Kerry Cites Voter Intimidation Examples

[Keevan_Colton]

That's absurd. Every state's DMV has a state-identity card which they're happy to issue for a nominal fee (I think in CA it's $2).

So there would be mandatory ID cards then for anyone wishing to vote...not something that would go over well in the US one would think...

[Darth Wong]

Is it really necessary to look as far as these silly leaflets to show that voters were being bullied into voting for Bush? Just how many Bush-supporter church leaders and ministers told their congregations that a vote for Kerry was a fast-track to damnation?

[Knife]

That's absurd. Every state's DMV has a state-identity card which they're happy to issue for a nominal fee (I think in CA it's $2).

So there would be mandatory ID cards then for anyone wishing to vote...not something that would go over well in the US one would think...

It would go over fine except for the 'give me your papers' scaremongers. We already have SScards, most have Driver's lincense, every state has a State ID card available. Americans have all sorts of 'papers', its only the politics of something like a national ID card that gets the fear mongering going.

[Darth Servo]

Is it really necessary to look as far as these silly leaflets to show that voters were being bullied into voting for Bush? Just how many Bush-supporter church leaders and ministers told their congregations that a vote for Kerry was a fast-track to damnation?

Maybe not explicitly but I'd imagine those preachers DID lump heaping praise on Shrubby when he announced his support for the anti-gay marriage ammendment.

note: after his re-election many fundies expressed feelings of betrayal from Bush NOT currently pushing for said ammendment.

[Master of Ossus]

That's absurd. Every state's DMV has a state-identity card which they're happy to issue for a nominal fee (I think in CA it's $2).

So there would be mandatory ID cards then for anyone wishing to vote...

No, you just have to be able to show proof of your identification.

not something that would go over well in the US one would think...

Why not? You already have to present proof of your identification to get a job, so not having at least SOME form of ID is a blatant admission that you have no interest in working legally.

[Spacebeard]

Is it really necessary to look as far as these silly leaflets to show that voters were being bullied into voting for Bush? Just how many Bush-supporter church leaders and ministers told their congregations that a vote for Kerry was a fast-track to damnation?

Maybe not explicitly but I'd imagine those preachers DID lump heaping praise on Shrubby when he announced his support for the anti-gay marriage ammendment.

note: after his re-election many fundies expressed feelings of betrayal from Bush NOT currently pushing for said ammendment.

There were also, of course, all of the Catholic leaders foaming at the mouth over Kerry being Catholic and pro-choice, while ignoring all of the prominent Republican pro-choice Catholics such as Pataki, Giuliani, or Schwarzenegger.

[Axis Kast]

Wow, such an unexpected comment from our resident long-winded knee-jerk right-wing mouthpiece. Tell me, what are your test criteria for the label "demonstrably liberal"?

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are both major papers in their respective regions. Both are liberal.

The New York Post is generally acknowledged as a rag, even if plenty of people enjoy reading its stories.

Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Jennings are the face of news - as much or more than people like Bill O'Reilly. All of them are liberals. Rather made no attempt to hide it.

Most editors and producers for televised news media are liberals outside of FOX News. It's generally acknowledged as a closed system to acknowledged conservatives.

That the news media is liberal is a maxim that's accepted by most observers. You're denying it because the admission doesn't jive with your perception of the evil Republican conspiracy you like to see everywhere.

I'll be the first to admit Terry Schiavo was used and discarded. But do you think Republicans didn't know the federal courts wouldn't bail them out?

[SirNitram]

Observe the differences in technique here: In the last page, when someone is asked to support their observation of the political leanings of the media, they cite two sources and specifically name off a large scale public scandal. Or would be scandal, if the media was centrist or liberal, as claimed.

In this page, Axis just says 'So and so is liberal. And so is this guy. ANd another guy. Therefore, I'm right.' Not the most compelling argument compared to facts, eh? Oh well.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, such an unexpected comment from our resident long-winded knee-jerk right-wing mouthpiece. Tell me, what are your test criteria for the label "demonstrably liberal"?

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are both major papers in their respective regions. Both are liberal.

The New York Post is generally acknowledged as a rag, even if plenty of people enjoy reading its stories.

Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Jennings are the face of news - as much or more than people like Bill O'Reilly. All of them are liberals. Rather made no attempt to hide it.

Most editors and producers for televised news media are liberals outside of FOX News. It's generally acknowledged as a closed system to acknowledged conservatives.

That the news media is liberal is a maxim that's accepted by most observers. You're denying it because the admission doesn't jive with your perception of the evil Republican conspiracy you like to see everywhere.

I'll be the first to admit Terry Schiavo was used and discarded. But do you think Republicans didn't know the federal courts wouldn't bail them out?

Obviously, you are either an idiot or a liar, because you responded to "what are your test criteria for the label 'demonstrably liberal'" by completely ignoring the question and simply saying that the media passes this nebulous test that you refuse to define.

[Dalton]

Obviously, you are either an idiot or a liar, because you responded to "what are your test criteria for the label 'demonstrably liberal'" by completely ignoring the question and simply saying that the media passes this nebulous test that you refuse to define.

I suspect his rationale is "Criticizing the GOP" = "Liberal Bias".

[Stark]

So there would be mandatory ID cards then for anyone wishing to vote...not something that would go over well in the US one would think...

So you're saying electoral fraud is better than having a fucking 18+ card? You need ID to drink, but not to vote? Electing national leaders harder than getting into a club? Photo ID is necessary - if you don't have any, fuck off and stop complaining about dead people voting.

[Keevan_Colton]

So there would be mandatory ID cards then for anyone wishing to vote...not something that would go over well in the US one would think...

So you're saying electoral fraud is better than having a fucking 18+ card? You need ID to drink, but not to vote? Electing national leaders harder than getting into a club? Photo ID is necessary - if you don't have any, fuck off and stop complaining about dead people voting.

Did I say that?

No, I am putting forth that it wont go over in the US because there are a lot of those 'give me your papers' scare mongers in the US...in fact, they often go along with those shouting about the second ammendment, which you cannot deny there are a metric fuckload of...

The fact both lots are from where I'm sitting, fucking insane, doesnt change the fact they're there in the US and have enough importance to sway things.

Also, MoO I sincerely doubt every employer requires photo ID before hiring someone.

[Tommy J]

Wait, wait wait ... you're telling me that it's okay for Fox News to be dishonest because we should expect that from Fox News, while other news networks do not get this leeway? Are you on fucking drugs?

No, it's not ok whatsoever. Which is why I don't watch Fox to get my news anymore than I watch the Daily Show to get serious news either. But guess what, I don't have a few hundred million dollars like Rupert Murdoch to open another competing cable news station to report the news objectively. If people believe their getting objective news gathering out of Fox they are morons. I go to MSNBC and Reuters usually.

Just curious Durandal, do you have an equal amount of anger toward CBS/Dan Rather's bias as well? And, how would you change Cable Television Standards to force Fox to be less bias without taking away their freedom of speech?

[Glocksman]

No, I am putting forth that it wont go over in the US because there are a lot of those 'give me your papers' scare mongers in the US...in fact, they often go along with those shouting about the second ammendment, which you cannot deny there are a metric fuckload of...

2A trolling aside, this isn't the argument used against voter ID requirements in the US because every state will issue you a photo ID at a nominal cost. The national ID card issue doesn't enter into the discussion at all.

The argument used by the Democrats is that it'll somehow intimidate minorites from voting if they're required to show a driver's licence or state ID card before casting a ballot.

As far as showing an ID when obtaining employment goes, almost all (there are exceptions) employers are required to check your ID and Social Security card when you are hired. This happened back in the 80's and was passed off as a means of reducing illegal immigration.

[Loner]

That's absurd. Every state's DMV has a state-identity card which they're happy to issue for a nominal fee (I think in CA it's $2).

$21 to be exact.

[dnquxiti]

With regards to the bias of major media, I would like to point out the 2000 election. The press spent 2 years attacking Al Gore.

I'm sure you remember some of the better ones:
Al Gore said he "invented" the internet. Always you will see the one word that he never said quoted. You can find corrections to this story all over the place online now, but how about in the New York times, or CBS, or anyplace else in the mainstream media?

Al Gore sighed too much during the first debate. But wait, no one ever mentions that he was sighing because Bush was plainly lying about his own tax plans? Or the fact that none of the instant polls seemed to care, and that it took a week of the media playing back those sighs with the volume pumped for polls to reflect Bush "winning" the debate.

Earth Tones?
Love Story?

Lets go back farther, to a man named Clinton. Whitewater? Have you ever seen a major media outlet (Burried on the 28th page doesn't count) admit that all of the charges against the Clintons proved to be completely fucking wrong?

And didn't we spend a year talking about a blowjob? The New York times and the rest of the 'Liberal' media sure played down that story. And don't you remember how crazy the press went for Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs? Wait. You don't? Huh, interesting.

And lets move forward to 2004. The New York Times's own Marueen Dowd inventing quotes and attributing them to Kerry. Or perhaps you heard that Kerry said the US should fight a more "Sensitive" war on terror. Cheney said that alot, and it was covered alot, but man if the entire Kerry quote wasn't played very often.

I'll end with one final example. "Flip Flop". A pure GOP talking point, and one the press was perfectly happy to pass on.

[Master of Ossus]

The fact both lots are from where I'm sitting, fucking insane, doesnt change the fact they're there in the US and have enough importance to sway things.

Also, MoO I sincerely doubt every employer requires photo ID before hiring someone.

They're required by law to keep records which include various forms of ID. For instance, since I have a passport I've used that the last couple times I've gotten a job because it's the only single form of ID which meets the requirements. You can also give them your driver's license and social security card, or choose from another half-dozen combinations of ID which your employer is required by law to keep copies of in their records.

[Durandal]

No, it's not ok whatsoever. Which is why I don't watch Fox to get my news anymore than I watch the Daily Show to get serious news either. But guess what, I don't have a few hundred million dollars like Rupert Murdoch to open another competing cable news station to report the news objectively. If people believe their getting objective news gathering out of Fox they are morons. I go to MSNBC and Reuters usually.

So what was your point? That Fox News viewers are idiots? Gee, what a shock.

Just curious Durandal, do you have an equal amount of anger toward CBS/Dan Rather's bias as well? And, how would you change Cable Television Standards to force Fox to be less bias without taking away their freedom of speech?

I think the entire news media is guilty of your characteristic "golden mean" style of thinking. ALL of them are a part of the problem, and that problem is not bias toward one side or another. The problem is presenting two extreme viewpoints, declaring the true answer to be "somewhere in the middle" and calling that "objectivity." That is fraud, and every major network is guilty of it.

[Tommy J]

I think the entire news media is guilty of your characteristic "golden mean" style of thinking. ALL of them are a part of the problem, and that problem is not bias toward one side or another. The problem is presenting two extreme viewpoints, declaring the true answer to be "somewhere in the middle" and calling that "objectivity." That is fraud, and every major network is guilty of it.

Advertisers demanding a certain demographic of viewer plus ever increasing market share coupled with competition from so many different media sources might have something to do with it as well.

The newsroom at most major TV networks at one time was never supposed to even break even against expenses let alone make a profit. Those days are long gone.

[Durandal]

I think the entire news media is guilty of your characteristic "golden mean" style of thinking. ALL of them are a part of the problem, and that problem is not bias toward one side or another. The problem is presenting two extreme viewpoints, declaring the true answer to be "somewhere in the middle" and calling that "objectivity." That is fraud, and every major network is guilty of it.

Advertisers demanding a certain demographic of viewer plus ever increasing market share coupled with competition from so many different media sources might have something to do with it as well.

Correct. Which is why the government should subsidize news networks that use public airwaves and ban advertisers from slipping their greasy little fingers in.

[Dalton]

Correct. Which is why the government should subsidize news networks that use public airwaves and ban advertisers from slipping their greasy little fingers in.

But how then would you prevent the government from strongarming a media outlet into pulling an article criticizing or exposing the government?

[desertjedi]

Please don't say another congressional oversight committee...

[Prozac the Robert]

But how then would you prevent the government from strongarming a media outlet into pulling an article criticizing or exposing the government?

Afraid I can't really tell you how it works, but the arangement we have here with the BBC here generally works.

[Durandal]

Correct. Which is why the government should subsidize news networks that use public airwaves and ban advertisers from slipping their greasy little fingers in.

But how then would you prevent the government from strongarming a media outlet into pulling an article criticizing or exposing the government?

The beauty of the solution is that it wouldn't create any problems we don't already have. The FCC already unilaterally decides what Americans can and can't see over public airwaves.

[Beowulf]

Correct. Which is why the government should subsidize news networks that use public airwaves and ban advertisers from slipping their greasy little fingers in.

But how then would you prevent the government from strongarming a media outlet into pulling an article criticizing or exposing the government?

The beauty of the solution is that it wouldn't create any problems we don't already have. The FCC already unilaterally decides what Americans can and can't see over public airwaves.

FCC can't regulate cable. CNN and FOX therefore don't come under it's jurisdiction. Reason why HBO can do much racier shows than ABC.