Dude, your website says: "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc" Oh, the irony.
I'm sorry, I fail to see the irony. The scroller is property of the Bush campaign. It's not a confidential scroller so it can be on a public website. I put it on mine, because I am interested in the facts. It happens to be the only thing I have on my homepage ATM. So, where is the irony?
Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.
- Jeremy, 30, of WA
Mr. Ralph Nader Responds:
When I first arrived in Washington, DC, one of my first meals was a hot dog. After I discovered what were in hot dogs I never ate another one. I changed my mind.
That's Nader's idea of a issue that has national importance? Whether he should eat a HOTDOG?! And he's running for president?
But why don't Democrats condemn Democratic registration fraud? Why do they only "condemn" this republican fraud? It's time for Democrats to stop being hypocrites.
Also where's the slashdot story on Democrat registration fraud? Why is Republican fraud the only news? What about all these stories. Doesn't it matter if it is Democrat voter fraud?
Depending upon the poll cited, between 57% and 68% believe that the debates should be open, at least to those having a mathematical possibility of obtaining enough electoral votes to win an election.
Which Badnarik *didn't* because with his polling numbers at
-Brent
And to whatever extent it "bends" at all, it bends away from the center, away from the interest of the majority of the people, away from a world tolerable for all.
Actually the best way to keep it at the center is for each side to pull as hard as possible. You want conservatives to let go, without liberals being help accountable? I'll leave my children the legacy of knowing that I fought my hardest to pull the nation to represent me the best. Other people are pulling the nation in their direction. When we all keep pulling the nation looks like a democracy. When someone stops pulling the nation becomes lopsided.
but that's not the same as Sinclair ordering affiliates to run a program.
Let's clear up one thing. These are Sinclair affliates. They are affliates of the Major 3 networks. CBS, ABC, NBC. Sinclair is not "ordering" the stations to do anything. Sinclair owns the stations and has the right to air anything on those stations they please.
No one is going to make me buy any of Moore's films, or pay to allow others to watch it, but the airwaves belong to all of us.
"All of us?" Is that why people get upset when we get Stern off the air, or a fine for the display of Janet Jackson's breast? If the airways belong to all of us, then there will always be some give and take of who controls them. We took our punch when CBS used forged documents to attack President Bush. Now we are going to support the airing of Kerry's Senate speechs and if we are successful in supporting Sinclair, then you take your punch.
If the airwaves belong to "all of us" then recognise that they belong to the most powerful. Sometimes that bends towards liberals and sometimes towards conservatives. When it bends they other way, I'd advise that you stand up and take your punches like a man.
Nonsense, incumbents are better able to raise funds than challengers.
That was my point!
Gerrymandering isn't the only way--but it's quickly becoming the most powerful.
All Gerrymandering does is group people together who vote the same way. This gives them more voting power. Just because they vote for the same person over and over doesn't mean that their voice is not heard. If another candidate wants to win, they've got to prove that they will represent the district better then the incumbent.
Imagine if we decide to just divide precincts up willy-nilly. Instead of having precincts of similar voters ideologically, we'd have all these precincts with thousands of disenfranchised voters.
Gerrymandering isn't the only way incumbents stay in power. Campaign finance reform also allows them to stay in power. This is because of the drive to keep money out of politics just further reinforces the edge that incumbents have finacially.
It takes money to win unfortunately, and if you restrict the ability to raise money, you impede the ability for a challenge to run a competitive campaign.
If you are concerned about low turnover in the US house, gerrymandering or increasing the number of representatives is not the place to be looking. These are non-issues. Allow donors to give as much money to a candidate as they desire. Then the campaign will be more competitive.
I'm not sure what you have been reading, but NOT ONCE have I seen this mentioned anywhere without it clearly being stated that Democrats are behind the bill, unless you count unsubstatiated email.
I know CBS is becoming renown for running unsubstantiated stories, but the imply that CBS stories are know really emails? That's a stretch!
One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.
MTV is trying to get young people to vote REPUBLICAN??? Woah, I never knew...
Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also.
If we're lying to the troops so much then why do 80% of the troops support President Bush?
In fact, SOME of "you people" may even say the next election is more important, since it will be the first time a woman receives the presidential nomination from one of the two major parties.
Or maybe both major parties. Who's to say the Democrats *won't* nominate a woman next time?
how was I to know that my personal info would end up in a publicly searchable database? That's nobody's business but me, the candidate, and the FEC. Seriously - how is this public
Keep this in mind the nest time you think that the Freedom of Information Act is a good thing. It comes back to bite you, doesn't it?
Yes, it's always nice to be able to find dirt of the "bad guys." But when it is your personal information that is involved, Whew! Now it is another story.
Now, we are able to make less informed decisions than we were previously.
But the thing is, this "less informed" decision has not, as far as I know of, "destroyed my way of life." Indeed, if it means that the terrorists have less access to our vulnerabilites, has, in fact, *added value* to my way of life.
I'll take "way of life" decisions on a case-by-case basis. I just don't see a reason for hysteria in most cases, including, I guess, this one.
What the hell is the point defending things, preventing information falling into the hands of terrorists etc if you are destroying the very way of life you are trying to protect.
I'm sorry, but I fail to recognise how this story demonstrates that our efforts to protect ourselves in this way is destroying my way of life.
Now I am not saying conspiracy, but news networks are supposed to be impartial, and what could be more partisan than stopping guests from mentioning a presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 49 states?
Where do you get this idea that news networks are supposed to be impartial? All media is biased. Fox News just happens to have just about as many people with a liberal bias as a conservative one. Most other news networks have most liberally-biased media. There is no impartial news network.
Senator *ALLEGES* White House Wrote Allawi's Speech... and this from a democrat.
Furthermore, I don't believe Allawi was under duress. Yes, maybe Allawi didn't write the English speech, but I'll bet that when he gave it, he meant every work.
This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.
Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post complains that they do show the documentary for free.
They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.
Slashdot Mirror
If you would look at the link, billhobbs.com isn't creating the news stories, only archiving them. The sources that you claim aren't reliable include:
The Denver Post
The Palm Beach Post
The Jacksonville Sun
The Mercury
Denver's 9 News
Still think that voter registration fraud is only limited to a couple of republicans tearing up voter registration cards?
-BrentI'm sorry, I fail to see the irony. The scroller is property of the Bush campaign. It's not a confidential scroller so it can be on a public website. I put it on mine, because I am interested in the facts. It happens to be the only thing I have on my homepage ATM. So, where is the irony?
-BrentThat's Nader's idea of a issue that has national importance? Whether he should eat a HOTDOG?! And he's running for president?
-BrentAlso where's the slashdot story on Democrat registration fraud? Why is Republican fraud the only news? What about all these stories. Doesn't it matter if it is Democrat voter fraud?
-BrentWhich Badnarik *didn't* because with his polling numbers at -Brent
Actually the best way to keep it at the center is for each side to pull as hard as possible. You want conservatives to let go, without liberals being help accountable? I'll leave my children the legacy of knowing that I fought my hardest to pull the nation to represent me the best. Other people are pulling the nation in their direction. When we all keep pulling the nation looks like a democracy. When someone stops pulling the nation becomes lopsided.
-BrentLet's clear up one thing. These are Sinclair affliates. They are affliates of the Major 3 networks. CBS, ABC, NBC. Sinclair is not "ordering" the stations to do anything. Sinclair owns the stations and has the right to air anything on those stations they please.
No one is going to make me buy any of Moore's films, or pay to allow others to watch it, but the airwaves belong to all of us."All of us?" Is that why people get upset when we get Stern off the air, or a fine for the display of Janet Jackson's breast? If the airways belong to all of us, then there will always be some give and take of who controls them. We took our punch when CBS used forged documents to attack President Bush. Now we are going to support the airing of Kerry's Senate speechs and if we are successful in supporting Sinclair, then you take your punch.
If the airwaves belong to "all of us" then recognise that they belong to the most powerful. Sometimes that bends towards liberals and sometimes towards conservatives. When it bends they other way, I'd advise that you stand up and take your punches like a man.
-BrentThat was my point!
Gerrymandering isn't the only way--but it's quickly becoming the most powerful.All Gerrymandering does is group people together who vote the same way. This gives them more voting power. Just because they vote for the same person over and over doesn't mean that their voice is not heard. If another candidate wants to win, they've got to prove that they will represent the district better then the incumbent.
Imagine if we decide to just divide precincts up willy-nilly. Instead of having precincts of similar voters ideologically, we'd have all these precincts with thousands of disenfranchised voters.
-BrentGerrymandering isn't the only way incumbents stay in power. Campaign finance reform also allows them to stay in power. This is because of the drive to keep money out of politics just further reinforces the edge that incumbents have finacially.
It takes money to win unfortunately, and if you restrict the ability to raise money, you impede the ability for a challenge to run a competitive campaign.
If you are concerned about low turnover in the US house, gerrymandering or increasing the number of representatives is not the place to be looking. These are non-issues. Allow donors to give as much money to a candidate as they desire. Then the campaign will be more competitive.
-Brent
So you believe that the writer of that article was just making up his story about what CBS said?
-BrentMaybe this would help: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/09/27/Maxim/An other.Black.Eye.For.Cbs-736141.shtml
-BrentI know CBS is becoming renown for running unsubstantiated stories, but the imply that CBS stories are know really emails? That's a stretch!
-BrentMTV is trying to get young people to vote REPUBLICAN??? Woah, I never knew...
-BrentIf we're lying to the troops so much then why do 80% of the troops support President Bush?
-BrentOr maybe both major parties. Who's to say the Democrats *won't* nominate a woman next time?
-BrentKeep this in mind the nest time you think that the Freedom of Information Act is a good thing. It comes back to bite you, doesn't it?
Yes, it's always nice to be able to find dirt of the "bad guys." But when it is your personal information that is involved, Whew! Now it is another story.
-BrentBut the thing is, this "less informed" decision has not, as far as I know of, "destroyed my way of life." Indeed, if it means that the terrorists have less access to our vulnerabilites, has, in fact, *added value* to my way of life.
I'll take "way of life" decisions on a case-by-case basis. I just don't see a reason for hysteria in most cases, including, I guess, this one.
-BrentI'm sorry, but I fail to recognise how this story demonstrates that our efforts to protect ourselves in this way is destroying my way of life.
-BrentI'm sorry, is that a right now to have the media make people "fully informed"? What happened to the constitutional right to a free press?
-BrentYou're just starting to notice that we have a major problem with the news network? You are a newbie...
Dan Rather using forged memos to run an attack piece on President Bush was just one of a long line of "unbiased" media reporting...
-BrentWhere do you get this idea that news networks are supposed to be impartial? All media is biased. Fox News just happens to have just about as many people with a liberal bias as a conservative one. Most other news networks have most liberally-biased media. There is no impartial news network.
-BrentLow resolution.
-BrentFurthermore, I don't believe Allawi was under duress. Yes, maybe Allawi didn't write the English speech, but I'll bet that when he gave it, he meant every work.
-BrentWhine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post complains that they do show the documentary for free.
They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.
-BrentI thought we were supposed to be against money affecting campaigns. Oh, that's right, it's Tuesday...
-Brent