Inciting armed overthrow of the gov? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

matthew330 · 02-27-2006, 06:37 PM

There's just an incredibly irony taking place in the above post, and what a perfect person to post it.

Willravel · 02-27-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

There's just an incredibly irony taking place in the above post, and what a perfect person to post it.

That was incredibly confusingly.

matthew330 · 02-27-2006, 07:34 PM

You obviously didn't read the referred to "above post". Everythings relative my friend. Though you did point out to me - I meant "incredible", not "incredibly".

Willravel · 02-27-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Though you did point out to me - I meant "incredible", not "incredibly".

That was my intention.

/grammer nazi...away!!!!

matthew330 · 02-27-2006, 07:48 PM

I had faith that minor typo wasn't what confused you. Let the convo continue....

Willravel · 02-27-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

sometimes i wonder if there is an outer edge to right, a place you'd fall off of and where you would land once you had fallen, what that strange world would look like and how long it would take you to adjust to the fact that everything is upside down.

but then i thought that maybe there was no border, and no edge, because the right extends infinitely in its direction--and that everything being upside down has long since stopped being a problem--it just looks normal now--after all, like everything else, it is just a matter of opinion.

so ustwo: do you really think the democrats are a leftist party?

Let's break it down then. Roach 'the prof' boy is saying that even though it would make sense that eventually someone on the right would simply snap, it's possible that the right is like a ray in mathematics, it starts at one point and continues into infinity. Eventually, on this infinate line, the center (reality) is so far gone that there is no longer perspective. The perspective disapears so much that what is millions of miles to the right seems to be centerist.

djtestudo · 02-27-2006, 08:07 PM

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that all options, or really ANY options for that matter, have yet to be exhausted.

You can argue war crimes or Diebold election fraud or other things until you are blue in the face or red in the fingers, but the truth is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it within the system?

Personally, I think that anyone who argues for a complete destruction of a system before working through that system first never wanted to be a part of that system anyway. In this case, those are people I would gladly fight, because it means they only desire power for themselves instead of change for all, and I would not want to be ruled by them.

djtestudo · 02-27-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Let's break it down then. Roach 'the prof' boy is saying that even though it would make sense that eventually someone on the right would simply snap, it's possible that the right is like a ray in mathematics, it starts at one point and continues into infinity. Eventually, on this infinate line, the center (reality) is so far gone that there is no longer perspective. The perspective disapears so much that what is millions of miles to the right seems to be centerist.

And this can't happen on the other side as well?

Willravel · 02-27-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

And this can't happen on the other side as well?

Of course it can, that's the point of the thread. I think Roach was pointing out that for every post about weirdo lefties, there are 1200 about wacko righties.

Seaver · 02-27-2006, 08:22 PM

Ok. So the question was thrown out whether the Democrats are "left."

Lets look at it rationally. The Dem's have lost the VAST majority of elections in the last few years. The Republicans (for the most part) are to the Right of the Dem's.

Thus if Republicans are winning elections, the "center" has shifted "right". Which means the average person agrees with the Repub's more than the Dem's. The Democrats have not moved from their origional "left" position, with notable elections by those wishing to hold their constituants. The few left, i.e. Kennedy, are finding their base erroding faster than the damns around New Orleans.

Thus, many of the Democrats are still to the left while shifting to the right due to political pressure. Once Democrats start winning elections one can figure the "center" is moving "left" and thus you can logically argue that the Dem's are becoming less and less "left".

Of course the argument is that the elections are based off of fear, off of lies, or off of simple corruption (tin foil hat's love it here).

djtestudo · 02-27-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Of course it can, that's the point of the thread. I think Roach was pointing out that for every post about weirdo lefties, there are 1200 about wacko righties.

Oh, ok. My apologies.

politicophile · 02-27-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

And this can't happen on the other side as well?

Suppose, hypothetically that a group of people who had not brought articles of impeachment against the President and were uninterested in waiting until 2008 believed "in principle" that violently overthrowing the government would be a good idea. I personally would consider this view to be so far to the left as to be unworthy of anything resembling serious consideration. But that's just me, millions of miles from the political "center". The people advocating the establishment of a liberal tyranny in place of our current conservative representative constitutional republic are the true centrists here.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to live in that reality.

Ustwo · 02-27-2006, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I can't even imagine what it would be like to live in that reality.

We called it the U.S.S.R. when I was a kid.

Marvelous Marv · 02-27-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

... staged inability of the federal government to muster a timely air defense of the east coast skies

This was my favorite part.

Marvelous Marv · 02-27-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't think our current government is in danger of being overthrown anytime soon especially by the likes of the group mentioned in the OP. It will take some major negative events like our currency collapsing and another major depression.

Upheaval will probably occur when things get bad enough and people realize that the two major parties have no solutions and have the elections rigged so that only they can win. Today many people are getting along just fine and are still optimistic and think it makes a difference which major party gets elected.

My prediction is that when the first batch of baby boomers gets stiffed on their SS benefits, there will be hell to pay.

Whatever party is in office at the time will be out on its ass. That will be as close to a rebellion as we will get. And I doubt it will take more than about five more years.

I'd still like to see every politician who voted in favor of a budget that raided the SS funds to be stripped of his or her retirement and locked up, but that's just me.

host · 02-28-2006, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

This was my favorite part.

Okay....Marv. I've done the necessary research to arrive at a reasoned determination that the 9/11 Commission (along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and the MSM....) intentionally whitewashed the issue of whether or not there was a <b>"staged inability of the federal government to muster a timely air defense of the east coast skies."</b>

I've posted my findings here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=182

Have a look....share your own, fact filled reaction. How can a curious skeptic react to the lies, alterations of the previously reported timeline of events of that morning, and unexplained omissions of testimony of a reliable witness <a href="http://www.dot.gov/affairs/mineta.htm">(Norman Mineta)</a> and draw a conclusion that is that much different from mine?

Ustwo · 02-28-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I'd still like to see every politician who voted in favor of a budget that raided the SS funds to be stripped of his or her retirement and locked up, but that's just me.

I think that would be every politician who voted for a budget since the stupid plan was put into place.

host there is a reason some threads are in parinoia and not politics

roachboy · 02-28-2006, 07:06 AM

well, since the last, relatively nice post appears to have baffled the usual rightwing suspects, let me explain:

this thread has slipped into yet another instance of conservatives setting up and battling straw men.

among the straw men is the right-specific "logic" that has constructed this fantasy they refer to as "liberal" -which in fact means "not us" and only "not us" and as "not us" can slide around from designating centrist democrats and stalinists with equal accuracy--accuracy because what is designated is not in the world that other people know about, but rather is a requirements of conservative ideology, which is held together by fear of a Persecuting Other.

the usage of this "logic"--which you can see for yourself above---almost necessarily involves a total loss of perspective.
generally, when a political debate involves one side wholly surrendering perspective, the debate is over.
so it is here.

a similar problem in the "assessments" of the call to action against the bush admin posted by a small group, which here is not only blown out of all proportion, but which is further interpreted around the empty category "liberal" so that it would appear reasonable for someone like ustwo to slide from stalin to democrats to hallucinations of revolution coming from the left as if, at each moment, he was talking about the same thing---and as if, at each moment, he was talking about anything.

nothing about these interpretations is credible:

that it reflects something like a socially acceptable logic indicates, once again, significant problems with conservative discourse as a political formation.

there is no reason to take these posts seriously----except that the same kind of idiocy obviously motivates people like lindsey graham to call for the administration to crack down on the "domestic fifth column"--but i figure that graham must be confusing the sounds being made by the implosion of the bush administration for political agitation from the left.
if there is anything stalinist in this thread, it comes from the right which, once again, repeats features of "the short course of the history of the bolshevik party" (look it up): incapable of imagining that anything bad can happen as a result of policies initiated by the Party, things that go wrong must be blamed on some outside force--in stalinist world, this was the "hitlero-trotskyiste wrecker" the "saboteur"--in conservativeland, the role of the "saboteur" is filled by the "liberal"....

politicophile · 02-28-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there is no reason to take these posts seriously

Exactly my point. It seems like your immediate response to near-universal disagreement with your position is to accuse those who disagree with you of being delusional. Five stars for creativity.

It may shock you that we crazy Bushitler residents of Conservativeland think that it would be wrong to attempt to violently overthrow the Bush administration. Why? Because the system provides both a definite termination of his time in office, as well as a mechanism for removing him earlier than that date. Why on earth wouldn't you "utilize" one of these two systemic features rather than destroy the entire system. If you are unable to see the negative consequences of this precident, I am afraid I may not be able to articulate just how terrible an idea such a coup would be. Essentially, we lumpenconservatives (we all have exactly the same opinions, so I can legitimately speak for a majority of the American population) believe that, if all regimes hated by considerable minorities were overthrown by violent methods, no government would be sufficiently stable. Coups are always a bad thing. This is not to say that they are never preferable to the alternative.

But let's be serious: you agree (in principle) that it would be better to overthrow the U.S. government and fight a civil war to replace Bush with unelected liberal leaders... than to wait until 2008? The conservative propaganda must have corrupted my consciousness beyond repair because I think you're crazy.

Ustwo · 02-28-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

generally, when a political debate involves one side wholly surrendering perspective, the debate is over.
so it is here.

Quoted for irony, but at least we agree.

I made two replies to this thread last night and did not post either. The theme in both there are times in life when you see you don't have debate, but you are speaking with mad men.

You don't argue fire safety with Herostratus and you don't argue politics with some people.

ubertuber · 02-28-2006, 09:06 AM

Politicophile, I picked this little bit out of roachboy's post so we don't have to go back and forth on this one issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...a similar problem in the "assessments" of the call to action against the bush admin posted by a small group, which here is not only blown out of all proportion...

As for the rest of it, I'd like to invite you guys, and everyone else to talk about our methods of communication in my new thread, which will be dedicated to this topic.

Please attempt to keep the thread you are currently viewing on topic - the possibility/feasibility/rationality of a revolution against our current white house administration.

Seaver · 02-28-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

there is no reason to take these posts seriously----

Like Ustwo, quoted for irony.

Weren't you arguing earlier that Bush = Hitler argument is a valid political ideology?

xepherys · 02-28-2006, 11:17 AM

It saddens me that so many of you summarily discharged the OP article as bogus. While I agree the particular people may not be of the caliber we want in a coup situation, the point of their protest is a good one. First of all, it was mentioned that we need to make use of the tools available, such as impeachment. What is involved in this? Can I file a USGOV-1288-A form to beign such a process? It's not so simple as Americans being upset and starting the impeachment process. Granted, it SHOULDN'T be so easy... but then again, it shouldn't be as hard as it is.

Frankly, I'd love to see Bush out of office, and if such a form existed, I'd surely fill it out and submit it. So what WILL be the cause? What is another Bush is "elected" into office? What if it's Jeb in '08? Well, they're the "properly elected" official. Will you continue to refuse to see through the shitscreen? As I posted in another thread, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the last 6 years have been a downhill ride, for the most part, regarding American policies and freedoms. If it all ends in another 2, I can live with that... if not, well...

smooth · 02-28-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Exactly my point. It seems like your immediate response to near-universal disagreement with your position is to accuse those who disagree with you of being delusional. Five stars for creativity.

It may shock you that we crazy Bushitler residents of Conservativeland think that it would be wrong to attempt to violently overthrow the Bush administration. Why? Because the system provides both a definite termination of his time in office, as well as a mechanism for removing him earlier than that date. Why on earth wouldn't you "utilize" one of these two systemic features rather than destroy the entire system. If you are unable to see the negative consequences of this precident, I am afraid I may not be able to articulate just how terrible an idea such a coup would be. Essentially, we lumpenconservatives (we all have exactly the same opinions, so I can legitimately speak for a majority of the American population) believe that, if all regimes hated by considerable minorities were overthrown by violent methods, no government would be sufficiently stable. Coups are always a bad thing. This is not to say that they are never preferable to the alternative.

But let's be serious: you agree (in principle) that it would be better to overthrow the U.S. government and fight a civil war to replace Bush with unelected liberal leaders... than to wait until 2008? The conservative propaganda must have corrupted my consciousness beyond repair because I think you're crazy.

What I thinki roachboy is responding to is summary dismissal of his points simply on the basis of his (perceived political orientation)--that is, all things "left" synonymous with all things "other." He outlined it pretty carefully given the medium we're utilizing but alas....posts keep coming in lumping his perspective in with some small group trying to do the improbably and, as roachboy himself stated, the undesirable.

Yet you come back with why can't you understand that it would be a bad idea to overthrow the government...this in direct contrast to his own words:

Quote:

further, i think that any such attempt would be a debacle, not just in itself, but also in that it would provide a pretext for responses that would make the present situation seem like some vacation idyll.

so then it becomes obvious that not much is done to understand what exactly he wrote and much more weight is granted about what one might think he thinks about your orientation...and reaction against that.

never said "crazy"
never said "bushhitlers"
never said "conservativeland"
never said "lumpenconservatives" (at least in this thread)

yet, at least in regard to the last coin of phrase, he isn't pulling it out of his ass, it's a label that is only properly understood with a critical reading of marxist texts.

Does the following fit the conservative standpoint in this thread?

Quote:

According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for participating in revolution, and might have in fact an interest in preserving the current class structure, because members of the lumpenproletariat often depended on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.

dksuddeth · 02-28-2006, 06:13 PM

discrediting the messenger, using whatever means necessary. works most of the time. unfortunately too many good messages get lost this way.

timalkin · 03-04-2006, 12:56 AM

It looks to me like a certain group of people are pissed off that they haven't won an election in a long time.

It's hilarious that liberals are kicking around the idea of an "armed" revolution. What weapons do you plan on using? The ones that you encourage the United Nations to ban, or the ones that children use to kill themselves?

Good luck. Let me know how it works out for you.

smooth · 03-04-2006, 10:13 AM

in the cop who shoots military police officer after high-speed chase thread, the "conservatives" are the ones claiming to be preparing for revolution.

which weapons have the UN banned US citizens from using, btw?
I'm not that familiar with gun control to know the answer to that factoid you posted.

cybersharp · 03-04-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

It looks to me like a certain group of people are pissed off that they haven't won an election in a long time.

It's hilarious that liberals are kicking around the idea of an "armed" revolution. What weapons do you plan on using? The ones that you encourage the United Nations to ban, or the ones that children use to kill themselves?

Good luck. Let me know how it works out for you.

Come on, if a few members of your party was saying something irrational would you want the rest of us to judge you baised on their actions? Im pretty damn liberal but logicaly I dont support any of that sarcastic bs you just said was a liberal point of view. Please dont judge me by what other people in my political party try to do, otherwise I will end up judging all of you by the worst idea's your partys have thrown out over the years, and since dems and reps have been around a LONG time I wager I could find a lot.

host · 03-04-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybersharp

Come on, if a few members of your party was saying something irrational would you want the rest of us to judge you baised on their actions? Im pretty damn liberal but logicaly I dont support any of that sarcastic bs you just said was a liberal point of view. Please dont judge me by what other people in my political party try to do, otherwise I will end up judging all of you by the worst idea's your partys have thrown out over the years, and since dems and reps have been around a LONG time I wager I could find a lot.

cybersharp, I can accept that I have no chance of influencing <b>timalkin</b>, if his last post is an indication of his capacity to minimize or ignore all of the information that I posted to make the case that the notion that "fair" elections in any number of voting districts (or in whole states) in the U.S., after what has been reported about the integrity of Diebold, it's former CEO, and it's vote tabulation software are indicators, or for that matter, the demonstrated integrity (or the lack of it....) of some public officials responsible for supervising a "fair" and widely, publicly accessible voting process.

timalkin posted that, <b>"It looks to me like a certain group of people are pissed off that they haven't won an election in a long time. "</b> I didn't respond because, especially when I considered that he made his comments without countering my prior postings of well documented points that make the case that "fair" election results are no longer a "given", his statement amounted to nothing more than a "troll", lacking even a rudimentary effort to advance a thoughtful or content rich POV.

My reaction to timalkin was, "what's the use", as he showed no inclination to debate or to advance discussion.

I am, however, extremely disappointed by your response. You did not challenge timalkin....instead....you appealed to him....not to lump you in with the rest of us. You claim to be an openminded individual, presumably aligned with some of the quality candidates who ran for political office in the last few years, and who lost elections under contested voting circumstances....at least in your appeal to timalkin. Cybersharp. do you really believe that "fair" elections are "given"....and that the reason that so many democratic candidates "haven't won an election in a long time"?

Did nothing that I posted sway you to at least consider that timalkin's blind faith in the superiority of the ideology of his candidates, in the eyes of the majority of voters, in one election contest after another, is the reason that they "win" so consistantly?

If you, as someone who says that he is a democrat believes that, consider the following news report. (It is a news article...not an op-ed.) ....and....would you like to know more about a bridge that I have for sale....it's in lower Manhattan, on the East river. I hate my avatar, but I have a feeling....in a losing effort to try to influence even "open minded" fellow readers, that I won't be able to change it for a while....yet!

Did I let it slip that a post like yours frustrates me to the point that I have to ask....if recent Florida and California elections were FUCKING secure (and "fair"), why do hackers continue to successfully hack Diebold voting machine software, and why did Florida state voting officials RELUCTANTLY (as in...after much resistance to the IDEA...) <h3>"abruptly ordered new security measures for all 67 counties"</h3>?

Quote:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...printstory.jsp
Posted on Sat, Mar. 04, 2006

ELECTIONS
Voting bosses must boost security
Despite downplaying a threat to the security of voting machines last year, state officials ordered new security measures for all election supervisors.
BY GARY FINEOUT
gfineout@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - Florida's top elections officials, who in December dismissed a report that computer experts had hacked into a Leon County voting system, on Friday abruptly ordered new security measures for all 67 counties.

The decision comes on the heels of a Feb. 14 report in which California experts concluded security flaws exposed in Florida were ''a real threat.'' The Republican secretary of state in California then ordered changes to have Diebold machines certified for the 2006 elections in that state.

Twenty-nine counties in Florida, including Monroe, use different versions of paper-ballot voting systems manufactured by Diebold, a leading manufacturer of security systems and voting machines. One county uses Diebold touch-screens.

The security changes, which were ordered ''immediately'' by Florida Division of Elections Chief Dawn Roberts, require that election supervisors counties keep an inventory of all memory cards used inside voting machines and that the cards are never left with just one person.

`VINDICATED'

''We feel vindicated,'' said Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho.

An outside group that had Sancho's permission to test his machines' security was able to hack them. When Sancho made the results public, he came under fire from both the Florida Department of State and Diebold.

''The basis on which they are issuing [the new rules] is Leon County's test, yet not one word of congratulations,'' Sancho said. ``How petty.''

Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Sue Cobb, tried to downplay the role of Sancho's test, saying the new rules were based on a continuing evaluation of standards. Still, she acknowledged, Sancho's test was ''a factor.'' Nash also said many election supervisors already follow the new standards but that the new requirements were ordered to ensure that all counties had ``a uniform application.''

Sancho moved to switch away from the Diebold machines after a Finnish computer expert was able to hack into one, alter voting results and leave no trace of tampering. State officials initially said they were not concerned about the security breach the test exposed.

But an independent panel put together by California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson concluded in a February report that the ''attack does work'' and the results of the hack cannot be detected without ``paper ballots.''

The panel said much of the problem could be easily corrected. McPherson certified Diebold machines last month for this year's elections, but only after requiring counties to upgrade their security procedures and getting Diebold to agree to upgrade its software.

Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections Lester Sola was not surprised by the state's push Friday to make voting security procedures more stringent, though he said the changes will have little effect in Miami-Dade.

County elections employees are never alone with voting machines or any other equipment, he said. The department also has numerous tracking devices, such as bar codes, to maintain an inventory.

The state is also mandating that elections equipment be stored with tamper-resistant seals -- a process already done in Miami-Dade, Sola said.

''Recognizing we have been under a lot of scrutiny for the integrity of our elections, we already follow these procedures,'' he said. ``I think the issue is going to be in raising the bar.''

Broward Supervisor of Election Brenda Snipes said she hadn't yet seen the memo, so she wasn't aware of the specific security overhauls the state is ordering.

However, she said there is never a time when just one person has access to ballots or other sensitive information that could effect election results. When the cartridges containing election results are transported, they try to find two people of differing political parties to take them. And when large amounts of absentee ballots go to the post office or are retrieved, they have a police escort.

''No one person is ever involved with a ballot without someone else being there,'' Snipes said.

AWARE AND CONCERNED

Snipes said she was aware and concerned about some of the issues Sancho raised and wants to take a close look at her own security procedures.

''Now that this issue has been raised, I'd like to sit down with the staff and look through our procedures to see if there's anything we ought to be doing better,'' she said. ``I don't have a problem looking to see where gaps might exist. I think we'll go back and just take another look at it.''

Miami Herald staff writers Jennifer Mooney Piedra, Erika Bolstad and Marc Caputo contributed to this report.

and........

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/...florida_voting
By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 23, 3:53 PM ET

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.

Bev Harris, founder of BlackBoxVoting.org, said the findings call into question the outcome of the presidential race. But county officials and the maker of the electronic voting machines strongly disputed that and took issue with the findings.

Voting problems would have had to have been widespread across the state to make a difference.
President Bush won Florida — and its 27 electoral votes — by 381,000 votes in 2004. Overall, he defeated
John Kerry by 286 to 252 electoral votes, with 270 needed for victory.

BlackBoxVoting.org, which describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens group, said it found 70,000 instances in Palm Beach County of cards getting stuck in the paperless ATM-like machines and that the computers logged about 100,000 errors, including memory failures.

Also, the hard drives crashed on some of the machines made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems, some machines apparently had to be rebooted over and over, and 1,475 re-calibrations were performed on Election Day on more than 4,300 units, Harris said. Re-calibrations are done when a machine is malfunctioning, she said.

"I actually think there's enough votes in play in Florida that it's anybody's guess who actually won the presidential race," Harris added. "But with that said, there's no way to tell who the votes should have gone to."...........

Quote:

http://www.local6.com/news/3879408/detail.html
13,000 Ballots Rushed From Voting Site, Must Be Recounted
Memory Card On Optical Scan Machine Fails
UPDATED: 7:06 am EST November 2, 2004

A glitch in a voting machine at an early polling place in Volusia County, Fla., is forcing election officials to recount about 13,000 ballots, according to Local 6 News.

The ballots were removed from the City Island Library in Daytona Beach and transported to a secure vault in Deland after an optical scan machine failed.

A computer error is to blame for the failure of the memory card which records the voting data, Local 6 News reported.

The thousands of ballots will have to be resubmitted through voting machines Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.

The problem includes every ballot cast during the last several weeks at the library.

When the error was discovered Monday, representatives from both parties were notified.

Members of each political party and the canvassing board must witness the recount process Tuesday.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

Quote:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=2
Watchdog group requests Volusia vote tallies

By CHRISTINE GIRARDIN
Staff Writer

Last update: November 18, 2004

DELAND -- An activist group investigating possible irregularities in the Nov. 2 election requested copies of all Volusia County voter tallies Wednesday.

It took county elections employees most of the day to complete the job, started at the request of Bev Harris of Black Box Voting.

The watchdog organization, based in Seattle, is gathering similar records from at least three other counties around Florida -- information that may lead to an election challenge, Harris said.

Harris also wants to examine each ballot from up to 50 precincts in Volusia County, to see whether election totals match voter tallies on polling place tapes.

It is these receipt-like documents that Harris sought copies of Wednesday. However, by 6 p.m., after the office had closed, Harris had not returned to pick up the copies, Elections Supervisor Deanie Lowe said.

The documents show a printed record of each ballot fed into 179 optical scanning machines used in the election.

Harris went to the Department of Elections' warehouse on State Road 44 in DeLand on Tuesday to inspect original Nov. 2 polling place tapes, after being given a set of reprints dated Nov. 15. While there, Harris saw Nov. 2 polling place tapes in a garbage bag, heightening her concern about the integrity of voting records.

Lowe confirmed Wednesday some backup copies of tapes from the Nov. 2 election were destined for the shredder. She added that originals were still available for Harris, or anyone else, to see. It is those polling place tapes that were copied and provided Wednesday to Black Box Voting for about $125.

'She's not wanting to listen to an explanation. She has her own ideas," Lowe said of Harris.

Lowe said to provide a backup voting record, she routinely asks poll workers to print two polling place tapes on election night. One tape is delivered in one car along with the ballots and a memory card. The backup tape is delivered to the elections office in a second car. Poll workers sign both copies of the tapes, Lowe said.

Harris said she's concerned the tallies might not match up with voter ballots or the memory cards used in the optical scanning machines. She declined to identify which precinct ballots she wants to examine and what led her to choose those precincts, but said many appear to be in minority-dominated precincts.

"I won't give out everything until I've documented it, and with other sources," said Harris, a long-standing critic of electronic voting systems and author of a book about the role they played in the 2000 election. She said her group is looking at election results nationwide.

Harris said she chose to pull records in Volusia County, in part, due to an Election Office computer glitch in 2000 that subtracted 16,000 votes from Democratic candidate Al Gore..........

Quote:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/Ne...1POL022406.htm
February 24, 2006

<b>Frustrated council gets voting machines but no paper trail</b>
By JOHN BOZZO
Staff Writer

DELAND -- Voters will see the familiar paper ballots in precincts at the next election, along with something new -- an electronic touch-screen voting machine for the disabled.

After months of meetings and hours of discussions, Volusia County Council members found themselves back at square one. They got better voting access for the disabled, but didn't get the paper ballot copy of electronic votes they wanted.

"It's a sad day for the state of Florida and Volusia County," said County Council Chair Frank Bruno.

Bruno led the fight in December with a 4-3 decision to scrap the current voting system in favor of a $2.5 million contract with Election Systems and Software Inc., which promised disabled-accessible equipment with a printed ballot. That equipment never was verified by the state, however, and Bruno on Thursday asked to back out of that deal and supplement the current system with 210 touch-screen machines, enough to put one in every precinct as an option for disabled voters.

Council members agreed unanimously to spend $782,185 for the touch-screen machines from Diebold Election System.

A parade of speakers questioned the security of the touch-screen machines.

<b>"There are no winners here," Spencer Lane said. "We are all Americans and we all lost."</b>

Other speakers, such as Irene Moses, an advocate for the disabled, called the criticism of the Diebold system "scary stories." She defended the accuracy and security of the county's current voting system.

Councilman Carl Persis suggested delaying the vote until the Election Systems and Software system is tested again March 6.

"I'd be willing not to throw in the towel at this point," he said.

But Bruno said he did not expect the Election System and Software system to pass muster in time for the election on Sept. 5. The county must get voting machines accessible to those with disabilities to comply with the Help America Vote Act.

"The very first day the state certifies election equipment that has accessible voting and verifiable paper ballots, I would be first to agenda this for consideration," he said.............

Quote:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmate...ews/ci_3526049
<b>Diebold machines get state approval
Decision is likely to set off a buying spree for as many as 21 counties</b>
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

After almost three years, Diebold Election Systems won approval Friday to sell its latest voting machines in California, despite findings by computer scientists that the software inside is probably illegal and has security holes found in earlier Diebold products.

The scientists advised Secretary of State Bruce McPherson this week that those risks were "manageable" and could be "mitigated" by tightening security around Diebold's voting machines.

McPherson gave conditional approval to Diebold's latest touch-screen voting machines and optical scanners Friday, while his staff ordered the McKinney, Texas-based company to get rid of the security holes as quickly as possible.

"After rigorous scrutiny, I have determined that these Diebold systems can be used for the 2006 elections," McPherson said in a statement.

The decision is likely to set off a buying spree for as many as 21 counties, more than a third of the state, as local elections officials rush to acquire one of only two voting systems approved for use in the 2006 elections. Registrars and clerks prefer having voting systems for at least six months before conducting a statewide primary like the one in June, partly because it is California's most complicated and error-prone type of election.

"It's really late in the game, and you have to have your star play in place. And if Diebold is your star play, this is good news," said Contra Costa County elections chief Steve Weir, vice president of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officers.

At least three other voting-machine manufacturers still are being evaluated by state officials. For word of approval on their products, Weir said, "you're going to wait until mid-March, and for a lot of entities, it's too late."

McPherson's approval comes just in time for San Diego County, which bought the new machines in 2003, used them once in 2004, then saw the state's approval withdrawn.

The county has been warehousing 10,000 Diebold AccuVote TSx touch screens for more than two years and withholding its $35 million payment to Diebold until approval. Now, with an election set for early April to replace Rep. Duke Cunningham, San Diego can use those machines. In June, so could San Joaquin County, which also bought and has been storing the new touch screens trusting on approval.

Lining up as possible new buyers are Alameda, Marin, Humboldt, Alpine, Butte, Eldorado and nearly a dozen other counties.

<h3>State Sen. Debra Bowen, who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running for the Democratic nomination to challenge McPherson as secretary of state, criticized the approval as contrary to state and federal law.

Part of the software running in Diebold's touch screens and optical scanners is what computer scientists call "interpreted code" that is loaded by memory cards or PC cards just before an election. That changes the software that private testing labs and states had tested and approved, and for that reason interpreted code is prohibited by federal 2002 voting system standards. .........</h3>

Read the preceding "bold character" paragraph!!!!!!!
I feel sometimes like I'm losing my fucking mind....Diebold admitted in court in California in November, 2004 (I posted the excerpt in another post on this thread) that it would pay California $2.6 million because Diebold could not defend against the memo from it's Jones Day lawyers that it's software was not disclosed to be in violation of the law. Now....they're buying new machines from Diebold....in California...while officials take Diebold's word that they will bring their software code into legal compliance.
Volusia County, Florida just voted to buy more new E-vote machines from Election Systems and Software Inc., that do not print paper ballots or receipts. I first obtained an ATM card (Diebold's core business is manufacture of ATM machines) and did a transaction at my bank in the spring of fucking 1980 !!!!!!!!!!! That 1980 machine spit out a printed receipt. 26 fucking years later, and Americans allow their elected and politcally appointed officials to buy E-voting machines that allegedly cannot provide printed ballots or receipts. They allow officials to buy machines from Diebold, a little more than a year after the company paid a multi-million dollar civil court settlement for it's voting software fraud/deception....before the company can demonstrate software that is legal, in compliance, and hack resistant enough to be deemed secure.
What-the Fuck???? I want to <h3>Scream !!!</h3> Why am I surrounded by so many complacent sheep??? Aggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Willravel · 03-04-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

It looks to me like a certain group of people are pissed off that they haven't won an election in a long time.

I don't care if 'I' win. Actually, the odds of there being a green president are miniscule. I've come to terms with that, and have moved on. However, it is when authoritarians come to power that I get pissed off. Authoritarians have no place in a democracy. I'm not saying an authoritarian government can't succede...it just won't work here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

It's hilarious that liberals are kicking around the idea of an "armed" revolution. What weapons do you plan on using? The ones that you encourage the United Nations to ban, or the ones that children use to kill themselves?

Armed revolution does not imply that aa group of rebels will simply go toe to toe with the military. Even so, there is a rebellion going on right now that has almost no funding and seemingly no hope, and is holding it's own against the might of the US military. The fact of the matter is that the US military has an amazing track record against militaries of other governments, and a horrible track record against terrorist cells and insurgencies. Could I overthrow the government? If I wanted to, maybe. Could someone overthrow governmental control with the right motivation, intelect, and drive? Ask our founding fathers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

Good luck. Let me know how it works out for you.

This is obviously a fringe group that has no support from the 'liberals' of this country. Revolution is far too exreme and costly, not to mention it's not necessary. Bush will be out of office soon, and then will be the best time for the 'liberals' to gather our strength and show our support at the ballot boxes.

djtestudo · 03-04-2006, 03:22 PM

Hey host:

http://gazette.net/stories/030306/po...47_31942.shtml

Quote:

Paybacks are hell
Friday, March 3, 2006

Blair Lee

Hell hath no fury like a newspaper scorned, especially a newspaper scorned at both the trial and appellate court levels. Sixteen months ago Gov. Bob Ehrlich ordered his executive agencies to give two Baltimore Sun journalists the silent treatment due to their biased, inaccurate hatchet jobs.

When the Sun sued Ehrlich a federal judge threw the case out of court. Pronouncing the judge in error, the Sun took its case to the federal appeals court, which also ruled against the Sun. Since then, the Sun’s coverage of Ehrlich has been even more unfair and retaliatory than before, if that was possible. Paybacks are hell and here are some examples:

*‘‘Voting-System Debate Colored By Party Politics” (Baltimore Sun, Feb. 21).

The news story: The thrust of this news story is that Ehrlich’s statement, ‘‘I no longer have confidence in the state Board of Elections’ ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006,” was Ehrlich’s shabby attempt at intimidating the board and suppressing voter turnout.

The Sun reporter’s proof? Fourteen inflammatory quotes from partisan Democrats including, ‘‘This is pure unadulterated politics,” and, ‘‘He (Ehrlich) wants Florida and Ohio to happen in Maryland.” Deep into the article the reporter adds three quotes from Republicans — for ‘‘balance.”

Then the Sun reporter offers his own perspective, ‘‘(Ehrlich’s statement) was the latest effort by the governor to exert influence over the state elections board, something he has been thwarted from doing in the past ... despite a strong push, the governor has been unable to persuade the five-member state elections board to replace the state elections administrator, Linda H. Lamone, with someone the administration favors.”

The whole story: The reporter’s goal, painting a negative picture of Ehrlich playing politics with the elections process, was only made possible by omitting the full facts.

From time immemorial, state law allowed governors to appoint the state elections administrator — the person who oversees state elections. And for decades, Democratic governors appointed loyal Democrats who could be trusted to keep an eye on the party’s interests.

Then, in 1998, when Democratic lawmakers feared Ellen Sauerbrey might defeat Parris Glendening, they shifted the appointment power to the elections board, controlled by Democrats. When Ehrlich became governor in 2002, the Democratic legislature changed the rules even further — now Linda Lamone can only be removed by an 80 percent supermajority of the full elections board and even when removed she keeps her job until her successor is approved (if ever) by the state Senate, controlled by Democrats!

In other words, at the prospect of a GOP governor the Democrats installed a Democratic elections-administrator for life. Yet, none of this made it into the Sun’s story about ‘‘playing politics” with the elections board. Which raises this question: at what point do reporting omissions create an untruth?

http://www.gazette.net/stories/02170...12_31948.shtml

Quote:

Now the Democratic-controlled state legislature has passed a series of reckless elections changes that make things even worse. Nor do the safeguards you describe, which worked under our old system, plug the loopholes created by the new changes. Here’s why:

1. No voter identification. When someone decides to become a Maryland voter they register at their local elections board or by mail. If they register in person they can vote on Election Day without providing identification. If they registered by mail they must present identification the first time they vote but on every Election Day, thereafter, they too can vote without proving that they are the person they claim to be.

In other words, someone can walk into your voting place, claim to be Mary von Euler and, if you haven’t voted yet, they can cast your vote, unchallenged. And once that fraudulent vote is cast, it’s final and irretrievable. OK, hold that thought.

2. Provisional ballots. Until now, Maryland voters could only vote at the polling place in the precinct where they live, one of the few safeguards in Maryland’s shaky system.

Now, thanks to the Democrats, you can cast a so-called ‘‘provisional ballot” at any polling place in Maryland from Cumberland to Ocean City. This new liberalization creates a giant opportunity for wholesale fraud as follows:

As we already know, elections officials cannot make voters identify themselves (prove they are who they claim to be). And if someone votes by provisional ballot the current technology only enables elections officials to see if someone’s already voted at their home precinct. There’s no way to see if the voter has cast multiple votes (by provisional ballot) at other polling places away from home. Maryland lacks the ‘‘real time” technology (statewide e-poll books) to limit people to a single vote by provisional ballot.

So, I could cast 100 votes on Election Day by pretending to be a registered voter, say Bill Brown, who I know isn’t going to vote (because he’s dead, absent or a co-conspirator). Pretending I’m Bill Brown, I can cast provisional ballots at 100 different polling places. Once the elections officials at each polling place verify that Bill Brown didn’t vote at his home precinct, my fraudulent provisional ballots will be tabulated and become final and irretrievable.

Weeks later, during the official elections audit, officials will discover that someone claiming to be Bill Brown cast 100 provisional ballots but by then it’s too late. The fraudulent votes are in the system and I’ve escaped undetected.

3. Early voting. The problems described above are compounded by another harebrained Democratic elections change — opening the polls for five consecutive days before Election Day. Again, Maryland’s system lacks the technology to prevent multiple votes being cast.

That’s why Linda Lamone, the Democratic-appointed state elections administrator, has asked for $28 million to buy or lease e-poll books. Currently, says Lamone, ‘‘...election officials will not be able to prevent a voter from voting at more than one of the locations. While this type of fraud would certainly be detected after the election, during an election this type of activity is difficult to detect or stop ... This means that a dishonest voter will be able to vote during the early election period and then, again, on Election Day.”

A statewide voter registration database (e-poll books) would permit elections officials to instantly verify whether any voter, anywhere, has already voted. But this technology doesn’t yet exist in Maryland where the election is only seven months away.

So why not postpone provisional ballots and early voting until the 2008 election just as Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and state elections officials all recommended?

Because the top concern of Maryland’s Democrats is defeating Republicans, not the integrity of our elections. That’s why statehouse Democrats are pushing through a bill that restores voting rights to 150,000 felons, a move endorsed by the state Democratic Party, which expects most of these ex-cons to vote Democratic. Of course all this is being done in the name of ‘‘civil rights.”

But the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who covers elections, put it best last week: ‘‘When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surly as if they where prevented from voting ... the Maryland lawmakers who are opening up new opportunities for fraud weaken the civil rights of all their constituents.”

These are both op-eds, but they are written by a Democrat protesting his party's policies in Maryland.

Just to show that it isn't necessarally a Republican/Neo-con/Bush-Big Brother consperacy when it comes to elections.

alpha phi · 03-04-2006, 09:04 PM

It looks as if this group has backed down
if it was ever a "real" group
the article has been pulled from the site

I did read it the other day
So it was posted by a third party on that site,
And it had a RSVP link...asking for name, address, ect.
Looked more like a Trolling for sedition
than a call to action.
I wouldn't be a bit supprised if everyone who filled out that RSVP
gets a visit from the local branch of DHS.

If it were "real"....asking the UN for help?
That dooms it all to failure right there.

host · 03-05-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Hey host:

http://gazette.net/stories/030306/po...47_31942.shtml

http://www.gazette.net/stories/02170...12_31948.shtml

These are both op-eds, but they are written by a Democrat protesting his party's policies in Maryland.

Just to show that it isn't necessarally a Republican/Neo-con/Bush-Big Brother consperacy when it comes to elections.

djtestudo, I appreciate that you made the effort to read my post and to respond. You were "up front" about your linked articles. They are, as you said "op-eds". I try to avoid posting "op-eds" when I am on the opposite side of an argument with someone who confines their links to news reports.

I want other readers to compare your description of the author of the "op-eds" that you linked to, with this blurb, and the WaPo editorial aimed at Gov. Ehrlich (below). Could the op-eds author be motivated by his develpment interests?

Quote:

http://www.gazette.net/columns/
Blair Lee/My Maryland
Lee is president of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and aregular commentator for WAMU-FM. His column on politics appears Fridays in The Weekend Edition.

I'll confine myself to offering some things for you to consider if you take the time to compare my argument to the documentation you offered to back your points. In Dec., 2000, candidate Gore lost the office of POTUS by no more than 600 votes in a questionable and recount, halted before it was completed by a verdict of the SCOTUS. The opposing candidate, GW Bush, enjoyed the fact that his brother was the governor of Florida, the state where the outcome of the contested vote would determine who would become POTUS.
To add insult to injury, the ultimate responsibility for fair election oversight in Florida was Fla. Sec. of State, Katherine Harris, who simultaneously held a conflicting interest in her role as the head of the Bush/Cheney Florida 2000 election campaign. Ms. Harris's integrity was suspect in the aftermath of the 2000 election.

This week, our worst fears and strongest negative suspicions about Katherine Harris being too partisan, unethical, and unscrupulous to oversee the Florida 2000 presidential vote in a fair and non-partisan manner (remember the "Felon's List" that kept thousands of voters off the election roles, in error?)
...are beginning to be confirmed, as Harris is tied to the same briber, Mitchell Wade, who Randy Cunningham swore in court, bribed him:

Quote:

http://news.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB10T5WEKE.html
Harris Cancels Election Trips

By JEREMY WALLACE Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Published: Mar 5, 2006

PORT CHARLOTTE - Already trying to avoid the media, U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Longboat Key, is canceling campaign stops in Southwest Florida as questions swirl about her ties to a Washington defense contractor at the center of a bribery scandal.

Harris, who is running for the U.S. Senate, abruptly canceled a stop in Charlotte County on Saturday, and four other events planned for Lee and Collier counties were removed from her campaign Web site........

...........She Downplays Controversy

She organized a conference call Friday with her most loyal supporters in which she downplayed her connections to MZM Inc., saying, "There is nothing to it except for the press trying to be negative."

The company's owner admitted in federal court that he gave $32,000 in illegal campaign donations to Harris.

In the conference call, Harris described a campaign on a roll and gaining momentum daily. She said prominent politicians, such as U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., hosted a fundraising event for her in Washington last week, proof all is well. "Now there is a buzz in Washington," she said in the call.

Harris' ties to defense contractor MZM Inc. have been under the microscope since Feb. 24, when MZM founder Mitchell Wade admitted to bribing one member of Congress and giving Harris illegal contributions in March 2004.

Over a private dinner in Washington, Wade and Harris talked about "obtaining funding and approval" for a Navy counterintelligence program that Wade wanted to open in Sarasota, Justice Department records show.

After the meeting, Harris put in a $10 million budget request to the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to fund the project. Days later, a staff member in her congressional office went to work for Wade at MZM.

The funding for the project was never approved.

<h4>And...Harris "lawyers up" !!</h4>

Quote:

http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB5MTE1CKE.html
Harris Shuns Spending Requests

By KEITH EPSTEIN kepstein@tampatrib.com

Published: Mar 3, 2006

........Among the reasons for her absence was a meeting with top-gun campaign finance lawyer Ben Ginsberg, <b>whom she hired as a "precaution,"</b> Harris spokeswoman Kara Borie said.

On the sixth day after she was identified as a recipient of illegal campaign contributions, the Republican congresswoman from Longboat Key stayed behind closed doors. She issued a statement in which she denied knowing that contributions made to her by defense contractor Mitchell Wade had been illegal...........

Note here at campaign donation reporting site, http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/se...2002=Y&Order=N that fourteen checks of $2000 each, supposedly sent to Harris on the initiative of individual employees of Mitchell Wade's company, were all "donated" on the same day! The only other check came from Wade's wife, two weeks later. Mitchell Wade was the principle "briber" of Rep. Randy Cunningham, who was just sentenced to 100 months in a federal pen., yesterday!

The table here: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...882&cycle=2004
makes it clear that Mitchell Wade's MZM Corp., (Wade's employee's checks, illegally remimbursed later by Wade himself, and Wade's family...) was Harris's top 2004 contributor, with $50,000. The next highers was National Beer Wholesalers Assn.'s $20,000 to Harris.

Do even the repub apologists here, believe that Harris could receive 14 checks of $2000 each, on the same day, fronted as independent contributions from Wade's employees, who don't live anywhere near Florida, and then accept Harris saying that she did not know that Wade was not trading to purchase the influence of her elected office for MZM, as he had with Cunningham?

<b></djtestudo, the author of your op-ed columns has the following description. Could he be more than a citizen member of the opposite party who only wants MD Gov Ehrlich to receive a fair "shake"?</b>

Governor Ehrlich does not like the press coverage that he receives from the largest, oldest newspaper in his state. He attempted to censor the reporting of the Baltimore Sun by cutting off the access of it's reporters to MD state government.
That seems all the more foolish when you consider that the "Sun" is owned by the Tribune Corp, owner also of the LA Times. It is also foolish because the editors of the WaPo don't think very highly of Ehrlich and they publish bad things about him, too. He is also mired in the Abramoff slime. The NEWS article below reports that the Governor's $16,000 of Abramoff money came directly from Abramoff and his wife. Other money recipients named in the article received funds from Abramoff clients. The Repub. talking point attempts to persuade that money received from Abramoff's clients is as tainted as money given by Abramoff himself. Labeling an entity's money as "tainted", just because they retained Abramoff's lobbying services before he was indicted, doesn't seem a very Repub. thing to think, does it?

Quote:

http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeek...194841029-SE-1
The baltimore Sun

....It can be measured in terms of statistics. The Sun began as a four-page paper whose circulation had grown to 12,000 by the end of its first year of publication. Today, The Sun has a press run of more than 430,000 copies each day. The press run of the Sunday paper produces more than 540,000 copies each week, and the Saturday paper press run produces more than 400,000 copies weekly. At this volume, printing all Sun papers consumes 65,000 tons of newsprint each year, as well as 2.1 million pounds of black ink and 378,000 pounds of color ink.......

..........Because of Baltimore's proximity to Washington, D.C., events in the nation's capital have always been regarded with particular interest; and on June 13, 1837, less than a month after it was founded, The Sun carried its first account by a Washington correspondent writing specifically for Sun readers. Through the years, that coverage was expanded and a formal Washington Bureau was established. ..............

..........Van Lear Black was succeeded by his brother, Harry C. Black. Upon Harry's death in 1956, he in turn was succeeded by his nephew — and Van Lear's son — Gary Black, Sr. Upon his retirement in December, 1984, Gary Black, Sr. was succeeded by William E. McGuirk, Jr., who remained the Chairman of the Board of directors until October, 1986, when the company was acquired by the Times Mirror Company, a nationwide information and media company. In June 2000, Times Mirror merged with Tribune Company, making The Sun a subsidiary of Tribune, a major-market, multimedia leader with operations in television and radio broadcasting, publishing and interactive media.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
washingtonpost.com
<b>Questions for Mr. Ehrlich</b>

Monday, December 6, 2004; Page A20

GOV. ROBERT L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) still maintains plausible deniability -- but only barely -- when it comes to the sordid land deal whose unsavory particulars continue to slither into public view week by week. The governor has said he was unaware of the details of the transaction, which would have put the state in the role of real estate broker for a politically well-connected Baltimore building magnate who stood to make millions in tax breaks from the purchase of 836 acres of Southern Maryland forestland. Yet if Mr. Ehrlich was really in the dark, at least three of his top aides weren't. Chief of Staff Steven L. Kreseski, Communications Director Paul E. Schurick and former deputy chief of staff Edward F. McDonald were all consulted on the proposed transaction. "They basically said: " 'Go ahead. See where it goes,' " Maryland's secretary of general services, Boyd Rutherford, told state lawmakers last week.

Beyond his protestations of ignorance, we still don't know the governor's thinking about the squalid arrangement, now aborted, involving the proposed land sale of the Salem Tract in St. Mary's County to Willard Hackerman, one of the country's biggest builders. Does Mr. Ehrlich think it is wise for the state to purchase pristine, environmentally sensitive land with the intent of selling it immediately -- at a cut-rate price -- to wealthy campaign donors? Does he think his aides were right to green-light the deal? Would politically well-connected heavy hitters also have the inside track to buy 3,000 acres in or near state parks that officials have identified as "surplus" land at the governor's instructions?

While Marylanders await the next revelation, state Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. (D) is examining details of the deal, presumably with an eye to determining whether it warrants a criminal investigation. Some Democratic lawmakers, scrambling to salt Mr. Ehrlich's wounds, are calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. We won't jump on that bandwagon; the important thing for now is to devise procedures that ensure there will be no repetition of the Salem Tract debacle......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010401478.html
Ehrlich, Other Local Officials to Return Abramoff Funds

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; Page B02

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. announced yesterday that he will return $16,000 in campaign contributions he received from disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"I'm going to give it to the Helping Up Mission in Baltimore," the Republican governor told reporters at a news event early yesterday.

Later in the day, the Ehrlich campaign's political director, Bo Harmon, said the governor learned that under state law he could not legally donate the money to a charity, so the checks "were returned today to Mr. and Mrs. Abramoff in accordance with campaign finance law.".......

........."What's happening on Capitol Hill is affecting him," Miller said. "He was part of that crew. Trained under Newt Gingrich. Brought these same partisans to be part of his administration."

Specifically, Miller referred to a top Ehrlich aide who figures into the scandal and who was said to have been cooperating with federal investigators. Charging documents released Tuesday prominently mention the company chartered by Ehrlich's deputy chief of staff, Edward B. Miller.

For several months in 2003, Edward Miller was the registered agent for GrassRoots Interactive in Silver Spring before turning it over to a lobbying associate of Abramoff's. The documents say Abramoff established the company and then encouraged clients to use its public relations and other services. Abramoff would then cause the company to "charge prices that incorporated huge profit margins for the purpose of generating funds and concealing kickbacks" to Abramoff, the documents show.

Edward Miller's attorney has said previously that his client did nothing illegal. Miller did not return a call to his office yesterday.

Ehrlich backed his aide yesterday, telling the Associated Press: "Ed Miller is a tremendous young man. He is [deputy] chief of staff and will remain chief of staff."

Staff writer Lisa Rein contributed to this report.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/po...pagewanted=all
Lobbyist Sought $9 Million to Set Bush Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: November 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny, according to newly disclosed documents..........

The documents also show that Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues drew up a draft contract that called for $9 million in fees to be paid to GrassRoots Interactive, the small Maryland lobbying company that his former colleagues say he controlled.

......Documents, including copies of canceled checks, show that millions of dollars flowed through the company's accounts in 2003, the year it was created, including at least $2.3 million to a California consulting firm that used the same address as the law office of Mr. Abramoff's brother, Robert. A separate check for $400,000 was made out to Kay Gold, another Abramoff family company..........

............Other documents obtained by The New York Times show that Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues prepared two draft agreements, both dated Aug. 7, 2003, that outlined the lobbying plan for Gabon.

One called for GrassRoots to receive $9 million in lobbying fees; the other called for Greenberg Traurig to receive $1 million, all of it in 2003.

A spokeswoman for Greenberg Traurig said the firm had no comment. "We don't comment on whom we do or don't represent," said Jill Perry, a spokeswoman for the firm, which forced Mr. Abramoff to resign last year.

Maryland state records show that GrassRoots were established in 2003 by Edward B. Miller, a Republican lawyer who is now deputy chief of staff to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland. Samuel Hook, a former partner of Mr. Abramoff from Greenberg Traurig, took over it in September 2003.

Mr. Ehrlich's office has said that Mr. Miller is cooperating in the Justice Department investigation. Aron Raskas, a lawyer speaking for Mr. Miller, said Mr. Miller had no knowledge of any project involving Gabon.

Mr. Hook's lawyer, Alyza D. Lewin, said that "Mr. Abramoff solely controlled G.R.I.," a reference to GrassRoots Interactive.

The above report, by the NY Times, declares that Gov. Ehrlich's Deputy COS Miller. was a go between in the funneling of $2.3 million to an "office" at the same California address as the law office of Robert Abramoff, Jack's brother. Mr. Miller, according to a WaPo NEWS reporter, <b>"For several months in 2003, Edward Miller was the registered agent for GrassRoots Interactive in Silver Spring before turning it over to a lobbying associate of Abramoff's"</b> This was the company that sent the $2.3 million to the Robert Abramoff address. Governor Ehrlich has vouched for Mr. Miller after these news reports were printed.

Question for you folks who take issue with nearly everything that I post? Do you hold any politician that you support to a standard that you can explain. Have all of you met Abramoff, and do all who post unflagging support for republican elected officials, know each other?

cybersharp · 03-08-2006, 11:47 PM

Well Host, yes I can see where you may be steamed about all the unfairness ect... I was not suggesting that I not be "lumped" in with all the rest of you, rather just not to group invidiualy minded people (like we all are) together into group's simply because it is easyeir for blame to be passed out that way. Because while many people are complacent, there are plenty who are not, and very few people think the same thoughts at the same time in the same way.

Sure there is plenty of inaction and unfairness in the country. If asked if in my opinion is that going to change I would have to reply that I dont believe that it will anytime soon, because it is well within human nature to manipulate all benifits of any said system.

Why does the goverment use code that is hackable? Because there are smart people that can manipulate options to any given benifit they choose.

Why do people do wrong things? Often because they can get away with it. It will likly allways be this way.

You where correct in that I should of prehape's challanged Timalkin and that my response to his post was not very productive, however, I did let me get to read the huge blocks of text and information that you just posted, thx.

Anyway do really think that voting anytime in the near future will be completly secure?

Ballets and voting scam's happen allmost all the time, and historicaly very numerously during election times. (go figure).

What do you think?

host · 05-12-2006, 03:26 AM

Seems like the place to ask this. Are we near a tipping point?

Quote:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...1-104853-1835r
<b>Poll: Bush job approval at 29 percent</b>

WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 29 percent in a new Harris Interactive poll.

It is the lowest job approval rating of Bush's presidency, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone, 29 percent said Bush was doing an "excellent or pretty good" -- down from 35 percent in the Harris Interactive poll conducted in April. Bush's job approval rating had been 43 percent in the Harris Interactive poll conducted in January.

About one-quarter of U.S. adults said "things in the country are going in the right direction," while 69 percent said "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." The trend has declined every month since January, when 33 percent said the nation was heading in the right direction, the Journal reported.

The Harris poll results came on the same day that The Washington Post reported on a Gallup poll that showed Republican support for the Bush administration has fallen by 13 percent in the past two weeks based on spending policies.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051100539.html
Data on Phone Calls Monitored
Extent of Administration's Domestic Surveillance Decried in Both Parties

By Barton Gellman and Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has secretly been collecting the domestic telephone records of millions of U.S. households and businesses, assembling gargantuan databases and attempting to sift through them for clues about terrorist threats, according to sources with knowledge of the program......

...........The new report, by contrast, described a far broader form of surveillance, focused primarily on domestic phone-call records. Some of its elements have been disclosed before. The Los Angeles Times reported in December that AT&T provided the NSA with a "direct hookup" into a company database, code-named Daytona, that has been recording the telephone numbers and duration of every call placed on the AT&T network since 2001. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over that and other alleged violations of privacy law, said the call database spans 312 terabytes, a quantity that would fill more than 400,000 computer compact discs.

<b>Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening. The mathematical techniques known as "link analysis" and "pattern analysis," they said, give grounds for suspicion that can result in further investigation.</b>

"Let's say lots comes in and we don't see anything interesting," said a source who helped develop the technology. "Tomorrow we find out someone is communicating with a known terrorist. When you go back and look at the past data, there may be information that you missed. A pattern that was meaningless suddenly makes sense."

Critics reacted angrily yesterday, contrasting the new disclosures with the Bush administration's previous claims that domestic surveillance is narrowly targeted and restricted to international communications.

"Both the attorney general and the president have lied to the American people about the scope and nature of the NSA's program," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's clearly not focused on international calls and clearly not just focused on terrorists. . . . It's like adding more hay on the haystack to find that one needle."

Quote:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0223nj1.htm
ADMINISTRATION
<b>TIA Lives On</b>

Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006

.........It is unclear when funding for Topsail was terminated. But earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics questioned whether intelligence officials knew that some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller whether it was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies.... <b>I and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on somewhere else."

Negroponte and Mueller said they didn't know. But Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who until recently was director of the NSA, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session."</b> Asked for comment, Wyden's spokeswoman referred to his hearing statements.

The NSA is now at the center of a political firestorm over President Bush's program to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who the agency believes are connected to terrorists abroad. While the documents on the TIA programs don't show that their tools are used in the domestic eavesdropping, and knowledgeable sources wouldn't discuss the matter, the TIA programs were designed specifically to develop the kind of "early-warning system" that the president said the NSA is running.

Documents detailing TIA, Genoa II, Basketball, and Topsail use the phrase "early-warning system" repeatedly to describe the programs' ultimate aims. In speeches, Poindexter has described TIA as an early-warning and decision-making system. He conceived of TIA in part because of frustration over the lack of such tools when he was national security chief for Reagan.....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000622.php
Did Gonzales Mislead Congress about NSA Program?
By Paul Kiel - May 11, 2006, 2:32 PM

Reacting to today's news that the NSA is "amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans," Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) have put out a statement questioning the legality of the program.

Their statement contains this: "when the Attorney General was forced to testify before the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago, he misled the Committee about the existence of the program."

Here's what they're referring to. On April 6, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and in one exchange, Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) tried to nail him down:
NADLER: Number two, can you assure us that there is no warrantless surveillance of calls between two Americans within the United States?

GONZALES: That is not what the president has authorized.

NADLER: Can you assure us that it's not being done?

GONZALES: As I indicated in response to an earlier question, no technology is perfect.

NADLER: OK.

GONZALES: We do have minimization procedures in place...

NADLER: But you're not doing that deliberately?

GONZALES: That is correct.

The Hayden appointment is exactly the wrong thing to do....unless it's a final test before all pretense of adherence to constitutional law, fair trials, and traditional rules of evidence are abandoned!

Quote:

<a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29743">The General and the Telephone Companies</a>

By Reed Hundt | <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/9">bio</a>

I can understand why the Republicans and Democrats on the Hill with oversight responsibility for the CIA might not want to complicate General Hayden's confirmation hearing with discussion of NSA's warrantless searching of millions of telephone calls, as now reported.......

........<h3>Nevertheless, Congress won't be able to escape this issue: the President and Mr. Rove have forced it upon Congress by selecting General Hayden, who apparently played such a large role in the physical intrusion of NSA into the communications system of the United States..........</h3>

..........No one should imagine that what NSA has done, if reports are accurate, is normal behavior or standard procedure in the interaction between a private communications network and the government. In an authoritarian country without a bill of rights and with state ownership of the communications network, such eavesdropping by people and computers is assumed to exist. But in the United States it is assumed not to occur, except under very carefully defined circumstances that, according to reports, were not present as NSA allegedly arm-twisted telephone companies into compliance. That is a topic that can't be avoided in the general's hearing, if he gets that far.

<b>I object</b> but....is it already too late to stop it?

Quote:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/So...m_WLaquer.html
Fascism Past, Present and Future
a book by
Walter Laqueur, 1996

....<b>The historical record shows that fascism (like terrorism) could succeed only in a liberal democratic system.</b> It had a chance only where it could freely agitate. When competing with a military dictatorship (Romania or Spain)-let alone a Communist regime-it invariably suffered defeat. Even in a mildly authoritarian regime such as that in Austria, it failed in 1934. Fascists despised, rather than hated, the democratic institutions They regarded the parliament as a Schwatzbule, a place where unending inconclusive debates took place and where politicians were held in contempt because of their weakness. This mood could be found not only in the extreme Left and Right but also among many who did not consider themselves radicals. <b>In the end, democracy collapsed because not enough democrats were willing to defend it.</b>......

......There was an interesting difference between the votes in big cities and small towns. If the Nazi vote was 37 percent on average; nationwide, in the July 1932 elections, the small town vote was 42 percent, whereas in the big cities such as Berlin and Hamburg it was closer to 33 percent.....

<b>A unified message from the fascists, themselves, through one of their party propaganda "organs", das CNS:</b>

Quote:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstor...20060512b.html
<b>Privacy A Concern, but So Are Leaks</b>
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
May 12, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Americans should be more worried about who's leaking sensitive national security information than they should be about the National Security Agency monitoring records of telephone calls, some Republicans are saying.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday said the NSA's telephone-call data mining program is "legal and lawful -- privacy is protected," he said.

"If al Qaeda is involved, we're going after them, and we're going after them aggressively," Frist said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Kavuto.

Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) rejected the uproar provoked by the USA Today report. "This is nuts," he was quoted as saying on Thursday. "We are in a war, and we've got to collect intelligence on enemy, and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you're going to do it."

<b>A comment added by poster, "host": Dear leader, Signore "29 percent" himself, caps off the bullshit defense for his new American Fascist Party:</b>

<i>"President Bush, defending his efforts to keep America safe, walked up to the microphones on Thursday and told the nation, "Every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country."

The president insisted that the NSA is not "mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates. So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," he added."</i>

<h3>Uhhhh!!!! Let's Roll......hello?? hello??? anyone???....anybody awake?</h3>

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 05:00 AM

host, if you want to lead the charge, have at it. I completely agree that there are some big problems out there right now, but the violent overthrow of the government is pointless and doomed to failure. Unless and until you can get the armed forces to side with you, any violent revolutionary attempts in this country are going to be stamped out with equal or greater force, with the rebels being label terrorists or worse. Any 2nd Amendment rights "exercises" that you have are pretty powerless against a tank or a plane. At this point, the only logical path that one could take to upturn the Constitution by violent means is to follow the example of the Bolsheviks and agitate in the armed forces and behind the scenes in the seats of power. Good luck with that - make sure your life insurance is paid up.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 06:26 AM

first off, the claims and arguments that there is no civilian force on this earth that could possibly beat the military might of the US government is patently false. Not only does it discount the will of people, it also throws the advantage of numbers out the window for people that choose to believe otherwise.

I repeat, it would only take 10% of the population of this country to take up arms and the government would crumble.

The military numbers around 4 million, at most, maybe 5 million when you include national guard AND all law enforcement personnel in the mix.

10% of the population, of capable combat status, would number around 13 million to 18 million, and thats not including women. If you take women in to the account, you now have more than 20 million people, armed.

Those who think that one unit with tanks would wipe out that entire force, think again. Explosives work wonders. There are ways to not only defeat tanks, but also to use them afterwards. There are thousands of ex military types out there who know how to fix tanks, fly planes, make explosive ordnance, and all of them would be willing to put that knowledge and skill to use for freedom from tyranny.

Do not underistimate the will and might of an armed civilian force. The British did...twice.

stevo · 05-12-2006, 06:34 AM

When you talk about going against the military with an armed civilian force, well you're talking about attacking civilians' brothers and sisters. It wouldn't get anywhere, it wouldn't happen. Don't let me in on any discussion cause I'd drop the dime so fast...

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

When you talk about going against the military with an armed civilian force, well you're talking about attacking civilians' brothers and sisters. It wouldn't get anywhere, it wouldn't happen. Don't let me in on any discussion cause I'd drop the dime so fast...

Actually, the subject is going against the government, not the military. Now, i'm not trying to obfuscate the issue because we all know that the goverment would then have to employ the military against us so as far as it not going anywhere......I don't know where or how far it would actually go.

you'd drop the dime so fast? stevo, I know that you're a die hard republican fan and support George Bush, but I have to ask you, would you feel the same way if Hillary Clinton was president, Pelosi was speaker, Harry Ried became majority leader, and then they immediately passed legislation to confiscate all privately owned firearms and instead of giving some sort of 'amnesty' or grace period, just started sending paramilitary LE units and raided homes?

Ustwo · 05-12-2006, 07:03 AM

This is not the way to argue against someone else.

If you feel insulted, please report the post to a mod. It is not an opportunity to post an insult back.

Two day ban.

The politics board is now mostly indistinguishable from the parinoia board because of two people, one who only posts on one forum here. Nice guys.

02-27-2006, 08:07 PM	#47 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I have to agree with those who have pointed out that all options, or really ANY options for that matter, have yet to be exhausted. You can argue war crimes or Diebold election fraud or other things until you are blue in the face or red in the fingers, but the truth is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it within the system? Personally, I think that anyone who argues for a complete destruction of a system before working through that system first never wanted to be a part of that system anyway. In this case, those are people I would gladly fight, because it means they only desire power for themselves instead of change for all, and I would not want to be ruled by them. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

02-28-2006, 07:06 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, since the last, relatively nice post appears to have baffled the usual rightwing suspects, let me explain: this thread has slipped into yet another instance of conservatives setting up and battling straw men. among the straw men is the right-specific "logic" that has constructed this fantasy they refer to as "liberal" -which in fact means "not us" and only "not us" and as "not us" can slide around from designating centrist democrats and stalinists with equal accuracy--accuracy because what is designated is not in the world that other people know about, but rather is a requirements of conservative ideology, which is held together by fear of a Persecuting Other. the usage of this "logic"--which you can see for yourself above---almost necessarily involves a total loss of perspective. generally, when a political debate involves one side wholly surrendering perspective, the debate is over. so it is here. a similar problem in the "assessments" of the call to action against the bush admin posted by a small group, which here is not only blown out of all proportion, but which is further interpreted around the empty category "liberal" so that it would appear reasonable for someone like ustwo to slide from stalin to democrats to hallucinations of revolution coming from the left as if, at each moment, he was talking about the same thing---and as if, at each moment, he was talking about anything. nothing about these interpretations is credible: that it reflects something like a socially acceptable logic indicates, once again, significant problems with conservative discourse as a political formation. there is no reason to take these posts seriously----except that the same kind of idiocy obviously motivates people like lindsey graham to call for the administration to crack down on the "domestic fifth column"--but i figure that graham must be confusing the sounds being made by the implosion of the bush administration for political agitation from the left. if there is anything stalinist in this thread, it comes from the right which, once again, repeats features of "the short course of the history of the bolshevik party" (look it up): incapable of imagining that anything bad can happen as a result of policies initiated by the Party, things that go wrong must be blamed on some outside force--in stalinist world, this was the "hitlero-trotskyiste wrecker" the "saboteur"--in conservativeland, the role of the "saboteur" is filled by the "liberal".... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-28-2006 at 07:39 AM..

02-28-2006, 06:13 PM	#65 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	discrediting the messenger, using whatever means necessary. works most of the time. unfortunately too many good messages get lost this way. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-04-2006, 12:56 AM	#66 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	It looks to me like a certain group of people are pissed off that they haven't won an election in a long time. It's hilarious that liberals are kicking around the idea of an "armed" revolution. What weapons do you plan on using? The ones that you encourage the United Nations to ban, or the ones that children use to kill themselves? Good luck. Let me know how it works out for you. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix

03-04-2006, 10:13 AM	#67 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	in the cop who shoots military police officer after high-speed chase thread, the "conservatives" are the ones claiming to be preparing for revolution. which weapons have the UN banned US citizens from using, btw? I'm not that familiar with gun control to know the answer to that factoid you posted. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

02-27-2006, 06:37 PM	#41 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	There's just an incredibly irony taking place in the above post, and what a perfect person to post it.

02-27-2006, 07:34 PM	#43 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	You obviously didn't read the referred to "above post". Everythings relative my friend. Though you did point out to me - I meant "incredible", not "incredibly".

02-27-2006, 07:48 PM	#45 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I had faith that minor typo wasn't what confused you. Let the convo continue....

02-27-2006, 08:22 PM	#50 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ok. So the question was thrown out whether the Democrats are "left." Lets look at it rationally. The Dem's have lost the VAST majority of elections in the last few years. The Republicans (for the most part) are to the Right of the Dem's. Thus if Republicans are winning elections, the "center" has shifted "right". Which means the average person agrees with the Repub's more than the Dem's. The Democrats have not moved from their origional "left" position, with notable elections by those wishing to hold their constituants. The few left, i.e. Kennedy, are finding their base erroding faster than the damns around New Orleans. Thus, many of the Democrats are still to the left while shifting to the right due to political pressure. Once Democrats start winning elections one can figure the "center" is moving "left" and thus you can logically argue that the Dem's are becoming less and less "left". Of course the argument is that the elections are based off of fear, off of lies, or off of simple corruption (tin foil hat's love it here).

02-28-2006, 11:17 AM	#63 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	It saddens me that so many of you summarily discharged the OP article as bogus. While I agree the particular people may not be of the caliber we want in a coup situation, the point of their protest is a good one. First of all, it was mentioned that we need to make use of the tools available, such as impeachment. What is involved in this? Can I file a USGOV-1288-A form to beign such a process? It's not so simple as Americans being upset and starting the impeachment process. Granted, it SHOULDN'T be so easy... but then again, it shouldn't be as hard as it is. Frankly, I'd love to see Bush out of office, and if such a form existed, I'd surely fill it out and submit it. So what WILL be the cause? What is another Bush is "elected" into office? What if it's Jeb in '08? Well, they're the "properly elected" official. Will you continue to refuse to see through the shitscreen? As I posted in another thread, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the last 6 years have been a downhill ride, for the most part, regarding American policies and freedoms. If it all ends in another 2, I can live with that... if not, well...

03-04-2006, 09:04 PM	#72 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	It looks as if this group has backed down if it was ever a "real" group the article has been pulled from the site I did read it the other day So it was posted by a third party on that site, And it had a RSVP link...asking for name, address, ect. Looked more like a Trolling for sedition than a call to action. I wouldn't be a bit supprised if everyone who filled out that RSVP gets a visit from the local branch of DHS. If it were "real"....asking the UN for help? That dooms it all to failure right there. __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

03-08-2006, 11:47 PM	#74 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Well Host, yes I can see where you may be steamed about all the unfairness ect... I was not suggesting that I not be "lumped" in with all the rest of you, rather just not to group invidiualy minded people (like we all are) together into group's simply because it is easyeir for blame to be passed out that way. Because while many people are complacent, there are plenty who are not, and very few people think the same thoughts at the same time in the same way. Sure there is plenty of inaction and unfairness in the country. If asked if in my opinion is that going to change I would have to reply that I dont believe that it will anytime soon, because it is well within human nature to manipulate all benifits of any said system. Why does the goverment use code that is hackable? Because there are smart people that can manipulate options to any given benifit they choose. Why do people do wrong things? Often because they can get away with it. It will likly allways be this way. You where correct in that I should of prehape's challanged Timalkin and that my response to his post was not very productive, however, I did let me get to read the huge blocks of text and information that you just posted, thx. Anyway do really think that voting anytime in the near future will be completly secure? Ballets and voting scam's happen allmost all the time, and historicaly very numerously during election times. (go figure). What do you think? __________________ 0PtIcAl

05-12-2006, 05:00 AM	#76 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, if you want to lead the charge, have at it. I completely agree that there are some big problems out there right now, but the violent overthrow of the government is pointless and doomed to failure. Unless and until you can get the armed forces to side with you, any violent revolutionary attempts in this country are going to be stamped out with equal or greater force, with the rebels being label terrorists or worse. Any 2nd Amendment rights "exercises" that you have are pretty powerless against a tank or a plane. At this point, the only logical path that one could take to upturn the Constitution by violent means is to follow the example of the Bolsheviks and agitate in the armed forces and behind the scenes in the seats of power. Good luck with that - make sure your life insurance is paid up. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 06:26 AM	#77 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	first off, the claims and arguments that there is no civilian force on this earth that could possibly beat the military might of the US government is patently false. Not only does it discount the will of people, it also throws the advantage of numbers out the window for people that choose to believe otherwise. I repeat, it would only take 10% of the population of this country to take up arms and the government would crumble. The military numbers around 4 million, at most, maybe 5 million when you include national guard AND all law enforcement personnel in the mix. 10% of the population, of capable combat status, would number around 13 million to 18 million, and thats not including women. If you take women in to the account, you now have more than 20 million people, armed. Those who think that one unit with tanks would wipe out that entire force, think again. Explosives work wonders. There are ways to not only defeat tanks, but also to use them afterwards. There are thousands of ex military types out there who know how to fix tanks, fly planes, make explosive ordnance, and all of them would be willing to put that knowledge and skill to use for freedom from tyranny. Do not underistimate the will and might of an armed civilian force. The British did...twice. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-12-2006, 06:34 AM	#78 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	When you talk about going against the military with an armed civilian force, well you're talking about attacking civilians' brothers and sisters. It wouldn't get anywhere, it wouldn't happen. Don't let me in on any discussion cause I'd drop the dime so fast... __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-12-2006, 07:03 AM	#80 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This is not the way to argue against someone else. If you feel insulted, please report the post to a mod. It is not an opportunity to post an insult back. Two day ban. The politics board is now mostly indistinguishable from the parinoia board because of two people, one who only posts on one forum here. Nice guys. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 05-14-2006 at 09:01 AM..