Doc Holliday Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Al Gore and Ted Kennedy are secret lovers. Anyone see drunk azz Ted at the mexican rally? man that guy is a huge moron. you could of seen more serious government talk at a eminem concert. the guy basically just said...rah-rah-rah. Edited June 12, 2006 by Doc Holliday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 The problems of deceptive (and downright illegal) election tactics in past elections by BOTH sides have been well documented for decades, even centuries. As long as humans are involved and there is power/$ at stake, this will go on. Why do you think there is so much voter apathy? Most do not trust that justice will be done. The question is: how do we prevent the abusues from happening again? How can technology and/or better systems and controls help? That's the tough part, but somebody somewhere is getting paid a lot of money (from one side or both sides) to figure it out. Maybe if there was a bipartisan coalition in place to accomplish more election fairness, it would have a chance. But I seriously doubt it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I thought this was going to be about Battlestar Galactica. Roslin totally cheated and they busted her ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 You mean the deficit that was already consistantly going downwards while Clinton was in office and bottomed out at 911. I always love when democrats point to this when trying to dog Bush. the country did great when AL GORE discovered the computer huh?. and the computer age is the only thing that saved Clinton from being known as the putz he is, and the funny thing is, he had no control over that. he was just lucky enough to be in office at the time. You want to blame deficits, look at your welfare system. there has never been a bigger drain on any economy. OK, I'll bite. Prove it. Show your sources. The Congressional Budget Office backs up my claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 OK, I'll bite. Prove it. Show your sources. The Congressional Budget Office backs up my claim. It does? well could I get a link to that. I bet it would be a very fun read. Before I would go back and waste my time on databases that you will write off anyways..I would love to read the 1st place I ever heard of to back your claims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 The problems of deceptive (and downright illegal) election tactics in past elections by BOTH sides have been well documented for decades, even centuries. As long as humans are involved and there is power/$ at stake, this will go on. Why do you think there is so much voter apathy? Most do not trust that justice will be done. The question is: how do we prevent the abusues from happening again? How can technology and/or better systems and controls help? That's the tough part, but somebody somewhere is getting paid a lot of money (from one side or both sides) to figure it out. Maybe if there was a bipartisan coalition in place to accomplish more election fairness, it would have a chance. But I seriously doubt it.... The Democrats stuff ballot boxes with votes from dead people, the Republicans are using technology to subvert voting. Either way, the system is subverted and when it is, it is utterly pointless living in a democracy. Two remedies: 1. Abandon ALL technology in the voting process and ramp up the ballot stuffing safeguards. Provide a paper form and a pencil and have people mark their votes on the paper. Immediately put the paper in a locked box (which has been certified empty at the start and is watched throughout by a rep from each party) and when the polls close, transport the boxes to central counting locations where they are witnessed, unlocked and the votes are counted twice. This is how it's done in many countries that never have an election dispute. Anyone who thinks incorruptible technology can be built to make the system fair is living in lala land and knows nothing of computers. 2. Make the penalty for attempting to subvert the voting process so ferocious that no-one would think of doing it. Afterthought: Make voting compulsory and give the entire country the day off to take part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 It does? well could I get a link to that. I bet it would be a very fun read. Before I would go back and waste my time on databases that you will write off anyways..I would love to read the 1st place I ever heard of to back your claims Why sure! I'll give you my source because I actually have one and am not just pulling an opinion out of my azz. CBO Historical Budget Numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Why sure! I'll give you my source because I actually have one and am not just pulling an opinion out of my azz. CBO Historical Budget Numbers Thanks, I shall read for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Afterthought: Make voting compulsory and give the entire country the day off to take part. To do this, maybe you couldn't get your driver's license renewed unless you proved that you voted? Sounds crazy, but how else do we really make it 'mandatory'? Ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 To do this, maybe you couldn't get your driver's license renewed unless you proved that you voted? Sounds crazy, but how else do we really make it 'mandatory'? Ideas? That's not a bad idea..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 That's not a bad idea..... I'd make the arguement that having uninformed people forced to vote would not help democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I'd make the arguement that having uninformed people forced to vote would not help democracy. One of the rare times I agree with CEO on an issue. Plus though I DO believe shenanigans happened, let me also say, that I took the time to make certain I could vote. My registration card was not in my hands two weeks before the election so I took it up with my local elections board and got it straightened out. People in this country are lazy, and will not accept thier own responsibility to register. BUT I do think there is an awful lot of smoke not to have some fire here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I'd make the arguement that having uninformed people forced to vote would not help democracy. Good point. Then part of the mandatory thing would be X # of hours in a local classroom setting, going over the issues, candidates, and voting process to help educate people. Its sounding more and more onerous, but maybe its worth it (a few hours every 2 years for all the voters + a few extra for all the volunteers for their pre-training) for the integrity of our whole belief system, no? But that's just me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I'd make the arguement that having uninformed people forced to vote would not help democracy. i say if u watch nascar u cant vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Everytime you vote Democrat, God clubs a baby seal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke 1982 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Good point. Then part of the mandatory thing would be X # of hours in a local classroom setting, going over the issues, candidates, and voting process to help educate people. Its sounding more and more onerous, but maybe its worth it (a few hours every 2 years for all the voters + a few extra for all the volunteers for their pre-training) for the integrity of our whole belief system, no? But that's just me... Guess this rules out non English speaking illegal aliens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I , Alex Gaddis, am going to take this opportunity to pad my post numbers in this particular thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I , Alex Gaddis, am going to take this opportunity to pad my post numbers in this particular thread... +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I , Alex Gaddis, am going to take this opportunity to pad my post numbers in this particular thread... [T-bone] Who are you? [/T-Bone] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Good point. Then part of the mandatory thing would be X # of hours in a local classroom setting, going over the issues, candidates, and voting process to help educate people. Its sounding more and more onerous, but maybe its worth it (a few hours every 2 years for all the voters + a few extra for all the volunteers for their pre-training) for the integrity of our whole belief system, no? But that's just me... I think that everyone in the US not directly involved with teaching that class would complain that any class to help you make a voting decision would be biased. Third party guys would complain that they weren't represented. If they were represented, the main party guys would call the class lunatic fringe. Dems would complain it was conservative. Repubs would complain it was liberal. Edited June 12, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Ok , after looking things over. I could find no UNBIASED source that would validate what I posted. of course I found many flat out republican based sources that would but I refuse to use a biased source as actual info. so I must say you were right here and I was wrong unless someone shows me a unbiased source. What I did find that was unbiased was this.... Bush and Clinton were equal in these things Unemployment rate consumer inflation new unemployment claims number of states losing jobs Consumer confidence Index Housing affordability Index Where Clinton was stronger Jobs added unemployment rates for college grads real wage growth stock market gain trade deficit Budget deficit Gasoline prices per gallon Where Bush was stronger Real GDP growth Treasury interest rate increase in info tech spending Productivity Real disposable income per person I could bring up the fact that Bush had to overcome 911. but that is another debate. as I said, unless I see some unbiased proof I admit you proved your point about our particular debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Guess this rules out non English speaking illegal aliens. Why? It could be translated with those cool little headphones, like in the UN....but then we'd need some bake sales and car washes to raise the $ for them!! Or they'd have to learn English first... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I think that everyone in the US not directly involved with teaching that class would complain that any class to help you make a voting decision would be biased. Third party guys would complain that they weren't represented. If they were represented, the main party guys would call the class lunatic fringe. Dems would complain it was conservative. Repubs would complain it was liberal. OK, I agree with you. So, we're back to the elite few to vote then, right? I think you should have to own some land, and have English as your first language... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I think that everyone in the US not directly involved with teaching that class would complain that any class to help you make a voting decision would be biased. Third party guys would complain that they weren't represented. If they were represented, the main party guys would call the class lunatic fringe. Dems would complain it was conservative. Repubs would complain it was liberal. Why not just make everyone take an IQ test, and anyone with an IQ under 90 doesn't get to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Why not just make everyone take an IQ test, and anyone with an IQ under 90 doesn't get to vote. Oh, them waters are ripe fer sarcasm, Yar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.