[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

I know this. I also know that contrary to common belief white voters were two times more likely to be falsely accused of being on the felon list (therefore disenfranchised) than black voters.

Now, what does that mean? Considering only 8% of Black's supported Bush and approximately 50% of whites supported Bush, it's a big hit to their party in Florida when the whites are disenfranchised at a higher rate than blacks. In fact, given the support Bush has from blacks, any disenfranchisement of whites in fact hurts Bush. So, the theory...well, the lie that the Republicans cheated and stole the state is absolutely baseless and is 100% wrong.
Tell that to the supreme court and Peter Kirsanow, member of the US Commission on Civil Rights.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0310150822.asp
(he authored this article.)

I read your NRO (Right-Wing paopaganda rag) article. Kirsanow was a dissenting member of the commission and disagreed with their main findings.

I don't know where he got that white voters being two more times as likely to be added to the purge list than black voters thing came from, but he didn't say how he know it either. I consider it highly dubious given that (per the commission report itself):
"at the close of the last decade in Florida there were 139,000 former felons and that 107,000 of them were black men."

Further the commission's findings were as follows:

"In 2000, Florida contracted with DBT Online to purge the central voter list. The Commission found that the use of a private entity without clear and effective guidance from the highest state levels, coupled with the absence of uniform and reliable verification procedures, resulted in the disenfranchisement of countless eligible voters in 2000."

Hey, these are your references, not mine....

Your article was published a year ago, well before the Jeb Bush administration's strange behaviors concerning that list led to enough people getting interested enough to discover that they were letting A LOT of ineligible Cuban-Americans vote. This population highly favored Bush.

I hope you reconsider your belief that disenfranchisement is "a fact".

Not based on your analysis.

Which is that? His statements that the US will be less safe with Kerry-Edwards in power? That's not fear-mongering, that's his opinion and an educated one at that.

Educated by focus groups that showed if you mention terrorism, voters cling to the incumbent. This has been used by both parites going back at least as far as the LBJ (anti-Goldwater) "Daisy" ad in 1964. It's a cynical tactic, in common use.

Who's to say that after 20 years in the senate with a anti-military, anti-intelligence record that he's going to do a 180 and be a tough president? Cheney may well be wrong, yes. But I'm sure he believes what he's saying.

Oddly enough, most of the weapons systems that Cheney has blasted Kerry for voting against (ususally in the form of massive budget bills of which weapons systems were a small part) are the same weapons systems that Cheney himself voted against as a Congressman, or railed against as an administration official:

"Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.)

Heap more examples of this at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp



Man, you gotta quit going to Bush & Company for honest facts on Kerry.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by Funny Monkey

I understand your point but BJU is not a good example. The things that go on at that school are so different I dont think that anyone woudl truly get a good perspective of it unless they went there.

I think a person can get an inkling by reading Al Frankin's "Lying Liars" book. It describes his attempt to infiltrate the school for 1 day, posing as someone with a stepson who is interested in attending. It's very funny, too.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by CDB

Just a point to be made on the whole fascism idea flowing through this, quite a few posters here seem to be equating fascism with the free market, which is blatantly false. Tax breaks for corporations aren't inherently bad. They tend to be bad but for reasons most liberals don't understand. For example oil companies get to write off the cost of oil exploration. This should be good, but because taxes on all other parts of their business remain higher it pushes there business plan to a present, high time preference balance. Their lack of ownership rights to the oil fields they do find further biases their plan towards a present oriented find and sell business model.

All else being equal, on a free market those who bring resources such as oil to the market must balance present production with long term profitability. You see this for example in mining where the companies are allowed full ownership of the mines. They must then balance the current use of the resource (copper, silver, iron, etc.) against the long term capital value of the mine. A mine with say 100 million in iron in it will not be mined for that whole 100 million in the first year unless the government in interfering with the miner's ownership rights, in which case their long term interest in the mine could be forfeited tomorrow, so they must pull as much out as possible while they can still capitalize on it as a resource. They also must balance current production with projected future shortages and surpluses. A successful miner will cut current production in favor of future production if he foresees a shortage, thus smoothing out price fluctuations and allocating goods to where consumers need them.

The problem with tax cuts is that a cut here and there doesn't undo the total distortion of the market by the overall high cost of business, because the government taxes every part of a business. Any little specific cut here or there will merely change the distortion and imbalance between present and future interests, as will any government interference in the property rights of the companies.

That's why while in principle Republicans are right to favor tax cuts, but in practice they don't always work reliably, nor can Democrats find the magic formula that taxes every part of a business enough to maintain the balance between present and future interests. The structure of production is essentially forever distorted by government interference.

That being said, the fact the Bush gives tax breaks here and there to businesses isn't indicative of fascism as much as it is of a poor understanding of economics. This is equally true of Democrats. Both parties believe that at a fundamental level they have a right to at least some of your money regardless of your opinion on the matter, and in that way they are fundamentally inseperable.

An interesting and obviously educated post. I'm not sure who is blasting tax cuts. That's one of the reasons I told kwyck to quit putting words in my mouth.

I specifically noted that I didn't think lobbyists should be writing the legislation.

And while I'm on the soapbox, I'd like to add that Corporations should NOT be considered "persons" under the Constitution with all the rights of living, breathing people. That's just too much power for such a large, wealthy (and potentially long-lived) entity as a Fortune 500 company.

Actually the front lines of the war for the balance of power between the people and the corporations is being fought over intellectual property. Unfortunately the corps are winning. The fact is, nothing has come out of copyright in many years and they may never. It looks like it is likely to be a felony to fileshare MP3's.

Give me a break.

For more info, Larry Lessig (the Stanford attorney who argued the Sonny Bono Act before the Supreme Court- unsuccessfully, unfortunately) is the man:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/

[kwyckemynd00]

You want to know "who" was disenfranchised and "how"? LOL. Here it is, from the USCCR:
"The Commission released the statement at its regular March meeting. It maintained that the evidence points to an array of problems. These ranged from Florida election officials' failure to provide adequate resources to handle increased voter turnout to at least one unauthorized law enforcement checkpoint. The Commission also flagged the removal of non-felons from the voter registration rolls on the basis of unreliable information collected during a sweeping, state-sponsored felony purge.

The Commission cited other problems in Florida which prevented voters from exercising their franchise, including the assignment of many African Americans to polling sites that lacked sufficient resources to confirm voter eligibility; failure to process voter registration applications under the "motor voter" law in a timely manner; use of defective and complicated ballots that caused many "overvotes" and "undervotes"; early closing of polling places; relocation of polling places without notice; use of old and defective election equipment in poor precincts; failure to provide requested language assistance to Haitian American and Latino American voters; and failure to ensure access for voters with disabilities.

The Commission also found that the state failed to provide adequate training to its poll workers and committed inadequate funds to voter education. "

So, let me get this straight...voters were disenfranchised because:
*Polling workers were not adequated trained.
*They were confused for felons based on their names (This is just stupid.).
*Voter registration processing was too slow.
*"Complicated" ballots contributed to either overvotes or undervotes.
*Some polling places closed early.
*Some polling places werer relocated.
*Haitian's and Latino's, in some cases, couldn't get their hands on a ballot in their "native language".

Yep, sounds like a big bad conspiracy to me...

I wonder which parts of the nation all of the above doesn't occur in? LOL.

In regards to Kerry's position on the military, don't even bother! I can read: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_cat...an_id=S0421103

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

An interesting and obviously educated post. I'm not sure who is blasting tax cuts. That's one of the reasons I told kwyck to quit putting words in my mouth.

Well, forgive me for putting words in your mouth. This quote

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

The trouble is that they want to hand it over to really big corporations and churches. The corporate lobbyists are now writing most of the important legislation.

just seems quite a bit like the traditional rhetoric of corporate welfare this, tax breaks that, BS.

I specifically noted that I didn't think lobbyists should be writing the legislation.

And I agree here...

And while I'm on the soapbox, I'd like to add that Corporations should NOT be considered "persons" under the Constitution with all the rights of living, breathing people. That's just too much power for such a large, wealthy (and potentially long-lived) entity as a Fortune 500 company.

I'll agree again.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

I specifically noted that I didn't think lobbyists should be writing the legislation.

I agree. The problem is neither should Democrats or Republicans.

And while I'm on the soapbox, I'd like to add that Corporations should NOT be considered "persons" under the Constitution with all the rights of living, breathing people. That's just too much power for such a large, wealthy (and potentially long-lived) entity as a Fortune 500 company.

Corporations as they currently exist are essentially creations of the state. As they currently exist, I'd agree. However without private property rights there is a massive distortion of the economy.

Actually the front lines of the war for the balance of power between the people and the corporations is being fought over intellectual property. Unfortunately the corps are winning. The fact is, nothing has come out of copyright in many years and they may never. It looks like it is likely to be a felony to fileshare MP3's.

I agree on this. Intellectual property is not the same as real property, like land. Rather than fighting new technology they should have found a way to work with it. Thing is they get support from a lot of artists because artists, like musicians and writers, don't really want to face the fact that it might not be possible to make a living at what they do without taking extreme measures to protect intellectual property. I stress 'might.'

For example say we ditch copyright but enact a regulation that requires all manufacturers of books/CDs to print in the price info how much money from each sale goes to artist, even if it is zero, and are legally required to pay the artist on some regularly scheduled basis. You get a choice, different publishers can dabble in different technologies like print on demand and the artist gets his money. Laws against fraud could generally cover plagerism. Those that don't like the way this works, both artists and consumers can not create or buy as they see fit. As to whether this would work or not I have no idea, who knows what people would choose in the end. It does show that there are other possibilities than government enforced copyright. Many people don't even know copyright laws were first enacted to oppress speech. Copyrights were granted to printers, which authors were required to go through in order to have their work published, and the governments controlled the printers. I believe this happened a bit after Martin Luther nailed his love letter to his church's door, and the threat of widespread publishing of works threatening to the current ruler were recognized.

[INFOHAZARD]

Hmmm, you discuss all the ways the voters didn't get to vote except the one in question that I had already addressed with commission quotes. Misleading? Only to those who don't read all the posts.

And somehow you did not address the dropping of Cuban-American felons rom the list or the FL Bush Administration's behaviors with respect to this list going back quite some time. From 2002:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...sts/print.html
(to read, go to salon main page and get a day-pass)

"Last February, when asked to explain why DBT was paid for verification work not done, Florida Elections Division chief Clayton Roberts ended an agreed-upon interview with this reporter, locked himself in his office, and called in state troopers to remove this reporter from the Florida capitol building in Tallahassee."

If you haven't been paying attention to the more recent chicanery, I recommend you look it up.

Rememer- ignoring it does not make it go away....

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

Well, forgive me for putting words in your mouth. This quote just seems quite a bit like the traditional rhetoric of corporate welfare this, tax breaks that, BS.

SEEMS like the blah, blah, blah.....

You still put words in my mouth that I neither said nor intended. Make all the straw-men you want, but don't put my name on them.

[Funny Monkey]

these posts are getting to long to keep my interest. I'm out of this one

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by CDB

I agree. The problem is neither should Democrats or Republicans.

Good one!

Corporations as they currently exist are essentially creations of the state. As they currently exist, I'd agree. However without private property rights there is a massive distortion of the economy.

I have no problem with real property rights for corporations. They should have some rights, just not all the rights that flesh and blood has.

Thing is they get support from a lot of artists because artists, like musicians and writers, don't really want to face the fact that it might not be possible to make a living at what they do without taking extreme measures to protect intellectual property. I stress 'might.'

The shareware movement has shown that it can work fine, it just means cutting out the big corps and direct marketing. I suspect they will do anything in their power to stop that.

Many people don't even know copyright laws were first enacted to oppress speech. Copyrights were granted to printers, which authors were required to go through in order to have their work published, and the governments controlled the printers. I believe this happened a bit after Martin Luther nailed his love letter to his church's door, and the threat of widespread publishing of works threatening to the current ruler were recognized.

My knowledge goes back to the US Constitution, that grants it for a limited period of time so that the originators can make a living. The founder clearly intended that intellecual property eventually be owned by the culture itself.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

Hmmm, you discuss all the ways the voters didn't get to vote except the one in question that I had already addressed with commission quotes. Misleading? Only to those who don't read all the posts.

And somehow you did not address the dropping of Cuban-American felons rom the list or the FL Bush Administration's behaviors with respect to this list going back quite some time. From 2002:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...sts/print.html
(to read, go to salon main page and get a day-pass)[b][i][font=times new roman, times, serif][size=1]
....

Gee, I freggin wonder why genius. I pulled all the information directly off of the USCCR website, the people who did the investigation! You got that info from a website that had no source for it's given information! I'd be happy to point every viewer to your source which has not citations to base it's facts and compare it to the link I provided which outlined the reasons some voters' votes were not counted (much like what happens in many other states!). None of which had anything to do with a big republican conspiracy to steal votes! When you get back from Area-51 maybe you'll understand this. There were MANY states in whcih the race was close, very very close. Florida was made a big deal of because of Jeb Bush, they figured it would be a more convincing story. Honestly, this report came out in march of '01, if it was determined that they republicans did in fact cheat, they would not have been holding the presidency! Plain and simple!

It's also very funny how they alwasy factor in only Gore's side of votes who were accidentally stating that the 537 vote difference would have been surpassed and Gore would have been president. Well, what about Bush's portion who may not have been counted?

Get it through your head, there was no huge orchestrated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. Did some votes get screwed up? Of course, they alwasy do.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

The shareware movement has shown that it can work fine, it just means cutting out the big corps and direct marketing. I suspect they will do anything in their power to stop that.

Yup. Basically you've got a centralized, not too flexible infrastructure for delivery of music, software, books, etc. they're going to resist the switch too a more decentralized way of doing things.

My knowledge goes back to the US Constitution, that grants it for a limited period of time so that the originators can make a living. The founder clearly intended that intellecual property eventually be owned by the culture itself.

That's for the US. The actual origins of copyright go back to 1662 in England. Charles II wanted to control the pamplets that Puritans were putting out, fearing a similar rise in their works as happened to Luther. Basically he granted a monopoly on printing to printers with The Licensing Act, but he controled what was allowed to be printed. It wasn't too long after this that copyright started to be used to 'protect' authors, but to this day it still acts as a monopoly grant by the government to certain businesses. Even if I figure out a great way to publish and deliver a work and pay the author a signigicantly higher amount than his current publisher, I could still be sued, fined and arrested. The rights of the author to profit from his work have always been a side issue.