|
| T O P I C | |
|
Just sit and read... Quietly.
December 8th 2000, 10:59 CET by Andy Man sues porn site after wanking too hard... Well no, not really, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. For now, though, we'll have to make do with a touch of American legal culture arriving in Britain's schools. According to a report in the Times Educational Supplement, primary schools are banning traditional playground games due to fears of being sued. The games being banned include conkers (now classed as "offensive weapons"), rounders, British bulldog, three-legged races and skipping (because girls may fall over and hurt themselves). Bizarrely, football is also set to be banned, having been deemed "anti-social". A survey found that 57% of parents would seek compensation if their child was injured at school. One headmaster quoted in the report said he would prefer to "ban all playtimes, as they are a nightmare". The report's author, a University researcher who studied the breaktime activities of 1,000 children, concluded that playgrounds are becoming "barren, sterile and unimaginative". Hopefully we'll soon be back to the days when kids have nothing better to do than bully each other, get into fights and talk to the guy at the gate handing out free cigarettes. Much healthier than football. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Trial Lawyers are destroying the world as we know it. Soon we will all live how Terry Gilliam showed us in the film Brazil. |
|
[11] Andy wrote: Angelina Jolie is playing Lara. Who? Or in other words. I ain't going to see it. |
|
Angelina Jolie is a GOOD reason to see it! |
|
Come on, Andy. She's not that good looking. I'd go as far as to say that she can be pretty darn ugly. Acting talent aside, of course. (And I'm not quite so sure about that, either, but she did win an oscar. Of course, so did Marissa Tomei...) But don't try to bring that up. You're the one who linked to a photo gallery ;) She's certainly not attractive enough to be the reason I go to a movie. Not by a long shot. |
|
God help us, what the hell is happening to kids today. I remember playing football (so you brits don't get confused that american football), in the middle of a incy streat. I can't count the number of bloody noses I had as a kid caused by every thing from ramming a bike into a park car, dodge ball, and even simply running. The only reason to see a doctor for any of this was if you had broken something (which supprisingly I never managed to do), any thing else would have got me a smack on the head and some verbal abuse about being a wimp from my parents. Angelina Jole is deffenitly not a reason to see the tomb raider movie (if she ends up looking even half as dumb as those computer generated shots it's time for a boycot). |
|
To get a bit better perspective on the whoel tomb raider moving this take a look at this http://www.tombraidermovie.com/downloads/index.html Looks fairly stupid to me still. |
|
asspennies (#15): Come on, Andy. She's not that good looking. I'd go as far as to say that she can be pretty darn ugly. Acting talent aside, of course. (And I'm not quite so sure about that, either, but she did win an oscar. Of course, so did Marissa Tomei...) But don't try to bring that up. You're the one who linked to a photo gallery ;) She's certainly not attractive enough to be the reason I go to a movie. Not by a long shot. Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only male in existence who doesn't get anything out of Angelina Jolie ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com) |
|
WarrenMarshall (#18): Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only male in existence who doesn't get anything out of Angelina Jolie ... Don't be silly Warren.... their are lots of gay men in the world. sorry but someone had to make that joke =) |
|
Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only male in existence who doesn't get anything out of Angelina Jolie ... Who? |
|
<quote>Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only male in existence who doesn't get anything out of Angelina Jolie ... </quote> Funny, I was under the impression that her brother was the only person who got anything out of her.... ;) |
|
Re: [6] AshRain Damned straight. In the course of my school years, I have suffered a snapped collarbone, two sprained ankles (and I mean black & blue, folks), a broken finger, and a nose so broken that by 17 the damned thing stopped trying to heal, and now just sits complacently on its little flesh hinge. This uber-protective attitude amongst parents is just another symptom of a society that has forgotten that <B>life is tough</B>, and you either learn to deal with it, or die. Nobody is ever going to succeed at making life truly less hard than it is. As my grandma says often enough: "The problem with kids today is that too many of them have forgotten how to settle scores with their fists." Re: [9] JamSandwich Exactly. I got thrown out of school for the remainder of a semester for getting in a pretty bad fight with a kid while I had a knife IN MY POCKET. I didn't pull it, didn't stab anyone, and didn't plan to, but since it was in my pocket, I got in some serious shite. Imagine how many years of jail time I'd serve today for that. Re: [18] WarrenMarshall I'm undecided. She's fuckable sometimes, others she doesn't float my boat. In the movie Girl Interrupted (wife dragged me to it) she was a crotch-throbber. But in Hackers.... ugh. |
|
[#15] asspennies, Come on, Andy. She's not that good looking. I'd go as far as to say that she can be pretty darn ugly. You're right, she's not that good looking, but considering her genetic makeup is shared with John Voight, I'd say she turned out pretty well. |
|
Come on, Andy. She's not that good looking. I'd go as far as to say that she can be pretty darn ugly. And, you know what? Throughout the majority of Hackers she does and interesting trick with make-up that gives the distinct impression that she'd been hit in the face. Ten times. By a train. Battered Chic didn't do quite so well on the catwalks, I hear. "Pretty lady? You use ze make-up gun?" |
|
deadcoil (#22): I'm undecided. She's fuckable sometimes, others she doesn't float my boat. In the movie Girl Interrupted (wife dragged me to it) she was a crotch-throbber. But in Hackers.... ugh. Well, in hackers, what was she? 15? :) HACK THE PLANET!! --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com) |
|
Which reminds me, I REALLY need to spray-pain my keyboard camoflage... |
|
#21 - ChrisJohnson Funny, I was under the impression that her brother was the only person who got anything out of her.... ;) BWAhahaha. I thought I was the only one who noticed her, shall we say, "special" fraternal relationship. Normally, when I kiss MY sister, I don't plumb her stomach with my tongue like the Jolies. :P |
|
Umm, to get back to the ACTUAL subject here, : NOW CAN YOU SEE WHAT YOU AMERICANS ARE DOING TO THE WORLD? Damn, this whole place is getting fucked up. Could it be possible to COUNTER-SUE those screwballs for screwing up society, doing harm to kids (play is elementary while groing up) and making them VERY susceptible to diseases by keeping them away from bacteria and stuff all the time? BTW Angelina Jolie is...alright. She's not all that, but she's okay. Lucy Liu on the other hand... DAMN I think I'm getting a subscription to Charlie's Angels! She was the hottest in Payback (MEL! DON'T FUCKIN' SHOOT HER, YOU HEAR ME! DON'T YOU DARE SHOOT HER! (pulls the trigger...*click*...PHEW!) BTW so go see it! |
|
Well, in hackers, what was she? 15? :) And? |
|
Besides, she was 20 in Hackers. Didn't look good in it but was 20. You need to get Matthias and I to teach you a few things. ;) |
|
CharlieWiederhold (#30): Besides, she was 20 in Hackers. Didn't look good in it but was 20. You need to get Matthias and I to teach you a few things. ;) No, I know she wasn't 15. :) I was trying to exaggerate the point. :P I don't even want to THINK about talking to you and Matt about women. Really. I mean it. Stop! :) --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com) |
|
I thought she looke good in Hackers. *shrug* --jmc ~shock is all in your head~ |
|
She's a dog, the TR script will be crap so the movie will bomb big time. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
More for Matt and I! wh00 h00! Well me at least. Matt has to get up the guts to go talk to them. ;) Charlie Wiederhold |
|
toadwarrior (#33): She's a dog, the TR script will be crap so the movie will bomb big time. Isn't that mutually exclusive? - Morn <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b><u>AshRain</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#6</b>, babbled the following: <quote>I assume this involves SERIOUS(permanent affect) injuries. Like becoming handicapped in some way. I don't consider breaking a leg or something like that a serious injury.</quote> Maybe for now, but I can guarantee you that what is going to constitute harm is going to be downgraded until you can sue for hangnails received while sitting on a park bench. All it will take ins stupid parents and a lawyer in search of a paycheck, and it won't take long. <quote>Whe hell do kids need to be 'protected' so much nowadays? It wasn't like that 30+ years ago. And did the people who where kids then turned out horribly wrong? Because <b><i>"I believe the children are our future, Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty the posess inside... yada yada, crap crap crap</i></b> Actually, more to the point is the fact that the Psychopathegists of the world have managed to convince anybody listening that any harm that befalls a child during those oh-so-precious formative years will turn that oh-so-precious innocent child into a crack addled, baby raping axe murderer. And nobody wants that to happen, do they? Do they??? <quote><B>Pictures of nudity:</B> This is something that is the most stupid of all. What possible reason is there against a teenage boy seeing a naked women? What is it? Please enlighten me here.</quote> See above, and realise that to some of these people naked women = harm. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
I find it funny that even our Presidential Election is being decided by lawyers. |
|
I find it funny that even our Presidential Election is being decided by lawyers. I find that VERY disturbing. |
|
hey... how about a bet? who is going to be the next prez and WHEN? Maybe they'll get it done somewhere between now and the next three millennia...?? |
|
<quote>I find that VERY disturbing. </quote> Just guessing here, but you're not American are you? ;) I mean, once you realize te fact that most governmental and legislative decisions are made by people who are under the influences of lawyers and Political Action Committees (read: lobbyists throwing money around on behalf of special interests), the rest of this doesn't really seem all THAT surprising. Nor all that worrying, to tell the truth. We had an almost EXACT copy of the current situation happen in the 1860s (I think... anyone have a date?) where people argued what should and shouldn't be counted, etc etc etc, and everything seemed to have turned out okay. (And remember: all the legal jockeying is completely allowed under the structure of the laws... it either is or isn't abuse of the laws... but in any event, it's using them to their fullest. By both parties, no matter what one party or the next would want the sheep to believe.) The more disturbing part of this for me is that ultimately, after all the laws that cover this thing are used and abused the ultimate decision will fall under the thumbs of two people. The vice president (when the vote makes it to an evenly split Senate, and he's the tie-breaker), and after him it goes to the governor of Florida... who just happens to be George Bush's brother. Whoever wins it stole it. Personally I say we revote nationwide.... but this time for people who are actually worth giving a shit about. |
|
i say switch to the Australian preferential-votes system :P |
|
<b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#40</b>, babbled the following: <quote>Whoever wins it stole it.</quote> Not true. Bush has not ever been in the position of having lost the election. He has had nothing to 'steal' because he won the election in the first place, the second place, the third place, the fourth against the law but ordered by the court anyway place. And he is most likely going to win in the fifth place, if the court has its way and the legislature steps in. Which is really what needed to happen in the first place. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#40</b>, babbled the following: <quote>We had an almost EXACT copy of the current situation happen in the 1860s (I think... anyone have a date?) where people argued what should and shouldn't be counted, etc etc etc, and everything seemed to have turned out okay. (And remember: all the legal jockeying is completely allowed under the structure of the laws... it either is or isn't abuse of the laws... but in any event, it's using them to their fullest. By both parties, no matter what one party or the next would want the sheep to believe.) </quote> It was in 1876, when Hayes was elected. And the situation was not the same, except in the sense that the political climate was the same - the country was seriously divided regarding a variety of issues, the most pressing of which was Reconstruction in the South. Brief history <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101175.html">here </a> You'll notice that the courts were not involved to the same degree. The issue was the canvassing boards in the contested states. It does not say in the article, but IIRC Hayes was not finally sworn in until well after the Jan 20th date due to the amount of time taken by the electoral commission. While legal wrangling is allowable under the law, one of the issues in Florida is "What is the law, and who has the authority here?" If you follow both the US and Florida Constitutions, that law is decided and under the authority of the Legislature. The courts have no authoriuty in the procedure of the election. The courts are involved in the cases of protested and contested elections, but the administration of that election resides with the canvassing boards under the authority of the Legislature. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<quote>because he won the election in the first place, the second place, the third place, the fourth against the law but ordered by the court anyway place. </quote> You usually make a habit of quoting highly biased sound bites in order to make a highly biased point? Just wondering. ;) Sorry, but I don't buy it. I mean if he really had won it without any sort of question, then: There wouldn't be the question of popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancies. There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. There wouldn't be the need for the Secretary of State to deny the counting officials of whichever county the extra hour and a half in order to get their balloting numbers in (which she acknowledged that she knew they would need, but refused to allow it anyways, and then simultaneously trumpeting the cause of "making sure every vote is counted"), even though the actual deadline wasn't until 9 oclock the next morning. There wouldn't be the need to question the Secretary of Sate herself. I mean can someone who is the fucking co-chair of the Bush campaign really be expected to be the slightest bit impartial? Of course not. She's a Party faithful, and played her role as such perfectly. She should have recused herself from the process immediately... if she actually had any intent to be fair to the system. There wouldn't be the need for the Bush campaign to talk about how the legal system shouldn't be brought in -- and then counter-sue every step of the way. (including an interesting turn when one of his own people admitted that manual recounts were necessary...) There wouldn't be the need for Guv'nuh Dubya to proclaim during the campaign how he trusts the states and the citizens to run things correctly -- and then argue that they can't be trusted to be able to count. There wouldn't be the need for the Governor to blast and proclaim the manual recount process as flawed and illegal -- even though he passed a law in Texas saying that in a case like this manual recounts are needed and required. Am I saying that Gore won? No. Am I saying he is without fault? Oh hell fuck no. But I know for a fucking fact that Dubya didn't come anywhere near "winning" this election. If he did, none of this would be happeneing, and he wouldn't be so damn worried as to have everything happen as it has. He's as much of a hypocrite as Gore is. He has as much right to the Presidency as Gore does. Either man wins, the air of illegitimacy will follow their admiinistrations around like so much stink on a week-old corpse. It's just a damn shame that the non-thinking Party-loving sheep are so willing to swallow the PR flap they pump out like sweet candy, rather than the bitter pill it is. |
|
On 12/11/00 at 5:49:45 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#43): <quote>There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. </quote> This really grates on me. There have been <i><b>no</b></i>, I repeat, <i><b>no</b></i> allegations of Republicans illegally filling absentee ballots. The incident you're referring to happened like this: Republicans made a mistake on postcards they send to votes for them to request absentee ballots; their printing process didn't put the line for <i>voter id</i> on the card. Some voters didn't put in their numbers, cause they didn't know they needed it. Then, the Republicans realized the problem, and filled in the voter ID on some of those cards. They are <b><i>not</i></b>, I repeat, <i><b>not</b></i> the ballots. *grr* I really wish people got these things right. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government. This is something that is the most stupid of all. What possible reason is there against a teenage boy seeing a naked women? What is it? Please enlighten me here. It's not so much naked women as naked women engaging in lewd acts with naked men/other women/inanimate objects. I wouldn't have any real concerns about my young teenage son looking at a Page 3 model (I don't actually have one, this is hypothetical), but I would be concerned about him looking at hardcore MMF hi-quality porn on the internet. deadlock |
|
Actually, I want to add that I'd be worried if a teenage boy wasn't displaying a healty interest in naked women. deadlock |
|
<quote>This really grates on me. There have been no, I repeat, no allegations of Republicans illegally filling absentee ballots. The incident you're referring to happened like this: Republicans made a mistake on postcards they send to votes for them to request absentee ballots; their printing process didn't put the line for voter id on the card. Some voters didn't put in their numbers, cause they didn't know they needed it. Then, the Republicans realized the problem, and filled in the voter ID on some of those cards. They are not, I repeat, not the ballots.</quote> Okay then. Either I understood the story wrong, or it was misreported when I heard/read/whatever about it. (or quite possibly, I've become so disinterested, I only paid attnetion partway... lord knows it's happened before) Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <b>along party lines</b> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. Which is very much similar to the "stealing" of the Illinois vote during the Kennedy electionthat is so heavily argued about to this day, especially when examined in line with the the other allegations. |
|
On 12/11/00 at 7:13:08 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#47): <quote>Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <B>along party lines</B> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. </quote> True, it was. However, consider that the Democrats had neither the problem itself (their voter ID field did not cause problems like the Republicans did) nor did they ask to do it. The Republicans asked if they could fix those cards that lacked the voter ID field, they were not contacted and offered the ability to do so. Even then, a large number were denied due to, among other things (I think), incomplete/incorrect fields. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#45</b> "deadlock" wrote... <quote>I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government. [...] deadlock</quote> There is no stalemate. The system is not broken. We will have a Presidental Elect. There will be no civil war or any other ludicris bullshit. The system we have was designed well enough to take care of this. Its in our constituition. Its amazing the amount of misinformation spread around by stupid people these days. Ever wonder why we are a repersenative democracy? Because some people are too stupid to vote thats why. The dumb and corrupt insist on spreading misinformation and bending every issue around to their benefit. I don't see how you could have paid any intention to the issue at all and think there was voter fraud. But yet we still have people insisting that the Republican were tampering with the votes (as has already been discussed). There haven't been any alegations of the sort. All you had to do was read the next sentence of the newspaper and its self evident. "Ohh but we must count the votes, those Evil Replicans" is a mantra spouted by every Democrat, <b>idiot</b> CNN can dig out of the gutters to put on thier show. People actually think that they are talking about counting "votes" as in I, a reasonable person (not mentally retarded), cast a vote and the Republicans refuse count it cause it will hurt thier man. Bull Shit. Discusting, unethical, Bullshit. Thank god, we have a US Supreme Court who actually care about the law and "Americans" more than they do about politics. The "crisis" America is going through sells magazines, newpapers, and air time and thats about the extent of it. As disgusted as I get about the bastards they parade on TV and the "general public" idiocies that insist on crawling out of the wood work, I'm glad that someone hundreds of years ago was intelligent enough to look out for my well being now. V BTW: I am in neither party. My views are central on most issues. This is just one time I think the Republicans are in the right. Not necessarily with all thier rehetoric, but with the facts at hand and the logical conclusions they (most of them) have reached from them. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#48</b> "Kitrack" wrote... <quote>On 12/11/00 at 7:13:08 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#47): <quote>Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <B>along party lines</B> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. </quote> True, it was. However, consider that the Democrats had neither the problem itself (their voter ID field did not cause problems like the Republicans did) nor did they ask to do it. The Republicans asked if they could fix those cards that lacked the voter ID field, they were not contacted and offered the ability to do so. Even then, a large number were denied due to, among other things (I think), incomplete/incorrect fields. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.</quote> Exactly! The Democrates used a different company for printing, thats why they didn't have a problem. The Republicans were correcting mistakes made by thier printer (company), and had permission to do so. No one ever said they touched the applications themselves. But that doesn't get the idiots (Democrat protestors) all uptight or boost your ratings. V<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>deadlock</b> (#45): <quote>I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government.</quote> And that's just how the electorial collage votes (two votes each first and second choice, first choice for pres., second highest gets VP). This populer vote shit just confuses the hell out of people since it doesn't exist. Adding up the state populer vote total is nothing more the a stupid media thing. The states could pick the names out of a fliping hat if they felt like it. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<quote>The states could pick the names out of a fliping hat if they felt like it. </quote> Well some can. Some of the states (a slim majority, I believe) require the electors to reflect the wishes of the populace as put forth in their popular vote. Other states, well, don't. So the popular vote can mean something, depending on the state where that votes i cast. |
|
<b>ChrisJohnson</b> (#52): <quote>Well some can. Some of the states (a slim majority, I believe) require the electors to reflect the wishes of the populace as put forth in their popular vote. Other states, well, don't. So the popular vote can mean something, depending on the state where that votes i cast.</quote> Well yes, but the state laws/constitution could be writen or amended to allow for the hat meathod. However that doesn't matter much since I was primaraly talking about the national populer vote number (which are made up media crap). It's getting a bit annoying seeing all these clames that the system needs to be fixed so that the populer vote winner always wins, that's not how it works the national number are added totals from each state nothing more (and should have no relationship to the winner at all).<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
There's nothing particularly creepy or unnatural about the American system of democracy, though it is misunderstood. And it's misunderstood because Americans usually aren't very well educated about democratic political theory, and very few take it on themselves to read the US Constitution or make themselves familiar with the political process in general. And that's fine. It is in fact the way our nation was designed to work. It's the happy medium between the constant political participation required by the political philosophy of Rousseau and the fuck-it-cos-it's-all-shit-anyways political nihilism of Hobbes, one which balances rights and majorities by the process of electing representatives. It encourages non-participation - you only have to pay any attention at all to politics once every couple of years. The people who start prattling about how this leads to lies and deception are really complaining that they aren't carefully spoon-fed the truth. So don't babble overmuch about how incomprehensibly stupid American government is when you don't comprehend it. |
|
Let's get something straight here before we preach about Gore's popular vote win. Gore wants the under vote counted right? There's over 1 million under votes nation wide. Maybe even 2 million, I forget the exact number. Anyway, Gore's popular vote lead is under 300,000. Gore *may* have not won the popular vote if we counted every single vote as he suggests we do in Florida. Also, there was 5 states with very close races, like Florida. One was won by Bush, it was New Hampshire. Gore could have contested that race and if he won, even if Bush got Florida, he couldn't get 270 electoral votes. Gore choose not to do that because New Hampshire probably doesn't have a liberal activist court that'll ignore the law. The other 4 states were barely won by Gore and could have been over turned if Bush, like Gore, made a big stink until every vote was counted. He may have not needed Florida either(I forget the states so I can't check their number of votes) but Bush choose not to because it does have a negative effect on the nation and he had already won. Yes Gore won the popular vote in the sense that Bush won Flordida...the <b>legal</b> way. You see, there's laws set up to stop people from taking advantage of ballots. We have equality laws. You can't say one ballot is acceptable in one area and not another. That's not fair. There's federal laws that stop the states from changing the law after the election, like Gore wants. It should be pretty obvious why we have laws like this. It's fair because you can't talior to the laws to get yourself a win. Florida, for years said dimpled ballots do not count. There's reason for that, the dimples aren't always put there by the person and the person may dimple a ballot while making a decision but changing his mind later not to vote for the person. So a mark is there but he did not choose the canidate. Also, a black woman who just happens to be a republican lost a race in Florida this September. She lost by 11 vote. The Palm Beach canvasing board said the lead wasn't low enough. They said the difference must be in the single digits in order to get a hand recount. What a suprise that they changed their minds about recounts and dimples when it comes to a democrat but they stick to the law when it comes to republicans. This is why the law is set up the way it is. So you can screw someone over. Sure Gore may have won Florida if we counted votes that the rest of the nation didn't count and Florida never counted before but then again maybe Bush truly won the popular vote and those 4 states with tight races. There's alot of "what if" statements you can cmoe with. Luckly our laws are setup so they don't matter and keep it <b>fair and equal</b> for everyone. What I also find funny is Jesse Jackson is trying his damnedest to make this a race issue. He even said if Bush won, it'll be by Nazi tactics. So he's saying the Constitution is the work of Nazis, basically, because it's teh constitution that's on Bush's side. Also, where was he when the black woman lost by 11 votes and didn't get a recount? Jesse Jackson is a liberal scumbag. There's no way around it, he doesn't care about equality one bit. In matter of fact, where was Jesse Jackson when his own son was complaining about the airports? Mr.Jackson's son, along with a bunch of other people were bitching about our airports, hoping Clinton would do something. Jackson choose to stand by Clinton, not his own son. A few days ago Clinton finally acknowledged we have a problem. Rather than fixing the problem with the current department of transportation, he came up with a new committee, which of course will be funded with new tax money and of course the dept. of transportation will still get tax money as well, even if it is "broke". You should hope Bush wins and be thankful because it means the laws that we've used for years are being held up despite the fact partisian people want to change it to benefit themselves and it also means the nation was treated equally and isn't that what we all want, equality? Sure it was a close race but that's because both canidates are below average. That's no reason to destory our laws and all the work we did to get equality.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
BTW, we need the electoral college. Well, let me rephrase that, minorities need the electoral college. Minority voters make up 10% of the total voters. Without the electoral college, someone could possibly win with a campaign where he promises to kick minorities out of the country. Assuming enough white voters didn't care. The minority vote is worthless without the electoral college. But with the electoral college, it's impossible to win some states without the minority vote. So a black man's vote is worth somethig under the current system. It's worthless under a popular vote system. Also, the majority of the country can also be ignored with a popular vote system which means the election will really be won by a few states, like New York, California and Washington. Do you think Gore and Bush would go to Ohio or Pennsylvania or a bunch of other smaller states if we had a popular vote system? They'd pretty much be in New York and California. Which brings up another problem. In New York, democrats out number republicans by a huge margin, something like 2 to 1(maybe even more) and it's like that in alot of heavily populate areas which gives one party a huge, huge advantage and hurts 3rd parties even more. The electoral college is the best thing for people that are in the minority, whether it's by race, party affiliation, etc. Hillary Clinton shows how much a clueless turd she is when she suggests that we get rid of the electoral college. I'm just glad I don't live in New York. :) <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Just a few points .... On 12/12/00 at 1:48:05 AM, toadwarrior opened his/her mouth and said (#55): <quote>Jesse Jackson is a liberal scumbag. </quote> I don't think he's a liberal scumbag. He's a powermongering scumbag, and his political orientation is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. <quote>he came up with a new committee, </quote> Don't you know? That's what democrats do! Their goal is universal employment by having everyone work for the government. *grin* -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Lies lies lies. The electoral college favors minorities if and only if the minorities happen to coalesce within particular states. It actually gives more power to little states - i.e. a single voter's power in a little state counts for more than another single voter in a big state. So the electoral college actually does dick for racial or ethnic minorities unless you're worried about the Pennsylvania Dutch. It's apathy that does the most for minorities. American democracy operates by intentionally playing sides off each other - it's the only way to ensure that the intensity of a voter's preferences are accounted for. Think about it for a little while; if nothing comes to mind I'll explain it to you. |
|
So you think it's better than the little states mean absolutely nothing? Because that's pretty much what they'll be worth if we go solely by the popular vote. Of course in a race with to below average canidates, like this, they may mean something but 99.9% the time, there'd be no reason to bother with them. I fail to see how that would be better. No one's saying every single minorities vote will be a make or break vote but in some states it certainly will be. Under both systems, the one black family in Iowa has on real effect on the outcome of the election. :) It's better to get as many minority votes to actually effect an outcome of the election rather than make all of them meaningless. Sure there's more minorities in California than Pennsylvania but California also has the most electoral votes and gets alot of, if not the most, attention. The minorities in Pennsylvania(yes there are blacks, orientals, mexicans there) can have a chance to making or breaking a guys vicotory in that state and perhaps the whole election. That's better than there vote not meaning anything. BTW, I don't think the PA Dutch can vote. Atleast they better not since they don't pay near the amount of taxes that the rest of us do and they don't fight in our wars.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#55</b> "toadwarrior" wrote... <quote>Gore choose not to do that because New Hampshire probably doesn't have a liberal activist court that'll ignore the law. </quote> Wow, have you been talking to him? Where did you information come from? I know, I bet he said that in some interview. Do you know where I can read about it? There's no way for you to know that. While that answer fits your bias (don't deny it, everyone has one) the reason could just as easily have been that he didn't figure that recounting in New Hampshire would change who won, because Bush really did receive more votes. On the other hand, Gore might have felt that in Florida he received more votes, and that a full counting would show that he had won in Florida, not Bush. You can't know his motivations. Quit spreading untruths like that. Say it's your opinion, but don't present it as fact - because it's not. <b>#55</b> "toadwarrior" wrote... <quote>The other 4 states were barely won by Gore and could have been over turned if Bush, like Gore, made a big stink until every vote was counted. He may have not needed Florida either(I forget the states so I can't check their number of votes) but Bush choose not to because it does have a negative effect on the nation and he had already won</quote> Bush had not already won. No one has won until the US congress certifies the election results. He can't even claim to have more electoral votes, because the electors haven't cast their ballots yet. And so far no one has stolen this election, or even tried to. Both sides have their interpretation of how the election should be run, and are attempting to use the full, legal power of all three branches of government to make sure the laws are interpreted in a way that benefits them. Slightly sleazy, possibly. Illeagal, no. If you have a problem with judicial review, that's another issue altogether. -Whisp<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Whisp! Bad Whisp! How dare you challenge the blind following capabilities of the Party faithful with such things as logic and facts??!!?? ;) |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|