Shoukd We "Move On" or Take to the Streets? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-01-2005, 02:55 PM

I look at the stench kicked up by Gore v. Bush 2000 and the SCOTUS Ruling,
the Unlikelyhood of Nebraska Senator (R) Chuck Hagel's 1996 election victory,

Quote:

<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-election-controversy-voting-machines">http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-election-controversy-voting-machines</a>
Chuck Hagel, the previous chairman of ES&S, another major manufacturer of voting machines and still a $1m stock-holder in McCarthy & Co which owns a quarter of ES&S [17] (http://www.mccarthygroupinc.com/investments.asp), became a Republican candidate. Hagel's Democratic opponent made a formal protest to the state of Nebraska over the conflict of interest. Hagel had significant AIS holdings when the company counted the votes for his surprise election victory in 1996. Hagel has been scrutinized by the Senate Ethics Committee over his investments in the McCarthy Group. ES&S, which counted 80% [18] (http://www.opednews.com/fitrakis032204_diebold.htm) of the votes when Hagel was elected in 1996 and re-elected in 2002, is a subsidiary of the McCarthy Group, according to The Hill. [19] (http://www.blackboxvoting.com/module...int&sid=24),[20] (http://www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx)

When Hagel stepped down as head of this company to compete for the Senate, he became "...the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state ... including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican". (Source [21] (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm))

Hagel also was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee, and was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. [22]

And now this latest.....I gotta tell ya, people.....I'm havin' trouble "dumbing down" enough to simply "move on !!!!!!!!!!!!" ...........Any advice ???????

Quote:

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohio.com%2Fmld%2Fohio%2Fnews%2F11284237.htm&btnG=Search">www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/11284237.htm</a>

<h2>Analysis points to election `corruption'</h2>

Group says chance of exit polls being so wrong in '04 vote is one-in-959,000

By Stephen Dyer

Beacon Journal staff writer
<b>
There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.</b>

Exit polls in the November election showed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., winning by 3 percent, but President George W. Bush won the vote count by 2.5 percent.

The explanation for the discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an ``implausible theory,'' according to the report issued Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.

Twelve -- including a Case Western Reserve University mathematics instructor -- signed the report.

Instead, the data support the idea that ``corruption of the vote count occurred more freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush strongholds.''

The report dismisses chance and inaccurate exit polling as the reasons for their discrepancy with the results.

They found that the one hypothesis that can't be ruled out is inaccurate election results.

``The hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded or counted... needs further investigation,'' it said.

The conclusion drew a yawn from Ohio election officials, who repeated that the discrepancy issue was settled when the polling firms Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International disavowed its polls because Kerry voters were more likely to answer exit polls -- the theory Thursday's report deemed ``implausible.''

Ohio has been at the center of a voter disenfranchisement debate since the election.

``What are you going to do except laugh at it?'' said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who's responsible for administering Ohio's elections and is a Republican candidate for governor. ``We're not particularly interested in (the report's findings). We wish them luck, but hope they find something more interesting to do.''

The statistical analysis, though, shows that the discrepancy between polls and results was especially high in precincts that voted for Bush -- as high as a 10 percent difference.

The report says if the official explanation -- that Bush voters were more shy about filling out exit polls in precincts with more Kerry voters -- is true, then the precincts with large Bush votes should be more accurate, not less accurate as the data indicate.

The report also called into question new voting machine technologies.

``All voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party, (which) certainly warrants further inquiry,'' the report concludes.

However, LoParo remained unimpressed.

``These (Bush) voters have been much maligned by outside political forces who didn't like the way they voted,'' he said. ``The weather's turning nice. There are more interesting things to do than beat a dead horse.'

roachboy · 04-01-2005, 03:03 PM

like i said elsewhere, the road to authoritarian rules is prepared socially, through small concessions--terminology here, consent there--when the big ones come, they may not even register as concessions.

what is interesting is the level of organized pressure the right was able to bring to bear as the ohio farce--the problems with which were obvious to anyone who looked--rather the appearance of porblems were obvious to anyone who looked---was unfolding.

rather than something on the order of in the interest of democratic process, such as it is, we should look into the problems/appearances of problems. none of that. instead it was:
move on
sore losers
concede.
capitulate
it's easy. we did it.
we dont even remember when.

Manx · 04-01-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

`The weather's turning nice. There are more interesting things to do than beat a dead horse.'

What are you doing thinking about political corruption? It's springtime!

Says the politician as he skips through the meadow.

Coppertop · 04-01-2005, 03:09 PM

As Terry Prachett would say: things that have a one-in-a-million chance of happening tend to occur nine times out of ten.

And yes, it is the slow erosion of our civil liberties that we need to be most on guard against. Too many people are politically apathetic to affect change it would seem...

Where are today's Woodwards and Bernsteins?

liquidlight · 04-01-2005, 03:29 PM

I'm not saying that the report isn't correct on some level, and I tend to stay out of this kind of politics to avoid ruining my shoes, but I still think that the old addage holds true:

There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

Life happens, and people aren't numbers, if they were we wouldn't have elections in the first place because there would be no need for government due to the lack of dissent.

daswig · 04-01-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I'm havin' trouble "dumbing down" enough to simply "move on !!!!!!!!!!!!" ...........Any advice ???????

Yup, don't do anything stupid that would result in your meeting somebody like me. It saddens me when I meet professionally some kid who has managed to fuck up his or her life in record time upon turning 18...they don't seem to realize that a criminal record will follow them FOREVER. And it will....

shakran · 04-01-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Yup, don't do anything stupid that would result in your meeting somebody like me. It saddens me when I meet professionally some kid who has managed to fuck up his or her life in record time upon turning 18...they don't seem to realize that a criminal record will follow them FOREVER. And it will....

What the hell are you talking about? It's not illegal to have a position against the president. Bush might like it to be, but even he hasn't managed to take that right away from us.

daswig · 04-01-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

What the hell are you talking about? It's not illegal to have a position against the president. Bush might like it to be, but even he hasn't managed to take that right away from us.

"taking to the streets" implies at least to me some form of breaking of the law.

shakran · 04-01-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

"taking to the streets" implies at least to me some form of breaking of the law.

It is not illegal to protest. That's what taking (it) to the streets means.

hartler · 04-01-2005, 10:14 PM

I'm havin' trouble "dumbing down" enough to simply "move on !!!!!!!!!!!!" ...........Any advice ???????

one more exclamation point, and one more question mark....yup, that would'a done it.

host · 04-01-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Yup, don't do anything stupid that would result in your meeting somebody like me. It saddens me when I meet professionally some kid who has managed to fuck up his or her life in record time upon turning 18...they don't seem to realize that a criminal record will follow them FOREVER. And it will....

I believe you are voicing sincere concern, daswig......but it is misplaced for at least two reasons:

1.)It is too late for me to "fuck up my life in record time". I am past 50 years of age and my big moment of protest happened 35 years ago when I refused to register for the draft. I was never issued a draft card. I waited seven years until Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon to get my life back.

Right after 9/11 Ari Fleischer warned all of us to "watch what we say". Is that
the kind of country you want for your child to live in? What is more important than freely exercising my right to speak in protest of possible widespread election fraud in close presidential balloting?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html</a>
...........Q As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not discussed it with the President, one. I have --

Q Surely, as a --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there.

Q Surely as Commander, he was enraged at that, wasn't he?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there, Les.

Q Okay.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans <b>that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. </b>

Sorry......Ari......you're wrong, and it is always the right time to publicly label your remarks as un-American, outrageous, and you disgraced yourself !

2.)I wish that you were not so apparently entrenched in a belief system that prohibits you from reacting more like Colin Powell and the patriotic citizens of Ukraine did when they reviewed uncannily similar reports about discrepancies between reported polling results and independent exit polls.

daswig, is there any line to official corruption and hypocrisy that you will not cross? Have you ever given any thought as to your own high limit?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10212-2004Nov24.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10212-2004Nov24.html</a>

U.S. Rejects Tally, Warns Ukraine

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 25, 2004; Page A36

The United States yesterday rejected the announced results of Ukraine's disputed presidential election and warned the government of the former Soviet republic to uphold democracy or face consequences in its relationships with the United States and Europe.

In a news briefing at the State Department, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a sharp rebuke to the Ukrainian authorities who yesterday declared Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych the winner of a runoff election Sunday that Ukrainian protesters and foreign observers said was marred by fraud.

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," Powell said.
<h3>
His comments came shortly after Ukraine's Central Election Commission announced that Yanukovych, whose candidacy was backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, won the runoff with 49.46 percent of the vote, defeating pro-Western opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko, who was said to have received 46.61 percent. Exit polls on election day had put Yushchenko well ahead, and U.S. and European observers said there were widespread irregularities.

Powell's remarks were more forceful than those the administration made Tuesday when President Bush issued a statement saying the United States was "deeply disturbed" by "indications of fraud" in the elections.</h3>

Yesterday, Powell called for "a full review of the conduct of the election" and tallying of results. "It is time for Ukrainian leaders to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not, whether they respect the will of the people or not.

"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly, there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration, and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud," he said.

Powell said he has discussed the situation with Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine's outgoing president and a Kremlin ally who backed Yanukovych, and with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, among other officials. In his conversation with Lavrov, Powell said, "I underscored our strong support for a fair investigation of the election and the absolute importance that no violence is used against the Ukrainian people."

Powell said the United States and Russia want to find a solution to the problem based on legal procedures.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11676%257E2556219,00.html">http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11676%257E2556219,00.html</a>

.....Outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, who backed the prime minister in the race, said "the authorities control the situation in Ukraine and will not allow a force scenario in spite of any pressure, internal or external," according to the Interfax news agency.

Kuchma accused Yushchenko supporters of trying to "carry out ... a plan of a coup d'etat." He called "on all political forces to negotiate immediately," and on the international community to "refrain from interference in Ukraine's affairs." <b>But pro-Yushchenko lawmaker Petro Poroshenko accused the election commission of carrying out a coup d'etat. "Now the streets will speak. Now the people will speak," he said.</b>

daswig · 04-02-2005, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

1.)It is too late for me to "fuck up my life in record time". I am past 50 years of age and my big moment of protest happened 35 years ago when I refused to register for the draft. I was never issued a draft card. I waited seven years until Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon to get my life back.

Right after 9/11 Ari Fleischer warned all of us to "watch what we say". Is that
the kind of country you want for your child to live in? What is more important than freely exercising my right to speak in protest of possible widespread election fraud in close presidential balloting?

You also have a "right to say" when and where US troops are being deployed on an operational level. That doesn't mean you should, or that you will not be prosecuted for it. you have a "right to say" "We support our troops when they shoot their officers". That doesn't mean you should, or that you will not be prosecuted for it.

I'd hate to think of you spending your "golden years" in a PMITA prison...

Quote:

daswig, is there any line to official corruption and hypocrisy that you will not cross? Have you ever given any thought as to your own high limit?

Sorry, I lived through the Clinton Administration, and didn't reach my limit. Comparatively, Bush 43 is an amateur in the hypocracy and corruption department. Oddly enough, the Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with it then, just as they never had a problem with Robert "KKK" Byrd or Teddy "what'd I forget? Oh, the girl!" Kennedy or Barney "I live with a gay escort service in my basement" Franks

daswig · 04-02-2005, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

It is not illegal to protest. That's what taking (it) to the streets means.

Depending on the nature of the protest, it may well be illegal to protest. It's called "Incitement to riot". Remember Portland? "Less than lethal" munitions are a wonderful thing.

shakran · 04-02-2005, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Sorry, I lived through the Clinton Administration, and didn't reach my limit. Comparatively, Bush 43 is an amateur in the hypocracy and corruption department. Oddly enough, the Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with it then, just as they never had a problem with Robert "KKK" Byrd or Teddy "what'd I forget? Oh, the girl!" Kennedy or Barney "I live with a gay escort service in my basement" Franks

Yes, thank heavens that evil man is gone. Lying to the country in order to start a war against a country that hasn't done anything to us is definitely so much better than getting oral sex.

/sarcasm

Daswig, it is not illegal to protest. A corrupt regime such as the one we have now may try and MAKE it a crime, but the constitution doesn't back them up.

NCB · 04-02-2005, 04:53 AM

When will the Dems cease blaming the ignorant red state voters, the courts, Diebold, the Christian Right, and all the other usual suspects, and begin blaming themselves for the shitty candidates that they nominate?

Honestly, I hope y'all still refight the last election, just like you refought the 2000 election for four years. It will continue to solidify the Dems rightful place in the minority. So please, keep talking about the bigotry of the Christian Right, keep insulting red staters by claiming that they are on the blue state dole, keep talking about how Diebold stole the election and undermined the greatest democratic experiment this world has seen. Because people are watching, and outside of y'all little liberal enclaves, they're not thrilled with what you're saying.

Keep it up, and TIA

Bodyhammer86 · 04-02-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shakran

Lying to the country in order to start a war against a country that hasn't done anything to us is definitely so much better than getting oral sex.

I know this a bit OT but actually, Clinton intervened in Kosovo, Serbia, and Somalia, with him going against the UN to take action in Kosovo. What threats did those three countries pose to us?

Manx · 04-02-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I know this a bit OT but actually, Clinton intervened in Kosovo, Serbia, and Somalia, with him going against the UN to take action in Kosovo. What threats did those three countries pose to us?

The level of intervention of those situations vs. the Iraq War is rather insignificant.

I agree it is off topic and I don't intend to get into a discussion of those events.

Besides, we're supposed to move-on from Clinton. He's an EX president now, so technically we should only remember his greatness and whitewash anything that could be considered displeasureable to consider.

Bush is still President and we're still in Iraq. We can't whitewash him yet.

It's also another amazingly beautiful day here in Colorado, so really, why are we even having this discussion?

Manx · 04-02-2005, 11:20 AM

daswig -

What are you doing? Do you seriously intend to connect protestation with illegal action? Certainly there are illegal acts - even ones that do not involve protestation. But NOTHING in host's statement connotated anything even approaching illegality.

You have now made 4 posts, some of which included a direct warning of violence, in opposition to PROTEST.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with such a mentality?

And let's follow through with you assumption that host is advocating illegal action. What do you think it would be if you took up your guns in opposition to the gov't? That is the primary reason you have argued we need to have access to guns, yes? It would be ILLEGAL for you to oppose the gov't with your weapons. So is it only you who gets to decide when the illegality of an action becomes irrelevent in the face of just cause? Nonsense!

Ilow · 04-02-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

daswig -

What are you doing? Do you seriously intend to connect protestation with illegal action? Certainly there are illegal acts - even ones that do not involve protestation. But NOTHING in host's statement connotated anything even approaching illegality.

You have now made 4 posts, some of which included a direct warning of violence, in opposition to PROTEST.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with such a mentality?

Nonsense!

Yup, don't do anything stupid that would result in your meeting somebody like me. they don't seem to realize that a criminal record will follow them FOREVER. And it will....

Depending on the nature of the protest, it may well be illegal to protest. It's called "Incitement to riot". Remember Portland? "Less than lethal" munitions are a wonderful thing.

I am glad to see that i am not the only one that finds Daswig's tone threatening and hotheaded. It is this shoot first, ask questions later mentality that prevents us from actualizing our potential as a species. In the current political climate i can't think of any reason for it.

Willravel · 04-02-2005, 03:39 PM

I'm still never sure when daswig is kidding or not. He's got a dark sense of humor, but he also has a bit of an extreemist streak. The line is blurred, daswig. It might be nice to clear it up every once in a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

don't do anything stupid that would result in your meeting somebody like me.

Are you speaking of your profession, or of your love of guns? It's hard to tell sometimes.

liquidlight · 04-02-2005, 04:13 PM

Isn't democracy wonderful? We get to have these wonderful discussions that make my completely reactionary and then I've got to fill in post space that I shouldn't have used - editted to remove me being an ass.

almostaugust · 04-02-2005, 04:33 PM

(off topic) Speaking of taking to the steets, i recently saw footage of the protest of the Bush inauguration where everyone was turning thier back on the president. They showed these plain clothes cops, pretending to be protestors, walking through the demonstration and just randomly maseing people in the face as they walked by. WTF? Talk about erosion of civil liberities.

daswig · 04-02-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Are you speaking of your profession, or of your love of guns? It's hard to tell sometimes.

I'm speaking of my profession, as in "don't do something that will bring you into negative contact with a person with my job description".

Willravel · 04-02-2005, 05:14 PM

Gotcha. Just making sure. Takign to the streets can also mean look for a job. I think the way host intended it was to take some kind of reasonable action. I don't think he meant go break the law.

daswig · 04-02-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Do you seriously intend to connect protestation with illegal action? Certainly there are illegal acts - even ones that do not involve protestation. But NOTHING in host's statement connotated anything even approaching illegality.

You have now made 4 posts, some of which included a direct warning of violence, in opposition to PROTEST.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with such a mentality?

And let's follow through with you assumption that host is advocating illegal action. What do you think it would be if you took up your guns in opposition to the gov't? That is the primary reason you have argued we need to have access to guns, yes? It would be ILLEGAL for you to oppose the gov't with your weapons. So is it only you who gets to decide when the illegality of an action becomes irrelevent in the face of just cause? Nonsense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

1.)It is too late for me to "fuck up my life in record time". I am past 50 years of age and my big moment of protest happened 35 years ago when I refused to register for the draft. I was never issued a draft card. I waited seven years until Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon to get my life back.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Host state that as a form of protest, he broke the law by refusing to register for the draft and had to be pardoned by Carter? Did he end up in a PMITA prison? Nope. But now he's talking about "protesting" again. It's no longer the 1960's, and that kind of conduct is taken MUCH more seriously now.

As for my opposing the Government, would you care to wager on who cuts my check every month? I'm no longer legally a member of the U.S militia spoken of in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, because I'm a member of an exempt class due to my job description. That doesn't mean that the reasons for the militia have changed.

daswig · 04-02-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Gotcha. Just making sure. Takign to the streets can also mean look for a job. I think the way host intended it was to take some kind of reasonable action. I don't think he meant go break the law.

It can also mean "Man the barricades", as in conjunction with a "Red Terror". He's already admitted to criminal activity and having to be pardoned by Carter for it as a form of "protest". Given that, I don't think it's even remotely unreasonable to question the legality of his future "protests".

tecoyah · 04-02-2005, 05:27 PM

Lets Try to keep this from getting any more personal than it already has....please

Manx · 04-02-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Host state that as a form of protest, he broke the law by refusing to register for the draft and had to be pardoned by Carter?

You are not wrong. However, considering host informed us of that protestation AFTER you had already made two posts warning him about illegal activities, I fail to see the relevance. Add onto that the hardly shocking, significant or severe form of illegal activity that host later described, I fail to see any retroactive relevance for your warning of violence or significant long-term detrimental affects.

So my point remains: What do you think you are doing? You have warned and threatened someone who suggests making a protest.

Quote:

As for my opposing the Government, would you care to wager on who cuts my check every month? I'm no longer legally a member of the U.S militia spoken of in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, because I'm a member of an exempt class due to my job description. That doesn't mean that the reasons for the militia have changed.

I have absolutely no idea what you do - nor do I care. Nor does your job have anything to do with what I pointed out: that one of your main purposes for supporting the right to own guns is for protection from gov't. In other words, illegal activity. You want guns to provide you a means of protesting gov't to the degree of illegal activity - but in this thread you jump at someone who suggests simple protestation. And now you try to present not registering for the draft as some type of "serious" crime while apparently approving of the notion of taking up arms against the government.

daswig · 04-02-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

You are not wrong. However, considering host informed us of that protestation AFTER you had already made two posts warning him about illegal activities, I fail to see the relevance. Add onto that the hardly shocking, significant or severe form of illegal activity that host later described, I fail to see any retroactive relevance for your warning of violence or significant long-term detrimental affects.

The language Host used sounded to me like he was preparing to possibly commit criminal activity in the form of "taking to the streets". Based upon that, I warned him of the repercussions of committing a criminal act as a protest. Host then informed us that he did in fact in the past, as an act of protest, commit a crime and was eventually pardoned by Jimmy Carter. This validates my interpretation of what he said, because he admits to committing a crime in the past as a protest. As the saying goes: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Warning him of the possible legal repercussions of an illegal act (getting shot with rubber bullets as happened in Portland or going to jail) doesn't strike me as a threat...it strikes me as a warning not to break the law because of the repercussions of his actions.

If somebody says "I'm thinking about starting to deal in crack cocaine", and somebody else says "that's illegal, and PWID carries a sentence of X", has the person threatened the wannabe crack dealer? In my book, no. On the other hand, if somebody sees that and says "dealing crack cocaine is legal and high-profit, and you should do it!" the person saying that may do well to read up on the legal definitions of "conspiracy" and "accessory before the fact".

Willravel · 04-02-2005, 08:38 PM

NOW THAT WE HAVE CLEARED IT UP....Should we move on and forget about all this, or should we take an active, legal role in trying to keep America a democratic state?

Manx · 04-02-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

This validates my interpretation of what he said

Not even close.

host · 04-03-2005, 12:02 AM

The title of this thread was inspired by these words, at the bottom of the last qutoe box, in my last post:

Quote:

pro-Yushchenko lawmaker Petro Poroshenko accused the election commission of carrying out a coup d'etat. "Now the streets will speak. Now the people will speak," he said.

The last time that I was was faced with the perception that my government
was engaged in a massive and criminal course of deception, crimes against the constitution, and in the planning and ordering of war crimes at the level of the federal executive branch, I was much younger and more idealistic, and I faced a deadline to decide whether to voluntarily make myself available to
the government as a complying candidate for participation in the war.
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/</a> is the link to information about the movie, the Fog of War, an excellent film in the way it examines Robert Macnamara's views of the morality of war. He was the secretary of defense who was most responsible officials in the decision making and in the prosecution of the Vietnam war.

The bottom line is that in response to what I perceived to be signifigant crimes committed by the U.S. government, I refused to participate, and I lived an "underground" life for over seven years to avoid arrest and prosecution of a felony punishable by 5 years in federal prison. Hindsight has demonstrated that I probably made the correct moral choice; I had to live with myself then, as I do now. The war was wrong, Nixon was a criminal president on many fronts, as was his atty general John Mitchell, and Nixon's two top assistants, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman, all three convicted of felonies and served time in federal prison. NS Advisor and later Sec'ty of State Henry Kissinger is to this day regarded as a war criminal, unable to be accepted as Bush's appointment as chair of the 9/11 commission.

I intended this thread to evolve into a discussion of when is "enough is enough"? Do we wait until a third presidential election is stolen? Were the last two elections stolen?

daswig seems to be throwing his "weight" around, here. Judge for yourself whether he is communicating a friendly warning because he "knows what he knows" about "big brother's" possible reaction to a discussion like this, because of his position as an "insider" in a state dept. of justice.

Anyway.......whatever his intent, he has achieved the effect of influencing me to "watch what I say", and I think that you know how I feel about that.

Post your thoughts if you think that my disclosed background disqualifies me from initiating a discussion about when the right time might be to decide whether the federal executive branch "fixed" it's election, and if it did, what the average citizen should do in response. Shouldn't the Bush administration be held to the same standard that it held the Ukranians to, last December? Should we demand nothing less than the type of investigation that Powell demanded of the Ukraine, and if the Bush administration refuses, then what?

The challenge is the same one that the founding fathers faced. Now seems to be the time for massive, non-violent protests that demand a transparent, non-partisan investigation of last november's vote in Ohio and in Florida, as a start. Protests in the form of hunger strikes, boycotts of products and services of corporations that signifigantly supported Bush Cheney 2004, and a
media campaign to advertise the inconsistancy of the Bush admin. response to exit poll disparity in the Ukraine, vs. the non-response to the same phenomena in the U.S.

Our founding fathers intended government to be always intimidated by the citizenry, not as daswig seems to project, the other way around.

It seems to me that we must have this discussion to be credible, responsible, measured, patriots.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/dec99/dec99b.html">http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/dec99/dec99b.html</a>
Kant vs. Locke on the Right to Rebel
by Daniel O'Connor

In his essay "Theory and Practice," Immanuel Kant argues that citizens must always obey their government and consequently never rebel against it. He defends this absolute prohibition by claiming that rebellion would violate requirements of duty and morality, 1 which theoretically permit only a government to interpret the moral will of a society and obligate citizens to act according only to a priori reason. Despite Kant's objections, Locke's principles of rebellion not only conform to the Kantian categorical imperative and support the right of a collective to determine and execute rebellion for itself, but also demonstrate paradoxes that in general trouble Kantian political theory..............................

...........Consequently, the only legitimate government in a Kantian sense is a government that adheres to and implements the collective moral will. As I have just shown, when a government attempts to destroy the moral will, denies its citizens the ability to create the moral will, or neglects the moral will (thus preventing the moral will from actualizing itself), the government violates the categorical imperative. Therefore, the categorical imperative universalizes the notion that these forms of government are illegitimate. When a government violates the categorical imperative, the government "dissolves" its legitimate claim to govern. 26 As Locke rightly points out, such an illegitimate government is the true rebel force, since it imposes its own will upon the collective, rather than merely implementing the collective moral will, thus "rebelling" against its duty to enforce the collective moral will. 27

Consequently, Kantian citizens have an obligation to restore legitimate rule not only because legitimate rule alone conforms to the categorical imperative, but also because they have a duty to the collective to protect and uphold the moral will. Moreover, if the collective wills the government in the first place, then the collective should have the ability to will another government when the first government fails to uphold the collective's values.

Consequently, there are also many responses to Kant's argument that rebellion requires immoral actions in order to accomplish its purposes. Most importantly, Locke responds with the idea of supreme necessity: in extreme circumstances, a citizen must protect one's own life and the lives of one's fellow citizens. Violence to reinstate a moral government would be a lesser evil than permitting an evil government to reign. A tyranny 28 that destroys the moral innocence of the collective that it is supposed to represent causes far greater, more insidious and more irreparable evils than does the violence that attempts to remedy i

Seaver · 04-03-2005, 12:53 AM

Excuse me for being sceptical. But because one man shows through statistics (without showing math) that the election was stolen we should throw him out?

The simple truth is election polling can never be shown as reliable because A) it's voluntary, B) it's not blind (I.E. the pollers "randomly" decide who to ask), and C) the ranges from community to community varies so much you cant just hit 3 in a city and claim that's how they voted.

Sure you can look into it, but polling will NEVER hold grounds for any type of recount/lawsuite.

daswig · 04-03-2005, 02:33 AM

Feh. On edit: Why bother?

moosenose · 04-03-2005, 02:36 PM

So let me see if I've got this right...there's a guy who says he committed a felony, and then spent seven years living as a fugitive from justice, who thinks he did the right thing, and is encouraging others to do the same. Then there's another guy who says "breaking the law is bad", so he's the bad guy here. Does that about sum it up?

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-03-2005, 02:48 PM

What are these war crimes that Bush has done?

Tophat665 · 04-03-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

When will the Dems cease blaming the ignorant red state voters, the courts, Diebold, the Christian Right, and all the other usual suspects, and begin blaming themselves for the shitty candidates that they nominate?

Rest Assured, I blame us for the shitty candidate we put forward. A corpse should have been able to beat Bush in the last election. That it was even close I blame Kerry and the "liberal" media's circus over Dean's enthusiastic holler for. However, close does not mean lost, and they are saying what I pretty much thought about the exit polls all along. If the people who cared about the constitution were half as committed as those who only seem to care about the bible, we would have ourselves a Ukraine situation here.

Don't think it will happen now, but you never know. Be interesting to watch for.

Bill O'Rights · 04-04-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

...the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Class 2
John M. Thayer (R) 1867-1871
Phineas W. Hitchcock (R) 1871-1877
Alvin Saunders (R) 1877-1883
Charles F. Manderson (R) 1883-1895
John M. Thurston (R) 1895-1901
Joseph H. Millard (R) 1901-1907
Norris Brown (R) 1907-1913
George W. Norris (R,I) 1913-1943
Kenneth S. Wherry (R) 1943-1951
Frederick A. Seaton (R) 1951-1952
Dwight P. Griswold (R) 1952-1954
Eva K. Bowring (R) 1954-1954
Hazel H. Abel (R) 1954-1954
Carl T. Curtis (R) 1955-1979
J. J. Exon (D) 1979-1997
Chuck Hagel (R) 1997---

Yep, the unlikely Hagel took the senate seat back for the Repuplicans from the only Democrat to have held it for 130 years. I love figures, and the way they can be twisted. Them's a whole lotta "R"s, I don't give a damn how you try to paint it. Nebraska loves Republicans. Hagel is a Republican. What's so unlikely about that?

Lebell · 04-04-2005, 10:59 AM

Nebraska is in the conservative heartland.

Republicans tend to do well there.

04-01-2005, 03:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	like i said elsewhere, the road to authoritarian rules is prepared socially, through small concessions--terminology here, consent there--when the big ones come, they may not even register as concessions. what is interesting is the level of organized pressure the right was able to bring to bear as the ohio farce--the problems with which were obvious to anyone who looked--rather the appearance of porblems were obvious to anyone who looked---was unfolding. rather than something on the order of in the interest of democratic process, such as it is, we should look into the problems/appearances of problems. none of that. instead it was: move on sore losers concede. capitulate it's easy. we did it. we dont even remember when. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-01-2005 at 03:06 PM..

04-01-2005, 03:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	I'm not saying that the report isn't correct on some level, and I tend to stay out of this kind of politics to avoid ruining my shoes, but I still think that the old addage holds true: There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics. Life happens, and people aren't numbers, if they were we wouldn't have elections in the first place because there would be no need for government due to the lack of dissent. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

04-02-2005, 04:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	Isn't democracy wonderful? We get to have these wonderful discussions that make my completely reactionary and then I've got to fill in post space that I shouldn't have used - editted to remove me being an ass. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed. Last edited by liquidlight; 04-02-2005 at 04:17 PM..

04-02-2005, 04:33 PM	#22 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	(off topic) Speaking of taking to the steets, i recently saw footage of the protest of the Bush inauguration where everyone was turning thier back on the president. They showed these plain clothes cops, pretending to be protestors, walking through the demonstration and just randomly maseing people in the face as they walked by. WTF? Talk about erosion of civil liberities. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

04-02-2005, 05:27 PM	#27 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Lets Try to keep this from getting any more personal than it already has....please __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

04-01-2005, 03:09 PM	#4 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	As Terry Prachett would say: things that have a one-in-a-million chance of happening tend to occur nine times out of ten. And yes, it is the slow erosion of our civil liberties that we need to be most on guard against. Too many people are politically apathetic to affect change it would seem... Where are today's Woodwards and Bernsteins?

04-01-2005, 10:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
hartler Upright	I'm havin' trouble "dumbing down" enough to simply "move on !!!!!!!!!!!!" ...........Any advice ??????? one more exclamation point, and one more question mark....yup, that would'a done it.

04-02-2005, 11:20 AM	#18 (permalink)
Manx Loser	daswig - What are you doing? Do you seriously intend to connect protestation with illegal action? Certainly there are illegal acts - even ones that do not involve protestation. But NOTHING in host's statement connotated anything even approaching illegality. You have now made 4 posts, some of which included a direct warning of violence, in opposition to PROTEST. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with such a mentality? And let's follow through with you assumption that host is advocating illegal action. What do you think it would be if you took up your guns in opposition to the gov't? That is the primary reason you have argued we need to have access to guns, yes? It would be ILLEGAL for you to oppose the gov't with your weapons. So is it only you who gets to decide when the illegality of an action becomes irrelevent in the face of just cause? Nonsense!

04-02-2005, 05:14 PM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Gotcha. Just making sure. Takign to the streets can also mean look for a job. I think the way host intended it was to take some kind of reasonable action. I don't think he meant go break the law.

04-02-2005, 08:38 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	NOW THAT WE HAVE CLEARED IT UP....Should we move on and forget about all this, or should we take an active, legal role in trying to keep America a democratic state?

04-03-2005, 12:53 AM	#33 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Excuse me for being sceptical. But because one man shows through statistics (without showing math) that the election was stolen we should throw him out? The simple truth is election polling can never be shown as reliable because A) it's voluntary, B) it's not blind (I.E. the pollers "randomly" decide who to ask), and C) the ranges from community to community varies so much you cant just hit 3 in a city and claim that's how they voted. Sure you can look into it, but polling will NEVER hold grounds for any type of recount/lawsuite.

04-03-2005, 02:33 AM	#34 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Feh. On edit: Why bother? Last edited by daswig; 04-03-2005 at 02:53 AM..

04-03-2005, 02:36 PM	#35 (permalink)
moosenose Banned	So let me see if I've got this right...there's a guy who says he committed a felony, and then spent seven years living as a fugitive from justice, who thinks he did the right thing, and is encouraging others to do the same. Then there's another guy who says "breaking the law is bad", so he's the bad guy here. Does that about sum it up?

04-03-2005, 02:48 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What are these war crimes that Bush has done? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-04-2005, 10:59 AM	#39 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Nebraska is in the conservative heartland. Republicans tend to do well there. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!