A little Flash movie about our "President"

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 13, 2004, 5:11 pm

Yes, it's all true.

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

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 13, 2004, 6:48 pm

I heard about this a few years back. To be honest, only one thing burned me about it was that reportedly, the list of ineligable voters were "unconfirmed" criminals... and just about all of them were black. And of course, you take away the voting rights of everyone sharing the same last name... And you've eliminated thousands of black voters from florida.

I don't give a fuck about Gore or who won the election. He can go climb a tree for all I care... I don't even especially dislike Bush. It's the fact that the GOP's groupies (note that I don't neccessarily mean the republicans themselves) seemed really interested in keeping black floridians away from the voting booth that sets off alarms in my mind.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » June 13, 2004, 7:02 pm

God...Help...Us...All.

I loved the background music. It actually got my anger boiling over what the movie presented. A good piece of flash.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 13, 2004, 7:05 pm

double post

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 13, 2004, 7:06 pm

Is someone willing to find a few more legit sources to back up those facts?

If half of what she did is true, then that is highly illigal and fucked up beyond belif. Im sure its way to late im impeach pres.bush or blame pres. bush for the act, but at the least,everyone responsible for that act, including the govenor of florida deserves a big long jail sentance.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 13, 2004, 8:30 pm

Xzion wrote:Is someone willing to find a few more legit sources to back up those facts?

If half of what she did is true, then that is highly illigal and fucked up beyond belif. Im sure its way to late im impeach pres.bush or blame pres. bush for the act, but at the least,everyone responsible for that act, including the govenor of florida deserves a big long jail sentance.

I'm sure the context of what really happened differs immensely.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » June 13, 2004, 8:39 pm

im not sure i understand the thing
are 'scrubed' voters, voters who werent allowed to vote, or whos votes, once cast, were discarded?

at least now we have electronic voting to look forward to!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 13, 2004, 9:04 pm

Xzion wrote:Is someone willing to find a few more legit sources to back up those facts?

Do a web search. You'll be reading for hours.

As far as the flash itself, according to the ending it says the information came from Greg Palast's reports. I don't know they guy but writing for UK's Guardian and Observer newspapers he seems like a 'legit' source. (Granted, I don't know squat about those newspapers but I doubt they are equivalent to the National Enquirer)

Video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs ... palast.ram

Interesting list of articles:
http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?s ... Presidency

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 14, 2004, 3:38 am

Some more recent stuff I remembered reading about this. The ineligible voters list still isn't made available to the public to be verified before an election.

CNN asks Florida court for ineligible voters list

No idea how the suit progressed after this story.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 14, 2004, 10:58 am

In case you all have no realized this, their is NO DESIRE on the part of the major parties to change the current system. Because BOTH sides abuse it and voters rights as much as they protect them.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 14, 2004, 12:59 pm

Kylere wrote:In case you all have no realized this, their is NO DESIRE on the part of the major parties to change the current system. Because BOTH sides abuse it and voters rights as much as they protect them.

Exactly!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 14, 2004, 1:34 pm

Kriista wrote:im not sure i understand the thing
are 'scrubed' voters, voters who werent allowed to vote, or whos votes, once cast, were discarded?

at least now we have electronic voting to look forward to!

as scrubed they mean not allowed to vote, if they showed up they were turned down

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » June 14, 2004, 1:43 pm

Sionistic wrote:
Kriista wrote:im not sure i understand the thing
are 'scrubed' voters, voters who werent allowed to vote, or whos votes, once cast, were discarded?

at least now we have electronic voting to look forward to!
as scrubed they mean not allowed to vote, if they showed up they were turned down

What I've heard of this related to people who share the names of convicted felons. If they don't have proof of their identity being different from the identity of a convicted felon (i.e. SSN or other form of unique identification, which not all states require on voting day) then the votes can be cancelled out as potential felon's votes.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 14, 2004, 1:46 pm

Pahreyia wrote:
Sionistic wrote:
Kriista wrote:im not sure i understand the thing
are 'scrubed' voters, voters who werent allowed to vote, or whos votes, once cast, were discarded?

at least now we have electronic voting to look forward to!
as scrubed they mean not allowed to vote, if they showed up they were turned down
What I've heard of this related to people who share the names of convicted felons. If they don't have proof of their identity being different from the identity of a convicted felon (i.e. SSN or other form of unique identification, which not all states require on voting day) then the votes can be cancelled out as potential felon's votes.

And now you know....... the rest...of the story.

That sure makes a lot of sense.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 14, 2004, 2:03 pm

Erh.. former felons can't vote??

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 14, 2004, 2:24 pm

Forthe wrote:Some more recent stuff I remembered reading about this. The ineligible voters list still isn't made available to the public to be verified before an election.

CNN asks Florida court for ineligible voters list

No idea how the suit progressed after this story.

CNN was granted the list i believe and is analyzing it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 14, 2004, 2:28 pm

Kelshara wrote:Erh.. former felons can't vote??

Not in most states, no one except an idiot thinks that jails actually improve people.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 14, 2004, 2:45 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Erh.. former felons can't vote??

Kylere wrote:
Not in most states, no one except an idiot thinks that jails actually improve people.

Hmmmm I may agree with the sentiment about prison improving people but what about the notion that once the prison sentence is served, their debt to society is paid? I agree with suspending the right to vote while in prison, parole, probation, as the person has shown disregard for the laws of society and the rights of others, however I think you guys take it too far if the person can never vote again. On the other hand, in Canada we have retards fighting for rights of prisoners to vote...

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » June 14, 2004, 2:54 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Erh.. former felons can't vote??

Kylere wrote:
Not in most states, no one except an idiot thinks that jails actually improve people.
Hmmmm I may agree with the sentiment about prison improving people but what about the notion that once the prison sentence is served, their debt to society is paid? I agree with suspending the right to vote while in prison, parole, probation, as the person has shown disregard for the laws of society and the rights of others, however I think you guys take it too far if the person can never vote again. On the other hand, in Canada we have retards fighting for rights of prisoners to vote...

Or retards who don't know that prisoners in Canada HAVE the right to vote.

Another win for "our Liberal" Government.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 14, 2004, 3:10 pm

Shows determination! That's a good quality in a president!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 14, 2004, 3:19 pm

If you read the articles you'll see that former felons who have paid their debt to society can have their voting rights restored. At least in Florida. I didn't read about anywhere else.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 14, 2004, 3:43 pm

That just floors me that they loose voting rights for life...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 14, 2004, 4:05 pm

Oh yea, that movie failed to mention felons who have paid thier debt were still includded on the list

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 14, 2004, 4:15 pm

I think that when you commit a felony level crime, you lose some rights, and it makes sense, outside of ridiculous drug laws, good people do NOT commit felonies, scumbags do.

(Below from about.com)
In Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming, once you've been convicted of a felony, you've lost the right to vote -- for life. Delaware was on that list up until June, when they restored voting rights to all felons (other than murderers, sex offenders and those convicted of felony bribery) five years after the completion of their sentences. Massachusetts voters, on the other hand, will soon be voting on a bill that would take away the voting right of convicted felons.

In all, forty-six states plus the District of Columbia restrict the voting rights of felons in some manner.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 14, 2004, 4:18 pm

The whole Florida election deal was a fucking joke. I thought everyone knew that. Pretty scandalicious no matter what side of the fence your on. Oh well, it just confirmed my suspicion that votes don't mean shit in this country anyway. To think that people actually wonder why we have such low voter turn out...

In apathy we trust.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 14, 2004, 4:43 pm

I have no idea if we do in Norway or not to be honest but I sure hope not. I am SO against that. Once you have served your time you deserve a chance to fix your life. And I am not talking career criminals here, I am talking those who commit one felony and then try to settle things.

Once you have served you deserve a chance.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 14, 2004, 4:45 pm

Atokal wrote:[Or retards who don't know that prisoners in Canada HAVE the right to vote.

Another win for "our Liberal" Government.

the rate of recidivism in canada is not even 20% of what it is in the states. that is why former canadian felons are allowed to vote. once they have paid their debt to society then they are considered canadian citizens just like everyone else. you'd probably know this if you were a real canadian and not a pathetic fucking usa hole sucking lap dog that wasn't forced to share a brain with 3 other morons like some retard version of the wyrd sisters.

US prisons don't improve US felons because americans for some reason think straight out punishment is better than rehabilitation. so when someone gets out of prison they are generally in a gang, with very little education, no money, and cannot get a job because they are felons. the only logical choice they have to survive is to become criminals again.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 14, 2004, 4:52 pm

Kylere wrote:I think that when you commit a felony level crime, you lose some rights, and it makes sense, outside of ridiculous drug laws, good people do NOT commit felonies, scumbags do.

(Below from about.com)
In Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming, once you've been convicted of a felony, you've lost the right to vote -- for life. Delaware was on that list up until June, when they restored voting rights to all felons (other than murderers, sex offenders and those convicted of felony bribery) five years after the completion of their sentences. Massachusetts voters, on the other hand, will soon be voting on a bill that would take away the voting right of convicted felons.

In all, forty-six states plus the District of Columbia restrict the voting rights of felons in some manner.

If you want an official listing by state, go here.

Also, about.com is out of date as New Mexico now (since 2001) grants it automatically after sentence/parole/probation is served.

As far as restoring your right in Florida:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/restorevote/Florida2.htm

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 14, 2004, 5:30 pm

I know you were responding to Atokal here but

once they have paid their debt to society then they are considered canadian citizens just like everyone else.

I totally agree with this. However I have issues with them voting BEFORE their debt is paid: in other words while they are in prison, on parole or even doing probation, their voting rights SHOULD be suspended. If they did not violate societies laws/the rights of other people they wouldn't be in the situation they are in.

To blame our current Liberal government is shortsighted however: the Supreme Court justices have members appointed by both the Mulroney Conservatives and the Chretien Liberals. I do take issue with the Liberal Party of Canada and their leadership for not fighting this issue by introducing new legislation that the John Howard Society couldn't have stricken down (although this may require a constitutional ammendment... and after the failures Charlottetown and Meech Lake, I can see why a government may not want to tackle it).

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » June 14, 2004, 5:39 pm

kyoukan wrote:the rate of recidivism in canada is not even 20% of what it is in the states. that is why former canadian felons are allowed to vote. once they have paid their debt to society then they are considered canadian citizens just like everyone else.

With the latest ruling in 2002, all felons can vote, not just limited to former felons.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/p ... PrintStory

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 14, 2004, 7:33 pm

Democrats need the felon vote!

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » June 15, 2004, 3:31 am

Hey lets get all the felon vote...and supress the military vote like Gore was doing in Florida!!!

Its all about power we can agree on....dont we feel good...Woot Woot!!!

You can say should of would of like Nixon actually may of beatin kennedy if not for Daily mob rule adding in a couple hundred thousand votes in Ill. and some other minor voting frauds ect..Or LBJ having dead people vote for him....Or Ross Perot taking away enough votes from Bush senior for him to loose. Or Teddy Roosevelt splitting the Republican vote to cause Wilson to be office...or Nader takin enough votes from Gore to cause him to loose Florida....or or shoulda coulda woulda all day long.....but do not just live with it with a heart of bitter hatred do something meaniful to change it..become involved help your side and try to make things right for both sides.... we are and can be the future..dont just only sit on boards in a negative world you formed around you.

There are examples all around that can be argued!! So what are you going to do about it? Vote? No thats not enough if you have half a brain get in the networks and change it for the better dont cheat it or corupt it more..Be what you believe in dont change for the time of self benifit. One person can do much more than most think for the betterment and fairness of all.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » June 15, 2004, 11:10 am

kyoukan wrote:
Atokal wrote:[Or retards who don't know that prisoners in Canada HAVE the right to vote.

Another win for "our Liberal" Government.
the rate of recidivism in canada is not even 20% of what it is in the states. that is why former canadian felons are allowed to vote. once they have paid their debt to society then they are considered canadian citizens just like everyone else. you'd probably know this if you were a real canadian and not a pathetic fucking usa hole sucking lap dog that wasn't forced to share a brain with 3 other morons like some retard version of the wyrd sisters.

US prisons don't improve US felons because americans for some reason think straight out punishment is better than rehabilitation. so when someone gets out of prison they are generally in a gang, with very little education, no money, and cannot get a job because they are felons. the only logical choice they have to survive is to become criminals again.

Hey dumbass, people in jail "Prisoners" are voting in the upcoming federal election. GET IT. I did not say recently released or paroled jailbirds did I?

My Lord you are too stupid to be breathing on your own.

And Canadian prisons are so much better at rehabilitation? The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.

The lap dog comment is trade marked so you making a comment about sharing a brain then using someone elses remarks is quite humourous.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 15, 2004, 11:37 am

Atokal wrote:The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.

And you know this how?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » June 15, 2004, 12:39 pm

Lynks wrote:
Atokal wrote:The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.
And you know this how?

Lynks this was said tongue in cheek... how can you prove a statement like that.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 15, 2004, 12:42 pm

Atokal wrote:
Lynks wrote:
Atokal wrote:The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.
And you know this how?
Lynks this was said tongue in cheek... how can you prove a statement like that.

Hmm Kind of Funny how Minnesota,Iowa and New Mexico were won by less the 1% by the democrats maybe a little investigation is in order.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 15, 2004, 12:58 pm

Atokal wrote:
Lynks wrote:
Atokal wrote:The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.
And you know this how?
Lynks this was said tongue in cheek... how can you prove a statement like that.

That's why I was asking, my bad.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 15, 2004, 4:51 pm

I have no problem with felons voting. I do not believe the government should have the power to deny the right to vote in any form.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 15, 2004, 7:08 pm

People in prisons are still citizens of that country. If you can come up with a rational and logical argument as to why citizens of a country cannot vote I'll be glad to listen to it.

I would rather convicted murderers have the right to vote than pretty much three quarters of you fucking smacktards in this forum.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 15, 2004, 7:29 pm

The only argument that I can come up with for prisoners, or should I say murderers to be more specific, is since they denied a person from voting by taking his/her life, then they also should be denied.

But where do you draw the line with this logic? I can't answer that, so in the mean time, let them vote.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 15, 2004, 7:29 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Atokal wrote:
Lynks wrote:
Atokal wrote:The reason for such low repeat offenders is because they haven't been caught yet.
And you know this how?
Lynks this was said tongue in cheek... how can you prove a statement like that.
Hmm Kind of Funny how Minnesota,Iowa and New Mexico were won by less the 1% by the democrats maybe a little investigation is in order.

Good point.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 15, 2004, 7:31 pm

kyoukan wrote:People in prisons are still citizens of that country. If you can come up with a rational and logical argument as to why citizens of a country cannot vote I'll be glad to listen to it.

I would rather convicted murderers have the right to vote than pretty much three quarters of you fucking smacktards in this forum.

People in prison have been taken away from society because of their inability to live in it and abide by it's rules. I see no logical reason they SHOULD be able to vote.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 15, 2004, 7:53 pm

The only scandal I saw in the whole thing was that there are conflicting reports of how the list of "suspected" felons came into existance. Because it was later shown that most of the names on the list were not in any way involved in criminal activities. If it was something as simple as "Here's a list of people who we suspect of being criminals because they are openly black. Oh, don't let their families vote either", then someone needs to be burned at the stake.

For now, I personally will believe it was more complex than that, and that someone simply fucked up royally. Because the alternative is simply too depressing to bear.

Letting law-breakers past or present vote is a more complex issue than either side gives it credit for. For example, where do you draw the line? Does the middle-aged attorney who got caught smoking pot when he was a college student have the right to vote now? What about the guy charged with drunk driving five years ago? The former sex-offender? The guy who commited a hate crime, but says he's "better" now?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 15, 2004, 8:11 pm

Niffoni wrote:The only scandal I saw in the whole thing was that there are conflicting reports of how the list of "suspected" felons came into existance. Because it was later shown that most of the names on the list were not in any way involved in criminal activities. If it was something as simple as "Here's a list of people who we suspect of being criminals because they are openly black. Oh, don't let their families vote either", then someone needs to be burned at the stake.

For now, I personally will believe it was more complex than that, and that someone simply fucked up royally. Because the alternative is simply too depressing to bear.

Letting law-breakers past or present vote is a more complex issue than either side gives it credit for. For example, where do you draw the line? Does the middle-aged attorney who got caught smoking pot when he was a college student have the right to vote now? What about the guy charged with drunk driving five years ago? The former sex-offender? The guy who commited a hate crime, but says he's "better" now?

The line should be if you commit a felony you lose your right to vote. Nothing complex to that. It's very simple.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » June 16, 2004, 12:57 pm

kyoukan wrote:People in prisons are still citizens of that country. If you can come up with a rational and logical argument as to why citizens of a country cannot vote I'll be glad to listen to it.

I would rather convicted murderers have the right to vote than pretty much three quarters of you fucking smacktards in this forum.

kyoukan wrote:that is why former canadian felons are allowed to vote. once they have paid their debt to society then they are considered canadian citizens just like everyone else. you'd probably know this if you were a real canadian and not a pathetic fucking usa hole sucking lap dog that wasn't forced to share a brain with 3 other morons like some retard version of the wyrd sisters

Which is it midget??
Former felons who have paid their debt to society or the modified version after you were called out for being a stupid shithead? People in prisons are still citizens and should get to vote?

Ha you are just defending your husbands right to vote i suppose.

When someone commits a crime they logically should lose their right to vote. If someone were running on a platform of prison reform that propogated shorter prison sentences and better standards in prison like daily conjugal visits or a colour TV, high speed internet access, and weekend passes with beer money WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK THESE DREGS OF SOCIETY WOULD VOTE FOR???!!?

Bottom line here shit head, you forfiet your rights when you CHOOSE to commit a crime. Make a choice in life and guess what their are consequences. But in your twisted view of society criminals should have far more rights, there are no crimes, merely definitions that the white man has put on society.

Go and read the charter of rights and tell me that prisoners are presently recieving ALL of the rights guaranteed in the charter. They are not... because they committed a crime. They have all the rights they are entitled to under the charter such as a day in court and a vigorous defense. Rights to appeal etc.

Your logic is as flawed as your character but I have said this before.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 1:01 pm

Societies give and take rights as they see fit, no place has ever overcome this basic truth.

Losing the right to vote as a felon and complaining about it is stupid. That would be like shooting someone and loudly proclaiming the state could not arrest, try, and imprison you. If the rules are available and you break them, so be it.

We are not talking about some guy stealing a stapler from his office, we are talking murderers, rapists, bank robbers, etc. People who have no regard for society.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 16, 2004, 1:10 pm

Atokal wrote:Ha you are just defending your husbands right to vote i suppose.

Does that imply that you don't think her husband should have the right to vote? Why might that be?

You may want to re-evaluate that whole post, unless you intended for it to ooze racism.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:32 pm

"Ha you are just defending your husbands right to vote i suppose. "

hahhahahahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahah

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 16, 2004, 1:40 pm

Atokal wrote:Which is it midget??

Actually, it is both, you racist fucking disgusting child rapist.

If someone were running on a platform of prison reform that propogated shorter prison sentences and better standards in prison like daily conjugal visits or a colour TV, high speed internet access, and weekend passes with beer money WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK THESE DREGS OF SOCIETY WOULD VOTE FOR???!!?

Yes because the .15 of a percentage point of the population in canada that's in prison on a felony is going to swing a vote over to candidate who lobbies something so patently ridiculous. I should have thought of that before I mentioned anything. Jesus, it's like talking to a fucking baboon.

You didn't even remotely attempt to refute my argument. You just ranted like a fucking baby.. AGAIN.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:51 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Atokal wrote:Ha you are just defending your husbands right to vote i suppose.
Does that imply that you don't think her husband should have the right to vote? Why might that be?

You may want to re-evaluate that whole post, unless you intended for it to ooze racism.

Well one good reason is they dont live in the US, so let them fuck up Canada I dont care.