FARK.com: (1868476) The 2006 elections will be a terrorist attack on American voters

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		The 2006 elections will be a terrorist attack on American voters (news.yahoo.com)		488
		More: Obvious

• • •

16664 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2006 at 11:04 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1868476

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

488 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

eraser8		2006-01-21 12:51:48 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy writes: $10 once or twice a decade is trivial. For anyone.

People should not have to pay an individual tax on their vote. Whether it's 10 dollars or 10 cents is irrelevant.

Percival Sweetwater		2006-01-21 12:51:48 AM

"And yet another 24 hour old handle joins the fray.

Free Republic down tonight?"

Nope, just pointing out the obvious. There is enough demonization/hatred going around on both sides of the political spectrum.

Daykeras		2006-01-21 12:52:46 AM

Hey, don't diss us 24 hour handles. We might've made our handles just to join in these debates, but our opinions are worth as much as yours. Some of us have been lurking here for a long time before deciding to post.

Even if we hadn't, every opinion (however ignorant or poorly-educated) is still a valid one.

Back to the topic at hand...

I say the terrorism of elections has gone on for too long! Let's end this terrorism with a dictatorship for the good of the American people and for the safety of freedom!

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 12:52:55 AM

Big Al: And then the trillions spent on an immoral war to oust a person who was loved and showered with gifts and intelligence would actually be questioned.

I was with you, and then you lost me...right here. We didn't spend trillions ousting Mohamed Farah Aideed, and Saddam wasn't loved/showered with gifts.

farbekrieg		2006-01-21 12:53:09 AM

eraser8
I seriously doubt the Democrats cling to any of my statements, but just to be sure: what exactly are you referring to?

That the dems have the superior policy for the good of the nation. Some good ideas, some bad just like the guys on the other side of the fence.

With those four Libertarians now seated in the Senate, what would happen?

honestly there is not enough information to make any conclusions that could be called rational (or even well informed), but ill give em the benefit of the doubt, make them scandal free, with the good of their constiutents at heart with a small government theology that my brother is very fond of.

First you would have to look at the new numbers of the senate currently what 55(R) - 44(D) - 1(I)?

So new numbers would be 53 42 and for simplicity 5.

So not as much as anyone would hope. But thats purely speculation.

heap		2006-01-21 12:53:36 AM

Percival Sweetwater: There is enough demonization/hatred going around on both sides of the political spectrum.

then why add to it? do you honestly think 'commie/socialist' is anything shy of demonization?

eraser8		2006-01-21 12:53:37 AM

Big Al writes: A 3rd party usually has nothing to lose, not much campaign donations, not much support...

By that measure, we already have 3rd parties. They haven't managed to inform the public or the public debate. All they've done is provide Republicans with an easier path to power.

Big Al		2006-01-21 12:53:39 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Specifically, what rights might this violate?

it is blatant discrimination aimed at the poor, the voting rights act is a good read

The permissible documents are many.

but not everyone has them

$10 once or twice a decade is trivial. For anyone.

wrong, when people go starving, 10 dollars is a fortune

Well....you brought up 'not everyone can afford' as being *the* problem.

2 different problems, one problem is social, another is political

Without some sort of ID check, how do you insure someone, anyone, doesn't vote multiple times?

umm ever been to the polls lately? they check your name off a list. The absentee ballots are where the real multiple votes happen, where have you been?

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 12:53:40 AM

eraser8: Not too likely. The dead tend to vote with absentee ballots. No ID check for them.

Damn, good point. Oh, well, guess I should start a lobbying group for the undead.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 12:53:46 AM

People should not have to pay an individual tax on their vote.

if it were free, the dems would STILL oppose it. although an ID requirement wouldn't stop them from voting for their big-city neighbors who didn't get there in time for the free cigarettes, though...

EggSniper		2006-01-21 12:54:11 AM

Where's the political party that advocates setting fire to every human in sight?

/Stop looking at me like that

TheSomewhatAmazingKoz		2006-01-21 12:54:46 AM

captain_napalm

I'm afraid I didn't understand that last....I would say "rebuttal", but you keep blatantly refusing to answer the legitimate questions posed to you...post. Perhaps I'm simply not in tune with your particular train of thought, and you seem to be in no mood to enlighten me with anything resembling reason, logic, or evidence. The operative question here is still on the table: can you cite some positive aspects of the current administration? I and practically everyone else posting here believes the answer to be "no". Prove us wrong.

Fark It		2006-01-21 12:54:57 AM

Sloth_DC

I was with you, and then you lost me...right here. We didn't spend trillions ousting Mohamed Farah Aideed, and Saddam wasn't loved/showered with gifts.

That's because we didn't oust Mohamed Farah Aideed, he died in the mid-90s and his son, a former U.S. Marine, took power.

Percival Sweetwater		2006-01-21 12:55:04 AM

"

Percival Sweetwater: I don't think any "conservative" can come close to the hatred that commie/socialists have for Bush.

another ironic candidate! hatred then labeling somebody a commie/socialist!

knee jerk not based on reality comments are great!"

This was a response to another poster who said "conservatives" have more hatred than any "liberal". How is stating the obvious not based in reality? Oh, you mean YOUR reality. Sorry.

WayneKerr		2006-01-21 12:55:20 AM

MichaelMoron

Rove went out of his way to say...

I always get confused. Is it "last name first" or "first name last" with you apologists.

The only way Rove goes out of his was is if his peripheral catches a glimpse of pink donut box of goodness.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 12:55:21 AM

umm ever been to the polls lately? they check your name off a list.

funny how mine went missing in 2004. even funnier how no one was willing to put me on TV. guess I wasn't black enough.

whorehopper		2006-01-21 12:55:36 AM

MichaelMoron: Dean comes out and calls Republicans unpatriotic. Where are all the liberals that think calling someone unpatriotic is the worst thing in the world?

Only when its untrue.

Unpatriotic would seem to be treating the Constitution as just a "goddamned piece of paper" and losing sight of what supposedly sets us apart and makes this country great. Unpatriotic would be squandering the lives and morale of our Armed Forces in an ill-advised and poorly planned adventure that has nothing to do with its stated goals. Unpatriotic would be looting the Treasury of the nation and handing it out to partisan interests. Unpatriotic would be the deliberate exposure of CIA operations to score political points. The list goes on and on.

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 12:56:05 AM

eraser8: By that measure, we already have 3rd parties. They haven't managed to inform the public or the public debate. All they've done is provide Republicans with an easier path to power.

I don't think Nader provided the Republicans with an easier path to power.

Mr_Smartypants		2006-01-21 12:56:37 AM

INTP POWER!

/late

eraser8		2006-01-21 12:56:57 AM

farbekrieg writes: That the dems have the superior policy for the good of the nation.

One would hope that the goal and belief of any political party is that they represent a better choice for the country than their alternatives. So, what's your point?

In any case, I'm making my judgment about Democrats as an outsider. I am not a member or supporter of that party. I can just recognize that they're better than their competition.

Big Al		2006-01-21 12:57:08 AM

WayneKerr: Good luck. You might have caught a glimpse a few microseconds after the ink dried on the US Constitution.

was that before or after they were debating whether to appoint Mr Washington for life?

eraser8: By that measure, we already have 3rd parties. They haven't managed to inform the public or the public debate. All they've done is provide Republicans with an easier path to power.

No because 3rd parties are shut out of the real process, not allowed the same access to debates, unable to afford the real media campaigns it takes to sway enough voters as Mr perot found out was possible.

3rd parties don't provide Republicans with an easier path to power, but ironic the Republicans cried about Perot in the 92 election for the same thing.

The problem is the winner take all system, allow proportional representation which would still be valid under the Constitution, and allow only public campaign financing. Then demand news agencies uphold the duty they swore when giving access to public airwaves and stop speaking nonsense and start educating their audience

YouPeopleAreCrazy		2006-01-21 12:57:18 AM

eraser8: People should not have to pay an individual tax on their vote. Whether it's 10 dollars or 10 cents is irrelevant.

You're right. But that fee is NOT to vote. It's for an ID. Which you should actually have anyway.

And really, I only brought up that particular form of ID, because it is easy and inexpensive to obtain. Other forms (drivers license, school ID, etc) would be just as acceptable.

and if you really, really, really don't want to get an ID, or show an ID to vote, vote absentee. Problem solved.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 12:57:25 AM

I'm afraid I didn't understand that last

I'm sorry - am I supposed to be arguing principles with you? I was waiting for you to acquire some first.

Big Al		2006-01-21 12:58:21 AM

captain_napalm: if it were free, the dems would STILL oppose it. although an ID requirement wouldn't stop them from voting for their big-city neighbors who didn't get there in time for the free cigarettes, though...

I suggest you read up on the Florida election of 2000 before you spew any more nonsense. kthanks

Fark It		2006-01-21 12:58:51 AM

whorehopper

Unpatriotic would be looting the Treasury of the nation and handing it out to partisan interests. Unpatriotic would be the deliberate exposure of CIA operations to score political points. The list goes on and on.

I forgot that one. Let me add it to my list of questions for captain_napalm

Policy? Like letting a gay prostitute get into the White House Press Corps under a fake name and phony credentials so he can lob softball questions to the President? Breaking the FISA law and wiretapping American citizens without a court order, which they can be granted retroactively 72 hours after the initial wiretap? What about completely botching the occupation of Iraq and costing countless American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? What about the non-existant WMDs, that were an imminent threat? Has he done anything to repair our image and the credibility of our intelligence community after we got Iraq totally wrong, so that in the future when we come across real intelligence that says Iran or North Korea is planning something the rest of the world doesn't think we're blowing smoke up their asses? Has he done anything other burning money and giving flag-draped campaign speeches to address the failures of federal government in its response to 9/11, hurricane Katrine, and preventing terrorist attacks? Had he done anything to reduce the size of our government and stop the Chinese from buying up our ballooning national debt? Has he done anything to find out who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak, and why?

What exactly is it that Bush does, other than divide this country and go on vacation?

farbekrieg		2006-01-21 12:58:56 AM

rraser8
* Godwin's law is not applicable in this thread.

No making up the rules as you go along, thats cheating... which means you might be my senator.

Damn!

Big Al		2006-01-21 12:59:10 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Problem solved.

what problem? when absentee ballots are THE cause of double votes and dead people voting... WHAT PROBLEM is solved?

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 12:59:20 AM

Fark It: That's because we didn't oust Mohamed Farah Aideed, he died in the mid-90s and his son, a former U.S. Marine, took power.

Right - we gave up trying to force our choice into power over the objections an armed populace. Just making the point that he was _far_ more popular a leader than Saddam.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 12:59:30 AM

I suggest you read up on the Florida election of 2000 before you spew any more nonsense. kthanks

I read all the way until the massive recont effort got reported on page 55 after they couldn't pull it out for their boy, despite their best efforts.

heap		2006-01-21 12:59:31 AM

is anyone actually under the impression that *any* supposed '3rd' party would hold to any of the principles they espouse, if given power?

that doesn't have a very good track record.

it's damned easy to have principles absent any power to do anything with them. i don't think the situation would be altered one iota if current politics were divided along libertarian/green boundaries and either dem/rep were on the outside looking in.

Percival Sweetwater		2006-01-21 12:59:48 AM

"I don't think Nader provided the Republicans with an easier path to power."

His candidacy surely did not help the Democratic ticket. Much in the same way that Perot running in 92 did not help daddy Bush. Took enough votes away to make a difference. Even if it was as small as 3% of the vote, in 2000 that would've been enough to give Gore the victory. I'm very sure anyone voting for Nader would never have voted for Bush.

AirForceVet		2006-01-21 01:00:07 AM

Geez, first the Cold War and the Red Scare. Now it's terrorism on every TV.

We survivied WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and numerous other little battles, plus the Cold War. Osama is lightweight compared to Hilter.

Vote for change. Vote Democrat and freak the Fundies out that the world doesn't really revolve around them!

drunkard9		2006-01-21 01:00:11 AM

The dems aint gonna win a damn thing this year.Thats about all theyre good at is beating their chests and howling about w is teh devil.Dems sweeping the senate in 06,whoever pulled that out of their ass was on some good drugs,and needs to share em.

Fark It		2006-01-21 01:00:55 AM

Sloth_DC

His popularity didn't get him into power, his brutality and disregard for human life did. Not to mention attacking UN peacekeepers, American soldiers, and stealing food from starving people.

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 01:01:01 AM

eraser8: By that measure, we already have 3rd parties. They haven't managed to inform the public or the public debate. All they've done is provide Republicans with an easier path to power.

Sloth_DC: I don't think ~~Nader~~ Perot provided the Republicans with an easier path to power.

D'oh. Time for bed, methinks.

eraser8		2006-01-21 01:01:28 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy writes: But that fee is NOT to vote. It's for an ID.

If the fee is required for the ID and the ID is required to vote, the fee is required to vote. This isn't a particuarly difficult syllogism to follow.

...vote absentee. Problem solved.

That ought to clue you into the fact that the ID requirement has nothing whatever to do with securing the vote against fraud.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 01:01:48 AM

non-existant WMDs, that were an imminent threat?

1) check syria
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=existent
3) decaf grande half-soy, half-low fat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet-n'-Low and one NutraSweet, biatch

kyomujinn		2006-01-21 01:02:13 AM

We're farked. I'm so worried about this country. I might have to get a gun and sit in a spider hole to ride this shiat out.

*Edit*

Get lot's of guns.

eraser8		2006-01-21 01:02:29 AM

Sloth_DC writes: I don't think Nader Perot provided the Republicans with an easier path to power.

True. It does work both ways.

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 01:03:13 AM

Fark It: His popularity didn't get him into power, his brutality and disregard for human life did. Not to mention attacking UN peacekeepers, American soldiers, and stealing food from starving people.

I'm not saying Aideed was a good man, or a benevolent ruler, but it helps to remember that when you complain about him attacking UN peacekeepers and American soldiers that he was attacking foreign troops which were in his country to install a foreign puppet as leader. We did not go into that country to spread sunshine and light, and get blindsided by an evil asshole who worships Satan. We went in to put our asshole in charge, and the local asshole objected.

captain_napalm		2006-01-21 01:03:38 AM

I don't think Nader Perot provided the Republicans with an easier path to power.

paging dr. freud...

whorehopper		2006-01-21 01:04:13 AM

CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Let's at least keep our terms straight, and that's the best definition I've ever seen of the two schools of thought which make up our two party system.

The two party system has led to this intense polarization we see now, all of this animosity. There is nowhere for the retards to call home, so they have joined one of the two parties, and they have both been infected. Militant vegetarian lesbians need their own party, just as the antediluvean bullies who think Dinosaur bones are persecuting them need theirs.

TheSomewhatAmazingKoz		2006-01-21 01:04:27 AM

captain_napalm

Has anyone told you that it is both ignorant and stereotypical for a conservative to assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal?

Let's talk principles then. I consider myself a centrist. I believe in capital punishment, and I am pro-choice. I believe in limited national government. I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that the ONLY role of the United States military is to defend the United States from attack, and any policing or regime-ending should be done by the U.N. I believe that the endless corruption in Washington, on both sides, is a pox on this country and must be corrected.

I would normally vote Republican, though I feel the current batch of Republicans have strayed from the conservative school of thought into a bizarre quasi-fascist idealism that frankly does not appeal to me.

Your turn. Explain why you're so much better than me.

sunlion		2006-01-21 01:04:39 AM

Expect a GOP sweep anywhere with touch screens.

The administration has even stated publicly that they have the legal right to steal an election- or do anything else that in their judgement is the right thing to do. Without any legal or moral restrictions whatsoever.

Wisdom of the Ages		2006-01-21 01:04:47 AM

captain_napalm

1)check syria

So you mean the American troops were 300 miles off target?

Fark It		2006-01-21 01:04:52 AM

captain_napalm

Was that supposed to be a retort? Even if the WMDs were moved through Syria, which would be extremely difficult considering they would have to move throuh Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, then why didn't we move to secure them instead the freaking Oil Ministry?

Sloth_DC		2006-01-21 01:05:24 AM

heap: is anyone actually under the impression that *any* supposed '3rd' party would hold to any of the principles they espouse, if given power?

that doesn't have a very good track record.

The Republicans were a 3rd party founded on the principle of ending slavery. I'd say they held to that principle fairly well, and stayed committed to furthering civil rights as their central plank for a good century afterward, too.

Percival Sweetwater		2006-01-21 01:05:53 AM

I guess to become a local asshole, one must start with genocide.

WayneKerr		2006-01-21 01:05:56 AM

Big Al
was that before or after they were debating whether to appoint Mr Washington for life?

That was right before they realized that it's much better to have someone else come in to play the part in order to blame the current problems on the former criminal. It also keeps them patriots and citizens arguin' with each other and removes the spotlight from the arena.

eraser8		2006-01-21 01:06:14 AM

Big Al writes: No because 3rd parties are shut out of the real process...

I'm afraid we just have different views. I simply do not believe that any structural revision is capable of changing the political environment for the better without the citizenry taking the lead. In fact, I don't think reforms are even possible without the public's demanding them.

Displayed 50 of 488 comments