Fat Ted falls for surveillance hoax

[leebert]

Ummmm... So am I supposed to be too busy loathing the Repubs to worry
what a bunch of idiots the Dems are????

1 - An article gets published alleging that a student requested Mao's
Little Red Book from his college library, only to get visited by
Department of Homeland Security agents.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
2 - Fat Ted Kennedy writes an opinion piece about the wiretap

"...Just this past week there were public reports that a college
student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his
house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official
Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung's Communist Manifesto. Following
his professor's instructions to use original source material, this
young man discovered that he, too, was on the government's watch
list."

3 - The student is revealed to be a lying hoaxer.
4 - Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the
senator cited 'public reports' in his opinion piece. Even if the
assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s
broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in
engaging in surveillance.

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by leebert
Ummmm... So am I supposed to be too busy loathing the Repubs to worry
what a bunch of idiots the Dems are????

Clearly you are too busy to bottom-post properly. ;)

But obviously the Dems are idjits. The whole thing was a
transparent GOP shenanigan to smoke out and embarrass the
Dems once again. From the moment I heard the story I was
like "I bet this is a hoax and I bet some Dem embarrasses
hisself by jumping on it too eagerly."

Has the press followed up? What consequences has the
student in question suffered? The press can be counted on
to never follow up.

So you've got one party that is too arrogant to trust and
another that is too stupid to trust and a worthless fourth
estate. What a fine state of affairs.

And why in heaven's name do you have to register a party
affiliation before you can vote? Why even hold a vote if
you basically already vote when you register? Oh, hold on,
I found it in Wikipedia..."voters must typically choose
only one primary to participate in that election cycle"
and "'blanket primary' was struck down by the United States
Supreme Court as violating the First Amendment guarantee of
freedom of assembly".

Wow, I feel enlightened. People have tried to 'splain this
to me before but I never grokked it. Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Lots of other good stuff about American elections in there.
I've even figured out what causes the two-party system.
It's not the "electrical college" or the primaries system
or anything that people keep blaming. It's an
inevitability of the presidential system itself. There's
too much power in the president's office to allow anyone
the luxury of wasting their vote. It's the same reason
that most states throw all their electical college votes
one way. The office of the president would have to change
fundamentally as well as the operation of the electoral
collage, to allow there to be more than two relevant
federal parties.

Post by leebert

1 - An article gets published alleging that a student requested Mao's
Little Red Book from his college library, only to get visited by
Department of Homeland Security agents.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
2 - Fat Ted Kennedy writes an opinion piece about the wiretap

"...Just this past week there were public reports that a college
student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his
house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official
Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung's Communist Manifesto. Following
his professor's instructions to use original source material, this
young man discovered that he, too, was on the government's watch
list."

3 - The student is revealed to be a lying hoaxer.
4 - Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the
senator cited 'public reports' in his opinion piece. Even if the
assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s
broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in
engaging in surveillance.

[Uncle Weasel]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.

It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

---Uncle Weasel

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.

One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

[Wilson]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.

As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?

Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.

We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

[dt]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

You don't have to declare affiliation to register.
I've always considered myself an "independent",
but I always seem to wind up voting for Democrats.

But maybe not this gubernatorial goaround! It
seems that Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander
Strayhorn (mama of W's spokesflak Scott McClellan
and his brother Mark, who administrates Medicare),
the current Comptroller, has decided she can't
challenge Rick "Big Hair" Perry for the Repub
nomination, so she's gonna run as an independent!
If she draws enough votes away from Perry, that
*other* independent might actually have a chance!

Hey, it's even news in Boston:
http://tinyurl.com/92nop

You gotta love a guy whose election slogan is
"Kinky: Why The Hell Not?"
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

DT
http://www.thehungersite.com/

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by dt

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

You don't have to declare affiliation to register.
I've always considered myself an "independent",
but I always seem to wind up voting for Democrats.
But maybe not this gubernatorial goaround! It
seems that Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander
Strayhorn (mama of W's spokesflak Scott McClellan
and his brother Mark, who administrates Medicare),
the current Comptroller, has decided she can't
challenge Rick "Big Hair" Perry for the Repub
nomination, so she's gonna run as an independent!
If she draws enough votes away from Perry, that
*other* independent might actually have a chance!
http://tinyurl.com/92nop
You gotta love a guy whose election slogan is
"Kinky: Why The Hell Not?"
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

Heh, I'd vote for him just because.

[dt]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by dt

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

You don't have to declare affiliation to register.
I've always considered myself an "independent",
but I always seem to wind up voting for Democrats.
But maybe not this gubernatorial goaround! It
seems that Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander
Strayhorn (mama of W's spokesflak Scott McClellan
and his brother Mark, who administrates Medicare),
the current Comptroller, has decided she can't
challenge Rick "Big Hair" Perry for the Repub
nomination, so she's gonna run as an independent!
If she draws enough votes away from Perry, that
*other* independent might actually have a chance!
http://tinyurl.com/92nop
You gotta love a guy whose election slogan is
"Kinky: Why The Hell Not?"
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

Heh, I'd vote for him just because.

Egzakly! Why the hell not?

DT
http://www.thehungersite.com/

[Wilson]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?

Yeah. What I said above: independent.

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

Funny, they didn't ask *me* any questions like that
the last time I registered. (Looks around suspiciously).

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?

Yeah. What I said above: independent.

Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

Funny, they didn't ask *me* any questions like that
the last time I registered. (Looks around suspiciously).

Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

[Wilson]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?

Yeah. What I said above: independent.

Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Nope. That's what "independent" means. "Fuck off, none
of your business who I support, maybe I think the whole
bunch of them are complete morons."

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

Funny, they didn't ask *me* any questions like that
the last time I registered. (Looks around suspiciously).

Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

Heh! Probably a fair number of Merkans would have the
same answer. Not knowing anything about the political
system seems to be the norm these days.

[dt]

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.

But of course Dems COULD vote in Repub primaries, which is more
than we have here. It seems like it's at least some compensation
for having a two-party system.
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

No. The only requirement to vote is that you be registered
to vote. Most of the voting laws are controled by the local
State government so some things will vary. Where I live I
can register as a Libertarian or a Socialist and several others
as well as the big two. And also "independent" which means
unaffiliated with any party.
As far as I know, the Dems and Repubs are the only parties
that use primaries to select their candidates. It's a silly system
but it works, more or less.

Can you just refuse to declare any affiliation when you
register?

Yeah. What I said above: independent.

Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Nope. That's what "independent" means. "Fuck off, none
of your business who I support, maybe I think the whole
bunch of them are complete morons."

Post by Giggles Like a Girl

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Seems to me the primaries system introduces a little
more democracy, and helps offset the narrowing effect
of the two-party system.
We don't have anything like your registration process
here. Basically it's just a thing we do if we've
moved since the last election. I think you guys have
a complicated system just so you will have questions
to ask someone you suspect of being a spy, like "if
you were in love with Betty Grable, which part of her
would you love the most?"

Funny, they didn't ask *me* any questions like that
the last time I registered. (Looks around suspiciously).

Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

Heh! Probably a fair number of Merkans would have the
same answer. Not knowing anything about the political
system seems to be the norm these days.

Heh. There was an article in yesterday's paper
about Tom DeLay's home district near Houston.
Evidently many of his constituents weren't even
aware that he's under investigation.

DT

http://www.thehungersite.com/

[Wilson]

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

Heh! Probably a fair number of Merkans would have the
same answer. Not knowing anything about the political
system seems to be the norm these days.

Heh. There was an article in yesterday's paper about Tom DeLay's home district near Houston.
Evidently many of his constituents weren't even aware that he's under investigation.

I'm not sure what to think of that.

Maybe those people aren't paying attention to the "news"
anymore. That's not a completely bad thing.

[dt]

Post by Wilson

Post by Wilson

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

Heh! Probably a fair number of Merkans would have the
same answer. Not knowing anything about the political
system seems to be the norm these days.

Heh. There was an article in yesterday's paper about Tom DeLay's home district near Houston.
Evidently many of his constituents weren't even aware that he's under investigation.

I'm not sure what to think of that.
Maybe those people aren't paying attention to the "news"
anymore. That's not a completely bad thing.

I'll let you decide:
http://tinyurl.com/8jazs

If I may paraphrase, "He fixed our road, that's
what *really* matters..."

DT

http://www.thehungersite.com/

[Wilson]

Post by dt

Post by Wilson

Heh. There was an article in yesterday's paper about Tom DeLay's home district near Houston.
Evidently many of his constituents weren't even aware that he's under investigation.

I'm not sure what to think of that.
Maybe those people aren't paying attention to the "news"
anymore. That's not a completely bad thing.

http://tinyurl.com/8jazs
If I may paraphrase, "He fixed our road, that's what *really* matters..."

Ahh, you're to cynical. From the article ...

"Lee Farb, a Democrat, said he's surprised that people around
town don't talk much about DeLay's case, a sentiment echoed by
several other locals.

"This is a very diverse community, but generally my impression
is, Republicans like him and Democrats don't," Farb said. "It's
really hard to know whether he's getting a fair shake. He
deserves a fair shake.

"And if he did those things, he should not be serving any more."
___

See, even the local Dems believe he should get a fair hearing
before he's hanged in the town square.

[Keynes]

Post by Wilson

Post by dt

Post by Wilson

Heh. There was an article in yesterday's paper about Tom DeLay's home district near Houston.
Evidently many of his constituents weren't even aware that he's under investigation.

I'm not sure what to think of that.
Maybe those people aren't paying attention to the "news"
anymore. That's not a completely bad thing.

http://tinyurl.com/8jazs
If I may paraphrase, "He fixed our road, that's what *really* matters..."

Ahh, you're to cynical. From the article ...
"Lee Farb, a Democrat, said he's surprised that people around
town don't talk much about DeLay's case, a sentiment echoed by
several other locals.
"This is a very diverse community, but generally my impression
is, Republicans like him and Democrats don't," Farb said. "It's
really hard to know whether he's getting a fair shake. He
deserves a fair shake.
"And if he did those things, he should not be serving any more."
___
See, even the local Dems believe he should get a fair hearing
before he's hanged in the town square.

Who lives by the hammer dies by the hammer.

[Uncle Weasel]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Actually, it means exactly your second meaning.

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

You would be joined by a good many Americans in that pyramid.

A truly staggering number of citizens have no idea of the most basic
mechanics of the government.

---Uncle Weasel

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Actually, it means exactly your second meaning.

Excellent. The most fundamental democratic right is
the freedom to tell your government to fuck off.

[dt]

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Hmm, doesn't "independent" mean that your sympathies are
with candidates who don't have a party? That doesn't
exactly mean the same as "none of your business who I
support or don't support, so fuck off."

Actually, it means exactly your second meaning.

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Well, the fish doesn't see the water he swims in. Being
a Merkin it just comes naturally to you, but an outsider
like me would be trapped instantly by a question like
"so who'd you vote for in the primaries" because I'd be
like "what's a primary?" Then it'd be daily nekkid
pyramids for me and everything.

You would be joined by a good many Americans in that pyramid.
A truly staggering number of citizens have no idea of the most basic
mechanics of the government.
---Uncle Weasel

And their vote counts just as much (or as little)
as yours or mine.

DT
http://www.thehungersite.com/

[Uncle Weasel]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
One thing I didn't glean...if you don't vote in the primaries
do you lose your ability to vote in the main event?

Not in Vermont or Messy Two Shits.

---Uncle Weasel

[m***@aol.com]

New poll shows 36% approval of GOP Vs. 49% for Dems in the November
midterm conressional elections!

Tom Delay just quit his failed bid to regain the House leadership post
he vacated due to his indictments, for some of his many frauds!

:) It is clear that Abramoff never donated to any Democrats;

Democrats were inundated with
financial contributions from: "Jack Abramoff's clients",
and Nancy Pelosi took cash "from Abramoff clients"

The Indian Tribes that Abramoff, Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition idiot)
& Grover Norquist ripped off for $50 Million have long donated to Dems.

"According to FEC reports, Pelosi accepted $2,000 from the Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe on November 19, 2003, as well as $1,000 from the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on August 14, 2002."

Lobbyist's donate $2 Billion per year to congress, yet you seem overly
worried about $3K from Native Americans?

No dems have pleaded guilty to 77 years in Jail as RNC Poster Boy;
Jacko A Just did! 20 to 60 Republicans should fall from congress over
yet another "Greedy Ole Party Values" scam.

You Rep idiots should learn to tell the truth, what propagandizing
fools you fakers are.

[Lazarhat]

Post by Uncle Weasel

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Depending on where
you live you could actually wind up acting as if you were a
party member by selecting the candidate that the party will
run.

Well I voted in the Republican primary in Massachusetts in 1980 so's I might
make a useless gesture by voting for Anderson against Reagan. I had lived in
CA under Gov. Reagan and wanted no part of him as president. Thus I was Repub
for about six months before my revulsion overcame my curiosity via the
mailings to the Faithful.
It makes some sense. You don't want Dems voting in Repub primaries, because
they will likely pick non-winning candidates. That's what the American system
is all about, you know? Fairness! Just like in Texas.
---Uncle Weasel
--
After considerable thought, I have decided to withhold any further comment
other than the fact that I am withholding comment. I would have withheld that
comment also, but I am withholding the reason why I chose to say anything at
all. Why I am saying this, I will not say. --Sanford Manley, absfg

Ah nostalgia! Anderson vs. Regan was my first wasted vote, too. Surely I not
as old and crotchety as Weas, am I?

heehee

[leebert]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Lots of other good stuff about American elections in there.
I've even figured out what causes the two-party system.
It's not the "electrical college" or the primaries system
or anything that people keep blaming. It's an
inevitability of the presidential system itself. There's
too much power in the president's office to allow anyone
the luxury of wasting their vote. It's the same reason
that most states throw all their electical college votes
one way. The office of the president would have to change
fundamentally as well as the operation of the electoral
collage, to allow there to be more than two relevant
federal parties.

Well actually the way the winner-takes-all system works, from the
electoral college all teh way down to the single-member district system
(used in Canada as well) ensures the 2-party juggernaut. State-by-state
winner-takes-all is unnecessary (Maine & Nebraska send their electors
to the electoral college proportionally) and serves to waste votes -
and power - to a greater degree than sharing like-votes with other
states. What we could have - instead of wasting/isolating the minority
votes from coaltions with other like-voters in other states - is a
system where people weren't given the dilemma of wasting their votes
when they chose to vote more in accordance with their conscience - for
3rd party candidates, etc.

The argument that winner-takes-all/full-block state voting yields more
power to states *after* an election isn't very strong, b/c it risks
swing-states losing out if they vote for the loser. What the full-block
voting system does provide for swing states is a means of leverege so
the states get more attention paid them by candidates... presidential
candidates make more concessions to swing states before the election.
But in this day and age the advantages offered aren't as clear.

But what winner-takes-all/full-block electoral college voting does
accomplish is to typically waste 45-49% of all votes thus pressuring
voters to increasingly select the 2 major party candidates and only a
third candidate to deny victory to their nominal party in an act of
rejectionist protest.

If there were any reason to fix the system it would've been the 2000
election mess, with an upside-down result (Gore had the popular vote
but Bush took the electoral college) and a too-close-to-call state vote
(less than 1% margin in Florida) solved by political maneuvers instead
of a 2nd run-off (Bush's appeal to the Supreme Ct). Nothing's changed
except for the dubious improvement proferred in the form of *paperless*
voting machines that have since been demonstrated to be quite flawed.

/lee

[Giggles Like a Girl]

Post by leebert

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
Lots of other good stuff about American elections in there.
I've even figured out what causes the two-party system.
It's not the "electrical college" or the primaries system
or anything that people keep blaming. It's an
inevitability of the presidential system itself. There's
too much power in the president's office to allow anyone
the luxury of wasting their vote. It's the same reason
that most states throw all their electical college votes
one way. The office of the president would have to change
fundamentally as well as the operation of the electoral
collage, to allow there to be more than two relevant
federal parties.

Well actually the way the winner-takes-all system works, from the
electoral college all teh way down to the single-member district system
(used in Canada as well) ensures the 2-party juggernaut. State-by-state
winner-takes-all is unnecessary (Maine & Nebraska send their electors
to the electoral college proportionally) and serves to waste votes -
and power - to a greater degree than sharing like-votes with other
states. What we could have - instead of wasting/isolating the minority
votes from coaltions with other like-voters in other states - is a
system where people weren't given the dilemma of wasting their votes
when they chose to vote more in accordance with their conscience - for
3rd party candidates, etc.
The argument that winner-takes-all/full-block state voting yields more
power to states *after* an election isn't very strong, b/c it risks
swing-states losing out if they vote for the loser. What the full-block
voting system does provide for swing states is a means of leverege so
the states get more attention paid them by candidates... presidential
candidates make more concessions to swing states before the election.
But in this day and age the advantages offered aren't as clear.
But what winner-takes-all/full-block electoral college voting does
accomplish is to typically waste 45-49% of all votes thus pressuring
voters to increasingly select the 2 major party candidates and only a
third candidate to deny victory to their nominal party in an act of
rejectionist protest.
If there were any reason to fix the system it would've been the 2000
election mess, with an upside-down result (Gore had the popular vote
but Bush took the electoral college) and a too-close-to-call state vote
(less than 1% margin in Florida) solved by political maneuvers instead
of a 2nd run-off (Bush's appeal to the Supreme Ct). Nothing's changed
except for the dubious improvement proferred in the form of *paperless*
voting machines that have since been demonstrated to be quite flawed.

Well, the English language debate is tonight, so I'm going to
be up to my ass in politics even *without* trying to fix the
Merkin system. :)

It's hard to see how we could get the PTB to change the winner
takes all system since every PTB became the PTB by being the
winner in it. Incrementally I suppose.

At least here now we have a small measure of "no vote left
behind" in the form of campaign financing rules that give
each party $1.75 for each vote they get in the previous
election. That makes it possible to vote for parties you
know won't win because you will be helping them build
their parties for the future. (The Green party has been
the beneficiary of this already, and may even win a seat
this time as a consequence.)

I suppose weiner takes all is a problem in most democracies.
I like the way the Aussies handled it, though it seems a
tad complicated.

[leebert]

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
I suppose weiner takes all is a problem in most democracies.

No, only the former English colonies use WTA. The Kiwis dumped it a few
years back for a Proportional Rep system.

Post by Giggles Like a Girl
I like the way the Aussies handled it, though it seems a
tad complicated.

Wouldn't know much about it... IMO our system would work appreciably
better even if we only just enacted the single reform of proportioning
all state votes in the Prez. races, but the 2 main parties have both a
vested enuf interest in the status quo and a healthy enuf contempt for
the polity that it'll never be fixed unless the plan keeps hitting the
fan & it becomes an issue people take an interest in.

Most of our district races run uncontested, only a dozen or so are ever
true races in any given cycle. The rest are geography and demographics.

/lee