The Coup of America is DONE. Ohio will be Repuke Forever, So Goes The USA

[leftchick]

The coup initiated in 2000 is now complete, the pukes have the votes, the congress, the Supreme Court and the White House for the forseeable future. Someone tell me I am wrong...

:(

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_475.shtml



As Alito takes Supreme Court seat, Ohio GOP guts election protection

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
Online Journal Guest Writers

Ohio's GOP-controlled legislature has passed a repressive new law that will gut free elections here and is already surfacing elsewhere around the US. The bill will continue the process of installing the GOP as America's permanent ruling party.

Coming with the swearing in of right-wing extremist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, it marks another dark day for what remains of American democracy.

Called HB3, the law now demands discriminatory voter ID, severely cripples the possibility of statewide recounts and actually ends the process of state-based challenges to federal elections -- most importantly for president -- held within the state.

In other words, the type of legal challenge mounted to the theft of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 election will now be all but impossible in the future.

Section 35-05.18 of HB3 requires restrictive identification requirements for anyone trying to vote in an Ohio election. Photo ID, a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check or other government document showing the name and current address of the voter will be required.


:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Faygo Kid]

1. Chilling. Happening everywhere. 2006's gay marriage move.

Rove's fingerprints are all over this. This is being passed by GOP legislatures everywhere (see, Georgia), and with the new Supreme Court, forget about legal protections. So much for the Voting Rights Act. And this is done despite no evidence - zip, zero - of people (read poor, minorities and older voters) misrepresenting themselves to vote. Funny coincidence that poor, minorities and older voters don't vote Republican. Good post.

[11cents]

4. I think the Georgia voter ID law was thrown out.

[Faygo Kid]

7. They have voted it back in, only with no fee

It was thrown out as a "poll tax" because there was a charge of $20 for the ID, so the Georgia Legislature has again approved it, but with no fee. Bastards.

[leftchick]

10. thank you fg...

Why most Democrats do not recognize they no longer have a fucking vote is way beyond my comprehension.

:banghead:

[Sejanus]

20. Gee don't you think that's what GWB hopes u think?

[leftchick]

23. have you spent anytime in the Election forum

or read Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller's books on Election Fraud in the USA? I know whom I need to believe.

[Jdubb32]

75. watch what happened in Florida. "God Help us All"

http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html

[Faygo Kid]

30. Hey, another Lions fan! Cool, Sejanus. Me, too.

[11cents]

2. Stop relying on articles that say ....

...that everything is hopeless, and you'll be less convinced that everything is hopeless.

I'm not advocating pollyanna-ism, of course, and I do think things are bad. But articles like this are exercises in masochism: let's roll in despair like pigs in shit! because it's what the left really loves to do! I hear this kind of thing all the time from sources like Pacifica, ground zero of the mindset that really likes failure and defeat more than partial, ambiguous victories like the election of Clinton -- and, you know, screw it.

[leftchick]

5. I live in NC and I live in reality regarding my vote

we managed to get Diebold to ditch the state only to have our BOE approve ES&S DREs. It IS The SAME Fucking Thing! I have no vote in NC. None! Is that hopeful?

[ariellyn]

3. I am a little dense...please explain why this is so bad. To the average

American (that would be me) this doesn't seem that bad. I know that the fact that the bill had to be fought for and that it's had a hard time passing elsewhere is indicative of problems. But really, I don't understand why this is such a problem. Without ID, what's to stop people from casting multiple votes?

[Faygo Kid]

9. Per my earlier response, there is no evidence of abuse

Overwhelmingly, poor, minorities and seniors are the ones without drivers licenses or photo ID. And they vote Democratic. THAT is what this is all about. It's a horrible solution to a nonexistent problem. And they know exactly what they are doing. They hope well meaning folks like you buy their snake oil. Don't.

[mod mom]

16. also important is OHIOANS CAN NOT CONTEST ELECTIONS. They can steal them

but they don't want them challenged, so the stolen elections are now a done deal in Ohio. Fascism: coming to a theater near you.

[SoCalDem]

26. Let's hope that the Ohio dems concentrate on getting these people IDs

and making sure they are properly registered and confirmed as registered. This would be a wise use of funds, and word of mouth from these folks would help identify other unregistered/undocumented legal voters..

The moeny spent fighting this would have paid for a lot of IDs.

I am one who thinks this is actually a GOOD idea. If the ID is unimpeachable, they will have an easier time at the polls..

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. Right, so they can track em by bar code and locality n/t

[SoCalDem]

89. or not.. so they can be hassled at the polling place

and end up not being able to vote..whatever..

Look.. apparently it's now a LAW, so if people want to vote, they are going to have to comply..or not vote.. them's the choices

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. Boycott the Vote, then... this is a rights issue

It doesn't freaking matter anyway since there's not a chance in hell with folks like Carter pushing this, that the Democratic leaders care about civil rights or civil liberties.

[Peace Patriot]

72. This is just one more way for them to do what they've been doing--

limiting the poor, black, minority and student vote. Massive vote suppression in Ohio, by unfair purges of black voters, loss of reg info, unfair challenges of registered voters, too few voting machines, too few polling places--and all of this from officialdom--in 2004. Their idea is to restrict, restrict, restrict--and it will be no time before that put such restrictions on getting this ID that it will become impossible for poor folks. How about: produce your birth certificate, produce 2 photo IDs (poor don't have credit cards, or bank cards, or passports, and don't fly on airplanes), then maybe they'll add to those requirements, restricted hours at the ID reg office, closing down ID reg offices in poor areas, you name it, they will do it. This is just a WEDGE.

But the thing everybody is missing here is that these voting machines are owned and controlled mostly be two FAR RIGHTWING-connected Bushite-connected corporations--Diebold and ES&S--using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code to tabulate the votes--code so secret that not even our secy's of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls. The election system itself is NON-TRANSPARENT, the results are UNVERIFIABLE, and it is therefore FRAUDULENT on its face.

Nothing more needs to be said.

It is insane.

And your guess is as good as mine as to why our Democratic leadership has been, for all intents and purposes, completely SILENT about this egregiously fraudulent election SYSTEM.

If they have control of the vote tabulation, why bother disenfranchising black and other Democratic voters in other ways? 1) Because we CAN overcome the automatic 5% to 10% advantage they give Republican candidates with sheer numbers of Democratic voters (apparently the tweak has to be pre-programmed, probably in the cental tabulators); 2) Because there have to BE votes for them to tweak the vote, SOME votes are counted, and that poses the danger of a big sweep vote against them; 3) Because they don't have a lock on it yet, everywhere; 4) In fear of the election reform movement (getting paper ballot backup, etc., and real recounts happening) (thus, also, their other law restricting recounts); and 5) Because they are mean, bigoted sons-of-bitches.

[progressivebydesign]

103. You're joking.. right? You don't get it, do you?

The point is that voting should be easy, swift, and available to anyone. By requiring a state issued ID, you are requiring people to go above and beyond simply registering and voting. They are PURPOSELY discouraging those that do not have ID (like.. perhaps.. the poor or those with poor language skills). We have NEVER had to show picture ID and there was not double voting.. Have you ever actually voted??? Because you cannot vote twice. You are registered, you sign in, and you are done. How does showing a picture ID really prove anything? Someone is going to make up a name and show up at your precinct to use your vote? Once you sign the logbook, you are done. You cannot vote again.

The rest of the law is horrendous, and is a direct assualt on our rights to contest an election count, and have a fair election.

Listen.. Ohio was stolen. It was the new Florida last time. And they are being rewarded BIG TIME, with appointments and other goodies from the bush cabal. If you can't see what is wrong with this bill, then you are either not reading correctly, or you've wandered into the wrong website.

[ladjf]

6. We could win back the House and/or the Senate in 2006

without any Ohio votes. Florida and Ohio are hopelessly corrupted. But, not all states are.

[leftchick]

8. NC and NM and many other states had huge DRE fraud in 2004

it isn,t just an Ohio issue. It has spread like a plague with the help of HAVA throughout the states.

[ladjf]

18. Maybe so. But, there is no hope in just giving up.

[jmaier]

11. Simply for the purpose of discussion

What is restrictive about requiring some form of identification. If there is no fee for a state ID card, then it seems like the only reasonable excuse for not having one is that you don't qualify. If you don't qualify as a resident then why should you be voting in a state precinct?

I'm not against current practices but I do wonder why this is considered an onerous requirement to vote?

[leftchick]

13. read faygokid's responses above

and you will have your answer.

[Wilms]

14. I omce saw it the same way.

And in a perfect world, it might not be a problem.

But I'm impressed with the idea that time will show that the elderly, the disabled, and the poor/minorities will have difficulty obtaining the ID.

[MissWaverly]

15. you don't understand about poor people

I live in a city, MVA offices are for happy people that live in the suburbs, they are clean
and around the corner from your house, my MVA is a dangerous place for me to drive to, let
alone get a bus to, I drive to the suburbs to renew my license. The poor and the elderly
in many places simply do not have the access to a safe place where they can get a photo ID. You don't know how dangerous some areas are in my city.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. Because THIS IS AMERICA. I don't NEED a freakin excuse for not having ID

[Colorado Blue]

106. You do now. A bank in my neighborhood now demands TWO

forms of ID - one with a picture - in order to carry out a simple transaction at the teller's window.

[bvar22]

100. There is a LARGE number of people in the lower SES...

...that have no REAL permanent address, or bills in their name.

[bobbieinok]

101. as I understand, many poor, minority, older voters may not have DL

probably don't have credit cards or checking accounts.....and may find it very difficult to get to the place where they can get the ID

and remember the RW scaring people that if they tried to vote they might/would have trouble if they were behind in their bills?.....what a field day the RW can have here

and remember the long lines at the polls.....imagine offices open only at odd hours with not enough clerks.....b/c only those without DLs, credit cards, etc would need to get the cards and since they don't have the necessary trappings of 'solid' citizens, well nobody has to take them seriously anyway

IMO, the really bad part of the law is the limits on challenges, etc

[progressivebydesign]

105. There has NEVER been a need for photo ID. EVER.

And we've been having elections for a couple hundred years. I find it troubling that people here don't seem to get it. The people least likely to be able to get ID are not ineligible for it.. they usually are unable to financially, don't understand what is involved because of limited language skills, or too damn busy trying to keep from becoming homeless to go to an office somewhere to get one.

WHY is there suddenly a big push to require photo ID??? It's bullshit if someone is trying to intimate that people are voting in other people's names... ridiculous. Because that is the ONLY reason to require a photo ID. If you are not registered you cannot vote. Your name appears on a logbook, you sign your name and you vote. Having photo ID means jack as far as being eligible to vote. You have to register to vote, and that is where you provide proof that you are eligible.

Wierd how many people here tonight are promoting the meme that this bill is okay. That's pretty scary.

[Sejanus]

12. Wrong

In the words of Crosby, Stills and Nash from a different generation with very same issues-"But don't you know, that the darkest hour is always just before the dawn"

[ticapnews]

17. Part of this is actually good

Section 35-05.18 of HB3 requires restrictive identification requirements for anyone trying to vote in an Ohio election. Photo ID, a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check or other government document showing the name and current address of the voter will be required.

We have that here in Maine. It's actually a good thing, because it makes it easy for people to register to vote on the day of the election. Our registrar in town will actually allow a person to register at the polls as long as a currently registered voter will "vouch" for the new person. If you have just moved to a new town, you may not have had a chance to register so having this documentation makes it easier.

As always though, it depends on how this power is used. If it is used to exclude people from voting, then it needs to be addressed. Here in Maine, laws like these are used to make it easier for people to vote...

[katty]

25. well this is more likely to be abused

[Stahl]

19. True,

but not even the ultra-conservatives support current admisistratio, only their paid servants. Nowadays I will look with glee to texts of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and such rabble. If anyone thinks they are anything but slaves, they must be retarded.

This is suffering will last just four years.

History will remember Bush, Condaleeza and Rumsfeld as fools, worthy of nothing more than laughter. Only the dictator Roosevelt was such a bane to civil rights.

[Sejanus]

21. You throw around the name dictator too easy -words have meaning

[Stahl]

22. Perhaps you'd wish

Bush to take his third term like Roosevelt.

[Sejanus]

27. Cheap shot

The fact I challenge you that Roosevelt was a dictator hardly means I want Shrub elected to a t;hird term-Now justify your rhetoric with logic not ad hominen attacks PLEAZ

[Ikonoklast]

29. There was no law stopping Roosevelt from being elected

to his four terms. Two terms for president were only a custom because of Washingtons' refusal to run for a third term.


The 22nd Amendment in 1951 limited presidents to two terms. Read a book.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Huh? WTF?

Explain, if you please, just exactly how was Roosevelt a "dictator" and how was he a "bane to civil rights?" :wtf:

[Sejanus]

31. No kidding

Isn't it amazing how many people throw out b.s. without having read even the most basic history book-(A page of history is worth a book of logic-Oliver Wendell Holmes)-and then make an illogical argument when confronted

[Stahl]

34. His despise of constitution,

lying to americans, concentration camps, flirting with monster Stalin and quelling Stalins critics in US, just to begin. He was no great leader and I hope no one will remember him as such.

[Sejanus]

38. Roosevelt's History

FDR's legacy is hardly what you say-He (with Eleanor's help) realized that the greatest threat to the world at that time was fascism not communism as the conservative was howling-He took a country in depression(long before Keynesian economics) which was strongly isolationistic and/or fascist and was able to support England at her darkest hour-he then led this country in the greatest campaign in the history of the world-all the time while he was dying-a remarkable man and your dismissal of him as a dictator speaks poorly of you

[Stahl]

77. Well, England was our "enemy"

although they did little more than one bombing raid to Lappland despite Stalins demands.

Still, Soviet Union was the one that attacked my country and there was little help (though the Dracula Christopher Lee was one of the volunteers to fight against Russia in Finland).

While Germany was ultra-evil, I think Soviet Union was even worse. How would you feel if Finnish shock troops would attack California and our invincible bomber armada would attack Washington (to drop "bread" as they said to foreigners while the "bread" was fire bombs agains our civilians).

My perspective to World Wars is little different from yours perhaps. Germany was the only one that stood beside us, and Roosevelt was the "enemy". The old proverb that with friends like Hitler, who needs enemies seems prudent here though.

[Jim Sagle]

104. Who told you it was OK to spew outright Nazi filth on a Democratic board?

[Stahl]

28. Clarification:

Politically I am much more right than statist Friedman and as such, probably very unusual visitor to DU. I don't like Roosevelt, Kennedy or Lincold (even though he war Republican). Despite, or because of that, I am firm believer of individual rights.

No true conservative can ever support the current administration.

[Sejanus]

32. H:uh?

Could you please interpet that answer into the English language?

[Faygo Kid]

33. Yeah, those Lincoln and Roosevelt guys. Who could like them?

"Lincold?" Are you series? This is hugh.

[Stahl]

35. Really,

read history and what they did. There is the document called Constitution. Neither Roosevelt or Lincoln respected that. Nor does Bush.

[liberalhistorian]

37. Roosevelt and Lincoln had great

respect for the constitution. Funny, I don't recall Nixon obeying that document very much. Matter of fact, he pretty much trashed it.

Roosevelt and Lincoln were both president at a time when extraordinary circumstances demanded leaders who were able to think outside the box while still respecting the law of the land. And they were both that kind of leader.

[Stahl]

68. >Lincoln

Where in Constitution does it says that a state can't separate from the union?

>Roosevelt

As I understand, your Constitution was created to limit the governmental power. After Roosevelt's New Deal, governmental power was pretty much absolute and unchallengeable.

[Faygo Kid]

40. Thanks for the suggestion. I just might read a book sometime.

You tread on thin ice when you assume I don't "read history and what they did." You are wrong. That Constitution thingie? You mean the one I won the award in law school for as top student of it? Is that the one you are talking about? Your assumptions diminish your argument. Go read Thomas DiLorenzo fiction; he will reinforce your prejudices. Reply if you like, or not; I am finished with this exchange.

[Sejanus]

55. Egotism

Gee, I happened to finish first in my law class also-the fact you would raise it show how weak your arguments are-and probably how unread you are-try again I am not impressed(unlike your law professors-if you are telling the truth)

[Faygo Kid]

64. Waaiittt a minute. We are together, Sejanus! My response was to Stahl!

Geez, no friggin' wonder the Lions can't win, us natural allies and long suffering fans are all screwed up! You a lawyer too, eh? Me, Detroit College of Law. Now home plate at Comerica Park. And yes, I told the truth. This is pretty funny, actually. Push-ups, sir! Hit the floor for 20!

[liberalhistorian]

36. Just because you don't like Roosevelt

doesn't mean he was a "dictator." The rule stating presidents can only run for two terms was passed AFTER Roosevelt's death by sour-grapes repubs who would have done no such thing had a repub been the one to run for and win four terms. There was no rule preventing Roosevelt from running for more than two terms, AND he was lawfully, legally elected in fair elections that were not manipulated and rife with fraud like the past two elections have been. No one was forced to vote for him. He actually did a lot of good for the country, unlike repubs, who were and are only interested in helping, aiding and abetting corporations and the powers-that-be.

Stick around, you might learn something!

[Sejanus]

39. right on

we are on the same page

[liberalhistorian]

42. Glad to hear it,

and welcome to DU! I do hope the other guy sticks around for awhile, though, he really might learn something.

[Sejanus]

46. Howdy

I've been busy for last 28 years but now I got some time I always enjoy meeting someone who has read history

[liberalhistorian]

56. Howdy back!

I was a history major in college, but was foolish enough not to get a teaching certificate. But I can still bore my friends with trivial historical knowledge, lol!

Did you say your specialty was the Civil War? My mom (a retired history and social studies teacher) and I are total civil war buffs, we can't get enough of it.

[Stahl]

41. I am not looking for a fight,

my apologies. My view of good differs a little from Roosevelts, but even you must admit that he was the one that got you in the second world war, sided with nation than wanted to oppress mine, and gained the global empire from British that causes your problems now, in the Middle-East for example.

[Sejanus]

43. Accepted-with the truth

No Roosevelt stopped the world being descended into an entire concentration camp run by those friendly Nazis and Bushido fanatics-whose idea of fun was murdering anyone different than th;em;selves including men, women and children-the horror of WWII is hard to comprehend but Roosevelt did so-as for Lincoln the Civil War is my specialty and I dare you to push that analogy

[liberalhistorian]

44. Huh? WTF?

What in the fuck history books are you reading, and what planet were they written on?

First of all we were ATTACKED at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese; THAT was what brought us into WWII. Roosevelt had no choice, and you're nuts if you think he did. What did you expect him and the US to do, join hands and sing kumbaya in a circle around the kamikaze pilots as they dove their planes into our ships?

And the nazis were the worst, most dangerous, scourge ever, they HAD to be stopped whether we and Europe wanted another war or not. And believe me, no one wanted it. Germany and the Axis powers kinda forced everyone's hand. It was either that, or be under a horrendous worldwide fascist death machine.

And what country are you referring to that wanted to oppress your country?

[Sejanus]

48. Once Again

Thanx Stahl for setting the historical record straight-in my opinion, Roosevelt was the most important personage of the 20th century

[Stahl]

51. Nazis?

>First of all we were ATTACKED at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese; THAT was what brought us into WWII. Roosevelt had no choice, and >you're nuts if you think he did.

Then I'm nuts, I believe he wanted America to get involved in the war. Pearl Harbour is quite researched subject and it is quite canonized that Roosevelt was very aware of Japanese intentions, only that he didn't react. To historians, for some reason, this seems virtue.

>And the nazis were the worst, most dangerous, scourge ever,

I differ, Russians were the ones that attacked my country first, and subsequently got their bottoms handed back.

>they HAD to be stopped

And what a victory that was - our fellow Estonians got under Soviet oppression and ethnic cleansing, along with half of Europe.

>And what country are you referring to that wanted to oppress your country?

Finland.

[Stahl]

52. >And what country wanted to oppress your country?

Sorry, Russia is what I mean, Finland is where I live.

[liberalhistorian]

54. And you don't think the Nazis

would have continued the oppression and ethnic cleansing? My God, they were the world MASTERS of it. They probably taught Stalin all his dirty little tricks.

And I also used to believe that Roosevelt wanted us in WWII and that he allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, but years of study has convinced me otherwise. And we were going to have to get into WWII sooner or later, it was vital to stop the Nazis, especially for our own national security. And Roosevelt wasn't all that thrilled with Russia or Stalin, believe you me, he wasn't. He knew what Stalin was and what he'd turned his country into, but he also knew, correctly, that the nazis were far worse. It was a matter of having to go with the lesser evil.

And that is not at all to whitewash Russia or Stalin, or to deny the horrors for which he and the country were responsible. Remember also, however, that Russia suffered horribly in WWII, and lost more than twenty million soldiers and civilians.

[Stahl]

61. Stalin & Roosevelt

>They probably taught Stalin all his dirty little tricks.

Nah, havent't you read Gulag Archipelago? I think it was other way around, at least from my perspective.

>And we were going to have to get into WWII sooner or later,

I partially agree, as it was Hitler that declared war to US.

>Roosevelt wasn't all that thrilled with Russia or Stalin, believe you me, he wasn't.

When Stalin was asked why he didn't invade Finland, he answered that he listened Americans too much. Perhaps Roosevelt is to thank fot that, although personally I believe that our military gained the victory (SU concentrated 1/3 of their total strenght of '44 to conquer Finland and lost, after that it was revealed that finns hid massive amounts of weaponry to querrilla warfare and were prepared to blow dams from rivers to drown advancing Russian armies if neccessary).

Still, the advice given earlier that I should sober up is prudent: I am dead drunk right now. I just don't agree with you about Roosevelt and perhaps I can articulate my points of view little better when I'm sober. :-)

[Stahl]

47. There is always the possibility

that I might get tombstoned.

But I assure you that I probably don't like your current administration any more than you do. As for Roosevelt, one major unforgivalble crime that he did was the famine of Ukraine where millions died and he knew, but as all weak men, he only licked the strong man Stalin's butt. You can check this out at your leisure.

[Sejanus]

49. Ukraine famine

You really need to sober up-FDR had zero to do the Ukraine famine-it was strictly a Stalin crime- and yes it was a hoorible act of mass murder I suggest you read Bullock's excellent work "Hitler and Stalin"- it will expalain 30 years of history

[Stahl]

53. Really?

> You really need to sober up-FDR had zero to do the Ukraine famine-it was strictly a Stalin crime

obivously I said that, sheesh.

[rockymountaindem]

67. The Ukranian famine took place mostly between 1931-1932

Roosevelt didn't become President until 1933, and when he did FDR had a lot to contend with at home, if I recall, and starving people in the USSR weren't at the top of his list; Starving people in Oklahoma were.

[toddaa]

96. Your English is very mangled

I can't figure out what you are saying. It reads like you are blaming FDR for the Ukrainian famine. Being as how you are Finnish, I get your hatred of Roosevelt. However, whatever grudge you may have over the lend lease or Yalta, I'd be careful levelling unsubstantiated allegations of dictatorship toward Roosevelt. Pearl Harbor consiracy theories aside, Germany was the threat in the early days of WWII and neither Roosevelt nor Churchill had much of a choice in siding with Stalin. Yalta was a mess and certainly not FDR's finest hour, but having exhausted resources fighting a world war, Stalin was given everything he wanted in return for joining the UN and agreeing to enter war with Japan. Probably one of the dumbest things FDR ever did, but I'm not sure what other options he had. I do agree with you, however, in recognizing Stalin as worse than Hitler.

[bobbieinok]

102. your profile is disabled....I assume from your comments that you are

from Finnland??????

[Colorado Blue]

108. Where are you from?

It would help explain your point of view if we knew that.

Thanks.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

45. I never liked Ohio anyway.

Even all the years I lived there, I didn't care for it. I can see now my instincts were correct.

[liberalhistorian]

50. No kidding!

I was born and raised there, with the exception of five years in Aberdeen, SD, between ages 3-8. Yet this summer, I moved to Rapid City, SD, to take a job I've always wanted, leaving all family and friends behind (I'm 41). Everyone thought I'd come running back after just a few months, when it was quite the opposite. I couldn't wait to leave Ohio, and I am never, EVER EVER going back except to visit. And my Christmas visit just reinforced that big-time. I don't miss it AT ALL, not one bit. Sure, I miss my family and friends, of course, but that's it.

Screw the state that keeps voting in the nutball caveman caucus RW fundies that are totally ruining the state, voting for them even though most people KNOW they're totally fucking up the state! And every day, I hear more and more of this kind of shit happening in the state and it just makes me ever so glad I don't have to deal with that shit and never will again. Even South Dakota's politics, for God's sake, are a helluva lot better than fucking Ohio's.

[Sejanus]

57. Way to go

Hope you enjoy it!!!!

[babsbunny]

85. I don't think WE ARE voting these Evil people into office

They are stealing the votes!

[deutsey]

58. Who here was gullible enough to think that after the 2000 coup

these thugs wouldn't do whatever they had to do to hold on to power?

I knew the score back in early 2001 way before the 9/11 attacks. A friend of mine shortly after 2000 told me that I had some mental problem because I wouldn't let the election coup go. She assured me that Bush would be voted out after one term and told me I needed to lighten up.

She isn't so la-de-da about Bush anymore these days, but it took 9/11, Iraq, and the 2004 election to make her be that way.

:wtf:

I'm sorry, but anyone who didn't think the Bush junta would stoop to any depths to preserve its power was and is fucking naive. It's no wonder we can't beat them.

[Sejanus]

59. History

So go study the great Hayes- Tilden election debacle-Stop thinking that this has never occurred before and start learning and believing in th;is great country and its people

[deutsey]

62. Um, I'm a student of history and am well aware of Hayes-Tilden

and also of how Reconstruction was betrayed in America and how it took nearly a century for African Americans to reclaim what was rightfully theirs in the first fucking place.

In fact, I frequently say in posts here that we may very well not get to the "promised land", as MLK said about himself, just as many African Americans after Reconstruction didn't live to see Brown vs. Board of Education or the Voting Rights Act.

'Kay?

[Sejanus]

70. Kay

I'm sorry it took so long to respond-the laundry called-Absolutely correct in your analysis what replaced radical Reconstruction was "jim Crow"- and a century+ of repression

[Individualist]

60. Not me

Anyone who is familiar with PNAC knows that the cabal will do anything to maintain and increase their power and control.

[leftchick]

63. I knew it in my gut in 2000

then I witnessed 2002 and the Diebold theft of GA. I knew we had one very last gasp in 2004 and we know how that went. Folks who think anything will change in 2006 are indeed naive.

[deutsey]

65. Something I wrote in April 2001

http://www.bartcop.com/coupsp.htm (the link on this page does NOT go to my email, FYI).

I wrote this in large part to my suspicions about where we were heading after election 2000.

[leftchick]

74. I remember reading this in 2001

And at the time I was in denial. I really did not want to believe it was as bad as you had it laid out. Two more years and I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt it was stolen, is stolen and will be forever stolen. A Silent Coup d'état. They thought we were all conspiracy theorists didn't they?

[Justice Is Comin]

66. How many people were there that didn't vote

in the last election--70 million ? If we energize only a fraction of them to actually get their ass to register and get to the polls, the republicans donkey kong machines would burn up before they could rig enough votes to offset it. THAT MY FRIEND, IS THE KEY !!

[converted_democrat]

69. I have a sinking feeling in my tummy...

So, what happens if all states with a red majority in the house and senate decide to pass similar legislation?? If all red states pass this we could have a big problem on our hands.. Think how many elections they could steal then, and no one could do a damn thing about it.. It's really bad that this has happened to Ohio.. If this spreads to the rest of the red states we have a potential problem on our hands.. We need to find out if other states are drawing up similar legislation.. If other states are drawing this up, we will have blocks of states that would not be able to contest their federal election results, and that would be devastating..

[Sejanus]

71. Relax

Son't wory they aren't that smart- trust me I worked with them on the highest levels

[converted_democrat]

73. I used to be a puke.. There isn't anything you can "tell" me...

You're right that the average puke could never think of this.. But average pukes aren't running the show.. The religious right is extremely organized, and they are getting alot of help from corporate America.. Average pukes aren't smart enough to think of that, but their leadership is..

[leftchick]

80. Many other states are

I believe Georgia is another example. This sucks big time, that is why I am so discouraged.

[FreedomAngel82]

76. Isn't all this illegal according to the Constitution?

Couldn't someone higher a lawyer who lives there in Ohio to get them for this?

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Who interprets the Constitution? Who ultimately decides legal appeals? n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

78. We need to send this to Dean and get some sort of attention

[leftchick]

82. Howard Dean is very aware of the election fraud problem

I believe his hands are tied by the DNC not to address it. Why? I am not sure and am still trying to figure it out.

[stevedeshazer]

79. So, are you still leaving the country?

What are you going to do about it?

[leftchick]

81. I am working on it

I hope to be gone in two years. I have worked on the election fraud issue in NC for two years up until last week. It, in my opinion, is hopeless. I have lost faith in the election process in this country. That is one of the major reasons why I am leaving. IMHO we are fucked.

[stevedeshazer]

83. I'm really sorry to read that

I know you posted about it earlier.

I'm not convinced that there's no hope. I'm staying and fighting.

Good luck.

[leftchick]

84. I admire folks like you

If I did not have two young boys I just might have stayed to form a new underground. I am leaving for them.

peace,
lc

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. If I ever had to leave, I'd probably go to Europe

Not because I like the political situation there, but all my folks came over from England Germany and Norway etc., so there you go.

[stevedeshazer]

107. Sincerely I hope it works out.

My only son is 18.

When I turned 18, Viet Nam was in my future and I had a very low draft number. My dad was trying to find a way to send me to Canada, and he was a WWII vet! Nixon then stopped the draft, so I was just lucky. As any of a number of Viet Nam vets here will tell you (my brother-in-law is one), they all knew the war was a joke, but most couldn't do anything about it unless their parents had enough money and/or could get a college deferment.

So I understand your dilemma. Can't say as I blame you for wanting to protect your boys. I discussed it with my son, and I think he pretty well understands his situation, too. At least the damn recruiters have stopped calling for now. His mom made sure of that the last time they called here! :)

It really stinks that we even have to consider such things, given that this war is completely, 100% bogus.

And, if you leave the U.S., vote absentee, okay?

[mirandapriestly]

97. I don't know where to go that wouldn't

be adversely affected by the USA and their policies or that would be safe from being taken over by the US or even attacked.

[merbex]

86. Photo ID,bank statement,gov't check..... all of that ? At the same time?

Outrageous

I remember when I voted for the 1st time

Address, then name, they hand you a ballot- Done

I hate what is happening to America

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. For 200 years, you are who you say you are

Now -- especially if they think you aren't from around here -- you're guilty of fraud until proven innocent, and guilty of not carrying "papers, please" in any event.

[Luke21]

90. Dems are hitting bottom.

This is a period where the Democrats can form some new issues and approaches to put before the voters. The Republicans were out on their noses in 1992, and used the time wisely.

Alito's first vote was to uphold a stay of execution on a death sentence. Not exactly "right wing extremist". Roberts is far more conservative than Alito.

We have two parties, and since the nineties, one of them always swings on the downside of the pendulum. The other option is divided government, which was pretty awful during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations.

The current Republican line of successes in attributable to national security issues. Republicans always win on those. But this string is hardly permanent. I've been telling every establishment Republican who will listen that they are gonna get clobbered this fall.

And as for voter ID, who cares? You have to show one for everything else.

[leftchick]

92. apparently you have not read any of the post s on this thread

referring to how the voter ID disenfranchises the poor, elderly and minorities who are not able to get it or afford it and ... surprise! happen to vote heavily Democratic. That is Why the repukes have done this.

:eyes:

[mirandapriestly]

99. GOP election theft is done by many little things.

This, of course, isn't illegal, but it just adds more votes to the GOP side so they won't have to come up with as many rigged votes. There are many other tricks; less machines, voter purging, voter intimidation... Also, this panders to the idea that it was "voter" fraud that took place, which of course is done by democrats , rather than "election" fraud which was done by GOP. Less informed people will think that this is taking care of the election fraud problem.

[mirandapriestly]

98. When I was young I never had all that id.

This will also prevent young people from voting. God, it sucks. Why are the democrats letting this happen? Sometimes I think Nader was right about the two parties.

[Tigress DEM]

109. They are just kicking and screaming on their way out. IMPEACH em

By the time 2006 elections roll around GW Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Jeb Bush, Delay, Frist, Chris Matthews (not a politico - but still corrupt) will all be thinking about ankle bracelets and praying they get a cushy sentence and not a room mate named Rocco. "How you doin'?"

Bush and Blair have MEMOGATE to deal with, where they actually admit to what the DSM only hinted at, in their own words.

Cheney told Libby who told Rove who told everyone about Plame being a CIA agent - and FITZ is going to GET THEM all - even Bush, who WAS briefed about it.

Jeb Bush is in his office shredding documents trying to stop the FBI from finding what? And why are they trying to stop the cleanup of the everglades? What is he hiding?

AND with our DEMS once the big bad wolf and crew are gone, we will simply DEMAND this:


ISSUES not personalities must come first

A-1 Priority
IMPEACH or through other due process evict all the corrupt elements in this administration.

Select candidates that support
1) VOTERs RIGHTs to have every vote accurately counted and permantly verifiable.

2) Campaign Finance Reform
/ Those DEMS that take RNC or other PAC money that seems questionable should be questioned and only if the answers are verifiable and acceptable should they be supported.

3) Government Transparnency
/ reinstate Freedom of Information Act on privatized "Government Contractor" info for one
/ publish the studies repressed by the *ush regime
/ get the TRUTH about this administration into our children's textbooks
/ reinforce our checks and balanaces with less arbitrary standards than "appearance of impropriety" that enable use to keep judges in check as well.

4) American's rights to life
/ healthcare
/ reasonable regulations on Corp USA to save lives
/ reasonalbe assistance to Americans in poverty or crises

5) American's rights to liberty
/ no Domestic spying outside of FISA control
/ no tolerance for racial profiling
/ no tolerance for hate crimes
/ no tolerance for corporate seizure of citizen property

6) American's rights to private pursuit of happiness that doesn't shove ANYONE's rights down anyone ELSE's throat
/ civil unions for gays so they can take care of those they love
/ marriage can be left to the church, but the church has to refrain from persucuting gays
/ freedom of speech and the freedom not to listen
/ porn, kkk, freepers etc... all have the right to speak their views in public, but not demand that anyone listen against their will - ie Nudes in "action" where kids can see or crosses burning on lawns.
/ our adult level conversations need to remain AT the level of adults and within that space between the nose and the fist that don't meet by intent.

7) Strong Voter involvement before AND after election
/ Continuing to listen to constituents even when not up for re-election