Thread: Isn't this sad...

This stuff is tame by standards of the early 20th and 19th centuries when the parties went into bars and paid people to vote numerous times and registered and had dead people vote. At least things are getting a bit less outrageous. Who knows how many people have gotten into office who actually never really won the elections.

I have to agree with thebigspendur. You guys should read some history for better perspective

I get taxed more than the american citizens, yet I get denied my free election day Dunkin Donut.
The systems before the current one were where the people with most economic power (land, slaves, concubines, and other property...) got to decide the taxes, how the money is spent and...




ultimately who eats the cakes

Tricks like these?

Originally Posted by gugi

...it really doesn't matter who you vote for, as far as the outcome of the election is concerned.

[quote=Nord Jim;277690]Typical of the NY Post. It's a Murdoch paper, and obviously will stoop as low as necessary to support the right wing candidate of their choice.]



Un like the times who will make up entire stories, or Dan Rather who will modify stories as needed!

[QUOTE=nun2sharp;277999]

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Typical of the NY Post. It's a Murdoch paper, and obviously will stoop as low as necessary to support the right wing candidate of their choice.]



Un like the times who will make up entire stories, or Dan Rather who will modify stories as needed!

It doesn't matter if you are talking about The New York Times or the Washington Times here. Either paper is held to brutal peer review every day it is published. I get both of them (among others) and they are far better than any other local POS that is out there. Their slants are very well known, easy to read around, and they are reputable. That being said, for my money, the Economist and the WSJ are the best sources going.


I won't speak to Dan Rather.


-Rob

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"Have you heard of ACORN?"

The criticism about ACORN pertains to registration, not to voting. If an ACORN rep submits a registration form for "Mickey Mouse", there is no Mickey Mouse who shows up to vote. Also, there are no documented cases of actual voter fraud attributed to any shenanigans by an ACORN rep.

Look-I understand that the party that's running behind in the polls is relegated to engaging in some questionable campaign tactics as a last resort, but the stuff that's coming out from the Republican side at this point is downright shameful.

Also, in many states ACORN is legally required to turn in all completed registration forms, no matter how suspicious they look. In many instances they handed over a pile of the suspicious forms and informed the SoS of states that had issues to take a closer look at the registrations but were ignored for the last several months. It's just an attempt at an October surprise.

@ sicboater, I couldnt agree more, the WSJ is the only nonpartisan paper in the country that I know of, been too long since Ive read the economist.
@12pbrs, little late for Oct surprise isnt it?

[QUOTE=nun2sharp;277999]

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Typical of the NY Post. It's a Murdoch paper, and obviously will stoop as low as necessary to support the right wing candidate of their choice.]



Un like the times who will make up entire stories, or Dan Rather who will modify stories as needed!

Not really comparable, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Times. If it's the incident a few years ago where a reporter was making stuff up, you should know that not only did the reporter lose his job; they also fired the managing editor he reported to.

Dan Rather? You might disagree with him, but the worst I saw him do was believe that phony letter about Bush's military experience. But he didn't make it up; he just accepted it too quickly, and apologized later.

What the Post has done here is basically a lie. They're calling something "voter fraud" when it's actually "voter registration fraud." There's a quantum difference between the two -- a difference that makes a real impact -- and the Post knows it. Unlike the two other examples, the Post is being deliberately deceptive here. You may not like the Times, but they really don't actually lie to you, unlike the Post.

j

It doesnt matter who they fired after the fact, they still printed the lie!

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

It doesnt matter who they fired after the fact, they still printed the lie!

But the Times didn't know it was a lie. The Post does. There is a significant moral difference.

j