quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Did you mention the Ebola panic, Lucy? It looks like another one of those times when you maybe ought to be paying attention to your own fucking country, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Flying your ignorance of how free speech works isn't going to help your case, Lucy. Your own yard looks like shit, but you can't stop yapping about what you are told is going on in ours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

HB 13-1303

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
FOX New's Megan Kelly went on air not to long ago to say:
"literally allows residents to print ballots from their home computers, then encourages them to turn ballots over to collectors."
Using air quotes on the 'collectors' like its some sort of Democrat secret plot to undermine the vote with fraud. Since FOX news and its viewership are so 'concern' with voter fraud, they apparently lied over the Colorado laws on the books. The LINK HERE provides the information.
This is the sort of stuff that should....NOT....be allowable under the 1st amendment. Lying to push a political agenda while at the same time stroking fear in the populace over a false event, is not a freedom of the press. Otherwise I could walk into a crowded theater (and with my limited media ability: aka my mouth) and shout 'FIRE' and it would be protected speech. Same concept as 'fire' in a crowed theater except on a macro level!
Good thing Rachel Maddow and the journalists in Colorado have been informing the public of this blatant lie from Megan Kelly!

It's a good thing Megyn Kelly is cute, otherwise, there's no reason to even have her on the screen. According to the law passed (HB 13-1303), ballots are mailed out to all voters who are registered by 22 days prior to the election. Online registration is allowed up to 8 days prior to the election.

I scanned through the bill and didn't see any mention of how an online registrant would be getting a mail-in ballot in that 2 week period that online registration is still allowed. That means, there is no mention of printing it out at home. But, it also does not stipulate that won't happen. There are to be printed ballots at polling locations for people who don't have their ballots.

The law looks like it's an attempt to move from traditional voting polls to vote-by-mail elections. What I didn't see in the bill, though, is the manner by which an online registrant is to receive a mail-in ballot. That may be where Megyn Kelly's "analysis" figgers (spelling intentional) that mail-in-ballots will be able to be printed at home. It's entirely possible that online registrants may have to actually show up at a physical location to cast their ballot, too (though I didn't see any support or refutation for that in the bill).

That doesn't change that announcing it as factual news is incorrect and definitely not up to what I would consider "proper journalistic standards."

I do have to wonder if Elections workers will have adequate time to verify registration information before a ballot is counted as a vote. Eight days prior to an election is such a short time heading into an election.

On it's face, it certainly does look like Megyn Kelly is lying through her teeth. There may be nothing more than "partisan analysis" backing the allegations.

But, there are questions that aren't answered that might support some of what she claimed.

quote:


when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes...Megyn Kelly (and by extension, her employers) fucked up and had to backtrack. But before we get into too much of a fawning mode over MSNBC OR RaRachel Maddow, let's not forget this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

quote:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC controversies in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Log in or create an account to start the Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC controversies article, alternatively use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
  
• Search for "Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC controversies" in existing articles.
  
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

I notice that most of these so called controversies are "assertions" of one sort or another. Which is quite different from the quite well proven lie we're discussing here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

I notice that most of these so called controversies are "assertions" of one sort or another. Which is quite different from the quite well proven lie we're discussing here.

Would that be assertions such as this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

I notice that most of these so called controversies are "assertions" of one sort or another. Which is quite different from the quite well proven lie we're discussing here.

Would that be assertions such as this?

I know you aren't trained in any sort of reality based thought but don't you even understand English? Most means most not cherry picking. If you actually examine the page in question you'll find that the assertions about things are the majority. And we're still discussing a blatant lie not some assertion of bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
If there had been an error to the law in some form, it would have been found when it came into law; not just mere days before an election. 'What sounds good on paper, doesn't translate into reality' would have been found doing a routine test of the system. Miss Kelly is insinuating that the printed ballots will be given to (quoting her word) "collectors", not election day representatives. With FOX News, its not hard to conjure up what is meant by 'collectors' (i.e. think ACORN). Many are calling Miss Kelly and FOX out on charges of lying. Lying means the person knows the facts/truth but are stating a different story. They would not have gone to 'press' with this....unless....their target audience would be motivated to vote (and watch their station for further developments).
If what Megan Kelly stated was true; why not post the exact information from the law itself? If one states a bill/law is incorrectly handling an issue, would it not make sense to show the text of the bill and the bill itself (i.e. foot note on where in the bill the issue is located)?

I just have to note that your KOS link didn't link to the text of the bill, either. I had to go search that out myself. So, KOS didn't do much more supporting of their response than Kelly did in making her allegation. What was it you said about holding our own to an even higher set of standards?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have the "many" proven that Kelly and FOX know the truth (which is required for her/them to be lying)? If not, then, they are as poorly journalistic as Kelly and whoever wrote her script (I don't think she does her own research/writing).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I made a mistake.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

I notice that most of these so called controversies are "assertions" of one sort or another. Which is quite different from the quite well proven lie we're discussing here.

Would that be assertions such as this?

I know you aren't trained in any sort of reality based thought but don't you even understand English? Most means most not cherry picking. If you actually examine the page in question you'll find that the assertions about things are the majority. And we're still discussing a blatant lie not some assertion of bias.

Yes, I understand English quite well...well enough to know that your use of the word "most" was strained. And that what I stated were, in 3 of the 4 cases I cited, examples of lying by MSNBC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I actually ran into problems in finding the actual text. I think I was worried of posting the wrong text as I had three to choose from at the time. So in the interest of posting the incorrect information, I felt leaving it blank until I determined which was the correct text at a later date. My apologizes on that end!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have the "many" proven that Kelly and FOX know the truth (which is required for her/them to be lying)? If not, then, they are as poorly journalistic as Kelly and whoever wrote her script (I don't think she does her own research/writing).

I personally am going with 'what would be logical, given the known information'? Miss Kelly is educated, a lawyer in good standing with the bar, whom is intelligent. That she would not say something that wasn't true or factual when 'reporting' unless there was a motive to lie. That FOX News has yet to issue a correction or update by Miss Kelly herself that what she reported was false and/or misleading, does beg an even more serious question: Do they or she, look at what other media sources are reporting/not reporting? From a business perspective, they would be complete idiots not to do such.
Either what the local news journalists and Rachel Maddow is reporting is incorrect (which does not seem likely at this point); Or Megan Kelly and FOX News is reporting is correct. It appears one has to...REALLY...stretch the truth and facts of the law to arrive at Megan Kelly's position. If the law was incorrectly worded or the mechanisms not aligned correctly, why not display the actual law?
If you had evidence that would damn your opponent, and you had the chance to use it.....would you use it?