A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It figures that you would agree with Barbara Boxer.


Wait. I'm confused.

FWIW, the same thing was tried in 2000, but they couldn't get a senator to join. The first choice this time was apparently Kerry, but he declined.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Of course the asshole Republican wouldn't let it go and has asked the legislature to overturn the entire election based on unspecified allegations of voter fraud and the hearing will be January 27.

Doncha just HATE people like that?

(See C-Span.com. Right now.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Perhaps then a system which prints out the ballot (which is the official ballot), which the election officials keep, and then it's scanned to calculate the totals. Seems like electronics can help deal with the problem of people who don't understand or can't read or fill out a ballot the way they wanted to -- something that tells Grandma "You voted for Buchanan, you nitwit. Are you sure you meant to do that?"

That would work quite well. The key is, the paper needs to be left in the possession of the election officials, secure and unchangeable.

Oh, and "You voted for Buchanan, you nitwit"? I want a tee-shirt like that for my Florida trip.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
FWIW, the same thing was tried in 2000, but they couldn't get a senator to join. The first choice this time was apparently Kerry, but he declined.

There was a hell of a lot more reason for it in 2000. Given how close the Florida count was, even very small-scale improprieties could have been decisive.

My fear here is that the Dems are not even fighting the last battle, but the one before that. Sort of like the French replacing the Maginot Line in 1939 with rows of caltrops and pikes for bringing the Teutons' horses down.


eta: But now we all know that Club saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Doncha just HATE people like that?

(See C-Span.com. Right now.)

You think that the allegations in Ohio are unsubstantiated?

[Gattigap]

It's been argued before, and with more screaming, but Friedman today articulates better than I've seen lately the best argument for having elections on schedule on Jan. 30.

• Each day we get closer to the Iraqi elections, more voices are suggesting that they be postponed. This is a tough call, but I hope the elections go ahead as scheduled on Jan. 30. We have to have a proper election in Iraq so we can have a proper civil war there.
  
  Let me explain: None of these Arab countries - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - are based on voluntary social contracts between the citizens inside their borders. They are all what others have called "tribes with flags" - not real countries in the Western sense. They are all civil wars either waiting to happen or being restrained from happening by the iron fist of one tribe over the others or, in the case of Syria in Lebanon, by one country over another.
  
  What the Bush team has done in Iraq, by ousting Saddam, was not to "liberate" the country - an image and language imported from the West and inappropriate for Iraq - but rather to unleash the latent civil war in that country. Think of shaking a bottle of Champagne and then uncorking it.
  
  This is not to say that the "liberation" of Iraq's people is impossible. But unlike in Eastern Europe - where a democratic majority was already present and crying to get out, and all we needed to do was remove the wall - in Iraq we first need to create that democratic majority.
  
  That is what these elections are about and why they are so crucial. We don't want the kind of civil war that we have in Iraq now. That is a war of Sunni and Islamist militants against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies, many of whom do not seem comfortable fighting with, and seemingly for, the U.S. America cannot win that war. That is a civil war in which the murderous insurgents appear to be on the side of ending the U.S. "occupation of Iraq" and the U.S. and its allies appear to be about sustaining that occupation.
  
  The civil war we want is a democratically elected Iraqi government against the Baathist and Islamist militants. It needs to be clear that these so-called insurgents are not fighting to liberate Iraq from America, but rather to reassert the tyranny of a Sunni-Baathist minority over the majority there. The insurgents are clearly desperate that they not be cast as fighting a democratically elected Iraqi government - which is why they are desperately trying to scuttle the elections. After all, if all they wanted was their fair share of the pie, and nothing more, they would be taking part in the elections.
  
  We cannot liberate Iraq, and never could. Only Iraqis can liberate themselves, by first forging a social contract for sharing power and then having the will to go out and defend that compact against the minorities who will try to resist it. Elections are necessary for that process to unfold, but not sufficient. There has to be the will - among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - to forge that equitable social contract and then fight for it.
  
  In short, we need these elections in Iraq to see if there really is a self-governing community there ready, and willing, to liberate itself - both from Iraq's old regime and from us. The answer to this question is not self-evident. This was always a shot in the dark - but one that I would argue was morally and strategically worth trying.
  
  Because if it is impossible for the peoples of even one Arab state to voluntarily organize themselves around a social contract for democratic life, then we are looking at dictators and kings ruling this region as far as the eye can see. And that will guarantee that this region will be a cauldron of oil-financed pathologies and terrorism for the rest of our lives.
  
  What is inexcusable is thinking that such an experiment would be easy, that it could be done on the cheap, that it could be done with any old army and any old coalition and any old fiscal policy and any old energy policy. That is the foolishness of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. My foolishness was thinking they could never be so foolish.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
That would work quite well. The key is, the paper needs to be left in the possession of the election officials, secure and unchangeable.

I suppose one could imagine designing a system with multiple, redundant hard drives, which could variously reside with the elections officials and the parties, and which could be compared in the event of a dispute.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You think that the allegations in Ohio are unsubstantiated?

I thought bilmore previously suggested that there are substantiated reports of problems in Ohio that deserve attention, but that only the whackjobs think those problems affected the outcome. OK, that's partly my spin.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You think that the allegations in Ohio are unsubstantiated?

We've been discussing this. I think there are real problems with our election systems all over the country. No one should have to wait seven hours to vote, there should be no paperless ballots, etc.

I'm just amused, mostly by some people around here, and triggered in some part by your post. (I'm in a Dem stronghold within a Dem stronghold within a . . . .). "Kerry won!! Bush cheated!! Recount Ohio!!" trumpeted over and over again, but Rossi should "Get The Fuck Over It"? Just too funny.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There was a hell of a lot more reason for it in 2000. Given how close the Florida count was, even very small-scale improprieties could have been decisive.

My fear here is that the Dems are not even fighting the last battle, but the one before that. Sort of like the French replacing the Maginot Line in 1939 with rows of caltrops and pikes for bringing the Teutons' horses down.


eta: But now we all know that Club saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

I don't want to rehash the 2000 election again.

Agree with you on fighting the wrong battle.

Did not see 9/11.

[Replaced_Texan]

I hate Tom DeLay.

This is what he read this morning at the 109th Congressional Prayer Service:

• A reading of the Gospel, in Matthew 7:21 through 27.
  
  Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
  
  Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?"
  
  Then I will declare to them solemnly, "I never knew you: depart from me, you evil doers."
  
  Everyone who listens to these words of mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man, who built his house on a rock:
  
  The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, but it did not collapse; it has been set solidly on rock.
  
  And everyone who listens to these words of mine, but does not act on them, will be like a fool who built his house on sand:
  
  The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined.

http://demwatch.blogspot.com/2005_01...90448510557976

I'm shocked lightning didn't strike down the sanctimonious cocksucker right then and there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
thoughts about the re-vote movement in the Washington governor race? I don't know much about it. Seems like a similar subject line could be used, but perhaps there's something else going on...

That race was won by 6 or 7 votes, wasn't it?

[Gattigap]

As it happens, my dealership service department is arguing to my today that I should replace effectively every other part in my car that lay underneath the hood. As an aside, he tells me "oh, and you need new tires. If you want us to replace them, they're about $65 each."

Which reminded me of this recent story re: Justice Thomas' gifts:

• WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the high court, including $1,200 worth of tires, valuable historical items and a $5,000 personal check to help pay a relative's education expenses.

$1200 for tires?? WTF?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, my dealership service department is arguing to my today that I should replace effectively every other part in my car that lay underneath the hood. As an aside, he tells me "oh, and you need new tires. If you want us to replace them, they're about $65 each."

Which reminded me of this recent story re: Justice Thomas' gifts:

• WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the high court, including $1,200 worth of tires, valuable historical items and a $5,000 personal check to help pay a relative's education expenses.

$1200 for tires?? WTF?

$65 dollar tires are cheap

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
$1200 for tires?? WTF?

New tires for my vehicle will run me about $1000.00.