I am accelerating towards a brick wall but I'm not sure if the wall was constructed by humans, or whether I will be able to slow down enough to avoid it at all, so instead of cautiously deccelerating I'll just put my foot down and keep accelerating because lack of information justifies arbitrary action.
The problem isn't with the EC itself, it is with, as with voting in all other levels of government, plurality voting and winner-take-all. The EC votes should represent/proportionally/ the public opinion of their respective state. Except for just a couple of states, I think they are all winner-takes-all.
Yeah, sort of sad how 4 years ago we were fighting for progress and now we are just begging to get the fucking status quo back. It's like my country has been carjacked.
Much of what the government, and especially this administration, does is secret, hidden, misrepresented, misunderstood, or not even paid attention too, so I doubt they would have to do anything drastic to "cover up" any ill intentions. For instance I doubt that a significant amount of the citenzry are aware that Hamid Karzai was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, at the time it was considering building a pipeline in Afghanistan, or that this Allawi chap that we parade around as an upstanding statesman has in the past (and currently??) been on the payroll of six intelligence agencies, including the Baath party, or for that matter that Saddam Hussein was a CIA intelligence asset going back 40 years. ("his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.") It is really apparent to me that facts simply don't matter.
I have been dreading every response that shows up in my message box, but I'd like to note that amazingly all of them seemed to be pro-my-point-of-view, so at this point I'd like to stop because undoubtedly I will eventually inherit a wind of counter-partisan flame.:)
Explained in one sentence? Like the way our/current/ system is explainable in one sentence right? "When you turn the lever magical keebler elves take your vote and put it in the tree of 'verifiability', then it is taken in the Care Bear frigate down the river of 'non-repudiation' and planted in a cabbage patch from whence our next president springs."
Yeah, a consistently wrong position is better than a position that changes?
I think that the Bush compaign strategy was to keep people focused on the hard work ahead that would require him to remain at the helm. However, that focus can only be maintained if the underlying presumption is that he is RIGHT. If the debates lend credibility to Kerry, and discredit Bush, then he can only lose further by reinforcing the do-more-of-the-same-thing policy. Ironically, it seems there is no Bush campaign exit strategy also...the chink in the armor is the moral highground, and if he loses it, there is no plan B because his whole position, factually substantiated or not, is based on this.
*) "I believe I'm going to win" "I expect to win". [ that's what we like, complete lack of humility ] *) "I understand" "I know that" "of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." I'M BRIAN FELLOWS! [ ok I made up that last part, but it's reassuring that the president knows whether he knows something, especially who attacked us ]
And now on the one hand Bush accuses Kerry of disrespecting allies and the current coalition, while on the other hand he is now out campaigning and saying that having a committee with allies won't accomplish anything and that "The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto from countries like France" - now regardless of whether that is a plainly stupid tautology on the face of it, what of Bush insulting France? When Kerry criticizes the efficacy of the current coalition it's disrespectful, but Bush French-bashing (last I checked, even though they disagree with this administration, they are still one of our country's prime allies), hey, that's fair game! And not to mention "You can't claim terrorists cross the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion from the war against terror." DING DING logic alert. Pop quiz: Did 1) the war on Iraq cause terrorists to flood in, or did 2) terrorists flooding in cause the war on Iraq? If you answered #1, you have a firm inherent grasp of causality! Attacking Iraq lead to terrorists crossing the border. DUH. Now it may be involved in the "war on terror" only because you made it a big fucking terror magnet that it wasn't before! Good job! Let's bomb Iran and North Korea too, I hear there are terrorists waiting to cross the border right at this moment!
Yeah, but he did at some point blurb a completely undecipherable adjective that I will have to consult the transcript about. Something like "splend..ericous"... WTF
Frankly I didn't think Kerry did all that great. The contest is not over ideas or policy or truth. It's over personality, and whom voters would most like to identify themselves with (like say Coke vs. Pepsi). I do think Kerry put up a good defense to neutralize all the smears leveled against him, but we'll have to see whether neutralization is enough. The problem, I believe, and have believed since the 2000 election, is that the perception that Bush is dumb basically make him impregnable to attacks based on facts. I.e., if you point out his crazy wrongheaded policies, in fact you turn out to be less likable yourself, in the same way that insulting a retarded person makes you no friends. "Hey, he's doing the best he can. He's 'folksy'." I'm still confused as to whether his apparent idiocy is actually intentional and deceptively planned, or earnest, which is even scarier.
1) we are right, therefore we are going to win 2) it doesn't matter if we botched the job with no planning and inadequate support because, uh, we are RIGHT! 3) if we are losing it's only because the enemy is hating us more for being right 4) my administration didn't make any mistakes because I am right 5) if you criticize anything we do, I simply mention that it's a hard job and reinforce the fact that I am doing a hard job, regardless of whether it is the right job 6) if you highlight how bad a job we are doing, you are actually perversely on the terrorists side and the public should discount you because the terrorists want to hear that we are doing a bad job 7) since I don't want them (or you) to hear that, I'll just keep repeating that we are doing the right thing 8) a decisive but WRONG course is much better than any indecisive course 9) but that doesn't matter anyway because...I'm right
On the pro side, Bush did come out I think revealing that, yes, he can remember facts and names. Since the bar is so low, this makes him seem ultra smart.
As far as Kerry he's already fucked himself because his statements have been so easy to spin, he can't dispell the myths around him, and the "debate" format doesn't allow him time to. There were many non-rational things Bush said, or foolish misinterpretations (either intentional or unintentional) by Bush of what Kerry had just said, that Kerry didn't have time to rebut. For instance, Kerry said that the test of whether to go to war is a more "global test" (or "universal test" I forget), namely that you have to be able to say to a soldier's family you did everything you could to avoid it, and Bush either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted this and played dumbfounded that Kerry was talking about some "global tests" as if he was talking about some world-wide exam. How can you debate somebody that can't even understand what you are saying? I get the feeling if he had said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Bush would have started saying: "what is this guy talking about, 'playing with birds', HEY WE'RE AT WAR!"
Since it wasn't a political thesis, I assumed it was enough to tie the two together that: "Hey, maybe this administration is not giving us the whole story on Iraq " (that includes both prepped speeches by supposedly independent leaders, as well as what is going on on the ground over there).
INIAL, but in this case there would be no violation of property rights so the analogy is not exactly correct (in addition to asking you to leave I can also use force and do all sorts of other things to get you off my property).
The question is what the extent of the penalties are for breaking a mutually agreed contract. I assume this would be some sort of civil lawsuit from one party against the other.
Haha... third parties are a much greater threat to the duopoly that the other member of the duopoly. Do you think either party will really risk breaking the rules their duopoly has agreed to, which would lead to opening the debates to other candidates?
Slashdot Mirror
That's ridiculous. They wouldn't reject his ideas, but buy them then sit on them for 5 decades.
"use toilet"
ahem
I am accelerating towards a brick wall but I'm not sure if the wall was constructed by humans, or whether I will be able to slow down enough to avoid it at all, so instead of cautiously deccelerating I'll just put my foot down and keep accelerating because lack of information justifies arbitrary action.
"Why would a state ever decide to split it's vote?"
When a federal law demands it maybe?
The problem isn't with the EC itself, it is with, as with voting in all other levels of government, plurality voting and winner-take-all. The EC votes should represent /proportionally/ the public opinion of their respective state. Except for just a couple of states, I think they are all winner-takes-all.
Yeah, sort of sad how 4 years ago we were fighting for progress and now we are just begging to get the fucking status quo back. It's like my country has been carjacked.
Much of what the government, and especially this administration, does is secret, hidden, misrepresented, misunderstood, or not even paid attention too, so I doubt they would have to do anything drastic to "cover up" any ill intentions. For instance I doubt that a significant amount of the citenzry are aware that Hamid Karzai was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, at the time it was considering building a pipeline in Afghanistan, or that this Allawi chap that we parade around as an upstanding statesman has in the past (and currently??) been on the payroll of six intelligence agencies, including the Baath party, or for that matter that Saddam Hussein was a CIA intelligence asset going back 40 years. ("his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.") It is really apparent to me that facts simply don't matter.
:)
I have been dreading every response that shows up in my message box, but I'd like to note that amazingly all of them seemed to be pro-my-point-of-view, so at this point I'd like to stop because undoubtedly I will eventually inherit a wind of counter-partisan flame.
Explained in one sentence? Like the way our /current/ system is explainable in one sentence right? "When you turn the lever magical keebler elves take your vote and put it in the tree of 'verifiability', then it is taken in the Care Bear frigate down the river of 'non-repudiation' and planted in a cabbage patch from whence our next president springs."
"seeniew era srengiapmac yrreK"?
7. $$$$$$$$!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii argt.
Maybe if lightning spent our tax money to put commercials on TV everybody would be out during thunderstorms holding metal rakes in the air?
Yeah, a consistently wrong position is better than a position that changes?
I think that the Bush compaign strategy was to keep people focused on the hard work ahead that would require him to remain at the helm. However, that focus can only be maintained if the underlying presumption is that he is RIGHT. If the debates lend credibility to Kerry, and discredit Bush, then he can only lose further by reinforcing the do-more-of-the-same-thing policy. Ironically, it seems there is no Bush campaign exit strategy also...the chink in the armor is the moral highground, and if he loses it, there is no plan B because his whole position, factually substantiated or not, is based on this.
I forgot:
*) "I believe I'm going to win" "I expect to win". [ that's what we like, complete lack of humility ]
*) "I understand" "I know that" "of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." I'M BRIAN FELLOWS! [ ok I made up that last part, but it's reassuring that the president knows whether he knows something, especially who attacked us ]
And now on the one hand Bush accuses Kerry of disrespecting allies and the current coalition, while on the other hand he is now out campaigning and saying that having a committee with allies won't accomplish anything and that "The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto from countries like France" - now regardless of whether that is a plainly stupid tautology on the face of it, what of Bush insulting France? When Kerry criticizes the efficacy of the current coalition it's disrespectful, but Bush French-bashing (last I checked, even though they disagree with this administration, they are still one of our country's prime allies), hey, that's fair game! And not to mention "You can't claim terrorists cross the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion from the war against terror." DING DING logic alert. Pop quiz: Did 1) the war on Iraq cause terrorists to flood in, or did 2) terrorists flooding in cause the war on Iraq? If you answered #1, you have a firm inherent grasp of causality! Attacking Iraq lead to terrorists crossing the border. DUH. Now it may be involved in the "war on terror" only because you made it a big fucking terror magnet that it wasn't before! Good job! Let's bomb Iran and North Korea too, I hear there are terrorists waiting to cross the border right at this moment!
Yeah, but he did at some point blurb a completely undecipherable adjective that I will have to consult the transcript about. Something like "splend..ericous"... WTF
"Kerry should not use so many big words."
Or apparently any phrases of speech which are not exactly literal.
Frankly I didn't think Kerry did all that great. The contest is not over ideas or policy or truth. It's over personality, and whom voters would most like to identify themselves with (like say Coke vs. Pepsi). I do think Kerry put up a good defense to neutralize all the smears leveled against him, but we'll have to see whether neutralization is enough. The problem, I believe, and have believed since the 2000 election, is that the perception that Bush is dumb basically make him impregnable to attacks based on facts. I.e., if you point out his crazy wrongheaded policies, in fact you turn out to be less likable yourself, in the same way that insulting a retarded person makes you no friends. "Hey, he's doing the best he can. He's 'folksy'." I'm still confused as to whether his apparent idiocy is actually intentional and deceptively planned, or earnest, which is even scarier.
What I perceived from Bush:
1) we are right, therefore we are going to win
2) it doesn't matter if we botched the job with no planning and inadequate support because, uh, we are RIGHT!
3) if we are losing it's only because the enemy is hating us more for being right
4) my administration didn't make any mistakes because I am right
5) if you criticize anything we do, I simply mention that it's a hard job and reinforce the fact that I am doing a hard job, regardless of whether it is the right job
6) if you highlight how bad a job we are doing, you are actually perversely on the terrorists side and the public should discount you because the terrorists want to hear that we are doing a bad job
7) since I don't want them (or you) to hear that, I'll just keep repeating that we are doing the right thing
8) a decisive but WRONG course is much better than any indecisive course
9) but that doesn't matter anyway because...I'm right
On the pro side, Bush did come out I think revealing that, yes, he can remember facts and names. Since the bar is so low, this makes him seem ultra smart.
As far as Kerry he's already fucked himself because his statements have been so easy to spin, he can't dispell the myths around him, and the "debate" format doesn't allow him time to. There were many non-rational things Bush said, or foolish misinterpretations (either intentional or unintentional) by Bush of what Kerry had just said, that Kerry didn't have time to rebut. For instance, Kerry said that the test of whether to go to war is a more "global test" (or "universal test" I forget), namely that you have to be able to say to a soldier's family you did everything you could to avoid it, and Bush either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted this and played dumbfounded that Kerry was talking about some "global tests" as if he was talking about some world-wide exam. How can you debate somebody that can't even understand what you are saying? I get the feeling if he had said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Bush would have started saying: "what is this guy talking about, 'playing with birds', HEY WE'RE AT WAR!"
sigh.
Since it wasn't a political thesis, I assumed it was enough to tie the two together that: "Hey, maybe this administration is not giving us the whole story on Iraq " (that includes both prepped speeches by supposedly independent leaders, as well as what is going on on the ground over there).
INIAL, but in this case there would be no violation of property rights so the analogy is not exactly correct (in addition to asking you to leave I can also use force and do all sorts of other things to get you off my property).
The question is what the extent of the penalties are for breaking a mutually agreed contract. I assume this would be some sort of civil lawsuit from one party against the other.
7. C# IS DYING!
-2 belabored
Haha... third parties are a much greater threat to the duopoly that the other member of the duopoly. Do you think either party will really risk breaking the rules their duopoly has agreed to, which would lead to opening the debates to other candidates?
Fuck that soap opera in space Star Wars.
:'(
But who will play Barf now that Candy is dearly departed?
may the yogurt be with you
MOOOOOOOVE!