Not sure where you get that. Could be God, wives, husbands, lovers, or children.
Sometimes it's the solution for peace. It worked in Japan, Germany and South
Korea, for example.
Ask the DNC why it puts partisanship over those rights. Ralph Nader has
been blocked from his constitutional rights in many states. Millions have
been disenfrancised by Democrats who believe in free speech as long as
you agree with them.
For many perhaps. But for others hate, oppression and death are their
That's a utopian dream but unfortunantly not reality. Sometimes peace
must be bought with bullets, bombs and blood. That doesn't sound as hip
or poetic but it's the truth.
Neither party has a monopolyon allowing frre speech. Two talk radio
guys out here have targeted David Dreier, a pro illigal immigration
republican, for defeat, and the National Republican Congressional
Committee (NRCC) is trying to shut them up by having them charged with
felonies. (more info here http://www.johnandkenshow.com/ )
Let me add, I am a registerd republican, but I also believe in free
There's no information but the headlines there. I have no idea
if the NRCC has a proper case or what any details are. However,
restricting a candidate from the ballot because you're afraid of the votes he
may siphon off is as low as it gets. This after all the "disenfranchised
voters" hysteria. How sad but Ralph has promised to follow up on the legalities
after the elections.
Obviously a bunch of "hysteria" on the subject of disenfranchised
voters. Probably propagated by the Liberal Media.
Here's the part you missed, the first sentence:
"Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses..."
Only legal votes should be counted, do you have a problem
with that? What does that have to do with disenfranchising millions
of legal voters?
Same old liberal tactics, smear, obfiscate, accuse, etc...
Whatever it takes to whip up emotional support.
I posted fourteen separate links. Are you saying that's the first
sentence in each of the fourteen links? Okay, so here's another
article by the New York Times. Obviously the Times is just another
liberal media source out to smear, obfiscate (sic), accuse, etc:
Usually so but here's what I mean:
[Much of the tone has been set by a propaganda war of sorts
between the parties, with the Democrats charging that efforts
are being made to suppress the vote and Republicans warning
against voter fraud or double voting.]
[Jenny Backus, another adviser to the D.N.C., said that early voting
had gone smoothly, and that Election Day would too. "For all the
Republican talk of beware, beware, millions of Americans are having
a perfectly pleasant voting experience," she said.]
Which side is promoting the hysteria? The side saying watch for
illegal voting, especially when there's more registered voters than
eligible voters, or those claiming voter suppression? No wonder
Jenny's a mouthpiece for the DNC.
On 1 Nov 2004 05:38:52 -0800, n firstname.lastname@example.org (Nate Perkins) wrote:
Horror of horrors! Demanding that registered voters actually identify
themselves as to who they are! Whoever heard of such a thing? Sounds more
like a reason to suspect extensive voter fraud during this election.
Quoting, "The initial GOP challenge, which was dismissed 3-0 by the city
Election Commission last week, cited thousands of cases where no voter
address exists, such as vacant lots and, in one case, a gyros stand." ...
and you are screaming about disenfranchisement? I'm stunned that the city
election commission is not concerned about the fact that "registered
voters" can't provide a legitimate address. OK, well I'm not, after all,
the city election commission is probably highly supportive of fraud as long
as it promotes their candidate.
So it's OK for fraudulent voting to occur; heaven forbid anyone slow down
This one I'll grant should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
????? Where's the partisanship or disenfranchisement here? Or are you
saying that Democrats are just less able to figure out things than others?
Not registering with WP
Fail to see how making sure that the voter's rolls are correct is
disenfranchisement. I know it makes it harder to commit voter fraud, but
taking inactive voters off the rolls (it takes 8 years!?) doesn't seem to
be disenfranchisement. If those people show up, they do get to cast a
provisional ballot -- it just means that they have to prove who they are
and that they are not somebody voting for one of those "inactive" voters.
Frankly, if they didn't notice Kerry's name was missing, they ought not
be voting anyway. Doubling up links here to give sheer weight in numbers?
Yeah, the USPS is firmly in Bush's camp. Sheesh. Part of the remainder
of the story is about Democrats intimidating Republicans to keep them from
voting. If one can show that they are who they say they are, why would
being asked to produce identification prior to voting be considered to be
Maybe those are the areas in which they are most concerned about voter
fraud? Dems are welcome to watch the polls in the other precincts --- they
don't seem to be worried about fraud on that end. Hmmm.
So they didn't read the petition before signing it? ... and they vote?
Most of your links seem to be concerned with preventing the very real
possiblity of voter fraud. The actions of ACORN and other activists
certainly seem to point to the potential for attempted voter fraud; the
pride of the mayor of Pittsburg who stated that in the last election, every
registered voter cast a ballot; the University of Wisconsin students who
admitted in 2000 to casting multiple ballots, the abnormally high amount of
returned mail from registered voter addresses in many precincts make this
more than a hypothetical thought exercise or kook conspiracy theory. It's
one thing to lose an election, it's another to lose it due to fraudulent
John, I've read a lot of good stuff from you. Disappointed in this.
Couldn't agree with you more. You sure God's taking a personal interest
in current activities or allowing us to feel our way and find the truth
on our own?
We're all children of mothers who loved us. Any sacrifice for an ideal
Sounds like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" We've all come to
admire that sentiment.
That's idealistic bull shit. We killed a bunch of innocent Japanese in
order to end WWII. We didn't start that war. There would have been
more deaths on both sides had we invaded the Japanese mainland.
Innocents slaughtered were regrettable but justified. Same will be true
in the future. I hate it, but there it is. what about innocents on the
aircraft or in the World Trade Towers?
Naw, left wing crybabies are so far from the war, your statement proves
untrue. I spent 20 some years active duty in the US Army. None of us
looked forward to war. We did realize that it might be necessary in our
national interest and we were willing to die in the effort. "He who
stands for nothing will swallow anything." So much for respect for all
Replace the work tragic with necessary.
All points of view are heard. Some are of no value whatsoever.
Read me a whole bunch of material where "Love" is a major part of the
Islamic faith. I have muslim friends who give me this line. In
politeness, I don't throw it back at them without backup. After a lot
of reading since 9/11 I'm becoming doubtful. Is this true? Where has
all this "kill the infidels" stuff been sidetracked?
That one gives me a headache. The rationale for the atom bombs was, and is,
excellent, no matter what the revisionists say today or tomorrow, but how does
that relate to the innocents in the aircraft or the World Trade Towers? That's
a non sequitur.
You do love your non sequiturs.
In your opinion. Which, in my opinion, is incorrect.
Again, in your opinion. Which, in my view, is still incorrect. And, I seem to
recall, no one among us has been set up as supreme arbiter, so it's a bit of a
tie as to whose POV is of no value whatsoever.
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.