Nice troll! One drunk left-winger, who has no connection with the DNC, does something stupid, and that's supposed to be morally equivalent to an organized RNC campaign across 53 districts where millions of illegal phonecalls are placed with the explicit goal of deceiving voters. Hmm, somehow the situations seem different.
Do you expect anything less?
The Rove/Bush machine put fliers all over South Carolina in 2000 during the primaries saying that John McCain had fathered a "black" child.
The Rove/Bush machine sent a debate-prep videotape to Al Gore's headquarters in 2000, hoping to then play the "Gore campaign stole our video tape!" angle that they used against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Only Gore's campaign didn't take the bait and immediately called the media to report it. It turned out that a RNC staffer sent the tape (and took the fall, even though she was doing exactly as her bosses wanted her)
This is how they operate. Republicans always feel the ends justify the means, especially this current batch. It is a pattern in everything they do. They wanted to go into Iraq from the moment they took office, and they didn't care how much they had to lie or trump up false evidence to do it. The ends justified the means.
They feel that this country cannot survive without them in power, so there is no tactic too shameless or illegal that they won't try. In their minds, they MUST remain in power, so they will do anything and everything - even if it involves violating the law - to ensure that they do.
It is why Blackwell in Ohio accused his opponent of being endorsed by NAMBLA. (As Jon Stewart said, "how far do you have to be trailing in the polls to throw out the NAMBLA card?")
It is why supporters of Corker in Tennessee aired an ad indicating that Harold Ford Jr. is interested in white women.
There is no strategy too vile, too shameless, too illegal, too immoral for the Republicans. They represent the worst side of human nature. They are pigs. They know it, and they don't care. Too them, the stakes are too great to allow the Dems to take control of any part of government, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to prevent it from happening.
The ends justify the means.
That is why, if there is any hope of saving this nation from the course it is on, we must fight against them at every turn.
You entirely miss the point.
You miss his.
Swinging the election one way or another undermines the basic foundation of democracy.
If Gore had won in 2000 or Kerry had won in 2004, 90%+ of those crying about Diebold would be hailing them as paragons of fairness.
LK
And that is entirely besides the point. It doesn't MATTER who's ox is being gored... the fact that voting machines are insecure should alarm everyone.
WHO CARES if Democrat hacks would not have been upset if Gore had one. THAT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.
The truth is, there is strong evidence that Bush didn't win. There is also strong evidence that Diebold machines are insecure.
I voted for Bush.... but if he didn't win, he didn't win. The ends DO NOT justify the means. If my guy got less votes than the other guy, then our system of government DEMANDS that my guy should not be in office. Doesn't matter if I strongly believe that my guy is "better".
Our entire system of government breaks down if we subscribe to "I don't care how it happens, my guy needs to get in." The ends do NOT justify the means... EVER.... when it comes to preserving our system of government.
If the 2000 or 2004 count was botched, then we need to make sure it NEVER happens again... even if you feel we luckily ended up with the better guy in office.
Partisan hacks like you make it harder and harder to vote Republican.
Gurmant Grewal, a Canadian member of parliament, already edited a voice recording and released it to the media to embarass his opponents. (Not during an election campaign, though.)
Fortunately, it did not go well for him.
A guy with a name like "Gurmant Grewal" would need to pull out ALL the stops to get ahead.
My God... does Canada have a difficult procedure for acquiring a name-change or something?
Speaking of shooting off and the nature of video as a communications medium, I wonder why no one has yet assembled clips of George Bush farting around the Whitehouse. (Gentle Slashdot readers should feel free to Google using those keywords.) It's debatable if such videos would have a direct effect on the outcome of an election, but the commercials would be more fun to watch.
Nah... this would get spun on FNC as another example of how Bush is a "regular guy" just like us.
...and to those on the right, his farts don't stink anyway.
Had you actually bothered to check the history of this article you would have learned that it was created on August 16, 2006. Of course, I'm not an american so I don't know for sure, but I'll bet serious money that the actual incident happened on August 15, and the whole article's purpose is just to dig up obscure knownledge to use against someone who used what he thought was a general insult, without knowing its rascist history.
No..this was pretty heavily played in the news for a few weeks after it happened. Today's reference is not digging up something obscure, but something that changed the dynamic of the VA senate race two months ago.
Prior to the incident, Allen was solidly ahead in the polls... afterward, he stumbled badly... especially after his poor attempts at explaining it away.
Just wait until video recording devices owned by the populace are so pervasive that nearly every moment outside a politician's office and home are recorded and on public display. Maybe we'll be able to see those lesser known (and arguably more decent) candidates that don't have the huge monetary and party backing get a few more votes, or even win a few elections.
Or.... more likely....
Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.
Would YOU run for office if it meant subjecting your school-age children to video surveillence by your "constituents"?
"Look! There's little Johnny Congresscritterson peeing his pants in gym class! Look! There's his 15-year-old daughter making out under the bleachers at the football game!"
I don't get it... When I cast my electronic vote, it printed it onto PAPER... When I Verfied all the information was correct on that piece of PAPER that it printed then it finished the ballot. Otherwise, it would have started over... And for recounts and such, they have to go by the PRINTED PAPER RECORD. NOT the machine counts as everyone thinks...
No, Don't get me wrong... I think there are LOTS of OTHER issues with the current crop of machines, but the machines DO leave a PAPER trail. So, What was your complaint again?
Lets not make broad sweeping assumptions and stick to facts.
Not all machines have paper trails. There are several states that are using machines that have no paper trails whatsoever.
You are lucky enough to be in a state that was smart enough to insist on VVPT machines (Voter verified paper trail).
Not everyone is as lucky as you.
Georgia and Pennsylvania, to name two, are states that use Diebold machines in some counties that have no paper trail at all.
...that doesn't have a simple answer: How can the government protect the country from another 9/11 if it's not allowed to spy?
Nobody,including this judge, said the government isnt allowed to spy. They/we are saying, that the government isnt allowed to spy without a warrant presented to and approved by a FISA court.
You bushbots can keep presenting straw man arguments and attempts at obsfucating the issues, but it boils down to this....
we are a nation of laws. That includes the President and those that work for him. No exceptions.
Call me Machiavellian, but I'd wager this goes across party lines. Self interest of those in power to maintain said power. Just as gerrymandering isn't a one party phenomenon, neither is vote-rigging. (1968 democrats, possibly 2000 and 2004 republicans)
1968 Democrats?
If the Democrats rigged the 1968 election, they don't deserve to hold office. Richard Nixon, Republican, won the 1968 election.
...the first time I played Quake with the headphones on and the lights turned off....I shit my pants when one of those wolverine-type monsters came around the corner.
Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman.
and it should only be done for the purpose of procreation.... and only "missionary" style... with the lights off... and the covers up....
*yawn*
My enduring dream, if there is actually a God and afterlife, is that you moral-majority types are going to wake up after death on the "other side" and find out that all the angels in heaven are fucking each others brains out every which way and having a ball. And then you'll realize how much time you wasted down here being "chaste" when heaven is just one long everlasting orgy.
Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman.
There is so much to disagree with in that particular comment.. where to begin?
A. You have no business telling anyone what sex "should" be. Who made you the grand poobah? And don't you dare quote the bible to me... it isn't a book of laws for this country yet (despite the efforts of the Christian Taliban).
B. Sex doesn't have to include love, and love doesn't have to include sex. They often work in conjunction, but neither depends on the other. I've had great sex with someone I love, and great sex with someone I like, and even some awesome sex with someone I didn't care for very much at all.
C. Sex doesn't have to be between a man and a woman, as I'm sure you are aware. You have no business telling two women or men that their sex life is outside the bounds of what "should" occur. Your morality is just that... yours. Keep it to yourself.
No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.
Sorry.. I get the point entirely.
My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.
Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.
The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob. It is the reason that Homeland Security money is being disproportionately given to communities with almost zero chance of being hit with a terrorist attack, at the expense of big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas.
Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed.
Really.. so it is preferable that the will of a MINORITY of the people supercede the will of the majority? Think about your statement. You are advocating that a "mob" made up of a minority of the people "screws" the majority. That system is better HOW?
The REAL heart of your argument is this... when the "decision makers" are made up of urban, inner-city folk that aren't like you... it's a mob. When the "decision makers" are made up of bible-thumping, gun-toting, rugged individualists that are a MINORITY of U.S. population, it's "what the founders intended".
Bullshit. If Gore would have gotten 1000 more votes in Florida in 2000, would the resulting government be "mob rule"? How is a government run by a man who CAME IN SECOND NATIONALLY less of a mob?
Prior to 1865, blacks in slave states were considered 3/5 of a person in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
As far as electoral standing goes, today's Californian is worth less than a pre-civil war slave.
If you counted popular votes only, alot of bad political precedents will be set, like:
- Candidates campaign exclusively to certain demographic groups. For example, you could win an election by exclusively mobilizing women, african americans and labor.
- Candidates target specific metropolitian areas - New York/Boston/Washington corridor, Los Angeles & Atlanta.
- Candidates target specific professions - teachers, cops & health care workers
Isn't it interesting that each example cited above is an example of groups that vote strongly Democratic.
You didn't include lists like "gun enthusiasts, stock traders, CEOs, and religious fundamentalists". This shows where your bias comes from.
Note that you didn't hear an outcry about the electoral college when Clinton took the White House with 43% of the popular vote in 1992
That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:
Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%
See? The guy with the most votes won. Even without the electoral college, Clinton was the winner. Interesting concept. Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate. Clinton got 5 million more votes than the next highest candidate. The will of the people was served. Hence, no uproar.
In 2000, the will of the people... as a whole... was that Al Gore be President. He got 500,000 more votes than any other candidate. That fact is incontrovertible.
Your hatred of Clinton notwithstanding, more Americans wanted him to be president than any other candidate... both times.
You're trying to confuse the issue. Kennedy got more POPULAR vote than Nixon in 1960 by the way... by 100,000.
Abolition of the Electoral college would have STILL meant JFK won in 1960 and WJC won in 1992 and 1996. Actually, abolition of the Electoral College would have meant that every election in the past century would have gone EXACTLY as it went... with the exception of 2000.
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact. It doesn't detract from the basic fairness that says "the guy with the most wins".
No amount of spinning will change the fact that America, by a narrow margin, rejected Bush in 2000. If a vote were somehow held today, Bush would make McGovern in 1972 look like a landslide winner.
Ugh, if this gets implented we won't be the United States of America anymore. We'd be the United States of California and New York.
Wrong. It means that person in Schenectady, NY would have a vote that counts EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT as a person from Nome, Alaska.
Each of us should count as 1/280,000,000th of the vote. State lines are arbitrary in federal elections. State lines should have no bearings on the vote.
I hear your argument a lot and it just doesn't wash. Currently, the resident of Wyoming matters 3 times as much as the resident of California. Is that fair? No... they should each count as exactly the same share of the vote total.
Someone in San Jose California is not 1/3 of the citizen that a person in Dover, Deleware is. Why should their vote not carry the same weight?
You don't want the "United States of California and New York?" Currently... we have the United States of Podunk. And the current system is inherently unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you expect anything less?
The Rove/Bush machine put fliers all over South Carolina in 2000 during the primaries saying that John McCain had fathered a "black" child.
The Rove/Bush machine sent a debate-prep videotape to Al Gore's headquarters in 2000, hoping to then play the "Gore campaign stole our video tape!" angle that they used against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Only Gore's campaign didn't take the bait and immediately called the media to report it. It turned out that a RNC staffer sent the tape (and took the fall, even though she was doing exactly as her bosses wanted her)
This is how they operate. Republicans always feel the ends justify the means, especially this current batch. It is a pattern in everything they do. They wanted to go into Iraq from the moment they took office, and they didn't care how much they had to lie or trump up false evidence to do it. The ends justified the means.
They feel that this country cannot survive without them in power, so there is no tactic too shameless or illegal that they won't try. In their minds, they MUST remain in power, so they will do anything and everything - even if it involves violating the law - to ensure that they do.
It is why Blackwell in Ohio accused his opponent of being endorsed by NAMBLA. (As Jon Stewart said, "how far do you have to be trailing in the polls to throw out the NAMBLA card?")
It is why supporters of Corker in Tennessee aired an ad indicating that Harold Ford Jr. is interested in white women.
There is no strategy too vile, too shameless, too illegal, too immoral for the Republicans. They represent the worst side of human nature. They are pigs. They know it, and they don't care. Too them, the stakes are too great to allow the Dems to take control of any part of government, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to prevent it from happening.
The ends justify the means.
That is why, if there is any hope of saving this nation from the course it is on, we must fight against them at every turn.
No... but if you vote Democratic on a Diebold voting machine, your vote has a pretty good chance of being recorded as a Republican vote.
And that is entirely besides the point. It doesn't MATTER who's ox is being gored... the fact that voting machines are insecure should alarm everyone.
WHO CARES if Democrat hacks would not have been upset if Gore had one. THAT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.
The truth is, there is strong evidence that Bush didn't win. There is also strong evidence that Diebold machines are insecure.
I voted for Bush.... but if he didn't win, he didn't win. The ends DO NOT justify the means. If my guy got less votes than the other guy, then our system of government DEMANDS that my guy should not be in office. Doesn't matter if I strongly believe that my guy is "better".
Our entire system of government breaks down if we subscribe to "I don't care how it happens, my guy needs to get in." The ends do NOT justify the means... EVER.... when it comes to preserving our system of government.
If the 2000 or 2004 count was botched, then we need to make sure it NEVER happens again... even if you feel we luckily ended up with the better guy in office.
Partisan hacks like you make it harder and harder to vote Republican.
Damn.. and they think that John Kerry is "humor-impaired".
Especially since those novels got rave reviews from conservative media when they came out.
But the bible-thumping puritans that STILL run the GOP can't stand for any "adult themes" in their reading material.
A guy with a name like "Gurmant Grewal" would need to pull out ALL the stops to get ahead.
My God... does Canada have a difficult procedure for acquiring a name-change or something?
Nah... this would get spun on FNC as another example of how Bush is a "regular guy" just like us.
No..this was pretty heavily played in the news for a few weeks after it happened. Today's reference is not digging up something obscure, but something that changed the dynamic of the VA senate race two months ago.
Prior to the incident, Allen was solidly ahead in the polls... afterward, he stumbled badly... especially after his poor attempts at explaining it away.
Those people are typically referred to as "repressed puritanical motherf***ers" and they badly need to get laid.
Or.... more likely....
Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.
Would YOU run for office if it meant subjecting your school-age children to video surveillence by your "constituents"?
"Look! There's little Johnny Congresscritterson peeing his pants in gym class! Look! There's his 15-year-old daughter making out under the bleachers at the football game!"
Not all machines have paper trails. There are several states that are using machines that have no paper trails whatsoever.
You are lucky enough to be in a state that was smart enough to insist on VVPT machines (Voter verified paper trail).
Not everyone is as lucky as you.
Georgia and Pennsylvania, to name two, are states that use Diebold machines in some counties that have no paper trail at all.
Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central is that man.
The first amendment only guarantees that the US government cannot take action to silence speech.
Whether you agree with YouTube or not... they are completely within their constitutional rights to remove any content that they please.
You are guaranteed to say what you want... but no one (and no corporate entity) is under any obligation to give you a forum for your speech.
Nobody,including this judge, said the government isnt allowed to spy. They/we are saying, that the government isnt allowed to spy without a warrant presented to and approved by a FISA court.
You bushbots can keep presenting straw man arguments and attempts at obsfucating the issues, but it boils down to this....
we are a nation of laws. That includes the President and those that work for him. No exceptions.
Maybe the terrorists got the idea from those inane Sierra Mist commercials where the airline security bozos confiscate a 6-pack of Sierra Mist.
January 20, 2009.
1968 Democrats?
If the Democrats rigged the 1968 election, they don't deserve to hold office. Richard Nixon, Republican, won the 1968 election.
I miss the simulated lesbian sex.
...the first time I played Quake with the headphones on and the lights turned off....I shit my pants when one of those wolverine-type monsters came around the corner.
and it should only be done for the purpose of procreation.... and only "missionary" style... with the lights off... and the covers up....
*yawn*
My enduring dream, if there is actually a God and afterlife, is that you moral-majority types are going to wake up after death on the "other side" and find out that all the angels in heaven are fucking each others brains out every which way and having a ball. And then you'll realize how much time you wasted down here being "chaste" when heaven is just one long everlasting orgy.
There is so much to disagree with in that particular comment.. where to begin?
A. You have no business telling anyone what sex "should" be. Who made you the grand poobah? And don't you dare quote the bible to me... it isn't a book of laws for this country yet (despite the efforts of the Christian Taliban).
B. Sex doesn't have to include love, and love doesn't have to include sex. They often work in conjunction, but neither depends on the other. I've had great sex with someone I love, and great sex with someone I like, and even some awesome sex with someone I didn't care for very much at all.
C. Sex doesn't have to be between a man and a woman, as I'm sure you are aware. You have no business telling two women or men that their sex life is outside the bounds of what "should" occur. Your morality is just that... yours. Keep it to yourself.
Actually, according to Steve Martin, "Vuja De" is the feeling that none of this has ever happened before.
Sorry.. I get the point entirely.
My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.
Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.
The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob. It is the reason that Homeland Security money is being disproportionately given to communities with almost zero chance of being hit with a terrorist attack, at the expense of big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas.
Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed.
Really.. so it is preferable that the will of a MINORITY of the people supercede the will of the majority? Think about your statement. You are advocating that a "mob" made up of a minority of the people "screws" the majority. That system is better HOW?
The REAL heart of your argument is this... when the "decision makers" are made up of urban, inner-city folk that aren't like you... it's a mob. When the "decision makers" are made up of bible-thumping, gun-toting, rugged individualists that are a MINORITY of U.S. population, it's "what the founders intended".
Bullshit. If Gore would have gotten 1000 more votes in Florida in 2000, would the resulting government be "mob rule"? How is a government run by a man who CAME IN SECOND NATIONALLY less of a mob?
Prior to 1865, blacks in slave states were considered 3/5 of a person in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
As far as electoral standing goes, today's Californian is worth less than a pre-civil war slave.
Isn't it interesting that each example cited above is an example of groups that vote strongly Democratic.
You didn't include lists like "gun enthusiasts, stock traders, CEOs, and religious fundamentalists". This shows where your bias comes from.
Note that you didn't hear an outcry about the electoral college when Clinton took the White House with 43% of the popular vote in 1992
That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:
Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%
See? The guy with the most votes won. Even without the electoral college, Clinton was the winner. Interesting concept. Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate. Clinton got 5 million more votes than the next highest candidate. The will of the people was served. Hence, no uproar.
In 2000, the will of the people... as a whole... was that Al Gore be President. He got 500,000 more votes than any other candidate. That fact is incontrovertible.
Your hatred of Clinton notwithstanding, more Americans wanted him to be president than any other candidate... both times.
You're trying to confuse the issue. Kennedy got more POPULAR vote than Nixon in 1960 by the way... by 100,000.
Abolition of the Electoral college would have STILL meant JFK won in 1960 and WJC won in 1992 and 1996. Actually, abolition of the Electoral College would have meant that every election in the past century would have gone EXACTLY as it went... with the exception of 2000.
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact. It doesn't detract from the basic fairness that says "the guy with the most wins".
No amount of spinning will change the fact that America, by a narrow margin, rejected Bush in 2000. If a vote were somehow held today, Bush would make McGovern in 1972 look like a landslide winner.
Ugh, if this gets implented we won't be the United States of America anymore. We'd be the United States of California and New York.
Wrong. It means that person in Schenectady, NY would have a vote that counts EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT as a person from Nome, Alaska.
Each of us should count as 1/280,000,000th of the vote. State lines are arbitrary in federal elections. State lines should have no bearings on the vote.
I hear your argument a lot and it just doesn't wash. Currently, the resident of Wyoming matters 3 times as much as the resident of California. Is that fair? No... they should each count as exactly the same share of the vote total.
Someone in San Jose California is not 1/3 of the citizen that a person in Dover, Deleware is. Why should their vote not carry the same weight?
You don't want the "United States of California and New York?" Currently... we have the United States of Podunk. And the current system is inherently unfair.