So you think it would be more fair to have a draft, forcing people to join the military who don't want to, than to maintain a volunteer only force. [scratches head]
As for your "facts"... George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard
I have heard this one a lot... altough usually in the 200-300 person range. The media seems to think that Ben Barnes has publicly said that he helped Bush jump ahead of the waiting list... but then again, his own daughter says that he is lieing to promote his own book and his political agenda. In fact his own words are that he was simply asked to recommend Bush for guard duty. He says he can't recall if he wrote a letter or made a phone call. Either way, since when is writing a recommendation letter for someone "inappropriate". Simply making a call to recommend someone is a very different thing than to move someone to the front of a waiting list (if it existed).
I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.
and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.
Was Bush obligated to obtain his flight physical? I ask this because I am a military aviator and know that I am required to make sure I get my annual physical. I have never heard of anyone missing a physical, but then again Bush was in the last year of his obligation, and temporarily assigned to a non-flying squadron while his permanent squadron was phasing out his aircraft. If I knew that I wasn't going to fly an aircraft for my remaining time in the military and was just closing a deal to go back to college, I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a flight physical either. Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.
You must have missed the memo/Journalism 101. It doesn't matter if most of the stories posted to media websites are negative about Kerry... it is Google's job to intercede in the algorithm and make sure that the results returned average to "neutral" so as to not be biased.
Of course, the alternative is for media sites to just start writing lauding pieces on Kerry...
Well, I am not the Green candidate, but I will take a swag at answering anyway. First off though, I suggest reading up on the issue.
Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
As a practical matter, not even worth discussion as a Constitutional ammendment to this effect will never happen. There is no way that the small states for whom the EC gives more voting power would vote for this, hence this ammendment will never be ratified. Nevermind the discussion on whether or not it is a good idea. It is an excellent recipe for civil war, however as candidates will simply pander to the small, densly populated urban centers - failing to address the concerns of much of rural America.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
First, a "federal mandate" for this would be insufficient, as it would require a constitutional ammendment to enforce. The Constitution clearly states that the states will decide how their electors are allocated. As a practical matter, why would any state want to do this. Consider California for instance, right now it has some 55 electoral votes. Under a proportional system, lets say that Kerry gets 30 of these and Bush gets 25. The outcome of California voting has now been reduced to that of a 10 vote state.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Now this I'd like to see,... maybe Alien and Predator can be on the opposite ticket!
I can't help but wonder... how much of this "IT unemployment" is because these people were never really IT professionals? How many people, during the.com boom, ran out and got an A+ or MCSE or read a book on web design and somehow managed to land an "IT" job. We know that these were the first to loose their jobs when bubble burst... are they still under the misconception that they are "IT Professionals?" By clinging to this title, are they artificaially makeing the IT sector unemployment stats more grim?
This will come off as a troll but really is somewhat of a compliment... that was a genuinely interesting and well-communicated post. Here is the troll part: why can't you be remotely that interesting or convincing with the material on your site? Seriously, it reads like you are some sort of nut-job that I could never take seriously.
Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry
on
Presidential Debates Set
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He's a much better speaker than Bush, and if he comes out directly with solid goals for when he becomes president, he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.
I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.
Kerry on the other hand is a seasoned Senate orator... one would think that he should trounce the word-fumbling president much like Gore in 2000(who also was a senator)... but whoops! That didn't happen, the debates ended up hurting Gore. From Daily Kos (I can't believe I am citing daily Kos but what the hell,... here's to trying to be impartial):
The first presidential debate was held on October 3 and despite the fact that Gore was widely considered the winner (by an average of 9%), his behavior at the debate coupled with media coverage that labeled him an exaggerator, denied Gore a bounce. The race was a statistical dead heat leading up to the second debate on October 11. This time, Bush was the clear winner (by an average of 9%) and did receive a bounce. Bush was leading by an average of 4% leading up to the third debate on October 17, of which there was no clear winner (people favored Gore slightly).
Moreover, I have read a few articles like this one expressing concern for Kerry's 'meandering' speaking style. Personally, I think Kerry is a fine communicator, but then again maybe I am overestimating the listening comprehension of the average American.
he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.
I think more interestingly will be the tone of the debates. This election is different than most. I don't believe that anyone is really 'undecided' given the polarization of the electorate. As opposed to past debates where the focus was on woo-ing undecideds (which has to be done somewhat gently and positively), I think that this series will be more about shoring up the base voters and trying to scare the decided but not stolid supporters on the other side. In other words... I think it will be quite ugly as debates go.
Excellent point. My best friend's three-year old son refers to "a lot" of anything as "29". If you ask him how much ice cream he wants, he will say "29". For him, it doesn't get bigger than 29. Now if one does, believe in an omnipotent creator - it is not a stretch to believe that the creator would speak to "man" as though he were a 3-year old. Or alternately, perhaps the creator said the "correct" answer and man interpretted it like a 3-year old. Same difference.
You seem to highlight the differences between the left and right in this country. The right pushes for measures that encourage people to prosper, and open opportunities for themselves. It is up to the individual to make something of themselves. The left (and your suggestions) all revolve around 'fixing' the mess people put themselves into.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that they had a duty to rubber-stamp appointments.. I was speaking of the confirmation process. I doubt the framers could conceive of the president appointing officals and then having them just go into the black hole that is the Senate.
Agreed, but in this case we are not talking about the "creation of laws". We are talking about judicial appointments. The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint judges, and the Senate the power to confirm them. Using a fillibuster to prevent the confirmation seems to be preventing the Senate from doing its Constitutional duty. I think the Republicans actually have a case on this issue (provided it stays focused on appointments of judges only).
The 'expert' you refer to is not regarded as such outside the US republican party. There is only one google hit for Bouffard and typewriter that relates to a forensic case and that is a crank case involving UFOs. If he was the ultimate expert in the field you would expect rather more comment on his work.
Incidentally, I do think I found where you seem to have determined that he is a Republican... this google search returns the following in the results: Directory - ASQDE Members' Email... Bodziak, William J. (R), Jacksonville, FL. Bouffard, Phillip D. (R), Painesville,
OH. Brondo, Alfredo Rodriguez, (C), Malaga, Spain. Brown, Jerry, (R), Des Moines...
If you actually clicked on the link, you would see that (R) stands for 'regular member' of the ASQDE (the american society of qualified document examiners) - not 'Republican'.
Just to be sure, I also searched Opensecrets.org... but he seems not to have made a contribution this (or any) election cycle.
Yes, I am copying the following from a my other post that got burried:
Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations and welcome to the highest level of conspiracy theorists! In breaking out the "must have done it to themselves for reasons to advance some agenda" you have joined the likes of many morons who believe that the US used remote-controlled aircraft and cruise missiles to manufacture 9/11. Not to mention the "UFO-ologists" who believe that some bad UFO hoaxes are part of a government misinformation campaign to discredit the "serious UFO science".
You seem to think that Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam were somehow more important to the nation that Bush's five years and some months in the National Guard. I somewhat agree with you but realize that the National Guard played a significant role in national defense. First off, national guard aircraft DID serve in Vietnam. In fact, Bush actually inquired as to how he could participate in the program that allowed ANG pilots to fly mission in Vietnam -he was rebuffed for not having enought experience. The ANG's mission through much of the cold war and today is homeland defense. Bush was assigned to an interceptor unit, created to intercept incoming Soviet bombers. This aircraft was not well suited for Vietnam. There have been credible accusations that people influenced the decision to get Bush into the ANG, but I have yet to any "proof" that he similarly manipulated himself into an aircraft that had "less" of a chance of going to Vietnam.
Moreover, the Terry McCauliff ditto-heads have made quite an issue of Bush's ANG service being somehow less-important than going to Vietnam. Now they seem to want to have it both ways - they are accusing the President of missing important air-defense exercises that could have helped the US deter a Soviet attack while he was in Alabama. So which is it? Was being in the ANG important or not?
Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how/. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?
Senior officers in the US military have always been notorious for obtaining toys for their office.
Again, I have been working around O-5's on a daily basis for 10 years. What are these 'toy's' you are referring to? Are you just making crap up? Whose offices have you seen?
Perhaps if it did exist, a clerk might have had one. But these are personal memos, the content of which would surely not been re-typed by a clerk. Having worked as an officer in the admin department of a Naval squadron, I can tell you that yeomen or personnel men get asked to type things all the time... typically awards, letters of commendation and other very official document. Considering the content, there is no way that the LtCol would handwrite (or type) his notes, then pass them on to someone else to re-type.
Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how/. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?
Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations and welcome to the highest level of conspiracy theorists! In breaking out the "must have done it to themselves for reasons to advance some agenda" you have joined the likes of many morons who believe that the US used remote-controlled aircraft and cruise missiles to manufacture 9/11. Not to mention the "UFO-ologists" who believe that some bad UFO hoaxes are part of a government misinformation campaign to discredit the "serious UFO science".
Maybe someone will pity you and toss you a rope so you can climb out of the deductive hole you have gotten yourself into.
I can think of a reason right off the top of my head as to why this information shouldn't be made available. Al-Qaeda could (through 3rd parties) obtain the photos or at least the descriptions of photos purchased by the governent. They could compare targets of the sensing with the actual locations of their hideouts and immediately know which of their hideout locations have been likely compromised. With a little analysis, they could possibly correlate their communications with the imagery of particular sites and figure out which communications channels had similarly been compromised. Heck, thats just off the top of my head... imagine what I could come up with if I had been in hiding for 3 years...
perhaps YOU (and the academy) should look up the definition of documentary. From dictionary.com:
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
F911 isn't a documentary. It has nothing to do with "being full of bias". It has to do with the definition of the word 'documentary' I hate to break this to you but from the above link:
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Nice post although I presonally disagree with much of it. In agree that the definition of propaganda involves something 'larger' than one documentary. However, FOX news is not propaganda either,... it is biased reporting, just like CNN, NPR and Al Jazeera are biased reporting to various degrees. The difference is that by your own admission, in F911 "Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate". While some here seem to think that intentionally misleading someone using only facts is "ok", it is at a minimum "deceptive" and according to dictionary.com may still be a lie (definition 2 of the noun meaning). Thus while F911 is not propaganda, it is certainly a "piece" of propgaganda as would Swift Boat or MoveOn.org ads (provided that they are similiarly deceptive).
I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.
Slashdot Mirror
As for your "facts"...
George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard
I have heard this one a lot... altough usually in the 200-300 person range. The media seems to think that Ben Barnes has publicly said that he helped Bush jump ahead of the waiting list... but then again, his own daughter says that he is lieing to promote his own book and his political agenda. In fact his own words are that he was simply asked to recommend Bush for guard duty. He says he can't recall if he wrote a letter or made a phone call. Either way, since when is writing a recommendation letter for someone "inappropriate". Simply making a call to recommend someone is a very different thing than to move someone to the front of a waiting list (if it existed).
I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.
and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.
Was Bush obligated to obtain his flight physical? I ask this because I am a military aviator and know that I am required to make sure I get my annual physical. I have never heard of anyone missing a physical, but then again Bush was in the last year of his obligation, and temporarily assigned to a non-flying squadron while his permanent squadron was phasing out his aircraft. If I knew that I wasn't going to fly an aircraft for my remaining time in the military and was just closing a deal to go back to college, I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a flight physical either. Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.
Of course, the alternative is for media sites to just start writing lauding pieces on Kerry...
Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
As a practical matter, not even worth discussion as a Constitutional ammendment to this effect will never happen. There is no way that the small states for whom the EC gives more voting power would vote for this, hence this ammendment will never be ratified. Nevermind the discussion on whether or not it is a good idea. It is an excellent recipe for civil war, however as candidates will simply pander to the small, densly populated urban centers - failing to address the concerns of much of rural America.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
First, a "federal mandate" for this would be insufficient, as it would require a constitutional ammendment to enforce. The Constitution clearly states that the states will decide how their electors are allocated.
As a practical matter, why would any state want to do this. Consider California for instance, right now it has some 55 electoral votes. Under a proportional system, lets say that Kerry gets 30 of these and Bush gets 25. The outcome of California voting has now been reduced to that of a 10 vote state.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Now this I'd like to see,... maybe Alien and Predator can be on the opposite ticket!
I can't help but wonder... how much of this "IT unemployment" is because these people were never really IT professionals? How many people, during the .com boom, ran out and got an A+ or MCSE or read a book on web design and somehow managed to land an "IT" job. We know that these were the first to loose their jobs when bubble burst... are they still under the misconception that they are "IT Professionals?" By clinging to this title, are they artificaially makeing the IT sector unemployment stats more grim?
This will come off as a troll but really is somewhat of a compliment... that was a genuinely interesting and well-communicated post. Here is the troll part: why can't you be remotely that interesting or convincing with the material on your site? Seriously, it reads like you are some sort of nut-job that I could never take seriously.
I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.
Kerry on the other hand is a seasoned Senate orator... one would think that he should trounce the word-fumbling president much like Gore in 2000(who also was a senator) ... but whoops! That didn't happen, the debates ended up hurting Gore. From Daily Kos (I can't believe I am citing daily Kos but what the hell,... here's to trying to be impartial):
Moreover, I have read a few articles like this one expressing concern for Kerry's 'meandering' speaking style. Personally, I think Kerry is a fine communicator, but then again maybe I am overestimating the listening comprehension of the average American.he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.
I think more interestingly will be the tone of the debates. This election is different than most. I don't believe that anyone is really 'undecided' given the polarization of the electorate. As opposed to past debates where the focus was on woo-ing undecideds (which has to be done somewhat gently and positively), I think that this series will be more about shoring up the base voters and trying to scare the decided but not stolid supporters on the other side. In other words... I think it will be quite ugly as debates go.
Excellent point. My best friend's three-year old son refers to "a lot" of anything as "29". If you ask him how much ice cream he wants, he will say "29". For him, it doesn't get bigger than 29. Now if one does, believe in an omnipotent creator - it is not a stretch to believe that the creator would speak to "man" as though he were a 3-year old. Or alternately, perhaps the creator said the "correct" answer and man interpretted it like a 3-year old. Same difference.
You seem to highlight the differences between the left and right in this country. The right pushes for measures that encourage people to prosper, and open opportunities for themselves. It is up to the individual to make something of themselves. The left (and your suggestions) all revolve around 'fixing' the mess people put themselves into.
There is no science behind warp drives or telepathic hot chicks in spandex either.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that they had a duty to rubber-stamp appointments.. I was speaking of the confirmation process. I doubt the framers could conceive of the president appointing officals and then having them just go into the black hole that is the Senate.
Wow... excellent use of google. Did you try Bouffard Phillip handwriting or simply "Bouffard Phillip"
Incidentally, I do think I found where you seem to have determined that he is a Republican... this google search returns the following in the results: ... Bodziak, William J. (R), Jacksonville, FL. Bouffard, Phillip D. (R), Painesville,
OH. Brondo, Alfredo Rodriguez, (C), Malaga, Spain. Brown, Jerry, (R), Des Moines ...
Directory - ASQDE Members' Email
If you actually clicked on the link, you would see that (R) stands for 'regular member' of the ASQDE (the american society of qualified document examiners) - not 'Republican'.
Just to be sure, I also searched Opensecrets.org... but he seems not to have made a contribution this (or any) election cycle.
Nice try though.
Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations and welcome to the highest level of conspiracy theorists! In breaking out the "must have done it to themselves for reasons to advance some agenda" you have joined the likes of many morons who believe that the US used remote-controlled aircraft and cruise missiles to manufacture 9/11. Not to mention the "UFO-ologists" who believe that some bad UFO hoaxes are part of a government misinformation campaign to discredit the "serious UFO science".
Moreover, the Terry McCauliff ditto-heads have made quite an issue of Bush's ANG service being somehow less-important than going to Vietnam. Now they seem to want to have it both ways - they are accusing the President of missing important air-defense exercises that could have helped the US deter a Soviet attack while he was in Alabama. So which is it? Was being in the ANG important or not?
Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how /. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?
Again, I have been working around O-5's on a daily basis for 10 years. What are these 'toy's' you are referring to? Are you just making crap up? Whose offices have you seen?
Perhaps if it did exist, a clerk might have had one. But these are personal memos, the content of which would surely not been re-typed by a clerk. Having worked as an officer in the admin department of a Naval squadron, I can tell you that yeomen or personnel men get asked to type things all the time... typically awards, letters of commendation and other very official document. Considering the content, there is no way that the LtCol would handwrite (or type) his notes, then pass them on to someone else to re-type.
Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how /. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?
Maybe someone will pity you and toss you a rope so you can climb out of the deductive hole you have gotten yourself into.
Reading this, did anyone else have a flashback to the climatic court scene is "My Cousin Vinny"?
I can think of a reason right off the top of my head as to why this information shouldn't be made available. Al-Qaeda could (through 3rd parties) obtain the photos or at least the descriptions of photos purchased by the governent. They could compare targets of the sensing with the actual locations of their hideouts and immediately know which of their hideout locations have been likely compromised. With a little analysis, they could possibly correlate their communications with the imagery of particular sites and figure out which communications channels had similarly been compromised. Heck, thats just off the top of my head... imagine what I could come up with if I had been in hiding for 3 years...
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Did you miss the part about editorializing?
I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.
Similarly, promising to do one thing, then doing another (a-la "No new taxes") isn't a lie... it is a broken promise.