BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election

Subject: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:23 AM

Libs are alredy laying the Unfair Election groundwork. They have had 6 years to fix anything that might be wrong with the election process but they are still not satisfied with the election process.

Why? They don't want it fixed so they can always cry RECOUNT if they loose.

If you go back to the original ground zero, the Palm Beach butterfly ballot, it was designed by a Democrat, Theresa LePore, Approved by a Democrat and the poles were supervised by Democrats. Who do they have to blame but themselves? In the 1996 election, the exact same problem occurred, for the exact same reason. In that instance, the Republican candidate, Robert Dole, had 14,000 ballots tossed out because of double-punching. But there was no furor over a Republican loosing because of a lousy ballot.

Have Democrats done anything to do away with the Electoral College? No, they realize they might need it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:27 AM

Purging Blacks and young people from election lists is just a fine thing to do huh? Blow me you simple-ass dickhead.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:30 AM

Old Guy, are you really as simple as you appear? And do you think we are even simpler? The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process. They haven't been in charge. The Repubs have. They have gerrymandered, and obstructed everything. And now they are going to pay the price.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:39 AM

ACORN can always add more Libs to the list.

KC officials pan ACORN voter efforts

Published Wednesday, October 25, 2006

KANSAS CITY (AP) - Kansas City election officials say thousands of questionable voter registration cards have been turned in by the same group whose efforts have been criticized in St. Louis.

Kansas City Election Director Ray James said the U.S. attorney and Jackson County prosecutor’s office have been asked to investigate registrations collected by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN.

James said more than 15,000 registrations have problems such as duplicates, questionable or unreadable information, or names, addresses and Social Security numbers that don’t match existing records.

Kevin Whelan, communications director for ACORN, said the group was surprised to see that large of a number in media reports. He said ACORN representatives had been working with the Kansas City Election Board to sort through about 3,000 cards that had problems.

Calling such a large number questionable is misleading because duplicates or mismatched personal information are an inevitable part of the voter registration process, Whelan said.

And, he said, the problem might have been made worse because the Kansas City Election Board did not follow federal law that requires it to notify applicants of the status of their registration. He said that makes it more difficult to correct information and might cause some people to fill out a second card.

Earlier this month in St. Louis, election officials said at least at least 1,500 potentially fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by the St. Louis ACORN branch.

Democrats, Start Your Chainsaws.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:40 AM

"The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process" Did they try?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:46 AM

That was much nicer Mick. I am rude, crude, and lewd, often angering those around that I might find disagreement with and hence putting this place and the members here in a bad light. I need to rephrase things and take back what I said to Old Guy.

Old Guy......I'm sorry I suggested you blow me because you're such an ignorant cocksucker. Allow me to repost.

Blacks, young people and other traditionally Democratic voters have been purged from election rolls through exceedingly underhanded, devious, and fraudulent means. I can understand how you would of course disagree with this assessment. You are first, foremost, and obviously, a dyspeptic and pathetic, broke-dick, mook lacking the intelligence to separate urine from high-topped footwear when lacking detailed instructions. Additionally, you probably molest Cocker Spaniels. Thanks so much for your dimwitted, cut and paste posts.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:49 AM

I love you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:50 AM

Please note I am NOT a Cocker Spaniel.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:51 AM

That's OK, I forgive you.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:54 AM

Spaw, you should have seen that post before I re-edited it. I sure wish I had your way with words.

Fucking idiot, this old guy, yes?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:03 AM

Presenting insults is always easier than presenting facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:24 AM

Facts? You? Facts?

{Wild, hysterial laughter!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:27 AM

You just proved my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:33 AM

I would suggest that Old Guy get a clue, but he couldn't get a clue even if it were the middle of clue mating season, he rubbed clue musk all over his body, then went out into the middle of a field full of horny clues and did the clue mating dance.

Don Firth

P. S.   I think we find it a little difficult to take you seriously, Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:42 AM

Is that a red herring, ad hominem or a straw man logical falacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:49 AM

None of the above. Just an acute observation.

Don Firth

P. S. Approaching 11:00 p.m. here on the West Coast. Good night.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: fumblefingers
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:31 AM

As I recall in 2000 (I wrote it down at the time), the Democrats hired a Dallas PR firm before the election. Jesse Jackson was in Florida by the time the polls were closed. He claimed fraud. Gore operatives flew in a planeload of "volunteer" vote counters from Boston to get their hands on those punch card ballots. Military absentee ballots were thrown out on technicalities. Gore wanted a recount, but only in 3 counties that were heavily Democratic. The Florida Supreme Court was changing the election laws by fiat when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. The Federal court ruled that the Florida court could not make law, but only rule on the constitutionality of existing law. I've always thought that the 2000 Florida fiasco had Bill Clinton written all over it, but I have no proof of that. Subsequent recounts by the media never found that Gore won in Florida. The DNC knew they lost, but it has been useful to them to perpetuate the myth that Bush "Stole" the election. That started the Bush haters on their way.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:55 AM

Mick,

You state "The Dems couldn't fix the College or the process. They haven't been in charge. The Repubs have. They have gerrymandered, and obstructed everything. And now they are going to pay the price."

Unfortunatly for the trurh, the districts are determined at the state level, wher the Dems have about as much say. In fact BOTH parties act the same in this regard.

As for rigged elections, Maryland is a good example of a Dem state that has wholeheartedly embrassed Diebold, and the Rep. Governor has been unsuccessful in getting any kind of paper trail, or verification of the electronic results, because of the Dem. State legislature..

To think that only the opposing side is using these immoral and unfair tactics is to be even more of a fool than you have accused OG of being.

Ohio in 2004 - HOW many counties even had the Diebold machines blamed for the "incorrect " count? ( I guess "incorrect " means thqat the wrong person won.) And WHICH party had control of the local election boards that would have been able to alter the counts?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:59 AM

Actually, one only needs to look at the recent history of federal elections...

In 2000 it was Florida, a state controled by Repubs and...

...in 2004 it was Ohio, also controled by Repubs...

Repubs have stealing elections down to an art...

The problem with this is that the world knows what is going down here in the US... That's why there will never be anything that resembles "democracy" in Iraq because the Iraqis can just point to the US when we make demands on them to be ***democratic*** and ***share power***...

The US is the supreme fake when it comes to preaching these principles...

Even if the Repubs hadn't stolen the elections (which there are mounds of evidence that they have) they don't even get the "share power" principle...

Like I have always said here: In all the red states, a Dem will have to win by 5 points to win... Under 5 points and they are screwed...

In both Ohio and Florida the exit polls and the final talleys were off in favor of the Repubs...

Hmmmmmmmm???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: mack/misophist
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:57 AM

As far as 'fixing' the Electoral College goes, I believe my civics teacher said it was in the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:11 AM

The gerrymandering of districts is far more of a problem for democracy than suspected, but not proven, vote misrecording.

I remember seeing somewhere that about half of all the competitive house seats were in the two states with neutral boards in charge of drawing up district boundaries. It doesn't matter how the votes are counted when the state has been split into districts with 15% inbuilt majorities for one party or the other.

Maybe a Democratic congress could try getting a bill requiring all paper and pen voting through...

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:13 AM

Who has taken any action to ammend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college?

It was something devised when it took days or weeks for election results to reach the Capital. Now it arrives in microseconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM

Old Guy, are you really as simple as you appear?

No. A great deal simpler.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:23 AM

...the districts are determined at the state level, wher the Dems have about as much say.

Two words:

1. Texas

2. DeLay

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM

Has anyone stopped to consider that the possibility of fraudulent elections is not a simple partisan problem? I'll freely concede that Dems are as likely to cheat as Repubs. Isn't it to the advantage of voters to insure that elections results reflect the wishes of the folks that vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:14 AM

OG, just in case you missed it, and assuming (BIG assumption) that you can actually process cogent information, suggest you watch both the First and Second videos on THIS PAGE. And, like Dick Greenhaus, I don't give a shit which party fucks with the voting process, I want a paper trail and my congressional reps. have heard from me and many others who feel the same way. What have you done to bring about change?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:27 AM

Nothing. I think it is up the the people that dissagree to make the effort. Otherwise it looks like they want to have something to fall back on and bitch about in case they loose.

I certainly wouldn't block eliminating the electoral college.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:46 AM

Old Guy, the inverting of 'loose' versus 'lose' is a common mistake and anyone can on occasion misuse a word. However, repeated misuse displays ignorance.

Repeat after me: Infant's stools are loose; You can lose an election.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM

Well, if you happen to have loose stool (the shits) you could lose control of your bowels. In the case of OG, he keeps crapping all over himself continually.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM

kat,

I think OG is to thick to see that one day he could be on the side that disputes a result and finds the system can not be checked. Either that or he believes democrats never would cheat.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:34 AM

Oh, I see...he starts a thread o fopposition, but he isn't in opposition, so he can sit back in apathy and do nothing to improve our system 'cause it's perfect, right?

I think you are right, guest!

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Alice
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

OG, you write from the perspective that all Republican actions are good, all Democratic actions are bad. You "kneejerk react" whenever Republicans are criticized. Don't you realize that these are just political parties made up of human beings who make mistakes? Republican dirty laundry that gets aired here causes you to jump to the defense of Foley, vote tampering, etc. Do you realize how nuts that makes you look?   People who are objective and logical recognize that every group has its bad apples, including political parties, including the Republicans and the Democrats. Why is your mind so locked into the Republicans that you keep defending their flaws and misbehavior?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:29 PM

Sometimes I find myself wondering if it's something in the water or maybe something in the diet of the knee-jerk neo-thinkers that makes them incapable of reacting differently. It's the Stepford Wives all over again- just on a larger scale.

And - I'm not kidding - it's scary.

(By the way, I changed to 'infants' from 'babies' and somehow infant plus apostrophe became singular.)

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM

Thanks for posting links to those videos, kat!

Bush and the neo-conservative klatch that back him talk about wanting to bring democracy to Iraq and other countries, and what they actually mean by "democracy" is "make these countries safe for American business." They don't really care anything about democracy. They don't want to govern, they want to rule. And they're willing to resort to just about anything they think they can get away with to stay in power. Such things as the disenfranchisement of 57,000 voters, mostly black, in Florida in 2000, the reduction of voter facilities forcing tens of thousands of voters to stand in lines for hours in Ohio in 2004, the wholesale gerrymandering of Texas and other states, and the murky business of Diebold (a company in which an executive said quite openly that he felt it was his duty to God to see that Bush stayed in office) and the replacement of reliable systems with verifiable paper-trails for other systems that can be easily diddled with amply demonstrate their anything but democratic hunger for power.

Unless we watch them like hawks, and insist on substantial election reform with independent and duly suspicious citizen oversight, we may have seen the demise of democracy in this country and its ultimate degeneration into a tyrannical corporate-driven empire. Indeed, many of the world's people already view us this way.

And as long as the Right-Wing is in power, and no matter how obviously they're screwing things up on a national and international scale, Old Guy and those like him think everything is just ducky-peachy. But just suppose, by some bizarre, horrible, unpredictable fluke, a substantial number of liberals and progressives do get elected democratically and fairly, take over control of Congress, then begin restoring our democratic institutions and correcting the long list of Bush administration foul-ups?

Who do you think will be the "crybaby" then?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:00 PM

I keep wondering if this administration ever has stopped to consider what precedents they are setting for future administrations. For instance, given their hatred of Hillary Clinton, how would they feel about it if she in her administration had the power they have given themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM

The rule on the Mudcat appears to be that it's bad to say that all Republican actions are good and all Democratic actions are bad but it's good to say that all Democratic actions are good and all Republican actions are bad. (Repeat that sentence three times, quickly, without reading it.)

Myself, I tend to assume that all Republicans are intelligent but crooked and all Democrats are honest but stupid, or at least naive. But I know that's a ridiculous generalization. There are really plenty of honest but stupid Republicans and plenty of intelligent but dishonest Democrats. And a good number of both who are stupid and dishonest at the same time.

I am firmly convinced that we need to abolish the two-party system if we want to salvage the United States as a free nation.

As for the Electoral College: I have read that, with the present system in place, Vermont controls one-half of one per cent of the votes for President, but with direct election of the President, we'd have one-fifth of one per cent. So what's our incentive to support elimination of the Electoral College? And the same applies to any State with a small population. And an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by a certain proportion of all the states. I think it's either 2/3 or 3/4, but don't remember. Why would all the less populated states vote to give California and New York and Florida and a few other snake pits any more power? They have too much already.

So there.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Midchuck
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM

That last long rant was me. They de-cookied me again while my back was turned.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: pdq
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:28 PM

Don Firth:

What kind of glasses enable you to see corruption 3000 miles away in Florida but keep you free observing anything wrong in your home town of Seatle?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{from WSJ}

Florida With Rain

More funny business in the Washington governor's race. Will there be a new election this year?

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Washington state has supplanted Florida as the leading example of the need for election reform. The Evergreen State's voting system is so sloppy that you can't tell where incompetence ends and actual fraud might begin. Three Washington counties just discovered 110 uncounted absentee ballots--including 93 from Seattle's King County--in a governor's race that occurred more than five months ago and was decided by only 129 votes. Officials in Seattle's King County admit they may find yet more ballots before a court hearing next month on whether a new election should be called. Last Friday, they reported finding a 111th ballot.

The infamous 2004 governor's race was finally decided seven weeks after the election, after King County officials found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts. After the new ballots were counted, Democrat Christine Gregoire won a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. Even as she was sworn in last January, King County election supervisor Dean Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."

He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.

       {first part only}

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM

Get a grip, pdq!

I am perfectly aware of local elections screw-ups and I'm working--locally--with others, to bring an end to that sort of thing. Most of it consisted, not of partisan politics, but of clerical and administrative fuck-ups. You will note that the misplaced and/or uncounted votes numbered in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands. And you will also note that the goof-ups may or may not have affected only local offices. Heads have been rolling in the King County Elections office.

And I have a vested interest in the absentee ballots being counted efficiently and accurately because I vote absentee ballot.

Considering the magnitude of the obvious Florida and Ohio efforts to tip the election, and all the gerrymanderiing that's been going on, what happened in Washington State is pretty small potatoes. Not to be ignored, but it hardly compares.

And what are you doing about it, other than just leaping to conclusions and pointing fingers at others?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM

A well-done collection of data about the many different scams run to subvert the 2000 and 2004 elections can be found in Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" -- here's a discussion about it. Required reading IMNSHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

LMAO.....PETER, that was just beautiful!!! Sadly, I think you're right......................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM

Surely making the case for an unfair election means arguing that an unfair election can be a desirable thing.

I would have thought that anyone who thinks that Bush has been a good President would have no difficulty in making that case in respect of 2000. Whether many people would agree with it is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:29 PM

That was a biggie Ebbie. Keep 'em coming. Do your repeated personal attacks indicate anything?

"OG, you write from the perspective that all Republican actions are good, all Democratic actions are bad"

That in itself is a knee jerk reaction because I have complimented Bill Clinton for things he did that I consider right and I criticize GWB for things he does that I consider wrong.

But I have thought about this and I am giving my conclusion. You are welcome to disagree and/or present facts.

The continued personal attacks illustrate the fact that Liberals don't have any facts to the contrary to present so they use personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:00 PM

Theresa LePore bought Sequoia Voting Systems DRE voting machines for the 2002 elections.

"..a March 2002 runoff election in Wellington, FL, was decided by five votes, but 78 ballots had no recorded vote...."

"In November 2004, during her last election as a lame-duck supervisor, LePore faced one final round of criticism when the new touch screen machines apparently recorded 88,048 more votes than there were voters. This was later attributed to accidental double entry of data from some precincts."

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM

"...they use personal attacks"   Not the only ones by a long way, Old Guy - in fact some of the nastiest examples we'e had here (and some of them very nasty indeed) have come from decidedly illiberal posters.

Personal attacks, or generalised insults for that matter (eg "Crybaby Liberals), which are essentially the same technique, distract from rational discussion, whatever the politics of those who give in to the temptation.

Friendly teasing has a place; it can lighten things up, and that's needed at times. But playground insults or worse, they are just a drag, whoever throws them around. Basically they're just a variant on the old rule, when you are losing a game, knock over the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:24 PM

By the way, a little more recent history from the Soviet of Washington.

When the votes were counted after the gubernatorial election in 2004 (that's when we elect our goobers), Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate came out a couple of thousand votes ahead of Democrat Christine Gregoire. When Chris Gregoire pointed out that Washington State law requires a recount when the margin is that close (and she knew, because she had been State Attorney General before running for Governor), Dino Rossi accused her of being a "sore loser." But when the recount, mandated by law, was complete, Chris Gregoire had won by a razor-thin margin:   129 votes. Rossi—who's the sore loser now?—wanted to sue (on what basis, no one was quite sure), but cooler heads in his own party talked him out of it.

The sloppiness of the 2004 election (uncharacteristic in this state) has many of the voters of all parties here watching gimlet-eyed and looming menacingly over election officials. I think that's a good thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:31 PM

Who have I called a Crybaby Liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:55 PM

I didn't actually say you had, Old Guy. And when I talked about "some of the nastiest examples we've had here", I didn't have you in mind, by a long way.

But if the cap fits... (And if you don't think it fits this thread might be worth casting an eye over.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:30 AM

Old Guy! (Snort! LOL! Gasp! LOL some more...) And that's just from reading the first 15 or so posts on this thread which I just took my first look at...with you and the so-called "liberals" battling tooth and nail over the old pointless divide, by which I mean the completely bogus choice you Americans have to vote for Tweedledee (the Democrats) or Tweedeldummer (the Republicans).

Sheesh, what a travesty it is. And you're still willing to divide up and fight each other over it? Good. The guys who are really in charge and who OWN both those parties body and soul will be very, very happy about that. As long as they can keep you fighting amongst yourselves, they are fully in control.

Look, here's how it works: You have 2 completely phony and power-hungry party machines both of whom are entirely beholden to their major lobbyists and funders, who are the major corporations, the banks, the oil industry, the insurance companies...to put it simply, Big Business and the military-industrial complex.

Now, both those phony political parties still want VERY much to win your phony elections, naturally, because it's a GAME....like the World Series, only it's more expensive and takes longer and has effects that are more far-reaching and last longer. So, the Democrats and Republicans, even though they are owned and controlled by the same rich moneyocracy will do ANYTHING to screw things up for the other side and win the damn game. They will lie, cheat, accuse, finger-point, engage in character assassination, whatever it takes.

And the one that's already in power is far better positioned to do that, because being in power allows them to command more money and pull more dirty tricks. So the $ySStem is always skewed pretty heavily in favor of the party already in power unless that party has managed to so totally discredit itself in the last term that the public turns massively against it. That may happen this time...and it may not.

But whatever happens, the same people will really be controlling it all from behind the scenes, and you don't get to vote for them. You don't even know their names, for the most part. You get to vote for the flunkies, the corporate servants they trot out for you as official "candidates"...that's all.

This isn't about liberals and conservatives any more. This is about the takeover of a once at least supposedly democratic system by a vast moneyocracy which controls BOTH of your parties and most of your elected representatives (like about 98% of them, I figure).

You don't HAVE a democracy. You have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich, controlled from the top by an elite few, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it unless 100 million or so of you have the guts to go out in the streets with guns and baseball bats and launch a new American revolution. (And I'm afraid if you did, some vicious scoundrels would just take it over, become the new bosses, and you might end up with something even worse than what you have now.)

And guess what? The same basic corruption of the political process has already happened in Canada and the UK and many other places too. It's the rule, not the exception. All the supposedly independent political parties that are big enough to command a significant number of votes have sold out long ago to the big financial interests. They do not and WILL not represent the ordinary public, and they will not field candidates (for any of the key positions that really matter) who represent the ordinary public. Elections are just entertainment now, not the providing of a genuine choice, and the entertained are kept deluded by fighting endlessly with each other over these completely passe and out-of-date labels like "liberal" and "conservative" like a bunch of dinosaurs arguing about who was to blame for the comet hit or something.

But, Gawd...it is funny listening to you still argue over it, I must say.

Subject: RE: BS: Making the case for an Unfair Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM

My First Post:

"Sometimes I find myself wondering if it's something in the water or maybe something in the diet of the knee-jerk neo-thinkers that makes them incapable of reacting differently. It's the Stepford Wives all over again- just on a larger scale.

And - I'm not kidding - it's scary."

Number Two Post:
"I keep wondering if this administration ever has stopped to consider what precedents they are setting for future administrations. For instance, given their hatred of Hillary Clinton, how would they feel about it if she in her administration had the power they have given themselves? "

Old Guy's Response: "That was a biggie Ebbie. Keep 'em coming. Do your repeated personal attacks indicate anything?"

Ebbie's Answer:

1) I notice that you have no trouble recognizing yourself in the first scenario.
2) You didn't address my second concern.

Little Hawk, your opinion and delineation would sound better to me if you were talking about your own country. If Canada ever - and I think it is quite possible- goes in the same direction as the US is going, she may have even greater difficulty than we in extricating herself.