Interesting election developement

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:06 am

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 956129.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... > Isn't attempt at rigging the election controvocy caused by accusations supposed to occur after the election's over? Well, preferably not at all, but with this day and age being this day and age, anyway. Tis an interesting article, anyway.

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:07 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Greg Palast)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> ...Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.</td></tr></table>  Of course, when the law is screwy like that, I'm not surprised that those Republicans are abusing it. Apalled, naturally, but definately not surprised. ...And I thought voting illegally was just a summary offense.

Zaaphod · Postby **Zaaphod** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:08 am

Yep, I'm appalled and not surprised as well at this development. Naturally, if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be the Democrats abusing the law.

Dr. Dos · Postby **Dr. Dos** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:47 am

Shhhhh! (That's our little secret)

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:54 pm

Not shocking in the least. A little disgusting, but not shocking. The list of people was almost certainly a list of illegally registered voters. The Bush people wanted a fair election. That is, they wanted a fair election where most votes would be for Democrats. They didn't seek out illegal registration in predominantly Republican areas. What they were doing (at least what it seems they were doing, let us nopt convict before trial) was highly unethical, but not necessarily illegal. If anyone is indeed shocked to find politics with poor ethical standards, I suggest they shelter themselves from television for the next month.

Zaaphod · Postby **Zaaphod** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:57 am

Interestingly, the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon had some parallels with the 2000 election. In 1960, there were questionable votes in Illinois which gave that state, and the presidency, to Kennedy. Nixon didn't contest, saying it wouldn't be good for the country if he did so. Unfortunately, neither Bush nor Gore were able to live up to Nixon's high ethical standards. Ironic, eh?

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:27 am

who would win in a fig-er... election, Kerry or Gore? Gore has a cooler name, plus he's the king of the moon. And he has that whole clique with Gary Gygax, Stephan Hawking, that girl from star trek, Deep Cool, and some other guy. But... Nobody knows where he stands on issues anymore.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:01 pm

Don't forget, Gore invented the Internet.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:43 am

Gore ryhmes with more words than Kerry. On an even more irrelevant note, ZZTop, who performed for GW Bush at his innaguration party, had considered singing their classic "I'm just lookin' for some tush." as "I'm just lookin' for some Bush." Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Interesting election developement

Who is online