In These Times

Latest Comments view all 96

• • 29 Jan 07
  • 4:05 pm

  Look at the other countries that still practice capital punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are the only other fully developed and democratic countries that still have the death penalty. Capital punishment is barbaric. Texas produced Junior as president and produces the most executions annually. Makes sense in a sickening sort of way.

  Posted to How do you feel about the death penalty?

• • 02 Nov 06
  • 9:49 pm

  Shouldn't there be tangible proof that you won the election so that there can be an actual RECOUNT? Why would anyone oppose paper ballots unless they were cheating? Exit polls in the Ukraine are accurate enough to require a re-vote but exit polls in America are way off in 2000, 2002, and 2004? Gee, what do those elections have in common? If the rightards lose this election, then you'll suddenly want a paper trail.

  Posted to The Importance of Not Getting Over It

• • 04 Jan 06
  • 4:18 am

  Is there a Tina 2? Or maybe we nee a recount. There's only one reason you and your ilk would oppose these reforms. You're cheating and a paper trail would prove it. Oh, and Keith Olbermann was all over this story but you were probably too busy watching the corporate media shills. Got anything else you rightard!

  Posted to Ghosts in the Voting Machines

• • 08 Jan 06
  • 3:16 am

  Last time I checked, Republicans like to claim elections were stolen, too. JFK in 1960 being their favorite accusation. So, why do Repugs opposes all measures to use existing technology, general fairness, and just plain evidence to assure fair elections and accurate and verifiably election results? Call it whining all you want but why are exit polls compelling evidence of a stolen election in the Ukraine? And, why are purple fingers and paper ballots compelling evidence of vital democracy in Iraq? And, I would like one of you political geniuses to explain with facts and logic, why every one of the …

  Posted to Ghosts in the Voting Machines

• • 09 Jan 06
  • 3:57 am

  Michael Savage? And you want to talk about sources. And you want to talk about sources. If you want to learn about this valuable source, check out what a fair-minded charlatan he is: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/05/savage/ I cited sources, which is more than most of you liars do. My source has credentials; he’s actually an attorney with years of experience in election law. Why don’t you tell us Savage’s qualification to be anything but world champion rightard? Why not just cite Ken Mehlman or if you really wanted to prove your intellectual stripes, Christopher Hitchens. Remember how he wrote that investigative "fact-based," sourced …

  Posted to Ghosts in the Voting Machines