My school has gone too far

[CDB]

Before the invasion, I imagined a strategy much like we used to prevent nuclear Holocaust with the Soviets:

Declare peace with the Islamic Extremists, but warn them that if they do commit one more act of terrorism, Mecca, Medina, the Dome of the Rock and the madrassas would be blown off the face of the earth.

I'm sorry you haven't run into moderate thoughtful Muslims. I spent 3 years in Turkey, and I assure you, there are plenty of them out there, but they don't get much exposure in our media. I wonder why not.

I do not think this would have any hope of working. The people we are fighting against see no problem with major loss, even loss of their own life, for what they see as a greater good. While I feel US policy has helped terrorists find new recruits over time, at their heart these organizations are run by crazy motherfuckers. It would be impossible for them to accept any peace other than complete US withdrawal from the region, which desirable as I might find it will not happen anytime in the near future. We can't wage a cold war against terrorism because we aren't fighting a state apparatus but a guerilla army.

As for your comment about Israel, for what it's worth, I have a relative who has worked around Mossad guys. His impression was they they were among the more evil people he has run into. I had never heard him say anything like that from him before he worked with them. I think Israel should be as much a subject of criticism of their national polices and actions as any other country without raising the spectre of "Anti-Semitism."

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, merely used it as an example of left wing hate speech. One thing I will say about the Israeli army is this: they don't need our help.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

This is the same baseless BS that every liberal spews when they don't have anything more original to say. "uhh....big business....uhh.....global warming....ehhh, black voter disenfranchisment....umm.....old people won't get their social security....ummm....ummmm.....we're going ot be a religious theocracy because he said 'god' and there's supposed to be a separation between church and state.....umm...well....MICHAEL MOORE! Take that!" Come one, you have to be able to do better than big business and religion.
...
Any definition that says "right-winged" in it, is only correct when referring to "right winged facists". You can be a left-winged facist.

Don't put words in my mouth.

By the way, we were discussing bona fides some threads ago. I forgot to mention that I got my chemistry degree (Florida State) 21 years ago, and my M.D. (U of F) 17 years ago. Sonny.

"Two does not equal three, even for large values of two." Graebel's Law

 

[DougMan]

I think the problem with thinking like that is that it is so short sighted that you can almost fool yourself into thinking you have some grand vision. Big business is a lot more likely to screw with your life than terrorist are. And your rantings are no better than any "liberal BS" that you so despise. Just because it isnt your problem doesnt mean its not a problem. I agree some of those problems are over blown, although you are 100% wrong on disenfranchisment. I believe the company in Florida is Choice Point (may be called Top Choice... they merged with someone after the scandal broke anyway) that used to run the "felony list". Except a felon is defined as anyone who has a name similar to a felon. It is a fact a lot of those people were disenfranchised... it was studied and documented. No ranting or raving. It actually has happened. But 9/11 happened so that doesnt matter right? 9/11 changed everything. 9/11, either you are for us or against us. So much drama. I see no reason to go apeshit about every single topic that might be related to security. Spend the money and get the job done and move on. The reason I bring up 9/11 is that you pretty much have to or you are some sort of a soft liberal. I am a republican, but tossing aside issues just because we are at war is just plain lazy. And the fear mongering Cheney does should be illegal.

Go find the clip of Jon Stewart ripping apart Tucker Carlson on crossfire. That is much the way I feel.

This is the same baseless BS that every liberal spews when they don't have anything more original to say. "uhh....big business....uhh.....global warming....ehhh, black voter disenfranchisment....umm.....old people won't get their social security....ummm....ummmm.....we're going ot be a religious theocracy because he said 'god' and there's supposed to be a separation between church and state.....umm...well....MICHAEL MOORE! Take that!" Come one, you have to be able to do better than big business and religion.

I for one do not care to become a corporate serf; a slave to my credit score. I have a very large problem with this. I'll worry about socialism later when they are the threat.

Exactly!!!! WTF do you not understand about this quote!? The government takes control of private affairs and therefore the citizen is left without any real control over thier own lives! This does not mean that an administration give, god forbid, "corporate tax breaks!" Oh, no!!! I can't believe a business was given a 'tax break'"...

Nice definition of fascism here:
" centralized authority regimenting commerce and people; citizens are allowed to hold a piece of paper (land title, business license, central bank note, birth certificate) fooling them into thinking they have property ownership, then the "owners" are heavily regulated and taxed. "

" A political system that emphasizes nationalism, militarism, and anti- communist and totalitarian rule. Individuals are allowed to retain ownership of capital goods but are subject to centralized control. "

Any definition that says "right-winged" in it, is only correct when referring to "right winged facists". You can be a left-winged facist.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, merely used it as an example of left wing hate speech. One thing I will say about the Israeli army is this: they don't need our help.

And yet somehow, Perle and Wolfowitz' plan as it has unfolded just happens to help them out a great deal.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I think the problem with thinking like that is that it is so short sighted that you can almost fool yourself into thinking you have some grand vision. Big business is a lot more likely to screw with your life than terrorist are. And your rantings are no better than any "liberal BS" that you so despise. Just because it isnt your problem doesnt mean its not a problem. I agree some of those problems are over blown, although you are 100% wrong on disenfranchisment. I believe the company in Florida is Choice Point (may be called Top Choice... they merged with someone after the scandal broke anyway) that used to run the "felony list". Except a felon is defined as anyone who has a name similar to a felon.

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.

It is a fact a lot of those people were disenfranchised... it was studied and documented. No ranting or raving. It actually has happened.

Tell that to the supreme court and Peter Kirsanow, member of the US Commission on Civil Rights.

Invalid Link Removed
(he authored this article.)

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

But 9/11 happened so that doesnt matter right? 9/11 changed everything. 9/11, either you are for us or against us. So much drama. I see no reason to go apeshit about every single topic that might be related to security. Spend the money and get the job done and move on. The reason I bring up 9/11 is that you pretty much have to or you are some sort of a soft liberal. I am a republican, but tossing aside issues just because we are at war is just plain lazy. And the fear mongering Cheney does should be illegal.

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. 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. If I were you, I'd be more pissed about the fact people are capitalizing off of old people and minorities, telling them that their lives will pretty much be over if they elect a conservative to office (not that Bush is much of a conservative).

Go find the clip of Jon Stewart ripping apart Tucker Carlson on crossfire. That is much the way I feel.

I definately feel that crossfire sucks and much of what the media does is very bad for the system. Tucker's a dork, and Jon Stewart didn't impress me at all. He tried to sound like he didn't have an agenda, but it came out about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through the video. He went from having my respect, to just being another addition to my "jokers list". If you want to know how I feel about things in general, I swear that the one thing that describes my feelings best was a movie by a fellow libertarian, "Team America". I loved that freggin' movie! I think everyone shoudl see it! (While I was there, a lady brought her kids to see it b/c she thought it was a kids movie, about 2 minutes into the movie when the first "suck my cock" came out, she picked up her litter and ran. It was great!) :drunk:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Don't put words in my mouth.

By the way, we were discussing bona fides some threads ago. I forgot to mention that I got my chemistry degree (Florida State) 21 years ago, and my M.D. (U of F) 17 years ago. Sonny.

"Two does not equal three, even for large values of two." Graebel's Law

Great...I'll bake you a batch of cookies. :trout:

My whole point was a while back that your not more apt to be correct than another person because of your salary, your job title, etc. Just like the people who work for the LA Times who write about black voter disenfranchisment are not correct on the matter of voter disenfranchisement which they lie about. They should be, but they're not because their ideology blinds them.

Well, I'm going to go bake myself some cookies while I stroke my ego about the fact that I'll have my MD in the future and I'll be getting a degree in Chemistry from either UCR or UCSD.

On a side not, one that you and I can appreciate together, UCR, although less prestigous that UCSD has a damn good chemistry program for undergraduates from what I understand. My teachers' brother had his work published as an undergraduate because of the opportunities they offer....cool, eh? I'm just deciding on whether or not I would rather go with pharmacological chemistry. I'd have to take that at UCSD. I'll get in wherever I want, so that's not the problem. It's just what I want. I've still got a couple years to go with my sciences and have not even touched my medical education, so if you want to feel special you can talk about that stuff, I can't argue back..

 

[Number 5]

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. 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.

do you actually believe this bullshit? maybe you should try to educate yourself a little before echoing the anti-kerry ads out there. you can check sites such as factcheck.org to see that kerry has overall been a reliable backer of the US military and CIA.

he's proposed some modest cuts at various times in as part of other proposed cuts in an effort to reduce deficits and similar cuts were supported by many republicans including dick cheney and porter goss at various times.

as for bush, he ignored terrorism until 9/11 according to richard clarke. he stonewalled the 9/11 commission every step of the way (check out condi rice's testimony to the commission) and he refused to testify himself under oath and only agreed to 'visit with' the 9/11 commission if accompanied by dick cheney. bush reaks of incompetence and i see very little to suggest that he would keep the nation safer than kerry or any one else.

maybe you buy bush's bullshit about having to fight terrorists in iraq so we don't have to fight them here in the US lol?

-5

 

[Funny Monkey]

Bush gave a campaign speech there.

Yeah I know back in the spring of 2000. He was invited by the president of the school, Bob Jones III, Al Gore was invited also. Hmm but Gore didnt want to come.
That actually hurt Bush because the media tried to say that he was a Catholic hater? They definetely pulled that out of thier ass too. Not trying really to argue just trying to give you a better understanding. BJU very rarely gets mentioned and when it does the facts get screwed up. Liberals hate that school and I mean hate it and they'll try and do anythign to make it appear in a bad light. Truth is percentage wise I woudl say you could find the most respectful and intellegent people on that campus.

By the way, props to you for your education. I graduate with a EE degree next May then off to Charelston for the Nuclear Masters.

 

[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.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

do you actually believe this bullshit? maybe you should try to educate yourself a little before echoing the anti-kerry ads out there. you can check sites such as factcheck.org to see that kerry has overall been a reliable backer of the US military and CIA.

FactCheck.org? You're going to listen to their spin? Ok...I've already gone through this a million times, I'm not even going to bother. All I will say is that Cheney is an idiot for quoting them as "non-partisan". They'll debunk a bush supporting (not supporter) piece of research, simply because there will be one other out there that says differently, for example. Look through many of their articles, they'll say something to the extent of: "Bush's campaign cited Person A's work to use their numbers on the economy, however, that's completely false. Person B's research concluded that the numbers are as follows...". All I have to say is "Gulf War". Mr. Grand-coalition who needs UN support and some "Grand Coalition" had everything he could have ever wanted when a country was invaded by Saddam Hussein, and because it was politicially benificial to him, he voted against the war. The point is, the issues that he was against as far as military were concerened were "major" issues. These little side issues that he brings up all the time are merely a pillow for his ass as he falls on it.

he's proposed some modest cuts at various times in as part of other proposed cuts in an effort to reduce deficits and similar cuts were supported by many republicans including dick cheney and porter goss at various times.

I know the Bush campaign throws out their spin as well. I'm not blind. Ignored terrorism until 9/11? You're listening to Richard Clarke? Ha, ha...why not believe the 9/11 report instead? Bush could have prepared better had he be a psychic, however, given the past threats and attacks we encountered and the very little that was done if anybody looked bad in that report it was Clinton and his administration. Clarke was demoted from a white house position to a "cyber terrorism" position. He was just a pissed off man. If you want an idea of how in touch this guy is, remember his plan "Mr. Clarke tried to persuade President Reagan to subvert Moammar Gadhafi by dispatching SR-71 Blackbirds to smother Libya in sonic booms, accompanied by sailing a fleet of rafts across the Mediterranean to wash upon the shores of Tripoli to frighten Gadhafi into thinking invasion was imminent.". <- You're listenint to this crackpot who is an idiot for one, and for two is angry because he took a huge demotion? Well, go ahead :think:

as for bush, he ignored terrorism until 9/11 according to richard clarke. he stonewalled the 9/11 commission every step of the way (check out condi rice's testimony to the commission) and he refused to testify himself under oath and only agreed to 'visit with' the 9/11 commission if accompanied by dick cheney. bush reaks of incompetence and i see very little to suggest that he would keep the nation safer than kerry or any one else.

Where are you getting your 9/11 commission readings? If you think Condi Rice for one minute would say anything to make this administration look bad, you're living on a different planet.

Invalid Link Removed

In regards to Bush not testifying under oath, have fun with this little bit of knowledge: "No sitting president, save Gerald Ford, has ever testified before a Congressional committee investigating the activities of a particular administration. Most notably, Lyndon Johnson refused to testify before the Warren Commission investing the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, during his presidency." Presidents don't don't do this for a reason, not because they're liars, because they don't want to be roasted. Is it right, no...I'd rather see them testify, is it abnormal that Bush didn't testify? Not at all. He was simply acting in a manner that was nothing but consistend with his predecessors.

maybe you buy bush's bullshit about having to fight terrorists in iraq so we don't have to fight them here in the US lol?

-5

No, I don't buy that one. Even if it was true, I think that's totally unfair to the Iraqi citizens. Honestly, "Well, we don't want to fight them here, so lets go to Iraq where Iraqi's are the ones that die..." Doesn't sound like too great of a plan to me. I do believe however, that despite the liberal spin on the "War on Terror" (something that sees to be taking a backseat these days in the media) is going very will. 3/4 Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed over the span of 190+ countries is a pretty damn good statistic to me. We stopped al Queda dead in their tracks when they tried to set up another headquarters, like in Afghanistan, in Northern Africa.

But then again, Kerry would do better right? That's why Yasser Arafat pulicly Invalid Link Removed as well as Kim Jong Il Invalid Link Removed
quote:
"Kerry has also won praise from Kim Jong Il, North Korea's totalitarian dictator, who has murdered millions of his own people. Kim calls Bush "human scum." But he likes Kerry's support of two-way talks between North Korea and the U.S. -- which would give the "beloved leader" a big negotiating advantage."

yep...he's much better suited for the job, right? :think:

 

[INFOHAZARD]

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.

Invalid Link Removed
(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:

"[font=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][font=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]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.) [/font][/font]

Heap more examples of this at: Invalid Link Removed



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

 

[INFOHAZARD]

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]

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:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[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 Invalid Link Removed to me...:trout:

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: Invalid Link Removed

 

[kwyckemynd00]

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

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]

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:
Invalid Link Removed
[font=times new roman, times, serif](to read, go to salon main page and get a day-pass)[/font][font=times new roman, times, serif]

"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."[/font]

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....

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]

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

Good one!

:saw:

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]

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:
Invalid Link Removed
[font=times new roman, times, serif](to read, go to salon main page and get a day-pass)[/font][font=times new roman, times, serif]
....

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? :think:

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]

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.