difference between blind following and free thinking, so I made no distinction in my post, as it was directed (partly) at you.

"You want to keep thinking either right or left, fine by me. Just don't expect this country to pick itself up and start fixing itself in your lifetime."
-Your post is somewhat presumptuous. The term 'pick itself up' sounds as if it was once up, and then fell. You, however, infer that the two major party system that we currently have is the cause for us not being able to 'pick the coutnry up'. I'm not good with history, but I'm fairly certain we've almost always had 2 major parties or ways of thinking. So, pick ourselves back up to where, then? Which bipartisan time period would you prefer we shift to?

Originally posted by: Alphamale

Half truths? Are you the judge of what is fact and what isnt? He posted supporting documents to give credibility to his argument, which I dont see from you.

No he is not. He is linking to a FEW things that support his cause. His 'half truths' are ignoring everything else. Saying THIS is it, and it proves THIS is complete BS. It proves nothing at all.

It is like a graph. i can take some information, form a graph, and make that graph tell you what I want it to tell you. It is the exact same thing happening here.

I truely feel sorry for those here that think this is a 'well thought out arguement' this pheirce has. I have seen Jr. High School Civics papers with more thought our arguements, with better support and more than one view point.

This post is nothing but a one sided rant. If you can't see that, I really feel sorry for you. Sure, he keeps it unemotional, and types it as a 'thought out piece,' but the content shows otherwise. The content is that one a one sided rant.

And I must say, someone has to be very narrow minded and ignorant to think only democrats have tried to cheat in politics(hey, what happened with that Tricky Dick chap?). A politician is crooked from the get go, no matter what party they are alligned with.
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/19/2002 12:33:15 PM

Originally posted by: Juzfugen

criminals = goto jail
good criminals = welcome to the famailiy
great criminals = run for office
they are all crooks dems , reps , leftwind , rightwing , moderates and YES ever your buddies cimat the greens all take money bribes donations. Whatever you wanna call it its wrong but its life in american polotics(sux)

Note about donations to the Green Party: The Green party accepts no donations from PAC's or corporations, only from individuals, and even then it cannot exceed $20k

In Iowa, where I am at- that rule stands, except individuals can donation no more than $100.

In my opinion, this is not a bribe- at least not on the level of democrats and republicans who accept millions of dollars from corporations and billionaires.


My non-political signature goes here

Originally posted by: Juzfugen

criminals = goto jail
good criminals = welcome to the famailiy
great criminals = run for office
they are all crooks dems , reps , leftwind , rightwing , moderates and YES ever your buddies cimat the greens all take money bribes donations. Whatever you wanna call it its wrong but its life in american polotics(sux)

If all politicians are crooks, greedy, and evil.Then where are all the good citizens of the US fixing things?

"Its cheating to level the playing field" - Stephen Colbert

Joey, no need to feel sorry for me, I think for myself and base my decisions on evidence. He has presented some, and you have not. He may be biased toward the conservative side, but truthfully, everyone is biased in some way. Me and you included.

In essence, he is saying "here is what I believe", and posts information that supports his viewpoint as to why he has the opinion he presented. No offense, but rather that rebutt what he says with equally credible information, you simply say "no its not that way" and dont offer information as to why.

I am not saying I completely agree with Pheirce, but he does present arguments with supporting information. Does he present information that supports his viewpoint? Yes. Is this a bad thing? No.

It would give you alot more credibility if you presented information as to WHY you disagree with him, and if your evidence is better than his, you will win your point.

Thats all I am saying. I dont know who said this but its one of my favorite comparisons - "Politicians are like diapers, they both need to be changed frequently and for the same reason".

^^^^^^totally agree^^^^^


My non-political signature goes here

So, you are saying I have to post 'evidence' where my arguement is not that what he posted is lies or wrong?

Um, ok.

What kind of 'evidence' woudl I have to post to 'prove' that his post is slanted in one direction and is narrow minded? Or that a person can make a topic look a certain topic look hsi way?

I know: COMMON SENSE.

I am sorry it seems you lack this trait.

Again, I can get all the links in the world, take a few, and then present it in the view I want it to look. That is what pheirce has done. There is no 'evidence' for me to get to 'prove' that. Try using your head, that is all you need.
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/19/2002 3:02:40 PM

Joey, no need to attack me by saying I have no common sense. That was uncalled for.

As for what he posted being lies, you are incorrect. Yes, he posted supporting information for his argument. EVERYONE does this. Who is "empirically" correct? I dont know.

But the fact is he supports his viewpoint with information while you haven't. You dont have to believe it, but overall, this makes his opinion all the more credible. I dont think he is saying that ONLY democrats are engaging in fraud.

There are numerous articles addressing voter fraud on behalf of the republicans here in Florida. Ill try to track down some links and post them.

Joey, Im not attacking you, Im simply pointing out that he is presenting information that increases his credibility. You may disagree, but you aren't backing it up with anything.

Im not saying his post wasn't one sided. Of course he presents information to support his viewpoint. Who wouldn't? He has a point to make and he made it. I dont think it is narrow minded at all.

How many times do I have to say what he posted was not neccesarily LIES????????????

It is obvious that this simple thing I am trying to get accross to you will never get across to you.

It is not the FACTS, it is the presentation. His presentation is one that makes it look in hsi favor, without giving all the facts. <- Write that down, take a picture, I don't care, JUST REMEMBER IT.

Again, and for the last time, you can make a graph tell you whatever you want it to. You can make a editoral tell whatever you want it to. It is all int he presentation, and slant, that you use.

So, if you would like me to find my old civics books from Jr. high School, or simple probabitily and Statistics books from high School, and scan the pictures, you are nto going to get any of this 'evidence' you so badly crave. Why? because it is COMMON SENSE.
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/19/2002 3:46:44 PM

I should have known better than to expect civility. Of course he includes information that supports his viewpoint, that is what an argument IS. Do you think that he would make a point then produce information that completely refutes it? Take the next step with me now.... NO he wouldnt.

You can slant anything to advance your point. But a fact is a fact. If he is presenting facts, then what exactly IS the problem? At least Pheirce HAS a presentation, while you have insults and condescending attitude to wrap around yourself.

You speak of common sense, I suggest you use some of it as well. You equate your opinion with common sense. And no, you dont have to go get your Jr. High school textbooks out. Common sense would suggest that one actually read the articles, both for and against and make an informed decision. You dont agree with him, but that doesn't make him uninformed does it? You seem to be the one that has the closed mind. I suspect that if someone presented good enough information to refute Pheirce's argument, he would accept it.

So try not to blow a gasket. Of course you can make an editorial say what you want it to.. its an EDITORIAL!! I never argued that. So I think I do get the point. But at least he provides links to the information that gave him that opinion, whereby I could read the same information and either agree or formulate reasons why I disagree. That is a fair way to do it.

If you disagree with him, post some REASONS why, other than invoking your monopoly on Common sense. Or do you want me to believe you are right, simply because YOU say so?

Common sense, as you should already know, would say that you should give some real information (i.e. evidence) as to why he is wrong.

It is NOT pheirce's responsibility to debunk his own argument, That is the responsibility of folks who disagree with him like yourself.

Welcome to real common sense.

Joey, instead of attacking others' posts, how about posting your own ideas on something? You've done nothing here but criticize others for what they believe, and have posted no real arguments of your own, NOR have you posted anything to show that your criticism is warranted.

You are a parasite.

I have to agree with some people in here, slanted one-sided views that basicly hint at the person's opinnion that one political party is the devil, and the other is god's gift to man are not an accurate depiction of what goes on in politics.

The fact is that the democrats, and the republicans both are sleezy motherfuckers who think they are above the law.

No, I'm not going to say "VOTE GREEN!", because I know little about them, and from what I have seen, people like them because they are not sleezy (which should be the MINIMUM requirement for electing officials).
We are going to go through some serious shit untill someone who is qualified for the job steps up and gets some attention.

Of course their is voter fraud across the whole political spectrum. It's ludicrous to think that placing a specific letter after your name (i.e. pheirce - R) will automatically bestow you with virtue.

To be thorough, and to further appease Joey's delicate sensibilities, I did a search for Republican fraud. Among numerous stories about Republicans trying to get legislation passed at all levels to help eliminate voter fraud, and the Democrats fighting these legislation attempts (for various reasons), I did find some items dealing with Republican voter fraud:

This item should be familiar to everyone as it was a central part of the election 2000 controversy. In summary, an election official directed election workers in two Florida counties (Seminole and Marin) to put voter ID numbers on all absentee ballots that lacked them. Florida law states that only the voter, family member or guardian can alter ballots. Since absentee ballots tend to lean toward the Republican candidate, the Gore Campaign claimed voter fraud and tried to get the ballots thrown out. A judge ruled that, while it was against procedures, it was not a violation of law (a crime requires criminal intent). The Gore campaign challenged the ruling and the Florida State Supreme Court affirmed the ruling with a 6-0 vote.

Here is a story about some Republicans in Sonoma County (CA) who forged signatures on a referendum for a land swap deal to get enough votes so it would appear on the ballot.

This story is about canvassers who fooled people into changing their voter registration from Democrat to Republican. The five month investigation has determined that there is nothing to file charges for because the victims had signed and initialed the changes on the cards. Interestingly enough, all those who had been falsely registered as Republicans were given the chance to re-register as Democrats. Most of them did not.

I also found another story last night, but I can't seem to find it today to link it. Basically, a 76 yr. old canvasser in CA has been charged with forging two signatures on voter registration cards for the Republicans.

And to be complete, in my search for Republican vote fraud, I found more evidence of Democrat vote fraud in South Dakota, Missouri, California and a lesson by John Ashcroft to Al Gore about how to deal with this kind of situation.

I think anyone reading the evidence that I posted here would have to admit that there are some big differences in the types of fraud mentioned. I welcome everyone else to please post your own evidence of either side fraud. Keep in mind that I avoided opinion articles and reports of naked accusations. The naked accusations will ALWAYS be there, it's the nature of politics.

Basically, I do think that voter fraud is more rampant with the Democrats than the Republicans and I think there is a specific reason for this. Mainly, the left leaning mainstream media has allowed the Dems to get sloppy with their ethics as well as their argumentation (most liberal argumentation devolves into personal attack; "nazi" is used a lot. There are some notable exceptions on this board, thanks Cimat, et. al.). I'm certain that if our left leaning media actually started to lean toward the right, you would see this kind of intellectual and ethical sloppiness on the part of the Republicans (and I'd stop defending them). We might actually see that in the near future, because alternatives to the left leaning media (Internet, Fox, etc.) are starting to pop up and become extremely popular.

Alpha, I love that quote (i.e. "Politicians are like diapers, they both need to be changed frequently and for the same reason") and I agree wholeheartedly with it. Politics/power corrupts, it's the nature of the beast. This is not to say that noone exists that is uncorruptable, but the longer a politician is a politician, the lest I tend to trust them (btw, this is one of the reasons I like Bush/Cheney).

As far as "the middle of the road", I think most people who follow this thinking are just intellectually lazy. It's much easier to see the accusations being flung by both sides and to become aloof by saying "you are both wrong, i'm going to vote the middle". It's a more difficult and time consuming to dig into the accusations and do your own research into the issues (I'd argue that before the Internet it was next to impossible to do this research). I do draw a very clear distinction between people like Alphamale, who takes a stand on an issue-by-issue basis, and people who simply state "I'm in the middle".

-pheirce
---
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" --Hillary MarxClinton
"the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Primary Debate, 5/03/03

"Mainly, the left leaning mainstream media has allowed the Dems to get sloppy with their ethics as well as their argumentation"

I have always loved this crap.

Then WTF was Clinton under fire by the media everyday? If the media is Clinton's butt pal(because he is a Democrat), then why the hell would he be under attack all the time? You would think they never would have mentioned ANY of his scandals.

Then, there is Bush, who has plenty of scandals that the media(the liberal media remember) has barely touched on.
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/20/2002 10:14:55 AM

Well put joey, I've been trying to think of a way to say that, but all that comes to mind is bong resin and shot glasses

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

Then WTF was Clinton under fire by the media everyday? If the media is Clinton's butt pal(because he is a Democrat), then why the hell would he be under attack all the time? You would think they never would have mentioned ANY of his scandals.

Then, there is Bush, who has plenty of scandals that the media(the liberal media remember) has barely touched on.

Well, I cant argue with that. I think the media as a whole does take a more liberal slant, with a few notable exceptions (MSNBC, Fox), but they (general media) would sacrifice their own children for a story with dirt on any politician, left or right. They could tout Clinton as the best president ever, then turn around and torture him for his indescretions. I think the Bushs do a better job of keeping a lid on their personal lives with respect to the media overall.

its the mafia connections!!!!11!!!11!

Originally posted by: Alphamale

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

Then WTF was Clinton under fire by the media everyday? If the media is Clinton's butt pal(because he is a Democrat), then why the hell would he be under attack all the time? You would think they never would have mentioned ANY of his scandals.

Then, there is Bush, who has plenty of scandals that the media(the liberal media remember) has barely touched on.

Well, I cant argue with that. I think the media as a whole does take a more liberal slant, with a few notable exceptions (MSNBC, Fox), but they (general media) would sacrifice their own children for a story with dirt on any politician, left or right. They could tout Clinton as the best president ever, then turn around and torture him for his indescretions. I think the Bushs do a better job of keeping a lid on their personal lives with respect to the media overall.

No, the difference is the Democrats are not picking Bush's life apart liek the Republican's did Clinton. The republican's were PISSED they lost the presidential seat after so many years of controlling it. They were on a blood thirst with Clinton, leaking the smallest thing to the media and expanding it to look bigger than it was.

It was truely a low point in dirty politics and journalism(at that time the media was also on the 'scandal' bandwagon and rode it out until the viewers got tired of it).

Guys, the simplest explanation as to why Clinton had so many scandals is that Clinton was so dirty. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Remember his whole campaign of 1992? The Republicans brought up the "character issue". The Clinton Campaign response? "Character doesn't count, it's about the issues." What did we expect from someone who honestly believes that character doesn't count? The reason these items actually got reported on is because there are some journalist who are interested in being journalist rather than progressing an agenda (as well as some journalist who lean to the right).

As far as the liberal media bias, it's there for anyone who has the ability to listen to an issue from either side (i.e. read a story as if you were going to argue the other side. It should be easy for anyone who claims to be "middle of the road".)

But if you don't have the ability to be impartial yourself, there is some hard evidence.

First, Bernhard Goldberg was a vetera CBS reporter who argued that the liberal media bias was not do to a conspiracy, but, rather, do to the personal beliefs of reporters themsleves. They tend to lean left and they do not have the ability to be completely impartial (who does). You can read it in his "expose" (how do you expose something so obvious? ) called Bias.

Second, Ann Coulter wrote a meticulously documented book on the same subject. Joey, someone with your delicate sensibilities might not want to read this one because Ann doesn't pull any punches and you are likely to not be able to get past the first time she says something mean about Democrats. Anyone else can read it in her book Slander.

Third, both of these books reference a survey that was done after the 1992 presidential campaign on the Washington Press Corp. 89% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Bill Clinton. This was in stark contrast to the 43% of the American population who voted for the man. Heck, this was a vote for Clinton by reporters that was higher than all Registered Democrats (something like 85%, it's in Ann's book).

As far as the Bush scandals that the media is compliantly hiding, what are you talking about? Please offer specific examples.

-pheirce
Post edited by pheirce at 10/20/2002 1:45:33 PM

---
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" --Hillary MarxClinton
"the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Primary Debate, 5/03/03

Originally posted by: pheirce

1)Guys, the simplest explanation as to why Clinton had so many scandals is that Clinton was so dirty. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Remember his whole campaign of 1992? The Republicans brought up the "character issue". The Clinton Campaign response? "Character doesn't count, it's about the issues." What did we expect from someone who honestly believes that character doesn't count? The reason these items actually got reported on is because there are some journalist who are interested in being journalist rather than progressing an agenda (as well as some journalist who lean to the right).

2)As far as the liberal media bias, it's there for anyone who has the ability to listen to an issue from either side (i.e. read a story as if you were going to argue the other side. It should be easy for anyone who claims to be "middle of the road".)

3)But if you don't have the ability to be impartial yourself, there is some hard evidence.

4)As far as the Bush scandals that the media is compliantly hiding, what are you talking about? Please offer specific examples.

-pheirce

Points:

1)You make it seem as though a 'few' journalists reported anything 'bad' on Clinton. I seem to remember every news channel, and every news program, reporting on him on almost a daily basis. if that is a 'few', I'd hate to see what you mean by the 'majority.'

2)For every story or editorial I read that seems to be slanted Democratic, I see one that is slanted Republican. That is what happens when you do not cry 'boo hoo, liberal media' at every story you disagree with and forget the ones you agree with.

3) hard evidence? Since when is someone's opinion consider fact? Don't you remember the good old days of Fact and Opinion tests? I do find it funny how you try to pass opinions as evidence, and some of your yes mean follow it and spread it around, too.

4)I will make it an easy one. Remember all the crap you would hear on the news about Clinton's family? Like, oh, say his brother. Why is it Bush's family barely gets any mention of their drug abuse problems, except how 'wonderful it is to see a family come together and help a family member.....' or 'she's paying he price for her crime, and we shoudl applaud the Bush family for this.' Yet when it was Clinton's brother it reflected badly on Clinton himself.

Pheirce, you need to pull your head out of your Republican butt and take a look at reality.

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

Points:

1)You make it seem as though a 'few' journalists reported anything 'bad' on Clinton. I seem to remember every news channel, and every news program, reporting on him on almost a daily basis. if that is a 'few', I'd hate to see what you mean by the 'majority.'

2)For every story or editorial I read that seems to be slanted Democratic, I see one that is slanted Republican. That is what happens when you do not cry 'boo hoo, liberal media' at every story you disagree with and forget the ones you agree with.

3) hard evidence? Since when is someone's opinion consider fact? Don't you remember the good old days of Fact and Opinion tests? I do find it funny how you try to pass opinions as evidence, and some of your yes mean follow it and spread it around, too.

4)I will make it an easy one. Remember all the crap you would hear on the news about Clinton's family? Like, oh, say his brother. Why is it Bush's family barely gets any mention of their drug abuse problems, except how 'wonderful it is to see a family come together and help a family member.....' or 'she's paying he price for her crime, and we shoudl applaud the Bush family for this.' Yet when it was Clinton's brother it reflected badly on Clinton himself.

Pheirce, you need to pull your head out of your Republican butt and take a look at reality.

Joey, you are beginning to emerge from the middle of the road.

I see I'm going to have to pin you down because you tend to gloss over facts (as you have with ever other topic I or others have tried to get you to discuss).

First, what does the fact that 89% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Clinton say to you?

-pheirce
Post edited by pheirce at 10/20/2002 2:22:52 PM

---
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" --Hillary MarxClinton
"the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Primary Debate, 5/03/03

Since links seem to be your love child:

http://www.geocities.com/alt_politics/Medialiberal.html

Remember how I said graphs and polls can be made to look anyway you want. It sure helps when these polls play these games:

"No, it is not proof of a liberal bias in the Washington Press Corp., in fact, a large number of the members of the Washington Press Corp were not even invited to participate in the poll."

Keep your face burried DEEP into those Republican news letters you receive. Keep posting il-informed crap. I get a good chuckle out of it, especially when your little pals here think that with your 'evidence' you post that you must be right. Well, the il-informed speakers have to have an il-informed group to follow them.

The only reason you see me 'emerging from the middle of the road' is because I have to show you the OTHER SIDE of your view. If you were spewing Democratic love and Republican hate, I would be posting the opposite.

Also, this quote fits you to a T in both your following of your political side and your repeating of what they tell you:

"The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content"
Post edited by Joey Zaza at 10/20/2002 4:02:08 PM

Originally posted by: pheirce

First, what does the fact that 89% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Clinton say to you?

-pheirce

It says Dole sucked and never should have ran for president.

Here is my favorite thing:

pheirce is saying that the internet is a Republican slanted entity. All of his so called 'evidence' is from the internet......

Aside from the fact, already stated here, that all elections are riddled with corruption and fraud, by both political camps, here are a few basic points.

Differentiate b/t popular and electorial votes. People will say electorial votes were instituted to even out the strength of state votes, the reality is it is a method for maintaining an indirect democracy, in which power is kept out of the people's hands.

Gore won the popular vote. The people of this country voted for him to be president, and he won. The electorial college though determines who really wins, and through electorial votes Bush won. I believe this is a great injustice, the man the American people voted for did not get elected president, this only happened once before I believe. Then the supreme court, controlled by conservatives, threw away all conventional methods for dealing with this situation, and decided themselves who the next president was. Another gross abuse of American justice, and something Republicans and Democrats should be disgusted by.

The election was an embarassment to us all. It was a mockery of democracy and a mockery of our entire system of checks and balances. If you ever wanted proof that your votes mean nothing in this country, that this myth of democracy is just that, a myth, those elections did just that.

Bush won far ans square. The rules were set before the election, they knew it. While I beleive the polular vote should be the one that determines the president, it is not set up that way.

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

Bush won far ans square. The rules were set before the election, they knew it. While I beleive the polular vote should be the one that determines the president, it is not set up that way.

Actually that is not true, the election was being run by the proper rules until the supreme court interceded and threw the proper procedures out the window. Since the vote was so close that there is a probability of error of +-5% or so, one side has a right to petition for a hand count. That is what was going on when the conservative controlled supreme court took over the process against all due course and declared the vote stood as is, without recount. That was not by the rules, was not fair and square, and they used their postions in the highest court of the land to elect the president from their political party.

So, what it comes down to is VOTE GREEN


My non-political signature goes here

Originally posted by: cimat1984

So, what it comes down to is VOTE GREEN

................................
Trap¥
Teamwarfare Retired Mechwarrior4 Mercenaries Admin

Originally posted by: Zarathustra

Originally posted by: Joey Zaza

Bush won far ans square. The rules were set before the election, they knew it. While I beleive the polular vote should be the one that determines the president, it is not set up that way.

Actually that is not true, the election was being run by the proper rules until the supreme court interceded and threw the proper procedures out the window. Since the vote was so close that there is a probability of error of +-5% or so, one side has a right to petition for a hand count. That is what was going on when the conservative controlled supreme court took over the process against all due course and declared the vote stood as is, without recount. That was not by the rules, was not fair and square, and they used their postions in the highest court of the land to elect the president from their political party.

I think you missed the NUMEROUS recounts.

Remove any and all retirement benefits.

We'll see how long the self-centered stick around.