This campaign season has been marked with a high degree of partisanship
and rancor in the discourse leading up to Tuesday's presidential
election. Both sides, armed with focus groups and experts, have crafted
messages gilded with oversimplifications and spurious "facts."

Logic, common sense and truth scatter like dust before the powerful and
well-financed marketing machines roaring across the landscape. My
advice? Take time to reflect on what is truly important, and let your
own intelligence and compassion guide your decisions.

Here's some food for thought before you vote:

• Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian, left, right,
center, liberal, moderate, conservative, rich, poor, gay, straight,
black, white, brown, male, female, pro-life, pro-choice — we're a mixed
bag, but we're all Americans.

• No individual, party or ideology has cornered the market on truth or
God's blessing.

• Dying soldiers in all countries call for their mothers with their
last breath.

• Any child killed by war, poverty, abuse or neglect is one too many.

• Fear is our worst enemy. Those who would scare us are not our friends.

• 9/11 was a tragic event. But everything did not change. The sad fact
is, too much has remained the same, or gotten worse.

• Killing innocents in any war dishonors those who died on 9/11.

• Those most distant from a conflict are always the ones shouting
loudest for war.

• War is almost always a tragic detour from the more difficult road of
peace.

• Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is not a patriot. In a true democracy, all points
of view are valued and heard.

• Love is the core value of the Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths.
Only love and understanding can bring the peace and security all good
people of the world desire.

Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted.

[written by Stuart S. Light in the LA Times, Oct 30, 2004]

Feel free to comment, but as always, without using words like liberal,
left, right, or wing.
mahalo,
jo4hn

"jo4hn" wrote in message
nk.net...

• Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is not a patriot.

That used to be (and may still be) a favorite tactic of the Kremlin. And, I
just heard a news story about how Jordanians can get hauled before a
"tribunal" for opening their mouths and letting the wrong words come out. If
they're lucky, that all they get, but usually, they're not that lucky and
end up doing jail time.

It's interesting how some Americans like to use the word "treason" anytime
someone expresses a view that doesn't agree with whomever happens to have
the biggest mouth at the moment, especially if our soldiers are overseas at
the time. I've always wanted to speak to a handful of psychologists to
understand this mentality. Is it a desperate way of seeking false security?

These are some mighty fine sentiments and worthy of meditation but it needs
some editing.....

• Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian, left, right,
center, liberal, moderate, conservative, rich, poor, gay, straight,
black, white, brown, male, female, pro-life, pro-choice — we're a mixed
bag, but we're all Americans with the freedoms to form opinions.
This doesn't necessarily mean all opinions are valid.

• No individual, party or ideology has cornered the market on truth or
God's blessing but all have a reason for their beliefs.

• Dying soldiers in all countries die for a reason.

• Any child killed by war, poverty, abuse or neglect is one too many. Every
chance this
may happen is one chance to many.

• Fear is our worst enemy. Those who would scare us are not our friends.
It must not cripple us.

• 9/11 was a tragic event. Some things changed. Some things remained the
same
Some grew worse. Some grew better.

• Killing innocents in any war right or wrong is unavoidable.

• Those most distant from a conflict are the ones in the best position
to see clearly.

• War doesn't always lead to peace. Peace rarely comes without it.

• Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is exercising their right for the same. In a true
democracy, all points
of view are heard. Not all are unilaterally valued.

• Love is the core value of man. Various faiths and beliefs render it
impossible for all men to love each other. Only intolerance for the
intolerable can allow
for tolerance for the tolerable. Defining that which is equally intolerable
by all men
and taking measures to limit it is the only way we can establish the closest
thing
to true peace we will ever know here on this earth.
..

Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted.

snip valid opinions

Every vote counts, (and every vote should be counted.)

Only if the electoral college is eliminated.
After all, it is the 21st century where it's damn near impossible not to be
able to get somewhere to vote.
The EC is way out dated.

Gary

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
otforme says...
Three things bother me a great deal. First, the rancor, no matter which
side it
emanates from or is pointed at. Next, the belief that God is guiding
anyone's
hand in this election. Third, the number of people on both sides of the
questions being asked who believe the over-simplified answers spouted in
speeches and sound bites are the only answers, and the complete answers.

Charlie, I think the rancor is easily explained.

The left is still convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election and they
think he's trying to curtail freedom in the name of fighting terror.

The right is convinced that Bush is the only hope for support of their
beliefs, especially God, flag, and motherhood.

Both of the above statements are oversimplifications, they don't include
those who "vote their pocketbook." But those types don't tend to be
overly rancorous.

But it does appear that there are quite a few voters who see this
election as a pivotal point in the future of the country. That tends to
up the rancor level.

And the only solution to the "sound bites", true or false, is to
prohibit any political ads on TV or radio. We did it for liquor and
tobacco and they were no more dangerous :-).


Actually very well put, Larry. I don't think censoring political speech is
the right way to go but I get your drift. I think the politicians that go
over the top are shown up as phonies eventually, even if it doesn't show up
until they are in office.

dwhite

"GeeDubb" wrote in message
...
snip valid opinions

Every vote counts, (and every vote should be counted.)

Only if the electoral college is eliminated.
After all, it is the 21st century where it's damn near impossible not to
be
able to get somewhere to vote.
The EC is way out dated.


That's not what the EC is for. The EC prevents politicians from pandering
to the 6 or so major population centers where most Americans live, and
ignoring the the rest of the country. I guess I should say
"disenfranchising" instead of "ignoring" since this is the catchword of the
day.

dwhite

"GeeDubb" wrote in message

snip valid opinions

Every vote counts, (and every vote should be counted.)

Only if the electoral college is eliminated.
After all, it is the 21st century where it's damn near impossible not to
be
able to get somewhere to vote.
The EC is way out dated.

?? Damn! ... is the grasp of US constitutional history that obviously
lacking since they stopped teaching citizenship in schools? It is no wonder
the country is in the state it's in.

The US specifically has a republican form of government, not a democracy,
and the electoral college was one of those institutions, as well as the
popular election of representatives who in turn make the laws, specifically
instituted to discourage rule by majority.

Quoting one of the founding fathers, and the biggest proponent of the EC, in
the Federalist Papers:

"...a well-constructed Union" must, above all else, "break and control the
violence of faction," especially "the superior force of an . . . overbearing
majority." In any democracy, a majority's power threatens minorities. It
threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives."

Just ask any black/japanese American whether they recognize what the
"tyranny of the majority" in a democracy can do.

It appears that it's high time they start teaching civics, constitutional
history, and citizenship in the schools again!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04

Swingman wrote:
"GeeDubb" wrote in message

snip valid opinions

Every vote counts, (and every vote should be counted.)

Only if the electoral college is eliminated.
After all, it is the 21st century where it's damn near impossible
not to be able to get somewhere to vote.
The EC is way out dated.

?? Damn! ... is the grasp of US constitutional history that obviously
lacking since they stopped teaching citizenship in schools? It is no
wonder the country is in the state it's in.

The US specifically has a republican form of government, not a
democracy, and the electoral college was one of those institutions,
as well as the popular election of representatives who in turn make
the laws, specifically instituted to discourage rule by majority.

Quoting one of the founding fathers, and the biggest proponent of the
EC, in the Federalist Papers:

"...a well-constructed Union" must, above all else, "break and
control the violence of faction," especially "the superior force of
an . . . overbearing majority." In any democracy, a majority's power
threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and
sometimes their lives."

Just ask any black/japanese American whether they recognize what the
"tyranny of the majority" in a democracy can do.

It appears that it's high time they start teaching civics,
constitutional history, and citizenship in the schools again!

Civics lesson accepted. I keep forgetting this is supposed to be a
Republic. It's been a while since I've had any history anything and the US
media as well as the politicians cram democracy down our throat.

I'm not whining about the last election. I voted for Bush.

Still the fact remains that I believe the EC needs to be eliminated. The
majority of the US populous lives outside of the six major metro areas so I
think your reasoning may be a little flawed (IMO) but valid in the fact that
the rest of the populous wouldn't be subjected to the political banter going
on currently (maybe that would be a good thing???). When a state is split
50.5 to 49.5 (or somewhat close) I have a real problem with giving all
electoral votes to one candidate. It's not representative of what the
People are voting (though statistically pretty close).

If we insist on keeping the EC I think Colorado may have the right idea with
splitting the EC vote (voter approval of course and barring any
constitutional back lash). I see it as being more representative of the
popular vote.

This opinion is just that, an opinion.

Gary

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:36:16 -0700, GeeDubb wrote:


Still the fact remains that I believe the EC needs to be eliminated. The
majority of the US populous lives outside of the six major metro areas so
I think your reasoning may be a little flawed (IMO) but valid in the fact
that the rest of the populous wouldn't be subjected to the political
banter going on currently (maybe that would be a good thing???). When a
state is split 50.5 to 49.5 (or somewhat close) I have a real problem with
giving all electoral votes to one candidate. It's not representative of
what the People are voting (though statistically pretty close).

If this was a true democracy, we'd also have to eliminate the senate as it
represents the states as entities rather than an equal representation by
population. The makeup of the bicameral legislature and the same
representation in the electoral college are the reason the smaller states
even went along with the current union - so they wouldn't be run
completely over by the more populous states.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

Swingman writes:


Quoting one of the founding fathers, and the biggest proponent of the EC, in
the Federalist Papers:

"...a well-constructed Union" must, above all else, "break and control the
violence of faction," especially "the superior force of an . . . overbearing
majority." In any democracy, a majority's power threatens minorities. It
threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives."

Just ask any black/japanese American whether they recognize what the
"tyranny of the majority" in a democracy can do.

It appears that it's high time they start teaching civics, constitutional
history, and citizenship in the schools again!

Oh, hush. If they do that, how will they find time to teach the kids how to
fly, sing, swim and all that other necessary stuff? Or, more accurate
probably, .

Magnet schools around here turn 16 year olds into pilots, single engine style,
a really, really essential culture and business skill.

Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce

"jo4hn"

• No individual, party or ideology has cornered the market on truth or
God's blessing.


No, but some are closer than others.



• Dying soldiers in all countries call for their mothers with their
last breath.


Not sure where you get that. Could be God, wives, husbands, lovers, or children.


• War is almost always a tragic detour from the more difficult road of
peace.


Sometimes it's the solution for peace. It worked in Japan, Germany and South
Korea, for example.


• Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is not a patriot. In a true democracy, all points
of view are valued and heard.


Ask the DNC why it puts partisanship over those rights. Ralph Nader has
been blocked from his constitutional rights in many states. Millions have
been disenfrancised by Democrats who believe in free speech as long as
you agree with them.


• Love is the core value of the Islamic,


For many perhaps. But for others hate, oppression and death are their
core values.


Christian and Jewish faiths.
Only love and understanding can bring the peace and security all good
people of the world desire.


That's a utopian dream but unfortunantly not reality. Sometimes peace
must be bought with bullets, bombs and blood. That doesn't sound as hip
or poetic but it's the truth.

Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted.


Correction. Every legal vote should be counted.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
SNIP

Ask the DNC why it puts partisanship over those rights. Ralph Nader has
been blocked from his constitutional rights in many states. Millions have
been disenfrancised by Democrats who believe in free speech as long as
you agree with them.

Neither party has a monopolyon allowing frre speech. Two talk radio
guys out here have targeted David Dreier, a pro illigal immigration
republican, for defeat, and the National Republican Congressional
Committee (NRCC) is trying to shut them up by having them charged with
felonies. (more info here http://www.johnandkenshow.com/ )

Let me add, I am a registerd republican, but I also believe in free
speech.

Glen

John, I've read a lot of good stuff from you. Disappointed in this.


• No individual, party or ideology has cornered the market on truth or
God's blessing.

Couldn't agree with you more. You sure God's taking a personal interest
in current activities or allowing us to feel our way and find the truth
on our own?


• Dying soldiers in all countries call for their mothers with their
last breath.

• Any child killed by war, poverty, abuse or neglect is one too many.

We're all children of mothers who loved us. Any sacrifice for an ideal
unwarranted?

• Fear is our worst enemy. Those who would scare us are not our friends.

Sounds like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" We've all come to
admire that sentiment.

• 9/11 was a tragic event. But everything did not change. The sad fact
is, too much has remained the same, or gotten worse.

• Killing innocents in any war dishonors those who died on 9/11.

That's idealistic bull ****. We killed a bunch of innocent Japanese in
order to end WWII. We didn't start that war. There would have been
more deaths on both sides had we invaded the Japanese mainland.
Innocents slaughtered were regrettable but justified. Same will be true
in the future. I hate it, but there it is. what about innocents on the
aircraft or in the World Trade Towers?

• Those most distant from a conflict are always the ones shouting
loudest for war.

Naw, left wing crybabies are so far from the war, your statement proves
untrue. I spent 20 some years active duty in the US Army. None of us
looked forward to war. We did realize that it might be necessary in our
national interest and we were willing to die in the effort. "He who
stands for nothing will swallow anything." So much for respect for all
opinions.

• War is almost always a tragic detour from the more difficult road of
peace.

Replace the work tragic with necessary.


• Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is not a patriot. In a true democracy, all points
of view are valued and heard.

All points of view are heard. Some are of no value whatsoever.


• Love is the core value of the Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths.
Only love and understanding can bring the peace and security all good
people of the world desire.

Read me a whole bunch of material where "Love" is a major part of the
Islamic faith. I have muslim friends who give me this line. In
politeness, I don't throw it back at them without backup. After a lot
of reading since 9/11 I'm becoming doubtful. Is this true? Where has
all this "kill the infidels" stuff been sidetracked?

Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted.

[written by Stuart S. Light in the LA Times, Oct 30, 2004]

Feel free to comment, but as always, without using words like liberal,
left, right, or wing.
mahalo,
jo4hn

Only intolerance for the
intolerable can allow
for tolerance for the tolerable. Defining that which is equally intolerable
by all men
and taking measures to limit it is the only way we can establish the closest
thing
to true peace we will ever know here on this earth.
.

Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted.

"Glen"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
SNIP

Ask the DNC why it puts partisanship over those rights. Ralph Nader has
been blocked from his constitutional rights in many states. Millions have
been disenfrancised by Democrats who believe in free speech as long as
you agree with them.


Neither party has a monopolyon allowing frre speech. Two talk radio
guys out here have targeted David Dreier, a pro illigal immigration
republican, for defeat, and the National Republican Congressional
Committee (NRCC) is trying to shut them up by having them charged with
felonies. (more info here http://www.johnandkenshow.com/ )

Let me add, I am a registerd republican, but I also believe in free
speech.

Glen


There's no information but the headlines there. I have no idea
if the NRCC has a proper case or what any details are. However,
restricting a candidate from the ballot because you're afraid of the votes he
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria. How sad but Ralph has promised to follow up on the legalities
after the elections.

In article ,
Robert Galloway wrote:

True Americans recognize that freedom of speech is one of the
cornerstones of what makes this society/political system worth
defending/perpetuating. Most of us knee jerk libertarian/right wing
nutsos defend your right of free speech.

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech
at public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but
t-shirts and placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath".
Those actions speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to
hearing any point of view that differs with its own. From day one
they've had an attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one
and all, concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's
point of view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades
to come.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

Robert Galloway responds:

€¢ Killing innocents in any war dishonors those who died on 9/11.

That's idealistic bull ****. We killed a bunch of innocent Japanese in
order to end WWII. We didn't start that war. There would have been
more deaths on both sides had we invaded the Japanese mainland.
Innocents slaughtered were regrettable but justified. Same will be true
in the future. I hate it, but there it is. what about innocents on the
aircraft or in the World Trade Towers?

That one gives me a headache. The rationale for the atom bombs was, and is,
excellent, no matter what the revisionists say today or tomorrow, but how does
that relate to the innocents in the aircraft or the World Trade Towers? That's
a non sequitur.

€¢ Those most distant from a conflict are always the ones shouting
loudest for war.

Naw, left wing crybabies are so far from the war, your statement proves
untrue. I spent 20 some years active duty in the US Army. None of us
looked forward to war. We did realize that it might be necessary in our
national interest and we were willing to die in the effort. "He who
stands for nothing will swallow anything." So much for respect for all
opinions.

You do love your non sequiturs.

€¢ War is almost always a tragic detour from the more difficult road of
peace.

Replace the work tragic with necessary.

In your opinion. Which, in my opinion, is incorrect.

€¢ Anyone who impugns your patriotism for exercising your constitutional
right to free speech is not a patriot. In a true democracy, all points
of view are valued and heard.

All points of view are heard. Some are of no value whatsoever.

Again, in your opinion. Which, in my view, is still incorrect. And, I seem to
recall, no one among us has been set up as supreme arbiter, so it's a bit of a
tie as to whose POV is of no value whatsoever.

Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Robert Galloway wrote:

True Americans recognize that freedom of speech is one of the
cornerstones of what makes this society/political system worth
defending/perpetuating. Most of us knee jerk libertarian/right wing
nutsos defend your right of free speech.

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech
at public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but
t-shirts and placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath".
Those actions speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to
hearing any point of view that differs with its own. From day one
they've had an attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one
and all, concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's
point of view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades
to come.

Humor speaks volumes about truth sometimes:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17961

Bush supporters: Click the link. It's a cartoon. There's very little to
read. Minimal effort.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...

....
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria.
....

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/o...p?format=print
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/3956129.stm
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/22/Pa...f_warns_.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/16/Hi...ctions_c.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct25.html
http://www.daytondailynews.com/local...026voting.html
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...9734214610.xml
http://www.dispatch.com/election/ele...022-A1-00.html
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/18/absen101804.html
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/18/absen101804.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346293/
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/200...s_voters.shtml
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_266695.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/04296/399788.stm

Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:18:08 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech at
public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but t-shirts and
placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath". Those actions
speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to hearing any
point of view that differs with its own. From day one they've had an
attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one and all,
concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's point of
view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades to
come.

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap. I
went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no qualifications
or any questions in the ticket process. There were metal detectors and
airport type security at the gates, but there was zero to do with party
affiliations or who do you like stuff. There were a few demonstrators
outside with Republicans for Kerry signs, and by some of the conversation
in line, some Kerry supporters attended the event with no problems - and
no "loyalty oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:18:08 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech
at
public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but t-shirts
and
placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath". Those
actions
speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to hearing any
point of view that differs with its own. From day one they've had an
attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one and all,
concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's point of
view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades
to
come.

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap. I
went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no qualifications
or any questions in the ticket process. There were metal detectors and
airport type security at the gates, but there was zero to do with party
affiliations or who do you like stuff. There were a few demonstrators
outside with Republicans for Kerry signs, and by some of the conversation
in line, some Kerry supporters attended the event with no problems - and
no "loyalty oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

-Doug

In other cities, protesters were granted permits, but only if their
gatherings took place blocks away, far from TV cameras. As I recall, Bush's
spokespersons have not mentioned concerns about violence with regard to this
type of segregation. They want to keep the blinders on their supporters.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:25:11 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In other cities, protesters were granted permits, but only if their
gatherings took place blocks away, far from TV cameras. As I recall,
Bush's spokespersons have not mentioned concerns about violence with
regard to this type of segregation. They want to keep the blinders on
their supporters.

What a load - if there are any anti Bush protesters anywhere, the press
and TV cameras will find them and portray them as the main event.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Nate Perkins"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

...
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria.
...


Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.


Here's the part you missed, the first sentence:
"Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses..."
Only legal votes should be counted, do you have a problem
with that? What does that have to do with disenfranchising millions
of legal voters?

Same old liberal tactics, smear, obfiscate, accuse, etc...
Whatever it takes to whip up emotional support.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:25:11 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

In other cities, protesters were granted permits, but only if their
gatherings took place blocks away, far from TV cameras. As I recall,
Bush's spokespersons have not mentioned concerns about violence with
regard to this type of segregation. They want to keep the blinders on
their supporters.

What a load - if there are any anti Bush protesters anywhere, the press
and TV cameras will find them and portray them as the main event.

-Doug

Of course they found them! Now, you'd think it would make an impression on
any patriot to see how free speech had been relegated to a parking lot, but
apparently, Nookular Boy doesn't appeal to patriots.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:41:21 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

Of course they found them! Now, you'd think it would make an impression on
any patriot to see how free speech had been relegated to a parking lot,
but apparently, Nookular Boy doesn't appeal to patriots.

Fortunately, there's still room in my Micheal Moore loonie bin. Bye.

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:41:21 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Of course they found them! Now, you'd think it would make an impression on
any patriot to see how free speech had been relegated to a parking lot,
but apparently, Nookular Boy doesn't appeal to patriots.


Fortunately, there's still room in my Micheal Moore loonie bin. Bye.


Welcome to the loonie bin, Doug.

JK

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:41:21 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Of course they found them! Now, you'd think it would make an impression
on
any patriot to see how free speech had been relegated to a parking lot,
but apparently, Nookular Boy doesn't appeal to patriots.


Fortunately, there's still room in my Micheal Moore loonie bin. Bye.


Welcome to the loonie bin, Doug.

JK


They really can't handle it, can they? :-)
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17961

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...
"Nate Perkins"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

...
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria.
...


Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.


Here's the part you missed, the first sentence:
"Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses..."
Only legal votes should be counted, do you have a problem
with that? What does that have to do with disenfranchising millions
of legal voters?

Same old liberal tactics, smear, obfiscate, accuse, etc...
Whatever it takes to whip up emotional support.


I posted fourteen separate links. Are you saying that's the first
sentence in each of the fourteen links? Okay, so here's another
article by the New York Times. Obviously the Times is just another
liberal media source out to smear, obfiscate (sic), accuse, etc:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/po.../01voting.html

"Nate Perkins"
"Fletis Humplebacker"
"Nate Perkins"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

...
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria.
...


Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.


Here's the part you missed, the first sentence:
"Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses..."
Only legal votes should be counted, do you have a problem
with that? What does that have to do with disenfranchising millions
of legal voters?


Same old liberal tactics, smear, obfiscate, accuse, etc...
Whatever it takes to whip up emotional support.


I posted fourteen separate links. Are you saying that's the first
sentence in each of the fourteen links?


Nope, first one.


Okay, so here's another
article by the New York Times. Obviously the Times is just another
liberal media source out to smear, obfiscate (sic), accuse, etc:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/po.../01voting.html


Usually so but here's what I mean:


[Much of the tone has been set by a propaganda war of sorts
between the parties, with the Democrats charging that efforts
are being made to suppress the vote and Republicans warning
against voter fraud or double voting.]

[Jenny Backus, another adviser to the D.N.C., said that early voting
had gone smoothly, and that Election Day would too. "For all the
Republican talk of beware, beware, millions of Americans are having
a perfectly pleasant voting experience," she said.]

Which side is promoting the hysteria? The side saying watch for
illegal voting, especially when there's more registered voters than
eligible voters, or those claiming voter suppression? No wonder
Jenny's a mouthpiece for the DNC.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:25:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:18:08 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech
at
public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but t-shirts
and
placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath". Those
actions
speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to hearing any
point of view that differs with its own. From day one they've had an
attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one and all,
concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's point of
view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades
to
come.

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap. I
went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no qualifications
or any questions in the ticket process. There were metal detectors and
airport type security at the gates, but there was zero to do with party
affiliations or who do you like stuff. There were a few demonstrators
outside with Republicans for Kerry signs, and by some of the conversation
in line, some Kerry supporters attended the event with no problems - and
no "loyalty oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

-Doug

In other cities, protesters were granted permits, but only if their
gatherings took place blocks away, far from TV cameras.

That is absolute, pure, unadulterated BS. Far from TV cameras my @$$!
If there was a protest, I guarantee you that the mainstream media, were
they alerted to where the protest was going to occur were going to be
there. It could have been in the next state for all they cared, the
networks were going to cover any and every protest. As a matter of fact,
it would have been even better were they to have been forced to be in the
next state, the lead on the network newscast would have been, "A hearty
band of protestors, excluded by the Bush administration from protesting
near their campaign activity were forced to hold their gathering in nearby
...."


As I recall, Bush's
spokespersons have not mentioned concerns about violence with regard to this
type of segregation. They want to keep the blinders on their supporters.


Given the expressed purpose of many of the protests as stated beforehand,
"to disrupt the Bush speech", etc. it seems that the protesters were the
ones trying to stifle the free speech of those whom they opposed.

Do you honestly believe that Bush supporters don't see the nightly
newscasts, or other reports of the protests and anti-Bush talking points?
Now, as a counter-point, please provide me mainstream references that
portrayed Bush in a positive light.

On 1 Nov 2004 05:38:52 -0800, (Nate Perkins) wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...

...
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria.
...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/o...p?format=print

Horror of horrors! Demanding that registered voters actually identify
themselves as to who they are! Whoever heard of such a thing? Sounds more
like a reason to suspect extensive voter fraud during this election.
Quoting, "The initial GOP challenge, which was dismissed 3-0 by the city
Election Commission last week, cited thousands of cases where no voter
address exists, such as vacant lots and, in one case, a gyros stand." ...
and you are screaming about disenfranchisement? I'm stunned that the city
election commission is not concerned about the fact that "registered
voters" can't provide a legitimate address. OK, well I'm not, after all,
the city election commission is probably highly supportive of fraud as long
as it promotes their candidate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/3956129.stm

So it's OK for fraudulent voting to occur; heaven forbid anyone slow down
the process.


http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/22/Pa...f_warns_.shtml

This one I'll grant should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/16/Hi...ctions_c.shtml

????? Where's the partisanship or disenfranchisement here? Or are you
saying that Democrats are just less able to figure out things than others?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct25.html

Not registering with WP

http://www.daytondailynews.com/local...026voting.html

Bad link
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...9734214610.xml

Fail to see how making sure that the voter's rolls are correct is
disenfranchisement. I know it makes it harder to commit voter fraud, but
taking inactive voters off the rolls (it takes 8 years!?) doesn't seem to
be disenfranchisement. If those people show up, they do get to cast a
provisional ballot -- it just means that they have to prove who they are
and that they are not somebody voting for one of those "inactive" voters.


http://www.dispatch.com/election/ele...022-A1-00.html

Prosecutable fraud.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/18/absen101804.html
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/18/absen101804.html

Frankly, if they didn't notice Kerry's name was missing, they ought not
be voting anyway. Doubling up links here to give sheer weight in numbers?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346293/

Yeah, the USPS is firmly in Bush's camp. Sheesh. Part of the remainder
of the story is about Democrats intimidating Republicans to keep them from
voting. If one can show that they are who they say they are, why would
being asked to produce identification prior to voting be considered to be
suppression?

http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/200...s_voters.shtml

Maybe those are the areas in which they are most concerned about voter
fraud? Dems are welcome to watch the polls in the other precincts --- they
don't seem to be worried about fraud on that end. Hmmm.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_266695.html

So they didn't read the petition before signing it? ... and they vote?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/04296/399788.stm

Bad link


Most of your links seem to be concerned with preventing the very real
possiblity of voter fraud. The actions of ACORN and other activists
certainly seem to point to the potential for attempted voter fraud; the
pride of the mayor of Pittsburg who stated that in the last election, every
registered voter cast a ballot; the University of Wisconsin students who
admitted in 2000 to casting multiple ballots, the abnormally high amount of
returned mail from registered voter addresses in many precincts make this
more than a hypothetical thought exercise or kook conspiracy theory. It's
one thing to lose an election, it's another to lose it due to fraudulent
voting.


Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.

In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap.

You haven't heard any reports of such tactics by the Bush team?
http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...wyoming/63b4fc
b928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

I went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no
qualifications or any questions in the ticket process. There were
metal detectors and airport type security at the gates, but there
was zero to do with party affiliations or who do you like stuff.
There were a few demonstrators outside with Republicans for Kerry
signs, and by some of the conversation in line, some Kerry
supporters attended the event with no problems - and no "loyalty
oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

Well maybe they've learned a bit, but I know of three female teachers
who were escorted out of a Bush speech a couple weeks ago in Oregon
because they were wearing t-shirts printed with, "Protect Our Civil
Liberties." In an interview with one of them, she said they had no
intention of speaking out and were told by rally workers that they were
not welcome and were escorted off of the county fairgrounds by Oregon
State Police. Similar t-shirt incidents have occurred across the country.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...ews/1097928233
288440.xml

Just last week, I saw a news clip on the Newshour with Tom(?) Lehrer,
showing about 8 to 10(my estimate) people escorted out of a stadium when
they held up placards with, "380,000 tons" printed across them. They
were up in the top rows and it certainly would have been difficult for
them to make an audible disturbance (the news report didn't mention or
broadcast anything audible).

They *really* don't want there to be any appearance of dissent.
Remember, their way or the highway.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Now, as a counter-point, please provide me mainstream references that
portrayed Bush in a positive light.

That's hard to find. You know that. You also know there's a reason for it,
and it's got little or nothing to do with bias.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap.

You haven't heard any reports of such tactics by the Bush team?
http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...wyoming/63b4fc
b928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

I went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no
qualifications or any questions in the ticket process. There were
metal detectors and airport type security at the gates, but there
was zero to do with party affiliations or who do you like stuff.
There were a few demonstrators outside with Republicans for Kerry
signs, and by some of the conversation in line, some Kerry
supporters attended the event with no problems - and no "loyalty
oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

Well maybe they've learned a bit, but I know of three female teachers
who were escorted out of a Bush speech a couple weeks ago in Oregon
because they were wearing t-shirts printed with, "Protect Our Civil
Liberties." In an interview with one of them, she said they had no
intention of speaking out and were told by rally workers that they were
not welcome and were escorted off of the county fairgrounds by Oregon
State Police. Similar t-shirt incidents have occurred across the country.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...ews/1097928233
288440.xml

Just last week, I saw a news clip on the Newshour with Tom(?) Lehrer,
showing about 8 to 10(my estimate) people escorted out of a stadium when
they held up placards with, "380,000 tons" printed across them. They
were up in the top rows and it certainly would have been difficult for
them to make an audible disturbance (the news report didn't mention or
broadcast anything audible).

They *really* don't want there to be any appearance of dissent.
Remember, their way or the highway.

The response by the faithful will be that if they weren't sitting on your
lap when you saw these news reports, then you really didn't see them. :-)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:40:21 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap.

You haven't heard any reports of such tactics by the Bush team?
http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...wyoming/63b4fc
b928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

I went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no
qualifications or any questions in the ticket process. There were
metal detectors and airport type security at the gates, but there was
zero to do with party affiliations or who do you like stuff. There were
a few demonstrators outside with Republicans for Kerry signs, and by
some of the conversation in line, some Kerry supporters attended the
event with no problems - and no "loyalty oath". Most folks were there
to support Bush.

Well maybe they've learned a bit, but I know of three female teachers who
were escorted out of a Bush speech a couple weeks ago in Oregon because
they were wearing t-shirts printed with, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." In
an interview with one of them, she said they had no intention of speaking
out and were told by rally workers that they were not welcome and were
escorted off of the county fairgrounds by Oregon State Police. Similar
t-shirt incidents have occurred across the country.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...ews/1097928233
288440.xml

Just last week, I saw a news clip on the Newshour with Tom(?) Lehrer,
showing about 8 to 10(my estimate) people escorted out of a stadium when
they held up placards with, "380,000 tons" printed across them. They were
up in the top rows and it certainly would have been difficult for them to
make an audible disturbance (the news report didn't mention or broadcast
anything audible).

They *really* don't want there to be any appearance of dissent. Remember,
their way or the highway.

I assume you're dropping the "loyalty oath" BS?

What's with 380.000 tons? The original charge was 380 tons. Since you or
I weren't there, we have no idea what sort of disturbance these folks may
have caused. I also wasn't aware the Oregon State Police took orders
from rally organizers.

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:

I assume you're dropping the "loyalty oath" BS?

Why's that? You still think it didn't happen?

What's with 380.000 tons? The original charge was 380 tons. Since you or
I weren't there, we have no idea what sort of disturbance these folks may
have caused. I also wasn't aware the Oregon State Police took orders
from rally organizers.

Again, you think the State Police didn't do what the account says they
did?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:07 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
Doug Winterburn wrote:

I assume you're dropping the "loyalty oath" BS?

Why's that? You still think it didn't happen?

I've seen nothing but left wing propoganda to indicate it happened. Is
there any cites other than moveon.org?


What's with 380.000 tons? The original charge was 380 tons. Since you
or I weren't there, we have no idea what sort of disturbance these
folks may have caused. I also wasn't aware the Oregon State Police
took orders from rally organizers.

Again, you think the State Police didn't do what the account says they
did?

The question is why they did what they did and at whose direction. Do you
know the circumstances and who gave the orders and why?

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news
I've seen nothing but left wing propoganda to indicate it happened. Is
there any cites other than moveon.org?


Criminy Doug, DAGS; you'll find every thing from Rolling Stone to MSNBC;
among the links, yeah, a lot of "left wing propaganda", but numerous
newspaper articles as well. Surely you don't believe *every* newspapaper
and website are a tool of the left, do you?

Regards,

JT

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:32:16 +0000, John Thomas wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news
I've seen nothing but left wing propoganda to indicate it happened. Is
there any cites other than moveon.org?


Criminy Doug, DAGS; you'll find every thing from Rolling Stone to MSNBC;
among the links, yeah, a lot of "left wing propaganda", but numerous
newspaper articles as well. Surely you don't believe *every* newspapaper
and website are a tool of the left, do you?

Well, IDAGS on bush loyalty oath and amonst all the blogs I found this:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/7853392.htm

Apparently, Democrats in South Carolina don't even want you to vote
without signing a loyalty oath!