The New Responsible Political Thread

[Shadow-Sentient]

Do you really wish to compare 139 to tens of thousands? I'd hope not.

Yes I was comparing heat related death to heat related death. Not trying to tie heat related death to Socialism. C'mon, one hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, it's death on a wide scale either way. Even in the richest country ... hell state! we can't protect our elderly-poor from the heat.
"Why don't you just elminate the entire *elderly* homeworld while you're at it?"
"One thing at a time Mr. Sentient"

And WHY are those machines out there?

Because people here complained about how "bad" paper ballots were in 2000. They "demanded" machines to remove the problems of paper ballots.

And, honestly, if Kerry won --- the complaint would have never been made. It's not like there is any actual proof of any real problems with the electronic ballots.

The compaint would definitely have been made because no one would be able to believe that all of the obstacles that they put in front of voters didn't work. Black voters have never been more disenfranchised than in this last election. The only complaining that I know of about paper ballots happened in Florida. I've never had a problem with them. They leave verifiable evidence behind. Electronic information can be tampered with. Trusting a corporation who has a vested interest in the Republican candidate (Walden O'Dell, CEO and 2004 Pioneer of DieBold, with his infamous written note to Republican's saying that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,") is not only a major conflict of interest, it is so disturbing that I can't believe the DieBold machines were ever allowed at all.

"Paper trails", for me, seems to be a pretty obvious bastardization of the concept of a secret ballot, which is one of the cherished liberties in this country.

Fair enough. But a corporation having access to our voting records isn't? DieBold? You trust them? I don't. Not with people like Walden O'Dell promising to deliver states to the President.

That's been done long before electronic ballots existed. Exit polling is not a new concept.

Yes. And interestingly many of these places where the electronic voting machines were came out extremely different in exit polls. Let's face it, the whole system needs a change.

I do not like the way most states (is it Iowa who actually has an impartial agency draw the lines?) draw their lines --- but that is one of the unfortunate legacy of the Voting Rights Act that was, stupidly, re-authorized this year. There HAS to be majority-minority districts, which forces the drawing of absurd districts to achieve.

The courts dealt with a state Supreme Court changing its state's electoral laws after the fact, which is clearly illegal.

If I am reading you correctly, we share an opinion.

The Electoral College is the only way to prevent outright corruption from winning an election. It is not enough to cheat massively in one state to win an election. It's not the best system --- but it's better than any alternative presented to date.

Agree to disagree on this. The Electoral College is antiquated and takes the ultimate decision out of the hands of the voters.

Spare me. Harry Truman was not a terribly well-educated man and ended up being a magnificent President. Bush, for all of his faults, is the ideal President for the conflict we're dealing with.

Neither was Andrew Jackson. Bush is BY FAR not the ideal President. I say this as an Independant, NOT a Democrat. People with criminal records should not be allowed to hold the office of President ... this would prevent quite a few members of Congress from ever trying to take the job.
Kerry was not a great choice either. I was originally pulling for General Wesley Clarke (Insert 'We are here to place President Clarke under arrest' joke here) but Kerry was ultimately the only alternative to what I already saw as a failed miserable liar of a President, who had my support for one war but lost it on the other. However, I will admit to being a little happy that Bush won, so he could reap the result of his blunders and guffaws both Foreign and Domestic in the previous four years. If you need to ask what those are, you are not paying close enough attention. Watching his approval rating dip into the 30 percentile has been a wonderful validation.

That started in the 30's. And since the only people who can stop it are the same elected officials people put back in office for bringing back the pork, it isn't going to stop happening.

Democracy is a seriously flawed system.

It's just less flawed than every other system devised by man.

Agreed. But it doesn't seem that anyone ... besides Ralph Nader is even attempting to do this ... or even educate people about it.

But there ISN'T "unrestricted capitalism". The conviction of Lay, Skilling, and Fastow clearly demonstrate that.

So, you honestly believe that there are no other corporate criminals in America? and these scoundrels aren't just the unlucky ones who got caught?

Now, is the greed of us hurting us? Yup. We can't begin to afford things like Social Security, Medicare, etc. Bush, in his defense, DID try to come up with ways to fix up some of the problems in Social Security and got slammed for it.

yeah. He wanted to "privatize" it. Find another way to make it so someone can make a buck off of the most unfortunate while giving yet another leg up to people who are already enjoying an era of 'overprivilidge'. Social Security and Medicare brought to you by Pfizer, Bechtel, Halliburton ... NO THANKS.

We give more than any country on Earth. I do not feel bad about our prosperity.

Fairly, We have more than any country on earth. I don't feel bad about our prosperity either, what I feel bad about is the greed and the fact that the costs of living these days are so inflated that most people cannot support themselves on a single person income anymore. There are a few people with a great deal of money and a growing underclass that will grow more discontent as they continue to go into debt trying to survive.

The principles of Socialism and Communism require a government able to circumvent basic human nature.

That is profoundly bad.

I'm not arguing an alternative government. I would like to see the one we have repaired though. Unfortunately, the greedy have seized control and it looks like they prefer a system that they can cheat and manipulate.

And, ranger, I hope you come out of this well. Israel will never be given the support is warrants by the int'l community and it's sad. Your country has bent over backwards to achieve peace and has simply been slapped, repeatedly, for doing so. Those who expect Israel to negotiate with people whose goal is its eradication are unrealistic. You can't negotiate with people who don't believe you have a right to exist.
-=Mike

The Israel situation is a little more clear now. I simply didn't understand it and am not above claiming ignorance. If you read my initial post, I was confounded by the fact that they were attacking their neighbors and wondered why we supported them. This may be a failing of our media to inform ... but I have known about a few attacks on Israel but they always seem to be followed up by an Imperialist response. This is probably just how the media is painting it. But my question as to why we support them is at least seeing a somewhat enlightened answer.
Der Mike; I appreciate your discourse. Even if I don't agree with you on everything, you are a rational person who has evidently spent more time finding a rationale to their beliefs and I respect that. I miss interaction like this from the right wing, I truly do. The Ann Coulters, Limbaugh's and Hannity's seem to have spoiled the rest of the apples. Most of what I get in debate anymore is ad-hominem attacks on 'bleeding heart', sandal-wearing, patchouli stinking, Fonda-following, Clinton-loving, draft-dodging Liberals.

It's nice to exchange debate with someone who sticks to the actual conversation. Thank you.

[Der Mike]

Yes I was comparing heat related death to heat related death. Not trying to tie heat related death to Socialism. C'mon, one hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, it's death on a wide scale either way.

No, it REALLY isn't terribly comparable. France is a) smaller, b) has a markedly smaller population, and c) they were also undeniably on vacation and left them to die. The deaths here were miniscule and simply caused by us having a quite large population and not enough people to take care of every individual out there.

The compaint would definitely have been made because no one would be able to believe that all of the obstacles that they put in front of voters didn't work. Black voters have never been more disenfranchised than in this last election.

There is no evidence of ANY black disenfranchisement in either of the last 2 Presidential elections. Not even a tiny shred.

Larger than expected turnout leading to long lines (and compared to what Afghans and Iraqis dealt with, Americans should be ashamed to even complain about that) isn't disenfranchisement.

The only complaining that I know of about paper ballots happened in Florida.

Which led to the Dems demanding machines all over the country.

I've never had a problem with them. They leave verifiable evidence behind.

Florida 2000 clearly demonstrates the problems. I preferred them, too, but after 2000, the Dems had no interest in listening, so it'd be easier to simply do what they requested.

Electronic information can be tampered with.

Paper ballots can't be? Poke a hole and --- voila --- it's an overvote and invalid. Or --- voila --- the voter voted for candidate X.

No such thing as voting that cannot be tampered with.

Trusting a corporation who has a vested interest in the Republican candidate (Walden O'Dell, CEO and 2004 Pioneer of DieBold, with his infamous written note to Republican's saying that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,") is not only a major conflict of interest, it is so disturbing that I can't believe the DieBold machines were ever allowed at all.

Which makes the irony that their election systems division is run by a Democrat named Mark Radke all the lovelier. That part of the equation (the guy who RUNS that part of the company voted for Kerry) is left out in a lot of the criticisms of the election, focusing on the CEO and not the person with the more direct control over that particular area.

And a guy with no vested interest in allowing a fraud, since he knows he'd become an instant mega-celebrity if he could blow the whistle about it.

Fair enough. But a corporation having access to our voting records isn't? DieBold? You trust them? I don't. Not with people like Walden O'Dell promising to deliver states to the President.

Considering that the person who runs the election part of the company is a Democrat, your concerns seem more than a little misplaced.

Yes. And interestingly many of these places where the electronic voting machines were came out extremely different in exit polls. Let's face it, the whole system needs a change.

You mean the same exit polls that oversampled large cities? The same incredibly flawed exit polls that caused the networks to incorrectly call Florida for Gore in 2000 when he never, at any point, led in the vote count?

THOSE polls are supposed to be the gospel?

Keep this in mind:

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/vtp_wp21v2.3.pdf

Summary

1. A series of claims have been made in recent days alleging that discrepancies between exit poll results and the presidential vote in certain states provides evidence of malfeasance in those states. These claims seem to be concentrated on states using electronic voting systems.

2. Exit polls predicted a significantly greater vote for Kerry nationwide than the official returns confirmed, but there is not any apparent systematic bias when we take this same analysis to the state level.

3. Analysis of deviations between the exit polls and the official returns show no particular patterns for states using electronic voting; nor does this analysis reveal any patterns for states using other forms of voting systems.

4. We conclude that there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for President Bush.

Exit polls are flawed as ALL polls are flawed. Whom you ask and how you ask have as much to do with the results as what people truly believe.

Neither was Andrew Jackson. Bush is BY FAR not the ideal President. I say this as an Independant, NOT a Democrat. People with criminal records should not be allowed to hold the office of President ... this would prevent quite a few members of Congress from ever trying to take the job.

*rolls eyes*

His "criminal record"?

I suppose evidence to back this up will soon be forthcoming.

However, I will admit to being a little happy that Bush won, so he could reap the result of his blunders and guffaws both Foreign and Domestic in the previous four years. If you need to ask what those are, you are not paying close enough attention. Watching his approval rating dip into the 30 percentile has been a wonderful validation.

It's now 40 in most polls. Are you unhappy now? I, personally, don't really allow polls to dictate my mood or my beliefs, but that's just me.

Bush is pursuing something the West needs to do but has lost the nerve to do --- take out an enemy who wishes to eradicate us. Bush is not different than Churchill here; the world ignored Churchill when he warned against placating Hitler and the consequences were dire.

The Muslims in the ME are a bigger problem.

Agreed. But it doesn't seem that anyone ... besides Ralph Nader is even attempting to do this ... or even educate people about it.

I discount pretty much anything that brazen hypocrite espouses.

And, yes, I can EASILY back up the claim that he is a brazen hypocrite.

So, you honestly believe that there are no other corporate criminals in America? and these scoundrels aren't just the unlucky ones who got caught?

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think there are no corporate criminals? I mean, I trust them more than "non-profit" agencies like PETA, but there are more than a few sleazeballs.

yeah. He wanted to "privatize" it.

Unlike his critics, Bush presented an option to fix the problem. It's far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain about things than it is to roll up your sleeves and actually present an alternative.

Find another way to make it so someone can make a buck off of the most unfortunate while giving yet another leg up to people who are already enjoying an era of 'overprivilidge'. Social Security and Medicare brought to you by Pfizer, Bechtel, Halliburton ... NO THANKS.

Hmm, you'd rather not have it at all? Because the government cannot remotely afford it.

Fairly, We have more than any country on earth. I don't feel bad about our prosperity either, what I feel bad about is the greed and the fact that the costs of living these days are so inflated that most people cannot support themselves on a single person income anymore.

Actually, most can easily.

They just want the goodies. They want the cable TV. They want the high-speed internet. They want the 2 cars. They want the new TV's.

You can't blame this country because people want more than they can afford.

There are a few people with a great deal of money and a growing underclass that will grow more discontent as they continue to go into debt trying to survive.

They can always try cutting back. Don't pay for cable. No cell phone.

The luxuries people can cut out if they opt to would save a lot of money.

I'm not arguing an alternative government. I would like to see the one we have repaired though. Unfortunately, the greedy have seized control and it looks like they prefer a system that they can cheat and manipulate.

You mean like the elderly? Or do you mean the "greedy" who don't demand increasing amounts of tax revenue?

"Greedy" is quite a nebulous term. How is the family that is livid that the government won't pay for all of their child's college education not greedy? How is the person who expects Social Security to be their retirement income not greedy?

The Israel situation is a little more clear now. I simply didn't understand it and am not above claiming ignorance. If you read my initial post, I was confounded by the fact that they were attacking their neighbors and wondered why we supported them. This may be a failing of our media to inform ... but I have known about a few attacks on Israel but they always seem to be followed up by an Imperialist response.

Care to explain how the attacks on them aren't "imperialist"? Quite honestly, if the Arabs didn't attack them, Israel wouldn't bother them at all. The Arab attacks are imperialist in nature --- just really, really ineptly done.

It's not about land. If Israelis become Muslim, they wouldn't CARE about the land of Israel (lord knows they didn't care when the Jews came in and bought it. Nor did they care when Egypt and Syria stole the land that was set aside for the Palestinians).

Just remember one thing: The Palestinians are nothing more than props for the Arab governments (when Syria and Egypt owns large swaths of land of modern Israel, they refused to give the "Palestinians" any land whatsoever for their own state). The Arabs want to attack Israel and hope that people ignore what they have done to Israel and notice only the response.
-=Mike

[Ranger1]

Did you go anywhere fun at least?

Oh you bet, had a relaxing 5 days with friends, it was so needed.

[David Panzer]

The only institution worthy of my trust, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

[Der Mike]

They are a truly deserving and good organization.
-=Mike

[Karachi Vyce]

In news that should shock absolute no RATIONAL person, it turns out that the main stream media has been doctoring photos from Lebanon.

You mean they haven't been presenting this war in a fair and balanced manner? The hell you say.

[Der Mike]

Next thing you know, you'll tell me that Palestinians create photo-op "human rights atrocities" on a regular basis.
-=Mike

[Ranger1]

New survey was made in the Palestinian Authority... 97% are supporting the Hezbollah.

Yesterday when 11 service men were killed, the Palestinians were out in the street celebrating.

Oh yes, peace is so close i can almost taste it... *spit*, taste like puke.

[Towelmaster]

Aww, poor Reuters...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html

[Der Mike]

As a leftie pointed out, when Israel pulled out of Lebanon, it "empowered" Hezbollah.

When Israel re-enters Lebanon, it "empowered" Hezbollah.

How would a ceasefire improve anything? The Muslim world seems to be the drunk guy who got his butt kicked for 30 minutes straight and when the guy finally got tired of slapping him around, called the guy a wuss for not fighting.

The Black Knight from Holy Grail made more logical sense.
-=Mike

[Towelmaster]

This is quite interesting as it was written by a Lebanese, instead of by a Syrian, an Iranian or an Israeli. The other side of the medal.

http://www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=1479

[Karachi Vyce]

I would honestly hope that most (not Islamic fascist) Lebanese felt that way.

It also is a slap in the face to every terrorist sympathizer and apologist, or weak-willed, cowardly liberal (I'm looking at YOU, Pelosi), or conservative anti-Semite (and YOU, Pat Buchanan), who thinks that Israel is in the wrong here or that it's the U.S.' job to condemn them for their actions.

Before too long, an international peacekeeping force probably will show up in the region, which may cause a ceasefire. However, as I continue to have absolutely ZERO trust or faith in the U.N., I don't expect them to fulfill their own mandates, so Hezbollah will likely not be abolished or disarmed. Unless we let the Israelis do it by force.

[Der Mike]

I would like to know why the "US should not butt into everybody's affairs" crowd still is demanding that we stop Israel.
-=Mike

[Karachi Vyce]

As said before on a few different blogs, this current conflict was the point at which many liberals were exposed as lying hypocrites. They've been trying to present this myth that they really are tough on national security; that they're for fighting the war on terror, just against fighting the war in Iraq.

The lack of support in some liberal circles, to outright condemnation in others, of Israel, proves that was all bullshit. Many liberals have absolutely no desire, or stomach, to fight the war on terror, even when the enemy could not be more clearly vile (as is Hezbollah), and others are actively rooting against Israel or just sitting back and making snide remarks about Jews, exposing their own thinly veiled anti-Semitism. It's a sad state of affairs when those Democrats who are in support of the war on terror (such as Joe Lieberman, and even, to an extent, Hillary Clinton) are being reviled by the crazy wing of the party.

[Ranger1]

You think this is hard? just wait for the war against Iran.... damn, nuclear missiles, yup, gonna be fun.