40% of whom pay no income tax. His plan calls for cutting them credits and "rebate" checks. A rebate against income taxes they do not pay. This isn't really up for discussion - he's specifically, deliberately calling for exactly that. If there are talking points involved, they are his. His campaign harped on that message for weeks on end right up until the end.
Except that he fails the very list you just ran down. He bought himself the few extra percentages needed to win the election by promising the people who don't think they have enough that he will tax other people, and give it to them. That's not production. That's not inspiration. That doesn't create anything. It exactly gets in the way of creativity and production, and punishes those who take risks and manage to succeed. You want educated, thoughtful, productive people hustling out there to grow the economy? Why say over and over again that you're going to punish them for succeeding? Why promise to tax them even harder when they insightfully see a place to invest their money, and grow jobs... and are proven right in their risk taking?
some of the least educated
You mean, like people who think that the word "rebate" applies when talking about a check they get against taxes they don't pay? Uneducated people who fall for that sort of thing, you mean? For whom "credit" and "rebate" are words with no meaning other than as a euphamism for welfare? Have you not seen the well-rallied, crying people who when interviewed are relieved to know that Obama will get them each some gasoline and pay their mortgage? You're going to have to do better than suggesting that there aren't huge ranks of very uneducated people who just made the difference in voting him into office. Just Oprah Winfrey's messiah-talk alone was enough to move enough shut-ins and soccer moms to act, regardless of actual merit. The same woman who helped make "The Secret" a best seller on how to get what you want... and the parallels are appalling. In my polling location yesterday, I could hardly believe the stuff I was hearing people in line talking about. There wasn't a hint of unifcation, creation, or uplifting-ness in what I heard from dozens of Obama supporters whooping it up in line. It was about financial revenge against the upper middle class, and about entitlements. That was it. Over, and over, and over. And Obama stoked that in every stump speech he gave.
There's going to be a lot of buyer's remorse when people find they still have to pay for their house, their gas, and that at some point the beasts of burden out of whom they want to suck more taxes will start passing those costs right back to the people that buy what they provide. Of course, educated voters would have seen that coming, wouldn't they?
I'm not talking about re-arranging customs, immigration, airport security, etc, into one agency that can actually allow those existing and necessary entities to talk to each other and operate more seamlessly. I'm talking about the tone-deafness of a new C-in-C who thought, given the audience he was preaching to at the time, that muttering something about a colossal new internal security force seemed like the right thing to say. This goes to his sensibilities, naivete, and general Nanny-Statedeness. It also reminds of the vague pandering that got him elected. Watching him actually have to talk people back down from crazy talk like that is going to be painful for everybody. Or, watching him actually try to implement it because he said it - that will be even worse.
First thing I thought about... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.
Because, just like US voters, they have no idea what's just been done. Voting for ambigious, platitudinous "change" is nothing more than making a blank canvas out of a guy that it's soothing to vote for because electing him has the sidebar benefit of taking a bit of race resentment off the table. If you listened to his speech last night (even if you've missed so many others), you heard one thing: he was about the campaign, and about the process of being elected. That's what he was most proud of, not some mandate or vision (since neither has been clearly expressed, nor promised). His supporters are in for the same rude awakening he is, when it comes to the reality of him getting his first ever real job.
There are, though, two silver linings. First, at least the senate isn't a supermajority rubber stamp. Second, when he runs for re-election next time, it can finally involve looking at some sort of actual record of his - and a whole lot of people who were caught up the historical significance of skin color can come back to their senses and realize they're hiring someone for an actual executive job, not trying to win a high school debate on style points.
Which is especially easy if you lie about how you'll finance your campaign, and then take in huge amounts of private cash after going back on your word. It also helps, of course, when the majority of the media outlets are out there aggressively looking to get you elected. He made plenty of mistakes in his campaign - but they were completely sugar-coated by most of the news outlets. I don't consider his ability to let other people make it easy for him to be an indication that he's got any sort of spine, integrity, or capability to actually do the job. Getting uncritical cover from the people holding the microphones and video cameras is not the same as actually, substantially, doing anything constructive. The guy hasn't held a press conference in a month and a half. If the ability to avoid questions is your measure of the man, then prehaps you're onto something, there.
Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
So, you're not really bothered by the notion that he thinks it should be funded at the same scale as the military, without mentioning where he thought that cash might come from? I mean, he likes to totally sugar-coat that sort of thing, but that's a doozy, don't you think? Or maybe that's really an indirect way of suggesting how little funding he thinks the military should actually have.
Somehow I don't think the Democrats will do any worse
Yeah, except this time they're going to have Obama's new Civilian National Security Force, which he said should be as large as the military, making sure we all go along. Whee!
Unless one of said loony morons is a Vice Presidential candidate
Come on, Joe Biden can't help the fact that he's a blowhard. It's genetic, and people keep mistaking it for "statesmanship," which he mistakes as encouragement. So, leave the guy alone.
There! There's that high-brow, thoughtful political discourse that the intellects from the left are so famous for. No wonder Obama is attracting such bright, innovative people. Yes, it's Hope and Change We Can Believe In, sure enough.
we're well into the fascist revolution you've been agitating for
Real-time coverage is important. I just want to be able to jot down the time when the Civilian Security Force gets its charter. Between them, and the "fairness doctrine" which will shut down any media opposing them... gosh, we should be having a great time. Go, Civilian Security Force, go!
Hundreds of thousands of innocents dying in the middle east because of corrupt politicians in the whitehouse
Right, because the foreign insurgents coming in from Syria and Iran, using Iranian-supplied cash and weapons, killing them with market bombs or taking them out back and shooting them aren't a factor. Most of them are killed Eeeevil Coaltion Troops.
Hundreds of billions more being paid to wealthy wallstreet cronies
Let's see... those would the cronies who've made their largest campaign contributions to Democrats? Who leveraged themselves and their investment banking customers into ruin by overreaching on investments built around highly risky, undercapitalized mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie... whose two largest recipients of campaign donations were Democrats (Obama and Dodd)... and whose financial shakiness, despite being pointed out directly by the White House in congressional hearings two years ago, were shouted down by the Democrats chairing the committee (see Barney Frank, et al) who said, "never mind, things are just fine with those institutions, you scare-mongering Republicans."
And the responsible politicians are still in power
Yup, and they're about to get an even larger majority in the house and senate, and a president who will no longer even pretend to have an interest in vetoing the incredible flow of pork and government-in-your-life that's about to spew out of Pelosi and Reid. Won't that be fun!.
Why? You made a whiny, irrelevent complaint that dismisses the role of pure research in the larger advancement of our knowledge of how the universe works... the very sort of thing that always plays a role in advancing our ability to make more efficient use of energy, more realistic predictions about the behavior of complex systems, and more innovative technological use of things we think we have already fully, or most effectly exploited. This whole "the human race is incapable of doing two things at once" BS never ceases to amaze me. How do you even get out of bed in the morning? Make coffee... take a crap... which to do first? Gaah! I'm paralyzed! Which is the most important fish to fry?
In other words, you're scare mongering and - if we can assume you have a passable IQ which would suggest you might know better - clearly trolling. And, voila, you were thusly modded.
The main quote, regarding a larger, dem super-majority:
"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
I was also highly amused by this:
"It's interesting to hear Senator McCain talking about the dangerous Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Dangerous is not really a word that should be a part of a national debate as we go into a presidential race."
This from the woman who talks about Bush as a dangerous murderer and criminal, and then goes to great lengths to say how McCain is in no way different. Her entire M.O. has been built around talking about how dangerous her political opponents are. But then, she's a staggering hypocrit about all sorts of things, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything.
Fannie and Freddie had plenty to do with it. Lots of private sector idiots made matters worse by over-leveraging themselves on bad derivative investments built around what they were pitched as good-as-gold, government-backed, but none the less ridiculous mortgages. The ONLY thing that allowed those investment-bank-ruining highly leveraged messes to get off the ground was the foundation of the whole thing: supposedly unassailable equity in the form of houses. And neither of the Fs had anything even approaching the capital to be presenting all of that useless paper as a worthy basis for leverage. And those people (from both parties) that, over the years, starting talking more and more loudly about that - especially in the hearings in which we get to see Barney & Friends dismissing it as a bunch of nonsesnse - had it right.
No one can Asimov-ify the whole thing. But some things are entirely predictable.
If, for example, you decide that you can do some social engineering by holding congressional hearings that shoot down spoken concerns that two seem-to-be-backed-by-the-government mortgage underwriting entities are perfectly well capitalized, thank you very much, and that it's OK to keep writing unconscionable loans to people to can't afford them so that you can buy them as constituents in favor of politicians who are getting big donations from those same institutions... you can predictably expect far too many irrational loans, and thus some really bad investments based on the phantom worthiness of those loans.
Who cares how many of the details you can predict? When guys like Dodd and Obama are the two biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, and guys like Barney Frank depend on votes from the very demographic he screwed by shouting down calls to reign in those institutions' reckless policies and mandate better capitalization... well, we all get what the people who voted for those clowns deserve. Too bad it impacts everyone, and not just the ones who keep people like Frank in a position to impact policy in that area.
It's OK, soon we'll have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid completely unchecked by anyone, and able to finally get busy with their agenda. That will be fun, won't it? I especially liked this one from Nancy the other day: the notion that if congress gets an even larger Democrat majority, that it will finally be more bi-partisan. Her definition of bi-partisan, of course, being, "Now no one can stop anything I want to do, and we own the executive branch, too, having just seated someone who's even more lefty than I am!"
Do we need to be able to predict the ebb and flow of every economic bit of turbulence in order to predict where that recipe will go? He's not even president yet, and Obama's campaign has been reducing their definition of people who deserver higher taxes by $50,000 every few days. Remember the good old days when it was $250k? Biden laid it out as $150k yesterday. It's safe to predict that, given the power to work with an unchecked congress, the sudden, mysterious need to redistribute even more income from an even lower threshold of personal productivity will occur before the winter is out. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, from a guy who crowed in his own book about his careful, deliberate search for Marxist professors with whom to hang out.
It's going to be great, watching all of the people who were sold (via a massively purchased wave of airtime bought with campaign funds raised after a lie about campaign funding) a big ol' dose of class resentment... only to find later that the class they're being asked to resent is themselves, for having The Audacity To Work.
But... I said "unique ip address," so I don't really deserve any credit. I mean, it takes a certain special something to be totally off topic. It's an artform, and takes years of practice. I'll have to redouble my efforts.
I'd be happier if every ACORN-registered "voter" had a unique IP address. That way when they vote in more than one state or precinct simultaneously, we'll get an IP address conflict message. Once resolved, we can use that same IP address to track their federal court docket, and even their newly laundered prison jumpsuit. Unless, of course, the result is fresh new justice department that doesn't feel obligated to follow up on pizza delivery guys that registered 70+ times.
Before anyone says so, no, I don't think pizza guy is going to try to vote 70 times. The strategy is to overwhelm the registration offices, and provide opportunities for lawyers to get more and more tangled up in each piece of the election process and in the wake of the election, should it be close. It's a DOS attack on the registration system, plain and simple. And ACORN is spoofing the traffic, on purpose.
Yes, the Nanny-State types will really love this. Until the elite members of the Nanny State Directors Brigade are trying to run somone else's life from the back seat of their hybrid limo on the way to a fundraiser where they'll be asking Motorola for more campaign cash.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no promise to transfer money
"A tax cut for 95% of American workers."
40% of whom pay no income tax. His plan calls for cutting them credits and "rebate" checks. A rebate against income taxes they do not pay. This isn't really up for discussion - he's specifically, deliberately calling for exactly that. If there are talking points involved, they are his. His campaign harped on that message for weeks on end right up until the end.
I don't see anything lacking in Obama
Except that he fails the very list you just ran down. He bought himself the few extra percentages needed to win the election by promising the people who don't think they have enough that he will tax other people, and give it to them. That's not production. That's not inspiration. That doesn't create anything. It exactly gets in the way of creativity and production, and punishes those who take risks and manage to succeed. You want educated, thoughtful, productive people hustling out there to grow the economy? Why say over and over again that you're going to punish them for succeeding? Why promise to tax them even harder when they insightfully see a place to invest their money, and grow jobs... and are proven right in their risk taking?
some of the least educated
You mean, like people who think that the word "rebate" applies when talking about a check they get against taxes they don't pay? Uneducated people who fall for that sort of thing, you mean? For whom "credit" and "rebate" are words with no meaning other than as a euphamism for welfare? Have you not seen the well-rallied, crying people who when interviewed are relieved to know that Obama will get them each some gasoline and pay their mortgage? You're going to have to do better than suggesting that there aren't huge ranks of very uneducated people who just made the difference in voting him into office. Just Oprah Winfrey's messiah-talk alone was enough to move enough shut-ins and soccer moms to act, regardless of actual merit. The same woman who helped make "The Secret" a best seller on how to get what you want... and the parallels are appalling. In my polling location yesterday, I could hardly believe the stuff I was hearing people in line talking about. There wasn't a hint of unifcation, creation, or uplifting-ness in what I heard from dozens of Obama supporters whooping it up in line. It was about financial revenge against the upper middle class, and about entitlements. That was it. Over, and over, and over. And Obama stoked that in every stump speech he gave.
There's going to be a lot of buyer's remorse when people find they still have to pay for their house, their gas, and that at some point the beasts of burden out of whom they want to suck more taxes will start passing those costs right back to the people that buy what they provide. Of course, educated voters would have seen that coming, wouldn't they?
Oh, like the dept of homeland security? ;)
I'm not talking about re-arranging customs, immigration, airport security, etc, into one agency that can actually allow those existing and necessary entities to talk to each other and operate more seamlessly. I'm talking about the tone-deafness of a new C-in-C who thought, given the audience he was preaching to at the time, that muttering something about a colossal new internal security force seemed like the right thing to say. This goes to his sensibilities, naivete, and general Nanny-Statedeness. It also reminds of the vague pandering that got him elected. Watching him actually have to talk people back down from crazy talk like that is going to be painful for everybody. Or, watching him actually try to implement it because he said it - that will be even worse.
You're really grasping at straws there
Well, OK then. As long as you're only fussing about the semantics, and not about the creation of a gigantic new domestic security force.
First thing I thought about ... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.
The whole world agrees with those sentiments
Because, just like US voters, they have no idea what's just been done. Voting for ambigious, platitudinous "change" is nothing more than making a blank canvas out of a guy that it's soothing to vote for because electing him has the sidebar benefit of taking a bit of race resentment off the table. If you listened to his speech last night (even if you've missed so many others), you heard one thing: he was about the campaign, and about the process of being elected. That's what he was most proud of, not some mandate or vision (since neither has been clearly expressed, nor promised). His supporters are in for the same rude awakening he is, when it comes to the reality of him getting his first ever real job.
There are, though, two silver linings. First, at least the senate isn't a supermajority rubber stamp. Second, when he runs for re-election next time, it can finally involve looking at some sort of actual record of his - and a whole lot of people who were caught up the historical significance of skin color can come back to their senses and realize they're hiring someone for an actual executive job, not trying to win a high school debate on style points.
he's run an amazing campaign
Which is especially easy if you lie about how you'll finance your campaign, and then take in huge amounts of private cash after going back on your word. It also helps, of course, when the majority of the media outlets are out there aggressively looking to get you elected. He made plenty of mistakes in his campaign - but they were completely sugar-coated by most of the news outlets. I don't consider his ability to let other people make it easy for him to be an indication that he's got any sort of spine, integrity, or capability to actually do the job. Getting uncritical cover from the people holding the microphones and video cameras is not the same as actually, substantially, doing anything constructive. The guy hasn't held a press conference in a month and a half. If the ability to avoid questions is your measure of the man, then prehaps you're onto something, there.
even the (liberal?) media didn't see coming
See coming? They produced it for him!
accept responsability for our mistakes
Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
So, you're not really bothered by the notion that he thinks it should be funded at the same scale as the military, without mentioning where he thought that cash might come from? I mean, he likes to totally sugar-coat that sort of thing, but that's a doozy, don't you think? Or maybe that's really an indirect way of suggesting how little funding he thinks the military should actually have.
Somehow I don't think the Democrats will do any worse
Yeah, except this time they're going to have Obama's new Civilian National Security Force , which he said should be as large as the military, making sure we all go along. Whee!
Unless one of said loony morons is a Vice Presidential candidate
Come on, Joe Biden can't help the fact that he's a blowhard. It's genetic, and people keep mistaking it for "statesmanship," which he mistakes as encouragement. So, leave the guy alone.
Fair enough.
Look you stupid Nazi fuck
There! There's that high-brow, thoughtful political discourse that the intellects from the left are so famous for. No wonder Obama is attracting such bright, innovative people. Yes, it's Hope and Change We Can Believe In, sure enough.
we're well into the fascist revolution you've been agitating for
What's it like there, inside your special world?
Real-time coverage is important. I just want to be able to jot down the time when the Civilian Security Force gets its charter. Between them, and the "fairness doctrine" which will shut down any media opposing them... gosh, we should be having a great time. Go, Civilian Security Force, go!
Hundreds of thousands of innocents dying in the middle east because of corrupt politicians in the whitehouse
Right, because the foreign insurgents coming in from Syria and Iran, using Iranian-supplied cash and weapons, killing them with market bombs or taking them out back and shooting them aren't a factor. Most of them are killed Eeeevil Coaltion Troops.
Hundreds of billions more being paid to wealthy wallstreet cronies
Let's see... those would the cronies who've made their largest campaign contributions to Democrats? Who leveraged themselves and their investment banking customers into ruin by overreaching on investments built around highly risky, undercapitalized mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie... whose two largest recipients of campaign donations were Democrats (Obama and Dodd)... and whose financial shakiness, despite being pointed out directly by the White House in congressional hearings two years ago, were shouted down by the Democrats chairing the committee (see Barney Frank, et al) who said, "never mind, things are just fine with those institutions, you scare-mongering Republicans."
And the responsible politicians are still in power
Yup, and they're about to get an even larger majority in the house and senate, and a president who will no longer even pretend to have an interest in vetoing the incredible flow of pork and government-in-your-life that's about to spew out of Pelosi and Reid. Won't that be fun!.
I can't believe I got moderated as a troll
Why? You made a whiny, irrelevent complaint that dismisses the role of pure research in the larger advancement of our knowledge of how the universe works... the very sort of thing that always plays a role in advancing our ability to make more efficient use of energy, more realistic predictions about the behavior of complex systems, and more innovative technological use of things we think we have already fully, or most effectly exploited. This whole "the human race is incapable of doing two things at once" BS never ceases to amaze me. How do you even get out of bed in the morning? Make coffee... take a crap... which to do first? Gaah! I'm paralyzed! Which is the most important fish to fry?
In other words, you're scare mongering and - if we can assume you have a passable IQ which would suggest you might know better - clearly trolling. And, voila, you were thusly modded.
Pelosi was making an appearance and speaking at Google .
The main quote, regarding a larger, dem super-majority:
"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
I was also highly amused by this:
"It's interesting to hear Senator McCain talking about the dangerous Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Dangerous is not really a word that should be a part of a national debate as we go into a presidential race."
This from the woman who talks about Bush as a dangerous murderer and criminal, and then goes to great lengths to say how McCain is in no way different. Her entire M.O. has been built around talking about how dangerous her political opponents are. But then, she's a staggering hypocrit about all sorts of things, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything.
Fannie and Freddie had plenty to do with it. Lots of private sector idiots made matters worse by over-leveraging themselves on bad derivative investments built around what they were pitched as good-as-gold, government-backed, but none the less ridiculous mortgages. The ONLY thing that allowed those investment-bank-ruining highly leveraged messes to get off the ground was the foundation of the whole thing: supposedly unassailable equity in the form of houses. And neither of the Fs had anything even approaching the capital to be presenting all of that useless paper as a worthy basis for leverage. And those people (from both parties) that, over the years, starting talking more and more loudly about that - especially in the hearings in which we get to see Barney & Friends dismissing it as a bunch of nonsesnse - had it right.
Since it's going to be spent according to the wishes of the "Internet community
No, no, no. The article specifically said "redistributed" according to the wishes of the Internet community.
This should be getting tons of support from the new Obama administration.
No one can Asimov-ify the whole thing. But some things are entirely predictable.
If, for example, you decide that you can do some social engineering by holding congressional hearings that shoot down spoken concerns that two seem-to-be-backed-by-the-government mortgage underwriting entities are perfectly well capitalized, thank you very much, and that it's OK to keep writing unconscionable loans to people to can't afford them so that you can buy them as constituents in favor of politicians who are getting big donations from those same institutions... you can predictably expect far too many irrational loans, and thus some really bad investments based on the phantom worthiness of those loans.
Who cares how many of the details you can predict? When guys like Dodd and Obama are the two biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, and guys like Barney Frank depend on votes from the very demographic he screwed by shouting down calls to reign in those institutions' reckless policies and mandate better capitalization... well, we all get what the people who voted for those clowns deserve. Too bad it impacts everyone, and not just the ones who keep people like Frank in a position to impact policy in that area.
It's OK, soon we'll have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid completely unchecked by anyone, and able to finally get busy with their agenda. That will be fun, won't it? I especially liked this one from Nancy the other day: the notion that if congress gets an even larger Democrat majority, that it will finally be more bi-partisan. Her definition of bi-partisan, of course, being, "Now no one can stop anything I want to do, and we own the executive branch, too, having just seated someone who's even more lefty than I am!"
Do we need to be able to predict the ebb and flow of every economic bit of turbulence in order to predict where that recipe will go? He's not even president yet, and Obama's campaign has been reducing their definition of people who deserver higher taxes by $50,000 every few days. Remember the good old days when it was $250k? Biden laid it out as $150k yesterday. It's safe to predict that, given the power to work with an unchecked congress, the sudden, mysterious need to redistribute even more income from an even lower threshold of personal productivity will occur before the winter is out. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, from a guy who crowed in his own book about his careful, deliberate search for Marxist professors with whom to hang out.
It's going to be great, watching all of the people who were sold (via a massively purchased wave of airtime bought with campaign funds raised after a lie about campaign funding) a big ol' dose of class resentment... only to find later that the class they're being asked to resent is themselves, for having The Audacity To Work.
Kudos on being totally offtopic.
But... I said "unique ip address," so I don't really deserve any credit. I mean, it takes a certain special something to be totally off topic. It's an artform, and takes years of practice. I'll have to redouble my efforts.
I'd be happier if every ACORN-registered "voter" had a unique IP address. That way when they vote in more than one state or precinct simultaneously, we'll get an IP address conflict message. Once resolved, we can use that same IP address to track their federal court docket, and even their newly laundered prison jumpsuit. Unless, of course, the result is fresh new justice department that doesn't feel obligated to follow up on pizza delivery guys that registered 70+ times.
Before anyone says so, no, I don't think pizza guy is going to try to vote 70 times. The strategy is to overwhelm the registration offices, and provide opportunities for lawyers to get more and more tangled up in each piece of the election process and in the wake of the election, should it be close. It's a DOS attack on the registration system, plain and simple. And ACORN is spoofing the traffic, on purpose.
Yes, the Nanny-State types will really love this. Until the elite members of the Nanny State Directors Brigade are trying to run somone else's life from the back seat of their hybrid limo on the way to a fundraiser where they'll be asking Motorola for more campaign cash.
I was getting so much done this morning before I stopped to read this article.