What vote?

RE: Liberal racism

>No, stupid....four years in a row. Don't you read anything

>but Tractor Pull Monthly?

So what! Now it is a required duty for the President to speak to the annual NAACP convention? Don't get a chance to read Tractor Pull Monthly, as Ebony Magazine takes too much of my time. Try it sometime.

>

>For many years, Entertainment Awards Programs were limited to

>white entertainers only, because the only role blacks were

>given in the entertainment world was as buffoons.

That is completely beyond the point! And buffoons weren't the only roles blacks were limited to in the entertainment industry past. Do Paul Robeson, Josephine Baker, Marian Anderson, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to name just a few, ring any bells with you? Blacks have been involved and won awards not only in the entertainment field but every field in the past. Yeah, lie and say that founding a tv station called White Entertainment Television would be approved.

>Thanks for your ignorant, hateful drivel in return. You are

>the epitome of bigotry with all your racist name calling and

>calling others dumbass, morons, etc. Would it be alright if I

>call you Buckwheat or Doughboy or Oreo in return?

You're very welcome!

}(

You've taken a crap on people all over this message center with utter impunity. Guess you don't like it when it comes back at you, eh? When you do it, you proclaim to high heaven "it's your God-given right as an American". When someone else does it, it's ignorant hateful drivel. Grow up!

As for what you choose to call me, I could really care less.

RE: Liberal racism

>

>

>That is completely beyond the point! And buffoons weren't the

>only roles blacks were limited to in the entertainment

>industry past. Do Paul Robeson, Josephine Baker, Marian

>Anderson, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to name just a few,

>ring any bells with you? Blacks have been involved and won

>awards not only in the entertainment field but every field in

>the past. Yeah, lie and say that founding a tv station called

>White Entertainment Television would be approved.

And those you named suffered a host of indignities over a long stretch of their history. Paul Robeson became the target of the McCarthyites, and any black of that era who questioned the status quo usually got branded a "communist" or a "fellow traveler".

Of course, in many ways, McCarthy was an equal opportunity asshole. He also went after Lillian Hellman, Dalton Trumbo, and others because they were anti-war.

You missed the point. The point is that for many years, all we had was white television (except for Amos and Andy, and a few other notable "buffoon" roles). Even in the Westerns, most of the Indians were played by Anglos. And how were Chinese folks portrayed? Usually as doing laundry or housework. How soon some people forget.

>That would depend on how the criticism was leveled. If such

>criticism were to make its points using terms "white trash",

>or "cracker", which is equivalent to "stenfetchit" that you

>attempted to use, then it would be racist, just as your

>remarks were. Not to mention, when you made your point about

>a clergyman ignorant of the law being appointed by Bush to the

>Supreme Court, in violation of the principle of separation of

>church and state, it was you who stated "black clergyman". It

>was that qualification of "black" that is just one of many

>racists remarks in your post.

Last time I looked, Buster Soaries is both black and a clergyman, and an appointee of the Bush Administration. The voters in New Jersey were smart enough not to elect him to Congress, so Bush gave him a job. Just like Ashcroft. That's just a matter of fact. Nothing racist about stating the obvious.

While you're pretending to be so enlightened on racial matters, shall we revisit your xenophobic obsession against immigrants? Whatever happened to "Give me your poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to be free?"

All this "plan" is is Karl Rove's contingency effort to assure the re-election of the Junta. If Kerry wins a state in the South, or it looks as though the major news networks are calling the election for Kerry (except for Faux News, which called the election for Bush yesterday), you can bet that "Al Qaeda" will strike and the elections will be postponed. There will then be weeks of propoganda (Hannity, Rx[/font size]ush, etc) about how Shrubya saved us from the terrorists again. Only after that will the election resume, ensuring Bush's installement as dictator for life.

>Only after that will the election

>resume, ensuring Bush's installement as dictator for life.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are genuinely the ramblings of a madman.

So now, Bush is not just an incompetent leader who allowed terrorist attacks to occur through carelessness - nope, that's not nearly critical enough to describe his evil.

He AND HIS ADVISORS are ALL actually psycopathic mass murderers who are planning to slaughter tens of thousands of American citizens and secretely make it look like an "Al Qaeda" attack if they think they might lose the election.

We used to involuntarily incarcerate people in mental hospitals for their own good who stood on street corners and screamed out things like this. Why don't we do that any longer? Have we stopped caring about those who are disturbed, plagued by such intense paranoia and delusion that they are tortured by nightmeres even when awake?

Flashback from 2000:

*********************************************************************

BON:

Don't be surprised if Bush's brother JEB! pulls some shenanigans in Florida as a contingency plan to make sure his brother is elected. Just the fact that the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, is both the Bush/Cheney campaign chair for Florida AND the person responisble for the ballots should be cause for concern.

Typical rethuglican response:

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are genuinely the ramblings of a madman.

So now, Bush is not just an incompetent leader who needs his brother to pull "shenanigans" to ensure his election - nope, that's not nearly critical enough to describe his evil.

He AND HIS ADVISORS are ALL actually psycopathic mass murderers who are planning to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in the State of Florida

We used to involuntarily incarcerate people in mental hospitals for their own good who stood on street corners and screamed out things like this. Why don't we do that any longer? Have we stopped caring about those who are disturbed, plagued by such intense paranoia and delusion that they are tortured by nightmeres even when awake?

*********************************************************************

The more things change.......

In a CNN/Time poll of 21,000+ respondents, over 80% said keep the election process going, regardless of attack. I think BushCo's trial balloon just deflated.

They can steal the election the first time, but not stop it the second.

>So now, Bush is not just an incompetent leader who allowed

>terrorist attacks to occur through carelessness - nope, that's

>not nearly critical enough to describe his evil.

Well Dougie, Shrubya says that " 'Merica is much safer ", why are they even contemplating election contingencies??

LOL BoN!!!

On the serious side, consider the following petition:

Petition for the Carter Center to monitor the election process...

http://www.petitiononline.com/cce2004/petition.html

Bad Idea, Rejected

In 1864, with the Civil War raging, millions of Americans voted in the presidential election and, as Carl Sandburg wrote, the balloting went on "in quiet and good order." So it was troubling to hear reports this week that the Bush administration and a federal elections body were talking about whether this year's election could be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack. Fortunately, elected officials from both parties quickly denounced the idea, and the administration said a postponement would not happen. At least raising the issue now allowed the nation to consider it in a moment of calm, and reject it.

DeForest Soaries Jr., the chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, set off a firestorm by writing to the Homeland Security Department to express concern that no agency is authorized to cancel or reschedule federal elections. The Homeland Security Department was reported to have asked the Justice Department to consider what steps would need to be taken.

However well-meaning they may have been, the inquiries were greeted with cynicism. Calling off elections, particularly when the ruling power is doing the calling off, is the stuff of tin-pot dictatorships. Even in this country, an attack can provide an opportunity for leaders to seek extralegal powers. New Yorkers still remember that after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani proposing staying on after his term ended.

The talk of postponing elections sent many Americans back to the Constitution, which delegates to Congress the timing of presidential elections. Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, made it clear that neither the president nor the Election Assistance Commission could override this provision. On CNN, Condoleezza Rice promised that "no one is thinking of postponing the elections." And Mr. Soaries then released his own statement that there are "no circumstances that could justify the postponement or cancellation of a presidential election."

It is good that the issue was raised now and resolved.

NYT Op-Ed 17JULY2004

I have signed said petition. It makes perfect sense to have Jimmy Carter involved. His integrity is beyond reproach and he has experience in monitoring elections where illegal juntas have come to power through nefarious means. Certainly, this country meets those criteria and JEB! needs someone to watch him.

August 20, 2004

Memo: 'Terror' Election Barring Voters Could Stand

by Ritt Goldstein

A recently unearthed government memorandum prepared for the U.S. Congress addresses the power of the administration to postpone elections. But more notably, it reviews actions the executive branch might take that could preclude large numbers of Americans from casting a ballot in the coming presidential vote.

The memorandum highlights that should such disenfranchisement occur, the Nov. 2 election could well remain legally intact and binding.

Concerns have arisen that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is actively seeking to manipulate the presidential vote, using exaggerated terror threats to provide the political smokescreen for this.

The story initially began breaking in the July 19 issue of Newsweek. The magazine reported that authority was being sought for a potential postponement of the election, the implications of a terror attack or the threat of one cited as the proposal's rationale. A July 23 Associated Press (AP) article noted that in mid-month the "chairman of a federal commission on voting" had asked congressional leadership for just such an "emergency" plan.

In separate interviews with IPS, noted political scientists John Dryzek, chairman of the social and political theory program at Australian National University, and Steve Cimbala, a political scientist at Pennsylvania University, former U.S. government consultant and author of 27 books, both expressed strong concern regarding the potential implications for U.S. democracy.

The government memo, entitled "Executive Branch Power to Postpone Elections" [pdf] and dated July 14, appears to have been prepared in part to examine the mechanisms the Bush administration might use to disrupt the November ballot. It explicitly states, "the executive branch could make decisions that would make it impossible or impractical" for an election to occur.

The memo elaborates on how the administration could "limit the movement of citizens under its emergency powers," further finding that "exercise of such power would not appear to have the legal effect of delaying an election."

Notably, the "legal resolution of an election during which significant numbers of persons fail to reach the polls due to the actions of the executive branch is beyond the scope of this memorandum," concludes the document, which was prepared for Congress by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Again, despite voter disenfranchisement, the election could indeed remain binding.

Of particular interest in light of the possibility that a "red alert" (signaling an imminent attack) for alleged terrorist activity could eliminate voting for numerous Americans, the document finds that "despite modern state practice," state legislatures "still retain the authority to use an alternative method of choosing presidential electors besides popular elections."

As illustrated in the 2000 presidential election, which Bush won though he had considerably fewer popular votes than Democratic challenger Al Gore in the nationwide total, it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, which determines the winner of the presidency.

Should a worst-case scenario occur, state legislatures could conceivably use their power to either save or scuttle voter intent.

Dryzek, who formerly chaired the University of Oregon's political science department, said the present political circumstances provide "cause to worry."

Cimbala perceives the "very idea" of postponing or canceling the election as "the worst sort of political chicanery, or cowardice, or both," blaming the notion on administration "ideologues." But if "red alerts" were to give Bush the election, "I don't think you could put that through the U.S. Congress even in their most fearful moments," he added.

It is vital to "warn politicians who might be stampeded into this (election chicanery) – 'don't you even bring it up,'" said Cimbala.

Dryzek noted that during World War Two, Britain did cancel elections until after the war in Europe ended. But he emphasized that circumstances were quite different, outlining, "the suspicion now is that to postpone would be for partisan political purposes."

The July 23 AP story reported that some congressional lawmakers were indeed "worried that an election could be postponed for political purposes." It added that on July 22 the House of Representatives passed a resolution against such a contingency plan by a vote of 419-2; although, AP pointedly noted, "a House resolution is not binding and does not have the force of law."

And the CRS memorandum does indeed raise a number of questions.

"This report focuses on who has the constitutional authority to postpone elections, to whom such power could be delegated and what legal limitations exist to such a postponement," reads the memo's first paragraph.

Both the administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have denied that any election postponement power is being sought. However, the CRS document added, "While the executive branch does not currently have this power, it appears that Congress may be able to delegate this power to the executive branch by enacting a statute."

Beyond congressional action to regulate the election, one of the U.S.' 50 largest newspapers, the Indianapolis Star, editorialized in late July that Bush is already able to postpone the vote.

"According to William Bradford, a professor at Indiana University School of Law … the president already possesses authority to delay national elections if necessary. New legislation is not needed," the Star wrote.

"Let the president decide whether to postpone the vote. Surely, political pressure would force him to take such action only under the most critical circumstances," it added.

To date, U.S. elections have never been postponed or canceled, and were held even during the nation's Civil War, in the midst of ongoing and widespread fighting.

And repeated questions have been raised regarding the administration's agenda in this voting year.

According to Dryzek, "given how the last election was decided, and the lengths … the Bush side seemed prepared to go to make sure it was decided in their direction, I would certainly be worried about what they might do this time."

Added Cimbala, "Ordinary Americans aren't so dumb that we aren't going to see through trial balloons being floated about this." And word of election questions is spreading.

A number of U.S. embassies have posted the CRS memo to their Web sites, recalling the objections of a number of career U.S. diplomatic personnel to administration policy preceding the March 2003 attack on Iraq.

Some observers have accused the Bush administration of using the specter of terrorism to manipulate public opinion for political purposes.

On Aug. 11, the Los Angeles Times quoted Kai Hirschmann, deputy director of the Institute for Terrorism Research in Essen, Germany, who said, "I think there's a bit of politics behind it," referring to the administration's recent warnings of terror threats.

"With all this media attention, one has to wonder what else is at work," Hirschmann added, noting the administration was "creating an overall tension that has both tactics and politics around it."

Also Aug. 11, an article by former U.S. presidential hopeful Howard Dean was widely circulated. Titled "Terror Alerts – Substance or Politics?," it condemned the administration's use of terror pronouncements as political tools. Prominent former members of the U.S. intelligence community have also spoken out.

Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst who for years personally briefed the White House, and Wayne Madsen, who served in the Reagan-era National Security Agency, NSA, have both forecast election chicanery.

McGovern recently wrote an online editorial entitled "Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots," which said it "seems increasingly clear that putting off the election is under active consideration." Madsen did a July piece for the Web-based Onlinejournal.com forecasting a "red alert" in California. It was subtitled, "No postponement, just bedlam at the polls and a low-turnout on the West Coast is Bush's plan for 'victory.'"

Addressing the use of administration power to disrupt the election process, Dryzek emphasized, "there's cause to worry for all of the traditional reasons we worry about unrestrained executive power. But I also worry how this Supreme Court – if it was called upon to do so – would interpret such a situation … probably the benefit of the doubt would go to the executive [the administration]."

As the U.S. Congress set out its right to regulate voting within the CRS memorandum, potential for an unprecedented intra-governmental clash may exist.

Cutting to what may well be the essence of ongoing events, Cimbala observed, "In those days when the Constitution was written, we depended on the good-faith of a democratic-minded aristocracy to make it work … all constitutions are fundamentally rested not upon law, but on a shared political faith … should that shared political faith break apart, not all the courts and all the laws can bring it back."

(Inter Press Service)

If an attack occurred just prior to the election, and Bush won, the Dems would sqawk because no one did postpone the election.

If an attack occurred just prior to the election, and Kerry

won, the Repigs would sqawk because no one did postpone the

election.

What's your point Merlin?

>

>What's your point Merlin?

like all fools...he doesn't have one!

If Allawi says they can go ahead with elections in Iraq, why should we even think about delaying elections here??

If an attack occurred just prior to the election and Bush won, the Democrats would claim foul because the election was not postponed. So someone in the government needs think about the possibility, however remote, of a postponement, just as someone need think about what to do if there is an attack on the Capitol while Congress is in session, and all the other bad scenarios that could happen. It is silly to jump to the conclusion that because someone in the govenment wondered about a postponement in an emergency, that there is a sinister conspiracy afoot to postpone the election.

Well then maybe we should have 'partial elections' like Allawi is now suggesting.

Let Freedom Reign!

RE: What vote? There's Hope!

http://www.electoral-vote.com