Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Voter Intimidation 28

Journal by bmetzler
Democrats have decided to use smear tactics to accuse Republicans of voter intimidation.

In Missouri, a flyer shows a photograph of a young black man under a fire hose in the 1950s. The flyer tells African-Americans this is an example of how Republicans have kept voters from the polls. In Colorado, Republican voters got calls telling them their family members in Iraq had died. The callers claimed that call would be real unless Kerry was elected.

Now, compare those empty, or worse decades old threat with Democrat intimidation this last week.

Thankfully, PowerLineBlog has the report. They include allegations such as:

For the 2 1/2 hours she had to wait in line, she was heckled by the man. As they neared the voting room, someone in the rear of the line yelled, "I sure hope everyone here is voting for Kerry!" she reported.

That's when the man behind her held his hand over her head and screamed, "We have a Republican right here!" There were "boos and jeers" from the crowd.

Elaine Fandino complained to the Republican Party that she took her mother to vote on South Military Trail in Palm Beach County and was confronted by 25 people supporting John Kerry for president. The crowd was "very angry and used foul language," she reported. She said the man next to her said, "Where's my shotgun?"

Taunting...

At least click on the story to see the comic strip. How true it is.

Which party of "intimidation" would you like to represent you? I'm awfully proud to say that in my case I'm glad I have another reason to support Republicans.

This discussion was created by bmetzler (12546) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Voter Intimidation More

Voter Intimidation

Comments Filter:
  • They're the only ones who actually follow the Constitution anymore- the rest are all hopelessly corrupt and in the long run destructive. No party should have more than a single term in any office until the people are free.
    • I must say their platforms are nothing but strict Constitutionalist ideas. I mean, it isn't like they're opposed to the First Amendment, what with their opinion that pornography is obscene and therefore not covered. It isn't like they're opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment which holds state and local governments to the same restrictions as the Federal. I'm sorry, but the Constitutional Party are theocrats too right-wing for the Republicans.

      They favour policies that raise the church over the individual. Pol
      • I must say their platforms are nothing but strict Constitutionalist ideas. I mean, it isn't like they're opposed to the First Amendment, what with their opinion that pornography is obscene and therefore not covered. It isn't like they're opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment which holds state and local governments to the same restrictions as the Federal. I'm sorry, but the Constitutional Party are theocrats too right-wing for the Republicans.

        Which is mainly where I am as well- which is why I'm going with th
        • That's all well and good, but it is disingenuous to say that they're the only party that follows the Constitution when it is obvious that they don't care about it anymore than the other Major Parties.
          • Depends entirely on how you interpret the Constitution, doesn't it? If you read the Constitution to have an implicit right to life and duty to support the common welfare- then you'll agree with me and be voting Constitution Party. If, on the other hand, you agree with this corporatist puppet government that has replaced REAL constitutionality with a shell government run by the corporations (Democrat or Republican doesn't matter- both accept bribes from the corporations in the form of campaign contribution
            • That's a falacious dichotomy, I don't have to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans if I disagree with the Constitution party. I can, for instance, vote for the Libertarian Party - a party that (I think) better follows the Constitution.

              I might be convinced that there is an implicit "right to life", but I don't think that applies to the unborn, or to the dead. Also, if you're going to argue that there is a "right to life", it's hypocritical to deny that "right" to other living beings - capital criminals
              • Actually, I partially agree on that, and that's where the UDHR comes into play. The UDHR is speciesist- granted. It is after all a HUMAN rights document. But Article 2 clearly states that you can't discriminate on birth, past actions, land of origin, race, religion, or anything else when it comes to being human. I'm all for an implicit right to life for all humans- that includes capital criminals and even to a certain extent our enemies, which is why I think that Isolationism is a better solution to ter
    • Have you seen the Patriot Party yet?
      http://www.patriotparty.us/ [patriotparty.us]

      I don't think they have a candidate this year, but it sounds like a good party for the future.
      • They'd still leave us open to immigration- though vastly better than the current situation, I don't think we can trust *anybody* coming from another nation right now- at least, not until the Middle East situation comes to some sort of stability.

  • I always enjoy getting those sample ballots when I go to vote. I invariably get handed one by some pushy Democrat supporter. Now, that has some very good uses, actually. Last time I went to vote, the party affiliations were not on the ballot, and that was frustrating. When I get handed one this time around, all I have to do is look for the presidential candidate. If there is some candidate running that I don't know, those little sample ballots clear up the party affiliations pretty quick. I will always vote

  • Voter intimidation [salon.com] by Bush and Cheney.

  • You historically make grandiose, ignorant generalizations with little to NO supporting evidence. Where's your evidence of voter intimidation? Links. Links. Links.

    Please provide non-Partisan, non-RNC influenced/paid site links to support your claims.

    Thanks.
    • Check out the journal of ncc74656 [slashdot.org] all the sources (and more) that you could want. Granted, your post seems to indicate that you won't take what they say serriously (just guessing here, feel fre to proove me wrong). ncc74656 went over, or linked to (can't remember) the newspaper articles involved in several of these cases. Search /. for moonbat and you might come up with it (or other articles), though I have no idea what moonbat means.

      jason
      • I'll take any evidence seriously - as long as it's not from an RNC influenced or DNC influenced source. For example, I don't consider Slate.com a source for viable supporting evidence.

        Honestly, I don't take much (if anything) that Brent spews forth seriously. I do take Pudge, Twirlip, NCC, and a few others seriously, because they actually construct intelligent posts - granted they are slanted, but honestly who isn't?

        Anyway, I'm still waiting for Brent to actually support his generalizations, but I suspe
        • Anyway, I'm still waiting for Brent to actually support his generalizations, but I suspect I'll be waiting fr a long, long, long time.

          I guess you will. I could point to the same sources ncc did, but that probably wouldn't make you accept them any more then you already do. There's plenty of articles out there. I'm not going to link to every one of them hopefully that you'll find one you like. I recommend opening your mind and then checking google news. You might be in for a surprise.

          -Brent

          • How can you accuse me of not accepting sources of information when you don't provide any? It doesn't matter if NCC posts links, because you don't. And you're the one making the assertions.

            It's pretty simple Brent: if you want to be taken seriously or if you want intelligent discussion about those topics that are important to you, then you need to "back up" (i.e. provide evidence) your assertions with data & links.

            Otherwise it's just more Internet BS.
            • It's pretty simple Brent: if you want to be taken seriously or if you want intelligent discussion about those topics that are important to you, then you need to "back up" (i.e. provide evidence) your assertions with data & links. Otherwise it's just more Internet BS.

              DaytonCIM, I've provided data before. I don't have a secret cache of data around here that noone else knows of. I'm not the only one pointing to these articles. And you, and other liberals, routinely throw out any sources I provide. S

              • Ok... let me take a step back and come at this from a different angle, because I think in the midst of the written word I don't think I;ve explained myself.

                In order for me to discuss with you any topic I would need some sort of source or article from which I could read and then discuss.

                That is what I do with others and have done with you in the past.

                It is my opinion that any post without supporting sources can't be taken seriously. And that does include my own.

                To your rebuttle, I don't need you to spoo
                • In order for me to discuss with you any topic I would need some sort of source or article from which I could read and then discuss.

                  If you really want to discuss something, why don't you discuss the Sun Sentinal article that the Powerline Blog entry was talking about. Instead of asking me to keep posting sources until you find one you "like," why not stop looking like a fool and discuss the article I have already linked to.

                  -Brent

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Close