Three Texas Republicans won with exactly 18,181 votes each.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:01am

Winning vote totals uncanny in Comal

By Roger Croteau
San Antonio Express-News

Web Posted : 11/08/2002 12:00 AM

NEW BRAUNFELS — What are the odds?
Let's just say it's the proverbial "astronomical."

Comal County elections officials noticed an extreme oddity after the final votes were tallied in Tuesday's general election.

County Judge Danny Scheel received 18,181 votes in his victory over Lois Duggan.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Wentworth also got 18,181 votes in Comal County in his win over Democrat Joseph Sullivan and Libertarian Rex Black.

To make matters even stranger, Comal County also gave Republican Carter Casteel exactly 18,181 votes in her victory over Democrat Virgil Yanta in the race for District 73 state representative.

Snip...

Read more about this "coincidence" here.

Not only this shit, but now we have voting machines that leave NO paper trail behind, and use proprietary software. Want to guarantee that every 3rd vote goes to a GOP candidate? Put it in the code. It's that simple, and no one can take a look at the inner workings of the software.

Consider also that CIA and GOP-owned Diebold designed the software. Read the following list of contributions to see :

Board of Directors
Louis V. Bockius III (2,4,5)
6/28/00 $15,000.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
11/3/00 $10,000.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
10/9/97 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
10/9/97 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

Christopher M. Connor
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The
Sherwin-Williams Company
5/22/00 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
3/30/00 $1,000.00
DEWINE FOR US SENATE

Gale S. Fitzgerald (2, 6)
President and Chief Executive Officer , QP Group, Inc.
7/12/00 $500.00
NEW YORK REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
10/12/98 $200.00
FRIENDS OF JOHN LAFALCE
10/18/99 $1,000.00
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC

Donald R. Gant (1,3,5)
Senior Director, The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P.

L. Lindsey Halstead (2,3,6)
Retired Chairman of the Board, Ford of Europe
12/22/98 $500.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
1/23/97 $500.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
5/27/97 $200.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
10/31/97 $500.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
12/28/99 $500.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
3/7/01 $300.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
6/12/01 $200.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
11/27/01 $200.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
1/24/02 $500.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Phillip B. Lassiter (1,3,6)
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
4/16/98 $250.00
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
CONTRIBUTIONS
9/21/98 $250.00
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
CONTRIBUTIONS

John N. Lauer (1,4,5)
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Oglebay Norton Co.
10/10/00 $1,000.00
DEWINE FOR US SENATE
8/23/00 $250.00
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE - RNC
3/17/97 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

Walden W. O'Dell
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Diebold
2/14/01 $2,015.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
12/17/97 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
1/30/01 $3,950.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
8/16/01 $500.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
12/17/97 $1,000.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
6/30/00 $1,000.00
DEWINE FOR US SENATE

Eric J. Roorda
Former Chairman, Procomp Amazonia Industria Eletronica, S.A.
W.R. Timken Jr. (2,3,4)
Chairman , The Timken Company
6/23/00 $50,000.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
6/8/01 $100,000.00
2001 PRESIDENT'S DINNER - NON-FEDERAL TRUST
3/14/01 $10,000.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
8/19/99 $15,000.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
11/3/00 $15,000.00
RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
2/22/02 $1,000.00
RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND
6/12/02 $1,000.00
OHIO'S REPUBLICAN SALUTE

Corporate Officers

Walden W. O'Dell
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Diebold (See above)

Wesley B. Vance
Chief Operating Officer
8/16/01 $500.00
VOINOVICH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE

Michael J. Hillock
President, Diebold International
11/18/97 $500.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

David Bucci
Senior Vice President, Customer Solutions Group
11/18/97 $500.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

James L.M. Chen
Vice President and Managing Director, Asia-Pacific

Warren W. Dettinger
Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant
Secretary
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
1/30/97 $250.00
DEWINE FOR U S SENATE (2000)

Donald E. Eagon, Jr.
Vice President, Global Communications & Investor
Relations
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Charee Francis-Vogelsang
Vice President and Secretary

Larry D. Ingram
Vice President, Procurement and Services
1/30/97 $250.00
DEWINE FOR U S SENATE (2000)
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Dennis M. Moriarty
Vice President, Customer Business Solutions
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Anthony J. Rusciano
Vice President, National Accounts
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
--- Hey Tony! Listing yourself as “retired” and using
your vacation home address to avoid campaign donation
limits is a tad naughty don’t you think?

Charles B. Scheurer
Vice President, Corporate Human Resources
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Ernesto R. Unanue
Vice President and Managing Director, Latin America

Robert J. Warren
Vice President and Treasurer
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-17 01:03am

Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:15am

Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.

The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-17 01:34am

Ultra wrote:
Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.
The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-17 01:38am

Knife wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.
The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.

That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-17 01:40am

data_link wrote:
Knife wrote:
Ultra wrote: The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.
That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.

OK.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-17 01:41am

Ultra wrote:
Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.
The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

Did you ever consider, before you fell over yourself in your haste to condemn the Evil Conservatives, that maybe there is simply a certain number of Republicans there, and, big surprise, they all voted Republican!?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-17 01:41am

data_link wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.

Except only morons would want to go through that hell for getting a little bit of history.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-11-17 01:42am

data_link wrote:
Knife wrote:
Ultra wrote: The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.
That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.

Ah, better a moron than a pathologically lying robot.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-17 01:44am

Ghost Rider wrote:
data_link wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.
Except only morons would want to go through that hell for getting a little bit of history.

That or lapdogs for dishonest people trying to control the government. Still, I'd rather have the liars than the idiots any day, because while they might screw some stuff up to their own advantage, they at least wouldn't screw everything else up during their term of office.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-17 01:46am

Can't argue with that, given who this president is and the last one was.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:46am

Knife wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.
The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?

PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.
CNN tried to hire Limbaugh, and has conservative pundits running the show, with the exception of a few, such as Carville. MSNBC? Conservative pundits. Washington post? Don't recall. Time and Newsweek? Seen more pro Bush editorials than ones that criticise him. Salon.com is centrist, demonstrated by the fact that they had Whorowitz writing for them constantly in the past.

Network news? Corporate owned (corporations are conservative and push propraganda that is in their interest, in this case, conservative). Rather is a liberal, but doesn't bring his personal bias into the program. Rather, in fact, was harrassed by Ashcraft by phone, mail, and with contact from Ashcroft's cronies. It got so bad that Rather went on Imus radio and publicly told Ashcroft to lay off his ass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.

Conservatives don't want to watch out for wrongdoing. Nearly all of them (if you don't count some libertarians) are rank and file Rushbots.

Also, as an aside, expect a new conservative mantra in the form of calling liberals 'rednecks'. This tactic was featured in a recent book and Limbaugh has been using the insult repeatedly. Man, these fuckers are easy to call out.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:48am

Durran Korr wrote:
data_link wrote:
Knife wrote:
PLEASE. CNN, MSNBC, NEWYORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, TIME, NEWSWEEK, AND SALON.COM can hardly be called a conservitive corporation. And since the entire rank and file positions on the bench are not open for Bush to fill, I doubt your pestimistic observation will come to pass.

The only real problem I can see is the propencity of the powerful to protect the powerful, this problem is one that the people need to watch and not one of any particular political bent.
That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.
Ah, better a moron than a pathologically lying robot.

You seem to be the pathological liar here.

The internet lie was made up by the Washington Times, a rag owned by the Reverend Moon, who is the head of a Korean cult called the Unification Church. He propped up Falwel and Robertson and funded Reagan and Bush. www.unification.net is his official website, and he happily endorses the Bush administration.

Chalk up another one for conservative bias in the media.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:49am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Knife wrote:Investigate!

Seriously, investigate and if anything comes up put them on trial and throw the book at them.
The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

Bush will have his conservative judges anywhere and everywhere before long. They will not hold an honest investigation into this matter.

The media and the law didn't thoroughly investigate all the horseshit that occured in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly think they would start caring now?
Did you ever consider, before you fell over yourself in your haste to condemn the Evil Conservatives, that maybe there is simply a certain number of Republicans there, and, big surprise, they all voted Republican!?

That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-17 01:53am

Ok, so what your saying is that if one conservitive person is on a news channel it is a right wing operation.

The thing that comes to mind would be balenced(and no, not Fox). And again to get it straight, a pathological liar who uses the office to get shit for himself is better than an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing?

Neither is good, but atleast the idiot doesn't mean any harm.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-17 01:57am

Take it to the VS thread guys.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 01:57am

Knife wrote:Ok, so what your saying is that if one conservitive person is on a news channel it is a right wing operation. The thing that comes to mind would be balenced(and no, not Fox). And again to get it straight, a pathological liar who uses the office to get shit for himself is better than an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing?

Neither is good, but atleast the idiot doesn't mean any harm.

One conservative? Lol?

Conservative pundits: Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds of other conservative radio talk-show hosts.

Centrists (self-described): Sam Donaldson, Mark Shields, Michael Kinsley, Morton Kondrake, Al Hunt, Jack Germond, Hodding Carter.

Progressive pundits: Jim Hightower (cancelled), Barbara Eirenreich, Molly Ivins.

(from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm) Conservatives freely admit to this bias themselves. Here's Adam Myerson, editor of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review:
"[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns." (29)
In fact, no one can deny the extreme right-wing bias of the pundit spectrum after listening to talk radio. Conservatives have captured an entire media arm and devoted it almost exclusively to corporate and conservative propaganda. Liberal talk-show hosts are almost non-existent. Conservatives blame this on the low ratings of liberal talk show hosts, but this is a curious argument, since liberals form the largest political school of thought in America. The fact is that corporate owners simply do not promote liberal talk show hosts. When ABC first hired Rush Limbaugh, they spent millions promoting him, ghost-writing his books and arranging appearances on Nightline, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour and even Phil Donahue. No liberal talk show host has received anything even remotely resembling this kind of promotion. It's just another way that corporations ensure the conservative slant of the media.

The Fairness Doctrine

The United States once had a law which attempted to balance viewpoints in radio and television: the Fairness Doctrine. Created by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, this law required broadcasters to cover controversial issues with some opposing views. It required neither the internal balancing of programs, nor for equal time, nor for all opinions to be heard. It merely prevented broadcasters from airing relentless, one-sided propaganda.

An example of the Fairness Doctrine in action was the ABC movie The Day After. This anti-nuclear war movie angered many conservatives like Henry Kissinger, who believe that the willingness to use nuclear weapons is actually a deterrence to war. However, Kissinger got a chance to respond to the movie on national television, for Nightline followed the movie with a group discussion that included Kissinger and other conservative pundits. The reason why ABC was so even-handed, presenting both a liberal and conservative viewpoint on nuclear war, was because the Fairness Doctrine required them to.

Another example was controversial state ballot measures. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both viewpoints of any initiative. It is interesting to note that since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, studies show that the media's treatment of many initiatives has been heavily one-sided. (30)

Why the Fairness Doctrine? Why not just let the market produce what it wants? The market works fine in the case of print media, because almost anyone can afford to print something, even if it's just a flyer. However, this is not the case for radio and television. In the 1920s, the airwaves were unregulated, and became so overcrowded with signals that they jammed each other. The Federal Communication Commission therefore started issueing licenses for broadcasters to use certain radio frequencies. Because the spectrum is so limited, however, there can only be a limited number of broadcasters. Diversity of opinion cannot be achieved by adding more stations, but only by creating it within stations. This is the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine.

Up until the late 1980s, the Fairness Doctrine enjoyed broad popular support, ranging from the left-wing ACLU to the right-wing National Rifle Association and Accuracy In Media. In 1987, Congress considered a bill that would inscribe the Fairness Doctrine in federal law. It passed with overwhelming support in the House (3 to 1) and the Senate (nearly 2 to 1). Even such far-right legislators as Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voted in favor of it. (31)

Unfortunately, Reagan vetoed the law, and then went a step further: his FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine completely. Reagan had staffed the FCC with corporate media types who were bent on deregulating the media at all costs, and were thus hostile to the Fairness Doctrine. It was the equivalent of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. Shortly afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives were free to take over AM talk radio, without fear of giving equal time to liberals.

Interestingly, media corporations have fought all subsequent attempts by Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine -- a sure sign that they have an incentive to avoid balanced coverage. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to slander it the "Hush Rush Law." (In fact, Rush would not be silenced, nor even forced to internally balance his program.) Today, conservatives have done a complete 180 on the Fairness Doctrine: their one-time support has turned into angry opposition.

This speaks volumes about the true bias of the media. It also shows conservative media criticism to be highly incoherent. If the media were truly as liberal as they claim, they would jump at the chance to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, for it would give them a voice they didn't have before. The fact that they oppose it so vigorously proves that they know when they have a good thing, and don't want to give it up.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-17 01:57am

Ultra wrote:
That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

The state of the media would be totally irrelevant in this case if the vote was legitimate, because there'd be no story for them to report.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-17 02:00am

All this debate reminds me why I rely upon CNNNN

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 02:01am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Ultra wrote:
That has nothing to do with what you quoted.
The state of the media would be totally irrelevant in this case if the vote was legitimate, because there'd be no story for them to report.

But the vote was NOT legitimate. Three repubs get 18,181 votes? Ahahahaha?

No paper trails? Proprietary code that isn't open for the public to see? The same company that designed the system, donates extensively to GOP operatives?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-11-17 02:02am

Ultra wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
data_link wrote: That's not the problem. The problem is the propensity of the stupid to protect the stupid. If we actually elect presidents who are not fucking MORONS once in a while, we might actually have some progress.
Ah, better a moron than a pathologically lying robot.
You seem to be the pathological liar here.

The internet lie was made up by the Washington Times, a rag owned by the Reverend Moon, who is the head of a Korean cult called the Unification Church. He propped up Falwel and Robertson and funded Reagan and Bush. www.unification.net is his official website, and he happily endorses the Bush administration.

Chalk up another one for conservative bias in the media.

I could throw you a laundry list of lies from Al Gore if you like?

This "conservative bias" in the media you're talking about is nonexistent. There really is no liberal bias, either, but rather a government bias; generally speaking, the media can pretty consistently be counted on to take the side of the government on practically every issue imaginable, from gun control to homeland security.

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 02:04am

Durran Korr wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Ah, better a moron than a pathologically lying robot.
You seem to be the pathological liar here.

The internet lie was made up by the Washington Times, a rag owned by the Reverend Moon, who is the head of a Korean cult called the Unification Church. He propped up Falwel and Robertson and funded Reagan and Bush. www.unification.net is his official website, and he happily endorses the Bush administration.

Chalk up another one for conservative bias in the media.
I could throw you a laundry list of lies from Al Gore if you like?

This "conservative bias" in the media you're talking about is nonexistent. There really is no liberal bias, either, but rather a government bias; generally speaking, the media can pretty consistently be counted on to take the side of the government on practically every issue imaginable, from gun control to homeland security.

There is a conservative bias in the media, and I've provided evidence, if not outright proof of such. They don't merely side with whoever is in power either; as evidenced by their cockmongering during Clinton's term.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-17 06:25am

The Day the Press Wakes up to the fact that the Fomer Majority Leader of the Senate Tom Dashel Changes his postion on ANYTHING Twice a week is the day we no longer have a Liberal Biased Media, Can you name the number of places where Bill Clintons 2 Billion Dollers in Unreported Gifts were mentioned? Twas not CNN, MSNBC or ABC thats for sure, I heard that Story on the Fox News Channel

(FYI Unreported Gifts means things that the President is Given but does not keep, in this case Clinton "Donated" the Gifts(Inculding stock opitions whos vaule is not calcuated in) to his "Musem" and strangly most of those items are in temproary storage at the Clinton home....)

Ultra · Post by **Ultra** » 2002-11-17 10:48am

Mr Bean wrote:The Day the Press Wakes up to the fact that the Fomer Majority Leader of the Senate Tom Dashel Changes his postion on ANYTHING Twice a week is the day we no longer have a Liberal Biased Media, Can you name the number of places where Bill Clintons 2 Billion Dollers in Unreported Gifts were mentioned? Twas not CNN, MSNBC or ABC thats for sure, I heard that Story on the Fox News Channel

(FYI Unreported Gifts means things that the President is Given but does not keep, in this case Clinton "Donated" the Gifts(Inculding stock opitions whos vaule is not calcuated in) to his "Musem" and strangly most of those items are in temproary storage at the Clinton home....)

Oh PLEASE. Almost every single accusation against Clinton was aired and pushed in the mainstream media. Very few exceptions exist IIRC, one of which was him fathering a black baby; that was left to Rush and the christian right. One thing I must note : I havn't heard of Clinton 'donating' gifts to his museum, not even on the wacko far right websites such as freerepublic.com or lucianne.com. Then again, it's probably as bogus an accusation as when you guys said he trashed the white house and AF1. Conservatives spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to dig up dirt on him, yet found only an affair.

Fox News is conservative. Don't even bother arguing this point with me. Hannity, O Reilly, Olly North (convicted criminal), Vester, Fox and Friends, Geraldo (when he was offered the dough to join with Fox, he called Clinton a liar and a perjurer) , Cavuto, etc. They are all conservatives.

Add it up :

- The media is owned by an ever decreasing number of businesses through mergers. These businesses are conservative in their very nature.

- Talk Radio is completely conservative.

- Reagan killed the fairness doctrine, which allowed the media to be bought up.

- GOP strategist William Kristol admits calling the media liberal was a tactic:

"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

- Pat Buchanan admits there's no liberal media:

"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."

- Adam Myerson, editor of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Policy Review, admits a conservative bias :

"[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns."

- New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues.

The following study was conducted by David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University. (24) He targeted Washington bureau chiefs and Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy. His questionnaires went to 78 national news organizations, with an emphasis on the following 14:

1. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times

The 141 journalists and bureau chiefs who responded were an excellent cross-section of the target group as a whole. When their positions on political issues were tallied up, this was the result:

Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

Left 30% Left 11%
Center 57% Center 64%
Right 9% Right 19%
Other 5% Other 5%

- 20/20 censored part of their interview with Gore. In the cut part, Gore discussed how, during the elections, the christian right harrassed his family at his own home.

- The Washington Times started the urban legend about Gore saying he invented the internet, among other lies the Times propagated. The Times is owned by a cult leader that propped up Falwel and Robertson and funds Bush. He also funded Reagan back in the day. www.unification.net is his official website.

- A late January 2002 quote from Coulter's address to CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference).

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Her words were applauded by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and Lynne Cheney (wife of Vice President Cheney), all of whom were in attendance.

Coulter's threats to liberals were not not addressed by the media. She got away with it. A liberal would not have escaped public outrage if he/she said the equivalent towards conservatives.

There's so much evidence that suggests a conservative bias in the media its not even funny.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-17 11:03am

Ultra wrote: The media is owned by conservative operatives and corporations. The day they hold an honest investigation into this is the day Mr. Wong loses an honest debate with a fundie idiot.

BWAHHAHAHAHA

Hey asshole, what about the fucking CARR Brothers, you liberal fucknut?

It's hilarious that you think the Republicans control the Media, when
every indicator points to it being controlled by the socialists.