Roberto Said:

why does the republican party surpress the minority vote?

We Answered:

Win at all cost,

and ensure the truth is never brought to light.

Fun Facts 2000
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…

Regardin military votes........ENJOY.
There were 3600 overseas ballots, and a large number -- about 1400 of them -- were thrown out. Republicans have been claiming that many of them were the ballots of military personnel stationed overseas, and they were dismissed because they did not have a postmark. They have accused the Democrats of trying to throw those ballots out.

Democrats deny they deliberately targeted military ballots. They say they just want all the overseas to be lawful. In fact, the best count by the Gore campaign has said that there were only about 200, if that many, military ballots that were disqualified for lack of a postmark. But subsequently, the attorney general of Florida, who is a Democrat and a big Gore supporter, in fact one of the leaders of the Gore campaign in Florida, has issued a directive to the local officials instructing them to revisit the absentee ballot issue and to count an overseas ballot so long as it is signed and dated by election day even if the postmark is missing.



the Gore legal team was leaning against suing Seminole County, where the county's Republican elections supervisor allowed GOP operatives to camp out in her office for 10 days, filling in the voter I.D. numbers on around 4,000 absentee ballot applications printed by the Republican Party.

Simply they repulican party voided those ballots when they altered them.....



Bill Daley, who is chairman of the Gore campaign, has said that the Gore campaign wants every single ballot that was lawfully cast, that was signed and dated appropriately, to be counted. They've said that all along. [Democratic Vice Presidential nominee] Joe Lieberman said much the same thing on Sunday. They've been pretty consistent that they do not want to disqualify military ballots.

The Gore campaign believes they will get their fair share of military ballots. They point out that the enlisted ranks, which are greater than the officer ranks, tend to be members of minority groups -- that's the demographics of today's military -- and they tend to be Democrats. So they feel they have nothing to fear from military ballots.

Sara Said:

Should the Obamanites go to their corner and cry now that Obama lost Ohio and Texas?

We Answered:

Do sheep cry?

Willie Said:

Has the Bush Family destroyed the Republican Party?

We Answered:

Obama will re-invigorate the Republican party - trust me.

Terry Said:

My homosexual cousin wants to join me in our town's Republican party. Can you really be gay and a Republican?

We Answered:

I'm mainly neutral. There are good (and bad) principles in both the left and the right wing. However, something I don't understand is why a person's sexual habits dictate if they can subscribe to an ideology or not - unless it flat out states that certain sexual habits are politically flawed and create hinderblocks in people's right to the pursuit of happyness. The Republican convention states no such thing.

Now, if somebody has a problem with other people's habits, being of a sexual nature or not, due to religious beliefs (scripture lended credence to by a deity dictating what is right and what is wrong) - that I can understand. However, as far as I know (scaled down and simplified) the republican ideology speaks mainly for a free market, minimized governmental interference, lower taxes, etc.

So if you are talking about your whether cousin makes a good republican - strictly ideologically and all religious values aside, then I would say his sexuality doesn't become a factor. If he subscribes to the main ideology, disregarding all the irrelevant stuff that has been tacked on to it by the Religious Right - then yes, you should let him join and support what he thinks is right.

Lorraine Said:

Is it legal for a News network like Fox to be a outlet for the republican party to campaign on?

We Answered:

That is an excellent question, and one I think Democrats should probably spend a bit more time investigating. According to Federal law, cable television companies have to comply with several regulations concerning candidates seeking public office.

The relevant information to review is found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 76 (governing FCC regulation of cable television stations).

According to 47 CFR 76.205:

"No cable television system is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any system shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such system shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate..."

Further, subsection (e) states:

"In making time available to candidates for public office, no system shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any system make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to cablecast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office."

There are also rules governing advertising on cable news stations, but Yahoo has severe limits on the length of answers, so please check the link to refer to them. The long and short of it, though, is that when it comes to public broadcasting and cable broadcasting, Fox is legally required to stick to their slogan "fair and balanced".

They are not allowed to provide a venue for one candidate but not another. They are not allowed to give free expression to one candidate but censor another. They are not allowed to give one candidate prime time exposure and consign another to a 3 A.M. time slot. In short, they are not allowed to take sides.

The question is, does Fox news extend the same offers to candidates on both sides of the aisle? Do they call both Democratic candidates and Republican candidates and invite them on the same shows? If they offer an interview to a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate calls to request a similar interview, do they accept or do they refuse? Do they allow candidates on both sides the same length of time? Do they present the views of both sides honestly and accurately, and without any deceptive editing?

Are they really being fair and balanced to political candidates themselves?

If they're not... if it can be found they are making their services available to one side but not the other, or are interfering in the public discourse by censoring one side over the other on their network, then Fox News could be in a world of trouble.

That's one of the reasons Democrats are suing in Ohio. Fox may assert whatever opinions it likes of its own accord, but when it comes to appearances by political candidates or advertising for political candidates, it may not do whatever it pleases.

So, the answer to your question is that Fox News may be an outlet for the Republican party to campaign on as long as it is also an outlet for the Democratic party (and the Green Party, and the various independent parties) to campaign on. Provided all sides may equally campaign on the network, then yes. It's perfectly permissable for Fox News to allow Republicans to campaign.

However, no, it is not legal for Fox News to be an outlet for ONLY the Republican party to campaign on.

Wilma Said:

Should Obama ban the Republican party if he becomes president?

We Answered:

They have pushed the envelope so far I think they may disappear totally - the public is sick of it and their boom and busts due to irresponsible leadership.
Maybe a real conservative party can take their place.

Carla Said:

Did the Republican Party want to lose the 2008 election?

We Answered:

OF COURSE they wanted to lose. Why else would they nominate the ONLY candidate who didn't embarrass ALL of the Democrat candidates in polling.
Yes kids, 2008 started with an 8 vs 8 match-up and 62 of those potential contests polled with HUGE GOP wins, 1 polled as a tie and 1 polled as a Democrat win.
Yes, I AM saying that even Ron Paul beat ALL of the Democrat contenders and that Clinton or Obama NEEDED McCain for any hope of victory.