Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer has sent out about 1.5 million voter registration cards in the past seven months, almost four times the number usually sent out in two years. Progressive and conservative groups are both working hard; the ground war is alive and well here in the Gopher State.

A Republican, Kiffmeyer has refused to campaign for candidates in order to avoid the appearance of bias. Even so, Kiffmeyer has been accused of trying to suppress registration and turnout by printing cards in insufficient quantities as well as other changes to election rules and systems.

Now the time window for pre-registration before election day has ended, and she says only 125,000 cards have been returned. Are the 1.3 million cards unaccounted for still blank and unused? Or is something more sinister going on?

From: Daily Kos

Oct. 13) -- Federal, state, and local officials are gathering information about allegations of voter registration fraud that were first raised Channel 8 Eyewitness News.

An employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters.

The allegations have set off a political firestorm stretching from Las Vegas to Washington D.C., and beyond.

As with everything else in this election year, it's now become a political football being tossed between the two parties, with charges and countercharges, but at its core, there still remains the matter of registration forms that were ripped up and tossed in the trash.

Who did it, and why? That's what official agencies will try to determine. On Tuesday afternoon, Las Vegan Eric Russell and his girlfriend took a packet of documents to the Las Vegas FBI office but left before filing a formal complaint about what Russell says was a deliberate effort to disenfranchise local voters.

Russell worked for a company called Voters Outreach of America, along with 300 other people. He says he got into a beef with the company over a pay dispute, and witnessed his bosses ripping up registration forms that had been filed by democrats.

"They were thrown away in the trash. I grabbed them out," said Eric Russell. One of those forms belonged to Daren Gray, who was shocked to learn that the re-registration form he filled out was never turned in.

"I'm pretty mad, upset. I'm still gonna vote," said Daren Gray. Russell doesn't know how many democratic registrations were tossed in the trash but guesses the number could be very high since Voters Outreach of America operated in Las Vegas for more than two months.

The FBI confirms that it is gathering information about the case but stopped short of calling it an investigation, saying it wants to talk to Russell again. Secretary of State Dean Heller issued a statement that his office is also taking a look, trying to figure out what if any laws might have been violated.

Nevada Democrats came out swinging Wednesday. "Most disturbing is that Voter Outreach of America is being paid by the National Republican Party and we ask how can people have faith in government if a national party is involved in trickery in depriving people the right to vote," said Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates.

The Republican National Committee acknowledges that it hired Voters Outreach of America to register voters, but in a statement said it had zero tolerance for any kind of fraud.

Local party officials said there is no way the GOP would instruct the company to trash democratic registrations. However, similar problems have been alleged elsewhere. In Washoe County, the registrar says he too has turned over information to the FBI about Republican backed registration efforts.

In Oregon, the same company that was operating here has been criticized for its tactics in signing up voters. There, it used the name America Votes, which is actually the name of a Democratic organization.

Employees in Las Vegas say they too were told that the name of the company was America Votes. "They confused us with the name. They told us one thing and told the temp force something else. They told us America Votes," Russell said.

So, why has this company used the name of a Democratic organization as it signs up voters here and in Oregon? It's a question Eyewitness News is investigating.

In the meantime, Eric Russell is about to learn what it's like to stir the pot. He has already been attacked in other media accounts as a disgruntled employee who was fired and displayed a violent temper.

Russell was a disgruntled employee. He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked. Even so, discrediting him doesn't explain the existence of the trashed registration forms.

from: EyeWitnesws News.

(CNN) -- Nevada election officials have launched an investigation into allegations that a Republican-led voter registration drive improperly disposed of forms it collected from potential Democratic voters.

Secretary of State Dean Heller said Wednesday that his office was reviewing the allegations, first raised Tuesday in a report by CNN affiliate KLAS-TV in Las Vegas.

"We are researching state and federal law to determine what violations may have occurred," Heller said in a statement. "If, in fact, the allegations are true and federal law has been broken, all efforts will be made to prosecute the individuals and/or the organization responsible."

The probe centers around a private voter registration firm, Voter Outreach of America, which collected registrations from voters in Nevada, a pivotal presidential battleground state. The company was set up by Sproul & Associates Inc., a Republican political consulting firm based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Under Nevada law, private canvassing efforts -- even those run by partisan groups -- must turn in all voter registration forms they collect, regardless of the party affiliation of those registering.

In the KLAS report, a former employee of Voter Outreach, Eric Russell, alleged that he saw a supervisor destroy forms collected from Democratic voters.

KLAS quoted Russell as saying that "we caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant, and he ripped them up right in front of us." CNN could not reach Russell for comment.

Heller said that if true, such actions "would be an incredible injustice to people who believe they have registered, only to find out later that their form was tossed away."

But Nathan Sproul, head of Sproul & Associates, disputed the allegations, saying that his company has a "zero tolerance" policy for such conduct and describing Russell as a "disgruntled former employee" who was fired a week ago.

Sproul provided sworn statements from two supervisors who said they turned in all of the collected forms and that none were "discarded, destroyed, tampered with."

However, Sproul, whose firm received nearly $500,000 this election cycle from the Republican Party, said that "it is safe to say we were trying to register Republicans."

In a statement, the Republican National Committee said, "Anyone who engages in fraudulent voter registration activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

The secretary of state advised Nevada voters to call local election officials to confirm their registration before Election Day. Tuesday was the deadline to register.

Jon Summer, a spokesman for the Nevada Democratic State Committee, said the party would file a lawsuit seeking to reopen the registration process for voters whose forms might have been destroyed.

"We don't really know how many victims there are in this case," he said.

A spokesman for Heller, Steve George, said the number of new voters added to Nevada rolls since the 2002 election will be between 200,000 to 350,000.

Nevada's population grew 3.4. percent in the past two years, making it the fast-growing state in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. President Bush won the state in 2000 by about 22,000 votes.

Voter Outreach of America is also under investigation in Oregon for "alteration and destruction of voter registration cards," said Anne Martens, a spokeswoman for Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.

She said her office had received numerous complaints since CNN affiliate KGW in Portland broadcast a report spotlighting an out-of-state canvasser who was registering only Republicans.

"That's how I get paid, and I am doing it for the money," said the canvasser, whom KGW identified as Mike Johnson. He said he received $5 per card. The TV report aired Tuesday -- the registration deadline in Oregon.

"We didn't know this was going on until that happened," Martens said. "We're launching a full investigation."

CNN's Dan Lothian and Phil Hirschkorn contributed to this report.

From: CNN.Com.

Further Information.

BLACK BOX VOTING - Election Fraud in the 21st Century.

The Daily kos is an extreme Left-wing scandle sheet, Pip. Please quote from a more highly regarded news source that doesn't have an ax to grind?

p.s. posting will be light for a few days but I'll get back to you on this topic and the war justification(s)!

The Daily kos is an extreme Left-wing scandle sheet, Pip. Please quote from a more highly regarded news source that doesn't have an ax to grind?

p.s. posting will be light for a few days but I'll get back to you on this topic and the war justification(s)!

Boon

Sorry, don't know the Kos. Felt that might be the case, so quoted very little. CNN and Eyewitness News should be more mainstream.

Look foreward to your later comments.

P

The Daily kos is an extreme Left-wing scandle sheet, Pip.  Please quote from a more highly regarded news source that doesn't have an ax to grind?

p.s.  posting will be light for a few days but I'll get back to you on this topic and the war justification(s)!

That's pretty rich coming from you Boon, you're a master at selecting whatever news source best suits your agenda!

Big Yawn!!!!! I liken all this rubbish to 2 kiddies fighting over a new toy.

On Oct. 19, FoxNews reported the following comments by President Bush:

If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, "I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," Bush said. "If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."

Talk about disappointing. Unfortunately this is consistent with past Bush statements that he will not impose a government on the Iraqis. Not that I believe Bush is “caving” but the radical left-wing moonbats are probably wearing him down. More quotes from the cox&forkum site that elucidates the American Democracy issue.

Italics mine

“Objectivist scholar Leonard Peikoff has explained why democracy does not equal freedom (from The Ayn Rand Lexicon, edited by Harry Binswanger):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/045...3403001-3423348

The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn't like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one's rights.

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies the individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom...

The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.

A free Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran for that matter) would not have to exactly duplicate the American system of government, but it would have to duplicate our basic protection of the individual against the majority, i.e., against a democracy.

The Bush Doctrine -- the doctrine of treating as hostile regimes any states that harbor and sponsor terrorists -- is the correct approach to the war on terrorism, even if Bush himself has not consistently followed it. And we know that the worst state sponsors of terrorists and jihad ideology are fundamentalist Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So it would be far more than merely "disappointing" if Iraq becomes a fundamentalist Islamic state. It would be a defeat for us in the war on terror. Yes, there's a chance that Iraqis will vote for a free country. But if we're in a war against dictatorships, why leave the creation of one to chance?”

http://www.coxandforkum.com/

Boon, you surprise me. I thought you would refrain from quoting right wing, neo-con sources in this thread. As ever, I’m afraid your post has some glaring errors of both fact and comprehension.

English is a dynamic language and Democracy, along with Gay/Happy and many other words, has evolved in its definition over time.

Literally, the term democracy combines the Greek words demos, "the people," and kratien, "to rule" thus giving the original base definition: the rule or the power of the people. In modern times it has come to be used to describe a political system where the legitimacy of exercising power stems from the consent of the people. Accordingly, a democratic political system is identified by the existence of constitutional government, whereby the power of the leaders is checked and restrained; representative institutions based on free elections, which provide a procedural framework for the delegation of power by the people; competitive parties, in which the ruling majority respects and guarantees the rights of minorities; and civil liberties, such as freedoms of speech, press, association, and religion.

The main tenets or principles of modern democracy are as follows.

Sovereignty is held by the people.

Government is based upon consent of the governed.

The majority of the people have the right to rule.

The above is subject to the minority, who have guaranteed rights which can not be overturned or abused by the majority.

There is a guarantee of basic human rights for all.

The rulers are chosen by free and fair elections in which every member of society has equal rights to choose and the majority choice gets to hold the reins of power.

There is equality of all members of society, whether rulers or ruled, young or old, male or female etc. etc. before the law.

There is an established due process of law, which is totally independent of the rulers.

There are constitutional limits on government. The rulers can not overturn these limist without the express consent of either all, or the overriding majority of members of society.

There is a true social, economic, and political pluralism.

Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise are promulgated and upheld within society.

I have no wish to attack the American system which, as you point out, is not a true democracy. It seems to work for the US and I have no right to say otherwise.

The aspect of American democracy I truly despise is the one I tried to highlight in my post above. The total lack of transparency and fairness being shown by so-called voter registration organizations, whereby they are collecting voter registration cards from all, and destroying those from voters likely to vote for the candidate they do not like.

I have searched and found several examples of Right Wing organizations attempting to disenfranchise possible Democratic voters. I have yet to find any left wingers doing so to Republicans.

The Right wing Neo-Cons are so fond of spouting ”Freedom & Democracy”. It just seems a great pity they can only talk-the-talk but prefer dishonesty over walking-the-walk

Further to my post. Perhaps I can call your attention to the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)’s October survey of the differing perceptions of the facts understood by Bush supporters as against Kerry supporters. The PIPA.ORG site can be found HERE.

However, to save you the trouble of reading through the PIPA site, which can be quite dry at times, I enclose a précis of a piece written by Jim Lobe, a renowned journalist who writes on international affairs for Inter Press Service, Oneworld.net, Foreign Policy in Focus and others.

Three out of 4 self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them. According to a new survey published Thursday, the same number also believes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to al Qaeda.

But here is the truly astonishing part: as many or more Bush supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago. In other words, more people believe the claims today –- after the publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports that debunked both notions.

These are among the most striking findings of a survey conducted in mid-October by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.

The survey polled the views of nearly 900 randomly chosen respondents equally divided between Bush supporters and those intending to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry. It found a yawning gap in the perceptions of the facts between the two groups, particularly with regards to President Bush's claims about pre-war Iraq.

According to the accompanying analysis offered by PIPA:

It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values or strategies. The current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. In the face of a stream of high-level assessments about pre-war Iraq, Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda.

The survey probed each respondent's views at three separate levels: One, their personal belief about the two issues; two, their perception of what "most experts" had concluded about the same; and three, their knowledge of the Bush administration's claims on either WMDs or al Qaeda.

The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent). This despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the CIA's "Duelfer Report" – the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group – which concluded that Hussein had dismantled all of his WMD programmes shortly after the 1991 Gulf War and never tried to reconstitute them.

Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters are under the impression that the expert consensus is exactly the opposite – that Iraq had actual WMD. Another 57 percent think that the Duelfer Report itself concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38 percent).

Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast, believe that pre-war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and only 18 percent said "most experts" agreed on the same.

Results on Hussein's alleged support for al Qaeda are similar. The contention – which has been most persistently asserted by Vice President Dick Cheney – was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer.

Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing "substantial" support to al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that "most experts" have reached the same conclusion.

By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters said they believe that such a link existed or that most experts have concluded that it did.

Ironically, the only issue on which the survey found broad agreement between the two sets of voters was the role of the Bush administration in actively promoting the claims about Iraq's WMD and connections to al Qaeda.

"One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these (erroneous) beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them," notes Steven Kull, PIPA's director. "Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree."

In regard to WMD, those majorities have actually grown since last summer, according to PIPA.

On WMD, 82 percent of Bush supporters and 84 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the administration claims that Iraq either had WMD or major WMD programs. On ties with al Qaeda, 75 percent of Bush supporters and 74 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the administration claims that Iraq provided substantial support to the terrorist group.

Remarkably, when asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war without evidence of a WMD program or support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no. Moreover, 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances.

"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq," Kull says.

He added that this "cognitive dissonance" could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey. The poll also found a major gap between Bush's stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe Bush's position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters believe, for example that the president supports a range of international treaties and institutions that the White House has vocally and publicly opposed.

In particular, majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assume that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).

In August, two-thirds of Bush supporters also believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority in the PIPA poll, it's not much of a drop considering that Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the first, most widely watched presidential debate in late September.

In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush. Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate's and Bush's positions on the same issues.

Bush supporters also have deeply erroneous views regarding the extent of international support for the president and his policies. Despite a steady flow over the past year of official statements by foreign governments and public-opinion polls showing strong opposition to the Iraq war, less than one-third of Bush supporters believe that most people in foreign countries oppose the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. Two-thirds believe that foreign views are either evenly divided on the war (42 percent) or that the majority of foreigners actually favors the war (26 percent).

Three of every four Kerry supporters, on the other hand, said it was their understanding that the most of the rest of the world oppose the war.

Similarly, polls conducted during the summer in 35 major countries around the world found that majorities or pluralities in 30 of them favored Kerry for president over Bush by an average of margin of greater than two to one. Yet 57 percent of Bush supporters believe that a majority of people outside the U.S. favor Bush's re-election, while 33 percent think that foreign opinion is evenly divided.

On the other hand, two-thirds of Kerry supporters think that their candidate is favored overseas; only one percent think that most people abroad preferred Bush.

Kull, who has been analyzing U.S. public opinion on foreign-policy issues for two decades, says that this reality gap reveals, if anything, the hold that the president has over his loyalists:

The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters – and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion would be critical of his policies or that the president could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.

In other words, Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader than face the truth either about their president or the world as it is.

Boon, you surprise me. I thought you would refrain from quoting right wing, neo-con sources in this thread. As ever, I’m afraid your post has some glaring errors of both fact and comprehension.

The aspect of American democracy I truly despise is the one I tried to highlight in my post above. The total lack of transparency and fairness being shown by so-called voter registration organizations, whereby they are collecting voter registration cards from all, and destroying those from voters likely to vote for the candidate they do not like.

I have searched and found several examples of Right Wing organizations attempting to disenfranchise possible Democratic voters. I have yet to find any left wingers doing so to Republicans.

Khun p1p~

What, pray tell, is so neo con, right wing about the cox & forkum site? I'm honestly at a loss to see how that cartoon or the short piece on American Democracy can be interpreted as right-of-center? Too, please point out the "glaring errors of fact and comprehension"

I'll answer your fine post(s) in greater depth in a bit but would like to point out for the moment the vandalism that's been occuring across America of Republican Campaign headquarters. From Oregon to Florida there have been well over a dozen acts of destruction commited by Democratic supporters of Kerry. And, to the disenfranchisment issue, both sides are at fault to some degree.

To be continued!

The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters – and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion would be critical of his policies or that the president could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.

In other words, Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader than face the truth either about their president or the world as it is.

p1p~

Where were we... oh yes, talking about Bush supporters so-called "blind" acceptance of the argument for going to war - let's reiterate your own Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons in London who said: "I saw evidence that was categorical on Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction." And it was shown to in the Hutton Report, that Tony Blair's claim that Saddam could be prepared to launch WMD attacks against Coalition forces "within 45 minutes," had come directly from MI6.

To avoid rebutting every point brought out in the PIPA survey - the crux of the matter is that Bush supporters do not think it's in America's best interest to ask the UN whether it's OK to defend the national sovereignty. Under Kerry, the US would have to pass a "Global Test" - whatever that is - before a call to arms.

Let's have a look for a moment at some interesting facts to help put things in perspective ...

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn

country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war,

consider the following ...FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and then started one in Korea, North Korea

never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of

18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never

attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives

were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia

never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three

times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since the Islamic terrorists attacked us President

Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put

nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and

captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch

Dravidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less

time

than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to

destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police

after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Furthermore, in support of my contention that it's the Democrats who are not "facing the truth either about their president or the world as it is", please check out the links re. vandalized GOP offices.

By the way, I especially like the article in your Guardian calling for Bush to be assassinated - "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columni...1333748,00.html

http://www.enquirer.com/midday/10/10232004...ay_breakin.html

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_incl...m?storyID=96592

To summerize for now, the quote "Democracy is a lousy form of government but it's better than any of the rest" comes to mind.

Over to you!

allegations have set off a political firestorm stretching from Las Vegas to Washington D.C., and beyond.

The Myth of the Disenfranchised

It’s not the government’s fault if you can’t properly fill out a ballot.

The Democrats' voter manual instructs party operatives to "launch a pre-emptive strike" by charging voter intimidation even if there is no evidence any such thing is taking place.

In state after state, the Democrats have said that voter confusion over how to vote constitutes voter disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is something the government does to you. It's not something you do to yourself. If you can't figure out how to fill in the ovals or punch the chads — and some minority of voters will always botch it — that doesn't mean your right to vote was rescinded. It means that you didn't take your right to vote seriously enough to pay attention to the instructions. Democracy requires two things: an electorate that takes its responsibilities seriously and small-d democrats of all parties who take the process seriously.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/gol...00410221457.asp

Where were we... oh yes, talking about Bush supporters so-called "blind" acceptance of the argument for going to war - let's reiterate your own Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons in London who said: "I saw evidence that was categorical on Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction." And it was shown to in the Hutton Report, that Tony Blair's claim that Saddam could be prepared to launch WMD attacks against Coalition forces "within 45 minutes," had come directly from MI6.

We are talking about two different things here. You quote Peter Hain who was speaking about pre war occurrences. This has been covered in any case in other threads. The Bush Supporters’ blind acceptance of the reasons for going to war, were demonstrated in October of 2004 and took no account whatsoever of information published by the Bush Whitehouse before the survey was undertaken. The point made was that the majority of the supporters of President Bush seemed incapable of accepting any evidence that might be seen as criticism of their man, even when it was their own man publicising such facts.

To avoid rebutting every point brought out in the PIPA survey - the crux of the matter is that Bush supporters do not think it's in America's best interest to ask the UN whether it's OK to defend the national sovereignty.  Under Kerry, the US would have to pass a "Global Test" - whatever that is - before a call to arms.

This is simplistic at best, blinkered or dishonest at worst. Anybody who ignores inconvenient results in scientific or other research should, deservedly, be drummed out of their institution and never accepted elsewhere. Unfortunately this is what appears to have happened to inconvenient intelligence in the run up to the war.

Let's have a look for a moment at some interesting facts to help put things in perspective ...

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.  In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. .

That figure is intended to refer to American casualties alone and, I’m afraid, it is false. The total combat related US casualties in January of 2004 was 51 killed, of whom 2 were only teenagers and 2 were female. The number of friendly Iraqi and other coalition casualties is not included, neither is the number of opposing Iraqi casualties, a factor of many times higher. (Source, the Pentagon via the British MOD.)

That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

Well, the figures were incorrect, but I take your point. However the only reason the murder figures are so high is because the Republicans still spout on about the right to carry arms. No arms: Fewer Murders. Fact - world-wide. The constant Neo-Con retort to this argument is to quote Switzerland and/or Sweden. They always like to disregard the fact that all holders of weapons in those countries have been trained to hold them and the weapons have to be kept in a secure place, by law. No pistols under the pillow or in the car glove compartment. Furthermore, they quote farcical statistics that purport to show increases in murder rates when guns are banned. This is always a temporary blip when the law abiding members of society hand in their armoury, while the crooks do not. It is soon sorted out as law enforcement get to confiscate illegal stocks of weaponry and supply dries up. You will see this happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider the following ...FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and then started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never  attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia  never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three  times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since the Islamic terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

What is the point of this list. Do two wrongs now make a right? If Billy-Jo, Fred and Norm rape my sister, is it OK for you to do the same?

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the  Branch Dravidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less Time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

I do not understand this either! Comparisons mean nothing here. The important question to answer is when will Iraq be able to run their own affairs in a legal peaceful manner. If the planners had planned for the peace, instead of jumping in with both feet and hoping that things would turn out OK, then there would have been no January casualties for you to quote above, and we would not be having this discussion.

Furthermore, in support of my contention that it's the Democrats who are not "facing the truth either about their president or the world as it is", please check out the links re. vandalized GOP offices.

What do vandalised GOP offices have to do with the disenfranchisement of many thousands of possible Democrat voters. Somebody might break a window or two or even burn an office down, but it will not have the effect of causing keen voters to be turned away at the polling station, being told they have no right to cast their vote. It will not result in Jonh Kerry being denied election to the White House because Neo-Con Recta believe the American Dream should only belong to others who think the same as themselves.

By the way, I especially like the article in your Guardian calling for Bush to be assassinated - "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

…. …. …. ….

In summerize (sic.) for now, the quote "Democracy is a lousy form of government but it's better  than any of the rest" comes to mind.

This is true, but read the current definition of democracy, (above) and tell me where it allows disenfranchisement of potential opponents? Where does it state that the process should be unfair?

The whole democratic world community has been complaining about the way President Alexander Lukashenko has disenfranchised voters in Belarus (BeloRussia or White Russia) by giving them ballot forms already filled out with a vote in his name. There is no difference in effect between the fraud being perpetuated in Minsk and that about to take place on 2 November across the USA.

American Democracy truly is an Oxymoronic phrase.

The Myth of the Disenfranchised

It’s not the government’s fault if you can’t properly fill out a ballot.

The Democrats' voter manual instructs party operatives to "launch a pre-emptive strike" by charging voter intimidation even if there is no evidence any such thing is taking place.

Source?

In state after state, the Democrats have said that voter confusion over how to vote constitutes voter disenfranchisement.  Disenfranchisement is something the government does to you. It's not something you do to yourself. If you can't figure out how to fill in the ovals or punch the chads — and some minority of voters will always botch it — that doesn't mean your right to vote was rescinded. It means that you didn't take your right to vote seriously enough to pay attention to the instructions. Democracy requires two things: an electorate that takes its responsibilities seriously and small-d democrats of all parties who take the process seriously.

Boon - where are you coming from?? The problem is not “how to fill out a ballot” but “Why are ballots being denied to Statistically significant sections of voters?” This is genuine, illegal disenfranchisement being perpetuated, as stated above by Proctolambotical - Neo-Con-Recta of the worse type.

Boon - where are you coming from?? The problem is not “how to fill out a ballot” but “Why are ballots being denied to statistically significant sections of voters?” This is genuine, illegal disenfranchisement being perpetuated, as stated above by Proctolambotical - Neo-Con-Recta of the worse type.

p1p~

See the news coming out of the state of Colorado where voter registration tactics have turned ugly. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2488266,00.html

In summerize (sic.) for now, the quote "Democracy is a lousy form of government but it's better than any of the rest" comes to mind

You must have "grabbed" my post soon after it was put up as I saw my construction error and made the necessary correction.

The whole democratic world community has been complaining about the way President Alexander Lukashenko has disenfranchised voters in Belarus (BeloRussia or White Russia) by giving them ballot forms already filled out with a vote in his name. There is no difference in effect between the fraud being perpetuated in Minsk and that about to take place on 2 November across the USA.

Hardly a valid comparison. If you will glean your news from other than the "Beeb" and the Guardian, perhaps you would not take such a position. If George W. Bush is returned to the White House it surely won't be on Nov. 2nd as literally armys of lawyers will be noting every "hanging chad" and we'll know the result perhaps by Christmas.

Boon - where are you coming from?? The problem is not “how to fill out a ballot” but “Why are ballots being denied to statistically significant sections of voters?” This is genuine, illegal disenfranchisement being perpetuated, as stated above by Proctolambotical - Neo-Con-Recta of the worse type.

p1p~

See the news coming out of the state of Colorado where voter registration tactics have turned ugly. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2488266,00.html

In summerize (sic.) for now, the quote "Democracy is a lousy form of government but it's better than any of the rest" comes to mind

You must have "grabbed" my post soon after it was put up as I saw my construction error and made the necessary correction.

The whole democratic world community has been complaining about the way President Alexander Lukashenko has disenfranchised voters in Belarus (BeloRussia or White Russia) by giving them ballot forms already filled out with a vote in his name. There is no difference in effect between the fraud being perpetuated in Minsk and that about to take place on 2 November across the USA.

Hardly a valid comparison. If you will glean your news from other than the "Beeb" and the Guardian, perhaps you would not take such a position. If George W. Bush is returned to the White House it surely won't be on Nov. 2nd as literally armys of lawyers will be noting every "hanging chad" and we'll know the result perhaps by Christmas.

You might be interested in the origin of the "quote" you threw out above. It came from Winston Churchill in 1947, who said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."

But did you know that Churchill also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter?" The proof of which is demonstrated so very strongly by the results of the PIPA poll, as discussed above.

I was interested in your link to the Denver Post. You might like to know that the Voter Registration Organisation mentioned in that article, Moving America Forward was set up for and by the Republican-Party-linked public relations firm, Russo Marsh and Rogers and operates as a front for that firm and the Republican Party. They are deeply involved in attempted elector disenfranchisement in every swing state.

Finally, if you would like to re-read my posts, and your own, you will discover that I have never once quoted either the Guardian or the BEEB as sources. Indeed, the only times I have looked at either have been when I follow links you provide.

The date the result is finally announced is not relevant. The true relevance to the subject of this thread is the fraud being perpetuated by Moving America Forward and other Republican Party front organisations.

American Democracy?

The date the result is finally announced is not relevant. The true relevance to the subject of this thread is the fraud being perpetuated by Moving America Forward and other Republican Party front organisations.

American Democracy?

Well, it's the best we've got and for all the hand-wringing and doom prophesying it appears to still work regardless of the isolated incidents you've mentioned. And, George Bush cannot be compared to Lukashenko by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

"I was first in Thailand in 1962 and have spent a larger proportion of my life either at home here"

Everyone is to some degree a product of their environment. When I lived/worked full-time in Thailand, my attitudes towards America were shaped by the "overseas filter" I'll call it. And. if we're quoting Churchill here; my favorite: "If you're not a Liberal at age 18 you have no heart. But if you're not a Conservative at age 40, you have no head"!

The date the result is finally announced is not relevant. The true relevance to the subject of this thread is the fraud being perpetuated by Moving America Forward and other Republican Party front organisations.

American Democracy?

Well, it's the best we've got and for all the hand-wringing and doom prophesying it appears to still work regardless of the isolated incidents you've mentioned. And, George Bush cannot be compared to Lukashenko by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

"I was first in Thailand in 1962 and have spent a larger proportion of my life either at home here"

Everyone is to some degree a product of their environment. When I lived/worked full-time in Thailand, my attitudes towards America were shaped by the "overseas filter" I'll call it. And. if we're quoting Churchill here; my favorite: "If you're not a Liberal at age 18 you have no heart. But if you're not a Conservative at age 40, you have no head"!

Oh Boon, You have done it again, haven't you. Churchill never used the words you attribute to him. A simple understanding of history would tell you this.

He was a Conservative at the age of 15 and a comitted Liberal by the age of 35! and how could he possibly have talked so disrespectfully of his dearly beloved wife Clemmie, who is known to have been a lifelong Liberal.

Yes, I know he was the Prime Minister of a capital "C" Conservative led coalition government throughout the war, but, at that time the Conservative policies were more liberal than the right-wing Conservative, or even worse Neo-Con of todays politics.

As regards the main subject of this thread, I will give it a rest now. My forehead is bruised and bleeding from this wall I've been banging it on. I think I'll just meditate on dear old Dotty P's comments about horticulture and offer to buy you a drink next time you are in Chiang Mai.

P

As regards the main subject of this thread, I will give it a rest now. My forehead is bruised and bleeding from this wall I've been banging it on. I think I'll just meditate on dear old Dotty P's comments about horticulture and offer to buy you a drink next time you are in Chiang Mai.

P

I'll take you up on that kind offer this coming January, p1p!

Cheers

บุญมี

p.s. I'm going to check into that Churchill quote - it's been widely attributed to him. Plus, it sounds like the old bugger!

Do you two not have email?