Us presidential election 2004

[Colossus 2]

My favourite:

img]http://www.youforgotpoland.com/test.gif[/img]

LMAO

Haha!

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ][...]

...she thinks the writing campaign will not work because the American people are too smart to be influenced by people outside of the country.

[...]

After all it's not what you say, but where you say it that counts, right?      

[billybob2002 0]

Kerry and Bush related!?!?!

http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm

[kerosene 0]

Im suprised you didnt know thet already, it was in the guardian a few months ago. their like, 16th cousins twice removed or something.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Im suprised you didnt know thet already, it was in the guardian a few months ago. their like, 16th cousins twice removed or something.

I already knew that but somebody posted that Bush-Cheney relationship and tried to mock it. I just finally found the link.

[denoir 0]

After all it's not what you say, but where you say it that counts, right?      

I saw an interview with a Florida voter on yesterday. She was voting for Kerry becacuse she did not agree with Bush that Iraq should be rebuilt as the Iraqis were behind 9/11 attacks.

She said: "Did the Iraqis help us rebuild the World Trade Center?"

[llauma 0]

After all it's not what you say, but where you say it that counts, right?      

I saw an interview with a Florida voter on yesterday. She was voting for Kerry becacuse she did not agree with Bush that Iraq should be rebuilt as the Iraqis were behind 9/11 attacks.

She said: "Did the Iraqis help us rebuild the World Trade Center?"  

Haha.. sounds like a joke to me. I just don't know what to say about that.

[FSPilot 0]

After all it's not what you say, but where you say it that counts, right?      

I saw an interview with a Florida voter on yesterday. She was voting for Kerry becacuse she did not agree with Bush that Iraq should be rebuilt as the Iraqis were behind 9/11 attacks.

She said: "Did the Iraqis help us rebuild the World Trade Center?"  

Did you see that on the daily show by any chance?

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

While I may not agree with it I still find this pretty funny (It may hve been posted here before)

Voting_Machine.wmv

[billybob2002 0]

Who would of thought....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news....ws-palm

Quote[/b] ]

Ex-worker sues activist group

By Jeremy Milarsky

Staff Writer

Posted October 21 2004

An activist group was sued in Miami-Dade circuit court this week by a former employee, who has accused top officials of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now of violating a slew of election laws.

Mac Stuart, of Opa-locka, has accused the organization, known as ACORN, of illegally copying voter registration applications and selling them to labor union groups, allowing people to sign petitions who were not registered voters and suppressing Republican voter registration applications.

Founded in Arkansas, ACORN is one of many groups that have pushed for a high voter turnout for the presidential election.

Stuart, who was assistant director of voter registration for the group, was fired in early August after being accused of trying to cash a paycheck that wasn't his. In the lawsuit, he claims he was fired only days after voicing his concerns about ACORN practices at a group meeting in late July.

An attorney for ACORN, Faith Guy, said Stuart's former employers didn't engage in any wrongdoing and that it was Stuart engaging in election law violations.

"I think this is absolutely outrageous," Guy said. "My sense is that these are things that he was doing."

Stuart is asking for more than $15,000 in damages in the case, in addition to attorney's fees and court-related costs. ACORN has 20 days to respond to the suit. Guy said not only would the group respond, but officials within ACORN are considering whether to sue Stuart for defamation.

This month, ACORN said it registered hundreds of thousands of state voters.

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, the state's top election official, has been critical of groups like ACORN, accusing them of sloppy work when registering and advising voters. Hood spokeswoman Alia Faraj declined to comment.

However, she said, "the secretary has clearly been concerned about some individuals and some third-party groups ... who are not taking their responsibility seriously."

Jeremy Milarsky can be reached at jmilarsky@sun-sentinel.com or 954-572-2020.

[denoir 0]

After all it's not what you say, but where you say it that counts, right?      

I saw an interview with a Florida voter on yesterday. She was voting for Kerry becacuse she did not agree with Bush that Iraq should be rebuilt as the Iraqis were behind 9/11 attacks.

She said: "Did the Iraqis help us rebuild the World Trade Center?"  

Did you see that on the daily show by any chance?

One would think that, but no. It was a dead serious news report shown from BBC World.

Now granted that there are always a percentage of complete morons in any given group - what is more alarming is that some 40% of the US population thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]One would think that, but no. It was a dead serious news report shown from BBC World.

Try this report about a Tennessee poll. An excerpt:

Quote[/b] ]Despite the impression the above findings might give, a close look at five domestic agenda items suggests that Tennesseans as a group hardly qualify as well-informed, ideologically consistent policy wonks. For example, only about half of Tennessee adults can accurately name Kerry as the candidate who supports rescinding the recent federal income tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. About a quarter (23%) incorrectly attributed the proposal to Bush, and 27% admit they don’t know which candidate supports the measure. Similarly, only about half (50%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who favors giving parents tax-funded vouchers to help pay private or religious school tuition. Thirteen percent attribute the plan to Kerry, who actually opposes it. Over a third (37%) admit they don’t know.

Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they don’t know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measure’s proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% don’t know.

Let the redneck jokes commence   !

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....AVISTA1

Quote[/b] ]

TV REVIEW | 'STOLEN HONOR'

An Outpouring of Pain, Channeled via Politics

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: October 21, 2004

Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.

Sinclair, the nation's largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.'' That's too bad: what is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.'s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy.

The former prisoners - now old and graying - are not just talking about their sense of betrayal by fellow Americans. They also seize the Kerry candidacy as a chance to recall their experiences: the kinds of torture they endured and the ruses they invented like tap-code communication between cells to boost morale. Illustrated with black-and-white film clips of prisoners in the "Hanoi Hilton" and sepia-toned re-enactments of starving men being led through dank, dark prison corridors, those recollections resemble the slow-paced, detailed documentaries that fill the History Channel.

But the History Channel tends to focus on the heroic moments of World Wars I and II. The Vietnam War is almost always revisited through its moral and strategic ambiguities and its effect on American society in the 1960's and 70's.

This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind. The film begins with dirgelike music and a scary black-and-white montage of stark images of soldiers and prisoners as a deep voice sorrowfully intones, "In other wars, when captured soldiers were subjected to the hell of enemy prisons, they were considered heroes." The narrator adds, "In Vietnam they were betrayed."

The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry "met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat." Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former investigative reporter and a Vietnam veteran, gives his own testimony, explaining that even though he has uncovered all kinds of misdeeds in his career, the history of Mr. Kerry's antiwar activism is "a lot more personal.'' He recalls listening to Mr. Kerry's testimony in 1971, saying, "I felt an inner hurt no surgeon's scalpel could remove.''

That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner's mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a "contemptible act," Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother's grief "purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."

The documentary shows Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he famously reported that fellow soldiers had "cut off ears," among other atrocities. But the filmmakers were not able to dig up more indicting material from homemade movies or news clips from the era. The picture from an antiwar demonstration, where Mr. Kerry stood a few rows behind Ms. Fonda, is blown up portentously, but there are no shots of them together. The only candid shot of Mr. Kerry gathering material for the Winter Soldier hearings shows him solicitously asking a veteran why he felt the need to speak.

Instead, the film shows lesser-known young, long-haired antiwar activists preparing witnesses to testify to war crimes. In the film these men seem to be prompting a fellow veteran to describe a massacre he did not witness. But one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.

Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.

.......

[Akira 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....AVISTA1

blah blah blah

I wonder if this "documentary" on the use of media in politics is going to show excerpts from Fahreinhet 9/11. Or Outfoxxed. Or from any media uses prior to this election.

Somehow I doubt it.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder if this "documentary" on the use of media in politics is going to show excerpts from Fahreinhet 9/11. Or Outfoxxed. Or from any media uses prior to this election.

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd doubt it too. After all, it's a film about veterans' anger toward Kerry's post-Vietnam behavior, not a film about the media. It is billed as, and I quote, "A documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal."

Here's the official site

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder if this "documentary" on the use of media in politics is going to show excerpts from Fahreinhet 9/11. Or Outfoxxed. Or from any media uses prior to this election.

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd doubt it too. After all, it's a film about veterans' anger toward Kerry's post-Vietnam behavior, not a film about the media. It is billed as, and I quote, "A documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal."

Here's the official site

@ the poll

Quote[/b] ]

What is your opinion of Sinclair Broadcasting's intent to air Stolen Honor on all 62 of their television stations, during prime time, October 21 –24?

The DNC is worried the truth unearthed in Stolen Honor will negatively impact Kerry’s presidential race.

After the CBS scandal, partisans on both sides of the political spectrum should applaud truthful journalism.

Forces are at work to keep the public from seeing this moving and powerful account of Kerry’s betrayal.

Sinclair Broadcasting should air Stolen Honor as intended.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder if this "documentary" on the use of media in politics is going to show excerpts from Fahreinhet 9/11. Or Outfoxxed. Or from any media uses prior to this election.

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd doubt it too. After all, it's a film about veterans' anger toward Kerry's post-Vietnam behavior, not a film about the media. It is billed as, and I quote, "A documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal."

Here's the official site

Yes. But Sinclair is only viewing excerpts as part of a larger program having to do with the media and politics:

From the article linked:

Quote[/b] ]Sinclair, the nation's largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.''

So again. How much from other sources, including those critical to Bush, are going to be shown? Somehow I doubt very much at all.

So read the article before trying to correct me.

[Colossus 2]

Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they don’t know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measure’s proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% don’t know.

Why vote if you don't know what your voting on?

Get some knowledge people!

In european countrise I guess more then 85% of the people know

what they are voting for. That doesn't seam to be the case here

 

[-33ker 0]

BTW Fahrenheit 9/11 is going to be shown on German TV the 1st of November.

[Bernadotte 0]

Why vote if you don't know what your voting on?

Get some knowledge people!

For many Americans freedom of expression means much more than having a right to express an opinion.  Many also take it to mean that their opinion has value, no matter how little they actually know about the subject.

Just consider m21man, who exercised his right to 'express' himself about articles without even reading them, 2 days in a row.  Unlike in Europe, in America you can do that without looking like an ass.

[Placebo 29]

BTW Fahrenheit 9/11 is going to be shown on German TV the 1st of November.

What channel? Dubbed into German or subtitled?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I guess dubbed into stupid german AS ALWAYS ...  

But I DOUBT you will see it on TV. It is in the movies right now!

[Colossus 2]

[off-topic]

Why is it always doubbed in Germany?

[/off-topic]

Why vote if you don't know what your voting on?

Get some knowledge people!

For many Americans freedom of expression means much more than having a right to express an opinion.  Many also take it to mean that their opinion has value, no matter how little they actually know about the subject.

Just consider m21man, who exercised his right to 'express' himself about articles without even reading them, 2 days in a row.  Unlike Europe, in America you can do that without looking like an ass.

Anyway, Go Kerry

[billybob2002 0]

@Bern: Bush 264 Kerry 264....

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, Go Kerry

BAH

[theavonlady 2]

BAH

Bush Aggravates Hamsters?