Jun
4
4
Shorter Farhad Manjoo
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No.
“There may have been widespread election fraud in 2004, but what really gets me steamed is the zany conspiracy theory that it might have affected the election.”
UPDATE: Shorter Farhad Manjoo…from the future!
“These so-called ‘irregularities’ in the 2006 election results are actually quite normal, as is shown by comparing them to Ohio in 2004.”
Mal de mer said,
June 4, 2006 at 1:31
Jesus, that was long. So, what does Manjoo think is more needlessly complex? The electoral process, the analysis that highlights corruption of that process, or the verbose rejection of that analysis?
Kobie said,
June 4, 2006 at 1:45
I refuse to read Manjuice’s columns. Way too much wingnuttery to deal with in one sitting.
melior (in Austin) said,
June 4, 2006 at 3:12
Bonus question: what TV channel does Farhud get his news from?
This might be a clue:
A recent OpEdNews/Zogby People’s poll of Pennsylvania residents, found that “39% said that the 2004 election was stolen. 54% said it was legitimate. But let’s look at the demographics on this question. Of the people who watch Fox news as their primary source of TV news, one half of one percent believe it was stolen and 99% believe it was legitimate. Among people who watched ANY other news source but FOX, more felt the election was stolen than legitimate. The numbers varied dramatically.”
Here, from that poll, are the stations listed as first choice by respondents and the percentage of respondents who thought the election was stolen: CNN 70%; MSNBC 65%; CBS 64%; ABC 56%; Other 56%; NBC 49%; FOX 0.5%.
Jillian said,
June 4, 2006 at 3:15
Here’s something I’m curious about….
If you *knew* that the election results in Ohio were systematically tampered with by members of the Republican party, what would you do? Let’s say that you knew it in some way that precluded you being able to prove it to anyone else, but you were still as certain you were correct as it is humanly possible to be.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 4, 2006 at 4:18
If you *knew* that the election results in Ohio were systematically tampered with by members of the Republican party, what would you do? Let’s say that you knew it in some way that precluded you being able to prove it to anyone else, but you were still as certain you were correct as it is humanly possible to be.
I’d comment furiously on left-wing websites.
almostinfamous said,
June 4, 2006 at 11:39
someone doesn’t like manjoo
Edmund Schluessel said,
June 4, 2006 at 13:00
In Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia, to name a few, they have the decency to hold a revolution when things like this happen.
almostinfamous said,
June 4, 2006 at 14:58
If you *knew* that the election results in Ohio were systematically tampered with by members of the Republican party, what would you do? Let’s say that you knew it in some way that precluded you being able to prove it to anyone else, but you were still as certain you were correct as it is humanly possible to be.
what Edmund said… or maybe go on a murderous rampage? just to get all the pain out. or you can blame it on illegal immigrants and be done with it.
Mary Jones said,
June 4, 2006 at 15:16
In Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia, to name a few, they have the decency to hold a revolution when things like this happen.
Do you think it helps that those are also smaller countries? I mean, this is a huge country with a large population that is mostly middle class. Revolutions seem to have smaller populations, smaller areas, and generally the people are suffering in much more obvious ways. As long as a large number of people are relatively comfortable, or on the border where they fear any upheaval will end them up in abject poverty, they don’t really care about creeping dictatorships.
almostinfamous said,
June 4, 2006 at 18:53
Revolutions seem to have smaller populations, smaller areas, and generally the people are suffering in much more obvious ways.
this is blatantly ignoring the fact that you have had a revolution in the same country some 200-odd years ago.
almostinfamous said,
June 4, 2006 at 19:02
and that too over quibbles such as taxation without representation, not a fundamental oppression of established rights.
tigrismus said,
June 4, 2006 at 19:08
I disagree with Mary’s assessment, but for what it’s worth at that time the size and population were much much smaller, so it could be argued that 2 of 3 of her criteria were met.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 4, 2006 at 20:04
The fraud in the 2004 election came from Democrats bringing in vans of illegal aliens to illegally vote in many locations in the Southwest.
Injustices like this can be solved with Voter ID laws, which are being passed all over the nation.
As for the insane Democrat conspiracy theories.
Kerry Lost, Get Over It!
Bush got an overwhelming mandate from the American people, who rejected the surrender of America in the War on Terror.
Mal de mer said,
June 4, 2006 at 20:32
Man-date…with Jeff Gannon!…*bow chaka wow*
…oh, God, I’m bored. When’s someone going to get indicted, already?
Marita said,
June 4, 2006 at 20:49
Gary’s back! Hooray!
Hey Gary, while you’re here, and since you’re obviously concerned with injustice and all (as indicated in your post), would you care to comment on how your beloved Voter ID laws can be implemented without disenfranchising the poor and the elderly (you know, those folks who are considerablly less likely to be carrying around those driver’s license thingies)?
Yeah, I didn’t think you would. Still, lovely to see you again.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 4, 2006 at 20:50
Francine Busby is busy telling illegal immigrants to vote for her.
But then again, as Loretta Sanchez can tell you, there’s no punishment if you win due to illegals.
Bill Jefferson (Democrat-LA) could be indicted soon too.
You Democrats don’t understand how the culture of corruption fails for you. Compare the sides.
A few Republicans have been in some minor trouble. Other than that, the Republican party is made up of upstanding people of faith.
Democrats are in even more trouble, and they also widely support murdering unborn children, gay marriage, and sex before marriage.
Most Americans will see the Democrats as having a culture of corruption.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 4, 2006 at 20:52
“Hey Gary, while you’re here, and since you’re obviously concerned with injustice and all (as indicated in your post), would you care to comment on how your beloved Voter ID laws can be implemented without disenfranchising the poor and the elderly (you know, those folks who are considerablly less likely to be carrying around those driver’s license thingies)?”
The IDs would be offered for free.
Therefore making it very easy for registered voters to get IDs.
Marita said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:11
That can’t actually be Gary, can it? Gary, I didn’t think you were the respondin’ type. Still…
The IDs would be offered for free.
Would you care to comment on how many of the currently pending Voter ID laws have a provision to make these IDs free? Would you advocate striking down any Voter ID laws without such provision?
Also, if you’d be so kind, please enlighten us on why it should be more difficult for someone to show up and vote in person than it is for that same person to vote using an absentee ballot (in which case, I’m fairly certain, you don’t have to show anyone a photo ID).
alabaster codify said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:15
Gary, you have to keep a sense of proportion in these things. Nobody will believe you’re real if you swing for the fences on every single post. At least hold back on gems like:
A few Republicans have been in some minor trouble.
until you’ve been challenged a little. Don’t shoot your wad right at the start, then you’ve got nowhere to escalate to.
LA Confidential Pantload said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:25
Yes, I’ve often been guilty of having premarital gay sex with the unborn.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:51
“Also, if you’d be so kind, please enlighten us on why it should be more difficult for someone to show up and vote in person than it is for that same person to vote using an absentee ballot”
If you request an absentee ballot, you should have to show a photo ID.
Either you’re for photo IDs for voting, or you’re for voter fraud.
In general, I think things look good for Republicans in November. But they have to keep their base and they have to show a commitment to ending illegal immigration, ending voter fraud, winning the war on terror, and reducing spending on non-needed things.
The fact is that the President’s pro-illegal immigrant program just isn’t good enough. We need a program which will end all of the illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. We also need to stop giving out citizenship to ‘anchor babies’.
I’ve went over the voter ID.
When it comes to Iraq, the fact is that Iraq is more safe than Democrat cities like Milwaukee and Washington DC. As well, the so-called massacres in Iraq pale in comparison to the massacres inflicted by terrorists.
Also, the fact is that spending has to be slashed on social programs that the federal government shouldn’t have meddled in. Like education, and all that.
g said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:52
Gary didn’t say “the fact is.” I think its a Gary imposter.
Joe said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:52
Bush got an overwhelming mandate from the American people, who rejected the surrender of America in the War on Terror.
Get back on your meds immediately, man. 51% overwhelming mandate? 33% current approval ratings? Going to go on TV tomorrow to announce his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in a pitiful effort to distract voters from serious matters like the imminent defeat of the US in Iraq, the likely disintegration of the Iraq situation into regional war, the collapse of the debt-driven American economy, etc.? Put down the bong…
mikey said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:54
Hey, it sure looks like the goopers upgraded the Garybot ™. Garybot 1.0 never had any capability for interactive response, and it would appear they have removed “The fact is” from it’s lexicon. Probably for the best, as it really did kind of have a “genocidal eliza” tenor to it. Anyway, to cases:
Democrats are in even more trouble, and they also widely support murdering unborn children, gay marriage, and sex before marriage.
Got that shit right, pal. Supporting a womans right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Taking the position that all American citizens are entitled to the same guarantees and protections, whether you and your silly church happen to think some of them are icky or not. And oh my goodness!! Sex before marriage??? How dare someone think they might be able to do something you people think is a SIN??? Dood, people have been having sex before marriage since before there was, well, marriage. The Right ™ is going to have to figure out some other ways to demonize proud Americans who believe in the constitution. They tried to say we hate America, are Pro Terrorist (objectively), and are these awful godless commies, and that just didn’t play–some people have actual upper brain function and noticed the factual discrepencies therein. So they go back to the well to get those American Toltalitarian Theocrats out to vote again. They ain’t even buying this venal, cynical play this time. Note to the right wing–Even if you believe this mean, exclusionary nazi crap, your heroes in washington don’t. They don’t believe ANYTHING. You are being played. Welcome to the machine…
mikey
mikey said,
June 4, 2006 at 21:57
As well, the so-called massacres in Iraq pale in comparison to the massacres inflicted by terrorists.
I LOVE this one. See, we’re the good guys because we murder fewer innocent civilians then THEY do. Even if it was true, it would be nuclear stupid…
mikey
mikey said,
June 4, 2006 at 22:00
spending has to be slashed on social programs that the federal government shouldn’t have meddled in. Like education, and all that.
Hell yeah, education is WAAY overfunded. Keep the “bridge to nowhere” and the Louisisana rail line and the F22–But lets cut education so India and China can REALLY hand us our asses in the next 50 years. Geez, I think the upgrade failed guys. You need to patch the Garybot ™
mikey
Marita said,
June 4, 2006 at 22:13
g: Gary didn’t say “the fact is.� I think its a Gary imposter.
Oooh, he snuck a couple of “fact is”s in there, right before you got your post up. Sneaky Gary.
mikey: Hey, it sure looks like the goopers upgraded the Garybot â„¢
Yeah, but they could give him a broader range of logical fallacies to work with. Things like:
Either you’re for photo IDs for voting, or you’re for voter fraud.
are fun and all, but he does tend to overuse the false dilemma, don’t you think?
Also, in regards to this:
We also need to stop giving out citizenship to ‘anchor babies’.
There was a pretty funny post last month about Michelle Malkin’s birth situation (discovered via Jesus’ General). Would love to hear your thoughts on that, Gary.
Kobie said,
June 4, 2006 at 23:15
Come on people, don’t take the bait! Gary Ruppert is NOT REAL … he’s someone getting his kicks out of posting nonsensical horseshit and stirring up our ire. Repeat: He’s NOT REAL. He can’t be … nobody can type properly spelled and punctuated posts with their head jammed that far up their ass.
mikey said,
June 4, 2006 at 23:29
Gary Ruppert is NOT REAL
Well, sure, but until Brad and Gavin et al get off their late-spring-weekend asses and find us something new, it’s the best wingnuttiness we’ve got to play with. And Gary’s more fun than those paragons of make-your-skin-crawl, BLT and LimpShoe. I mean, I’m not gonna go read NRO or Townhall or the malkin thing or any of that crap on my own. I don’t have the balance nor the patience for it. So making fun of the Garybot ™ Official Daily Talking Points is going to have to suffice for now…
mikey
JK47 said,
June 4, 2006 at 23:39
No sex before marriage? Dude, I don’t want to get married and I don’t want kids. Does that mean I should be like you and never get laid?
I miss Annie. She was the best troll.
Gregor Samsa said,
June 4, 2006 at 23:52
Remember it’s only premarital sex if you’re planing on getting married.
Sexy Sadie said,
June 5, 2006 at 0:58
I have sex all the time, yet I’m never getting married. I support gay marriage. I’d get an abortion if I were knock-up accidentally.
So suck on that, Gary!!!
*sigh* There’s an undeniable pleasure that arises from feeding trolls.
Sexy Sadie said,
June 5, 2006 at 0:59
By the way, who the hell is this Farhad Manjoo anyway?
Gary Ruppert said,
June 5, 2006 at 1:37
I have sex all the time, yet I’m never getting married. I support gay marriage. I’d get an abortion if I were knock-up accidentally.
The fact is it is physically impossible to have sex “all the time.”
Once again the liberals are exposed in their lies.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 5, 2006 at 1:37
Check this out for some more insight on the realities of the situation in America.
“After all, the Democrat media have gone out of their way to create a Civil War in Iraq even though Iraq is safer than many major U.S. Cities run by Democrats. Using the Democrat media logic, we have totally lost the war in New Orleans, DC, and Detroit. We should be pulling all of the police, firemen, and National Guard out immediately.”
Gary Ruppert said,
June 5, 2006 at 1:40
The fact is, the credibility of a site like nodnc.co is irrefutable. You liberals stand totally refuted.
Patkin said,
June 5, 2006 at 2:07
I’m fairly certain two of those last three Ruppertisms were hoaxes. The physical impossibility one and the totally refuted one just don’t sound like a Ruppert Fact.
Now, that second on is totally Ruppert.
Gary Ruppert said,
June 5, 2006 at 2:12
I’m fairly certain two of those last three Ruppertisms were hoaxes. The physical impossibility one and the totally refuted one just don’t sound like a Ruppert Fact.
I dunno, maybe Gary will drop by and enlighten us.
Marita said,
June 5, 2006 at 2:13
Well, whoever wrote the first of the three is freaking brilliant.
Well done, FakeGary!
Kobie said,
June 5, 2006 at 2:19
The last Gary was definitely a fake. There’s not suposed to be a comma after “The fact is”.
Kobie said,
June 5, 2006 at 2:22
Sadie, here’s the skinny on Farhad Manjoo
Wiki entry
jpj said,
June 5, 2006 at 3:21
The fake Gary said, “You liberals stand totally refuted.” But I’m sitting! Ha! In your FACE, fake Gary!
Kobie said,
June 5, 2006 at 3:38
The fake Gary said, “You liberals stand totally refuted.� But I’m sitting! Ha! In your FACE, fake Gary!
PWN3D
Sexy Sadie said,
June 5, 2006 at 3:47
Thanks, Kobie.
Assuming that the first Gary is the RealGary, it’s clear that figurative language/hyperbole forever eludes him, along with irony, humor, and reality.
Tulkinghorn said,
June 5, 2006 at 3:52
>>Sadie, here’s the skinny on Farhad Manjoo
>>Wiki entry
1978? I am lectured on political history by someone born in 1978?
I did not even realize it was legal yet to have sex with a girl born in 1978.
Sexy Sadie said,
June 5, 2006 at 3:55
No shit, Tulkinghorn! This moron is a year younger than me, for Christ’s sake!
mikey said,
June 5, 2006 at 4:14
Wow. Think about the milestones in his life. He turned 21 at the peak of the dot.com boom, when there was money for everyone (even me). When I turned 21, I smoked a whole bunch of opium and rode my ’61 Harley from San Diego to Reno. The only reason I can tell you with certainty I made it is I woke up in the Washoe County jail. He’ll turn 30 in a couple years. I turned thirty serving 60 days in the Ada County, Idaho Jail. Seems something bad happened in a bar in Boise. This kid oughta acknowledge how lucky he is–some of us kind of paid a little higher price, y’know?
mikey
Marq said,
June 5, 2006 at 4:36
There’s a guy I interact with on a regular basis (no, not sex–sheesh, you guys have dirty minds) who is 21-ish, and it always amuses me to know that I’ve been able to drink boozeaholic drinks legally longer than he’s been alive.
Taube said,
June 5, 2006 at 6:34
Its kind of funny from the other end too. This guy at work that’s much too old for me is always hitting on me. One day he was telling me this story about his high school graduation in 1989. Without thinking, I smiled and said, “Hey, that’s the year I started kindergarten.” Took him down a few pegs.
Dan Someone said,
June 5, 2006 at 7:10
Taube… I guess I shouldn’t try to impress you with stories of my high school graduation in 1980, huh?
Damn, I’m old.
Not as old as Mikey, so I got that goin’ for me… but still…
ahem said,
June 5, 2006 at 8:05
I’m in SN’s camp here on the basic point. The more ‘irregular’ elections take place, the greater the precedent to say ‘hey, nothing wrong here!’ I only wish that those Dems who don’t have elections to fight in November would devote their time to ensuring that the ones taking place are watched like hawks.
Miss Emily said,
June 5, 2006 at 11:14
Gary!!!
Mmmwwaa! so good to see you!
“…and reducing spending on non-needed things.”
Don’t listen to the rest of them You stay golden, Ponyboy, stay gold.
All that aside, I was going to ask a question about voter ID; then I got distracted by mikey’s “’61 Harley”. Dude, what is that when it counts? A knucklehead? Flatty? I’m only asking ’cause I didn’t memorize the manual. I’m kind of a ’57 Panhead girl, myself.
Mary Jones said,
June 5, 2006 at 15:41
this is blatantly ignoring the fact that you have had a revolution in the same country some 200-odd years ago.
Yeah, when the country was 1/4 the size it is now, with a much smaller population, and the loyalists fled to Canada.
I’m not saying revolution is impossible, only unlikely at this time.
mikey said,
June 5, 2006 at 18:03
Miss Emily, they were still building the Panhead in ’61. Shovelhead was introduced later in the sixties, ’66 or ’67. That bike was a pretty tragically beat 61CI Panhead with all the traditional oil leaks and sloppy valves. One of a number of rat bikes I rode thoughout the seventies and eighties…
mikey
Carmen Sutra said,
June 5, 2006 at 23:53
Forget the trolls! Forget Jeff Gannon even! I want Farhad for my boytoy! Sure, he may blah blah blah but he’s adorable – and when you get tired of a boytoy’s blah blah blah, you just have to put something in his mouth. You all are clouding the air with “issues” and forgetting what’s really important – helping me destroy civilization as we know it. Table dance, Farhad!
mikey said,
June 6, 2006 at 3:57
Oh my. Hey Carmen!! What are the chances an old longhair with plenty life experiencess and a bad attitude (and ok, a bit of a flatulence problem) might catch your eye?
mikey
Miss Emily said,
June 6, 2006 at 6:53
mikey,
’61 pan, huh? once upon a time I had a better grasp on that sort of thing…
Buddy of mine had a stock ’57.
God, I loved that bike! He kept it at the house I shared with my boyfriend at the time. I once confessed to him that I would sometimes creep down to the basement late at night to straddle it.
Then I went away to college and learned terms like ‘transference’ and ‘sublimation’. Geez, *that* was embarrassing!
Marq said,
June 6, 2006 at 6:54
You sure Carmen’s a girl, mikey? It ain’t me, so I’m not really venturing a guess one way or another… I just got an odd feeling about that one. Could be the ol’ gaydar going off. Again.
mikey said,
June 6, 2006 at 17:23
Geez, Marq, I kind of suck at this. I’ve been using the ‘net since ’91 and I’ve NEVER caught on to that whole “you don’t really know who you’re talking to” thing. I do have a bad tendency to take stuff at face value. Hey, what could go wrong?
mikey
Marq said,
June 7, 2006 at 5:44
I know. I tend to accept things people say at face value as well, unless clues crop up that indicate that they’re dishonest. I’m pretty open and honest myself, which is why parody trolls and multiple-personality sammich doctors tend to piss me off so much. I tend not to try and *meet* people (for dating or… whatever) on the ‘net, ‘cos so many of them seem to misrepresent themselves in those situations. I do occasionally check out gay “amateur” sites because, well, I like looking at pictures of naked guys, but even then I have a number of times run across someone posting someone else’s pictures as their own. And I just don’t get it–if I were looking to hook up with these people, the fact that they look nothing like the picture I saw is to be explained away how, exactly? Am I supposed to have sex with them just to be polite? I don’t think so! And, all of that goes even more for people who misrepresent their gender–what are they hoping to accomplish? OK, I know what they hope to accomplish, but that’s a darned dangerous game to play. Some people might react violently to that. And, the thing that really kills me is that all that skullduggery is probably completely unnecessary. I think it probably says something about the low self esteem and self-hatred of the dishonest party, really.
Hal Taylor said,
June 15, 2006 at 16:34
Why is Farhad changing his position?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3545
Hal
Poot Tawanie the libertarian (little L) said,
June 28, 2006 at 22:06
Yo, Hal:
That link shows me that entry #3545 does not exist, possibly because it was already “erased.” Man, if what it was was a piece were Farhad expressed some sort of different, non Bushdroid position, I woulda loved to read it.