The principle that non-political positions are filled via a meritocracy, not just favors to be given out to political allies.
You're looking at it backward. They aren't doling out favors or taking away benefits, they are looking for people who will represent their interests well.
If I am hired as a manager, and half my programmers are Java programmers, but I need Perl programmers, I'll replace the Java programmers with Perl programmers. This is not a punishment.
To look at it another way, anyone who wants to be on this commission enough that think of it as benefitting themselves instead of society etc., are not seeking to be on it for reasonable enough reasons for me to care. And no one who didn't think of it this way could think of it as punishment/favor.
The only question I have is whether this will impact the commission's efficacy.
If someone is kicked off, it is not a punishment to me, though it may feel like it, as exemplified by your admission that this has "very little" negative impact on anyone.
But that isn't the job of the committee members. Their duty is not to represent the administration. Their duty is to represent their companies and their nation.
I wasn't talking about their "duty." I was talking about what they actually do: they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being appointed by the executive branch.
So you're saying that many people on the left today actually ARE out to subvert the U.S. government? Because as bad a rap as McCarthy gets today, he was actually right, if not about his methods, about the threat. There were many Soviet-affiliated spies and agents in our midst.
McCarthy was wrong to do much of what he did, there's no doubt. But if not for McCarthy, the Cold War might not have turned out in our favor, because the Soviets were in our midst. They controlled the Progressive party, which was led by a former U.S vice president. There was a serious threat, a real danger of the U.S. allowing the Soviets to dominate Europe.
The fact that McCarthy was right, and he was wrong, is a dilemma that is not easily solved, and comparing our current situation to that one shows that either you don't understand the real complexities we faced at that time, or it is a tacit admission that the challenges we face today are far too complex for you to dismiss as easily as you're attempting to.
I don't know if this is right. How could I? I don't know any more about it than anyone else who is responding, which is very little.
Anyway, there are a lot more uninsightful attackers getting modded up than uninsightful apologists getting modded down. All of these complete morons saying this is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, persecuting people, and all of this other nonsense. This is really a nonstory, at best. Oh my, they want people who like them to represent them. Big whoop. Who cares? What negative impact does this have, on anyone?
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual, uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, engages in corporatism, implements totalitarianism"
First, I thought the GOP sucked because they put the individual over the group? Make up your mind!
Second, no political opposition is being forcibly suppressed. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
Third, wtf does "engages in severe economic and social regimentation" mean? Certainly not what the actual words mean, because "regimentation" simple means systematic, order, and "severe economic and social order" doesn't have any serious meaning.
Fourth, corporatism is an element of fascism? Only in the same sense breathing is, unless you're a communist.
Fifth, in no sense is the U.S. remotely totalitarian, unless, similarly to point four, you're an anarchist.
Last, using a Wikipedia definition to prove your point means you automatically lose. Not that you had a chance to win with this stupid argument in the first place. Come on, being against gay marriage is totalitarian? That's taking neither marriage nor totalitarianism silly.
I have a suggestion: go to meet some political prisoners in Cuba and tell them that America is fascist and totalitarian because they disallow gay marriage. Go ahead.
I do notice that this place seems to be getting more and more like an Orwellian novel every coming year. I'm kind of getting a bit scared here.
I submit that if you actually read and understood Orwell, you'd have a much more realistic perspective, and be a lot less scared.
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
Translation: "I have no idea what I am talking about! Lookee meeee!"
There is no sense in which this violates the First Amendment. This is a government organization that the executive branch of the U.S. government controls the U.S. delegates to. They have first and last say. They can base the choices of the delegation membership on anything they see fit.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
First, it is not a punishment. That's the wrong way to look at it. They are protecting their own concerns, not trying to harm people who disagree with them.
That said, regardless of how you wish to characterize it, they can do whatever they wish. They could hire only redheaded stepchildren if they wished to.
By saying it violates the First Amendment or that Bush can't do what he is doing just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
You can criticize the decisions as harming the legitimacy or efficacy of the commission. But to say what happened is illegal or immoral or anything of the like is just ridiculously indefensible.
This is nice revisionism and all, but there is no evidence that the memo in question was "ignored." The 9/11 Commission notes quite plainly on page 342 that:
Despite such reports and a 1999 paper on Bin Ladin's command structure for al Qaeda,there were no complete portraits of his strategy or of the extent of his organization's involvement in past terrorist attacks.Nor had the intelligence community provided an authoritative depiction of his organization's relationships with other governments,or the scale of the threat his organization posed to the United States.
Further:
Whatever the weaknesses in the CIA's portraiture,both Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush and their top advisers told us they got the picture--they understood Bin Ladin was a danger.But given the character and pace of their policy efforts,we do not believe they fully understood just how many people al Qaeda might kill,and how soon it might do it.At some level that is hard to define,we believe the threat had not yet become compelling.
In other words, it's not that they didn't realize what the memos said, but at the time, the memos did not amount to compelling evidence of the threat we now know was coming.
Now, you can feel free to disagree with the 9/11 Commission. But to say as a statement of fact that it was ignored is, well, ignoring the evidence (and inventing new evidence).
I would like to apply for a grant to buy Windows computers for my school. Can you give me the grant money now, so I can apply, as Windows is required for application? I promise I'll pay you back if I get turned down.
Yes, new texts would almost surely be insignificant. If they did not survive through the church for the first few hundred years, there's no reason for us to have much care for it now. What would be interesting is if they found more ancient copies of the canon, perhaps to go alongside Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It might shed some light on some of the few mysteries we still have (such as the last 11 verses of Mark, for example).
As to Thomas: the only people who take it seriously are those who dislike the mainstream church and want to inject something else into Christianity that they like better. It has far less significant historical basis, and its contents are just bizarre in comparison, such as nonsense implying pantheism, and denigration of women: "every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven" and "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Those are not things the Jesus of the canon would have said.
There's a reason the Gospel of Thomas was rejected in the fifth century: because it had been rejected by the churches for the previous few hundred years. And the same logic would likely apply to any newly found "lost gospel."
Yeah, I just noticed undo in text fields. That alone is worth the entire update, as anyone on Slashdot who uses Safari and has lost an entire comment or journal entry because they selected all and then hit 'c' instead of cmd-'c' can attest.
I have no idea really what Archy is -- despite reading a lot of Raskin's writings about THE in the past, I still have no clue, and have ceased caring -- but I am hereby announcing that I will be writing something that contrasts itself to Archy, called Anarchy.
He had to cut what's 6 hours or more of story down to 2 hours. Things have to be cut. That you think what is obviously funny about this scene is over his hea, instead of thinking this is a casualty of time, shows you to be an idiot.
But it still seems to me that for every step forward in our rights in one area we loose just a tad more in another.
It doesn't seem that way to me. Maybe if you look only at the few years since 9/11... but even then, since that time, we've had anti-sodomy laws ruled unconstitutional, and virtual child porn ruled legal (not that I am in favor of virtual child porn, but it's nice that the courts recognize we can do fake things and distinguish them from reality, which didn't happen before).
Perhaps the 2nd suffers less under the gop, but doese not privacy and freedom suffer more?
"Freedom" is ambiguous. The Second Amendment is about freedom too. As to privacy, I am unconvinced. The great majority of the things the left complains about -- for example, being able to search library records -- is not, in my opinion, the least bit antagonistic to our rights. Further, these things all had bipartisan support, so I question your attack of the GOP in these matters.
And one thing also to remember is that the most egregious moves by the Congress are being challenged in court, and are often losing, including getting support in some cases from conservative justices like Scalia, who sided against the government in the Padilla case. The point being that when the government does overstep its bounds against our rights, we can't run around like chickens with our heads cut off, because at the end of the day, our rights will usually be just fine.
perhaps the big evils of slavery are finally cast down for what they are, but do we not through pc-ism find our right to speak our mind diminished?
I find that to be absoutely, in every way, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am talking about the legal right to free speech, not whether you feel constrained by cultural forces that have no force of law. I never feel constrained to speak my mind.
There are thousands of tiny examples.
I doubt it. But even if so, there are thousands of examples from 200 years ago, from 150 years ago, from 100 years ago, from 50 years ago, too. And most of those are worse, and most of those we would not stand for today, and most of those included the ones we take issue with today, such as property rights and search/seizure rights. Those are not new problems; at most, they are existing problems amplified both by our current situation (terrorist threats + new technologies).
And getting back to the courts... these things take time. You can't expect the government to immediately recognize and adapt to our new situation in a way that is going to be entirely congruous with our rights. This is a slow process. An example: it has always been legal to stand outside someone's property and view it, as long as you don't actually enter the property. So a cop can listen and look through your window from the sidewalk, hear or see a crime, and then arrest you, without a warrant.
That's all well and good, but what about new technology that allows me to actually "see" through your walls using UV or heat sensors? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should the law be rewritten to prevent it, if it should be prevented?
I have confidence these things will work themselves out in favor of our rights, because with the notable exception of guns, they almost always do. But it takes time.
That was unclear. Excuse me for trying to be helpful. The next time you appear to not understand something, even if you ask a direct question, I'll assume you really understand it and are just screwing around.
You named the property seizure. And it is not a right that has been lost recently, as that right was abused much 50, 100, and 200 years ago.
As to the freedom of speech, that is equally laughable, cf. the aforementioned Sedition Act, right on up through the Pentagon Papers. We have far more free speech today than we have ever had before in this country, without question. Oh sure, there's a few setbacks here and there, like McCain-Feingold. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I am with you on guns, but we are better off in other ways, too, as mentioned in the reply to the other post: habeas corpus, internment, slavery, segregation, women's rights, homosexual rights, the list goes on.
That's the point of my playing "innocent": your enumeration of the few rights we don't have only highlights how far we've come in the past 200 years, and makes claims that we are worse off laughable.
how can you in good conscience say Reagan was the best person for the job, or even a good person for the job?
How can you in good intellect have to ask that question?
I'lll partially grant you the War on Drugs thing. It's not all bad, but has had some bad effects.
The deficit, eh. A huge percentage of that was to fight the Cold War, which I am very happy we did. I am not happy about all the increases in social spending, but so what? How could I ever be happy with everything anyone does?
As to lying... he is a "documented liar unless you believe"... ? If it is left up to belief, he is not therefore a documented liar, and saying he is is, well, a documented lie on your part.
Anyway, more directly to the point: what President has not had terrible problems on his watch, some even caused by him? Abe Lincoln essentially started the Civil War, suspended habeas corpus, etc. and we revere him. It's the big picture, and even regardless of anything else, Reagan will be considered the right man at the right time because he is what we needed to defeat the Soviets.
how is it possible to be jailed for simply having a firearm on you when BEAR and NOT INFRINGED both apear in the second amendment
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with two-party rule. And the tide lately has been turning back in favor of the 2nd Amendment, not against it (thanks in no small part to the Bush DOJ).
As to seizing property... do you know your history? We're better now than we were 200 years ago. Just because we don't follow the Constitution properly today doesn't mean we are worse than we used to be. Eminent Domain has been abused throughout our nation's history.
And of course, there was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago, so that's a bit of a poor example, but even accepting it, I'll counter with the Sedition Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the internment of Japanese citizens and slavery and separate-but-equal...
Unless of course you were taking issue with the implication this is a recent phenomena, which of course it's not, it's just a bit more pronounced.
I don't think that it is more pronounced. I think it is less so. Can you imagine any of those things in that list directly above happening today?
I was making no value judgments of any kind about whether recounts or having a new election is good or evil. In fact, I never had a problem with having recounts, either in WA or in FL (in FL I merely had a problem with the uneven recounts, which seven of the nine Supreme Court justices also thought was wrong). I supported the right of the Democrats in WA to have their second recount, even though I thought the recount itself was poor.
Further, I never said trying to nullify the election through a lawsuit is a good thing. I have since the beginning had mixed feelings about it. I think the case is very strong, but I am unconvinced it is the appropriate course of action. How to fix unreliable elections is a problem we don't have a good solution too, and this cure might be worse than the disease, even if it is justified.
I made no value judgments, I merely corrected someone when they said it was about recounts, as I will do with you: the GOP never tried to change any result in this election with a recount, despite your implication to the contrary.
I don't know why you and other people keep thinking and saying they did. The Democrats are the ones who did that, holding two recounts until they finally pulled ahead. There was never any recount when Rossi and the Republicans were behind.
In other words, your entire post is a misrepresentation both of the facts and of what I've said and thought about them.
Why would he lie to his fellow Republicans about something that will be part of the public court record next month? Come on.
As to the juvenile stuff, that was all in the news. They identified far less than half in their partial check, and I've not seen anything since that makes me think the problem is greater than identified here.
Slashdot Mirror
The principle that non-political positions are filled via a meritocracy, not just favors to be given out to political allies.
You're looking at it backward. They aren't doling out favors or taking away benefits, they are looking for people who will represent their interests well.
If I am hired as a manager, and half my programmers are Java programmers, but I need Perl programmers, I'll replace the Java programmers with Perl programmers. This is not a punishment.
To look at it another way, anyone who wants to be on this commission enough that think of it as benefitting themselves instead of society etc., are not seeking to be on it for reasonable enough reasons for me to care. And no one who didn't think of it this way could think of it as punishment/favor.
The only question I have is whether this will impact the commission's efficacy.
It is, however, persecution
No, it isn't.
If someone is kicked off, it is not a punishment to me, though it may feel like it, as exemplified by your admission that this has "very little" negative impact on anyone.
But that isn't the job of the committee members. Their duty is not to represent the administration. Their duty is to represent their companies and their nation.
I wasn't talking about their "duty." I was talking about what they actually do: they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being appointed by the executive branch.
What principle was violated? What corruption? Who was being dishonest?
This call for patirotism is the new McCarthyism
So you're saying that many people on the left today actually ARE out to subvert the U.S. government? Because as bad a rap as McCarthy gets today, he was actually right, if not about his methods, about the threat. There were many Soviet-affiliated spies and agents in our midst.
McCarthy was wrong to do much of what he did, there's no doubt. But if not for McCarthy, the Cold War might not have turned out in our favor, because the Soviets were in our midst. They controlled the Progressive party, which was led by a former U.S vice president. There was a serious threat, a real danger of the U.S. allowing the Soviets to dominate Europe.
The fact that McCarthy was right, and he was wrong, is a dilemma that is not easily solved, and comparing our current situation to that one shows that either you don't understand the real complexities we faced at that time, or it is a tacit admission that the challenges we face today are far too complex for you to dismiss as easily as you're attempting to.
I don't know if this is right. How could I? I don't know any more about it than anyone else who is responding, which is very little.
Anyway, there are a lot more uninsightful attackers getting modded up than uninsightful apologists getting modded down. All of these complete morons saying this is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, persecuting people, and all of this other nonsense. This is really a nonstory, at best. Oh my, they want people who like them to represent them. Big whoop. Who cares? What negative impact does this have, on anyone?
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual, uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, engages in corporatism, implements totalitarianism"
First, I thought the GOP sucked because they put the individual over the group? Make up your mind!
Second, no political opposition is being forcibly suppressed. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
Third, wtf does "engages in severe economic and social regimentation" mean? Certainly not what the actual words mean, because "regimentation" simple means systematic, order, and "severe economic and social order" doesn't have any serious meaning.
Fourth, corporatism is an element of fascism? Only in the same sense breathing is, unless you're a communist.
Fifth, in no sense is the U.S. remotely totalitarian, unless, similarly to point four, you're an anarchist.
Last, using a Wikipedia definition to prove your point means you automatically lose. Not that you had a chance to win with this stupid argument in the first place. Come on, being against gay marriage is totalitarian? That's taking neither marriage nor totalitarianism silly.
I have a suggestion: go to meet some political prisoners in Cuba and tell them that America is fascist and totalitarian because they disallow gay marriage. Go ahead.
I do notice that this place seems to be getting more and more like an Orwellian novel every coming year. I'm kind of getting a bit scared here.
I submit that if you actually read and understood Orwell, you'd have a much more realistic perspective, and be a lot less scared.
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
Translation: "I have no idea what I am talking about! Lookee meeee!"
There is no sense in which this violates the First Amendment. This is a government organization that the executive branch of the U.S. government controls the U.S. delegates to. They have first and last say. They can base the choices of the delegation membership on anything they see fit.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
First, it is not a punishment. That's the wrong way to look at it. They are protecting their own concerns, not trying to harm people who disagree with them.
That said, regardless of how you wish to characterize it, they can do whatever they wish. They could hire only redheaded stepchildren if they wished to.
By saying it violates the First Amendment or that Bush can't do what he is doing just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
You can criticize the decisions as harming the legitimacy or efficacy of the commission. But to say what happened is illegal or immoral or anything of the like is just ridiculously indefensible.
Further:
In other words, it's not that they didn't realize what the memos said, but at the time, the memos did not amount to compelling evidence of the threat we now know was coming.
Now, you can feel free to disagree with the 9/11 Commission. But to say as a statement of fact that it was ignored is, well, ignoring the evidence (and inventing new evidence).
Yes, new texts would almost surely be insignificant. If they did not survive through the church for the first few hundred years, there's no reason for us to have much care for it now. What would be interesting is if they found more ancient copies of the canon, perhaps to go alongside Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It might shed some light on some of the few mysteries we still have (such as the last 11 verses of Mark, for example).
As to Thomas: the only people who take it seriously are those who dislike the mainstream church and want to inject something else into Christianity that they like better. It has far less significant historical basis, and its contents are just bizarre in comparison, such as nonsense implying pantheism, and denigration of women: "every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven" and "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Those are not things the Jesus of the canon would have said.
There's a reason the Gospel of Thomas was rejected in the fifth century: because it had been rejected by the churches for the previous few hundred years. And the same logic would likely apply to any newly found "lost gospel."
This kind!
Yeah, I just noticed undo in text fields. That alone is worth the entire update, as anyone on Slashdot who uses Safari and has lost an entire comment or journal entry because they selected all and then hit 'c' instead of cmd-'c' can attest.
I have no idea really what Archy is -- despite reading a lot of Raskin's writings about THE in the past, I still have no clue, and have ceased caring -- but I am hereby announcing that I will be writing something that contrasts itself to Archy, called Anarchy.
I just wanted to get that out of the way.
He had to cut what's 6 hours or more of story down to 2 hours. Things have to be cut. That you think what is obviously funny about this scene is over his hea, instead of thinking this is a casualty of time, shows you to be an idiot.
But it still seems to me that for every step forward in our rights in one area we loose just a tad more in another.
... but even then, since that time, we've had anti-sodomy laws ruled unconstitutional, and virtual child porn ruled legal (not that I am in favor of virtual child porn, but it's nice that the courts recognize we can do fake things and distinguish them from reality, which didn't happen before).
... these things take time. You can't expect the government to immediately recognize and adapt to our new situation in a way that is going to be entirely congruous with our rights. This is a slow process. An example: it has always been legal to stand outside someone's property and view it, as long as you don't actually enter the property. So a cop can listen and look through your window from the sidewalk, hear or see a crime, and then arrest you, without a warrant.
It doesn't seem that way to me. Maybe if you look only at the few years since 9/11
Perhaps the 2nd suffers less under the gop, but doese not privacy and freedom suffer more?
"Freedom" is ambiguous. The Second Amendment is about freedom too. As to privacy, I am unconvinced. The great majority of the things the left complains about -- for example, being able to search library records -- is not, in my opinion, the least bit antagonistic to our rights. Further, these things all had bipartisan support, so I question your attack of the GOP in these matters.
And one thing also to remember is that the most egregious moves by the Congress are being challenged in court, and are often losing, including getting support in some cases from conservative justices like Scalia, who sided against the government in the Padilla case. The point being that when the government does overstep its bounds against our rights, we can't run around like chickens with our heads cut off, because at the end of the day, our rights will usually be just fine.
perhaps the big evils of slavery are finally cast down for what they are, but do we not through pc-ism find our right to speak our mind diminished?
I find that to be absoutely, in every way, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am talking about the legal right to free speech, not whether you feel constrained by cultural forces that have no force of law. I never feel constrained to speak my mind.
There are thousands of tiny examples.
I doubt it. But even if so, there are thousands of examples from 200 years ago, from 150 years ago, from 100 years ago, from 50 years ago, too. And most of those are worse, and most of those we would not stand for today, and most of those included the ones we take issue with today, such as property rights and search/seizure rights. Those are not new problems; at most, they are existing problems amplified both by our current situation (terrorist threats + new technologies).
And getting back to the courts
That's all well and good, but what about new technology that allows me to actually "see" through your walls using UV or heat sensors? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should the law be rewritten to prevent it, if it should be prevented?
I have confidence these things will work themselves out in favor of our rights, because with the notable exception of guns, they almost always do. But it takes time.
I think that was out of line.
What a coincidence: I thought the post I was replying to was out of line. Funny that!
I had figured that out.
That was unclear. Excuse me for trying to be helpful. The next time you appear to not understand something, even if you ask a direct question, I'll assume you really understand it and are just screwing around.
Obviously, you couldn't care less about rational discussion, so I'll keep my pearls to myself.
You've lost a veritable TON of rights
You named the property seizure. And it is not a right that has been lost recently, as that right was abused much 50, 100, and 200 years ago.
As to the freedom of speech, that is equally laughable, cf. the aforementioned Sedition Act, right on up through the Pentagon Papers. We have far more free speech today than we have ever had before in this country, without question. Oh sure, there's a few setbacks here and there, like McCain-Feingold. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I am with you on guns, but we are better off in other ways, too, as mentioned in the reply to the other post: habeas corpus, internment, slavery, segregation, women's rights, homosexual rights, the list goes on.
That's the point of my playing "innocent": your enumeration of the few rights we don't have only highlights how far we've come in the past 200 years, and makes claims that we are worse off laughable.
how can you in good conscience say Reagan was the best person for the job, or even a good person for the job?
... he is a "documented liar unless you believe" ... ? If it is left up to belief, he is not therefore a documented liar, and saying he is is, well, a documented lie on your part.
How can you in good intellect have to ask that question?
I'lll partially grant you the War on Drugs thing. It's not all bad, but has had some bad effects.
The deficit, eh. A huge percentage of that was to fight the Cold War, which I am very happy we did. I am not happy about all the increases in social spending, but so what? How could I ever be happy with everything anyone does?
As to lying
Anyway, more directly to the point: what President has not had terrible problems on his watch, some even caused by him? Abe Lincoln essentially started the Civil War, suspended habeas corpus, etc. and we revere him. It's the big picture, and even regardless of anything else, Reagan will be considered the right man at the right time because he is what we needed to defeat the Soviets.
how is it possible to be jailed for simply having a firearm on you when BEAR and NOT INFRINGED both apear in the second amendment
... do you know your history? We're better now than we were 200 years ago. Just because we don't follow the Constitution properly today doesn't mean we are worse than we used to be. Eminent Domain has been abused throughout our nation's history.
...
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with two-party rule. And the tide lately has been turning back in favor of the 2nd Amendment, not against it (thanks in no small part to the Bush DOJ).
As to seizing property
And of course, there was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago, so that's a bit of a poor example, but even accepting it, I'll counter with the Sedition Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the internment of Japanese citizens and slavery and separate-but-equal
Unless of course you were taking issue with the implication this is a recent phenomena, which of course it's not, it's just a bit more pronounced.
I don't think that it is more pronounced. I think it is less so. Can you imagine any of those things in that list directly above happening today?
No, they didn't. Plan A was to ask the legislature for a new vote, not a new count. Plan B is to go to the courts for the same thing.
I was making no value judgments of any kind about whether recounts or having a new election is good or evil. In fact, I never had a problem with having recounts, either in WA or in FL (in FL I merely had a problem with the uneven recounts, which seven of the nine Supreme Court justices also thought was wrong). I supported the right of the Democrats in WA to have their second recount, even though I thought the recount itself was poor.
Further, I never said trying to nullify the election through a lawsuit is a good thing. I have since the beginning had mixed feelings about it. I think the case is very strong, but I am unconvinced it is the appropriate course of action. How to fix unreliable elections is a problem we don't have a good solution too, and this cure might be worse than the disease, even if it is justified.
I made no value judgments, I merely corrected someone when they said it was about recounts, as I will do with you: the GOP never tried to change any result in this election with a recount, despite your implication to the contrary.
I don't know why you and other people keep thinking and saying they did. The Democrats are the ones who did that, holding two recounts until they finally pulled ahead. There was never any recount when Rossi and the Republicans were behind.
In other words, your entire post is a misrepresentation both of the facts and of what I've said and thought about them.
And you just took his word for it?
Why would he lie to his fellow Republicans about something that will be part of the public court record next month? Come on.
As to the juvenile stuff, that was all in the news. They identified far less than half in their partial check, and I've not seen anything since that makes me think the problem is greater than identified here.
In case you weren't sure, the "sound" refers to Puget Sound.