|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 29, 2008 8:56:55 GMT -5
But can you or anybody else please tell me till what week is it legal to abort a child in the USA.. I suppose it's different in every state. In particular I find the late abortions to be sickening. gee whiz, i'm surprised! you seem to know everything else about americans and american society, including what's 'good for us', so why don't you know that? your googling hand broken? alright, alright. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 29, 2008 9:31:32 GMT -5
i have a sick feeling too...that the republicans already know they're gonna win because they're in control of the ballot box...just like in the last two elections. call me a cynic and a pessimist but i kinda feel like palin was selected to tell the independent, intelligent women of america "in your face, bitches. you want a woman so bad, we'll give you the biggest female joke in american politics". oh yeah, she's a media whiz alright, if you like brainless bimbos who know how to use their cleverness, sexuality and brazenness to get ahead. but audacity + pulchritude does not = intelligent and capable leader of substance...and that's what this country desperately needs. i don't like pit bulls and i don't like palin, lipstick or no lipstick. farouche, i gotta hand it to you, you're far more patient than i with someone who seems to speak palin's incomprehensible language all too well.  For a long time I thought it seemed outlandish to think that the Republicans could possibly have “stolen” the election (this is America, dammit  ), but I revised that opinion somewhat after reading this article. Turns out you don't need to be super sneaky or even break a lot of laws to pull off something like this; you just need a Machiavellian attitude toward winning and a lot of persistence in doing the little things that make the difference. Caging is one tactic that seems especially despicable, and which was apparently a well-documented tactic of the Republicans in the last election. This year the Democrats are attempting to act preemptively against an alleged campaign to challenge the votes of those who have lost their homes in the recent foreclosings. There is evidence in Florida of the Republicans still going at it. And how do they get away with it, we ask? Turns out it's not quite illegal, exactly... Add to that a little gerrymandering, a few misallocated voting machines in Democratic districts, some conflicts of interest, and the merest sprinkling of truly illegal but easily hidden ballot engineering, and suddenly the picture emerges not of a huge conspiracy, but a campaign of sly, small, plausibly deniable but highly ethically dubious actions that may have changed the course of that election. The first article I linked to presents some pretty convincing evidence that some very weird things were going on, one way or another. I hasten to add that apparently plenty of people say the Democrats rigged the election to get JFK into office; I haven’t looked into it enough to say, but I believe it’s certainly possible. This isn’t a “Republicans are evil bastards” thing. If the Democrats are or were doing this, that is equally morally corrupt and condemnable. The choice of Sarah Palin as VP nominee is certainly a nightmare for many women, whether or not that was part of the intent in recruiting her. I honestly cannot figure out the exact reason(s) why anyone would choose her for the ticket, but I do think one of its many purposes is to undermine feminist ideals by choosing an incompetent to supposedly represent women. This serves the two-fold purpose of reinforcing bigots’ perception that “women” are obviously not fit for office, and allowing the right to sneer at women as hypocrites and whiners for not supporting “one of their own” when presented with a female candidate, no matter that her politics are totally at odds with feminist goals. Ironically and frustratingly, this is very much likely to be thrown in the faces of women who point out true sexist treatment or call for more women in positions of power, for many years to come. It is an enormous step back for the women of this country, and so close on the heels of Hillary Clinton showing "them” what a woman can be capable of accomplishing. Sigh. So I'm quite tense about the situation, and I'm really expecting some kind of chicanery either at the VP debates or the election, or hidden away somewhere within the context of this whole farcical episode. It is dismaying to me that anyone, even those who like and/or respect McCain, can forge ahead and defend Sarah Palin with the same head-scratching bluster she espouses, but I think I’ve finally stopped being truly shocked at what people are able to believe... Especially when they've got talking heads or religious leaders to feed them reasons so that they don't even have to work at coming up with logical backing of their own. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 29, 2008 12:12:56 GMT -5
I can not ease on Olbermann. The only counterpart to Olbermann would be some far-right preacher because he's as far-left as you can get. Then you are absolutely and unacceptably blinded by your far-right talk show friends, Nap, if you cannot see that Olbermann is the SAME THING as Bill O’Reilly. The problem is that you view O'Reilly as "normal" or moderate in his views, such that anyone to the left of him at all looks like an extremist to you. Most Americans are very aware as to where O'Reilly fits on the spectrum, and it is well, well to the right of "moderate." I ask you to state, for the record, that you believe Bill O’Reilly is a credit to journalism and a fair and balanced source of news. It's my humble opinion that you, Ms. Ferret don't like Ms. Palin and what she stands for and go to great lenghts to find reasons to support how she is unfit to be VP. [/i] I reject your humble opinion and find it both insulting and wrong. “As for that VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until someone answers, for me, what is it exactly that the VP does, every day?” Direct quote from Palin prior to her selection. Just let me put that out there; maybe it doesn't mean a thing to you. Read the transcript and watch the video and then explain, in your own words, what she is saying about the bailout. And since I’m convinced you’re only getting clips off of conservative news sites (or even through watching O’Reilly’s show) and not bothering to look up anything on YouTube unless you're given a direct link, please watch this in its entirety, and tell me exactly what impresses you about Palin. This guy articulates the way I feel about Palin very well. This site collects a whole crapload of emails from women who also feel the same, if you have any interest at all in finding out why many people other than me would say these things... which I know you really don't, but hey. Hope springs eternal. Before you say a word, no--you don't get to argue that these sources have liberal bias. Argue against what they say, not who says it. That's how grownups argue. Look, you seem to be very upset that "the inexperience" thing was somehow taken out of context.. uh, no, it's in the post above! Come on, you didn't even defend Obama. We know he's got as little or less experience than Ms. Palin. [/color][/i] Uh, no offense here, but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I explained to you exactly why you cannot take three words out of context and then proceed to refute a point I never made, and you ignored it. It’s as though I quoted you as saying “defend Obama” from the paragraph above, and then accused you of demanding I defend Obama because you obviously love him so much, since you told me to "defend Obama." Confused? That's because your tactic doesn't make any sense. Think about it. And let me highlight another point that apparently flew right over your head: I DON’T CARE ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE. I don’t care about Obama’s experience, and I don’t care about Palin’s experience. I DON’T CARE. That is not a problem I have with Palin, and it is not a problem for Obama, either, as far as I’m concerned. Why you continue to harp on a point I never, ever made and explained to you I never intended, I have no idea. I really don’t know what your problem is, nor why you seem to feel so personally affected by an American vice presidential nominee that you cannot even imagine why someone might criticize her. It is bizarre. No, the liberalization of the media and academia in America is worrisome because for the simple fact that far-left people don't want to have anything to do with other (read: conservative or traditional) ideas. So they're the opposite of open minded. [/color][/i] Absolutely false. I’m begging you to steer clear of Rush Limbaugh if, as I suspect, you are a listener. The man is thought poison. “Liberalism” in this country specifically calls for open-mindedness. No, stop--don't reach for you folder full of right wing rhetoric just yet. Actually think about what I am saying. You can’t rail against moral relativism and also claim that liberalism is not open-minded, because the whole "moral relativism is evil" argument is based on the idea that it is too open-minded, such that it supposedly allows anyone to do whatever they want. So listen up. Liberalism means that you should get to do what you want with your life, believe in whatever religion you want (or none at all), marry whoever you choose, have as many children as you can care for, and teach them virtually whatever you want. It says that I can abort twenty pregnancies, and you can carry twenty to term. I can happily live my life without a drop of theism, and you can go to church or stand in the street and pray to one or a thousand gods if you so choose. Liberalism means that my peculiar beliefs aren’t imposed on you, and vice-versa. Do you understand that? It means I get to do what I want, and you get to do what you want, but YOU don’t have to do what I want just because *I* think it’s arbitrarily right. Conversely, just because you think fetuses are precious gifts of God and should be carried to term, for instance, the law is not going to tell me that abortions are forbidden to me. Not without a very, very good reason as to why your beliefs are more important than mine in regard to my own body. That's liberalism. Dig it? Olbermann, Soros, Al Franken, these guys seem to be very fond of Marxism.. of course all atheists. [/color][/i] They “seem” to be very fond of Marxism? And what exactly is frightening to you about atheists, Nap? You seem very concerned about atheists somehow undermining your right to... what, exactly? Did you have a point, or did you just want to slip in a little dig about atheists to imply some kind of dark, mysterious agenda without having to actually define what threatens you about people not believing in god? I see validity in both creation and evolution and indeed Ms. Palin supports both to be thought in school. Let the kids make up their own mind, which they will anyway, but it's easier if you haven't been indocrinated into one or another. [/color][/i] That kind of "logic" makes me cringe. I really hoped I wouldn’t have to even say this, but... Creationism is not a scientific theory, in ANY form. It just is not. It is 100% religious in nature, and parents are welcome to teach their kids creationism and virtually any other religious concept they like, in the privacy of their own homes or in private religious schools. But there is absolutely no way a religious origin myth belongs in a science classroom. It undermines absolutely everything science stands for. You cannot test the “theory” of creationism directly, and science is all about making observations, gathering information, forming hypotheses, and then testing them. It is not about baseless speculation or storytelling, especially when it has religious implications. “Liberalism” says that you cannot ask the government’s sanction to teach your religious beliefs as potential truth in a public school classroom. You can teach creationism alongside the Hindu myth of the Earth being supported on the back of a giant turtle in a comparative religions class, but you may not introduce either of those stories into a science class. I did not see that particular clip of McCain.. [/color][/i] I am very much not surprised. As SP pointed out, it is really incredibly silly to push your opinions so adamantly when you seem to have made absolutely no effort to understand this topic on your own. well I don't mind the states deciding on their own what their abortion policies are. [/color][/i] You aren’t an American, so I don’t know about anyone else, but I really, really don’t care what you mind or don’t mind. Again, my opinion is that he isn't inclined to do so, because even though half the country is pro-life, I'd imagine that only 25% max, would be to overturn Roe V. Wade. In short, I don't think he's going to muster up enough political will to have it overturned. But hey I could be wrong. [/color][/i] You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Ahem. You do not understand the political system of the United States AT ALL, so I’m not sure how you could possibly feel qualified to speak on this subject. It does not matter what the public thinks about Roe V. Wade. The United States Supreme court decides. The president appoints justices to this court, and those judges serve for life unless they commit a major crime or they retire. The judges basically listen to certain cases, certain lawsuits, against the government, and they make decisions about whether the laws involved are legal under the American Constitution. Overturning Roe V. Wade requires only that there are enough anti-abortion justices on the bench that when a case regarding the legality of abortion comes to them, a majority of justices will rule that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to make laws defining the legality or illegality of abortion. If that doesn’t clear things up, you can do your own freaking research and stop talking down to everyone else as though ignorance is something to be proud of! But can you or anybody else please tell me till what week is it legal to abort a child in the USA.. I suppose it's different in every state. In particular I find the late abortions to be sickening. [/color][/i] There are a lot of things I find sickening and wish I could magically abolish, Nap. A lot of things. Again, as SP instructed, LOOK IT UP if you want to know specifics. To my knowledge, late term abortions are very rare, carried out virtually exclusively if there is a severe problem with the health of the fetus or the mother, and these procedures are regulated by state laws. If the baby is developed enough that it’s alive when removed from the womb, it will be given medical attention and kept alive. Inasmuch as I have looked into the subject (and I have), the number of women suddenly changing their mind about the pregnancy in the last trimester and wanting to abort is insignificantly small, and doctors are VERY hesitant to perform the procedure later in the pregnancy unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Any moral concerns aside, it is, to my understanding, a significantly more difficult and dangerous procedure the further along the pregnancy gets. I need to go have lunch and bang my head against a wall now. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 29, 2008 14:34:52 GMT -5
I ask you to state, for the record, that you believe Bill O’Reilly is a credit to journalism and a fair and balanced source of news. I don't mind that he's a Christian and that doesn't make him far right. If you have any evidence that he is far right then come forth. [/i] I reject your humble opinion and find it both insulting and wrong.[/quote] I accept your opinion and point out that you then proceed to gather all your anti-Palin news sources, or videos that you interpet as such. haha.. uh, no! You brought out our good friend, Jack Cafferty! A liberal anti-bush rambler. Of course you agree with him. Of course it matters where you get your information from! The media with which you sourround yourself is like a parent telling you what's true and what's not. Of course we all think we surround ourselfs with the media that's true and has integrity. I belive Bill O'Reilly is a good guy, America is a great country, religion is a good moderate influence, and Bush is a man of integrity doing the best that he possibly can with the information he has. That's my downside for you  I was under that impression because of your earlier statment:
Palin is about the closest thing to a ditzy beauty queen with no political experience that McCain could get away with. Anyone can be a "real" conservative, whatever that even means. A stripper can be a "real" conservative. That alone is little indication of her fitness for office.
You made having no experience sound bad, and then you backtrack and say "I don't care about political experience". You can't have it both ways, aye. Both Palin and Obama have little experience and we'll see what comes of it. I was very interested to see you adress this. You cannot do whatever you want or teach your kids whatever you want, because there are certian expectations and rules in a society. But since we probably agree that criminalism and such should be sanctioned.. we're fine. Some of the so called liberals believe you can say whatever you want about whoever you want because of free speech. In the same breath, they try to limit creationists and conservatives of their free speech. Some of them at least. For example they call republicans, especially G.W.Bush all kinds of names, but then when someone says something critical about Obama, they're viciously attacked or even called racist. Blows my mind. Here's a little something about those kinds of liberals: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7e_3GlSes I don't dig it, but I know what you're saying. They want to eliminate God from everything. I don't think that's such a good idea because America was founded and Judeo-Christian philosophy, maybe even spiritual. And a lot of people are benefited by religion, if nothing else there's a community of people there. And since people are generally happier when they're in a community and have friends, why not? To boot it teaches good principles and has absolutes like 10 commandmants which are a positive thing. All the atheists I know are good people. George Soros and co. are not. Especially atheists who try to push atheism onto others. Where's the liberalism here? Where has the open mindness gone? Yeah well some of their ideas are really out there. For example some of them think that the earth is 6000 years old and somehow they find supporting evidence for that. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 29, 2008 14:52:31 GMT -5
The bailout was rejected!
+1 for democracy
I have no doubt it will be resurrected very soon with provisions to 'help homeowners in foreclosure', but for now it is a nice slap in the face of certain individuals who shall not be named
P.S.
a snippet of the original proposal (the way it was first presented, not the one that was voted on)
---
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
---
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 29, 2008 15:45:38 GMT -5
The bailout was rejected! +1 for democracy I have no doubt it will be resurrected very soon with provisions to 'help homeowners in foreclosure', but for now it is a nice slap in the face of certain individuals who shall not be named P.S. a snippet of the original proposal (the way it was first presented, not the one that was voted on) --- Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. --- And stocks took a nosedive.. It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 29, 2008 17:28:06 GMT -5
wow, you guys have been busy while i've been at work. i'll have to come back and read all that later when i have more time, lol.
but i was wondering if anyone else sees the irony in the way the government is spreading panic through the media, saying if we don't do this huge bailout all the financial institutions will fall like dominoes. i was reading about what actually made washington mutual fail, and although they were damaged by the bad housing crisis we've got going on, what actually killed them was a 10 day run on the bank! the government and news media panicked their customers into withdrawing $16.7 billion in deposits within 10 days. and do you see them slowing down any? hell, no! let's keep going until we stampede every depositer in the nation! i kinda feel like the taxpayer is being held up at gun point here!
|
|
|
|
Post by HybridMoment on Sept 29, 2008 18:42:10 GMT -5
The derivatives market is probably why Bernanke and Paulson were so desperate for this bailout. It's tough to know what is going on at that level since most people are unaware of those types of contracts since they are very complex.
Loans were repackaged and sold on the derivatives market to foreign investors so the effect is not limited to the US. This would at least explain the Fed's behavior cutting interest rates, pretending everything was okay, and then all of a sudden beg for $700 billion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 29, 2008 23:20:59 GMT -5
The derivatives market is probably why Bernanke and Paulson were so desperate for this bailout. It's tough to know what is going on at that level since most people are unaware of those types of contracts since they are very complex. Loans were repackaged and sold on the derivatives market to foreign investors so the effect is not limited to the US. This would at least explain the Fed's behavior cutting interest rates, pretending everything was okay, and then all of a sudden beg for $700 billion. that's all well and good, but i still have a major problem with the whole concept of bailing out a bunch of rich bastards that got greedy. i know damn good and well, they wouldn't do a freakin thing to bail me out of financial trouble. all the ridiculously high bank fees and interest they charge, and they still can't be content to turn a decent profit and behave themselves? pfffftt!! i heard obama is edging ahead of mccain in the polls. if that's the way it's gonna be, i don't think the dems are gonna let it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 29, 2008 23:36:03 GMT -5
i have a sick feeling too...that the republicans already know they're gonna win because they're in control of the ballot box...just like in the last two elections. call me a cynic and a pessimist but i kinda feel like palin was selected to tell the independent, intelligent women of america "in your face, bitches. you want a woman so bad, we'll give you the biggest female joke in american politics". oh yeah, she's a media whiz alright, if you like brainless bimbos who know how to use their cleverness, sexuality and brazenness to get ahead. but audacity + pulchritude does not = intelligent and capable leader of substance...and that's what this country desperately needs. i don't like pit bulls and i don't like palin, lipstick or no lipstick. farouche, i gotta hand it to you, you're far more patient than i with someone who seems to speak palin's incomprehensible language all too well. For a long time I thought it seemed outlandish to think that the Republicans could possibly have “stolen” the election (this is America, dammit ), but I revised that opinion somewhat after reading this article. Turns out you don't need to be super sneaky or even break a lot of laws to pull off something like this; you just need a Machiavellian attitude toward winning and a lot of persistence in doing the little things that make the difference. Caging is one tactic that seems especially despicable, and which was apparently a well-documented tactic of the Republicans in the last election. This year the Democrats are attempting to act preemptively against an alleged campaign to challenge the votes of those who have lost their homes in the recent foreclosings. There is evidence in Florida of the Republicans still going at it. And how do they get away with it, we ask? Turns out it's not quite illegal, exactly... Add to that a little gerrymandering, a few misallocated voting machines in Democratic districts, some conflicts of interest, and the merest sprinkling of truly illegal but easily hidden ballot engineering, and suddenly the picture emerges not of a huge conspiracy, but a campaign of sly, small, plausibly deniable but highly ethically dubious actions that may have changed the course of that election. The first article I linked to presents some pretty convincing evidence that some very weird things were going on, one way or another. I hasten to add that apparently plenty of people say the Democrats rigged the election to get JFK into office; I haven’t looked into it enough to say, but I believe it’s certainly possible. This isn’t a “Republicans are evil bastards” thing. If the Democrats are or were doing this, that is equally morally corrupt and condemnable. you think in 2008 we'll finally see widespread voter riots in the US as they wake up and realize that the election 'system' has been corrupted? or do you think most people eligible to vote really are as indifferent as we've been led to believe? The choice of Sarah Palin as VP nominee is certainly a nightmare for many women, whether or not that was part of the intent in recruiting her. I honestly cannot figure out the exact reason(s) why anyone would choose her for the ticket, but I do think one of its many purposes is to undermine feminist ideals by choosing an incompetent to supposedly represent women. This serves the two-fold purpose of reinforcing bigots’ perception that “women” are obviously not fit for office, and allowing the right to sneer at women as hypocrites and whiners for not supporting “one of their own” when presented with a female candidate, no matter that her politics are totally at odds with feminist goals. Ironically and frustratingly, this is very much likely to be thrown in the faces of women who point out true sexist treatment or call for more women in positions of power, for many years to come. It is an enormous step back for the women of this country, and so close on the heels of Hillary Clinton showing "them” what a woman can be capable of accomplishing. Sigh. So I'm quite tense about the situation, and I'm really expecting some kind of chicanery either at the VP debates or the election, or hidden away somewhere within the context of this whole farcical episode. It is dismaying to me that anyone, even those who like and/or respect McCain, can forge ahead and defend Sarah Palin with the same head-scratching bluster she espouses, but I think I’ve finally stopped being truly shocked at what people are able to believe... Especially when they've got talking heads or religious leaders to feed them reasons so that they don't even have to work at coming up with logical backing of their own. well, i think it certainly tells us what the republicans think of women, that's for sure. that's one thing that never seems to change decade after decade after decade. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 30, 2008 7:02:57 GMT -5
actually the majority of democrats voted in favor of the bailout and it was the republicans that blocked the bill
democrats did what Bush said
as far as turning a profit - no they did not
they turned a massive massive loss
and that is why we are going into a recession no mater what bailouts are passed or who is elected president
banks make money by lending out the money you put give them with interest. the reason all these banks are collapsing is that they lent out all your money out and they are not going to get it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 30, 2008 7:09:16 GMT -5
no, why would we see voter riots? while you are unhappy with Bush and ideas about fraud are appealing, why ignore the other possibility - that John Kerry was just not an appealing candidate? It is possible you know. and as this recent bailout rejection has showed people are not that indifferent. Apparently congressmen received a flood of phone calls emails and faxes from constituents with about 90% being against. online.wsj.com/article/SB122273395169288417.html |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 8:40:01 GMT -5
The bailout was rejected!
+1 for democracy
I have no doubt it will be resurrected very soon with provisions to 'help homeowners in foreclosure', but for now it is a nice slap in the face of certain individuals who shall not be named
P.S.
a snippet of the original proposal (the way it was first presented, not the one that was voted on)
---
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
---
McCain and Obama are both for the bailout as far as I've been able to ascertain; they just both wanted changes to the proposal. If you've heard something else, could you post a link? It's information overload putting "bailout" in Google at the moment. But yeah, I read about that Section 8. It's incredible and frightening that anyone even tried to put that there. For the most part I'm not following this crisis very well, though; I really don't have the background knowledge to make sense of it. 700 billion dollars going to failed corporations sounds ludicrous to me. What are the alternatives, though? Is the other option to let the economy fail? And if so, what would that mean? I honestly don't know and don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on whether the bailout is a necessary evil or an unnecessary one. The one thing I do feel somewhat able to suggest is that anyone who earned the ridiculous salaries at the top of those corporations should not only be stripped of their golden parachutes, not only fired and forbidden to participate in the bailout or in running those companies again ever, but should potentially have their assets seized and be left destitute (until one of their billionaire buddies hires them again, at least). Jailing them in addition would be great. There is just no way in hell these people should be able to get away with this, bailout or not. I also believe now that we need to get out of Iraq as fast as we possibly can, rather than just responsibly, gradually slipping out the back over many years. I still think we have an obligation to the Iraqis after kicking off a civil war there, but we're going to have to be a little half-assed about fulfilling a lot of our obligations now, both at home and abroad. I think our days of big-brothering the world (not in the Orwellian sense) are over for the time being at least. I thought it was weird how McCain could keep going on about a "victory" in Iraq at the debates. I thoroughly understand our obligation, but what does "victory" even mean, at this point? you think in 2008 we'll finally see widespread voter riots in the US as they wake up and realize that the election 'system' has been corrupted? or do you think most people eligible to vote really are as indifferent as we've been led to believe? I really don't know... The abuses, or to be politic, the alleged abuses in the last election received shockingly little press and concern, as far as I can tell. It doesn't seem to be common knowledge that something really seems to have been wrong with the outcome. As for this year, I think a lot of people really are that indifferent, unfortunately; many many more simply feel helpless (me!). But if another election does appear to have been tampered with, at a time like this, there may be a great many people out there who feel they have little to lose, being pushed just a little too far. We'll see. If you haven't already seen it, you (and other Americans) might be interested in this interview with a guy called Spoonamore, himself a Republican, in which he describes and condemns massive election fraud by members of his own party: "Frankly, I don't care if my candidate wins as much as I care about being in a democracy." well, i think it certainly tells us what the republicans think of women, that's for sure. that's one thing that never seems to change decade after decade after decade. I can safely say that it sure looks as though they feel that way...  |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 30, 2008 8:51:12 GMT -5
i think there's alot of complacency about our election process in the US. people don't seem to realize it's been subverted. even when you put the evidence right under their noses, they've got too little imagination to comprehend what's going on, too much of a 'that can't happen here' attitude....too much of a 'they wouldn't let that happen'...but who exactly is 'they'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Sept 30, 2008 9:07:45 GMT -5
Woops, was going to add this in an edit, but SweetPea already responded.  no, why would we see voter riots?
while you are unhappy with Bush and ideas about fraud are appealing, why ignore the other possibility - that John Kerry was just not an appealing candidate? It is possible you know. As disappointed as I was that Bush was reelected, I thought the accusations of election fraud were ridiculous and desperate, at first. But it looks like a possibility worth considering that something went very wrong in that election, and largely in Bush's favor. Republicans' caging of votes is, at least, a well-documented occurrence. I'd like to know what you make of this. It looks like some very strange things happened in that election; I think we can say that at the very least. If it was indeed a deliberate move on the part of certain Republicans to alter the course of the election, it appears to have been mostly nickle-and-diming rather than some kind of massive conspiracy. The possibility seems credible to me. i think there's alot of complacency about our election process in the US. people don't seem to realize it's been subverted. even when you put the evidence right under their noses, they've got too little imagination to comprehend what's going on, too much of a 'that can't happen here' attitude....too much of a 'they wouldn't let that happen'...but who exactly is 'they'? I think the "it can't happen here" feeling is particularly strong. I definitely believed that these past four years when I rolled my eyes at the idea of election fraud without even bothering to look into it. The US has for so long built on this "if something happens, we'll be there" attitude. You look at all the frivolous lawsuits the US is famous for, and the product packaging printed with labels like "do not use hair dryer underwater" or whatever, and there's just this sense that the government will cushion our falls and not let anything really bad happen to us, unlike in some other countries. And there hasn't been anything big and far-reaching enough in a while to shake that feeling much. |
|
), but I revised that opinion somewhat after reading 
