The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama
huffingtonpost.com — Conservatives are scared of a progressive majority. And they're going to lie, cheat and steal to prevent it from happening. But they can only be successful if we let them.
ajwysocki- 3319 diggs
- digg it
- ZoMommEY, on 10/12/2008, -40/+246This terrifies me. The more I read about the truth of what happened with acorn the more I am getting seriously freaked out. Why are we not hearing the real story on the network and cable news. This is big. I have looked at the facts of this and found that acorn in doing the right thing is being turned into some big fraud scam by some republicans. I didn't decide this by reading liberal blogs. I looked at non political reports by people with good reputations. This is really bad!!!!
- FiestyPumpkin, on 10/13/2008, -7/+27I bet it was a Republican who threw out the cover sheets that were attached to the cards.
- MindyB, on 10/13/2008, -16/+46Because the main stream media is predominantly Republican and they support their Republican pals--that is why they squash any and all stories that might negatively affect their pal McCain.
Look at how they have ignored the findings of the Alaska's trooper gate report?- bdfariello, on 10/13/2008, -3/+28I love how whenever a story doesn't get covered about Republicans, it's because the MSM is biased towards the Republicans. Whenever it doesn't cover a story about Democrats, well that's because it's the liberal media!
The truth is probably much more simple. They choose stories that will get more ratings leading to more ad revenue. If ACORN stirs people up and keeps them watching, it goes against the MSM's interest to present material that makes it no longer newsworthy. - sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -4/+22NO -- the "mainstream" media, which is really the TRADITIONAL media, isn't pro-Republican or pro-Democratic. You have all kinds of different people who make up the media. You have folks who identify as Jews who are pro-Israel and who hate McCain. You have the Hannitys and the Scarborough types. You have the Dobbs and the Coopers and the Wolfs and the Caffertys. You have a mix of people.
I said to my mom one time -- "mom -- news anchors aren't all on the same side; each has his own view. They each hold individual opinions. In other words -- each one is in it for himself or herself." She had to remind me of this once, years later, when I was on a rant about the "Republican media."
Not to mention that the "mainstream" media has become what you are reading. More people get their news from the Internet than perhaps any other single group of voters. And this affords us the chance to make history -- because each of us can use the awesome power of the Internet to get his or her point across.
Let's just keep on talking. Talking is good. Talking and writing and blogging and photoshopping and YouTubing and all of the good stuff that we are doing will have a positive effect. I don't just believe it -- I know it. - Wartyboskfapped, on 10/13/2008, -1/+23It's not who the anchors or the talking heads in front of the cameras are, sammy, it's who *owns* the company. That's who calls the shots.
You think that the Caffertys and the Dobbs and the Hannitys decide what they read out on the air? You really think that they have carte blanche to editorialize however they want? They get told what to say. The corporations own the media and I think at last count there were only 3 corporate owners of all media in the US. - PEENkiller, on 10/13/2008, -35/+9Cmon now, since when WASn't the main-stream media overwhelmingly Liberal? You must not be watching the American News Networks / Newspapers because they all force-feed us anti-Republican garbage.
And ACORN, in Ohio, are being investigated for picking up the homeless and offering them cigarettes to register and early vote numerous times for Obama.
Garbage article from a garbage site. - KMye, on 10/13/2008, -18/+12Seriously, MSM is predominantly Republican??? For disclosure, I'm not a fan of either party's machine, and will either have to flip a coin and hold my nose or just throw it away and write Biden in on election day. But I've never seen, in my admittedly young life so far, the media so blatantly partisan, with Fox News on one side, and EVERYONE else on the other. Fox may try to make up for its minority with sheer audacity, but a Republican predominance it does not make...
- MrSteamTank, on 10/13/2008, -9/+7I find American media is rather centered when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. CNN with a preference towards Democrats and Fox News with a preference towards Republicans. I still find they are both extremely right wing(Fox News is nuts) but that's what American politics is all about. They play news that the viewers want to see. Plain and simple.
- crichton101, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5I miss the days of a news giving me nothing but the facts. All the facts(if that's ever actually happened). I miss my news being boring and even handed. I miss my news anchors or interviewers simply asking questions that are actually about policy and not "do you like kittens Mrs. Palin?" Perhaps it never really existed but I like to think it did at some point in history.
- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2PBS, BBC, and NPR.
I cant believe that some of you guys cant see the right-slant of the Corporate Media, or the incredible right-bias of 95% of the radio news outlets. Liberals have no voice in country. In fact i was watching the Corporate News last night and there was this woman that referred to Obama as "left of center." WTF?! There is no "left of center" in american politics. All we have is right of center and WAY right of center. Its ***** pathetic that some of you guys like to say that Obama is liberal. Its just shows your outright ***** stupidity. - Suzilla, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@KMye
The media are corporate-owned, and their bias is toward that which is in the best interests of those corporations. A government that favors corporations doing whatever the hell they want, while increasingly limiting or curtailing the services it offers to its citizens, along with the abrogation of its responsibilities to observe and protect their rights is very much in the best interests of those corporation. Republicans favor that type of government; Democrats much less so. There are, of course, exceptions, but the trends and biases are pretty clear to all who care to see.
As for writing in Biden, this is doubly foolish. Not only will it throw away your vote, but you're throwing it away by voting for the person you actually would like to see in office. If ours were a parliamentary system, such write-in votes would actually mean something. As it stands, being the winner-take-all proposition that we have -- like it or not -- you vote not only for the candidate you want to win, but also for the candidate that can win.
- bdfariello, on 10/13/2008, -3/+28I love how whenever a story doesn't get covered about Republicans, it's because the MSM is biased towards the Republicans. Whenever it doesn't cover a story about Democrats, well that's because it's the liberal media!
- Jacolyte, on 10/13/2008, -3/+14Hacking Democracy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-476215926 ...- theskillwithin, on 10/13/2008, -11/+6if obama wins then i guess it was rigged in his direction then according to you.
- normlsparky, on 10/13/2008, -3/+12@theskillwithin
Except for the fact that Diebold (now Premier Election Solutions) has strong ties to the republican party. I doubt they want the competition to win. I'm sure you already knew that though, since it is clearly laid out in the video. - mikelieman, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7I'm *pretty sure* that they haven't even bothered to count anyone's vote since '72.
- ZincSaucier, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4its working then! fear is taking hold. go out and take action in this rash state of mind
- theskillwithin, on 10/13/2008, -8/+2believe things that fit into your current beliefs! im a democrate so im just gunna digg this article even though i think its stupid.
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -4/+7This is why I'm still predicting McCain by 2%.
- migshark, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5The article is centered around the theory that Obama will be discredited from the accusations, not that McCain will actually win.
If we can refute the claims well enough, their whole party will likely wither and die. - oscenester, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3@migshark: one could only dream....
- slezzzter, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Intrade futures contracts on a McCain win are trading at 23.3. If you believe in your prediction, you could make a decent amount of money on it.
- migshark, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5The article is centered around the theory that Obama will be discredited from the accusations, not that McCain will actually win.
- seeingright, on 10/13/2008, -26/+13Huffington is such a load of garbage.. She is now calling the Liberals a bunch of Progressives.. a Liberal wouldn't know a progressive movement if it slapped them in the face.. once a Liberal always a Liberal..
Typical Liberal: complain about everything.. it's everyone else's fault.. we got cheated.. if it is right then it must be wrong.. if it is wrong then it must be right.. Progressives we are now! I got to really laugh at that one.. what's progressive about hating your Country, siding with terrorists, encouraging welfare, fanning the flames of racism.. Huffington is a flat out Liberal.. nothing progressive about her folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu76pnm3fWE
(my video talking about the Obama Nation of Acorn)- vilago, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10you can save 15% or more on car insurance by switching to geico
- neilyn, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Noticing that you live in China, what is your Chinese pledge of allegiance? I think the difference between liberals and you is that they are not accusing you of communism while you accuse them of terrorism and a hatred for their country.
http://www.youtube.com/user/topsaxusa - seeingright, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0By the way.. the OBAMA pledge was a satire.. a joke!!
I'm not a communist. I am an American that works here in China. I have my own exporting business. I will be home in a year or two. I am a Christian conservative. Already sent my vote by absentee in for McCain-Palin.
I think Obama is the worst example of a socialist-liberal running for office that the Democrats have ever in their entire history put on the ballot. The man is dangerous, just like Huffington.
Bob Campbell
- diggduggjoe, on 10/13/2008, -5/+17The biggest problem with ACORN is their lawsuits against banks and other activities to get loans to those who were not ready for them. ACORN is one cog of many that caused the financial meltdown. I am not against helping people, but transforming our financial system into a subsidized housing program was foolish.
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1It was a very small cog.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1It was a very small cog.
- steelsmack, on 10/13/2008, -6/+19You looked at "facts" and found that Acorn is "doing the right thing"? Mass voter fraud is right? If the media is really so Republican, why did it take the mainstream media so long to even say anything about Acorn? Why did McCain's campaign have to bring it up for it to get any attention?
As far as main stream media being "Republican", it is compared to digg, but not because it is by ANY means Republican leaning, but rather because digg leans SO FAR to the left that only slightly-left-leaning looks "Republican" in comparison. Seriously, stupidity at digg has reached an all time high.- paterade724, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6I wish I could have said it first
- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -9/+9There was no "fraud". Nevada election officials discarded the sheets attached to the registration cards by ACORN, and therefore tossed the followup investigations performed on each and every card by ACORN. ACORN did everything right, but were thwarted by either direct action or incompetence by Nevada political appointees. As the article states, and as you can hear listening to McCain campaign rallies, Nevada's discarding of ACORN's work has created the opening needed by rightists to proclaim "election fraud", tho they have nothing else to back up their fantasy except Nevada's actions. They need to be victims. They need an enemy, and an organization which registers lower-income people is target one for them. I recall a Ohio Republican State Rep (I can't spare time to look) who snidely stated (roughly) a few months back: "*Those* people don't vote unless someone pays them, anyway." The story appeals to rightist victimhood, classism, racism, the whole nine yards on the right side of the playing field.
Esp considering that the whole "voter fraud" nonsense has enabled Republicans in many key states to quickly, and illegally, purge a million or two voters from the roles in the last few months, the very lie of Democratic voter fraud IS the big election fraud story of 2008. - Hyst3ria, on 10/13/2008, -6/+4Well said catbeller. Seriously, stupidity at digg has reached an all time high.
- quandrum, on 10/13/2008, -4/+7There is a huge difference between "voter fraud" and "voter registration fraud". One changes the outcome of an election and one makes the list of voters longer. Until someone tries to vote Mickey Mouse, this is still just a necessary evil of the voter registration process that every group that tries to get registrations runs into.
Plus, these groups are required by law to turn in every registration given to them, regardless of content. So they couldn't if sort them out if they wanted to.
(Note ACORN does label those ones it deems suspicious, but it's up to election officials to do something about it).
Seriously, why are Republicans so up in arms when people are trying to vote when they can't, but silent when people are trying to stop those who can vote. Voter suppression is a much bigger problem in this country and only one party has been convicted in court of engaging in it in the last 4 years. - steelsmack, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Quandrum, to think they aren't one and the same is fooling yourself. Why did Obama's campaign donate over $800,000 to ACORN? I'm guessing it's not because they are "non-partisan"...
- quandrum, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Because Obama knows that the more people that vote, the better Democrats do?
If 100% of people voted, the Republican party would be totally marginalized. However, because old people tend to be Republicans and old people tend to vote, Republicans as a group vote more often.
(Conversely, young people tend to be democrats and don't vote)
- CygnusX1200, on 10/13/2008, -6/+12No crime until someone tries to vote as Mickey Mouse?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/acorn.fraud ...
`"We believe their purpose is to attack ACORN and suppress votes," Mellor said. "We believe that by attacking ACORN, they are going to discourage people that have registered to vote with ACORN from voting."`
Yes, yes...form a blatant history of turning in fraudulent registrations, across the country, and then accuse those that seek to investigate and put and end to this ***** of being the bad guys.
One of two things is true: 1) ACORN is really a rotten apple, 2) ACORN needs to extensively refine its employee/volunteer AND spokesperson vetting process since, across the country, ACORN appears to attract fraudsters and blame shifters.- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -9/+3BS.
- anfo, on 10/13/2008, -5/+3catbeller: "BS"
Excellent, the only difference between oBama and oSama
:)
- MaximusD, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Election fraud -- which is when the partisan secretary of state purges roles, deliberately sets up confusing ballots or installs faulty electronic machines targeted at a specific demographic known to lean toward the opposite party -- is the real issue, and voter fraud ***** like this is meant to distract people from the criminal activities of the secretaries of state who are currently breaking the law, according the nytimes, in swing states on behalf of McCain: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27093919/from/ET/ (it's an msnbc link, but investigation and authorship is with the nytimes)
- laserdog, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3All of this reminds me of this Campaign Update where he pokes fun at how pessimistic the Obama voters are over their chances of winning (Obama is currently +8?):
http://current.com/items/89353404_campaign_update_ ...
It really is good stuff, and had me dead to rights myself. =)
In fact, I recommend the whole series for some political humor completely free of partisan rancor.
http://current.com/topics/88805629_campaign_update - nick1971, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3I have to say I'm amazed. In Europe we have always used the USA as the beacon of democracy. What is up guys and girls. Do we really need to slay our hierarchy of democracy with you on the top.
I'm starting to wonder if we need to send election monitors.- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5How do you monitor a computer system with secret code, maintained by techs flown in during elections to "fix" machines that constantly "break" during the election? And a Justice Department that doesn't give a damn?
- nick1971, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1No idea mate but if I could I would.
Lots of luck during the election, I hope that you don't need it.
- spankaccount, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5It's sad that the HuffPo is fomenting so much fear - Digg kids believe EVERYTHING this liberal hate site posts - even patently bogus stuff like this.
- johnnr2, on 10/12/2008, -26/+254Key phrase:
But they can only be successful if we let them.- p1eiades, on 10/13/2008, -8/+19Unfortunately, its not the people reading the Huffington Post that are going to decide this election.
- bphicke, on 10/13/2008, -17/+9You want organized spammers to decide the election?
- zigardne, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5I laughed out loud
- brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -5/+6You meant FORTUNATELY!!!
- mahadiga, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2McCain will say he was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people for America.
- pyrobaby, on 10/13/2008, -4/+9This is why all of us, even those of us in the bluest of blue states, surrounded by our fellow dirty hippie socialist intellectuals, have to make sure we vote, and if some of this ***** happens again, we do not take this lying down. Remember the debacle with Al Gore. They will ***** us over, and then will call us unpatriotic and sore losers if we call them on it. We can NOT give up this time.
- DestroyFascism, on 10/13/2008, -6/+6Yes and you will. G W Bush and his judge mates did it last time...
- darkism, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4We let them twice already through miscounting and crooked, closed-source electronic voting machines.
We can say "never again" and heaven forbid it happens again, but will we be willing to do anything about it if it does?- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Nope. A tiny percentage of American even understand how computers can be manipulated to win the election, and of those, many choose not to believe that it happens. Explaining why they should care is like trying to eat fog.
- gobears1001, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1I want to digg your comment 50 times.
- ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -6/+4Right...
Because if the conservatives and Republicans win the election it's only because we "stole" it from the Dem/Libs.
Enough of your guys' catch phrases which have no base in truth. Bush lied, War for Oil, Bush stole the election, blah, blah, blah.
Could it be that you guys keep losing because the majority of the country doesn't subscribe to your values (or lack thereof), and your "anything goes" attitude? Believe it or not there is right and wrong in this world, there are bad people, and America does do some good in this World.
But, so many of you have disdain dripping from your nasty fangs and are too blinded by hatred for your country that you don't see it.
But, just keep making excuses for why you continually lose. It feels better and negates any potential damage to your self-delusional sense of worth in this world.- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3Bush did lie us into a war against the innocent, we did invade and conquer for the oil, bush did steal the election.
- ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6Are you serious?
If Bush "lied" to get us to go to Iraq then 93 other members of Congress lied as well. Even John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, etc. all voted for Iraq.
What did happen was faulty intelligence. At the most, (and what I believe) is that the administration wanted to go to war in Iraq and was looking for things to believe in which supported their ambitions.
It's kind of like when you're interested in buying a certain car or clothing. All of a sudden you notice every time somebody is driving that car or wearing that shirt. You find what you're looking for to support already existing desires.
But, stop with the oil stuff. If you read the coalition agreement with the Iraqi government we don't hold royalty or ownership in their oil production capabilities. Just do some basic research before spewing whatever the most common liberal propaganda is. - tvcity6455, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Well said both times, ElderBieler.
- Zenham, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2No, Elder. Get off your ***** line.
What happened was the Bush administration bent facts and in some cases flat-out lied about the existence of intelligence in order to sway members of congress to vote for a war they were already planning.
Faulty Intelligence is a lie. - webwatch, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1 Dick Cheney had a task force in CIA to filter out the intelligence that does not fit his plan. The intelligence report that was shown to the congress was already doctored.
The Bush administration was so paranoid that the truth will come out that they outed one of our own CIA operative, Valerie Plame, because her husband said the key intelligence item in that report was wrong. - ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Do you guys even research and read stuff before putting it up on these threads?
Congress in both editions I and III had THE EXACT SAME intelligence reports used for making a decision regarding Iraq that the President and his cabinet had. It's called the CRS reports.
And I quote:
"Intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," and "The report, done by the Congressional Research Service at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), comes amid allegations by Democrats that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures.
Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. "Some of the most irresponsible comments -- about manipulating intelligence -- have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," he said this week.
So Zenham, "faulty intelligence is a lie," well I don't even know what that means. You ass.
Webwatch, you kind of sound like you know what you're talking about but there is absolutely zero verification or proof that Cheney did that. It's one of those liberal rumors which are now accepted as fact.
C'mon people, think before you talk.
- p1eiades, on 10/13/2008, -8/+19Unfortunately, its not the people reading the Huffington Post that are going to decide this election.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 10/12/2008, -29/+177Here's what the right has against acorn: it's an orginazation devoted to (gasp) getting poor people to vote. You know, the poor people on whose backs the rich get wealthy? On the one hand the right complains about taxing the rich and engaging in class welfare, but on the other they attack an organization that gets poor people involved in the political process. You can't have it both ways.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/13/2008, -2/+19I think you can have it both ways actually, if the poor are disenfranchised the rich don't have to worry about taxes, because they'll be the only ones with representation
- AugustusOsari, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11They already are the only ones with representation.
- ScottMitchell, on 10/13/2008, -11/+7@AugustusOsari: Please, if the rich were the only ones with representation we wouldn't have programs like Medicaid or Social Security.
- ousthouse, on 10/13/2008, -8/+1And if the poor aren't disenfranchised, then they can demand the rich to give them money.
- iloveobama, on 10/13/2008, -21/+24Yes, everyones a victim. Your talk about how people get rich on the backs of the poor sounds like communist garbage. Lets lower the bar and have the government take care of everyone! People obviously can't help themselves. We can have nanny government take care of us!
- mrkmrk, on 10/13/2008, -23/+13I'm with you; I can't stand when people talk about the rich living on the backs of the poor. Put the uneducated poor in the wilderness and do the same with the rich, and see who survives. The poor are only the physical cogs in the machines of ideas invented by the rich.
- TexasShiv, on 10/13/2008, -24/+13agreed.
So tired of hearing that ***** talk about the rich getting successful off of the poor. People worked hard, they were smart, and they made money.
Envy. - mrkmrk, on 10/13/2008, -18/+9Of course, the three of us get dugg down, but nobody's said a god-damned thing.
- stainsteelcrown, on 10/13/2008, -6/+22You are so right. If there aren't enough police in our area lets just hire security guards. Lets send our kids to private school and stop paying for poor people to go to school. I take care of my own and the rest of America can suffer for all I care. If God wanted them to have money they would have been born rich! What a joke.
- MrSteamTank, on 10/13/2008, -6/+16@TexasShiv
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. If the USA was the land of opportunity then yes hard work would get you far. Unfortunately, if you look at the Economic Mobility of the US it shows this isn't the case.
When you are born rich you're tendency to stay rich is much higher and the same with being poor. Being born into wealth or lucking out by having family connections isn't "hard work". I'm really surprised so many Americans are so against helping their fellows. Particularly when it comes to health care and education. - mrkmrk, on 10/13/2008, -15/+10Stain: God is not relevant to this conversation. If people are not rich at birth, they can work to become rich. Plenty of people have done it. I agree with everything else you said--I, nor anybody else, should be forced to give up the product of my labor for someone else. I live for me, not for them.
Steam: The problems to which you refer are the problems that arise out of government intervention. I am not against helping my fellow Americans, I am against being forced to help people who may or may not deserve it. - Latentk, on 10/13/2008, -15/+9Damn well put. Thank you ilove, mr, and Texas. It is nice knowing there are other people like myself still left in this world. If you spend enough time on Digg, you kind of begin to be swept away in the Diggeral BS and constant beatings. Every individual on this planet has the opporunity to become great, succesful, powerful, you name it. For some it is hard, near impossible, for others it comes rather easily. People seem to feel that if you hit a certain point you are doomed to remain so, whilst if you begin ahead of the curve you shall always reign supreme.
Tell you what, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and the Google twins all started fairly ***** poor. Guess what? You may or may not have heard they have since changed their ways. I am sick and tired of handing my hard earned wages to the parasitic individuals who seem only destined to remain on our social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Though some folks legitimately deserve it, I feel a possible majority do not.
We earn our money, let us keep and spend as we see fit. I do not need the government telling me how, or where to spend my money. Let alone spend it for me. - pyrobaby, on 10/13/2008, -7/+17Caring about poor people makes us communist?
People with attitudes like you were the Wall Street assholes who got us into this current financial mess, pal. Working hard and reaping your rewards - terrific. But being a greedy, unpatriotic, uncaring jerk who laughs about other people's misfortunes is about as Un-American as it gets. Go read the bottom of the Statue of Liberty sometime. - mrkmrk, on 10/13/2008, -13/+8Caring about poor people != forcing people to take care of poor people. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish the very important difference between these two--force. Caring about people makes you just that--caring. Forcing others to care about people is, indeed, communist.
It wasn't us who got you in the Wall Street mess--that you and yours again, forcing private enterprise (people) to give loans to poor/stupid people who couldn't afford to pay them back, and claiming that your force was justified because it made the economy "fair."
"Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it require. You damned men, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom - while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? - by what standard?" - greenvortex, on 10/13/2008, -3/+10There is a level of poverty that can prevent all but the very lucky or unusually intelligent from getting ahead. If your family can barely afford to eat they can't afford to send you to college. Bill Gates got 1590 SAT scores and went to Harvard. Google's founders went to Stanford. Try going to community college part time, while holding down a full-time job. Then try getting a high-paying job with that community college degree. The U.S. is founded on the principle that all people are created equal. Unfortunately, 30 million Americans are in the bottom 10% of the intelligence scale. A quarter of us don't even graduate from high school. If you are smart, or were born rich, good for you. You'll do better than most. But you won't be a better person unless you share what you've earned with those who weren't so lucky in the DNA lottery.
- clclark33, on 10/13/2008, -10/+4@greenvortex... Your post is typical of a wealth envy attitude. My father grew up in North Georgia and his family was barely able to afford to buy clothes. (He had to wear Chuck Taylor shoes when only poor people wore them.) He's not particularly smart, nor lucky. He worked multiple jobs, struggled through high school, never went to college. After years and years of hard work, he owns a small business. He's hardly wealthy, but your empty words about a level of poverty preventing economic mobility is unfounded. The problem is that most people in this country make poor choices in life and have a hard time accepting that if they are poor, it may have a bit to do with that. Do you even know a "poor" without at least one color tv, cell phone, gold chain and maybe a car? Not to mention the drinking and drug use of most "poor" people I know. The average "poor" person in this country probably has a higher standard of living than the average person (not poor person) worldwide. People here should just suck it up and earn something for a change instead of begging the political machine to take money from others who already pay roughly 90% of the entire tax burden of this country. Sure I'd love to have an easier time in life, but until I earn it, I'm stuck where I'm at right now.
- fantasmacanino, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8I don't think many people know what it's like to be poor. I've always had everything in life because of my parents hard and relentless work. They've had to sacrifice a lot to be where they are right now, and they're lucky (yes, LUCKY) to have as much as they have right now. I know people who work 12 hours a day+ and work much, much, much harder than my parents and most of the money they make (80%+) goes to the family food basket. (How much of your money goes to food?) I know for a fact that these people will never have as much as I have, but they work their asses off every single day, they'll literally die working because they can't afford a retirement plan and the same faith is set for their children. So excuse me, but hard work does not equal wealth. And I've lived both in the south and the north of the U.S. as well as South America so I know very well the different between wealthy and poor.
- brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4@green- Are you arguing that Bill Gates should be punished because he is not a *****. I fail to see your logic. Millions of people go to community college and hold down a job each year. What's wrong with that. I did it and now have a masters degree. Maybe you aren't up to it but don't assume others are at your limited level. Finally, since intelligence is ACQUIRED, it has nothing to with how you are created but rather is a by product of your desire to attain it.
- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7A good summation of the difference between the two side of America:
Rich: We got what we have because we deserve it, and the poor are trying to take it away. If there was no government involvement, the poor would work, and we wouldn't pay taxes for them. Don't hate us because we're smarter and more able than you. And we're armed. Don't try anything funny, smart boys.
Poor and Middle Class: You mostly stole or inherited your money, and we pay the damned taxes, not you, as you opt out of taxes with carefully purchased laws. You've been on welfare since the government gave you the land for the railroads in the 1860's. You have been given trillions in taxpayer handouts for decades. We've gotten a fraction of that in the same time, and the reward is now a 14 trillion dollar debt that you %^#^s won't pay for - we will. The "red" states consistently take in more federal dollars than they pay in, as opposed to the blue, which pay more than they receive back. The whole "get government off our backs" meme is nonsense, as the guvmint has been a bonanza for the Republican states and a pain to the Democrats. Alaska, for instance: one third of their jobs are directly supported by Federal handouts from the public kitty. Without the Federal government "on their back" paying for their lifestyle, Alaska would be poorer than Mississippi. - greenvortex, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7@bryce - I am comfortable, thanks to my single mother who, just one generation ago, could put herself through school and become successful enough to send her kids to private schools. But I have bandmates who work 60+ hours a week and can barely eat. They don't own their own homes. They drive 15-year old cars. To them, the $50 we each make from a bar gig is the only reason they have enough gas money to get to work. They don't wear gold chains. They don't have cable. None of them takes a cent in public assistance money. They are just average Americans who face the reality created by George Bush when he cut taxes for the rich, but not the poor.
Like many of the super-rich, Bill Gates pays very little in taxes. He has his own tax-deductible foundation. Every year, he can donate the same amount to the foundation that he would have had to pay in taxes. He gave so much money to it, that he had to quit Microsoft to find enough time to spend it all. I'm glad he's trying to do good deeds with that money, but notice he doesn't complain that taxes are too high for the rich. - entropy71, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3@brycelb - Knowledge is acquired, not intelligence. You are born with intelligence. With limited intelligence it becomes difficult to acquire knowledge.
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4People on digg are ignorant...
Look, you don't have to be wealthy or even able to afford college to go to it. My parents aren't rich, they didn't pay a single dime of my college education. I went to public schools till I graduated then I went to college and paid for it in full with student loans that I didn't have to pay back until 6 months after I graduated.
Within 6 months I was making a great salary and able to easily start repayment of my loans. I'm now better off than anyone else in my family. Not rich, but I'm working my way there, on my own merit, my own hard work.
And I'll be damned if this country will force me to give up my hard earned money to help people who don't want to help themselves. Taxes I can see, government needs money, even welfare programs for people who have lost their job or need temporary assistance in getting on their feet and return to being a productive member of society.
But I will not ever subscribe to the belief that because I have more than someone I'm obligated to give them some of what I earned. I only have 1 life, and I am pretty damn sure there isn't anything after it so I'm going to live it for me. Not for you, not for someone else who squandered their life or made poor choices, for me. Yes I'm selfish, but dammit I've worked hard and been through a lot of ***** to get to where I am now and I think I earned the right. - LoadingAgony, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0http://digg.com/political_opinion/Economic_Justice
- tvcity6455, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@ greenvortex: One could argue that Bill Gates is making a more intelligent investment by donating it to his foundation over paying taxes thanks to the gross misspending by our parasitic government. Granted, not every wealthy person donates on the scale he does, but I have a hard time asking people who are wealthier than I am to subsidize a government that all but literally flushes money down the toilet.
@mrkmrk: Thank you for being intelligent enough to articulate yourself and courageous enough to do so despite being in the minority. I agree with you entirely. - PleaseJustDie, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2To the people/persons who think bill gates just donates how much he pays in taxes to his foundation to get out of paying taxes, you obviously don't have a very firm grasp how tax deductible income works... Maybe if you donated some you'd know.
I have on average 2500 bucks of tax deductible income every year. I have about 3500 dollars of tax liability based on my income bracket. I pay 3500 over the course of a year, when I file my taxes I don't get 2500 back from my tax deductible income, the 2500 is subtracted from my total taxable income ~40k so instead of being taxed at 3500 I'm taxed at 3250. That's how it works.
Also, to the people spouting the fallacy about Bush not cutting taxes for the poor. Look Bush didn't cut taxes for the people who don't pay taxes, about 40% of the US, or you could say he cut their taxes by over 9000% They didn't pay anything they still don't pay anything. However, if you did pay taxes the amount of your bracket went down and many people in the lower brackets lost all tax liability so didn't have to pay anything.
Only Obama is able to take people who don't pay any taxes and convince the American people giving them 500 bucks is a "Tax Cut" and not "Welfare." - mrraven200, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3"We can have nanny government take care of us!" What simple minded B.S. Is it the government "taking care of us" when they fund basic science research that private comanies refuse to fund yet benefits us all from NASA to basic physics? How about when it funded basic infrastructure like electricity for the poor like it did in the 30s that allowed rural America to join the 20th century which in turn benefited millions of private businesses in the south? How about when it funded photogrpahy all over the country that is now considered a classic American treasure
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/
and the same for the Smithsonian archived Alan Lomax recordings all of this for less money spent than an HOUR in Iraq?
http://www.citeulike.org/group/6956/article/309973 ...
And no I am not a "communist" I think there is a strong role for entrepreneurs to nurture new technologies, I fully support small businesses, farmers markets, CSAs, and privately owned co-ops as being at the heart of a new 21st century decentralized economy. OTH I think speculators, monopolies, and globalist outsourcing need to be reined in and that we can afford to help our poorest members of society if we reign in foreign adventurism and tax the rich at the levels they were taxed at in the 50s and 60s which as far as I am concerned was America's golden age of progress. I also think we can learn from Ron Paul supporters and we ought to rethink fiat currency and abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve and directly mint our own money saving billions in interest.
If "conservatives" want to have a serious discussion on these issues I am willing and listening. OTH if you just want to smear people as "communists" or just "leaching off the backs of the rich" then you are simple minded and ignorant and have nothing substantive to add to the conversation in our time of economic crisis. Prepare to talk and negotiate with the new left about what society will look like in the 21st century or to be consigned to the dust bin of history. Hint your guy McCain is almost 10 points behind in the polls. Fear mongering and ad hominem smears are now being exposed as an epic fail, time for a new vision for America. - mrraven200, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4p.s. How many of you here who whine about taxation support the TRILLION dollar bailout of Wall St. banksters and 600 billion dollar military budget to support 700 military bases and an empire overseas? Digg me up if you think supporting a baliout and a bloated military while whining about taxes is hypocritical, bury me if you are OK with that and if you are Libertarian who opposes BOTH taxes and govt. boondgdggles I will say you are t least consistent. Libertarians respond to this post with your spin on things as well.
- mrkmrk, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Raven: I don't see why private companies, in a completely free market, need or should have any help from the government, especially when the only way to give them any help is to force money out of other people. And no, I don't support the bailout--it's absolutely disgusting and will only hurt our shill of a currency even more. By the way, I'm voting for Obama--both he and McCain have somewhat similar domestic policies, but McCain's foreign policy is frightening (as is the fact that they both support Israel so fervently), and I truly believe McCain is an evil nutjob that doesn't care about this country. While I disagree with the fundamentals of Obama's economic policy, I do believe he's a good guy on the wrong track.
- catbeller, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Actually: the Iraq war will cost, at the end, about 2-3 trillion. And the bailout has just begun for the banks. A running notion of the total cost will be anywhere from 5 trillion to 12 trillion dollars - and all of it borrowed, as we will not raise taxes to cover the outlays. We have easily double the national debt in less than eight years.
Point: no one is lending us money or buying our debt anymore... - tvcity6455, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0@mrraven200: Like mrkmrk said, in a completely free market, the private sector shouldn't need or get any help from the government. They would rise or fall based on their own merits. The problem here is that it wasn't a free market that caused this; the opposite did (at least in part).
Just over 30 years ago, Democrats in Congress passed legislation requiring lenders to increase the number of loans granted to low- and middle-income families in poorer neighborhoods. In the past, lenders would not grant these loans because they considered them to be too risky, so to meet the requirements, they had to soften lending standards. This isn't the free market – it's government meddling. Lenders warned of higher default rates, and they were right. After real estate values began to fall, lenders couldn't recoup the value of the defaulted loan by selling the property, which resulted in the failure of mortgage securities and the banks invested in them.
Had Congress followed the free market model, they would have worked with lenders to create solutions that helped these borrowers work toward becoming attractive loan candidates. This would have benefitted everyone. Representatives would have met the needs of their constituents. Responsible, educated borrowers would have been able to own real estate. Communities would have risen in value. Lenders and their shareholders would have made money on loan interest. Everyone wins.
Instead, the government took the easy way out. They got the reward (instant approval from their constituents) without any risk or responsibility (all of that was assumed by the big bad greedy banks). What's worse is that Republicans couldn't realistically rectify this sham without being painted as the bully picking on the little guy. Maxine Waters said that attempts to undermine this legislation were "mean-spirited." What silliness.
Now all of this doesn't mean our current administration gets a pass. They should have seen it coming. They couldn't have stopped it - it was too far along - but maybe they could have softened the blow. However, Democrats have to acknowledge their role in creating this problem so we can learn from it and move on. They haven't yet (please share if they have), which makes the idea of a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress utterly terrifying to me. As a result, I still haven't decided who to vote for. I'm just bracing myself for what's likely to be a miserable 4 years. - mrraven200, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1B.S. tvcity it's not the loans that are the problem it's the fact that under deregulation these bad loans were leveraged often TEN to ONE with commercial paper with no regulations in place on whether shorts "insured" (I use the term losely) by credit default swaps would have sufficient assets to pay back in full, obviously they didn't. The amount money in derivatives increased from 100 TRILLION to 500 TRLLION in 5 years between 2003 and 2008 (look it up google is your friend) all as a function of a deregulated market and deregulated under BOTH Dimocraps and Repiglicons as a hard leftist I am NOT carrying water for complicit Dims here.
OTH I want the speculators to be honest and take responsibility and admit it was their deregulated markets and faulty trading algorithms regarding commercial paper that epic failed and ruined us. The individual home owner is SMALL player in this drama compared to hundreds of trillions in unbacked worthless commercial paper that the government is now buying back at inflated "full value" even though it's real market value is certainly pennies on the dollar. That is socialism for the ultra rich of the most blatant sort. They robbed us first using the "free market" and now they are going to rob using the government. Your Libertarian theories look nice on paper and then there is the real predatory world where greedy large banks and corporations will make money wherever they can private or public and in BOTH cases the little guy gets SCREWED.
If the banksters don't have the guts to admit to their errors then I think they should be strung up from light poles late Mussolini stylee IMO. - mrraven200, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Anyone care to actually refute my argument that commercial paper is the real culpit here and not home owners with some substantiated research? Link based research WILL get my attention, cowardly buries just make me smirk though.
- Griberal, on 10/13/2008, -14/+22It's not about letting poor people vote. It's about letting poor people (and dead people) vote 72 times.
- vuke69, on 10/13/2008, -4/+5Vote early, vote often...
- Korinthe, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Too bad there has never once been a single instance of this type of voter fraud prosecuted in a court of law in the USA. Ever. Why? Because adding to the rolls does NOTHING if a person isn't showing up with their voter ID card and...VOTING.
Which of the following is easier to commit fraud with, do you think?
1) Starting an organization that adds names to the voter rolls, then creates fake voter ID cards, then sends people out to vote multiple times (and in multiple polling places...or do you really, truly think that noone on either side of the political spectrum would notice the same person voting in the same place multiple times???)?
2) Owning a paperless, untraceable electronic voting machine organization and programming said machines to flip votes?
Yeah.
Oh, and just how many of you so-called conservatives (laugh...Lincoln would be furious with the modern makeup and tenor of his party, were he with us today) are going to continue to ignore the two simple facts that a) noone has EVER been busted for this kind of "voter fraud", and b) the ACORN cover sheets indicating bad registrations were thrown away and ignored? - catbeller, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Horse. *****.
- steelsmack, on 10/13/2008, -12/+4"You know, the poor people on whose backs the rich get wealthy?"
Really? I thought it was the poor people who get fed because of the rich getting the crap taxed out of them. The demographic that ACORN brain washes isn't getting anyone rich, they're milking the system for every dime they can. - tiraid, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5"You know, the poor people on whose backs the rich get wealthy?"
Without flaming, please explain this sentence to me. I am willing to be convinced.- slabdigger, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Wealth requires production, production requires labor. The cheaper the labor, the better the profit, the more money goes to the wealthy business owner, or stock holder. How do you think the rich get wealthy?
- skinny01, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Rich people become rich by selling goods or services for a price that's more than it cost them. They have to charge as high as they can for their services while keeping their costs low (paying workers lowest possible wages, automation, etc.). That's how you make profit. That's why everything gets made in china (lower cost compared to american workers.
In simple terms, almost by definition the rich are rich because there are people that they can pay less than what their work is worth and the difference is profit. It's grossly simplified but it's buy from A for $10, sell to B for $30, you keep $20. Or, company A agrees to perform a service for company B for $1000 (what B is willing to pay). Company A then pays its employees $200 or as little as possible so that the difference is company A's profit where A's owners can afford to pay themselves much more than their employees. - skinny01, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4If you are working for someone else, you absolutely are not getting paid what that work is worth. You may be getting paid a relative amount of what is considered acceptable to pay employees that perform the service, but your bosses are billing out that work at much more than it's costing to get it done even when you count in paying for the additional overhead, etc...That's how business profit. If you were working for yourself and had connections and a reputation to keep the work coming in, you could make much more than anybody would be willing to pay for the same work. Public schools brainwash us into thinking that we have to work for someone else.
- tiraid, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3Isn't the ability to identify a need and organize the required labor and materials to fill that need worth something? If it weren't, it wouldn't be done, and you wouldn't be digging on that shiny new computer.
The price of goods are determined by the buyer, not the seller. If buyers are not willing to pay the amount asked for by the seller, the seller fails. Then, a second seller, seeing that the first seller is asking too much and there is money to be made by selling the goods at a lower price, sells at a price determined by the buyer. The second buyer and the seller are happy.
The same is true with labor. In this case, the labor is the service. The price of the service is decided by the buyer. You know where I'm going with this.
No one has answered my question. The rich still have not gotten wealthy on the backs of the poor. To the contrary, in your examples, the rich have given the poor jobs. Remember this, the "poor" do not have to work for the "rich". The reason the "poor" work for the "rich", is that the skills of the "poor" are of no use to consumers, they are only of use to the "rich". The "poor" could always go into business for themselves, if they really don't want to rich to charge more for their labor than they pay out.
Oh, forget it. You've already made up your minds. Life isn't fair, right? Take an economics class. - skinny01, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Lets say for example that you do computer programming, or something else that has little overhead, all you need is your computer, internet connection and phone for communicating and your electric bill. I don't know the specifics with programming but I bring it up because it's popular here, but basically something that has very little to no overhead.
Lots of times, you may be the only person to work on a project while you're working at a company. So some client approaches company A with a project. Company A quotes the project for 40hrs at $200/hr. Then they hand it off to their senior programmer Joe to do. Joe knows what he's doing, is experienced, and does the whole project on his own like he frequently does. But Joe isn't getting paid $200/hr or even $100/hr after you take out overhead, etc. Joe only gets $50/hr and the other $150/hr goes to the company and bosses. For this type of job, yes Joe is being taken advantage of because if he was working for himself, the client could've just contacted him directly however they found out about company A and Joe could've made closer to $150/hr for his work instead of only $50 because he's working for someone else.
I'm not saying that the other business skills aren't worth anything but I'd say that the need is only there because the regular people have been purposefully taught to just be worker bees and not understand the bigger picture so that somebody who is really just a middle-man can make money by doing nothing more than pointing fingers and redirecting.
We all have been in that situation where we are the ones doing all of the work on a project and the manager doesn't know his/her head from their butts but all they're doing is writing the proposal and then picking who is going to do the project. Then the actually skilled person does all of the work while the manager that just relayed the information and pointed his/her finger and says "this project is yours" gets twice their salary. That person could've just as easily been working on their own and reaped more financial benefit. Lots of businesses only really make money by stepping in between a person wanting a service and someone who can provide it, they just point them to each other because people who perform work aren't taught how to handle the other business aspects so that they can work for themselves, instead they have to work for someone else that'll make money off of them.
Now for some types of work where there is huge overhead like manufacturing, etc...sure you need to be with someone else unless you can independently afford a million dollars in tooling, etc. But for plenty of jobs where there is little overhead and the project can be done by one person, they are being totally used working for someone else. - tiraid, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I am a programmer. I am currently ignoring the programming task my manager gave to me to write this post. I work for a large company instead of as a private contractor. I do this because I choose to. Yes, my rates would be much, much, higher if I were a contractor, but I wouldn't have insurance, and I wouldn't have stability. As a contractor, the work is more likely to dry up. I work here for the stability.
The example you gave is a body shop. I don't work in a body shop, but I have before. Yes, the boss makes more than the programmer. Yes, the customer is paying more and the programmer is making less. And yet, both the customer and the programmer CHOOSE this for themselves. They both most likely choose it for the same reason, stability. The programmer knows that as soon as a task is done, there will be another task. The customer knows that if the programmer doing the task is far behind, another programmer can be added to get it done; or, sometimes the programmer just decides not to finish the task at all (happens often in the contracting world).
But this is your point, "regular people have been purposefully taught to just be worker bees." Your point is, the customer and the programmer are too stupid to not use a middleman, and someone smart should come in and save them. Who is it that is "purposefully" teaching this? Is it THEM? Did THEY teach it? You know, THEM? Give me a break... and one of your tinfoil hats... as long as you made it yourself. I'd hate to have to pay a middleman. - skinny01, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1That's exactly what I'm talking about, the whole safety net thing. If you're doing good work for your company and can handle projects on your own, there's no reason that if you were working on your own that you wouldn't have steady projects coming in, just like the company you work for. Sure you're not as big but you'd quickly get more work than you could handle which you could pass on to another contractor or then you could hire another person. We're taught to take the "safe route" which leaves us safe and comfy but underpaid and not in control of ourselves. A company we work for can just as easily toss us on our ass in an instant and wouldn't care less.
For example, my 40 yr old friend works for a restaurant as a hostess. But she's been there so long that she does the managers jobs, timesheets, stocking, making schedules, budgets, filling in on any position that needs to be done, meeting with the building owners, etc. The managers go to her for advice on how to deal with situations, personnel issues etc. She, without a doubt, does the job of a manager there on a daily basis. With all of the stuff she does, she could easily run her own restaurant. My wife and I tell her constantly that she should approach her boss and try to get a raise or a promotion, something more befitting the actual work she does. But she has that whole safety net fence around her head and can't see where she could actually be. What she's doing now is safe, just working for someone else and making a nice steady paycheck. So she's 40 doing the work of a restaurant owner but happily taking home the pay of a 19 yr old hostess. The managers don't mind, they make triple her salary while she does all of the same work they do. But meanwhile she barely pays her bills every month and won't think of stirring up the waters or demanding more because she's content in the bubble.
That's what gets taught to us, to be afraid of taking the risk and doing things on our own in favor of doing it under someone elses umbrella for the safety. But it really is no more safe, you can get fired at any time. At least on your own, you'd have more control over your destiny.
I started consulting about a year after graduating college and have been doing it for over 10 yrs and couldn't think of working for someone else fulltime. I do the same thing on my own, work less hours, make twice as much money, and have time to do other things. Yes it's different due to the lack of a steady paycheck, but I'm in control. If no money is coming in, I just have to promote myself and do what I need to to make it come in. The same thing that a company would do, I just have to do it myself. But I don't worry about being unexpectedly fired or dealing with not being valued or being payed what I'm worth. If I don't want to work this week, I don't. Granted I won't get paid either but I'm in control. It's harder and riskier, but it's more rewarding. I own my effort and will benefit from it longer than just a paycheck. If I was working for someone else, making some other company rich, they own my effort and the only thing I get to walk away with if they have to let me go is a name on my resume. But they'd continue to get royalties on what I did while under their umbrella, etc...and I'd have nothing really to show for it.
I'm not saying that route is for everyone or that doing the safe thing is wrong. People prefer different tactics for work. I've always been a bit of a loner and have always done things my own way so it works for me, but I know not everyone is like that and there is nothing wrong with it. But I've seen people that are so talented getting completely unappreciated by the people they work for that could really easily be doing it on their own and making triple what they are now and all it would take is a basic website and a few phone calls.
This book was written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education. She outlines the things that are done in schools purposefully to create this worker-bee mindset that is done deliberately and where it comes from. She provides references for everything. She adds in some personal views on some of it that does come off a little tinfoilishly but other things are backed up facts coming from someone that was part of it. You can go to her website and download the book for free.
http://www.amazon.com/deliberate-dumbing-down-amer ... - tiraid, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1OK, I'll read the book.
Quoting you, "or then you could hire another person." Doesn't this make you "the rich"? If you hire someone, they become "the poor". Now you are getting wealthy on their backs. This is where the whole thing started. This is the statement that I reject. Yes, some people have crappy jobs. I have had a few crappy jobs. Everyone would like to make more money. I could make more If I chose to strike out on my own. I have a co-worker that talks about it everyday. I hope it works out for him. But, you said yourself, it's not for everyone. Well, then, if it's not for you, then aren't the "rich" doing you a service by hiring you? I'm a geek. I want to be a geek. Not a marketer, or salesman, or book keeper. I'm not interested in any of that. Because of this, I will make less. Sucks, but it's my choice. There are many like me. If everyone just chose the paycheck over what they wanted to do, there would be no teachers. There are 5 teachers in my family, and I am proud of their decision to put what they want to do ahead of the paycheck. One of them is a pretty spectacular salesman, and he gave up a lot to teach high school band.
I'm getting off the subject. I think what I've come up with after discussing with you is this. The statement, "You know, the poor people on whose backs the rich get wealthy?" is more often than not, untrue. It's an over the top rant. The overwhelming majority of people are paid their market value. Now, I'm going to go ask my boss for a raise.
- jetboyterp, on 10/13/2008, -6/+4Yeah....getting poor people to vote....70 times each, if that's what it takes....
- BrainInAJar, on 10/13/2008, -2/+19I think you can have it both ways actually, if the poor are disenfranchised the rich don't have to worry about taxes, because they'll be the only ones with representation
- housewarmer, on 10/12/2008, -16/+64While it's never wise to underestimate ones opposition, I don't think that the Republicans will be able to subvert this election like they did in 2000 (and perhaps 2004). Obama has a lead that's too large for Republicans to manipulate successfully in enough states to more than earn 270 EV. Even Florida and Ohio are trending democratic enough that if they somehow flipped on election day we'd know something untoward has happened.
- Sogladtobehere, on 10/13/2008, -3/+16You obviously didn't read the article. Try reading the article and THEN posting about its contents. The threat here is not that McCain wins the election, but that he cries foul like Nixon did in 1960.
- housewarmer, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5I'm pretty sure that the conclusion in the article is pretty similar to the one in my post. So what's your point again?
- theskillwithin, on 10/13/2008, -11/+2doesn't matter he will be digg'd up for saying anything pro-Obama. anything.
- rickeylynnbrown, on 10/13/2008, -14/+3we are waiting till last second so yall are comfortable then mccain takes lead and wins
- Sogladtobehere, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Sadly this could become a reality. Hopefully the youth of America don't get to lazy or confident. Everyone needs to VOTE!
- Naieve, on 10/13/2008, -3/+42 words, ELECTORAL COLLEGE....
Please, for the sake of our country, LEARN ABOUT IT. - falstaff, on 10/13/2008, -7/+4Jesus ***** Christ. ACORN has flooded the States with thousands of fraudulent registrations. The polling companies use registration data to properly calibrate their polls. Obama is up by 10 in a lot of polls.
Put it all together: pollsters are likely oversampling Democrats.
I think he wins by 5 instead of 10 due primarily to the sampling differences.
This ***** article makes it sound like ACORN is completely innocent, and every accusation is made up in the minds of tinfoil-hat conspirators. There have been CONVICTIONS. This is not myth or just a juicy TV story.
No, I don't think Obama or his team had anything to do with it. No, I don't think ACORN is intentionally trying to sway the election. ACORN probably pays for each registration, and that invites fraud by individuals. The unintended consequence, though, is that Obama is almost certainly leading by less than the national polls say he is.- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Oh jebus christ, the stupid is strong with this one. I take it you get your "facts" from the Corporate Media--Faux News and Rush exclusively?
- falstaff, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Something tells me it doesn't matter what sources I could give you, you'd find a way to ignore them. You'd do twice as much research in vilifying the messenger than confirming the message.
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&ai ...
"On May 17, Carmen R. Davis became the latest casualty of an ongoing case of election theft on a grand scale. Davis, 38, a former ACORN worker, pleaded guilty in Kansas City federal court to filing false election paperwork. She had been among several defendants earlier charged with voter registration fraud and/or identity theft. Rathke and other ACORN leaders insist that the indictments were part of an organized effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. But as Union Corruption Update indicated at length back in January, the evidence is damning: ACORN activists in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas padded the voter rolls with 35,000 or more fraudulent or questionable registration cards."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 ...
"One defendant "said it was hard work making up all those cards," and another "said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards," according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff's Detective Christopher Johnson."
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories ...
"After the smoke cleared in the 2004 Ohio presidential election, election officials reported that ACORN made a repeated practice of submitting large stacks of voter registration documents at the last minute, filled out months prior but held so late that any verification was impossible.
The Wall Street Journal wrote in that same 2004 Ohio election, an ACORN worker “was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey.”"
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
You may not like the sources, but fortunately these are a matter of public record, so just because it's not splashed across the front page of HuffPo or Kos doesn't make it a myth or an invention of the right-wing hatemongers.
Is ACORN upper management involved in a dedicated effort to register dead and imaginary people? I don't believe so, but there is some policy at work here that encourages (probably unintentionally) illegal behavior.
- Sogladtobehere, on 10/13/2008, -3/+16You obviously didn't read the article. Try reading the article and THEN posting about its contents. The threat here is not that McCain wins the election, but that he cries foul like Nixon did in 1960.
- jsmitchell619, on 10/13/2008, -10/+76We should be worried. Lou Dobbs devoted most of his program to blowing this into a major story of voter fraud and an investigation of
Obama's association with Acorn. He has more or less convinced his audience that Acorn has been a voter fraud organization for years. He makes a big to do about Congress calling for an investigation and acts like this is outrageous that anyone could be allowed to interfere with the voters rights. (Where has he been the last two elections?) Oh yes and don't forget that Obama was the lawyer, along with the justice department who represented Acorn. It is so stupid. These votes were pulled to be purged but someone has to okay it first. There is no crime unless someone tries to vote with a dead person's name. Unless they have an I.D. Acorn isn't going to let them vote or if they know the person is dead they aren't going to get to vote. Big deal. The Repubs are trying to make this the last hurrah swiftboating attack against Barack. I hope there will be more articles like this written that will get out there.- sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7NO -- WE SHOULD NOT be worried or concerned. We MUST simply continue doing what we've been doing -- canvassing, talking to our friends and neighbors, blogging up a storm, sending letters to the editors at every stinking newspaper in the country, emailing the traditional media outlets, and generally being PRO-active. If we are PRO-gressives, then we will PRObably win this election.
I'm confident in what Mr. Obama is doing. I'm confident in what I'M personally doing. Just keep your head down and keep working. We can do this thing. Don't get discouraged, and keep your energy level up. Drink some more coffee and eat a few more PowerBars. We're almost there.- mikelieman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1Are you going to stand in the polling place all day to ensure no-one tampers with your vote, and then follow your vote through the system, to ensure it's actually counted?
- mikelieman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1Are you going to stand in the polling place all day to ensure no-one tampers with your vote, and then follow your vote through the system, to ensure it's actually counted?
- MiDNiGHTS, on 10/13/2008, -1/+15Lou Dobbs is an impossible character to understand. He sits there and sensationalizes any story that comes by him and starts blaming all the people in Washington for being evil and proclaiming his outrage as he builds his "Mr. Independent" image that he seems to bask in. All while wearing some big fancy flag lapel on his suit to make sure everybody sees what a great American he is even though he offers nothing substantive.
- joshwehatetech, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4Sounds like a fun job. It happens when you don't blindly follow 1 party.
- SkinnerBox, on 10/13/2008, -2/+17***** Lou Dobbs
- Monk22, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7"He has more or less convinced his audience that Acorn has been a voter fraud organization for years."
are you serious? being under investigation for voter fraud in 6 states might do that.- thanakar, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2ACORN IS a democratic voter fraud scheme.
- lululiu, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0Being "under investigation" for something is a different business than being found guilty. Just ask Sarah Palin.
- ianam, on 10/15/2008, -1/+0"Under investigation" by corrupt Republican lawyers.
- David1752, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1Lou Dobbs is a racist.
- cadmiumpaint, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Lou Dobbs is an idiot. He just likes to find something wrong with everything. He's one of the only people on CNN that i refuse to watch.
- sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7NO -- WE SHOULD NOT be worried or concerned. We MUST simply continue doing what we've been doing -- canvassing, talking to our friends and neighbors, blogging up a storm, sending letters to the editors at every stinking newspaper in the country, emailing the traditional media outlets, and generally being PRO-active. If we are PRO-gressives, then we will PRObably win this election.
- poprocksandsoda, on 10/13/2008, -88/+34Huffington using fear to illicit votes. Sounds like a tactic used by Castro, Hilter and Stalin. How could we be scared of a "Progressive Majority"? You're Dem-led Congress has been sitting around 2 years doing nothing for American except letting special interests drain the Federal Reserve. Where was Congress in 2006 when McCain tried to put controls on Fannie/Freddie?
- holmzz, on 10/13/2008, -14/+45I really don't mean to pick on you, but everyone knows that Huff post is slanted left, but not nearly as far as Fox News leans right. The fear tactics you are criticizing are the very tactics espoused by the present admin.....
You know what, forget it. I'm sick of using reason and logic on people like you who are uninterested in fair analysis. Look into both sides of an issue before you spew your McCain propaganda.- ryan83189, on 10/13/2008, -38/+10So the republicans have Fox news, and the liberals have everything else? Seems fair to me. Fox news obviously leans to the right, but most other news sources are in with Obama. Huffington post leans and spins so far to the left it isn't funny, it doesn't even compare to fox news. That "propaganda" for McCain was just a question, loaded, but legitimate.
- AugustusOsari, on 10/13/2008, -15/+11The liberals have most of the Internet and the New York Times. The conservatives have everything else.
Get your facts straight. - pintomp3, on 10/13/2008, -8/+18new york times is liberal? isn't that were that neo-con william kristol writes? isn't that where judith miller parroted cheney in order to sell the war? there is no liberal media.
- doom777, on 10/13/2008, -12/+2So that's your answer? You are so much slanted to the wrong side, that we can slant as much as we can to the correct side, and we'll still not be slanted enough.
- rickeylynnbrown, on 10/13/2008, -28/+2ok how can you assure me obama hussien barrack whatever isnt a muslim well not by his name
how can you assure me hes not a racist black panther gee hes from chicago theyre main office is there
you cant look at his own church preacher lol
you cant be sure and if you vote for him without being sure you are an enemy to my country an uninformed idiot
ok go ahead fill me full of ***** but have you read his own book lol
cmon people are yall that dumb at least im thinking mccain might be lesser of two evils
im not a republican nor democrat im an american
whos pissed we cant do better than these guys for president but will vote mccain
because its my duty not to take a chance on what could be the worst thing my country has ever done - TexasShiv, on 10/13/2008, -4/+22Holy *****. I have been looking for 8 years for the reason how we elected George W. Bush as our President. I have found it. The person above me is why.
Jesus Christ, I...I... I literally have no words for you - flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6McCain supporters once again providing us with their colossal retardedness. Just shut the f up and stop making such an ass of yourselves.
- brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3It is shocking and kind of disappointing that ANYONE can claim the media in this country is anything but liberal biased. It takes a profound level of ignorance to make that claim. Using Fox News (which is certainly slanted to the right) as a scapegoat for the behavior of the rest of the media is laughable. Lets not forget that in the last election cycle we had a seasoned news anchor lose his job because he could not contain his personal beliefs when doing his job and allowed his personal biases to affect his performance. Katie Couric knows all about it.
- bestsoccerdog, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Wait, you think that the huffington post is closer to the middle than Fox News? Sorry, the huffington post does not have ANYONE writing that has criticized a democrat. As much as you may hate the channel, there are still both republicans and democrats on the station. The huff post isn't slanted left, it's completely left. Everything about it is liberal anti-republican bullcrap. Fox News is republican, but they do give both sides of the story.
- JumpingJack79, on 10/13/2008, -5/+17Mind you, Republicans controled the Congress in 2006.
And what "special interests" do you have in mind? Funding the Iraq war? Name some examples, please.- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Wrongo Mindnumb. In the Senate you can't even vote on anything if both sides don't agree to the point of being able to do a cloture vote, i.e. get 60 votes out of a hundred to get it out.
Frist tried to get the Dems to allow the Fannie and Freddie controls get out onto the floor for a vote, and thought it passed the Banking subcommittee, it didn't get any Democrat votes so it failed to even be considered.
Your Democratic Block, as it has many many good pieces of legislation. - brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1@Rikety - It seems like it should be basic knowledge, but so many people have no idea how our government works. JumpingJack is just one of many, especially on this site. On the bright side, I will be looking forward to more speeches from Harry Reid about how bad Rush Limbaugh is. That seems like critical work for the Senate.
- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Wrongo Mindnumb. In the Senate you can't even vote on anything if both sides don't agree to the point of being able to do a cloture vote, i.e. get 60 votes out of a hundred to get it out.
- lulzitsadigg, on 10/13/2008, -7/+17You've had a republican president for 8 years and a republican congress since Clinton was president. (up to 2006/2007 when we finally got a Democratic congress, which can't really do anything anyways since 1) it isn't overwhelmingly democratic, and 2) Bush can kill any legislation they want to pass by veto'ing it)
- saigumi, on 10/13/2008, -4/+52) So what? Did you see any legislation even attempt to get up that high? No, because the Dems decided to stick their collective thumbs up their bungholes in order to get their candidate elected this year because people think the president is the end-all/be-all of the gov't.
Damn sheep.
- saigumi, on 10/13/2008, -4/+52) So what? Did you see any legislation even attempt to get up that high? No, because the Dems decided to stick their collective thumbs up their bungholes in order to get their candidate elected this year because people think the president is the end-all/be-all of the gov't.
- repathon, on 10/13/2008, -8/+7oh man
two years of a single body of government thats to the left
oh no! theyre doing nothing!
:o - daggah, on 10/13/2008, -4/+9Where was McCain in 2005 when S.190 was first proposed? Why did he only sign on after the bill had died in committee? Why did he not sign on when the bill was proposed again in 2007? And why is it that an actual analysis of S.190 doesn't speak well for it?
Why do Republicans keep asserting that McCain championed the effort behind S. 190 when he clearly only signed it so that later on he could say, "Look, I tried to do something about this, and the Democrats killed it?"
Why do Republicans keep lying about this?- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Good question. I have been railing on them about this when it first starting being brought up. I have posted the facts about this thing at least 20 times and i NEVER get an answer.
- jackieblu, on 10/13/2008, -3/+3Bush and the congress which was republican majority almost the whole time their DEREGULATION is the cause of the melt down!
- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3No jackie, not true. Clinton set it up as a ripe fruit tree for his past minions to pick, and the agreement with Democratic Senators was to protect Fannie and Freddie from being regulated by Congress after he was out of office.
It worked very well for the minions, but terribly for the rest of us. Your Democratic Senators did their job very well. - ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Additionally; and google this so you can verify how dumb you feel right now.
The lack of oversight in the financial sector or the missing sound regulation has been in place since the Great Depression. Clinton removed even more regulation in his 3rd year in office. Any economist will tell you that the problems in the banking industry is due to no major regulatory changes in the last 50+ years. So blame every body of congress since then.
But, keep blaming Bush for everything because it feels good and is easy. - next, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Honestly, most of the government has been complicit in destroying our economy. Bush is at fault for a lot of *****, but this certainly is not one of them.
- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3No jackie, not true. Clinton set it up as a ripe fruit tree for his past minions to pick, and the agreement with Democratic Senators was to protect Fannie and Freddie from being regulated by Congress after he was out of office.
- The2DQuartet, on 10/13/2008, -5/+9Castro, Hitler, Stalin ... Obama? That's a name I don't see being added to that list with any credibility.
- SAR2009, on 10/13/2008, -8/+4Your application for disability has been received, but it is unclear whether you are claiming literal blindness or re-affirming the vegetative state demonstrated by your political views.
- SAR2009, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5"Where was Congress in 2006 when McCain tried to put controls on Fannie/Freddie?"
Playing a perverted form of leap frog with back door barney . . . . - ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5You're a god damn idiot
- bownasterm, on 10/13/2008, -6/+7huffington is the most left wing newspaper source around. so ***** biased
- Gutterpunk, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Liar.
- GrogInOhio, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3>>Huffington using fear to illicit votes. Sounds like a tactic used by Castro, Hilter and Stalin.
- Infidelcastr0, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I should just make a text file that says the following so I can copy and paste it quickly.
The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, and only have 36 more votes in the House.
Since it takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto the Republicans still effectively control what legislation gets through.
- holmzz, on 10/13/2008, -14/+45I really don't mean to pick on you, but everyone knows that Huff post is slanted left, but not nearly as far as Fox News leans right. The fear tactics you are criticizing are the very tactics espoused by the present admin.....
- Wosat, on 10/13/2008, -59/+30Look at how much fear this article is inciting! Now who's peddling fear again?
- phroztbyt3, on 10/13/2008, -9/+12They are pointing out the obvious.. thats not fear.. its redundancy. Fear is when you tell a person something that is potentially untrue, and you start to believe that person once he preaches it enough. Thats how scientology gets away with it... thats how Mccain gets away with it.
- blindblindblind, on 10/13/2008, -7/+3seriously
- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Seriously? Seriously youre a god damn idiot.
- allycatred, on 10/13/2008, -5/+0we do have to be scared. mccain is looseing it more. sometimes he dont make any sense, all he can do is run obama down. it like when we were at 1 and your pissed the bed now your 5 and guess what some dumb - dumb are still talking about it
- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4That is one ungrammatical, ***** comment. Go back to seventh grade to learn English.
- ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1What the hell did allycatred just say? Regardless of the grammatical vomit, I don't even understand what point he/she was trying to make.
Oh sh#% we're screwed if that's the Obama/Biden base.
- allycatred, on 10/13/2008, -2/+0ok
- ColRanger, on 10/13/2008, -13/+55I have a few friends who are really very worried that this election will be won by McCain no matter what. Lord I hope not.
- sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -4/+8Hoping and worrying won't make it so. Setting goals and achieving them will. Make sure that we protect the gains that we've made in voting registration, by getting ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors to the polls. I swear -- this year, I predict that the polling places will be so overwhelmed that they won't know what hit them.
We are taking the GOP to task. They have screwed this country, and have screwed themselves. Let's help them. AND DON'T FORGET to donate to Obama. He is, the last time that I checked, still accepting donations.
:)- ScottMitchell, on 10/13/2008, -6/+2"Setting goals and achieving them will. Make sure that we protect the gains that we've made in voting registration, by getting ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors to the polls."
Good luck if you live in a stolidly Democratic state, like California or Massachussets. In those states you already know they're going to vote Democratic, so all your work is wasted time. Ditto if you live in Montana or Wyoming or Oklahoma, which are going to vote Republican no matter how much you canvass your neighborhood. - cltdba, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4ScottMitchell,
Why such a defeatist attitude? It is better to fight for what you believe in and lose than to sit there like a bump on a log and wish you would have done something.
- ScottMitchell, on 10/13/2008, -6/+2"Setting goals and achieving them will. Make sure that we protect the gains that we've made in voting registration, by getting ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors to the polls."
- ISurfTooMuch, on 10/13/2008, -1/+11Then make damn sure that you, your friends, their friends, and their friends get to the polls and vote. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM! NO EXCUSES! The more people who show up, the harder it is to rig an election or claim that the results are illegitimate.
If there's enough support for Obama to give him a landslide victory, then we all have to make certain that every single one of his supporters shows up to vote. - slapded, on 10/13/2008, -3/+9If it happens im seriously moving to Canada
- vuke69, on 10/13/2008, -14/+5Good, you whiny little bitch.
If you don't like the situation, either do something about it it, or STFU. I'm so tired of you little ***** pussys bitching and moaning about something, but too god-damned lazy to do anything about it.
Cry me a ***** river. - RRJackson, on 10/13/2008, -14/+4Why wait? Move to Canada now. We don't need you here in the United States.
- theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -3/+14He is doing something about it by refusing to continue participating in a society that he no longer wishes to live in. Nothing wrong with finding greener pastures elsewhere. It's what the country was founded on.
- Rikety, on 10/13/2008, -12/+4Go, baby, go! And take utopian with you. Find it in that Land of Bliss, Canada. Actually, if you had your real Liberal papers in order, you'd mooo-oove to Mexico instead, where you can make a real difference, instead of just mooove with the herd in Canada.
- ElderBieler, on 10/13/2008, -10/+5Seriously. Bon-voyage ass hat.
"I'm moving to Canada. Whah-whah-whah..."
I'm so tired of people complaining non-stop about this country, get the f out if you hate it so bad.
Pieces of trash which have done nothing for this country. You spew crap out about "change" on the internet and then go back to whacking to your Japanese animated porn. - geoboy, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5I hear this every election. It's become so cliché that I make an audible groan every ***** time I hear it. What's more is that people rarely ever follow through with their plan to leave.
- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4Canada's financial system is the most stable in the world right now. They regulate their banks, you see. Not much super leveraged real estate money. Harper want to dereg, so all bets are off for the future, but right now, it's first class.
You're showing good sense. I do hope the Canadians don't close the border to economic refugees by raising bond requirements - cross fingers.
- vuke69, on 10/13/2008, -14/+5Good, you whiny little bitch.
- cadmiumpaint, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1thats why its important to get more high voter turnout and make sure this isn't a close race. Only the close ones can be stolen. Hanging chad ***** doesn't work when you win by several percentage points in each state.
- dlite922, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, you may hear this "every election", but some people actually do it. For example me. I Wasn't born here and I have family and friends elsewhere in the world. I can easily pack my bags and go.
And I'll promise you, I'll leave as soon as I finish my degree if McCain wins. Why stick around in a country where I have make no difference? Let these corrupt politicians run the morons in this country and drive it into the ground. Let them make US another Iraq decades from now. I will not "Liberated", or wait to be.
- sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -4/+8Hoping and worrying won't make it so. Setting goals and achieving them will. Make sure that we protect the gains that we've made in voting registration, by getting ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors to the polls. I swear -- this year, I predict that the polling places will be so overwhelmed that they won't know what hit them.
- cersad, on 10/13/2008, -3/+16Accusations about a "Corrupt Bargain" in a given political race are nothing new. In fact, it dates back to the days of Andrew Jackson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_bargain
I think there's always some creative means to cry "foul" after you've lost an election; the important thing is to gather actual facts first.- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2The Repugs dont work with facts, or logic and reason for that matter.
- jizzlies, on 10/13/2008, -17/+21Will anyone be surprised when the McCain palin camp unleashes more lies?
http://www.bofads.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin ... - repathon, on 10/13/2008, -24/+8If the democrats used these similar scare tactics on the repubs, then obama would win by double digits.
- EagleRufio, on 10/13/2008, -5/+15No, people would get just as disenfranchised with Obama as they are becoming with McCain. Only quickly because democrats are more adverse to those kind of tactics.
- sammyjames, on 10/13/2008, -5/+3We don't need to use those tactics. Obama is going to win by double-digits anyway -- AS LONG AS WE GET THE VOTE OUT.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6Obama is not going to win by double digits. Nobody wins by double digits in the modern political age. It hasn't happened in 30 years. 5 points will be considered a landslide.
- MCA2142, on 10/13/2008, -16/+109If McCain gets elected after 8 years of Bush, we only have ourselves to blame.
- Endit, on 10/13/2008, -8/+2Not really. Unless you voted for him.
- bphicke, on 10/13/2008, -2/+26Democrats are always finding some way to clench defeat from the jaws of victory.
- dungbeetle, on 10/13/2008, -4/+13Or Diebold. I'll blame Diebold.
- flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -6/+14Blame the ***** who got hit on the head with the stupid stick who keep going on about obama's middle name.
- catbeller, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2The would be freerepublic.com.
- Grok22, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1it seems like only libs or Obama supporters ever bring this up.
- flashback99, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1hey Grok22, im not a liberal, but I support Obama. Resolve that conundrum in your tiny little mind.
- jgubbe, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2or blame every dumb ***** uneducated, closed minded, ass backwards, one toothed, hillbillies who somehow stay alive just to keep the rest of us miserable, while by their ability to keep voting for whoever speaks to them like they are incapable manipulatable beings they overwhelm the educated votes. Thus in keeping with the historical dictatorships, that have always plagued society.
- tk0680, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Like the way Bush was elected after four years of Bush.
No, America, the world has NO faith that you'll take the blindingly obvious choice here.
- IgorUnchained, on 10/13/2008, -18/+37They will steal it like they stole it the last two elections....and the democrats will let them, like in the last two elections.
- unixfag, on 10/13/2008, -5/+10If this election is stolen, I hope that single battalion of troops here won't be enough.
- David1752, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1And I will be there.
- singularityv, on 10/13/2008, -15/+9If you think that any elections were stolen, you're a moonbat.
- IgorUnchained, on 10/13/2008, -7/+15Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004
Google "Katherine Harris" for all the proof you need for 2000
and here is a great article on 2004
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa ...
I know how you Palin supporters hate to read, so let me know if you
need that acted out with shadow puppets. - WoollyMittens, on 10/13/2008, -5/+3So is your mom.
- KibblesnBitts, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Hayes v. Tilden
- IgorUnchained, on 10/13/2008, -7/+15Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004
- doom777, on 10/13/2008, -16/+14steal? The 2000 election was questionable, but ultimately legit.
The 2004 election was completely legit. Kerry lost in every way.- zigardne, on 10/13/2008, -6/+5Dugg for truth
- mikelieman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5Prove your allegations. Show all work. I wanna see *every* subtotal cross checked, and *every* vote accounted for.
OMFG! You can't show every subtotal cross checked, and every vote accounted for? This is pretty basic bookkeeping people.
I'd say, given the lack of a verifiable vote, that your votes aren't even counted. And you can't prove otherwise. - brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3Mike, what kind of 3rd grade argument is that. Here is how it works in the land of grown ups. The people you are accusing of stealing don't need to prove the didn't do it. This is pretty basic logic people.
- mikelieman, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I'm not accusing anyone of stealing.
I'm pointing out that the basic fundamental principles of ACCOUNTING are violated in such an egregious manner that the assertion that the reported results bear any relation to the actual votes cast is ludicrous.
Do you balance your checkbook against the bank's monthly statement, and if so, why?
When was the last time you balanced your vote against the reported total?
Didn't think so.
And it's not hard. You pretty much ensure that at the end of the day, if X people voted, then there are X votes recorded. The process of ensuring that the votes aren't changed is a purely mechanical and procedural exercise, which is also neglected resulting in a complete and utter lack of Trust.
It's funny, that any bank can count 300,000,000 dollars to the PENNY, but for SOME REASON, the US and States can't get a handle on 300,000,000 votes to the nearest integer.
- bromanct, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Given the wimpy title of the article, you have a point. Fortunately, we're kicking ass in the polls and I truly believe this time around that people are ready for a change.
- rolf, on 10/13/2008, -5/+6Oh please stop with the stolen nonsense. Look up the 2000 election, anyway the votes were counted in Florida, Bush won. Either by Bush's preferred method or Gore's.
- brycelb, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2Here is why non of that matters. The democrats did not win. Until history is changed and facts are ignored people will still be crying about how the election was stolen.
- homercles337, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I take it you dont like facts? It has been shown time and time again that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen because of voter purging and caging. You repugs really like to reinvent history dont you?
- JayTee44, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6Cut it out, the repubs did not 'steal the last two elections' . Try some honesty in your statement.
Remember the independent recounts which every (liberal) newspaper did? They showed- every one of them- that bush won.
The paranoia on full display among diggers is pathetic. Obama is going to win. McCain will not st
- unixfag, on 10/13/2008, -5/+10If this election is stolen, I hope that single battalion of troops here won't be enough.