Media Blackout - R.N.C. and more

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Sep 2004 08:22

420FootBager wrote:I find it amusing that Democrats hate attack ads on there Candidate but continue to attack Bush. You Democrats never change, now I am trying to make points and you all are tearing my grammar apart. As previously stated WEAK....

Using bad grammar makes you look ignorant or uneducated - if you are ignorant or uneducated than it is likely that you opinions are also ignorant or uneducated. Everybody makes mistakes - but some people on this forum actually seem to either not care about grammar or to not understand it - You seem to be one of those kinds of those people.

You have also completely failed to understand the opposition to the anti Kerry ads. I do not live in the US and I have presumably recieved a lot less information about it than you have access to. It is not anti Kerry ads in general that democrats are complaining about - and if you really believe that you are quite ignorant. It's the nature of the advertisements - especially the fact they are funded by Bush and an attempt to discredit Kerry with unbacked up and debatable claims. In any free and fair election there are certain rules that have to be followed to make sure the election is free and fair. The kind of propaganda that is being advertised does not follow those rules. There is nothing wrong with attacks on Kerry or Bush - but it is the way you go about those attacks which is important - you can not simply make any claim you want to and you cannot mislead the public by not informing them of who is paying for politcal advertising.

Any way, the thousand or so protesters that have been showing up in NYC for the RNC do not necessarily represent the voice of the majority. How could anyone possibly know that until Election Day? If you watch the news you would see that the candidates are in a dead heat with president Bush predicted to pull ahead a little because of the RNC… The fact is that there were protesters at the DNC too but they got far less coverage than the Democrats are now….

The majority people are talking about in this thread is the majority of citizens of the US that did not vote for Bush. Nobody disputes the fact that only a small majority of people actually voted for Bush in the US - less than 1 in 4. In regards to showing protesters on the news - unbiased news would show relatively equal amounts of time of both views - clearly you are unsure of if a majority of people support Bush or not so it would be expect of an unbiased media to give equal time to Bush and to those who oppose him. Also the size of the demonstrations is important - there were hundreds of thousands of people at the anti Bush demos - and a lot less at the anti Kerry demonstrations. Surely one of the biggest demonstrations in US history deserves more media attention than a relatively small demonstration?

You Democrats only want to see what you like and say “fuck you” to the rest of the nation… that is not right… I want to see the RNC not the protesters, and so do MILLIONS of other Americans. I’ll bet you all would have bitched and complained if the media covered the protesters during the DNC and not the DNC it’s self.

As I've mentioned earlier - it's not about not seeing the RNC - it's about giving a balanced view - rather than only showing one thing or another. Of course people would bitch if the media covered the protesters during the DNC and not the DNC it's self - and they would equally bitch if the media only showed the RNC protesters and not the RNC it's self. However that's not the case. In Australia we got about equal time of the protest and of the RNC - but from all reports in the US that's not what you got - You got a lot of time spent to inside the RNC and very little of the protesters - clearly this is not balanced reporting.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Sep 2004 09:12

Protestors would get more attention if they weren't taking their clothes off.

Who wants to see aging, unkept, marxists naked? ugh

If they wanted attention, they would spend some of Soro's money to hire strippers or Swedish bikini teams to go out there.

The reality is that protestors don't really have an effect on anything, except the local lice population.

If all they can do is shout in the street, then they are truly impotent.

Boo Hoo,nobody listened.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you.

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 03 Sep 2004 09:29

Using bad grammar makes you look ignorant or uneducated - if you are ignorant or uneducated than it is likely that you opinions are also ignorant or uneducated. Everybody makes mistakes - but some people on this forum actually seem to either not care about grammar or to not understand it - You seem to be one of those kinds of those people.

Grammar is not law, especially on an informal forum. So you can take that argument and string it up on a kite and fly it out your window. By making the association that bad grammar = ignorance, you are casting a stereotype on the very people you claim to support, aka the poor and down trodden.

It's the nature of the advertisements - especially the fact they are funded by Bush and an attempt to discredit Kerry with unbacked up and debatable claims. In any free and fair election there are certain rules that have to be followed to make sure the election is free and fair. The kind of propaganda that is being advertised does not follow those rules. There is nothing wrong with attacks on Kerry or Bush - but it is the way you go about those attacks which is important - you can not simply make any claim you want to and you cannot mislead the public by not informing them of who is paying for politcal advertising.

Wrong again scotty, the 527 paid for those ads. Our constitution makes it clear that a group on it's own can spend however much it wants on campaigns that come unsolicited by the party. Bush has already spearated himself from the Swift Boat Ads, and the law makes clear that the 527 Swift Boat Organization has done nothing illegal in their attacks.

Nobody disputes the fact that only a small majority of people actually voted for Bush in the US - less than 1 in 4.

And less than that voted for Gore. So that point is also not valid here.

In regards to showing protesters on the news - unbiased news would show relatively equal amounts of time of both views - clearly you are unsure of if a majority of people support Bush or not so it would be expect of an unbiased media to give equal time to Bush and to those who oppose him.

Wrong again, helps if you live here and know the laws before you go throwing around falicies. Our law states that during election campaigns equal time must be given to both candidates in terms of media air time(not political parties). Which is why Kerry could be seen at an ohio rally shorter after the RNC ended to give balanced airtime to both. Our laws do not give any rights to protester equality for media air time. Our laws instead give the protesters a right to protest, which they did and their speech is protected under the law. The law does not extended to equal airtime in this country for free speech. If it did, I could waste everyones time with debate about which Veteranarian to take my pets too.

Also the size of the demonstrations is important - there were hundreds of thousands of people at the anti Bush demos - and a lot less at the anti Kerry demonstrations. Surely one of the biggest demonstrations in US history deserves more media attention than a relatively small demonstration?

The size of the protest is only relative to the population density at hand. Especially when the majority of these so called protesters are from NY which has one of the largest population densities in the United States. It is also likely that due to the fact that the towers are located in NY, there would also appear to be a lot of emotional people reeling from 9/11 who truelly believe it is Bush's fault the towers fell and took out the economy. When in reality any president at the time could do nothing to stop it. Had the RNC been held in po dunk North Dakota, I doubt you would see a large amount of protesters.

You got a lot of time spent to inside the RNC and very little of the protesters - clearly this is not balanced reporting.

The protesters are not on the ballot, therefore, they do not receive equal airtime as mentioned earlier. This has nothing to do with reporting, it is the law of the land. Maybe Kerry will win and make it easier for grassroots protesting to get the media coverage you say they deserve.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 Sep 2004 09:31

420FootBager wrote:Any way, the thousand or so

Hundreds of thousands, orders of magnitude more.

protesters that have been showing up in NYC for the RNC do not necessarily represent the voice of the majority.

Freedom isn't about the majority. Freedom is about the individual. Being part of the "identically free" masses is not freedom. These protesters are the patriots who fight to preserve our freedom at home, while our military protects us from dangers abroad, under appropriate leadership.

If you watch the news you would see that the candidates are in a dead heat with president Bush predicted to pull ahead a little because of the RNC…

If you watch Fox news and/or listen to NPR you would have caught the latest news from two independant polls. [August 30] If you remove the decided states, Kerry is ahead 5 pts according to NPR and Fox news for a three way race. Isn't the election really about the lead in the swing states ? What do California and Texas really mean when they say dead heat ? (IMHO, Zero. The contest is over for these states ... statistically they don't matter in this election for measuring who is leading in the polls)

The fact is that there were protesters at the DNC too but they got far less coverage than the Democrats are now….

In fact, code pink of SF was at the DNC too. They were removed from that convention for disrupting speeches too. The media still hasn't given them a voice to display what they are about. All I know is they have something to say that motivates them to take time off and travel across the country to say it. The media should be covering these groups. Groups without a voice are more likely to become terrorist as violence becomes the only way to gain attention to your cause.

I would vote

I do vote, and that is my license to bitch about the system. The media has an obligation to report the news. The media was on top of it, everytime OJ took a leak, and the health of our country is at least as important as the OJ trial. If the media excerted 1/10th the effort they put into the Kobe trial coverage, maybe there would be fewer undecided voters. If the media would let Dan Rather present his views on TV, instead of filtering the journalists to fit advertiser . . I'm done with this topic. The convention is over.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 03 Sep 2004 11:47

[quote="FlexThis

Nobody disputes the fact that only a small majority of people actually voted for Bush in the US - less than 1 in 4.

And less than that voted for Gore. So that point is also not valid here.
[/quote]

I'm not sure on the exact figures as to what percentage turned out to vote, but Gore won the popular vote. Granted, it means little in the Electoral college, but wouldn't the vote become something like this:

# of bush votes < # gore votes < 50% of population.

I'm only refering to the popular vote. I know Bush "won" the electoral vote.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Sep 2004 12:03

I agree with Tsiangkuns assertion that voting gives him or us licence to bitch about the country(first amendment notwithstanding).

Maybe "credibility" would be a better word. Bitching about a political issue without voting is less "credible" than bitching WITH a vote.

But since anyone with a pulse(and some Chicagoan's without) , can vote. The amount of increase in credibility, if any, is miniscule.

Considering our poll-driven society, public opinion is probably fueled by the teeming masses who wont vote anyway.

Coupled with secret millions channelled through shadowy 527 organizations, the opinion of those who actually vote is lessened further.

Thanks John McCain, your law "fighting" special interests has increased crooked campaign funding to new atmospheric heights.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Sep 2004 12:18

Oh yeah, and while i'm on this Margaret Sanger(founder of Planned Parenthood) kick:

"The danger of recruiting our numbers from the most ``fertile stocks'' is further emphasized when we recall that in a democracy like that of the United States every man and woman is permitted a vote in the government, and that it is the representatives of this grade of intelligence who may destroy our liberties, and who may thus be the most far-reaching peril to the future of civilization.

(.....)

Equality of political power has thus been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population. We must not be surprised, therefore, at the spectacle of political scandal and graft, of the notorious and universally ridiculed low level of intelligence and flagrant stupidity exhibited by our legislative bodies. The Congressional Record mirrors our political imbecility."

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Sep 2004 12:19

Those excerpts above are from

"The Pivot of Civilization"
by Margaret Sanger

CHAPTER VIII: Dangers of Cradle Competition

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 03 Sep 2004 12:31

# of bush votes < # gore votes < 50% of population.

Get off the popular vote, it means nothing. Lots of people eat big macs cause they are popular, that doesn't make them any less fattening.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 Sep 2004 12:57

Nobody disputes the fact that only a small majority of people actually voted for Bush in the US - less than 1 in 4.

1) A majority is not a plurality.

2) A Majority will always be >50%

3) 1 in 4 can not be a majority. 1 in 4 is a quarter, twenty five percent, 1 in four . . . it can be phrased a lot of ways. A majority is not one of the correct phrasings.

4) Gore had over 500,000 more votes than Bush. Some one who has less than any other another can never have the majority. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting their votes didn't count should have been a media story.

Lots of republicans throw around stats, but it doesn't make it a majority.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 03 Sep 2004 13:10

How about you look at the electoral votes and then call majority, you would see over 51% of the vote for Bush.

Once again Popular is meaningless. 500,000 more total votes, doesn't mean jack shit. If I vote for Gore (heaven forbid) and the majority of my delegation votes for Bush, then my vote becomes a vote for Bush PERIOD.

There is no eatting or drinking allowed in the Champagne room, you will have to drink your wine with your cheese in some other room.

If you want to see protesters make the news, then grab a couple million people from the same delegation and form a protest. I guarantee you will see change. Actually Cameron we have already seen what happens when a bunch of people SUCCESSFULLY protest through the legal channels over issues. That's how Arnold got in the governators office in the first place.

I will terminate all girlie men and their special interests, and say hasta la vista baby to any pro - test - R's.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 Sep 2004 13:22

people

When people discuss the electoral college, we use the term Electors, not people to refer to those who cast the votes. It is in fact a capitalized word, because it is distinguished from the majority of the people who voted in the general election. Use of the correct terminology will help prevent confusion amongst everyone.

So yes, Bush has the majority of the votes cast by the Electors. . . but only because the supreme court told them he won. If the supreme court had said Gore won he would have had the majority of the Electors casting votes for him. Bush never had a majority of the people voting for him. . . not even a tiny majority as you would have led us to believe.

So no, Bush never had a majority of anything but Supreme court judges dictating the outcome of the election to the majority of the people of this country.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 03 Sep 2004 13:40

How wrong you are my son.

Why must whinning ass democrats keep referring to a system that doesn't exist. WE DO NOT COUNT THE POPULAR VOTE.

It does not matter AT ALL.

You can play the name game all day long and you still will find GW Bush as our president. Why is that so hard to understand?

Stop whinning about terminology, the only person confused is the democratic party. Gore didn't win, sorry

, maybe next time.

And yes GW Bush won the majority of ELECTORAL votes, not Gore. So he did indeed when the majority. Check your law bro, you seem to be going in circles with an invalid argument.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 Sep 2004 14:06

FlexThis wrote:WE DO NOT COUNT THE POPULAR VOTE.

And I for one am pissed that they didn't bother to count the votes the last election.
I don't understand how you can be proud of this fact.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 03 Sep 2004 14:48

Not proud at all, just following the law of the land.

I find it interesting that people (lower case) complain about the law when they don't even know nor understand it. If they did we would probably see less protests and more petitions and campaign contributions.

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 04 Sep 2004 07:31

Most of the nation and I myself do not like our election system, however it is a damn good system anyway because we are one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world right now.

The reason for the Electoral College is that if it was all done on popularity then the candidates would only focus on the high density areas, Philadelphia, NYC for example. This would mean that if a candidate could sway the populations of a few MAJIOR cities they could win an election and the opinions of ALL the people living in the boondocks or working our farms would mean jack-squat.

With the Electoral College the states that have lower populations because they are farm states still have an opinion and are still important. There for, when a president is elected they will focus on laws and programs for each area and state not just the big cities.

The latest polls show bush with a 10% lead. I watch the news everyday sir, just because you disagree with me does not mean you should insult me or think of me as a moron. I am pretty well informed.

The protesters at niether convention were revolutionaries. That is ridicules they are extremists on both sides and probably blow-hards too.

When I said "I would vote" instead of I did vote, it is because of the fact that I am only 16. The first chance I get I will vote.

And Jeremy if bad grammar would make my opinion less valuable because I look stupid what about the fact that almost all the African Americans that voted, voted for Gore. African Americans have one of the highest illiteracy rates in the nation. Should there opinions not count in this election? What about foreigners that come to the US and get a green card. Many of them don’t have a full grip on the English language, should they not count either? Your grammar is not flawless Jeremy. – does not substitute for a period.

Kerry has 527s opposing Bush also, what about those? All the swift boat adds are backed up, those are veterans that served right in there with him and they are exposing the truth about him. He betrayed all his fellow veterans by making that speech.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 04 Sep 2004 21:08

flex: I don't deny he got the votes that counted. I'd have to look up a chart or something to see who voted what and where.

Just out of curiosity, what would have happened if Flordia, as a whole, would have properly cast the votes for Gore? I'm too lazy to look this stuff up tonight...

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 04 Sep 2004 21:35

Gore would have won Flordia if the Supreme Court allowed the count to go on. at the time they ordered it to stop Bush was ahead by 500 votes. 600 ballots from the millitary that were predominantly for Bush were counted even though they were sent in 2 days after the deadline.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 05 Sep 2004 01:46

I guess the big question is woudl ti ahve changerd the outcome of the election?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Sep 2004 04:10

420FootBager wrote:
And Jeremy if bad grammar would make my opinion less valuable because I look stupid what about the fact that almost all the African Americans that voted, voted for Gore. African Americans have one of the highest illiteracy rates in the nation. Should there opinions not count in this election? What about foreigners that come to the US and get a green card. Many of them don’t have a full grip on the English language, should they not count either? Your grammar is not flawless Jeremy. – does not substitute for a period.

They are not trying to convince me of a particular view. If they were and they had bad gammar then I would probably be less likely to listen to their view - This is unfortunate. Of course their opinions count as much as yours - just they will find it harder to convince people of that their ideas are good ones while they remain illiterate - it is why it is one of the reasons why it is important to get the litracy of minortity groups equal with the general population. As I said before - everyone makes mistakes - but some people seem not to make any effort in having correct gramma.

flexthis wrote:
Grammar is not law, especially on an informal forum. So you can take that argument and string it up on a kite and fly it out your window. By making the association that bad grammar = ignorance, you are casting a stereotype on the very people you claim to support, aka the poor and down trodden.

I was not saying it was the law - I was saying it makes you look ignorant/uneducated. If you continually use bad gramma surely that means that you do not know how to use correct gramma - Surely this means that you are ignorant of how the correct way to express you opinions through writing - and if you are ignorant of that it's probably because you haven't been educated properly in the correct usage of gramma. If you don't know something that means you are ignorant of that thing - I don't know how you can dispute this. Maybe you are ignorant about the definition of the word "ignorant"