Actually, we didn't lie. Believing something to be true that later turns out to be false is not lying.
While your statement is true, it is not true in this case. It has been well established that this administration had already planned to invade Iraq before the September 11th attacks and that any information which did not fit the plan was thrown out.
Further, it is well known that what limited intelligence we had was twisted to fit the goal. For instance, when the White House was told by Defense Department analysts that aluminum tubes found in Iraq were actually to be used for rockets, the administration found others who thought the the tubes could be used in a nuclear program. Even then Secretary of State Powell, after looking at the intelligence, said the tubes were for rockets. Guess which opinion the White House used.
Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda.
See the link from Democratic Underground I previously listed. There are several quotes in which Bush specifically says that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. However, if you want other sources you can try these:
I could go on if you like but I'm sure you can find other sources, including Bush's own comments on the White House web site (if they haven't removed the evidence) which shows Bush linking Iraq and Al Qaeda even though it was well known that Saddam hated Al Qaeda and had given specific orders to his minions not to cooperate in anyway with Al Qaeda.
Maybe my memory is failing, but I seem to recall just last week Bush was saying that Rumsfeld was doing a great job and has his full support. Oh yeah, here it is. Yet amazingly a replacement for Rumsfeld was found in a few hours.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
1. That's why you have the paper ballot. Regardless of what the machine recorded, you still have a physical piece of paper which can be counted by hand.
2. Plexiglass (or similar) boxes in which voters deposit their folded ballots. At end of election day, box is emptied onto the floor in front of all poll workers, observers, etc.
Paper is more secure and flexible than an electronic machine in which there is no way to verify if your vote was recorded or recorded correctly. Paper is certainly not efficient but we should not be in a hurry count votes in the first place simply to satisfy the media.
Electronic voting is a good thing, unfortunately it's been horribly implemented.
Which is why a verifiable paper trail is so critically important. The fact that numerous states have resorted to using a paper ballot in place of the electronic voting machines which are having issues or as a backup, shows that a paper ballot is what should be used.
It's not that hard to use a fill-in-the-bubble ballot because even if the scanner does not correctly record all votes, you still have the original vote to go back to and count if there is a challenge.
The only portion of electronic voting that should be electronic is scanning the voters ballot paper.
CNN has what they call 'The Ticker' in which they are listing incidents at polling places and general election-related events. The stories are short and to the point and a great way to see what is happening across the country at polling places including an assault by a poll worker on a voter.
Each story is timed-stamped so you know how fresh/stale the story is.
I appreciate your comments and yes, on a few occasions the thought of running has crossed my mind.
Unfortunately, there are several things which would doom me. First and foremost, I'm an honest person. You ask me a question and I'll give you a straight answer.
Why would this doom me? Because people don't want honesty. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy to live with the idea that all politicians lie and are corrupt so for someone like me to come along and give them straight answers would be too much for their brains to process. They would be like the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights.
Second, my area is not conducive to outsiders like me rocking the boat. You're either with one of the two parties or you're not. Granted, I am a registered Republican but the County and State organizations don't look kindly on people like me trying to muscle in on their hand-picked candidates. There was a situation a few years ago where our state treasurer, a life-long Republican who, to me at least, seemed like a decent person, was not backed by the party and had to run on her own money.
Third, and probably most importantly, I'm a state employee and as such am prevented from running for elected office other than school board.
This isn't to say that I haven't mentioned to people to write my name in during elections but getting five votes doesn't quite get me into the stadium to play with the big boys.
So alas, unless I suddenly come into money or there is a groundswell of support for me by the people I work with, the only role I can play is to browbeat my party into getting their heads out of their asses and tell the folks who call and do a survey on where I stand, that I do not approve of the direction my party is going and that I'm going to continue to vote against their candidates until they run someone who has at least two brain cells.
But thank you for your comments. I realize that I am preaching to choir on here about effective government and honest debate but one has to start somewhere.
whether global warming is happening. We know it is. We're recording it as it happens.
What is the issue is is this a natural process, a man-made process or a combination?
While we have evidence that warming and cooling cycles have happened in the past, this is the first time (that we know of) that the cycle has been recorded by man. If nothing else, it behooves us to study this phenomenon as critically as possible and determine if we are influencing things by our activities.
So no, global warming is not debunked. It is real and it is happening. The real question is why.
BTW, it was never about whether Saddam had WMD, but whether he allowed inspections. He didn't. He lost.
Bullshit. Someone else apparently wants to rewrite history.
Iraq: U.N. Inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction (Updated October 7, 2003) (pdf format) Note particularly that while the inspections were taking place, and cooperation was good, the ONLY areas of contention were some ambiguities in Iraqi documents as far what was listed and what was shown.
Further, here is what ELBaradei is quoted as saying:
Director General ElBaradei reported that inspections since November 2002 have identified no prohibited nuclear activities but urged states to continue to provide intelligence information. ElBaradei specifically suggested that the inspection process "should be allowed to run its
natural course" and that credible assurances could be provided within the next few months.
You see this Taco? This is why you need to fix your random number generator so I can get mod points. I want to give uradu all that I would have but can't because of your inaction.
What you just said is spot on. I joke with people that my dad, a ham radio operator, can hit a satellite 10,000 miles in space but can't figure out how to right-click a mouse. To even begin to explain to him how to compile something or how to mount a cd, or do other things that people who have worked with Linux think is so easy, is a non-starter.
To be blunt, a manual for each distribtion should be included with anyone who asks for a cd. Not man pages, not some slip of paper which says "Visit these sites or IRC channels if you have questions or problems" but a physical setup diagram which can, at a minimum, explain in step-by-step detail how to install whichever version of Linux a person is trying to use.
I don't mean a manual for how to do everything but enough that a person can get a basic system up and running and a quick run through of how to do basic things like make/delete directories, create accounts, etc.
Doing just that little bit would be one less reason people would have for saying that Linux is too difficult to use.
Bob Casey, Jr. is his opponent, the son of former Governor Robert Casey and our current state Treasurer. While I'm voting for Casey it's only to get Santorum out of office so he can't do any more damage.
This is the guy who wanted to make it so the taxpayers had to pay twice to get weather information. We would pay for the information once through our taxes via the National Weather Service and then a second time through a private organization.
This is also the guy who said in his book that education is not the way for the poor to get out of their rut (I'm paraphrasing). Throw in the family values crap, the fact that he shafted the taxpayers for thousands of dollars and refuses to pay the money back, and that he doesn't even live in PA any more, and those are just some of the reasons why I want him out.
As I said in my Allen comment, he, Santorum, in no way represents me. In six years, I'll be voting against Casey unless he can show me he deserves to be kept.
I'll admit that what I say leans more towards Libertarian than Republican but I identify more with more Republicans (supposedly) stand for.
Regardless, I've watched the entire segment of the attack from beginning to end. Yeah, the guy was egging Allen on and being a typical blogger ass but that does not, in any way, justify the unprovoked attack on him. Further, he wasn't trying to push past the folks. They were coming at him and he was trying to hold his ground.
I've worked on political campaigns, including being the local PR guy for a presidential candidate, so I know how heated things can get. I once teed off on a reporter over the phone after a close race because of the way he reported the results.
However, at no time has anyone that I've worked with/for, including any staff member, gone after someone who was asking stupid questions. If the aides didn't want the guy around all they had to do was stand there and block his way until Allen had left the area OR gotten in touch with whomever was at the hotel and had them remove the guy.
The blogger has said that he will press charges and I hope he does. There is zero excuse for this kind of crap.
captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.
Now we have footage of some of his aides/operatives attacking a blogger who asked Allen if he had stopped spitting on his wife. Why would he say that? Because that is apparently what is included in Allen's divorce papers which are currently sealed.
As others on the media circuit have said, regardless if the question is valid or not, there was no reason to attack the person and the fact that Allen watched the whole thing and did nothing to stop the attack shows what a thug-based party the Republicans.
This isn't the first time that Allen's been accused of being violent. His one sister wrote a book in which she describes him beating and/or attacking the other children including dragging her by the hair up a flight of stairs.
And before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a Republican but people like Allen, or in my case Santorum, in no way represent me. I am thoroughly disgusted with what my party has become and I can't wait to see the results on November 8th.
How about: there were some heavily used machines with out of synch touch screens, and as soon as poll operating officials saw the problem, those machines were taken out of use.
Wrong. Read the Miami Herald article. In case you didn't, here is what Broward County does:
Broward poll workers keep a log of all maintenance done on machines at each site. But the Supervisor of Elections office doesn't see that log until the early voting period ends. And a machine isn't taken out of service unless the poll clerk decides it's a chronic poor performer that can't be fixed.
Also, from the same article:
Marek corrected her ballot and alerted poll workers at the Hollywood satellite courthouse, who she said told her they'd had previous problems with the same machine.
Poll workers did some work on her machine when she finished voting, Marek said. But no report was made to the Supervisor of Elections office and the machine was not removed, Cooney said.
So no, in only a few cases are malfunctioning machines removed. In other cases the machines were left in place and no attempt was made to see if they were performing correctly.
So, since you have heard the "sound of things" and how 800 federal agents are out intimidating voters, perhaps you can point to an example of that?
You incorrectly parsed what I said. What I was saying was that the monitors would only be there to see if voter intimidation was taking place or if access to a poll was not being granted to legitimate voters. Not that the monitors themselves would be intimidating the voters.
If people wonder, sometimes, why a lot of the leftier side of the demographic doesn't seem to get elected, or sounds particularly shrill while talking about the process, you've just provided a grand example.
Considering the disaster this country is in because of what the right side of the demographic has done, I'll be happy to be associated with the lefties even if I'm a righty.
If wanting a secure voting process where anyone eligible to vote can vote without fear of intimidation or their vote not being recorded correctly, or any other shenangans, is considered a leftist point of view, your comments demonstrate why the right is so hated.
Unfortunately, from the sound of things, their role will only be involved in voter intimidation or access to polling places.
But wait, good news everybody! Wan Kim, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said that people shouldn't be concerned about electronic voting machines. Why? Because many groups have reviewed the machines, including the National Assocation of Secretaries of State.
"Regardless of what machine a voter votes on Election Day -- and there will be dozens and dozens of different type of machines across the country that are being used -- they have confidence that once the results of those elections are certified, you can bet on those results as being correct, because of the safeguards in place."
Hey Kim, why don't you send a few folks down to Florida to see what's going on then come back and say those words with a straight face. It doesn't matter if the votes are certified if the machines didn't record the proper votes in the first place.
It's not just non-profits that we sue. We sue for-profit companies who produce products which are known to be harmful to us, even after being told for three decades that what they produce is harmful, yet still continued to buy and use the product, and win.
Then of course there are the 'stupid lawsuits'. The ones where people are too stupid to not suffer harm yet somehow think it's someone elses fault. Like this one.
But hey, that's what one gets when you have schools, and parents, more interested in what religious study to shove down peoples throats rather than teaching students to be critical thinkers.
What happened is that he stepped off a plane from Pakistan and was arrested at O'Hare airport. He was held incommunicado and without charges for three years by the government on the grounds that he was an enemy combatant. During that time defense attorneys filed briefs on his behalf (how they found out I'm not quite clear) claiming that holding an american citizen in a military jail without charges is a violation of the persons Constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. CNN link
For three years the government argued that he was actually on a scouting mission to set off a dirty bomb somewhere in the U.S yet failed to charge him with any criminal activity.
After those three years, and after spending who knows how much money trying to defend their case, they dropped all charges against him, released him from military jail and sent him to the civilian court system where they finally charged him, along with four others, with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country... for the purpose of opposing existing governments and civilian factions and establishing Islamic states under Sharia (Islamic law), and material support for terrorism," according to the indictment. CNN link
My point was not whether the guy was guilty or not, but rather that government didnt' charge him with anything, simply held the guy for three years, and then spent money defending its actions against lawsuits filed by not only his attorney, but the ACLU and other organizations, then finally relented because the courts were starting to rule against its position. In other words, just like the crux of this article, they knew they couldn't win and so changed their position to make it seem like they had a victory but only after spending taxpayer dollars doing so.
I could just have easily used the issue of no-bid contracts by Halliburton and its subsidiaries which are costing the taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars in cost overruns, missing equipment, unsubstantiated work and other related matters. In fact, Bunnatine ("Bunny") Greenhouse, the top official at the US Army Corps of Engineers in charge of awarding government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, was demoted because she spoke out about the abuses of the bidding contract. Asia Times Online link and International Herald Tribune link.
I was only tyring to come up with other cases in which the U.S. government spent tons of money defending their actions and finally dropped the case which is similar to what the ACLU supposedly did to the taxpaer. Also, that the government doesn't need the ACLUs help in wasting taxpayer dollars considering that the Republican-led House, Senate and White House are doing very well on their own.
Thanks ACLU. Thanks for increasing government expenditures and taking money out of my pocket.
Like the Republicans who currently control the purse strings wouldn't have found a way to increase government expenditures and take money out of your pocket.
You know, like wanting to prosecute Jose Padilla as a terrorist, holding this american citizen in jail for three years without counsel then dropping all terror related charges and finally settling on a charge of aiding terrorists in a civil, not military, court.
Seems that the government knew its case wasn't going to fly so it settled on lesser charges and claimed victory. After spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on legal fees on a case they couldn't win.
I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes.
Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.
Police on patrol are doing exactly what their job is all about: trying to prevent crime and apprehend perpetrators of crimes. I know of several situations where police on patrol have apprehended individuals in the act of committing a crime. Here's one for you: the stopping of Timothy McVeigh by a police officer on patrol who noticed irregularities in McVeigh's car registration. Had that officer not been on patrol it is highly likely we would never have known who destroyed the Murrah Federal Building.
From the Department of Labor Statistics comes this:
Uniformed police officers have general law enforcement duties, including maintaining regular patrols and responding to calls for service. They may direct traffic at the scene of an accident, investigate a burglary, or give first aid to an accident victim. In large police departments, officers usually are assigned to a specific type of duty. Many urban police agencies are involved in community policing--a practice in which an officer builds relationships with the citizens of local neighborhoods and mobilizes the public to help fight crime. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm
I know it's de rigueur on here to think that all police are evil and should be put in jail but engage your brain. You complain that police don't do anything to prevent crime then say that all you want them to do is investigate things after a crime is committed. So which is it?
For the record, what you advocate police should be doing is already being done. They're called detectives.
In the same way it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by
No it's not. In fact, that's exactly what's happening when a radar gun is used. The beam hits everything in its path but only the strongest signal is returned. It might be your car or the guy next to you but every vehicle is being hit by the radar beam.
I don't need, want, or expect the police to protect me.
Have you told your local and state police departments about this? I'm sure they'd be happy not having to respond to any call for help you might have.
Slashdot Mirror
For reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/ (April 18th of this year)d -rumsfeld.html?ei=5070&en=2148bb81cafef9d0&ex=1163 221200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1163076529-g9kIMjR0v6pCeRK B7CId4A (November 1st of this year)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/washington/01cn
Source?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa rd.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293 (multiple comments liking Saddam to Al Qaeda who was resonsible for the attacks)
a m/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/20/9-11-and-sadd
Actually, we didn't lie. Believing something to be true that later turns out to be false is not lying.
While your statement is true, it is not true in this case. It has been well established that this administration had already planned to invade Iraq before the September 11th attacks and that any information which did not fit the plan was thrown out.
See this link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,69 03,1185407,00.html
Further, it is well known that what limited intelligence we had was twisted to fit the goal. For instance, when the White House was told by Defense Department analysts that aluminum tubes found in Iraq were actually to be used for rockets, the administration found others who thought the the tubes could be used in a nuclear program. Even then Secretary of State Powell, after looking at the intelligence, said the tubes were for rockets. Guess which opinion the White House used.
Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda.
See the link from Democratic Underground I previously listed. There are several quotes in which Bush specifically says that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. However, if you want other sources you can try these:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushir aq18.html (Fourth paragraph)
m (3/4 of the way down the page)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.ht
http://www.newscloud.com/read/73666/ (Rice making the comment for the administration)
I could go on if you like but I'm sure you can find other sources, including Bush's own comments on the White House web site (if they haven't removed the evidence) which shows Bush linking Iraq and Al Qaeda even though it was well known that Saddam hated Al Qaeda and had given specific orders to his minions not to cooperate in anyway with Al Qaeda.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
1. That's why you have the paper ballot. Regardless of what the machine recorded, you still have a physical piece of paper which can be counted by hand.
2. Plexiglass (or similar) boxes in which voters deposit their folded ballots. At end of election day, box is emptied onto the floor in front of all poll workers, observers, etc.
Paper is more secure and flexible than an electronic machine in which there is no way to verify if your vote was recorded or recorded correctly. Paper is certainly not efficient but we should not be in a hurry count votes in the first place simply to satisfy the media.
Which is why a verifiable paper trail is so critically important. The fact that numerous states have resorted to using a paper ballot in place of the electronic voting machines which are having issues or as a backup, shows that a paper ballot is what should be used.
It's not that hard to use a fill-in-the-bubble ballot because even if the scanner does not correctly record all votes, you still have the original vote to go back to and count if there is a challenge.
The only portion of electronic voting that should be electronic is scanning the voters ballot paper.
Each story is timed-stamped so you know how fresh/stale the story is.
I appreciate your comments and yes, on a few occasions the thought of running has crossed my mind.
Unfortunately, there are several things which would doom me. First and foremost, I'm an honest person. You ask me a question and I'll give you a straight answer.
Why would this doom me? Because people don't want honesty. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy to live with the idea that all politicians lie and are corrupt so for someone like me to come along and give them straight answers would be too much for their brains to process. They would be like the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights.
Second, my area is not conducive to outsiders like me rocking the boat. You're either with one of the two parties or you're not. Granted, I am a registered Republican but the County and State organizations don't look kindly on people like me trying to muscle in on their hand-picked candidates. There was a situation a few years ago where our state treasurer, a life-long Republican who, to me at least, seemed like a decent person, was not backed by the party and had to run on her own money.
Third, and probably most importantly, I'm a state employee and as such am prevented from running for elected office other than school board.
This isn't to say that I haven't mentioned to people to write my name in during elections but getting five votes doesn't quite get me into the stadium to play with the big boys.
So alas, unless I suddenly come into money or there is a groundswell of support for me by the people I work with, the only role I can play is to browbeat my party into getting their heads out of their asses and tell the folks who call and do a survey on where I stand, that I do not approve of the direction my party is going and that I'm going to continue to vote against their candidates until they run someone who has at least two brain cells.
But thank you for your comments. I realize that I am preaching to choir on here about effective government and honest debate but one has to start somewhere.
They're right. It won't get adjudicated this weekend.
However, just like their phone-jamming shenanigans in New Hampshire, it will get adjudicated against their corrupt asses.
So let them have their fun. This kind of crap is exactly why this Republican will be voting against every Republican on tomorrow's ballot.
Funn how my party continues to call the Democratic party one of traitors when it's my party which is undermining democratic principles.
whether global warming is happening. We know it is. We're recording it as it happens.
What is the issue is is this a natural process, a man-made process or a combination?
While we have evidence that warming and cooling cycles have happened in the past, this is the first time (that we know of) that the cycle has been recorded by man. If nothing else, it behooves us to study this phenomenon as critically as possible and determine if we are influencing things by our activities.
So no, global warming is not debunked. It is real and it is happening. The real question is why.
Bullshit. Someone else apparently wants to rewrite history.
Iraq: U.N. Inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction (Updated October 7, 2003) (pdf format) Note particularly that while the inspections were taking place, and cooperation was good, the ONLY areas of contention were some ambiguities in Iraqi documents as far what was listed and what was shown.
Further, here is what ELBaradei is quoted as saying:
Director General ElBaradei reported that inspections since November 2002 have identified no prohibited nuclear activities but urged states to continue to provide intelligence information. ElBaradei specifically suggested that the inspection process "should be allowed to run its natural course" and that credible assurances could be provided within the next few months.
Inspector's Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
Iraq was wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say (note the lies that Dick Cheney perpetuated)
UN Inspection in Iraq Was No Sham
Shall I continue or would you like to keep repeating lies?
If you're a genius, you wouldn't need instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb, now would you?
You see this Taco? This is why you need to fix your random number generator so I can get mod points. I want to give uradu all that I would have but can't because of your inaction.
What you just said is spot on. I joke with people that my dad, a ham radio operator, can hit a satellite 10,000 miles in space but can't figure out how to right-click a mouse. To even begin to explain to him how to compile something or how to mount a cd, or do other things that people who have worked with Linux think is so easy, is a non-starter.
To be blunt, a manual for each distribtion should be included with anyone who asks for a cd. Not man pages, not some slip of paper which says "Visit these sites or IRC channels if you have questions or problems" but a physical setup diagram which can, at a minimum, explain in step-by-step detail how to install whichever version of Linux a person is trying to use.
I don't mean a manual for how to do everything but enough that a person can get a basic system up and running and a quick run through of how to do basic things like make/delete directories, create accounts, etc.
Doing just that little bit would be one less reason people would have for saying that Linux is too difficult to use.
This is the guy who wanted to make it so the taxpayers had to pay twice to get weather information. We would pay for the information once through our taxes via the National Weather Service and then a second time through a private organization.
This is also the guy who said in his book that education is not the way for the poor to get out of their rut (I'm paraphrasing). Throw in the family values crap, the fact that he shafted the taxpayers for thousands of dollars and refuses to pay the money back, and that he doesn't even live in PA any more, and those are just some of the reasons why I want him out.
As I said in my Allen comment, he, Santorum, in no way represents me. In six years, I'll be voting against Casey unless he can show me he deserves to be kept.
I'll admit that what I say leans more towards Libertarian than Republican but I identify more with more Republicans (supposedly) stand for.
Regardless, I've watched the entire segment of the attack from beginning to end. Yeah, the guy was egging Allen on and being a typical blogger ass but that does not, in any way, justify the unprovoked attack on him. Further, he wasn't trying to push past the folks. They were coming at him and he was trying to hold his ground.
I've worked on political campaigns, including being the local PR guy for a presidential candidate, so I know how heated things can get. I once teed off on a reporter over the phone after a close race because of the way he reported the results.
However, at no time has anyone that I've worked with/for, including any staff member, gone after someone who was asking stupid questions. If the aides didn't want the guy around all they had to do was stand there and block his way until Allen had left the area OR gotten in touch with whomever was at the hotel and had them remove the guy.
The blogger has said that he will press charges and I hope he does. There is zero excuse for this kind of crap.
Now we have footage of some of his aides/operatives attacking a blogger who asked Allen if he had stopped spitting on his wife. Why would he say that? Because that is apparently what is included in Allen's divorce papers which are currently sealed.
As others on the media circuit have said, regardless if the question is valid or not, there was no reason to attack the person and the fact that Allen watched the whole thing and did nothing to stop the attack shows what a thug-based party the Republicans.
This isn't the first time that Allen's been accused of being violent. His one sister wrote a book in which she describes him beating and/or attacking the other children including dragging her by the hair up a flight of stairs.
And before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a Republican but people like Allen, or in my case Santorum, in no way represent me. I am thoroughly disgusted with what my party has become and I can't wait to see the results on November 8th.
Wrong. Read the Miami Herald article. In case you didn't, here is what Broward County does:
Broward poll workers keep a log of all maintenance done on machines at each site. But the Supervisor of Elections office doesn't see that log until the early voting period ends. And a machine isn't taken out of service unless the poll clerk decides it's a chronic poor performer that can't be fixed.
Also, from the same article:
Marek corrected her ballot and alerted poll workers at the Hollywood satellite courthouse, who she said told her they'd had previous problems with the same machine.
Poll workers did some work on her machine when she finished voting, Marek said. But no report was made to the Supervisor of Elections office and the machine was not removed, Cooney said.
So no, in only a few cases are malfunctioning machines removed. In other cases the machines were left in place and no attempt was made to see if they were performing correctly.
So, since you have heard the "sound of things" and how 800 federal agents are out intimidating voters, perhaps you can point to an example of that?
You incorrectly parsed what I said. What I was saying was that the monitors would only be there to see if voter intimidation was taking place or if access to a poll was not being granted to legitimate voters. Not that the monitors themselves would be intimidating the voters.
If people wonder, sometimes, why a lot of the leftier side of the demographic doesn't seem to get elected, or sounds particularly shrill while talking about the process, you've just provided a grand example.
Considering the disaster this country is in because of what the right side of the demographic has done, I'll be happy to be associated with the lefties even if I'm a righty.
If wanting a secure voting process where anyone eligible to vote can vote without fear of intimidation or their vote not being recorded correctly, or any other shenangans, is considered a leftist point of view, your comments demonstrate why the right is so hated.
You mean like this article?
Please note that the date of the article is from October 28th. Three days ago. The Register just now picked up on it.
Unfortunately, from the sound of things, their role will only be involved in voter intimidation or access to polling places.
But wait, good news everybody! Wan Kim, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said that people shouldn't be concerned about electronic voting machines. Why? Because many groups have reviewed the machines, including the National Assocation of Secretaries of State.
"Regardless of what machine a voter votes on Election Day -- and there will be dozens and dozens of different type of machines across the country that are being used -- they have confidence that once the results of those elections are certified, you can bet on those results as being correct, because of the safeguards in place."
Hey Kim, why don't you send a few folks down to Florida to see what's going on then come back and say those words with a straight face. It doesn't matter if the votes are certified if the machines didn't record the proper votes in the first place.
Then of course there are the 'stupid lawsuits'. The ones where people are too stupid to not suffer harm yet somehow think it's someone elses fault. Like this one.
But hey, that's what one gets when you have schools, and parents, more interested in what religious study to shove down peoples throats rather than teaching students to be critical thinkers.
Too bad only one of those countries was actually involved in the attack by harboring those who initiated the plan.
Let me guess, a Fox News junkie, right?
At least according to Widipedia, one third of an hour-long show is taken up by commercials.
For three years the government argued that he was actually on a scouting mission to set off a dirty bomb somewhere in the U.S yet failed to charge him with any criminal activity.
After those three years, and after spending who knows how much money trying to defend their case, they dropped all charges against him, released him from military jail and sent him to the civilian court system where they finally charged him, along with four others, with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country ... for the purpose of opposing existing governments and civilian factions and establishing Islamic states under Sharia (Islamic law), and material support for terrorism," according to the indictment. CNN link
My point was not whether the guy was guilty or not, but rather that government didnt' charge him with anything, simply held the guy for three years, and then spent money defending its actions against lawsuits filed by not only his attorney, but the ACLU and other organizations, then finally relented because the courts were starting to rule against its position. In other words, just like the crux of this article, they knew they couldn't win and so changed their position to make it seem like they had a victory but only after spending taxpayer dollars doing so.
I could just have easily used the issue of no-bid contracts by Halliburton and its subsidiaries which are costing the taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars in cost overruns, missing equipment, unsubstantiated work and other related matters. In fact, Bunnatine ("Bunny") Greenhouse, the top official at the US Army Corps of Engineers in charge of awarding government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, was demoted because she spoke out about the abuses of the bidding contract. Asia Times Online link and International Herald Tribune link.
I was only tyring to come up with other cases in which the U.S. government spent tons of money defending their actions and finally dropped the case which is similar to what the ACLU supposedly did to the taxpaer. Also, that the government doesn't need the ACLUs help in wasting taxpayer dollars considering that the Republican-led House, Senate and White House are doing very well on their own.
Like the Republicans who currently control the purse strings wouldn't have found a way to increase government expenditures and take money out of your pocket.
You know, like wanting to prosecute Jose Padilla as a terrorist, holding this american citizen in jail for three years without counsel then dropping all terror related charges and finally settling on a charge of aiding terrorists in a civil, not military, court.
Seems that the government knew its case wasn't going to fly so it settled on lesser charges and claimed victory. After spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on legal fees on a case they couldn't win.
Because the questions article came before the cake article.
Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.
Police on patrol are doing exactly what their job is all about: trying to prevent crime and apprehend perpetrators of crimes. I know of several situations where police on patrol have apprehended individuals in the act of committing a crime. Here's one for you: the stopping of Timothy McVeigh by a police officer on patrol who noticed irregularities in McVeigh's car registration. Had that officer not been on patrol it is highly likely we would never have known who destroyed the Murrah Federal Building.
From the Department of Labor Statistics comes this:
Uniformed police officers have general law enforcement duties, including maintaining regular patrols and responding to calls for service. They may direct traffic at the scene of an accident, investigate a burglary, or give first aid to an accident victim. In large police departments, officers usually are assigned to a specific type of duty. Many urban police agencies are involved in community policing--a practice in which an officer builds relationships with the citizens of local neighborhoods and mobilizes the public to help fight crime. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm
I know it's de rigueur on here to think that all police are evil and should be put in jail but engage your brain. You complain that police don't do anything to prevent crime then say that all you want them to do is investigate things after a crime is committed. So which is it?
For the record, what you advocate police should be doing is already being done. They're called detectives.
In the same way it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by
No it's not. In fact, that's exactly what's happening when a radar gun is used. The beam hits everything in its path but only the strongest signal is returned. It might be your car or the guy next to you but every vehicle is being hit by the radar beam.
I don't need, want, or expect the police to protect me.
Have you told your local and state police departments about this? I'm sure they'd be happy not having to respond to any call for help you might have.
Or might take things to the extreme.