RFK, Jr. article on 2004 Election Fraud

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

06/03/2006 12:39:32 AM · #1

It's a long read but well worth the time:

Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Rolling Stone Magazine

Gatorguy

Nikon D700

06/03/2006 09:56:52 PM · #2

If you take the time to read that one, be sure to read this one as well.

It turns out Mr. Kennedy may have twisted the facts a bit.

Imagine that!?! ... and from a Kennedy no less LOL

In any event, it's good to read the other side before jumping to conclusions.

What -IS- the truth? (subtitled: quit whining and move on)

//www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy
[quote=Judith Polakoff] It's a long read but well worth the time:

//www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Rolling Stone Magazine [/quote

Message edited by author 2006-06-03 21:59:05.

06/04/2006 11:41:01 PM · #3

Gatorguy, I read the article you linked to, and nowhere in that article did the author accuse Kennedy of having "twisted the facts a bit." Your guy seems to have employed the old bait and switch debate tactic, namely to reframe your opponent's position and then argue against the reframed position. Mr. Kennedy's conclusion is this: "Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office -- which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself." You'll notice that Kennedy doesn't claim that he has proved the election was stolen. Can your author say for certain, given the weight of the evidence that Kennedy presents, that the right man does now occupy the Oval Office?

Unfortunately, I just don't have the time nor the expertise to refute every argument in your article. However, the one really disingenuous point your author makes is with respect to a reference that he takes out of context from Representative John Conyers' Congressional Report on the Ohio 2004 election. He cites one sentence from a 105-page report and -- talk about twisting the facts a bit -- uses it out of context to imply a conclusion opposite from the report's actual conclusions. So I'll recount briefly some of the conclusions from the Conyers Report here, from the Executive Summary:

"We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

"With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

"First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

"The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters.

"Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters.

"Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.

"The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout.

"The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines.

"Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

"There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote.

"We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide.

"There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected.

"There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state.

"Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete):"

etc.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/05/2006 12:41:46 AM · #4

Originally posted by Gatorguy:

In any event, it's good to read the other side before jumping to conclusions.

Facts don't have an "other side." Kennedy's article contains a list of egregious abuses of the electoral system. Link something that refutes those facts (something I don't have to pay to read).

And by the way, this is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is the validity of our electoral system that should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, after all, the standard used for developing nations when their elections are monitored. It amazes me that people let their political bias keep them from objecting to a threat to the very core of democracy. In fact, I'm seriously wondering if Republicans even care about Democracy.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

06/05/2006 12:50:55 AM · #5

if anyone noticed. I accidentally hid this thread for about 45 seconds. didn't mean to click that.

Prof_Fate

06/05/2006 01:13:40 AM · #6

Originally posted by karmat:

if anyone noticed. I accidentally hid this thread for about 45 seconds. didn't mean to click that.

You must be a replublican! :)

06/05/2006 01:43:10 AM · #7

I just came across this article that connects top-level Republicans with an effort to cover-up what really happened in Ohio. Talk about dirty tricks! These guys make Richard Nixon look like a boy scout.

06/05/2006 01:39:34 PM · #8

While the author of the article Gatorguy posted a link to may not have accused Kennedy of "twisting" the facts a bit, I will make that accusation. Let me expose just one, of the many, facts that Robert F. Kennedy "twisted" a bit.

In his article, RFK says ( emphasis mine )

"A five-month analysis of the Ohio vote conducted by the Democratic National Committee concluded in June 2005 that three percent of all Ohio voters who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot.(133) That's more than 174,000 voters."

Note that he cites reference number 133 to support that statement. The reference (133) actually appears thusly:

"133) Democracy at Risk, pg. 3."

But, if you actually take the effort to read the cited report ( and I'm sure that RFK hopes that you do NOT take that effort ) - that is, look at the actual DNC Report Democracy at Risk, pg. 3. - you will find this statement ( the ONLY one that includes a reference to "3 percent" as it relates to not casting a ballot ) ( again, emphasis mine ) ( read it yourself, here ( note: the cited reference is actually on page 21 of the PDF file )):

"Three (3) percent of voters who went to the polls left their polling places and did not return due to the long lines. Although African Americans were more likely to leave their polling places due to long lines, they were also more likely to return to vote later in the day. Thus, an equal share (3 percent) of African Americans and whites did not vote due to the long lines."

Now, I challenge anyone with a brain to show me how "did not return due to the long lines" or "did not vote due to the long lines" can be logically re-stated as "were FORCED to leave without casting a ballot" - without being "twisted" into pure propoganda, that is.

Either RFK flatly lied - that is, made a statement KNOWN to be false at the time he made it - or he is not as smart as I am, since he is unable to make the distinction between leaving a polling place voluntarily ( due to long lines ) and being FORCED to leave ( involuntarily ), while I am able to make that distinction.
I'll leave it up to each person to make his or her own determination as to which category RFK falls into.

I certaily cannot speak for everyone, but when I find even one instance where the truth has been so egregously twisted, I tend to view the remainder of the work as being equally un-trustworthy.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

06/05/2006 02:13:40 PM · #9

Let's see, it took you until reference #133 to find a slightly exaggerated wording, and you have the gall to call it lying in order to defend the most dishonest administration in American history (Clinton can't even compete).

If you look at his statement in context, he is explicitly talking about long lines. It is clear from context that he is talking about people forced to leave because of long lines. That is pretty much what your quote is saying. I'm sorry he didn't add the Republican spin that these people must be lazy no-accounts who don't deserve the vote anyway if they can't wait for hours and hours just to watch the polls close.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

06/05/2006 03:08:05 PM · #10

Perhaps better wording would have been (for the Republican antivoting-rights crowd),

They were forced to leave the long voting lines due to yet another Blackwell-planned shortage of voting machines in highly democratic-voting poor neighborhoods.

Despite waiting for hours and losing their paychecks to do so, they tried to return later, only to meet the same situation".

Or worse, they could have found that their names were illegally scrubbed, like hundreds of thousands of voters - almost all democrats. Or, they could have been given provisional ballots, which were simply thrown away and NEVER counted. Or, they could have been refused a provisional ballot when challenged by Republican goon poll "watchers".

Or, they could have been like millions of people who tried to vote for Kerry, and saw "Bush" come up on their screens. Or, .......

06/05/2006 03:24:41 PM · #11

Originally posted by posthumous:

Nice try, but...
First of all, it didn't take me until reference number 133. How about reference number 4, is that early enough for you? Kennedy's article says:

"Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4)"

Reference 4 points to

4) Overseas Vote Foundation, ''2004 Post Election Survey Results,'' June 2005, page 11.

The actual content of that cited article says

"19% of voters received their ballots after November 2nd or not at all + 24% of voters received their ballots late - in the last two weeks of October = 43% total voters received late ballots or no ballot at all."

NOWHERE in the cited article does it even INFER that the 24% who received late ballots received them too late to vote. In fact, the Overseas Vote Foundation woud only venture so far as to say ( read it yourself here ):

"Given the realities of international and domestic postal systems, the real risk of disenfranchisement for these voters lay somewhere between 19% and 43%."

The real disenfranchisement rate could have been ONLY the 19% who received NO ballot, or it could have been the whole 43% who received late ballots or no ballot at all, or it could have been anywhere in between. Apparently, the Overseas Vote Foundation is willing to concede that SOME, MANY, or even ALL of the 24% who received their ballots late, WERE able to return them in time to have their votes counted.

But only a propagandist like RFK could take a "somewhere between 19% and 43%" and make it a flatly stated absolute of "nearly half ... never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote"

Secondly, as concerns the "context" of the reference 133 statement: the immediately preceeding statement concerned those who were "forced" to stand in line for eleven hours, with the the last voters casting their ballots after 3 a.m. Given that context as a lead-in, one might infer that the 3 percent who Kennedy says were forced to leave without voting were forced to do so because the lines were so long that the polls closed before they could enter to vote. In fact, your own disparaging rant about Republican spin proves that point precisely. As in when you say "wait for hours and hours just to watch the polls close".

No one is forced to leave because of long lines. The IRAQI's proved that in their recent election.

06/05/2006 03:30:01 PM · #12

Given the fact that many people were waiting on lines to vote for four, five, six, sometimes seven hours, on a weekday when, presumably, they had other commitments to attend to, like a job, or picking up their kids at school, etc., to say they were forced (as in compelled due to circumstances beyond their control) to leave the polling place is not, in my opinion, a mischaracterization of the facts.

06/05/2006 04:07:58 PM · #13

Originally posted by RonB:

NOWHERE in the cited article does it even INFER that the 24% who received late ballots received them too late to vote. In fact, the Overseas Vote Foundation woud only venture so far as to say ( read it yourself here ):

"Given the realities of international and domestic postal systems, the real risk of disenfranchisement for these voters lay somewhere between 19% and 43%."

Wow, did you think I wouldn't follow your link? The inference (by which you mean implication) is made right here, on the very page he cited (I added emphasis to help your understanding):

"If we count only those who received their ballots after November 2nd or not at all, we reach a 19% disenfranchisement rate. But clearly this is a low estimate, as 24% indicated that their ballots arrived only in the 2 weeks prior to the election. This is â��lateâ�� in terms of the realities of not just international postal services but the lengthy delivery times of the US domestic and military post. We will assert that in many cases this is last minute, even late, and cut too close for any assurance that the ballot to be completed, returned, and processed in time."

Why are you wasting my valuable time with false, easily denied accusations? Could it be because you want to add doubt and distraction to an incredibly damning report? Has it occurred to you that even though your side won that our democracy might still be in danger?

Originally posted by RonB:

But only a propagandist like RFK could take a "somewhere between 19% and 43%" and make it a flatly stated absolute of "nearly half ... never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote"

No, only a total ideologue would spout specious arguments to distract from a criminal party and a criminal administration who has been allowed to get away with too much for far too long.

Originally posted by RonB:

Secondly, as concerns the "context" of the reference 133 statement: the immediately preceeding statement concerned those who were "forced" to stand in line for eleven hours, with the the last voters casting their ballots after 3 a.m. Given that context as a lead-in, one might infer that the 3 percent who Kennedy says were forced to leave without voting were forced to do so because the lines were so long that the polls closed before they could enter to vote. In fact, your own disparaging rant about Republican spin proves that point precisely. As in when you say "wait for hours and hours just to watch the polls close".

No one is forced to leave because of long lines. The IRAQI's proved that in their recent election.

Ah, from an outright lie you are now worried that "one might infer" the wrong thing. You'd better watch that "liar" label. It has a tendency to come back and bite you on the netherparts. Followed by a completely out-of-left-field comparison to Iraqi voters, a nice reminder of Our Leader's blessed crusade in Iraq. Well, why don't you provide evidence that Iraqi voters were subject to the same conditions as inner-city Ohioan voters. And then once you do that, you can explain how that makes Iraqis superior to inner-city Chicagoans, and we are once again back at the implied Republican argument that poor people who cannot afford to wait hours to vote therefore do not deserve to vote.

Why do this? Why can't you see the real threat discussed in this article? Can't you understand that it transcends ideology? Or does it? If you continue with this sort of argumentation, I might have to be persuaded that Republican ideology is undemocratic at its core. That's unfortunate, because true American conservatism loves democracy.

06/05/2006 04:33:50 PM · #14

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Do you have any findings of fact to back up this allegation? Or do you merely want to post innuendo and hope that your statement charms those who are unwilling to question it?

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Despite waiting for hours and losing their paychecks to do so, they tried to return later, only to meet the same situation".

Do you have anything factual to back up the statement that people lost their paycheck by waiting in line to vote? Or that they lost their paycheck, then tried to return later, only to find themselves in the same situation?

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Or worse, they could have found that their names were illegally scrubbed, like hundreds of thousands of voters - almost all democrats. Or, they could have been given provisional ballots, which were simply thrown away and NEVER counted. Or, they could have been refused a provisional ballot when challenged by Republican goon poll "watchers".

Do you have anything factual to back up the statement that hundreds of thousands of voters - almost all democrats - had their names ilegally scrubbed?

FYI, if they were given a provisional ballot ( even if it WAS thrown away and never counted ) they wouldn't have been counted among the 3% who were supposedly "forced to leave without voting".

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Or, they could have been like millions of people who tried to vote for Kerry, and saw "Bush" come up on their screens. Or, .......

Or, they could have been too... Or, maybe they were late for ...

Or... OR...

Try to stick to facts, or something closely akin to facts, not innuendo or what-if's, ok?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/05/2006 04:35:14 PM · #15

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

No surprise there. But at the very LEAST, I would consider it to be a gross mis-characterization to cite a source for one's statements that do not even INFER the result one is stating as fact. For example, even if SOME were compelled to leave, as you say, because of other commitments, the cited article offers no breakdown as to whether the respondents left after 2 minutes, or 12 hours. Given that, how is one to INFER that they were "forced" to leave, either because of commitments or for other, less compelling, reasons. Still, it appears to be all the same to Kennedy - and to you.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

06/05/2006 04:50:08 PM · #16

Ron do you work for the administration? If you don't you should cuz you can "SPIN" with the best of them. To bad it has no basis in reality.

It is sad that there is no reasoning going on just the same old "I'm right you're wrong" BS.

Oh well my $.02 is if you are poor you don't matter.

Erick

Message edited by author 2006-06-05 16:54:13.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/05/2006 05:21:49 PM · #17

Gilbert AZ is one of the highest income and highest home price areas in AZ. I waited in a very long line to vote there and I took off work early to get to the polls before they really got crowded. Was that the work of the democrats trying to keep people that may vote republican away? I demand an investigation!!!

For the record I'm not going to say Kennedy's beliefs are wrong, but I'm skeptical. If he has enough proof to back up his claim, he should start a full investigation, press charges, give people their day in court, find them guilty, and throw the scum that fixed an election in jail. It's easy to write an article and smear people, back it up. And yes I say the same thing when I hear republicans accusing democrats of crimes.

06/05/2006 07:00:09 PM · #18

Originally posted by LoudDog:

If he has enough proof to back up his claim, he should start a full investigation, press charges, give people their day in court, find them guilty, and throw the scum that fixed an election in jail.

Wake up. Kennedy is not a district attorney. He's doing the most effective thing he can do by writing this article. How are you going to "start a full investigation" when the Attorney General is in on it, and the offending party controls the Legislature as well as most of the Judiciary?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/05/2006 08:03:05 PM · #19

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
NOWHERE in the cited article does it even INFER that the 24% who received late ballots received them too late to vote. In fact, the Overseas Vote Foundation woud only venture so far as to say ( read it yourself here ):

"Given the realities of international and domestic postal systems, the real risk of disenfranchisement for these voters lay somewhere between 19% and 43%."

Wow, did you think I wouldn't follow your link? The inference (by which you mean implication) is made right here, on the very page he cited (I added emphasis to help your understanding):

"If we count only those who received their ballots after November 2nd or not at all, we reach a 19% disenfranchisement rate. But clearly this is a low estimate, as 24% indicated that their ballots arrived only in the 2 weeks prior to the election. This is â��lateâ�� in terms of the realities of not just international postal services but the lengthy delivery times of the US domestic and military post. We will assert that in many cases this is last minute, even late, and cut too close for any assurance that the ballot to be completed, returned, and processed in time."

So what? Even if 19% WAS a "low estimate", that doesn't support an unqualified statement that "nearly half" "never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote". To make that statement without qualification reduces it to a falsehood.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Why are you wasting my valuable time with false, easily denied accusations? Could it be because you want to add doubt and distraction to an incredibly damning report? Has it occurred to you that even though your side won that our democracy might still be in danger?

a) my accusations are not false, and though easily denied, they are not easily disproven.
b) Not at all; I wish to insert a modicum of truth and expose the falsehoods and mis-direction
c) Yes, it has occurred to me that the U.S. is in danger - especially from voters who are uninformed, and/or mis-informed by propaganda laden articles like the one Mr. Kennedy wrote.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
But only a propagandist like RFK could take a "somewhere between 19% and 43%" and make it a flatly stated absolute of "nearly half ... never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote"

No, only a total ideologue would spout specious arguments to distract from a criminal party and a criminal administration who has been allowed to get away with too much for far too long.

If you have incontrovertable evidence that Bush or his administration have commited criminal acts, feel free to present it. Genuine facts will withstand every attempt to deny them.
Glad I'm not one of those total ideologues you hold in disdain. At least I don't think I am. If you have evidence that my arguments are specious, please provide it.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
Secondly, as concerns the "context" of the reference 133 statement: the immediately preceeding statement concerned those who were "forced" to stand in line for eleven hours, with the the last voters casting their ballots after 3 a.m. Given that context as a lead-in, one might infer that the 3 percent who Kennedy says were forced to leave without voting were forced to do so because the lines were so long that the polls closed before they could enter to vote. In fact, your own disparaging rant about Republican spin proves that point precisely. As in when you say "wait for hours and hours just to watch the polls close".

No one is forced to leave because of long lines. The IRAQI's proved that in their recent election.

Ah, from an outright lie you are now worried that "one might infer" the wrong thing.

The intent of a lie IS "to convey a false image or impression". To "infer" is to "conclude from evidence or premises". When the image or impression is false, a conclusion based solely on that "evidence" or "premise" is likewise false. And when a qualified voter believes the false evidence, he/she might become an "uninformed" voter. So yes, I am worried that the outright lie might lead one to infer the wrong thing. But, after all, that was its intent in the first place, wasn't it?

Originally posted by posthumous:

You'd better watch that "liar" label. It has a tendency to come back and bite you on the netherparts.

Gee, thanks for the warning. I hope it isn't just a warning that you are GIVING, but one that you are HEEDING as well.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Followed by a completely out-of-left-field comparison to Iraqi voters, a nice reminder of Our Leader's blessed crusade in Iraq. Well, why don't you provide evidence that Iraqi voters were subject to the same conditions as inner-city Ohioan voters. And then once you do that, you can explain how that makes Iraqis superior to inner-city Chicagoans, and we are once again back at the implied Republican argument that poor people who cannot afford to wait hours to vote therefore do not deserve to vote.

I won't provide evidence that Iraqi voters were subject to the same conditions because they weren't. The IRAQI's had it far worse. From this USAToday article:

"Weeks of trepidation turned into a near-celebration through much of Iraq on election day. Despite suicide bombs and mortar attacks, millions of Iraqis â�� Kurds and Shiites, though fewer Sunnis â�� showed up to vote in Iraq's first free elections in half a century. With most traffic banned for fear of car bombs, they walked to the polls and carried elderly relatives in chairs. They ignored the sound of explosions."

How many inner-city Ohioans underwent that kind of opposition?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Why do this? Why can't you see the real threat discussed in this article? Can't you understand that it transcends ideology? Or does it? If you continue with this sort of argumentation, I might have to be persuaded that Republican ideology is undemocratic at its core. That's unfortunate, because true American conservatism loves democracy.

a) because I can, and am convinced that I must, to combat left-wing lies
b) maybe because the article is too long, and contains too many falsehoods. Perhaps you could offer a highly condensed statement of what the "real threat" is? and then I could respond to it.
c) no, since I don't know what "it" is.
d) I don't know, since I don't know what "it" is
e) Please don't be persuaded as to the ideology of ALL Republicans because of my argumentation. I don't claim to represent them anymore than I believe that YOU represent ALL Democrats. I won't speak for ALL Republicans, but I, for one, do admit to being undemocratic. Rather, I support the founders' view of the United States as a democratic REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy.
f) Unfortunately, most Americans would, indeed, opt for a democracy if given the choice - and it is, unfortunately, headed in that direction. One of the first nails in America's coffin was passage of the 17th amendment, which made election of U.S. Senators "democratic" ( that is, election by popular vote, not by appointment of the state legislature ); another nail in the coffin, one that's right around the corner, will be the legalization of voting rights for non-citizens; and America's rush to destruction will begin in earnest with the eventual replacement of the electoral college with a direct popular vote for President.

As Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic ( in 1776, no less )

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness and greed;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

Where would you place the United States on that sequence?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/05/2006 09:56:47 PM · #20

...

Message edited by author 2006-06-05 23:37:20.

06/06/2006 11:10:30 AM · #21

Originally posted by RonB:

"nearly" - he used a vague word to reflect an inexact estimate. This is no lie. It does not compare to what the Bush administration has been saying about global warming (one of many examples).

Originally posted by RonB:

c) Yes, it has occurred to me that the U.S. is in danger - especially from voters who are uninformed, and/or mis-informed by propaganda laden articles like the one Mr. Kennedy wrote.

Yes, the terrible danger that we might reform the electoral system. What other danger is there in his article?

Originally posted by RonB:

The Administration condones torture. Not only in Abu Graib but in secret prisons in Eastern Europe. It also deports people to countries where they will be tortured. That is illegal. The Administration locks people up in Guantanamo without applying Geneva Convention rules. That is illegal. The Administration taps phone lines without getting a warrant. That is illegal. The Administration leaked classified information. That is illegal. What is my evidence? The Administration has confessed to all of these crimes. Their defense is that they have the power to declare them not crimes. In other words, they put themselves above the law, which is the ultimate crime against the Constitution.

Originally posted by RonB:

How many inner-city Ohioans underwent that kind of opposition?

None. Does that mean they don't deserve to vote? How many rural Republicans underwent the conditions that inner city people did? You can't redeem discrimination by saying that people in wartorn countries have it even worse. The problem is the imbalance.

Originally posted by RonB:

Please don't be persuaded as to the ideology of ALL Republicans because of my argumentation. I don't claim to represent them anymore than I believe that YOU represent ALL Democrats.

ah, something we can agree on!

Originally posted by RonB:

I won't speak for ALL Republicans, but I, for one, do admit to being undemocratic.

That begins to explain things.

Originally posted by RonB:

Rather, I support the founders' view of the United States as a democratic REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy.

If you support the founders' view, then you support the notion of separation of powers in a system of checks and balance. Dubya is the greatest threat to the Constitution since FDR.

Originally posted by RonB:

As Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic ( in 1776, no less )

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

It's refreshing for me to see a Republican admit that he doesn't trust the democratic process. I would say that the right and the left each have their own solution to the "problem" of democracy. The left would use Socialism to regulate society and avoid abuses, whereas the right wants an Aristocracy to keep the lowly types from getting out of hand. Both solutions are problematic, but the latter one really makes me bristle.

Originally posted by RonB:

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness and greed;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

Where would you place the United States on that sequence?

We are moving from apathy to dependency and Dubya is accelerating that process. If this cycle is true, then it doesn't matter what we do. I for one believe it's worth fighting against this process instead of accelerating the path to bondage, which will be the result, if not the intent, of Republican policy.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/06/2006 02:06:47 PM · #22

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
So what? Even if 19% WAS a "low estimate", that doesn't support an unqualified statement that "nearly half" "never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote". To make that statement without qualification reduces it to a falsehood.

"nearly" - he used a vague word to reflect an inexact estimate. This is no lie.

My dictionary defines "nearly" as "Almost but not quite". I hardly think that 19% ( the minimum ) or even 31% ( granting that fully half of late ballots could not be cast ) qualifies as "almost but not quite" 50%. Even the inclusion of "nearly" does not discount the fact that the statement, as presented, is a falsehood.

Originally posted by posthumous:

It does not compare to what the Bush administration has been saying about global warming (one of many examples).

What has the Bush administraton been saying about global warming, that you believe to be false? Do the research, and get back to us. Or is this just another bit of innuendo?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
c) Yes, it has occurred to me that the U.S. is in danger - especially from voters who are uninformed, and/or mis-informed by propaganda laden articles like the one Mr. Kennedy wrote.

Yes, the terrible danger that we might reform the electoral system. What other danger is there in his article?

The danger I stated - that those without the desire or intention to do their own research will be swayed by the disinformation and misinformation contained in articles like the one under discussion.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
If you have incontrovertable evidence that Bush or his administration have commited criminal acts, feel free to present it. Genuine facts will withstand every attempt to deny them.
Glad I'm not one of those total ideologues you hold in disdain. At least I don't think I am. If you have evidence that my arguments are specious, please provide it.

The Administration condones torture.

Easy accusation to make. Any evidence? Any court findings? By the way, the fact that torture occurs does NOT automatically mean that it is condoned by the Administration. Surely, with the resources of the DNC SOME evidence should be available to prove the charges? No?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Not only in Abu Graib but in secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

Again, the fact that torture occurs does NOT mean that it is condoned.

Originally posted by posthumous:

It also deports people to countries where they will be tortured. That is illegal.

It may be illegal to deport people to countries FOR THE PURPOSE of torture, but you will need to provide evidence that that was the purpose before you can draw that conclusion. As it is, the deportations have NOT been found to be illegal. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.
In the absence of such evidence, the fact that they were deported, and the fact that they were tortured ( if, in fact, they were ), have no implicit connection. Surely, with the resources of the DNC SOME evidence should be available to prove the charges? No?

Originally posted by posthumous:

The Administration locks people up in Guantanamo without applying Geneva Convention rules. That is illegal.

Court findings that it was illegal? Court findings that the people locked up in Guantanamo are governed by Geneva Conventions? Charges are VERY easy to make, but can you back them up? Surely, with the resources of the DNC...

Originally posted by posthumous:

The Administration taps phone lines without getting a warrant. That is illegal.

Court findings that it is illegal?

Originally posted by posthumous:

The Administration leaked classified information. That is illegal.

Court findings that classified information was leaked?

Originally posted by posthumous:

What is my evidence? The Administration has confessed to all of these crimes.

Where are these so-called confessions? Show me some links.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Their defense is that they have the power to declare them not crimes. In other words, they put themselves above the law, which is the ultimate crime against the Constitution.

Not that I agree, but it does appear that you put yourself above the necessity to back up your accusations.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
How many inner-city Ohioans underwent that kind of opposition?

None. Does that mean they don't deserve to vote? How many rural Republicans underwent the conditions that inner city people did? You can't redeem discrimination by saying that people in wartorn countries have it even worse. The problem is the imbalance.

a) No, of course not.
b) I don't know, do you?
c) I didn't try to. I merely pointed out that those who are intent on voting, prevail over the obstacles.
d) What is the problem, again?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
Please don't be persuaded as to the ideology of ALL Republicans because of my argumentation. I don't claim to represent them anymore than I believe that YOU represent ALL Democrats.

ah, something we can agree on!

Originally posted by RonB:
I won't speak for ALL Republicans, but I, for one, do admit to being undemocratic.

That begins to explain things.

What kinds of things does that begin to explain? Or is this just more innuendo?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
Rather, I support the founders' view of the United States as a democratic REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy.

If you support the founders' view, then you support the notion of separation of powers in a system of checks and balance.

Yes, I do.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Dubya is the greatest threat to the Constitution since FDR.

I don't think so. You do. You're entitled. So am I.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
As Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic ( in 1776, no less )

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

It's refreshing for me to see a Republican admit that he doesn't trust the democratic process. I would say that the right and the left each have their own solution to the "problem" of democracy. The left would use Socialism to regulate society and avoid abuses, whereas the right wants an Aristocracy to keep the lowly types from getting out of hand. Both solutions are problematic, but the latter one really makes me bristle.

I'm not sure that society really wants to be regulated, even if it does, in your words, "avoid abuses". Nor do I believe that "the right" wants an Aristocracy to "keep the lowly types from getting out of hand". Rather, the right wants to permit everyone to rise to his/her greatest potential withOUT being penalized for succeeding. If it were true, though it is not, it would make me bristle, too.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness and greed;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

Where would you place the United States on that sequence?

We are moving from apathy to dependency...

Ah, something else we are in agreement on

Originally posted by posthumous:

...and Dubya is accelerating that process.

And something else we DISagree on

Originally posted by posthumous:

If this cycle is true, then it doesn't matter what we do. I for one believe it's worth fighting against this process instead of accelerating the path to bondage, which will be the result, if not the intent, of Republican policy.

Quite the contrary. Regressive taxation that destroy incentive and government giveaway programs will be the demise of our way of governance. And the vote is the hingepin to both.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/06/2006 03:07:16 PM · #23

Bushâ��s approval rating is about 35% last I heard

19-31% is "nearly half" according to RFK.

That must mean that according to RFK, more then nearly half of the country approves of Bush!

06/06/2006 03:09:36 PM · #24

Originally posted by RonB:

Astounding that you'll be so very picky about this article when the people who actually have power over your lives are lying to you on a daily basis and you can't see it. You clearly put on a completely different filter based on the "side" of whom you are looking at. That's why I'm not going to bother providing you "research" when the "research" is on the news every day and you refuse to see it. And of course you will disagree with me, because you don't seem to know that your filter is on. That's why it's useless to continue.

Message edited by author 2006-06-06 15:09:55.