Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[pHaestus]

wheeee!

Should start taking bets on when the 2004 election will be decided. Is mid December the deadline for the electoral college to cast their votes?

[Joe]

well as long as the supreme court is in session they can elect our president for us!

[HAL-9000]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

wheeee!

Should start taking bets on when the 2004 election will be decided. Is mid December the deadline for the electoral college to cast their votes?

Yeah, I want to say its like December 15th or so. From what I hear, the lawyers on both sides are ramping up as we speak. Ah, lawyers. I'm voting for Badnarik anyways.

[Joe]

I am sure Badnarik will appreciate your vote. but what he needs more is bail money and maybe a head shrink hehe

[pHaestus]

Yea because believing the Constitution applies to today's life is pretty damn crazy.

[nOv1c3]

Originally Posted by psychofunk

Some more levity to lighten up a crappy situation

To avoid the confusion of last year, the new Florida ballot

I tried to vote for Kerry on that page , But he kept flip floping all over the place

[Joe]

pH, but believeing ONLY the constitution should apply, is quite looney

Some areas that their agenda needs a reality check is Environmental control over companies, foreign policy (their stance is cool but far too extreme and unrealistic to ever be used. And if its too unrealistic it will never be accepted so whats the point?) and Federal bank controls (ie: Abolishing the Fed). But in reality a 3rd party ever getting into the presidential seat could be quite interesting sicne then the republican and democtrats would need to be much more bi partisan in order to get anything past the president who doesnt agree with many if any of the congretional views.

Also my comments were about his and the green party dude getting arrested at the debates. I mean to willfully break the law and get arrested shows you have something not quite right upstairs.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Yea because believing the Constitution applies to today's life is pretty damn crazy.

Also my views on that are the same as comments like that on the bible. It was wrote a long time ago. we can learn items from it, but we shouldnt use texts wrote far before the evolution of society as an exact rule book for them. As society evolves so should the rules controlling it.

[Gulp35]

Originally Posted by Joe

I mean to willfully break the law and get arrested shows you have something not quite right upstairs.

or that he was going along with Thoreau's belief of civil disobedience.... (However I don't know the exact conditions/reasons that he did it so I can't be sure about that).

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

wheeee!

Should start taking bets on when the 2004 election will be decided. Is mid December the deadline for the electoral college to cast their votes?

If the vote is within two points in 1/3 of the states then we may have problems. However, only a few of states are still dead heats. Even if Kerry wins or contests; Colorado (likely legal problems), New Mexico, Florida (likely legal problems), Minnesota and Michigan, Bush still wins by a clear electoral majority (280). Thus, any legal cases in these states will have no effect on the electoral collage. Only 2/3 of the states are required for a quorum.

[bellevegasj]

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg War Trials

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bellevegasj

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg War Trials

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."
- Winston Churchill

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
-Sir Winston Churchill

[pHaestus]

Churchill also said (in response to a woman saying he was intoxicated):

"True but tomorrow I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly"

May have quote somewhat wrong. Truly he was an endless fount of quotes

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Churchill also said (in response to a woman saying he was intoxicated):

"True but tomorrow I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly"

May have quote somewhat wrong. Truly he was an endless fount of quotes

That sure sounds like somthing he would say

[bellevegasj]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/op...gin&oref=login

[pHaestus]

Here's an interesting paper related to the original topic of this thread:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...rt10_21_04.pdf

Jon Stewart said a while back "Apparently the facts have a liberal bias". Seems somehow appropriate

[bellevegasj]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Here's an interesting paper related to the original topic of this thread:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...rt10_21_04.pdf

Jon Stewart said a while back "Apparently the facts have a liberal bias". Seems somehow appropriate

I see that mind-set all the time when talking to Republicans and people about their religion.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Here's an interesting paper related to the original topic of this thread:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...rt10_21_04.pdf

Jon Stewart said a while back "Apparently the facts have a liberal bias". Seems somehow appropriate

I can honestly say that some of my die-hard Republican friends still think there were WMD in Iraq. I've even heard several elaborate theories about how men in black trucks absconded to Syria with them...as if this Syrians would want to touch that hot potato. Even when those of us who were there say it is unlikely based on ground truth. On the other had as we have seen in this thread. Die-hard Kerry fans are just as likely to not believe ground truth regarding the conditions inside Iraq….but so much of adult human behavior can be modeled on grade school playground dynamics.

[bigben2k]

Fascinating paper...


I was just thinking the other day...

Going into Iraq was surely going to result in one of two things:
1-WMDs would be found (or even worse, used)
or
2-They wouldn't be found, but we'd still take Sadaam down in the process.

Given that this is essentially a win-win scenario, Bush really didn't have anything to loose, except some lives of American troops, sent out to do all this.

Given the above, wouldn't it have been better to go in as a coalition?

A secretary of the DOD recently turned in her resignation, because she didn't agree with the direction taken about Iraq, and labelled the poor state of readiness of our troops out there as "a derelection of duty".

Is everyone but me just blind to all this?

She also stated that troops were sent in fewer numbers than what may have been required, because it was understood that the larger commitment, which would have been a massive deployment, would cause riots back home (like, it didn't?!?), so the activation was gradual, to appease the population.

The largest employer of the US is now the army.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that going into Iraq was a bad thing, just that it could have been done better.

[snowwie]

Originally Posted by superart

I live in dorms.
I just didnt list the room/mailbox on the licence.
Just the schools street address.

Haven't had any problems. Used it to register to vote and to get onto planes with no problems and on car insurance with no problems.

how did you deal with the proof of residency thing?

or did you not need a proof of residency? which state?

[superart]

Originally Posted by snowwie

how did you deal with the proof of residency thing?

or did you not need a proof of residency? which state?

I live in Florida.

If I recall corectly, I didn't need any proof of resedency.

I just filled out a Dept. of Drivers Licence change of address form, sent it in, and in a little over a week they sent me my new licence.

For the new address, I just used my school's street address, without any dorm number or anything.


It might be different in different states, but thats how it is in FL. :shrug:

I did this mainly for insurance reasons. Since it now shows that I don't live with my parents, they have cheaper car insurance (although, the way my mom drives, that shouldn't last long) .




Over the summer, I was taking classes back home in Boca Raton, at FAU, and they had people there trying to get students to register to vote. I asked one of the guys if I should register under my parents address in Boca or under my schools address since that is where I would be living at the time of elections and that is the address on my licence. He told me to use my school's address in Melbourne.


After like 3 weeks, my voting papers came (it took a long time since they were sent to my school in Melbourne, then forwarded to me at my parents house in Boca, where I was staying at the time since it was summer).




Hope that help.
--superart



**Excuse the shitty spelling, no spellcheck on this computer

[pHaestus]

no offense but I'm not sure Florida voting policies and regulations are the sort of standard we want other states to use

[pHaestus]

I seem to keep coming across relevant and interesting links today:



"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend—but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

From here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...gin&oref=login

[superart]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

no offense but I'm not sure Florida voting policies and regulations are the sort of standard we want other states to use

hehe yea, you can say that again.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

I seem to keep coming across relevant and interesting links today:



"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend—but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

From here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...gin&oref=login

Come on pH the New York Times just endorsed Kerry for president this week. Moreover, it is the New York Times and the guy is a writer for Esquire.

I love how this stuff only comes out during the elections from both parties. I was just discussing crap like this with my old boss from my tour in Iraq. He is a very staunch Republican and I am a Democrat but we both agree that lies come from both parties right now.

If the spent more time discussing real issues we might be able to make a real educated choice...Party Hacks