The real case against computers.
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
The case against computerized elections can be summed up in one word: Fraud. With paper ballots, there is no question who voted for what, unless the voter is simply clueless (say, not picking who they intended because it was confusing.) In those cases, especially for the elderly, there are plenty of people who can assist them. With knob ballots, it's vairly easy for anyone with basic mechanical knowledge to tell if the machine is working correctly.
With computers, I would never suggest using anything moe than a ColecoVision ADAM, runnin BASIC on top of it. There are too many loopholes and security vulnerabilities to make computerized elections at the polling stations to work. As computers get flashier and more powerful, the measures that the state and county governments (who run the elections) have to go to get more extreme.
Maybe voting can be handled online, using public and private key encoding to ensure that the ballots are sent only once and are valid, but the overhead would be a nightmare compared to the "everyday" polling methods.
I simply don't think anyone is ready for real computer voting, but counting votes by computerized devices is fine by me;)
But since it seems like we are going to have someone lesser than a malignant carbon rod as president, can we expect taco to leave the country along with Baldwin and Cher now? And what about Katz? and Streisand?
If you guys are leaving the country, don't let the door whack you on the butt on the way out.
Gore is ahead in the popular vote. He hasn't won shit. He lost over 100,000 votes in less than a day of counting, and has less than 100,000 to loose before Bush pulls ahead. Considering the humongous ammount of deployed members of the military, many of whom have a vendetta against Clinton, the democratic party is making a big mistake by staking a claim on a fleeting moment and is doing much more damage by challenging the rules set down by the constitution. The will of the people is not determined by the popular vote. It is determined by the electors that the choose in the electoral college.
California and New York voters have limited power as a resident of the state that they live in. That is my point. They can choose their elector. Their impact on the national vote count is not what matters, but who the people of that state chooses for an elector. Becuase each state has limited power, the politics of 2 big states can never gain exclusive control of federal politics, no matter how small the voting pool is in other states.
"Take, for instance, Ms. Smith, who walks 50 miles every day just so she can collect cans, enough cans to get enough money to get by. Thanks to the federal government, she never had to worry about buying food or planning for her retirement or obeying her ex-husband, who ignored her while spending his days trading online. She never goes to see her son, a wealthy rancher, because he makes her sing the union label song to him every chance they meet. Your money helps pay this woman for everything she needs, and that way, she can use her coke money, I mean can money, to buy kitties. Nice, soft kitties that need a home and a mother. Kitties that hate the internal combustion engine and rich people. By the way, she lives in Palm Beach, and the republican voting authority, oh, democrat? well, whatever, it's a right wing conspiracy to make the ballots confusing to her. I mean, the candidates are numbered and seperated and printed on paper, thin paper, and there's arrows poingting to the holes, do you know where I'm getting at? She is too old and proud to ask the people running her local voting station for help. "
Gimmie a break. By now, the complaints about the balots have probably outnumbered the actual Buchanan votes five times over. Most of the calls are probably from "activist" (read: nothing better to do than bitch) college students that know nothing about the economy, much less about getting by without calling their parents for money.
In any case, this voting mess has all gotten beyond silly. Hope the door dosen't hit you and Mr Baldwin's butt on the way out!
So, you know my true motives, eh? I was determined to stop these threads before the total number of messages hit 6,666, but it's already too late. I guess it's time to raise up my army of demons and order them to destroy you and slashdot. Doubt me? Fine, go ahead, I'll just invoke Darwin's Law.
I'm not sure about other florida areas. But I must say that many in the republican party did not like Pat at all. 30% seems high for some areas, especially in Florida, I will admit that. If I had the percentage of Pat's vote, I'd love to share it. But to go from 3,000 in a primary to 1,000 in a election four years later does seem odd. I would expect a mimimum of half the votes being for him intentionally if this ballot thing become anything but hogwash. (They were marked with arrows and assistance with the ballots is rather plentiful! They even published and distributed the sample ballots!) But, there is no evidence that he actually didn't get his votes, because there are many retired, church-going senior citizens that like Al (let's tax social security in '93!)Gore's handouts, but are much more concerned about morality in America after they are gone. For them, there is no other choice, making Pat's votes seem reasonable.
I really went to simple on the analogy, but the reason I used hitler is not only because he was extremely popular in Germany, but that the followers he had were extremely devoted to him, to a point that is hard for us to see anywhere nowadays. Take a small mass of people, such as 11-year-old Backstreet Boys fans, and multiply their devotion by 20 times, and maybe we'll get close.
Most people outside Germany didn't treat Hitler so warmly, especially once he gained power.
The devoted supporters of Hitler in Germany would have bowled over an unsuspecting Europe if in fact they used a popular vote to determine who would become the leader of a group of nations, and essentially the will of one nation would have been imposed on the rest of the nations.
Back to the United States, I must admit that there has to be a reason why California and New England are so strongly behind Gore and the rest of the country, is not (to varying degrees). Essentially the pro-bush states seem to be saying "What works for you guys won't work for us". And, yes, the same argument could work for Gore. Kinda. Gore seems to be a bit (honestly, a lot. Makes Clinton looks like a catcher way out in right field.) further from the middle. If Bush were any closer to the middle, he would say that his position on abortion is "Kinda."
"Rhetoric aside, your argument is that some people's votes should inherently be worth more than others, because of where they live." Actually, because this pertains to a federal government, I believe that many laws and social programs that are fine for the Bronx won't work for Gopherville, USA. The electoral college puts polarizing issues that are viewed differently depending on where you live back where they belong, in state and local government. It also keeps extremism at a minimum, making both political parties as bubblegumish as they've become. Many of us think that's a good thing;)...
Name me someone else who I could use in my analogy. Heck, I can't even use Gorby anymore, after the fall of the soviet union, he simmered down even _more_. His daughter even lives in the US as a Christian (and yes, he's perfectly fine with that).
Those people, btw, did die in order to show as many people as possible what happens when you combine hate with power. Unfortunately, many tweleve year olds have never even heard of Hitler(nor MC Hammer or other recent figures, as I found out during a 'quiz' I gave them...). I'm waiting to watch a "Jaywalk" to see how many colege students and people on the street can't identify a picture of the Nazi leader to Leno. (A recent one had people who couldn't even figure out who Bush Jr. is...)
Doesn't it make more sense to use the Total:Buchanan or Gore:Buchanan ratio. I mean, more Buchanan supporters mean that an area is more "conservative", which would take a much bigger peice of the pie from Nader and Gore, and it would also deposit more votes in the "not _that_ conservative (the Boy Scouts are a hate group, but Gore is gonna take my guns away!)" Bush corner.
In the Republican primary in that exact same area, thanks to support from a relative, Buchanan got up to 8,000 votes in 1996. In a primary, where a very small number of republicans actually turn out compared to election days. Of course, that was way before he left the party, but it is more than reasonable that he still has between 1/3rd of the supporters that he did back then. Saying "this is wrong because every other country voted differently." is complete bull. And, as most of us who's visited know, you never visit Palm Beach without seeing something odd. Anyway....
I would like to remind everyone that the electoral college works. Just because New York and California really really want Gore to win doesn't mean that the rest of the country wants what Gore represents. Imagine if the EU existed during Hitler's rise to power, and Nazi Germany dominated the popular vote for the elections to president of the EU. This is all hypothetical, but I'm simply afraid that a lot of people don't understand the power balancing that the electoral college brings.
Which is why I'm kinda glad that the electoral college is, so far, being upheld.
Because I don't want to demonize Al Gore much more than he has been already (I simply don't agree with a number of his views), I'll use Hitler and a hypothetical not-quite-there-yet version of the European Union.
Imagine if the EU was more like the United States during Hitler's famous rise to power. Come time for federal elections, and guess what? NY and Cali... er... Germany dominated the popular vote of the EU's president elect by several million votes for Hitler. Rather than today's redistribution of wealth issues that Gore supports, it would be Hitler's Nazi supremecy issues that the rest of the EU simply would not agree with. Once hitler becomes head of the EU, he sees that there is precedence to enact forced social change onto the entire populace through good laws such as desegregation, equal oppritunity law, and drug prohibition. Hitler then proposes a moratorium on letting jews live, enacts a military draft for every non-Nazi in the EU, and declares war on Puerto Rico. I really hope you see where I'm driving at.
Many moderates and republicans, and even the better democrats out the (including Clinton, amazingly) see and understand this, and badly written and over-extending liberal laws, while they are good in intent, are often dangerous when it comes to the authority it can give the federal government or take away from people. The government needs to be VERY careful when it tries to force social change on the populace. Usually, if it is forced, that means that much of the general public isn't ready for it (example, "civic unions") or isn't comfortable with the limitation of freedom that such laws can mean. It can also mean that they see it as being unfair (redistributing wealth from the heartland to NYC and Cali, among other places).
Taking the "republican" approach, "conservative" theory that the republican platform is based on means taking what we know and have learned from the past to make the best decisions for the future.
While there are many reasons to support the death penalty, the primary one being that there was once no way in heck people could afford to keep mass murderers alive and in prision, there is definitely a case against it. Rather than taking a bleeding heart liberal approach that most of the opponents take, and it sounds like you might also, I would take a more common sense approach.
The question is "Is the death penalty a deterrent?" The obvious anwser is YES, it can be. For example, if you were to be put to death for stealing a candy bar, 99.999 percent of the people I know would not take a chance on stealing a candy bar. Would the death penalty deter somebody from committing muder. No, it wouldn't. If somebody does not respect the right for someone else to live their life, and has no respect for the life of others, why could we expct such a person to have any respect of fear for the safety of their own life. If it comes to stopping power, for example if they are on a rampage of murder or recklessness (say, behind the wheel driving 160mph), then it would be wise to kill them before they kill anyone else. But I simply don't see the good in putting them to death. I don't necessarilly see good in letting themlive either, and if they do live, it would be nice to see them suffer in prison at least as much as you and I do out here, trying to make a living. But no, the death penalty does not deter murder. It's simply about respect for life, and if one does not respect the lives of others, he/she also will not have respect for his own life. (Combined with guilt, this explains a large number of murder-suicides.)
I may never agree with the roe versus wade decision, as I consider it to be an area where people want to be "damn wrong, dammit!", because I don't see how it could not violate the constitutionally aknowledged right of life (the one followed by liberty and pursuit of happiness). But probably the thing that I can't believe the public doesn't realize most is that if it was overturned, it simply becomes a matter goverened by state law (just as any other issue, such as sales tax and the more commonly accepted forms of murder.) If Utah wanted to say "We do not want abortion on demand in our state!", the people have NO power to pass such a law. I see big problems with that. The federal government has far to much control over the states, and I can see why many states simply see how allowing abortion will help turn their communities south. If I wanted to live in a bastion of sin, I'd go to California and New York and probably vote for Nader and Gore too (I admit that Bush isn't wonderful either, but his cabinet and policies blow the other two away. We've seen republican economic policy for most of the last 20 years, and nobody recognizes that. Greenspan what?:) ).
If Gore was really for the people and not the powerful, he'd give them more local control over government and weaken the federal government. The powerful is the federal government. Nader, if you really want the corruption and power injected by the corporations to go away, then make the federal government a non-target for them. Your real agenda is to make the federal government more powerful, which would make for more corruption and abuse through politicians working the system. More potential for damage there than what any corporation will ever be able to bring.
Please. If anything, the Nader vote got hippies and bums that didn't want Bush to win energized and gave Gore a much bigger boost than he would have gotten. If Gore was ahead of Bush by at least 1 or 2 points in the polls before hand, or if Nader wasn't "taking" 5% of the vote *coughcompletebullshitcough*, the hippie and bleeding heart soccer mom and even the "I'm on the A-list too!!!!" hollywood knownothing vote would have stayed home.
I said there was a CORRELATION. It is not necessarily equal. But I'll be damned if I run into a poor person nowadays not willing to share their story of how they messed up and got to the point they are. It is more than usually being lazy about work. Often, it is due bad decisions that revolve around relationships, alcohol, and job markets. Many times it is just an inability to understand the system, or just the complete inability to recognize that there IS a system. Rarely is it "just because". The few who do use the "just because" line of reasoning simply don't have a cohesive world view.
#1, that social ills are rarely solvable by the government. The U.S. government can create social problems and must do its best to treat everyone as equals. I don't believe that the US government can solve poverty right now. The efforts to do so right now take away the purchasing power of the american public and buisnesses, and will hurt the government to the point where the social programs overreach to the point that we will see the government breaking legs to hand out crutches.
Quite simply, why would the poor learn how to make money if they receive enough money from the government to live off of? Answer this and you get a gold star.
#2 Hospitals in Texas can not turn a patient away. Period. That is bullshit. Since you talked about Texas in present tense, thats how I address it. Also, no offense, but death and illness happens, and the doctors that walk this earth are, IMO, a gift from God, not an entitlement. There is no basic human right to health care, money, or a job. The general public in good times seem to forget this.
I'll wait for my points to be proven when the government starts splitting paychecks with 33% to the worker and %66 to two baby boomer social security recipients....
"And most Australian taxpayers are happy to have it that way, as they know that if they ever fall on tough times, the social-welfare net will be there to catch them."
And who will be there to catch the Austrailian government once they can't hold up their own saftey net anymore. Lord knows America spends WAY too much money on foreign aide, and I would have no problem redirecting all of that money to social programs here. Tons of that money has gone to failed formerly socialist governments.
"In Australia you are guaranteed a good life even if you never earn a cent, as the Government will support you." And this is a good thing? Oh, please. Birds don't learn how to fly if they aren't kicked out on a 10 foot fall, and people don't learn how to fish if you give them fish for free that you possibly can't fiscally afford if your finances hit trouble. Survival is an incentive, and the fear of death, failure, and hunger was put here in the world so that people could better themselves. This is no time for a socialist utopia.
Tell him that when we do find him, we will rip off his head and piss in the hole. Then, once you mobilize us, we will start doing random stuff like cutting his phone line, setting fire to his dog, and leaving... let's call it "illegal" material in his mailbox right before we report him to the FBI.
Just an idea. I hate people that jack with me and my friends, and I have a soft spot in my heart for seeing people get pissed on unfairly.
If I ever meet up with this clown and find his email, I'll subscribe him to every "lolitasex" mailing list I can find. Especially if I can find some covertly operated by the boys in blue.
Which more or less invalidates your argument. Lucky or not, Television is a luxury. God never created TV on the 8th day, and I did just fine without one for many years.
You don't seem to realize that the government should not be in the buisness of MAINTAIN A STANDARD OF LIVING. When they do, TV's and sofas become entitlements. People will use the government as a frikkin suckle, and learn how NOT to live and survive on their own. One day, if this government shall fall or be unable to support any more handout, we will have a bunch of people that natural selection didn't beat the firts time around starving in the streets, having forgotten the fine arts of begging and working. Charity can identify the cases worth saving. These are characterzied by the grateful and those who want to work.
Poverty will never go away. Poverty is a RELATIVE state. If you really think you were poor, then think god you are AMERICAN. Palestinian toddler would call you a frikkin wuss.
I don't believe that being poor means being lazy, but I believe here in America that there is one HELL of a correlation. If what you said was relevant, then we would see people who want to make a living wage and support their family would join the military. Yeah right. Too many hippies are out there that believe in being poor, excuse me, "immaterial", that the government owes them a free lunch every day, and that happiness is derived from fighting capitalism and pissing on the steps of wal mart. And my taxes foot their bills.
Oh, and why is the cost of higher education so high? Imagine if you had a buisness in a sector where you never had to worry about competition for tution costs, because most of your money came from the rich of the government-funded clients. Scholarships have taken a back seat to government funding and grants. Middle class people who pay their own way are also a dying breed. Without the government, there would be a decent chance that getting education at our PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITIES would actually be an affordable investment, and ridiculous ammounts of money wouldn't be wasted on multi-million dollar football coaches, whose year salary could fund the education of hundreds of individual students.
My tax dollars pay for schools that I could hardly f*cking afford. I'm pissed.
Poor in the United States means not having any money to by food because you were shafted by the lottery tickets again. Poor in the United States means you can't afford the monthly payments on your 52 inch TV. Poor in the United States is a filthy rich compared to being poor an any third world country where there are no jobs and a crappy economy thanks to corrupt government and a ridiculous choice for the place to hang your hat.
The poor in the United States pay no taxes and get a humongous chunk of social support through federal and state governments along with the charity organizations that haven't closed up shop because of the lack of donations that result from a consficatory tax system.
The way the US is built and still is today, though not to the extent that it should be, a person is in control of their own destiny. The few times that they are forced to loose control are the times that the judicial system steps in. There is little to prevent a poor person in America to take control of his life and finances. The one condition is that he must be willing to work and earn his living, which people have been doing since the days of the caveman. If he doesn't want to work, then his parents screwed up in rasing him.
I was poor once. After being sick for 3 weeks, I was in debt, had to leave college which I was paying for myself, and had to find a full time job to catch up. I was broke off and on for 2 months, but I made it without the government's help and am doing fine.
Don't believe FOR A SECOND that the poor in America are really poor. If you do, you are also likely to believe that Columbus was evil, that no child being left behind means to lower standards of American students (otherwise you'll be discriminating against one minority or another), and that the only way to solve problems in society is through federal legistlation. Take your average American bum and throw him into the soviet union, and he will beg to come back. The only way to get by over there is if you have a job, quite possibly one you *gasp* might not like! And it'll be *gasp* a fraction of what minimum wage pays! *boo hoo*
I have little sympathy for those who faced that situation while raising children. I call them irresponsible, there is nothing more ridiculous than concieving a child (by this, I am not talking about those who have suffered rape) without planning ahead.
Both the Democratic party and the Green party seem convinced that prosperity is granted, not earned. They believe that redistributing wealth will save the poor and not hurt anyone else. They are foolish. Our corporations are loosing fast ground to corporations in other countries fast, and eventually we will see more layoffs and joblessness as a result. Sony is based in Japan for a reason. Who will pay the taxes once all the economic power gets sucked out of America?
Do you really want to help the poor? Point them to the nearest help wanted sign. America has worked hard to get the type of economy it has, don't hand the control of it from the people to liberals in the government. Teach our poor how to fish, quit handing fish out.
Slashdot Mirror
The case against computerized elections can be summed up in one word: Fraud. With paper ballots, there is no question who voted for what, unless the voter is simply clueless (say, not picking who they intended because it was confusing.) In those cases, especially for the elderly, there are plenty of people who can assist them. With knob ballots, it's vairly easy for anyone with basic mechanical knowledge to tell if the machine is working correctly. ;)
With computers, I would never suggest using anything moe than a ColecoVision ADAM, runnin BASIC on top of it. There are too many loopholes and security vulnerabilities to make computerized elections at the polling stations to work. As computers get flashier and more powerful, the measures that the state and county governments (who run the elections) have to go to get more extreme.
Maybe voting can be handled online, using public and private key encoding to ensure that the ballots are sent only once and are valid, but the overhead would be a nightmare compared to the "everyday" polling methods.
I simply don't think anyone is ready for real computer voting, but counting votes by computerized devices is fine by me
But since it seems like we are going to have someone lesser than a malignant carbon rod as president, can we expect taco to leave the country along with Baldwin and Cher now? And what about Katz? and Streisand?
If you guys are leaving the country, don't let the door whack you on the butt on the way out.
Gore is ahead in the popular vote. He hasn't won shit. He lost over 100,000 votes in less than a day of counting, and has less than 100,000 to loose before Bush pulls ahead. Considering the humongous ammount of deployed members of the military, many of whom have a vendetta against Clinton, the democratic party is making a big mistake by staking a claim on a fleeting moment and is doing much more damage by challenging the rules set down by the constitution. The will of the people is not determined by the popular vote. It is determined by the electors that the choose in the electoral college.
California and New York voters have limited power as a resident of the state that they live in. That is my point. They can choose their elector. Their impact on the national vote count is not what matters, but who the people of that state chooses for an elector. Becuase each state has limited power, the politics of 2 big states can never gain exclusive control of federal politics, no matter how small the voting pool is in other states.
"Take, for instance, Ms. Smith, who walks 50 miles every day just so she can collect cans, enough cans to get enough money to get by. Thanks to the federal government, she never had to worry about buying food or planning for her retirement or obeying her ex-husband, who ignored her while spending his days trading online. She never goes to see her son, a wealthy rancher, because he makes her sing the union label song to him every chance they meet. Your money helps pay this woman for everything she needs, and that way, she can use her coke money, I mean can money, to buy kitties. Nice, soft kitties that need a home and a mother. Kitties that hate the internal combustion engine and rich people. By the way, she lives in Palm Beach, and the republican voting authority, oh, democrat? well, whatever, it's a right wing conspiracy to make the ballots confusing to her. I mean, the candidates are numbered and seperated and printed on paper, thin paper, and there's arrows poingting to the holes, do you know where I'm getting at? She is too old and proud to ask the people running her local voting station for help. "
Gimmie a break. By now, the complaints about the balots have probably outnumbered the actual Buchanan votes five times over. Most of the calls are probably from "activist" (read: nothing better to do than bitch) college students that know nothing about the economy, much less about getting by without calling their parents for money.
In any case, this voting mess has all gotten beyond silly. Hope the door dosen't hit you and Mr Baldwin's butt on the way out!
Click Here
*NT*
So, you know my true motives, eh? I was determined to stop these threads before the total number of messages hit 6,666, but it's already too late. I guess it's time to raise up my army of demons and order them to destroy you and slashdot. Doubt me? Fine, go ahead, I'll just invoke Darwin's Law.
I hit send too early ;) ...
I'm not sure about other florida areas. But I must say that many in the republican party did not like Pat at all. 30% seems high for some areas, especially in Florida, I will admit that. If I had the percentage of Pat's vote, I'd love to share it. But to go from 3,000 in a primary to 1,000 in a election four years later does seem odd. I would expect a mimimum of half the votes being for him intentionally if this ballot thing become anything but hogwash. (They were marked with arrows and assistance with the ballots is rather plentiful! They even published and distributed the sample ballots!) But, there is no evidence that he actually didn't get his votes, because there are many retired, church-going senior citizens that like Al (let's tax social security in '93!)Gore's handouts, but are much more concerned about morality in America after they are gone. For them, there is no other choice, making Pat's votes seem reasonable.
I really went to simple on the analogy, but the reason I used hitler is not only because he was extremely popular in Germany, but that the followers he had were extremely devoted to him, to a point that is hard for us to see anywhere nowadays. Take a small mass of people, such as 11-year-old Backstreet Boys fans, and multiply their devotion by 20 times, and maybe we'll get close.
;)...
Most people outside Germany didn't treat Hitler so warmly, especially once he gained power.
The devoted supporters of Hitler in Germany would have bowled over an unsuspecting Europe if in fact they used a popular vote to determine who would become the leader of a group of nations, and essentially the will of one nation would have been imposed on the rest of the nations.
Back to the United States, I must admit that there has to be a reason why California and New England are so strongly behind Gore and the rest of the country, is not (to varying degrees). Essentially the pro-bush states seem to be saying "What works for you guys won't work for us". And, yes, the same argument could work for Gore. Kinda. Gore seems to be a bit (honestly, a lot. Makes Clinton looks like a catcher way out in right field.) further from the middle. If Bush were any closer to the middle, he would say that his position on abortion is "Kinda."
"Rhetoric aside, your argument is that some people's votes should inherently be worth more than others, because of where they live." Actually, because this pertains to a federal government, I believe that many laws and social programs that are fine for the Bronx won't work for Gopherville, USA. The electoral college puts polarizing issues that are viewed differently depending on where you live back where they belong, in state and local government. It also keeps extremism at a minimum, making both political parties as bubblegumish as they've become. Many of us think that's a good thing
Name me someone else who I could use in my analogy. Heck, I can't even use Gorby anymore, after the fall of the soviet union, he simmered down even _more_. His daughter even lives in the US as a Christian (and yes, he's perfectly fine with that).
Those people, btw, did die in order to show as many people as possible what happens when you combine hate with power. Unfortunately, many tweleve year olds have never even heard of Hitler(nor MC Hammer or other recent figures, as I found out during a 'quiz' I gave them...). I'm waiting to watch a "Jaywalk" to see how many colege students and people on the street can't identify a picture of the Nazi leader to Leno. (A recent one had people who couldn't even figure out who Bush Jr. is...)
Doesn't it make more sense to use the Total:Buchanan or Gore:Buchanan ratio. I mean, more Buchanan supporters mean that an area is more "conservative", which would take a much bigger peice of the pie from Nader and Gore, and it would also deposit more votes in the "not _that_ conservative (the Boy Scouts are a hate group, but Gore is gonna take my guns away!)" Bush corner.
In the Republican primary in that exact same area, thanks to support from a relative, Buchanan got up to 8,000 votes in 1996. In a primary, where a very small number of republicans actually turn out compared to election days. Of course, that was way before he left the party, but it is more than reasonable that he still has between 1/3rd of the supporters that he did back then. Saying "this is wrong because every other country voted differently." is complete bull. And, as most of us who's visited know, you never visit Palm Beach without seeing something odd. Anyway....
I would like to remind everyone that the electoral college works. Just because New York and California really really want Gore to win doesn't mean that the rest of the country wants what Gore represents. Imagine if the EU existed during Hitler's rise to power, and Nazi Germany dominated the popular vote for the elections to president of the EU. This is all hypothetical, but I'm simply afraid that a lot of people don't understand the power balancing that the electoral college brings.
I had no idea, I just used Utah to represent typical ultra-right state represented by a really cool senator (Hatch)....
Which is why I'm kinda glad that the electoral college is, so far, being upheld.
Because I don't want to demonize Al Gore much more than he has been already (I simply don't agree with a number of his views), I'll use Hitler and a hypothetical not-quite-there-yet version of the European Union.
Imagine if the EU was more like the United States during Hitler's famous rise to power. Come time for federal elections, and guess what? NY and Cali... er... Germany dominated the popular vote of the EU's president elect by several million votes for Hitler. Rather than today's redistribution of wealth issues that Gore supports, it would be Hitler's Nazi supremecy issues that the rest of the EU simply would not agree with. Once hitler becomes head of the EU, he sees that there is precedence to enact forced social change onto the entire populace through good laws such as desegregation, equal oppritunity law, and drug prohibition. Hitler then proposes a moratorium on letting jews live, enacts a military draft for every non-Nazi in the EU, and declares war on Puerto Rico. I really hope you see where I'm driving at.
Many moderates and republicans, and even the better democrats out the (including Clinton, amazingly) see and understand this, and badly written and over-extending liberal laws, while they are good in intent, are often dangerous when it comes to the authority it can give the federal government or take away from people. The government needs to be VERY careful when it tries to force social change on the populace. Usually, if it is forced, that means that much of the general public isn't ready for it (example, "civic unions") or isn't comfortable with the limitation of freedom that such laws can mean. It can also mean that they see it as being unfair (redistributing wealth from the heartland to NYC and Cali, among other places).
Taking the "republican" approach, "conservative" theory that the republican platform is based on means taking what we know and have learned from the past to make the best decisions for the future.
While there are many reasons to support the death penalty, the primary one being that there was once no way in heck people could afford to keep mass murderers alive and in prision, there is definitely a case against it. Rather than taking a bleeding heart liberal approach that most of the opponents take, and it sounds like you might also, I would take a more common sense approach.
The question is "Is the death penalty a deterrent?" The obvious anwser is YES, it can be. For example, if you were to be put to death for stealing a candy bar, 99.999 percent of the people I know would not take a chance on stealing a candy bar. Would the death penalty deter somebody from committing muder. No, it wouldn't. If somebody does not respect the right for someone else to live their life, and has no respect for the life of others, why could we expct such a person to have any respect of fear for the safety of their own life. If it comes to stopping power, for example if they are on a rampage of murder or recklessness (say, behind the wheel driving 160mph), then it would be wise to kill them before they kill anyone else. But I simply don't see the good in putting them to death. I don't necessarilly see good in letting themlive either, and if they do live, it would be nice to see them suffer in prison at least as much as you and I do out here, trying to make a living. But no, the death penalty does not deter murder. It's simply about respect for life, and if one does not respect the lives of others, he/she also will not have respect for his own life. (Combined with guilt, this explains a large number of murder-suicides.)
Compared to federal control over every aspect of life? Definitely.
I may never agree with the roe versus wade decision, as I consider it to be an area where people want to be "damn wrong, dammit!", because I don't see how it could not violate the constitutionally aknowledged right of life (the one followed by liberty and pursuit of happiness). But probably the thing that I can't believe the public doesn't realize most is that if it was overturned, it simply becomes a matter goverened by state law (just as any other issue, such as sales tax and the more commonly accepted forms of murder.) If Utah wanted to say "We do not want abortion on demand in our state!", the people have NO power to pass such a law. I see big problems with that. The federal government has far to much control over the states, and I can see why many states simply see how allowing abortion will help turn their communities south. If I wanted to live in a bastion of sin, I'd go to California and New York and probably vote for Nader and Gore too (I admit that Bush isn't wonderful either, but his cabinet and policies blow the other two away. We've seen republican economic policy for most of the last 20 years, and nobody recognizes that. Greenspan what? :) ).
If Gore was really for the people and not the powerful, he'd give them more local control over government and weaken the federal government. The powerful is the federal government. Nader, if you really want the corruption and power injected by the corporations to go away, then make the federal government a non-target for them. Your real agenda is to make the federal government more powerful, which would make for more corruption and abuse through politicians working the system. More potential for damage there than what any corporation will ever be able to bring.
Please. If anything, the Nader vote got hippies and bums that didn't want Bush to win energized and gave Gore a much bigger boost than he would have gotten. If Gore was ahead of Bush by at least 1 or 2 points in the polls before hand, or if Nader wasn't "taking" 5% of the vote *coughcompletebullshitcough*, the hippie and bleeding heart soccer mom and even the "I'm on the A-list too!!!!" hollywood knownothing vote would have stayed home.
I said there was a CORRELATION. It is not necessarily equal. But I'll be damned if I run into a poor person nowadays not willing to share their story of how they messed up and got to the point they are. It is more than usually being lazy about work. Often, it is due bad decisions that revolve around relationships, alcohol, and job markets. Many times it is just an inability to understand the system, or just the complete inability to recognize that there IS a system. Rarely is it "just because". The few who do use the "just because" line of reasoning simply don't have a cohesive world view.
I really have only two points:
#1, that social ills are rarely solvable by the government. The U.S. government can create social problems and must do its best to treat everyone as equals. I don't believe that the US government can solve poverty right now. The efforts to do so right now take away the purchasing power of the american public and buisnesses, and will hurt the government to the point where the social programs overreach to the point that we will see the government breaking legs to hand out crutches.
Quite simply, why would the poor learn how to make money if they receive enough money from the government to live off of? Answer this and you get a gold star.
#2 Hospitals in Texas can not turn a patient away. Period. That is bullshit. Since you talked about Texas in present tense, thats how I address it. Also, no offense, but death and illness happens, and the doctors that walk this earth are, IMO, a gift from God, not an entitlement. There is no basic human right to health care, money, or a job. The general public in good times seem to forget this.
I'll wait for my points to be proven when the government starts splitting paychecks with 33% to the worker and %66 to two baby boomer social security recipients....
"And most Australian taxpayers are happy to have it that way, as they know that if they ever fall on tough times, the social-welfare net will be there to catch them."
And who will be there to catch the Austrailian government once they can't hold up their own saftey net anymore. Lord knows America spends WAY too much money on foreign aide, and I would have no problem redirecting all of that money to social programs here. Tons of that money has gone to failed formerly socialist governments.
"In Australia you are guaranteed a good life even if you never earn a cent, as the Government will support you." And this is a good thing? Oh, please. Birds don't learn how to fly if they aren't kicked out on a 10 foot fall, and people don't learn how to fish if you give them fish for free that you possibly can't fiscally afford if your finances hit trouble. Survival is an incentive, and the fear of death, failure, and hunger was put here in the world so that people could better themselves. This is no time for a socialist utopia.
Tell him that when we do find him, we will rip off his head and piss in the hole. Then, once you mobilize us, we will start doing random stuff like cutting his phone line, setting fire to his dog, and leaving... let's call it "illegal" material in his mailbox right before we report him to the FBI.
Just an idea. I hate people that jack with me and my friends, and I have a soft spot in my heart for seeing people get pissed on unfairly.
If I ever meet up with this clown and find his email, I'll subscribe him to every "lolitasex" mailing list I can find. Especially if I can find some covertly operated by the boys in blue.
NT :)
Which more or less invalidates your argument. Lucky or not, Television is a luxury. God never created TV on the 8th day, and I did just fine without one for many years.
You don't seem to realize that the government should not be in the buisness of MAINTAIN A STANDARD OF LIVING. When they do, TV's and sofas become entitlements. People will use the government as a frikkin suckle, and learn how NOT to live and survive on their own. One day, if this government shall fall or be unable to support any more handout, we will have a bunch of people that natural selection didn't beat the firts time around starving in the streets, having forgotten the fine arts of begging and working. Charity can identify the cases worth saving. These are characterzied by the grateful and those who want to work.
Poverty will never go away. Poverty is a RELATIVE state. If you really think you were poor, then think god you are AMERICAN. Palestinian toddler would call you a frikkin wuss.
I don't believe that being poor means being lazy, but I believe here in America that there is one HELL of a correlation. If what you said was relevant, then we would see people who want to make a living wage and support their family would join the military. Yeah right. Too many hippies are out there that believe in being poor, excuse me, "immaterial", that the government owes them a free lunch every day, and that happiness is derived from fighting capitalism and pissing on the steps of wal mart. And my taxes foot their bills.
Oh, and why is the cost of higher education so high? Imagine if you had a buisness in a sector where you never had to worry about competition for tution costs, because most of your money came from the rich of the government-funded clients. Scholarships have taken a back seat to government funding and grants. Middle class people who pay their own way are also a dying breed. Without the government, there would be a decent chance that getting education at our PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITIES would actually be an affordable investment, and ridiculous ammounts of money wouldn't be wasted on multi-million dollar football coaches, whose year salary could fund the education of hundreds of individual students.
My tax dollars pay for schools that I could hardly f*cking afford. I'm pissed.
Poor in the United States means not having any money to by food because you were shafted by the lottery tickets again. Poor in the United States means you can't afford the monthly payments on your 52 inch TV. Poor in the United States is a filthy rich compared to being poor an any third world country where there are no jobs and a crappy economy thanks to corrupt government and a ridiculous choice for the place to hang your hat.
The poor in the United States pay no taxes and get a humongous chunk of social support through federal and state governments along with the charity organizations that haven't closed up shop because of the lack of donations that result from a consficatory tax system.
The way the US is built and still is today, though not to the extent that it should be, a person is in control of their own destiny. The few times that they are forced to loose control are the times that the judicial system steps in. There is little to prevent a poor person in America to take control of his life and finances. The one condition is that he must be willing to work and earn his living, which people have been doing since the days of the caveman. If he doesn't want to work, then his parents screwed up in rasing him.
I was poor once. After being sick for 3 weeks, I was in debt, had to leave college which I was paying for myself, and had to find a full time job to catch up. I was broke off and on for 2 months, but I made it without the government's help and am doing fine.
Don't believe FOR A SECOND that the poor in America are really poor. If you do, you are also likely to believe that Columbus was evil, that no child being left behind means to lower standards of American students (otherwise you'll be discriminating against one minority or another), and that the only way to solve problems in society is through federal legistlation. Take your average American bum and throw him into the soviet union, and he will beg to come back. The only way to get by over there is if you have a job, quite possibly one you *gasp* might not like! And it'll be *gasp* a fraction of what minimum wage pays! *boo hoo*
I have little sympathy for those who faced that situation while raising children. I call them irresponsible, there is nothing more ridiculous than concieving a child (by this, I am not talking about those who have suffered rape) without planning ahead.
Both the Democratic party and the Green party seem convinced that prosperity is granted, not earned. They believe that redistributing wealth will save the poor and not hurt anyone else. They are foolish. Our corporations are loosing fast ground to corporations in other countries fast, and eventually we will see more layoffs and joblessness as a result. Sony is based in Japan for a reason. Who will pay the taxes once all the economic power gets sucked out of America?
Do you really want to help the poor? Point them to the nearest help wanted sign. America has worked hard to get the type of economy it has, don't hand the control of it from the people to liberals in the government. Teach our poor how to fish, quit handing fish out.
-RH