Europe will be monitoring US Election

[xtc]

Under the new system, everyone who believes they are entitled to vote - regardless of whether their name features on a roll or not - may cast a ballot.

Tell me this isn't a disaster in the making.

Additionally a European body which normally only monitors elections in fledgling democracies will be monitoring the US election.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3666898.stm

[StrayRogue]

Good. No cheating this time.

[Parkbandit]

This proves one thing.. the media has become far too powerful.

[GSTamral]

They can monitor the election all they want. Maybe they will be able to figure out why dead people are able to vote in the United States. Maybe they'll even be able to figure out how more dead people voted democrat than republican in the last 2 presidential elections, especially considering the over 65 age group is more republican than democrat.

[Keller]

It's because democrats cheat and register and vote for dead people.

[GSTamral]

I wouldnt go so far as to say they are voting for the dead people, but it is known that their registered voter list isn't cleared as quickly as the Republican list is.

There are many issues I would love to see Europe address in a non-partisan manner:

1) Barriers to entry - In the last 3 elections, the democrats have been fighting to the teeth to prevent any third party candidates from being able to debate and join the presidential race. This is un-democratic.

2) Soft Money - both parties get the majority of donations from soft money sources. These sources should be revealed, and their organizations classified as partisan.

3) Third Party Advertising - MoveOn.organized crime, Shit Butt Veterans for Truth, National (we provide the worst) Education (for the money we spend) Association etc. These advertising groups that are more than just ad groups should lose any and all tax exempt status/nonprofit status, and be forced to act like anyone else if they plan on acting the way they are.

4) Voter exempt status exceptions - people who are deceased should be removed from registered voters lists immediately. Failure to do so should result in penalty votes taken away from the party found in error.

5) Voter violence. Those who are arrested or detained at any official political convention or event in an act motivated by partisanship should be stripped of the right to vote for that election.

6) News and Media accountability - in this day and age of partisan media, those who abuse media to directly lie should be in forfeit of media positions that have influence on the public. (yes, I am quite specifically referring to Dan Rather/CBS). When Walter Cronkite (the last non partisan news source on the planet) calls you a disgusting joke, it usually means you are.

7) Any person running for office should have all public records disclosed and available for public view. (John Kerry and John Edwards legal case history, Bush's National Guard papers)

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
They can monitor the election all they want. Maybe they will be able to figure out why dead people are able to vote in the United States. Maybe they'll even be able to figure out how more dead people voted democrat than republican in the last 2 presidential elections, especially considering the over 65 age group is more republican than democrat.

Maybe they'll figure out why dead people are signing petitions to put Ralph Nader on the ballot....

Oregon... Pennsylvania... South Carolina...

I guess there weren't enough republicans willing to sign it.

[GSTamral]

<<
Maybe they'll figure out why dead people are signing petitions to put Ralph Nader on the ballot....

Oregon... Pennsylvania... South Carolina...
>>>

I never saw anything about Oregon and Pennsylvania other than that the state democrats were in a frenzy to disqualify any signature they deemed illegible. I guess all the doctors were disqualified too.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<
Maybe they'll figure out why dead people are signing petitions to put Ralph Nader on the ballot....

Oregon... Pennsylvania... South Carolina...
>>>

I never saw anything about Oregon and Pennsylvania other than that the state democrats were in a frenzy to disqualify any signature they deemed illegible. I guess all the doctors were disqualified too.

Oregon:


"22 percent of the names belonged to people who are deceased or do not live at the address"

Associated Press Story (click me) (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=21374)

And Nader is offically off the Oregon Ballot as of 9/22/04

Pennsylvania:


"some signatures are forgeries and at least two people who supposedly signed the petitions are deceased."

PA Story. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/archive/bull040810d.htm)

Now of course these are both claims that could be bias - but he is off the ballot in Oregon and Still in court battles in Pennsylvania about the legitimacy of his petitions.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Oregon:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"22 percent of the names belonged to people who are deceased or do not live at the address"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>

This means nothing to me without a qualifiying statement. At Duke University, 90%+ of the student body does not live at their registered voting address. Does that mean their votes don't count?

At any college this is the case.

Candidates also have a period of time in which to get the signatures. If the person died BEFORE Nader began collecting signatures it's one thing, but again, absolutely no specifics on the article. It is fundamentally legal to collect a signature, and if that person passes after it, the signature still counts.

I mean I could go out and say 30% of the time Kerry spent in Vietnam he was actually doing non military activity. The qualifying statement would tell you during that time, he was eating or sleeping.

[TheEschaton]

6) News and Media accountability - in this day and age of partisan media, those who abuse media to directly lie should be in forfeit of media positions that have influence on the public. (yes, I am quite specifically referring to Dan Rather/CBS). When Walter Cronkite (the last non partisan news source on the planet) calls you a disgusting joke, it usually means you are.


Wow, FoxNews would be off the air. The difference between FoxNews and Dan Rather? Dan Rather apologized for his mistake, FoxNews just say it's the liberal media trying to cut them down when people point out Mr. Hannity's idiocy, or Rush's stupidity, or Bill's Spin-Filled No Spin Zone.

-TheE-

[Keller]

What the hell are you talking about? FoxNews is home of the No Spin Zone!! Bill O'Reilly said it himself! You must have missed that ... no, wait ... he says it 10 times a show -- you couldn't miss it if you tried.

You'd think if he was the home of no-spin it would show in his reporting and he would not have to try to convince you every 3 minutes.

[Back]

Saw O’Riely on 60 minutes last Sunday. I have a lot more respect for him now.

[Keller]

because he was finally on a network that reports actual news?

.......

I am beginning to tire of people just reporting to us and then giving no support for their claims.


I understand if it was, "I went to the store today."

But not, "I cured cancer today."

Or "Saw O’Riely on 60 minutes last Sunday. I have a lot more respect for him now."

[Back]

Originally posted by Keller
because he was finally on a network that reports actual news?

.......

I am beginning to tire of people just reporting to us and then giving no support for their claims.


I understand if it was, "I went to the store today."

But not, "I cured cancer today."

Or "Saw O’Riely on 60 minutes last Sunday. I have a lot more respect for him now."

Right, really insightful of me. O’Riely knows what he is. It came across in the interview. Hes actually an enviromentalist, a moderate, and distrusts the Bush administration. He likes the joust, as he says, just like we do here on the PC. His show is Op-ed, not reporting. Now that I know more about O’Riely behind the scenes, I have more respect for him. Like I have respect for PB or Tam. There is a lot more under the surface. That doesn’t mean I agree with most of his claims or opinions.

[TheEschaton]

Right, really insightful of me. O’Riely knows what he is. It came across in the interview. Hes actually an enviromentalist, a moderate, and distrusts the Bush administration. He likes the joust, as he says, just like we do here on the PC. His show is Op-ed, not reporting. Now that I know more about O’Riely behind the scenes, I have more respect for him. Like I have respect for PB or Tam. There is a lot more under the surface. That doesn’t mean I agree with most of his claims or opinions.

The problem with this is, is that he passes what he does off as reporting the Truth, and that he puts no spin therein on the truth....both of which are outright lies.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Saw O’Riely on 60 minutes last Sunday. I have a lot more respect for him now.


Originally posted by Keller
because he was finally on a network that reports actual news?



Um.. who said anything about actual NEWS? He said 60 Minutes.. which is on CBS.

No one considers that actual news. Sorry.

[LordSagan]

Republicans...Democrats....Green Party...whatever...

They're all the same. They all lie, cheat and steal...and point fingers at the other group accusing them of doing it.

Fuck em all.

[Back]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Right, really insightful of me. O’Riely knows what he is. It came across in the interview. Hes actually an enviromentalist, a moderate, and distrusts the Bush administration. He likes the joust, as he says, just like we do here on the PC. His show is Op-ed, not reporting. Now that I know more about O’Riely behind the scenes, I have more respect for him. Like I have respect for PB or Tam. There is a lot more under the surface. That doesn’t mean I agree with most of his claims or opinions.

The problem with this is, is that he passes what he does off as reporting the Truth, and that he puts no spin therein on the truth....both of which are outright lies.

-TheE-

Well, Esch, he has the top rated show on Fox. If people choose to believe him that is their own business. I wouldn’t consider his show “news” by any stretch of the imagination. He’s just a guy stating an opinion. Thats it.

Oh, and PB, if you saw 60 Minutes, you’d know that O‘Riely has great respect for Wallace.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Oh, and PB, if you saw 60 Minutes, you’d know that O‘Riely has great respect for Wallace.

I never watch CBS now that Big Brother 5 is over :)

CBS News is known for it's liberal slant on it's reporting.. been like that for what.. some 20 years now? No thanks.

[Wezas]

The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly kept referring to "The Daily Show" audience as "stoned slackers."

So they did a little research. And guess whose audience is more educated?

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2004/09/27/so_who_are_the_stoned_slackers_watching_jon_stewar t/

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I never watch CBS now that Big Brother 5 is over :)

CBS News is known for it's liberal slant on it's reporting.. been like that for what.. some 20 years now? No thanks.

60 Minutes is known for exposing corruption in the corporate world and the government. Not just in the US either. Keep your head in the sand if you want.

[TheEschaton]

Wezas's post


That is perhaps the best thing I've read.....in quite a long time.

But now they'll just reiterate what Rove claims is true - you can be too educated, and too much education is bad for you.

-TheE-

Edited because TRL's sig proved me to be misquoting. See below.

[Edited on 9-28-2004 by TheEschaton]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

Oh, and PB, if you saw 60 Minutes, you’d know that O‘Riely has great respect for Wallace.

I never watch CBS now that Big Brother 5 is over :)

CBS News is known for it's liberal slant on it's reporting.. been like that for what.. some 20 years now? No thanks.

So which news do you actually watch? (This liberal bias excuse is epidemic on these boards.)

I think that most news outlets are biased to Republicans. Otherwise you might actually see the President being asked some direct questions. However, I do try to watch a variety of news outlets in case I might actually hear points that give me food for thought.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Wezas
[quote]The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly kept referring to "The Daily Show" audience as "stoned slackers."



This is a hilarious excerpt from the O'Reilly/Stewart script.

O'REILLY: But it is. It's true. I mean, you've got stoned slackers
watching your dopey show every night, OK, and they can vote.

STEWART: Yeah.

O'REILLY: You can't stop them.

STEWART: Yeah, I just don't know how motivated they would be, these
stoned slackers.

O'REILLY: Yeah, it just depends if they have to go out that day.

STEWART: What am I, a Cheech and Chong movie? Stoned slackers?

O'REILLY: Come on, you do the research, you know the research on your program.

STEWART: No, we don't.

O'REILLY: Eighty-seven percent are intoxicated when they watch it.
You didn't see that?

STEWART: No, I didn't realize that.

O'REILLY: Yeah, we have that there.

STEWART: We come on right after, I believe, puppets that make crank calls...

O'REILLY: Yeah.

STEWART: ... so we are, I think, the appropriate follow up...

O'REILLY: Yeah, and that's a great lead-in for you.

STEWART: It's a wonderful show, by the way.

O'REILLY: Puppets can't vote, but these dopey kids who watch you can.

STEWART: They actually can -- in Florida, they can.

O'REILLY: Puppets can vote in Florida.

STEWART: As long as they vote Republican.

O'REILLY: And they haven't committed a felony.

STEWART: And they haven't committed a felony, that's exactly right.

The O'Reilly Factor Script (http://www.creternity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=3104&forum=2)

[TheEschaton]

What the hell was he quoting when he said 87% are intoxicated when they watch the Daily Show??

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

So which news do you actually watch? (This liberal bias excuse is epidemic on these boards.)

I think that most news outlets are biased to Republicans. Otherwise you might actually see the President being asked some direct questions. However, I do try to watch a variety of news outlets in case I might actually hear points that give me food for thought.

I think the major networks are all liberal biased... that being CBS (Big time), ABC and NBC. Of the 3, I feel that I get a more balanced view with NBC.. so that is the network of my choice. I will also watch CNN, MSNBC and BBC.

CBS is to liberalism as FoxNews is to Conservatism.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
What the hell was he quoting when he said 87% are intoxicated when they watch the Daily Show??

-TheE-

I think he was trying to be funny. O'Reilly's sense of humor is seriously lacking.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I never watch CBS now that Big Brother 5 is over :)

CBS News is known for it's liberal slant on it's reporting.. been like that for what.. some 20 years now? No thanks.

60 Minutes is known for exposing corruption in the corporate world and the government. Not just in the US either. Keep your head in the sand if you want.

So, you contend that the CBS News gives a fair and unbiased news account?

Really now...

[Back]

I totally disagree that CBS is the opposite end of the spectrum to Fox when it comes to reporting. You want to equate the challenging of authority with being wrong. And how the fuck can you possibly say “liberal slant” to explain it? Being liberal means you are open-minded to change. Saying there is a slant implies bias, which means prejudice. Congrats. You’ve created another oxymoron!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
I totally disagree that CBS is the opposite end of the spectrum to Fox when it comes to reporting. You want to equate the challenging of authority with being wrong. And how the fuck can you possibly say “liberal slant” to explain it? Being liberal means you are open-minded to change. Saying there is a slant implies bias, which means prejudice. Congrats. You’ve created another oxymoron!

It's a pretty widely held belief that CBS is one of the most liberal biased news organizations out there. I'm not sure what I can post to get you to see this. This latest story about the forged documents and Bush's service are just an example. Dan Rather was told by a number of experts that the papers were probably forged.. yet went ahead with the story. Seems like he thought that his 'truth' must be heard.. regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

That's the definition of biased in my book... and irresponsible journalism.

Here's a couple of sites you can check out. Granted, not the best of sources on some of these... but there is some meat between the bullshit fat.

Dan Rather's Liberal Bias (http://www.mrc.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp)

RatherBiased.com (http://www.ratherbiased.com/news/)

CBS in trouble (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/23/nmed23.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/23/ixhome.html)

Bernard Goldberg, a CBS insider actually wrote a book about it.

[xtc]

The defintion of Liberal bias for those who seem unaware of its meaning.

"Liberal bias," or "liberal media," in American political discourse, are common phrases used, mostly by those on the political right, to explain their view that the American media generally has a liberal bias. This phrase is often used to summarize allegations that a left-wing agenda is promoted because of a "slant" or "spin" in news. In particular, the targets of this phrase are often the network news stations of CBS, ABC, and NBC, as well as major newspapers and newswires, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post, as well as the Associated Press and others.

People who use the phrase "liberal bias" believe that liberal biases are evident in both the choice (what stories are favored, or "played," over others) and coverage (how stories are research, portrayed, and presented). Others seriously dispute this, with some claiming that there is a conservative bias.

Claims of "liberal biases" prevail mainly in the United States; however, some prominent figures on the right-wing in Britain have also claimed that the British media is left-wing, especially the publicly funded BBC. Conservative critics in Canada have similiary attacked the state-funded CBC, as have Australian conservatives and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Liberal_bias

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
I totally disagree that CBS is the opposite end of the spectrum to Fox when it comes to reporting. You want to equate the challenging of authority with being wrong. And how the fuck can you possibly say “liberal slant” to explain it? Being liberal means you are open-minded to change. Saying there is a slant implies bias, which means prejudice. Congrats. You’ve created another oxymoron!

Oh.. and I believe this message board has proven that Liberal does NOT mean open-minded to change.

"In American politics, "liberals" tend to be people who are somewhat ideologically left-of-center. They tend to favor more power at the federal level and federal intervention to regulate economic issues and certain social issues, particularly social issues involving civil liberties, and the rights of minority groups. Of the two major parties, the Democrats are generally considered more liberal. Traditionally, the bases of liberal support have been among minorities, urban voters, labor unions and academics, though that is evolving as U.S. politics change. Candidates and voters commonly refer to themselves and others as conservative, moderate (or centrist), or liberal. "

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oh.. and I believe this message board has proven that Liberal does NOT mean open-minded to change.

I'm open-minded. It just looks like I'm close-minded because you keep being wrong. :no:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oh.. and I believe this message board has proven that Liberal does NOT mean open-minded to change.

"In American politics, "liberals" tend to be people who are somewhat ideologically left-of-center. They tend to favor more power at the federal level and federal intervention to regulate economic issues and certain social issues, particularly social issues involving civil liberties, and the rights of minority groups. Of the two major parties, the Democrats are generally considered more liberal. Traditionally, the bases of liberal support have been among minorities, urban voters, labor unions and academics, though that is evolving as U.S. politics change. Candidates and voters commonly refer to themselves and others as conservative, moderate (or centrist), or liberal. "

Hehehe, you crack me up. Better call Mirriam-Webster and every dictionary company in the world and tell them that a message board wants to change the definition of a word.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oh.. and I believe this message board has proven that Liberal does NOT mean open-minded to change.

"In American politics, "liberals" tend to be people who are somewhat ideologically left-of-center. They tend to favor more power at the federal level and federal intervention to regulate economic issues and certain social issues, particularly social issues involving civil liberties, and the rights of minority groups. Of the two major parties, the Democrats are generally considered more liberal. Traditionally, the bases of liberal support have been among minorities, urban voters, labor unions and academics, though that is evolving as U.S. politics change. Candidates and voters commonly refer to themselves and others as conservative, moderate (or centrist), or liberal. "

Hehehe, you crack me up. Better call Mirriam-Webster and every dictionary company in the world and tell them that a message board wants to change the definition of a word.

The term "Liberal" has more than one meeting.. my close minded, stubborn, resistant to change, friend.

;)

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
The term "Liberal" has more than one meeting.. my close minded, stubborn, resistant to change, friend.

;)

Of course it does. But there is no way in hell you can make it mean close minded, stubborn, or resistant to change.

And don’t think the wit of your statement was lost on me. When it comes to certain things, yes, I am conservative. For example, I will never sway from the belief that 1+1=2. ;P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
The term "Liberal" has more than one meeting.. my close minded, stubborn, resistant to change, friend.

;)

Of course it does. But there is no way in hell you can make it mean close minded, stubborn, or resistant to change.

And don’t think the wit of your statement was lost on me. When it comes to certain things, yes, I am conservative. For example, I will never sway from the belief that 1+1=2. ;P

THEN THERE IS HOPE!!

I thought the common liberal equation was:

1+1+x+y+z=2

x=Social Programs
Y=Getting my fair share
Z=Taxing the rich into submission

[Chadj]

J00 R ALL STOOPID! CBS ISN'T BIASED! DURR.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

I think the major networks are all liberal biased... that being CBS (Big time), ABC and NBC. Of the 3, I feel that I get a more balanced view with NBC.. so that is the network of my choice. I will also watch CNN, MSNBC and BBC.

CBS is to liberalism as FoxNews is to Conservatism.


I guess that ole Tom doesn't tell the whole truth according to FAIR>

http://www.fair.org/activism/brokaw-bible-ban.html

[Warriorbird]

The only problem is by Parkbandit's definition... Bush IS a liberal. Edit the rich to "everybody" and apply his equation to Bush himself. Pooooork barrel.

[Edited on 9-29-2004 by Warriorbird]